Carroll Township appears to say that it doesn't have some documents requested by a residents' group, but will allow the group to look at stormwater management plans related to a proposed development. (The letter could be read to say the township didn't have the documents as of the date specified.)
The stormwater management plans, the township says, are part of an ongoing settlement with the developer, the terms of which included that plans be kept from the public, so the records "are therefore not otherwise of public record."
Carroll Citizens for Sensible Growth has posted the letter on its Web site.
The township's letter was in response to information requested by the state's open records office, which is considering CCSG's appeal that plans related to the development be made public.
The stormwater management plans, the township says, are part of an ongoing settlement with the developer, the terms of which included that plans be kept from the public, so the records "are therefore not otherwise of public record."
Carroll Citizens for Sensible Growth has posted the letter on its Web site.
The township's letter was in response to information requested by the state's open records office, which is considering CCSG's appeal that plans related to the development be made public.
Wait some of these dates don’t make sense
RTK request was submitted 7/10/09
8/13/09 Carroll Townships response to OOR request asking for justification,
What does the date 4/14/09 have to do with a request that was subbmitted 7/10/09??????????
Check out the dates..
I don’t understand,,,,,,,,,,,
When I read Carroll Township response to OOR, I get a little confused
What does April/14/09 have to do with a RTK submitted on 7/10/09
Does anyone else question Carroll Townships 8/31/09 response and dates???
http://www.carrollcitizens.com/SMVpeople.html
I got it
Act 100 RTK asked for doc before April 14 09
sorry
The answer is in the legal document attached to the letter to the OOR. ("Negotiation Procedure and Settlement Agreement," dated Feb. 9, 2009.)
On Pg 2 of that document, under "3. SUBMISSION AND REVIEW OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANS," in section (a), it says that Dillsburg Ventures is to submit land development plans to the township on or before April 14, 2009, including a revised traffic impact study, revised stormwater report and architectural design standards. These and other documents were to be submitted to the township and reviewed, and revised by Dillsburg, over the course of the spring and summer. The court was to approve the signed preliminary plans by Aug. 1.
Apparently, Dillsburg has failed to submit these documents according to deadlines set forth in the agreement. According to the last sentence in the letter to the OOR, the township still has not received the revised traffic impact study or the architectural design standards, even though Dillsburg was to submit them to the township by April 14. (The stormwater reports apparently were submitted after that date.)
It's odd that the township felt it necessary to include that date in its affidavit, because it wouldn't appear to have any bearing on the Right to Know Request, submitted in July. They certainly haven't explained it clearly.
You would think their statement would say something like "Although the settlement agreement required these documents to be submitted to the township on or before April 14, 2009, as of this date the township has not yet received them."
In any case, the township can't provide what it does not have, and a sworn affidavit that the records requested are not in the township's possession is sufficient to prove it isn't able to provide the records to the requester. (Although the Office of Open Records may require a new affidavit that is clearer.)
In its initial denial, the township used a quote that must have been from the initial request that asked for records received "on or before" that April date. I think Brad notes this above.
Kim, I agree that the township's letter indicates the records aren't there, but note that the affidavit uses the "on or before April 14, 2009" language. The affidavit isn't saying the township doesn't have the records; just that they weren't there by that date.
Whatever the reason the township included that date in its letter to OOR, it's a good reminder to anyone making an RTK request to be very careful how you make the request, to ensure you don't give an agency a loophole to use to deny the request.
CCSG will continue to obtain all studies as they are "secretly" turned in. There is a new timeline for filing w/ Commonwealth Court. Unfortunately, because the new timeline was NEGOTIATED, it too is now CONFIDENTIAL!!! The clerk was able to tell me that the last filing was on July 30th and the appellant has been ordered to have final negotiations submitted to the court by Nov 2nd.
Terms of the Negotiation include that the developer needs only to “generally” meet ordinances, not to follow them. Even “Ordinance Interpretation” and “how the property will be developed,” is language that signs away municipal ordinance applicability. This is not compromise.
In Carroll Township, the Preliminary Plan constitutes 95% of final development. Final Plan approval is merely a formality. It may happen in one meeting cycle or in conjunction with the Preliminary approval. Citizens will have NO voice. Once the court signs off on it, it is the equivalent of a successful SLAPP suit.