• HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner1-5
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner2
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner3
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner4
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner5
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner6
  • HofH-Help-Wanted-Banner7

Planning Commission approves PUD: Council to hold workshop

Boevers: ‘This will increase economic activity’

Ron Cardwell

Bobby Williamson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Matt Montgomeryeditor@piedmontnewsonline.com

The Piedmont Planning Commission approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance Thursday that is a proposed plat of land for 166 acres of residential plots.

The Piedmont City Council tabled the PUD item this past Monday, during their regularly scheduled February Piedmont City Council monthly meeting.

City Councilman Bobby Williamson said the city council, along with the planning commission and local developers want to have a special workshop to visit this PUD topic a little further.

Local developer Phil Boevers said in a prepared statement to The Gazette Wednesday, “SBS is working with the City of Piedmont to develop this area in accordance with the existing PUD which will increase economic activity in Piedmont and benefit the City and its Citizens. The only item currently being discussed is the Preliminary Plat for the First phase of this development which plat complies with city codes. The
preliminary Plat has been approved by the Planning Commission and City Staff.”

Planning Commissioner Ron Cardwell said the plat of land, proposed for downtown Piedmont, is comprised of 37 single-family lots and eight duplex lots. The proposed plat has an average lot size of 10,200 square feet, with the largest plot being 16,378 square feet and the smallest being 8,227 square feet.

“This will help spur some commercial growth,” Cardwell said. “Especially downtown Piedmont, an area where future commercial development could occur.”

Cardwell said the city’s tax base is based on commercial growth. “We have the supply with the land in place for commercial growth but we need to increase the demand for growth to occur.” He said the demand is based on Piedmont’s population.

Residential development in the downtown Piedmont area is needed and increasing Piedmont’s population will lead to increased commerce for local stores such as Williams, Dollar General, Piedmont Pharmacy, Sonic and Subway. “You get a few more people, then other commercial businesses might look at coming into Piedmont.”

The PUD ordinance passed this last Thursday, modifies an existing zoning ordinance, therefore creating this PUD as a new zoning ordinance.

“This new ordinance outlines what the densities will be, what the uses will be of what kind of residential and commercial developments and the road network will look like.” Cardwell said. “This PUD was developed in 2008 and then came before the city council to be amended a few years later when the grocery store became a hot topic.”

He said there has been some other changes to the PUD since 2008, some of which have been brought into question recently. He said that’s one of the reasons why the planning commission wants to have a workshop prior to approving the first plat inside of this ordinance.

“Because this is an ordinance, some of those details really need to be put down in writing,” he said. “And, they need to be finalized and agreed upon before we go forward, because it sets the tone, the requirements for this and any other future ordinances.”

Cardwell said the economic conditions of the country, specifically the housing collapse that happened several years ago, has an effect on development. He said if things continue to stay stable, then Piedmont will continue to see more residential and commercial growth.

Cardwell added there are going to be some limitations, stemming from infrastructure needs, which effect the entire development of the land. He said the development can not be built on the existing infrastructure like it is now.

“The city also has to be able to prepare itself to figure out a way or make sure the developer knows, ‘Hey, you’re going to reach a threshold when some capital investments are going to have to be made,’” he said. “Water is one of those big concerns, because Piedmont Road only has that one water line.”

For future development to succeed, Cardwell said making changes to the existing water lines in that area is going to be a primary focus. He said the existing water line may have to be looped around the city and that section of land.

He said some sharing of information between the city council, planning commission and developers is necessary.

“There needs to be an understanding that development pays for development,” Cardwell said. “The city’s got a payback policy for infrastructure that other people [should]get the opportunity to use.”

55 Comments

  1. Casie says:

    My family & I moved to Piedmont because of it’s small town atmosphere & to escape the “commercial” surroundings. This is a farming & ranching community & this proposed development sounds like a mostly rental property area which will not be desirable to families wanting to purchase homes & will be an eyesore to our beautiful little town.
    Take this type of development to the city & leave the country alone! It’s not always about the all mighty dollar.

  2. john says:

    The developers engineer, Warren Peacock asked the council to approve the development proposal first and then workout the infrastructure details with the developer later, citing another news story of the city council meeting. Doesn’t that sound very familiar and exactly like Nancy Pelosi stated about Obama Care, we have to pass the legislation before know what’s in the law and our president said if you like your current insurance you can keep it if you like it. The council needs to hold the developers accountable and not commit the citys taxpayers to anything until all the facts and engineering is complete.

