GLA Board Meeting to Seat New Directors Announced

Fri, Sep 9, 2022 11:43 pm
(jbezotsky@aol.com)
To:info@glamontana.org + 1 more Details
Hello GLA Board
I think that there should be a recount of the election, errors could have been made and some vote totals were very close.

Neil Kremer owns three houses on his plot,
the Master Plan reads this,
1.1 Residential Housing
Maximum residential development for a subdivided parcel is limited to one (1) single
-family residence and one (1) Quest House or in-residence guest apartment per subdivided Tract or Lot.
Neil Kremer Director -Elect owns three houses on one plot and the Master Plan only allows two, it seems that he has a violation of the Covenants.

You can't run or be on the Board with a Covenant violation.

Unless there is something else that is going on that we are not privy to.
The rules should apply to all landowners same.
Thanks

Thank you Timothy Brockett,
This is well researched so I see that this is important for you, however it is also not without several errors.
Each "dwelling" was in "compliance" when it was built and each was situated on it's own subdivided parcel 18, 56, and 57.
To each of these 3 'subdivided parcels' is what the covenants and Master Plan refers to when applying the residential density
standards.Each was in compliance at the time of their approval and so also falls under the "Grand Father Clause" reference from the Master Plan. And... this includes our 3rd "dwelling" which was situated on it's separate Parcel 57 and eventually "Boundary adjusted into the one subdivison along with the sale of 3+ acres. This was approved by the GLA at the time. The Residential Standard and the Grand Father Clause are both satisfied. You may seek to change your interpretation and manipulation of the Covenants and Master Plan to the 'Present' but that is manipulating the Standard and "Compliance" to your chosen ends. I agree with you that the assessments remain as is, 3 houses 1 subdivision of land this has seemed practical to me, however, it has not always been so. When each Cabin was on it's own "Parcel" I had paid individual land assessments and individual dwelling assessments. When they were subdivided into the one subdivision that was changed after that time. You may cotinue to try to check the GLA records but you will find that the dwelling projects and more recent subdivision & sale were all approved by the GLA at that time.

I see your reasoning Timothy of why you feel publishing all of this in a public forum is 'justified' but it is still an invasion of my personal information with a motive to hurt and malign, even with the reference to my father who indeed was respected and honored in Philadelphia. It is "mean-spirited" because you are seeking your 'ends' to have a candidate of your choice installed
to the board by seeking to find fault with me as your target it is not even that you are really seeking "Justice" for the right application of GLA Covenants and Master Plan which you possibly do not really care about, by the way you would twist their interpretation and application. I definitely do not desire to be on the GLA Board however this does deepen my realization
that it is important that I add my representation and voice to the New GLA Board to try and redeem the "mean-spirited" way that the GLA would be used by you and several other individuals and not just to clear up apparent injustices that you can find or intentionally misinterpret, but it is the entire way that you go about trying to perfect the many, many errors that can be discovered and manufactured against the Landowners! It definitely would create the "GLA against the Landowners" instead of the GLA for the Landowners". To you this may be a small difference but it is not a small difference.
Lastly, I do not need to bring my Subdivision into "compliance" since it is already in "Compliance". If you Timothy, Joe Bezotsky, and Jerry Ladwig are seeking to require me to pay extra land assessments then please ask a Judge to revert our Subdivision back to it's original 3 Parcel boundaries and I will actually support you and the judge in doing this! Then I can pay the extra land assessment fees. Believe it or not we actually consolidated subdivided parcels into 1 subdivision to protect the land from further subdivision rather than to "avoid" extra assessments although this is a practical result of the effort.
Again, if a Judge chooses to order or require us to revert back to individual Parcels then I support this!
Lastly, again, I would point out to Judge Swandal and Judge Gilbert the repeated pattern of the conflict of interest of Jerry Ladwig and yourself, and Joe Bezotsky in intensely researching this, and "prosecuting" this with the desire to install candidates of your choice to the GLA Board, in this case Jeffrey Ladwig, rather than supporting the Landowners choice. I think that it should be noted by the judges this aggressive strategy to seek to install candidates of your choice.
You write well Timothy, but your motive is not pure and it is not kind. "Kindness" is the Standard that needs to be re-instated
into all of our "doings" and our Nation!

