Letter: Why would city who said NO to me say YES to Corneal?

David Lowther
St Augustine, FL

Dear Editor:

These were my comments to the St Augustine City Commission Monday night. My questions were not answered. My concerns were ignored by four people who are supposed to be representing me and following the law.

I’d like to talk to you about adverse effects and precedent, but you all have heard my words, so I thought I’d use the statements of people who support the current PUD. Not their statements from today, but from the minutes of a 2010 PZB meeting where they opposed a 5-room bed and breakfast at my home, 268 St George Street.

I hope the Commissioners will appreciate that I’ve redacted the names of non-public figures in the interest of cordiality. But let me be clear – these individuals OPPOSED a PUD for a 5-room bed and breakfast in HP-1 in 2010 and now SUPPORT a PUD for a 30-room hotel in HP-1.

One St George Street resident noted “noise factors, social events, lighting, traffic and deliveries” as concerns. She went on to say that she “felt that the quality of the neighborhood would be greatly affected by a bed and breakfast.”

Another St George St resident “indicated that the property was currently listed for sale and the approval would be marketed as part of the selling points. He said traffic back-ups for 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon were common for the area.”

“Don Crichlow said the board would set a precedent by approving the item. He said the City had been consistent with denying this type of application in the HP-1 district. He strongly recommended that the board deny this type of use within the HP-1.” Mr. Crichlow went on to say “that the application would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.”

Mr. Valdes, a PZB member then, said he “believed that when a person purchased a piece of property within a particular zoning category that they should feel somewhat protected.”

That PZB, which contained three members that approved the PUD before you today, unanimously denied that application because they found that nightly rentals in HP-1 adversely affect the residents of HP-1.

I see this as your opportunity to set the next stone in the wall defending HP-1 and ALL of residential St Augustine from commercial encroachment.

However, if you choose to approve this PUD in HP-1, you will establish a different precedent and I suspect this will be the first of many applications. I expect to be adversely effected by this PUD. As my neighborhood and quality of life are eroded and diminished, when my streets are overly congested and unsafe, my family may choose to live elsewhere.

In that event our home becomes a property. We would be forced to consider its highest and best use. We are allowed to rent apartments by right, but I have heard that some surrounding property owners would rather have a hotel than apartments.

We would certainly be interested in maximizing profit though nightly rentals- 5 rooms or maybe more!

With approval of this PUD, the precedent will be there, you will have established that some very nice historic preservation IS an acceptable justification for a PUD.

I am sure a City Commission who approves this PUD would feel obligated to approve mine. Except for one problem: I don’t want to move.

Please deny this PUD so that my family can continue enjoying our neighborhood.