I really do not understand the anguish over the C-8 building and the plan that was filed, albeit he wrong plan. At the last council meeting, there acrimony over tis situation was alarming. Anguished vows and the innate desire to lambaste the mayor. It sure seemed to boil down to 2 issues. 1, that the proper plan was reviewed, but someone attached thew wrong plan top the permit application, and, 2, that the mayor should be held accountable for not having properly qualified officials review the plan before he signed it. Isn't the fact of the matter that the mayor signed the correct plan, only to have someone file the incorrect one?
There is a much larger and egregious mater to contend with in AP at this time. And that is the incompetence of the city zoning officer. Who was hired by Weldon without any qualifications or degrees, who has run roughshod over any and all developers that have put their hard earned monies and time into building, or is that re-building the city of Asbury Park. Along with the city engineer, the zoning officer has shut down two projects on 4th ave. Put over 20 men out of work, and these 2 have put a serious hurting one the people financing and re-building these 2 projects. Both buildings were smitten with gangsters, drug dealers, and at their own expense both buildings were cleaned out of the vermin that has destroyed the integrity of the city. The thanks they are getting from zoning and engineering in the city are stop work orders and being forced to deliver site plans and major zoning variances when neither are called for. Additionally, in the mother of all power plays the city engineer is trying to ramrod a amendment to an ordinance that will make it impossible to so much as plant flowers along the wide avenues that make AP such a special place. Their reasoning is the ability to move utilities along the front lawns of the avenues. Can anyone imagine what it will be like to have a sewer line located underground between their house and the sidewalk? In essence, the DEP is thankfully not only willing to work with the City and allow construction along the waterfront to continue WITHOUT A PROPER PERMIT, but the CITY of ASBURY PARK is not willing to allow construction to continue on the 300 block of 4th avenue because of landscaping. So, instead of 90 or so nice families being able to move into ostensibly brand new apartments this spring, 90 families who will help support all the great efforts of the downtown merchants and those brave and hearty souls who invested in Boardwalk business this past summer, the buildings will remain vacant and the drug dealers, prostitutes, and now the gang bangers will continue to have free reign over the street of Asbury. The City of Asbury Park CAN'T stop the drug dealers, but the City CAN stop construction and progress. AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com wrote: > >There are 5 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. esperanza > From: charlie leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2. Re: esperanza > From: "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 3. esperanza = C8 = scrape iron > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4. Re: esperanza > From: "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 5. Re: esperanza > From: "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:05:24 -0800 (PST) > From: charlie leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: esperanza > > >what does everyone think about the esperanza news? so the redevelopemtn is >being run using an older plan, not the one that was sopose to be used. and >the one thats being used today, is missing the information regarding c8? >where if it should come down, only an 8 story building could be built in its >place? is that accruate, or no? if no, can someone post a short simple reply >explaining. i think the esperanza will be built the way it was intended to >be. but if there going to paly by the rules, the i think an 8 story building >should be bult there, to match the height of the berkely, which is also 8? or >close to it. > > >--------------------------------- > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > >[This message contained attachments] > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:23:06 -0000 > From: "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: esperanza > >It is simply a clerical error. The Planning Board reviewed an >amendment to the plan dated March 2002. That is the official >amendment that the Council voted on in June 2002. > >There is a separate document dated June 2002. It was not looked at >by the planning board, nor did the City council ever vote on it. > >After the city got done selling its copies of the March amendment, >apparantly the City clerk started using the copies of the June >amendment, not realizing it was different. > >The whole thing was meaningless until the DEP reviewed the June >amendmnent to issue the permit to build on the beachfront, which of >course is not the official amendment. > >The March and June amendments are almost identical. The DEP will >simply reconsider the parts that are different, allow a period of >public comment and the March amendment will be re-ratified by the >council. > >The whole thing is just a clerical error and really won't amount to >a hill of beans in the long run. C8 will be built to the 10 and 16 >story specs as outlined in the March amendment. > >--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, charlie leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > >>what does everyone think about the esperanza news? so the >> >> >redevelopemtn is being run using an older plan, not the one that was >sopose to be used. and the one thats being used today, is missing >the information regarding c8? where if it should come down, only an >8 story building could be built in its place? is that accruate, or >no? if no, can someone post a short simple reply explaining. i >think the esperanza will be built the way it was intended to be. >but if there going to paly by the rules, the i think an 8 story >building should be bult there, to match the height of the berkely, >which is also 8? or close to it. > > >> >>--------------------------------- >> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. >> >> >> > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:07:30 EST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: esperanza = C8 = scrape iron > >I was told demolition will start on Wednesday. Company trailer will be >installed on Kingsley and 3rd sometime this week. Machines