Arm-Wrestling over the Construction of a Dollar General on Gulf Beach Highway

It will be interesting to see which way the circuit court rules on the county's decision about the construction of a Dollar General on Gulf  Beach Hwy....

The group representing potential buyers of a parcel of property on Gulf Beach Highway are not giving up.  They are not giving up on their quest to build a Dollar General store in this part of the county where they felt it was appropriate and permitted under the county's land development code.

The problem for this group of would-be developers is/was that the planning board and county staff recommended that this property not be approved for a Dollar General store, utilizing the "locational criteria" --and the opinion that this development did not meet that criteria-- as their rationale for denying the permit.

So the petitioner next went to the Board of Adjustment (BOA).  The BOA heard additional testimony from county staff and held a hearing--where they ruled in favor of the county to uphold the denial of the permit for the Dollar General at this particular location.

After the BOA decision, the petitioners filed a motion in Circuit Court to compel the BCC to capitulate.  Shortly after the filing--the petitioners "froze" this filing and moved forward with an attempt at an alternative land use dispute process for coming up with a solution.

This did not work.

So the petitioners are now back in Circuit Court after "un-freezing" their filing because this additional state-sanctioned mediation between the parties failed to reach an amicable compromise.

County staff attorney Charlie Peppler wrote the county's response to the court filing by the petitioners.

It is an interesting read.  

I wonder who wins this arm-wrestling match?  Will it end up like Eager Beaver or some of the concrete crushing operations---or---did the county get it right when the permit was denied initially?

We'll see when the Judge rules on this case.

Pop-Up Tent Sale Prohibition Ordinance Passes 1st Public Hearing via a 4-1 Vote...

Some folks and their acolytes say "I'm not personally aware of any problems, therefore there must not be any problems"  which is ridiculous.  We are aware of many complaints in this "pop-up tent car sale" arena--- and the board made the wise vote 4-1 to move this regulation forward

The pop-up tent car sale ordinance passed on Thursday by a 4-1 vote.  Next month it will come back to the board for a final vote where I predict it will pass via another 4-1 vote.  One interesting comment came up during the deliberations before the vote.  One of my counterparts said he was personally unaware of "anyone coming to the BCC complaining of this issue."  But as I explained to him at the meeting--just because he doesn't know about issues with these sales--does not mean there are "no problems" with these sales.  I am personally aware of one person who recently purchased a lemon from a South Florida dealer here locally--and she is paying the price now for this "great deal!"  We also had dealers, at the podium, holding page after page of unflattering reviews of these pop-up dealers.  So, just to be clear, if one Commissioner does not know of something, this does not mean that something is not happening (as if nothing can be real unless he has PERSONAL knowledge of it)  Newsflash to this commissioner:  Large trees fall all the time in the forests--and when they do, they make noise even if you don't hear it.  But to those that believe what they hear this one person say unflinchingly--check out this email that ALL commissioners received just one day after the vote.


"Dear Sirs,
I understand you're considering whether to ban or restrict out-of-area auto vendors who set up tent sales in Escambia County.
I am all for keeping them out.
A year or two ago, I received a postcard promising a prize if I'd come by the tent to check my numbers or some such. When I went by, I was told that I'd won a gift card but they were all out. They'd send me something, the salesman said. I gave him my mailing address (which they had from the postcard, theoretically). I never received anything.
Using the scant information on the postcard, I dug around online and determined where the business was based. They used a network of business names to make it tough to track them down, but once I had it figured out, I filed a complaint with their local Better Business Bureau.
The dealer responded and promised again to send the gift card, and the complaint was quickly closed with "resolved." Again, I never received anything.
Sure, that was just a $5 or $10 gift card, not worth even the effort I put into it. However, the whole situation speaks volumes about the business.
Why wouldn't they put the name and location of their dealership on their advertising and promotional dealerships? I had to look the name up they used on Sunbiz, find the principals' names, and search for other businesses they were associated with to narrow it down.
Why would they make promises they had no intention of keeping? Twice! They set the rules for their promotion. They could have made sure that only a set number of cards had the "winning number." They could have added the notation "while supplies last" (and I never would have wasted my time going to the tent). Then they assured me they would send the gift card and never did.
If they can't handle a simple promotional giveaway and treat a potential customer fairly, I have no doubt that they would misrepresent the cars they are selling and the terms for any financing they might offer.
We are better off without them.
Thank you for your time.
XXXXXXXX   XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX  XXXXXXX St.
Pensacola, Fla."

Escambia County Wins DOAH Appeal!

This land use battle went back and forth like Forest Gump playing ping pong.....costing private citizens' time, legal fees, county staff time, and all kinds of time at BCC meetings.......

County attorney Alison Rogers and her staff are to be commended. 

They achieved a very nice win  yesterday that ends---unequivocally, unambiguously, once and for all-and rather unceremoniously- a long running and expanding land use argument that essentially began with a disagreement between the county, one citizen, and one property owner that has bounced back and forth at meetings and online like Forest Gump's ping pong balls. (was that a run-on sentence?)

But now all of that is over.   finally. finito!

The county was right and the pro se petitioner in this case was wrong, it's really pretty basic and that's the way this ends..

From the order:

"Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above.      Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development..Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding.   Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan..All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected...Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

ORDERED that the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the County LDC, is consistent with the 2030 County Comp Plan."

Read the ORDER HERE