2/5/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 5 1986 Bo WOULD REVEIL THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY GRADE IS DIFFERENT, THAT THE RETENTION IS DIFFERENT, THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION IS DIFFERENT AND THE PARKING IS DIFFERENT. THE TWO SITE PLANS DIFFER COMPLETELY. THE NEW OWNERS DID NOT SUBMIT TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS SITE PLAN OR ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS, THEY SUBMITTED NEW DRAWINGS BY PETERSON AND THE STAFF HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ISSUE PERMITS TO ONE ENGINEER WITHOUT ALL THE REQUIRED FORMS, TESTS, AND DRAWINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND TO CONTINUE STATING THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS CORRECT:MAKES THE STAFF LOOK MORE AND MORE REDICOULOUS. -- STAFF STATES: THE REASON THAT PARRIS & SPRINGER WERE NOT ORDERED TO FORMALLY TRANSFER SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM MARY K. BERLIN TO THEMSELVES WAS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH IMPLEMENTS AND ENFORCES THIS SECTION OF THE CODE WAS UNAWARE OF THE TRANSACTION. SINCE IT IS THE APPLICANTS RESPONSIBI:ITY TO BE AWARE OF THE LAW AND TO MEET ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS THE STAFFS POSITION THAT MARY K. BERLIN VIOLATED THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE." COMMENT: THE STAFF WAS WELL AWARE THAT PARRIS AND SPRINGER OWNED THE LAND. I JUST READ WHERE A PERMIT WAS ISSUED ONE DAY AFTER SPRINGER RECEIVED HIS DEED AND FURTHER STAFF STATED "WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, DR SPRINGER WAS OWNER OF A PORTION OF THE PROJECT" NOW COMES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION... SINCE MARY K. BERLIN WAS NOT THE APPLICANT,'HOW COULD IT BE HER RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET COUNTY ORDINANCES? YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION APPEARS TO BE IN DEFENSE OF THE TWO OWNERS OF THE LAND WITH REMARKS LIKE THIS APPEARING THROUGHOUT. IT MAKES ONE WONDER WHY THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW PATH WAS NOT FOLLOWED ALL DURING THIS PROJECT. WHAT DID THE STAFFS HAVE TO GAIN BY DIVIATING FROM THE LAWS SO MANY TIMES ... OR IS THIS HAPPENING IN OTHER CASES??? QUESTION: WHY WAS ONE PERMIT ISSUED TO TWO PROPERTIES? ANSWER: As to the issuance of one building permit for two properties, that is not unusual. oftentimes, a site plan is approved for one project comprised of several parcels. In this case, one site plan had been -approved for the entire project, so issuance of one building permit was consistent with standard procedures. COMMENT: WHAT THE STAFF IS SAYING, IN EFFECT, IS THAT TWO OR MORE PROPERTY OWNERS; FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS, COULD SUBMIT ONE SITE PLAN AND ONE SET OF BLUEPRINTS IF THEY WERE TO ERECT FIVE DIFFERENT OFFICE BUILDINGS1, OR APARTMENT HOUSES, OR SHOPPING CENTERS. THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE OWNED INDEPENDENTLY BY EACH COMMISSIONER AND NOT AS A GROUP OR JOINTLY. PARRIS AND SPRINGER OWNED THEIR PROPERTIES INDIVIDUALLY. THE STAFF NOW STATES THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT ONE SITE PLAN AND ONE BLUEPRINT FOR THE COMBINED EFFORT RESULTING IN ONE ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY, ONE EXIT DRIVEWAY, ONE OR TWO RETENTION AREAS, COMBINED PARKING AREAS. FURTHER: WE KNOW THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHY DID THE STAFF WRITE THIS ANSWER TO ME AND TO THE COMMISSION? IT IS AN EMBARRASEMENT FOR ME TO HAVE TO EVEN READ THIS TO THE PUBLIC. AT THIS POINT THE STAFF CAME UP WITH A BRIGHT IDEA, WHY NOT CHARGE MARY K BERLIN WITH VIOLATING THE VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO SUBDIVIDING LAND PRIOR TO SALE. THIS WOULD PUT THE ENTIRE BLAME ON HER AND THEY WOULD BE HOME FREE. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN BUT A FEW MINUTES OF THEIR TIME FOR THE STAFF TO ASCERTAIN THAT KATHY BERLIN SOLD THE ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND TO MR. PARRIS. THEY WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED A COPY OF THE SALES CONTRACT OF PART OF THE LAND TO SPRINGER BY PARRIS. THEY WOULD HAVE ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THERE WERE NO MONIES TRANSFERED TO KATHY BERLIN FROM SPRINGER BUT ONLY FROM PARRIS. MONEY FROM SPRINGER WENT TO PARRIS IN PAYMENT FOR THE LAND THAT WAS DEEDED TO SPRINGER. WE CONSTANTLY DEED LAND AND DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN DEALS FROM PENN TO FLORIDA AND IN MOST INSTANCES THE BUYERS TAKE TITLE IN TWO OR MORE NAMES USING CORPORATIONS, TRUSTS, INDIVIDUALS ETC. THE SELLER HAS NO RIGHT TO QUESTION A BUYER ON HOW HE TAKES TITLE AS LONG AS THERE IS ONE SALE INVOLVED TO ONE PERSON. I RESENT THIS ATTEMPT TO PUT BLAME ON AN INNOCENT THIRD PARTY, COMMISSIONERS, BUT IT TYPLIFIES THE ACTIONS THE PUBLIC OFTEN HAS TO CONTEND WITH.