Posted: May 21, 2015 - 11:44pm
PETER.WILLOTT@STAUGUSTINE.COM David Corneal, owner of the Cordova Inn property in St. Augustine, talks to his consultant Mark Knight and attorney Ellen Avery-Smith outside of the St. Augustine City Hall after a meeting of the St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board on Thursday, May 21, 2015.
By STUART KORFHAGE
stuart.korfhage@staugustine.com
The latest public meeting involving the controversial issue of the Cordova Inn Planned Unit Development (PUD) was stopped Thursday before anyone was able to address the issue.
On the advice of City Attorney Isabelle Lopez, the members of the St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board agreed to continue the discussion of the appropriateness of the PUD at a later meeting. The delay was due to the filing of an appeal to an April 16 board decision, which was to issue a certificate of demolition of the “carpenter’s house” on the historic property.
Property owner David Corneal, who purchased what used to be the Dow Museum of Historic Houses of St. Augustine, had requested permission to take down the structure. He cited the fact that it could not be legally occupied in its current state and that it was not feasible to restore it. The board agreed in a 2-1 vote, and the building was taken down that week.
At Thursday’s meeting, Corneal was seeking the blessing of the board for his plan to turn the historic property into an inn. Work has been going on for months to restore the houses.
Corneal’s plan has already received a recommendation of approval from the city’s Planning and Zoning Board.
But there was no vote on the PUD on Thursday because the HARB members decided to wait for the City Commission to hear the demolition appeal.
Lopez said that as she interprets the law, city boards cannot go through with the proceedings for the Cordova Inn project until the appeal is heard.
She read from a document on city policy in explaining her reasoning. She said an appeal causes the stay of all administrative proceedings until “such time as final determination has been made by the City Commission on such appeal. And no action shall be taken by the applicant or the Planning and Building Department during such time which would change the status of the matter being appealed.”
Attorney Ellen Avery-Smith, working for Corneal, argued that the appeal of the demolition has nothing to do with the PUD application and shouldn’t cause the continuation of the request. She also poimted out the fact that the building in question has already been demolished.
However, the board, which included just three members because two recused themselves, decided to follow Lopez’s advice and voted 3-0 for a continuance.
It’s unclear exactly how long it will take to get the appeal resolved because the item must be given proper advance notice to the public. Lopez said she was not sure when the City Commission would address the issue.
Corneal and his associates were obviously frustrated by the delay. He said he can always make the property into apartments if the PUD is denied or filibustered for an indefinite period.
Avery-Smith said she would simply like to move forward in the process and that it’s a shame the appeal has caused further delays.
“One person can put a stop to a very good project,” she said.
The appeal was filed by Ed Slavin, who has been vocal in his opposition to Corneal’s project.
“My problem is there was undisputed testimony from the building inspector that it was safe,” Slavin said. “It was part of our history. I thought it was erroneous to grant a certificate of demolition. I think the City Commission needs to review it. HARB should not be granting demolition certificates like they’re handing out lollipops.”
PETER.WILLOTT@STAUGUSTINE.COM St. Augustine resident Ed Slavin sits in the audience of the St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board on Thursday, May 21, 2015.
PETER.WILLOTT@STAUGUSTINE.COM St. Augustine Historic Architectural Review Board members H. Randal Roark, Toni Wallace and Matthew Armstrong meet in St. Augustine's City Hall on Thursday, May 21, 2015.
2 comments:
Did Stuart actually ask you for a quote???
Glad he DID speak with you, but what about the rest of those protesting Corneal's "conservation" effort?
Don't RESIDENTS of HP-1 who are OPPOSED to PUD spot zoning deserve equal coverage?
I called and spoke with Stuart. After the vote, he was talking for a long time to CORNEAL and CORNEAL's lawyer, his non-lawyer representative, and his associated entourage in the courtyard outside our City Commission meeting room.
During this discussion, CORNEAL angrily pointed at me and said i was "pretending to talk on the telephone" so i could listen to him. Paranoia?
I think it may have been you that I was speaking to at the time.
Earlier, in response to my reporting CORNEAL's threatening, yelling and stomach-bumping, I reported CORNEAL to SAPD, whose fine officer explained to CORNEAL that there is "no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place" and that I have a constitutional right to listen to him.
CORNEAL was madder than a wet hen and hotter than a two dollar pistol at not getting his way. This coarse, loutish, louche State College, Pennsylvania lawyer-bully has no respect for our Nation's Oldest City, our history, our rights, our institutions, or the integrity of our processes.
Yesterday was a great day for democracy. As LBJ said after Selma, "We SHAL overcome!"
Post a Comment