IPOC to file motion for Leave to Amend
MELISSA REID
Associate Publisher
mreid@lbknews.com
Despite the current mediation agreement between the Town of Longboat Key, the Longboat Key Club and Islandside Property Owner’s Coalition (IPOC) have entered, IPOC is continuing its case against the town over its changes to the town code made on July 2, by intending to file a Motion for Leave to File and Serve Fourth Amended Complaint next week.
“The amendment of the complaint was made both necessary and appropriate by the Town’s action in passing the zoning code changes in Ordinance 2012-08. These changes made some of the claims in the existing complaint, but raised others due to the oversights contained in the Ordinance,” wrote IPOC President Bob White in a statement to Longboat Key News.
“The core issues are: Does the Zoning Code grant illegal discretion to the Town Commission to approve applications for outline development plans and departures from the zoning code, and how do the regulations effect the Islandside development? The Town should not be able to avoid the issues through continually amending the Zoning Code in ways that appear to address IPOC’s claim (and victories in other forums) but that not only fail to address the underlying deficiencies but in fact make them worse,” wrote White.
White also claims that in the ordinance, “The Town amended the Zoning Code to eliminate the GPD zoning district, along with the PD and NPD districts. But the Town did not amend the Town’s Zoning Map to change the actual zoning of the land. So the land remains zoned “GPD.” “NPD” and “PD” after the Zoning Code amendments. This means that Key Club cannot proceed under the Town’s prior approval, even if they were to win on all issues they appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.”
In an email response to White’s claims, Town Attorney David Persson wrote,
“The purpose of the recent zoning changes was in part to make it clear that if a new request was filed, the Town would have the authority to grant a Development Order along the lines of the previous request by the Club. These changes followed Judge Robert’s Order. If the Appellate Court reverses the Order, presumably the Club would then possess a final, legally binding Development Order issued under the prior Code. With the recent Code changes in place, the Club could choose to file a new application now or wait to see if Judge Roberts’ order is reversed. The other part of the changes was to follow the amended Comprehensive Plan, simplify and clarify the review process, and add objective standards by which an application could be measured.”
