The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 31
The Airport: The bone in the Commission’s craw
DECISION ON WITHAM FIELD BUILDING EXPANSION POSTPONED SIX MONTHS; PLAN FACED REJECTION
Airport leaseholder Stuart Jet Center wants to build an 87,400 sq. ft. building, which would accommodate more air traffic. Residents oppose this, citing safety issues (with the airport out of compliance). In addition, the county lacks needed analysis on the impact of expansion. Worse yet, the expansion plan probably does not comply with Comp Plan and other legal requirements.
Nov. 6, 2007 Commission Meeting Report:
There was a bit of low drama at this Tuesday’s meeting when Commissioners considered whether or not to approve Jet Center’s expansion plan. It grew out of the shifting voting alliances among them. Diterlizzi and Smith were a shoo-in to support this airport development – as they usually do with development. Weberman and Valliere more or less opposed, and Heard probably opposed.
Then it was decided that since so much information was lacking, an abundance of uncertain legal issues present, and our FAA negotiations were ongoing, that they should postpone a decision for six months. To do that would require approval by Stuart Jet. If they refused, the Commission would vote immediately, and it looked like it would reject. Stuart Jet executive and lawyers were in a tizzy, but finally agreed. The delay passed 3-2, Smith and Valliere dissenting … for opposite reasons.
Weberman did a bang-up job as an almost-prosecuter, digging deep into the paperwork and coming up with incisive questions. Many of the replies by county staff and Airport Director Mike Moon were vague or evasive. Some of DiTerlizzi’s comments were a valiant, though ineffectual, argument for supporting the expansion plan.
May 2008 – ENCORE!
1000 Friends well-intentioned – but WRONG!
OPPOSITION TO “HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY” PLAYS INT0 HANDS OF POLITICIANS, BUSINESS LOBBYISTS AND DEVELOPERS WORKING TO CONTROL GROWTH
1000 Friends of Florida is like a man holding a hammer; everything looks like a nail.
Their hammer is the conceit that it can talk away obstacles to its ambitious plans for better communities. 1000 Friends is going to build nirvana with plans and more plans. This posture is a do-gooding arrogance that is breathtakingly blind to the need to stop erosion of Comp Plan requirements in community after community.
I’m talking about 1000 Friends’ opposition to the much needed Hometown Democracy Constitutional Amendment petition. This petition drive, if successful, will enable citizens to regain control over growth in their communities. It is a defense against voracious developers and landowners, a protection against their business and government official allies who have allowed – nay, fostered – ruinous development. The 1000 Friends position will be exploited.
1000 Friends has climbed into bed with those who hold the wishes of citizens in low regard. It is thinking like a well-intentioned socialist bureaucrat. 1000 Friends apparently has no inkling of the need to put a stop NOW to the flood of Comp Plan amendments that local commissions approve to benefit developers and burden residents.
The Hometown Democracy Amendment may not be perfect for every situation. However, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when communities are being abused by wholesale changes to their Comp Plans. It is for good reason that the list of civic and environmental groups supporting Hometown Democracy is so impressively long.
In the words of Department of Community Affairs Secretary Tom Pelham : “Local comprehensive plans are in danger of becoming little more than six-month suggestions. It is not surprising that many citizens have lost faith in the ability of local comprehensive plans to control growth and development.”
Six excuses by 1000 Friends for opposing Hometown Democracy
The 1000 Friends website states that “they cannot support Florida Hometown Democracy for the following reasons:
1 – DEBATES WOULD TURN INTO HIGH-PRICED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS FAVORING LARGE DEVELOPERS OVER GRASSROOTS GROUPS. Is that how much faith 1000 Friends has in an aroused electorate? We’re helpless because the money will always win? On this flimsy speculation 1000 Friends opposes Hometown Democracy?
2 – NIMBYISM – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS FOR NEEDED PROJECTS. Who needs an electorate? Planners know what’s needed and will jam it down our throats. Why does1000 Friends and its financially interested supporters think the worst of the populace? Didn’t Martin County residents vote to add a tax on themselves to preserve land?
3 – “PIECEMEAL PLANNING … DRIVEN BY POPULARITY INSTEAD OF NECESSITY.” Just more disrespect of the common man. The 1000 Friends elitism can’t conceive that when presented with solid reasons to improve infrastructure, citizens will approve.
4 – “SPRAWL – THIS PROPOSAL COULD LIMIT RESPONSIBLE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN URBANIZED AREAS.” Dead wrong again. It’s the citizenry that is fighting sprawl, not the pro-developer contingent with their rubber stamp officials.
5 – “LEGAL GRIDLOCK – A SERIES OF LEGAL CHALLENGES WILL LIKELY BE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE VAGUE WORDING.” I guess this could be said about every amendment because it is a simply worded amendment as required. It’s not a 10-page statute and extensive case law that defines how the constitution is applied. All the “what ifs” would be resolved over time. It’s not much of a reason to oppose the petition.
6 – “LEGISLATIVE BACKLASH COULD CHANGE THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THE WORSE.” Huh? This is a ridiculous speculation with no basis in fact.
Those are the six wispy objections to Hometown Democracy by 1000 Friends.
A Citizens Bill of Rights … maybe someday
What 1000 Friends offers is support of a Citizens Bill of Rights with seven features. Most of these worthy proposals are idealistic hopes with little chance of passage: Mandatory workshops for amendments (unlike the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment fiasco); contact with neighborhood associations; a seven day cooling off period; a super majority vote of commissioners; SLAPP suit protection (Martin activists are already making progress on this); improved citizen legal standing; and no free density increases.
These are excellent suggestions. If and when they are all ever embodied in law we can rejoice. They are good intentions paving the road to you-know-where. But basically, most of it is hot air. Apparently 1000 Friends can’t see that overdevelopment and Comp Plan erosion are here. The Hometown Democracy amendment is needed now, not in some vague, undefined and unlikely future.
Amendment co-author answers two key questions
Attorney Lesley Blackner, co-author of the Hometown Democracy Amendment petition was interviewed by the Sun-Sentinel. Here are two key questions she was asked:
Q. Are highly technical and complex questions that even experts have trouble understanding really suitable to put on the ballot?
A. “I think that's a smokescreen. This is a typical response from a special-interest group trying to protect itself, by saying the public is too stupid.
“Every election, the public is asked to vote its opinions on all sorts of public policy questions, like state amendments, local bond issues, city and county charter amendments, or other referendum questions. Many of them are very complicated. And they seem to be able to educate themselves. I don't think voters are stupid. I think ballot questions can be written in a way so voters can understand.”
***
Q. Don't we elect political leaders, and delegate the power to them to make most decisions for us?
A. “The U.S. Supreme Court said in March that voters are presumed to be competent about matters of local government. The court said if voters so choose, they could demand to vote on all local issues, that power is delegated to local government and voters can take that power back if they so choose.
“I have more faith in the electorate in understanding the implications of Comp Plan amendments for the future of a community than I do city or county commissioners. They've had the power 100 years, since zoning was commenced, and they've done a bad job of it. Just look around. What kind of future are we creating for generations to come?
“I think this amendment will give voters a sense of ownership over their communities. They'll read up on proposed amendments. There will be a lot of public debate over proposed amendments, which don't really get debated now, because they're all rubber-stamped.”
REMINDER: Lesley Blackner will address the Dec. 3, 2007 Forum sponsored by the Martin County Consensus – 6:00 pm at the Blake Library in Stuart
For more information, go to:
www.floridahometowndemocracy.com
PETITION FORM IS ATTACHED (in Acrobat pdf format)
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 32a
NEWSFLASH … NEWSFLASH … NEWSFLASH …
The Florida Elections Commission has unanimously found probable cause to charge Jim Valliere with about 60 counts of elections law violations and Susan Valliere with about 20 counts of violations.
The probable cause determination was based on staff recommendations. The case(s) will now go to administrative hearing.
Martin officials losing sense of responsibility
THEY’RE PREPARING TO WASTE FUNDS ON NEEDLESS CONSULTANTS; EVADING TAX CUTS WITH NEW FEES
The governor says cut spending and taxes. The legislature says cut spending and taxes. The voters say cut spending and taxes. But in Martin County, the County Administrator and some department heads and Commissioners are looking for ways to waste money on consultants. It’s not ordinary waste, the way Glatting Jackson ($528,000) and Urbanomics ($50,000) were. This money (it’s $200,000 to start) is to be spent for consultant studies to support such things as drainage and fire service (where all those $100,000-plus earners work) fees in lieu of or in addition to taxes.
When this tale is told to ordinary residents, the universal sense of their reaction is: Are these guys nuts? Good question.
If you don’t approve of costly and needless consultant contracts; if you don’t approve of fees to evade tax limitations, let County Administrator Ballantyne and commissioners know:
dballant@martin.fl.us
commissioners@martin.fl.us
Ballantyne outrage of the month
MEMO SEEKS TO THROTTLE PUBLIC INPUT AT COMMISSION MEETINGS
A Nov. 8, 2007 memo from County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne to Commissioners contains 23 “suggestions for improving the efficiency of our Board meetings. These suggestions are the result of individual discussions with Commissioners and the Leadership Team.” Note that no one takes responsibility for any of the suggestions, allowing anonymous government in the shadows.
The worst suggestions are those intended to curtail public input. Here are three of the proposals:
“Limit public comment to a certain time frame, e.g. one hour. Either end public comment at that time and offer continuation at the 5:05 pm Public Comment period or divide the available time by the number of speakers and limit the speakers to that time.” Can you believe that? The very issues that prompt public interest would be choked off. Someone who didn’t make the one-hour cut at, say, 10:00 am would have to return at 5:05 pm. Or else, time would be divided so there may only be one minute to speak. Note: Developers proposing zoning and Comp Plan changes would not be so limited.
“Require that all Requests to Speak forms be turned in before the first speaker is called.” Is that first speaker of the day or of the agenda item? Either way, it’s another grossly offensive restriction imposed on citizens.
