Exposing Corruption, Injustices and the Truth.
| O'Fallon Watchdog |
| Watchdog Headlines ! |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| O'Fallon Watchdog |
Exposing Corruption, Injustices and the Truth.
Political Favors? You decide.
By the O’Fallon Watchdog
In researching Peter Cantwell’s latest campaign disclosure report the Watchdog took particular interest with a
expenditure of $4,750.00 to a company called Cannon Strategies. In researching documents on file with the Missouri
Secretary of State office we found the following information.
Cannon Strategies LLC
Purpose: Direct mail and political consulting
Organizers:
Steve Wyatt Earp, 541 Meadowlark Lane Arnold MO 63010
Brad Schneider, 429 N. Main. O’Fallon MO, 63366
One of the domains that Peter Cantwell is using for his web site is owned by Brad Schneider. That explains why
Peter Cantwell’s website looks very similar to State Representative Vicki Schneider’s web site. When the Watchdog
saw the name Schneider at 429 N. Main that raised additional interest. That’s happens to be the same address for:
Schneider Custom Homes
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Contact: Brad Schneider
Owner Name: V. Schneider Enterprises LTD.
Signed by Vicki and Mike Schneider
Our research for V. Schneider Enterprises LTD led us to the following information from the Missouri Secretary of State
office.
V. Schneider Enterprises LTD.
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Vicki Ann Schneider, President
Michael V. Schneider, Secretary
Also registered to this address is.
Schneider Properties
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Vicki Ann Schneider, Agent
Michael V. Schneider, Organizer
Of further interest Vicki Schneider made a $500.00 campaign contribution to Peter Cantwell in January. Then the
Watchdog began to think back to a story that ran in the Mid Rivers Newsmagazine some time ago. The Watchdog has
included it below for you to decide if the residents of Maryridge got a fair deal. Do you think they ever had a chance?
Watchdog Note: Former Director of Community Development Todd Criswell was admonished and later terminated
after issuing a stop work order for Schneider Homes Maryridge Development. When Criswell learned that grading had
begun on the site, he issued the stop work order. Councilman Daniel Christoff said he happened to be driving by the
unapproved project at the time and called Lowery to inform him of the stop work order.
Mr. Criswell along with two other former employees have filed separate law-suites in federal court. The suites alleges
that they were fired for calling attention to unfair code enforcement and other city dealings that favored certain
developers. They claim they were instructed to ignore code requirements and refrain from enforcement on certain
developments, including issuing stop work orders on building projects. Each claim they were also told to release escrow
funds to certain developers whose projects had not been completed to city standards. Criswell said he refused to follow
these directives, as they were contrary to his responsibilities under state law and local ordinance.
City's Error Angers Residents In Maryridge
By Mary Ann O'Toole Holley
Mid Rivers Newsmagazine
What could be a 14-year-old clerical error has residents of the Maryridge subdivision at odds with the O'Fallon City
Council.
Earlier this month, the city of O'Fallon Planning and Zoning Commission denied a redevelopment proposal in the
Maryridge subdivision. The commission said Schneider Custom Homes could not subdivide what residents have long
seen as one lot in the subdivision because of concerns with a proposed detention basin and its location within an
easement rather than common ground. The commission said there was a lack of consistency between the front yard
setback for the existing home and the proposed front yard setback for the two new lots proposed along a cul de sac of
Schoen Morgan Drive.
The developer wants to add five additional home sites on the lot, but residents say the area's zoning doesn't allow the
redevelopment.
Residents thought they had won their battle to prevent the redevelopment with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial, but now, at the recommendation of Council President Peter Cantwell, the project will be reconsidered at the next
City Council meeting.
"There was nothing legally wrong with the Maryridge redevelopment as it was proposed to P & Z," said Cantwell, after
impassioned residents spoke at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
Maryridge resident John Brass, who lives adjacent to the proposed development site, said it has been a frustrating,
puzzling situation.
