Some of this may be backlash created by not protecting the legitimate property rights of the property owners. I get real uncomfortable when I pay the property tax and then someone else wants to dictate what I can do with my property. Yet I put it on the market and all these people who want to tell me what I can do with my property disappear.
Potential Land Use Changes are Far Reaching
- Thread starter Grayton Girl
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
The problem, Scooterbug44, is that the current proposed language will allow ALL (not just some) of these current residential lots to convert to commercial. It will not even be a case-by-case basis on location. If this language passes, and you apply to change your lot from residential to commercial on these intersections, it is a done deal. You will de-facto get your change (because you fit within the location criteria). Only later, when you start to develop as commercial will there be ANY consideration of whether it will be "well done" or "properly scaled." And sadly, the standards that are in the text amendment to the Comp. Plan are essentially no standards at all. No maximum allowed square footage, no limitation on outdoor music, no restriction of operating hours, no restrictions on merging lots. That's the 2nd part of my concerns, but I feel the location criteria is the most important at this time.
My point is .... do we need or want even "well done and properly scaled" commercial activity at EVERY intersection? I say NO! That kind of commercial intensity will destroy our neighborhoods and devalue our property, create unprecedented traffic and parking issues, and negatively impact safety.
I don't know where you live, Scooterbug44, but if you owned a house that was one lot off 30A behind one of the currently existing homes on the intersections I listed, you would probably be concerned. I imagine you would have bought and developed your residential property with the understanding that your neighbors could also build homes on the adjacent property.... and now, instead of your neighbor's home, you may have a small restaurant/eatery adjacent to your lovely house, with all the attendant noise, parking, and garbage issues. We do not need to be creating these conflicts within our well-established residential communities!
What we should be doing is defining the proper locations for Neighborhood Commercial "up front" and we should define the proper size and other restrictions of this so-called Neighborhood Commercial activity up front. Otherwise, we are just being lazy .... and not being neighborly at all.
The height for new construction south of the bay has been limited to 50 feet for many years per county ordinance. The only exceptions I'm aware of are for projects within DRIs and for sites grandfathered for greater height, and the only instances of this I know of are in the Miramar Beach area.
IMO, one does not equal the other. IMO, legitimate property rights do not include the presumption that no one else has input on, or control of, what you do with your property. This is what planning & zoning is all about. Houston, and certain parts of Alaska, are good havens for those who expect no controls at all.
Where did this idea come from? Who exactly feels that we need or want this proposed change?
Who's asking for it, or pushing for it? The Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, some certain property owners?
Who's asking for it, or pushing for it? The Planning Commission, the County Commissioners, some certain property owners?
Based on what they want to do in Grayton, I would bet there are property owners w/ an agenda behind it - hence my comments about realistic parking requirements and increased setbacks.
When someone wants to pay a portion of my taxes and my mortgage or reimburse me for what I have already invested then they can have input into what I do with my property. Planning and zoning should be very limited and only to insure that my use does not adversely effect you. Adverse means real, measureable effects, not "I don't like the color of your house."
Thanks Miz. I have been many years grateful that the only skyscrapers on 30A are limited to the two I believe. My point of that story was to mention the concept of wholesale zoning or wholesale land use changes as a dangerous practice. In 30A's case, it seems that some county decisions have been overturned by the courts. Now I don't know but from a frequent visitor's perspective, the county appears to be trying to change the underlying land use classification to circumvent those decisions and/or stem the potential tide of neighborhood objections to future land use change requests if this is not done. If land use is changed in a blanket fashion, neighbors will be out of luck, should they want to object or stop the commercial development. I agree that an architect office, art gallery etc., would not be offensive to me, but the permitted uses in that case should not permit also a nightclub, busy restaurant, used car lot. Permitted uses should be narrowly and specifically defined....:roll:
As scooterbug has stated, regulations regarding adequate parking and realistic setback lines will solve most of these problems. If I own a 1/4 acre lot I probably cannot build a nightclub or restaurant if the codes have been written correctly.
I have a house in Old Seagrove one lot off 30A. There is no way I want either of the houses next to me or across the street from there to be a commercial business of ANY kind - not a Pickets, a real estate office, a sweet little old lady that sells art, or an ice cream parlor. When we bought our house, there were houses in those locations and our expectation, based on the land use and plat, was that they would always be houses.
Did I read somewhere that the meeting for this has been changed to another date? Or did I miss it on Thursday?