“Limit public comment to only County operational issues.” This may be the most poisonous of all the suggestions suppressing free speech, since most agenda items can be defined by the chair as non-operational. A code enforcement ordinance is “operational”; a Comp Plan amendment to allow cluster housing in rural lands is not. A trash hauling contract is operational; a zoning change to allow higher density is not. And so on.
If you value a citizen’s right to be heard, you can let the County Administrator and Commissioners know what you think about their gag-rule efforts to suppress citizen expression. Send your e-mails to the addresses noted above.
Slow-growth gathers momentum
Martin County residents spoke up en masse against the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment giveaway to developers. Officials in Tallahassee seem receptive to our objections, even if some of the officials in the Martin Administration Building act as if they are hearing-challenged.
Martin County is not alone. Recently, Sarasota County’s slow-growth movement beat officials and business community representatives. Pro-development City Council members were defeated by a landslide. Also, supermajority measures were approved that will avoid some of the 3-2 type of developer accommodation we have seen in Martin County.
Over in Venice, three slow-growth challengers easily defeated well-connected incumbents, radically changing the city’s power structure.
There is still much work to be done in Martin County, but 2008 looks brighter by the day.
Those tissue-thin objections to Hometown Democracy
What motivates people to oppose the Hometown Democracy amendment, which gives residents the power to control growth by voting on Comp Plan changes? Too many officials feel that they would be losing power. Too many businesses think they would lose money if they have to play by Comp Plan rules (Hometown Democracy does not affect zoning or building in compliance with existing rules, despite the lies propagated by opponents).
One organization, 1000 Friends of Florida, is in opposition because of a mish-mash of flimsy (un)reasons, a product of elitist thinking that does not represent the views of their supporters. In Defender No. 31, we printed their six reasons (in CAPITALS), along with our comments (in italic). See below. Now, we present the brief comments from Lesley Blackner, co-author of the Hometown Democracy petition drive (in underline color).
Six excuses by 1000 Friends for opposing Hometown Democracy:
1 – DEBATES WOULD TURN INTO HIGH-PRICED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS FAVORING LARGE DEVELOPERS OVER GRASSROOTS GROUPS. Is that how much faith 1000 Friends has in an aroused electorate? We’re helpless because the money will always win? On this flimsy speculation 1000 Friends opposes Hometown Democracy?
BLACKNER: Let them spend money: right now they get their comp plan changes too cheap. Fact is, the cost will be prohibitive to many developers and they will have to learn to live with the plans, like they are supposed to.
2 – NIMBYISM – LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS FOR NEEDED PROJECTS. Who needs an electorate? Planners know what’s needed and will jam it down our throats. Why does1000 Friends and its financially interested supporters think the worst of the populace? Didn’t Martin County residents vote to add a tax on themselves to preserve land?
BLACKNER: I am personally tired of bashing people who care about their neighborhood as NIMBYs. People should care about their community. It is a sign of community health. By the by: What is a 'NEEDED' project? Have you ever heard the commission approve a "not-needed" project??? They claim they need them all.
3 – "PIECEMEAL PLANNING … DRIVEN BY POPULARITY INSTEAD OF NECESSITY." Just more disrespect of the common man. The 1000 Friends elitism can’t conceive that when presented with solid reasons to improve infrastructure, citizens will approve.
BLACKNER: Plan amendments are the destruction of planning...lets start respecting plans by learning to live with their terms. Plan amendments that are truly reflective of the broad public interest will no doubt get approved...as they should. It's the controversial destructive plan amendments that will wither and die, as they should.
4 – "SPRAWL – THIS PROPOSAL COULD LIMIT RESPONSIBLE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN URBANIZED AREAS." Dead wrong again. It’s the citizenry that is fighting sprawl, not the pro-developer contingent with their rubber stamp officials.
BLACKNER: Talk about bull. How do they have a crystal ball to read the voters' minds?? Yes, but we know too often how these bought and paid for commissions vote...that's why we need this modest, but powerful reform.
5 – "LEGAL GRIDLOCK – A SERIES OF LEGAL CHALLENGES WILL LIKELY BE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE VAGUE WORDING." I guess this could be said about every amendment because it is a simply worded amendment as required. It’s not a 10-page statute and extensive case law that defines how the constitution is applied. All the "what ifs" would be resolved over time. It’s not much of a reason to oppose the petition.
BLACKNER: Puleeze. More crystal ball. There may be a few legal battles over wording, but then again, it's worth it to know that people are minding the store and engaged in the process.
6 – LEGISLATIVE BACKLASH COULD CHANGE THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THE WORSE." Huh? This is a ridiculous speculation with no basis in fact.
BLACKNER: Yes, let us continue to live in fear of the idiotic legislature. Comp plans are already mandated by the Florida Constitution and the legislature can't dismantle that.
That’s Lesley Blackner … no-nonsense, from-the-heart answers. Hear her talk in person at the Martin County Consensus Forum:
PLACE - Blake Library, Monterey Road, Stuart
TIME & DATE - Dec. 3, 2007 AT 6:00 pm
YOU CAN HELP PROMOTE LESLEY BLACKNER’S TALK!
