Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Activists who hailed a judge's decision on development review board meetings now worry about the possible loss of the committee.
By WILL VAN SANT
© St. Petersburg Times, published November 27, 2002
BROOKSVILLE -- When Circuit Court Judge John Booth ruled Friday in a case pitting environmental activists against Wal-Mart Corp. and the county, both camps claimed victory.
It was a ruling for the people, said members of the Coalition for Anti-Urban Sprawl and the Environment, after Booth found the county had violated the state Sunshine Law by barring public participation in Development Review Committee meetings and ordered that future meetings be open.
It was a ruling that proved Wal-Mart had done nothing inconsistent with the law, supporters of the retail giant said, noting that Booth upheld the company's building permit for a U.S. 19 location, which the DRC had reviewed in meetings that were, apparently, illegal.
With the county now considering whether to abolish the committee in the wake of Booth's ruling, a cloud has been cast over these victory celebrations. Environmentalists worry that disbanding the DRC will mean even less input in the development process. And, while Wal-Mart seems to have made good, other commercial interests with no building permit in hand are not happy about giving up the convenience the DRC offered.
Without the DRC, whose members include representatives from a wide array of county departments involved in growth regulation, permit review would be an unnecessarily cumbersome chore, said Bob Eaton of the Hernando Builders Association.
"I certainly hope not," Eaton said of possibly losing the DRC. "That solves nothing for anybody."
According to county officials, DRC meetings are now indefinitely on hold while options are considered. On Tuesday, the County Commission will hear potential legal responses to Booth's decision from its attorneys. Commissioners will also consider policy changes, including getting rid of the DRC. Meanwhile, developers are meeting individually with county departments.
"The whole idea of the court case was to open up the DRC so that the public was able to participate," said Joe Lemieux, a member of the anti-sprawl group.
If the committee is dissolved, he said, the entire purpose of his group's lawsuit is defeated.
Many opposed to the anti-sprawl group's efforts, including some county commissioners, maintain the proper time for the public to have a say on development is at Planning and Zoning meetings. The DRC does mundane work anyway, they argue, what Eaton called "crossing the T's and dotting the I's."
Lemieux does not buy that characterization, saying that audio and videotapes of DRC meetings provided to activists by the county had large sections of conversation missing.
"It's a good old boys network who sit around across from each other and make deals," he said. "And the county commissioners get the campaign contributions in the end."
While the debate about the future of the DRC goes on, there are those who argue that Booth got it wrong and that the county should appeal. The committee is a fact-finding, not a decision-making, body, they argue, and hence not subject to the Sunshine Law.
Eaton is among those taking this position, and though not an attorney, he's confident that grounds for appeal exist.
"I cannot fathom that if the judge knew all the facts that he would construe the DRC to be subject to the Sunshine Law," Eaton said.
-- Will Van Sant covers Hernando County government and can be reached at 754-6127. Send e-mail to vansant@sptimes.com .