Zoning

The Site Specific Memorandum dated January 26, 1996, highlighted concerns regarding zoning practices and was attached to correspondence, city minutes, and the Thrasher Engineer Plan from the same year. It stressed that the Board should not be swayed by individual property owners seeking to redefine zoning based on personal preferences, particularly after witnessing 18 months of what the memorandum termed "ping pong actions" concerning several parcels, a practice that can be traced back to 1994.

The Rezoners

The admonition on rezoning mentioned in the 1996 Memorandum was triggered by the tumultuous 18-month period leading up to the memorandum, during which the Board experienced frequent and inconsistent requests for rezoning, referred to as "ping pong actions." These actions indicated a troubling trend of property owners attempting to alter zoning designations at will, undermining the stability and integrity of previously established zoning decisions by city planners. While the memorandum references rezonings, including one in February 2003, it also suggests that there were instances of rezoning that occurred without proper awareness or transparency, contributing to community and planning concerns

Let's See...

1992 - Not In The City

In 1992, Anthony Lacaria faced significant confusion regarding the jurisdiction of his property when trying to obtain a building permit for a new home on generational family land. The City of Bridgeport's planner asserted that his parcel (Parcel Number 36.2) was not within city limits, while the Harrison County Courthouse simultaneously indicated that the parcel was also not within the county.

Frank Lacaria, Anthony’s relative, stating the parcel was indeed within city boundaries and noted previous annexation issues where parts of the family’s property were not included in the city despite the city's expansion. Despite these conflicting claims, the City of Bridgeport maintained that Anthony's property was not within city limits, leading him to ultimately secure a county building permit for his home construction.

A few years later Anthony receives a dog tax indicative that his parcel 36.2 is in the City Of Bridgeport. The County states his home location parcel is in the City Of Bridgeport and the City Confirms it. So his home parcel 36.2 was in the City all along and Frank Lacaria was correct from the beginning.

More Of Your Property Has Been Placed In The City

Determining the legality of the annexations without the Lacaria family's knowledge involves examining the specific laws and regulations governing municipal annexations in Bridgeport during that period. Generally, annexations must follow legal procedures that often include public notifications, hearings, and provisions for property owners to contest the annexation. If these procedures were not adhered to, it could render the annexation questionable or potentially illegal. The lack of awareness by the Lacaria family does raise important concerns regarding transparency and communication from city officials, which should have been addressed at the time of the annexation process.

2005; We decide to construct a new automotive building on parcel 36 Red Dot #2 noted above. I travel to the County to get a permit and am told our parcel 36 Red Dot #2 is not in the County. The County then provides Anthony the dated record changes where said parcel had been placed in the City of Bridgeport in 1994. (1994 is the year that Platinum Properties purchased the surrounding acreage from James Larosa).

I then check with City Planner Spellman who states that he has no knowledge of Parcel 36's Red Dot #2 placement in the City. A City Official informs me that I did not need a building permit anyway. A warning bell goes off. I obtain a City of Bridgeport Permit to construct his building on 36 Red Dot #2.

Thus; the Lacaria family had no knowledge that PARCEL 36 Red Dot 2 was placed in the City in 1994. However, it was likely known by the 1996 Memorandum's author the then City of Bridgeport City Manage Weller.

Next; Devaluations