Letters to the Editor

The recent editorial urging Longboat Key’s residents to vote “Yes” on the referendum for the Mote Scientific Foundation property is spot on. It’s time for the property to be put to a productive use consistent with the quality and low residential density that would be appropriate for this area of Longboat.

Your editorial did contain a statement that could possibly be misconstrued. You stated, “Who knows if Brista Homes wants to develop a maximum of 10 units.” This suggests that more than 10 units could possibly be constructed on the property if the referendum passes.

Any such suggestion would not be correct. The referendum question itself, if approved, specifically limits development to a maximum of 10 residential units. That is all; not one more. If approved, there will be homes for 10 families constructed with an island charm in a matter to maximize open space and with extensive landscaping. Voters can learn more about our project at our Facebook page The Cottages at Mote Cove.

We realize that emotions run strong and opinions differ regarding the Colony referendum question. We submit that the referendum question on the Mote Scientific Foundation property, as your newspaper has noted, is a different issue for a different property for a vastly different use, and a “Yes” vote is in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers of Longboat Key.

Mark Ursini, President, Brista Homes Inc.

Daly and Brown deserve support

I write wearing my private-citizen hat. 

As a year-round resident of Longboat Key, a taxpayer, and a voter, I strongly support the candidacy of Jack Daly and Jim Brown for Town Commission.

Jack Daly and Jim Brown have proven records of dedicated service, along with thoughtfulness, seriousness, and wisdom in carrying out that service.

Terry Gans, Longboat Key

Collaborative process would work best

My wife and I have been residents of Longboat Key for over 12 years and have been thankful for the natural beauty of the island. The Colony referendum to increase the density from the already nonconforming 13.6 units per acre to 24.1, a 77% increase, severely challenges this uniqueness and for this reason, we encourage a “No” vote.

The proposed site plan (as of mid-February) for the Colony redevelopment with the higher density shows four buildings of 12 or more stories and another building of five to seven stories. To achieve the high number of 417 units (vs. 237 now), the plan appears to minimize any setback distance, particularly along the sides and oceanfront, and relies on building height considerably beyond LBK code. This is disturbing to us as residents of Aquarius since the tower-like structure nearby would shadow at least partly our pool and building.

Just this past week, though, the LBK Planning and Zoning Board has decided to recommend to the Town Commission certain restrictions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulation, one stating a maximum structure height of 80 feet. And Unicorp has now proposed the building heights in its plans will be not more than “eight or nine stories” rather than the 12-plus stories. So, Unicorp realizes high-rise buildings aren’t liked here — and besides the code will probably require this.

I must say the illustrative concept site plan presented by Unicorp last month caught us by surprise. During the past two months, Unicorp has been communicating their vision for the Colony, but unfortunately it doesn’t align with the town’s vision exemplified by the simple phrase “Keeping Longboat Longboat.” Others have expressed better than I what this vision means. I would like to focus on what happens after the referendum and Unicorp, or other developer, offers hopefully a better alternative.

Going forward, an effective approach to achieving buy-in, especially from the community, might be to use a collaborative, participative work process whereby major stakeholders (e.g. developer, community leaders, neighborhood groups, town zoning and planning and regulators) work together jointly and early on in a team effort. It sounds rather idealistic but it can work. Public hearings provide community members the opportunity to comment and are helpful but their input is usually reactive and not very interactive with other stakeholders. Rather than reacting to analyses, conclusions and recommendations already prepared, community members can be more participative and proactive if they are part of the planning process. This Colony redevelopment team would ensure the vision proposed for the site is consistent with the town’s and would agree on key design concepts, plans and requirements, including compliance with code restrictions and evaluation of impacts to the neighboring residents, community and environment.

Integrating this approach into the town’s PUD process would ensure adequate input from all concerned parties prior to review of any proposed departures from code, or the conceptual site plan and final site plan. Since it can lead to enhanced trust, less contention, and ultimate buy-in, it should be considered for the Colony whether or not the referendum is passed.

To be clear, we are in full support of redeveloping the Colony and would like it to start earlier, rather than later. But we do not support the higher density required to squeeze several buildings into a relatively small area. Along with this would come more traffic on already congested roadways. And finally, perhaps most importantly, is the cascading effect this referendum could have on the 47 other non-conforming properties. If passed, these others could likewise expand their number of units — think of that! And also think of using a collaborative, more participative approach to achieving buy-in from all interested parties as the planning process unfolds.

We respectfully ask that LBK voters declare “No” on the March 14 Colony referendum ballot.

Dave and Diane Marsh, Longboat Ley

You can’t put a price on island’s character

This letter is being written to urge LBK voters to vote “No” on the Colony referendum.

