I am my own Neighbor

I still find it odd that most every opponent will immediately make analogies to other industrial operations in this debate, and use only the negative side effects of these analagous industrial operations to compare to the supposed negative side effects of the wind turbines.

I mean really, if you can definitively give me a big downside to having a wind turbine near you (besides it being an eyesore, and please don't regurgitate JP michaud's arguments again) then great, we can agree the analogy works. Until then, i think any sort of reference to meat packing plants or polluting industrial parks should be omitted.

Justoo wrote:

It removes the neighbors right to a legal petition. A legal petition requires the governing board to consider the complaint and make a ruling.
The advisory petition that you say is still there can be refused and ignored. A voice that is ignored is not a voice, but a noise.

Would moving the line in 1000' be considered replatting that particular property? Why or why not?

The only difference with your legal petition is that the governing body has to wait till you are out of sight to laugh at you. And your opinion can be heard across the country without a "legal" petition. Fred Phelps can show you how.

And I really see no reason a project boundry should have to border the next guys property so long as the turbines are the required distance away.

Justoo, you have a very simple and uninformed perception of constitutional law. Removing a perceived threat (even if it is not a threat) or even moving it farther away from complainers does NOT in any way remove the right for people to petition that perceived threat. Remember that petitions do not become null and void when a law is being followed (or subverted, as you may say) by Iberdrola. A petition can be used to protest current laws too.

Therefore, the correct response when Ratzilla asks you "why is moving the boundary lines unconstitutional?" would be:

"It isn't. The opponents will have to change their petition to formally acknowledge the new proposed boundary as still unsatisfactory."

Then, of course, everyone will see how ridiculous this petitioning is getting, when Iberdrola keeps moving the boundary back to placate opponents. You're putting the cart before the horse here. It's almost as if you're baiting Iberdrola to leave the current boundaries *just* so that there can be a petition.

Why not focus on the more important issue: the exact reasons for such a huge setback.

In response to that, i would suggest looking at the CD Krista Gordon handed out with tons of studies (independent ones) on all sorts of complaints raised by the various opponent groups around town, addressing them most scientifically and completely. It's worth your read, and i know you have the time if you're already quoting petition policy and zoning recomendations.

Ratzilla wrote:

Justoo wrote:

It removes the neighbors right to a legal petition. A legal petition requires the governing board to consider the complaint and make a ruling.
The advisory petition that you say is still there can be refused and ignored. A voice that is ignored is not a voice, but a noise.

Would moving the line in 1000' be considered replatting that particular property? Why or why not?

The only difference with your legal petition is that the governing body has to wait till you are out of sight to laugh at you. And your opinion can be heard across the country without a "legal" petition. Fred Phelps can show you how.

And I really see no reason a project boundry should have to border the next guys property so long as the turbines are the required distance away.

The last time the legal petition was used it caused a one year moratorium. I can still hear 2 of the commissioners still laughing. Fred Phelps may see a need to be heard across the country, but it is only my desire to be heard in the commissioners chambers. Where it matters. Before you lump me with FP again, remember who might be grilling you a burger on Saturday.

The reason the project boundaries should be on the property line is so that the neighbors can file a petition stating why they are uncomfortable with the distance. It is a right that should not be eleminated. The required distance is considerably less than you may be aware. Just because they are following the zoning rules does not insure that the zoning rules are sufficient.
Example: In, or near, Victoria there is a cell phone tower proposed. The zoning regs suggest the distance it should be from the nearest residence is half the height of the tower. The company is following those guidelines, but have placed the project boundaries in such a manner that the neighbor (who feels they are at risk) has no right to protest. Just because the zoning regs say it is appropriate does not make it safe.

I wish I was my own neighbor,that might mean I was my ONLY neighbor-hehe

GeoPhilip06 wrote:

I still find it odd that most every opponent will immediately make analogies to other industrial operations in this debate, and use only the negative side effects of these analagous industrial operations to compare to the supposed negative side effects of the wind turbines.

The analogies to other industrial operations in this debate are an attempt to make a comparative point about this indutrial operation. The negative side of these operations are being used because it would be difficult to make my point by showing how pretty their home office in Minneapolis (or where ever) is.

GeoPhilip06 wrote:

I mean really, if you can definitively give me a big downside to having a wind turbine near you (besides it being an eyesore, and please don't regurgitate JP michaud's arguments again) then great, we can agree the analogy works. Until then, i think any sort of reference to meat packing plants or polluting industrial parks should be omitted.

JP mentioned they are an eyesore. He also mentioned ULF noise, and property devaluation, and a host of other problems. Of course none of these issues are important unless they affect YOU. If I am not allowed to use anything he ever said, then I cannot use anything that anyone else has said because JP also said it. It seems as though you are trying to tie my hands behind my back with that restriction.

Why is it that none of the proponents want to allow JP's arguements. They are well researched and many of his observations have come from independant sources. Krista is not the only source of "credible evidence". Just because you are tired of hearing from him does not make him wrong.

If I am not alloowed to "regurgitate" anything from JP, then you should not be able to "regurgitate" anything from Krista Jo as I may have tired of her "truth" also.

I guess I have to regurgitate an earlier question that was never answered. Do you live in rural Hays Justoo?

What does my location have to do with this discussion? Would my argument bear more or less weight based on my location?

Justoo wrote:

The last time the legal petition was used it caused a one year moratorium.

So it wasn't about 1st amendment, but rather a guaranteed legal right to continue stalling?

I think JP Michaud is a major part of the issue. It's not whether he has real issues to complain about with noise, etc. It just looks too much like he's gone and bought one tiny piece of ground but acts like he owns everything for miles around. He wants his peace and nice scenery, but wants his neighbors to provide it free of charge. My personal opinion is that if he wants guaranteed peace and nice scenery he should have bought a 5 X 5 mile area and planted himself in the middle.

I appreciate right to protest and the rights of a small landowner verses big corporations, but I also have issues with a person that I suspect just wants to unite lots of others to fight for him and preserve his little kingdom on the plains.


As far a Fred P goes, it wasn't a comparison. It was just pointing out that a protest without petition can still get alot of notice. Don't need no "special sauces" on the burgers.

Ratzilla wrote:

Justoo wrote:

The last time the legal petition was used it caused a one year moratorium.

So it wasn't about 1st amendment, but rather a guaranteed legal right to continue stalling?

I think JP Michaud is a major part of the issue. It's not whether he has real issues to complain about with noise, etc. It just looks too much like he's gone and bought one tiny piece of ground but acts like he owns everything for miles around. He wants his peace and nice scenery, but wants his neighbors to provide it free of charge. My personal opinion is that if he wants guaranteed peace and nice scenery he should have bought a 5 X 5 mile area and planted himself in the middle.

I appreciate right to protest and the rights of a small landowner verses big corporations, but I also have issues with a person that I suspect just wants to unite lots of others to fight for him and preserve his little kingdom on the plains.


As far a Fred P goes, it wasn't a comparison. It was just pointing out that a protest without petition can still get alot of notice. Don't need no "special sauces" on the burgers.

Just because the petition stalled it once is no reason to believe that a petition will stall it forever. Nor is it fair to suggest that is the only reason it is important. The right to petition is not important because it may tie up the project. The right to petition is important because it is a RIGHT.

OK, I agree that a 5 X 5 mile piece of property will guarantee you peace and quiet.
How much land do you have to own to protest an industrial project that is proposed for an agriculturally zoned area? How much land do you need to own for any rights? Is it a different amount for the fourth amendment?

Where do your property rights end? At your property line or is it a half mile away? Or is it 1 mile away like the commissioner from Ellis wants?

upfront wrote:

Where do your property rights end? At your property line or is it a half mile away? Or is it 1 mile away like the commissioner from Ellis wants?

so does that create a one mile no-mans land? Seems kinda unfair that homes can be built willy-nilly around the county then those same homeowners want to tell the farmer that owns the hundreds of acres around the homeowners little 1-4 acre plot what can and can't be done on his farm within a one mile boundry of the 3 acre homeplot.

Justoo wrote:

Just because the petition stalled it once is no reason to believe that a petition will stall it forever. Nor is it fair to suggest that is the only reason it is important. The right to petition is not important because it may tie up the project. The right to petition is important because it is a RIGHT.

OK, I agree that a 5 X 5 mile piece of property will guarantee you peace and quiet.
How much land do you have to own to protest an industrial project that is proposed for an agriculturally zoned area? How much land do you need to own for any rights? Is it a different amount for the fourth amendment?

But the point is still that the right to legal petition being able to potentially delay the project further is the only reason that right matters to you right now.

justoo.. You said yourself that cultivated land is best for these windfarms. Why is that land zoned for agriculture ok for industry?