Dear GLA Board,
For your records I have had to respond and defend myself again from continued publications from Brockett, Bezotsky, and Ladwig. The GLA is referrenced in this so I am forwarding it to you. I will include Timothy's latest post below for your referrence. This is not pleasant for me.

"Thank you Timothy Brockett,
This is well researched so I see that this is important for you, however it is also not without several errors.
Each "dwelling" was in "compliance" when it was built and each was situated on it's own subdivided parcel 18, 56, and 57.
To each of these 3 'subdivided parcels' is what the covenants and Master Plan refers to when applying the residential density
standards.Each was in compliance at the time of their approval and so also falls under the "Grand Father Clause" reference from the Master Plan. And... this includes our 3rd "dwelling" which was situated on it's separate Parcel 57 and eventually "Boundary adjusted into the one subdivison along with the sale of 3+ acres. This was approved by the GLA at the time. The Residential Standard and the Grand Father Clause are both satisfied. You may seek to change your interpretation and manipulation of the Covenants and Master Plan to the 'Present' but that is manipulating the Standard and "Compliance" to your chosen ends. I agree with you that the assessments remain as is, 3 houses 1 subdivision of land this has seemed practical to me, however, it has not always been so. When each Cabin was on it's own "Parcel" I had paid individual land assessments and individual dwelling assessments. When they were subdivided into the one subdivision that was changed after that time. You may cotinue to try to check the GLA records but you will find that the dwelling projects and more recent subdivision & sale were all approved by the GLA at that time.

I see your reasoning Timothy of why you feel publishing all of this in a public forum is 'justified' but it is still an invasion of my personal information with a motive to hurt and malign, even with the reference to my father who indeed was respected and honored in Philadelphia. It is "mean-spirited" because you are seeking your 'ends' to have a candidate of your choice installed
to the board by seeking to find fault with me as your target it is not even that you are really seeking "Justice" for the right application of GLA Covenants and Master Plan which you possibly do not really care about, by the way you would twist their interpretation and application. I definitely do not desire to be on the GLA Board however this does deepen my realization
that it is important that I add my representation and voice to the New GLA Board to try and redeem the "mean-spirited" way that the GLA would be used by you and several other individuals and not just to clear up apparent injustices that you can find or intentionally misinterpret, but it is the entire way that you go about trying to perfect the many, many errors that can be discovered and manufactured against the Landowners! It definitely would create the "GLA against the Landowners" instead of the GLA for the Landowners". To you this may be a small difference but it is not a small difference.
Lastly, I do not need to bring my Subdivision into "compliance" since it is already in "Compliance". If you Timothy, Joe Bezotsky, and Jerry Ladwig are seeking to require me to pay extra land assessments then please ask a Judge to revert our Subdivision back to it's original 3 Parcel boundaries and I will actually support you and the judge in doing this! Then I can pay the extra land assessment fees. Believe it or not we actually consolidated subdivided parcels into 1 subdivision to protect the land from further subdivision rather than to "avoid" extra assessments although this is a practical result of the effort.
Again, if a Judge chooses to order or require us to revert back to individual Parcels then I support this!
Lastly, again, I would point out to Judge Swandal and Judge Gilbert the repeated pattern of the conflict of interest of Jerry Ladwig and yourself, and Joe Bezotsky in intensely researching this, and "prosecuting" this with the desire to install candidates of your choice to the GLA Board, in this case Jeffrey Ladwig, rather than supporting the Landowners choice. I think that it should be noted by the judges this aggressive strategy to seek to install candidates of your choice.
You write well Timothy, but your motive is not pure and it is not kind. "Kindness" is the Standard that needs to be re-instated
into all of our "doings" and our Nation! "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brockett -"Yes, Neil Kremer has three houses on one parcel....


