| Author | Post |
|---|
Juris Doctorate
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Mar 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 08:43 pm |
|
| My understanding from conversation earlier this morning is that the April 9th meeting meeting is being questioned by Mr. David Baird. He planned on asking city counsel about it, I have not heard the outcome as of yet.
|
politics
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 101 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
hey doc,
question??
key properties group is in court over sgns or billboards..they pleaded not guilty and it goes to trial..
so, on april 9 this year the issue goes to the board of adjustment for an appeal in milford.
the board of mayor, city manager and attorney decide the adjustment to appeal the decision of the code enforcement official.
how do we go to court and adjustment at the same time frame??
one is a real court the other politicians ??
|
Juris Doctorate
Banned
| Joined: | Mon Mar 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 01:29 pm |
|
Good morning to everyone. I relocated to the area about 3 months ago and I have been following the Hearthstone Manor Key Property Group discussions with great interest. The zoning issues and number of variances granted has caused me some grave concern. Mixed commercial/residential developments along a costal area does not work well, the east coast ecosystem which is thriving in undeveloped areas, and dying in areas that have been developed with the density and type of commercial businesses allowed. It is my opinion that all City officials that are involved in any permitting process for developments east of US RT 1, should research comparative studies in neighboring states. Those where the same type of development has been established for a period of 10 years or more to see the true impact these types of proposed developments on the community, rather than just taking the word of any developer.
If I were in a position to vote anything the compromises the basic core values upon which this community was founded upon in 1680. The words of the Charter are well defined and kept simple to avoid the over analyzing which happens in debate and litigation far to often. The words used to write the laws and rules for all aspects of the community were well thought out and again kept in the simplest form so there could be no misunderstanding. There isn't any room for interpretive semantics, which is going on particularly with the sign issue on RT 1 south, about the difference between a billboard/sign.
I've also followed some of the topics in here and in a number of other communities with in the whole newszap locations, the one common issue besides the everyday topics that are discussed is every state with the exception of 1, has a long term resident troublemaker who will not allow the normal flow of discussion between any members. The post may be nothing more than a childish picture that isn't even on topic or an insulting jab at another forum member, and to step over the line point of posting out right lies many times quoted and re-quoted to keep it on top, in a forum. They certainly violate any form of civility or fairness which brings me to the end of my wordy post.
From a legal point of view of laws governing posting on the Internet I would like to point out several very important rules when posting comments.
The Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974), opinions could not be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that someone is a bad lawyer, but not permissible to falsely declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.
More recently, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court backed off from the protection from "opinion" announced in Gertz. The court in Milkovich specifically held that there is no wholesale exemption to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false before it can be the subject of a libel suit.
Several more non specific examples, found in several topics that are completely out of hand:
It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that a person is being untruthful, but not permissible to declare that the person is a liar: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.
It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, someone is a bad teacher, but not permissible to declare this person is a bad teacher and report them to the DE Department of Education: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.
In my opinion the posts referenced above made by a forum member rise to level of potential criminal charges and civil civil litigation.
|
Do The Right Thing
Banned
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 03:31 am |
|
 .......earlier you and all your minions swore it was bluesman posing as his wife posting......
So who am I ? Is it Bluesman the musician posting or is it his wife the teacher, maybe it's his daughter who lives there to, or maybe his son who lives in MA. Maybe I'm a friend or neighbor. You don't have a clue.
Keep your fight out of Milford's forum it's not wanted in here. You wanted a fight with blues in Maryland and he obliged you, he's gone now let it go.
|
magna
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 03:24 am |
|
Do The Right Thing wrote: Thank you we are aware of that fact. This topic was a response to an editorial about what was fair for Mr. Fannin. Shawnee Acres is an abutter to Mr. Fannin's property so the point of this article is what is fair to property owners there and other abutting developments and single family properties that are affected by his development and proposed developments. Thank you again for your input.
Hi Bluesman I liked the funny statements in the Cambridge topics.
|
Do The Right Thing
Banned
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 02:18 am |
|
| Thank you we are aware of that fact. This topic was a response to an editorial about what was fair for Mr. Fannin. Shawnee Acres is an abutter to Mr. Fannin's property so the point of this article is what is fair to property owners there and other abutting developments and single family properties that are affected by his development and proposed developments. Thank you again for your input.
|
Ablebaker
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16th, 2009 02:09 am |
|
Shawnee acres is not the only property flooded by new developments, It has happened in other parts of Milford.
