Departments



Articles

Less

Letters to the Editor: Another Letter
April 11th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: And Another Letter
April 11th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
April 10th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
April 4th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
April 2nd, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Pipeline Letter
March 16th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
March 13th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Letter to the Editor
March 11th, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Art Show Information
March 1st, 2006

Letters to the Editor: Another View of the Pulp Mill Pipeline
November 14th, 2005

Letters to the Editor: Pipeline Defended
November 12th, 2005

Letters to the Editor: Capt. Dan Needs Our Assistance
October 21st, 2005

Letters to the Editor: Squires Family Card of Thanks
September 14th, 2005

Letters to the Editor: Politics and the Big Dock
May 27th, 2005

Letters to the Editor: Unpleasant Airboat Experience
May 15th, 2005

More

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

Disguised Commercial Development in Residential Areas

Dear Editor:

We urge you to attend the Quasi-Judicial Hearing by the City Commissioners acting in their capacity as the local Planning Agency scheduled for November 12, 2003 and express your opposition against the proposed eight-unit apartment structure submitted in Petition No. 2002-13 by Applicant, Walter White.

We have two specific concerns about this project, and we hope that other members of the community agree with us. First, it is our opinion that a single structure of the size proposed by Walter White is not compatible with the nature of the existing neighborhood. Second,we fear that the applicant`s proposal for construction of a residential apartment complex is actually a commercial project proposed for development within a residential zone.

Cedar Key¹s residential zones are under constant pressure by developers of lodging projects. First came the Fenimore Mill project, then it was Whitman Point Townhouses, then Seahorse Landing, and most recently, Nature¹s Landing. All of these projects have been built in residential zones. These
projects are essentially commercial lodging developments permitted, built and sold as residential condominiums within residential zoning districts. As soon as the construction was completed, the new owners obtained rental managers, secured business licenses from the state and city and converted the use of the residential dwelling units into day, week and monthly lodging facilities.

In order to prevent this continued charade, the City Commissioners should institute a policy of insuring that commercial development projects remain concentrated in the areas of the city which are zoned commercial and make
every effort to guarantee that projects which are proposed for development in the residential zones of the city remain residential in character and use. This can be accomplished by placing deed restrictions on projects proposed to be built in residential districts. Deed restrictions will pass with the property from one owner to the next. If an owner wishes to use their property for a use which is not allowed within the specific zone, then the property owner still has the right to request that the City Commissioners change the zoning district or seek a conditional use permit for a non-conforming use of his property.

If the City Commissioners continue to allow commercial lodging developments disguised as residential housing units to encroach into the city¹s shrinking residential neighborhoods, soon, the very character of the island will disappear. Please take the long overdue step to insure that we do not lose the charm of historic Cedar Key by advocating to the City Commissioners that they deny Walter White¹s Petition for Development Review, Petition No.2002-13 on November 12, 2002.

Sincerely,

Jeff Dwyer & Elizabeth O`Grady

Click for printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

 

 

© 2013
Cedar Key News

cedarkeynews@gmail.com