Comment Up
Comments to the Lake Worth City Commission from Laurence McNamara regarding their rezoning of the Gulfstream hotel parcels:
In 2001, the 4th District Court of Appeals (our district) required a developer to demolish 2 story condos in Martin County that had been constructed adjacent to a single family home, finding the development to have been in violation of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The developer continued construction although the Pinecrest Lakes Inc. v. Shidel suit was pending and sold the condos which were then occupied. The lower court dismissed Ms. Shidel’s case but the Appellate Court ruled for her and against the developer.
The zoning change you are considering tonight is in violation of the Charter Amendment passed by the Lake Worth citizens in a significant majority yet ignored by this Commission and its legal counsel. A City Charter is an even higher authority than a Comprehensive Plan.
It will be more prudent for you to reject this zoning change and require the developer to respect the 45’ height limit called for by the voters. 13 months ago he promised to have the restoration done within 14 months.
Protect our City and its citizens against yet another developer whose actions do not match his words.
13 comments:
State law trumps local municipality ordinances and unfortunately the vote on this topic. We need to take it up in Tallahassee, what does Goc Scott say?
Lets get real. The election has no control over our city. Our Charter was never amended because the law prevented this type of amendment by vote. You lost and nothing can change that.
Let's get real. If the election "has no control over our city" (whatever that means), then every person sitting on the dais who was voted into office needs to step down immediately.
To the anonymous posters above:
Local municipality ordinances are irrelevant to the issue between the two Florida Statutes. At the time of the Charter Amendment petition and following election, Florida Statutes required and enabled Municipal Charters to be amended in the exact way ours was.
A few months later the Florida Legislature passed a new Statute prohibiting challenges to Land Development Regulations.
The usage of this new Statute is defective in two ways. First it does not apply to Charter Amendments and secondly, the Legislature wrote it to be retroactive, ex post facto legislation which is certainly justiciable and likely unenforceable.
Well opinions are like ...... The two attorneys, our own city attorney and the one who's practice is strictly land use, legally licensed to practice law, opined to the extreme opposite.
Who to believe???
Have you EVER heard of Plaintiff and Defendant attorneys? Prosecutors and Defense attorneys? That's why there is a judicial system, anonymous @2:34, oh snarky one.
I would love to see the Gulfstream renovated and reopened, but there doesn't seem to be any real plan. So why is the City voting on zoning when there is no agreed plan? And now I'm further confused, there will be two hotels on the site? How does that make any sense.
Everyone in this city wants to see this hotel opened...no exceptions. They have said what they want to do and one very vocal side of this issue, ya know...(the ones who tell us that they are the ONLY ones for moving the city forward)say that our vote doesn't count. Hudson tells us that they want to build an addition on their property...they just have to have 10 more feet than what the charter amendment allows. the city just gave them 20 more feet. And this affects every single parcel up and down those streets to get the very same zoning change from Residential to Downtown. Their addition will all be a part of the main hotel. Their argument is bogus. They just want to get as much as they can from a willing commission ready to give it to them at the expense of the vote and actually and naively believing that a developer might have our best interest at heart. Actually, once they get this zoning, it will make their property more valuable to flip to an investor or a hotel chain. that is their intention, IMO.
OK Let's say your scenario is correct. The owner wants to improve his property to the extent he is allowed. Can we all say DUH?
And then maximize his investment for the possibility for a future profit.... again..... DUH.
So let's throw everything we can in his way to stop him from doingthis. Even though our LDR's prevent him from creating the "canyon" effect. Even though our LDR's say he needs to re-zone the portions that are going to be part of the hotel complex in order to start the project. Even the zoning in that area in our future land use map says that it is the way we want our future city to look like and he is actually meeting all the requirements of that zoning.
Obviously this can't be good for the city. We would much rather the decaying building sit vacant for another decade and complain that nothing is being done.
The LDR's were approved by this commission. The only people who said that this is how we want our city to look is the Historic Board, the P&Z, William Waters and this trio commission. What about the rest of us, duh?
Frankly, this is not about some developer maximizing his investment. This is about our charter amendment, an amendment of which Hudson was fully aware. More duh's.............
Fully aware of what? A charter amendment that is null? Zoning that permits 65 feet high only for a hotel which is what he bought?
Didn't hear anyone complaining about the LDR's as they were going through the process. They are very well thought out and based on sound urban planning criteria.
Nothing will happen at that property, they will flip to someone else with this zoning change and who knows what will be built if anything.
The historic property will continue to deteriorate, with HH doing nothing to maintain, secure it or keep it looking decent, eventually the building will be in such a state that it can be demo'd (the historic preservation means little once the property is in serious disrepair). They want residents to "trust" them, yet they do nothing to keep the property looking decent, trash all around open doors, rats, safety issues along the sidewalk. Why in the world would the commission or anyone else assume they have our best interests at heart when they can't be bothered to clean up the trash once a week or keep the homeless out of the building? I clean up more trash on their property than they do.
It's called "wishful " thinking. That describes this commission. Unless there is something else going on for which we have no privy. The commission feels that this will help their election by not honoring the vote. It's pretty incredible.
Post a Comment