Email ThisTweet ThisShare This

Input Your Comment

Please Note: Though we very much value correspondence from our readers, we do not publish unsigned comments and letters. Please include your name or pseudonym with your correspondence. Thank You.


The Predictor
December 19, 2014

I think I see a pattern here. Developers started small and then got bigger and bigger until the residents said enough. The residents want to preserve their property values and the developers want to maximize profit and these are incompatible. Then the developers acted like they had the mayor and commissioners in their pocket so the residents got angry. You will see that the new mayor will be the judge and leary will lose because he is seen (whether accurate or not) as being a strong supporter of the developers. All of the commissioners will lose except cooper who sided with the residents. This will only occur if the residents actually vote. The former mayor will take mr. leary’s seat and he will probably be a balanced view like the judge. Basically, large scale development is thru in winter park for at least the next 7 years.

Andrew T. Pyle
December 9, 2014

Good. Winter Park isn’t Clermont. Take these density projects somewhere else.

Petra Hays
December 9, 2014

Thank You P & Z board members!

Whit Blanton
December 9, 2014

I continue to be amazed at the silly comments you include in most stories. “Known locally as the Pumpkin Patch?” As a former member of St. John’s, it is known locally as their parking lot. They have had many other activities there besides selling pumpkins.

Cut through traffic from commuter rail? Come on. There is no parking for more than 4 hours, and a lot of the train use getting on and off at WP is from station-to-station travel. Why bring commuter rail into this issue? Red Herring.

You are using misleading information about the project’s density. Don’t think for a second a fairly intense ALF will ever generate the traffic of a Tropical Smoothie, sit down restaurant or any other uses that are commonly along Orlando Avenue in Winter Park. And so what if this is a relatively dense development? It is on 17-92 adjacent to a multi-story office building. This is one place where some intensity of use makes good sense. If the church closes its doors, what are the odds it will remain a church for long?

Maybe it can be scaled down a bit, but it sounds like anything other than a pumpkin patch would be unacceptable to those opposed to development.

Jack Miles
December 9, 2014

Pleased to see P&Z members act appropriately, well done. As was apparently brought out by P&Z members; the financial state of the church is interesting but irrelevant relative to use of land and allowed density.

It is critical that anyone purchasing property for development understand what is allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan and P&Z Regulations… expect more than very minor adjustments is not appropriate.

Nice to see the process work the way it was designed with elected and or appointed officials exercising their fiduciary duty.

Just input your name and comment below. Click to submit and you’re done.

Comments will post to this page after they are screened by the editor.

Our screening policy is designed to encourage civility and constructive input from readers. We will screen out any comments containing profanity, personal attacks and other foolishness.

Commentor Name or Pseudonym

Input and submit your comments here:

Share This