Diane Melendez
08-08-2007, 02:30 PM
:No:You all remember the big "to do" when the Mayor and City Council waived the rules to hire an untrained Planning director who is "smart as a whip". How is he doing? This email gives one mans views:
From: HMea1998@aol.com [HMea1998@aol.com] (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=-1) Sent: Fri 7/27/2007 12:21 PM To: GEdwards@Edwardseng.com (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=0)
Cc: Peyton, John (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=1); Davis, Daniel (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=2); Mosley, Alan (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=3); Thoburn, Brad (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=4); Crofts, John (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=5); Eller, Shannon (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=6)
Subject: Planning Staff Duped Commission Re 2007-682 Attachments:
View As Web Page (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/#) Gray: First, let me express my appreciation to you and the other Commissioners who give of their time in the interest of a Public Purpose. Aside from one's family and one's pocketbook, intertwined with one's property, there are few things that can matter more than having a person's use of his/her land unjustly impinged. That happened last evening with regard to subject rezoning application. Given the system upon which the Commission should be able to rely for competency, credibility, and veracity, the Staff of JPD:
1. Incompetently processed our application; and,
2. Categorically lied as to how the staff was going to right their incompetent processing through amending the Agenda with Ms. Eller in the G.C.'s Office; and,
3. Prepared and submitted to you and to my client a written Staff Report that
contains gross factual errors; and,
4. As a part of the written Staff Report, the staff attached an incomplete excerpted
section from the zoning map and then testified in defense of same when it did not
cover the reach for legal notification nor the nearby areas as allowed for consideration in 656.125; and,
5. Failed to advise the Commission that neither the Greater Arlington Civic Council nor the CPAC nor any neighboring property owners entered any objection to the rezoning; and,
6. Maliciously, contradictorily, and incompetently lied to the Commission that the small property could be used for uses and purposes that its small size will not accommodate nor for which permits can be obtained; and,
7. The record will show that Sean Kelly, toward the end of his defensively surreptitious comments stated that the Report did not say that the staff had indicated the rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. In its item #1 finding on Page 2, just as I testified, the Staff Report indicates "YES" to the Code required question of the rezoning's consistency with the 2010 Comp Plan; and,
8. Kelly continued incompetently stating, in connection with a Commissioner's question as to what were some of the feared uses, that my client could develop up to 5 dwelling units on the .19 acre parcel. As the zoning administrator with whom I personally worked on such issues, Kelly, who has been employed in the JPD for a number of years, knew that in RMD-E zoning, allowing up to 20 units per lot, as one of only three classes allowed in RPI Land Use and as applicable to subject property under CRO, the first two dwelling units would require 6,000 square feet of land area each and 2,100 square feet of land area each for the next two dwelling units. At the same time, under CRO as under CO, lot coverage is restricted to 35% for all buildings. Minimum setbacks for one principal structure on the lot are: Front 20 feet; Side yards 20 feet and rear yards 20 feet. My client's property is essentially 75 feet wide by 100 feet in depth or slightly over 7,500 sq. feet. Height limitation is 35 feet. Likewise, Kelly knew that 2 parking spaces are required for each residential unit. He also knew, as had been repeatedly stated by him and Engmann, as a defense for their malevolent recommendation for "DENIAL", that my client's lot consisted of just over 7,500 square feet. So, a competent analysis and non-prejudicial presentation to the Commission would have recognized these Codified Limitations along with the Limitations imposed for stormwater and other regulatory impositions beyond the JPD. Or, is JPD supposed to be ignorant of limitations outside the walls of Florida Theater?? Chapter 163, F.S. provides for recognition of other limitations by other agencies; and,
11. After mishandling the timely processing and agendizing of subject application, my complaint to Mr. Crofts resulted in his indicating that he would contact Ms. Eller in the G.C.'s Office with a request to Amend the Agenda. This occurred on 10 May 2007 after we submitted on 1 May 2007. Mr. Crofts also requested that we re-submit our Application that day to Engmann with a check in the Amount of $1,582.00. We exactly complied to the extent of my personally observing such documents being placed on Engmann's desk. Unfortunately, Mr. Crofts was out of town and obviously could not oversee the intentions he expressed to my office via voice mail as still recorded. Simultaneously, Mr. Crofts and I had out of town deaths in our families. Mr. Crofts and I went out of town undoubtedly believing that Engmann, Kelly or other responsible staffer was submitting a request to Ms. Eller to amend the Council Agenda for more timely consideration than has been the case. Upon Mr. Crofts' and my return, I contacted him and was told that Ms. Eller would not accept an amendment for the Agenda. Since, Ms. Eller has advised me that no such amendment was requested in writing or verbally. If Mr. Crofts was led by his staff to believe the amendment request was filed and rejected, then, he was lied to as the staff was so proficient at doing last evening.
