Petition Tag - existing

1. Opposition to Genesis/Acre Lane - proposed development

We, the local community, would wish that any further developments on Acre Lane (in particular the proposed development of the existing Fulham Timber Site - Acre Lane 176-184) would heed the views of residents and instead of seeking to cram more social/affordable housing into this area, develop the area so as to provide additional amenities and services to the local community.

We have already succeeded in stopping BYS building yet more (and unused) storage facilities and seek to stop Genesis from building housing when there is already a surplus of vacant accommodation in the area and a lack of decent facilities/amenities for the exisiting local community (ie shops, green spaces, community spaces, schools).

For info on the Genesis plans please visit:

2. Non-Rutland Resident: Petition of Support for Summer Ban

Whereas, the public health concerns of existing outdoor wood boilers are well documented and recognized by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association, and countless other local boards of health across the United States, we are hereby signing this petition in support for Rutland residents who wish for the institution of a summer ban for existing outdoor wood boilers in the Town of Rutland, Massachusetts.

3. Rutland Residents to Board of Health: Adopt Summer Ban

Whereas, the public health concerns of existing outdoor wood boilers are well documented and recognized by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association, and countless other local boards of health across the United States, we are hereby creating this petition for the institution of a summer ban for existing outdoor wood boilers in the town of Rutland, Massachusetts.

4. Preserve Bay Ridge Neighborhood

BCJ HOLDS, L.L.C. (Allen Edwin Homes) has applied to the Charter Township of Texas Planning Commission for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). This proposal includes a request for rezoning (currently zoned R-2) due to substantial reductions in lot size. The reduction in lot size is due to their proposed 38.3 acres of preserved open space, including a perimeter trail that may provide beneficial neighborhood transition zones, and help retain access to open space recreation that Bay Ridge families currently enjoy in the undeveloped lot/field. Without the rezoning, the development would not include preserved open space, and would include a 216-lot subdivision (Comparison Plan), as opposed to a 237-lot subdivision (Preliminary Concept Development Plan). The Concept Plan, which includes the preserved open space, also calls for retaining the Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive cul-de-sacs.

However, the Township, County Road Commission, and Fire Department may or may not approve the retention of the two cul-de-sacs, in part based on Section 16-82(a)(1)b of the Zoning Ordinance under Subdivision Control, which requires that “the arrangement of streets shall provide for a continuation of existing streets from adjoining areas in the new subdivision.”

This Preserve Bay Ridge Neighborhood petition seeks approval from the Charter Township of Texas Planning Commission not to extend Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive into the new Concept Plan development, and to upgrade the existing cul-de-sacs as per recommendations provided by Thomas C. Wheat in his April 13, 2009 memorandum to the Planning Commission. This request is based on three important factors:

1. Concern that extending Bay Ridge Road and Bentley Drive as through-streets would degrade the quality of life, and decrease the safety of residents and children in the Bay Ridge neighborhood by increasing the speed and frequency of traffic to and from the new Rudgate Trails development.

2. Despite the lot size variance for the Concept Plan, we believe that integrating open space, or “green infrastructure,” in subdivision developments provides substantial quality of life and environmental benefits, including, but not limited to access to recreation lands; natural storm water runoff filtration and retention; wildlife habitat; and scenic beauty.

3. An adequate transition zone would help preserve the character and identity of the respective neighborhoods.

5. Prevent further measures to stop through traffic passing through Hawkinge Village Centre

There are elements of the Canterbury Road Project, that include plans to (despite the existing bypass) actively discourage through traffic coming into the main Village Centre.

The local shops and Businesses have already suffered due to the bypass - through traffic means passing trade - and it is very likely if the junction priority change at Aerodrome Road, the traffic light priority changes and any other measures to reduce traffic volume and encourage everyone to use the bypass, that at least some of the Businesses may suffer, or indeed close down.

Then there will be no Village Centre to speak of.

Width restrictions, or weight restrictions would be a simple measure to discourage the HGV's. Traffic calming measures would be welcomed.