Just print out the Word attachment here, and tape it inside your car’s rear side windows. It contains a one-page announcement of her appearance at the Blake, and a two-page spread version to trim and paste together for larger windows. You’ll be helping return control of growth to voters.
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 33
DEP trashes Valliere amendment
Department of Environmental Protection letter to Department of Community Affairs echoes criticism voiced by many residents
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has released the letter [see below] sent to the Department of Community Affairs expressing its serious concerns about the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment (CPA #07-20). The objections parallel those made by civic-minded citizens opposing this giveaway to developers. Despite the widespread opposition, Amendment authors Commissioner Susan Valliere and former Commissioner Mary Dawson pushed ahead with the support of Commissioners DeTerlizzi and Smith to eke out a 3-to-2 approval. Developers, their business allies and faux environmentalists supported the measure.
Among DEP objections were the ambiguous and unclear language, failure to protect CERP and other environmentally sensitive lands, increased density potential, violation of the Urban Service District, failure to provide adequate and reliable data and analysis, PUD locations, density transfer set-asides based on wetlands, failure to address potable water requirements, and much more.
NOTE: These objections are primarily concerned with environmental issues. There were many other objections [see Defender No. 27] relating to non-environmental issues as well. DCA must approve changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
The letter
October 26, 2007
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399‑2100
Re: Martin County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-20
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above-captioned package of proposed comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Martin County (County), specifically numbered 04-11, 05-12, 07-10, 07-14, 07-19, 07-20, 07-21 and 07-22, under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
At this time, the Department has no comments on amendments 04-11, 05-12, 07-10, 07-14, 07-19, 07-21 and 07-22. For the reasons stated below, however, the Department finds amendment 07-20 objectionable.
Proposed amendment 07-20 (“Land Protection Incentives”) would allow planned unit developments (PUDs) on any land within the County that has an Agricultural land use designation “whether within or outside the primary and secondary urban service districts“ if at least 50% of the land is set aside in perpetuity as “contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses.” Although the Department supports the concept of requiring set-asides for open space and environmentally sensitive lands, the policies contained in the amendment would not further the stated objective of encouraging “the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition . . . to environmental or government agencies or land trusts.”
For example, the language of Policy 4.4.E.7.c.(1) expands the common notion of “public benefit” to include agricultural land uses. While the protection of agricultural lands is of vital importance to the state, the continuation of row crop farming does not serve the same public interest as the preservation of critical habitat or coastal Savannas. Also, Policy 4.4.E.7.c.(3) states that the “PUD shall not require expansion of the Primary or Secondary Urban Service boundaries[.]”
That statement is ambiguous, because it could be interpreted as an entitlement for the PUD to use individual wells and septic systems rather than central services. Policy 4.4.E.c.(4) provides that development will not be allowed on “unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species[.]” Does that mean development can occur in wetlands, floodplains, and freshwater marshes? These are just a few of the questions that arise from the plain language of the proposed amendment.
Currently, the Agricultural land use category is the only future land use designation in the County that does not allow PUDs. Because the Agricultural land use category covers a significant amount of Martin County, the amendment would result in random density increases throughout the County, regardless of projected population demands and the availability of necessary services. Unanticipated or ill-planned density increases may lead to isolated pockets of development in inappropriate places (e.g., residential development located far from schools and commercial centers); significant habitat fragmentation; and inadequate public services, such as potable water supply and wastewater treatment.
Proposed Policy 4.4.E.7.c. states that the amendment provides “an alternative to the 20-acre minimum lot size in Section 4.4.M.1.a., CGMP[.]” The policy does not, however, address the remaining provisions of that section, such as the following:
The major portion of agricultural lands are far removed from urban service districts and cannot be converted to urban use without substantial increases in cost of providing, maintaining, and operating dispersed supportive services. * * * The further intent of the agricultural designation is to protect agricultural land from encroachment by urban or even low density residential development. Such development impacts the natural environment and may cause such potential adverse impacts as erosion, run-off, sedimentation and flood damage[.]
The following additional comments and recommendations are provided to assist your agency in developing the state’s response to the proposed amendment.
Comments
Data and Analysis
The information submitted with the amendment package is insufficient, thus preventing the Department from conducting an accurate analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed amendment.
For example, it is unclear how many acres will be subject to the new land use designation. The subject Area Plan indicates that the affected area is a little over 191,000 acres. The submitted information does not, however, indicate whether all or only a portion of the area would qualify for development under the proposed amendment. The County should provide information to show which lands will qualify for the proposed designation based on parcel size, ownership and location.
The lack of information in the submittal package also raises the following questions:
Permitted Uses within Preserved Portions of the PUD
The Department is concerned about uses that would be allowed in set-aside lands under the Agricultural land use category. The following uses currently allowed on Agricultural lands are invasive, disruptive, and inappropriate for protected areas: mining, golf courses, agricultural processing plants, storage of agriculture supplies (e.g., pesticides and fertilizer), cemeteries, outdoor shooting ranges, kennels, yard trash processing facilities and airports. The Department urges the County to more clearly define the Agricultural and recreational uses that would be allowed in the preserved areas of a PUD.
