Town appeals Key Club ruling
STEVE REID
Editor & Publisher
sreid@lbknews.com
The town of Longboat Key has officially ‘appealed the appeal’ of the Islandside development order in an effort to get the project back on track after it was derailed last December in circuit court.
Both the Key Club and the town agreed to file the appeal Jan. 30 to reverse the ruling by Circuit Court Judge Charles Roberts that halted plans for redevelopment at the Islandside property when he found in favor of the Islandside Property Owners Coalition.
The town is the appealing party, but the Key Club is paying the town’s legal fees in support of the effort.
Roberts in late December overturned the town of Longboat Key’s approval of a redevelopment plan that included a new hotel, a condo building, a spa and fitness center and meeting space, ruling that it violated zoning code. He found for the plaintiff on all seven counts and called the approval by the town a “miscarriage of justice.”
Despite the ruling, the Longboat Key Town Commission unanimously voted to appeal Roberts’ ruling last month to the Second District. IPOC President Bob White then asked the Town Commission to not appeal and continue down the path of conforming Longboat Key’s land use laws simply to stand by an “illegal and inappropriate approval.”
The commission has also agreed to “surgically” amend the town’s zoning code to resolve inconsistencies described in the ruling.
One of the areas of greatest concern to both the town and commission is that Judge Roberts said the proposed commercial and office uses were not allowed in the planned development. In short, an expansion of commercial activity or uses would not be allowed. That could have a ripple effect on the planned Publix approval, which also intensifies activity in a planned development site.
In the appeal, written by Carlton Fields Attorney Sylvia Walbolt, Walbolt argues that the court did not mention that the planning director and expert planning consultants opined that the town was in its authority to grant the development order. She added that the State Department of Community Affairs also interpreted the zoning code similarly with the town. She said the town amended its code to satisfy the DCA’s issues.
Walbolt says that the judge found the code “clear and unambiguous” in precluding the proposed redevelopment. She challenged that view by showing the other professional interpretations, which she says the judge ignored. She also cites a 1973 land-use case that says municipalities must be consistent in their application and intent of land-use law.
Part of the dilemma is then-Planning and Zoning Director Monica Simpson issued a letter during the proceedings that said she could not support approval of the revised Key Club application due to it appearing to violate the requirements of the zoning code.
Walbolt argues that Simpson was expressing planning concerns and was not in a position to make a definitive zoning compliance determination. Simpson, Walbolt says, made statements about the project being “perhaps too intense to be consistent…” with the land regulations.
Walbolt is arguing that Simpson was not making definitive zoning statements, but expressing planning concerns about the south end Islandside density and site. Walbolt says the judge seized on isolated statements at reaching his conclusion.
Walbolt also argues that the town must defer to the property owner/applicant if any element is vague or ambiguous. She also faults the judge for not considering the competent substantial evidence that the town and Key Club presented to support its assertions.
The Second District Court of Appeal will consider the matter. If the court overturns the lower court, the matter will be remanded with instructions to the lower court to essentially change its ruling in conformance with the higher court’s interpretation.
If the town loses, then the development order is officially dead.