"We've had the struggle that if something isn't strictly prohibited, it must be OK. We are a mature developed subdivision.
This is not an undeveloped lot," Brass said. "It is one lot; there is a house on it. We're not talking about subdividing a lot
in phase two. We're talking of subdividing a lot into six lots."
The council says it will reconsider the development, and that they have no proof that there was a clerical error with the
site's current zoning.
"I always take residents into consideration, but what we are seeing here is a microcosm of reverse eminent domain.
Everything is legal, but the homeowners don't like it," Cantwell said. "This is a case of homeowners who abut the
property saying how a developer should develop property. It's a property rights issue. It's reverse discrimination, in my
opinion."
The property in question, owned by Jerry and Mary Ann Davis, is set to be developed by Schneider Custom Homes.
Under R1 zoning, the developer is proposing six 22,000-square-foot lot sizes. City staff recommended approval saying
the lots were compatible with others in the subdivision.
The properties will be under the same neighborhood covenants as Maryridge. The proposed new homes will be priced
between $400,000 and $500,000.
According to a report by city staff, research found that on July 28, 1992, the owner of the property requested a zone
change from unzoned to R1-A with a PUD, a classification that would not allow for the current redevelopment request.
The Rezoning and Area Plan was approved by the commission that evening (in 1992).
The request was then forwarded to the Board of Aldermen for review and approval. The first reading before the board
occurred on Aug. 6, 1992. The minutes from the public hearing show that the request the board heard that evening was
for rezoning from unzoned to R-1A with a PUD. However, when the item was placed before the board for a second
reading on Aug. 18, 1992, the minutes show that the rezoning was approved R1/single family residential with no mention
of a PUD.
Both the Area Plan and the Final Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Aldermen
show the property was zoned to R-1A with a PUD. However, the minutes from Aug. 18, 1992 hearing do not reflect this.
Staff has conducted additional research and has found an ordinance that shows the property was rezoned from unzoned
to R1/single family residential, but staff has been unable to locate an ordinance that shows that a PUD was also
approved.
The original petitioner developed the subdivision to comprise 10 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 22,000
square feet. There was one street constructed with R1B standard, this is the reason the developer had requested the
PUD.
Councilman Pierce Conley, the Planning and Zoning Commission Council liaison said he didn't know why P & Z denied
the project.
"We don't know if it was a typo or what," said Conley. "We'd have to go back to a tape to find out. Then the issue comes
down as to why the P & Z decided to turn it down. It's very confusing, but the lawyer says it's OK. It's not a zoning issue;
it's a preliminary plat. I think if you turn it down, your vision is arbitrary, and maybe you can't do that. Morally and
ethically, if it meets all the requirements for zoning you must vote to approve it. You can't turn it down."
Conley said he has heard many arguments about impending development when he served in St. Charles County
government.
"All these people don't want to see the trees gone. Aren't they imposing their will on the property owner?" Conley asked.
"If we're considering rezoning to multi-family or something, that is definitely where people should come out and talk. If it is
already zoned, I think our hands are tied. I don't want to get the city sued. Who is my responsibility to, the residents who
don't want it or the builder who wants to develop it?"
Councilman Daniel Christoff, who represents the area, said it's zoned to allow the development, and that legally the
council has to follow the zoning.
"I wasn't around back then to know if it was a clerical error," Christoff said. "If our attorneys say it's R1, then we have to
follow it. I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV."
Residents in the area say the problem is "consistency."
"Just because somewhere along the line, there ends up being a document saying it's technically zoned R1, it never
passed this commission, everything was R1A PUD. This was built R1A PUD, and met all those standards," Brass said.
"When the final plan was approved by the commission, it says R1A PUD. What is presented here is disadvantaging us
because of a clerical error."
Fred Vorwerk, a resident of Maryridge said the city should have to compromise the homeowners adjoining the property
so a developer can build more homes.