The cold hard fact is that the home owner is screwed.
|
wrldlanguages
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 06:32 pm |
|
My understanding is a development does not can not legally have a "Homeowners Association" until the developer signs off the development upon it's completed.
edit for spelling error
They could call it "The Homeless at Hearthstone located in New Milford Program"
Last edited on Sun Mar 15th, 2009 06:34 pm by
|
politics
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 101 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 05:31 pm |
|
you think we could place them in any deveopment that has vacant properties?
thought the homeowners association had rules or something about that/
|
politics
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 101 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 05:30 pm |
|
do you think key properties would let the city rent their 18 or so vacant properties?
maybe they could set up a deal with the state to pay a portion of the cost and move
the homeless to hearthstone?
i never thought of that idea.
|
thinktank
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 12:30 am |
|
| It's very sad. Drive through ANY development, and there are vacant properties.
|
wrldlanguages
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 10:57 pm |
|
| Mr Crouch is always talking about Key Property Groups attention to the needs of the community. Maybe he will let the homeless stay in some of the empty units at Hearthstone I.
|
politics
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 101 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
any idea of what the city council can do for the homeless?
read in beacon..council meeting at their next workshop, end of month, they will come up with ideas.
can we place homeless in empty houses in milford?
can city pay their rent til they can afford to pay?
we need some great ideas to solve this problem in milford
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 07:56 pm |
|
thinktank wrote: Supply and Demand, as I see it. The influx of people from other states drove the thing to begin with. Sold high there, bought cheap here. Once developers saw the gravy train coming down the pike, it caught on. That's just what I saw, as a back seat local watching it take place from a safe distance. Nobody I ever knew moved in those subdivisions. It started back when U.S. Route 13 was a one-lane highway in the early forties, and then there was a need for DuPont Highway to be dual lanes to accommodate the traffic, from Black Cat to Dover, then we graduated to SR1.
That is exactly what happened wheer we moved from as well. people who couldn't afford Long Island and CT, moved to MA we were literally driven out because of our property taxes alone quadrupling in 3 years. A sewer and water project forced on lifelong residents because of overdevelopment, which put a $35,000.00 "betterment fee" on every home as well as a $400.00 a quarter flat rate for sewer/water user fee. The officials had the nerve to tell some of the elderly to do reverse mortgages on their homes so they could stay. My family had first settled in the community in the late 1800's, so it was a hard choice to leave, but in reality we had no choice.
|
thinktank
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 07:56 pm |
|
| The builders built them and the buyers bought them. It doesn't matter what anybody thinks or thought about density. When the economy recovers, it will continue. And, there will be way more happy, employed people than there are now, small lots or not. The supply/demand cycle will return, and the flow from other states will continue. Once they get here, they will want to curtail building. It's a natural thing. Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 07:59 pm by thinktank
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
Yes we do get additional funds to the city coffers, but at what cost? Additional people using our municipal resources police, fire, and schools. More traffic on our already overflowing back roads. At the current build rate with the number of approved units the new Milford Academy will be overcrowed before it is even completed.
If a developer is trying to market the development as a retirement type community referendums will have a tough time passing because many retiree's won't support budget increase for education and other necessary municipal services.
I as a non annexed Milford resident also pay electric which in part funds the municipal payrolls and some of our homeowners also have city sewer/water. We don't have a say or a vote when other city residents do, so it is almost like a backdoor tax without representation in my opinion.
|
gazeaway
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 07:21 pm |
|
in mlford we like 16 houses to the acre because builders have a big investment and in order to get the highest return, its build, build, build.
remember we get taxes, electric, and water fees
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
| 16 per acre, absolutely I'm opposed to that type of density.
|
gazeaway
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
all builders want heavy dosage of housing per acre.
do you think 16 to the acre is too much?
|
thinktank
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 02:25 pm |
|
| Supply and Demand, as I see it. The influx of people from other states drove the thing to begin with. Sold high there, bought cheap here. Once developers saw the gravy train coming down the pike, it caught on. That's just what I saw, as a back seat local watching it take place from a safe distance. Nobody I ever knew moved in those subdivisions. It started back when U.S. Route 13 was a one-lane highway in the early forties, and then there was a need for DuPont Highway to be dual lanes to accommodate the traffic, from Black Cat to Dover, then we graduated to SR1.
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 02:08 pm |
|
How the heck did it go from the size lots in Shawnee Acres to what we are currently seeing built for developments?
Do you have any overview/history on when the change came to this "pack em in" density that's happening now?
Was it a slow over the last 30 years or all of a sudden?
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 02:04 pm |
|
I think it still is a runaway train. This type of development went on up in MA back in the late 80's - late 90's and it was a disaster.
I personally have a problem with "laying down like a door mat and getting wiped on", it is sad to see people giving up on their rights as homeowners and residents in our community complacency never solves any problems.
|
thinktank
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 01:35 pm |
|
Bluesman wrote: thinktank
Thanks for the response, I'm sure Shawnee Acres isn't the only development with these gripes. I wasn't trying to diminsh anyone elses concerns, issues, or gripes, I could only address Shawnee Acres because I reside here.
Do you have any thoughts on why residents don't speak up about these issues ?
Blues
Too many, basically. It was a runaway train at the time, and it's widespread.
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 01:32 pm |
|
thinktank
Thanks for the response, I'm sure Shawnee Acres isn't the only development with these gripes. I wasn't trying to diminsh anyone elses concerns, issues, or gripes, I could only address Shawnee Acres because I reside here.
