The time-share hotel-apartment building proposed in the Burns Square area is not a hotel after all.
The city ruled today that a time-share hotel-apartment building proposed in the Burns Square area is not a hotel after all, so developer Al Hochstadt is going to have to come up with something else to build there.
It is a victory for neighbors who opposed the project, and were angry that a clause in the city�s downtown plan meant that the five-story building would not require a vote from the City Commission.
In a letter sent to Hochstadt Friday afternoon, Timothy Litchet, the city�s planning and building director, wrote that the project was an ever evolving concept, and it was difficult for city planners to understand what the developer was trying to build.
In April, the developer changed plans, stating that he intended to sell ownership interest of each of the 173 units. As a result, the city ruled the project was no longer a hotel.
�You represented that each unit would be for the exclusive use of a miniumum of 26 families,� Litchet wrote in his letter to the Palm-Beach based developer.
The distinction is a key point for the project.
If it is a hotel, the developer could have built 173 rooms in a five-story building.
But all that would change if the project is composed of time-share units, or spaces reserved for multiple owners for two-week periods.
Under one scenario, the city code would allow only 28 units on the land.
Hochstadt has 15 days to file an appeal with the city. The city�s planning board would hold a hearing and decide whether to hear the developer�s case.
Another option is for the developer to try to convince city officials to change the city's zoning code to allow for a broader definition of a hotel.
Hochstadt could not be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.