9. The record will show that Kelly and Engmann, in particular, with Avery bowing out of their diatribe, indicated that my client would engage in sales and a littany of unspecified activities, some of which are not permitted in CRO. CRO in Section 656.311.III(b) outlines three specifically prohibited activities, one being "No retail sales"; and,
10. Because of the egoistic and malicious intent of the Staff, they failed to acknowledge that in the Land Use Category of RPI only three primary classes of zoning (CO, CRO, and RMD-E) are allowed.
11. While I understand that Engmann is leaving the JPD and will no longer be subject to proper administrative sanctions, on or about 17 May 2007, my client visited Mr. Engmann who allegedly told my client that the reason the Application had not been agendized in accord with its timely submittal was because I made a mistake in addressing it to Mr. Crofts. Moreover, Engmann allegedly told my client, who confronted me, that Crofts and I are personal acquaintances and friends and that the staff felt that the agenda amendment request would have been a "personal favor" to me by Mr. Crofts. I also know everyone to whom this is addressed except Mr. Thoburn. In more than one conversation with Mr. Crofts since by telephone, I asked why my addressing the Application to him would have been a mistake?? My question was rhetorical since I knew that anyone at any time for any reason should be able to address any matter to the Director or Deputy Director for their discretionary assignment to any staff person. Likewise, I know that agenda amendment requests are routinely done, not just for me. I have personally known for sometime, from one day to the next, staff assignments in JPD appear to have been unpredictable. Neither is there a specially designated file basket or drop box for rezoning applications in the reception area of JPD. On the other hand, there is no better receptionist in the City than at JPD's front desk as is the Director's Secretary.
12. When the JPD Staff provides the Commission with various, sundry, inconsistent, and incompetent interpretations of the Code; provides incompetently prepared and misconstrued reports; and, maliciously lies in hearing forum in an effort to protect their mistaken actions; and, to ultimately blow enough smoke on the Commission for it to favor their actions, they perpetuate arbitrariness and capriciousness, and disdain for the desired professionalism and integrity of the JPD. Particularly, they do a disservice and insult to the Commission and the Public Interest in perpetrating untruths and misconstructions of fact in order to influence the Commission's voting objectively and justly.
13. Am I disappointed in the DENIAL vote on subject application? Yes, for my young client and his wife who are trying to better the property they bought and are remodeling on Merrill Road for a family cosmetology shop. There are cosmetology shops from one end of Merrill Road to the other, currently all but one for Anglo Americans. Mr. & Mrs. Gipson provide services primarily for African American clientele in rented space on St. Johns Bluff Road. Their little building on Merrill Road cannot accommodate more than 5 chairs although they only planned to operate 3 chairs with auxiliary hair dryer stations. This was known to Messrs. Crofts and Avery as attested to by meeting in their building with Councilman Yarborough. Yet, in their testimony to the Commission last evening, Messrs. Kelly and Engmann created an impression that the Gipsons would have a profuse number of chairs. Again, Kelly, in particular knew better since the approved Site Plan only allows for 4 parking spaces, one of which is for handicapped. Again, the JPD Staff testimony and Report was, in my opinion and experience from 45 years of professional practice, malicious, incompetent, and malevolent.
14. As you may notice, I am sending this communique as a complaint to the Mayor, the President of the City Council, the JPD leadership, and to Ms. Eller since I previously discussed the matter with her.
Appreciation to you and the other Commissioners for taking your time and talents for such indulgence. I commend each and all of you. Please disseminate this e-mail to your fellow Commissioners or provide me with their addresses so I may do so.
