118- 1030 is greater than 999

I have been looking over RUPCO's application materials for the funding they have been bragging about, that Housing Trust Fund money (about $2.5 million.)  There are some pretty interesting nuggets in the application.  As a happy new year salute, I'd like to point out first that the "1,030 feet of new sanitary force main," (meaning new sewer pipe,) which is specified in Section 3.9 of RUPCO's Draft Environmental Impact Statement,  is GREATER THAN the 999 feet of new sewer pipe allowed for RUPCO to justifiably claim that their project is within "Proximity to Existing Development."

First, let me break this down.
Second, let me expand on it.

The Housing Trust Fund has several categories of funding.  One category is called the Green Building Initiative.  One section, called LOCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC contains seven categories.  RUPCO needs four of the seven to qualify for the Green Building Initiative funding. One of those categories is: "Smart Site Location: Proximity to Existing Development: Locate on a site with access to existing roads, water, sewers and other infrastructure within or contiguous to existing development."

OK, so first of all, the water might not be available at all, but RUPCO thought it would be when they applied, so they are forgiven for getting that one wrong.  However, in the handbook that defines what it means to be in close proximity, it is clearly stated that LESS THAN one thousand feet of new sewer pipe qualifies the project as close enough to existing infrastructure to qualify the project for funding. Big F for RUPCO on that scetion.

RUPCO has claimed to check off five of seven sections in the affirmative, in The Location and Neighborhood Section, which is one more than they need.  The two they do not claim are the presence of passive solar heating/cooling and compact development.   Let's see how many of the five sections RUPCO has lied about!!

(1) Proximity to Existing Development, and we already know this is an incorrect affirmative claim (the sewer pipe length disqualifies it.)

(2) "Protecting Environmental Resources."  In this section, RUPCO claims that no part of the project, including parking lots and roads, is within one hundred feet of wetlands. Well, actually, the access road to the housing is planned to barrel THROUGH wetlands, so this is a false claim. Whether or not RUPCO has a mitigation plan in place, this is a yes or no question.  There is no "Yes, but...." checkbox.

So there we go, RUPCO has at most three of seven boxes checked, and should  be disqualified from receiving funding under the Green Building Initiative.

But wait, I'm not quite done with the other sections.  Of the three remaining five sections, we have (3) Proximity to Services.  RUPCO claims that their housing will be "close" to at least four of these services: convenience store, public school, laundry, library, bank, grocery store, medical office, usable park space, post office, licensed child care facility, and there may be a couple more on the list.   What does "close" mean?  Well, for family housing, "close" is half a mile, which is 2640 feet.  For senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planned to be, "close" is a quarter mile, which is 1320 feet.

Now, according to a mapping website, it is 0.23 miles AS THE CROW FLIES from where the RUPCO housing is planned to be, to the center of the Bradley Meadows shopping area.  This covers grocery store, pharmacy, and bank, as the crow flies.  Unfortunately, senior residents are not crows, nor do they fly.  Nor will they walk through a right of way that has not been negotiated yet, in a wetlands, full of ticks, with no lighting, and nobody to shovel snow from it, even if it was perfectly straight and less than a quarter mile.  It is only reasonable to assume that the Housing Trust Fund means the distances to correspond to sidewalks, or in the absence of sidewalks, existing roads, not rights of way through wetlands where no boardwalks exist, that deliver people to the back of grocery stores where there are huge dumpsters of garbage, generators, trucks delivering produce, and no pathway of any kind for pedestrians.

Just for the sake of completion in this analysis of RUPCO's interpretation of distance, the distance from the intersection of Whites Lane and Playhouse Lane, (which is still far enough from the housing complex but at the border of the property where people will actually walk out in all-weather conditions,) it is 0.34 miles down to Route 212.  It is 0.4 miles to Bank of America, the pharmacy, and the grocery store, and the doctor's office.

In the summary of the application for funding, RUPCO claims that Woodstock Commons "site" will be the following distances from services.  Remember that a quarter mile is 1320 feet.

