Posted Tuesday, February 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Contributed by Jeff
A rule the Summit Township supervisors recently established may scuttle the proposed sale of 3.3 acres of Conneaut Lake Park land. The sale is considered key for the park’s future — it’s expected to raise the money the park needs to open this year and erase much, if not all, of the park’s debt. Supervisors last summer adopted an ordinance prohibiting more than six condominiums on one acre with a three-acre minimum area in business and residential zoning districts. The interested developer wants to put ten condos per acre on the land.
Read more from The Meadville Tribune.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:34 PM
Wow, this looks familiar.
I did try posting this in news, kept getting a truncuate (sp?) error.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:36 PM
The plot thickens...
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:30 PM
As the lake turns part 122
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Thwarted. Jeff, you should work for the Meadville Trib. Your headlines sound better.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:22 AM
"...Township supervisors recently established
..."?? That sounds very foul - they might have well just said "We want to give up and let it die so we can use the land for our pet project.. quick.. let's make up a rule to block them from being successful so we can get the land crazy-cheap later".
We'll find out in their decision on the variance... :)
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:53 AM
^I had that same thought. NW PA polictics seem to work that way.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:02 PM
NW, SE, NE... it's all the same. That seems to be the latest trick to stop any kind of development in Pennsylvania. Put so many restrictions and conditions on the land so you can't hope to make any money from developing it. So people figure what's the use?
Then these municipalities are all bent out of shape because of a report that appeared in many papers saying PA is going to lose more congressmen after the next census because of our flat population growth-- which would result in less federal money coming here. That's what they're mostly worried about-- the money.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 3:04 PM
Gotta love this kind of politics. "Quick, let's make a law so something we don't want can't happen."
Thursday, February 8, 2007 5:38 PM
More like "let's change the ordinance to keep out those people who are handing in their plans next week." In my county we had a (IMO very stupid) member of a local planning commission who- after a developer submitted a plan for townhouses-- was quoted in the newspaper as saying she would change the ordinance to keep them out.
1. You can't make an ordinance change retroactive.
2. If she made public statements before the plan was submitted, she would be required to recuse herself from voting on it. Afterwards, she opens herself up to a personal lawsuit from the developer. She can't hide behind the face she's a public official.
A good lawyer would have people like those asses hoisted up a flagpole.