George Pitelle sends along the following:
Dave Israel
...............................................................................................................
The Hearing on the Golf Course
Along with hundreds of other C.V. residents I attended the Golf Course/Reflection Bay Project hearing before the Zoning Commission on 12/2/11. We first listened to the Magistrate read the comments from cards submitted by our residents as well as some personally presented. With the possible exception of 5 or 6 they were mostly opposed to the project. Many echoed the arguments presented by the two attorneys representing these people in stressing the restriction of the development of the Golf Course and its remaining as such in perpetuity. Other comments stressed the hardships and difficulties the Reflection Bay development would have on the residents of C.V. and other communities. These would include health concerns for people having trouble breathing air contaminated with dust brought on by the construction. Others stressed concerns related to the impact the project would have on traffic and water, with specific points better than I can relate here.
Anyone sitting through the proceedings up to this point might well have thought the arguments presented against the project were quite strong if not compelling.
After a break the attorney for those opposing the project briefly addressed the Commission, next the attorney for Reflection Bay took to the microphone. He was asked specific questions posed by some of the commissioners. Referring to the project plans he seemingly answered them to their satisfaction.
What followed was several votes which quite frankly were not clear to me. The votes were all in the affirmative with one commissioner voting opposed on I believe each one. The result of all of this was the approval of the application for the development of the Reflection Bay Project and the defeat of efforts in opposition to it.
Now lets look back at the hearing. With most of the comments opposing the project citing the restriction of development being in perpetuity I can not recall it ever being addressed and can only wonder if the issue of in perpetuity was somehow dealt with in the votes. If so with there being no comment or discussion it was in my opinion certainly given scant consideration. It has been often pointed out that the same issue was ruled in favor of a community in Mizner Park in opposition to building a golf course. What was the legal distinction in the two cases?
After the hearing I was told by one other attendee how he expected the C.V. residents most strongly opposed to the project will continue to fight it, perhaps by going to court. My response was “and who will be paying for that“, to which we both declared with certainty that the residents of C.V. will not agree to pay for it. I understand there was going to be another hearing on 1/5/12, What does todays action do with that?
George R. Pittell
Chatham D
Chatham D
-
Good point George. If CV loses at the County Commission in January, a court challenge is all there is left.
ReplyDeleteHi George,
ReplyDeleteThere are three steps, the Reflection Bay project has been recommended forward by the Planning Commission and now the Zoning Commission.
The final and dispositive step is the Board of County Commissioners (BCC).
The BCC meets to hear the Reflection Bay project on January 5, 2012. Perhaps they will be more respectful of the law and their constituents, unlike the previous two bodies!!
Dave Israel