 |
| 5th Dimension's Rendering of this proposed development |
As I mentioned in parts I and II of this series of posts about a multi-family development in the Perdido area of District 1--there were residents that were caught off guard by this project.
Several came to a meeting last month, one asked for a townhall, which I have now subsequently scheduled.
Look, I'm concerned about traffic, too. I understand the issues and have heard from many constituents that live in this area about traffic congestion. And I am working that issue to the extent I am able and within the confines of the revenue available. And there are a lot of great projects in the works and in the planning stages right now for that area.
This said, I am not an agent, cheerleader, or spokesman for this development, this developer, or his representatives. I am a county commissioner for this district and because folks are concerned I have assured them that I will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that every "i" was dotted and "t" was crossed as it pertains to this particular development having been approved properly. I have asked for and received a raft of information that the staff looked at and used upon which they based their approval decision. I have also asked staff to have the developer's representative at the town hall as well as the traffic study's author. We will see if they show up. I believe it would be in their interest to do so.
Thus far, it appears to me that everything has been done in accordance with state and local ordinances and the County's land development code.
As I said I would do, I am going to link all documents related to this development here on this blog so citizens can see the same information I am seeing in the lead up to the town hall on the 25th of next month..
This morning I am linking a very important permit that was received, the Northwest Florida Water Management District approval. Lots of additional supporting documents for this project and this particular permit can be found by clicking this link and searching under the developer name in the search field, JH Capital, LLC. Readers will at this site see all the charts, maps, and additional
information utilized by NWFWMD in their approval process for this particular multi-family development.I know staff followed the process, and thus far from what I have seen the process to approve this development was thoughtfully considered by multiple entities over an extended period of time in the lead up to the ultimate approval just thirty days after this area became a part of D1. Several anonymous posters to this blog continue to claim "the county didn't study this" or "no planning happened" or other similar things. But those claims are inaccurate, that is simply not true. This was looked at under a microscope because staff knows these projects will be scrutinized by consituents that are opposed so everything has to be done right up front.
And importantly: This development, if it comported with all the rules as apparently it has, would have been approved regardless of what district it sat in geographically and regardless of which commissioner sat in such district---because to do otherwise would have potentially triggered expensive, potentially 7-figure litigation/damages against the county (taxpayers). Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth.
Look for lots more information in the weeks ahead prior to the townhall on this development.
5 comments:
So, you're not an "agent, cheerleader, or spokesman for this development, this developer, or their representatives," but your #1 priority is to "leave no stone unturned" in assuring that no one can find any basis for challenging this approval.
Just curious, but how is that priority any different from what the developer's agents, cheerleaders, and spokesmen's priority would be?
Speaking of challenging the approval... The permit for the water management that you posted the says the following:
"Please be advised that the district HAS NOT (emphasis in original) published a notice in the newspaper of local circulation that a permit has been issued for this activity. Publication, using the district form, notifies the public of their right to challenge the issuance of this permit. If proper notice is given, third parties have a 21 day time limit to file a petition opposing the issuance of the permit."
Commissioner, don't you think the public should have been given an opportunity to file such a petition BEFORE these guys bulldozed 28 acres of virgin woods and carted in thousands of tons of fill dirt?
You've posted that you've received a "raft of information" that the county used in making the decision to approve this development, but so far all you've posted is the developer's privately commissioned impact study and a county engineer's opinion of it that was written 9 months AFTER the approval was made. Oh... and the Water Management permit doc that CLEARLY STATES THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE ITS ISSUANCE.
I know that you'll leave no stone unturned in an effort to make sure that this doesn't constitute and undotted "i" or an uncrossed "t," but the next time you're instructing the staff about how important it is to fight a rear-guard action for this developer, be sure to brush them up on the finer points of the state's sunshine laws.
7:58--My goal is to ensure staff followed all rules and regulations--that's what I said, and it’s what I'm doing--not protecting a "rear-guard" action for anyone; just doing my best to treat everyone fairly in this issue which came up before this area was a part of D1. And it appears as though staff followed all the rules and regulations. I read that notice in the NWFWMD permit as well. It appears to be optional on the part of the developer as to whether they want to publish the notice knowing that if they don't publish --the 21-day clock on protests never starts. I'm not certain if they did notice the public back in January in the PNJ, given so few read that anymore, but I'm sure it will come out whether the developer published it. Your claim about "28 acres of virgin woods" —doesn’t appear to be correct. In fact, looking at 2019 satellite imagery and street view it is apparent this parcel was largely cleared with trails and paths going through it and large cleared areas throughout. Regardless, if you read the documents I've published thus far any further than a cursory review--you know the builder will be compelled to plant more than 100+ new trees to mitigate the impacts of the trees removed. Did you see that? About the sunshine law---trust me on this one: staff understands that law and they deal with it day in and day out---constantly. And having the new traffic director (came aboard after this development was approved) go on record that in his professional opinion the study's conclusions are valid and comport with industry standards after his review of the study and previous traffic director's action (that approved this development) on this development----is an additional layer of transparency that I'm somewhat shocked you cannot discern. He has no reason to simply "go along" if any facet of this study or approval was not warranted. In fact, he probably would have had an easier time if he DID find flaw(s) with either the study or the approval of his predecessor. But he didn't. You don't support this development, but do look at all the data, the timeline, and everything else and ask yourself these simple questions:
1. Have you ever attended any meetings of the planning board?
2. Have you ever even attended a BCC meeting?
3. Have you ever offered suggested revisions to the county's Land Development Code LDC?
4. Have you ever contacted your state representatives about the condition of the numerous state roads in this area that are insufficient for the state’s growth?
