Zoning board has had enough
In Santa Rosa County, it is merely a dress rehearsal for the developer before appearing before the commissioners for the final decision. And herein lies the frustration of the current zoning board members.
Each of our zoning board members volunteer their time to meet monthly to hear these requests. According to those members, they spend hours pouring over the information given to them before the meetings regarding each request. Most involve further research into what the request is versus what impact it will have on surrounding properties and the comprehensive plan. Most zoning board members have admitted spending 3-4 hours preparing for the monthly meeting and another 4-5 hours at the meeting. They come to a decision regarding the request and then it goes before a special zoning meeting with the commissioners for a final decision.
The zoning board members expressed deep frustration at their last meeting. Chairwoman Anna Weaver resigned her position that night effective immediately. Her exasperation was felt when she said, “I have had all I can take.”
The people impacted by a potential zoning change show up to these meetings to voice their concerns about density, infrastructure, property values and flooding. The members listen carefully to what they have to say. They apply a measured response, sometimes finding a compromise with a developer to help make the neighbors happy and the developer happy. They know an investment in the land has already been made. Yet, an investment gives the developer or landowner the right to do what the property is zoned for – there is no guarantee a change in zoning request will be approved.
That is, unless you live in Santa Rosa County. In the last nine special zoning meetings, the zoning board decisions have been overturned or continued to a later meeting 21 times – most of which happened at the March and April meetings. One was the request to rezone 49 acres of Rural Residential Agriculture on Woodbine Road to Single Family Residential. What is the difference between the two? AGRR allows for one dwelling unit per acre, which at the current zoning would allow for 49 homes on 1-acre lots. The rezone (or upzone) to SFR allows four dwelling units per acre, which means the developer could build up to 196 units. That is a huge difference in density. The zoning board repeatedly voted the rezoning down on three different occasions, saying the developer could build within the current zoning and build 49 units. Yet, the county commissioners approved it albeit with conditions, but none the less a major subdivision will now be built off Woodbine Road with nearly triple the density of the current zoning.
It is our opinion that zoning variances and changes in density should be approved in very rare cases. The result of granting so many of these requests is that the county is left with a very watered-down comprehensive plan which does not lead to smart growth. The comprehensive plan is our vision for future development, and it serves as a guide to manage growth. When we set aside the comprehensive plan – we are left with no plan at all and growth that doesn’t make sense.
We are asking our county commissioners to stand behind their zoning board members instead of making remarks like “they don’t know what they are doing.” We are asking our commissioners to hold a meeting in the sunshine with the zoning board to hear their concerns and then – do something about it. If you don’t, then your new zoning board chairman is correct – you are just checking off a statutory box – and their hours could be better spent somewhere else.