Judge awards developer more than $16 million in Safety Harbor case
By 
A Pinellas County judge awarded more than $16 million to the Richman Group of Florida on Wednesday, stating the county wrongfully denied the developer’s bid to build an apartment complex on the Firmenich site in Safety Harbor.
According to the ruling filed by Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Walter L. Schafer, Jr., the county must pay a total of $16,539,577.95 in damages and interest due to decisions made by the Countywide Planning Authority.
“Because the CPA applied a non-existent criterion to deny Richman’s Amendment, the county acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of Richman’s Constitutional right to due process protections,” the ruling states.
According to the ruling, Richman “met its burden of establishing lost profits” from the failed deal, and the judge ruled that the developer was entitled to damages in the amount of $14,811,440, plus $1,728,137.95 in interest.
The judgement does not include attorney fees, which will be decided at a later date.
The “Firmenich saga” played out in the city over the course of a couple of years, after representatives of the Richman Group, which bills itself as “the seventh largest rental apartment owner” in the country, petitioned the City Commission in 2012 to change the zoning on a portion of the property so it could build a 296-unit apartment complex, with 25,000 square feet of office space, on the site.
After a number of revisions to the original proposal, and despite vehement protests by a group of residents in the area, the commission eventually approved the proposal by a 3-2 vote in February 2013.
But on May 7, 2013, the CPA denied the developer’s application, citing the desire to preserve industrial lands in the county as the reason behind its decision.
The CPA then rejected the deal again in January 2014 after a judge recommended that the board should reconsider its initial ruling, and despite warnings from its attorney that the board was setting itself up for a lawsuit.
“The CPA was advised by the County Attorney, in no uncertain terms, that under the 2012 Act and the Countywide Rules, they were not free to deny the amendment based on their previous stated intent “to preserve industrial lands,” the ruling states. “Despite this advice, the stated basis for the final decision denying the Amendment was again “preservation of industrial lands.”
Schafer’s ruling was also critical of the CPA being swayed by the community’s opposition to the project.
“The evidence establishes that the CPA’s final decision was based on a desire to appease Safety Harbor residents, whose forceful opposition was brought to bear throughout the Countywide amendment process,” the ruling reads.
“Both Ms. Tarapani and the County’s Planning Director testified that neighborhood opposition is not a legitimate basis for denying a land use application.”
While the City of Safety Harbor and the commission were cleared of any blame in the case, one of the local lawmakers tasked with voting on the original proposal said the outcome could’ve been much worse.
“The ruling shows that me, Commissioner (Rick) Blake and Commissioner (Nina) Bandoni, when voting in favor of the project, were looking out for the best interests of the taxpayers of Safety Harbor,” former mayor Joe Ayoub told Safety Harbor Connect.
“It would’ve been easy to play politics and bow to the pressure and deny the application, but we had the best interests of the citizens of Safety Harbor in mind.”
Ayoub, who lost a tight mayoral race to current mayor Andy Steingold in March 2014, said he was surprised when the county board decided to vote against the proposal.
“I was very surprised by that,” he said, “because I specifically remember their attorney warning the CPA that they were opening themselves up to a lawsuit.”
He added that while he was happy the lawsuit was not filed against the city, the repercussions of the entire ordeal could still be felt by its citizens.
“Had we denied the project, it would’ve been a catastrophe for the city,” Ayoub said. “We would have had to spend a lot of time, money and energy fighting it, and it would’ve put other projects on hold.”
“But it’s still unfair for the City of Safety Harbor, because the taxpayers here will still be affected by this ruling.”
Today, the Firmenich property is still vacant.
Recently, BayCare had planned to build a 120,000-sq.ft. office complex on the property.
However, the health care giant backed out of the deal at the eleventh hour.
Related content:
- County board denies Firmenich proposal again
- Judge’s ruling could lead to Firmenich property development
- City to seek input on Firmenich property development
- Office complex could be coming to Firmenich property
- BayCare backs out of Safety Harbor office park project
I have always been curious as to why the residents of that area in SH seem to be content with the auto garages and warehouses that grace their main thorough fare but are opposed to a luxury apartment building.
Or two story tinfoil structures that ruin surrounding property values.
A big thank you is in order for Joe, Rick and Nina. By following the law and not caving to the same old battle cry, they kept us taxpayers off the hook for $16 million dollars in fines. Unlike several years back, when the City paid a huge fine for giving in to irate neighbors who didn’t want a home for the handicapped in their neighborhood. That’s right, handicapped people! So thanks again, you may have left, resigned or were voted out, but doing your civic duty protected us against being on the wrong side, yet again.
Amen Jan! Sometimes our city representatives may have to make the right and legal decision to protect the citizens even if it is not the most popular decision.
Thank you, Joe, Nina and Rick, for saving Safety Harbor from having to come up with 16 plus million dollars. It is so easy to criticize well thought out decisions, unlike the past Fair Housing case that was settled against Savety Harbor for over one million dollars! My taxes are high enough!
Richman builds crap section 8 ghettos. It’s bad enough that the former (We will get used to it) Mayor has to rear his head about this on going disaster, but the Judge adds insult with enormous payday to the ghetto builder. It all sounds fishy to me. This descision is a big loss for our county, community and neighborhood.
Welcome to government housing at its worst. Not only do we need a moritorium on illegal immigration of individuals who refuse to assimilate and pledge alligence to our country, but we need our government to stop social engineering our neighborhoods into forced acceptance of crap construction that allows developers to escape paying taxes on section 8, which only puts the tax burden back on existing taxpayers. What a load of s–t Richman and Judge Schafer have wrought on us. APPEAL!
