Post by Admin on Jun 3, 2015 12:03:22 GMT -5
Attachment Deleted Surprise! Surprise!
Big Winners: D Brnd and Bb St aib (2 OWNERS)
BIG LOSERS: 785 OWNERS
As a result of many phone coversations with the County Senior Planner, it came as NO Surprise to me that these two individuals prevailed on this Hearing. I believe that it was virtually "approved" months ago and this was all an exercise in paperwork and going through the motions.
None the less there were a HUGE number of letter and emails sent to the county opposing this modification in our land use. There were also many people who came up and read letters opposing the approval of the application and I am going to post them here in text form to avoid the Enlarging/Downloading" issue. Despite the best efforts of the few people living here in the summer to "stop the train" until ALL the Owners were back in S-bag and properly notified and educated about this important issue, our objections fell on deaf ears. Only one of the Commissioners made a motion to "stay" the hearings until people returned and some of the background chaos surrounding this unpopular neighborhood action could be taken. The other commissioners seemed to be closed to any delay and made a "clean sweep" decision and put NO conditions on the modification. This was especially disappointing.
An appeal will be made within the next week to see if a higher review will provide any relief to owners. If not, say HELLO to a tower at the Beach Site and Big Business on our property and BUBBYE to a once peaceful park-like environment.
Here are the full text of arguments made today:
APPLICATION OBJECTION
IMPACT/SPECIAL OWNER INTEREST OBJECTION
The TENNIS COURT TOWER SAFETY/ACCESS IMPACT will be placed on a separate post because there are several photos documenting the content of the letter.
Big Winners: D Brnd and Bb St aib (2 OWNERS)
BIG LOSERS: 785 OWNERS
As a result of many phone coversations with the County Senior Planner, it came as NO Surprise to me that these two individuals prevailed on this Hearing. I believe that it was virtually "approved" months ago and this was all an exercise in paperwork and going through the motions.
None the less there were a HUGE number of letter and emails sent to the county opposing this modification in our land use. There were also many people who came up and read letters opposing the approval of the application and I am going to post them here in text form to avoid the Enlarging/Downloading" issue. Despite the best efforts of the few people living here in the summer to "stop the train" until ALL the Owners were back in S-bag and properly notified and educated about this important issue, our objections fell on deaf ears. Only one of the Commissioners made a motion to "stay" the hearings until people returned and some of the background chaos surrounding this unpopular neighborhood action could be taken. The other commissioners seemed to be closed to any delay and made a "clean sweep" decision and put NO conditions on the modification. This was especially disappointing.
An appeal will be made within the next week to see if a higher review will provide any relief to owners. If not, say HELLO to a tower at the Beach Site and Big Business on our property and BUBBYE to a once peaceful park-like environment.
Here are the full text of arguments made today:
APPLICATION OBJECTION
TO: Polk County Board of Commissioners
From: Ron Caporale, 107 Beaverkill and 96 Silversides in S-bag
RE: 73-08M
I want to address the irregularities in the Application.
First, the Application. There are 3 main areas of concern.
1-This is a flawed application containing misrepresentations, inaccuracies, incomplete impact statements
2-The overall character of the application minimizes the adverse human environmental impact of a mature residential community captured and redefined by special interests for a commercial purpose
3- The Application contains questionable submissions which, at the very least, call into doubt the accuracy of its preparation by the Applicants.
I will begin with my objection #1; the Application and cover letter. The cover letter states that these two businessmen represent the interests of S-bag to conduct a business and that they have the authority of the Owners to ask for a modification to Owner-owned common properties. This is not true. Owners have received no notification of such an intent and, conversely, have been resisting the continuing occupation of our common properties by KCNetwork's equipment for years. Applicants have no authority to make this Application and do so contrary to the collective wishes ballotted on 3 occasions in as many years.
Further, Applicants stated that is their intention to comply with Polk County Codes and Regulations. That is a blatently false statement as these applicants have already demonstrated by virtue of 3 code enforcement violations on property zoned for residential use, that they do not have any intention to voluntarily comply with restrictions by outside forces. Statements that verbal OK's were given to KCNetwork to erect this equipment on county land in the past are simply not credible. Had it not been for an owner concerned about the safety of the towers—which the owner reported to the county-- we would not be here today.
