Received via email 11.8.23:
I am writing to address the issue of the Brazilian/County intersection. As all of you know, this is a dangerous difficult intersection for pedestrians, bikers and cars. I would suggest that either a light or a roundabout could resolve these issues. Are those options being considered?
Thank you,
Christine Watkins

Received via email 11.8.23:
Town of Palm Beach Planning Commission and Town Council:
I am writing to express my views about the extraordinary request that the Brazilian Court is making to the town to change the allowed use for their parking lot and to extend those rights to other hotels in town in the future.
I live in the 300 Brazilian block and attended the Brazilian Court’s informational session on this project on Monday. I would like to share my thoughts with you:
1. Much more information is needed to determine the scope of the Brazilian Court’s parking problem and what alternative solutions are available to it, beyond building a huge garage with a 6,000 square foot spa on the top floor.
2. The town insisted (rightfully so) that the new owners of the Chesterfield have parking in West Palm and shuttle their employees to the island; that could be effectively used in this situation as well.
3. The residents in this neighborhood aren’t really concerned about this employer’s parking problems. The existing lot sits 20-70% empty nearly every day. Employees apparently are not allowed to park there. Many park in the 2-hour spots and move their cars every two hours. This doesn’t provide any particular problem for the local residents, as we have our own garages, driveways, and permit-only parking spots to use.
4. What does bother us is the ‘racetrack’ around Australian, Hibiscus, Brazilian and Coconut Row. The Brazilian Court valet parkers literally will go 40-50 miles/hour up the street and roll through every stop sign, endangering residents, their families, and pets.
5. Adding a 6,000 square foot spa to this densely populated and already-busy area will only add more employees, more patrons, and therefore more cars racing around the block.
6. The residents of Brazilian Avenue have suffered 2 years of noise and disruption from the utility undergrounding project. The last thing we want is another 2-year construction project with lane closures, noise, and additional traffic.
7. Further, the Brazilian Court owner was unable to define where all the 50 cars that are currently handled in the open lot would park during those 2 years. He suggested ‘perhaps’ they could get some spots in the Hibiscus/Worth garage or in the office building at the corner of Hibiscus and Royal Palm. If that is indeed a viable solution, I suggest it could also be an immediate and long-term solution to his parking problem.
In his letter to local residents Richard suggested that the purpose of the Monday meeting was to ‘hear if you have any concerns, incorporate solutions into our proposal and weigh in on the potential improvements to the immediate area…’. When I said I would like to propose a compromise solution I was told he was not interested in our ideas. I made my proposal despite that, which was this: I believe the neighborhood would support doubling his parking capacity by adding an underground level to his lot, as proposed in his plan. A nice 4’ white wall could be added to around the ground level lot, and more landscaping, to make the area more attractive. The spa would be eliminated. The owner said he would ‘never’ spend money improving his parking area unless he got the money-making spa to pay for it. The idea that this project is ‘good for the neighborhood’ is a red herring. The conclusion I believe those attending all reached is that variances for a spa harm the neighborhood, increase noise and traffic and benefit no one but the owner of the Brazilian Court.
There are less expensive solutions that are less disruptive, don’t increase traffic in the neighborhood, such as leasing or buying a second lot, doubling, or tripling the parking capacity by doing underground parking, shuttling employees from West Palm Beach, etc.
Finally, the luncheon clearly brought to light that there is a lack of trust and good faith with the neighbors; historically the Brazilian Court has not been responsive to nor prioritized neighborhood concerns. Many examples of this were raised, and clearly residents did not feel that the business operates with the best interest of the neighborhood as a priority.
In summary, who does this zoning change benefit? Solely the Brazilian Court. They can solve their parking problem. That is not their goal here. Their goal is a new money-making spa. A spa in a dense residential district such as this adds more traffic and a disruptive construction project, and decreases safety in an already busy area.
I ask that you reject this proposal.
Christine Watkins

Received via email 11.8.23:
To whom it may concern.
My name is Stephen A. Levin, and my primary residence is located at 237 Brazilian Avenue. I am opposed to this development and would like my name to be noted as such.
Regards,
Stephen A. Levin

