Article Courtesy of The Tampa Bay Times
By Kathryn Varn
Published October 22, 2016
In 2013, Pinellas County commissioners unanimously
rejected an apartment complex to the cheers of Safety Harbor residents.
Three years later, the bill has come due.
A judge issued a decision Wednesday declaring that the county owes the
project's developer $16.5 million in damages and interest for rejecting the
apartment complex.
Pinellas-Pasco Circuit
Judge Walter Schafer Jr. ruled that commissioners based
their decision "on a desire to appease the Safety Harbor
residents" instead of county policy.
The decision was the latest development in the years long
saga between Pinellas County and the Richman Group of
Florida, the West Palm Beach developer who proposed building
the 246-unit, three-story luxury apartment complex with
25,000 square feet of office space.
But to build it, Richman needed approval from the Safety
Harbor City Commission and the Pinellas County Commission
for a zoning amendment to change the 35-acre site near State
Road 590 and McMullen-Booth Road from industrial to
residential use.
The City Commission approved the change in February 2013.
But three months later, county commissioners unanimously
denied it. They pointed to a county policy aimed at
preserving industrial land to bring more jobs to the area.
They also sided with the dozens of residents who spoke out
against the project at meetings and in letters. |
|
An artist's rendering of the Richmond Group's plans
for a 246-unit luxury apartment complex at McMullen-Booth Road and
State Road 590 in Safety Harbor.
|
Richman appealed the county's decision to an
administrative judge, who sided with the developer. County attorney Jim
Bennett told the commission he agreed with the judge's ruling, that the
industrial lands preservation policy applied only in unincorporated areas,
not cities.
He also warned that a denial would expose the county to a lawsuit.
Still, commissioners rejected the rezoning request a second time in 2014.
Current board members Charlie Justice, Janet Long, John Morroni, Karen Seel
and Ken Welch all voted to deny Richman's request.
"There's nobody other than the applicant who's in support of this thing, so
I'm not changing my vote," Morroni said at the second vote. His comments
were cited in the judge's decision.
It is unknown what the county's next steps will be, or whether it will
appeal. The county attorney could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Welch said he and several county commissioners were at a Florida Association
of Counties conference in Orlando and had not yet discussed the ruling with
their attorney. But he said he stood by his vote.
"The concept of local government having the authority to make land use
decisions based on the community's vision for its future … is paramount," he
said. "This is principle worth fighting for."
The attorneys who represented Richman, Ed Armstrong and Scott McLaren of the
firm Hill Ward Henderson, said in a statement "that the evidence was
overwhelming that Richman's constitutional rights were violated, and that
the client was very pleased that the Court protected those rights."
Armstrong declined to comment further, citing a possible appeal.
The proposed site of the apartments, which used to be home to the former
Firmenich Citrus Plant, has remained the same throughout the dispute:
vacant, save for a few empty buildings.
BayCare Health Systems was poised to build administrative offices on the
property that would have brought at least 350 jobs to the city. But in March
the medical group backed out days before the plan was to go before city
commissioners. Representatives declined to say why.
That disappointed some of the same Safety Harbor residents who opposed the
complex. Sandy Blood, who lives in a neighborhood bordering the property,
said BayCare's plan would not have brought the severe traffic congestion
neighbors feared the apartment complex would have.
After learning that Pinellas is on the hook for a $16.5 million judgment,
she stuck with her position. "It wasn't the right fit for our community,"
Blood said.
Steve Rosenthal, another opponent, said the number of units was too high and
reiterated his concerns about traffic and property values: "Would I change
my mind? Would I fight again today? Yes, I would."
|