Longboat commission denies proposal to build four homes in Longbeach Village

The Longboat Key Town Commission listened for hours Monday to north-end residents opposed to a plan to replace a group of six apartments with four single-family homes before rejecting the proposal unanimously.

The plan to redevelop the property at Longboat Drive North and Broadway Street would have been the first to use provisions of the Conformance Overlay Redevelopment District. CORD, which took years to develop in the town, was approved in 2019 as a way for owners of properties that no longer conform to town planning standards to rebuild in a way that meets modern-day market expectations.

Town Attorney Maggie Mooney and town staff are expected to bring back a development order on Nov. 15 to formally explain the Town Commission’s rationale for the denial.

“The order will be written explaining why it was being denied, so that the applicant and the affected party and others can have access to the rationale in case they want to take any other action,” Town Manager Tom Harmer said.

The Town Commission spent hours Monday discussing and reviewing the proposal, ultimately deciding the developer didn’t meet three of the CORD review criteria:

• Consistency with the intent of the CORD;
• Whether the request is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, which is the Longbeach Village neighborhood in this case;
• Whether development is not contrary to the interests of the town and/or does not adversely impact or affect the public interest

“As far as I’m concerned, and as a 15-year chairman of the Planning and Zoning (Board) that developed this, there was no way that I ever would have thought that this project that came to us today would have been eligible for the CORD,” At-Large Commissioner BJ Bishop said on Monday.

Attorney Richard Lawrence of SRQ Property Law represented Cypress Cash during Monday’s Town Commission meeting. Lawrence read verbatim from an opinion from the Florida Second District Court of Appeal on rights of ownership in support of his client's proposal, saying there was nothing in town code that specifically should set his client's plan aside.

“Since zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in zoning ordinances should be given the broadest meaning when there is no definition or clear intent to the contrary, the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner,” Lawrence said.

One of the prime arguments leveled by Longbeach Village residents was that the six apartments had long been vacant, so any new residential activity would make for a sudden change in the comings and goings of the neighborhood.  

Lawrence and attorney Robert Lincoln argued against residents’ claims that the property was abandoned.

“The fact that nobody was living there simply isn’t abandonment,” Lincoln said.

Town officials produced records of utility payments throughout 2021 and evidence of water usage in October.

While no tenant lives in the building now, Mooney said courts have maintained that intent is often necessary to prove abandonment.

Fox Street resident Thomas Alvord is among the Village residents who sent emails to commissioners opposing the 551 Broadway proposal.

“The biggest complaint I have is their rental agreement that they had is basically bogus,” Alvord said. “I mean, sure, it may be legal as far as the rental agreement, but there has been nobody living, sleeping there, moved anything in there to become an occupant or resident there.”

Several Longbeach Village residents voiced their opinions on Monday, including Carla and Pete Rowan. The Rowans bought their Broadway Street home in 1980.

“The look of the four houses squeezed just don’t fit into the neighborhood,” Pete Rowan said. “Two houses would be ideal.  If they put three houses down there, those three lots, I guess that would be acceptable, (but) squeezing four is just too much.”

In a phone interview with the Observer, Village resident Fred Kagi expressed his concerns about the potential flooding impact of adding four homes.

“Once you open this neighborhood to condos, it’s just opening up a bag of worms as far as I’m concerned,” Kagi said.

Architect Bob Rokop, who served as a consultant on the proposal, also spoke before the Town Commission on Monday.

“I would submit that four modest homes of 2,500 square feet would be more sympathetic to the Village than one large 10,000 square foot home on that corner, which could in fact be constructed without any community input,” Rokop said.

Rokop, who was a resident of the Village from 1994-2014, said he presented Cypress Cash’s proposal to about 10 community members in March at Whitney’s.

In September, the Longboat Key Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously in favor of a plan amendment, rezoning ordinance and site development plan.

Lincoln wouldn't answer questions about what comes next for his client’s plans, referring questions to  Lawrence. Lawrence was not immediately available for an interview.

On Monday, Village residents agreed with the Rowans about their preference for two homes at the site. They argued the developer could make just as much money building two homes instead of four if they are properly built. Ultimately, most residents said they wanted to see something new built at 551 Broadway St., though.

“They made the case of ‘we want one big house,’” Pete Rowan said. “I wouldn’t mind one big house. It’s on the water.”

Property records show 551 Broadway St. was built in 1946, with a renovation in 1981. It was initially called Lerfald Landing. Including the two Longboat Drive North addresses, the property is about 19,635 square feet or about 0.45 acres.

Town documentation shows each of the four proposed homes would have been two stories and would have had about 2,500 square feet of living space.