5. Have you ever attended a meeting of the Florida Alabama Transportation Planning Organization?
6. Do you think it would be an appropriate act for a county commissioner to unwind and thereby invalidate a lawfully issued development order (assuming all "i's" are dotted, and "t's" were crossed prior to permit issuance) because a constituent or even a large group of constituents oppose(d) such a development?
7. Would a commissioner deliberately attempting to go "back in time" to sabotage a development order he had no part in approving and which conduct would surely cost county taxpayers $Millions of dollars in legal fees and penalties from the court---would those negative financial outcomes be justified in your opinion to stop a development?
8. If you inherited this property from a deceased relative and found yourself with a willing buyer to develop this parcel with an upscale, beautiful development--and you followed all the rules and regulations to make the sale---would you want an honest commissioner treating you fairly in the process despite angry residents opposed?
Think about your honest answer to these important questions. I don' think you'll answer, I do not need your answer because I know the true answers. However, if you choose to do so, I will look forward with great anticipation to your cogent, rational (non-emotional) response(s).
1.) yes, 2.) yes, 3.) no, 4.) yes, 5.) no, 6.) no, but the premise of the question is bogus since you're asking me to take your word for it regarding the degree to which the Is were dotted and the Ts were crossed.
7. No, but that's the whole point. That's the entire reason the public should have had prior notice, so that these questions could have been resolved BEFORE some underpaid civil servant (like your engineer, for example) would have to expose his employers to millions of dollars in legal fees and penalties by offering a finding adverse to the developers-- we'll never know if his opinion would have been different without that hanging over him. And BEFORE an elected official's need to CYA regarding the county's non-existent oversight brought his interests into perfect alignment with those of the developers.
Does someone really need to explain to you how and why all of the calculations are different after the fait accompli? Does someone really need to explain to you why the public has the right to offer a petition challenging a permit before ground is broken?
8.) Fairly, yes, but i wouldn't expect him to grease the skids for me either.
There, I've answered every single one of your questions, and yet you haven't offered a direct answer to a single question anyone here has asked. All you've done is offered a master class in CYA, reiterating again and again that your staff hasn't done anything wrong, as if your only concern is that the state attorney might at any minute come kicking your door down.
Why did a county engineer not review the impact plan until 9 months after the project was already approved?
When did the zoning of western portion of this parcel change from MDR to commercial?
When did the county become aware that the larger road abutting this development wasn't "Canal Road East" under state jurisdiction but was "Perdido Key Dr" under county jurisdiction? Were any changes made to this road's name, designation, or jurisdiction? If so, when were they made?
If I inherited a piece of valuable property, would it be "unfair" for the local government to require me to operate within the roadway jurisdictions and zoning designations that the property enjoyed when I inherited it?
What recourse, if any, does the public have if and when it becomes clear that significant upgrades to the infrastructure will be required to accommodate this development (or when it floods everything west and north of it?) Any recourse at all?
I asked about your staff's knowledge of the sunshine laws because there seems to have been an awful lot of discussion about the zoning and road jurisdiction that you obviously aren't particularly eager to discuss but which people around here would be very interested in seeing.
No one begrudges the previous owner's desire to cash in on that property, but if every single property owner could do literally anything he wanted with it, then we wouldn't have zoning laws and building permits in the first place. The offices within the county approved a massive, urban density style multi-family complex in the middle of a single family neighborhood, apparently asking nothing more from the developers than a privately commissioned impact study and the cost of processing the permitting applications.
Like I said Commissioner, I answered every single one of your questions. Go back and look at the ones I asked, They're very clear and specific, and they're not about Is or Ts. If you had an answer to any of them, you'd have already given it. But I'll settle for a straight answer to the one I asked you before:
Don't you think the public deserved an opportunity to challenge the issuance of these permits before the developers presented them with a fait accompli?
And for extra credit, how about this: have you noticed how many "For Sale" signs have popped up on Canal Road and the side-roads off the eastern end Innerarity Point Road in the last two weeks?
Anonymous, thanks for your answers, and all your questions, and then some, will be answered in the lead up to the town hall in a month. I hope you can attend it.
A look at hurricane Ian should be a wake up call.
I would never live on the coast nor in a flood zone. Don't understand why anyone would.
Napkin man can probably even pass on a little ole time wisdom that a wise man builds his house upon a rock, a foolish man builds his upon on the sand.
Post a Comment