Firmenich Decision Considered a Victory For All Sides
Residents, city commissioners and even the developer all seemed pleased with the outcome of Monday's marathon meeting in Safety Harbor.
Photos
When Mike Brundage, a Safety Harbor attorney who lives in one of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Firmenich property, stepped to the podium during the city commission meeting Monday night, the proceeding took on a different air.
Operating under the rules of a quasi-judicial hearing for the rezoning portion of the Richman Group of Florida’s application, Brundage was allowed to represent a group of residents who were steadfastly against the latest proposal from the developer.
As soon as he took the dais, he began to politely yet expertly grill officials about the agreement, and the questions came at a steady and unrelenting pace.
“Is it your opinion, in your position with the city, that this appraisal comes right out and says this project will not have an adverse affect on the adjoining land, in terms of property value?” Brundage asked community development director Matt McLachlan.
“It’s my opinion that his conclusion supports that conclusion,” he responded.
Brundage asked Robert Pergolizzi, consultant for the Richman Group, if he was aware of any other offers to put a residential or industrial complex on the property.
“No I am not,” Pergolizzi replied.
“So then comparing the proposed use to industrial use is really theoretical, isn’t it?” Brundage asked.
“It is theoretical,” Pergolizzi responded.
In total the attorney questioned the two officials for more than 15 minutes, and then it was time for the other affected parties who had been sworn in to have their say.
Want to read more about development and other local issues? Sign up for the free Safety Harbor Patch email newsletter and you won't miss a thing!
Those who took the podium included Steve Rosenthal, Russell Norman and Christina Jackson, all residents of communities surrounding Firmenich; each of them made salient points regarding the proposal.
“How can you come out and make a blanket statement that it (the complex) doesn’t have any adverse affect (on property vales) if you haven’t used one example to substantiate that claim,” Rosenthal asked of the developer.
Norman, who has been doing extensive research on the issue for months, then asked a question no one had an answer for.
“Fowler’s automotive sits right there where the entrance is going to be. Did anybody talk to him? I asked him and he said it will be a nightmare for his business.”
Following Rosenthal’s presentation, which was bolstered by a slide show of other Richman properties in the area, Mayor Joe Ayoub asked a light-hearted question.
“So I guess it’s apparent you don’t like the project?”
When the laughter subsided, Rosenthal responded, ”No, I don’t particularly care for it. I would like to see lower and less.”
As it turned out, that’s exactly what he got.
Following all the testimony, cross-examination, rebuttals and closing statements, the five commissioners began to discuss the proposal.
As the clock approached midnight, the commission came to an agreement that they would like to see significant changes made to the plans: buildings no taller than three-stories and a reduction of at least 30 units using the same footprint or smaller as the current proposal.
The developer agreed and said they would be back at the next commission meeting in two weeks with a revised proposal.
Afterward there was a feeling of relief from residents and satisfaction on the part of the commission.
"I'm so excited they listened to us," Jackson said. "Tired and excited."
“I’m happy that the commission came together and gave specific direction to the developer about what that city wants,” Mayor Ayoub said.
“I see a lot of smiles here. We still have a long way to go, but I think we took a step in the right direction.”
Brundage said he definitely believed the commission took the public's concerns into account in reaching its decision.
"I feel like the commission listened to the public, which is very gratifying to me," he said. "I think the dialog that happened at the end was very positive."
"Before this meeting tonight I thought this was going to get approved hands- down," he added. "The way the commission finally decided this meeting was clearly in reaction to what they heard tonight."
Robert "Bobby" Saltzman
7:48 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
So here is what many people fear. The property, being turned over to a tax exempt status (section 8 housing) that the City has written in to the proposal. I am not sure how much water this can hold if a “successor” (buyer) say’s “we are not filling the units therefore we are turning a certain percentage of the apartments to Government Assisted Affordable Housing”. I don’t know if the City can stop them from doing it or will Federal Fair Housing law trump the City’s restriction? The City seems to want to try to indemnify itself from losing tax revenue. But it does nothing to prevent surrounding residences from losing value due to a change in the makeup of the current rental property residents.
As I see it the Developer or its successor will be giving up nothing as it pays the City with Government money they receive to subsidize the apartments.
(cont)
Robert "Bobby" Saltzman
7:49 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Proposed Development Restrictions
Tax Exempt: The Developer further agrees that it will not take any actions to render the property “tax exempt”, Including but not limited to, availing itself of or filing an application for any tax exemption which currently exists under Federal or State statute or may exist in the future. In the event that the Developer or any successor owner of the Property violates this provision of the agreement, in addition to all other remedies available at law and in equity, the City shall be entitled to receive annual monetary payments from the Developer (or successor in interest) in an amount equal to the amount equal to the amount of lost ad valorem Tax revenue to the City. As calculated by the City.
Harborite
7:53 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Great job Atty. Brundage! Your cross examination of City officials and represntatives of the Richman group really turned the tide at this quasi-judicial rezoning hearing. Local residents living in neighborhoods adjacent to the Firmenich property also spoke very eloquently as to how these excessively large apartment buildings will negatively impact their neighborhood and the rest of Safety Harbor. You all did a great job in your efforts to prevent the Firmenich property from being excessively overdeveloped and causing a traffic nightmare on SR 590. We were all happy to see the Richman Group being told to come back with a revised proposal to create a smaller scale project that will create less traffic problems and better fit within the character, scale, and height of other Safety Harbor buildings.
