FW: Westlake master plan road extension
Alex Szabo
Daniel,
Thank you for thinking about us and for taking the time to forward on this data. Will forward on to the remainder of the gang straightaway. (Also, thanks for reminding me how just how old I actually am because this was about the time I enlisted into the Navy and came into this community ;) .)
For everyone else and who may not know it; the information provided is in Adobe Acrobat form. Just in case you do not have it installed unto you system, please visit http://www.adobe.com – look for download and install Acrobat – it is free.
Best regards,
Alex Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology & Business Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God - Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Daniel Davis
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 09:45
To: al...@alex-szabo.com
Subject: Westlake master plan road extension
Alex- I asked the attnys to pull Westlake land use map going back to 1975. As far as I can tell the road was approved at least 35 years ago. However, we have reduced the impacts recently at the request of the navy (from four to two lanes and the removal of street lights for some areas).
Feel free to pass this along to the email group as you see fit. Thanks. -Daniel
Roy Sprague
I have yet to hear back from Dan Davis' office on the ordinance that allows the developer to utilize the property in a manner in which it is not zoned for, RE 006572 0150 is zoned as RR and not part of the PUD. I've filed a formal complaint on the COJ Land Use complaint site and haven't heard anything. Also, according to the developer it is going to be 4 lanes up to the Rails for Trails and two lanes the rest of the way to Chaffee.
The property connecting to Chaffee was not in the original PUD and should have to be rezoned unless there is a city ordinance stating otherwise. A lot has changed in this area in the 35 years since the site was originally zoned as a PUD. In 1975 the residential areas were zoned for a minimum of 1.5 acres but the city has continued to allow developers to do as they wish.
Interesting how the owner is only paying taxes on an assessed value of $1380 for the portion from Chaffee to the Rails for Trails and how the State had purchased the adjacent property and excluded the portion for the road in 2006. Norfolk Southern is making out at the cost of the residents of Whitehouse. The state purchased the property from them on the south side of the Rails for Trails, 287 acres for $4.4 million and the property north of Rails for Trails, 77 acres for $1.3 million in 2006 of these two parcels most of the land is swamp. This was all in the name of preserving the area around Whitehouse OLF.
All the stuff that has happened over the last few years all makes sense and the city not discussing this with the residents of this area is disheartening...
· The Right of Way issue in Heritage Estates for the Timber Company in the early 2000s.
· The Noise Zone Ordinance not being enforced when it was excused as not needed when the Old Plank Plantation PUD was being discussed. I remember sitting in the meeting at Whitehouse Baptist Church and the City Building Zoning representative said this development didn't need to abide by the noise insulation requirements because Cecil Field was closed...
· The Noise Zone Ordinance being enforced in 2008 to restrict individual land owners from building on their private property when this wasn't an issue prior.
The city continues to have its way of selective enforcement when it comes to zoning in this area. The city needs to provide a written ruling on the property RE 006572 0150 as it is not part of the PUD from the 1970's and critical to connect to the intersection of Old Plank and Chaffee. I've been waiting for rezoning signage to be posted since the property was purchased in 2006. Build it they will come...
The only benefit to this road is a shorter route to I-10 from the many warehouses within the property owned by Norfolk Southern. Also, I would like to know what the future holds for the area that deems the road necessary at this particular time.
With the I-10 Chaffee Road interchange being designed for traffic patterns prior to this road being in place I have concerns that we all will see Chaffee road and Beaver street even more congested. This project will probably finish around the same time the interchange is complete. In the coming years Chaffee road will become even more of a parking lot during morning and evening rush hours.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Westside COJ Info" group.
To post to this group, send email to westside_...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to westside_coj_gr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/westside_coj_group?hl=en.
Alex Szabo
Roy,
Was an [actual] ordinance passed or a zoning variance granted?
Best regards,
Alex Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology & Business Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God - Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Roy Sprague
The initial response from Dan's office is below, as this is a private project according to the city this should have had to be rezoned... I've asked for the specific ordinance that allows this to occur...
I forwarded your email on to our Zoning Administrator within the Planning and Development division to do research on your question. To answer, no the property does not need to be rezoned. This property was sold to Norfolk Southern on September 24th, 2007 for $380,000. The house was then demolished by Norfolk Southern. Roadways are considered infrastructure improvements allowed in all zoning districts, so a rezoning was not required.
