How corrupt.
Hope the neighbors appeal.
WILES lost a big one this summer when the County Commission listened to We, the People -- it was about to refuse to put slot machines on the ballot when the proposal was withdrawn by ROGERS TOWERS lawyer ELLEN AVERY SMITH. Slot machines are not legal here now, and the conmen supporting it argued the Florida State Supreme Court might allow it one day, with maladroit County Attorney staff falsely telling Commissioners the case was likely to be decided "this summer."
How corrupt.
Could MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK's back room approval of the Ponte Vedra development have anything to do with the fact that SUSAN SUMMERALL WILES is DONALD TRUMP's Florida campaign manager and Governor RiCHARD LYNN SCOTT's campaign manager?
Posted October 1, 2016 12:02 am
By JAKE MARTIN jake.martin@staugustine.com
St. Augustine Record
St. Johns County administrators approve plans for controversial Ponte Vedra Beach development
St. Johns County administrators on Thursday gave the go-ahead for GreenPointe Communities, a Jacksonville-based developer, to start constructing a 22-home subdivision called Ponte Vedra Preserve, whose development has been contested by neighbors on several fronts in recent years.
The property is located on about 17.13 acres on the west side of Ponte Vedra Boulevard, north of Mickler Beachfront Park and the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. It is across the street from the ocean and from Ponte Vedra Beach resident Nancy Condron, who has led the fight against the developers.
It was a fight with seemingly small beginnings.
A legal dispute in 2011 over beach access — provided by a path located on Condron’s oceanfront property — resulted in a 2013 ruling by Judge [J.] Michael Traynor of the Seventh Judicial Court that an easement agreement was still valid and future landowners within Ponte Vedra Preserve would be allowed to use the path. The rulings were upheld on appeal by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
County spokesman Michael Ryan told The Record on Friday there was a person who, at one time, owned hundreds of acres in the area and who eventually started selling off the land, piece by piece. Sales paperwork and court documents indicate the seller had retained a 10-foot perpetual easement on the beach path in question, essentially stating someone could buy the house but anyone could use the path.
According to documents provided by the county, the land to be developed at 1044 Ponte Vedra Blvd., known as the “Stockton Property,” had long been used for agricultural purposes and consists of forested land, pasture areas and some wetlands and other surface waters. An existing trail road runs the length of the property, along with a small residence.
The previous owners of the Ponte Vedra Preserve property initially tried to sell the land to a developer but were unsuccessful with the beach access question legally, and quite contentiously, up in the air. With the beach path opened, developers purchased the land and started making their way through the building process.
The St. Johns River Water Management District, determining in January that the building plans would not negatively affect the water table or surrounding environment, issued an environmental resource permit for a surface stormwater management system. Condron appealed, but a judge with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings concluded that the 22 single-family units would have a lower environmental impact than the property’s agricultural land use (due to installation of infrastructure to properly dispose of rainwater, runoff and sewage, among other mitigating factors).
As indicated in county documents, members of the public had expressed concern over the impact of drainage from the proposed project on the nearby GTM-NERR. However, the ruling specifically noted post-development total nitrogen and phosphorous output would be substantially less than what was being produced for agricultural use.
A complication arose last year when an engineering need for two feet of fill dirt to provide proper drainage was identified by county staff for many of the homes. Although required by and compliant with the St. Johns County Land Development Code, the same could not be said for the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations, which limit the amount of fill that can be placed under new single-family residences. However, per the regulations, exceptions are made for variances granted by the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustments Board or if required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction.
The board heard the developer’s request for the variance on May 11, 2015, but the meeting concluded with a 3-3 vote (due to the absence of one member), constituting a denial. The developer appealed the denial to the St. Johns County Commission on June 15, but the commission remanded the project back to the PVZAB for a re-vote with all members. The variance was then approved by a 4-3 vote on July 13.