Development on Sensitive Lands
Policy 4.4.E.7.c.(7) is troublesome in several ways. It would allow the “transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site” (i.e., 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres) even if development would not otherwise be permitted in the wetlands. Thus, the owner of a 500-acre parcel that consists entirely of wetlands could set aside 260 acres (which, again, would not otherwise be developable) and construct 25 dwelling units on the remaining 240 acres of wetlands.
Subsection (7) also requires the re-designation of “acquired land to Institutional, Public Conservation, as appropriate.” Presumably, “acquired” refers to lands listed for public acquisition as part of an established conservation program. According to Figure 4-1 of the comprehensive plan’s Future Land Use Element, the following uses are allowed on Institutional lands: schools, retirement homes, colleges, military, hospital and utilities. If the purpose of the amendment is to encourage the conveyance of listed conservation lands to government or private entities for “permanent preservation,” should the recipient be able to construct a college on the lands? Also, Figure 4-1 of the comprehensive plan does not reflect a “Public Conservation” land use category.
Proposed Policy 4.4.E.7.d.(2) states that “[n]o development shall be allowed on land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program[.]” What does “previously impacted” mean? To what extent must the lands have been impacted to justify allowing development on listed lands? Also, who will determine whether the proposed development is “inconsequential” to the conservation program?
Potable Water, Wastewater and Reuse Water
The Area Plan’s supporting documentation does not adequately address statutory requirements regarding potable water service to areas of the County affected by the proposed land use changes. The submitted data and analysis contained no information on how potable water would be provided to serve the projected densities/intensities associated with the proposed amendment. The County also did not provide an analysis of proposed potable water sources indicating that sufficient water withdrawals will be available from an appropriate source to serve the demand created by the proposed land use changes.
As stated in the South Florida Water Management District’s Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan, the County must anticipate using alternative water sources, such as the deeper Floridan Aquifer. Use of that alternative source will require a water treatment process (such as reverse osmosis) different from what the County currently uses, all of which must be reflected in the County’s Capital Improvements Element.
Due to inadequate and inconsistent data and analysis submitted with the proposed plan amendment, the Department cannot accurately determine the potential wastewater treatment demands associated with the proposed land use changes. The wide-ranging discrepancies in acreages, allowable land uses, and potential number of dwelling units prevents an accurate determination of whether adequate wastewater treatment will be available to meet the projected demands. The County should review and revise the data and information in the amendment package and resubmit an accurate evaluation of anticipated demands associated with the proposed plan amendment and how those demands will be met. The proposed plan amendment information also does not include a commitment for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation. The use of reclaimed water can reduce potable water demands by as much as 50%. The County should make water reuse mandatory for all new development.
Due to the aforementioned inadequacies and inconsistencies in the submitted data and analysis, a complete determination of necessary County infrastructure cannot be made. Once the required infrastructure and its costs have been determined, the County’s Capital Improvements Element (CIE) must be updated to identify the public facility improvements required to support the proposed land use changes and the means by which those improvements will be financed, constructed and operated.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Based on the information and analysis submitted, the Department finds that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is therefore objectionable.
The County should address the issues and questions contained herein and provide the following data and analysis to support the proposed amendment: the extent (acreage, location, etc.) and potential impacts of the proposed land use changes; the availability of potable water, wastewater and non-potable water to serve the proposed uses; and the infrastructure that will be necessary to serve the Area Plan. The County must also amend its CIE to demonstrate the manner in which the required services will be provided to the areas subject to the proposed land use changes.
The Department strongly encourages the County to require that all irrigation needs be met by using reclaimed water. That commitment may require partnering with other nearby municipalities or developments to provide the necessary infrastructure.
The County may also wish to review new guidelines developed by the Department, the water management districts and the Department of Community Affairs, which provide detailed information on the data and analysis local governments should submit to support proposed comprehensive plan amendments, as well as the 10-year water supply facility work plan due by January 12, 2008. The Guide can be found on DCA’s website at http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/finalguidelines.pdf
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Chris Stahl at (850) 245-2163 or Chris.Stahl@dep.state.fl.us.
Yours sincerely,
Sally B. Mann, Director
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 34
Now another agency trashes Valliere Amendment
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council finds Valliere Amendment “Not Consistent” with requirements, a follow-up that validates DEP’s strong objections [see Defender No. 33]
Three pro-cluster supporters on the County Commission – Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith – have not accepted that the well-conceived outpouring of citizen opposition to the Valliere Amendment has been validated by the government reports. Rather, there is a sense of denying the obvious, using up lots of County staff time to dig a deeper hole for themselves. They seem to think that everyone else is wrong. Mary Dawson, co-author of the Valliere Amendment was quoted as saying: “They [Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)] didn’t understand the Martin County comprehensive plan or the amendment.” It is far more likely that DEP understood its harmful consequences too well.
