Comment Up
On Wednesday night, the Board gave its complete attention to the presentations, both by the City and by the attorney for Hudson Holdings, the Petitioner. However, there were a few members of this Board who made some curious statements.
The Chair, Herman Robinson, wanted to limit free speech during public participation...no comment other than on zoning...nothing about the applicant...nothing about their plan. More than likely he was coached by our city attorney. He shut down Mary Watson's commentary on Hudson Holdings, the petitioner who wants the city to give him what he wants. There was NO reason under the sun not to speak to Hudson Holdings or ones feelings about the petitioner. Mr. Robinson also admitted to having conversations with two employees of Hudson Holdings...no problem, he said, I can be fair.
Darrin Engel noted that I didn't take the oath before commenting
although it was just said at the beginning of the meeting (about an hour and fifteen minutes earlier) that those who were only commenting did not have to. Also, he admitted to indirectly working for Hudson Holdings (his boss has a relationship) but not on this project. He disclosed that he had conversations with one of Hudson Holding's attorneys, Beth Schrantz, who was present, but those conversations had nothing to do with the Gulfstream Hotel property. He said that he could make an unbiased decision.
Loretta Sharpe, a member appointed by the mayor, must have a built-in timer in her head. She slid
something down the dais to Herman to stop Lynda Mahoney from speaking
further. Lynda was making too much sense. As soon as he noticed, the bell went off. As you recall, Ms.
Mahoney was the former Chair of the Planning & Zoning Board before
they were all kicked off to accommodate political appointments by this
"visionary" commission. Ms. Sharpe also had a few conversations with Hudson people prior to the meeting. No problem, she said.
Another member of this Board had no clue as
to the parcels in question that Hudson Holdings wanted to re-zone/up-zone.
Tom Norris asked if he recommended against this [up-zoning], was he going against Florida law? Good question but William Waters said that he had to have findings of fact to not recommend. In other words, if the Comp Plan allows it, the LDR's allow it, then he must approve (can't go against it)--that is how I interpreted it. They were reminded over and over again they were only there to approve the re-zoning which is an up-zoning. It is "if the glove fits" syndrome. As talented as some are, we only need a rubber stamp for this Board.
During public commentary on those who objected to aN up-zoning at the Gulfstream, there were constant chuckles, undertones and chatter in the chamber. One person even said "Oh stop it." It is curious as to why a chair of a Board or our Mayor never hears these snide comments and why they don't put an end to it. Why was Hudson Holdings stupid enough to buy this hotel when they knew they couldn't do what they wanted? Did they already have their answer?
I have always said that overall, board appointments are political and they are in place to just go ahead with what the administration wants--staff leads them and makes the recommendations. No one elects the Board. They are there to use as a reference of validity for Staff and ultimately the City Manager who reports to the Commission. You get the picture.
8 comments:
If I am ever elected to this Commission, I will do my best to get rid of these unelected,unaccountable politically motivated boards.EVERY BOARD, with the exception of the library and tree boards.
Katie Mcgiveron
omg guys. EVERY commission, always, has selected people they believe in, to be on Boards.
That's just the way it works.
The President elects his own Cabinet.
Lynn, honestly, what did you think of Panagiotti Tsolkas (sp?) being put on to a Board way back when ? I went to every meeting of that Board and honestly was shocked (not) that he 100% he had his own group's interest in mind, thoroughly.
He is Cara's baby daddy and did you think what he proposed to that Board was proper/ Appropriate for our town?
depending whom we elect for Commission, inherently impacts who will sit on the Boards.
No doubt.
That is why I shy away from the group that you say is/was 'the best commission ever'
Their appointees on Boards imo, were nothing but detrimental to our town.
After hearing the presentation from the city that the zoning is in total agreement with the future land use and meets all criteria to be recommended for approval, then the extremely knowledgeable attorney for the applicant schooling the audience and board about how William Waters has done a textbook job of laying out zoning districts to meet well planned out community criteria, it was no wonder the vote was 7 - 0 in favor of recommending approval to the Commission.
The ONLY coherent argument against the change was from Gael Silverblatt. She addressed the lot coverage difference, set backs and issues dealing with zoning. Most everyone else (against) spoke about the charter vote. Those comments were just about as annoying as the snide comments from the back you referred to.
Sure, it's your 2 minutes (Katie took 5 to say the same thing three times) and you have the right to recite the ten commandments if you wish, but the chair wanted to keep comments relevant to the topic. Shame on him.
The politics won't even come into play when the commission grants the zoning change. It will be granted because it meets the criteria.
The real politics will come when they present their site plan. Then it time to get your collective panties in a wad.
I'd be interested to hear what you'd have written as finding of fact, to deny the zoning change.
Are we really supposed to believe that Hudson Holdings had nothing to do with this meeting and therefore any comments mentioning them were irrelevant?? This meeting was convened at their request for upzoning, wasn't it? And it was HH lawyers making a long presentation. Huh, are we supposed to view this zoning change as simply a spontaneous zoning change having nothing to do with HH?? I am not an idiot and fully realize that the zoning change will apply to everyone on that property, not just HH. Including whomever they flip it to once they succeed in demolition. Why the corporation manipulating the zoning change cannot be mentioned is beyond me--that's why we were all there.
Maybe it's like the Harry Potter series and HH has become "he who must not be mentioned."
Thanks for your comment at 5:30am.
HOWEVER, all comments relative to our charter amendment are about the MOST relevant thing we could have discussed. You see, heights are 45 feet downtown and the city, the city commission and Hudson Holdings wants to build higher and the HRPB just gave them 65 feet.
So, in our eyes, all of you broke the law. It doesn't matter what LDR's were written AFTER our vote or whatever excuse you want to use to justify what you are doing. That's why there are two sides to an argument and that's why there are courts of law.
And by the way anonymous at 10:28, very knowledgeable Gael Silverblatt was one of those "kicked off" the Planning & Zoning board. Next, board members have NEVER been kicked off especially entire boards replaced, in the city of LW until this trio. Perhaps there have been some that have not been retained when their commission expired such as John Rinaldi. That's a fact.
As far as Pangiotti goes, what decision bothered you? Aren't you the people who always say that this city is so great as it's so diverse in opinions, etc.? Tell me what he did that was wrong for our city. If he did something, I can't remember it. Cara Jennings, other than the Mentoring Center and allowing Sun Recycling on our landfill--all commissioners did that, made excellent decisions for Lake Worth.
One more thing that I forgot...they have submitted some sort of site plan showing 5 stories.
not to worry . . . it will go to six stories when they think no one is looking anymore.
Historic preservation board is a complete farce unless you own a home in one of the historic neighborhoods and you need a new roof. They really only seem to care about giving single family home owners a hard time, which I wouldn't mind if they gave the same scrutiny to developers. If you are developer then you can tear down historic homes for three story town homes with little to no set back. If you are a developer parking rules don't apply, if you are a developer build as high as you want.
If you are home owner, nope you can't replace your roof with a less expensive material because your neighbor already used a metal roof and we can't have too many metal roofs on the same block.
Post a Comment