Latest news with #PUD
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in Statesman PUD case
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A Travis County Civil Court judge sided with the city of Austin, potentially moving forward the Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the former Austin-American Statesman property. According to an attorney for the Save Our Springs Alliance (SOS), the judge 'did not provide a reason' for the ruling against the organization. The PUD was approved in 2022 for a development that would include a 275-room high-rise hotel, six towers of residential units and office space. From 2022: Some concerned about required park space in Statesman PUD conversation According to the city, PUD zoning is meant 'to preserve the natural environment, encourage high quality development and innovative design, and ensure adequate public facilities and services' and 'must be superior to the development that would occur under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations.' However, PUD zoning also 'provides greater design flexibility by permitting modifications of site development regulations.' The lawsuit that was rejected in court Tuesday claimed that Austin City Council violated the Texas Open meetings Act and the Austin City Charter when it approved the PUD for 18.86 acres along the south shore of lady Bird lake. SOS claimed that the city did not provide adequate public notice regarding 'major changes to City standards.' The attorney for SOS told KXAN they are 'considering options for appeal.' KXAN has reached out to the city of Austin for its response to the ruling. We will update this article if a statement is received. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Amid protests, NSB approves PUD rezoning for Deering Park Innovation Center in 4-1 vote
This story has been updated with new information. NEW SMYRNA BEACH — With standing room only thanks to more than 80 protesters both inside and outside of City Hall, the City Commission Tuesday, May 13, voted 4-1 to approve the planned unit development agreement for the 1,618-acre Deering Park Innovation Project. Commissioners Jason McGuirk, Valli Perrine, Brian Ashley and Mayor Fred Cleveland voted to approve the area's rezoning, while Vice Mayor Lisa Martin voted against the proposal. The development encompasses 6 million square feet on the southwest corner of State Road 44 and Interstate 95 in the city. The incoming residential, commercial and industrial spaces intended as part of the project will take shape over the next few decades, according to developers. Ashley said based on tours of the property and countless conversations with developers, he believes "this is the most sensible way forward." "People are going to move here no matter what," he said. "It's better to be prepared than not prepared." McGuirk thanked all the young residents who showed up to voice their opinions. He reminded the audience that he and other commissioners were bound to vote based on the evidence presented to the board at the public sessions and not on the commissioners' own personal feelings. Cleveland echoed the same point, adding that the PUD agreement establishes accountability for the developers in several ways to ensure they "can't just make a nice paradise out west." "You can do no harm and no damage to all of the rest of us who live in other parts of town," Cleveland said. Martin also praised the young residents for showing up. Before voting against the PUD, she said she continued to have questions and concerns about the agreement. The Deering Park Innovation Center is only the New Smyrna Beach component of the Deering Park development, which will encompass part of the approximately 70,000-acre property between Volusia and Brevard counties, with 46,000 of those acres already destined for land conservation. The development was initially called the Farmton Local Plan nearly 20 years ago, when the Deering family began planning for the property's future. The plan is to develop different parts of the Deering Park Innovation Center for different uses over many decades, which would be divided in the following manner: Innovation Park, 423 acres. Mixed-use/commercial corridor, 136 acres. Mixed-use/residential village commercial, 26 acres. Residential rental village, 343 acres. Residential, 452 acres. Regional park/sports complex, 60 acres. City police and New Smyrna Beach Utilities facilities, 18 acres. Natural vegetation areas, 413 acres. The planned industrial park area would be called Innovation Park, and would also include space for companies to locate their corporate headquarters, according to city records. Current plans also indicate that the Innovation Center will allow for a maximum of 2,150 residential units — 925 single family detached lots/homes, 600 multi-family apartments, 250 build-to-rent units and 375 townhouses. About an hour before the meeting began at 6:30 p.m., about 60 people were already in front of the City Commission chambers on Sams Avenue protesting the project. One such protesters was Bryon White, who has been voicing his concerns about the project during the last City Commission regular meetings and workshops to discuss the PUD. "The first part of the problem is that, not just this commission here, but other municipalities, have this mindset that sprawl is progress, and it's not," White said. "It's a growth model that Florida cannot sustain. We don't have the natural resources, we are too susceptible to natural disasters, and that's what really has been the case here." He went on to reference the recent "catastrophic" flooding episodes across the area, especially in southeast Volusia County, over the past few storms and hurricanes. He said the city doesn't have the "adequate infrastructure to bring in, literally, 10,000 more residents — we just can't handle it." White argued the Deering Park Innovation Center could add more stress to the city's traffic volume and potentially worsen flooding episodes. Bonnie Davenport, a resident