This is a joint application submitted by a private parcel owner and a corporation which are independent entities and have been cited for code violations separately. The parcel owner especially has no legal foundation to appeal to Polk County for land use modification on common properties belonging to the 787 Owners. KCNetwork's violation, though related to the S-bag violations, is different in quality and Mr. St aib should be required to submit his own application and not represent himself having standing as a co-applicant with S-bag.
2- Applicants submitted Description of Proposed Activity or Use and stated on page 2 “The towers located on SLohA common property were turned over to the Association by KcNetwork and are insured by SLohA.” This is a false statement. Repeated written responses to Official Records Requests, the most recent of which you have a copy of, prove that there is no evidence that SLohA owns KCNetwork's towers, though owners are paying to insure them “under protest”. Because this is clearly disputed, the Applicants should be compelled to document the truth of Ownership of the towers.
3--The Application contains documents that are not referenced in Applicants Answers. For example, there are 3 deeds submitted for common property owned by S-bag which are NOT part of the land use modification request and are NOT referenced as supporting documentation. The purpose of including these deeds is unclear, but it it a disturbing presence because it suggests that this property is included as part of the Application. It is especially alarming to S-bag owners because of KCNetwork's statements of its intention to significantly expand its business outside the resort.
Due to the above irregularities, I request that the Commission reject this application and require greater disclosures and clarifications from the applicant.
The above was partially read at the June 3 Public Hearing due to 3 minute limitation.
From: Ron Caporale, 107 Beaverkill and 96 Silversides in S-bag
RE: 73-08M
I want to address the irregularities in the Application.
First, the Application. There are 3 main areas of concern.
1-This is a flawed application containing misrepresentations, inaccuracies, incomplete impact statements
2-The overall character of the application minimizes the adverse human environmental impact of a mature residential community captured and redefined by special interests for a commercial purpose
3- The Application contains questionable submissions which, at the very least, call into doubt the accuracy of its preparation by the Applicants.
I will begin with my objection #1; the Application and cover letter. The cover letter states that these two businessmen represent the interests of S-bag to conduct a business and that they have the authority of the Owners to ask for a modification to Owner-owned common properties. This is not true. Owners have received no notification of such an intent and, conversely, have been resisting the continuing occupation of our common properties by KCNetwork's equipment for years. Applicants have no authority to make this Application and do so contrary to the collective wishes ballotted on 3 occasions in as many years.
Further, Applicants stated that is their intention to comply with Polk County Codes and Regulations. That is a blatently false statement as these applicants have already demonstrated by virtue of 3 code enforcement violations on property zoned for residential use, that they do not have any intention to voluntarily comply with restrictions by outside forces. Statements that verbal OK's were given to KCNetwork to erect this equipment on county land in the past are simply not credible. Had it not been for an owner concerned about the safety of the towers—which the owner reported to the county-- we would not be here today.
This is a joint application submitted by a private parcel owner and a corporation which are independent entities and have been cited for code violations separately. The parcel owner especially has no legal foundation to appeal to Polk County for land use modification on common properties belonging to the 787 Owners. KCNetwork's violation, though related to the S-bag violations, is different in quality and Mr. St aib should be required to submit his own application and not represent himself having standing as a co-applicant with S-bag.
2- Applicants submitted Description of Proposed Activity or Use and stated on page 2 “The towers located on SLohA common property were turned over to the Association by KcNetwork and are insured by SLohA.” This is a false statement. Repeated written responses to Official Records Requests, the most recent of which you have a copy of, prove that there is no evidence that SLohA owns KCNetwork's towers, though owners are paying to insure them “under protest”. Because this is clearly disputed, the Applicants should be compelled to document the truth of Ownership of the towers.
3--The Application contains documents that are not referenced in Applicants Answers. For example, there are 3 deeds submitted for common property owned by S-bag which are NOT part of the land use modification request and are NOT referenced as supporting documentation. The purpose of including these deeds is unclear, but it it a disturbing presence because it suggests that this property is included as part of the Application. It is especially alarming to S-bag owners because of KCNetwork's statements of its intention to significantly expand its business outside the resort.
Due to the above irregularities, I request that the Commission reject this application and require greater disclosures and clarifications from the applicant.