Best regards,
Hilton T. Meadows, RLA0000339
From: HMea1998@aol.com [HMea1998@aol.com] (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=-1) Sent: Fri 7/27/2007 12:21 PM To: GEdwards@Edwardseng.com (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=0)
Cc: Peyton, John (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=1); Davis, Daniel (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=2); Mosley, Alan (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=3); Thoburn, Brad (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=4); Crofts, John (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=5); Eller, Shannon (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/?cmd=editrecipient&Index=6)
Subject: Planning Staff Duped Commission Re 2007-682 Attachments:
View As Web Page (https://webmail.coj.net/public/Public%20Records/Brad%20Thoburn%27s%20Public%20Records/Planning%20Staff%20Duped%20Commission%20Re%202007-398166671.EML/#) Gray: First, let me express my appreciation to you and the other Commissioners who give of their time in the interest of a Public Purpose. Aside from one's family and one's pocketbook, intertwined with one's property, there are few things that can matter more than having a person's use of his/her land unjustly impinged. That happened last evening with regard to subject rezoning application. Given the system upon which the Commission should be able to rely for competency, credibility, and veracity, the Staff of JPD:
1. Incompetently processed our application; and,
2. Categorically lied as to how the staff was going to right their incompetent processing through amending the Agenda with Ms. Eller in the G.C.'s Office; and,
3. Prepared and submitted to you and to my client a written Staff Report that
contains gross factual errors; and,
4. As a part of the written Staff Report, the staff attached an incomplete excerpted
section from the zoning map and then testified in defense of same when it did not
cover the reach for legal notification nor the nearby areas as allowed for consideration in 656.125; and,
5. Failed to advise the Commission that neither the Greater Arlington Civic Council nor the CPAC nor any neighboring property owners entered any objection to the rezoning; and,
6. Maliciously, contradictorily, and incompetently lied to the Commission that the small property could be used for uses and purposes that its small size will not accommodate nor for which permits can be obtained; and,
7. The record will show that Sean Kelly, toward the end of his defensively surreptitious comments stated that the Report did not say that the staff had indicated the rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. In its item #1 finding on Page 2, just as I testified, the Staff Report indicates "YES" to the Code required question of the rezoning's consistency with the 2010 Comp Plan; and,
8. Kelly continued incompetently stating, in connection with a Commissioner's question as to what were some of the feared uses, that my client could develop up to 5 dwelling units on the .19 acre parcel. As the zoning administrator with whom I personally worked on such issues, Kelly, who has been employed in the JPD for a number of years, knew that in RMD-E zoning, allowing up to 20 units per lot, as one of only three classes allowed in RPI Land Use and as applicable to subject property under CRO, the first two dwelling units would require 6,000 square feet of land area each and 2,100 square feet of land area each for the next two dwelling units. At the same time, under CRO as under CO, lot coverage is restricted to 35% for all buildings. Minimum setbacks for one principal structure on the lot are: Front 20 feet; Side yards 20 feet and rear yards 20 feet. My client's property is essentially 75 feet wide by 100 feet in depth or slightly over 7,500 sq. feet. Height limitation is 35 feet. Likewise, Kelly knew that 2 parking spaces are required for each residential unit. He also knew, as had been repeatedly stated by him and Engmann, as a defense for their malevolent recommendation for "DENIAL", that my client's lot consisted of just over 7,500 square feet. So, a competent analysis and non-prejudicial presentation to the Commission would have recognized these Codified Limitations along with the Limitations imposed for stormwater and other regulatory impositions beyond the JPD. Or, is JPD supposed to be ignorant of limitations outside the walls of Florida Theater?? Chapter 163, F.S. provides for recognition of other limitations by other agencies; and,
11. After mishandling the timely processing and agendizing of subject application, my complaint to Mr. Crofts resulted in his indicating that he would contact Ms. Eller in the G.C.'s Office with a request to Amend the Agenda. This occurred on 10 May 2007 after we submitted on 1 May 2007. Mr. Crofts also requested that we re-submit our Application that day to Engmann with a check in the Amount of $1,582.00. We exactly complied to the extent of my personally observing such documents being placed on Engmann's desk. Unfortunately, Mr. Crofts was out of town and obviously could not oversee the intentions he expressed to my office via voice mail as still recorded. Simultaneously, Mr. Crofts and I had out of town deaths in our families. Mr. Crofts and I went out of town undoubtedly believing that Engmann, Kelly or other responsible staffer was submitting a request to Ms. Eller to amend the Council Agenda for more timely consideration than has been the case. Upon Mr. Crofts' and my return, I contacted him and was told that Ms. Eller would not accept an amendment for the Agenda. Since, Ms. Eller has advised me that no such amendment was requested in writing or verbally. If Mr. Crofts was led by his staff to believe the amendment request was filed and rejected, then, he was lied to as the staff was so proficient at doing last evening.
