|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 9:40 PM
Developer, neighbors battle over driveway permit
Neighbors fight request
|
|
by Sandy Brundage
Almanac Staff
Charges of misrepresentation and fraud are flying from both developers and Louise Street residents after the Menlo Park council voted to revoke a driveway permit.
The council voted 3-1, with Cat Carlton dissenting and Ray Mueller recused, on March 5 to revoke Sam Sinnott's permit to build a driveway on Louise Street. Now the developer and his business partner, Mircea Voskerician, want a rehearing.
The pair purchased a home at 1825 Santa Cruz Ave. last year, planning to demolish it to build a new single-family house to sell. The rear of the lot could exit on Louise Street via a driveway. The proposed exit would have partially paved over some land and greenery in the public right-of-way. A couple living next door currently use part of the space for unlicensed parking.
Louise Street couple Michael Schwarz and Kiki Kapany, along with neighbors, appealed the driveway permit to the council and won. They also got the council's agreement to start an "abandonment process" to grant the public right-of-way to adjacent homeowners. The neighborhood group is now drafting an agreement to preserve the green space in perpetuity with easements for pedestrian access, according to Ms. Kapany.
Building the driveway would've bolstered Mr. Sinnott's desire to switch the address of the home from Santa Cruz Avenue to Louise Street. Although city staff said no when he asked twice during the past 12 months if they'd support changing the address, the property is being advertised as a future Louise Street home on Craigslist and other online outlets.
One ad for the planned $5.5 million, 5-bedroom house appeared on Craigslist four days after the council said no to the driveway:
"Access to Louise Street is expected after development will be complete: 1100 Louise St. Frontage of house will be on Louise (cul de sac) since the property always had a Drive way and access to Louise through existing gates. To all neighbors on Louise St. Thanks for participating to the public hearing. Hope you will be able to make it at the rehearing. Stay tuned."
Mr. Sinnott told the Almanac he neither knew about nor condoned the ad, which his partner posted.
Mr. Voskerician told the Almanac in an email that his "craigslist statement is based on the Law. What is the issue?? The Law provides the option of Rehearing and if that is not met then the last resort is Legal action which will be unfortunate but on the table. Every city council member will do the same to protect their rights. ... I want people to understand one thing and one thing only.. WE HAD THE RIGHT OF ACCESSING from Louise from day one and by the time we are done we will ensure the entire street will be Legally Compliant with city regulations with their parking right away. That is what the neighbours want and that is what City Council will want too, right? We all have to respect MP city regulations, no Exceptions."
Saying he was done "being the nice neighbor," Mr. Voskerician said this was a matter for the police and district attorney because the petition submitted by Louise Street neighbors to the city was fraudulent.
Ms. Kapany said after she realized 17 to 18 signatures were added without permission, she deleted them and turned in a revised petition with 214 signatures remaining. A petition started online has now gathered 295 signers and counting.
Whether invalid signatures invalidates the council's decision appears moot. City Clerk Margaret Roberts told the Almanac that the petition "is not a petition in the true sense of a legal petition that the city would be required to take action on. A petition such as this is really a letter of support submitted by whoever signs the document."
No guidelines exist about whether a decision would need to be reconsidered if signatures are invalid, she explained.
Mr. Sinnott challenged the notion that deleting unauthorized signatures fixed the problem. "Gee, maybe it is ok to rob a bank if you give the money back," he said in an email. "The fraud is a symptom of general misrepresentation. They had a motive -- secure public land to be incorporated into a private front yard. Saving their illegally obtained extra parking. Even the language in the petition is misleading. The parking is described as 'a wooded buffer zone.' Borderline fraudulent."
That allowed the neighbors to get away with claiming this was "a developer destroying a green belt," Mr. Sinnott said, despite his documentation to the contrary. "Many people fell for it."
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Grow up!, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:11 am [Portion removed. Personal attacks.] You took a business risk based on your greedy assumptions. You made a bet that you could squeeze the public easement for private gain, and you lost. Ever heard that line about not counting your chickens before they hatch?
Imagine this: you manage to ramrod your driveway through, sell the property with a Louise St address...and then get sued by the buyer for failing to disclose the pre-existing condition of a hostile neighborhood.
I wonder where Mircea Voskerician grew up -- someplace where this kind of childish threat is productive? Why is Sam Sinnott working with such a [portion removed; personal attack].
I don't have any skin in the game, other than being tired of developers trying get away with these tricks. And caring about neighborhoods.
|
|
Posted by Frugal, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 1:15 pm Sure let's ask the council to vote again.
This time instead of 3-1 and 1 recusal, let's ask for 4-0 and one recusal.
|
|
Posted by Long time resident, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 4:12 pm After reading between the lines on this it sounds like Sinnot wants to replace his old driveway where the neighbors illegally put parking. I don't understand the green belt arguments.
It also sounds like the neighbors put names of people on the petition who didn't want to be on it. That goes beyond just signing for people. That truly is fraud.
If they are willing to do that I wonder what other lies they've told?
This one my not be over.
|
|
Posted by oakfield neighbor, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm I'm with Sam Sinnot. Why should neighbors get the strip for illegal parking? The city granted the permit in the first instance and shouldn't revoke it under pressure from self-interested neighbors.
And note to Grow Up--what kind of comment is that to ask where Mr. Voskerician grew up?
|
|
Posted by Scott, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm The original permit was granted by staff with little review. Usually these permits are for a 2-4 foot connection across the city right of way so you can connect your driveway to the city street.
