|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Below are a couple of letters from Save the Loop activist Eric West on the issue of the development.
The first letter is to Montye Beamer, the staff person for the county in charge of growth management. The meeting that is mentioned was the Plantation Oaks developers' initial applications for the site plan and for the amenities, such as the pro shop and restaurant. County staff was going to reject both, so the developers asked to have the site plan put off until another meeting and withdrew the amenities application, so that it would not be on record that they were turned down. In this meeting, Save the Loop Chairperson Rick Smith's multi-page list of questions was submitted as well as Eric West's questions on wetlands being in the middle of retention ponds. The developers have to answer all of these questions plus some technical questions from staff before they can get their initial permitt, and their answers could mean that they will have to put off the permitting again if there are further questions with regard to their answers. This letter also includes an interesting and insightful look at the standard use of wet retention ponds and better alternatives. The second letter is one that Eric West wrote to the Daytona News-Journal letters to the editor after an advertisement for Halifax Plantation appeared in the newspaper. |
|||||||||
Dear Montye, First of all, I want to thank you for running a very good meeting today. I thought that all parties had a chance to express their concerns without animosity or ad hominem arguments. I would like to add to what I said today and ask you to convey this to whomever would be making decisions on Plantation Oaks' storm-water management and/or their compliance with long-term protection of the wetlands. I have been attending meetings, workshops and conferences given by the SJWMD's people and by groups, such as VCARD, interested in keeping abreast of decisions that will exacerbate our water problems in the future. My concern is based on these meetings, conversations with SJWMD people, discussions with hydrologists and readings of volumes like "Current Research and Case Studies of Land Subsidence: Proceedings of the Joseph F. Poland Symposium" (available from SFWMD) and "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow and Tony Clark. The basic problem with wet retention ponds as opposed to dry retention basins or rain gardens (essentially, French drains with mulch and plants above), is that they take away far more water than they retain. Given the same area, a wet retention pond will evaporate 20 times more water than the same area planted in trees would transpire. Since only about 5" of water is recharged in Florida each year, and with every road and parking lot, that figure will continue to be smaller and smaller, purposely evaporating water that could be saved makes no sense and I would hope that the county would disallow the construction of wet retention areas in the future, especially since there are alternatives that actually help recharge the aquifer. But the really disastrous problem with wet retention ponds is that they lower the ground water level to the level of moisture that remains after the dirt has been removed to construct the basin. Although it does not happen immediately, over a period of 15 to 20 years, these ponds lower the ground water level all around them, eventually resulting in the compacting of the surrounding soil which results in subsidence of the ground level itself, which exposes plant roots, which are not protected from disease and attack, by bark and eventually the collapse of the entire ecosystem surrounding this pond. In the case of Plantation Oaks, nearly 25% of their entire project appears to be wet retention with many of the designated wetlands either encapsulated by the ponds, or located so nearby as to render them to an early demise. While over-pumping of the aquifer by municipalities also results in land subsidence (recall that pine forests need fire to propagate and pine trees are not normally killed off in vast numbers in forest fires, the areas around the Palm Coast, Daytona Beach, Port Orange and Ormond well fields had almost 100% pine mortality and even Cypress mortality in the fires of a few years ago), there is another troubling aspect to the wet retention ponds as currently designed. According to Hal Wilkening of the SJWMD, wet retention ponds not only don't work in Volusia County (unlike the sandy areas of Ocala), but they become repositories of heavy metals from runoff from streets and pesticide/herbicide/fungicide/fertilizer laden yards and golf courses. What this really means is that the county is actually forcing, through its development codes that permit wet retention ponds, developers to put little Love Canals all over the landscape. There is not even a requirement for settlement ponds to capture these heavy metals before they wind up at the bottom of your backyard "lake". Nor is there a requirement that developers periodically dredge the bottom of these ponds of their toxic muck. For these reasons, I would respectfully submit, that the design of Plantation Oaks be looked at extremely closely and that wherever possible dry retention or rain gardens be used and that the wetlands be isolated from these areas. I would also request that your staff look into making recommendations on changing the development codes to require more useful storm-water control. Thank you, Sincerely, Eric West |
|||||||||
Dear Editor, Saturday's edition of the News-Journal included an ad by Halifax Plantation claiming to have 'saved the Loop', claiming that 'your life will change, but the Loop won't'. Now, except for those who just moved here and don't remember what it was like 20 years ago when the developers started dismantling the Loop, I think most people would come to the conclusion that this just might be false advertising. I would like to ask the developers to prove their case or retract their statement in a like-sized ad (with color!). If they can show how the next phase of their development, which will have yet another access road to Old Dixie Highway and dump even more traffic on this scenic road, will "save the Loop", I'd love to hear their explanation. Or perhaps they can explain why they couldn't have their road and the road from the Plantation Oaks development to the south connect and run directly to US-1 instead of having yet another through street from US-1 to Old Dixie Highway dump literally thousands of more cars onto Old Dixie Highway. If they are truly interested in "salvaging" the Loop, since they can't "save" what they've already muddled up, maybe they can explain why the through-road from US-1 is so important. Perhaps while they are at it, they could explain why they chose to build almost on the property line of the James Ormond park instead of leaving a buffer to make their development invisible from the Loop and the park. Is this their idea of "saving"? Personally, I doubt that they will reply, but if they have the argument that will sway the doubters, I wish they would let us in on their secret. If they don't, I'd like them to step up and admit it. Eric West Ormond Beach |
|||||||||