Meet The Developer: Meeting Audio

Here is an audio recording of this morning’s meeting with Arden Place developer Andy McGinty. A lively discussion follows Andy’s short introduction.

While you may find this recording long at 1h37m, there much valuable information. It’s a must-hear if you plan to attend on the 23rd. There are many tips and ideas on how we should approach the meeting.

This audio was recorded under less than ideal conditions. The quality of the audio improves about five minutes into the recording as the audience settles down. You may be able to improve the quality of the audio by adjusting the treble and bass controls on your PC speakers.

4 thoughts on “Meet The Developer: Meeting Audio

  1. In my hurry to post this audio, I forgot to mention that Supervisor David Slutzky as well as two representatives from the county were present. David was very helpful with suggestions as to how we might approach this problem and how we might conduct ourselves at the June 23rd meeting. One gentleman from the county (sorry, forgot his name) was also very helpful. Remembering that this is their day off makes their presence at the meeting even more meaningful.

    I was a little surprised, and very pleased, to see how civil the whole proceeding was. There was no shouting or name calling. I was also surprised to learn that the developer doesn't want a road any more than we do.

    I hope that everyone attending the June 23rd meeting will listen to at least part of the audio then post your comments here.

  2. After re-listening to the arguments in the audio here it seems to me that it pretty much comes down to the following:

    1) On Friday the developer revised his request-for-waiver to drop the road and instead provide a path between the new development and Woodbrook.

    2) If the County grants the waver, the the deal is done and the development begins. We get a path.

    3) If the County denies the waver, then the developer will be back before the County in August and will agree to build without waiver. We get the road.

    If I understood correctly, it sounds like the County staff report supports the building of the path.

    It seems pretty clear that if we don't support the developer's waiver to build the path we'll get the road. Remember, only the developer can request a waiver and if he agrees to build the road, then we get the road.

    Anyone else care to comment?

  3. One thing that still wasn't clear to me is this: is the path being thrown out there to appease the planning commission so they are more likely allow the waiver? I don't understand why the developer would want to take on the expense of it in light of his own admission that a path into Woodbrook will likely not benefit the residents of 99% of his apartments.

  4. Yes, Mary, I think that's exactly right. The County wants some kind of interconnection between neighborhoods, possibly as a part of its Places 29 project, before they will let Arden Place be built.

    The developer would rather build a path than a road because it's less costly for him.

Comments are closed.