Capital Project - Exhibit 8 - Site and Building Information

Project Name: Woodstock Commons 2010

8B2. Building Space Breakdown

8A. Site Information
Service Distance
Grocery Stores Within 500 feet
Other Retail Stores Within 500 feet
Schools Within 1000 feet
Bus/Subway Lines Within 500 feet
Municipal Services Within 2500 feet
Libraries Within 2500 feet
Pharmacies Within 1000 feet
Health Facilities Within 1000 feet


It is clear that RUPCO is measuring the distance to these services from the corner of the property, not the buildings.  So, if a property is a mile wide, for example, and the buildings are put at one end, is it fair to measure the distance from the undeveloped end? I would say no, if the purpose of measuring is to inform how far PEOPLE, COMING FROM THE BUILDINGS, need to travel ON FOOT, to the services in question.

Either way, the Woodstock library is just about one mile from the site, not half a mile.  Also, Woodstock Elementary School is 0.43 miles AS THE CROW FLIES to the buildings site of Woodstock Commons.  Are your elementary school age children crows?  Do they fly?  From Whites and Playhouse Lanes to the elementary school, along actual roads, my mapping website measures 0.52 miles, which is 2746 feet.  That's a lot more than 1000 feet.

All in all, I would say that RUPCO has misled the Housing Trust Fund in claiming that this development is sited "in close proximity to community and retail facilities."  Another failing grade for the boys from Kingston.

Hang in there, there are only two more sections.

The next section RUPCO claims, (4) which is absolutely wrong, is "Walkable Neighborhoods: Sidewalks and Pathways: Connect project to the pedestrian grid."  Of course RUPCO checked this in the affirmative.  The definition of "connect" is to connect to existing sidewalks.  That definition is in the manual for filling out this application, not MY definition.  The sidewalks in Woodstock run along Route 212.  Neither Playhouse Lane nor Elwyn Lane have sidewalks, nor are either of them lit at night.  Perhaps RUPCO considers the wooded right of way through which a path will be cut, also not a sidewalk, not lit at night, full of deer (ticks) and muddy soil, dumping walkers into the back of the grocery store dumpster colony, to be a connection to the pedestrian grid.  Well, I do not buy it, and neither should the Housing Trust Fund.

The last of the five affirmative sections claimed by RUPCO in the Location and Neighborhood Fabric Division of Green Building Criteria is (5) "Transportation Choices: Locate project in close proximity to public transit services."  Once again, "close proximity" is a quarter mile for senior housing, which Woodstock Commons is planning to include.  Once again, a quarter mile is much less than the distance from any point of the site that a PERSON ON FOOT would need to travel to get public transit."  The only exception is if the UCAT bus travels up Playhouse Lane, to the entrance of the project site, or onto the project site.  However, even if this happens, and there is no guarantee that it will materialize, will the bus service be frequent enough for the residents?  The traffic studies for Woodstock Commons do not include very many "new" public transportation trips up Playhouse Lane, so I suppose there will not be that many.  What with the distance problem, and the murky prognosis of bus frequency, it is absolutely unfair to claim that Woodstock Commons will be reliably  "close" to anything resembling regular public transit services.

Just an FYI about existing UCAT service through Woodstock: There are seven trips per weekday to Kingston. On weekends, there are two buses to Kingston and one bus from Kingston, for a single possible round trip each weekend day.  So, if a resident wants to go to Kingston on a Saturday, say to go shopping at Hannaford Kingston Plaza (we'll discuss THAT soon in another post,) they must leave in the morning, stay in Kingston 3.5 hours, and return on the only return bus.  On a weekday, the frequency of service is still very sparse, sometimes 3 hours between buses, and no service at all after 7:30 PM.

I have a personal story about UCAT, which was my only attempt to use this service.  One day last year, I tried to go to Manhattan on the bus.  The bus through Woodstock was understandably late, and I missed my connection in Kingston. It was the end of a storm, but 87 looked treacherous and backed up.  So, I decided to go back to Woodstock and take the trip another day.  Well, the next bus to Woodstock was in a couple of hours, so I walked through the snow to Kingston Plaza to see if I could catch a UCAT bus up to Woodstock.  I was informed by a UCAT driver that no buses were driving to Woodstock all day, even though the snow had stopped falling, it was sunny, and the roads were clear.  So much for reliability.  I called my friend Frank, who put his grandson in his truck, and they picked me up at Deisings Bakery, (shout out: http://www.deisings.com/ ) where, while waiting, I ate a superior cinnamon roll that cost only 95 cents.  Anyway, I think RUPCO misleads the Housing Trust Fund once again by claiming that Woodstock Commons will have public transportation service of any reliability and frequency.