of Ellison Acres, said her neighborhood, north of State Road 44 near Turnbull Creek, has greatly suffered over the last few storms, especially during Hurricane Ian in 2022. Davenport said she has applied for financial help from FEMA and the county's Transfrom386 program after her home experienced severe flooding damage. A lifelong New Smyrna Beach resident, Davenport argued that the continued expansion of the city's westside over the last few decades, filling green areas and wetlands, have put low-lying, older neighborhoods like hers at greater risk of flooding episodes. "This vote means a lot to me," Davenport said as she held two signs with words against Deering Park Innovation Center. "Anything I can do to prevent more building in that area, I will." Last August, the City Commission held off voting on Deering Park Innovation Center's PUD, asking developers for more time to better understand the agreement's details. Since then, developers have spoken to residents and resident groups, as well as answered questions and explained the project further during public workshop sessions over the past few months. Daytona Beach Attorney Glenn Storch, as well as Deering Park team members, have participated in these sessions, leading such presentations and answering questions. Several of those concerns related to the project's stormwater management regulations. Since August, Storch said he and his team have spoken with several different stakeholders, including the New Smyrna Beach Residents' Coalition, Venetian Bay residents, New Smyrna Beach Alliance and others "trying to understand people's concerns." After about seven months of discussions with such groups, the developer brought an updated PUD agreement to the board, which aims to ensure the developer meets several requirements "prior to any development of the site," including some related to the project's stormwater system. They also call for "accountability" provisions, requiring the developer to maintain the stormwater system in compliance with PUD requirements by means of a new taxing district, if approved by the City Commission, to "provide for the financing necessary," Storch said. The developer has also agreed to post a 10-year stormwater bond or letter of credit to cover any malfunctions to the stormwater systems. Ernie Cox, president of Family Lands Remembered LLC, a consulting services company working with the Deering Park development team, said team engineers are developing studies they hope will determine how to design the project's stormwater system without affecting adjoining neighborhoods. He said the planned interconnected lakes system will be "oversized beyond what is required" and designed to deal with the unique threat of large storm events. During one of last month's workshop sessions, Storch emphasized that no construction will be permitted until the studies have been completed and the design and engineering are approved by the city and the St. Johns River Water Management District.' Cox added that with these studies are expected to take a few years to complete, and that developers will bring in commercial spaces first, it will be at least three years before residential areas start construction. Storch also addressed questions related to traffic and how the development will encourage travel on foot, electric vehicles, scooters and bicycles with trails and multi-modal paths. Other questions dealt with the possibility of affordable housing, maintenance of the natural vegetation area, traffic impact (especially on the busy State Road 44) and more. Cleveland invited public comments before the board's final considerations and vote, during which time over 40 residents voiced their opinions about the project. Approximately 30 residents spoke against the development, while about 10 others expressed support for the Deering Park Innovation Center. Mandy Perkins, a beachside resident, said she was "heartbroken" to see what she called "unwanted growth" for the city, which "has been degraded by development." "If you look around the room and outside the windows, it's filled with young people," Perkins said. "We're not the ones in suits ... . We are the actual people who are affected by this." She said she disagreed with rezoning the land from agricultural and forestry to the proposed PUD, adding that Deering Park Innovation Center "will change the character of our community in a profound and detrimental way." Other opponents of the project said they did not believe the project's stormwater system will be able to avoid affecting other neighborhoods, voiced concerns about the potential worsening of an already heavy traffic volume issue, and the potential property tax increases resulting from new big tech, high-paying jobs. Supporters of the project, on the other hand, praised the fact that the Deering Park Innovation Center could be an opportunity for the city to grow in an effective manner. "Before you is a master plan proposal that not only incorporates best practices from around the state but around the country and the world," said Bob Williams. "Deering Park is poised to become a model for dealing with a growing community with low impact development and smart growth." Other supporters said the project could help diversify the city's tax base, more than 80% of which currently relies on residential property taxes. This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: Deering Park protesters fill NSB city chambers as board approves PUD
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Brunswick mayor, City Council approve development overlay for Vista Pointe project
