HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-22 Public Comment - D & C CLeveland - response to the hearing on Six Range 21235From:D & C Cleveland
To:Agenda
Subject:response to the hearing on Six Range #21235
Date:Tuesday, July 19, 2022 2:53:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please make sure this letter reaches the Community Development Board.
First, I was amazed that the Community Development Board made a recommendation before
the August 1st deadline to receive comments concerning this project. The new deadline was the result of Mr. Paine not sending out the letters to abutters that he was supposed to.
I watched the meeting segment on Six Range and was startled by Mr. Paine’s suggestion that
CT Condos was unfriendly in its contacts with Mr Paine and unwilling to discuss, for example, a berm solution to the parking lot issue of noise and lights.
Mr Paine presented himself as the reasonable person and CT Condos as the unwilling party.
In actuality, Mr Paine was willing to build a berm only if CT Condos would allow him access to S. Hanley. While we as a community think connectivity is a valuable concept, S. Hanley is
a private road which we spend money to maintain, repair, plow, and use. Ditto for the walking path north of Palisades. We maintain it, fix it, plow it. We asked him to put his berm proposal
in writing and he did not when he found out that our lawyer said the CT Board could not grant him such an exchange, berm for S. Hanley, without CT Condo amending its Declaration,
which we did not want to do.
Mr Paine was not willing to enter into a maintenance agreement to provide for his fair share of that cost. In addition, once the condo units sell, any agreement we have with Mr. Paine can at
any time be negated by a vote of the Six Range Condo Association.
When we started to ask questions about the berm and told him we did not want to exchange it for access to S. Hanley, Mr Paine had his lawyer write us a letter claiming we were trespassing
on his property by having our pipes go on his property. ( our pipes have been there since 2006 and are not trespassing in any way, shape, or form.)
If anyone has been unfriendly in this whole process it has been Mr. Paine.
1. Initially Mr. Paine claimed he had easements to both Mill Creek Dr and S. Hanley to use
and cross our property. Further research showed he did not.
2. His first site plan showed him claiming 8 parking spaces on our private road without our permission,
3. He implied we gave him permission to use our retention pond that borders W. Babcock, we
did not.
4. He planned to build a sidewalk on our property without our permission,
5. He showed access to our walking path across our land without our permission,
6. He claimed an easement on a 2006 plat which does not exist.
7. The latest site plan shows him installing a fire hydrant on our property without our permission.
8. Drawing 014 shows water piping water main and connections that cross over CT Condo
land. He has not received an easement for these lines.
9. Current site plans show Mr Paine removing a section of our road stub from S. Hanley. He does not have our permission to do so and that road stub is CT Condo’s land.
While some of these trespass issues on to our property have been resolved with newer site
plans, the combative stance Paine took and continues to take set the tone of our relationship.
As you can clearly see, the unfriendly nature of our relationship with Mr. Paine was of his own making.
I believe that CT Condo’s board is more than willing to consider a wall or fence at the rear of
Six Range to alleviate some of the head light pollution and noise. I think at this time in the process and knowing that he only has the ability to negotiate before the Six Range Condo
Association takes control of the property, HE should stop harassing CT Condos and negotiate in good faith. We were always ready.
Charlotte Cleveland