Thus concludes this rather lengthy analysis of the "Location and Neighborhood Fabric" Section of the Green Building Criteria Checklist.  And the total number of categories that Woodstock Commons qualifies for is..... zero out of seven.

So, I guess all this commotion about the site being suboptimal is right on the money, and these criteria are objective, selected by the Housing Trust Fund, not the neighborhood opponents.

Shame on you, RUPCO.  Shame shame shame.  (By the way, this section of the application was signed by Brad Will, the architect, and Charles Snyder, the real estate guy for RUPCO.)

And for everybody else, happy new year, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of application materials still to go look over, to analyze, the results of which are going straight to the Housing Trust Fund people.  I'd be boiling mad if somebody lied to me the way RUPCO has lied to the Housing Trust Fund.

117- Law of Utilities, Utility of Law

The RUPCO project argues that it belongs in the hamlet sewer district because of the following section of town law:

Hamlet District (§ 245-21 — § 245-36)

Properties divided by District boundary. 

Those properties which are now divided by the District boundary line shall be considered to be wholly served by the District

Fair enough on the citation, however the map appears to show that no section of the property in question is in the district. 

Either way, there is a separate town law for water.  Where exactly in the water law does it say that if a property is divided by the water district boundary, it is wholly served by the water district?

I can't find that section.  Can you?  Please help me out.

In a letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello argues that according to  "the plain

meaning of Town of Woodstock Local

Law #3 of 2005."

What plain meaning is that?

Here is a paragraph that says that anybody can apply to be a water customer, and the Town Board may decide yes or no:

Regulations and requirements. 

A. 

Any person or corporation located within the Town of Woodstock may make application to the Town Board for hookup to the municipal water supply. The application shall be accompanied by a bond in such sum as shall be fixed by the Town Board in consultation with the Highway Superintendent and the Water/Sewer Superintendent, with one or more sureties acceptable to the Board, on the condition that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of this chapter; shall pay to the District all fees, penalties or other charges required hereby in consequence of the work undertaken; shall restore openings made in streets, roads, lanes and other public places and pavement thereon and therein to the same standard of condition as before the work commenced; and shall keep and maintain the same in such condition for a period of one year after the work has been completed and, in case of failure so to do, shall pay to the District the cost of putting the same in such condition. The Town Board may, at its discretion, grant or deny such application. The Town Board may, at any time, revoke such permission so given.

Here is another paragraph saying that all uses must be applied for.  It is interesting to note that in RUPCO's application for Woodstock Commons, NO outdoor water use is estimated. The maintenance building water demand is only 15 gallons per day. I don't quite believe that.  Do you?

D. 

Applications for introduction of water to any premises or for the use of water shall be made upon a form furnished by the District for such purpose and shall be signed by the owner of the premises or said owner's duly authorized agent. Such application shall contain a statement of all uses for which water is desired. If usage beyond that stated in the application occurs or, in the opinion of the Town Board in consultation with the Water/Sewer Superintendent, exceeds the supply available, water service may be discontinued. Application for additional uses may be made at any time and a permit may be granted therefor subject to the best interests of the District as a whole.

The above section clearly puts the interests of the water district as a whole above the unapplied for (hence unapproved) water uses of the new customer.

More broadly, here is the water law's 

Statutory authority. 

This chapter is enacted in accordance with Articles 9 and 12 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Municipal Home Rule Law, § 10 of the New York Statute of Local Governments, and other legislative authority of the State of New York, which grant the Town Board of the Town of Woodstock the authority to enact local laws for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

Looks like the water laws were enacted to promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Town.

RUPCO has forgotten that "the people of the town" do not include their buildings' residents.   Their buildings are not here yet, and neither are their people.  They have forgotten that there are a lot of people of the town right NOW who did not have enough water last summer, who probably do not have enough water pressure to fight fires now, and that it is entirely within the Town Board's authority to limit the NUMBER of "the people of the town" so that there is enough water and enough water pressure to go around. 

116- Not So Fast...

The judge threw out the town of Woodstock's motion to dismiss my Article 78 petition against the town/planning board for accepting the RUPCO/Woodstock Commons Findings Statement.  He ordered me to refile, and name two additional parties in the lawsuit, by first week of January.  The two additional parties are RUPCO and EVK Realty.