Jules
9:42 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Section 8 Housing sounds bad but what it does is keep all convicted felons from living there and people have to qualify so many are disable and single parents. Convited felons can't live there no matter whose name the apartment is in, if they are caught living there, everyone in the apartment is evicted. It also guaranties the rent will be paid each month by the government which in turn will keep the complex always looking good and rented. I do feel for all the folks about their lose in property value and their lack of privacy in their pools with 3 story apartments behind them but they ALL knew that the property was zoned Industrial when they built their homes many years ago. You would think they would be happy about apartments instead of an industry bringing in and out employees at one time on 590 and McMullen-Booth. No one likes change but folks it is going to happen and we should look at the positve if people live there they will spend there money locally which will be good for all the area. If an industry comes in all those folks will come to work and go home still crowding our street but taking there money and spending it someplace else. I
Michael
2:32 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Convicted felons can be a neighbor to any of us. My problem is the government paying the rent. The last time I checked, we the people are the government and I don't much like my taxes going to support investors tax exemptions. Government paid rent only guarantees the investors will be paid not the taxes and not a beautiful complex. Forgive me, but your words don't sound like you feel for your neighbors loss. By the way I embrace change, but not reckless change that doesn't take into account the negative impact on the surrounding community. At the meeting a business individual spoke out in favor of the existing plan, said they were appalled, then suggested those against were discriminatory for their concern for over development. To me your comment is flawed and by virtue of Monday nights continuance, way to eager to ignore your neighbors legitimized concerns.
Dee Dokumaci
9:14 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Very Well Put Michael...
Robert "Bobby" Saltzman
10:31 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
All good points although I disagree with the residents coming downtown to shop. But there may be some but there will be no left turn out of the complex. I just don’t see folks turning up McMullan Booth and coming back down Main St but I am sure some will.
My point here is that the City covered itself and leaves the surrounding homeowners to basically to fend for themselves. We all know something will be built but we want it to be conducive to Safety Harbor's small town feel
Gary Moos
2:10 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
@ Robert, I agree, something will likely be built there and it should fit in with the feel of Safety Harbor. I'm not sure why the commissioners are settling for a smaller disaster rather than. Spelling out what they would accept.
Mike Shaw
3:29 pm on Sunday, February 10, 2013
This is not a victory for the people of Safety Harbor! Once the developer make the money they will be long gone and the local residents, the community of Safety Harbor and elected city officials will be at the mercy of potentially poor management and poor upkeep, potential low-income housing, and growing traffic problem.
I have nothing against low-income housing and lived in such a place as a child. What I have a problem with is CENTRALIZED low-income housing. It doesn't work! It becomes a hub for criminal activity and a bad reputation can easily be created. That is why most cities are removing these centralized housings and disbursing the renters into the community where they have more pride in where they live.
Also, think about the potential traffic which is a mess on 590. Add in foot traffic from kids or adults crossing to go to the Hess gas station or Publix and you have a dangerous, overcrowded bottleneck.
Also, if the developer reduces the number of floors, don't you think they will try to maximize their profits by lowering project costs and installing cheaper internal fixtures and cut corners to make the numbers more atteractive?
Nice townhomes like at the entrance on Mainstreet would be more appropriate.
Dee Dokumaci
7:50 pm on Sunday, February 10, 2013
Hey Mike, this is exactly my concern as well as many others who are directly affected by this project & as you described townhomes such as entrance on Main Street could work but that still doesn't help with traffic problem, I still feel a country club with a golf course would be the best choice, I am telling you that will also bring the property values sky high, look at the house values around Bellaire, Clearwater, Dunedin, Tarpon Springs golf course properties, our town needs this, that's what makes properties prime real estate, it would bring so much revenue to our town, I wish this could be possible, why is it so necessary to have bunch of brick dwellings that takes away charm from our town, please City Officials rethink this thoroughly, lets be green conscience & breath in the fresh air, enjoy the beautiful grounds this property could be!
Long time ago I used to live in a beautiful subdivision called Walden Lake in Plant City, it was a gorgeous place which had a beautiful Country Club & Golf Course plus its own bank, grocery store, salon, travel agency, medical offices among other necessary businesses a community usually has, that place had so much charm & it still does, they are very careful about who gets access to build there is an association that handles all that, here's the link http://www.waldenlake.org/ so I strongly believe we can achieve this kind charming community right here in Safety Harbor for all of us & future generations, thank you!
jarine
5:56 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I still think 3 stories is too high. It makes for an institutionalized feeling. I like that the commissioners recommended the developer change the facade to fit in with Safety Harbor; i.e. Southern Architecture feeling. I heard at a Westshore Alliance meeting, that the general direction of developers today is to create upscale apartments because folks that used to be able to buy condos/townhomes have had their credit ruined when the economy tanked. The feeling is the apartments being developed today will eventually be turned into condos/townhomes once the economy and credit reports improve. Don't know if that's true overall..but just mentioning what I heard from a Tampa developer perspective.