Ratzilla wrote:

But the point is still that the right to legal petition being able to potentially delay the project further is the only reason that right matters to you right now.

Should rights be allotted according to what reason you have? Can you provide me with your thoughts on why we would have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances unless we are opposed to a project. Perhaps the only people that should be allowed to petition the government are those that agree with the government. That should streamline the monorail.

Ratzilla wrote:

justoo.. You said yourself that cultivated land is best for these windfarms. Why is that land zoned for agriculture ok for industry?

I was quoting some siting guidelines that were prepared for the state of Kansas. Tilled land would be less likely to have sensitive wildlife issues, thus making it a better choice for those who are actually concerned about ecology. If your only concern is "will we have enough power" it would not matter where they are placed. If your motivation is "saving the world" you should have some concern about wildlife. Our lives and those of the animals around us are more closely weaved than most suspect.

And for those who think that rights should be allotted according to who was there first, the wildlife should trump farmers, railroaders, and Indians.

wasn't wild life disturbed when homes were built in the area? not to mention the view? It was so pristine till they put up all those houses.

fescue wrote:

wasn't wild life disturbed when homes were built in the area? not to mention the view? It was so pristine till they put up all those houses.

I suppose wildlife was disturbed when they put up those houses. I suspect that those houses did not displace as many animals in their 40-50 acres as would a 10,000 acre industrial development.

If those 25'-40' hoses bother you more than a 400' windmill, perhaps we should rid the area of those pesky 4' fences that started it all.

And maybe we should arrest the guy that sold the land for those houses?

Justoo wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

But the point is still that the right to legal petition being able to potentially delay the project further is the only reason that right matters to you right now.

Should rights be allotted according to what reason you have? Can you provide me with your thoughts on why we would have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances unless we are opposed to a project. Perhaps the only people that should be allowed to petition the government are those that agree with the government. That should streamline the monorail.

justoo.. If I thought this was really all about rights I wouldn't argue. But I think it's about you having friends in the area opposed to the windfarm and whose right and wrong isn't really part of it.

OK Kreskin, you win. It is not about what I say it is about. It is about whatever you think that I think. What do you think I think I want for supper?
I am glad you are a mind reader. We could have saved 10 + pages of debate if you would have told me this would boil down to what you think I think.
In this thread you have decided that peoples arguements are invalid because they are whiney, or are just holding on to whacko theories that you don't believe in like ULF noise and property devaluation which you won't believe until you see it.
I will admit that I have met some of these people, but none of them are what I would call close friends that I would put great effort forward to help on a political level based solely on friendship. Quite honestly I have known some of the proponents for a longer time. I have never based my arguments who I like, but on what I believe. I will gladly change a tire for a complete stranger. But I will not argue a point I do not believe in for a friend or a foe. If it is a point that I do believe is valid, I will argue in favor of people I don't even care for.
Having said that I am interested in what I really was thinking when I typed that. Please tell me so that I know what is going on in my suppressed knowledge base.

You do have a rather polite way of calling a person a liar. I appreciate the politeness more than I do the suggestion that I am lying about my motives.

Ratzilla wrote:

justoo.. If I thought this was really all about rights I wouldn't argue. But I think it's about you having friends in the area opposed to the windfarm and whose right and wrong isn't really part of it.

Ratz... I figured it out. For me it really is about what is right. But I think you refuse to see my side of the argument because you have a friend and co-worker (superior officer) on the zoning board and you have decided he can't possibly do any wrong or be a part of anything that may possibly be as corrupt as it really is.
You shouldn't back him up so blindly as that.

At Wednesday nights zoning board meeting they were discussing rewriting the rules on allowing wind farms. That is the whole idea behind the moratorium. Not to perpetually stall this project. One of the commissioners was present and brought up to the board that perhaps they need to have a consultant come in who has dealt wind energy and/or crafting zoning regs.
Perry said that they would need to present their request to them at the commission meeting but that they were always hiring consultants for opinions, etc. Gene and crew were quick to respond that they didn't need this and that it would only drag this out further and yet every other comment from Gene and crew - in discussing different points - would comment how they didn't know anything about certain things - "so let's just do this..." In other words, Gene and Lance, etc. continued to admit that they knew very little about different items such as effects on water, noise, etc. - and yet when presented the idea of getting someone who does know - they didn't want any part of that.

Seems to me they just want to monorail this on through without any expert advice. They will end up with meaningless rules that will give Iberdrola Carte Blanche, a coporate lawyers wish comes true.