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) is required under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes to review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to adoption, and to provide the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with its findings. Recently the Council reviewed several Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) proposals, offering various comments concerning their compliance with their Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The one and only CPA found to be “INCONSISTENT” with SRPP is CPA #07-20 – the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment.
Specific comments in the Council report include:
“A number of concerns have been identified with the specific strategy outlined by the [07-20] policies.”
“The policies do not adequately define/identify significant natural resources or desired open space.”
“Securing land as countryside by introducing a suburban pattern of development compromises the rural character and inadvertently promotes the negative impacts of sprawl. The policies do not provide for clustering in the form of sustainable villages or neighborhoods as recommended in the SRPP. Rather than maintain the current pattern which provides for large lots suitable for equestrian and/or small farming activity, the policies [in 07-20] introduce a suburban development pattern in an area that is not able to serve the daily needs of suburbanites.”
“One of the major ramifications of sprawl is that a vehicular car trip is required for every errand including the trips to schools, jobs and shopping areas. The resulting infrastructure necessary to support these trips does not appear to have been considered and will be difficult to evaluate given the potential for sporadic development.”
“[The Amendment] is not consistent with the SRPP.”
These professional, official assessments of the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment by DEP and TCRPC are consistent – if not identical – with the objections loudly voiced by the Defender and Martin County citizens determined to preserve our quality of life. No doubt developers, and the beneficiaries of their financial generosity, fought to override our objections because they had other goals in mind.
The primary agency authorized to rule on the Valliere Amendment is the Department of Community Affairs, which should decide shortly. We are hopeful that DCA will bury this outrageous giveaway with their objections.
SLAPP-Back lawsuit update
Jensen Beach residents who used their free speech rights to object to the Pitchford’s Landing development were sued by developer Bill Reily in what has been called a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Some of the defendants were dropped when the lawsuit was dismissed, and were not included when the suit was refiled. The residents filed suit – known as a SLAPP-Back – against the Reilys and their attorneys, Tim Wright and the law firm of Wright, Ponsoldt & Lozeau for “malicious prosecution.” They claimed that the original SLAPP was frivolous.
Reily’s attorneys claimed that they are immune from liability for filing a SLAPP due to the “litigation privilege,” which shields attorneys, judges, witness and parties from claims, statements or conduct during the course of litigation. Wright filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the SLAPP-Back.
In an important decision, Judge Pegg denied Wright’s motion, ruling that an attorney is not immune from liability if he or she fails to properly investigate a claim before filing a lawsuit, and if a reasonable attorney would not find the claim tenable under existing facts and the law. The case is expected to be heard in 2008. The victorious attorney for the residents in this run-up legal battle was Virginia Sherlock.
THE NEED FOR ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION
As explained in an earlier detailed report [Defender Issue No. 6], current Florida law protects against SLAPP efforts to muzzle free speech only by government and condo associations. It still does not specifically prohibit SLAPPs by private companies and individuals. Progress is being made to have the legislature close this loophole. To support this effort, some Jensen Beach residents will make an anti-SLAPP presentation to the Martin County Legislative Delegation on Dec. 3, 2007. TIME: 9:00 am; PLACE: County Administration Building.
Dutcher Cove dispute seems resolved
COMPROMISE BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND RESIDENTS LETS PROJECT PROCEED; BOTH PARTIES BENEFIT
It appears that a truce has been reached between developer Stephen Dutcher and the Jensen Beach Group, Indian Riverkeeper and residents who were concerned about the Indian River Lagoon shoreline adjacent to the property where Dutcher intends to construct a three-story mixed use project called Dutcher’s Cove. [See Defender No. 14.]
Plans for the seawall have been scrapped, and the project downsized considerably. An outbuilding 25 ft. from the shoreline has been eliminated. Rip-rap and planting mangroves will stabilize the shoreline. Residents did not get the building height cut to two stories, but the third story will be set back.
Jim Egan, executive director of the Marine Resources Council, made presentations to county staff, and efforts were made to educate the development community about shoreline stabilization methods that can serve both the needs of the builder and the residents. It was the first of many steps needed to implement environmentally friendly construction proposals.
The downsizing of Phase 2 of Renar River Place was also a direct result of the Jensen Beach group and a different developer sitting down together to work out their differences. One can only hope that the Dutcher and Renar projects will serve as role models for future development.
REMINDER
Lesley Blackner, co-author of the Hometown Democracy Amendment will speak about this petition drive at the next Forum sponsored by The Martin County Consensus. Her talk on how citizens can regain control of growth is sure to be both fascinating and informative.
DATE & TIME: Dec. 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm
PLACE: Blake Library, Monterey Road, Stuart
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 34
BUSINESS EDITION
NEWSFLASH … NEWSFLASH … NEWSFLASH …
AS WE GO TO PRESS – The Florida Elections Commission is charging Commissioner Susan Valliere with 28 election law violations. Her husband, Jim, is being charged with 83 violations. The Vallieres denied the charges at a Nov. 14 hearing, but the denials were unconvincing. Charges include making and accepting illegally large donations and failing to file required reports. The case will be heard by an Administrative Law Judge, who can levy fines of up to $1,000 per violation.
