First and foremost, if I was part of the Indian River Neighborhood Association, I would first do some investigating when I have issues with a proposed development. After all, it is the citizens who are going to have to pay for this misunderstanding in the end. The proposed environmentally friendly concrete batch plant is a first of its kind. The plans exceed the rules and regulations set forth by the EPA and other government agencies for public health and safety. Secondly, this is not a cement plant. It is a concrete batch plant for controlling the ratios of aggregate, cement, water, and sand. If these materials are not blended properly the results are tragic. A batch plant is not a cement plant. They are very different, but that is not what the citizens have been led to believe.
The affected property know as Ocean Concrete was zoned for concrete "by right" in the county comprehensive plan in 2005--when the land was purchased for that use. That means the light industrial property was planned by the powers-that-be and in consideration of the public to allow concrete by right. As far as the other 30 land use changes in table 4 of IRC zoning code 911.11 are concerned, if you were one of the owners of industrial land in 2007, it would seem to me there might be grounds to file for relief because this LDR text amendment takes away your constitutional property rights.
LDR's have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. They have to meet conditions and requirements set forth by the State of Florida. There are rules and regulations that were omitted, and government acts like this amendment were created without concern for our property rights and due process.
I have found, by reading the rules, what appears to be a violation of Florida statutes for changing land development regulation. There are serious questions about the notice of intent, fees, hearings, impact studies, and reasons for amending the text table of the IRC comprehensive plan.
When the rules are not followed, it affects the rights of all of us for years to come. It is these rules that provide consistency and fairness when dealing with government. The rules are to prevent foul play! In this case, it appears that the LDR was created only to stop the concrete batch plant. However, the public notice says this amendment would apply to new development only.
Mr. Kelly Mather posed questions to me in his editorial. I am not aware of the proceedings from the proposed concrete project in Osceola County. However, if there are rights that were violated in Osceola County, please let me know. I can speak up for those citizens just as I am speaking up for you.
The following are questions to the Indian River County officials that Mr. Mather commended for such a good job in his letter to the editor. By the way, I have been told that these questions cannot be discussed with me because there is a lawsuit and I support that project. I don't think the Board of County Commissioners ever thought long enough about this amendment. Did they not know other property owners would be affected and question the motives, procedures and scope of the amendment to the LDR's? Since I can't get an answer from the County, maybe you can. Please, ask the commissioners to answer these questions and if you owned land in 2007 affected by this text amendment get the advice of a lawyer because your civil rights may have been affected.
The affected property know as Ocean Concrete was zoned for concrete "by right" in the county comprehensive plan in 2005--when the land was purchased for that use. That means the light industrial property was planned by the powers-that-be and in consideration of the public to allow concrete by right. As far as the other 30 land use changes in table 4 of IRC zoning code 911.11 are concerned, if you were one of the owners of industrial land in 2007, it would seem to me there might be grounds to file for relief because this LDR text amendment takes away your constitutional property rights.
LDR's have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. They have to meet conditions and requirements set forth by the State of Florida. There are rules and regulations that were omitted, and government acts like this amendment were created without concern for our property rights and due process.
I have found, by reading the rules, what appears to be a violation of Florida statutes for changing land development regulation. There are serious questions about the notice of intent, fees, hearings, impact studies, and reasons for amending the text table of the IRC comprehensive plan.
When the rules are not followed, it affects the rights of all of us for years to come. It is these rules that provide consistency and fairness when dealing with government. The rules are to prevent foul play! In this case, it appears that the LDR was created only to stop the concrete batch plant. However, the public notice says this amendment would apply to new development only.
Mr. Kelly Mather posed questions to me in his editorial. I am not aware of the proceedings from the proposed concrete project in Osceola County. However, if there are rights that were violated in Osceola County, please let me know. I can speak up for those citizens just as I am speaking up for you.
The following are questions to the Indian River County officials that Mr. Mather commended for such a good job in his letter to the editor. By the way, I have been told that these questions cannot be discussed with me because there is a lawsuit and I support that project. I don't think the Board of County Commissioners ever thought long enough about this amendment. Did they not know other property owners would be affected and question the motives, procedures and scope of the amendment to the LDR's? Since I can't get an answer from the County, maybe you can. Please, ask the commissioners to answer these questions and if you owned land in 2007 affected by this text amendment get the advice of a lawyer because your civil rights may have been affected.
Is this text amendment, ordinance 2007-027, consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Was this text amendment created properly?
Was it filed properly with the Florida State Department of Community Affairs?
Who paid the fee for amending this Land development regulation?
Was this text amendment to the LDR's a minor or major change?
Did the IRC properly notice the taking of about 31 uses? Taking just one is stealing never mind the other 30.
Were land owners advised that this LDR change takes away so many uses of their property?
Did the county study the impact or burdens the text amendment change created on public safety?
I am concerned about our fundamental rights as citizens. Your rights have to be held to the highest standards. In the case of Ocean Concrete, their rights are our rights and if George Maib's rights are null and void then so are mine and yours! It is time to fight for our rights and prevent the government from taking these rights without proper due process and notice. LDR's are invalid when the county can't back it up with facts.
Warm Regards,
Robert Laakkonen
No comments:
Post a Comment