Letters: Options are there for commissioners to turn down projects

To the Editor:

Thanks so much for the really excellent editorial about the Waterside hearing (Editorial, July 31, A dead citrus farm, now a dump and mine). It highlighted some of the serious flaws in this process.

You were right to call out the importance of Diane Heck’s testimony. Diane really knows her stuff. She’s also a member of the Friends of Cape Haze Board and we are so lucky to have her. Her comments about methane should have been a wake-up call to the County. When the Applicant argued that it wouldn’t bury its mulch for years, Diane’s answer, which she wasn’t allowed to give because citizens can’t rebut, is that that creates a fire risk. The fact that the County and Applicant can say just about anything without fear of rebuttal is a serious problem with the process.

I’m glad you mentioned the bogeyman of litigation fears. To address this, we asked that the Commission, at a minimum, turn down the final site plan as not accomplishing “restoration” which was what was approved in 2023. Obviously they didn’t take even this approach.

But your observation that the County staff should have called out the issues in 2023 is absolutely correct. They claim to be the “experts.” How come they can’t do a better job at it? One answer is something we learned at the time of the Hutton hearing when Rob Robbins and I met with Ben Bailey and Shaun Cullinan (of Charlotte County) to ask them why the County staff wasn’t reviewing the wetlands conclusions of the applicant. We were told that the County relied on the applicant’s claimed “expertise,” rather than on the clear federal wetlands identification documents (which, by the way, the Comp Plan says the County is supposed to consider).

Very frustrating.

Thanks again for highlighting some of the issues. You are so right that this isn’t just an east county issue.  

Percy Angelo

Placida