Request for Clarification on Unauthorized Revisions to PADD Final Draft

January 20, 2026

Dear Kimley-Horn Team,

I am writing on behalf of the Lake Park Society for the Advancement of Civic Engagement (SACE) regarding the Park Avenue Downtown District (PADD) Study and the substantial, unexplained revisions contained in the December 2025 draft.

On January 20, 2026, we met with the Town’s Development Director and Town Manager to discuss the differences between the publicly presented June 2, 2025 draft and the Final draft recently posted on the Town’s website.

During this meeting, both officials clearly stated that:

• The Town did not direct or authorize Kimley-Horn to change the density framework from 48 to 60 dwelling units per acre;
• The Town did not request the retention or expansion of waiver mechanisms, including structured parking height exclusions;
• The Town did not instruct Kimley-Horn to alter or create new sub-district boundaries or increase intensity;
• The Town has no explanation for how these substantial changes occurred;
• The Town Manager expressly stated that he instructed the Development Director and planning staff to “stay away” meaning staff did not make any specific requests to change the report after June 2; and
• Both officials advised us to contact Kimley-Horn directly for an explanation.

It is also important to note that at both the April 26 public workshop and the June 2 public presentation, Kimley-Horn witnessed hundreds of residents expressing strong, consistent opposition to high-rise development and a clear preference for preserving a small-scale, historic downtown with buildings not exceeding approximately six stories. This public input was reflected in the June 2 draft.

However, the December draft departs sharply from this consensus. In addition to higher intensity, expanded waivers, and increased density, the final draft introduces an entirely new or reconfigured Core Sub-District with materially different development entitlements. This sub-district was never discussed publicly, never shown to residents, never evaluated in the June 2 presentation, and was not the subject of any infrastructure, traffic, wastewater, or compatibility analysis. Its creation is a substantial policy change that contradicts both the June 2 draft and the documented public record.

Given Town has denied providing direction for these revisions—we are requesting clarification directly from Kimley-Horn.

To ensure transparency and accountability, we respectfully request answers to the following:

A. Direction and Authorization

1. What instructions, if any, were provided to Kimley-Horn after June 2, 2025?
2. Who requested or authorized the introduction of 60 dwelling units per acre in the Core Sub-District?
3. On what basis were waiver mechanisms preserved or expanded, despite the June 2 draft identifying them as a risk?
4. Who directed or authorized the creation or reconfiguration of the sub-districts—particularly the Core Sub-District that now carries a higher density entitlement—and what was the rationale for these boundary changes?
5. Why were these significant policy revisions not presented publicly prior to the release of the December draft?
6. If no direction was provided by Town staff or the Commission, what was the rationale for producing a final draft that contradicts the June 2 draft and the public input documented to date?

B. Draft Review Process and Communications

1. Who reviewed the drafts and how many revisions were made prior to their release?
2. Who provided comments, edits, or requested changes to those drafts?
3. Were any of the following individuals or groups consulted regarding revisions after June 2?
   • Mayor Michaud
   • Individual commissioners
   • The CRA or CRA Director
   • Economic development personnel
   • Business owners within the PADD
   • Developers or their representatives
   • Chamber of Commerce or business organizations

1. Did Kimley-Horn meet with, correspond with, or receive feedback from any private individuals, businesses, or developers regarding revisions to the PADD recommendations and the timing of these communications?
2. What was the purpose of the November 2025 outreach to business owners for a private meeting?
   Who initiated it, who was invited, and what materials or draft concepts were to be discussed?
3. Were any draft versions, redlines, annotated comments, or markups circulated that are not part of the public record?

As you know, the June 2 draft was the only version presented at a public meeting, and the Commission acknowledged that the only follow-up request was to evaluate a single optional 10-story scenario. No other changes were voted on or authorized.

Because the Town has stated that staff were instructed "stay away" and that no direction was given for the significant changes contained in the December draft, we respectfully request a clear and timely explanation from Kimley-Horn regarding how these revisions—including the creation of a new sub-district—entered the document and under what authority.

Finally, the fact that the Town has confirmed that it did not request, authorize, or participate in these substantial and material revisions raises serious questions about the integrity of the process through which the final draft was produced. Major changes of this magnitude—introducing new sub-districts, increasing density, expanding waivers, and altering the development framework—should not appear in a planning document without clear direction, transparent communication, and public review. The absence of such direction makes it essential to understand how these revisions were developed, by whom, and under what authority.

Thank you for your prompt response. Both residents and the Town Commission deserve full transparency regarding the origin of these changes.

Sincerely,
Katia Zhestkova
President, Lake Park Society for the Advancement of Civic Engagement (SACE)

 

Lake Park Residents: Your input has been ignored! High Rises might come back! 

January 19, 2025.

RE: Formal Demand to Pull Agenda Item and Require Revision of PADD Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments Due to Substantive, Unauthorized Changes and Legal Deficiencies

Dear Mayor, Commissioners, Planning and Development Department Staff, and Town Attorney, Town Manager, 

On June 2, 2025, the report of the Kimley-Horn Park Avenue Downtown District (PADD) Study was publicly presented to the Town Commission and residents.

At that June 2 meeting, no motion was made, no vote was taken, and no formal directive was issued by the Town Commission to alter the study’s conclusions, density framework, waiver structure, or planning assumptions. The only comment regarding additional analysis came from the Mayor, who verbally suggested that Kimley-Horn could look at one additional scenario involving a 10-story building. That suggestion:

• was not voted on,
• was not approved by the Commission, and
• did not authorize changes to density limits, waiver authority, or the policy framework presented to the public.

Despite the absence of Commission authorization and without any additional public workshop, notice, or resident engagement, the study was subsequently returned and later reissued with substantial and material changes that were not requested by the Commission, not discussed with residents, and not supported by new data. These changes include the introduction of 60 dwelling units per acre, the preservation and expansion of waiver mechanisms, and a reframing of infrastructure constraints as justification for increased height and density.

These revisions represent a fundamental departure from the June 2nd report’s findings, the public record, and the scope of discussion at the June 2 meeting. They therefore require a clear, written explanation of how, why, and under whose direction these changes occurred.

1) Public Participation, Reliance, and Reasonable Public Expectations 

On April 29, 2025, Kimley-Horn conducted a public workshop to gather resident input regarding the future of the Park Avenue Downtown District. More than 100 residents attended, filling the Town Hall meeting room to capacity, with standing room only. During this workshop, residents overwhelmingly and consistently expressed strong opposition to high-rise development and articulated a clear preference for preserving a small-scale, historic downtown character. These statements were made on the record, and the workshop testimony is part of the public record. In addition, numerous residents submitted written correspondence directly to Kimley-Horn reiterating these concerns and reinforcing the community’s vision for downtown Lake Park. 

On June 2, 2025, Kimley-Horn presented their report of the PADD study at a public meeting that was again fully attended, with residents providing extensive testimony. At that meeting, residents largely expressed appreciation for the findings and recommendations presented by Kimley-Horn, particularly where those findings acknowledged infrastructure constraints, market limitations, and the need to preserve downtown’s historic scale. