Light-up McIntosh December 15
Light-up McIntosh will begin at the Civic Center at 6:30 p.m. The event will host Santa Clause and an area choir from six local churches will sing.
03.27.07 -- BRIEF: LPA to recommend Historic 151 repeal, tree ordinance
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
The McIntosh Land Planning Agency will recommend to the town council that Historic Ordinance 151 be repealed and the old historic ordinance in place before 2006 be reinstated.
The citizen board also approved an ordinance that would give the council the power to remove citizen boards with the vote of four council members.
The tree ordinance went through yet another set of revisions before the LPA approved an amended recommendation of an ordinance, which will go next to the council.
Details including public records of the reports and audio files will be available Wednesday.
***
(Updated March 28, 2007)
MEETING REPLAY
Listen to the March 27, 2007 LPA public hearings:
(If you are using Internet Explorer, you may have to click the play arrow twice.)
Read the reports approved by that LPA that should be sent to the council at the April 12 meeting.
Citizen board member removal
Click here for the report on codes that would change the cause for removal of citizen board members.
(Curious about who the current citizen board members are, when their terms are up and how to contact them? Click here to check out a list of members with term dates recently approved by the town council.)
Switching out historic ordinances
Click here for the report that recommends Historic Ordinance 151 be removed and replaced by the old historic ordinance that predates 2006.
Amended new tree ordinance
Click here for the report that recommends approval of a Tree ordinance, with LPA suggestions.
Labels: citizen board removal, Historic Ordinance 151, LPA, Tree Ordinance
posted by Cher @ 9:17 PM,
,
03.16.07 -- EDITORIAL: Be angry with me, but don't be thrown asunder
Friday, March 16, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
If you didn't notice, I touched a nerve this week, unleashing a literal firestorm in the forums denouncing me and the blog. Since a couple people I talked to were unsure about what one or two of the points in Tuesday's story meant, I'd like to recap and clarify.
See, I think this is pretty important stuff. Other people must too, or they wouldn't be so mad at me for pointing it out. And frankly, it's crossed my mind that all the hollering at me is meant to distract readers from the questions the reporting uncovered.
Florida's ethics laws and the January meetings:
Background: Florida statutes (112.3143) prohibit a municipal official from voting on an issue which might benefit him, or his family, with a special private gain or loss. When something like this comes before a board, a procedure has to be followed in which a statement is read into the record before voting and forms should be filed within 15 days.
In January, Council Vice President Howard Walkup put the issue of rezoning his land, as well as the Stranges and the Glasses on the agenda, and then he voted with the council to send rezoning these three parcels of land to the LPA, on which his brother Jim Walkup is a member. The procedure spelled out in Florida statutes was not followed during the January council and the LPA meetings.
Discussion: For all practical purposes, the January meetings regarding zoning were used to "feel out" the mood of the council and the LPA to see if this rezone would fly. If either Walkup had followed the procedure in statutes, the final decisions on those first votes would have gone the same way. Further, the current council has been open to land owners exercising their property rights.
By not following procedure, this process is into a questionable light. Walkup's rezoning had been voted down by a previous council in 2005. There was personal gain involved in the January votes, even if the meeting just served to test the waters.
The key question in this part of the rezoning issue isn't "Should Howard get his land rezoned?" -- but "Should a councilman use his elected seat to accomplish this?"
Need I mention that the penalties by Florida statute range from removal from office to a $10,000 penalty? Not to mention, the waters are further muddied by the fact that the rezoning process left other land owners, the Wrights, out in the beginning stages.
Going against the will of the council:
Background: In February, the council heard the LPA recommendation and voted to table the issue of rezoning to either a later meeting or a special meeting. The reasons given were that this is an important issue, and people will want to know about it. After the vote, Councilman Lee Deaderick told the land owners to see him if they wanted a special meeting called. The council tossed around the idea of paying for the rezoning of these parcels of McIntosh's agriculture land to residential. To her credit, Mayor Marsha Strange suggested that land owners pay for their own rezoning. Although, she suggested that Walkup not have to pay for his since he's pursued the process already. Nothing in February was decided by the council other than this was an issue that needed to come up with time enough to discuss it.
