|
Post by Admin on May 13, 2015 16:32:02 GMT -5
Affected residents and property owners can call (863) 534-6012 or send comments in writing to our office via email ( Public Hearing Comments) or regular mail to Land Development Division, Drawer GM03, PO Box 9005, Bartow, Fl 33831, attention Margo White. You can also send comments to Erik Pet erson, Senior Planner at PolkSrLandPlannererikPet erson@polk-county.net All are encouraged to send comments to Polk County if unable to attend the public hearing. Please take an extra moment to Copy/Paste your comments on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by courious on May 14, 2015 10:10:34 GMT -5
Affected residents and property owners can call (863) 534-6012 or send comments in writing to our office via email ( Public Hearing Comments) or regular mail to Land Development Division, Drawer GM03, PO Box 9005, Bartow, Fl 33831, attention Margo White. You can also send comments to Erik Pet erson, Senior Planner at erikPet erson@polk-county.netAll are encouraged to send comments to Polk County if unable to attend the public hearing. Please take an extra moment to Copy/Paste your comments on this thread. If SLR Board changes the land use to include commercial does that mean anyone can run a business or would it be at the Board's discretion? Secondly, does that mean we will no longer be a gated community as the public will need to access any business provided at S-bag? And, how will this impact on our Not For Profit status? And, what about legal highway signs needing to be posted? Would our current Security have any input into behavior of people purchasing wares or services on SLohA property?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2015 14:14:10 GMT -5
courious posted: Wow that's a truckload of good questions! It sure seems like if the business's customer base is outside the community--which it largely is and appears to be anticipating additional growth--then the public would be permitted access into the community to conduct business with all that entails, including making EVERYTHING in here ADA compliant. The business might produce revenue which negates our preferred tax status as a not-for profit corporation. Presently, our tax bill on the common properties is ZERO and who knows how that will be adjusted by the appraiser if it is supporting large subscription and lease revenues. Also, who knows what ancillary infrastructure will be necessary to permit safe travel by public--and we might end up saying goodbye to golf carts on the roads and making the roadways county-compliant. That usually means drainage and shoulders maybe even sidewalks and perhaps widening the roads and creating parking. Our current Security is not trained and will not be permitted to intervene in matters involving the public; we will have to hire trained, licensed rent a cops if needed. Can other businesses establish a presence on the common property? ("Would you like fries with that?") Can a few old white men forbid that without someone taking SLohA to the cleaners in court? Who indemnifies the damage secondary to business conduct and equipment or "acts of God"? Do we charge KCNet land lease and fees to offset our additional costs and does the Public Service Commission and FCC get involved in regulating rates and telecommunications business that SLohA houses on its property? Monthly Vandalism Reports will have to be updated weekly. Lots of good questions that have never been asked or answered. We don't know what we don't know. We are about to open *Pandora's Box! *Pandora's Box: the phrase "to open Pandora's box" means to perform an action that may seem sm all or innocent, but that turns out to have severely detrimental and far-reaching consequences. Attachment DeletedIn this famous image, Pandora is trying to close the box that she had opened out of curiosity. At left, the evils of the world taunt her as they escape.