Received via email 11.8.23:
Dear Town Committee,
I am a resident at 227 Australian Avenue, PB and will be directly impacted in a negative way if you give the Brazilian Court permission to build the Garage and Spa.
We are a residential zone that is already crowded. I understand the first permission some years ago was incorrectly given so they could make that property a car park.
The Town Zoning Board should not compound their problem by building on a problem. They should have never been giving this "carve out" to building a car park in the first place in this area zoned for residential use.
I vehemently oppose giving the Brazilian Court Hotel permission to build a garage and spa.
Thank you
Regina Lee

Received via email 10.26.23:
Hi, please don’t change the building codes to allow a garage, that’s why there are strict codes! We don’t want our town to be even more commercial than it is!
Thank you.
My best, Lotsie

Received via email 10.26.23:
Please note that I am against granting the owners of the Brazilian Ct many variances to allow them to build a parking garage.
It is not in keeping with the neighborhood and if this is granted every commercial building new and old will want there own parking garage. They are no attractive and will not enhance the neighborhood.
Thank you, Crista Ryan
Crista Ryan
President
Tina Fanjul Associates & Casa de Campo Real Estate
220 Sunrise Avenue, Ste. 103 | Palm Beach, FL 33480

Received via email 10.30.23 from Tina Fanjul:
I am in opposition to changing zoning codes in a e residential neighborhood. Please do not pass these changes Tina Fanjul Sent from my iPad

Received via email 10.31.23:
I am writing to strongly oppose a proposal by Brazilian Court to build a garage and spa.
This is another example of corporations expanding in this town; which already is a nightmare for parking, driving and general over growth.
The attractiveness of Palm Beach is suffering by a focus on expansion, like the Brazilian Court building a garage in a residential neighborhood.
Sincerely
Edward E Madden
429 Brazilian Ave

Received via email 10.31.23:
I would like to voice my opposition to the request by the Brazilian Court Hotel to build a parking garage and spa on the property currently used as their parking lot.
Nancy H. Madden

Received via email 11.1.23:
To Whom It May Concern,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing as a concerned homeowner to express my strong opposition to the renovation project of the Brazilian Court in our neighborhood.
While I understand the need for infrastructure improvements, I firmly believe that this project is not in the best interest of our community. There are several compelling reasons for my opposition:
1. Increased Traffic: The construction and operation of a parking garage would inevitably lead to increased traffic in our quiet neighborhood. This not only poses safety concerns but also disrupts the peaceful atmosphere we value.
2. Environmental Impact: The construction and daily operation of a parking garage couple have negative impact on our local environment. Increased air pollution and noise pollution would harm the wellbeing of residents and the natural surroundings.
3. Property Values: There is a genuine concern that property values in the neighborhood may decrease due to the presence of a parking garage. This can have a long term financial impact on homeowners.
I implore the commission to reconsider the necessity of the parking garage and engage in thorough dialogue with the community. It is essential that we prioritize the well-being and interests of homeowners who will be most affected by this project.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue.
Jennifer Jordan McCall | Partner
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
2550 Hanover Street | Palo Alto, CA 94304-1115
31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131
324 Royal Palm Way, Suite 220 | Palm Beach, FL 33480

Received via email 11.3.23:
We strongly oppose the parking structure. We love our neighborhood. Kiwi and Landon Hilliard
Kiwi

Received via email 11.3.23:
I am absolutely against this project
I live at 227 Australian Avenue
Kathrine Palmer

