) Notice of Settlement and Motion for Voluntary Dismissal: At great expense, the James Place Condominium opposed the Town's adoption of a Commercial Land Use Amendment for The Cenacle property to benefit the hotel developer who was under contract to purchase it. During the adoption process, the Town refused to require the developer to obtain the other necessary approvals (rezoning, special exception and site plan approvals) at the same time in order to insure that the project as sold to the Town (high end resort hotel) would indeed be developed. They merely said that they would trust the developer and its attorney, Al Malefatto. After filing a challenge, the Town, James Place plaintiffs and the developer (who had written consent from The Cenacle to represent its interests during the process), a settlement was achieved with all parties. Most importantly, the Town agreed that it would change the land use back to Residential if the developer did not close on the contract to purchase The Cenacle property within 90 days of obtaining the other required hotel approvals. Based on the written settlement agreement, the James Place plaintiffs dismissed their appeal challenging the Commercial Land Use. 2) Minutes of Town Council Hearings to Change the Land Use Back to Residential: A year went by and the developer did not close on the property. After stalling James Place and repeatedly attempting to not change the land use back to Residential, the Town finally agreed to so after James Place presented unrefuted written proof that the developer had cancelled the contract and therefore no other hotel approvals would be sought or forthcoming. The minutes reflect the Council's reluctance but there was proof of the cancellation and the Town's agreement to rescind the Commercial Land Use. The developer's attorney (Malefatto), had even gone on record at the hearings to initially change the property to Commercial, that the Town could change it back to Residential if the project did not move forward. That is the same attorney by the way that is now representing the owner of The Cenacle property and says that The Cenacle was not bound by the Settlement Agreement with the Town, developer and James Place plaintiffs. Because the vote was in late October, 2010, a few months before the March, 2011 election, the Council supported changing the land use back to Residential. 3) Ordinance O-13-2010: This is the Ordinance that attempted to change the land use back to Residential as the Council had agreed to via Settlement Agreement. 4) Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing: This petition was filed by the The Cenacle convent by Al Malefatto, who formerly represented the hotel developer and is on public record indicating tha the Town could change the land use back to Residential if the hotel project did not move forward which is what happened. The Town did not even notify James Place that such an appeal had been filed and only after inquiring with the Town did they find out about it 6 weeks after it was filed. 5) Response to Initial Order and Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance: This is the Town's initial defense of itself (which was essentially not any) and their attempt to stall the case to April 1st, which would keep the matter from becoming an issue in the March elections. The Cenacle and the Town agreed to stall the case under the guise of entering "settlement discussions". 6) Order Placing Case in Abeyance: The Administrative Law Judge granted the Motion ot Hold Case in Abeyance unitl April 1, 2011. 7) Petition to Intervene: The James Place plaintiffs that were a party to the Settlement Agreement filed a Petition to Intervene in order to protect the settlement that required the Town to change the land use back to Residential and in order to be a part of any purported "settlement discussions" between The Cenacle and the Town and to defend the Town's position in voting to change the property back to Residential which The Cencacle challenged. 8) Order: The Administrative Law Judge granted The James Place plaintiffs the right to intervene to help defend (or defend it in its entirety as the Town was not putting up a defense) the Town's position to change the land use back to Residential and to be a part of any settlement discussions of the case. 9) Motion to Continue to Hold Case in Abeyance: The Town and The Cenacle would not agree to hearing dates so that the challenge to the Residential land use could be heard. Instead, the Town filed another motion to stall the case. The sole reason was that the Town and The Cenacle had secretly struck a deal that the Town would reconsider its second reading on Ordinance O-13-2010 which changed the land use back to Residential. The purported plan was to allow the Town Council to vote again now that the elections were over and if didn't support that Ordinance on second reading, the land use would stay Commercial and the appeal by The Cenacle and the James Place plaintiffs participation in it would be rendered moot. Thus, the Town would try to avoid complying with the Settlement Agreement and they would give The Cenacle a Commercial land use and the tax base that it wanted but which was at the expense of the residential neigbhorhood. 10) Response to Initial Order: The James Place plaintiffs filed a Response to Initial Order to expose what was occuring and to try to set a hearing date in order to defend the Residential land use adopted by O-13-2010. The Council acted on its secret deal with The Cenacle to reconside its prior vote at the March 28th Town Council meeting at 10:30 pm! There was no agenda item for it. The audio of that portion of the meeting can be heard by going to the following link and forwarding the tape to about 3:29 which is at the very end of the meeting. http://www.lantana.org/page.asp?PageId=589 There was no notice given to the neighborhood or the James Place plaintiffs. Note that when Councilor Austino raised the very legitimate concern about giving notice to the neighborhood, the Town Attorney merely said that there will be a legal ad in the newspaper! 11) Order: The Administrative Law Judge remarkably granted another extension to postpone a hearing on the merits of the case until May 16th during which time the Town is attempting to have the Council reconsider its vote on Ordinance O-13-2010 to deny on second reading the change The Cenacle property back to Residential land use which would result in the property retaining its Commercial land use but without any provision for the promised high end resort hotel. The hearing will be held on Monday , April 11th at 7:00 pm. It is imperative that everyone come out and hold the Council to its promise (set forth in the Settlement Agreement) to change the property back to Residential. 12) Town's Future Land Use Map: This map clearly reflects the inappropriateness of allowing a 10 acre Commercial piece of property in this location. There is only strip commercial (100 feet deep) east of Dixie from The Cenacle north property line all the way north to the bridge. This property intrudes over 1,100 feet east of Dixie with residential on both the north and south sides of the property. To the south is the Town of Hypoluxo which has even less commercial east of Dixie, south of The Cenacle. 13) Aerial Map: This aerial clearly depicts the impact that the development of The Cenacle property will have on the single family and multi family residential areas to the north and south of The Cenacle property.
The various documents referenced are listed below. The documents are in chronological order.
Future Land Use
Aerial view
document 1
document 2
document 3
document 4
document 5
document 6
document 7
document 8
document 9
document 10
document 11
Created on ... April 08, 2011