 |
CLP Junction
Conneaut Lake Park Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: CLP nearing deal on sale of Flynn site |
 |
|
| Quote: | Condos planned for C.L. Park site
By Jane Smith
Meadville Tribune
01/12/07 —
SUMMIT TOWNSHIP — Greg Sutterlin of Conneaut Lake confirmed Thursday that he is the individual who submitted a bid to purchase the 3.3 acres of land at Conneaut Lake Park.
“We are in negotiations now,” he said, adding he hopes to close soon so he can begin construction in the spring on condominiums at the site.
Conneaut Lake Park had sought proposals to purchase the land which once housed the Flynn House. It received two proposals from two local developers, neither of which met the guidelines of the advertised requests. Since then it also received another proposal, which didn’t meet the guidelines either.
On Jan. 2, Sutterlin submitted a bid to purchase the land and the court-appointed manager, LeRoy Stearns, sought legal advice to determine whether he could accept it. Told he could do so, he then turned the bid over to the park’s attorney, who began working out the details with Sutterlin and his attorney.
Sutterlin is organizing a limited liability corporation, Conneaut Lakeside Residential, to complete the transaction. “There will be investors, but no partners,” he said of the corporation.
“I was really interested in keeping the park alive. It seemed like if somebody did not bid on the land, it (the park) was not going to open.”
His plans include construction of a maximum of three condominium buildings, which will have 10 units each. “They will be luxury condos,” Sutterlin said, with a heated pool, recreation area, boating docking spaces for residents and their guests, as well as parking.
“They will have all the amenities,” he added.
“They will be built in phases,” he said, and the number built will “depend on the topography and surveys (of the land).”
In addition, there are four homes with leased land within the area being purchased. Sutterlin will not require residents to move. “They can stay if they want,” he said. Or, if the owners desire, he will move their homes to other sites.
The condos will either be on lakefront property or “lake view,” meaning residents will have a view of Conneaut Lake.
“I have been coming up here for 30-plus years,” he said, noting he owns a lakefront home on the east side of Conneaut Lake. “I am hoping there will be great years ahead for the park.”
Sutterlin said the idea of the proposed sale was to allow the majority of the debt to be paid to allow the park to open on schedule this year, free of a lot of debt. He believes his bid will allow that to happen.
The area also includes the McClure House, which was the first structure in the 115-year-old amusement park. The house has deteriorated and Sutterlin wants to investigate whether any grant money would be available to preserve it — providing it’s able to be preserved.
Stearns said Thursday that the bid meets all the guidelines of the previously advertised proposal and he is hopeful the deal can be completed soon.
Neither Sutterlin nor Stearns is at liberty yet to give all the bid details, pending the final negotiations. Once negotiations are complete, Stearns will take it to the court for approval.
The park was deeded to the Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park by former owner and operator Gary Harris in 1996 to be held in trust for the citizens of northwestern Pennsylvania.
After a lawsuit was filed by a former member of the board, the park was declared a charitable trust and now is under jurisdiction of the attorney general’s office and the court.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
myself
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: West Mifflin, PA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, What is happening with the deal now?
_________________
myself, AKA andy_e219
Conneaut Lake Park 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 378
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The last I heard, the deal was being revised. In the original deal, the Park was going to carry the mortgage !!!!! That just doesn't make sense to me. Now I'm being told it's a cash deal, that "hopefully will pay off MOST of the debt" ?!?!?!?! Again, ridiculous if you ask me. If you sell something for less than it's worth, you lose, no matter how you slice it. Yes, the Park needs money to open and yes, the Park needs to pay off it's past debt but, if you have land valued at 2 million dollars, and sell it for 2 million dollars, you break even on your balance sheet. If you sell it for less than that, you just lost money. Supposedly, the deal has to be made public and go before the court before it's final, so hopefully, we the citizens, who own the Park, won't lose too much.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 378
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, more potential trouble for the Park. The zoning for the land to be sold only allows 6 units per acre, the buyer wants to build 10 per acre. The Summit Township supervisors are meeting tonight, 2/6, but it was too late to get the zoning variance on the agenda so it looks like it will have to wait until next month. Getting dangerously close to the start of the season. I worked there year round for a couple of years; I know the preparation needed to get the Park open. March is almost too late to wait to decide..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bull
Member
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something sounds a little fishy here! Either something is going on behind the scenes, or The Meadville Tribune is not reporting well.