This project would not have been section 8 housing. What are you talking about?
Richman has a rich history of developing section 8 housing. He also has a history of political candidate fund raising, which makes me wonder about the politics of judge Schafer. Appeal the outrageous settlement!
Oh and by the way who does anyone think will pay that settlement? Answer, Taxpayers. The last time I checked home owners in SH pay county taxes.
The commissioners messed up. They denied a development with no real reason in the county code. Go read the facts of the case. You can’t just deny a development for the reasons they did.
Some of their developments are section 8. This one wasn’t going to be. Are you actually going to read the facts and respond rationally?
I don’t recall ever seeing the statement the development would never be section 8. Oh yeah let’s be rational about Richmans proclivity for section bailouts.
What do you not understand about this?
“The CPA was advised by the County Attorney, in no uncertain terms, that under the 2012 Act and the Countywide Rules, they were not free to deny the amendment based on their previous stated intent “to preserve industrial lands,” the ruling states. “Despite this advice, the stated basis for the final decision denying the Amendment was again “preservation of industrial lands.”
Schafer’s ruling was also critical of the CPA being swayed by the community’s opposition to the project.
“The evidence establishes that the CPA’s final decision was based on a desire to appease Safety Harbor residents, whose forceful opposition was brought to bear throughout the Countywide amendment process,” the ruling reads.
“Both Ms. Tarapani and the County’s Planning Director testified that neighborhood opposition is not a legitimate basis for denying a land use application.”
Their own attorney warned them about this! How stupid do they have to be?
You can argue all you want about a developer or the development, but the commissioners were warned and now we have to pay $16 million. We could have a brand new apartment complex with an office building instead of a crappy abandoned industrial complex and a $16 million bill.
Chill Duuude, what’s your stake in this fiasco? I saw Richmans architectural rendering and to me it looked like crap ghetto drawings. I’d rather the property stay zoned industrial than have dog droppings surrounded by flower pedals and the builder calling it brand new. It’s still droppings. How is it you’re so absolutely sure it wasn’t or won’t be section 8? Appeal the settlement! I am still opposed to Richman building anything in SH, especially crap ghettos.
Safety Hsrbor is struggling aginst the power and money of Developers to capitalize on Safety Harbors small town appeal, while the majority of residence want infill housing and appartments and even small condo projects that fits in with our small town feel and social structure, large scale developments just dones not fit into the communities vision. Florida developers seem intent on bring multi family high rise projects into our community, selling our small town feel to their buyers till there is no small town left just more costal sprawl, traffic, and all the bad things that come with it, once sold and built out they move on to other communities while the residence of our small town are faced with the reality of their sprawl. I can point to several projects where SH let developers have their way, and in doing so left SH residence with the bills, consequence and unrepairable situations as they move on to other unsespecting communities, SH in my experience is not anti development, but they do demand smart developments that fits into our chosen way of life and reason we all came here to live, invest and enjoy our small town and quality of life where we chose to live with each other in our lovely little town.
Ray with all due respect, spell check is your friend. And I agree… Smart Growth!
Where the apartment complex was going would have had little effect on the “small-town appeal” of downtown Safety Harbor, but a big time effect on its immediate neighbors in that area. That said, it’s really about the neighborhoods in that proposed development area, not the town’s “feel”. Additional people living in high-end apartments at that location would have brought additional people to downtown to help shop owners and restaurants thrive and prosper. Many people just don’t like change because they like things the way they are or were. But I have lived in Safety Harbor for 26 years, and the town 20 years ago was pretty much had a “dead-feel” with three restaurants and a few shops that sold flea market stuff, insurance office, a bank and other boring places to go. Now Safety Harbor is thriving with many choice for places eat, shop and be entertained, and friends of ours that don’t live here wish they did – and all have a great impression of our little town – they didn’t 15-20 years ago. From my 26 year viewpoint, our lovely little town just keeps getting better and better! Get out and enjoy it!
Gary, thanks for your comments. True, true and true!
I am not surprised by Ayoub’s comments given his support for the monstrosity of the condos opposite the marina – that’ll start turning quiet & charming Safety Harbor into the commercialized nightmare of Clearwater Beach.
LOL – Safety Harbor will never be Clearwater Beach! THERE IS NO BEACH!! Hell, we barely have a waterfront.
Barely have a waterfront?! Laughable. Have you driven down bay shore? Completely waterfront from 580 to gulf to bay. It could very well become “Clearwater beach” what he means is the development. Not the actually beach per se.
Cindy – Most of that waterfront is in Clearwater. SH begins north of Alligator Bridge and ends before Philippe Park. And where is the sandy beach??? I know waterfront. Lived on it in South Tampa for over 25 years. This is not it.
If Joe had opposed the project and influenced commissioners to vote against the project, the city of Safety Harbor might have had to cough up the 16 Million. That would have bankrupted the city of Safety Harbor and had a very long negative effect on projects, parks, activities for many years to come. Thank you Joe Ayoub and the commissioners for doing the right thing at the time, and keeping us out of trouble.
Wow! I know some people will probably voice their opinions on the “Firmenich saga” and Richman Group’s plan, but this is decision is bigger than that. It’s about the rule of law. It’s an expensive reminder that our elected officials can’t simply do whatever they want (even if they have good intentions). They have to operate within the power given to them by the existing law.