-Sign me up for the recall petition! <]:~) -- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > There certainly is an "adopted plan". The process was followed > > (assuming for the moment it was the correct process) and resolutiond > > were passed. > > > > The Offical Adopted Plan is the one on file at the City Clerks > > Office. > > > > The Clerks Office is, by law, the official keeper of the City > Record. > > One should (assuming the Clerks Office is functioning properly) get > a > > copy of the Adopted Plan which was offically logged and filed. > > > > Lets see where this goes. > > Werner, remember, this is Asbury Park. I would not count on it. Sorry > you missed the council meeting tonight. They TRIED to defuse the > situation by repeating the lame stories. Aaron actually tried to make > people believe that Asbury Partners did the unofficial official plan > (June 2002) and tried to make that the plan. Keady saw through this in > that there was no incentive for Asbury Partners trying to add language > that was more adverse to them with regard to C-8. I beleive they are > stupid, but not that stupid. Keady was blown off by the cast of usual > suspects. However, I was especially dismayed by Ed Johnson reaction > who took Keady to task and told him to move on. Ed said the June 2002 > plan was just a mistake. A bigger mistake is him being a > councilmember. I guess he took DJ's article in TCN to heart and is now > going to play ball with his team cohorts. > > Back to the city clerk. As I said earlier, Kay told me that the plan > he considered the official adopted plan was the June 2002 version at > issue. That is he said, until Don Sammet told him it wasn't. He called > me later in the day to say he had a copy of the ordinance (2607) that > adopted the plan attached to the March 15, 2002 plan. Don Sammet told > him was the one adopted. That is the integrity of our public record > keeping. I assure you, if anyone actually knew what is the adopted > plan, they ain't telling. > > At the meeting I pointed out another detail which shows that they are > blowing smoke up our asses. The ordinance adopting the plan says it > gave the plan to the Planning board for review on 1/16/2002 (meaning > the plan had to be created before this date). The PB gave its > recommendations to the council on 4/26/2002, and the ordinance dated > 6/5/2002, adopted the plan in gave the PB (on 1/16/2002) except for > its acceptions and objections to the recommendations of the PB, which > werre further enumerated. Now pertaining to the plan, that is it. > There is no discussion that it was amended from some date before > 1/16/2002 (given to PB)to 3/15/2002. That's it. The only dates are > 1/16/2002 and 4/26/2002. Where did this 3/15/2002 plan come from? That > is not what the ordinace adopted. It adopted whatever plan was given > to the PB on 16/2002, which certainly could not have been dated > 3/15/2002, 2 months later. > > Finally, Aaron stated that C-8 must come down and new footings > installed. This is total new construction. He lied by only telling > half of the truth. Aaron stated that the only conditions placed on C-8 > development in the 3/15/2002 plan was to remove the garage and redo > the facade. He failed to say that the 3/15/2002 contains a section > identical to the 6/5/2002 plan which says that if the developer > can "finish" the project it can be built to the existing height. The > operative word is "finish." Finish does not mean demolishing the > structure, excavating and redoing the footings. That's a total new > development. > > They are trying to pull a fast one here. It's time to wake up and > smell whatever it is they're cooking. Look at the timing. Last week > its confirmed C-8 must come down (which I predicted). I and others > point out that if demolished they can rebuild to existing height, and > thus, would want an amendment for which we could and should get money. > I ask for clarification of what could be done on C-8 site if > demolished and all of a sudden the city this ain't the plan. At best > it is gross ineptitude, at worse, its criminal. > > Like it or not, the council, with the exception of Keady, won't do a > damn thing about this. Apparently, Johnson is included with the > majority. These council members are not even familar with these > documents. Time for a recall.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
