Lee STORROW

Dear Lee,

Thanks.

I’m afraid it is. You voted FOR the resolution on 5 November, and have given NO REASON for doing so. What is it? Don’t answer that it is better than a SUP application. That is not a reason for doing anything at all, unless you have decided that current rules must change. Have you? Why should you and the Council spend any resources we have contributed in taxes to the secret work – and yes, it is secret, I have been told – that you authorized in that vote? What is the prima facie case for doing this? The only thing that is apparent is that a developer has said he does not like current restrictions and wants them changed; like those proverbial dogs, the Council simply responds by saying, ok, sure, let’s spend some money on this instead of demanding that prima facie case be presented by the developer and subjected to public review and comment. Ask your lawyer to explain what “prima facie” means if you do not know.

Cheers,

Terry

From: Lee Storrow [mailto:leestorrow.ch@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 7:26 AM
To: Terry MAGUIRE
Subject: Re: FW: FW: 11/5/12 Additional Materials

Terry, 

I don't think this discussion is as simple as you outline in your two options below. I do believe that we need a credible, fully factually-supported case before we approve a re-zoning. As I've said before, I think there are multiple ways to gather that information, and I don't want to close options. 

I think the concerns that you are vocalizing are related to concerns I've heard from other residents that there is something inevitable about approval of a new development at Obey Creek. I can only speak for myself, but even IF we do move forward with a development agreement, If I'm unhappy with the outcome, I will vote against the project. I voted against the first development we reviewed when I came on council (Unfortunately it sounds like Charterwood may still be built.) I can't speak for my colleagues, but I'm not afraid to vote against Obey Creek as well. One value to not using the SUP process is that there are some strict restrictions in how the council can communicate with the public since an SUP is a quasi-judicial hearing. 

All this being said, I'm still not convinced that a development agreement is the correct way to proceed. I'm very concerned about the traffic implications of this project, and I've been talking with staff about how we can address some of these concerns. It may be that we need to have a traffic impact study done prior to the start of a development agreement, and as you allude to below, hold some more extensive community conversations. One of the things I've learned during this first year on council is that we make the best decisions when we stay open to all options. During my campaign when I was door-knocking, I consistently heard from residents that there thought that our development process was broken and that we needed to find ways to reform it. I'm still not convinced this is the project to totally change things up, but I want to keep the conversation going. -Lee 

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Terry MAGUIRE <tmaguire@newspaper.com> wrote:

Dear Lee,

We are not making much progress on this.

Let me give you an easy choice.

I have a piece of paper with two columns on it. One column is for Council members who believe that the developer of Obey Creek is somehow entitled to build more than current zoning permits and wants to “work” with him to make that happen. The other column is for those Council members who believe that the zoning restrictions in place should stay there until or unless a credible, fully factually-supported case is presented to the Council; only then should any “process” proceed that would review possible development in excess of current zoning.

In which column do I put your name?

If you pick the first column – favoring more development – I promise to continue hounding you until you provide a REASON for taking that position. If you pick the second – no changes until a fact-based case is presented – you will get my thanks instead.

Which is it?

Cheers,

Terry

From: Terry MAGUIRE [mailto:tmaguire@newspaper.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:51 PM
To: 'Lee Storrow'
Subject: RE: FW: 11/5/12 Additional Materials

Dear Lee,

Thanks.

I appreciate your taking the time. I returned from almost two months overseas last night.

Let me make several brief points?

One, you talk below about having a lot of conversation and “then move into a development agreement”. Lee, that is at the core of what I have been saying to you. I worry about the mentality that takes us from a developer wanting to build more than current zoning allows to the almost inevitability of that happening or a development agreement softening the blow en route. WHY does anything have to happen automatically here just because a developer wants MORE? If I want to build an extension to our house in back, I cannot because the current rules bar me from doing so. Just because I want to do that … does that mean that the Town will start a proceeding to consider a change in the rules so somewhere down the line I pay more real estate tax? I don’t think so. Same here, UNLESS there is a REASON to do more. What is your REASON for doing more than telling the developer to build in accordance with current rules? I asked this earlier and will press you until you either answer or refuse to do so. The political consequences of the latter choice could be serious.

The developer seems to have a cozy relationship with one or more Council members and I find it highly distasteful. If he did not think he had it “in the bag” with the Council, why would he not do the logical thing and create a website for Obey Creek, invite questions, comments, ideas, suggestions, etc. and hold some meetings of his own with anyone who wants to attend to see if he can work with the community to come up with a workable plan. His failure to do this strikes me as saying a tremendous amount about his attitude and my unease with the developer/Council relationship. I and others will be demanding records of telephone conversations, notes, agendas, reports, correspondence and more from the Council Members in order to get to the bottom of this.

Why don’t you simply step forward and say there is no need to devote Town resources to this until the developer returns with the results of a highly inclusive digital/inperson program as outlined above to solicit and interact from/with the community. Don’t bother us and Town resources until you have done that; or just proceed to develop a project that fits current rules.

That would be impressive if you took that route.

Cheers,

Terry

From: Lee Storrow [mailto:leestorrow.ch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 12:38 PM
To: Terry MAGUIRE

Subject: Re: FW: 11/5/12 Additional Materials

Terry,

I think Sabrina's answer to your questions was not 100% definite because we are treading on some new ground with this discussion. I have heard feedback from various residents who support having the town pay for a consultant and I've also heard from people who believe that the developer should pay for it. We are trying to gain maximum citizen input, so rather than determine which scenario we will work under, the staff is putting together a possible proposal for the council and public to review on December 3rd and provide input. I've had several conversations with concerned citizens recently about the possibility of a development agreement, and I'm less and less convinced that it is the right way to go. I don't want to stop the conversation, but I still need to be convinced that enough work has been done to warrant a development agreement. Maybe we could think about an extended community conversation to firm up expectations about the property, and then move into a development agreement. As I said, I don't want to stop the conversation, but we have to make sure we have the right safeguards in place as well. -Lee

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Terry MAGUIRE <tmaguire@newspaper.com> wrote:

Dear Lee,

I expect your support in getting an answer to my questions and I would urge you to consider objecting to the draft resolution on Obey Creek until and unless these questions are answered fully.  Picking the consultant/attorney and who interacts with her/him is critical, and we all have a right to know precisely how this will work.

And one more – I have seen no projected cost for this. It is not good government practice to engage someone as this plan envisions without knowing the risk to which the Town is being put unless the developer is required to escrow the anticipated consultant fees. You need to protect the interests of the Town first and foremost and I would expect that to be part of any procedure.

Thanks.

Bon weekend,

Terry