For three years, the cryptic owners of the decrepit Old Dixie motel have been promising county officials that they’re getting ready to submit renovation plans and end the building’s history as an eyesore to nearby residents and a legal ordeal for the county. On Tuesday, the county’s Planning Board finally got to review that plan. But it couldn’t bring itself to approve it.
The owners’ recent legal wrangles with the county gave the board members pause even as the county’s attorney told them to set those wrangles aside. Two board members doubt the room plan for the hotel is viable as a business. They think the owners are trying to pull a fast one on the county. Another board member can’t abide the owners’ failure to have paid the county a $250,000 performance bond three years ago, and snubbed a judge’s order to pay it two months ago. Nearby residents who addressed the board all urged it not to approve the plan for various reasons, lack of trust chief among them.
The board didn’t. It tabled the application to the September 10 meeting.
“We could be a little bit more pensive and get some cautious and just get some more details rather than just approving and saying, Well, okay, we trust everything and it’s fine,” Mark Langello, who chairs the board, said. “The concerns that everyone has on all these different elements would definitely mean at least a continuance.”
“I would ask that this board not hold against the applicant the fact that they’ve breached their contract with the county by not providing the performance bond,” Assistant County Attorney Sean Moylan cautioned the board. “It is not the requirement of a site plan. And what we’ve seen them assert in the court is that ‘the county is telling us to refurbish this site, but at the same time denying us the ability to do so.’ And so we take that argument away from them by just setting that aside and letting us pursue the bond through the court system.” The county is taking that approach “so that they don’t say we are putting them in a catch 22, denying a site plan because they didn’t give us a bond.”
Moylan wasn’t trying to be kind. He bluntly said that the current owners “blatantly breached their contract with us, and they told the judge they were going to do it, and they did it.” At the same time, he was trying hard to insulate the Planning Board from the ongoing litigation.
“I know Mr. Moylan told us that we shouldn’t consider the performance bond,” Michael Boyd, a board member, said. “But I’ve been involved with people who have violated their performance bonds before, and I know what problems that causes, and time and money, aggravation and everything else. And also, the fact that the easement hasn’t been straightened out.”
“They do not have an easement recorded for the utilities. They’re dead in the water,” Moylan agreed. “Even if you were to approve this, they can’t do anything until they get that easement.”
The property had been a 50,137 square foot hotel and restaurant on an 8.6-acre site since 1973, back when the Holiday Travel Park used to be Jellystone Campground and Plantation bay, the gated community, used to be Marco Polo Park. The motel was was a Travelodge, then a Country Hearth Inn, with an adjacent restaurant called the Rodeo, a Mexican restaurant. Both closed in 2008. The property has been vacant since, and was often the playground of vandals, vagrants and varmint. It has been through four different ownerships since. The last two attempted to refurbish the motel. The first failed and sold it, the second set of owners is still trying, albeit through rubble-mounds of controversy, unkept promises and missed deadlines.
Those owners are locked in litigation with the county over a $250,000 performance bond the owners were contractually obligated to pay three years ago. They never paid it. The county sought a court order to have the bond paid and won that order in June. The bond has still not been paid. Th county also sought to demolish the motel, calling it a nuisance. A special magistrate stopped that, giving the owners another chance to make good on their pledge to redevelop the property. The magistrate was convinced by the owners’ argument that they were submitting a site plan.
That’s the site plan the Planning Board was reviewing this week. The county’s Technical Review Committee reviewed the plan on June 20 and July 17, provided comments and recommendations, and was satisfied by the project engineer’s answers. (See those plans in full here and here.)
The hotel lobby and the restaurant have been demolished. The 99 motel rooms have long been gutted. The site plan projects a renovated building rebranded as the Henry Hotel with a new lobby, new pool, and a 6,520 square foot restaurant (including 1,352 square feet of outdoor seating) called the Flagler Chophouse, a name easily mistaken for a pun on the property’s history. The motel would rebuild with 62 rooms instead of 99. There would be 39 one-bedroom suites, only one of which would be accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 20 studio suites (one of them ADA-accessible), plus three single queen rooms (one ADA-accessible). The property would have 181 parking spaces.