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 14, 2015 15:56:31 GMT -5
At the risk of being called a one-trick pony, let me reiterate my feelings about the KCNET issue. I don't necessarily object to the existence of commercial businesses IN THE COMMON AREA. S-bag's zoning status is that of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD's came into existence back in the 1950's as an alternative to standard zoning. The idea was to allow for mixed use developments. Many PUD's, including nearby ones like Nalcrest do have "neighborhood businesses" (e.g. a barber shop/beauty shop, a retail branch bank, a convenience store, etc) in the common area near the recreational facilities. I also don't necessarily object to the idea of SLohA entering into an agreement with a company to provide internet access to our community. What I do object to, however, is the manner in which we are subsidizing KCNET. No matter who originally put up those communication towers, they are sitting on SLohA property. As such, we should be compensated via a ground lease. As a retired municipal official I had some experience with the lease fees cellular companies pay to mount their antennae onto municipal water towers, emergency broadcast towers, etc. In the last community I worked for, the five major cellular companies a paid total of $104,000 annually to have their antennae on the City's two water towers. It is a matter of record that KCNET not only serves S-bag but also several other residential developments in the Lake Wales area (see statement on SLohA's website internet webpage: " Since October 1, 2011 KCnetwork has been serving customers in S-bag Lake Resort and surrounding communities from our Fiber internet feed") Moreover, it is pretty apparent that KCNET's computer server is housed on S-bag grounds and the internet signal to those surrounding communities is broadcast from those communitation towers. Also, I remember a statement made by Bb during an informational meeting a couple of years ago that KCNET also uses those towers as repeaters for Verizon Cellular. No doubt he is being paid by Verizon for doing that. I believe that KCNET should provide some form of "quid pro quo" in return for our permitting those communication towers to exist on SLohA property. In the past, I have suggested a new business model for KCNET whereby the company provides "low grade" (less than 128 kps) internet service to all S-bag residents FOR FREE, in exchange for permission to use those communication towers. Then, for those internet geeks like myself, KCNET would offer higher levels service to individual Saddlebaggers on a subscription basis. If this sounds familiar, it should. It is exactly how the major cellular companies and internet providers work For instance, AT&T offers its "Pro", "Elite" and "Max" internet packages using U-verse technology, and another set of packages using DSL technology. Moreover all the major internet providers offer a "snowbird service" whereby a customer can suspend monthly billing while he/she is away from his/her home computer. For my part, I subscribe to AT&T's 1.5 Mbps plan at my home in northern Wisconsin at a cost of approximately $30/month. Why then does the SLohA Board offer such a sweetheart deal to KCNET. For now I am unwilling to subscribe to the idea that board members are engaged in corrupt activity. However, I do believe that the personal friendship between Bb and some members of the Board compromises their fiduciary duty to get the best deal they can for the good of our community. I should point out that, even though, PUD zoning allows for mixed use development, it requires a covenant which states what kind of businesses are allowed and where in the PUD they can locate. At present, our covenants do not allow any business anywhere in S-bag. Therefore the membership would have to amend the covenants, in accordance with the rules, to allow for such a change. Also, the proposed change must be submitted to the County planning office to determine whether it conforms to the County's Master Land Use Plan. With respect to the issue of how such a change might affect SLohA's tax-exempt status, that answer is well above my pay grade. However I would like to point out that a corporation does not pay taxes on revenue. It pays taxes on profits. Profits are defined as revenues minus expenses. As long as all outside revenues are applied towards annual expenses (thus, decreasing the amount of HOA assessaments required to balance the annual budget) there is no profit and no tax liability.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 14, 2015 17:01:29 GMT -5
Deal or No Deal ? "No Deal" ,because our Leaders,Management and Attorneys can not be trusted. Just look at their web of lies track record. Any commercial enterprises in SLR would in my opinion, be a big mistake.
Our Leaders can not manage SLR, with out wasting our moneys, adding Commercial Businesses in S-bag you will be asking for big unknown problems, on a slippery slope. Just my 2 cents....
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 14, 2015 18:23:16 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
Commercial enterprise in SLR is not permitted by the original Covenant and will still not be permitted if the revitalization of the original Covenant is successful. An amendment to the Covenants must be authorized by the Covenant itself; it is the parent contract and contains language that specifies if and how an amendment can be made. (Rules and Regs are a "child" of the parent and cannot substantively modify the Covenants or add a new provision to them. )
Moreover, while there will be an amendatory provision per statute in the revitalized document, it is established Florida law that Covenants are contracts and new provisions must be agreed upon by 100% of all parties to the contract--including financial institutions with collateral property interest. A "change" in the Commercial business restriction is not possible as an "amendment"; it is an absolute prohibition and cannot be amended. It is a fixed restriction and will be quite difficult to eliminate.
