Rink's roof too tall. Now what? - St. Petersburg Times

PALM HARBOR -- Pinellas County's Board of Adjustment today refused approve a half-built park structure that is nearly 10 feet taller than was originally approved.

The project is expected to cost $461,000 in public funds, and the Board of Adjustment's decision leaves the future of the structure shrouded in uncertainty.

Last month, Pinellas County officials asked Palm Harbor Recreation to halt construction of an open-sided shelter over a roller hockey rink at Sunderman park.

They said the project -- paid for partly with county grants -- is taller than the Board of Adjustment allowed when it approved the project in September. At that hearing, plus an earlier one in June, a contractor for the Palm Harbor Parks and Recreation Department told the board that the roof would be 22 to 25 feet high.

County development review officials first told the Palm Harbor Parks and Recreation Department -- which is overseen by the Palm Harbor Community Services Agency -- that it had three choices: remove the building, lower the roof to 25 feet or seek approval for the building from the Board of Adjustment.

Palm Harbor recreation officials first said they didn't want to do any of the three, but later agreed to another hearing today before the Board of Adjustment in an attempt to get retroactive approval for the project.

Palm Harbor parks and recreation director Rick Burton told board members that officials "feel terrible" about what happened but did not knowingly mislead anyone.

"We apologized for the statement" suggesting that the roof would be no more than 25 feet tall, Burton told board members.

Burton said he would be willing to create a new entrance to the facility to divert traffic away from the neighborhood and to plant taller landscaping, including 11 more 22-foot-tall sabal palm trees. Lowering the roof to 25 feet would mean that the shelter could not be used to play basketball. And lowering the roof would, in effect, double the cost of the project, he said.

But neighbor Martin Del Monte, who lives directly across the street from the half-built shelter, described it as "an industrial structure, and it's in a residential neighborhood."

And North Pinellas resident Steve Tucker urged the board "hold any agency of the county to the same standard that they hold private citizens to."

Board members, who voted 4-1 not to approve the height of the structure now, questioned Burton sharply and were not sympathetic to his plight.

"I've been in business 50 years, and if I make a mistake, I eat it," said Board of Adjustment member Joe Mangus. "So I'm going to vote against it."

In the past, Burton said it would be impractical to either take down the roof completely or try to lower it now.

Comments on this article

by Jay	Apr 5, 2008 2:16 PM
Palm Harbor wants to become a city? Hopefully the CSA won't be in charge. I served on the PH Fire Board for 4 years.When Sta 68 was being built, a member of the Board was there everyday checking progress. Being a good stewart of tax money is exp

by Bill	Apr 5, 2008 2:13 PM
Me again... Chief Complainer's entire house and lot is not worth the demolition of this new structure. Let's just treat it as condemning a visual amenity, and compensate those so damaged. This is for the public good, the public's mon

by Bill	Apr 5, 2008 2:13 PM
The building is an eyesore, perhaps. The building would also be an eyesore if it were a little shorter. How much more of an eyesore is it? County get an appraisal of difference, and compensate those in line of site. It's an eminent domain pro

by Rich	Apr 4, 2008 12:26 PM
I agree completely with Awake, this State is full of idiots.

by George A	Apr 4, 2008 10:32 AM
Another civil servant screws up and is afraid to suffer the consequences. In the real world -- the the protected civil servant world -- the one responsible would have to pay for the change. Fire this guy -- oops you can&

by TP	Apr 4, 2008 6:07 AM
Hey Awake, Do us all a favor...go back to sleep!

by Mobo	Apr 4, 2008 6:07 AM
A contractor or government official lies and this is news? The time to object to this giant waste of money was before it was built. It's not like the money wouldn't have been better spent on emergency services but it's too late now.

by barbara	Apr 4, 2008 6:07 AM
Sounds like contractor error. Where's there insurance? They should pay for the fix.

by john	Apr 4, 2008 6:07 AM
Mr. Tucker said it perfectly. The county has to be held to the same standards as a private citizen. It's like someone trying to build a 2 story house in a neighborhood of single story homes. you just don't do it.

by Taxpayin mom	Apr 3, 2008 3:30 PM
It's a travesty but we are talking about gov. spending our money. I vote for the berm with a bunch of passion vines to cover the roof.

by jackie o	Apr 3, 2008 3:29 PM
Sabal palms to block the view? How about something more substantial like oaks or crape myrtle? Palms block about as much as telephone poles.

