Planning board overturned on appeal by local hotelier

In one of the most civil meetings of the St Augustine City Commission this year, the third of three meetings at City Hall yesterday, one that had commissioners in the Alcazar Room until 9:45 p.m. before Mayor Nancy Shaver finally dropped the gavel, a reversal of the decision of a lower, appointed board — something not regularly witnessed in the past.

The decision of the St Augustine Planning and Zoning Board to deny the local owner of the Quality Inn, Farid Ashdji, to move forward with construction and an upgrade to a Hyatt Place hotel – based on available parking – was overturned on appeal after commissioners found that the board had not properly considered an available parking sublease on adjoining property.

“Clearly the owner of the property, Fraser Properties, has every confidence in Historic Tours of America, who holds a 20-year lease, and will have more than enough parking capacity to make a long-term lease for twenty-five additional parking spaces,” Mayor Shaver told local Historic City News reporters.

The Ashdji appeal was approved, and the builder will not have to return to the planning board on this issue since he won the appeal Monday night. It is possible that the parking controversy could be moot, depending on a final decision by the developer on other issues, like the height of construction and number of hotel rooms.

The reversal of a decision by the Historic Architectural Review Board, or Planning and Zoning Board, is rare. If at all possible, the commission tends to defer to the decisions reached below, a position that arguably is well reasoned under normal circumstances. However, last night’s appeal was better founded than the Board’s reasoning in reaching the original decision.

Later in the evening, Commissioner Sikes-Kline led a discussion that dealt with the composition of the Historic Architectural Review Board. The commission has been considering the possibly of increasing the number of board members from five to seven. Due to past recusals resulting from conflicts presented when applicants appear before board members who are doing work for them, there was also discussion of including at least one member who would not be soliciting local work. The options discussed included allowing the appointment of interested parties not fitting the qualifying criteria as set out in the Code for board members, although, by the showing of a community need and an abundance of benefit to the community by the appointment, non-conforming appointments are already addressed.