Please review this rather long post. This is my best effort at correcting the record:
The Village of Palmetto Bay residents are being misled to believe
the village has issued a building permit when in fact the village has modified
the plan to reduce density, add a public park and put in a provision to conduct
a traffic study for the Palmetto Bay Village Center. The bottom line, this plan has no greater
impact than what was previously approved by the village council. It is time for Palmetto Bay residents to
check the record to see how Palmetto Bay has now preserved 40 acres, now
protected forever from a developer’s bulldozer, by transferring the potential
development rights for 85 units from the 22-acre site along Old Cutler Road to
the interior of the PBVC. We have slowly chipped away from a pre-incorporation
massive starting point of 1,465 units and the potential of up to 1.25 million commercial
sq. ft., down to the 485 units capped by Council action on Monday, May 2nd. There are a lot of added benefits that came
with the transfer such as more green area, a public park for the residents, the
protection of 22-acres from development, new traffic requirements that was
never present before, limited growth of the commercial structure, and interim
use of an existing building for classroom space and senior programing. There are the protections installed – and
most important of all, as I explain further in great detail below, no actual
development has been approved. It can
only move forward after future zoning hearings – public hearings and detailed
action.
We have worked over the years to reduce traffic impact. There are NOT 400 new units. We are working
to manage and reduce this project. The
truth is that over the years we have carved out – taken away, reduced, removed
over 1,000 potential units from the PBVC. That’s traffic impact beneficial to
our community!
I can understand when political candidates distort the facts for
their political gain. But it is
surprising when such distortions are promoted by sitting council members and
efforts are made at dividing this community.
History of the Burger King, now PBVC Site:
The property in question – originally the Burger King World
Headquarters, now known as the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC) was once a
site slated for very dense development.
When Burger King purchased the Old Cutler property in the late 70's the
County approved rights of up to 1,465 units on this site.
In 1985, Burger King got an approval to build and 311,000 sq. ft.
of office space was constructed. But, the
site had rights to build approximately 1.25 million sq. ft. plus an undetermined amount in the rest
of the property. That, for the record,
is FIVE TIMES the size of the building that exists today.
These rights traveled to the new owner when Burger King sold the
property. This means that PBVC purchased the property with certain rights
attached (described in the paragraph above.)
The government cannot simply take away these rights, except through the
court system or through agreement with the property owner. It was the latter alternative
that we sought to do.
Village Mixed Use District (The “VMU”)
In 2004 a charrette process was done that included 590 units,
commercial space, a school and hotel which went through a public process – 42
public meetings were held. The process
resulted in the 2008 adoption of the VMU (Village Mixed Use district). This VMU was a significant reduction and
not an expansion of the rights granted to the property from prior County
actions. Where there had previously been
up to 1,465 units or approximately 1.25 million sq. ft. of commercial, the new
VMU limited development to 400 units, a hotel and about 550,000 sq. ft. of
commercial, down from almost twice that.
It left the front 22 acres to be determined at a later date based on a
trending of development rights. Note
that the 22 acres in dispute were not included in the VMU. Since, I have been trying to save the 22
acres from development without unilaterally taking away property rights.
Resolution no. 09-11 was passed on January 12, 2009,
during my prior term. The goal contained
in the resolution was to try and acquire this parcel with help from the
Environmental Endangered (EEL) Funds from the County. Why? To ensure they would not be developed. That goal, however, was seemingly dropped by
the subsequent council (which included the present Vice Mayor) – No action was
taken on it after I left office in November 2010. Now ask yourself, why would the initial
council attempt to get the County to buy lands that some argued were
“protected”? The answer is because the
lands were endangered – meaning they were threatened by potential future
development. Th2 22-acre parcel was
under a covenant requiring a visual landscape screen to block the view of the
commercial building from Old Cutler Road, not a ban from development. The facts of the covenant were discussed in
detailed by our village attorney at the council meeting of Monday, May 2nd. The covenant could survive no more than 30
years, and the visual screen requirement expires in 2019.