  3. Al Rdgely says:

    Alert, Isn’t this he same way developers tried to do in the past, look how that worked out, everyone should be held to the same rules without exception,Everytime we allow a short-cut it mkes it harder to enforce the rules, this person has tried this before, SO ALERT. I hope that the planning com. and the council look closely at everything and rule in the right way.

  4. kate kearby says:

    I do think the barbed wire fence that’s there now is just fine.

  5. JT says:

    John your ignorance is showing again. A PUD simply is a plan of how things will be laid out. A PUD and/or plat is not an engineering document. It designates easement widths, street right of way widths, sidewalk locations, minimum lot sizes, common areas, parks, building covenant restrictions and the like. It’s a central plan that is approved by the planning commission and city council. Boevers is simply trying to get a preliminary plat approved for the first phase of houses he wants to build.

    It’s bass ackwards to complete the grading, paving, drainage, water and sewer design before the plat is even approved. Once the plat is approved the developer will still have to have his construction documents reviewed and approved. The city has engineering staff and minimum engineering standards that dictate what engineering must be done before the city engineer and city manager will approve any construction documents.

    He can layout whatever neighborhood he wants, but if the city won’t approve the construction documents nothing will be built.

  6. john says:

    JT, Im so glad you could display your private school education and your mouth again. It’s been missed by.many glad you could share your so called superior intelect. LOL.

  7. Ant says:

    So john, you want the development completely engineered before the preliminary plat is approved?? that is getting ahead of things in is very ignorant on your part. The city standards state the progress of submissions for any developement and you want to skip to the end. No developer would or could do it the way you propose. They would all be broke.

  8. john says:

    So Ant, that is not what I’m saying but the city council is and their saying that the subjects area is almost at capacity with city sewer now and massive improvements will have to be done at the expense of the developer and water will need to be looped an upgrade to meet the entire PUD plans that have changed from the original pud proposal before. I would think you were learn from your own mistakes and worry bout getting your new coffee shop built on edmond rd and write the check and take care of it.

    • Ant says:

      If the city council is, then they are not following the established legal process. They cannot pick and choose what rules to follow. if they agree to the preliminary plat then it is up to the engineers to design an acceptable system for the city engineer to sign off on. Their only reason to hold up the plat is based on their opinion of the infrastructure. They could be correct but until an engineer presents a design they do not have any way of knowing. To sit up there and decide they know more than the engineers is an abuse of power. Follow the rules for every developer equally.

  9. Vernon Woods says:

    A Town Central PUD proposal was presented to the Council by SBS on 02/25/08, and approved by the Council. That request contained 297 acres, all of which were officially rezoned as a PUD, including a 79.2 parcel on the south side of the development.

    A Council meeting held on 07/26/10 included a request by Mr. Heckle to rezone his 79.2 acres included in the PUD approved on 02/25/08, from PUD to A-1. This request was approved.

    The 02/25/08 PUD included 297 acres. By removing 79 acres, the size of that PUD was reduced by about 26%. The written minutes for that meting do not reflect an opinion expressed by David Davis, the city attorney, that, under ordinance 5-10.9.A.5, the significant size of this reduction would basically negate the original PUD and would require a totally new request to develop a PUD on the original location. For those who are concerned about these legalities, these comments may be heard starting at minute 43 in the recorded minutes for that meeting.

    A new PUB request was never presented by SBS.

    This plat request is not valid if it is based on the assumption that the 02/25/08 PUD is still valid.
    The official minutes reflect the facts regarding the history of this issue. The fact is that the original 2008 PUD application is no longer valid, and a new application for a PUD ordinance for this property must be submitted to the city before any

    If these official records are to be ignored during the discussion of this issue, then it is overtly obvious that any actions of previous Councils and any associated attorney’s opinions are meaningless. If these are the principals upon how Piedmont citizens wish to be governed, then wind mills are the least of our future problems.

  10. john says:

    Now Vernon let’s not get facts in the way of what our dear friends Ant and JT spew. You may confuse them much more then they already are. 🙂

  11. Concerned says:

    Maybe Vernon should run for city council?

  12. JT says:

    John,

    Not sure why you think I went to a private school, but whatever. I’m glad that you do agree that my intellect is superior to yours though. I knew there was something we could agree on.

    If there isn’t enough sewer capacity, the PUD can still be approved. When the developer decides to put the sewer in he just won’t get his plans approved.