Drayton Grant, Woodstock's lawyer, caused a delay of at least four months by trying to have the petition thrown out as a result of attempting to trick me into giving her an extension.  I believe that her trickery will prove to be more ill-fated still.  We'll see.

More later.

115- On Notice, the sequel

After last week's water district user meeting, and the people interviewed in Woodstock Times about the town's duty to provide fire safety, I thought a more detailed notice of defect was called for. So I wrote a narrative of 8 pages, which is about 3000 words, then attached 52 pages of documents illustrating and explaining the problem, so that there can be no further misunderstanding or shirking of responsibility. 

While I was at it, I put Woodstock on notice for having approved an unsafe, too narrow, too winding, too flat road for the traffic that RUPCO's project seeks to and estimates that it will generate.  I included several pages of supporting documentation, for a total of 14 pages.

I filed both notices of defect with the Woodstock town clerk's office this morning.  Merry Christmas.

114- Ferguson Causeway

You know Ferguson Brook, that tiny little brook over which RUPCO wants to build a modest bridge to Woodstock Commons. I walked by there yesterday at sunset, and today after sunrise, and although the photo and video are not the best, I am sure you can appreciate that this brook is now a standing body of water in several places, and probably not a place where pedestrians would choose to walk through to get to their affordable housing further up the swampland.  I for one only have boots that rise to mid-calf. Perhaps RUPCO will offer hip boots with each new apartment rental. 

This is a photo looking across Ferguson "Brook" where the bridge is supposed to span it. 

Here is a video of the brook/swamp this morning, about 15 hours after the rain stopped.

113- Water District Member Meeting Concerning RUPCO

Last night's water district user meeting drew a solid attendance.  The evening was roughly divided into my presentation of the water pressure problem in the district, and Jerry Washington's excellent projection presentation (he used a projector, but his voice projected well also) of the water and sewer district map and physical particulars.

For now, I share with you my presentation. I stayed up late last night dividing it into segments that will fit on youtube, and now here are embedded.  Later on, I will include the latter part of the presentation. Enjoy the show.

112- On Notice

This morning I put the town of Woodstock on notice for inadequate water pressure for fighting fires, but since this is a RUPCOcentric blog, let me back up and tell you how I came to uncover this problem:

RUPCO, in its application for Woodstock Commons, cited a study by Morris Associates.  The study was from 1996.  The study said that pressure in the town water system would fall below 20 PSI, the minimum pressure for firefighting, according to New York State’s chosen standards, The Ten States Standards.  Back in 1996, the water district did not yet extend down Route 375.  The Morris Associates study sought to simulate the water district we have now, back before it was built.  For whatever reason, the town, back then, I suppose, thought it was OK to have sub-standard water pressure at the “working” fire hydrants. I can’t travel back in time to see whether the system was built as outlined in the simulation, or whether it was changed when built.  What I do know is that a more reliable measure of system pressure would be simply to measure the pressure in the system now.

So what does this have to do with RUPCO?  The RUPCO team does not appear to have simulated the water district pressure of the current system PLUS the expansion to serve their 53 new units. In other words, the study done 15 years ago, written in the future tense, was borrowed and substituted for lack of a current analysis of today’s system, written in the future tense about our current system plus RUPCO’s added demand. This is to say that RUPCO did NO analysis of water pressure in a system that would include its housing project.

This is also to say that the Planning Board just passed this study to the Town Board, who is responsible for the water and sewer system analysis.  The Town Board, all through the RUPCO application process, ignored this issue.  Now, according to the Daily Freeman article of last Friday, Jeff Moran is satisfied with the Planning Board’s analysis (which is nonexistent).

What happens when a town simply fails to maintain adequate water pressure to the fire hydrants?  Houses catch on fire, fire engines come, and no water comes out of the hose. Houses burn down. A certain town board member’s immediate family member watched this happen across the street from his home just a few towns away from here. He watched the homeowners sue the town.

Here in Woodstock, and in all towns in New York, if you know about a dangerous situation, go to the Town Clerk’s office and fill out a “Notice of Defect or Dangerous Condition.”  By law, the town must correct the defect or danger within 30 days or decide that it is not really a danger. But guess who really makes that decision: the town’s insurance carrier.  I filled out such a form, citing the old water pressure study, and the dangerously low water pressure that the Planning Board thought was OK to decrease even further by adding 53 new users to the system. While the danger is not imminent, the decision to allow it to become imminent has already been made.  Approval of Woodstock Commons was an act of negligence.

