Hi Mary,
Here is the email traffic I have between 4:30-5:30. I see three ways of reading it:
1. Henry read your 4:58 email as a "no vote" because you said you preferred the first version over the version I proposed. So motion failed on a 2-2 vote, as Henry only considered input he got before 5PM.
2. There were two yes votes, one no, and one abstention--and votes by the officers must be unanimous. Henry declared that the motion failed because it was not unanimous.
3. You abstained. Henry thought you voted no, so he thought the motion failed 2-2. You thought that the motion failed because it was not unanimous.
If you have other ideas as to why the motion failed with 2 votes in favor, let me know!
Thanks
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Titus [mailto:jtitus@erols.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:49 PM
To: Wixon, Henry; R. John Shields; Mary Vondrak
Subject: RE: Glenn Dale Sector Plan
My comment is to change:
6) At the time of subdivision plan and plat approvals,
protective covenants or no less binding conservation
easements shall be recorded on the golf course portion of the
development project to retain the open space character of the
property in perpetuity (and in any event, for no less than thirty
years from the date of recordation), while allowing the golf
course owner/operator to improve and/or expand the golf
course and banquet facilities on the property.
to
6) At the time of subdivision plan and plat approvals,
protective covenants and/or no less binding conservation
easements shall be recorded on the golf course portion of the
development project to retain the open space character of the
property in perpetuity. The owners shall discuss with the
Association whether covenants, easements, or both, would
make it most likely that the intent to protect the land in
perpetuity will be achieved. In any event, these easements
and/or covenants will allow the golf course owner/operator to
improve and/or expand the golf course and banquet facilities
on the property. The protective restrictions may also include a
provision to ensure that the protection lasts (a) for no less
than thirty years from the date of recordation or (b) until 21
years after the death of all children in Glenn Dale, or a similar
backup provision
But feel free to clarify who the parties are if I don't have that correct.
Jim
From: "Wixon, Henry" <Henry.Wixon@wilmerhale.com>
To: <jtitus@erols.com>, "R. John Shields" <abvpar@yahoo.com>,
"Mary Vondrak" <mfvondrak@yahoo.com>
I concur and vote in favor of this change.
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:59:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Mary Vondrak <mfvondrak@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Glenn Dale Sector Plan
To: jtitus@erols.com, Henry.Wixon@wilmerhale.com
Henry,
I prefer the original you had but I'm not a lawyer
and I' m not sure in two minutes if I can consider all
the ramifications.
Mary
Subject: Submission for the Record in CR-12-2006
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:04:45 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
From: "Wixon, Henry" <Henry.Wixon@wilmerhale.com>
To: "SHDean@co.pg.md.us" <'SHDean@co.pg.md.us'>
Cc: "R. John Shields" <abvpar@yahoo.com>, "Jim Titus" <jtitus@erols.com>,
"Mary Vondrak" <mfvondrak@yahoo.com>
Dear Chairman Dernoga:
Attached for the record in CR-12-2006 is a submission from the Glenn Dale Citizens' Association, Inc.
The Association thanks you again for allowing the record to remain open so that the Association can comment on this issue of great importance to the Glenn Dale community.
With best regards.
Henry
President
Glenn Dale Citizens' Association, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Titus [mailto:jtitus@erols.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Mary Vondrak; Wixon, Henry
Subject: RE: Glenn Dale Sector Plan--explanation of my edits
The main difference is that in the revised version:
a. the backup provision is >100 years instead of 30 years
(life plus 21 is the classic formulation)
b. the revised version means we can do easement and
covenant, instead of just one--meaning more protection
c. revised version expresses intent to choose between
easement and coventant or both, based on what gets the most
protection.
Jim
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:38:03 -0500
From: "Wixon, Henry" <Henry.Wixon@wilmerhale.com>
To: <jtitus@erols.com>, "Mary Vondrak" <mfvondrak@yahoo.com>
Jim and Mary:
I ran out of time and since there was not consensus on Jim's revisions to 6, I left 6 as it was in my earlier draft.
John voted against the changes, primarily because his DSL lines went down and he couldn't read it.
Thanks.
Henry