Home ball field goes back to the drawing board Around Town, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Feb 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
The Lowe family is still trying to get OKs for their private baseball field for work that was done without permits in 2007. The Danville Planning Commission held a public hearing Tuesday but ended up continuing the matter to get more information.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:40 PM
Posted by cardfark, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
The Town of Danville has no clothes.
This family arrogantly thumbed its nose at the town's permitting rules multiple times, built that ridiculous private playground when they should have been stopped by Order and made to restore the ridgeline, and now they're going play the Town for a fool until their kid goes off to college.
I think the Town should have required those folks to roll up all that artificial turf and reinstall it at the public dog park at Hap Magee Park.
And my question is: henceforth, why would ANYbody bother to listen to what the Town of Danville "requires" in its permitting process? Just threaten them with a lawsuit and they'll scurry for cover, and pretend to work it out.
Posted by cardfark, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2009 at 12:13 pm
As I recall the fable they sold to the media (professionally-done video puff-piece included), the dad was a "very" important finance figure, who wanted to coach his kid's Little League team (awww), but couldn't possibly bestir himself to drive ten minutes to the nearest public facility.
Solution -- why, build your own private Xanadu Field, replete with artificial turf, ignoring the permitting rules and even a stop-work order. Then argue how wasteful it would be to have to tear it down, darkly hinting at litigation if the Town actually enforces its rules.
Maybe this is why the Town concentrates its fire on the likes of that lady on Diablo Road who had the temerity to pave a dusty few feet in front of her property, by the freeway.
Two further thoughts:
1 -- the A's should hire ol' dad to aleve their siting tribulations, and
2 -- good luck, Alamo! Be careful what you vote for.
Posted by Temerity Lady, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“Maybe this is why the Town concentrates its fire on the likes of that lady on Diablo Road who had the temerity to pave a dusty few feet in front of her property, by the freeway.”
At the December 16, 2007, meeting of the town council, Danville town planners instigated the following agenda item:
14A Consider adoption of Resolution No.151-2008, declaring a public nuisance at 484 Diablo Road and ordering its abatement.
Passed unanimously by council members, this pathway being ordered for abatement (tearing out), conforms to the American Disability Act (ADA) for wheelchair access to downtown Danville. It increases pedestrian safety and reduces liability for the Town and property owner from injury incurred by pedestrians’ tripping over dirt, gravel and deteriorating asphalt. Planners showed no evidence of cars parked on pavement marked “NO PARKING” which they claim as reason for abatement.
What is the difference between this 484 property and installing a playing field without a permit? The 484 property owner believes commonsense and the court of pubic opinion will prevail. The Lowe’s believe their legal fees, after years of haggling with public officials, ending up with only an expensive backyard playground for their kids, was worth it.
Proponents of incorporation for Alamo say you can RECALL CITY HALL. But can you?
Posted by LoweNoMo, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Power mom is right. When the Lowes built their house years ago, they had to sign off on many special limitations for their home lot and the side lot where the field has been built. There were many special limitations because the Lowes had chosen to purchase a protected ridgeline property. A better idea for a young couple contemplating a family would have been to buy a nice flat lot off of
Camino Tassajara south of Danville. They could do whatever they want out there...ponies, paintball fields, pools, tennis. So to claim now they can do "whatever" they want in their backyard...well, no they can't. Trying to change the rules "later" after thumbing their nose at ordinances, threatening to sue their neighbors for daring to complain about lights, batting cages, 14 foot fences and noise, building a flimsy structure with no respect for downhill neighbors....should NOT be rewarded!
Posted by Alamoana, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Hang in there, planning commissioners! You did the right thing, not only for this project, but for the future of development in Danville and the surrounding area. Being allowed to build a home on a protected ridgeline is not a right....it's a privilege. The rest of us buy permits, follow the inspectors' rules and try to be good
Reward US with careful analysis of all building plans and punish lawbreakers like the Lowes. Do Lowe's business partners in San Francisco know what a lousy citizen he is?