Anonymous Comments Will Be Removed

Anonymous posts can be confusing and hard to follow with several users posting anonymously in the same thread. Please create a User Name/ID when adding to our comments section.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

More on the Green Valley Academy - upcoming meetings -- UPDATED

As expected, following the Green Valley Academy's (GVA) last minute request to have their petition tabled last July, they are now back with new plans.

The new plan has been carefully crafted.  The petitioners waited five months, found a different parcel located in the AV-3 zone, filed a design for review with the county planning office right before the holidays on December 23rd, and have changed the type of facility from a "Residential  Treatment Facility" to a "School," since a school is permitted in the AV-3 zone.

While rumors have been mentioned in recent weeks, no one knew for sure until the Ogden Valley News published this article in their January 15th issue.

Ogden Valley Planning News - Eden Heliport and Resident Treatment Center on January 25 agenda

Neighbors of the Treatment facility (we will call it what it is) have been busy organizing and will be holding another meeting on:

Thursday, January 20, 2011
Weber County Library - Ogden Valley Branch in Huntsville
7:00 PM

The proposal will go before the Ogden Planning Commission:

January 25, 2011
5:00 PM
Weber County Commission Chambers
2380 Washington Blvd.
Ogden, UT

During the last citizen's meeting, these documents were disseminated:

Letter from Weber County Engineer's office to WC Planning Dept. regarding the GVA development

Site plan of the proposed site drawn by a resident who viewed the plans at the Planning Department

Now is not the time to be complacent.  This is an Ogden Valley issue, not just an issue for the neighbors of this facility.   Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, there will certainly be more similar facilities to come.

Will the next one be next to you?

UPDATE 1/15/2011 @ 7:15 PM:

Teri reminds us:
Letters and emails are helpful.

Correspondence should be addressed to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission. Do not send to the Weber County Commissioners.

The addresses are:

Snail mail: Ogden Valley Planning Commission, Attn Sherrie Sillitoe,
2380 Washington Blvd, Suite 240, Ogden, UT 84401



Teri said...

FYI: Letters and emails are helpful.

Correspondence should be addressed to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission. Do not send to the Weber County Commissioners.

The addresses are:

Snail mail: Ogden Valley Planning Commission, Attn Sherrie Sillitoe,
2380 Washington Blvd, Suite 240, Ogden, UT 84401


Anonymous said...

Thanks Teri..Ogden Valley Residents please voice your concern and send on email to the planning commission. We really need to get the whole community behind this. One interesting piece of reading material is the minutes from the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission from June 22,2010 regarding the initial proposal. When Mr. Balmer was asked if he had approached anyone to purchase property? Mr. Balmer stated "Yes, we have looked at approximately 20 sites in the Ogden Valley and believe one property to be the best for their facility." So if thats the case then the new proposed site is not the best location. Mr.Balmer also stated that he had worked with staff for a few months and they recommended that their facility would be the most compatible with the FV-3 zone. Honestly, now they'll probably say they changed their minds and now it's most compatible with the AV-3 zone.
I mean they are trying to present the biggest pile of manipulation, they would say anything about any zone just to get this facility in the Valley!! They just keep going through all the zones until they get this facility up here. They aren't concerned about the residents here. Their change their tune based on what is gonna work for them. If the planning commission can't see this then something is not adding up.
Also another interesting point with the minutes from the last Meeting. The commission Motioned to deny. And as part of the discussion, Commissioner Banks believed such a facility should be allowed somewhere in the Ogden Valley. Commissioner Parson believes it should be allowed on "at least" and I will stress again "at least" 20 acres with 50ft. setback and heavy landscape buffer.
So based on what they recommended the new proposed location does not met the minimum acreage and does not have the 50 ft. setback. At least not where our property borders the retention pond is right to the fence. They did have some landscaping but it definetly wasn't "heavy."
I just hope that the commissioners will see Mr. Balmer has disregarded their recommendations and will deny once again.

concerned said...