It is also interesting to note that Vice Mayor Dubois recused
himself from that vote in 2014 (as he did on the first reading of the latest
action, yet ‘un’recused himself and participated in the final vote on Monday,
5/2/16, but ONLY after sending out an inflammatory, factually incorrect and
self-serving press release on the same date).
What really occurred on Monday, May 2, 2016?
There was no “Final approval” for construction granted to any of
the 485 units. Remember, 400 were
already authorized under the previous plan, so the issue centered over the 22
acres not part of the VMU. 85 units were determined to be the smallest supportable
number and then those rights were sifted to the VMU. As far as development is concerned, the
Council vote Monday night did not approve or grant 485 new units. Simply stated, the vote moved the owner’s
developmental rights for 85 units from the 22 vacant acres to the interior
(VMU) of the PBVC.
This was a change to the long range plan of the PBVC – part
reclassification, part determination and settling of the development rights of
the 22 acres and a shifting of those rights AWAY from Od Cutler Road and the
adjoining neighbors. The plan also
amended the existing 400 units from partial senior housing to conventional
units. A traffic study commissioned by
the village documented the lack of traffic impact from the change in
designation.
And to be blunt, ZERO units is not an option.
Historically, we have been working our way down from the original 1,485
figure. It is an undeniable fact that I,
we, have worked with the property owner over the history of these proceedings
to reduce the impact on our community to the greatest extent possible. Yes, from the owner’s original rights to
1,485 units and the possibility of up to 1.25 million commercial sq. ft. DOWN
to the 400 units on the VMU property (obviously not including the disputed 22
acres).
And, I cannot restate this enough - the property owner cannot build any of
these units without going through public zoning process and obtaining approval
after public hearing, and after considering the newly imposed traffic
requirements placed on the property by the Schaffer amendments. So why all the
misinformation that makes it appear that there will be a start of construction?
Why no mention of the newly imposed traffic protections requirements?
Why 85 units on the 22 acres by Old Cutler Road– where did they
go?
The Village has professional staff. We have a Planner and a Village
Attorney. The evidence presented was
that, if the owner of the PBVC were to attempt to sue for full rights on the 22
acres, he could claim between 85 units, which represent the lowest supportable
number, to a maximum of 220 units, which is likely not supportable if
challenged. A court could easily find
that the applicable number is between 85 to 165 units.
In the end, 3 of the 5 council members went with the lowest number
– 85. Based upon this number, the 85
units were transferred (not granted ‘final approval’ for actual development)
and the long disputed 22 acres will now be transferred from the PBVC to
ownership by the people of Palmetto Bay.
This is a great day for Palmetto Bay and for everyone who values preservation
of endangered lands. We have a park, not more development on Old Cutler Road.
The ever shrinking hotel
Remember the hotel (few do).
Three out of five members of the village council further restricted the
developer's rights by reducing the number of units to 485 inclusive of the
hotel – this means that each hotel room built takes an entire unit off the property. This is a further reduction, far from any
expansion, of the vested property rights of the PBVC.
Shrinking the future commercial space
The majority vote from 3 out of 5 village council members also
effectively limits the office space to what they currently have (remember –
what they currently have there now is one-fifth of what could have been built
out there under original county plans).
Adding traffic limitations – a new protection
Councilman Schaffer offered an amendment that was accepted and we
went even further to require traffic studies in an area that is exempt from
such studies. This is a new level of
protection for Old Cutler Road and will work to ensure that the impact is minimized. The 400 units cannot have a greater traffic
impact that the prior vested right of 100 town homes and the 300 senior
housing.
What did Palmetto Bay gain in return? Your park, our piece of
mind.
The Transfer of developmental rights (the 85) has the added
benefit of preserving a natural forest area, reducing development.
Senior programing anyone?
The Vote from 3 of 5 council members also allows for the use of
building C (an existing, currently little- used building) by the Village as interim space for senior programming and
classroom areas.