9. The record will show that Kelly and Engmann, in particular, with Avery bowing out of their diatribe, indicated that my client would engage in sales and a littany of unspecified activities, some of which are not permitted in CRO. CRO in Section 656.311.III(b) outlines three specifically prohibited activities, one being "No retail sales"; and,
10. Because of the egoistic and malicious intent of the Staff, they failed to acknowledge that in the Land Use Category of RPI only three primary classes of zoning (CO, CRO, and RMD-E) are allowed.
11. While I understand that Engmann is leaving the JPD and will no longer be subject to proper administrative sanctions, on or about 17 May 2007, my client visited Mr. Engmann who allegedly told my client that the reason the Application had not been agendized in accord with its timely submittal was because I made a mistake in addressing it to Mr. Crofts. Moreover, Engmann allegedly told my client, who confronted me, that Crofts and I are personal acquaintances and friends and that the staff felt that the agenda amendment request would have been a "personal favor" to me by Mr. Crofts. I also know everyone to whom this is addressed except Mr. Thoburn. In more than one conversation with Mr. Crofts since by telephone, I asked why my addressing the Application to him would have been a mistake?? My question was rhetorical since I knew that anyone at any time for any reason should be able to address any matter to the Director or Deputy Director for their discretionary assignment to any staff person. Likewise, I know that agenda amendment requests are routinely done, not just for me. I have personally known for sometime, from one day to the next, staff assignments in JPD appear to have been unpredictable. Neither is there a specially designated file basket or drop box for rezoning applications in the reception area of JPD. On the other hand, there is no better receptionist in the City than at JPD's front desk as is the Director's Secretary.
12. When the JPD Staff provides the Commission with various, sundry, inconsistent, and incompetent interpretations of the Code; provides incompetently prepared and misconstrued reports; and, maliciously lies in hearing forum in an effort to protect their mistaken actions; and, to ultimately blow enough smoke on the Commission for it to favor their actions, they perpetuate arbitrariness and capriciousness, and disdain for the desired professionalism and integrity of the JPD. Particularly, they do a disservice and insult to the Commission and the Public Interest in perpetrating untruths and misconstructions of fact in order to influence the Commission's voting objectively and justly.
13. Am I disappointed in the DENIAL vote on subject application? Yes, for my young client and his wife who are trying to better the property they bought and are remodeling on Merrill Road for a family cosmetology shop. There are cosmetology shops from one end of Merrill Road to the other, currently all but one for Anglo Americans. Mr. & Mrs. Gipson provide services primarily for African American clientele in rented space on St. Johns Bluff Road. Their little building on Merrill Road cannot accommodate more than 5 chairs although they only planned to operate 3 chairs with auxiliary hair dryer stations. This was known to Messrs. Crofts and Avery as attested to by meeting in their building with Councilman Yarborough. Yet, in their testimony to the Commission last evening, Messrs. Kelly and Engmann created an impression that the Gipsons would have a profuse number of chairs. Again, Kelly, in particular knew better since the approved Site Plan only allows for 4 parking spaces, one of which is for handicapped. Again, the JPD Staff testimony and Report was, in my opinion and experience from 45 years of professional practice, malicious, incompetent, and malevolent.
14. As you may notice, I am sending this communique as a complaint to the Mayor, the President of the City Council, the JPD leadership, and to Ms. Eller since I previously discussed the matter with her.
Appreciation to you and the other Commissioners for taking your time and talents for such indulgence. I commend each and all of you. Please disseminate this e-mail to your fellow Commissioners or provide me with their addresses so I may do so.
Best regards,
Hilton T. Meadows, RLA0000339