Alex Szabo
Roy,
Here is the response I got to my statement.
Best regards,
Alex Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology & Business Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God - Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Davis, Daniel
[mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 15:50
To: alex....@att.net
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Mr. Szabo,
As I stated in an email back to Mr. Sprague, I have asked the Planning Department for an answer and to please be patient.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Aide to Council Member Daniel Davis
From: Alex Szabo [mailto:alex....@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:44 PM
To: westside_...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Davis, Daniel
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
I recall that initial inquiry Roy.
Best regards,
Alex Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology & Business Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God - Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: westside_...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:westside_...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy Sprague
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:10
To: westside_...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Dan Davis'
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
The initial response from Dan's office is below, as this is a private project according to the city this should have had to be rezoned... I've asked for the specific ordinance that allows this to occur...
I forwarded your email on to our Zoning Administrator within the Planning and Development division to do research on your question. To answer, no the property does not need to be rezoned. This property was sold to Norfolk Southern on September 24th, 2007 for $380,000. The house was then demolished by Norfolk Southern. Roadways are considered infrastructure improvements allowed in all zoning districts, so a rezoning was not required.
<snip>
Alex Szabo
Gang,
Sarah Lane from Dan Davis’ office forwarded this information FYI.
Best regards,
Alex Szabo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alex Szabo, Information Technology & Business Consultant
Voice: (904) 781-0502 Fax: (904) 781-0044
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God - Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Davis, Daniel
[mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:12
To: Roy Sprague, Alex Szabo
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Alex/Roy,
I understand that you are all meeting tonight to discuss this issue. Our Planning Department has deferred to the General Counsel's office to get you the information you are asking for. I've asked General Counsel to make sure we get a response before the close of business today so you all have the information you need.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Aide to Council Member Daniel Davis
From: Roy Sprague
[mailto:roy.s...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:37 PM
To: westside_...@googlegroups.com
Cc: jilt...@yahoo.com; Davis, Daniel
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
I have yet to hear back from Dan Davis' office on the ordinance that allows the developer to utilize the property in a manner in which it is not zoned for, RE 006572 0150 is zoned as RR and not part of the PUD. I've filed a formal complaint on the COJ Land Use complaint site and haven't heard anything. Also, according to the developer it is going to be 4 lanes up to the Rails for Trails and two lanes the rest of the way to Chaffee.
The property connecting to Chaffee was not in the original PUD and should have to be rezoned unless there is a city ordinance stating otherwise. A lot has changed in this area in the 35 years since the site was originally zoned as a PUD. In 1975 the residential areas were zoned for a minimum of 1.5 acres but the city has continued to allow developers to do as they wish.
Interesting how the owner is only paying taxes on an assessed value of $1380 for the portion from Chaffee to the Rails for Trails and how the State had purchased the adjacent property and excluded the portion for the road in 2006. Norfolk Southern is making out at the cost of the residents of Whitehouse. The state purchased the property from them on the south side of the Rails for Trails, 287 acres for $4.4 million and the property north of Rails for Trails, 77 acres for $1.3 million in 2006 of these two parcels most of the land is swamp. This was all in the name of preserving the area around Whitehouse OLF.
All the stuff that has happened over the last few years all makes sense and the city not discussing this with the residents of this area is disheartening...
· The Right of Way issue in Heritage Estates for the Timber Company in the early 2000s.
· The Noise Zone Ordinance not being enforced when it was excused as not needed when the Old Plank Plantation PUD was being discussed. I remember sitting in the meeting at Whitehouse Baptist Church and the City Building Zoning representative said this development didn't need to abide by the noise insulation requirements because Cecil Field was closed...
· The Noise Zone Ordinance being enforced in 2008 to restrict individual land owners from building on their private property when this wasn't an issue prior.
The city continues to have its way of selective enforcement when it comes to zoning in this area. The city needs to provide a written ruling on the property RE 006572 0150 as it is not part of the PUD from the 1970's and critical to connect to the intersection of Old Plank and Chaffee. I've been waiting for rezoning signage to be posted since the property was purchased in 2006. Build it they will come...