"I don't think it's the staff's responsibility to ensure that the builder makes a healthy profit by compromising the
subdivision," Vorwerk said.
By the O’Fallon Watchdog
In researching Peter Cantwell’s latest campaign disclosure report the Watchdog took particular interest with a
expenditure of $4,750.00 to a company called Cannon Strategies. In researching documents on file with the Missouri
Secretary of State office we found the following information.
Cannon Strategies LLC
Purpose: Direct mail and political consulting
Organizers:
Steve Wyatt Earp, 541 Meadowlark Lane Arnold MO 63010
Brad Schneider, 429 N. Main. O’Fallon MO, 63366
One of the domains that Peter Cantwell is using for his web site is owned by Brad Schneider. That explains why
Peter Cantwell’s website looks very similar to State Representative Vicki Schneider’s web site. When the Watchdog
saw the name Schneider at 429 N. Main that raised additional interest. That’s happens to be the same address for:
Schneider Custom Homes
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Contact: Brad Schneider
Owner Name: V. Schneider Enterprises LTD.
Signed by Vicki and Mike Schneider
Our research for V. Schneider Enterprises LTD led us to the following information from the Missouri Secretary of State
office.
V. Schneider Enterprises LTD.
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Vicki Ann Schneider, President
Michael V. Schneider, Secretary
Also registered to this address is.
Schneider Properties
429 North Main
O’Fallon Mo. 63366
Vicki Ann Schneider, Agent
Michael V. Schneider, Organizer
Of further interest Vicki Schneider made a $500.00 campaign contribution to Peter Cantwell in January. Then the
Watchdog began to think back to a story that ran in the Mid Rivers Newsmagazine some time ago. The Watchdog has
included it below for you to decide if the residents of Maryridge got a fair deal. Do you think they ever had a chance?
Watchdog Note: Former Director of Community Development Todd Criswell was admonished and later terminated
after issuing a stop work order for Schneider Homes Maryridge Development. When Criswell learned that grading had
begun on the site, he issued the stop work order. Councilman Daniel Christoff said he happened to be driving by the
unapproved project at the time and called Lowery to inform him of the stop work order.
Mr. Criswell along with two other former employees have filed separate law-suites in federal court. The suites alleges
that they were fired for calling attention to unfair code enforcement and other city dealings that favored certain
developers. They claim they were instructed to ignore code requirements and refrain from enforcement on certain
developments, including issuing stop work orders on building projects. Each claim they were also told to release escrow
funds to certain developers whose projects had not been completed to city standards. Criswell said he refused to follow
these directives, as they were contrary to his responsibilities under state law and local ordinance.
City's Error Angers Residents In Maryridge
By Mary Ann O'Toole Holley
Mid Rivers Newsmagazine
What could be a 14-year-old clerical error has residents of the Maryridge subdivision at odds with the O'Fallon City
Council.
Earlier this month, the city of O'Fallon Planning and Zoning Commission denied a redevelopment proposal in the
Maryridge subdivision. The commission said Schneider Custom Homes could not subdivide what residents have long
seen as one lot in the subdivision because of concerns with a proposed detention basin and its location within an
easement rather than common ground. The commission said there was a lack of consistency between the front yard
setback for the existing home and the proposed front yard setback for the two new lots proposed along a cul de sac of
Schoen Morgan Drive.
The developer wants to add five additional home sites on the lot, but residents say the area's zoning doesn't allow the
redevelopment.
Residents thought they had won their battle to prevent the redevelopment with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial, but now, at the recommendation of Council President Peter Cantwell, the project will be reconsidered at the next
City Council meeting.
"There was nothing legally wrong with the Maryridge redevelopment as it was proposed to P & Z," said Cantwell, after
impassioned residents spoke at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
Maryridge resident John Brass, who lives adjacent to the proposed development site, said it has been a frustrating,
puzzling situation.
"We've had the struggle that if something isn't strictly prohibited, it must be OK. We are a mature developed subdivision.
