I was all for the previous PUD plan, but this one is a bill of goods:

NEW DEVELOPMENT developement to the west of St. Andrews: 860 units on 323 acres= 2.6 units per acre (OK...)

EXISTING ST ANDREWS HOMEOWNERS PART OF THE DEAL: 735 units on 82.3 acres=
8.9 UNITS PER ACRES!!!
Take away the one section of single family houses and we current homeowner get squeezed in by a WHOPPING 15 UNITS PER ACRE. Why is all the high density housing being dumped into our neighborhood and not into the new housing developement? Developement is unavoidable, but this plan ''Sticks it'' to current homeowners.

Threatens the Neighborhood

One good thing is that the increased population will probably increase use of the golf course. Another is that more taxes will be collected so the Fire Department which may become better able to hire first responders and firefighers. Also, we will probably become more attractive as a target for annexation by one of the neighboring towns for whatever that is worth.

On the other hand, it will change the character of our neighborhood and make the golf course less competitive with other courses on the Gulf. I believe there is a direct correlation between the length of a golf course and its ability to compete with other gulf courses. In our case, an expert indicates St. Andrews needs to be extended to 2000?’ to become competitive. However, the developers?’ proposal will make the St. Andrews course shorter, and destroy its trademark view of the gulf. As to the character of our neighborhood, a threat to the golf course is a threat to our neighborhood since the course weaves throughout our neighborhood. Also, the proposal greatly changes the ratio of single family to multi-family dwellings. Presently, we have approximately 300 single-family and 40 multifamily dwellings in St. Andrews and Pinehurst. That is a ratio of 7.5 to 1. The proposed change would change the number of single family dwellings to 1321 and multi-family dwellings to 600. That is a ratio of 2.2 to 1 versus the 7.5 to 1 ratio we currently have.

However, I would probably support the proposal if the developers had proposed to make the golf course at least 2000' and otherwise make it more competitve with the newer courses on the Gulf. However, it doesn't, and all the negatives of the proposal are wrapped around the golf course and our neighborhood. Therefore, I will probably object to the developers?’ proposal in the hope they will amend it to protect the character of our neighborhood. Also, I would suggest that everybody with an interest in this matter attend the upcoming St. Andrews Homeowners Association meet on 5/25 at 6:30 and write the Planning Board about your concerns and observations.


By Al Pettigrew

Update

A better estimate of the St. Andrews and Pinehurst current multifamily to single family dwellings is 23% (80/350). The proposal would change the percentage to 47% (640:1371). Thus, the character of the area would remain predominately single-family dwellings.

However, the character would change in another aspect because the developers are marketing to retirees buying second homes. If substantially all the present dwellings are owned by permanent residents, the present condos are owned by absentee owners, and all the developers' dwellings are purchased by absentee owners (snowbirds), the percentage of permanent resident dwellings in the St Andrews ?– Pinehurst subdivision areas will move from substantially 81% towards 17% (350/(80+1581)).

As soon as the zoning changes, the developers are expected to mirror the desires and needs of its expected absentee homeowners. In other words, they will represent the interests of approximately 83% of the area?’s future owners. This is important because their desires and needs are not totally congruent with those of permanent residents. In two aspects they are congruent. We all want St. Andrews Golf Course to remain profitable and competitive. We all generally want the values of our homes to increase even though it will increase our property taxes. On the other hand, they will probably have less or no interest in community recreation (excluding golf), education of our children, year-round community medical capability, and etc. Thus, it is expected that they will monolithic in opposing tax money expenditures on such efforts.

It is also likely that the developers and eventually the snowbirds will develop disproportionate political influence - most likely by having a more concentrated political interest and through spending for sympathetic candidates. Consequently, it will become more difficult for permanent residents to promote year-round quality of life improvements, and this could eventually make our homes less attractive to permanent residents who are not so focused on golf. Whether we get such quality of life improvements will increasingly depend on the degree of our success in unifying the vote of our permanent residents with the permanent residents of Ocean Beach Estates, East Fontainebleau, and West Fontainebleau to outweigh votes obtained though possible developer and snowbird political spending.


By Al Pettigrew

Property Values, Etc.

Losing the golf course can't be good, and I would imagine that is probably a position shared by most part time, as well as full time, residents. I believe that both groups are committed to community improvement and increasing property values, though of course the part time residents have no voice on election day. That the target market of the developers will likely be retirees who may not immediately be year-round residents is probably NOT the issue.

One must remember that a part time resident does not have a homestead exemption, so they put quite a bit into the community in the form of property taxes. (And, of course, the part time residents do not have a voice on election day.)

The assertion is often made that communities with high percentages of retirement age individuals may lag in school funding. While this may be a position that could be substantiated with statistics, it would, again, be pertinent only if all or most of those retirees are permanent residents who could register to vote in that jurisdiction. On the other hand, no justification comes to mind for an assertion that retirees (whether year round residents or not) would have an interest in negatively influencing either the quality or the capacity of local medical services--quite the opposite, in fact.

These days, a great many people of retirement age have additional recreational interests besides just golf.

Again...my purpose here was simply to say that part time residents are not necessarily the bad guys.