1) Venturi had 30 days to file and his lawyer filed on the 30th day, June 15th,
2) The shop is now abandoned and the Cruchelow's have moved out on the weekend of June 9/10th,
3) In his complaint Attorney Sams repeatedly slams the City for listening "to citizens speaking in opposition to the request" (P. 19 at 66 and 67). Seems he thinks that the City should only have listened to him, however he did speak for 22 minutes for the zoning change, while the 'citizens' comments were limited to 10 minutes in total.
4) Attorney Sams is the same person who drafted the 5 page stipulation letter in '04 wherein client Mr. Venturi agreed to exclude 28 types of business from the mall - now Sams is in effect arguing that all those restrictions he had his client agree to were unconstitutional.
Q: So why did Sams draft the '04 document if he was getting his client to agree to something 'unconstitutional'?
5) If the various arguments 'for' a zoning change have any validity then they should have been argued 8 years ago. Venturi/Sams had ample opportunity to make their case then, but rather chose to waive any such claims in favor of executing the 5 page letter of stipulations. "If you snooze, you loose." IMHO Venturi/Sams waived any challenges in '04 by signing away their 'rights' in favor of a zoning change then.
No redo now Mr. Venturi, one bite at the apple is all you get.