Should Polk County Grnt a PUD variance on KCNet/SLohA application, the (possibly revitalized) Covenant provides that, if 75% of each affected unit agrees, that that particular unit's common area tracts can be released from the prohibition on commercial activity e.g. Unit 1 tracts cannot vote on any tracts in Units 2 or 3. That's about the extent of legal change to SLohA's restrictive covenants that I am aware of. It is probably not that simple since the non-consenting units would be theoretically encumbered by the costs of commerce conducted outside their units, embroiling SLohA in even more litigation or "custom assessment fees". And that would only be possible in the event a Unit revitalization is approved by the state (an uncertain outcome due to eligibility).
So, while Mr Herbst, who has my utmost respect for his public service experience and sophisticated opinion, maintains that there is no reason to suspect corruption, I depart from this opinion (or perhaps our definitions of "corruption" differ). My belief is based on a long-standing pattern of this Board (and boards of the past) rejecting the fudiciary duty of loyalty to Members, ignoring and falsifying the laws of the governing documents and a continued conduct of acting contrary to the principles of business and financial transparency.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 17, 2015 18:49:18 GMT -5
This is the letter which has been (presumably) mailed to all property owners in S-bag which describes the public hearing to be held on June 3rd to drastically change the nature of our community from a "rural park-like environment" to one which could be re-zoned commercial. This will permit the private business, Kay c NET to use our common property for the benefit of its profit-making and possibly to the benefit of benefactors and investors. Additionally, if these towers are permitted to remain, it will be nearly inevitable that SLohA will attempt a third time to encumber each parcel to pay for unwanted/unneeded internet service, insurance and indemnification of these structures and continued maintenance and expansion of internet service OUTSIDE of SLR to subscribers and third-party lessees--without compensation or offset to the Association. It is also possible that such a material and unlawful "taking" of our property will result in legal cH allenges involving individuals, SLohA, the private internet corporation and Polk County for years to come. It is unlikely that the insurance company will pick up the tab on that baby! The multiple communications towers which currently trespass and pockmark our beautiful community will proliferate and continue to expand higher and higher--requiring greater land consumed for mandated safety enclosures and vertical support of these structures near our homes. Our tax base cost will increase and we will pay all costs attendant to permitting the business equipment to occupy our common property- all this in violation of our covenants forbidding the conduct of commerce within the park and which prohibition the board has chosen to ignore despite the advice of their own general counsel at mediation. The existing towers are already proposed to increase in height to 80 and 100 feet and Board sponsor-advocates intend to permit KCNet to use our Administration Office for hosting equipment and conducting technical operations required by Kay c Net business expansion. Our board is sponsoring and paying for the zoning change application upon our common property through OUR assessment contributions--a sponsorship which will be perpetually underwritten by Owners' uninformed and passive assent and increased fees paid for by the membership. Not once has the board asked Members for input on such a major alteration and violation of our covenanted property rights. This is an egregious example of the board ramming an illegal financial burden and unlawful taking of property down our collective throats! This scheme has never been discussed with the Members who own the common property and Members should be alarmed about the capture of their common property and assessment contributions for the benefit of a private for-profit corporation and possibly other interested parties--all in violation of the Covenants and without discussion--much less consent. Owners are encouraged to submit opinions about this proposed altered zoning of our park property. County approval will fundamentally change the nature and character of S-bag forever ... and have negative unintended consequences to our attractive rural neighborhood and stable financial burden. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 17, 2015 20:34:40 GMT -5
I am not familiar with the State of Florida's process for amending a PUD, but here's something that might bear looking into. Typically, state statutes which govern the process for amending a local zoning ordinance include provisions for a "protest petition". A protest petition is a petition signed by at least twenty percent of the adjacent property owners who object to the proposed zoning change. As such the proposed zoning change can only be approved by a super majority (typically three-forths) of the municipality's governing body. While a PUD is not, strictly speaking, a zoning district (in legal parlance, it is known as a zoning overlay), I am guessing that the procedures for a protest petition are the same as for a zoning district amendment. Moreover, based upon my experience, public bodies usually shy away from voting on a proposed zoning change when confronted with a protest petition. They usually table the motion while suggesting that the parties work out a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 18, 2015 11:49:48 GMT -5
I just got off the phone with "Nick" of the Polk County Land Development Office. According to Nick, the scheduled public hearing is to invite comments on the propose amendment to the S-bag PUD whereby the 4 communication towers would become a permitted land use within the PUD. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS CHANGE, THE OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS WITHIN S-bag WOULD STILL BE A PROHIBITED USE UNDER THE PUD. In order to legally operate a commercial business, A SECOND ZONING MODIFICATION APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE POLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. According to NICK they are two separate issues. In other words, even if this application were approved, we still get another "kick at the cat".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 18, 2015 12:07:02 GMT -5
jimherbst: THANK YOU for making that call and knowing the right questions to ask. That is a very important fact to appreciate i.e. that this is a 2-step process. As I understand you, one must first open the door to the Polk Permit People to address SLohA and KCNet violations by changing the zoning to COMMERCIAL and allow construction of communications towers (non-compliant structures) in our residential community. jimherbst: is this known as "spot-re-zoning"? The 2nd step is to determine if operating the business inside S-bag is a permitted activity under a newly-zoned mixed-use (commercial) PUD. Sound right?
