Battle for Keystone: fighting sprawl and discovering developer welfare
January 20, 2009 at 6:00 am by Kelly CorneliusKelly Cornelius is a civic activist with R-Land and a contributor to PoHo:
Two assaults …….oops I mean Comp Plan Amendment proposals …… on the rural area were heard last week at the Hillsborough Planning Commission. The attacks on the rural area were directed at Keystone in the northwest part of the county, but if passed, they would have set a dangerous precedent countywide. Both were in violation of our Comprehensive Plan (which is our county’s blueprint for growth) and Keystone’s Community Plan, so passing either one of them would have been undermining community plans everywhere which citizens work long and hard on.
An army from Keystone showed up to defend its plan, and several people outside of Keystone (myself included) spoke out against this would be breach of the rural service area. Joining together with our rural neighbors does two things: 1. It makes us stronger so that a small community has less chance of being marginalized. 2. It really pisses off developers that don’t like to follow the rules (so I sign up when I can.)
The property owner, Stephen Dibbs, was not there (that I could see) so he had his representatives present his case. Both of these amendments were re-treads from last year that were originally denied by the Planning Commission but then pulled when they got to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the final decision (recall it was right around election time and no elected official in their right mind would have voted for this right before an election, and three sprawlmeisters were running…….only two were re-elected).
From what I could find out, continuing them does not cost the applicant a dime yet the staff has to review the changes, the Planning Commission has to hear them again and so does the BOCC. Seems like taxpayers lose even if we win this one because we paid for it……..in more ways than one.
Same goes for remands on a rezoning request. I sent a letter to the BOCC asking about the cost of continuances and remands since it appears as if the developers only pay the first time around. Commissioner ….er Mr. Johnson, Commissioner Al Higginbotham’s aide, responded to my query by saying there are often not fees involved but there are some things they have to pay designed to offset not COVER The costs of these things. He also gave me in detail some of the other costs to those poor developers associated with continuances and remands like continuing to pay a consultant or not being able to pursue other projects. Those poor things, how horrible for them. I reminded Commissioner……..er….. I mean Mr. Johnson that if a developer chose to play by the rules and actually follow the Comprehensive Plan, then it would be FREE! I also heard back from Commissioner Rose Ferlita’s aides (THANK YOU DISTRICT ONE!). They forwarded my letter to Paula Harvey of Planning Growth Management and asked her to respond directly to my questions, which were what do continuances and remands cost us in terms of dollars and staff time. I suggested we shouldn’t give away services especially in such tough economic times. Mr. Johnson explained to me that a former board found that it would be cost-prohibitive except for the largest of applicants to charge them for the re-review. Guess screwing taxpayers with the bill isn’t cost-prohibitive because you probably didn’t even know you are footing that bill did you? You are. I urged them to review this practice. Don’t you think we have paid enough for sprawl?
The Planning Commission denied both of the re-tread amendments proposed by Dibbs, but Planning Commissioners Edward Guinta and Frank Chillura voted against staff, against the Comprehensive Plan and against the Keystone Community Plan on the first one but the second one was a unanimous to support staff (who said these amendments were NOT consistent with the Comprehensive Plan). Newly appointed Commissioner Frank Chillura did seem seriously confused as to what his duties as a Planning Commissioner are. He went on a disjointed rant about his decision on the first Dibbs amendment. I hope somebody explains to him that his job is to decide what is consistent and not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. YIKES! I had flashbacks of Brian Blair while listening to Chillura think out loud.
So thanks to the Planning Commission Staff, thanks to most of the Planning Commissioners and thanks to Chairman Bruce Cury who always “meets stress with calm.”
The next stop for these two bad ideas is with county commissioners, who have the final say on them. Even though the Planning Commission staff and the Planning Commissioners found them to be inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan, I have a hunch that this will be a brawl when it goes before the BOCC. Pay attention to the comments of the more sprawl-happy commissioners such as Jim Norman and Higginbotham when these are presented to them. My guess is that they throw around the words “economic development” to try and justify this breach of the rural service area and this slap in the face to Community Plans everywhere. Just a hunch. Problem for Dibbs is that the mix of that board has changed. My guess is that vote will be a tight one unless Team Sprawl (which is down a player) sees that the thing doesn’t have enough support to pass and in true politician-style they might just vote against these as well just to save face. It should be interesting. Stay tuned.
Update: After this post was submitted I heard back from Paula Harvey of the County’s Planning and Growth Management dept. Here are the Cliff Notes: Regarding continuances, the applicant has to pay a sign posting fee ($107.50). Regarding remands, if the applicant asks for one, they have to pay a sign posting fee and a resubmittal fee ($25.00 – $390.00) Regarding rezoning with additional acres, they have to pay a sign posting fee and additional per acre fee. Seems like a pittance to me. Here is the kicker: “Neither the previously mentioned resubmittal fees nor the original fees charged an applicant for processing a zoning related application cover the costs to the County for processing the application.” Remember those words the next time an elected official tries to tell you that growth pays for itself. Don’t be fooled because we all pay!









