GLFPC Set the Record Straight - Response to Campaign Letters
Nov 29, 2017 9:17:13 GMT -7
dorothykeeler likes this
Post by Admin on Nov 29, 2017 9:17:13 GMT -7
Administrator's Note:The 2017 Glastonbury Elections have produced several letters written by candidates and individual landowners that were mailed to many other landowners. Passions often run high this time of the year and the letters are sometimes full of opinions and scant on facts. Recently candidate Clare Parker sent a 4 page letter to North and South Glastonbury landowners. Another hand written and photocopied letter was written by Robert Buchanan and sent to many South Glastonbury landowners.
The Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change(GLFPC) has responded to both of the letters via community wide mailing. The GLFPC response is posted below:
The Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change(GLFPC) has responded to both of the letters via community wide mailing. The GLFPC response is posted below:
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Dear GLA Neighbors and Friends,
This Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change (GLFPC) letter is being sent to you to set the record straight in regard to Clare Parker’s recent “campaign letter”. Parker, a SG candidate, is so far from reality that we are unable to ignore the situation.
Please note, GLFPC members regularly attend and record GLA meetings. To keep our GLFPC subscribers informed, we publish email summaries of these meetings.
Clare’s four-page campaign letter was mailed to many GLA members on November 16, 2017. Before you read further, we suggest you download and read her letter.
Clare argues that board candidates should not be aligned with GLFPC.
The facts are: Board candidates have a right to be affiliated with Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) as Clare is, GLFPC as the three SG incumbents are, or any other group they may choose. What matters is that board candidates and members have an open mind, and are willing to work with others for the best interests of all landowners.
We find the three incumbent board candidates in SG (Kevin Newby, Dennis Riley, and Mark Seaver) to be well informed about GLA’s rules and regulations, unlike Clare. As is evidenced by their record, they have taken their duty to enforce the covenants seriously, and they have done so without favoritism.
Clare states that GLA should never require engineering reports as part of the Project Review application process.
The facts are: One NG landowner which Clare mentions was requested to get an engineering analysis prior to approval of a garage because the landowner had a legal complaint outstanding against her from an adjacent landowner regarding a water drainage and water trespass issue in the winter of 2016-2017. That issue arose after her recently-installed driveway disrupted the natural flow of water that existed prior to her development. The GLA had received a complaint regarding flooding on the adjacent landowner’s property, and could not ignore that complaint, or numerous others, nor approve additional development, until the water trespass issue had been professionally addressed. GLA Project Review Co-Chair Kevin Newby, in particular, understands that he represents ALL landowners in project reviews – not solely the landowner submitting a new project for review. He has set a new precedent in this regard.
Clare’s other engineering complaint was about a SG landowner who was required by the Project Review Committee to get a professional analysis prior to an approval of a driveway, which crossed an easement onto another landowner’s property. It was observed during the project review site inspection for this long access driveway up a steep hill, that the driveway would cross a culvert necessary to prevent storm water runoff from washing out the GLA platted road below. Again, the Project Review Committee seeks to represent the interests of ALL landowners (and the GLA platted roads) – not solely the landowner submitting the project for review.
Clare mentions landowner rights violation.
The facts are: Clare failed to mention that landowner rights were violated by NG board incumbents Paul Ranttalo and Charlotte Mizzi this year. They are both involved in physical trespass on a landowner’s lot adjacent to their NG CUT-owned community greenhouse project. This property is exempt from all GLA regulations and assessments because CUT is not part of GLA. The greenhouse had been placed just a few feet from the neighboring landowner’s property line. One day, when she further confronted Ranttalo, who was once-again bull-dozing her property, he informed her that he was prepping for the greenhouse parking lot – to be placed on her property. (He had already bulldozed a fair portion of her property, along with her fencing, as well as placed water lines along the length of her lot line, all without her consent).
Looking for recourse, the property owner brought a formal complaint to the GLA Board. Because both Mizzi, who spear-headed the project, and Ranttalo are board members, she expected the board to take action in her favor. However, this issue was successfully dodged for many months by the CUT-majority board. This forced the landowner to hire an attorney. The trespassing led to a Cease and Desist letter. To date, board members Mizzi and Ranttalo have taken no responsibility for their actions.
