Updates - 23 June 2015
Too much going on to post all the updates but I'll get some now and I'll post others as they occur.
The most important is that the Applicant withdrew the application before the Jun 22 council meeting. The paper tells us that the intention is to make a new application so it can be heard by the planning commission on July 14, 2015.
From the news article and from the last Public Works meeting the applicant might try to partner with or us the online school K12 within the facility instead of sending the boys to the Sinclair GED program. Depending on how this is arranged that may or may not make it so the facility meets the definition of a school. One of the other options would be to find a different zoning that fits. I'm still not convinced that there isn't some type of regulations for a residential facility with more than 12 youths. Despite what two lawyers told me the other night I don't believe that something has to be specifically allowed by law. In fact, I believe I live in exactly the opposite type of society. That is all things that aren't specifically forbidden by law are allowed.
I've posted in the downloads some guidance to Council from our lawyer on what can be used by Council in consideration of zoning issues. I'm not sure why so many of the Council members were giving residents the impression that we were just about obligated to rubber stamp all applications. I should really go back and look at the video to see what it was that Council member Kaleps actually said that has me believing this was the message she was saying. On that same note I'd even look and see Tyler's interpretation. I know it wasn't that we had to rubber stamp but I think he conveyed it was a bit more restrictive than what I'm looking at when I read the guidance.
I pointed out previously the pretty liberal Standard found in Section (l) of 1171.06. that says council can disapprove a zoning change if they find by a preponderance of evidence that rezoning of the land would adversely affect the public peace, health, morals, safety and welfare. As of now that citizen has not provided information on the lawsuits or information about the other attempts by this applicant to run a similar business that would meet even this liberal standard.
Additionally though I'm also looking at (b) which states, "Could be substantially completed within the period of time specified in the schedule of development submitted by the developer;" Tyler, I'm wondering what type of information we could ask for to ensure that the developer of this property has the means to and methods to show the City they can meet section (b)?
Here are a couple references I posted on Facebook.
From the Jun 22, 2015 City Council Agenda, the attachment entitled additional information has the lawyer's opinion on if this qualifies as a school at the end. It does not. Also, within that packet is the zoning application, notification to neighbors, planning commission info.
The video from the latest Public Works committee is available for you to watch. The discussion on this property starts about 45:10 seconds into the video that can be found at this link:
You will have cut and paste that link.
Here is some information that was sent to Council members. There are a couple things that would make communications like this more productive. For instance providing a brief summation of why the person that provided the information thinks it is important. For instance I took the time to look at case 2013 CV 07531 in the Montgomery County. I see a landlord / tenet dispute that was resolved when the tenet paid money ($2500) to the landlord. I'm not sure what this has to do with our zoning case. If the person that provided this information found something important that would have save me 30 minutes (or however longer it would take me to actually find that important info if I were still inclined to look for it).
Anyway here is the rest of the list. If you look them up and see anything important I'd appreciate the time savings if you send it my way. If I get to it first I'll post here.
1. Here are some resource documents that I promised to provide you with. Additionally, please see AFI-36-2908,
2. You may also research public records with Montgomery County Clerk of Courts under case numbers, 2013 CV 7531 and 2014 CV 5078
3. There is also case number CL10000033 in the Lunenburg, VA Circuit Court
4. Also you’ll find case number GV07000212-01 in Lunenburg, VA General District Court
5. In the Circuit Court of Lunenburg, VA you’ll find case No. CL12-48
6. Also in Lunenburg General District Court is case no. GV06000289-00
Though I'm hoping to get help with the review of the information provided by residents and I appreciate specific web addresses an content from each that the submitter believes is important, I'd like to emphasis again that I appreciate all references.
Here is a link to minutes to a Feb 2003 Zoning case in VA I believe the discussion concerning Futures Academy starts on the 11 page. There is also another more interesting set of minutes from a Jan 2003 hearing that appear to be related. These are interesting because of questions asked. Not because there is information in them that would keep a council member from approving a current application here in Huber Heights. Interestingly, though they withdrew their application after the Feb 2003 meeting. I'm pretty sure they opened the facility later and I've not yet been provided with minutes from later meetings or public hearings.
Here is a link to the owner's application as a Licensed Chemical Dependency Counselor III.
Here is a link to the registration details for the business.
I will finish re-addressing the pretty Section (l) of 1171.06 that says council can disapprove a zoning change if they find by a preponderance of evidence that rezoning of the land would adversely affect the public peace, health, morals, safety and welfare.
Even with this pretty liberal standard, given all that I've seen I think council has to take into account that the present state of the building attracts vandals, public sex (or at least the disposal of used condoms littered about) and open drug dealings when they consider if this business were likely to negatively affect the public peace, health, morals, safety and welfare. In fact, while I was campaigning for Mayor I talked with at least 15 residents that lived very close to the school and there were many complaints about the vandalism and the young men that hung around the building. Remembering those conversations, I believe that if the other residents that are now vocal about not wanting this new owner to open her business are to get their wish then they need much more solid arguments that this new alternative will not improve the current situation.
Monday the will be discussion about Concept 1 Academy's application to use the old Lamandola School building for a private residential school. This will occur at the City council meeting which starts at 7 pm at City Hall (6131 Taylorsville rd).
This was discussed in the Public works committee meeting Tuesday. It was previously discussed in the Planning Commission.
The background material for the Public Works Committee meeting can be found on the City website here.
Here are direct links to the attachments.
Monday I'll be presiding over the meeting so cutting off discussion won't be an issue.
In a Facebook thread on this subject there was a link to the minutes of the South Hampton Planning Commission. This is an interesting read. Futures Academy was a residential school with one of the same applicants.
If you find further background information on the web about these applicants please post a link to it using the comments below.
Also, today Thursday 4 Jun I'll be at the Chamber of Commerce business expo. I've purchased a booth for no other purpose than to talk with residents of Huber Heights. Love to see you there. Wayne HS Cafeteria from 5 pm to 8 pm. There is no admission charge and the entire community is invited and encouraged to attend. Not only to talk with the Mayor but also to become familiar with many of the businesses in Huber Heights.