But by the March council meeting, applications had been filed and planning reports had already been finished by a regional planner, on the town's payroll.
Discussion: As someone pointed out in the forum, land owners can file for zoning changes if they want. I agree. They sure can. But don't expect the town and the taxpayers to pay for something if you aren't going to honor the wishes of a council that was both willing to hear the issue but wanted to do it when residents could be more informed about it.
By pushing this issue through, the residents were put at a disadvantage. Rezoning 20 acres of land in McIntosh is a HUGE issue. It's the tip of the iceberg. Rezoning was contentious for a long time, and rushing it isn't going to change the issues that were at hand in 2005 when Walkup's request was previously turned down.
My other concern is that ignoring the will of the council could become a trend. I look back to the repeal of the historic ordinance and see this is the second time inside a two-month period that this has happened. I've never been a fan of Historic Ordinance 151. But the fact is the council wanted the LPA and the Historic Preservation Board to work on 151 together, not for the LPA to repeal it the first time they met -- without even going through it as a board and addressing the concerns spelled out by council member. Especially since that was specifically stated in a February vote, making it the will of the council.
(I didn't mention this in my report (there is only so much space and story people will read), but Councilwoman Eva Jo Callahan did an excellent job of mediating by asking committees to at least try to work together before the public hearing March 27 to repeal the ordinance altogether.)
Public need versus private need, and future development:
Background: The McIntosh codes say that a public need should be justified to change agricultural zoning.
The other night, the LPA decided that the land owners stated need was sufficient for rezoning the Strange's and Walkup's agriculture land to residential. One board member said need was fulfilled because it was Walkup's need to have his family living close to him.
Discussion: One or two land owners' desires, or even needs, are not necessarily the same thing as the public need-- even if we really like those land owners. And let's face it, we do. They're good people who've given a great deal of service to this town.
But together, this is a whopping chunk of land we're talking about opening up for development.
And that brings me to the final question that I have not seen adequately addressed yet: What EXACTLY is going to go on this land after it's rezoned? A rezoning process should make this clear to a community, or public need can, in no way, be properly determined.
The planning reports show a potential for 36 homes. The 2000 Census reports show there are only 279 housing units in town. It doesn't take very many new homes to significantly increase this community. Does anyone else think that adding even the potential for 36 is something that McIntosh should seriously consider?
While building 36 homes may or may not be the land owners' actual intentions, if the land is zoned for that many homes, that kind of development would be possible.
However, if Walkup and the Stranges just want some land zoned for the purpose of building a few homes for their families, then why not create a zoning classification for that? Or, as Danaya Wright suggested the other night, why not rezone just enough land to allow them to do what they want and need to do?
Another thing that hasn't been considered is that these are only two of six large parcels of land on the southeast end of McIntosh. What happens if these two parcels are zoned at R1, allowing two houses per acre, and then the Burry's, the Glasses and the Wrights decide they'd also like to rezone their land to the same classification? Can the town's facilities really accommodate all six parcels? Or, what if they decide they oppose it? What will the other homeowners on Avenue H think of the kind of traffic that intensive development would bring to that end of town? Nobody polled those folks when they "tested the waters" in January.
It comes down to this: What does McIntosh want future development in the southeastern part of town to be like? I'm just not seeing that question seriously considered in this process.
And, folks, that's the key question residents in this town need to consider. Be angry at me for asking it, if you want. But don't let yourselves be thrown asunder.
Labels: editorial, Historic Ordinance 151, LPA, rezoning
posted by Cher @ 7:08 PM,
,
02.28.07 -- REPORT: LPA sets Public Hearing date for repeal of Historic Ordinance 151
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
Listen to the Feb. 27, 2007 Land Planning meeting. (Internet Explorer users may need to click the start arrow twice.)
The LPA set a date of March 27 for a Public Hearing to remove Historic Ordinance 151 from the town's code and place an amended version of the town's old historic codes in place.
Two weeks ago, the McIntosh Town Council voted to repeal Ordinance 151 and then immediately approved a motion for the Land Planning Agency and the Historic Board to hold a meeting to hash out an improved version of ordinance. The spirit of that motion would allow those who support the ordinance and those who disagree with it a method for revising the ordinance to a law that everyone could be happy with, or at least live with.