Just wanted to chime in and offer my encouragement and support. I too am concerned by what I am reading and hearing. If indeed this group is trying to cram 100 kids on this property as has been reported on this wonderful forum as “fact” then this is just plain wrong. I am also concerned by the comments on the petition stating that these people will be working with “sex offenders and pedophiles.” If indeed these points are true, then I will help fight till the end and and do all I can to ultimately defeat these people.
However, I am also someone who believes in being fair and holding both sides equally accountable. If I find out that the 100 kid capacity is inaccuracte (despite being listed as a “fact”) and the group of kids they are trying to help are not sex offenders or dangerous kids, then I will view this website and it’s followers as being just as dishonest and manipulative as this group is being accused. Fortunately this is all public record and the “facts” will soon be known. Don’t get me wrong I want to help, but like anyone else, I don’t want to be lied to and manipulated no matter what the justification may be otherwise.

Valley said...

Concerned, you may want to get your "facts" straight.

The initial "facts" were presented in our January 13 post based on what a neighbor of the property saw when she reviewed the plans and discussed the issue with WC planner Ben Hatfield on January 12 or 13, 2011.

On January 14, 2011, another resident visited with Ben Hatfield, reviewed the plans and updated the forum. Some of his comments are listed under that same post in the "comments" section. He was shown the brand new plans as of that day, and the plans stated 36 students and 20 staff members with parking for 44 vehicles. He also observed the design for the dorms and there were about 10 large bedrooms.

If you truly want to find the "facts" and if you are truly "concerned," you will notice the Update to the January 13 post that was made 1/14/2011 @ 6:00 PM reflecting these numbers.

As for sex offenders, please clarify where this forum has mentioned sex offenders. Some readers and participants may have mentioned sex offenders in their comments, but you will be hard pressed to find this forum stating as "fact" that the Treatment Facility will house sex offenders.

As for comments on the Petition, the Ogden Valley Forum has nothing to do with the Petition except that we have included a link to it for the benefit of our readers.

Concerned, you sing a familiar tune. A tune of half truths and manipulation. During the June 22, 2010 meeting of the Ogden Valley Planning Commission, Dr. Jared Balmer made several comments regarding comments he has read on our Forum. He went so far as to read comments that he attributed to the forum in an apparent effort to garner sympathy to his cause.

While some of the comments he mentioned certainly were posted by readers of this site, there were two that we take exception to. They in fact were not on this forum at all, but instead listed on the petition to Stop the academy. As Dr. Balmer and others from the Green Valley Academy know, the petition is an entirely different, stand alone web site and document.

This is an open forum and our readers and participants are free to state their feelings, as long as they abide by our "Comments Policy."

Please get your facts straight "concerned" rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

concerned said...

Okay I hear you. I dont want to add to the confusion I'm hearing, perhaps I didn't express myself right. (won't be last) I'm hoping someone will have answers at the meeting on the 20th.

It's all about the $$ said...

Concerned - the fact are very fluid and ever changing.

First, the County does not post the plans so one has to personally visit and ask to view the plans. These plans change from day to day.

Second, the GVA folks are very covert. Six months ago, it was a residential treatment facility. They were to treat "Forest Gump" type kids whose primary diagnosis was not alcohol or substance abuse. Don't ask about the secondary diagnosis because that is irrelevent.

They laid out their plans 6 months ago thinking we neighbors would fall in love with such a beautiful facility. When we came out en masse opposition, they retreated and waited until the day before Christmas eve to present their new plan for a "school."

They tried by telling part of the truth six months ago and now they are working under the cover of darkness.

Guaranteed, once they get established, they will certainly be back for more - another dorm building, another classroom, another medical office.

It's all about money.

36 kids X $10,000 = BIG MONEY
100 kids X $10,000 = BIGGER $$

Anonymous said...

Please voice your concerns and sends emails to the planning commission at the address Teri listed on the blog. Remember to stay focused on the issues..water, sewer, traffic etc. Thanks again Valley residents for all your help...Remember the Town meeting on Thurs Jan 20th 7:00pm, Huntsville Library.

neighbor said...

Does anyone have any actual data about the effect of "schools" like this in other areas? Isn't there one already in Oakley? What is the effect on the real estate prices in the area of the "school" ? How have crime rates been effected in the area? How has the Oakley "school" grown? (i.e addition of new buildings?) How much traffic does the other "school" generate?

This data is all publicly available, surely. I would suggest that it would be the responsibility of the planning commission and other "approval" bodies to secure and review such data. I would think that the responsibility would rest on the "school's" proposers to produce such data and to vouch for its accuracy, with legal ramifications if it were found to be falsified.