My wife, June, and I have been owners at Tencon Beach Association since 1997. I am a Florida resident. I have been the president at Tencon since 2003. Tencon is located directly south of the Colony.

From the late 1970s until the Colony closed in 2010, Tencon leased approximately 2.3 acres to the Colony. That land included nine tennis courts, a basketball court and a parking lot. In addition to rental income from the lease of our land, Tencon owners enjoyed full membership privileges at the Colony. Those benefits included room service, beach towels, access to the concierge for golf and other reservations, free maintenance of our beach and grounds, the use of the pool and the spa, the use of the health club, and free tennis. This didn’t include the benefits of just being next door to the Colony, which included three restaurants, the deli for morning coffee and a newspaper, and quality boutiques.

When the Colony closed, these amenities disappeared. If anyone would welcome a new hotel at the Colony, it would be Tencon.

For this reason, I was excited when Chuck Whittall contacted me in early 2016 to discuss his plans for a new five-star resort and his interest in striking a deal with Tencon. Beginning in early 2016, we met with Chuck three times. Our conversations centered on exchanging Tencon’s land for cash and 10 permanent memberships at the proposed hotel.

When we were unable to reach an agreement over the sale of the land, Chuck proposed that if Tencon’s owners would support the referendum, Tencon would be given the 10 permanent memberships without cost, and could keep its land. This appeared, at first blush, to be too good to be true.

I then looked at the referendum and the schematics of the proposed property, and began to understand what a density of 417 units means. Those who say that the schematics remind them of Fort Lauderdale are being kind. A more apt comparison of the fortress-like walls ringing the perimeter of the property, within feet of neighbors to the north and south, and extending twice the height of the adjacent properties, is to a Las Vegas casino. Although Chuck has recently emphasized his flexibility, there is, in my opinion, no good way to cram 417 units onto 17 acres. A reduction in height would mean reduced side setbacks and aggressive seaward construction. Less aggressive seaward construction would require greater height and reduced side setbacks. Greater side setbacks would have to be offset in either aggressive seaward construction or greater height.

Tencon owners will not accept money, membership packages or consideration of any value to support the referendum. You can’t put a price on the character of this island. 

Please vote “No.”

Dennis M. Haley, Longboat Key

Several points on why to vote ‘no’

I am hoping the March 14 referendum on a permit requesting increased density at The Colony Beach & Tennis Resort will not pass.

Our family has had a home on Longboat since 1982. There is no way that increasing the density like this will benefit the health and appeal of our island town. The proposal is completely at odds with what makes Longboat so special. The density level requested here is simply unacceptable.

Traffic: Our island has traffic problems already. It is a constant issue requiring planning just to manage where and when one goes anywhere off the Key. Adding substantially more traffic during and after the development is a huge negative. The developer may argue the percentage increase is nominal and propose potential solutions. Three points: 1) it is not nominal, it is excessive; 2) the town and taxpayers will be required to pay for and maintain such solutions, not the developer; 3) the increase in density and height for this property will lead to additional requests. The time to stop this potential density increase on Longboat is now. Also, can someone please explain to me how 180 incremental new units would reduce traffic on the island? We have traffic issues with no residents on the Colony property as it is.

Infrastructure: How can higher towers that will block the light and views of existing neighbors be a positive? More buildings and possibly having them closer to the beach are not positives. How can the latter even be considered?? It is incumbent on us to protect our environment (beach, dunes, wildlife ...) not hurt and possibly destroy it via this kind of excessive development. What about the impact on the roads and town resources caused by something of this nature being built? How about the impact on emergency fire and medical services? I am for the Colony being restored in a responsible way. If done correctly, this will benefit our community by providing jobs and tax revenues.

Sadly, the proposal at hand works against protecting the island that we all love and sets the stage to completely ruin the existing environment that makes Longboat Key the paradise that it is. Everyone we know that has ever visited Longboat absolutely loves it. How can we consider a proposal that would ruin that?

Wendy Esaw, Longboat Key

Colony parcel can’t handle all that is proposed

We all want to see the Colony redeveloped, but not with the proposals that Mr. Whittall has put forward.

It never ceases to amaze me that developers try so hard to put as much as they can on a parcel of land. It looks from the pictures as if we are in Miami. This development would, and it will not sit well in the surroundings of Longboat Key.

A two-story garage, high-rises on this parcel of land is overkill. 

The traffic that this development is going to generate beggars belief, as in the season now, it can take more than an hour to get to Sarasota. Estimated movement to and from the new Colony on any given day is 1,000 guests and residents and all the deliveries etc. ... enough said. Can this beautiful parcel of land take all that Mr. Whittall is proposing? I don’t think so. We firmly vote “No.”

Campbell and Irene Sneddon, Longboat Key