But the joint meeting, held during a noticed LPA meeting last night, was missing one vital element in the discussion: The Historic Preservation Board.
No one from the Historic Preservation Board showed up to represent their concerns with the ordinance. LPA chairwoman Charlsie Stott said the town clerk sent an e-mail to the board members. After the meeting, Council President Frank Ciotti - who just stepped in as the meeting was ending - confirmed an e-mail did go out to the members.
Also missing from the discussion were community members who might want to voice an opinion in how the ordinance is either reshaped or removed from the town's codes. This could be due to the nature of the public notice displayed in the shadowbox at town hall.
The notice advertised the LPA would meet, but it did not specify that this meeting was a workshop or that this was to be the joint meeting between the two citizen boards.
Further, no agenda was posted to let the community know that this issue would be addressed. This is the second time this year that LPA notices have not accurately informed residents about the nature of the business being discussed. Rezoning McIntosh land came before the LPA in January during a meeting that was not publicly noticed with an agenda.
Last fall, Adria Harper, from Florida's First Amendment Foundation, presented a Sunshine Seminar in McIntosh and said that while a simple notice of a meeting is sufficient, it is in everyone's best interest to post an agenda so people who would be effected by a policy or law change can have input.
Four of the LPA members were present at last night's meeting. Secretary John Sapp was missing. Half the board present last night were not in attendance at the last council meeting, in which the orders from the council were made in motion form on how to precede with the amending 151.
The LPA members discussed some parts of the historic ordinance they did not like. However, the objections from both Councilman Lee Deaderick outlined in detail two weeks ago in the council meeting, nor objections voiced this month about the ordinance's repeal from residents who support the current historic ordinance were heard.
The LPA will meet again on March 13 at 7 p.m. No agenda has been posted.
Labels: Historic Ordinance 151, LPA, public hearing, Tree Ordinance 155
posted by Cher @ 1:17 PM,
,
02.14.07 -- REPORT: Repealing Historic Ordinance 151: "the nits need to be picked"
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
By CHER PHILLIPS
Listen to the Feb. 12, 2007 Town Council meeting continuation by clicking the black triangle. (Internet Explorer users may need to click the start arrow twice.)
The McIntosh Town Council agreed in a four-one vote to repeal Historic Ordinance 151 Monday night in a continuation of last Thursday's February council meeting.
The grappling over the ordinance began Monday night with Mayor Marsha Strange reporting that an unfounded rumor had been circulating that the town wanted to do away with the historic district altogether.
She told the council she'd been contacted by Vanessa Thomas and that four McIntosh residents went to an Ocala meeting and told their historic board the town was attempting to do away with the historic district.
The mayor asked the council to make this point clear.
Though the mayor declined to give the names of the four residents attending the meeting but did note that they were present, Barbara Fellman said she was one of the four who attended the Ocala meeting.
Council President Frank Ciotti made mention of how some people might be confused by what has been written about the historic ordinance in the McIntosh Mirror.
However, the Mirror has never reported that the town is attempting to get rid of the district. No council member or committee member has said in a public meeting this is the town's intent.
In all of the proceedings regarding this ordinance since Council Vice President Howard Walkup made the motion to repeal 151, the only person to suggest that McIntosh's historic district be "gotten rid of" was Bill Glass in the Jan. 30 LPA meeting, to which Charlsie Stott replied she didn't think that was what they wanted to do.
Public records requests have been made for the minutes of the Ocala meeting.
***
On the other side of the grappling fence, the LPA met in January to discuss historic ordinance 151 and voted unanimously to recommend that the council repeal the 151.
At Monday night's meeting Susan Phillips protested that this issue going to the LPA to begin with.
Therein fell the confusion to whether or not the council did or didn't sent the issue to the LPA.
A look back at the Jan. 11 council meeting audio file, shows the council and attorney Scott Walker discussing at length around point 1:23:00 sending the historic ordinance to the LPA for revision.