Do you have any thoughts on why residents don't speak up about these issues ?
Blues
|
thinktank
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 16th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 01:08 pm |
|
Only one of many instances where neighborhoods have suffered from encroaching development. Not down playing the issue, but Shawnee Acres is not the only old subdivision with these gripes.
Afterthought: I checked some sites and Hearthstone Manor was in the works in early 2000, as well as hundreds of other new subdivisions in the state. I remember hearing rumblings then, about how established subdivisions could possibly be affected by water run off and other. I think most of us oldies saw it coming in a few of these areas.
Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 01:34 pm by thinktank
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 10:31 am |
|
I believe you are missing the point.
It's not that simple we have homes in Shawnee Acres that have lost parts of their property because of flooding that is directly attributable to Hearthstone Manor I's water run off system. They tied into a privately owned community Shawnee Acres and our swale system that was designed over 30 years ago.
It's about more than just the Key Property Groups site plan, it's about what is fair for the neighbors who have enjoyed a "Quality of Life" that is and will continue to be adversely effected because of Key Property Group's "sardine can" mentality of overdevelopment. The people that think it's a great idea wouldn't want it in their neighborhood.
|
gazeaway
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 05:37 am |
|
the issue with hearthstone two was simple.
sidewalks as per city code
open space as per city code
parking spaces as per city code
the city is allowed to inforce its city code and to have all builders obey the current law.
now, once a builder gets their final approval, and, actually start to build even one home, it has protection.
hearthstone does not have site approval and til l it gets approved, they must obey all changes.
so, get site approval and it means build what the city approved. til then, they city can make everyone obey the current law.
|
Bluesman
Banned
|
Posted: Tue Mar 3rd, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
On the heels of the editorial in last weeks Milford Beacon
"Hearthstone case is about fairness"
I wrote a response editorial and dropped it off earlier today at their office:
Hearthstone case is about fairness
I read the editorial written by David LaRoss and I felt compelled to address just what is “fairness” to not just Key Property Group , but the community as a whole and the residents in the immediate area of the Hearthstone I and the proposed Hearthstone II.
While I don’t dispute Key Property Group’s right to develop property, I and others do however strongly object to their methodology and disregard for residents that have been long established in the immediate area of their developments. In reviewing public records that are available about Hearthstone it is apparent this isn’t a new battle, and the main concern is the manipulation of density of housing on the part of Key Property Group, among other critical issues.
A bit of history, when Shawnee Acres was proposed some 30+ years ago, the citizens of Milford were concerned about the number of homes that would be built and the lot sizes, which were a minimum ½ acre.
If only they could had foreseen what is considered “fair” and “acceptable” now in favor of the developer.
We hear the term “Quality of Life” thrown around in discussions and during Council meetings, and that is important. That term should be part of “fairness” when considering any and all developments. A recent proposed 4 unit sub-division was turned down and one of the points made was the adverse effect it would have on residents who were already established in the area in regard to their “Quality of Life”. That is an example of overall “fairness” .
This begs the question why should it be any different with Key Property Group?
Where does “fairness” fit into the equation to develop land far beyond what already exists for density in an established residential area outweigh the “Quality of Life” for the existing homeowners?
Why does the financial gain of a company who is in the business to make money override the rights and “Quality of Life” of long existing property owners, in proximity of Hearthstone I Hearthstone II, and the shopping center proposed?
My family, or any other families who own homes should be entitled to the same consideration and expectations of “fairness” for our “Quality of Life” that Mr. Workman spoke of in a public meeting.
State, County and municipal rules and laws about open space are clear and well defined and are in place to prevent overdevelopment. No one should be allowed to circumvent those rules by making a minimal if not openly insulting “slush fund” payment of $400.00 per lot and make a profit upwards of 1,000 % depending on the number of “units” on the lot.
When a development has adverse affect on property owners in the immediate area, (such as flooding that occurs in Shawnee Acres at Elks Lodge Road, and behind the homes on Lexington Drive that is in my opinion and many other residents a direct result from storm water run off from Hearthstone I ) subsequent proposed developments plans by the same company should be reviewed more closely.
When adjoining property owners homes are placed in potential “harms way” because of possible design flaws (such as tying in the storm drainage system within Hearthstone I directly into Shawnee Acres…. a system which was designed some 30+ years ago to handle flood waters within our community) the city has an obligation to the residents of Shawnee Acres even though we’re not annexed, to address the issue in regard to their plan approvals.
When profit dictates actions over common sense, such as a Key Property Group counting storm retention ponds as “open space”, then elected and appointed officials need to step up to the plate and protect the citizens of the community who entrusted them to do the right thing for the community as a whole.
In closing when talking about “fairness” …… it isn’t about what is right for one individual or company, it is what is fair for everyone, the majority as a whole within the community, especially those within the immediate area who have come to enjoy and expect a certain “Quality of Life” for themselves and their families.
|
Current time is 08:55 am | |
|