Editors note: This article appeared in the Gazette's September 22, 2005, print edition
At a recent visioning session for the City of Clearwater, held at the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center, one of the focus groups raised a concern that so many beach development decisions are being made by the non-elected Community Development Board (CDB). Many felt that important development decisions should be made by officials the public has voted into office. Then at least there may be recourse to controversial decisions. But after witnessing the September 20th meeting of the CDB, the only conclusion to be drawn is far more frightening. The CDB has become “rubber-stamp” for developers hoping to turn hotels into condominiums, and one lawyer, Ed Armstrong, seemed to be representing many of those seeking city variances.
The Community Development Board Agenda asks participants, on its first page to, “Kindly refrain from conducting private conversations, using beepers, cellular telephones etc. that are distracting during the meeting.” This rule seemed to exclude Mr. Armstrong who held separate meetings with his “team” and sometimes with city staff throughout the hearings. At one point board member Kathy Milam commented that these antics were distracting, but this did little to stop the constant sideline conferences Mr. Armstrong held throughout the afternoon.
Within three hours, six properties, previously accommodating 383 hotel units, had been permitted to become 300 condominium units. All six projects had been placed on the consent agenda - allowing no discussion and immediate passage until one beach resident, Carolyn Cormey, asked that two applications be discussed at the September CDB meeting. Both of the properties Mrs. Cormey spoke against were eventually approved by the CDB. Several board members commented on the design achievements in planning these new developments. No board members spoke of the loss of hotel rooms or tourist revenue as an outcome of these decisions.
Possibly the worst abuse of power during Tuesday’s meeting concerned a property identified as Case: FLD2005-07066. This is a small motel bordering three streets (Brightwater Drive, Coronado Drive and Hamden Drive). Although the property runs the whole block on Brightwater, the frontage on Coronado Drive is only 67.5 feet wide and 71.68 feet on Hamden Drive (less than the minimum lot width required by code of 100 feet), and the total strip of property is only .35 acres. Not only failing to meet minimum requirements for development, the applicant had requested “termination of status of nonconformity for density” (a maximum of 10 dwelling units would be permitted under the Code) to allow an additional 8 units to be added to density being sought for a total of 18 units. After staff’s recommendation to approve denial of the “termination of status of nonconformity for density” for numerous reasons (i.e., deny the request of the applicant for development as proposed), Attorney Ed Armstrong stood to explain that his client “had and ‘epiphany’ and chose to hire him on Friday.” What was not clear was whether the epiphany was over the size of the project, or the decision to hire Mr. Armstrong.
Because of changes in the Code to restrict speculation of condominium development on Clearwater Beach (effective July 1st), the vote to accept or deny the “termination of non-conformity status” was required at this meeting, or the applicant would be required to follow new Code guidelines. Mr. Armstrong asked that the Board not only grant approval of the additional units by granting his client nonconformity status, but also allow his client to “work with staff” to design a new project, one which had not ever been presented to staff. As a gesture of good faith, the applicant would reduce the size of the project from 20 units to 18 units. Thus, in fact, the CDB was being asked to approve a project that it not only had never seen, but that had yet to be designed. Concept renderings were presented, including a small model, but the remainder would need to be worked out with staff.
After some discussion, one board member Kathy Milam objected, stating “I would propose to the board that we have created a building that no one knows what it will look like.” To which another board member responded, “I think all of us are familiar with the quality of the professionals that have provided testimony here tonight that are a part of the team. I think we can talk to the fact that they have testified in front of us so many times that there is a quality that would belie that concern.” To which another board member stated, “What we are granting this applicant is something we have not granted anyone else.” To which the reply was, “It may be without precedent, but…”
Needless to say, the final vote was 5-2 to grant the request of the applicant. What is worse is that new precedents appears to have been established to bend the rules for certain professionals. Has the CDB gone too far? Are they now making decisions based not on the project’s merit, but based on the “quality” of individuals representing developers?
In response to the concerns about the CDB raised at the visioning workshop several weeks ago, these comments may realistic, but too late. Only time will tell.