Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Town's hotel vote upsets residents

The decision comes amid upheaval on Yankeetown's council, adding to the debate.

By ELENA LESLEY
Published May 18, 2006

YANKEETOWN - For the first time in a long time, Town Hall was quiet Wednesday morning.

No one stormed into the office, insisting to see development proposals. No residents burst through the mayor's door, accusing her of moral bankruptcy.

In the wake of the Town Council's decision to begin negotiations with developers who want to build a resort hotel on the Withlacoochee River, those opposing the project had to regroup. They were still stunned.

"We are crushed," said resident Ed Candela, who has worked to stall the development. "Last night was kind of devastating to the cause."

Only three members sat on the five-person town council Tuesday night - and one of those had turned in his resignation a week earlier.

Despite the group's unorthodox composition, the members cast votes on two of the most explosive issues to come before the town: a moratorium on building and a development agreement with Izaak Walton Investors LLC.

In a unanimous vote, the council followed the mayor's recommendation to begin negotiations with the developers once they submitted all the necessary paperwork. The council also voted to set a public hearing for the moratorium on commercial building, a decision that was vetoed by the mayor.

Though antidevelopment forces were discouraged, they were more upset about the way the meeting was conducted.

"It was so preplanned," Candela said. "It was too orchestrated to be coincidental."

Mayor Joanne Johannesson contends the situation was just a confluence of disorganization and bad luck.

Because council members Diane Blomgren and Roger Myrick turned in their resignations to Town Hall last week, only three members - Mary Pate, Glen Spetz and Dan Bowman - now sit on the council. Bowman was appointed to the council after Helen Ciallella resigned her seat because she might sell property to the developers.

But Pate, who has fervently challenged the development, was unable to attend Tuesday's meeting because of an illness in her family.

Johannesson asked Myrick to return for one night to make a quorum, even though he had already submitted a resignation to Town Hall.

There is no stipulation in the town code that a resignation must be accepted by the council to be made final. But that procedure has been the town's custom, said interim Town Attorney David LaCroix.

Some residents have questioned the legality of the meeting, given Myrick's previous resignation.

Still, the council moved forward with town business.

Johannesson produced a letter from the developers requesting that the town reconsider their request to enter into a development agreement. The council failed to take a vote on the issue in March after LaCroix said he found a number of problems with the developers' application.

A letter was sent back to them outlining necessary changes. The developers have not yet submitted a new version.

LaCroix advised the council that votes are generally taken on development agreements when there is an application pending.

But Johannesson recommended the council move forward regardless, and developer Peter Spittler agreed to furnish the necessary information if their request was accepted.

After heated discussion from residents on both sides of the issue, the council approved the request, on the condition that the developers complete a revised application.

"I've always thought negotiations were the best way to shape this development," Myrick said.

In another blow to antidevelopment forces, Johannesson vetoed the council's decision to set a public hearing for the moratorium on commercial development.

"It's questionable whether that would have applied to this development or not," Johannesson said. "I've heard different things."

Spittler said other regulatory agencies will oversee the project, so the town didn't have to worry about finessing its codes.

"I don't think the city needs to provide all that expertise because someone else is providing that expertise," he said.

Residents cried out against the mayor's veto, but LaCroix said it was legal.

The only way to override the veto would be through a vote of four council members, he said.

Though discouraged Wednesday, antidevelopment residents said they will continue to fight.

The Levy County Supervisor of Elections verified all of the signatures but one on the recent petition to recall Johannesson and sent it back to the town Tuesday.

Johannesson will have several days to respond before the recall effort moves into its next stage.

"This development has been such a thorn in everyone's side," Johannesson said. "It needs to be resolved one way or the other."

[Last modified May 18, 2006, 01:40:19]