are on the lot >already. >To bad the council are such bad negotiators on behalf of the city. Larry >lucky our city lawyer likes him or his boss better than the taxpayers of >Asbury >Park. > > >[This message contained attachments] > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:44:58 -0000 > From: "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: esperanza > >--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>The whole thing is just a clerical error and really won't amount >> >> >to > > >>a hill of beans in the long run. C8 will be built to the 10 and >> >> >16 > > >>story specs as outlined in the March amendment. >> >> > >Tom, I am surprised at you. The June plan is the plan. Don't listen >to the man behind the curtain. Aaron is hanging his hat on a >technicality. On June 5, 2002, the only plan that could be adopted >was the March draft with the amendments (planning board >recommendations) however, the draft was redone and the changes >became the June 5, 2002 plan. There is another updated copy of the >plan. Is that not the plan? Furthermore, the plan as written (March >Draft) acknowldged that there would be further clarifications and >was not an absolute document. The added C-8 language is just that, >and does not require further review. And even if it is the March >DRAFT (how can a draft be an adopted plan?), that version in no way >considers demolition and rebuilding to 10 and 16 stories. That is >only permitted if the developer can FINISH the project. > >And do we believe the story of how the C-8 language was added by the >Developer no less? As I said, tantamount to "the dog ate my >homework." If Aaron is right, then submitting the June plan to NJDEP >and Smart Growth (and who knows where else) is either 1) deliberate >and fraud, or 2) unintentional and shows incompetence. If it is >clerical error, then I definitely want them out. I guess I will have >to choose over smart crooks or honest idiots. Aaron is our >redevelopment lawyer. He should have been dotting all i's and >crossing all t's. Sorry, don't want to hear about perhaps it was the >planner's office. How come the plan was shopped all over the US for >3 years but it took me to bring it to light. Give me a break. Crooks >or fools. Take your choice. > > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > >Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 04:40:59 -0000 > From: "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: esperanza > >--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Tom, I am surprised at you. The June plan is the plan. Don't >>listen >>to the man behind the curtain. Aaron is hanging his hat on a >>technicality. On June 5, 2002, the only plan that could be adopted >>was the March draft with the amendments (planning board >>recommendations) >> >> > > >True. Those were the only aboptable matters as they were the only >matters reviewed by the Planning Board. The June draft wasn't. > > > > >>however, the draft was redone and the changes >>became the June 5, 2002 plan. >> >> > > >Perhaps the recordings of the meetings will tell if you are right or >wrong about that. Anyone can make an OPRA request and see what they >say. Until proven otherwise, I don't have a reason to doubt what >Mr. Aaron said. In my opinion the latest amendment to the plan is >the March draft with the changes as outlined in the ordinance on >June 5. > > > > >>There is another updated copy of the >>plan. Is that not the plan? Furthermore, the plan as written(March >>Draft) acknowldged that there would be further clarifications and >>was not an absolute document. The added C-8 language is just that, >>and does not require further review. >> >> > > >Why do you exclude that the planning board changes, some of which >were abopted in the ordinance, are the clarifications you speak of? > > > > >>And even if it is the March >>DRAFT (how can a draft be an adopted plan?), >> >> > > >None of it is the "plan." Respectfully you are mixing up important >words and that makes it confusing to talk about. There is only >one "plan" and that is the 1984 plan. We are still using it. It >was amended in 1989 and again in 1991. The latest amendment >consists of the March draft and the June 5 ordinance, both of which >now are properly referred to as the June 5 2005 amendment. For >clarity we should call that other, unadopted document the June 5 >draft. > > > > > >>that version in no way >>considers demolition and rebuilding to 10 and 16 stories. That is >>only permitted if the developer can FINISH the project. >> >> > > >Yours is one interpretation. Another is that if the origninal plan >says 10 and 16 stories and I later build 10 and 16 stories, I've >finished it no matter if I had to take a step back first or not. > > > > > >>And do we believe the story of how the C-8 language was added by >>the >>Developer no less? As I said, tantamount to "the dog ate my >>homework." >> >> > >Without further explanation by Asbury Partners, yes I concede this >part is hard to fathom. > > > > > >>If Aaron is right, then submitting the June plan to NJDEP >>and Smart Growth (and who knows where else) is either 1) >>deliberate >>and fraud, or 2) unintentional and shows incompetence. If it is >>clerical error, then I definitely want them out. I guess I will >>have >>to choose over smart crooks or honest idiots. Aaron is our >>redevelopment lawyer. He should have been dotting all i's and >>crossing all t's. Sorry, don't want to hear about perhaps it was >>the >>planner's office. >> >> > > >It certainly could be your third yet unenumerated choice of a >clerical error. The sanction you suggest may be excessive >considering there seems to be no harm done as far as I can tell. >Crooks? Idiots? I say they are neither. I hope you never prove me >wrong. > > > > > >>How come the plan was shopped all over the US >for >>3 years >> >> > > >It was???? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just didn't know >that was the case. Seems odd that we only have NJ subdevelopers if >it was truly shopped across the fruited plain. You may >inadvertantly be giving credit to them that may not be due. > > > > >>but it took me to bring it to light. Give me a break. >Crooks >>or fools. Take your choice. >> >> > > >I object to the limiting choices in the question, Your Honor! ;-) > > > > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >________________________________________________________________________ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > ------------------------ 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/
