The Evansville Observer Archive: The unofficial history of Evansville, Wisconsin from 2005-2013: Thousands of Video and Audio and Articles; Free: To Search scroll to the Search this Blog line and enter name of person, topic, or issue. Then scroll up to see all articles. Or use Google Search by topic. Enjoy.
No concrete driveway, no permit.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the future world of Evansville by Design.
Design standards need to be voted down.
okay, has this ordinance, code, law whatever even passed yet. From what I have read it has not yet, which means they would have had no grounds to deny his permit. Regardless of what drive way.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason the land division was denied was due the fact that a city body cannot create a non-conforming land use via a land division.
ReplyDeletePlease get your facts straight people. Some of the comments in this thread are simply irresponsible. If some of the decisions that were made and are now being disputed by some people in this community were decided the other way our insurance premiums would go through the roof.
The bottom line is that you can't just willy nilly do whatver you want. All decisions must be made based upon findings and then subsequently drawing conclusions therefrom. With the very little bit of power that local government officials actually have there comes immense reponsibility.
As the commentary on this particular issue goes "Chasin" has the facts wrong. No permit was denied. No construction was halted. This is for a land division. If you want to comment on it then please do reponsibly before you get everyone in a tizzy over a fabrication of actual proceedings.
It seems ashame the planner lets thing go before the Commission that are not negotiable. Seems a waist of time and money. Seems Mason could have offered an explanation on how he voted rather than let things get out of hand.Seems like explaining your vote to the public when it asks for it is part of that immense responsibility Annon referred to. If he had no choice, he had no choice. Just kinda hard to believe no one is angry the planner is charging for his time to prepare and to bring non negotiable items for a vote - TWICE.
ReplyDeleteOK I read the post about some of these comments being incorrect and people should not go nilly willy???? WELL its the planning commission that has gone nilly willy trying to put in place design standards. What a bunch of crap. IF people left that planning commission meeting not understanding what happend its their the pc's fault. They did not explain a thing. AT a public meeting and as reps of this commission they have the responsiblity to do so and did not.
ReplyDeleteIF people get all wigged out about things its because of the pc's lack of communcation with the public not what someone writes on a blog.
I like the chasinthenews site, its a nice mix of different things and not afraid to take on the issues.
ReplyDeleteTo anony no 3. YOU are wrong. He as the time of the meeting was no longer working on this because he was told by the city he could not, until this was cleared up. YOU need to get your facts straight. The city screwed up and the planning commission owed the public their reason for their vote and they did not . IF they ever thought they had to explain themselves they could avoid alot of speculation from the public. This committee is all mayoral appointed ??? That is something that needs to change, we need people on there who can think seperate from the mayor. I guess I will contacting my state reps about that.
ReplyDeleteAnon no 3 is wrong it was a building permit they denied. We were at that meeting and that is exactly what was said.
ReplyDeleteIf R.Probst would have agreed to the concrete driveway he would have had his BUILDING PERMIT, or should have had. IT is zoned the way it is so he can build. But they were also concerned about the duplex issue, which really is a non-issue as thats how its zoned.
ReplyDeleteIt was Mason B who referred to this issue as a 'error' in issueing the building permit. I am going to start tape recording these public meetings so when someone who was not even at the meeting comes and said this is not so. I can pull out my tape recorder and say yes it is so, so, so.
ReplyDeleteThese meetings are supposed to be recorded by the City Clerk and the recording is supposed to be available by request for X many months. Also the Observer may have it recorded.
ReplyDeletePlease Observer post the audio for this meeting if you have it.
Go to the PC agenda on this very site. On it you will see this was a request for a land division, not a building permit. I know some of you can't write for a darn, but are you having problems reading as well?
ReplyDeleteI may have had it at one time but deleted it. I have asked that all these meeting of PC be uploaded to the internet site, which might cost the city 10/month but have had no response from the city.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the meeting, I was not clear as to what was happening and why it was important. I remember the comment by Mason that some revision of the building permit process might be in order. That comment got my attendion and I agree. One possiblity might be to require 48 hours before the work could begin so that city clerk could consult with the building inspector to see that the permit was in order. '
'
Once the permit is issued, the semblance of a contract is in place, and the homeowner proceeds and changes position in reliance on the permit. That reliance might not be appropriate. The heartaches that I have seen as a result of this had been many. Time wasted has been much. Hopefully out of the discussion of folks, some change can come for the better.
I think recording or no recording. They don't make much effort to explain to the public that is there and that is when confusion comes in.
ReplyDeleteIts to their benefit to take more time and not just assume everyone is on the same page.
I think the meeting process needs to be reformed. They let each person talk for 3 minutes, then close the public hearing. They then proceed to bring up other factors and the public has no input. A neighbor of Mr.Probst had a question that came out of this discussion and he got shot a look like sit down and shut up. Thats not right. The discussion should involve everything the public knows NOT something new they throw in or think of.
ReplyDeleteThey give the impression they don't want public input, yet it's who's city???/
If anyone from the planning commission is reading this, could you please explain what you thought the question was before you and why you voted the way you did. That's all people want to know. Did you have a choice or not? Did the commission offer an exchange for a cement driveway or not? It's really that simple.
ReplyDelete