Commissioners: Reject parcel for development
Editor, The Sun:
An open letter to County Commissioners:
Commissioners,
I’ve reviewed the agenda item for CPM25-04 and wanted to share my concerns before the Feb. 17 meeting. Please include this email in the public record for that meeting.
I understand growth will occur, but the County’s 2017 Residential Needs Analysis indicates we already have sufficient designated density through 2035 without additional land-use amendments. That makes me question why this change is necessary in this specific location.
This parcel is in the Wakulla Springs BMAP Primary Focus Area. The report states that the County is not guaranteed to meet its nitrogen-reduction milestones because not all planned projects are funded. If we’re already uncertain about meeting those goals, I don’t understand why we would increase septic loading in a PFA2 area without requiring a sewer connection. The report even shows how much lower nitrogen levels are with advanced wastewater treatment compared to septic. If sewer is the better environmental option and is available nearby, why isn’t that part of this proposal?
I’m also concerned about the reliance on private wells. If there is an old landfill or dump site directly across the road or nearby, it should have been clearly addressed in the staff analysis. Was FDEP Waste Cleanup consulted? Is there groundwater monitoring data from that area? Has a Phase I environmental site assessment been required? Has the Health Department evaluated the safety of adding more private wells in that corridor? These feel like basic questions that should be answered before increasing residential use.
The report acknowledges insufficient capacity at the elementary school level but states it will be addressed later, at the site plan or plat stage. That feels like we’re pushing the problem down the road rather than resolving it before approving a higher land-use category.
I also noticed the report says the parcel is outside the Coastal High Hazard Area, but FEMA maps show portions in Zone A, which is a 100-year floodplain.
Finally, the phrase “market preference may justify additional units” stood out to me. I would appreciate clarification on what that really means. Market preference is not the same thing as demonstrated need, especially when the County’s own analysis says we already have sufficient capacity.
This decision sets a precedent. If we approve density increases in the Primary Focus Area without requiring sewer or resolving infrastructure questions, it becomes harder to say no the next time
For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny or at least defer this Comprehensive Plan amendment until these questions are fully addressed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Sue Damon
Crawfordville