6. Forest Lake at Bear Creek Entry Sign and Landscaping

Demien Development Incorporated and Gittemeir Homes Incorporated are not meeting their obligation to the Forest Lake at Bear Creek homeowners on several issues and it is negatively impacting our property values.

The entry monuments and signage have not been erected as promised, there is a chain link fence at the entrance to the development which is in direct violoation of the Master Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of Bear Creek Estates("Covenants and Restrictions") Section B Item 2, the cart path connecting Oak Creek Drive to the existing cart path on the golf course has not been installed, and the empty lots and common areas are not being maintained properly as per Item 11 in Section B of the Covenants and Restrictions.

7. Save our services

When the new East London Line arrives in 2010, it will mean severe and unacceptable cuts to our existing train services to and from London Bridge. We are asking for your help to fight these cuts by signing our petition.

- Direct trains to and from London Bridge are likely to be cut to four trains per hour.
- This is a reduction from the current service of six trains off peak and more at peak times.
- There will be an extra eight trains per hour on the East London Line stopping at Sydenham and Forest Hill but these will only be four carriages long, with limited seating available.
- Cuts are proposed to the Clapham Junction and Victoria service from our stations, possibly removing this service entirely.
- With these proposed cuts it is likely that London Bridge services will become even more congested than at present.

It is vital that we keep our existing level of services to and from London Bridge

We are not opposed to the new East London line - we warmly welcome it - but this should not be introduced at the cost of existing services.

This petition has been produced by the Forest Hill Society and is supported by the Sydenham Society.

8. Parent's Rights are Child's Rights!

The paternal Grandmother of baby boy of 18 months filed for joinder under false grounds and false facts/statements. The Joinder was still Granted!
After, Grandma filed a motion to requests visitations un supervised. The baby doesn't even know them and vice versa to say there is an en dangared pre-existing bond.
I had a brief with points and authorities with case law and state codes/ laws made, was grantedsupervised visits at my home every week for 2 hours at my convinience.

Grandma showed on a day she wasn't supposed to, put my mother and child in dangers way, I then filed a TRO
but the Judge denied it because I wasn't the victim.

Now grandparents get un supervised visits with supervised pick up and drop off and we both have to pay. Grandparents have been getting away with it all, the court doesn't want to hear me out. I have plenty of laws, statues, codes, case laws, evidence, testimonials, witnesses, and it is almost as if I were the invinsible parent. I have been the parent 100 percent of the time, the other parent is not around. There is no pre existing bond or anything that the court should have to go by to allow forced visits.

They have had my child dropped off with vomit on his clothes, un approved medicine stains on his shirt, chocolate, it goes on and on. HELP Your petition counts!

9. Secure Placement of Existing Vintage Ranch Students in Spectrum Elementary

February 28, 2007

We have recently learned that existing students who attend Spectrum Elementary who reside in Vintage Ranch are considered to be moved out to the new school #28.

Vintage Ranch students and their families who attend Spectrum Elementary have been with the school since its inception. We are the founding families for Spectrum Elementary School. We are outraged that our families' children are going to be considered to be transferred to the new school.

Spectrum Elementary has grown and is established today because of its families and students' contribution along with the incredible principal Mr. Hallock and his staff/teachers. We have all worked diligently over the past three 1/2 years to raise funding for school's necessary equipments, landscaping, books, and necessary materials such as sun shades for play ground structures.

We have formed a bond within our school community which is enviable compared to any other school. After solidifying our place in a school where we believed that our children will graduate from, we are now threatened to vacate our rightful place.

At a meeting which held place at Spectrum Elementary on February 22, 2007, all but one person was happy with the new boundary proposed which included East of Gilbert, South of Williams Field, West of Val Vista, and North of Pecos. Many people left feeling secure and safe that the outcome would be guaranteed and that the new boundary made most logical sense. And now after a Board meeting held on February27, 2007, someone brought up the idea that only Vintage Ranch will be carved out to be sent to the new school, and this is based solely on number 150 which will fill up the new school. This idea is preposterous because it doesn't take many important factors into consideration.

