Changes won't appeal to code challengers

Challenging a Longboat Key Town Commission decision in court could get tougher if the commission approves changes to the town’s zoning code recommended by the town’s Planning & Zoning Board earlier this month — which could be good or bad, depending on whom you ask.

Robert Lincoln, attorney for the Islandside Property Owners Coalition (IPOC) and the L’Ambiance and Sanctuary condominium associations, said the most significant of the proposed changes is the elimination of a requirement that the commission issue written findings of fact. Instead, the changes would require commission decisions and P&Z Board recommendations to be “based on competent, substantial evidence of record.”

“It makes it very, very difficult to demonstrate how or why the Town Commission’s reasoning may have been flawed or if they misapplied the facts,” Lincoln said, citing Judge Charles E. Roberts ruling granting IPOC and the associations a writ of certiorari in their challenge of the commission’s development order approving the Longboat Key Club and Resort’s proposed $400 million Islandside redevelopment-and-expansion plan, which included 29 departures.

In granting the petition, Roberts challenged the four findings of fact in the development order used to justify the departures.

He wrote: “The findings adopted in the Development Order do not satisfy the requirement for a ‘clear and specific statement of how the code departures are necessary or desirable to accomplish one or more of the stated purposes of the planned unit development.’ They are generalized conclusions that do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code.”

Key Club Associates attorney John Patterson disagreed.

“Of course Robert Lincoln would like to see findings of fact so that he can litigate findings of fact,” Patterson said.

Town Attorney David Persson echoed a similar sentiment, describing the requirements of findings of fact as the “lawyers’ relief act” that delays the decision-making process. Persson reversed Lincoln’s argument, saying that elimination of the requirement gives the town the ability to defend the decisions of its decision-makers.

Lincoln said that elimination of the requirement would have made IPOC’s and the associations’ challenge of the development order more difficult. But, it would also make it more difficult for applicants, such as the Key Club, to challenge the commission if an application were denied, according to Lincoln.

“This is anti-everybody but the commission,” he said. “It allows the commission much more leeway to do whatever it wants.”

The elimination of the requirement of findings of facts weren’t the only changes proposed by town staff that were recommended by the P&Z Board.

The changes clarify the allowed uses of the Planned Development District, Gulf-planned Development District and Negotiated Planned Development District with the Bay Isles, Islandside and Promenade/Water Club mixed-use community districts.

They also clarify aspects of the planning process, stating that applicants don’t need to file applications for a site plan and ODP concurrently and that an application that is revised after P&Z Board review doesn’t have to go back before the board.