Here is the form I filled out this morning at the Town Clerk's office, Woodstock, NY.

111- Water District Customer Meeting: Tues. Nov. 30, 7 PM

There will be an informational/organizational meeting of town water district customers at 7 PM, Tuesday, Nov. 30 at the Woodstock Community Center.  All customers are encouraged to attend and of course the meeting is open to the public.  Topics to discuss at the meeting include the steep increase in water district charges, the problems with well maintenance, huge water losses (32%!!) that have not been adequately explained, the potential for additional charges resulting from granting RUPCO access to town water, and the failure of the town board to assess the capacity and safe water pressure under a RUPCO-town water scenario.

I will be joined by other water district customers who have information to share, and together we will inform one another and discuss options for representation as a unified group of water district customers.

110- Sidebar (She Knew, I Didn't)

I did not know about Woodstock Commons when I bought my house in the neighborhood.  My buyer's broker should have told me about it.  She did not. I am suing her and her company for nondisclosure of material fact.  The project was definitely material to my decision to buy this house, but the information about it was not disclosed. My realtor, Joyce Beymer, never mentioned RUPCO or Woodstock Commons.  Here, below, is the complaint in green.

After the complaint, I have uploaded the five pages of the defendants' response.  They respond by numbered paragraphs.  The highlights of their response are: They deny that Beymer knew about Woodstock Commons.  They deny knowing about it now, which is strange since the lawsuit itself is evidence that something is going on in the neighborhood.  They deny that the project was passed by the town’s lead agency.  They deny that Beymer was my fiduciary and was supposed to be working in my best interest.  This is their defense, and they cannot change it.

This defense seems to have been generated by the insurance carrier covering the realtor's and the real estate company's errors and omissions, however that does not make it any less ridiculous. There is some street value to these denials.


I include this information in this blog as a sidebar to the main thrust of this blog, which is opposition to Woodstock Commons.  My personal situation with real estate is my personal situation. I am not opposed to the project BECAUSE I have a house nearby.  I am, however, knowledgeable about this project because so many of my neighbors were, in the months after I moved in. 


For those who accuse me of being opposed to Woodstock Commons because I am a neighbor, that is absolutely wrong. I do not want to live near a construction project (of any kind) that will disturb the peace and quiet I sought when I planned to leave New York City.  The possible failure of that plan is totally attributable to Joyce Beymer, who could have told me about RUPCO and Woodstock Commons, and I simply would have bought another house. Had that happened, I would still be opposed to the project had I been informed to the extent I have been, but it is not likely that I would have been so informed, for the information I received initially and since I moved here, has been provided by my current neighbors as well as personal observation.

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT                ULSTER COUNTY

_____________________________________________

ROBIN SEGAL,

                                                            Plaintiff,                                                COMPLAINT

       - against -                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                       

JOYCE BEYMER and JOAN C. LONERGAN, as

Principle Broker/Owner and d/b/a COLDWELL

BANKER VILLAGE GREEN REALTY,

                                                            Defendant.

______________________________________________                                       

            Plaintiff, Robin Segal, by and through her attorneys, Tuczinski, Cavalier, Gilchrist & Collura, P.C., as and for her Complaint against Defendants, Joyce Beymer, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a  Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, alleges as follows:

1.           Plaintiff, Robin Segal, is a resident of the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County, New York.

2.           At all times herein relevant, Defendant, Joyce Beymer, was and is an employee, agent, representative and broker employed by Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, with an office situate at 11-13 Millhill Road, Woodstock, New York, Ulster County, New York.

3.           Upon information and belief, Defendant, Joyce Beymer, is a real estate broker licensed by the State of New York, who represents parties involved in the sale and purchase of real estate within the State of New York. 

4.           That, upon information and belief, Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty employs real estate brokers and agents in connection with the sale and purchase of real estate within the State of New York.

5.           That Defendants, as brokers and agents representing principals in the sale and purchase of real property owe and owed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the principals they were representing in a particular matter, and had and have an ongoing duty of good faith and loyalty, which included and includes disclosing all facts or information known by Defendants, which could affect a principal’s’ decision in a particular matter. 

