Matthew – Aftermath
Matthew – Aftermath
Leaving Us to Pick Up After Him
Matthew has come and gone, and we can only hope he stays gone.
Winter Parkers are fortunate that Matthew left nothing in his wake but a big mess. Here is how some of our neighbors were dealing with it after the storm moved north.

Peter, Charlee, Concetta and Maria on Via Tuscany. Peter has plans for that limb you see on the ground.

Matthew did leave a fun, if temporary, new jungle gym at MLK Park.

The best part of all is having good neighbors who help each other out. Thanks, Michael Vaughn and J.C. Peterson!
Photos courtesy of Kim Allen and Steven McElveen.
Villa Tuscany Memory Care Facility Proposed
Villa Tuscany Memory Care Facility Proposed
Between a Lake and a Sink Hole
Winter Park Elderly Services LLC will go before the Planning & Zoning Board on Tuesday, October 4, to ask for variances that would enable them to build a 50-bed memory care and assisted living facility at 1298 Howell Branch Road. The location is at the intersection of Howell Branch and Temple Trail. The facility will be called Villa Tuscany.
Planning Staff Recommends Denial — For Now
City Planning staff has recommended against approval. They acknowledge the need for a memory care facility in Winter Park. The staff report states their belief that the location is appropriate, but they object to the height of the building and its proximity to Lake Temple. If the developer were willing to alter the design of the building and shift its placement on the site, the Planning Department could reconsider its position and support the project.
Between a Sink Hole and a Lake
The building site is a difficult one, with wetlands and a sink hole limiting development space. It may ultimately prove too small to accommodate the nearly 40,000-square-foot facility the applicant wants to build there. According to the applicant’s survey, the entire site is 3.777 acres, but only 2.18 acres are above the Ordinary High Water elevation. The building would be located between a sink hole and Lake Temple, as shown in the site map.
Historic Live Oaks Risk the Chainsaw
The long-vacant lot is densely forested. According to the City, there are 64 protected shade trees on the lot, 29 of which the developer proposes to remove. These include several historic live oaks measuring five feet or more in diameter. According to comments from Urban Forestry, the tree diameters indicated on the Tree Preservation plan submitted by the developer are inaccurate. “Footprint corners, drive lane, and parking corners need to be staked and determined in the field,” reads the report, “prior to actual determination of the exact trees that could possibly be preserved or those that must be removed.”
Neighbors Are Divided
This project has the attention of the neighborhood. More than 40 emails and letters have been submitted to P&Z and to the Mayor and Commissioners as of this writing. The greater number of citizens has written in opposition to the project, but a substantial minority supports it.
There Is a Need for This Service
Those in favor cite the need for this type of facility in Winter Park. They point to the fact that the applicant is a locally owned company, which also owns and operates the Alabama Oaks assisted living facility at 1759 Alabama Dr. “Alabama Oaks is most always full with a waiting list,” wrote Nurse Practitioner Kelly Higgins, “and the community should welcome the opportunity to offer this type of care to elder residents in Winter Park.”
“Winter Park’s seniors should receive care in the same community they have called home for decades,” wrote Alison Polejes. “Yet, we currently have no dedicated memory care facility.”
Facility Is Incompatible
Residents opposed to the project are concerned about the suitability of the site and the size of the building. Limited parking and the impact on traffic are also mentioned.
“This facility is totally incompatible with the overall residential nature of the surrounding neighborhoods,” wrote Karen Kaczmarek. “This project, at nearly 40,000 square feet and three stories with heights reaching over 42 feet, is just too big for the area.”
“There is a sink hole on the property and a small lake backing up to residential houses,” wrote Charlotte Schmitt. “The building is too tall, too many square feet, has too small of a parking lot and is too close to the sink hole and lake.”
Donna Render wrote, “St. Johns [River Water Management District] told us years ago they could never approve a building here. How is this being ignored?” Ms. Render went on to point out, “You can’t fool Mother Nature!”
P&Z Meets at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 4, in the City Commission Chambers.
Fur Flies Over Library Location
Fur Flies Over Library Location
Stack of Legal Documents Grows
On September 9, the Save Our Library WP Political Action Committee filed suit requesting the court to overturn the City Commission’s approval of the City Clerk’s Certificate of Insufficiency of Petition.
PAC Sues the City to Accept Petition
Save Our Library PAC members circulated a petition proposing an ordinance to prohibit a library from being built in Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Park. They gathered the required number of signatures, had the signatures certified by the Orange County Supervisor of Elections, and presented the petition to the City. The Winter Park City Clerk declined to accept the petition on grounds that it was “insufficient.”
Referendum Ordinance or Petition Ordinance?
The Clerk’s finding of “insufficiency” was based on the claim that the petition represented a referendum ordinance rather than a petition ordinance. Basically, a referendum ordinance calls for the repeal of an ordinance the City has already passed – in this case, the $30 Million bond referendum. An initiative ordinance seeks to adopt a new ordinance – in this case, that no library may be built in MLK Park.
WPPL Trustees Speak Out
An “Open Letter to the Winter Park Community“ from the Board of Trustees of the Winter Park Public Library states, in part, “Efforts to halt the construction of the library in Martin Luther King, Jr., Park ARE actions against the new library.” The Trustees’ letter continues, “They [the efforts] are also significant in that they are an attempt to overturn the results of an election by eliminating the only viable site for the library-events center project. . . .”
For the full text of the letter, click here.
The Library will launch an e-newsletter to keep citizens informed on the library progress. Readers may subscribe by going to the wppl.org website.
City Sues State & WP Taxpayers for Bond Validation
Meanwhile, the City has sued the State and all Winter Park property owners, requesting the court validate the issuance of bonds for the purpose of building a library, events center and related parking structure. Although both the ballot language and the public notices that preceded the election were silent as to the location of this structure, the City has proceeded assuming the location was generally understood, and has included language specifying the MLK location in its Amended Complaint for Validation.
Legal Question? or Political Question?
Today, Assistant State Attorney Richard Wallsh filed a Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Complaint and a Motion to Vacate Order to Show Cause, asking the Court to strike references to the MLK Park location in the City’s Amended Complaint that seeks validation of the bonds. (Case No. 2016-CA-6063-0, Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Orange County, Florida)
In Paragraph 7 of his Motion to Strike Portions of Amended Complaint, Wallsh writes: “The selection of MLK Park as the construction site was never a portion of said ordinance or referendum. The inclusion of the site is not a proper subject for determination by this court. . . . That is a political issue for the city to resolve.”
Wallsh continues, “Plaintiff city is overreaching in its attempt to obtain judicial imprimatur for a hotly contested political decision regarding the location of the project for which bonds have been sought to finance.”
Hearing Set for October 20
Wallsh has requested the court either set a hearing for his motion prior to October 20 or move the October 20 date forward.







Recent Comments