The only benefit to this road is a shorter route to I-10 from the many warehouses within the property owned by Norfolk Southern. Also, I would like to know what the future holds for the area that deems the road necessary at this particular time.
With the I-10 Chaffee Road interchange being designed for traffic patterns prior to this road being in place I have concerns that we all will see Chaffee road and Beaver street even more congested. This project will probably finish around the same time the interchange is complete. In the coming years Chaffee road will become even more of a parking lot during morning and evening rush hours.
<snip>…
Roy Sprague
RE 006572 0150 Lot 1 of Confederate Crossing was not part of the PUD. The PUD for this project was NOT done in the 1970's, according to the plans it was done in 2007 number 394E at which time there should have been notice and signage posted. One of the definitions of a "driveway" is any road driving on. Also, the first sentence would dictate that the property would need to be zoned accordingly, the land IS being used to access land not within the AGR, RR and RLD zoning district. To the citizens of this area it appears the city deliberately didn't require rezoning so there wouldn't be any opportunity for the citizens to oppose and voice objections.
Section 656.408 of the Zoning Code, prohibits land in a RR or RLD zoning district from being used for driveway access to either 1) land not within an AGR, RR and RLD zoning district, or 2) land in a commercial or industrial zoning district.
In my opinion the above section would mean it must be rezoned as the property is being used to provide ingress or egress from a public right-of-way.
Also, what environmental impact studies have been done for this land as it provides habitat for many threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species including the gopher tortoise, Florida burrowing owl, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and Florida black bear?
See http://www.cues.fau.edu/toolbox/subchapter.asp?SubchapterID=48&ChapterID=12
From: Davis, Daniel [mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Roy Sprague
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Mr. Sprague,
I trust this will be passed along as I am working remotely in the Council Chambers while the afternoon Finance budget hearings are taking place. After sending your email on to the Planning Department, the General Counsel's office and Development Services, here is the response I received from the General Counsel's office:
The simple answer to the issue is that the construction of the roadway through the RR-Acre property is permitted. Section 656.408 of the Zoning Code, prohibits land in a RR or RLD zoning district from being used for driveway access to either 1) land not within an AGR, RR and RLD zoning district, or 2) land in a commercial or industrial zoning district. A driveway, under the Zoning Code, provides ingress or egress from a public right-of-way or an approved private road to an off-street parking area or other vehicular uses area. In this case, the lot in question is not being used as access to an off-street parking area or other vehicular use area, but itself is a public right-of-way, Pritchard Road. Thus, the Zoning Code prohibition set forth in Section 656.408 does not apply. Additionally, as has been explained to me, the initial zoning approvals all contemplated access from this location to the PUD/DRI and thus a rezoning would not be required because there is no alteration of the driveways and/or streets. Finally, because of the location of Chaffee Road North, the roadway would be required to be located on this lot so as not to create an offset in the Pritchard Road/Chaffee Road North link.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane - Aide to Council Member Daniel Davis
Roy Sprague
FYI...
From: Davis, Daniel [mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Roy Sprague; westside_...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Mr. Sprague,
I have passed along your email to our General Counsels office as well as our Development Services division again for answers to your concerns. Please be patient as I think our General Counsel contact is out of the office today and Monday. We will have an answer to you as soon as we can.
Please let us know if we can do anything further.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Roy Sprague
The property is currently being used to provide ingress to allow for the construction of the road and should have to have been rezoned prior to the construction of this section of the road if it was to be used for ingress/egress from the public right away. The use of this entrance from Old Plank Road and Chaffee Road should cease as it is a clear violation of this zoning code.
From: Davis, Daniel [mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Roy Sprague; westside_...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Mr. Sprague,
I have passed along your email to our General Counsels office as well as our Development Services division again for answers to your concerns. Please be patient as I think our General Counsel contact is out of the office today and Monday. We will have an answer to you as soon as we can.
Please let us know if we can do anything further.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:16 PM
To: westside_...@googlegroups.com; Davis, Daniel
Roy Sprague
I don't really understand the need to meet, this is simple, provide the documentation that addresses this violation and my questions. If the city doesn't have it via a soft copy, I'm more than willing to visit someone's office and pick up a copy. According to your own words this is a private project. Being privately developed or otherwise it must abide by the rule of law. Not rezoning this property is a violation of the law and an injunction should be given to this developer until the zoning matter can be addressed formally.