This case involves a 50 foot encroachment. Obviously it required further review. The city council heard all sides and made a ruling. They spent hours looking at the evidence and made a considered ruling. They obviously gave it more attention than a newspaper article could. We elected these 5 council members to represent the needs of the city and serve the public trust. The decision should stand.
Mr Sinott should build his planned 4500 square foot house on Santa Cruz, where his property is deeded.
Rather than reading about this in the almanac, come to the meeting and get real flavor for these folks.
|
|
Posted by Menlo homeowner, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2013 at 9:45 pm Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Voskerician keep trying to make this issue about parking because they have no better arguments. Hundreds of residents are opposed to their driveway plans not because of parking but because they intend to pave over more than 800 square feet of City-owned green space for the private benefit of a single home - theirs. Many bushes and trees that have been enjoyed for generations by the neighborhood will have to be removed to install their driveway. In fact, Mr. Sinnott already had a bunch of trees and bushes removed from the area without a permit last summer and more would need to come out.
The alternative to this wildly unpopular driveway proposal is simple, and plainly obvious to anyone who's visited the property in question - put the driveway on Santa Cruz where it has always been and leave Louise Street alone.
Now these gentlemen are trying to shift the argument to quibbling about the neighbors' petition? The City Council made its decision based on meetings with Mr. Sinnott, meetings with residents, a lengthy staff report, visits to the Street, and three hours of discussion at the Council meeting. To suggest that the petition was the reason the Council said no is just the latest desperate attempt to distract from the real issue. And now hundreds of people have signed the online petition in support of the Council's ruling - so why are we even still talking about it?
The hostility of the owners of this property toward their neighbors and the City Council is just outrageous.
|
|
Posted by Signer, a resident of the Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 12:12 am Hooray to MP City Council for doing the right thing. A lot of us are really tired of well-heeled developers thinking that the rules should be rewritten just for them. Sam's partner is threatening to sic the police on Louise Street? Great way to make friends, for sure.
As for the petition: anyone can access it. What's to stop Sam from signing "Mickey Mouse" and then pointing out that the petition obviously has invalid names on it and therefore should be thrown out?
|
|
Posted by Pot calling the kettle black, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 8:45 am It's good that Mr. Voskerician is so concerned with combating fraud in the Menlo Park community. While he is visiting the district attorney about the signatures, he should also have them do something about the fraudster who's advertising the non-existent house on 1100 Louise St (search for "1100 louise st menlo park" on Google to find it).
Oh wait, that's Mr. Voskerician's phone number on those ads. Never mind.
|
|
Posted by H.J., a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 1:55 pm Why does the City Council want to force a family to go in and out on the most dangerous part of Santa Cruz ? Part of their justification to take away the safe, historical access on Louise is that there are only a few accidents on Santa Cruz a year- let's increase it!
|
|
Posted by Louise Street resident, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 6:34 pm Let's get a few facts straight:
1) The parking spaces are not an issue. They were installed before the current homeowners bought the property. The owners have publicly committed to remove the parking spaces. So the issue of “illegal parking” is moot.
2) Comparing the correction of a written petition or letter of support to a bank robbery is a stretch. But the bank robbery metaphor is a revealing choice for someone so focused on increasing his own profits. Our online petition now has 308 signatures, far more than were submitted on March 5th.
3) You have Louise Street residents trying to secure the green space for the benefit of the neighborhood - as it is and as it was intended to be - in perpetuity.
You have Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Mircea trying to secure a 900 square foot private driveway through the middle of the existing green space in order to increase the value of their speculative investment on Santa Cruz Avenue.
You have as the greatest single misrepresentation and fraud here the repeated false assertion that Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Mircea are simply replacing or relocating a pre-existing driveway, which they know is not true.
And you have more than 60 current and former Louise Street residents dating back to 1948 willing to testify under oath that no such driveway has EVER existed.
Mr. Sinnott’s reply to this fact is that residents just don’t remember.
As a journalist, when I have 60 people corroborating a story and one person providing a completely different version, that’s usually called a no-brainer.
|
|
Posted by Triona, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Mar 21, 2013 at 6:53 pm Thank goodness for google maps. It looks like the property in question has a large section of the rear property line on Louise Street. Why not let the driveway exit on Louise? That will make Santa Cruz a little safer for everyone including the children biking and walking to school.
On another note, as a taxpayer and long time resident I am absolutely opposed to having public right of way deeded over to any private individuals just because they ask.
And on a third note, if I may. If Louise St. residents have been parking on public right of way for years I hope they have received as many tickets as I, my family, and my neighbors have over the years every time we forget and park on the public right of way over night.
|
|
Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 8:33 am Triona doesn't have her facts straight. It is the developer who wants to turn the public right of way into a 55x 16' private driveway. All traffic from Louise Street needs to use Santa Cruz to travel downtown. Plus the developer also wants to build a guest house (secondary dwelling unit) on the same property facing Santa Cruz that would have a Santa Cruz driveway, so if anything he will be adding traffic to Santa Cruz, not taking it away.
|
|
Posted by Longtime Louise Street resident, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2013 at 11:56 am After Sam Sinnott learned Louise Street residents were appealing the staff's decision to issue a conditional encroachment permit, he wrote an email to us in which he said, "I hope you are more willing to live with the council’s decision than you are staffs’." We believe it is time for him to heed his own words and stop attacking our personal characters and integrity.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