Received via email 11.6.23:
Dear Palm Beach Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council,
My wife and I live in the Melbourne House condominium building on 227 Australian Avenue, which abuts the Brazilian Court parking lot, and we are writing to express our strong opposition to the Brazilian Court’s bold proposal to create a parking garage and add 90 additional parking spaces in our residential neighborhood. We are also expressing disappointment with our town officials and the hotel itself that this proposed change has moved so far along with a draft amendment on the table, with no formal input from residents to date. Apparently, this proposal was submitted in July, staff comments were received in August at the same time the applicant presented the request to the Town Council. In addition, there were “subsequent meetings with staff” that apparently moved the applicant to choose a different course of action and to file a text amendment to the current zoning law to avoid 20 variances. Where was the resident input in this early part of the process for such an important change?
We don’t even know where to begin, as we are finding out at the eleventh hour. If there has been any analysis or study done of this situation to justify this proposal, it has not been shared with us to date. We are not able to attend the hastily arranged informational luncheon on Monday, nor the zoning meeting on Wednesday as we have prior commitments, but felt we needed to write a letter to voice our frustration and views on what has transpired here. Below are a few questions/comments we have on the proposal:
1. The proposal does not indicate any demonstrated need for the increase in parking by 90 cars from 50 to 140 cars (the July letter from the attorney states 60 to 140?). The hotel and restaurant have not added any seats or rooms that we are aware of in years. Was a parking/traffic study performed? Having lived in this quiet neighborhood for over 5 years now, we see little in the way of parking/traffic issues affecting us coming from the Brazilian Court. In addition, we have plenty of our own parking on site, so our residents and guests are not taking up any nearby spots in the street and thus not affected by alleged on-street parking issues. However, we would see much more traffic congestion, as would the surrounding neighborhood, if the Brazilian Court were to valet 90 more cars than they currently do.
2. The parking lot is a pre-existing non-conforming use as it is, allowing 60 spaces where 37 are permitted. The hotel should be pleased with what they have and not look to further intensify the use of this property by adding significantly more spaces and a large non-conforming parking garage structure in a residential neighborhood. The proposed zoning change is designed by them, for them, around this specific lot, reducing required setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaped open space, to avoid asking for a multitude of variances. In addition, there is a proposed line in the text amendment allowing “at most 25% dedicated to commercial uses”, with no reason given for why this was inserted. The rumor is that they wish to add a spa to the top of this garage, but no explanation is provided.
3. We received a notice dated 10/23/23 to attend a luncheon tomorrow on 11/6/23, with no accompanying materials, plans or documents, yet they wanted to “explain in detail the plans that have been submitted to the Town of Palm Beach”. Why were we not given a written proposal, so we had time to review it? The purpose of the luncheon is to “weigh in on the potential improvements to the immediate area by alleviating parking, traffic and valet disruptions that you may currently be experiencing from the hotel.” As stated previously, we are not experiencing any of the above and believe adding 90 valet spots will only increase the intensity of use of the Brazilian Court hotel, the parking site itself and increased traffic and valet disruptions.
To recap, this proposal is so outrageous and so far off from the letter and spirit of our zoning rules that 20 variances would be needed to build the proposed structure, which should be enough to stop most applicants. However, the Brazilian Court is instead attempting to re-write the zoning code to accomplish their desired goals and has provided little communication or justification for such a monumental change to our laws. We strongly oppose adding any text amendments for valet parking garages to the current zoning code for our neighborhood, and we trust that our town officials will do what is right for the residents and reject this proposal.
Sincerely,
Tom and Anne MacCowatt

Received via email 11.7.23:
Dear M. Churney,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the Brazilian Court Hotel’s proposed garage on Hibiscus Avenue, Palm Beach. My husband John Hays and I own at apartment at 227 Australian Avenue. We spend a significant amount of time in Palm Beach and enjoy the intimate, low streetscapes that makes midtown Palm Beach so compelling for so many residents and visitors.
TOWN CHARACTER:
My family moved to Palm Beach in 1976 and I grew up on Barton Avenue. In these intervening 40+ years, I have witnessed the development of the town and understand that communities must mature to meet the needs of changing demographics, infrastructure and climate. That said, Town of Palm Beach’s unique architectural character and small town charm, ease and functionality are amongst its most important assets. And they are almost gone! Thoughtful, conservative development must be implemented to save the Town that we all know and love so well.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROPRIATENESS:
Architecturally our neighborhood is low-storied. The Brazilian Court Hotel likely set that standard when Rosario Candela designed it in the late 1920s. Its wonderful, understated lines and intimate interior courtyards are graceful and modest. At only three stories high, the building is a dignified neighbor. I am including photos to illustrate the area immediately surrounding the proposed garage. The surrounding homes are low, no more than two stories. A large garage would be a blight that undermines the reserved grace of the block, the street and the neighborhood. When I walk our dog, I see many tourists stopping to take photographs all along Australian, Brazilian and Hibiscus avenues. A garage will not attract compliments or worthwhile attention.
QUALITY OF LIFE/SAFETY:
Hectic night life activities, over-developed commercial and residential buildings and seasonal traffic jams are ruining the town’s sensibility and ambiance. A garage in a residential where none has ever existed before is another threat to the calm atmosphere which people seek and cherish in Palm Beach. Squealing tires disturb the peace and racing valets late at night endanger pedestrians. The uptick in traffic (many more cars) creates hazards for residents and visitors who walk their children and pets on the sidewalks and streets. The streets between Cocoanut Row and South County are heavily trafficked night and day. Adding a garage to this district will further undermine quality of life and safety.
In sum, please respect the neighborhood’s overwhelming domestic character, architectural restraint and intimate feel. A noisy, busy and architecturally incongruous garage/spa edifice does not belong. The Brazilian Court is listed on the National Historic Registry. The Town of Palm Beach should protect the visual legacy of the Brazilian Court and Rosario Candela and its historic contribution to the neighborhood, town and American architectural history from a short-sighted garage plan.
Thank you for your attention,
Bliss Summers Hays

