Nope, that won't do, Belleair again tells Biltmore's owner
Three times, the application to demolish the landmark has been shot down, baffling the owner's lawyer.
By LORRI HELFAND, Times Staff Writer
Published November 18, 2005
BELLEAIR - Incorrect. Incomplete. Insufficient.
For the third time, town officials have told the Belleview Biltmore Resort & Spa's owner that its application to raze the landmark is inadequate.
Roger Schwenke, a lawyer representing the owner, said he is baffled by the city's rejection, which he got Tuesday. Officials have requested information that his client, Belleview Biltmore Resort Ltd., has already submitted, he said.
He wants the town to review the application again before asking for more items.
"I don't understand what the problem is. I don't know what's accomplished by chopping down 20 more trees and giving them 20 more copies of what I've already submitted," he said.
But Town Manager Steve Cottrell said the staff thinks the owner hasn't filed the right information.
"He just needs to resubmit those things we ask for, and we'll go over it again," Cottrell said.
Seven months ago, the Biltmore's owner filed its first application to tear down the hotel. The next month officials said the owner submitted the wrong application.
In September, the owner filed the right application, but later that month Belleair officials said a report by a town planning consultant, the TBE Group, showed that the second application lacked more than a dozen items. The owner updated that application and filed it in October. The company kept its application active even though a prospective buyer, DeBartolo Development, let an option to buy the resort expire.
Tuesday, a consultant for the town said the third submission still isn't right. TBE said the application was numbered wrong, failed to confirm that trees would be protected and didn't show the location of fire-service lines.
Schwenke hasn't had a chance to fully explore issues raised about fire-service lines, he said. But he insisted other comments by TBE don't make sense.
Previous applications by the owner stated that no trees will be removed. Schwenke said he doesn't understand why the town keeps requesting information he's already provided.
In last month's submission, the owner revised pages 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of an 11-page site plan and asked town officials to replace previously filed pages with the new ones.
The town told the owner the site plan was numbered incorrectly because the submission included only five nonsequential pages. The report also listed other problems with page numbering.
Town counsel Nancy Stroud wrote Schwenke, saying additional fees would not be incurred if 20 sets of information were filed within 30 working days. She also stressed that a completed application won't imply staff approval of the plan. The application will still likely require review by the Town Commission and planning and zoning board.
The town's historic preservation ordinance, which was passed on Oct. 26, takes effect late next week. Stroud said the owner will have to abide by the rules of the ordinance after it becomes effective.
