Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Subdivision won't sprout on mined land

The county rejects plans for 1,754 acres at State Road 60 and Dover Boulevard.

By CATHERINE E. SHOICHET, Times Staff Writer
Published August 24, 2007

DOVER 

County commissioners have voted unanimously against a developer's plan to build a 2,500-home subdivision on a former phosphate mine.

The project, they said, would place too much growth in a location where county officials have not prepared for it.

"This was a bad plan five years ago. This was a bad plan three years ago. And it's a bad plan tonight," commission Chairman Jim Norman said.

For opponents of the project - who created a Web site criticizing the development and sent hundreds of e-mails to commissioners - the decision was a significant victory.

But for the owner of the 1,754-acre property at the southeast corner of State Road 60 and Dover Boulevard, the vote was a setback. Now Sydney Mines Development Corp. must decide whether to rework plans for a residential development or consider another use for the site.

The Sydney Phosphate Mine Co. operated on the property until the early 1970s. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared 9 acres of the property a Superfund site, a program for managing properties damaged by chemical waste.

Existing county rules allow 350 homes on the property. To build more, the developer needs permission from county commissioners to change the county's comprehensive plan.

That's what commissioners were asked to consider last week.

Attorney Carter McCain argued that the county had "arbitrarily" designated the property agricultural land in 1989. Giving the property a residential planned village designation, he said, would provide a smooth transition between suburban and rural areas.

A few nearby residents said they agreed.

"We are at a point now where we can take 1,700 acres of wasteland ... and possibly organize the development of it," Dover resident Donald Ducharme said.

But the property's location - just east of the line county planners use to divide urban and rural areas - proved to be a major stumbling block for commissioners and others who opposed the project.

"This scenic view is why people move to this area in the first place," Yvette Niemann said. "It's as rural and pristine as it gets, and it should stay as it is."

The Planning Commission voted against the proposed comprehensive plan change in June.

And representatives from several county departments said adequate infrastructure was not in place - or planned - for a large development on the site.

Commissioner Mark Sharpe said that argument was convincing.

"We have so many problems in this area with transportation ... it would really only compound existing problems," he said, "which are just truly at times horrific."

Catherine E. Shoichet can be reached at cshoichet@sptimes.com or (813) 661-2454.

[Last modified August 24, 2007, 08:08:53]