The room plan bothered Mike Goodman, one of the Planning Board members, who got the sense that the motel would end up being a facility offering lengthy stays to people. “They’re not designed as your typical hotel room,” he said. “If this was on the beach, I could understand it, wanting to do suites. But you know, something about the way these rooms are laid out doesn’t pass a smell test, and it’s very discerning to myself.” He wanted a condition placed on the hotel to limit stays. But that was not in the Planning Board’s prerogative. “In the back of my mind is the thought that someone’s trying to pull the wool over eyes.”
“I think that’s a fair point,” Moyland said. But he told the board that its authority was limited. “Your role is rather narrow here. You’re looking for technical compliance with the rules in our appendix when it comes to site plans. So you’re not determining use. You’re not allowed to consider the applicant’s history in another state or jurisdiction or another county.”
But the project is missing key components. Its water and sewer–expected to be 28,000 gallons per day of water and effluent–would have to be provided by the Florida Governmental Utility Authority known as FGUA. FGUA has issued a letter saying it will provide the services. But to do so, the project must secure easements through Holiday Travel Park. It has no easements. Without the easements, FGHUA will not provide the services. Without the services, the county will not issue a building permit, nor an occupancy permit. “I don’t think there’s any other option at the other option at this point,” Planning Director Adam Mengel said.
Kim Buck of Alann Engineering Group, the engineering firm on the project, said Tuesday evening that the snag was being resolved. “I received an email about 6:30 tonight that all parties have come to an agreement on the easements, and so it is now being routed around for signature and recording,” Buck said. “We have no objection to conditioning the approval on obtaining that. We know it’s necessary. And you know, we’ve been working with FGUA and the travel Park and the applicant to get that done.”
Harriet Castle, a nearby resident, was not convinced. “They have been requesting the easement for, I think, over six months, and they keep saying they have an agreement, they’re working on an agreement,” Castle told the Planning Board. “They should have come prepared. And in fact, they’re supposed to already have it before they come before you. So I don’t think it should have even been put up for you guys to vote without that. And I think we the public should have the right to review the easement, see how it impacts plantation Bay as well.”
“You’re dealing with bad actors. They told the judge they’re not paying that $250,000. What’s going to come down the road where they’re also going to say, we’re not going to pay this, we’re not going to pay that,” another member of the public told the board, calling the owners “slum lords.”
Another resident complained about the nearby storage facility–owned by the same owners as the motel property–lighting up Plantation Bay “like a Christmas tree” from lack of tree buffers. “You cannot trust everything that Kim here from the engineer says, because we were told specifically at our meetings with them that their big cube smart sign would never be lit up.” But it has been, she said.
Other than county staff, the only reviewing authority for the site plan is the Planning Board, not the County Commission. That’s another reason the board was reluctant to approve the plan just yet, since it is the final regulatory stop.
Jane Gentile-Youd says
You left out their letter of February 24 clearly stating their intentions for an Extended Stay facility which would require a zoning change to include residential multi-family since state statutes qualify a guest who stays over 30 days is now a ‘tenant’ no longer a guest and that multiple family court eviction procedures are required to remove them. That change is no longer C-2 Zoning! You left that important fact out of your otherwise fantastic well presented article
The Sour Kraut says
The 9wners have been dragging this out for years. Turn about is fair play…
Billy B says
They will keep stalling until they get a sweet deal like Captains BBQ. When will Flagler Count learn ?????
Atwp says
Is there an end to this.
Skibum says
So far, so good. It appears none of the approving authorities are drinking the poisoned kool-aid. And if, for some reason, the decision makers ultimately do decide to give these secretive, untrustworthy property owners yet another chance to make good on their long history of failed promises, no final approval should be granted by the county without first ensuring the way past due bond for $250,000 has been deposited in the county’s coffers.
Ed P says
Even without zoning. Their simple work around will be to require long term tenants to change rooms every 29 days. Sign a new room rate up or down a dollar and it’s legal.
Jane Gentile Youd says
Amen Skibum. Plus interest – $350,000 up front or no permit. Sean is incorrect and continues to warn the county we can be sued. He too is turning out to be another useless attorney in my opinion.
Robjr says
Who is the motel owners attorney?
With the “right” legal representation their proposal would more than likely sail right through to an approval.