HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY AND SHIELDS REZONING - 1-06 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)°Cameron Gloss -per your invitation Page 1
From:
<therapidloan@aol.com>
To:
<cplanning@fcgov.com>
Date:
03/20/2006 7:11:40 PM
Subject:
per your invitation
Dear Bridgette et al, You had asked for feed back on the recent P&Z meeting specifically in reference to
re -zoning Harmony & Shields, where in the public was quite obviously frustrated and vocal. Here are my
observations. The process allows the developer to present his proposal, field questions, survey the
feedback from the public and then continue the discussion after input from the public has been closed. In
this particular instance the questions put to the developer were responded to with non specifics and
general assurances of wonderfulness. The citizens, many of whom put hours into researching their
positions were left out of the discussion after the initial input. This can be very frustrating and is particular
annoying when factual elements of the discussion
are used to make decisions without the accuracy of the representations being verified. At least three
important issues were discussed in which inaccurate facts were stated to develop the positions which led
to the final P& Z recommendation. Examples: Quest:re:
Blue Heron buffer? Staff Response: don\'t believe it has any special status. Actual Fact, Land Use Code
Buffer Tables require buffer of 825\'. Quest: re: NC location at mid -block? Staff Response: No special
reason for locating mid block.
Actual Fact: City Plan RD-1 and Land Use Code definition, both specify locating NC specifically mid block,
not at intersections. Finally, Quest: Commercial use likely to be single story? Response:
Supermarkets etc are usually single story.Actual Fact: Many single story commercial buildings are as tall
or taller than 2 story residential structures. Because the public is barred from the development of the
discussion, errors in factual information are not challenged. Therefore, the process still has the
appearance of going through the motions, rather than determining a factual basis to address the proposal.
On personal note. I spent 50 hours researching my presentation. In my 8 minute presentation, I described
4 specific areas of the City Plan and Land Use Code that indicated this particular rezoning request was in
violation of, and not one question was asked of me, it did not appear that one single page of the land use
code was opened and/or turned or referenced by any board or city staff member. That is a very frustrating
experience. Thank you for taking the time to put yourself in our shoes for a moment and thank you for
considering some improvements to the process to allow public input to at least correct factual
misrepresentations or mistakes during the course of the discussion. I believe the public has the right to be
on at least an equal footing a the developer in this regard. Respectfully, Shane Curtiss Miller.