The Tribune reported that a new rule was established recenty that would not allow more than 6 units per acre. How recently was this rule established? If it was after talk of the land sell, then it seems to me that someone is wanting to stop this sale.
Also, Why would they not hold as special meeting for something this important??? If it could not be on todays agenda, why not call a special meeting??? It seems as if some people in the area want the park to fail, which does not make sence to me. It is an important part of the area, and I hate to say it without the park, most of the small business it the Conneuat Lake area would be gone! I know for one, my family and I make at leat three trips a year to the area, and spend a ton of money. But with out the park, I would have no reason to come back, and I know I am not the only one that feels that way. Look at 96 and 97! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 378
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The zoning law for 6 units per acre was passed last year, well before talk of the sale and I believe is fairly standard throughout the county. Yes, they can, and most likely will, hold a special meeting but it requires at least 2 weeks notice after publication in the legal part of the paper, which takes a few days to prepare. So, and this is just a guess, the soonest a hearing would be held would be around 2/22 and I'm guessing it would be the last week in Feb. I'm wondering why all the back and forth; one week, Leroy is all gung ho about selling the parcel, then the Economic Alliance comes out and says wait, we don't recommend selling the land, we can open with grant money, then a week later, this behind the scenes deal surfaces. And what's up with this Economic Alliance? They were to have the master plan by the end of the summer, then the deadline was October, and we still haven't seen it ?!?!?!?! Another waste of taxpayer dollars.....oh, nice editorial in todays paper by Jean Shanley, who grew up in CLP, right by the old fire house. Maybe someone with the online version can post it, hey Cappy ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cappy
Member
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 141
Location: Western Pa
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok jimmyt I'm on it. Here is what Jean wrote:
LOCAL COLUMN: Yes, it is time to save the Conneaut Lake Park, but take a more positive approach
— By Jean Shanley
It has been emphasized for the past 10 years that the citizens of northwest Pennsylvania “own” Conneaut Lake Park, and therefore they have a right to say how it is operated.
Actually, the park is owned by the Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park and held in trust for the citizens of northwest Pennsylvania.
The trustees (or a court-appointed custodian acting because the trustees either asked for one or resigned) have been working to keep the park open for 10 years — ever since Gary Harris gave the park to the trustees.
Since that time, boards have been named — and resigned — and custodians have been appointed, but somehow the park has survived.
Still, each board and each custodian has faced what seem to be insurmountable debts that prevent it from operating as well as it should.
Seventeen months ago the board (before it resigned en mass) appointed George Deshner as general manager; and the court appointed LeRoy Stearns as custodian.
On Jan. 28, a meeting was held to address what organizers called “the goods and bads” of the past year at Conneaut Lake Park, and to see if the park is to open this year. The hostess opened the program by mentioning two people: Harris (in a very unflattering way) and Rose Boyle. While Harris has done many questionable things in his life, the citizens of northwest Pennsylvania should at some point realize that if he had not brought the park out of bankruptcy in 1996, the park would probably be dust by now. No one else even bid on the property.
Boyle did tremendous things for Conneaut Lake Park — and she deserves the recognition that she received for her years of dedicated service.
After a comment praising some of the volunteers who served on boards, the events of the past year were discussed and, according to the presenters, there were no positive things at all.
What happened to “we’re going to talk about the goods and the bads?” Does anyone recognize anything good that happened at Conneaut Lake Park in the past year? Perhaps Stearns should have just closed the park, as others would have done. Despite all the criticism he and the court have received, I believe he has tried to improve the park and its condition.
Does it need a business plan? Absolutely. One was supposed to be finished last August and would have given the court and the court-appointed custodian plenty of time to go to the state or to a bank for help turning the park around. We’re assured the plan is almost done by the Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County, responsible for reviewing all the areas at the park. Of course, we were assured the same thing last October.
The Jan. 25 program presenters had many ideas for improving the park. I agree with some of the suggestions, but I have heard most of these thoughts before from board members, former custodians, volunteers or the public. And all of those people deserve credit for the good things they did to keep the park operating.
I applaud the efforts to address issues — but it would have been nice if they had been addressed in a more positive attitude. I heard examples of “bad” customer service that’s happened at the park in recent years. It seemed to me that examples of poor customer service could be listed for almost any business in Crawford County.