6.           On August 29, 2008, and pursuant to her desire to find a residence in the Woodstock area, Plaintiff engaged Defendants to represent her interests as a buyer’s agent, and to locate a residence that would be suitable for Plaintiff, given her desires and objectives.

7.           That during the course of her conversations with Defendant Beymer, said Defendant was advised that it was Plaintiff’s intention to leave New York City to get away from the noise, and to find a place that was greener and with more relaxed surroundings, that was quiet and peaceful, and that was within relatively easy walking distance of the center of town. 

8.           Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s expressed desires and wishes and her emphasis that she was looking for real property that was in a quiet, peaceful setting, Defendant Beymer, individually and on behalf of Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, principle broker/owner, individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, showed and recommended that Plaintiff purchase real property located at 7 Evergreen Lane, Woodstock, New York.

9.           As a result of Defendant Beymer’s recommendations and believing that Beymer was acting in furtherance of her best interests, Plaintiff acquired said residential real property and thereafter, made substantial improvements to same, which involved significant time and expense.

10.       Subsequent to acquiring title to the real property in or about October 2008, and after the aforereferenced improvements and expenditures were made in and to same, Plaintiff learned  for the first time, that the home that she had purchased was in close proximity to a proposed major housing complex on 28 acres of land, which would significantly affect the neighborhood and Plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of her real property.

11.       Upon information and belief, the proposed housing project and complex was the development of affordable housing or low-income units, which would increase the number of households in the neighborhood by 300%, change the character of the neighborhood, and result in decreased property values, along with increased traffic and noise, especially during the proposed construction phase.

12.       That within the last thirty (30) days, the proposed housing project has been approved by the applicable municipal board within the Town of Woodstock and will directly impact on Plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of her property, as well as her economic and financial investment.

13.       That during the time Defendants represented Plaintiff’s interests, Defendant Joyce Beymer, individually and acting on behalf of Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, was fully aware of this proposed housing project know as Woodstock Commons, which was being developed by an entity known as Rural Ulster Preservation Company, along with its negative impacts including noise and traffic, but failed to disclose and affirmatively withheld such information from Plaintiff.

14.       Defendant, acting as buyer’s agent, had a fiduciary duty to represent and act in the best interests of Plaintiff, which included disclosing her knowledge and all relevant information concerning the Woodstock Commons housing project for Plaintiff’s consideration.

15.       Had Plaintiff been aware of the proposed Woodstock Commons housing project, she would not have purchased the aforereferenced real property or expended the significant time, energy and expense in making improvements to same.

16.       That as a consequence of Defendants breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff purchased, and upon information and belief, overpaid for said real property, which she would not have otherwise acquired; expended substantial sums in the development of same; has incurred significant costs and expense; and now has an asset of which, upon information and belief, has further diminished in value, all to her great and substantial financial detriment.

17.       This action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of any lower Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

18.       Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “17” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth hereinafter.

19.       That notwithstanding being advised of Plaintiff’s objectives and desires in finding a new home and that it be in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, and despite Defendant Beymer’s knowledge concerning the scope and magnitude of the Woodstock Commons housing project, and the likely importance of that information to Plaintiff, Defendant withheld such information while advocating and urging Plaintiff consider the purchase of these premises.

20.       Upon information and belief, Defendant Beymer’s principle motivating factor was receiving a commission, which was contrary to the best interests of Plaintiff, and which placed her economic interests and well being above those of her client to whom she owed a fiduciary duty.

21.       That while urging Plaintiff to consider purchasing the aforereferenced real property, Defendant Beymer made representations concerning the suitability of the property which were false and untrue and made solely in an effort to induce Plaintiff to buy the aforereferenced real property.

22.       That Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendant Beymer’s representations in deciding whether to acquire the real property, while Defendants held themselves out as the buyer’s agent, whom Plaintiff trusted to act in her best interests.

23.       That as a consequence of Defendants’ false and/or negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiff purchased, and upon information and belief, overpaid for this real property which she would not have otherwise acquired; expended substantial sums in the development of same; has incurred significant costs and expense; and now has an asset of which, upon information and belief, has further diminished in value, all to her great and substantial financial detriment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants herein on the causes of action as stated herein in an amount of money exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have had jurisdiction and in an amount to be determined at the trial of this action, but in an amount not less than $250,000.00, together with disgorgement of any commissions earned by the Defendants, together with the costs and disbursements of the within action, along with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.