    I’m not sure what Vernon is so concerned about. The article says “The PUD ordinance passed this last Thursday, modifies an existing zoning ordinance, therefore creating this PUD as a new zoning ordinance.” Maybe the council tabled the plat because the developer was trying to get preliminary plat approval under the old PUD? But it’s Vernon and he acts like a bitter old man, so who knows.

  13. Charles Coffman says:

    Interesting comments by all. Here is what we know: We have an approved request from the Planning Commission, an opinion from the City Attorney, a verification from the City Engineer that the smaller submission will work on the current 6 inch line, and a review by the Fire Department that the proposed layout will work with the fire trucks. I believe we all can agree that the area is one of the prime areas and will be developed. The larger area will most likely require a larger water and sewer lines, some deacceleration lanes, and some planning on runoff. I am sure any future submissions will address most of those. So what we can discuss this week is how to work through to make this current one happen and lay some groundwork for the future needs of that area. Larger lines will eventually need to be run. It should be a good conversation.

  14. JT says:

    Come on Charles didn’t you read what the omniscient Bill O’Reil errr Vernon Woods wrote? The attorney’s opinion is worthless and you are violating the principals of the law or governance or something…

  15. Vernon Woods says:

    The ability of certain Council members to totally accept the smoke and mirror ploys thrown at them by city staff on this issue demonstrates a pathetic lack of respect for any previous actions and decisions by their predecessors. It is overtly obvious that certain of our elected representatives are more interested in unduly rushing through a totally undocumented and unauthorized multi-acre development based on a 45-lot plat approved by the Planning Commission.. The referenced ‘attorney’s opinion’, that a decrease of 26% of the original 2008 PUD is minimal, is absurd. In light of the 07/2010 opinion that the 2008 PUD is invalid, why does the Council not demand a new PUD development request? Since at least 3 detail plats have been presented by SBS since 2008 (all now invalid), which one would the Council consider valid?
    Carefully note that the Councilman’s comments seem to suggest that the city should ram this 45-lot development through now, and worry about future problems later. This action will create an implied promise to the developer that all future infrastructure improvements required for the invalid PUD will be made – but paid for by whom?

    Thos who cannot remember the past, ore ignore it are doomed to repeat it. WHY?
    Piedmont deserves better. It’s up to you, the citizens, to ask just what the heck is going on.

  16. Charles Coffman says:

    Vernon, attend the meeting, hear the details. Open forum, free admission, all the parties involved. Most are new players, but pretty bright folks that want what is best for Piedmont. Doubt any ramming gets done but we might resolve an issue or two and come to an agreement. I suspect we can head off some future problems in this way I recall another valid quote about living in the past, not so good. See you there.

  17. john says:

    Since the realtor/ developer in question has pending case filed against two of the current seated council, I am sure when this PUD & Preliminary plat process comes back to the council they will do the right thing an abstain from voting as this would be conflict of interest if they chose to participate in the discussion and its eventual vote.

  18. john says:

    Acknowledging case No. CJ-2012-46 filed in Canadian County, Boevers Homes LLC v Green and Red Company, John Doe and Jane Doe. Parties: Boevers Homes LLC, Plaintiff. Coffman, Charles, Notice Recipient and Gleichmann, Albert, Notice Recipient etal……

    • JR says:

      You can say all you want. But I have low water pressure as it is, and I don’t understand how you can keep approving housing additions when half the time the water pressure is so low we have to use our well.

      • Casie says:

        VERy good point JR!!!

      • Charles Coffman says:

        JR, what part of town are you in? When. I first started they said we had trouble in the far west but that they did some work to make that better. Also, the OKC hook up helps keep the pressure up. Sounds like there is still a problem. I would like to know, in my Ward we are good so and I have not heard of problems in a long time. I can pass it on to the staff I know your area. Regards, Chuck

  19. bill says:

    This is not about SBS. It is only about the planning commission, city council and city management. The expectation that they will all do their job in a fair and diligent manner. SBS should not be treated any different than any other builder or developer. The citizens should not be expected to pay for any cost of properly developing any project unless they are asked to and they have approved those cost. Every step of this process should be transparent. Any reluctance to assure the citizens that the entire process is transparent and strictly within the codes and regulations will cause mistrust. This could be a wonderful project for the city and it is the responsibility of the city government to assure that it is.

  20. JR says:

    Have you seen the trash all over that land? Piedmont road really looks trashy.

  21. JR says:

    You can say all you want but I have low water pressure and I don’t understand why we keep approving these housing additions when we don’t have enough water to take care of the homes already built!