by Stu	Apr 3, 2008 3:28 PM
See if the Rays need the roof for their new stadium and sell it to them.

by Awake	Apr 3, 2008 2:20 PM
Ben - leave thinking to more qualified people. Leave it to a republican to generalize this straightforward problem and pretend it somehow applies to much more complicated issues like healthcare and public education.

by Reader	Apr 3, 2008 2:20 PM
Jim, the article doesn't explain who is at fault (maybe the plans show the correct height). Also, the rink was already there. What future costs? Did you read the article?

by Ryan	Apr 3, 2008 2:20 PM
I hope they finish it soon, I am looking forward to using the facility.

by Peter	Apr 3, 2008 2:20 PM
Contractors consistently say whatever they have to for approval, then do whatever they want hoping that "forgiveness is easier than permission." This is NOT a small difference....

by Obvious	Apr 3, 2008 2:00 PM
Who approved the drawings? I never heard of a verbal permit. It wouldn't look any better if it was 10 feet lower across the street from my house. Put one quarter of the funds that it would cost to lower it into landscaping, and make it invisibl

by Matt	Apr 3, 2008 2:00 PM
Who REALLY cares? The ten or so houses across the street from it? I bet all of this could cheaply go away if they all got $500 each to sign something saying they would get over it...

by Chris	Apr 3, 2008 2:00 PM
This is what Errors & Omissions insurance is for. Make them pay up.

by Jeff	Apr 3, 2008 2:00 PM
ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with TBSA or Sunblades. This is an outdoor ROLLER-HOCKEY rink at a city park in PH. It has been there for almost a decade. The roof is the structure in question in the article. Both TBSA and Sunblades are fine...

by Jeff	Apr 3, 2008 1:59 PM
Brian, Your a moron. This has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with TBSA or Sunblades. This is an outdoor ROLLER-HOCKEY rink at a city park in PH. It has been there for almost a decade. The roof is the structure in question in the article.

by Anne	Apr 3, 2008 1:59 PM
The building IS an eyesore. How would YOU like to live across the street from it? This building does NOT belong in a residental neighborhood. It isn't easy to move nowadays. I'm pleased to see that the board had the guts to deny the extra

by Jim	Apr 3, 2008 1:59 PM
FIRE THE PERSON WHO APPROVE THE PLANS AND FINAL DRAWING. QUESTION IS A RINK NEEDED AND WHAT ARE FUTURE COST?

by mike	Apr 3, 2008 1:59 PM
You are much more likely to be forgiven, than you are granted permission. It will be built as is.

by Ben	Apr 3, 2008 1:59 PM
Hilarious! Don't you love government? Hmmm? and the libs want the govt to run healthcare..Yeah, right...Have you seen the quality of schools?? Wake up.

by Jen	Apr 3, 2008 1:58 PM
Grant the variance, let the kids (and adults) play hockey, basketball, whatever. At least they will be ACTIVE instead of indoor increasing the obesity rate. At some point, shouldn't common sense prevail?

by Tom	Apr 3, 2008 1:58 PM
Looks great from my house.

by Sharon	Apr 3, 2008 1:01 PM
Wasting more taxpayer money is NOT acceptable. Either make the contractor foot the additional costs or leave it as is. We're spending enough! This money could probably have been spent better anyway.

by John	Apr 3, 2008 1:01 PM
Todd.... the rink has been there for some time. Get your facts straight before you run your mouth.

by LittleBro	Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Like Mangus said - Burton and his contractor should "eat it." A little more than apologizing for the lie. Remember: "Money talks and BS walks."

by Todd	Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Ever hear of Errors & Omissions Insurance? And why in the heck are we building an outdoor roller hockey rink right now??? I say tear it down, sell the metal as scrap & STOP WASTING MONEY ON FLUFF LIKE THIS! Could'nt that $$ be spent bett

by K9 POV	Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Build a ten foot berm around the structure & declare the building to be no more than 25 foot above ground level.

by Brian	Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM
It looks like Sunblades is the only rink around now, or put up with the staff at TBSA.Either way Sunblades wins.

by Phi	Apr 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Sounds like big ego's at work. Shouldnt public use and minimizing costs to taxpayers be the priorities? Its up, its done, figure out a way to punish the contracto that doesnt collaterally damage the public. Not hard.

by john	Apr 3, 2008 12:41 PM
Just grant a variance and have them plant extra landscaping so the structure won't be an eyesore to residents in the area. Wasting the money that's been spent so far, seems foolish because without the variance it also limits the facility&