Brunswick's mayor and City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay on previously annexed land. The PUD overlay is a specific zoning district that allows for flexible site planning and development. The land will be used for an age-restricted development called Vista Pointe. Residents of Brunswick and Knoxville on April 22 expressed their concerns to the mayor and City Council about the development, specifically about potentially removing an area of forest land. Pleasants Development, the developer, has been allowed to clear 57 acres of forest on the property for the 660 age-restricted units it plans to build. Residents are concerned that clearing the forest will create more flooding in the area. At the meeting on Tuesday, Brunswick resident Neil Gormley said the forest is 'ecologically and hydrologically better than a landscaped open space.' 'A forest ecosystem supports more plant and animal life,' he said. 'It's a richer, more resilient ecological system.' Gormley added that the forest is 'much better' at retaining water and reducing flooding than a grazed pasture would be. Dan Fryer, the regional vice president for Pleasants Development, said on Tuesday that the engineering study that is looking at runoff and flooding, which the company is currently working on, will be released to the public. He said the report will show the existing conditions for flooding and what the development company plans to do to address it. Fryer said the civil engineering firm Macris, Hendricks & Glascock (MHG) is performing the study. An annexation agreement for the land included a list of proffers that promised stormwater infrastructure improvements, such as cleaning the 21-inch culvert north and south of Brunswick Street, before the project starts. Council Member Andy St. John said at the meeting that he received numerous emails from the community that mention how the annexation of the property was 'a lack of due diligence and mismanagement on the part of the city.' 'I, frankly, take exception to that,' he said. 'The city and the staff has been working very hard on this for a very long time to make sure that all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, and that we have followed the law.' Council Member John Caves agreed with St. John, and added that the process has not been approached 'flippantly.' 'We read the emails. We listen to the comments,' he said. 'It's ultimately a judgment call.' After the unanimous vote to approve the PUD overlay, Mayor Nathan Brown said he did not want to influence any council members' votes, but he agreed with St. John. 'Really, these annexations ... are not fresh off the press, brand-new, clean-slate annexations,' he said. The land for the Vista Pointe development is made up of three previously annexed properties: the Daugherty, Ferris and Brylawski properties. The Daugherty property was annexed into the city in 1992 and is approximately 113 acres. The Ferris and Brylawski properties were adopted into Brunswick on Feb. 25 of this year, and are approximately 57 acres and 15 acres, respectively. 'We had to really look at them in a way that was ... in the best interest of the city,' Brown said. 'It allowed us to have proffers where normally we wouldn't because we introduced new annexations to already annexed land, which was good.'
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opposition leader vows 'empty' polling stations for Venezuelan legislative vote
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has called for a boycott of May 25 gubernatorial and legislative elections, on Thursday vowed polling stations would be "empty" 10 months after President Nicolas Maduro's disputed reelection. The regional vote, she told AFP in a Zoom interview, was a "huge farce that the regime wants to stage to bury its defeat of July 28" when Maduro claimed victory in a presidential poll that Machado's party, and most of the international community, says the opposition won. "May 25 will be a huge defeat for the regime because it will find itself absolutely alone," Machado said, vowing a mass voter boycott that would leave "all the (voting) centers empty." Venezuela's opposition is split on whether or not to participate in the May 25 vote for lawmakers and governors. The main opposition movement led by Machado has called for a boycott, while a smaller group led by two-time former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles has said it will participate. Maduro used the security forces to crush protests over his claim to have won a third six-year term fair and square. Despite the strong support he still enjoys from the security forces, Machado claimed there were divisions within his ranks and that the government was "in a state of great vulnerability." In 2020, the opposition boycotted parliamentary elections, having won a majority in the legislature five years earlier. Their absence allowed Maduro's allies to regain control of parliament and pass increasingly oppressive laws, according to rights groups. The opposition had also boycotted 2018 presidential elections in which Maduro claimed reelection to a second term rejected by most of the international community, just like the third term he claimed last July. Machado's Democratic Unity Platform (PUD) published its own tally of polling station-level results, which it says proves opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia had won two-thirds of the votes cast. Machado, who has been in hiding since July but made a brief appearance at a protest in Caracas on the eve of Maduro's inauguration in January, has said participating in this month's election would give validation to a corrupt process. Maduro's ruling party has announced candidate lists for governors, including for the disputed oil-rich region of Essequibo that has been administered by Guyana for more than a century. Capriles, the former presidential candidate whose group has announced plans to field candidates, argues that there is "no other path" but the ballot box to dislodge Maduro, who has clung on through years of crippling US sanctions. Some opposition members argue that the sanctions have hurt ordinary Venezuelans, battered by hyperinflation and biting shortages of basic goods, more than the country's authoritarian leader. "The only person responsible for the sanctions is Nicolas Maduro," Machado said, vowing to continue her struggle against his rule "to the end." pgf/mbj/mlr/cb/aha
