Why has no one fix this if they are aware?
Allan,
The county public meeting records show that Rex Nelson was the one who initiated this request earlier that month. There was never any public issue or discussion in the government until Rex Nelson's appeal to the board. If you have proof that the commissioners planned to change the table of uses before Rex Nelson initiated and requested help then you could claim no application or fee would be owed. The application and fee are part of the due process mandated by Florida Law. It's a great way of making sure that amendments meet the wishes of the region, state and helps to prevent unreasonable changes. Mr. Nelson request was followed up on by staff when the commissioners asked staff to analyze if they could do it and report back.
Furthermore, if 902.12 (2) gives commissioners the right to make the change, then 902.12(3) states the standards of review which was not applied to this amendment.
Allan,
The county public meeting records show that Rex Nelson was the one who initiated this request earlier that month. There was never any public issue or discussion in the government until Rex Nelson's appeal to the board. If you have proof that the commissioners planned to change the table of uses before Rex Nelson initiated and requested help then you could claim no application or fee would be owed. The application and fee are part of the due process mandated by Florida Law. It's a great way of making sure that amendments meet the wishes of the region, state and helps to prevent unreasonable changes. Mr. Nelson request was followed up on by staff when the commissioners asked staff to analyze if they could do it and report back.
Furthermore, if 902.12 (2) gives commissioners the right to make the change, then 902.12(3) states the standards of review which was not applied to this amendment.
(3) Standards of review. In reviewing the application of a proposed amendment to the text of the land development regulations or an application for a proposed amendment to the official zoning atlas, the board of county commissioners and the planning and zoning commission shall consider:
(a) Whether or not the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portion of the land development regulations;
(b) Whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan;
(c) Whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with existing and proposed land uses;
(d) Whether or not the proposed amendment is in compliance with the adopted county thoroughfare plan;
(e) Whether or not the proposed amendment would generate traffic which would decrease the service levels on roadways below level adopted in the comprehensive plan;
(f) Whether or not there have been changed conditions which would warrant an amendment;
(g) Whether or not the proposed amendment would decrease the level of service established in the comprehensive plan for sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, drainage, and recreation;
(h) Whether or not the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
(i) Whether or not the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically identifying any negative effects on such pattern;
(j) Whether or not the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of the land development regulations; as well as
(k) Any other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the planning and zoning commission or the board of county commissioners in review and consideration of the proposed amendment such as police protection, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
If you have proof that this amendment meets these comp plan requirements? I will step aside, but so far I have not found where these standards of review were investigated. If this ordinance does not meet these requirements by law then it needs to be removed. When a LDR is not consistent with these comp plan question, it is a void and mute amendment.
The county and Ocean concrete should erase the line in the sand and move forward to correct this amendment that creates burdens on property, public safety, traffic, emissions, and economic development.
What are the steps for removing this amendment? Would I have to apply and pay the $1500 or could I suggest it at a BCC meeting and get it done without any investment?
This really is about rights not concrete or cement, please consider the constitutional rights when weighing the unjust ordinance.
Warm Regards,
Robert Laakkonen
No comments:
Post a Comment