Now another agency trashes Valliere Amendment
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council finds Valliere Amendment “Not Consistent” with requirements, a follow-up that validates DEP’s strong objections [see Defender No. 33]
Three pro-cluster supporters on the County Commission – Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith – have not accepted that the well-conceived outpouring of citizen opposition to the Valliere Amendment has been validated by the government reports. Rather, there is a sense of denying the obvious, using up lots of County staff time to dig a deeper hole for themselves. They seem to think that everyone else is wrong. Mary Dawson, co-author of the Valliere Amendment was quoted as saying: “They [Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)] didn’t understand the Martin County comprehensive plan or the amendment.” It is far more likely that DEP understood its harmful consequences too well.
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) is required under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes to review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to adoption, and to provide the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with its findings. Recently the Council reviewed several Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) proposals, offering various comments concerning their compliance with their Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The one and only CPA found to be “INCONSISTENT” with SRPP is CPA #07-20 – the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment.
Specific comments in the Council report include:
“A number of concerns have been identified with the specific strategy outlined by the [07-20] policies.”
“The policies do not adequately define/identify significant natural resources or desired open space.”
“Securing land as countryside by introducing a suburban pattern of development compromises the rural character and inadvertently promotes the negative impacts of sprawl. The policies do not provide for clustering in the form of sustainable villages or neighborhoods as recommended in the SRPP. Rather than maintain the current pattern which provides for large lots suitable for equestrian and/or small farming activity, the policies [in 07-20] introduce a suburban development pattern in an area that is not able to serve the daily needs of suburbanites.”
“One of the major ramifications of sprawl is that a vehicular car trip is required for every errand including the trips to schools, jobs and shopping areas. The resulting infrastructure necessary to support these trips does not appear to have been considered and will be difficult to evaluate given the potential for sporadic development.”
“[The Amendment] is not consistent with the SRPP.”
These professional, official assessments of the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment by DEP and TCRPC are consistent – if not identical – with the objections loudly voiced by the Defender and Martin County citizens determined to preserve our quality of life. No doubt developers, and the beneficiaries of their financial generosity, fought to override our objections because they had other goals in mind.
SLAPP-Back lawsuit update
Jensen Beach residents who used their free speech rights to object to the Pitchford’s Landing development were sued by developer Bill Reily in what has been called a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Some of the defendants were dropped when the lawsuit was dismissed, and were not included when the suit was refiled. The residents filed suit – known as a SLAPP-Back – against the Reilys and their attorneys, Tim Wright and the law firm of Wright, Ponsoldt & Lozeau for “malicious prosecution.” They claimed that the original SLAPP was frivolous.
Reily’s attorneys claimed that they are immune from liability for filing a SLAPP due to the “litigation privilege,” which shields attorneys, judges, witness and parties from claims, statements or conduct during the course of litigation. Wright filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the SLAPP-Back.
In an important decision, Judge Pegg denied Wright’s motion, ruling that an attorney is not immune from liability if he or she fails to properly investigate a claim before filing a lawsuit, and if a reasonable attorney would not find the claim tenable under existing facts and the law. The case is expected to be heard in 2008. The victorious attorney for the residents in this run-up legal battle was Virginia Sherlock.
THE NEED FOR ANTI-SLAPP LEGISLATION
As explained in an earlier detailed report [Defender Issue No. 6], current Florida law protects against SLAPP efforts to muzzle free speech only by government and condo associations. It still does not specifically prohibit SLAPPs by private companies and individuals. Progress is being made to have the legislature close this loophole. To support this effort, some Jensen Beach residents will make an anti-SLAPP presentation to the Martin County Legislative Delegation on Dec. 3, 2007. TIME: 9:00 am; PLACE: County Administration Building.
Dutcher Cove dispute seems resolved
COMPROMISE BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND RESIDENTS LETS PROJECT PROCEED; BOTH PARTIES BENEFIT
It appears that a truce has been reached between developer Stephen Dutcher and the Jensen Beach Group, Indian Riverkeeper and residents who were concerned about the Indian River Lagoon shoreline adjacent to the property where Dutcher intends to construct a three-story mixed use project called Dutcher’s Cove. [See Defender No. 14.]
Plans for the seawall have been scrapped, and the project downsized considerably. An outbuilding 25 ft. from the shoreline has been eliminated. Rip-rap and planting mangroves will stabilize the shoreline. Residents did not get the building height cut to two stories, but the third story will be set back.
Jim Egan, executive director of the Marine Resources Council, made presentations to county staff, and efforts were made to educate the development community about shoreline stabilization methods that can serve both the needs of the builder and the residents. It was the first of many steps needed to implement environmentally friendly construction proposals.
The downsizing of Phase 2 of Renar River Place was also a direct result of the Jensen Beach group and a different developer sitting down together to work out their differences. One can only hope that the Dutcher and Renar projects will serve as role models for future development.
