Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Wal-Mart bides its time on Tarpon site

A meeting between the retailer's lawyers and Tarpon Springs officials shows the company is investigating its options.

By Elena Lesley, Times Staff Writer
Published February 16, 2008

Wal-Mart officials want to build a store along U.S. 19 in Tarpon Springs. The Board of Adjustment dealt the retailer a setback in January. Wal-Mart could challenge the decision in court.
	[Jim Damaske | Times (2007)]

TARPON SPRINGS - For nearly a month, anti-Wal-Mart activists and city officials have waited for the retail giant to make its next move.

A decision Jan. 16 by the Board of Adjustment - which could force the company to undergo a new series of public hearings - "puts the ball in their court," said City Commissioner Peter Dalacos. And Wal-Mart is in no rush.

A recent meeting between lawyers from Wal-Mart and the city indicated the company is considering several options, including asking for a new hearing or appealing the decision in court.

"It would be counterproductive to speculate," said attorney Jim Yacavone, who participated in the meeting requested by Wal-Mart attorney David Theriaque. A summary of the discussion was sent to city officials and made available to the public.

A spokesperson from Wal-Mart said the company is investigating its options.

In the meeting, which was also attended by attorneys John Hubbard and Shauna Morris as well as Director of Planning and Zoning Renea Vincent, Theriaque questioned the basis of the board's decision.

Wal-Mart has the option of challenging the decision in circuit court, and Theriaque outlined several points the company could argue. He said board members might not have used substantial evidence in making their decisions and suggested that one or more of the board members may have been biased, Yacavone said in his Feb. 4 memo.

Despite outlining different legal arguments, Theriaque said he worried a court challenge would drag on for at least a year and that the judge might eventually rule to have the board rehear the case.

Theriaque also asked whether the board had a rule regarding motions for rehearing or clarification. Yacavone said it did not, but if Wal-Mart wishes to pursue this possibility, city attorneys will research whether it would be appropriate.

One of the final points raised in Yacavone's memo stoked the ire of activists.

According to Yacavone, Theriaque said the Army Corps of Engineers recently advised Wal-Mart it might be able to apply for the permit the company was originally granted. It was withdrawn in 2006 after activists discovered it was inappropriate for the Tarpon site and Wal-Mart was forced to apply for a more restrictive permit.

Considering Wal-Mart has yet to give the corps a complete application, it seems implausible that anyone would have made this claim, said resident Chris Hrabovsky, a Wal-Mart opponent.

"It's more than a misunderstanding," he said. "It's an out and out lie."

Chuck Schnepel, who is reviewing the project for the corps, confirmed that he has not received all necessary documents from Wal-Mart. Thus, he said, he has made no decision as to what kind of permit is required, nor has he discussed the matter with attorneys from Wal-Mart or the city.

"I'm still in a holding pattern," he said. "Wal-Mart has been put on notice."

Those opposing the construction of a store on the Anclote River say there's a simple explanation for Wal-Mart's indecision: The company is fighting a losing battle.

"It's like Theriaque threw everything up on the wall to see what would stick," Hrabovsky said of the meeting. "He's really grasping at straws."

Since Wal-Mart's site plan was approved by the city three years ago, a vocal group of residents has contended the environmentally sensitive property is ill-matched for a supercenter. They've monitored the company's every move, reporting all mistakes and violations, whether big or small.

Their vigilance prompted the corps to withdraw the permit it had improperly granted Wal-Mart in 2006.

The company then had to choose whether to redesign the project, which would require a long approval process, or make minor adjustments to avoid protected wetlands.

Wal-Mart chose the latter.

While city staff concluded that those changes were minor - and thus did not need to be reapproved after another public hearing before the City Commission - opponents disagreed.

The proposed changes, they said, were major revisions. They went on to appeal the "minor" classification to the board.

A hearing in 2006 was canceled when Wal-Mart withdrew its revised application. This January, activists finally presented their case to the board - and won in a 3-2 vote.

If Wal-Mart doesn't challenge the decision, it will once again have to seek approval from the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission.

But, as Yacavone's meeting recap showed, the company is considering a number of options.

Activists said they didn't think it was appropriate for Wal-Mart to do its pondering with city attorneys. "They say that it's not collusion," activist Dory Larsen said. "But it doesn't look good."

Yacavone contended that such meetings weren't unusual and could offer insight into how to protect the city.

"If you're involved in a touchy legal situation, you want to get some idea of what the other party is thinking," he said.

Elena Lesley can be reached at elesley@sptimes.com or (727) 445-4167.

[Last modified February 15, 2008, 22:33:08]