  22. bill says:

    I think councilman Coffman’s statement about living in the past is valid, however I also believe that you must learn from the past to assure you don’t make the same mistakes in the future. It may be that John and Vernon are not convinced that we have recognized the past mistakes in order to avoid making them again in the future. I on the other hand have an optimistic view that the council, and city government will be sincere in the effort to assure things are done properly and in a transparent way.

  23. john says:

    Bill, My concerns is exactly that if your fail to reflect on the past you are most likely to repeat past mistakes, that is what I am saying. I have faith in the council but I do share some of Vernons concerns as well. I also have big concerns with outstanding litigation filed against two of our five councilmen on how that conflict of interest (that is present) will be addressed with the same home builder who has sued the city of Piedmont multiple times in the past, in my opinion when he didn’t get his way.. Also, I am glad that Ant has finally come to terms and agrees with you and me and others that development of infrastructure should be paid by the developer for the development/subdivision even though Ant has bemoaned the home builders position with many of his annonymous postings over the past 24 months.. Still can’t figure why he hides.

  24. Vernon Woods says:

    I obviously have not clearly presented my argument concerning this issue of the city attempting to plan the implementation of a PUD which was previously declared invalid by our city attorney.
    .
    This is not about personalities – it’s about the current Council members and city staff acknowledging and respecting certain legitimate actions undertaken in the past concerning this subject. The 02/25/2008, PUD was declared invalid on 07/26/2010. The reason for that declaration was because the design of the 2008 PUD was substantially modified by a non-SBS participant – that action is often referred to by reasonable people as ‘obeying the current city ordinances in effect at that time’ – namely those contained in section 5-10.9.etc.
    .
    As of 07/26/2010, there is NO city-approved PUD development plat in effect. Therefore any planning done for an invalid plat is in itself invalid.
    .
    In spite of our city’s apparent love of encouraging litigation, you would think that simply taking the time to require and approve a valid enforceable PUD, with current plats and maps, in order to avoid future court time, and to GET IT RIGHT, would prove to be much more beneficial to Piedmont. This is as compared to the current apparent ‘stampede attitude’ displayed by this Council.
    .
    This is not personal – it is sound long-range municipal procedure.

  25. Charles Coffman says:

    Don’t know, seems that asking for the legal opinion, the engineer opinion, the fire department opinion, having a city staff review and then have it go through the planning commission is not quite a stampeded to injustice. It is a new world with good people doing the due diligence and executing their duties. Let’s build on this and make good things happen. No one wants the city to get stuck with the bill on any deal and we have done a good job in revamping things to put good guidelines in place. It is always good to let the buyer beware and I appreciate your carefull review.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Chuckie, believe me when I say that my statements were never directed at you. Based on your previous responses concerning a ‘new world’ and ‘good people’, I suspect I know where your head has been for the past several months, and still is. Your ability to ignore documented facts is astonishing and pathetic.
      .
      However, I will say this to you – ignore previous legitimate official Piedmont City Council and staff’s actions at your, and our city’s, peril. This is not the federal government, where duly enacted laws and ordinances can be disregarded, and replaced with whatever the current leader needs to fix a problem with an easy short-term edict.
      .
      This project has an obvious defect – fix the damn thing first – and then implement it with the confidence that you and staff know all of the facts and details.

  26. john says:

    Vernon makes a solid arguement that can be documented by visiting those minutes and recorded meetings. Since the engineer, the city planner, city manager and three different city attorneys and a complete turnover of both the council and the planning commission since the aforementioned 7/26/10 meeting have taken place since that referenced city council meeting by former councilman Woods. You would would think the city did their due dilligence and go back to reflect those minutes and confirm if the PUD was vacated at that time or not. Can that be answered by the city reps Charles, you were not a councilmen on that date on 7/26/10?

  27. bill says:

    I believe the record will reflect that Vernon is accurate. If that in fact is true then the defined process in our city’s planning and zoning regulations should be followed appropriately and in the proper sequence. It does not matter who the applicant may be or what the project may be. It should be according to the regulation and process for any organization. It matters not whom it may be. It is reasonable for the citizens to expect this be transparent and proper at each and every step. I do not understand why any city official would not want this process to be based on accurate information and based on strict adherence to the regulations in place.

  28. john says:

    Bill, I will quote Ants previous post…..”follow the rules for every developer equally”. That must apply to this development too.