According to a presentation by county staff at that meeting, the fill dirt variance would not affect the density of the property, as it was being developed under existing Zoning and Future Land Use designations.
Attorney Jane West, representing Condron, questioned the source of the applicant’s hardship (which is required to obtain a variance) and told board members the applicant could build up to eight homes on the property without any variance.
“The circumstances negatively affecting the use of the property are general to the Ponte Vedra Zoning Designation and are caused by the property owner,” West said. “The issue that is before you today is an issue that is caused by the property owner.”
Brad Scott, PVZAB chair, said “elevation topography” was a clear, proven hardship and that the situation on the subject property was consistent with those of properties that were granted variances in the past, adding he didn’t want to get into “legal technicalities.”
West, on behalf of Condron, appealed the PVZAB’s approval with the County Commission on Aug. 12. The County Commission considered and continued the appeal of the variance on Oct. 20 and then again on Dec. 1.
The project sat dormant for months before County Attorney Patrick McCormack, on April 6 of this year, issued an 11-page legal opinion on GreenPointe’s position that a variance was not even required, due to the exception language in the Ponte Vedra regulations. McCormack said the exception language could be invoked only if the applicant could demonstrate no other “reasonable” development methods, including alternative construction techniques, are available and that additional fill was the minimum necessary to meet government requirements. County Administrator Michael Wanchick issued his interpretation of the legal opinion the following day, confirming McCormack’s position.
A Facebook post dated May 5 by Ponte Vedra Citizens Against Preferential Zoning for Developers indicates the community group was unhappy with the county’s conclusions.
As written in the post: “When it looked like we were so effective in preventing GreenPointe from filling the Guana River basin’s floodplain with dirt to build more houses, the county abruptly changed course. The unthinkable happened. The county attorney decided to go against its own staff determination that a variance was needed for all that fill dirt. The county attorney opined that it is okay to truck in tens of thousands of cubic yards of fill dirt — without any oversight from the county. The experienced expertise of our St. Johns County government engineers and planning officials that oversee our laws was summarily dismissed.”
According to a status update released by the county on Friday, GreenPointe re-engineered the project and on Aug. 1 submitted modified construction plans proposing the use of stem walls, rather than fill dirt, to establish building pads for the single-family residences. The county, as indicated in the status update, determined the use of stem walls would eliminate the need to obtain a fill height variance and that the project in its revised form would comply with county code and Ponte Vedra regulations.
Ryan said the county approved the construction plans at 4:30 p.m. Thursday.
“Upon receipt of the plans, the applicant is authorized to proceed with construction of the project,” the status update reads. “The developer has indicated that upon finalization of the construction plans and the appeal deadline, the variance request will be withdrawn as it is no longer required.”
Ryan said the County Commission, as of Friday, has not approved this project, although developers can start work on the site immediately. He said “anything administrative,” meaning any action taken by county administration or staff, is appealable with the County Commission, with exception of only a few circumstances (not necessarily applicable here) that must go straight to court.
“It’s appealable,” Ryan said. “The issuance of the construction plans is appealable.”
He said the project could be appealed within 30 days of the county’s approval of the plans.
West told The Record on Friday she received word from the county attorney’s office earlier that afternoon that the construction plans were issued but that she had not yet seen the building permit.
“The county attorney briefly mentioned they were considering using stem walls instead of using a bunch of fill dirt,” she said, adding she had not yet seen any documentation on how much dirt would be brought on the property. “We don’t know if it eliminates the need for a variance.”
She said when the appeal regarding the PVZAB’s decision went before the County Commission, commissioners “heard a little bit of argument and then made the decision to postpone the whole thing.”
“They did not want to make a decision at that time and it still has never been heard,” West continued. “Even if everyone thinks it’s all well and good, have the county commission make that decision. That decision should not happen behind closed doors.”
West said she and her client would explore all their options for how to proceed but could not speak to the possibility of filing an appeal without reviewing the county’s decision on the re-engineered plans.
No comments:
Post a Comment