I am fighting against corruption and stupidity while you support those actions as "the way business is done these days". Not real proud of this bunch of Bozos.

If real experts are brought in for opinions, Then some folks might be awfully disappointed,Im thinking.

Justoo wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

justoo.. If I thought this was really all about rights I wouldn't argue. But I think it's about you having friends in the area opposed to the windfarm and whose right and wrong isn't really part of it.

Ratz... I figured it out. For me it really is about what is right. But I think you refuse to see my side of the argument because you have a friend and co-worker (superior officer) on the zoning board and you have decided he can't possibly do any wrong or be a part of anything that may possibly be as corrupt as it really is.
You shouldn't back him up so blindly as that.

ROTFLMAO

Ok justoo. Now I have more time so I can clarify what amused me so much. If you asked me to name the members of the zoning board I could not name a single one. Unless a zoning issue affected me personally, I wouldn't give a crap about knowing who's on it. This whole thing is a non issue for me other than discussing the pros and cons here. So in the future please refrain from trying to tie me in with anyone you are making accusations against.

There are some real points you've made, and some that I consider minor. What I don't understand is this 1st amendment thing driven into the ground. You got to petition and got what you wanted, only it didn't turn out as you expected.

So now you say the local government, or Iberdrola, or whoever has taken your 1st amendment rights away. If this wasn't an illegal move, then you just have to face it. If it is an illegal move then a power higher than local county officials is who you want a voice with anyways. You stated something about the AG's office being contacted? If so, what do they say?

I think what it's gonna boil down to is Whoever has the most money wins. I have read studies indicating that there are entities willing to spend millions on wind facilities and transmission lines in western kansas in the next decade. It happens all the time in sports,politics etc,and I don't see this as any different.

I think that it as VERY interesting how someone can attend ( did they really attend or just hear what happened from a second party) a meeting and see/hear what they wanted to see/hear and then present that opinion as fact on this as well as other forums. Lets examine the facts point by point shall we.

"At Wednesday nights zoning board meeting they were discussing rewriting the rules on allowing wind farms. That is the whole idea behind the moratorium. Not to perpetually stall this project. One of the commissioners was present and brought up to the board that perhaps they need to have a consultant come in who has dealt wind energy and/or crafting zoning regs."

First;the vote last Sep. was to dely the permit. That set in motion a one year waiting period ,not a moratorium, before another application for a permit can be applied for. The same waiting period for ANY permit that is requested and voted down. That is the fact...the opinion that a MORATORIUM was put in place to that have time to "rewrite" anything is UNTRUE. Second; there were two Co. commissioners there. Each of them were asked for thier thinking on more than one subject. The board also asked questions of others at the meeting about other subjects...oppenents as well as propenents. Third; a board member wanted the applicant to pay for another noise study. They said that if the applicant would pay for another study "nomatter what results from a study payed for by the applicant would be presented as an unfair and biased study by the ecaec."


"Perry said that they would need to present their request to them at the commission meeting but that they were always hiring consultants for opinions, etc. Gene and crew were quick to respond that they didn't need this and that it would only drag this out further and yet every other comment from Gene and crew - in discussing different points - would comment how they didn't know anything about certain things - "so let's just do this..." In other words, Gene and Lance, etc. continued to admit that they knew very little about different items such as effects on water, noise, etc. - and yet when presented the idea of getting someone who does know - they didn't want any part of that."

Once again Just too must not have been at the meeting. Certain members of the zoning board have been singled out for the ability to make decisions based on the facts that have been infront of them for over three years, including the regs from other counties in the state who have these facilities in thier communities. Perry stated last Sept. that he wanted to see regs like Butler County adopted in Ellis County. What he failed to read/study was that the resolution he vopted down in Sept. was the MOST RESTRICTIVE regs by any county in the state of Kansas if they would have been approved. A board member wanted to adopt butler counties regs on noise stating that they must have had consulants and studies done to adopt the regs in that county. A motion to adopt those regs was defeated. A second motion to adopt stricter guidlines than Butler Counties was approved.

What it comes down to is ..... This is a personal fight against a few members of the zoning board. If it was truely a fight for what was best for the whole community then at least SOMEONE would have shown up at either the City planning session, City commission meeting or the City planning and zoning meeting with facts and express why this wind facility is bad for the community.

