Could have said "No"

I do not even know what to say. Yesterday the BOCC approved by a 3-2 vote the Pulte Homes project on SR200. This is yet ANOTHER up zoning project at the request of a well known developer. Seems that we have an issue saying "no" to certain developer buddies.

I will not say that contributions swayed the vote last night, but its worth noting that Citrus Hills and the Tamposi family have been major donors to Bays ($2,000 in-kind), Davis ($5,000) and Kinnard ($13,000) over the years. Nothing illegal or anything, just observations.

The 3 that voted to approve are commissioners Bays, Davis and Kinnard. Social media often calls them the 3 Amigos as they tend to vote together on most of these development projects. This was no different. I think most people assume that these 3 will vote for projects before they even come to the board for the hearing. I suppose their reputations are being proven time and time again.

If there was a chance to deny any project, this was it. The PDC voted 6-0 to recommend denial. The project had many issues from increased ISR to higher density than allowed to open space issues. This project was teed up for them to deny it.

Remember, they always say growth is coming and it can't be stopped. They could have easily stopped this but they didn't for whatever reason. These 3 are determined to change this county for decades to come and I think looking back at this in the future people will be like "how did we get here". We are doing that now with roads and realizing prior boards did a bad job managing them.

I think we will look back at this board with these 3 and all know the answer.

That said, one thing that drives me crazy is when people get up to the microphone and start spouting off things they have no idea what they are talking about. I do not expect the average person to understand many of these things like ISR or the LDC and what have you... but some of these people who speak absolutely should know what they are talking about and they were just wrong. I told myself I would try not to mention names, but some who spoke should know.

Here are some of the things that came up that were wrong.

"Its private property and they have rights to develop that property. They have a constitutional right to petition their government to do something with that property."

Yes, this is true. They have a right to develop the property. However, that right ONLY extends to what is allowed by right based on the land development code. Since this is Low Density Residential, they are allowed ONLY 2 units per acre with a 35% Impervious Surface Ratio PER LOT.

This project was overall 2.3 units per acre and site wide ISR of close to 50%. The individual lots will be higher than that.

This goes beyond their by right development rights.

As a result of this, "they now have to do all these things that benefit our county like turn lanes, water and sewer and follow things like the tree ordinance that does not allow clearcutting"

We have water/sewer concurrency. It is true that if they built a handful of houses that they may not have had to add to those systems, but any organized development like this, even at 2 units an acre, would trigger concurrency and they would have to provide these things. Approving this project does not get the county utilities it otherwise would not have had. They were coming regardless of this project, if the developer decided to develop this land at what they were allowed to do without coming to the BOCC.

They are only paying for the additional turn lanes if FDOT approves it, which we do not know for certain. And the traffic analysis down the road may require them to do turn lanes anyway. This is NOT a concession.

And the tree ordinance did not stop Crystal Ridge from clearcutting, which is why Commissioner Finegan tried to strengthen it a few months back.

Someone else said that they would be allowed to build 530 or so homes by right. So this is "only" an additional 130 or so. Not a big deal.

The problem there is that based on the 2 units per acre, sure, they could get close to 530 homes by right. However, they still have to follow the LDC, which has requirements of open space (no allowed to use DRIs and buffers), has requirements for ISR (no more than 35% per lot), has requirements for wetlands, and so on.

The point here is that they are not getting 530 homes on this property under the LDC, which is why they went to the PUD process because that allows deviations.

Here is another one...

"This is in the planned service area. This is where prior boards decided growth should go".

Ok sure. It is in the PSA. However, it is also zoned LDR. The prior boards did not make this MDR. They intentionally made it LDR because that fits the character of that part of the county.

When are we going to hold developers to what they are purchasing? Pulte knows what they bought. The Tamposi's know what they owned for years. When are commissioners finally going to say:

"You know what... you have a piece of land. You can build what you are allowed to build on it and that is it".

They can't say it quite like that, but you get the point.

One thing that absolutely blew my mind... Commissioner Davis asking the developer to donate to the County Land Trust to help preserve more land for conservation. Absolutely insane. Basically floated the "I will vote for this if you give us money". She quickly realized what that sounded like and said she was approving it anyway, but just wanted to ask if they would donate to it.

Well, problem here commissioner... WE DO NOT HAVE A LAND TRUST. Why are we soliciting donations to something that does not exist.. and why are we doing it from the dais during a zoning hearing floating it like your vote can be swayed.

Plus, had she voted "no", the applicant had a reason to appeal it. Not sure what she was thinking with that.

But even better... Just before that ask, she commented that the county needs more land that we control stating that only .8% of our conservation land is under county control.

Ummm... we have Betz Farm. We have 350 acres that are county owned that we can convert to conservation. Its a wetland area. Its a high priority. We had a chance to cancel the contract, yet, commissioners got cold feet.

If we are going to pay $100k to fight Right Rudder and get absolutely nothing from them for that $100k, I would argue that spending $100k to fight to keep Betz would be a far better deal.

But another developer buddy of the 3 amigos, so we know where that is going. Sigh.

I cannot see how voters bring back Davis and Kinnard in 2028 if they run. We just saw them dump two commissioners who were largely pro-development in back to back elections and they are still ignoring all that.

We shall see.