Record editorial: The Watermarke: A line drawn in the Vilano sand

The Watermarke: A line drawn in the Vilano sand
Posted: September 17, 2016 - 11:09pm | Updated: September 18, 2016 - 12:05am

As you’ll see on the facing page, The Watermarke’s effort at upselling its land-use rights and rewriting the county’s Comprehensive Plan have our North Beaches buzzing. It’s understandable.

It’s also interesting that one definition of “watermark” (without the “e”) is: “A mark showing the greatest height to which water has risen.” Its connotation is usually associated with a flood or a sinking ship — neither of which is good for the folks in the lowlands or the members of the affected crew. But it may be an apt metaphor for the situation on North Beach with The Watermarke (with the “e”) project.

It may show just how high the tide of development control in this county has risen, leaving the residents of that pretty, red-shelled stretch of the Atlantic watching a sinking ship of dreams.

The Watermarke’s pitch is nothing new. It’s the same one that seems to dazzle the PZA and attempts to bully the County Commission with aching regularity. They toss out studies, which they commissioned and paid for. They flood the conversation with minutiae (“peak trip hours” is give-away), hoping it will all add up to something substantial. It rarely does.

Look, the Palm Valley Venture Partners bought the land. They are big boys. They knew at the time of purchase what could and could not be done with it in terms of zoning and land use. And the price they paid, we’d assume, was fair and equitable (and based on that land use). They must have seen profit in the deal — just not enough.

So they come to the county seeking new rules, based more on greed than need. It is understandable that a business seeks to maximize profits. That’s the “American Way.”

But the bottom line is, that is not our county commissioners’ duty to allow it — to maximize profits for a small cadre of speculators at the expense of thousands of residents.

What seems to get lost in all these rezonings and comp plan amendments is that developers are seeking what amounts to a favor. They wouldn’t have to make the “ask” if they had the inherent rights they’re seeking. They’d just do it. So don’t let the argument of personal property rights cloud this issue. The owners have carte blanche to develop 79 homes on their property. That’s guaranteed in the PUD. Wonder what they’d think if the residents filed for a land use reduction to 30 lots? Would they squeal?

What seems unlikely with this project is that it could squeeze 79 homes onto the property, which is predominately saltwater and spartina grass — and in that case the DEP and Army Corps would be next up the regulatory ladder. Both are more than touchy about mitigating tidal marshes. These are the same marshes, by the way, that The Watermarke is promising to keep in conservation in perpetuity, as if it were a concession, an olive branch of sorts. It’s untouchable, anyway.

The project has been a pesky one for the people of the North Beaches to shoot at, because it has been a moving target, changing liquidly along the way. And, in its request to the county, it remains that way. A caveat in their wish list is, that if the project for the motel and cabanas falls through, they can revert it back to 79 residential units. But it is more than noteworthy that the new language now states “79 multi-family units.”

Inquiring minds might want to pen to paper on that. If multi-family means only two families per unit that doubles the impact of the development. What if it means four?

One thought that struck a chord with us from our guest columnists today was Ana Serrano’s point on integrity — of both the county commissioners and the comprehensive plan. The hundreds of residents of that quirky multi-social mix of hippies and hob-nobbers bought their land, raised their roofs and built their lives based on a document called a comp plan. It, supposedly, ensured that the North Beaches would be a place first and foremost for families.

Were the residential restrictions malleable? Yes. Together, residents saw the need for some kind of commercial on the magic side of the Vilano Bridge, and fought for, and built, the Town Center — carefully and correctly.

They gussied-up the strip terminating at the pier. They carved out an attractive commercial enclave at that 90-degree dogleg in A1A that fit their needs and their community. It’s what they envisioned and accomplished together.

The Watermarke project serves no such community purpose. It is a members-only vacation resort. It represents leap-frog, precedent-setting commercial development.

Ms. Serrano is correct, wondering how three members of a county commission could void a pact, banked on by the residents who offered up their sweat and fortunes to build a life on a narrow strip of land snuggled between the Tolomato River and the Atlantic surf.

This isn’t a neighborhood squabble over a 7-Eleven. This is the fulcrum of their future. It is a thousand against one. It is a community lifestyle versus a developer’s profit margin.

Let’s see Tuesday which the commissioners see fit to uphold, and whose interests they honestly serve.

COMMENTS
mach12.1e 09/18/16 - 09:15 am 30Well written.
But we all know who the Commissioners serve. It will be an uphill battle.

Firstcoaster 09/18/16 - 10:01 am 20Sadly, the commissioners are
Sadly, the commissioners are just like most of our members of Congress and state Legislature. During their campaigns, they tell us what we want to hear, but vote the way their lobbyist financiers and special internet donors tell them to vote.

It is nearly impossible to pass term limits and other reforms, because the legislators don't want it, but they will tell us they are all for it.

How can any commissioner vote on an issue, when the party involved donated to their campaign?

At the county level, limit the maximum total donations to $5,000. Once they hit $5,000, that's it, no more donations.

Power corrupts...

derf 09/18/16 - 01:06 pm 00Watermarke
This is well stated. However, we all know we have the best county commissioners money can buy. Lame Duck Bennett and J.K. Johns have never met a development they didn't approve of and Bill McClure, who just lost a race, could care less.