Hey Just too......Were you there? or ...lol we all need to laugh sometimes

mor·a·to·ri·um [(mawr-uh-tawr-ee-uhm)]
from morari to delay, from mora delay
1 a : an authorized period of delay in the performance of an obligation (as the paying of a debt) b : a waiting period set by an authority
2 : a suspension of activity
3. an authorized period of delay or waiting.
"That set in motion a one year waiting period ,not a moratorium, "
They may not have referred to it as a moratorium, but the definition fits it to a TEE. Please explain how this differs from a moratorium, using accepted definitions.

"then present that opinion as fact on this as well as other forums."
How many forums do you allege I posted this on?

"The same waiting period for ANY permit that is requested and voted down. That is the fact"
They do provide for a moratorium on all projects that are initially denied, never said they didn't.

"Second; there were two Co. commissioners there."
Never said there wasn't.

"the opinion that a MORATORIUM was put in place to that have time to "rewrite" anything is UNTRUE. "
Sorry, I mis-spoke. The moratorium clause does not state it is for the expressed purpose of anything. However it does provide ample opportunity for this action and that is how this time is being used, in this case.

"Certain members of the zoning board have been singled out for the ability to make decisions based on the facts that have been infront of them for over three years, "
Ability to make decisions? Like rejecting most of what David Yearout (hired consultant) suggested they include in the regulations. Like the decision to have 24 pages restricting signs but only a page and a half on wind-based industrial electrical generation?

"If it was truely a fight for what was best for the whole community then at least SOMEONE would have shown up at either the City planning session, City commission meeting or the City planning and zoning meeting with facts and express why this wind facility is bad for the community."
Could it be that nobody showed up at the city meetings because they operate according to the rules and regulations that are set before them and have thus gained the trust of the population? Could it be that the citizens don't trust a county planning commission that doesn't even follow the rules that they themselves have set? Why would you trust a board that does not follow its own guidelines?

"we all need to laugh sometimes"
I have laughed at that group of clowns until I had tears streaming down my face and my sides were aching.

from what I see in the HDN, the county commissioners have given the wind project the go ahead.

Hey Just too...

I have about had enough of people like yourself accusing others, including those on the zoning board of, illelgal acts. Sooo, Two things:

1. SHOW us the proof of ANY illegal actions taken by ANYONE on the board!

2. Please answer the one question you have yet to comment on. Have you been to ANY of the zoning meetings, including the one last Wed. night?

Ratzilla wrote:

I think JP Michaud is a major part of the issue. It's not whether he has real issues to complain about with noise, etc. It just looks too much like he's gone and bought one tiny piece of ground but acts like he owns everything for miles around.

I appreciate right to protest and the rights of a small landowner verses big corporations, but I also have issues with a person that I suspect just wants to unite lots of others to fight for him and preserve his little kingdom on the plains.

This is my EXACT issue with him as well.

upfront wrote:

2. Please answer the one question you have yet to comment on. Have you been to ANY of the zoning meetings, including the one last Wed. night?

Yes I have been, but what does that have to do with anything?

Just that I have been to most of those zoning meetings and therefore have put forth the effort to see for myself what is really happening and therefore have the knowledge first hand. Not just repeating and spewing what someone else has told me, or that I have read somewhere else.

Still don't see ANY answer to the first question.

upfront wrote:

Just that I have been to most of those zoning meetings and therefore have put forth the effort to see for myself what is really happening and therefore have the knowledge first hand. Not just repeating and spewing what someone else has told me, or that I have read somewhere else.

Were Woodward and Bernstien at the Watergate Hotel?

the fight is lost, the turbines are coming in, we are all doomed.

Now lets see if some hold true to their word and put their homes up for sale and move.

upfront wrote:

Hey Just too...

I have about had enough of people like yourself accusing others, including those on the zoning board of, illelgal acts. Sooo, Two things:

1. SHOW us the proof of ANY illegal actions taken by ANYONE on the board!

I am going to hold off on this request as it may be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this time. I am confident that these allegations will submitted to a court of law. Although they may not ever be convicted on these charges, I feel they may have an effect on the final outcome.

Which board member are you?

plowboy wrote:

Now lets see if some hold true to their word and put their homes up for sale and move.

Let's see if Krista Jo is interested in buying one of those houses at market value so that she can live closer to her dream project.

Once again accusations without ANY facts to back it up...Am I suprised? no

If there was ANY evidence to back up any allegations they would stand on thier own as facts wether or not there is any action taken.

What charges?

