Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-C86C~1From: Drew Kelso <drewkelso47@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 11:39 AM To: Moore, Monte <MMoore@littlerock.gov>; Thrower, Torrence <tthrower@littlerock.gov> Subject: Fwd: Compelling Reasons to Defer Goodwin PCD Rezoning- Z-9500-C EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.   Some people who received this message don't often get email from drewkelso47@gmail.com. Learn why this is important   Planning Staff,  please review and accept this information with regard to the referenced agenda item.  Thanks. There are three compelling reasons application Z-9500-C, Goodwin PCD, Item 7 on agenda,  should be deferred. I. The pending litigation with the neighbors and the applicant.     A.  Case  number 60CV-24-8746 requests an injunction which would prohibit commercial, disruptive and nuisance  activities on the Goodwin Manor property.   Until this case is resolved, no action should be taken by the City of Little Rock. II. Application contains misinformation, discrepancies, errors and/or omissions regarding ownership of property    A.Item 7 describes a  site plan that is shown on Pulaski County Court Records of 24.60 acres belonging one person, Gary S Goodwin.  Goodwin Manor, the residence can be clearly seen on this aerial photo. / / An additional inconsistency is that the parcel owned by Gary S. Goodwin is sometimes shown as 24.28 acres instead of 24.60./     B. Item 7 on the agenda claims Andrea Goodwin to be the owner when she is not listed as an owner of parcel 63RO250000303 and the real owner's name, Gary S. Goodwin. does not appear on the application. /   C. It is further complicated by the Planning Staff's assertions in the Agenda item 7 that the PCD zoning to be for Brian and Jennifer Maune as owners of the property.(?)  There is no proof provided that  the Maune's have purchased any property from Gary S. Goodwin.  County Real Estate Records do not show any such transaction.  Why are not the Maune's applying for the rezoning if they are the owners? / III.  Application contains misinformation, discrepancies, errors and/or omissions in property description and proposed improvements.  These serious issues in the Application on item 7 on the November 14th agenda that would make it impossible for the Planning Commission to know what it was actually rezoning.   A.  On the agenda item 7 for Z-9500-C,  it shows the application is for 83 acres in one Lot.  Yet in the first paragraph it describes the application to be for rezoning 5 acres.  This inconsistency is never explained. Gary S. Goodwin does not own 83 acres.  Andrea Goodwin does not own any acreage. / B. The Site plan in the application is not for 83 acres nor for 5 acres but is shown as 24.28 acres according to ARCountydata.com. Notice the property line in the South East side is on or about the centerline of the road. /   B. The agenda item seems to imply that the zoning sketch shown below and attached to the agenda item represents the 5 acres asked to be rezoned PCD  (but we do not know this?).  From this  sketch above compared to the one with the rectangle below: The rectangle depicted extends across the road on the South East property line onto property owned by First National Bank and also extends on South East Corner across a section line onto land owned by Deb  Reynolds.  This sketch below in no way could possibly represent the 5 acre area to be rezoned. /   C. The following survey by Johnston Surveying, Inc. date 1/27/2020 (4 years old) was provided by the Planning Staff after an FOIA request.  The drawing is not included in the agenda item 7.  This survey document is no longer accurate, showing the Goodwin property to be 83 acres when Gary Goodwin only owns 24.28 acres.  Additionally it shows the inset rectangle presented above clearly extending beyond the Goodwin property lines onto the two neighboring tracts owned by others.   A new survey with the errors corrected must be submitted with the application. /   D. There is no legal description of the 5 acres to be rezoned.  The Planning Commission and Staff cannot approve a parcel rezoning without a clear legal survey and description provided by a professional land survey company (as stated on the application form). This application requirement is not met.   Not sure what the intention was to include this sketch below. / This cannot be considered a document that the Planning Commission could use to pass zoning of a PCD.  The applicant has penciled in a greenhouse and barn with only dimensions?  Also the number of parking spaces does not agree with the revisions.   The edges of the depicted rectangle cannot be legal, they cross over onto two adjoining properties (see the red line).  This submission is clearly unacceptable. Drew Kelso and Walter Smiley, leaders in the Citizens of West Pulaski County group concerned with well reasoned develoment in the ETJ.