The Sunset issue -- response to the Lake Worth Herald Editorial

Comment Up
Although the Sunset case has been going on for nearly four years, the local newspaper just does "not get it." This single family neighborhood would not have been mired in controversy if not for Nadine Burns who spearheaded this annexation, David Vespo and Retha Lowe on the Commission as well as the P&Z's, Wes Blackman and John Paxman, who were in power at the time. Blackman and Paxman are still for changing this neighborhood even though it was against our Comprehensive Plan to do so. This has all been political from the get go and The Herald is right along in that vein. You did notice Wes Blackman's face on its front page and the article announcing that Wes had written an Op-Ed piece for them appearing on page 6. Commentary is fine and opinion is fine but should it not have some semblance of truth?

The Lake Worth Herald referenced a law case as if it is something to be worried about in the Sunset issue. The differences in the case of Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp as referenced in this week's Editorial section of The Lake Worth Herald and the Sunset case are as follows:

Imperial Homes entered into a contract to purchase property contingent on the property being rezoned to allow higher density. The Town rezoned the property and Imperial Homes then bought the property.

The owner of the 4.02 parcel already owned the property. The owners then asked to be annexed in and the zoning changed.

According to Nancy Stroud, outside counsel for the City, the Sunset owners don’t have the same complaint, “because Sunset did not wait to purchase the property contingent on the re-zoning, but purchased the property before it was granted any approvals including annexation approval. She goes on to say that until the FLUM is effective, the zoning designation is inconsistent with the currently effective County FLUM designation. She also told us that “it is highly unlikely that a claim would be successful based on actual use.”

If you were at the Workshop Meeting at the Compass building months ago, Ron Exline stated that the zoning/land-use was NOT in effect. Both Lang and Kintz were there. They knew it. Everyone there knew it. So, how do you change the facts?

In the Stroud report it is stated that—

• The owner’s purchase of the property occurred prior to the 2005 rezoning, land use amendment and annexation agreement.
  

• Even after the rezoning, annexation and plan amendment approvals, there was obvious controversy (“red flags”) about the approvals, including legal challenge to the plan amendment
  

• The annexation agreement may be considered contract zoning on which the owner cannot legally reply
  

• The rezoning is not valid until a consistent FLUM designation is effective on the property
  

• There are no obvious expenditures for further permits or other costs since the original rezoning
  

• The downturn in the residential real estate market substantially diminishes the market foresee ability of the use of the property for townhouses.
  

So, we must come to the conclusion that the Bert J. Harris Act is not a “strong card to play” as quoted by the Herald but rather a weak pair of twos by Lang and Kintz.

The Herald can’t understand why the City would put itself in the position of a lawsuit when the developers won in the Appellate Court. They won on the 5 parcel State Statute issue regarding the right to a referendum. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a law suit that could, but probably won’t, go before any Court for a Bert J. Harris taking. Two entirely different issues. Anyone can sue for anything; it does not mean they have a case.

Now, everyone knows that the Comprehensive Plan controls the permitted density. The investors who own this property were well aware of the contention, that there had been hundreds from the neighborhood speaking out. They should have known that zoning is a police power, not a “slight of hand” as quoted by the Herald.

The owners, as well as the Planning and Zoning Board, knew that this parcel was an enclave. "The total area to be annexed must be contiguous to the municipality's boundaries at the time the annexation proceeding is begun and reasonably compact, and no part of the area shall be included within the boundary of another incorporated municipality." In order to access the parcel, you must cross over a County Road.

As far as former City Manager, Paul Boyer, dying to testify on behalf of the Sunset owners because he hates the City of Lake Worth, I think Mr. Boyer understands politics. He has moved on with his life. Lake Worth is not and was not important to him. He has worked for city governments for a very long time. His firing was initiated by former Commissioner Nadine Burns, and supported by the rest of the Commission at that time, Dave Vespo, Retha Lowe, Cara Jennings and Mayor Mark Drautz. Mayor Drautz was not happy with the midnight hour for this surprise termination. Mr. Boyer was made to sit there for nearly 6 hours to be shocked by a motion made by Burns. It was extremely embarrassing to witness. People treat their dogs better. But the question is, how can Paul Boyer "nail Lake Worth?" For what? Will he also be hiring Greater Bay's attorney?

The City is now going forward to repeal the two Ordinances involved with this property. As any different zoning that might have been discussed has never been in effect; it is not "down zoning" anything. The owners never had the zoning. The present Commission, on proper reflection, has approved appropriate zoning based on the premise of preserving single family neighborhoods, something that Commissioner Lowe now agrees.

Hopefully the Lake Worth Herald will now understand the facts of the matter but then again, probably not. It is always politics that keep us from moving forward and doing the right thing.