The above was partially read at the June 3 Public Hearing due to 3 minute limitation.
IMPACT/SPECIAL OWNER INTEREST OBJECTION
TO: Polk County Board of Commissioners
From S u e Tg 4 Stonefly in S-bag
RE: 73-08M
The area of concern I wish to speak to is Applicant's Impact Statements and Owner Special Concerns.
There is not enough time to address the many “minimalist” answers offered by the Applicant with regard to the HUMAN environmental impacts on the people and property in S-bag, so I will comment on two important statements.
1-that assertion that without 5 towers, internet service in S-bag would be absent. I am certain we are all aware that there are multiple ways to receive internet service, including satellite and through cell phone providers Verizon and Sprint. Indeed, KCNetworks will likely experience declining subscriptions in future years as more people opt for the convenience of mobile wireless internet. Current subscribers are mostly winter snowbirds and are even more likely to choose a mobile device to connect to the internet in the future. It is my belief that Applicant has failed to demonstrate a legitimate need for this land-based service and has failed to explore and develop alternatives to seizure of our residential property and recreational amenities in pursuit of its self-serving business interests.
2-The second representation is that the presence of towers on the tennis courts, beach and backyard views would not affect S-bag real estate values. Any potential buyer of property on Grayhackle who passes by Mr. St aib's home with its multiple towers and construction debris, constant traffic from subcontractors and delivery vehicles, would keep looking. As a real estate agent for many years, I have observed that, while the nuisance and unkempt conditions might not be a provable adverse condition of the property, towers and obvious evidence of business activity are perceived by buyers to be obnoxious and to be avoided in a residential setting! People simply do not want to look at steel towers in their backyards. There are many backyards currently looking at KCNetwork's steel towers.
I am further taken aback by a statement to the effect that “people are not bothered by towers anymore because they are so common and expected”. I would submit that people might not be bothered by towers because they are universally prohibited in residential areas and erected on industrial, agricultural and TRUE commercial areas. S-bag is and always has been a residential area; it cannot be magically transformed by a word into a commercial area.
Finally, I want to impress upon this commission that S-bag is a “resort”----a residential resort whose character is defined by its recreational and leisurely amenities for residents and visitors. People buy here as retirees who are, as the name suggests—tired! Tired of traffic, tired of looking at yellow arches, tired of steel and pavement and concrete, tired of reminders of demands of working for a living. People's reasons for choosing S-bag to live and vacation is usually some form of “attractive, quiet, park-like environment.” This is not surprising since our roots are that of a campground featuring fishing and outdoor family activities. In fact, every deed that passes a S-bag title describes the property as an “RV park subdivision”.
I beg this commission to prevent further proliferation and heightening of towers in our residential neighborhood and to deny the proposed tower in our pristine beach area.
I will now speak to Owner Special Concerns.
Approximately 75% of the owners in S-bag are absentee owners-they do not live here year round. Rather, there is a mass exodus back 'up north'-especially to Canada-by owners who are travelling, visiting relatives enroute, rehabbing their winter homes, attending graduations and weddings and who are not paying attention to what is going on in Florida. My point is that owners need additional time to be aware of this modification to land use due to the special demographics of the population.
Polk County adhered to the “letter of the law” in notifying people about the Public Hearing, but few people read the letters or understood what it was about. Many people are not even home yet to receive your Hearing Letter and, we have heard from some that they are just learning about this “word of mouth”. For all the technology supposedly supplied to Owners by KCNetwork, who also owns the Association Website, there is no effective vehicle to communicate with owners. Even people who lived here were confused about what all the pink signs meant. Residents on the property were given no information until an Owner-initiated meeting was announced.
I ask that an allowance be made to accommodate the Human Variable and recognize elderly folks are different. As retirees, we may require more time to understand new information and act appropriately.
For these reasons—the unsuitability of the towers to be cited on our beach and in our tennis complex—the degradation of the desirability of our real estate--the special cH allenges of a population with special demographics like absentee owners, absence of communication and elderly population—and the governance turmoil within our own community--I plead with the Commission to stay this Hearing for 90 days so that owners can become fully informed and educated and allow time for this Association can try to resolve important internal problems.
This letter was partially read at the June 3, 2015 Public Hearing due to 3 minute limit.
