Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Development rule being bypassed?

Critics say St. Pete Beach's failure to certify that new projects would not burden infrastructure bodes ill.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published September 25, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - While critics suggest plans for redevelopment threaten to overrun the infrastructure, city staff over the last year has ignored its own ordinance requiring certification that new developments do not burden the city's roads, water and sewer systems.

The "concurrency" ordinance, passed in September 2004, requires each new development to report what its impacts would be on city infrastructure. According to the ordinance, the city should then issue a certificate indicating the existing infrastructure would support new development, but the city has not done so. Since this is the same process by which future large resort complexes must abide by, critics say the city's failure to do so on smaller projects bodes ill if the city proceeds with grander plans to encourage large resort hotels and grow tourism.

Ken Weiss, the attorney for Citizens for Responsible Growth, which opposes the city's plans, says this is an indication of the city saying one thing and doing another. CRG has said for months the city cannot afford the growth its development will bring and has challenged the city's amended comprehensive plan on these and other grounds.

City Manager Mike Bonfield said he plans to work with staff to clarify the city's ordinance to make sure it follows and meets state concurrency requirements. But he said the state is not concerned about concurrency details when the impacts are negligible. He said the eight projects involved do not rise to the state standard that would affect concurrency. The total impact of all those projects, mostly condominium developments, would increase water usage by 0.6 percent, sewer by 0.2 percent, and traffic by 6.5 percent.

"I can only say that completion of an actual certificate was not done," he said. "A common sense review of the projects in question by city staff indicated the new construction created a minimal difference in impact over the previous uses.

"It is not our intent to burden the general public or city staff with unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that does not serve the public's interest."

But critics maintain that the city clearly violated its own laws and may do so again in the future. Weiss said he fears the city thinks it can "disregard its ordinance with impunity" because it is policing itself. Weiss has also suggested the city prepared a summary not as a matter of course but only when residents started asking questions.

Part of the argument city commissioners have used to assuage residents' fears about overdevelopment is the "conditional use" provisions that are part of new development plans. Under conditional use, a developer would have to meet conditions the commission would impose to guarantee concurrency, as well as aesthetic considerations, neighborhood harmony and other factors left up to the commission. These conditions, such as paying for new infrastructure capacity, would be negotiable and part of a public-hearing process.

CRG representatives say the concurrency ordinance issue undermines confidence commissioners will hold developers accountable in the future.

[Last modified September 25, 2005, 02:15:40]