Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Town/Planning Board did not follow its own UDO – PARTIALLY*TRUE (Three Pinocchios)
Bruce Maxwell and I traded emails very recently. I became aware he had told the Town Council and Planning Board that I had a 30 foot rear golf setback, and that was wrong. I corrected that fact, and provided facts about the Planning Board’s Legacy Park approvals. None of the three submissions complied with our own UDO (the law).
Bruce considers this “ancient history”. Well, the latest step in that ancient history happened just 14 days ago in this room. Rick Jones presented written and spoken comments pointing out that there were lots not meeting the minimum standards of the UDO. Bruce, and the Planning Board, proceeded to ignore this fact and approve the preliminary plat anyway. I sent them an email immediately that day “congratulating” them on approving a preliminary plat not in compliance with our own UDO (the law).
Bruce and our Planning Board do not get to pick and choose which requirements to hold the developer to and which to ignore. Bruce has said that there will be consequences if the UDO is not followed, yet I do not see Bruce stepping down or taking steps to remove the leadership of the Planning Board. Why not?
*
Members of Town Council were involved in the cover up of the Legacy Park application – FALSE (One Pinocchio)
I agree. So why the Pinocchio?
I have consistently asserted that our former UDO Administrator was wrong to ask for a backdated application, the developer’s representative was wrong to backdate it, and our Town was wrong to accept it.
On June 9th, when the Town was presented with an application from the developer dated March 1st, the question should not have been “What receipt date should we put on it?” The question should have been “Why on earth should we accept this application? It’s dated March 1st, 100 days ago, the approval happened on April 10th, the approval is being appealed, and we are in the process of compiling the record for the legal proceeding.” Instead, the Town accepted the backdated application and it was in my hands the next morning. It was a very poor decision to accept the application.
*
The Town and the Planning Board aren’t representing our residents’ interests – FALSE*TRUE (Three Pinocchios)
The primary issue for Legacy Park is quite simple.
The developer is proposing 20-foot rear golf setbacks for the Legacy Park golf course lots.
The developer gave assurances – including to a packed house at the Community Center during the neighborhood meeting – that Nicklaus Design was “ok” with the design. Not so fast.
The real facts are:
1.*Nicklaus Design took 40-foot rear golf setbacks into account in the existing design of the Reserve course,
2.*Nicklaus Design recommends (primarily for safety reasons) 40-foot rear golf setbacks for the Legacy Park golf course lots, and
3.*The developer’s proposed 20-foot rear golf setbacks do not meet prevailing standards according to Nicklaus Design.
Also, I f you look across the line for “REAR – GOLF” in the ACC Design Guidelines for all of the St. James golf courses, you will see 30-foot and 40-foot rear golf setbacks. For the Reserve course, you will see 40-foot rear golf setbacks.
Yes, there are lots with smaller setbacks on our golf courses – if they have a pond or some other type of natural barrier between the course and the lot. That’s not the case with Legacy Park.
The developer is trying to put rear golf setbacks on the Reserve course (our “championship caliber” course) that are less than those throughout the Plantation.
Yet, our Town is happy with “none of us really knows what Nicklaus Design said to the Developer”?
I’ve forwarded you what Ray Ball from Nicklaus Design sent to me. Get a copy of the letter to the developer and let’s address the safety issue by increasing the rear golf setbacks. Use your head, and the provisions of the UDO that would let the Planning Board and Town Council actually think and protect our interests!
Wow, sounds like a real donnybrook down there....Actually this is the type of crap most of us working stiffs deal with every day at work and once they-we retire we really don't want to have to deal with anymore. I subscribe to the Brunswick Beacon as well as the Southport Pilot and its all over the newspapers every week. I know a lot of people in this forum might already live in St James but for those on the outside and considering St James it sure makes people take a step back and think do I really want to be part of this crap...Negative press is not just about the Legacy situation but all the other accusations about the lack of ethics by the board, the gestapo security patrol, etc.. . Who the heck wants to deal with this crap....... Sounds like the politics of all the counties in NJ including Christies Administration. If St James was smart they would find a way to resolve this because for all the beautiful things about the plantation the negative press will eventually turn some people away and as we all know its tough to regain a reputation once its tarnished......Just my 2 cents from a former Alter Boy from Jersey City.
