January 5, 2024
Hi Everyone,
My hope is that everyone had a great holiday season surrounded by the people they love. Citizen turnout at our commission meetings has been amazing, thank you all for supporting our city. Your participation is essential to its health and well-being and it’s having an impact.
Development that fits
The city has no obligation to grant a zoning change to any property from which it is currently zoned on the city’s comprehensive plan, future land use map. Granting a zoning change is done voluntarily by the city commission. They usually do it because they think it is in the best interest of community.
Development projects with RPUD zoning consist of a development agreement between the developer and the city. Issues such as lot size, density, and aesthetics are settled through negotiation. You would expect our elected officials to negotiate an agreement for a development that reflects the character, nature and history of the surrounding community. Their actions should be a reflection of the people they represent and in their best interest.In our case, city officials choose to support developers with no ties to our community and ignore the wishes of the people they represent. For example, 35 residents from North Gaines Street and many more beyond that, made their case before the commission. These citizens did not oppose the development, they opposed the layout proposed by the developer. The citizens of North Gaines Street simply ask that the houses/lots along North Gaines Street have a similar orientation, width, and setback as the existing homes. This would provide continuity to the neighborhood instead of being a disruptive force. The residents have no problem with the homes west of those along North Gaines Street.
One would think that our city commission, having no ties or interest to the development project or developer, would be responsive to the public it serves by delivering a development project that satisfies their needs and not kowtow to a developer. Our city has stood in such staunch opposition to its citizens that it spent (and I quote the mayor here) $50,000 of taxpayer funds on lawyer fees defending a developer who didn’t want to spend the money to provide a topographic survey to the city at application time as required by Oak Hill Ordinance 24-462 (j)(2)(a)(5). Click here to view the email chain between the city administrator, city attorney, and developer. Click here to view the developers remarks about the cost of the required topographical survey (see page 69, line 23). Click here to view Mayor Gibson’s remarks about our city laws and the required topographical survey (see page 75 lines 20-23). Click Here to view the entire transcript.
It makes you wonder. Why would our city spend taxpayer dollars to defend against citizens who were slighted when Mayor Gibson and the city commission failed to uphold our city’s laws? They all took an oath to uphold them. Fair question when you consider the alternatives: (1) have the developer comply with our ordinances and supply the document before approving the development, or (2) not respond to the lawsuit and simply let the developer supply a document that is required at application time.
So, what is that to our city commissioners? Why would it be worth $50,000 of tax payer money to our mayor and commissioners to defend a developer against citizens who only ask that their elected officials watch out for their interests and follow the law? What value did citizens receive for their hard-earned dollar? What value did the developer receive? Remember these are all choices that are made on our behalf by the people we elect. Whether elected or appointed, commissioners, those serving on boards, city administrator and staff, are all expected to make choices that benefit our community and protect the rights of its citizens. When a law is broken or someone’s rights are violated by the powers that be, that’s a choice made by someone who has the power to do so.
I urge you all to write to your commissioners and let them know what your feelings are about development, growth and what you think our city should look like as we proceed into the future. What we don’t want is to wake up one day and realize that our city has been hijacked to fulfill the vision of one or two individuals. Our city commissioners can be reached at the following email addresses: Mayor Gibson – gibsond@oakhillfl.gov, Vice Mayor Lindlau – lindlaub@oakhillfl.gov, Commissioner McGee – mcgees@oakhillfl.gov, Commissioner Hyatt – hyattl@oakhillfl.gov, Commissioner Catigano – catiganoj@oakhillfl.gov
City Charter Review
According to the agenda for Monday’s commission meeting, the city is slated to select our city’s charter review committee. The purpose of the committee is to conduct a review of our charter and recommend changes. Our current charter was passed on November 2, 2014 and is to be reviewed every ten years. The charter review committee must consist of at least five members appointed by the commission. This committee is will make recommendations that if adopted, stand to shape the future of Oak Hill for years to come.
Storm Water Plan
There is a workshop scheduled for Wednesday, January 11, 2024, at 5:30 PM in the commission chambers at city hall. The purpose of the workshop is for Mead & Hunt to explain the stormwater master plan to the commission and citizens who attend. Click here to view and download the plan.
—————————————–
Our City Commissioner’s meeting is Monday, January 8, 2024 at city hall. The time is 6:00 PM. Click here for the agenda pack.
Please come and let your voice be heard. Your presence and participation is how we hold our commission to account.
As always, it’s my pleasure to serve you, I appreciate your support. Please let me know what I can do to help. I’m here to represent you…
Thanks again,
Joe Catigano
Oak Hill City Commissioner
Seat 3