Received via email 11.6.23:
Dear zoning Commission and Town Council I am a long time resident of Palm Beach , having lived here most of my life , I moved here in 1952 , and I feel our town is under attack , I am very much opposed to the proposed zoning text amendment to R-C medium Density Residential District , I don’t feel this application should be considered , while our zoning code is being reviewed and under possible change , I understand if this zoning amendment were to be approved , the Brizilian court would not have to apply for 20 variances!!i Many of my friends and neighbors , feel the town officials and staff are pro development and business , and also not transparent with residents , it has also been said that the Brizilian Court wants to build a large spa on top of the parking garage , this will definitely bring more people and traffic to our town ! I will state again I am very against this proposal , and hope the town officials will think about the responsibility and duty they owe the residents, I appreciate all that you do for us , know it’s not always easy . Best wishes , Ann Summers
reject
Sent from my iPhone

Received via email 10.30.23:
Dear Commissioners,
I write in strong opposition to the application for zoning code change and variances on the parcel located on the southeast comer of Brazilian A venue and Hibiscus Avenue.
This property is in an attractive residential area. The requested changes would be an unlawful taking from the residential property owners in the area. The owners of the residential property in this area purchased their property with the anticipation of enjoying the peace and quiet of this Town of Palm Beach neighborhood without commercial enterprise.
My wife and I purchased our home approximately ten years ago on Brazilian A venue because it was a charming and attractive residential neighborhood. We do not want this attractive residential neighborhood to be damaged by a large commercial structure, which is out of place with the other buildings on Brazilian A venue and Hibiscus A venue.
The owners of The Brazilian Court were well aware of the zoning restrictions when they purchased the property. They should respect that zoning and not damage this residential neighborhood with a commercial structure.
The residents of Palm Beach purchased their residential properties with confidence that the zoning regulations of the Town of Palm Beach would protect their neighborhood. Changing the zoning regulations and allowing the variances would destroy the trust that we and other property owners have placed in the Town of Palm Beach.
Respectfully yours,
Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs.
Gretchen Leach
325 Brazilian Avenue

Received via email 10.30.23:
Re: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to R-C Medium Density Residential District
Dear Mr. Murphy and Ms. Hofmeister- Drew
I currently own a residence with my wife located at 341 Hibiscus Way, Palm Beach, Florida,
33480.
I understand that CSC Brazilian, L.P. has submitted a proposal for a zoning code
amendment to the R-C (Medium Density Residential District) Zoning District regulations, Division
5 to provide for a valet-only operated parking garage structure on an existing non-conforming atgarage
parking lot located at 301 Australian Avenue, Palm Beach, Florida and more particularly
described as Lot 41, Block G, Revised Map of Royal Palm Beach Addition, Town of Palm Beach,
Palm Beach County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 1, of the Public Records of Palm
Beach County, Florida (the “Proposed Garage”) for accessory use to the Brazilian Court Hotel. The
Proposed Garage is adjacent to my property to the north.
Based on discussions with the Company and pursuant to a mutually satisfactory
agreement, we have no objection to and FULLY SUPPORT the Proposed Garage and the zoning
code amendment.
If you have any questions or need further information, you can contact me below.
Sincerely,
Roy Carroll