The Town/Planning Board did not follow its own UDO – PARTIALLY*TRUE (Three Pinocchios)
Bruce Maxwell and I traded emails very recently. I became aware he had told the Town Council and Planning Board that I had a 30 foot rear golf setback, and that was wrong. I corrected that fact, and provided facts about the Planning Board’s Legacy Park approvals. None of the three submissions complied with our own UDO (the law).
Bruce considers this “ancient history”. Well, the latest step in that ancient history happened just 14 days ago in this room. Rick Jones presented written and spoken comments pointing out that there were lots not meeting the minimum standards of the UDO. Bruce, and the Planning Board, proceeded to ignore this fact and approve the preliminary plat anyway. I sent them an email immediately that day “congratulating” them on approving a preliminary plat not in compliance with our own UDO (the law).
Bruce and our Planning Board do not get to pick and choose which requirements to hold the developer to and which to ignore. Bruce has said that there will be consequences if the UDO is not followed, yet I do not see Bruce stepping down or taking steps to remove the leadership of the Planning Board. Why not?
*
Members of Town Council were involved in the cover up of the Legacy Park application – FALSE (One Pinocchio)
I agree. So why the Pinocchio?
I have consistently asserted that our former UDO Administrator was wrong to ask for a backdated application, the developer’s representative was wrong to backdate it, and our Town was wrong to accept it.
On June 9th, when the Town was presented with an application from the developer dated March 1st, the question should not have been “What receipt date should we put on it?” The question should have been “Why on earth should we accept this application? It’s dated March 1st, 100 days ago, the approval happened on April 10th, the approval is being appealed, and we are in the process of compiling the record for the legal proceeding.” Instead, the Town accepted the backdated application and it was in my hands the next morning. It was a very poor decision to accept the application.
*
The Town and the Planning Board aren’t representing our residents’ interests – FALSE*TRUE (Three Pinocchios)
The primary issue for Legacy Park is quite simple.
The developer is proposing 20-foot rear golf setbacks for the Legacy Park golf course lots.
The developer gave assurances – including to a packed house at the Community Center during the neighborhood meeting – that Nicklaus Design was “ok” with the design. Not so fast.
The real facts are:
1.*Nicklaus Design took 40-foot rear golf setbacks into account in the existing design of the Reserve course,
2.*Nicklaus Design recommends (primarily for safety reasons) 40-foot rear golf setbacks for the Legacy Park golf course lots, and
3.*The developer’s proposed 20-foot rear golf setbacks do not meet prevailing standards according to Nicklaus Design.
Also, I f you look across the line for “REAR – GOLF” in the ACC Design Guidelines for all of the St. James golf courses, you will see 30-foot and 40-foot rear golf setbacks. For the Reserve course, you will see 40-foot rear golf setbacks.
Yes, there are lots with smaller setbacks on our golf courses – if they have a pond or some other type of natural barrier between the course and the lot. That’s not the case with Legacy Park.
The developer is trying to put rear golf setbacks on the Reserve course (our “championship caliber” course) that are less than those throughout the Plantation.
Yet, our Town is happy with “none of us really knows what Nicklaus Design said to the Developer”?
I’ve forwarded you what Ray Ball from Nicklaus Design sent to me. Get a copy of the letter to the developer and let’s address the safety issue by increasing the rear golf setbacks. Use your head, and the provisions of the UDO that would let the Planning Board and Town Council actually think and protect our interests!
We own land in Ocean Ridge Planation - and it backs to a large golf course with pond - and we are told we need a "50 foot" set back...and this will complicate our home design/deck/small pool we want..... I would sell my soul to have just a 40 foot set back!!!! don't complain...it's a beautiful planatation....
It’s Not Just About the ReserveConquer and DivideBy Jeanette Nixon
Welcome to Paradise! When we bought an existing home nearly a year and a half ago in the Reserve neighborhood, we had no idea that the other St James neighborhoods would think badly of that choice. I have heard “snotty,” “think they’re special,” not to mention, “I am surprised you would live there” and other such comparable comments and adjectives used for those living in the Reserve.
Well, I wondered where this all came from – you can probably guess the source. Putting my Nancy Drew cap on and applying my journalist instincts, I have discovered these hostile neighborly feelings have their roots with the advertising and sales tactics initiated by the developer. Are we surprised? We should not be, after all it is “just business.” Conquer and divide has been a tactic used for centuries because it works as evidenced right here in our own community. Notice the open letter email sent out by the town council dated October 7, 2014. Let me count the ways they blamed “The Reserve” residents for the current debacle of their own making. They actually encourage our friends and neighbors in the rest of St. James to believe the Reserve people are spoiled brats ruining it for everybody. Hoping against hope that you do not notice there is no “state of the art gym” promised for that $5000 increase you paid to upgrade to the Signature membership. Let alone the crowded amenities that keep getting more people every year.
