On Monday November 28th, the County Commissioners *(BCC) will hear a proposal by staff to increase density in the 100 year floodplain.
The meeting is at the South Walton Annex at 5:00 p.m Monday.
This is a very important issue and I encourage you to attend this meeting and express your views.
If you cannot attend the meeting, note the email contacts for the County Commissioners.
? Dist. 1 ? Scott Brannon, (850) 622-3081, brascott@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 2 ? Kenneth Pridge, (850) 834-6328, prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 3 ? Larry Jones, (850) 892-8474, jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 4 ? Ro Cuchens, (850) 835-4834, cucro@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 5 ? Cindy Meadows, (850) 622-3059, meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
Planning Staff Contact: *Pat Blackshear *blapat@co.walton.fl.us*
Below is an edited portion of a BULLETIN today from the
South Walton Community Council (SWCC)
which I consider to be our local citizen "watchdog".
http://www.southwaltoncc.org/
SWCC?s Concerns.
We share the County?s desire to prohibit fill in the floodplains. The County can do that now, however, by simply refusing to sign the form which condones the request for fill. The current proposal being considered on Nov 28 instead removes the limitation on density with no concurrent prohibition or incentive not to fill. **It simply gives a developer the same underlying density (e.g., 8 units per acre) *whether he chooses to fill or whether he chooses not to fill. *
We are very concerned that high density subdivisions in the floodplains, even *built on pilings or stem walls, will nonetheless threaten natural and critical floodplain functions. *Specifically, we are concerned about:
****1. *The diversion of run-off from an increase in impervious surface from more roofs, roadways and driveways. *
****2. *The increase in fill for more roads, driveways and other infrastructure, diverting flood waters to nearby lower lying property.
****3. *Increased run-off into the floodplains from fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
****4. *Impact of construction activity on the hydrology and soils necessary for floodplain function.
*****5. *Increased cost of and concomitant floodplain destruction when laying down infrastructure in environmentally sensitive areas.
SWCC?s Position.
We have stated many times that we agree that the current limitation of 1 unit per 20 acres is too restrictive in today?s economic climate. Current economic considerations, however, do not take into account the cost associated with the destruction of floodplains. *
Floodplains provide a financial benefit to the community and the community is not reimbursed for this financial loss when floodplains are overdeveloped or destroyed. *Most importantly, *economics cannot be allowed to threaten the natural resources which are vital to the safety and future of the community.
There is no better example of the economic and human consequences of irresponsible destruction of floodplains and wetlands by development than the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
*
If a developer or other property owner insists on filling all or part of a parcel, we feel the density on the entire parcel should be severely restricted to minimize the fill. If structures are built on pilings in accordance with FEMA and county standards, we suggest a reasonable increase in density which will continue to limit the amount of impervious surface and ensure viable floodplain functions. *
We also believe that fill should be restricted to the minimum necessary for roads and driveways and parking pads. We also support research on using *incentives *to make it more financially feasible to preserve floodplains. Other counties have implemented these incentive programs to protect their floodplains.
We do not feel a sufficient amount of analysis has gone into the potential floodplain impact of *allowing higher density subdivision in the floodplains. We would ask that the County postpone *voting on this proposal until further consideration is given to establishing a more reasonable floodplain density policy.
The value of the integrity of our floodplains is too high to risk degradation by a hasty decision. We feel the issue requires more research and more planning. *The current proposal does not sufficiently discourage fill and there is no data to ensure that it adequately protects the floodplains.
There are other options and *other incentives that need exploration. The potential consequences of this decision warrant the utmost *consideration and analysis.
In Summary.
*?Communities with very low-density development and much more open space already have functioning natural systems. *Local officials in these areas have the opportunity to safeguard floodplain functions at the outset, and to maintain valuable habitats and superior water quality.? (from Protecting Floodplain Resources-a Guidebook for Communities by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force)
At present, we in South Walton are one of the communities that has the opportunity to safeguard floodplain functions at the outset. *Let?s seize that opportunity with a prudent floodplain density policy based on criteria and research by which we can be assured that the allowable density we choose will create little or no impact to floodplain functions. **Currently, we do not have the information to form the basis of such a major policy change.
