Christine Tollette’s election campaign claims that she voted against supporting a hotel/motel in the ROR/Commercial district. This is incorrect. There was no such vote. The decision before the Commission was to authorize or not authorize the Mayor to have the P&Z work on a motel/hotel definition and what kind of rental unit will be allowed. That’s what they voted on.
To read more click on ‘comments’.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
2 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: Our Anna Maria Blog invites significant and thoughtful discussion. It is not, however, a democracy. Comments considered offensive or innappropriate may be removed at the discretion of any one of the blog administators without notice. If the removal of your comment may offend you, it is probably best that you not comment at all. After typing in your comment, click on the "Subscribe by email" link (below, right) to have email alerts sent to your computer whenever a new comment is proffered regarding this post.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The first agenda item for the April 9, 2009 Commission Work Session meeting was: “Discussion to Amend Code to Allow Motels in the Commercial District.” During the April 9th meeting, Commissioner Tollette said “It is my understanding that we weren’t actually talking about motels in any commercial district but just looking at those 6 lots at the end of Pine because, believe me, I wouldn’t want motels being built on any other commercial piece of property.” What was she implying? She did not make it clear that she was opposed to a motel on the 6 vacant ROR lots across from the City Pier. She did not acknowledge the many citizens’ letters and comments opposing new motels in our city.
ReplyDeleteReferring to Tollette’s comments, Attorney Dye said “…when you were first starting the discussion, she mentioned that she thought the only appropriate place in the City were the lots next to, across from the Pier. And I want to caution the Commission on that… if we start focusing on one piece of property this early in the discussion, and try to craft it so that’s where we end up, there may be a possibility that it could be seen as spot zoning or contract zoning or something like that.”
Commission Chair John Quam and Commissioners Dale Woodland and Joann Mattick acknowledged the correspondence and comments of the many, many people who opposed allowing new motels. Quam and Woodland made strong statements about why they opposed new motels in the City of Anna Maria. Quam said “I don’t see the need on this Island as we are overloaded with tourist accommodations.” and he said we didn’t want increased intensity in traffic congestion around the City Pier or Gulf and Pine areas. He also thought if we allow motels there would be a conversion to a condo complex and he referred to condo conversions in Longboat Key, Bradenton Beach and Holmes Beach over the past several years. Woodland said that he had supported having the motel discussion and that he said he was in agreement with the people who feel that hotels and motels would not be a good thing for our City and would have a negative impact on the quality of life of the residents.
John Quam and Dale Woodland were not in favor of moving the motel issue forward to the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z). At one point, Chair John Quam said “The question I can see is, do we want to proceed and have the hearings before the P&Z?” Dale Woodland answered “No”. However, the meeting then turned to discussion about definitions.
Contracted City Planner Alan Garrett read the definition of hotel/motel to the Commission after Commissioner Chuck Webb asked, “Is there a definition of motel?” The definition says: "Hotel and motel mean a building or structure or group of buildings or structures which provides three or more lodging units within a parcel or lot kept, used, maintained or advertised as, or held out to the public to be, a place where sleeping or housekeeping accommodations are supplied for pay to transient or permanent guests or tenants. A hotel or motel shall be deemed to include establishments which provide residential living accommodations on a more-or-less permanent basis, such as an apartment hotel."
continued in next comment
Near the meeting’s end there was the following exchange:
ReplyDeleteChair Quam: “It would appear that we have nothing to pass on to the P&Z. Is that correct?”
Tollette: “No! We do.”
J. Mattick: “They should work on the definitions.”
Tollette: “of what is a ‘motel’”
Webb: “What type of, let’s put it this way - What type of multi-unit is allowed in the City?...”
Because April 9, 2009 was a Work Session meeting and not a voting meeting, the issue moved along to the Commission Regular Meeting of April 23, 2009 where agenda item #7 was “Authorize Mayor to Request P & Z Board to Determine a Definition for Motels/Hotels and What Type of Rental Unit Will be Allowed.”
Between the dates of the April 9th and April 23rd meetings the City and Commission received many, many comments and letters from people who did not want the City to proceed with the motel issue.
At the April 23, 2009 Regular Commission meeting, the meeting room was filled to capacity with concerned citizens who wanted the motel issue put to a stop. The Commission did not vote against a hotel/motel in the ROR or Commercial district. The motion was: Chair Quam moved that the Commission deny the request to Authorize the Mayor to Request the P&Z Board to Determine a Definition for Motels/Hotels and What Type of Rental Unit Will be Allowed. Commissioner Woodland seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 to 0 (Webb was absent).
Christine Tollette and the other Commissioners did not vote for or against supporting a hotel/motel in the ROR/Commercial district. That was not the vote. Tollette, Quam, Woodland and Mattick voted to not authorize the Mayor to have the P&Z work on a motel/hotel definition and what kind of rental unit will be allowed.
All quotes above were transcribed by me from the City’s actual audio recordings of the April 9, 2009 and April 23, 2009 Commission meetings. Anyone can purchase tapes of their recorded meetings for $2 per tape. I attended both meetings and purchased the tapes.