The second issue addressed was ownership. If, indeed, everyone wants to be sure they get their fair share of the park they “own,” isn’t it about time those people started supporting the park — with their dollars and their work instead of just their criticism? I wonder when the people who claim ownership are going to start acting like they’re glad Gary Harris purchased it, saving it (at a cost of $2.1 million) before deeding it to the trustees. Harris didn’t always do everything right. But it’s time we stop calling him names and blaming him for all the problems and at least recognize that he rescued the park when experienced businessmen with multiple college degrees and years of business experience gave up on it.
I believe Stearns and Deshner have made some progress addressing issues left behind when others gave up. They acknowledge they have made some mistakes, but I think they certainly deserved far more credit for their work than what I heard on Jan. 25.
I’m not convinced the park can’t make money, and I think some of the recent figures have shown that solid profits are quite possible.
But I think it needs some major funds to improve things that have been left untouched for years. The moderators suggested we ask the state for help — and that would be great. In the meantime, it’s time for those who love the park to start acting like they love more than the memories and at least have some respect for those who have worked at keeping it open (both current and former employees) when it would have been so much easier to shut it down and get on with their lives.
Jean Shanley, Meadville Tribune communities editor, is a former Conneaut Lake resident.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
an update from today's Tribune...
| Quote: |
Supervisors sympathetic to saving park
By Jane Smith
02/07/07 —
SUMMIT TOWNSHIP — Although they could take no action Tuesday night, Summit Township supervisors agreed to investigate what’s needed to change the zoning ordinance to allow construction of more condominiums at Conneaut Lake Park than is currently permitted — a move which could save the financially-troubled park.
Supervisors Harry McGrath and Joel Stone listened to a request by Greg Sutterlin of Conneaut Lake to amend the township ordinance regarding the number of condos which can be built on an acre of land.
Sutterlin plans to purchase 3.3 acres of land from the park and construct condominiums, but the ordinance allows only six units per acres. His proposal is to construct a minimum of 31 — meaning a variance would have to be granted or the ordinance amended.
He said it wouldn’t be economically feasible to construct fewer than 31.
After a 30-minute dialogue between supervisors, Sutterlin, his attorney Bill Gregg, township attorney Bill Walker and CLP court-appointed overseer LeRoy Stearns, the supervisors passed a motion to have Walker “investigate a potential change (in the ordinance) and see what it would take to be approved.”
Stearns stressed the need for the change, saying without it the sale won’t go through and the park is in danger of being liquidated.
Plans are to use proceeds of the sale to pay the majority of the debt owed by the park and give it the money to open this summer.
Stearns said if the proposal isn’t accepted and the sale isn’t done by June 17, “the park will be liquidated under court supervision or by a group of individuals,” referring to a new board of directors.
That is the due date of two bank loans totaling $500,000.
Stearns reminded supervisors that should liquidation occur, the creditors “would get pennies on the dollars” and the township may not get all the money owed for unpaid real estate taxes.
“You have a responsibility to the taxpayers,” Stearns said, to ensure they do what is best for Summit residents.
He said the park employs 250 people during the summer; if it doesn’t open, it will mean a decrease in tourism and loss of jobs.
Mark Turner of the Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County had suggested no changes be made until a development plan is complete for the rest of Conneaut Lake Park — which is expected “by mid-February,” according to McGrath.
Stearns said Turner has no legal right to speak on behalf of the park. McGrath questioned the true debt, saying it was presented as $2.7 million.
“That $2.7 million was not confirmed,” said Stearns, about the figure presented by Turner at a recent meeting. “The numbers should not have been made public until the judge and I saw them. There is a difference with what we have and they have,” he said, noting the park figures show a debt of $2.3 million now.
McGrath questioned why nobody came forward sooner about the ordinance problem. Stearns said he only received the proposal in January and was made aware of the limited condominium construction when advised recently by Walker.
In asking for the change, Gregg said it serves a two-fold purpose. The change would allow development of high-quality housing and allow Conneaut Lake Park to address its back debt and allow the park to make plans to open this summer.
He said the park is “unique” and asked for special consideration. McGrath said, however, the park must be treated like all other township property. He must consider the safety of residents and not allow them to “be piled on top of each other.”