Let me take you back when the Reserve was first being sold in the go-go Real Estate boom at a premium cost per lot compared to the other neighborhoods excepting the Inter-coastal (double the cost plus for most lots); the sales tools, developer promises and sales jargon promised that the Reserve neighborhood would have bigger lots, tougher architecture rules about the minimum size of homes built, set backs, green mail boxes, street lights, sidewalks, a Jack Nicklaus Golf course, a swimming pool, gym , tennis courts and a club house. By the way, this is nothing that Founders, Members or Players does not already have as part of their neighborhood. All was going well for the developer and speculators, lots were bought and sold, some even flipped for double and triple the original cost. The sales team even gave out etched Reserve wine glasses to Reserve lot purchasers asking them to spread the word to your friends and family to come to paradise. Boom the recession hit.
Well, amenities such as swimming pools, gyms, and tennis courts tend to be expensive to the developer especially now that the Reserve lots are all sold and they moved on to Woodlands, Seaside and Legacy Park. However, it is to be said that the old guard developer “Mr. Homer” had met his promises in the past. Therefore, with this good will in place, the people whom bought in the Reserve slowly built their homes, letting the developer catch his breath though the worse of the recession thinking that the amenities would be eventually built just like they were for Founders, Members and Players. They would be wrong.
Which brings us to now. Fortunately, St James did not suffer the fate of other developments such as The Cliffs. The good news is St James Plantation is in excellent financial shape. What no one ever considered when buying their lots or existing homes was that Mr. Homer would retire and hand over the reins to the next generation. Unfortunately, they would not feel the same way about the St James Plantation community. Maximizing profits is the new mantra. Which is fine if you make good on your promised amenities for the entire community. Common sense and business sense says that will indeed enhance the entire St James community, resale property values and make the community more congenial and livable.
What the October 7 blast email to the St James community did not tell you is that the population will more than likely expand to 9,000 plus, that the developer has plans for 1100 plus lots yet to be developed. So where are the amenities to handle this influx of residents? The residents of the Reserve have repeatedly asked for the status of these amenities they were promised for over two years now and have been given the proverbial runaround. The Reserve spoiled brat image they conjured up years ago has been polished-up to divide the community to believe that the Reserve amenities are a “Reserve issue” when they are an St James issue. We all do use all the golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, beach club, gyms in ALL the neighborhoods respective of where we live. We do not have to pass though locked gates or swipe our membership to be admitted. Yet. We all have Signature memberships. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. The developer will leave sooner or later and what we have when he leaves is the true St James legacy and what serves our community for the future
The Legacy Park development was the line in the sand for most of the residents in the Reserve. The truth of the matter will evidently reveal itself in the full light of day as the proceedings move along. This is NOT just a Reserve matter. It is a matter of the attitude going forward of the new generation developer in regard to the community needs and what promises they will make and which ones they will keep or break and which rules they will abide by or not to maximize profits. It appears at the moment, compromise or what is best for the community that is next door to a new development appears to fall on deaf ears. Especially, in regard to Legacy Park.
The process has shown the tone deafness of the current Town Council and developer. If you ever had the pleasure of attending these meetings concerning Legacy Park you would have witnessed first hand the contempt held for the community in attendance whom were not permitted to speak at times, cut off when asking a question of the developer and /or the town council in a public forum. Nobody should voluntarily serve on a planning board and be fired publicly because they have an opinion that is not the developers. To make it worse, sources report that the Town Council after they fired the planning board member went into closed doors and laughed at what they just did. Notice this was not mentioned in their October 7 email. And they wonder why people are angry and disillusioned.* They don’t have the hubris to recognize they are the cause.
This is Not a Reserve issue this is an St James issue. And the reason for this website is that as a community we are not powerless and we have the right to ask and question our future without the threat of humiliation or reprisal. We have a right for assembly and free speech and a place to discuss issues concerning the welfare of our community online or elsewhere. And no one neighborhood or person(s) in it should be signaled out for punishment i.e. no amenities, roads taking months to repair, rejection of renovation plans put before the POA, thrown off a planning board because they dare question the Town Council or the Developer or ask for what they were promised or set-up a web site.
This is what the Town Council email did not tell you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fact vs Truth Respose
