Key Club pursues options after judge grants writ petition

Longboat Key Club and Resort officials are reviewing legal options after Sarasota 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Roberts granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Islandside Property Owners Coalition (IPOC) and L’Ambiance and Sanctuary condominium associations in their challenge of a development order related to the Longboat Key Club and Resort’s proposed $400 million redevelopment-and-expansion plan.

In a 19-page ruling issued Dec. 30, Roberts wrote:

“The Town Commission’s departures from the requirements of the Zoning Code infringed on Petitioners’ legitimate expectations under the Zoning Code and constituted a miscarriage of justice.”

The Key Club released a statement Tuesday afternoon describing Roberts’ ruling as “surprising in light of the rejection of the same contentions by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (now the Department of Economic Opportunity), the agency charged with professional review of such Development Orders.”

But IPOC President Bob White, who said that he “felt justice was served” with the ruling, disagreed with that statement.

“What we’re talking about is the law here,” he said. “The Department of Community Affairs is an administrative agency, so it’s not surprising that there could be a difference of opinion.”

Key Club Associates attorney John Patterson described the ruling as a “setback” Tuesday evening and outlined two basic options:

• The Key Club and the town could appeal the case to the Second District Court of Appeals in Lakeland.

• Or the town could make changes to its zoning code, and, if necessary, its Comprehensive Plan, in which case the Key Club could submit a new application. The Key Club and town could also take both actions simultaneously.

The timetable for an appeal would range from six months to a year, Patterson said, during which time the town could have changes to its code and Comprehensive Plan completed. Patterson said that the ruling highlighted the need for clarification to the town’s code.

“It basically met a stress test and it failed,” he said.

Town Attorney David Persson echoed a similar sentiment in a Monday email to commissioners:

“As we have discussed over the last several years and in particular as this application began, there is a need to clearly establish what is allowed and what is not allowed within the town under its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development regulations,” he wrote. “Thus, while disappointing and legally challengeable, this order should not come as a complete surprise.  And, frankly, it can be viewed as a loud and positive call for the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to clearly articulate the town’s goals and visions and how those goals and visions will be achieved through the Land Development Regulations.”

Patterson pointed out how the provisions of the zoning code cited in Roberts’ order could be amended through clarifications. For example, Roberts wrote that the town’s zoning code sets forth uses permitted in each of the town’s zoning districts, including the Gulf-planned development (GPD) district. The code “requires that any uses permitted in the GPD be ‘designated’” and that “nowhere in the Zoning Code are commercial offices, meeting rooms, spas or commercial recreational uses such as the golf clubhouse set out, indicated or otherwise identified or made known to be permitted in the GPD” — which could be changed to include proposed uses.

But White criticized the suggestion of amending town codes.

“The judge sided with us on all seven counts,” he said. “This is a pretty big smack down of the town’s actions. The town has already gone overboard in trying to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the departure.”

White said that IPOC is now reviewing its options in its de novo challenge of the plan in which it is now the sole plaintiff, following the L’Ambiance and Sanctuary associations’ voluntary dismissal of the case last month, to determine whether it now wants to pursue the challenge or if it should be amended or modified.
Patterson declined to give a timetable for the Key Club’s decision but said that action would be “prompt.”

Click here to view Judge Roberts' ruling. 

Code claims
Judge Charles E. Roberts ruled in favor of IPOC and the L’Ambiance and Sanctuary condominium associations on all seven of their claims:
• The development order approves uses not permitted by the zoning code by permitting uses such as a meeting center, administrative offices and spa/health facility on the north parcel;
• The development order violates the zoning code because it permits new, nonresidential uses on lands not previously designated for such uses;
• The development order violates zoning codes because it does not include required findings about the departures granted;
• The development order violates zoning codes because it doesn’t include required findings;
• Permits are insufficient for off-street parking;
• Parking garages for the hotel and meeting center exceed the permissible size for accessory structures;
• The Longboat Key Planning & Zoning Board did not review the fourth revised application, which the commission acted on.