Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board continues Saint Andrews Bay Yacht Club major development application to February
Loading...
Summary
The board agreed to continue the Saint Andrews Bay Yacht Club major development application (CPCPLN20260176) to a February meeting after counsel for affected neighbors requested 60 days and the applicant consented; the record includes calls for a special magistrate and fuller disclosures.
The Panama City Planning Board voted to continue consideration of the Saint Andrews Bay Yacht Club major development application (case CPCPLN20260176) to the board's February meeting after requests from both nearby property owners' counsel and the applicant.
Staff introduced the application for the parcel at 218 Bunkers Cove Road and said staff and counsel recommended tabling the item so the city could facilitate discussions between the yacht club and interested neighbors. The applicant was present and signaled concurrence with a continuance.
Meredith Bush, counsel for Harvey Hollingsworth, asked the board for a minimum 60‑day continuance to account for the holidays, additional meetings and time to review documents recently submitted and obtained via a public records request. "We would ask for the February date," Bush said.
Douglas Sale, a neighbor and member of the yacht club, urged the board to appoint a special magistrate experienced in land‑use matters and to require fuller disclosure of ex‑parte communications, saying the proceeding could be highly adversarial and warning that incomplete disclosures could create deficiencies in the administrative record.
Michael Wynne, Commodore of the Saint Andrews Bay Yacht Club, said the club did not oppose a continuance and preferred to present with engineers and experts at a later hearing: "If the request is 60 days to be moved to February, we have no... objection to that as the applicant." Wynne said the club had reached out to parties and notified them it would not oppose the continuance.
Counsel for opposing parties referenced Florida Statutes section 70.51 as an alternative dispute resolution option, but noted the commission likely could not require parties to engage in ADR; counsel suggested the board could revisit process options and hold a status update in 60 days or a procedural check‑in in January.
A motion to continue item 6b to the February meeting (the board referenced Feb. 9 during discussion) was made and seconded; roll call recorded affirmative votes from the board and the motion passed. Staff said the item will be re‑noticed and picked up at the continued hearing.
The board asked staff to explore the feasibility of appointing a special magistrate and to report back in January. The continuance preserves opportunity for facilitated discussions and for both sides to prepare technical evidence before a contested hearing.