Submitted when? Yesterday - today- next year?

What makes you think that I AM a member of the zoning board? Facts only please, allegations without facts are are RUMORS and LIES!

BTW ... DId anyone see how much the ground north of Ellis under lease for wind energy sold for?? What is BELOW market value?

Tell me more about that land that sold. Or is that just a rumor without any facts?

FARMLAND AUCTION sold a quarter section estimated to be sold for around 600.00 per acre brought over 1150.00 per acre and the major selling point by the auctioneer was that it was under contract for a wind farm.

FACT!!!!!

Check it out for yourself.

NOW I challenge you to present FACTS to back up what you type here..... ALL I ask is for you to be ....... UPFRONT and HONEST!

Why oh why cant new people come here and challenge arguments without getting all snotty?


Rather hard to take you seriously or even bother to listen to your argument when you do that.

Justoo wrote:

Tell me more about that land that sold. Or is that just a rumor without any facts?

It is a piece of ground that is nothing special, mostly grass with some in crop. Some hills. nothing spectacular. It is right along the blacktop and for those of you with a dislike for Gene Bittel, it is right across the hwy from his home. But I imagine he has his own ground leased for wind energy so I doubt this will really bother him.

It is a piece of ground that is nothing special, mostly grass with some in crop. Some hills. nothing spectacular.

Sounds like a girl I used to know....

Ha Ha....now that was funny.

upfront wrote:

NOW I challenge you to present FACTS to back up what you type here..... ALL I ask is for you to be ....... UPFRONT and HONEST!

The 20% protest petition is required by state law. K.S.A. 12-757 states: "f) (1) Whether or not the planning commission approves or disapproves a zoning amendment, if a protest petition against such amendment is filed in the office of the city clerk or the county clerk within 14 days after the date of the conclusion of the public hearing pursuant to the publication notice, signed by the owners of record of 20% or more of any real property proposed to be rezoned or by the owners of record of 20% or more of the total real property within the area required to be notified by this act of the proposed rezoning of a specific property, excluding streets and public ways and property excluded pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the ordinance or resolution adopting such amendment shall not be passed except by at least a 3/4 vote of all of the members of the governing body."

To deny the protest petition by gerrymandering the boundary of the project area to be different then property lines, effectively eliminates the right of protest. Yes, that would be a violation of state law.

Admittedly they have not broken this law yet. But they will, I am confident.

The way I understand is that the area required to be notified is the area 1000 feet from the land being considered for a permit. No matter if the area is surrounding a 5 acre tract someone would want to buy to put a home on or a larger tract for any other purpose. The eceac folks want any cup to be considered for entire tracts of land ONLY, not just parcels. If they got what they wanted...then it would not allow anyone to sell off 5-10-30 or even 60 acre tracts to build homes on because the landowner would have to get a permit for the whole 1/4 section not just the tract he would want to sell. Sounds great for the argument against the wind farm but the rules would be place for everyone. That would not help any housing expansion around Hays would it.

Nobody is stopping anyone from filing a protest. Anyone can still talk to the people who own land in the protest area and file a protest petition against whatever decision the zoning board makes.

Soooo ... then PLEASE explain what the zoning board did to break K.S.A. 12-757?

By the way Plowboy.....

ROCK ON!!!!!!

Straws are left, and grasping is at hand.

upfront wrote:

...then it would not allow anyone to sell off 5-10-30 or even 60 acre tracts to build homes on because the landowner would have to get a permit for the whole 1/4 section not just the tract he would want to sell.

You have to get a permit whether you are replatting for development or building a shed on existing property. Either way, your neighbors have the right to protest. If you believe this will stop development in the county, explain all of the construction that is taking place.

Moving the boundaries does stop any legally recognizable right to petition as described in the zoning regs. If I am wrong on that part, please explain how the protest process works so I might understand my error.

Justoo wrote:

upfront wrote:

...then it would not allow anyone to sell off 5-10-30 or even 60 acre tracts to build homes on because the landowner would have to get a permit for the whole 1/4 section not just the tract he would want to sell.

You have to get a permit whether you are replatting for development or building a shed on existing property. Either way, your neighbors have the right to protest. If you believe this will stop development in the county, explain all of the construction that is taking place.

Moving the boundaries does stop any legally recognizable right to petition as described in the zoning regs. If I am wrong on that part, please explain how the protest process works so I might understand my error.

So if moving the boundries does not inhibit the right to protest, what is the beef?