REMINDER
Lesley Blackner, co-author of the Hometown Democracy Amendment will speak about this petition drive at the next Forum sponsored by The Martin County Consensus. Her talk on how citizens can regain control of growth is sure to be both fascinating and informative.
DATE & TIME: Dec. 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm
PLACE: Blake Library, Monterey Road, Stuart
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 35
STRANGE DOINGS IN TALLAHASSEE
Only DCA finds no objections to Valliere Amendment
In a letter dated Nov. 27, 2007, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) found some concerns about the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment – including water, sensitive land inventory and affordable housing – but registered no objections to Comp Plan #07-20. Considering the strong objections filed by two other state agencies, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), the DCA finding demonstrates why "Comprehensive Plans are in danger of becoming little more than six-month suggestions" – to use the words of DCA’s own Secretary Tom Pelham! It is puzzling, if not irresponsible. By totally ignoring DEP and TCRPC objections, DCA has taken an unprecedented step to promote sprawl.
This DCA failure to carry out its obligation to demand that Comp Plan changes comply with the law is one more proof that Florida needs the Hometown Democracy Amendment to return control of growth to the voters. Too many officials can not be trusted. [REMINDER: Come hear Hometown Democracy petition co-author Lesley Blackner at the Blake Library on Dec. 3 at 6:00 pm.]
WHAT’S NEXT?
It depends.
IF one or more of the three Commissioners supporting clusters (Valliere, DiTerlizzi, Smith) is statesman enough at their Dec. 11 meeting to rise above the hunger for developer campaign contributions, the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment can be shelved until the workshops that never were can be held. Is any one of them statesman enough to prefer delay to certain bitter struggle, an angry community, growing anti-business sentiment and costly litigation? One hopes so, but the record does not leave room for optimism. Citizens should express their concerns by e-mailing the Commission (Commissioners@martin.fl.us) and speaking up at the Dec. 11 Commission meeting.
IF the three pro-cluster commissioners want to bet their political futures by adopting the Valliere amendment, the estimated timetable might run something like this: Adopt the Amendment and send it back to DCA for final review. DCA has 45 days to consider it and issue a "notice of intent" to find it in compliance or not. This would come around the end of Jan. 2008. If DCA determines that the Valliere Amendment is in compliance, we would have 21 days to file a challenge. This would bring us to mid- or late Feb. 2008.
The challenge would then be sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for appointment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to schedule a hearing, which is essentially a trial. The DOAH appointment would probably come in early March, with a hearing before the ALJ set for June or July 2008. So long as the challenge is pending, the Amendment could not go into effect.
Once a hearing is held, the parties have 30 days to file proposed orders, and another 20 days to file objections to each other’s proposed orders. The ALJ then has 30 days to issue a "recommended order." The parties then have another 30 days to file objections to the order. The Administration Commission (the Governor and Cabinet members) then consider the recommended order and all the objections and issue a final order, probably in Nov.-Dec. 2008.
IF residents are sufficiently dissatisfied with how DCA has neglected its duty by approving the Amendment, it is almost certain that they will turn to the courts. Such a time-consuming and costly action might be the only way to resolve the issue.
LEGAL OPINION: We asked attorney Virginia Sherlock, who is well experienced in these matters, her opinion about the likelihood of success in challenging the Amendment, if it is adopted. She said: "The likelihood of success is very high. I do not believe an administrative law judge, the Administration Commission, or the courts would conclude that the DCA’s review was proper or that its report is sustainable."
IF residents are sufficiently upset about the many problems likely to be caused by adoption of the Valliere Amendment, they will elect a new Commission dominated by anti-cluster commissioners. In effect, such a new commission can nullify the allowance of rural clusters.
POLITICAL OPINION: The Defender has received a flood of e-mails from readers – including many who had not previously been involved in the public political discourse – who share our outrage at both the sprawl potential of the Valliere Amendment, as well as the manner in which it was rammed through. The general tone of reader comments is: Back off commissioners, or we will remember you next November.
Vallieres charged with election violations
The Florida Elections Commission is charging Commissioner Susan Valliere with 28 election law violations. Her husband, Jim, is being charged with 83 violations. The Vallieres denied the charges at a Nov. 14 hearing, but the denials were unconvincing. Charges include making and accepting illegally large donations and failing to file required reports. The case will be heard by an Administrative Law Judge, who can levy fines of up to $1,000 per violation.
Commission abuse toward Heard is not forgotten
If Commissioners wonder why so many people are angry at them, it’s not just their decisions selling out to developers. It’s not just trying to scare people about tax cuts (while denying that they are doing so). It’s also their sad lack of comity, of common decency and fairness to a fellow member. Bypassing Commissioner Heard – again – for the Board Chairmanship is bush league pettiness. With the hurried absence of any discussion, and the seconding of his own nomination, Dough Smith has become chairman. It’s not too late to make things right, if the Commissioners have the grace and character to do so. What goes around, comes around.
+++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with "Subscribe" in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al