In my presentation I stated my objection to the volume of traffic the WEG warehouse design assumed by BL Companies in their Traffic Study would create. I left it to the P&Z Board to review my report and decide - Exactly your stated preference on how anyone should respond to the WEG proposal.
In your letter, you attack my presentation as "hyperbole & exaggeration" but you were unable to challenge a single element of my analysis in-person at the Hearing or even eight days after the Hearing in your letter above.
You assert "Don't fabricate data to embellish your point".
I back my claims as numbers independently verifiable using the ITE 10th Ed Trip Generation Rate Manual. In fact I reproduced the same numbers in the BL Companies Traffic Study and also numbers that BL companies disingenuously chose to not disclose using the same ITE Trip data models (600 trucks/day for the WEG Warehouse design). I don't need to “fabricate” data already available from the ITE.
I thank you for your inablity to challenge my claims. It makes our case stronger. Your disgruntled response and your rants are themselves a statement of how hopelessly weak and indefensible your commentary is.
You hide behind an alias because you do not want to take responsibility for your words or because people can recognize your motivations easily? Which one is it.. or is it both?
I am not necessarily thrilled by this proposed development. But I will say this: the hyperbole and exaggeration being trotted out by the opponents of this plan are very off-putting. They are hurting themselves with the exaggerated trip and pollution claims.
State your objection and let the Commission decide based on the criteria they are permitted to consider. Don’t fabricate data to embellish your point.
The electrical engineer should not have been allowed to waste the commission’s and the public’s time with his presentation. Being learned in one discipline does not confer wisdom in unrelated areas. Hopefully the commission accords his “testimony” the weight it deserves: zero.
The property is already taxed as a commercial property. Specifically, the owners are paying $231,089.42 a year in taxes. Take a second for that to set in, 200k in taxes each year. They purchased this property before 2011 (which means they have paid ATLEAST $2.5 million in property taxes). The town specifically put sewers in that area to attract projects like this. No need for sewers for the coveted "open space" everyone wants to make it. I can't believe people are delusional enough to think that a few protests can steer what is the owner's legal right to use the property for the purpose it is zoned for. Yes, the town can make requirements for rainwater, the appearance of the building, or even when the lights are turned on and off. It can not tell a property owner they need to pay millions on taxes just to have the property stay unused. In short, here comes a truck depot.