PGSP Neighbors United Legal Fund

Thank you to everyone who supported the PGSP Legal Fund.

We raised a total of $38,000.00 from hundreds of people throughout Pinellas County and represented the interests of residents/homeowners of the Pasadena Bear Creek Neighborhood.

The conclusion of the DOAH Petition has come and gone.

If you support healthy growth of our city and oppose inappropriately placed higher-density spot zoning, or outrageous increases in density, please attend the Forward Pinellas hearing on May 12th @ 1PM to support the Pasadena Bear Creek Neighborhood and express your concern for a potential 400% increase in density in a single family neighborhood.

Saint Petersburg has become a developers playground, leaving long term residents to bear the burden of increased cost of living, loss of neighborhood character, and loss of dutiful and thoughtful City Planning.

PGSP Update .png

Submitted to the State Agency March 18th:

 

Compelling legal points supporting that the Administrative Law Judge amend the Recommended Order submitted regarding PGSP v. City of St Petersburg to find FLUM 58 Land Use Amendment is not internally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

CONCLUSION


The DEO should:
a. Make an explicit ruling on each of the above – stated exceptions, per §120.57 (1)(k),
Fla. Stat.;


b. Grant each of the above – stated exceptions, and remand the matter back to the ALJ;


c. Instruct the ALJ to revise the conclusions of law related to the failure to rely upon
professionally accepted data and analysis in the Amendments and use the maximum allowable densities are required by law;


d. Instruct the ALJ to make findings on the issue of compatibility and data and
analysis support for the Amendment, based on the legally correct interpretations of the statutory requirements, as set forth above;


e. Upon receipt of an Amended Recommended Order, forward this matter to the
Administration Commission with a recommendation that it issue a Final Order finding the FLUM Amendment to be not in compliance as the City failed to rely on professionally accepted data and analysis, examine the maximum allowable densities as authorized by the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the FLUM Amendment, and failed to maintain internal consistency within its Comprehensive Plan.

Respectfully Submitted on this 18th day of March 2021,