  29. Ant says:

    I would also add to not only follow the rules equally, but to just follow the rules period. The majority of the conflict in this city has to do with certain council members and city staff (past and present) trying to enforce opinion and lieu of written policy or rules based on who and what is presented. Pi king and choosing the rules to follow are a major dissaster that have no limits.

  30. Ant says:

    Picking

  31. Charles Coffman says:

    So let’s be clear. The rezoning of a portion of the PUD (26%) was approved by the council on 7/26/10. That is in the meeting notes. But a recording that has the city attorney stating that a 26% change would nullify a PUD exists per Vernon. Can the attorney void a PUD, or does the council void a PUD? No council action was taken to that effect. Later, when a plan to develop a portion of the original PUD comes into the system, goes through the staff review, a attorney review that specifically states that 26% does not constitute a significant change in writing, and goes back through the planning commission you want to go with the earlier recording and give it weight of law. Isn’t it possible that the attorney’s note on the recording is just an opinion, and had the council acted based on that opinion then fine, something was official was done. That action was never done nor was ever requested to be done..the PUD is still valid. These things are all interesting but Ant is correct that if you start picking and choosing when you follow the rules it leads to disaster. A recording of an opinion… Really. Everyone, go back and read the meeting notes from 2010 and then see the written opinion as part of the real, formal action being worked. What do you think would pass the Judge Judy test? I was actually in the audience at that 2010 meeting, his opinion was not meant as an action in itself.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Chuckie, Ordinance 5-10 clearly states that a ‘significant change to the size’ of an existing PUD would negate the PUD. Are you actually saying that you think that a 26% reduction in size is not significant? That sounds like a typical federal government opinion. And I suspect that an attorney has been whispering in your ear about this issue.

      Our city attorney at the time considered the 26% significant, and, although the incomplete written minutes do not reflect that opinion, it is, as you finally admit, present in the recorded minutes – that is exactly why the city had started recording the meetings. Just which attorney do you chose to heed? And just which of the minimum of three plat maps presented to the city since 2008, will you choose to honor and to design infrastructure for?
      It’s a long way from 45 lots to whatever the latest invalidated PUD plat will demand now and in the future.

      This city does not need your Pollyanna attitude concerning problematic issues. It needs leaders who respect existing laws and ordinances, and are not so damn anxious to irresponsibly reverse legitimate previous actions in order to push through a patently invalid PUD, just to get if off your plate.

      Your vote on this thing is obvious – we can only hope that the other Council members will take the time to recognize that a new current PUD request is required as per our city ordinances. Otherwise, the developer de jour will always prevail in the future, regardless of the long-range consequences to the citizens of Piedmont.

  32. john says:

    With the obvious changes to the original PUD and the supporting declarations from the 7/26/10 meeting it appears the city messed up again.

  33. bill says:

    Councilman Coffman I would agree with Ant” not only follow the rules equally, but to just follow the rules period.” That being said I would also appreciate it if you would quote the rules and not the opinions. It seems apparent that you are rushing to push thru a decision you have already made. Many of us are familiar enough with the ordinances to know that there are time certain events as well as clear requirements with well established standards. It is your job to be specific in those matters. The residents of Piedmont are paying HIGH WATER/SEWER RATES, UTILITY RATES, SALES TAX RATES AND A NUMBER OF OTHERHIGH FEES. The streets are in need of repair, the fire department must attempt to provide fire protection without adequate fire hydrants, the sewer capacity is limited and we must pay higher rates to OKC for additional sewer capacity, the city utility services are working at full capacity or greater than capacity. Many sewer lines are failing and most water lines are undersized. It is time for the council and the city staff to make it clear that the regulations and ordinances are there for a reason. That reason is to prevent the kinds of problems we are faced with today. All or most of these problems were preventable. Those ordinances, regulations, and requirements are well established through out our state, most communities and the country. They are well thought out by many experienced professionals with out bias or influence. It is science. Don’t ask for or listen to the opinion of only those who agree with you or you will never learn everything you need to know to make the best decision. Those ordinances and regulations are clear it is not that difficult.

    • Charles Coffman says:

      Bill, quick note. My opinion was made after I read the package on the issue that included the history and briefings. That was done before the last council meeting when this was on the agenda. The package followed all the processes on a development and was approved by all. As far as the information brought up by Vernon I did check with the city staff who asked the attorney. Our city attorney spoke directly with the attorney at the 2010 meeting as part of his review. Both are in agreement the PUD is valid. We also verified that again today.