"The Forum has confirmed that Neil Kremer does indeed have three houses on one parcel. Two rental cabins and his primary residence are on parcel 18-A1 [actually it is legally a 'Subdivision' 59_ not a parcel 18-A1 which is not legally accurate to County standards] in South Glastonbury. The parcel extends from Dry Creek Road up to and alongside Hercules. Montana Cadastral records show that the main living quarters were built in 1991. A small log cabin-style guest residence was built in 2001. Then in 2014, another guest house was built. All three now exist on the same parcel. By aligning all of his houses on one parcel Mr. Kremer has significantly reduced his GLA assessments. When the three houses were on three distinct parcels he was charged six assessments; one for each parcel and one for each house. By combining the parcels and houses into one parcel he reduced his assessments from six to four. He now pays for three houses and one parcel. [And it should be noted that the Kremer Residence and Cabin being on Dry Creek Road do not receive any real benefit from GLA Road assessments.]

The Glastonbury Covenants only allow for one house and one guest house per parcel. [sic - "subdivided parcel"] The Master Plan which went into effect in 2007 places even more restrictions on the number of residences on a [subdivided] parcel. The Master Plan does have a grandfather clause but that does not cover construction after 2007. Kremer's third house [which was on it's own parcel 57] was built in 2014' 7 years after the Master Plan went into effect [and at that time was in compliance when it was built in 2015].

At some point, Neil Kremer decided it would be a good idea to redraw his parcel boundary lines and include all three houses on one parcel [2015]. The Covenants require that the GLA Board approve all boundary line adjustments. The Forum could not find any record of that approval in the past GLA minutes. How could the GLA approve something that would violate the Covenants? [sic - did not violate Covenants, it was approved with Boundary Adjustment and Land Sale P-57]

A note to Mr. Kremer - The Forum is not "mean-spirited". [oh really?] When you decided to run for the GLA Board you became a public figure. Criticism of you or publishing your name and public records does not violate Doxing or Hate laws. Your father was a noted and well-respected judge. I am sure he would agree that the Forum has a First Amendment right to publish information on and hold accountable public figures. Now that you are back in the public sphere, as a service to landowners, you will be held accountable for your public actions; past and present. We appreciate your attempt at explaining how the parcel you own came to hold three houses and thus violates [Brockett's interpretation of] the Covenants. Now we want to hear what you are going to do to bring your parcel into compliance.

The Covenants require that all members that are in violation of the Covenants may not vote or hold office. Pouell Gelderloos was disqualified in the recent election because he violated the Covenants. He started a driveway project (?) before he was granted approval by the GLA Board [there is something not quite right about this]. In a similar manner, Neil Kremer has violated the covenants [Brockett's opinion]. He has three houses on one parcel [actually one "Lot A-1 of Subdivision 59_" not "Parcel" per Park County] when only two are allowed [sic ?]. It is not clear why the GLA Board did not immediately disqualify him [because this is based on Brockett's interpretation and attempted mis-application of the Covenants and power of the GLA]. Maybe they will act at the next board meeting.

Thank you Timothy Brockett,
This is well researched so I see that this is important for you, however it is also not without several errors.
Each "dwelling" was in "compliance" when it was built and each was situated on it's own 'subdivided parcel' 18, 56, and 57.
To each of these 3 'subdivided parcels' is what the covenants and Master Plan refers to when applying the residential density standards.
Each was in compliance at the time of their approval and so also falls under the "Grand Father Clause" reference from the Master Plan. And... this includes our 3rd "dwelling" which was situated on it's separate Parcel 57 and eventually "Boundary adjusted into the one subdivison along with the sale of 3+ acres. This was approved by the GLA at the time. The Residential Standard and the Grand Father Clause are both satisfied. You may seek to change your interpretation and manipulation of the Covenants and Master Plan to the 'Present' but that is manipulating the Standard and "Compliance" to your chosen ends. I agree with you that the assessments remain as is, 3 houses 1 subdivision of land this has seemed practical to me, however, it has not always been so. When each Cabin was on it's own "Parcel" I had paid individual land assessments and individual dwelling assessments. When they were subdivided into the one subdivision that was changed after that time. You may cotinue to try to check the GLA records but you will find that the dwelling projects and more recent subdivision & sale were all approved by the GLA at that time.

