| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: Judge Rejects Land Sale |
 |
|
| Quote: | Judge rejects sale of Conneaut Lake Park property
A proposal to sell 3.3 acres of land at Conneaut Lake Park — with some of the funds to be used to open the amusement park this summer — has been rejected by Crawford County Court of Common Pleas Judge Anthony Vardaro.
Under a proposal from Gregory Sutterlin, the 3.3 acres was to be developed by him to build approximately 30 residential condominium units in the park grounds.
Vardaro cited several reasons for denying the sale. What impact his decision may have on the opening of the park this summer is uncertain.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Judge deals setback to Conneaut Lake Park
BY TIM HAHN
tim.hahn@timesnews.com [more details]
Published: April 23. 2007 2:30PM
CONNEAUT LAKE -- Conneaut Lake Park's chances of opening later this spring have gotten decidedly slimmer.
Crawford County Judge Anthony Vardaro has denied a request by the custodian of the 115-year-old amusement park to sell a 3.6-acre parcel in the park.
Vardaro's decision, which was filed this morning, kills a deal that would have generated $1.7 million for the park and likely ends any chance of the park opening over Memorial Day Weekend.
Park overseers have said that the proceeds from the land sale to developer Greg Sutterlin would have given them the money needed to get the park open and to pay down a significant portion of the park's roughly $2.5 million debt.
Officials said they had no other options in getting the start-up money for this year and would not borrow money as they have in the past.
Vardaro cited seven reasons for denying the sale, including the fact that a sales agreement drafted for the transaction did not specify what Sutterlin could build on the property and a lack of explanation on which park creditors would be paid with the proceeds.
The sale had to be approved in Crawford County Court because the 166-acre resort and amusement park sits in public trust under court supervision.
The park's court-appointed custodian, H. LeRoy Stearns, is in a meeting this afternoon discussing what options he and other park overseers have in the wake of Vardaro's decision.
Park General Manager George Deshner said this afternoon that he hadn't yet read Vardaro's ruling.
"I'm extremely disappointed at this point," Deshner said. "We've been working very hard to have things in place so we could move forward, and just now it has come to a screeching halt." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just announced Park officials are holding a news conference today to discuss the Parks future. WJET TV Erie had a segment interviewing several area residents, including Wanda Ramaley, Pit and Pub owner, to get their reaction and view of the decision. George refused to be interviewed but commented the future is "very bleak" for the Park. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junction118
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 210
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a few things about the judge's ruling on Monday that just don't sit too well with me...
-He ruled that the park cannot sell the land for private investment due to it being a public trust. Before the park explored the idea of selling the land they asked for approval from this very same judge and were told it would not be a problem.
-He stated the sale agreement did not specify what Sutterlin could build on the land. I'd say the fact that Sutterlin asked for a zoning change to build 10 CONDOS PER ACRE on that land would give one a pretty good idea of what his plans are. Maybe the agreement needs to be modified a bit to be more specific but it doesn't seem to be something that should've caused the rejection of the deal.
-The whole idea of the sale discouraging other development in the area is just ridiculous. Anything that keeps the park open has a positive effect on any future development. There's still people in the area who think the park closed for good back in 1995. If the park does not open this summer anyone who might be planning a trip to Conneaut Lake will not even consider it next year.
The tokens as a fundraiser....I give George credit for trying with this one and once more details are available I will do what I can to help out...but i have serious doubts that this idea will raise enough to open the park. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabulodes
Member
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Pittsburgh
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Could someone explain where, exactly, this plot of land was located? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jimmyt
Member
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| its where the Flynn house was, the old owners house on the lakefront, and the parking lot, etc behind it. As you drive into the Park on Reed Ave, it's the lot on the left just where you turn towards the Beach Club,. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sabulodes
Member
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Pittsburgh
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Have any other parcels been sold off? What all is still owned by the "Park"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