From S u e Tg 4 Stonefly in S-bag
RE: 73-08M
The area of concern I wish to speak to is Applicant's Impact Statements and Owner Special Concerns.
There is not enough time to address the many “minimalist” answers offered by the Applicant with regard to the HUMAN environmental impacts on the people and property in S-bag, so I will comment on two important statements.
1-that assertion that without 5 towers, internet service in S-bag would be absent. I am certain we are all aware that there are multiple ways to receive internet service, including satellite and through cell phone providers Verizon and Sprint. Indeed, KCNetworks will likely experience declining subscriptions in future years as more people opt for the convenience of mobile wireless internet. Current subscribers are mostly winter snowbirds and are even more likely to choose a mobile device to connect to the internet in the future. It is my belief that Applicant has failed to demonstrate a legitimate need for this land-based service and has failed to explore and develop alternatives to seizure of our residential property and recreational amenities in pursuit of its self-serving business interests.
2-The second representation is that the presence of towers on the tennis courts, beach and backyard views would not affect S-bag real estate values. Any potential buyer of property on Grayhackle who passes by Mr. St aib's home with its multiple towers and construction debris, constant traffic from subcontractors and delivery vehicles, would keep looking. As a real estate agent for many years, I have observed that, while the nuisance and unkempt conditions might not be a provable adverse condition of the property, towers and obvious evidence of business activity are perceived by buyers to be obnoxious and to be avoided in a residential setting! People simply do not want to look at steel towers in their backyards. There are many backyards currently looking at KCNetwork's steel towers.
I am further taken aback by a statement to the effect that “people are not bothered by towers anymore because they are so common and expected”. I would submit that people might not be bothered by towers because they are universally prohibited in residential areas and erected on industrial, agricultural and TRUE commercial areas. S-bag is and always has been a residential area; it cannot be magically transformed by a word into a commercial area.
Finally, I want to impress upon this commission that S-bag is a “resort”----a residential resort whose character is defined by its recreational and leisurely amenities for residents and visitors. People buy here as retirees who are, as the name suggests—tired! Tired of traffic, tired of looking at yellow arches, tired of steel and pavement and concrete, tired of reminders of demands of working for a living. People's reasons for choosing S-bag to live and vacation is usually some form of “attractive, quiet, park-like environment.” This is not surprising since our roots are that of a campground featuring fishing and outdoor family activities. In fact, every deed that passes a S-bag title describes the property as an “RV park subdivision”.
I beg this commission to prevent further proliferation and heightening of towers in our residential neighborhood and to deny the proposed tower in our pristine beach area.
I will now speak to Owner Special Concerns.
Approximately 75% of the owners in S-bag are absentee owners-they do not live here year round. Rather, there is a mass exodus back 'up north'-especially to Canada-by owners who are travelling, visiting relatives enroute, rehabbing their winter homes, attending graduations and weddings and who are not paying attention to what is going on in Florida. My point is that owners need additional time to be aware of this modification to land use due to the special demographics of the population.
Polk County adhered to the “letter of the law” in notifying people about the Public Hearing, but few people read the letters or understood what it was about. Many people are not even home yet to receive your Hearing Letter and, we have heard from some that they are just learning about this “word of mouth”. For all the technology supposedly supplied to Owners by KCNetwork, who also owns the Association Website, there is no effective vehicle to communicate with owners. Even people who lived here were confused about what all the pink signs meant. Residents on the property were given no information until an Owner-initiated meeting was announced.
I ask that an allowance be made to accommodate the Human Variable and recognize elderly folks are different. As retirees, we may require more time to understand new information and act appropriately.
For these reasons—the unsuitability of the towers to be cited on our beach and in our tennis complex—the degradation of the desirability of our real estate--the special cH allenges of a population with special demographics like absentee owners, absence of communication and elderly population—and the governance turmoil within our own community--I plead with the Commission to stay this Hearing for 90 days so that owners can become fully informed and educated and allow time for this Association can try to resolve important internal problems.
This letter was partially read at the June 3, 2015 Public Hearing due to 3 minute limit.
The TENNIS COURT TOWER SAFETY/ACCESS IMPACT will be placed on a separate post because there are several photos documenting the content of the letter.