First of all, this will destroy our kids and families' relationships and undermine our community as a whole. Secondly, this will single out our community among the "Ranches" and devalue our property value. It is a fact that income, education, and property value are correlated to excellency of schools. If Vintage Ranch is linked to a school where the demographics are vastly mixed with apartment community and town homes, this will definitely drag our property values down.

We believe that the new school being built should be reserved for students who will reside in housings that are currently in construction as well as people who live closer to the news school which would be East of Val Vista and South of Pecos.

10. Install a new water main in Terrace Avenue

July 30, 2006

Water pressure is extremely low on east end of street.

No available fire hydrant on east end of street.

Only existing catch basin is on high point on far east end of street.

11. Don't widen Country Road

Widening the frontage road at 3360 Country Road to a minimum of 24 feet is unreasonable.

Canonita and Country Road are the access roads to this property. The existing road widths for approximately 1 mile to 3360 Country Road varies but is primarily 16 feet wide.

The widening of the frontage of 3360 Country Road would result in financial hardship, would deviate from the consistency with existing road characteristics in the project vicinity and would require utility relocations.


We request that the Downey City Council and City Planning Department uphold the existing Downey Municipal Code "9110.14 The architecture & general appearance of the building shall be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and such as not be detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhood in which they are located." which is a valid enforceable regulation under California law (Schroeder v. Municipal Court 73 Cal App3d 841.848 1977.

This means "As for instance in a ranch neighborhood in order to comply with Downey Municipal Code any potential buyer or developer of the property may only build a structure thereon which is consistent with the "ranch style" of all the other homes."

We also request that any code such as height and square footage be amended to fit this neighborhood code and regardless of other code allowing two stories, any home that is to be remodeled or built must still conform to the code to include 'scale of neighborhood'.

We oppose allowing Mansionization of Downey Neighborhoods as it disrupts the architectural integrity of our neighborhoods which we believe will eventually lower property values, as well as, that it disrupts privacy and a neighborhood's sense of place and well being.

13. Mirror Mirror On The Wall (Return mirrors to Anita Terrace)

We the people of Anita Terrace at 99-40 63rd Road, want you the management to put back the mirrors that were removed from each floor by the elevators and to keep the existing mirrors in the lobby.

We dearly miss the mirrors and want them back in place.

14. Falls Run/Plute Builders/Del Webb should replace existing security gate

The builder has a cheap no working security gate in a new adult community. Homeowners have tried to get a working attractive gate but have not suceeded. Homeowners would like a attractive Iron decorative gate that is both functional and adds to the value of the homes.


The owner of the existing gas station is requesting a Use Permit from the City to demolish the existing gas station and car wash and add a 24-hour gas station and 24-hour convenience store. As residents of this area of Menlo Park, we have significant concerns about allowing such a facility in this largely residential area.

16. Spherion's 2003-2004 New Benefits Plan

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, on March 4th & 5th of 2003 Spherion Corporation presented the new years benefits plan. "This plan will cost the employees less, fore less will be deducted from their weekly earnings". Yes, of course that is absolutely correct. The coverage is also reflective of this very ideal. (The ole' cliche')"One gets what one pays for" Comes to mind. For the facts are self-evident, this plan is morbidly insufficent health coverage for any basic annual health expense, yet alone any specialized care or prevention.

Secondly, what becomes of the individuals undergoing treatment for pre-existing conditions and/or life threatening illnesses/decease? This newest development in benefits will halt all treatments and medications for these people. What are they going to do?

Research into finding alternative health providers proved feeble. Most will not even consider someone with any pre-existing condition. Also for a healthy individual to get coverage for thenmselves runs from $200.00 to $400,00.

After, last August's cut in pay, most do not have the means to entertain that option.

The new plan provided via Allstate was designed for someone healthy. It is referred to as a "Mini-Plan" quote unquote by Allstate. This is simular to having Supplimental health insurance like AARP.