<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>It is a fair question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Fundamentally he doesn’t. I had met with Matt Jemal at Douglas Development in the fall of 2011 and let them know what my expectations were. Without EYA and Cafritz, Town Center would have a very difficult time in getting tenants. Even with both projects it will take an inordinate effort to attract, and more importantly, keep the units filled with tenants. Properties on Route 1, especially with a direct proximity to the development at EYA are incredibly less challenging to make commercially viable. To this point, the County Redevelopment Authority was brought in and they informed DDC that if they weren’t developing the parcels that the RA was going to purchase them. Jemal already renovating one of the properties and that has tenants in it and they are making good progress on the historic town center parcel currently. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>BTW – there is a backstory to the ‘cleaning up’ of the property. It was brokered by the CDC and the owner of the new apartment building at EYA. It was not done by Jey or at his initiation of being a good business partner to the community. A scope of work was agreed to be performed by Woodfield Investments, once it was started Jey tried to renegotiate and substantially expand the scope to the point that Woodfield walked away and had to be talked back into at least finishing the original scope. Stories like this do not inspire confidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Although I feel the opposite concerning who will get things done it is really immaterial. The rules and regulations are applied consistently. I can only gauge a track record from my interactions – developer’s history with the town has no influence with me.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Bruce Wernek [mailto:bruce.wernek@verizon.net] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 03, 2013 6:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> jebbeler@efusionconsulting.com; towntalk@riverdale-park.org<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Jonathan<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>While we are on the subject of imminent domain, why has Jemal been spared? His buildings have been vacant for almost as long. It appears that Jemal is doing something, but so has Jey. Jey’s cleaned up his place recently. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I can’t see the difference between Jey and Jemal. To be honest, I feel more confident about Jey getting something going vs Jemal given his track record. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Bruce<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a href="mailto:towntalk-bounces@riverdale-park.org">towntalk-bounces@riverdale-park.org</a> [<a href="mailto:towntalk-bounces@riverdale-park.org">mailto:towntalk-bounces@riverdale-park.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan W. Ebbeler<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 03, 2013 5:25 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:towntalk@riverdale-park.org">towntalk@riverdale-park.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hey Bruce – <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am going to have to quibble with a couple of the points you brought up or at least offer my sentiments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was not in town during the original proposal you speak of so cannot comment on the events that went down but the portrayal is factually inaccurate from a zoning/land-use perspective. Prior to land being rezoned to M-U-TC zoning in 2004 the land parcel was zoned C-S-C. When the gas tanks were removed and the Use and Occupancy permit expired, specific land parcels only have 180 days under County Code for ‘grandfathering’ the use. After the 180 days of a U&O not being in place, normal County zoning process and procedures apply. A gas station under C-S-C is treated in the identical fashion as under M-U-TC – it is only permitted under the satisfaction of the Special Exception process. It would not have mattered if Jey had filed the paperwork before the zoning ordinance or after – the impact would have been almost identical. Either before or after the U&O would only be approved via the County’s Special Exception processing which is a fairly high barrier to overcome; the owner lost grandfathering on that use a long time before the 2004 Ordinance. The assertion that if Jey had filed a few weeks prior to the 2004 Zoning Ordinance would have been meant that he would then have a conforming use is factually flawed.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am not sure why a business owner’s personal financial situation is even being discussed, but to that point the property was paid off and banks are a great source of equity financing when an asset owned free and clear. The developer has been approached numerous times by 3<sup>rd</sup> parties wanting to buy outright, lease, and/or develop it out as an equity partner and to date has only made the most basic of overtures of developing the site with non-conforming uses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Since I attended the M-U-TC meeting, I can share your frustration with the process, but as someone who has had to apply the same standards consistently with every developer in the zone, I respectfully have a different memory of the meeting. I listed out in a prior email what everyone is required to bring to the meetings for evaluation of permits. His architect did come but only had a single copy of a site plan; nothing was provided to committee members prior to the meeting. The site plan does not show the façade, schedule of materials nor is an elevation drawing. It does not show landscaping, lighting, screening, tree canopy coverage, etc. We were shown a color picture of what looked to be an existing Dunkin Donuts from somewhere else that looked larger than the existing building on the site and had no correlation to this site. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The fundamental problem with that night was that the applicant had applied for permits under one use and came to the M-U-TC committee prepared to talk about another use. We can only consider a permit that is in front of us, not permits that may or may not ever be filed. There was also an erroneous interpretation of the zoning rules by the applicant in that they misinterpreted the language to read that the M-U-TC standards do not apply since the existing building has some form of grandfathering. It is true that since the applicant only proposed an addition of 245.99 square feet that is 3.595 sq. ft. under the trigger for full-review; there is a caveat to that. That trigger only grandfathers the developer from not having to comply with the Building Placement and Streetscape page (i.e. the building is not required to be picked up and moved closer to Route 1); the rest of the voluminous standards apply. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If I wasn’t down in the weeds with the details I would be completely confused by what exactly we were supposed to evaluate. Before the meeting, the M-U-TC committee was told that we were going to be considering a coffeehouse, when I looked up the permits I saw the applicant had applied for a convenience store, and when presented Shanty expressed that they had considered a Starbucks/Caribou but knew the area could not afford a $4 cup of coffee so they decided to bring in a Quick Service Restaurant/Dunkin Donuts. We are perfectly willing and prepared to negotiate a development on the parcel but first need to know what it is not just be told by the applicant to ‘just approve it and then I will give you quality.’<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The developer was provided a detailed checklist of all the mandatory standards prior to the meeting that it could use for guidance. We are applying the same standards to this site that were applied to the Spiropoulos’ build-out of Town Center Market and the same set of standards that will be applied to Town Center when Douglas Development comes before M-U-TC. This parcel and development is in no way being singled out or treated any differently than anyone else that has come before M-U-TC. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>At this point we have not heard any response to our requests for additional information, items that should have been readily available if the applicant was preparing to move forward, nor have we been notified that the applicant has elected to pursue the Special Exception process. The Town would love a thriving business on that site since it is a gateway property. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember - Ward One<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Chair, Economic Development Committee<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>