  34. bill says:

    Just checked city web site and saw that there is a workshop tomorrow at 6:00 pm regarding a subdivision and then a SPECIAL meeting 45 minutes later to vote on the same. That certainly diminishes my hope of transparency. Any thoughts or explanations for that.

  35. john says:

    Talking bout cramming this in fast without the proper due diligence. Sad state of affairs.

  36. JT says:

    I have a new nickname for john and vernon, drama king and queen.

    Can someone please explain how approving PRELIMINARY plat for 45 lots is going to make the world end? As near as I can tell you all are arguing over the opinions of 2 or 3 lawyers. How is one lawyer’s opinion more valid than another? Isn’t their job just to advise and ultimately it’s the council’s job to take that advice and make a decision?

    First I’d like for bill, john or Vernon to tell us what a plat or a PUD is. Second I’d like an explanation by one of them what the problems are with the preliminary plat presented for approval is. Third, I’d like for one of them to tell us what specific problems approving the preliminary plat will cause.

    Please spare me all the drama. Just because it’s approved today doesn’t mean they start building anything tomorrow.

  37. Ant says:

    just keep in mind the rules and ordinances are there to not only protect the city, but also those who wish to develop in this city. if you continually miss apply those rules and delay permits and approvals of projects, it results in higher costs to plan a project and a contintious relationship with all those who attempt to do business here. Basically the council does not have to like an ordinance to enforce it (unless they take the steps to change it legally). Again opinions cannot overide the rules and ordinances already in place.

  38. Charles Coffman says:

    Taking a moment during lunch for an update: I checked with the staff and The city attorney’s written opinion was made in conjunction with the city attorney at the 2010 meeting. They did speak directly about the 26%
    issue as part of the review. So, no one messed up, no one hiding anything. Things have changed folks and the new processes are working. This has also been a weeks long process that involved every part of the city for all to see. No rush, no cramming. The workshop at 6:00 and the special meeting at 6:45 are for the purpose of adding additional open forum dialog to the issue.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Chuckie, I have a feeling that you are listening to pure hearsay when you say that the city attorney present at the 08/28/2010 meeting changed his mind about the significance of a 26% decrease in land area of this PUD. All it requires to confirm this is to obtain a copy of the recorded minutes for that meeting from the City Clerk. Listen carefully to the discussion starting at minute 43:00 and ending around minute 49:00. The attorney stated multiple times that the decrease in land area caused the 2008 PUB to be null and void. I have serious doubts that you personally spoke to that attorney, and I have no doubt that you haven’t listened to the recorded minutes.

      There is another glaring problem with this 2008 PUD which hasn’t been addressed yet by city staff (surprise, surprise). Section 5-10-A-1 states that, if no construction has commenced within three yeas of the adoption of a PUD, then that PUD is revoked. It’s a long way from February, 2008, to today. Harvesting wheat and pasturing cows are probably not considered ‘construction’ by most attorneys.

  39. Charles Coffman says:

    Vernon, the city attorney again confirmed today that he spoke directly to the city attorney from 2010 about the % issue. I asked the City Manager to take a look at this again. The records were checked and recording reviewed. So, you are wrong. Our City Attorney buried his dad today and we troubling him with this lame crap. I come on the site to pass on a perspective of someone that gets the packages and talks to the parties involved. Some of these folks don’t know how the process works and only see your accusations and believe they are true. You are not the only one that can read. I will be there at 5:30 to answer anyone’s questions, show them the package, and generally do what a good city councilman does.

    • Vernon Woods says:

      Chuckie, you are a real piece of work. I give you the exact location of the proof of my statements, and you still won’t do your own research to verify it. Instead, you listen to and heed only third parties who weren’t there, and who obviously have not done their due diligence to confirm the actual facts, for whatever reason. What a way to run a city (into the ground).

    • Ant says:

      I believe most reasonable people understand the process and also understand the motives of Vernon, who at most meetings is recorded saying he doesn’t understand or most of the meeting is spent trying to make him understand what is going on. talk about a real piece of work!!

  40. Charles Coffman says:

    Vernon, did look and you must have the wrong version….maybe from your 2008 days. Confirmed with staff as well. No expiration on a PUD. Also, an amendment was made in 2012 so the clock would have restarted anyway. I guess we can move on now.

  41. kate kearby says:

    Piedmont has grown beyond stopping. The only way to fix is to get more income. The only way to get more income is to have more ‘rooftops’. Don’t think we can go back to private wells and septic tanks and using your box blade to grade the road to the FM. I personally would love if we could.

© 2012-2017 piedmontnewsonline.com All Rights Reserved