I see your reasoning Timothy of why you feel publishing all of this in a public forum is 'justified' but it is still an invasion of my personal information with a motive to hurt and malign, even with the reference to my father who indeed was respected and honored in Philadelphia. It is "mean-spirited" because you are seeking your 'ends' to have a candidate of your choice installed
to the board by seeking to find fault with me as your target. It is not even that you are really seeking "Justice" for the right application of GLA Covenants and Master Plan which you possibly do not really care about, by the way you would twist their interpretation and application. I definitely do not desire to be on the GLA Board however this does deepen my realization
that it is important that I add my representation and voice to the New GLA Board to try and redeem the "mean-spirited" way that the GLA would be used by you and several other individuals and not just to clear up apparent injustices that you can find or intentionally misinterpret, but it is the entire way that you go about trying to perfect the many, many errors that can be discovered and manufactured against the Landowners! It definitely would create the "GLA against the Landowners" instead of the GLA for the Landowners". To you this may be a small difference but it is not a small difference.
Lastly, I do not need to bring my Subdivision into "compliance" since it is already in "Compliance". If you Timothy, Joe Bezotsky, and Jerry Ladwig are seeking to require me to pay extra land assessments then please ask a Judge to revert our Subdivision back to it's original 3 Parcel boundaries and I will actually support you and the judge in doing this! Then I can pay the extra land assessment fees. Believe it or not we actually consolidated subdivided parcels into 1 subdivision to protect the land from further subdivision rather than to "avoid" extra assessments although this is a practical result of the effort.
Again, if a Judge chooses to order or require us to revert back to individual Parcels then I support this!

You write well Timothy, but your motive is not pure, is not accurate, and it is not kind. "Kindness" is the Standard that needs to be re-instated into all of our "doings" and our Nation! I would hope for an apology for your insinuations and for mis-leading your readers.

Our community of Glastonbury has been divided for many years. The division that we see across our country has seeped into our small community of neighbors. 
It's the "us vs them" attitude that causes people to take sides in every state and every town. When I first moved into the area, I thought it was a great place to live. People kept to themselves and if someone needed help, the neighbors would jump in and assist each other. Since 2016, there has been a noticeable shift in attitude and lack of community. 

As more people move into the area, build new homes, or take up existing properties, they have no idea of the struggle that we have gone through with the GLA and neighborhood drama and arguments that have taken place over the last couple of decades. After a chain of lawsuits and no end to the fighting in the monthly meetings, people are losing interest that we can dig our way out of this giant hole in Paradise Valley. 

I, for one am tired of paying for lawsuits rather than our community and roads. I have always paid my assessments and money owed until several members of the Board started to encroach on my land and destroyed my property. I felt that I was paying a "mob" of sorts in order to stop them from digging up my land. I spent $ thousands $ to get them to stop, but the bullying continued. Cease and Desist letters only work if you continue to sue those who trespass. The cost of continued lawsuits is not worth my time and money. 
Our Board of Directors has been corrupted for years. Until this gets worked out and the corruption stops, why should we pay for these lawsuits time and time again?

We are supposed to seat a new BOD and begin again, yet the drama continues. 
As more lawsuits are threatened just to seat a new BOD, I wonder if it even matters who is on the Board if we cannot work as a community of neighbors rather than a divided people.
Working together rather than suing each other makes more sense, but I feel like we are losing our neighborly community that we once had. 

Can we start over? I have my doubts. We are already in conflict over whether the election was fair and who is eligible and in compliance and the drama continues. The issues concerning my property were never resolved. I have lost all interest in going to meetings and courtroom drama and hearings for a corrupted BOD. Until the Board works FOR the landowners and not their special interests, I do not believe we will see fairness and a community worth saving. United we stand...divided...you know the deal.

Just my 2 cents.