In the midst of the discussion, Councilman Lee Deaderick tabled in the discussion to February so he could line-by-line read the historic ordinance and gather resident opinion.
It seems that the LPA jumped the gun by taking up the issue in January. During the council meeting, the language regarding the LPA decision used by Walkup was that the LPA had an "unofficial" meeting regarding the historic district.
The meeting, publicly noticed, followed the Sunshine Law, as far as Florida statutes require. But an agenda wasn't posted and therefore, the issues brought up can't be considered a public hearing, which are required when an ordinance is repealed.
***
The interim between the January meeting and the February meeting gave Deaderick a chance to do what he promised: thoroughly read Historic Ordinance 151.
Deaderick provided a line-by-line series of objections Monday night to the ordinance.
(Click HERE to view a PDF Deaderick's original copy noting his objections.)
Deaderick challenged the ordinance on several levels. He said some of the purposes of the ordinance seemed beyond a law's ability, for instance
"I took personal offense to that the word morals ... that somehow morals are tied in with the historic houses," Deaderick said. "The other thing was the this served the spiritual needs of this community and I wasn't sure that that was an accurate portrayal."
Other areas he flagged as problems dealt with landscaping clauses, paint color, ban on the parking of commercial or large vehicles in the historic district and the idea that the historic board could approve what businesses were given occupational licenses. One point he returned to again throughout his criticism was that he said he did not think that a citizen board should have the amount of power that would be granted to the historic preservation board by this ordinance.
Phillips interrupted at one point to tell him that he was just nitpicking.
"What you're doing is really unfair," Glass said.
But the councilman defended his right to pick at the historic ordinance, as he had with previous ordinances like many revisions he's pushed for from the tree committee of the new tree ordinance.
Deaderick said "I've been to a code enforcement board meeting where the nitpicking was as detailed as this, so the nits needs to be picked," he said.
He said that he thought that what was important to the character of McIntosh had very little to do laws and codes but more to do with the civic organizations and people in town.
Ciotti also mentioned that he did not understand the language in the ordinance pertaining to a buffer zone. Last summer, McIntosh residents voted to have a ban against expansion of the current historic district. Yet, ordinance 151's language spells out methods for including homes in the district, even against a home owner's wishes.
Listen to Councilman Deaderick's objections to Historic Ordinance 151 by clicking on the black triangle. (Internet Explorer users may need to click the start arrow twice.).
Ciotti was the dissenting vote in Monday's night's repeal. A surprise vote to repeal came from Councilwoman Eva Jo Callahan. Walkup and Councilwoman Eunice Smith were expected to vote for repeal and Deaderick was assumed by the community to be the "swing" vote on the issue.
The council's repeal of 151 will mean that the ordinance will go under revision. Immediately after the repeal was approved, the council passed another motion by Deaderick to have the LPA and the Historic board meet and made a series of revisions based on concerns he expressed about the historic ordinance.
Currently, 151 is still on the books in McIntosh, but the repeal process -- going next to the LPA -- could yield revisions enough to make 151 acceptable and not have to pass through a second repeal, which would remove it entirely from the town's codes. The process will open up the revision process to the community in the form of public hearings for the combined LPA and Historic Preservation Board members to work on council members' concerns.
Labels: audio file, Historic Ordinance 151, repeal, report, town council
posted by Cher @ 12:05 PM,
,
Editor
Editor and Publisher:
I'm Cher From McIntosh, FL I'm a graduate student at the University of Florida working on a master's degree in Mass Communication. While I was finishing my undergrad degree in journalism last year, I reported on McIntosh, Fla. for an in-depth reporting class. I figured that the reporting and the public record files should go somewhere people can access them. Reporters don't report to keep the information they find to themselves. Some of that reporting is included here in a forum that allows response. McIntosh suffers because with no news coverage, the local government and the rumor mill have too much potential to run rampant over residents. I moved to McIntosh in the fall of 1999. My profile
About This Blog
The primary purpose of this blog is to accurately reflect what happens in town public meetings and dispel rumors. I record the meetings and make them available for download. One of the goals of this blog is to offer residents a place to voice opinions. The comments, views and opinions expressed there are not necessarily those of the editor.
