Board transmits comp plan amendment for Jack Crum Road parcel despite citizen opposition; vote 4‑1
Loading...
Summary
A requested large‑scale comprehensive plan map amendment to change ~30 acres near Jack Crum Road from Agriculture (1 per 20 acres) to Rural 1 (1 per 5 acres) was transmitted to the state after a public hearing; residents raised traffic, environmental and landfill plume concerns and one commissioner voted no.
At a public hearing the Wakulla County commission voted to transmit a large‑scale comprehensive plan map amendment (CPM 25‑04) that would change a roughly 30.1‑acre tract on the north side of Jack Crum Road from Agriculture (1 unit per 20 acres) to Rural 1 (1 unit per 5 acres). The transmission will send the amendment to the state for review and return to the board for final adoption.
Staff advised the board that the parcel is in the state Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) primary focus area for Wakulla Springs and that all new septic tanks in the primary focus area must be enhanced nitrogen‑reducing systems capable of reducing at least 65% of nitrogen. Staff also noted central water/sewer connections are not currently available along Jack Crum Road and that the proposed development would be planned for wells and septic systems.
Several residents and speakers opposed the change. Kara Raker read from a historical article and urged the board to favor long‑term preservation over decisions driven by litigation fears, arguing past boards had taken stronger stands to defend land. David Damon and other speakers called the change "a slippery slope," raised concerns about traffic near the high school, and said a previously closed landfill nearby had been a point of concern; staff explained the landfill is capped and monitored under DEP requirements and that monitoring data indicated any plume, if present, was not migrating northward onto the subject property.
Staff explained that the legal standard for comprehensive plan amendments is the "fairly debatable" legislative standard, not a quasi‑judicial standard, giving the board greater discretion at this stage. Commissioners questioned whether sewer could be extended and how many septic systems could ultimately be added; staff said that under Rural 1 density the parcel could yield five homes with five septic systems unless sewer were added later.
After public comment and commissioner debate about school capacity, growth management and BMAP implications, the motion to approve option 1 to transmit CPM 25‑04 passed with recorded opposition from Commissioner (identified by number 14 in the record). The board directed the item to be transmitted to state review; final adoption would return to the board following state review and any required hearings.
