 |
| In a horror show you never really, fully dispatch the monster. They just keep coming back (Like Jason Voorhees from the Friday the 13th series of films, above). Some issues we deal with (Issues, not people) are eerily reminiscent of this trope... |
As discussed in Part I----Some issues with which we must contend are not unlike the horror show (s). You never really kill the monster, it just keeps coming back. In the case of Jason Voorhees from the 12-movie franchise Friday the 13th----he dies but always comes back.....sometimes in the same movie, frequently also in a follow-on movie. You can NEVER really kill the horror show monster, there is always doubt and it can always come back. This is similar to some ISSUES we face as a county commission.
I'm talking issues, NOT (necessarily) People
Over and over. The same issues. That never get dispatched.
One issue of extreme consternation and gnashing of teeth that keeps coming back is the proposed "Dollar General" discount store that is/was planned for Gulf Beach highway in District 2. The developers and staff have gone back and forth, round and round. Residents don't want it, and the plan was denied.
But then the denial was appealed. Then it went to court. Staff and the petitioners have dueling beliefs about whether or not this proposed development conforms with county planning and zoning ordinances....I wonder what the citizen activists lauded in the paper today think about this particular case? We know how the commissioner from that district feels about this from his public statements on the dais on this issue. But I wonder who is right here, according to these citizen activist planners that the PNJ think are worthy of a Nobel Prize? Dollar General and the petitioners-- or the County's BOA?
Who cares what they think--it's a rhetorical question.
And it doesn't matter as of Friday and the judge's new order in this case.
Because just this past Friday the Circuit Court Judge in the case, Judge Jeffrey Burns, issued a scathing order demanding the Board of Adjustment re-hear the case with no new evidence injected. If not done precisely in this manner, according to the order, the county could be in direct contempt. Yikes! Trouble........
Read the ten page order below, for yourself..
What a mess. And certainly sets up interesting context for the upcoming ruling on Seafarer's writ of certiorari per Beach Access 4. Aren't we about at the deadline for their attorneys to respond to the Court's request for a rescheduling?
ReplyDeleteWe were at this BOA hearing and it was pretty mind-blowing. Theriaque was absolutely flabbergasted that they were allowing new evidence. From a layperson's perspective, it did seem pretty odd how the whole thing was handled.
Legality aside, what is very sad is that Underhill's fomenting of this issue has complicated things so much for that neighborhood. He's got people so whipped up over this issue that it seems possible they're not seeing the forest for the trees on it any more. And that's an apt metaphor, as Dollar General--unbelievably--went back to the drawing board to create the prettiest storefront they've ever put up, and SET ASIDE CONSERVATION LAND TO CREATE A TREE BUFFER IN PERPETUITY.
Isn't this *exactly* what people have been driving at at CivicCon? That when land use and zoning allow for something that the neighborhood doesn't want, the best thing to do is to work with the owner to exert pressure for the very best design for the neighborhood? This should be adopted as a model for when citizen engagement *works* in the planning process. Those residents won, and they don't even recognize it. It's a huge accomplishment to get a national chain to alter its design and conserve trees. It seems like they can't even see their victory, because Doug keeps fanning the flames.
This is the continual plight of our district. Everything gets driven into black and white in D2, and so, in this instance, the residents are fighting a business that will set aside conservation land, when the result could be that a different developer comes in and clear cuts that parcel to throw up ticky tack town homes. Per the Dollar General's new plans, in 20 years that business might not even be there any more, but the trees would.
SMH.
--Melissa Pino
More legal problems for the county thanks to Underhill.
ReplyDeleteDoug Underhill is not the cause of us not wanting DG in the middle of residences or any other commercial business for that matter. That's why the zoning overlay was created in the first place. And are you really telling us you would want them adjoining your yard? Somehow we're uninformed because we don't want it? Invite them to be your neighbor. There is commercial property available on the western/business end of GBH. From Bauer Road to Blue Angel the road is designated local traffic only. Even so we deal with nearly dead stopped traffic jams when the Blue Angels practice already. We don't need to attract new congestion in this area. It's an area where people walk with their children and dogs, ride bicycles and enjoy our neighbors and extended communities. Don't allow that to be damaged by having a DG or any other retail operation in the middle of our homes.
ReplyDeleteDear anonymous 9:44,
ReplyDeleteI understand your feelings of powerlessness and frustration, believe me. It's horrible when previously unrecognized, or new zoning and land use, rear their heads towards something the neighborhood doesn't want. I'm not downplaying the residents' concern one bit, and it's obvious that there are *many* who don't want this.
Here's the problem: it is what it is with the land use and zoning. :( However unfair to the neighboring properties. And with the county's ambiguous planning models--that really allow for way too much latitude within categories, are shot through with holes, and are complicated beyond measure--the Planning Division, the Planning Board, and the BOA are often stuck in very difficult positions. When there is a lot of political pressure coming from a BOCC member/s or the Board as a whole, that can put the Planning staff in a pretty untenable place.
The question of whether that zoning/use/etc is fair aside, I was confused by the County's initial ruling on this, as it seemed that--again, whether palatable or not--the zoning and use did indeed allow for Dollar General to set up shop. It seems that the judge in the circuit court felt the same way. If I was confused by the initial ruling, I was flabbergasted by the second one, which clearly seemed to be contrary to what the circuit court had ordered.
Whatever the case, *something* was going in there. And I just feel like you guys had a heck of a win to battle Dollar General into a pretty storefront and all the preservation land--some neighborhoods would *kill* for that set aside.
If you battle Dollar General off, would it be preferable for one of these developers who are ripping through, say, The Tanyards, cutting down all the trees and throwing up town homes as fast they can, to come in and clear cut and build right up to the setbacks?
Maybe people really *would* prefer that. And if so, it's a good thing, because there would be a real likelihood of losing all those trees (even if town homes or condos in particular aren't allowable there).
Where I see Underhill's hand in this is that he loves to get a neighborhood whipped up into a frenzy so he can continually lead "causes," which often results in a community missing a chance to step back and re-assess the goals. That has happened time after time in various neighborhoods in our district.
Whatever the results, I wish your neighborhoods the best in recognizing exactly how far your influence can truly extend over that parcel, and getting what you want there. I guess I would just say that this might end up being a case of "be careful what you wish for." If I could, I'd rub a genie out of the bottle and let it stay for you folks just like it is.
Best,
Melissa Pino