This is not an undeveloped lot," Brass said. "It is one lot; there is a house on it. We're not talking about subdividing a lot
in phase two. We're talking of subdividing a lot into six lots."
The council says it will reconsider the development, and that they have no proof that there was a clerical error with the
site's current zoning.
"I always take residents into consideration, but what we are seeing here is a microcosm of reverse eminent domain.
Everything is legal, but the homeowners don't like it," Cantwell said. "This is a case of homeowners who abut the
property saying how a developer should develop property. It's a property rights issue. It's reverse discrimination, in my
opinion."
The property in question, owned by Jerry and Mary Ann Davis, is set to be developed by Schneider Custom Homes.
Under R1 zoning, the developer is proposing six 22,000-square-foot lot sizes. City staff recommended approval saying
the lots were compatible with others in the subdivision.
The properties will be under the same neighborhood covenants as Maryridge. The proposed new homes will be priced
between $400,000 and $500,000.
According to a report by city staff, research found that on July 28, 1992, the owner of the property requested a zone
change from unzoned to R1-A with a PUD, a classification that would not allow for the current redevelopment request.
The Rezoning and Area Plan was approved by the commission that evening (in 1992).
The request was then forwarded to the Board of Aldermen for review and approval. The first reading before the board
occurred on Aug. 6, 1992. The minutes from the public hearing show that the request the board heard that evening was
for rezoning from unzoned to R-1A with a PUD. However, when the item was placed before the board for a second
reading on Aug. 18, 1992, the minutes show that the rezoning was approved R1/single family residential with no mention
of a PUD.
Both the Area Plan and the Final Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Aldermen
show the property was zoned to R-1A with a PUD. However, the minutes from Aug. 18, 1992 hearing do not reflect this.
Staff has conducted additional research and has found an ordinance that shows the property was rezoned from unzoned
to R1/single family residential, but staff has been unable to locate an ordinance that shows that a PUD was also
approved.
The original petitioner developed the subdivision to comprise 10 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 22,000
square feet. There was one street constructed with R1B standard, this is the reason the developer had requested the
PUD.
Councilman Pierce Conley, the Planning and Zoning Commission Council liaison said he didn't know why P & Z denied
the project.
"We don't know if it was a typo or what," said Conley. "We'd have to go back to a tape to find out. Then the issue comes
down as to why the P & Z decided to turn it down. It's very confusing, but the lawyer says it's OK. It's not a zoning issue;
it's a preliminary plat. I think if you turn it down, your vision is arbitrary, and maybe you can't do that. Morally and
ethically, if it meets all the requirements for zoning you must vote to approve it. You can't turn it down."
Conley said he has heard many arguments about impending development when he served in St. Charles County
government.
"All these people don't want to see the trees gone. Aren't they imposing their will on the property owner?" Conley asked.
"If we're considering rezoning to multi-family or something, that is definitely where people should come out and talk. If it is
already zoned, I think our hands are tied. I don't want to get the city sued. Who is my responsibility to, the residents who
don't want it or the builder who wants to develop it?"
Councilman Daniel Christoff, who represents the area, said it's zoned to allow the development, and that legally the
council has to follow the zoning.
"I wasn't around back then to know if it was a clerical error," Christoff said. "If our attorneys say it's R1, then we have to
follow it. I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV."
Residents in the area say the problem is "consistency."
"Just because somewhere along the line, there ends up being a document saying it's technically zoned R1, it never
passed this commission, everything was R1A PUD. This was built R1A PUD, and met all those standards," Brass said.
"When the final plan was approved by the commission, it says R1A PUD. What is presented here is disadvantaging us
because of a clerical error."
Fred Vorwerk, a resident of Maryridge said the city should have to compromise the homeowners adjoining the property
so a developer can build more homes.
"I don't think it's the staff's responsibility to ensure that the builder makes a healthy profit by compromising the
subdivision," Vorwerk said.