Clare writes about candidate harassment:
The facts are: After nomination and placement on the SG ballot, candidate Kathleen Rakela was discovered to be in violation of the Covenants by the GLA administrative assistant during a routine verification of property ownership. Rakela had subdivided a lot more than a year prior w/o notifying the GLA, which would have resulted in an additional land assessment. Had it been known in 2016, she would have been disqualified from voting at last year’s election. (Last year’s SG election recount had centered around other assessment payment issues with Rakela.)
Clare writes that she is concerned about disruption of board meetings:
The facts are: When Charlotte Mizzi became president of the GLA in 2016, she immediately and single-handedly instituted her own Meeting Decorum policy that prohibited ANY landowner input during the board meeting, outside of opening landowner comments (3-minute limit). The moment Mizzi took the president’s seat, she lifted a gavel from her bag, liberally using it throughout her one-year term. She further held many board meetings at her own personal residence with landowners excluded except by phone.
Dennis Riley abolished Charlotte’s “Decorum Policy”, as well as use of the gavel upon taking office as president in 2017. He has been steadfast in his willingness to hold open board meetings for all landowners who wish to attend and participate in GLA meetings.
Clare’s addendum about the disqualifying of a second SG board candidate:
The facts are: Marshall Haley’s past due assessments were brought up to date through the 3rd payment for 2017, in time to declare his candidacy and be placed on the SG ballot. However, because he then failed to make his 4th payment for 2017 on time, as had been pointed out by the board treasurer, he was disqualified as a candidate.
The GLA Board had clearly communicated multiple times during the several months leading up to the October 31st deadline that the new policy would affect who could vote or run for office. NO discrimination was involved.
To conclude:
The GLFPC asks that the readers go back and review Clare’s campaign letter once again. Seemingly, it divides our association by promoting an ‘us vs them’ attitude, which she herself claims is what the GLFPC does.
Clare has already assured her voters that she will undo all the new policies and procedures that she believes were forced through by the GLFPC segment of the board, despite this segment having a minority vote.
May we all rise to the looming challenges ahead of us. May we cherish the differences that can make us a strong community. May we live here in Glastonbury in peace and harmony.
Respectfully submitted,
Glastonbury Landowners for Positive Change (GLFPC)
P. S. If you would like to receive emailed summaries of GLA meetings which are prepared by GLFPC members, contact Donna Lash-Andersen at 224-1690 or donna.lash@gmail.com.
Addendum: GLFPC provides the missing facts and background information in Robert Buchanan’s letter of complaint against Kevin Newby: a copy of it can be found on the internet here. It was mailed on October 20th, 2017 to a number of SG GLA members.
Mr. Buchanan originally submitted a project to the GLA in 2015 to build a dwelling and a workshop with a dwelling on the 2nd story in SG. He was informed by the GLA that his lot was undersized (3.3 acres) to be eligible for a 2nd dwelling unit, as specified in the GLA Master Plan. In addition, his own subdivision covenants do not allow more than 1 dwelling per lot in that subdivision. In order to get GLA approval, Mr. Buchanan resubmitted his project with a single dwelling and a workshop with no attached dwelling, just a toilet and a sink.
Subsequent to that, Mr. Buchanan obtained DEQ approval for a septic system capable of supporting two dwellings. The GLA Board obtained an attorney and sent Mr. Buchanan a cease and desist letter to ensure he understood he was only allowed one dwelling.
Kevin Newby was co-chairman of the Project Review Committee, along with Gerald Dubiel – and they, along with other board members, were instructed by then GLA president Charlotte Mizzi to visit the site and stop development until the issue was resolved. The board members who did that were: Gerald Dubiel, Ed Dobrowski, Mark Seaver and Kevin Newby. Mr. Buchanan chose to call the Sheriff following Mr. Newby’s visit – the 4th board member to visit the site. It is unfortunate that Mr. Buchanan believes upholding our Master Plan is “micro-management”.
Further Note: Kevin Newby has never been told by any Park County official “not to come back to their office or he would be arrested”, as Buchanan claimed. Rather, Newby has cultivated excellent rapport with Park County officials, namely Parks Frady. In fact, he was the primary board member to successfully spear-head work with Park County to both crack seal (2015) and chip seal (2016) Dry Creek Road.
Clare Parker has lobbied long and hard for GLA itself to maintain Dry Creek Rd. at landowner expense even while we already pay county taxes to maintain it. On the other hand, Kevin Newby has saved the GLA potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars by forming a working relationship with Park County