6/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

My wife and I surmised that this was bad luck on our part, but we would learn to live with this small eight acres of neighboring commercial property and recognized by virtue of it's size its probable limited impact. This did not stop my concern, however, and based on these concerns, I again contacted the planning office and asked if some additional buffer requirements might be imposed so as to mitigate the presence of commercial development. It is notable that this commercial property so zoned immediately abuts a small sliver of RM -6 which is immediately adjacent to an extensive area of wetlands. The wetlands contains many endangered species including wood storks, rosetta spoonbills, little blue herons, indigo snakes, and is a documented rookery for protected snook and tarpon. We have also witnessed an extraordinary diversity of wildlife in this area Including enormous flocks of heron which migrate and roost as well as a family of sea otters that live in this very area. With these concerns and my expressed desire ito perhaps impose an enhanced buffer (currently only required as type C) , I was informed that county standards did not permit such enhancement because the property was bordering on not conservation, but residential. it should be noted that this small silver of residential measures only approximately 50 to 150 feet. Interestingly, I was assured by staff (please see enclosed letter) that no additional lands would be so designated commercial in that immediate adjoining area. You can imagine my extreme surprise and concern when 1 recently heard of the plan to add an additional seven acres of commercial property (designated site 4) to the aforementioned commercial zone. Certainly this was contrary to what I was Informed of by staff, and clearly I was faced with a much greater and larger neighboring impact. In an attempt to mitigate this new addition, in good faith, 1 approached the land owner and asked that he might mitigate in exchange for my cooperation. I proposed that an enhanced buffering standard on his property or even an enhanced buffering as would relate to myself and my neighbors might be enacted. He declined this and the issue was brought before the zoning board. I must say that my wife and I and our neighbors felt oppressed by the magnitude of the events that took place. Here we were voicing our opinion against a major county land owner who provided no definitive reasons why this additional commercial land should be added, yet It passed anyway. Further, so concerned were we about proper representation and the possibility of being downtrodden by a major land owner that we had an attorney represent us. It seemed quite clear from our attorney's arguments that there was no pertainable regulation that allowed for this to happen. We were placated slightly by the removal of 7/10 of an acre of this added commercial property Immediately to our west but with Its addition more to the south. AU JUNE 139 1995 64 04 Immediately after closing on the purchase of my home, it OTOLARYNGOLOGY JOSEPNJ.BRADMI.D.M.D. came to my attention that eight acres of property bordering on county route 510 was under the final application process PEDIATRICS SUSAN BAUERD?DDLE.M.D. for conversion to Commercial /industrial from RM -6. Needless KAREN R. WESTBERRY. M.D. to say, I was distressed and greatly disturbed. I had SURGERY, VASCULAR d GENERAL W. CLARK BECKETT. M.D. purchased my home in an area which attracted me by virtue THEODORE 0. PERRY, M.D. of its rural and generally pristine environment. I UROLOGY subsequently contacted the County Planningoffices and was q Y 7 PAUL T. BAKULE. M.D. DAVID W.LAZAN.M.D. informed by staff that in order for me to have any impact on WALK•INIURGENTCARE the prevention of this conveyance, I would need to go to PATRICIA �A VXELRMATDH.M.D. Tallahassee and appear before an administrative hearing. I THOMAS was also informed by planning staff that it was unlikely MANAGEMENT SERVICES would have any impact since the plan had proceeded to its MEN" E.ROSS EeeartWe ft-cim near final stage. g My wife and I surmised that this was bad luck on our part, but we would learn to live with this small eight acres of neighboring commercial property and recognized by virtue of it's size its probable limited impact. This did not stop my concern, however, and based on these concerns, I again contacted the planning office and asked if some additional buffer requirements might be imposed so as to mitigate the presence of commercial development. It is notable that this commercial property so zoned immediately abuts a small sliver of RM -6 which is immediately adjacent to an extensive area of wetlands. The wetlands contains many endangered species including wood storks, rosetta spoonbills, little blue herons, indigo snakes, and is a documented rookery for protected snook and tarpon. We have also witnessed an extraordinary diversity of wildlife in this area Including enormous flocks of heron which migrate and roost as well as a family of sea otters that live in this very area. With these concerns and my expressed desire ito perhaps impose an enhanced buffer (currently only required as type C) , I was informed that county standards did not permit such enhancement because the property was bordering on not conservation, but residential. it should be noted that this small silver of residential measures only approximately 50 to 150 feet. Interestingly, I was assured by staff (please see enclosed letter) that no additional lands would be so designated commercial in that immediate adjoining area. You can imagine my extreme surprise and concern when 1 recently heard of the plan to add an additional seven acres of commercial property (designated site 4) to the aforementioned commercial zone. Certainly this was contrary to what I was Informed of by staff, and clearly I was faced with a much greater and larger neighboring impact. In an attempt to mitigate this new addition, in good faith, 1 approached the land owner and asked that he might mitigate in exchange for my cooperation. I proposed that an enhanced buffering standard on his property or even an enhanced buffering as would relate to myself and my neighbors might be enacted. He declined this and the issue was brought before the zoning board. I must say that my wife and I and our neighbors felt oppressed by the magnitude of the events that took place. Here we were voicing our opinion against a major county land owner who provided no definitive reasons why this additional commercial land should be added, yet It passed anyway. Further, so concerned were we about proper representation and the possibility of being downtrodden by a major land owner that we had an attorney represent us. It seemed quite clear from our attorney's arguments that there was no pertainable regulation that allowed for this to happen. We were placated slightly by the removal of 7/10 of an acre of this added commercial property Immediately to our west but with Its addition more to the south. AU JUNE 139 1995 64 04