6/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r 100K 95 FACE 405. Apparently, the county regulations for land use stipulate that changes in the overall land use plan require that there be some "mistake" in the old plan, or that there need to be a change due to an unanticipated growth. Neither of these applied. One might consider "the Disneyfication" of the area prompted a large land owner to swap some of his less valuable commercial land west of town for potentially more valuable property on the 510 causeway. Not only were my neighbors and I affected, but during the zoning commission meeting, it was apparent that other property owners were also ill affected. They stood up and said their piece as to how changes in the zoning to the benefit of this one large land owner would adversely affect many individuals surrounding other properties -so affected, and also to be rezoned as commercial. I find this grossly unfair. I cannot imagine how anyone could feel safe in this county purchasing property and expecting there to be an established zoning and land use relationship applying to the neighborhood. With this kind of free wheeling swapping taking place, nobody in the county can be safe. With this sort of precedent established, commercial/ Industrial can be put anywhere as long as someone owns enough property to appropriately swap it (if already zoned as such) with existing residential property. What might happen If this is allowed to occur? 1) If such activities are allowed to continue, the promotion of prosperity of a few wealthy land owners increasing their land value will take place without consideration for the many individuals surrounding their affected commercialization. 2) What is to prevent this from happening elsewhere? A wholesale shell game could take place. No one is safe. The land use designation was set forth and described and enacted. People make plans around the designations of that land use and it is just not fair to turn around and find one's property devalued because what was initially purchased with a specific land use surrounding now has a different land use surrounding and a devaluation of property values. The big land owner swapping properties gets richer and ' the affected small property owner loses what little value he or she has. 3) ' Increased commercialization will result in increased traffic and increased noise. This is not without environmental impact. It is noteworthy that recently a group of citizens has aligned to try to preserve the pristine environment of the 510 causeway. It seems entirely discordant that commercializing that strip of land might be conceived compatible with the concerns raised by a large group of citizens. Further, the increased traffic serving a major commercial development (and let's be serious - 12 acres of commercial property is a major commercial development) along the 510 causeway will dramatically increase the traffic along that causeway. Of note, a large group of citizens recently wrote the Metropolitan Planning Organization when there was discussion in the 20/10 proposal for widening the causeway, and begged that this not occur. The 510 causeway area is one of the prettiest portions of Indian River County. "Pave paradise, put up a parking lot." No one wants to see this happen. Well, no one except for those who are to profit from a capital venture. Let us suppose that a major supermarket, which reportedly is the reason for the necessity of Increasing the acreage of the already existing commercial property, goes into place. I would defy any of those individuals to try to sleep in my home when at 3:00, 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning the constant "beep, beep, beep" from unloading trucks fills the air and destroys the morning silence. Specifically and Inherent in this alteration in zoning are two very important factors; 1) The property value for my home will be greatly diminished and, who will bear this burden? And 2) Just a few feet away from the proposed commercial development is what is truly an extensive diverse and beautiful wetlands area. The fact that this conservation area is separated from the proposed commercial JUNE 139 1995 65