Why are the commissioners keeping the public in the dark?
Chaney Rezoning Request Public Hearing - Meeting Video for June 25th
Still not online...
I can only assume the commissioners are afraid to let the public see and hear the testimony given on this request by those opposed. The work session is tomorrow...
Called Charles County video streaming point of contact (Eric). He said the video should be online by close of business today. He cited that someone was on vacation and this is why the posting of video's had been delayed.
Reply to this
Thanks, Doug, for placing the call.
As for the vacation excuse...someone being on vacation is an excuse for a week delay not three...just my opinion.
Reply to this
Well it's after close of business today and it still isn't posted.
Reply to this
Looks suspicious to me...
Reply to this
In the Dark? ! YES !
Attended the County Commissioner work session today. Walked away with several thoughts.
1.County Commissioners were briefed on the positive letters received for the Chaney re-zoning of Jenkins Property from Agriculture Conservative to Heavy Industrial. 18 Letters and 69 signatures. No mention of the other 229 letters and signatures against the rezoning. The only mention given was that the letters received against the re-zoning were evidently from Preserve Hughesville group. So basically the county briefed that all letters received against Chaney were from one group.
2. Attorney Fink stated the Planning Commission gave approval based on: change of character.
County Commissioner President Wayne Cooper stated that a change had occurred..."the bypass was a major change". Wayne Cooper evidently has not read the planning commission report given to him nor has he read the many letters sent to him by many Charles County residents and the Maryland State Department of Planning letter (June 25 2008 “…zoning change to be inconsistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the State’s Smart Growth principles”).
3. Chaney's lawyer (Edward Gibbs) sent an e-mail to County attorney Fink just 2 hours before the work session today. Stating that Chaney is willing to make restrictions...anything to get the re-zoning approved. This was a e-mail submitted this morning! Wow! sure did get the attention of the Commissioners.
4. Commissioner Hodge looked to be the “only” commissioner that did "some" homework.
5. I was sitting by Frank Chaney and Audrey Scott. They were busy discussing in their seats quick rebuttals to the Commissioners statements so they could get as Chaney stated, "approval for the first step (re-zoning), the rest will be worked out later".
6. Attorney Edward Gibbs stated that Maryland State has not reviewed any traffic study and that if warranted a condition could be added, if warranted. Commissioners didn't seem to even care about a study.
7. County Attorney Fink did state that re-zoning is rare and that conditional rezoning is unconstitutional.
8. A tour was planned by Chaney of his facilities and a chance to be with the Commissioners. Wayne Cooper apologized that it fell through. He is looking forward to another chance to participate in a tour of Chaney’s facilities. County attorney Fink stated that such gatherings will need to be setup insuring a “just to observe” not a “place of testimony”.
Charles County Citizens should be invited to this gathering that all the County Commissioners will be attending.
Overall I left the work session feeling like the Commissioners have already made their decision to approve the rezoning. Seems due to the citizens out cry they are trying to make an impression of doing their homework. Only one Commissioner (Hodge) seemed to know some things and raised good questions.
Reply to this
I agree, Doug.
In regard to the email sent by Chaney's attorney making a change in the application to a zoning indenture - We feel this constitutes a change in the application and should have to go through the public hearing process again. Mr. Fink said the opposite during the work session, however, it was made known to him that we disagree with that opinion. He is supposed to check the law again and also send us a copy of the verbage stating that another public hearing process is not warranted.
Regarding the tour of industrial sites - one I agree that anyone and everyone be allowed to accompany and observe the sites - however, I feel it is a waste of time. Chaney plans to sell the property, so, it makes NO difference what HE has done elsewhere - it won't be Chaney in Hughesville.
Reply to this
Also, it was not mentioned that the letters "supporting" were mainly from employees who said Chaney is a great company. That's wonderful, but, totally irrelevant to proof of a mistake or change in the neighborhood to warrant rezoning to heavy industrial in a rural village.
Reply to this
The bypass cannot be considered a change in the character of the neighborhood...it was in the plans for years and prior to the last comprehensive plan update...
Reply to this
I downloaded and saved the County Commisioners video streaming for June 25 2008. Evidently the video of the public Jenkins ZMA hearing did not make it on the video. The title page shows it on the agenda...however it is not there.
Reply to this
I saw that, too.
Reply to this
Called the Charles County Videographer (Eric) and mentioned to him that the Jenkins zoning public hearing was not on the 25June08 streaming video as shown on the table of contents in the video. Eric said he will "re-render" the video..."that should fix it". Video should be online this next Monday due to other things already scheduled.
Reply to this