Sutterlin said there are other developments across the country which have higher population density codes, including in adjacent Sadsbury Township. If he wanted to build in another section of the park (which is located in both Summit and Sadsbury townships), he could meet the ordinance with no problem, he added.
However, he said the lakefront property is more valuable for condominium construction.
After supervisors gave Walker direction to investigate what can be done, McGrath said no decision could be made until the March meeting, followed by advertising of a possible change and public input.
At the same time, he said he wasn’t opposed to holding a special meeting, if necessary.
Supervisor LeRoy Bell was absent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 378
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think it's interesting that Stearns is challenging the Economic Progress Alliance's right to speak at a public meeting. Somehow I don't think they are on the same page. I thought Leroy is the one that asked them for help; now it seems like he doesn't agree with their plan. It's a shame that everyone can't put their heads together and come up with a viable business plan for the park. Oh wait, thats what the state grant was for, paid to the Economic Progress Alliance. So our tax dollars funded a program that the custodian doesn't agree with and he said they can't speak our their behalf? Or is it that they came up with a different figure on the debt, 2.7 million vs. 2.4 million. In this day of high speed computing, those figures should be available in an instant. They even spent big bucks this year "upgrading" their accounting system. Some upgrade, at the October meeting, Park management still didn't have a total for the season. Heck, give me an abacus and I could have figured it out for them..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
myself
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: West Mifflin, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats a good one about the abacus. 
_________________
myself, AKA andy_e219
Conneaut Lake Park 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 378
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In todays Meadville Tribune was an article stating that Summit Township okayed the new development. Mr Sutterlein still needs to go before the county planning commission, but they usually just rubber stamp whatever the local board approves. The next step is for them to go before the court to authorize the sale of the land, which, according to the article, should happen next week. I tried to post the article, but it's not on the "free" online version, maybe if Cappy still has his subscription, he can post it...btw Cap, you're not missing anything by being in Florida...it was zero again last night with 6 more inches of snow !!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the whole article from the Tribune....
| Quote: | Sale of park land eased with change in zoning rule
By Jane Smith
MEADVILLE TRIBUNE
SUMMIT TOWNSHIP -- Summit Township supervisors agreed Tuesday night to amend a zoning ordinance to increase the number of dwelling allowed on one acre of land from six to 10 -- a move that should allow developer Greg Sutterlin to proceed with plans to construct condominiums on lakefront property at Conneaut Lake Park.
Sutterlin wants to purchase 3.625 acres of the park's land, an area that encompasses the site of the former Flynn House and adjacent property. However, an ordinance adopted last year by township supervisors limited the number of condominiums to six per acre. Sutterlin sought the change, saying it wouldn't be financially feasible to construct only 18 units on a property expected to fetch nearly $2 million.
While agreeing to advertise the proposed change, supervisors cautioned the matter would still have to go through a review by both the township and county planning commission and be subject to a public hearing before final approval.
That hearing is April 3 at 7 p.m. at the township building.
Bill Walker, township attorney, said he researched the ordinances of other municipalities and found "they were all over the place" Vernon Township allows four and one-half dwellings per acre; Sadsbury Township, 14; Woodcock, 12; Pine, five; and Hayfield, eight.
He advised supervisors he didn't think what was being asked was unreasonable.
Bill Gregg, Sutterlin's attorney, said the planned development coincides with a master plan for the park recently presented by the Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County, which calls for public/private investment and developing residential units on lakefront property.
Following the session, Sutterlin said his next step is to petition Crawford County Court of Common Pleas to approve the sale, which will give the park funds to pay much of its debt and open for the 2007 season.
He said the petition is to be presented this week |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshman
Member
Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:00 am Post subject: this is an excellent thing for conneaut lake park |
|
|
| i am 16 years old and been going there since i very little. My grandpa even went there when he was a kid. i am from around cleveland ohio and we always rent a cottage and stay there for a week. to see the park close would be devistating. i hope this deal makes the park stay open for a lot longer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreadnought
Member
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Conneaut Lake
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: Town-Hall meeting on the Park... |
|
|
At the Stable Pit & Pub, March 25th @ 1pm.
FWIW..
The Meadville Tribune's site is down for the link, but it was published in the paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreadnought
Member
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Location: Conneaut Lake
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
