Mediation of Dispute between the City of Palm Coast and SeaGate Homes Fails – Trial Expected
City invites SeaGate to mediation conference but remains intransigent in its position.
December 28, 2007 – Palm Coast, FL – A City of Palm Coast zoning action seems headed to trial. Back in March of this year, in a story which I followed closely (read related stories), the City of Palm Coast denied local developer, SeaGate Homes, a request for a FLUM (Future Land Use Map) amendment and its related zoning application for a PUD. SeaGate proposed Ryan’s Landing, a 67 home planned development on 27.79 acres off Ryan Drive.
Prior to the denial, the city requested and received several concessions from the developer, including an agreement to gift to the city land for a 5-acre park, land worth between $250,000 and $500,000. But when the city, in a blatant extortion attempt, pushed SeaGate to further pay up to $90,000 to build and equip the park, the developer drew a line in the sand. The standoff resulted in the denial of the application. SeaGate filed a lawsuit.
When the city’s application to dismiss the suit was denied, it requested a mediation conference. SeaGate agreed but the recent mediation conference failed to bring the parties any closer. While neither party could comment on the mediation meeting itself, they each issued comments.
From Jim Scott, attorney for SeaGate, “After the Court refused the City’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, the City Attorney contacted us and invited us to mediation. Since mediation is a formal settlement conference, we assumed that the City intended to negotiate in good faith a resolution of our differences. Although we are prohibited by law from revealing what occurred in mediation, we can say that it turned out to be a waste of our time. We anticipate a trial to occur in the latter half of 2008.”
From City Manager Jim Landon, “I’m disappointed that we weren’t able to bring this issue to a close, but I was also not willing to compromise city council’s position to protect the neighborhood,” as reported in the Flagler Times.
Landon’s statement is misleading and disingenuous. It is simply political spin and grandstanding. It leads one to believe that he is trying to protect the neighborhood with the implication that SeaGate is not. I attended the two city council meetings that resulted in the denial of the FLUM amendment and PUD request. Here are the facts:
-
During the public comment portion of the meeting, not a single resident of the neighborhood spoke. No one spoke either against the development or for the park. In fact, when SeaGate held several meetings with area residents, they expressed, at best, ambivalence toward the park.
-
SeaGate’s plan called for a single paved entrance to the development. As required by code, a second unpaved “emergency only exit” was provided. The city demanded a second paved entrance even though area residents expressed serious safety concerns about the second entrance when they were surveyed by SeaGate.
-
The request for the FLUM amendment was initiated by the city staff and received no negative comments when reviewed at the state level.
At the time of the original council decision, Landon was new on the job. The idea to have SeaGate pay for building and equipping the park was his idea, perhaps in an attempt to “mark” his new territory, much as dogs do. But he, with the council’s voting assent, was wrong. It’s time for Jim Landon to back away from a bad strategic move. Perhaps our newly elected council members, untainted by the original council vote, can encourage him to do so.
SEGATE SUES
SEAGATE: I DIDN’T GET MY WAY SO I AM SUING. I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY IS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHTS TO DENY THE APPLICATION. WE DO NOT NEED TO GRANT DEVELOPERS ANY FURTHER REQUESTS.
Developer rights
Mr. Holland obviously thought it ok to allow a developer to build his home, and now that he has it he is trying to prevent others from enjoying our beauties. What Mr. Holland needs to know is that Seagate has the right to develop this land in 1 ac tracts. Toby, you accurately depicted the City\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s stance on this and have shown the greed that our elected officials will go to in an attempt to extort from business people. I also attended the meetings and not only were the residents of this area ambivalent about the parks, they spoke specifically against them in meetings previous to the second reading and yet Councilman Venne at the time demanded the park, fortunately he is gone.
SeaGate Mediation
Gene,
My good friend. It is of my opinion, that you are railing against the wrong party. This is an apparent attempt of legalised extorion, on the part of the city of Palm Coast. When I left Massachusetts 15 months ago, I had hoped I had left this type of leverage far behind. It reminds me of the tact of one of the Bulger Brothers, although it must be Billy as Whitey would have killed somebody by now. I just hope the city fathers do not hold up the Town Center project in the same fashion, as it will be hard to live through another \”Big Dig\”.
Seagate Sues
Good for the City! It’s about time someone said no. We do not need any more home developments. We have a glut in the market, what we do need is a moratorium. All the overbuilding is destroying the county and depleting our water supply.
Seagate Mediation
Kudos to you, Toby. This is nothing but extortion on the part of the City. Why do some developers get their PUD\\’s approved while others have to resort to building parks and condescending to a city that refuses to allow progress.