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 18, 2015 13:54:54 GMT -5
Yup! Incidentally, in my letter of objection, I pointed out to the Polk County Planning Commission that the proposed amendmet to the PUD to allow an "office" on one specific piece of property (Bb & Virginia's home) constitutes "contract zoning (a/k/a spot zoning) , which is illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 14:17:48 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me the actual board members that were voted in by the people that were for this internet and how many of the board members that were appointed by internet pushing board members thus giving us no say on this since this whole mess on the internet started. I would like to use this in my protest letter to the county. I don't want to make a mistake on this and don;t know but feel most were appointed by bias board members
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 18, 2015 15:30:11 GMT -5
jimherbst posted: jimherbst: Could you post your letter here?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 18, 2015 15:41:06 GMT -5
saddleviewer posted:
*Actually, only two three directors have been elected without having first been appointed. This is an insane system because it perpetuates the SAME mentality year after year as vacancies are appointed by board cronies and then they run as incumbents against...usually...no one.
The only "fresh blood" elected to the board (prior to Tummy Blkbrn a few months ago)-since 2010-was Peet Brdun and Frns Sm all. And, incidentally, Peet Brdun was the ONLY director whoever voted against compulsory internet being forced on Owners. Coincidence?
The main sponsors of the internet were "publicly" Kn Lws and NorleeDee Brnd. Kn Lws remains an informal board member "advisor" and NorleeDee Brnd has multiple antenna access points installed on his house. According to NorleeDee Brnd, he "has never made a penny from Kay c Net". I suspect that most, if not all, directors are supporting the internet business being operated in S-bag for the benefit of KCNet and others. Otherwise, would a director not object to this operation and violation of owners' property rights and Polk County laws?
* 5/22/15 Admin stands corrected--Frns Sm all ran for a board vacancy in 2010 for the 2011 seat, along with Peet Brdun.
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 18, 2015 16:11:19 GMT -5
To margowhite@polk-county.net Today at 1:20 PM
I am writing to state my objection to the proposed modification to the S-bag Lake Resort PUD, as requested in the application from the S-bag Lake Owners Association and SLohA Kay c Ntwerk.
First of all I wish to call your attention to a number of problems with the application itself. The property owner is listed as "S-bag Lake Owners Association". This is only partially correct. The Association owns the common area where 3 of these communication towers are located. The fourth tower and proposed office location are on a privately owned property owned by Robber and Virginia St aib. These should be separate applications
Next, I am cH allenging the authority of those who submitted the application on behalf of the S-bag Association. In my experience as retired municipal official, when such an application is submitted by a property owner who is a corporation, proof must be presented that the person who submitted the application on behalf of the owner is doing so under corporate direction (usually evidenced by a certified corporate resolution).
