LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Posted on 16 April 2015 by LeslieM

Story of an Inn

Dear Editor:

The Save our Beach people were getting their petitions signed just after we purchased the Shore Road Inn, Oct. 21, 2003 which was NOT the top of the market.

I refused to sign the petition because it was too restrictive. Little did I know that it was even more than I understood at that time. With this law in place the property was worthless. Taxes were going sky high, the hotel business was going down and the hotel was not at its highest and best use. We struggled to survive as a hotel until we just couldn’t make it.

It was then that we used the rooms for a Sober Living facility. After a year or so, we expanded into a treatment center, which is located on Sample Road. After we were foreclosed, the new owners refurbished the building and rents back to Our Place.

I know that the city doesn’t appreciate the beach having this distinction but what else could we do? If you read ahead you may begin to understand the error of the law that is tying the hands and purses of property owners on the beach and ultimately the city.

The Save Our Beach reform was to guard against the beach being overbuilt. They [told] the public this would be a good idea – No building!

The Shore Road Inn…as it stands now … has a larger footprint than what could be built in its place. The footprint of the plans we had was smaller but two stories higher. It’s true our plans were approved but we were unable to obtain financing because the building didn’t have enough units to support the costs.

The problem with this law is that it restricts the density of the building. The 16,000 sq. ft. we were allowed included the stairwells and storage space. So much required “green space” we had to hire an engineer to figure the sunlight that would come into the garage to add planters.

Our lot was perfect for a lovely building, being that it goes block to block. And no one would build up across the street. I got so much trouble about wanting just 15 in. on the “rounded” out sections at the front of the building, which was above the ground.15 in. of air space. Torture to get this.

Another setback was there wasn’t enough room for the parking. The mayor came to the hotel and looked over the plans. The city was wrong, our architects were correct. Big delay. Another setback was the color; we wanted a white building. Then it was the type of balcony railings … on and on.

For some reason the city has an aversion to the designs and colors of Boca Raton. So, these delays dragged out over a year approximately. Lots of expense. Time lost, more money … the market was falling, as was the hope of getting financing when the building really couldn’t support it. Another floor of condos would have made all the difference.

According to the law, the half acre of land is allowed the density of 16,000 sq. ft. of living space (remember, that includes large stairwells and storage space). That means the space under the roof and 55 ft. high. If you build that high, the shape of our building would become more square instead of rectangular, which is the shape of our lot.

We decided to not use the 55ft. height, but to spread the building out. Most of the 12 units were over 11,000 sq. ft. but had huge patios, 800+ sq. ft. When selling a condo, the sale price counts the living space under the roof, and not including the balcony. Here is the problem. There is room to make the condos larger by using some of the balcony square footage. That would bring a higher sales price. Does this law restrict density? What does that mean? Does this determine how many people will be able to live on that land and in that space? Does a larger condo mean more occupants? Would 12 condos with 500 sq. ft. more living space mean the city would become overgrown?

Donna M Zappin

Antigua, Guatemala

Comments are closed.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here