Received via email 11.7.23:
Re: Objection to Proposed Zoning Text Amendment to R-C Zoning District to Permit Valet Only Parking Garage Structures (Zon-23-107)
Dear Ms. Coniglio and Planning & Zoning Commissioners:
Our office represents Ambassador Howard H. & Mrs. Gretchen Leach the owners of 323 and 325 Brazilian Avenue. In that capacity we have reviewed the Application ("Application") by the Brazilian Court Hotel ("Applicant") to create zoning regulations within the R-C Residential District for a commercial Valet-Only parking garage ("Garage") on an existing non-conforming surface parking lot ("Parking Lot"), as an accessory use to the hotel. A number of problems with the Application should prevent its approval.
As set forth in Ambassador Leach's letter of October 27, 2023 (attached) on its face, the Application will inextricably change the existing charming, quiet, residential neighborhood by adding the noise, light, and traffic of the proposed two-story commercial Garage into the neighborhood. The Applicant knew when it purchased the property at the corner of Brazilian Avenue and Hibiscus Avenue ("Property") of the existing Town Code ("Code") zoning restrictions, and the long-time reliance on the same by the neighbors. Nevertheless, the Applicant is requesting a garage which under the present Code would require 21 variances and almost certainly be denied.
As appears to be happening more and more in the Town, the Applicant has taken the position that if you can't build it under the Code (because it takes too many variances) just amend the Code to remove any obstacles. Such Code amendments are not based on a study or identified need by the Town but due to the desire of the Applicant. As is often the case, the Amendment also comes at the cost of something in return to the Applicant, here in the form of a percentage of dedicated accessory commercial use in the Garage (up to a 25%) be used as a spa for the Hotel.
As proposed, the Application fails for many reasons, including, but not limited to:
1. Increase in Intensity. The 80 car increase from 60 cars using the Parking Lot to 140 cars in the commercial Garage on its own represents a 2.33 times increase in the number of cars and resulting traffic in the neighborhood with just one turnover of the additional cars a day. If that turnover is 3 or 5 times in 24 hours the number of additional cars (much less trips in and out) in the neighborhood and Garage skyrockets to 240 to 400 more cars a day. Such numbers clearly represent an increase in intensity of the use of the Property in violation of Policy 2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan which requires the Town minimize the transition of existing low-density areas or structures to more intensive use patterns. Additional violations of the Comprehensive Plan may exist based upon the commercial nature of the Garage and the creation of the spa in a residential neighborhood.
2. On-Steet Parking Traffic. The ability to take 80 cars off the streets does not reduce traffic, but merely allows additional cars to flow into the area and use the parking spaces formerly occupied by those now in the Garage. The result is an increase in traffic in the neighborhood.
3. Mechanical Lifts and Tandem Parking Not Permitted. The Garage uses a series of mechanical lifts as well as tandem parking. The Town Code presently does not allow the use of tandem parking 1 or lifts as they require one vehicle to be moved to allow another parked vehicle out. The result is a significant stacking of cars before a large function along with a slow down for car retrieval at the end or a night or from a large function, such as a wedding reception.
4. Additional Light and Noise. Each of the additional 80 cars packed into the Garage as opposed to on the Property represents another set of headlights (at a height taller than normal) at night to intrude into the neighborhood. Similarly, the additional 80 cars will increase noise both day and night from the entry, exit and internal movement of vehicles.
5. Garage Introduces Large Commercial Structure. In addition to trips, stacking, lifts, noise and lights, the parking structure itself will be a large
two-story commercial structure, which is out of character in the R-C residential zoning.
6. Reductions in Setbacks. It is concerning that the proposed Ordinance changes include reducing the front yard setback to only 10 feet while a single-family residence would be required to have 25 feet. Likewise, the proposed rear yard setback is less than those for single-family, town homes and multifamily use. The result is the Garage would not only create more activity, noise, and light, but also be closer to its neighbors than a normal home or townhouse.
7. Large Increase in Lot Coverage. The proposed increase in maximum lot coverage from 30 percent for single-family use and 35 percent for townhouses to 60 percent should be a non-starter.
8. Reduction in Landscaped Open Space. The proposed reduction in landscape open space from 40% for single-family and 35% for townhouses down to 25% for the proposed Garage will further reduce any landscaping protection from neighboring homes.
9. "Sealed" Garage Issues. Any attempt to have 140 cars placed inside of a sealed garage (to reduce light and noise) creates a different set of problems. The structure would require major movement of air coming in, circulating within, and then exiting the Garage typically in the form of large mechanical exhaust fans to continuously refresh the air inside the Garage which will create a disturbance to neighbors.
10. No Supporting Studies. The Amendment contains no details to identify the decibels or potential light pollution of the operation of the Garage. Likewise, there are no supporting studies on the same.
11. Applicant Must Meet Variance Standards. Given that the Amendment is proposing the expansion of a non-conforming use (the Parking Lot) it should be clear in any Ordinance that the Applicant must also meet the standards of a Variance under Section 134-387 of the Town Code. In light of all of the above Ambassador Howard and his wife continue to strongly oppose the proposed Amendment.
Very truly yours,
John R. Eubanks, Jr

