Battle continues over Maitland development

Maitland residents upset over the idea of development in Maitland Concourse North are taking their concerns to the top, challenging changes to the land’s proposed Comprehensive Development Plan to decision makers in Tallahassee.

Angry over the Maitland City Council’s unanimous decision last month to seek state approval of changing the land use development designation from residential and office use to mixed-use residential, office and commercial, seven residents have officially signed an administrative action to stall the process.

Mo Shams, Druid Isles resident and the attorney having filed the complaint in Tallahassee, said he and his neighbors are trying to close the door on putting commercial development in their neighborhood before the Council can open it despite their opposition.

“Once you open the door for these things you can’t close it.” Shams said. “It just doesn’t close anymore.”

The city argues the exact opposite, Mayor Howard Schieferdecker saying that by not allowing the door to possible development to open, the city is denying itself the right to decide whether it in fact wants the 56-acre area between lakes Charity, Hope and Faith east of Interstate 4 and west of Maitland Avenue to be developed – or not.

“I am not for the project, I don’t even know what the project is yet,” Schieferdecker said. “… I just hope we’ll have an opportunity to look at it.”

Design plans have yet to be laid for the area, and won’t be drafted or proposed until after the Comprehensive Development Plan is altered if given approval by the state, he said.

By offering the challenge to Tallahassee, Shams hopes the state will reconsider the city’s proposed change to allow Maitland to permit this land, owned by the Battaglia Group, to be open for commercial use, including stores of up to 65,000 square feet in size. The potential development, Shams said, will negatively impact his and his neighbors’ property values as well as put the area at a great risk for flooding.

The issue is tentatively scheduled to be back before Council, with feedback from the state, on March 25, but Schieferdecker said that process might be prolonged by the challenge filed by Shams Feb. 13.

“We don’t know what to expect now,” Scheiferdecker said.