Opinion: Allowing unlimited developer delays in land-use cases isn’t fair to citizens

Not every observation I make is an endorsement. For example, last month I wrote a column explaining why I think Brightline chose a highspeed passenger rail route that passes through the Treasure Coast’s major population centers as opposed to one that would be less impactful to local residents.

I was simply pointing out that Brightline, as a private business, chose the path of least resistance — economically and politically — as one might expect a private business to do. I wasn’t saying I thought the route the company selected is necessarily the best one, or making a judgment about whether the project itself is worthwhile.

I felt like I needed to make that distinction since I also wrote a column last month detailing how developers benefit from repeated delays in controversial land-use cases, like the Atlantic Fields housing development proposed in Martin County. Eleven days after that column was published, the Atlantic Fields developers asked the Martin County Commission to indefinitely delay consideration of the project and an accompanying land-use change that some fear would have broad implications for the future of development in the county’s rural areas.

In a brief letter delivered to county officials the day before the project was scheduled for a final vote, the developers said a postponement would give them more time “to evaluate alternative language for the text amendment based on input from various stakeholders in the community.” Some commissioners grumbled a little about the request coming so close to the scheduled hearing date, but they ultimately agreed to the delay.

Taken at face value, that seems like a positive step. Many residents have expressed concern about the so-called “rural lifestyle” land-use category that would be created by amending the text of the county’s comprehensive plan. Amending the proposed language to alleviate some or all of those concerns seems like the honorable thing to do.

But it’s important to remember this project’s history. The commissioners had already delayed final consideration of the case before, following a lengthy April 19 public hearing at which most of the comments about the project and the land-use change were unfavorable.

Ostensibly, the first delay should have given developers time to craft a more politically palatable proposal. Tom Hurley, chief executive officer of Becker Holding Corp., the company overseeing the project, said efforts have been ongoing to craft language that would allow the new land-use designation only in locations adjacent to the county’s designated urban service areas.

“We’re sensitive to impacts on other property owners as well as to the concerns some citizens have cited, so we’re continuing to conduct outreach and gather input and we hope to eventually come forward with additional clarity, refinement, and safeguards,” Hurley said.

Requesting a delay in a case like this isn’t a “no harm, no foul” situation, though. There were lots of people planning to attend the June 21 hearing. Some of them may have asked for time off work or been forced to make child care or other personal arrangements that caused hardships. If people didn’t find out until the day of the hearing the case was being delayed, as I suspect most didn’t, they may not have had a chance to cancel whatever arrangements they made.

This means it may be more difficult for them to carve out time in their schedules whenever the case finally does come back to the commission again. Fewer people speaking in opposition to the project increases the chances it ultimately will be approved. So theoretically, the developers could keep opponents on ice for several months, then come up with a proposal that’s only slightly different than the one that’s already on the table. (Say, reducing the number of homes planned for Atlantic Fields from 317 to 300.)

If fewer people are able to attend the rescheduled public hearing, commissioners might interpret that to mean the revised plans have reduced the level of opposition. Even if that’s not the case at all.

Smaller crowds at future public hearings may just mean so many residents have been inconvenienced or frustrated they’ve given up on the process. That’s the last thing Martin County commissioners, or any public officials, should want. And there’s an easy way to prevent it from happening in the future.

Cities and counties should set limits on the number of times developers can request delays before their cases are deep-sixed and they have to start the application process over.

Martin County may actually be a little ahead of the curve in that respect. Before the commissioners decided to grant the requested delay, Krista Storey, Martin’s senior assistant county attorney, advised them developers are allowed to ask for up to two continuances for development applications. That seems like a reasonable number of delays to account for any unforeseen circumstances that might arise. However, Storey also said there are no specific provisions in county law limiting the number of delays in cases involving comp plan amendments.

The “rural lifestyle” comp plan amendment is being treated as a prerequisite for approving Atlantic Fields, so delaying consideration of the amendment effectively delays consideration of the development application as well.  Officials representing St. Lucie and Indian River counties told me they have no limits on delay requests for land-use cases.

Regardless of what happens with Atlantic Fields, this needs to be fixed. Repeated delays aren’t just a disservice to citizens who wish to participate in the process. They also waste the time and resources of government staff members who prepare items for meeting agendas.

Bottom line: Even if you’re not interested in speaking at public meetings, some of your tax money is being frittered away when land-use cases are allowed to remain pending for long periods of time.

Developers should get a maximum of two requested delays for all types of land-use cases, whether they require comp plan amendments or not. If developers aren’t ready to proceed after two delays, they ought to forfeit their application fees and have to start the process from the very beginning. That should provide an incentive not to waste taxpayers’ time or money.

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2022/07/01/atlantic-fields-delays-show-approval-process-needs-fixing-opinion/7766240001/