The real “Sad Day” for Palmetto Bay
It is incendiary to incite residents with unsubstantiated emails
and comments that we approved 485 NEW
units to be built. We built the barn,
but the horse has not left the barn. Far from it.
The truth is what was approved has less impact than what has been
approved in the past and this does not mean that any of these units will ever
be built. (It is equally foolish to try to claim that only a few or none of
these units will ever be built). In the
end, 3 out of 5 members – voted to cap the number of units, not permit them to
be developed.
Perhaps the two dissenting council members would prefer that the
22 acres eventually be built out, devastating a current stand of nearly extinct
Miami-Dace County Pinelands and lush hardwood hammock. Perhaps the two dissenting council members
would prefer to allow the possibility of the property to be developed based
upon 80 acres, not the 40, that we, the 3 members of the village council
removed from the developer’s possession, and, therefore, the calculations.
I personally find it very distasteful that those on the losing end
would be so disrespectful to our residents and to this council by trying to
divide this village with the same tactics that current members of this council (inclusive
of a future political candidate) so fervently criticized in the past. I know that the Palmetto Bay residents have
not yet forgotten the hard lessons of the Palmer litigation.
Quasi-judicial decisions require evidence, not sensationalism and
political gamesmanship
Part of the village action taken on Monday night were what is
known as “quasi-judicial” – this means that decisions must be supported if
challenged and must be based upon the evidence presented, not emotion – and
certainly not based upon scare tactics, mistruths or vitriol. We as a village face issues always but you
elected us to make the hard decisions, not to allow the courts to make
them. A quality leader would work (as 3
of the 5 did) to avoid returning this village to Palmer style issues (though,
for some, the politics of division does play well at election time).
The 3 majority members of the village council could have taken the
politically expedient course and voted no, and played the “we defended the
neighbors’ card” – which was the tone set by the inaccuracies that were
circulated. But this would only show
weakness, an unwillingness to lead and would have simply allowed the courts to
overturn a decision based upon political pandering, unsupported by the record,
and then determine the maximum, not a reduced property right (at potentially
huge legal costs to the taxpayers). By making this decision, we have controlled
the number of units allowed to be built and the area upon which they will be
built, rather than leaving us at the mercy of the courts.
Focusing on traffic
We know and understand that traffic is the number one priority to
all of us, but we know that we cannot place a moratorium on vested property
rights. We have to focus on what we can
do to help minimize traffic.
Some final thoughts, and a request for civility and to retake the
high road
Property owners have vested property rights. We must follow the law. It is easy to simply say “stop traffic” and
issue blanket denials, but failure to follow the law will only result in
renewed Palmer style litigation. Perhaps
that is what certain council members and political office seekers would prefer
– political grandstanding, and then the ability to blame the court for granting
even greater property rights to the property owners.
Ask yourself if you want to hear the facts and have leaders who
actually lead or do you prefer the politics of misinformation, grandstanding,
passing the buck and resorting to being defendants in litigation through
pushing the hard choices off to the court system.
3 out of 5 council members listened to the evidence and then made the
right decisions for Palmetto Bay residents that further reduced the overall
density on the PBVC property, obtained park land and will increase traffic
protection when and if any of the residential units move forward to
zoning.
Ask yourself, who on the council (I respectfully suggest it is the
3 of 5) who are leading this community; trying to make this community a better
place. And who is merely trying to defame reputations with misinformation
simply because their either did not get their way or for political gain at the
expense of our sense of community.
I ASK US ALL TO STOP, ASK US ALL TO WORK TOGETHER and, if we
disagree, to discuss it peacefully and professionally at an open council
meeting, not behind closed doors.
Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long
explanation. I remain available to
discuss your concerns.
Very truly yours,
Eugene Flinn, Mayor
Monday is Memorial Day, a day to honor the brave men and women who gave
up their lives in defense of our ideals and country. We owe our peace and
democracy to them.