Even if the S-bag Board of Directors adopted such a corporate resolution, they lack the authority to do so. S-bag's governing land covenants state that "No commercial activity of any kind whatsoever sH all be conducted on or from any site." In order to change any covenant, it requires a 75% affirmative vote by the membership. Last year a ballot issue was put before the membership whereby it would be at the discretion of S-bag's Board of Directors to permit commercial activity within the resort. That ballot measure failed to meet the affirmative vote requirement. Therefore, the Board of Directors lacks the authority to submit this proposed PUD modification.
Thirdly, I believe the proposed amendment constitutes illegal "contract zoning" in that the proposed office is for a specific address. If offices are to be allowed within S-bag, they should be allowed on any property within the PUD.
Now I would like to get to the heart of the matter. As a former practitioner, I understand the history of PUD's. I know that it is not uncommon for PUD's to consist of mixed-use development. But those businesses generally included within a PUD are "neighborhood businesses" established for the exclusive use of the PUD residents (e.g. a branch bank, a beauty salon, etc). Kay c Ntwerk is an internet service provider whose customer base includes retirement communities and subdivisions throughout the greater Lake Wales area. That is substantially different than the type of commercial activity one normally sees in a PUD.
Moreover, I am deeply troubled by the S-bag Board of Directors efforts to provide special privileges to a specific business. What can be their motivation? Even though some of these communication towers sit on S-bag common property, Kay c Ntwerk pays us nothing for the right to mount its internet broadcast antennae on those towers. Again, as a former municipal official, I am aware of the substantial annual fees internet providers and cellular companies are willing to pay for the privilege of placing their antenna on municipal water towers, emergency broadcast towers, etc. Why then are we allowing an internet provider to use our towers to serve customers outside of our complex without charging that business a fee? Would we also afford Verizon or AT&T the same business arrangement? Very strange goings on here!
James E. Herbst
Florida Residence: 14 Pink Lady Lane Lake Wales, Florida 33898
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on May 18, 2015 20:49:14 GMT -5
James you stated it well. One thing that was not mention was the Towers on our Common Property, were "erected without any Polk County Permits, or a Structural Engineering Study". They were "illegally erected with our Board Members Approval. What a deceiving web they weave.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 19, 2015 8:27:50 GMT -5
I have a problem with the line of thinking that some of the board members in here are not corrupt. In this case, I believe they are profiting from the internet business in here and ONLY THEM.
If the board members that are also in Kaycee Net's corporation are using SLR's infrastructure and owner's dues without any "quid pro quo" (as put by another poster on this forum,) back to our community, then, they have got to be profiting by the leasing of these towers to outside internet/phone service providers.
Since that appears--from every angle--to be what's going on here, then, YES, there is, in fact, corruption...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 19, 2015 8:37:24 GMT -5
Here is my comment to the County which supports and augments Mr Herbst's observations, This was also sent to Code Enforcement, Land Development Division and Land Planning Commission.
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on May 19, 2015 10:43:55 GMT -5
Anon. Environmentalist posted: Let me respond by clarifying my definition of "corruption" I define it as being guilty of a criminal act such as embezzlement or use of office for personal gain. While I find the actions of some members of the BOD to exhibit a high degree of cronyism, I would need more evidence of criminal wrongdoing before I make an accusation. We do agree, however, that the BOD's actions over the last 4 years regarding internet service is contrary to the best interest of our community. If the goal was to enhance the S-bag experience by providing resort-wide internet service, why didn't the BOD seek to obtain the best possible service at the lowest cost by publishing a Request-For-Proposals? The process for selecting a vendor is supposed to be open and transparent. Instead the BOD has chosen personal relationships and secrecy.
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on May 19, 2015 11:34:24 GMT -5
They claim Bids for internet services were mailed to several vendors, and for more then one reason they were turned down. So Bb stepped up to the plate and for the good of S-bag offered to establish internet service in SLR. Bb claim was that SLR could not operate with out a Internet Service Provided. The Front Office and our Maintenance Dept could not communicate.
I have been using Verizon Wireless for 6 yrs and it works well.
So some of the above about SLR could not operate, is just plain Bull Crap.
|
|