Received via email
Re: Proposed R-C Text Amendment for Valet Only Parking Garages
Dear Wayne:
We represent Thomas Weller, the owner of property located at 234 Brazilian Avenue, Palm Beach FL 33480. Our office is in receipt of the proposed text amendment submitted by Maura Ziska, which would liberalize at least 12 provisions of the R-C Medium Density Residential District by, among other things, reducing setbacks, decreasing landscaped open space, decreasing required lot size for intense uses, doubling allowable lot coverage, and introducing for-profit parking facility and commercial spa uses that are not currently allowed in the R-C zoning district or the Multi-Family future land use designation of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. According to the testimony presented at the October Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant intends to utilize the proposed text amendment as a vehicle to construct a parking garage and spa
at the site of an existing parking lot at the southeast corner of Brazilian and Hibiscus Avenues (the “Parking Lot”). As it pertains to Mr. Weller, who lives directly to the east of the existing Parking Lot, the proposed text amendment enables development that would decrease his property value and disturb the quiet use and enjoyment of his property. He is directly impacted by this effort as the next-door neighbor because he will be visually impacted by the reduction in building setbacks and the introduction of more intense and intrusive uses that are currently prohibited by the Town Code and Comprehensive Plan. He thus has clear standing to challenge any application to intensify the Parking Lot.
Most importantly, the proposed text amendment cannot legally proceed because it violates the text of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Parking Lot is designated Single-Family on the Town of Palm Beach Existing Land Use Map (See Future Land Use Element, Map I-1, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). The Parking Lot is designated Multi-Family on the Town of Palm Beach Future Land Use Map – 2027 (Id.). According to Policy 2.2.2 of the Future Land Use Element, the Multi-Family Moderate Density future land use designation is “[i]ntended to accommodate and preserve residential development at a maximum density of six dwelling units per Palm Beach acre (40,000 square feet) and a maximum height of two stories. Appropriate uses include single-family, two-family, townhouses and multi-family dwellings, residential PUD’s as set forth in Policy 11.1.2; mixed-use PUD’s as set forth in Policy 11.1.3; public uses and facilities; public and private schools; private group uses; group homes and foster care facilities.”
Objective 7 of the Future Land Use Element provides that “[t]he number of uses incompatible with the range and location of land uses, identified in the Town’s Future Land Use
Plan Map, shall be reduced by attrition; and, no new uses shall be permitted that are inconsistent with the community’s character and the Town’s Future Land Use Plan Map.” To further implement this Objective, Policy 7.2 of the Future Land Use Element provides that “[t]he Town shall prohibit replacement or expansion of uses found to be incompatible or inconsistent with the range and location of land uses identified on the Town’s Future Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map.” Stated differently, the Comprehensive Plan explicitly requires the “phasing-out” of nonconforming uses and prohibits the expansion of these uses.
It is clear that expanding allowable uses in the R-C zoning district to include for-profit parking garages and accessory commercial facilities, such as a spa, would violate the provisions of Policy 2.2.2, which governs the allowable residential uses in the multi-family future land use category, and Policy 7.2, which prohibits the proliferation and expansion of non-conforming uses. A similar proposal was addressed by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals in Gateway Southeast Properties, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, 960 So. 2d 771, in which the Court reversed a finding of consistency with the Town of Medley’s Comprehensive Plan on the basis that the Ordinance amending the plan “permits expansion of a non-conforming use, which the Comprehensive Plan destined to be phased out. This violates the Florida Growth Management Act’s dictates that local plans be ‘implemented through the adoption of land development regulations that are consistent with the plan.’ Here, as the Ordinance unequivocally ‘deviates or
departs’ from the parameters of the Plan, we cannot hold that it is consistent.” (Internal citations omitted).
Adoption of a text amendment that clearly creates inconsistency between the Town’s Code and Comprehensive Plans is illegal and should be thwarted at the outset to avoid unnecessary time and legal expenses for all involved. Given this clear legal principle, it is unnecessary at this time to address the specific negative impacts this text amendment would cause Mr. Weller or the policy implications of encouraging a parking garage and commercial spa in a low-density residential neighborhood that is not served by an arterial or collector roadway. We reserve the right to address those concerns after the threshold matter of illegality is determined.
Very truly yours,
James M. Crowley, Esq.