Issues at hand:
· RE 006572 0150 is zoned RR and being utilized to access the right of way for property being zoned PUD which according to the Zoning Code Section 656.408 that the city provided is a violation.
o What is the city doing to address this violation with the developer?
o What supporting documentation does the city have that allows such a violation to continue without imposing an injunction on the property owner?
· What environmental study has taken place within the last 3 years to verify there aren't any endangered species on this property as this property is known to have such species?
· Something that came to light at last night's meeting, the City/Developer met with the users of the Rails for Trails in June addressing any concerns those users may have had on the roads impact to the Rails for Trails, why wasn't the same consideration given to the residence of the area?
· The property to the west and south of the Rails for Trails rainfall flows east into the swampland that is part of the state owned land west of this road. This road is going to be a dam preventing the water from flowing, what study has been done to verify this will not be an issue once the road is finished? The city has allowed developers to develop residential properties that were not part of the plans when this road was initially proposed in the '70s. A lot of the natural drainage is going to be impacted once the road is finished.
I look forward to hearing back from someone from the city with the supporting documentation addressing these issues and violations.
Thanks,
Roy
From: Davis, Daniel [mailto:DDa...@coj.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:37 AM
To: Roy Sprague
Cc: Reingold, Dylan; Huxford, Folks; Sands, Mike
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Mr. Sprague,
Would you be amenable to either a conference call or a meeting up here at City Hall to address your specific concerns and questions relating to the rezoning and environmental impact issues? I feel that would be the most efficient way at this point rather than going back and fourth via email. I would ask for our Planning Department as well as Development Services to be in attendance. I understand you are having another meeting on September 2nd so I would do my best to schedule something before then so you could take some answers back to your group.
Please advise as to how you would like to address this.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Roy Sprague
FYI.
From: Roy Sprague [mailto:roy.s...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:41 PM
To: 'Huxford, Folks'; 'Davis, Daniel'
Cc: 'Reingold, Dylan'; 'Sands, Mike'
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Key word "becoming", it currently isn't and that doesn't justify the lack of rezoning. It is being used to access property privately being developed as a road and currently isn't a right of way nor a project of the city. I'm not sure what a map from 1973 with a road on it really indicates or provided justification for the road being built.
If this was being built by the city I wouldn't be raising this issue because the city would have notified the residents of the area. As previously stated since this is a private development it does not have to follow those rules. Hence it should follow zoning laws that apply to any private individual or development. The Airport Center Drive example was a city development under the Better Jacksonville plan if I recall correctly and not a private development so it shouldn't be an accurate example of an exception.
The code is as stated and is clear that the land in RR shall not be used for driveway access to land not within an ADR, RR and RLD district. This is what the city provided as the code that allowed for the property to not be rezoned by a private developer. This is a private project and the city is responsible for the developer acquiring appropriate zoning. In 2007 why was this property not included in the PUD as Westlake owned the property, I suspect because they didn't want to have to do the right thing by rezoning and the needed notification and signage posted. This is an unacceptable explanation. What zoning code allows a private developer to develop property without having to first rezone all the property as PUD?
Sec. 656.408. - Use of property access.
Except for purposes of ingress and egress to an existing use upon property which does not abut a street, no land shall be used for a driveway or access purposes to land which is not within the same zoning districts as follows:
(a)
Land in an AGR, RR and RLD District shall not be used for driveway access to land not within an AGR, RR and RLD district.
(b)
Land in a residential district or AGR District shall not be used as driveway access to land in a commercial or industrial district.
From: Huxford, Folks [mailto:FHUX...@coj.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:16 PM
To: Davis, Daniel; Roy Sprague
Cc: Reingold, Dylan; Sands, Mike
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Attached is a copy of a map dated 1973 from the original application for the Westlake (then New Duval) development which clearly depicts a planned connection at Chaffee Road and Old Plank Road. Documents from that time period include numerous maps, all which depict the same the same planned roadway. The residentially zoned lot in question is not being used for access to the right of way, but rather is itself becoming part of the right of way.
