Winter Haven residents press commission for answers on Spring Lake apartment work, staff says site entitled decades ago
Loading...
Summary
Residents at the Feb. 23 commission meeting demanded clear public notice and answers about construction near Spring Lake Plaza, questioning whether Landmark/Scarecrow interests and access agreements are involved; city staff said the site under construction is a separately entitled 168-unit project with historic PUD entitlements and provided a packet to one resident.
Several Winter Haven residents told the City Commission on Feb. 23 they feel left out of the process as construction activity begins near Spring Lake Plaza and the adjacent Scarecrow/Landmark properties.
"I'm writing on behalf of several concerned residents who have asked me to look into the activity concerning behind Spring Lake Plaza," said Betty Hoffman, a Lakeridge Condos resident. Hoffman asked whether Landmark is involved in a new project, whether access through Landmark property would be allowed, and whether the current work represents a repackaged version of a previously withdrawn 268-unit proposal. She raised specific concerns about traffic safety at the US 17/Havendale corridor, school-bus routing, water supply during drought conditions, and outstanding code violations at the adjacent shopping center.
Mary Makovic told the commission she had earlier pushed the city on notice procedures and found required notices had not been mailed in a prior case. "This isn't about being anti-development. It's about consistent process, clear notice, and accountability," Makovic said, urging the city to update an outdated planned-unit-development (PUD) ordinance that staff described in public documents as more than three decades old.
City staff responded that the area where turbidity booms are in place is a different parcel from the project that was withdrawn and was entitled for residential development decades ago. "The piece of property that you will currently see under construction... is an apartment. A 168 unit apartment complex," said Eric Labbe, who told the commission the parcel had long-standing PUD entitlements (entitled for 180 units in 1985 and amended in 2006) and that a site plan for 168 units recently cleared site-plan review and requires SWFWMD/NPDES permits and other standard approvals.
Labbe said staff had provided a packet of prior zoning approvals, the recently approved site plan, and other materials to Hoffman the previous week to address many of her questions but acknowledged some issues (private-property arrangements and Landmark's plans) were outside city permitting authority.
Mayor (name not used in transcript) and staff agreed to place a briefing on the March 9 commission agenda to present the materials publicly and improve transparency. The commission did not take a land-use vote or change entitlements during the meeting.
What happens next: The commission asked staff to compile and present the available records at the March 9 meeting so residents can review zoning history, site-plan materials and the city's interpretation of access and maintenance responsibilities.