This proposal, as it stands, should *not *adopted.
The meeting is at the South Walton Annex at 5:00 p.m Monday.
This is a very important issue and I encourage you to attend this meeting and express your views.
If you cannot attend the meeting, note the email contacts for the County Commissioners.
? Dist. 1 ? Scott Brannon, (850) 622-3081, brascott@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 2 ? Kenneth Pridge, (850) 834-6328, prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 3 ? Larry Jones, (850) 892-8474, jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 4 ? Ro Cuchens, (850) 835-4834, cucro@co.walton.fl.us
? Dist. 5 ? Cindy Meadows, (850) 622-3059, meacindy@co.walton.fl.us
Planning Staff Contact: *Pat Blackshear *blapat@co.walton.fl.us*
Below is an edited portion of a BULLETIN today from the
South Walton Community Council (SWCC)
which I consider to be our local citizen "watchdog".
http://www.southwaltoncc.org/
SWCC?s Concerns.
We share the County?s desire to prohibit fill in the floodplains. The County can do that now, however, by simply refusing to sign the form which condones the request for fill. The current proposal being considered on Nov 28 instead removes the limitation on density with no concurrent prohibition or incentive not to fill. **It simply gives a developer the same underlying density (e.g., 8 units per acre) *whether he chooses to fill or whether he chooses not to fill. *
We are very concerned that high density subdivisions in the floodplains, even *built on pilings or stem walls, will nonetheless threaten natural and critical floodplain functions. *Specifically, we are concerned about:
****1. *The diversion of run-off from an increase in impervious surface from more roofs, roadways and driveways. *
****2. *The increase in fill for more roads, driveways and other infrastructure, diverting flood waters to nearby lower lying property.
****3. *Increased run-off into the floodplains from fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
****4. *Impact of construction activity on the hydrology and soils necessary for floodplain function.
*****5. *Increased cost of and concomitant floodplain destruction when laying down infrastructure in environmentally sensitive areas.
SWCC?s Position.
We have stated many times that we agree that the current limitation of 1 unit per 20 acres is too restrictive in today?s economic climate. Current economic considerations, however, do not take into account the cost associated with the destruction of floodplains. *
Floodplains provide a financial benefit to the community and the community is not reimbursed for this financial loss when floodplains are overdeveloped or destroyed. *Most importantly, *economics cannot be allowed to threaten the natural resources which are vital to the safety and future of the community.
There is no better example of the economic and human consequences of irresponsible destruction of floodplains and wetlands by development than the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
*
If a developer or other property owner insists on filling all or part of a parcel, we feel the density on the entire parcel should be severely restricted to minimize the fill. If structures are built on pilings in accordance with FEMA and county standards, we suggest a reasonable increase in density which will continue to limit the amount of impervious surface and ensure viable floodplain functions. *
We also believe that fill should be restricted to the minimum necessary for roads and driveways and parking pads. We also support research on using *incentives *to make it more financially feasible to preserve floodplains. Other counties have implemented these incentive programs to protect their floodplains.
We do not feel a sufficient amount of analysis has gone into the potential floodplain impact of *allowing higher density subdivision in the floodplains. We would ask that the County postpone *voting on this proposal until further consideration is given to establishing a more reasonable floodplain density policy.
The value of the integrity of our floodplains is too high to risk degradation by a hasty decision. We feel the issue requires more research and more planning. *The current proposal does not sufficiently discourage fill and there is no data to ensure that it adequately protects the floodplains.
There are other options and *other incentives that need exploration. The potential consequences of this decision warrant the utmost *consideration and analysis.
In Summary.
*?Communities with very low-density development and much more open space already have functioning natural systems. *Local officials in these areas have the opportunity to safeguard floodplain functions at the outset, and to maintain valuable habitats and superior water quality.? (from Protecting Floodplain Resources-a Guidebook for Communities by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force)
At present, we in South Walton are one of the communities that has the opportunity to safeguard floodplain functions at the outset. *Let?s seize that opportunity with a prudent floodplain density policy based on criteria and research by which we can be assured that the allowable density we choose will create little or no impact to floodplain functions. **Currently, we do not have the information to form the basis of such a major policy change.
This proposal, as it stands, should *not *adopted.