After requesting a continuance on his project, London Bay CEO Mark Wilson will be back in front of the LPA, Friday May 8th at 9AM. Wilson will take one more shot at getting the LPA’s approval at a special meeting two weeks from today.
If you plan to speak at public comment, whether you’re in favor or opposed to the project, mark that date and time down in your calendar. Both the LPA and the Town Council have set special meetings to accomodate London Bay before the Summer recess (and before the November election).
You can also watch the meeting live on our Facebook page or YouTube Channel.
How we got here…
After a 7 hour meeting on the London Bay project on April 14th, no decision was made by the Local Planning Agency. London Bay CEO Mark Wilson asked for the continuance when LPA members said they wanted him to reduce his highest building from 177 feet to 158.
Being that the tallest building is London Bay’s condo building, Wilson appeared to want some extra time to go back and see where he can make up that lost revenue from 8 condo units. He may want to convert those 8 condo units to 24 more hotel rooms. He could do that based on the town’s multiplier from condo units to hotel rooms. The town code allows a property owner to convert one unit to 3 hotel rooms.
Wilson would also have to decide where to add the two floors he’s losing from the tallest building. The other 4 proposed buildings are all less than the 158 feet some LPA members are indicating they are ok with.
Another reason Wilson asked for the continuance was that LPA member Doug Eckman had to leave the meeting at 3PM on the 14th. It appeared Eckman was leaning toward a YES vote on the project and Wilson doesn’t want to lose that vote. With Eckman out of the room, a vote was looking more like a 3-3 tie. A tied vote is a failed vote. At a special LPA meeting on April 21st (not about London Bay), Eckman informed the LPA he would be out of town and unavailable to participage in the meeting on Friday, May 8th. The LPA only needs 4 members to have a quorum and legally run a meeting. And, the meeting on the 8th cannot just be rescheduled. Because it was continued to a date certain, the meeting must, at least start, on May 8th. Once it begins, Wilson can request another continuance. The LPA does not have to grant another continuance, and if the room is filled with residents waiting to speak at public comment, a second continuance will not go over well. And, it would also be obvious that the reason is Eckman’s absence.
Of course, Wilson can also decide to let the LPA meeting play out, and no matter how the vote goes, take it to the Town Council. That’s exactly what Seagate did for the Red Coconut property and it passed 3-2 after failing at the LPA level.
Several members of the LPA seem to be fine with disregarding the island’s maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) max of 2.5. Wilson says his calculations bring the F.A.R. to a 3, although there’s a question as to whether they way he’s calculated it the way the town has made other properties calculate it. The bottom line is however it’s calculated it’s not 2.5. If the town allows London Bay to create its own “Outrigger” district, the calculation becomes meaningless.
Wilson’s sales pitch has been that the island needs this project to get its mojo back and he painted bleak financial numbers for the island during his presentation. He also said this is a project the south end of the island needs with the Wyndham the only other big south end property able to add a larger scale project. The project has both support and opposition from residents.
Dependable, Accurate, Investigative Journalism take time. To support our work, become a BTR Monthly Member HERE.
what difference does the LPA vote mean anyway..
I really get a bad taste in my mouth over how this is being played. Getting continuances because someone you think is going to back you is not there. Holding emergency meetings to try to jam this through before the election. It reeks of back door political crookedness. Mr. Wilson, if you’re so confident that your development is going to “SaVe ThE iSlAnD”, then you shouldn’t care which set of councillors you bring it in front of, or who is there and who is not. But you can’t, because you know that this project couldn’t hold Margaritavilles jockstrap. You know you’re not offering any benefit to the residents. You’re about money, and that’s it. You don’t give a damn about the people who live here. Id have more respect for you if you just came out and admitted that.
“Painted bleak financial numbers for the island” which were refuted. For or against, makes you question the accuracy of their other statements. Tiki Bar – reality or a carrot?