Section 656.408 of the Zoning Code precludes driveways or accesses (such as a cross-access easement) across residential or agriculture lands to properties not zoned residential or agriculture. This provision does not apply to new roads build in accordance with Section 744 (Street Construction Regulations) which are built to City standards and deeded to the City upon completion. Therefore, the new road is not subject to the Zoning Code, and no zoning violation exists.
This is not the only new roadway going through a residential area. The recently constructed Airport Center Drive East goes through a platted residential area and in some cases splits platted residential lots. Numerous residential lots or portions thereof were acquired for the new road, and no zoning action was required.
Folks M. Huxford
Zoning Administrator
City of Jacksonville
Planning and Development Department
(904) 255-7800
From: Davis, Daniel
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:59 PM
To: 'Roy Sprague'
Cc: Reingold, Dylan; Huxford, Folks; Sands, Mike
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Importance: High
If somebody can please answer Mr. Sprague's email and respond to his questions/concerns immediately I would greatly appreciate it. They have another meeting on Thursday, September 2nd so I'm sure he would appreciate all of this information before then.
Mr. Sprague, I simply thought a face-to-face meeting or conference call would get your questions/concerns addressed immediately versus waiting for an email reply. If this is your wish, I will make sure you get all of it via email.
Roy Sprague
FYI, :)
From: Roy Sprague [mailto:roy.s...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 9:05 PM
To: 'dyl...@coj.net'; 'Davis, Daniel'
Cc: 'Huxford, Folks'; 'Sands, Mike'; 'Bill Killingsworth'; 'Jason Gabriel'
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
Is this a correct statement? Any developer that is developing property which includes road ways must rezone as PUD?
This is really easy, I expect to see a zoning code that indicates a private developer with a PUD zoning has the right to use property zoned RR as access to the development. If it doesn't exist this developer and the city is in violate of its own zoning rules.
This property is being used to access the right of way of a busy intersection and is zoned RR which if the zoning was correct wouldn't be an issue. I have been waiting to this property to be rezoned since it was purchased by Westlake. The fact that is wasn't indicates to me that someone dropped the ball or even worse purposely allowed this to move forward without requiring rezoning.
The further explanation provided details as to why this property was being used as part of the roadway, NOT why it wasn't being rezoned. I know exactly why it was acquired and what it was intended to be used for but in either case it should be required to be rezoned.
From: dyl...@coj.net [mailto:dyl...@coj.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:16 PM
To: Davis, Daniel; Roy Sprague
Cc: Huxford, Folks; Sands, Mike; Bill Killingsworth; Jason Gabriel
Subject: Re: Westlake master plan road extension
Dear Mr. Sprague,
I am out of the office right now, but I wanted to respond to you as soon as possible. Since the developer is constructing a right-of-way the property is not required to be rezoned and there is no violation of Section 656.408 of the Ordinance Code. I believe that a further explanation of this issue is contained in this email below. I believe someone in the City's Development Services Division should have the plans of the proposed road extending from Old Plank Road/Chaffee Road to its terminus at Chaffee Road to the north (I may be wrong on the end point). If you have any more issues with this interpretation of the Zoning Code, I recommend that you discuss the issue with Folks Huxford.
I have no documents regarding the environmental studies and the Rails to Trails issue.
Be well,
Dylan
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "Davis, Daniel" <DDa...@coj.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:58:54 -0400
To: Roy Sprague<roy.s...@comcast.net>
Cc: Reingold, Dylan<Dyl...@coj.net>; Huxford, Folks<FHUX...@coj.net>; Sands, Mike<MSa...@coj.net>
Subject: RE: Westlake master plan road extension
If somebody can please answer Mr. Sprague's email and respond to his questions/concerns immediately I would greatly appreciate it. They have another meeting on Thursday, September 2nd so I'm sure he would appreciate all of this information before then.
Mr. Sprague, I simply thought a face-to-face meeting or conference call would get your questions/concerns addressed immediately versus waiting for an email reply. If this is your wish, I will make sure you get all of it via email.
Thank you,
Sarah Lane
Aide to Council Member Daniel Davis
From: Roy Sprague [mailto:roy.s...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:54 PM
To: Davis, Daniel
beverlyflynn
Are we still meeting on Thursday? I saw a small on the side of the road. Just want to make sure we are a "go" for Thursday at West Regional Library.
Thanks for keeping us updated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|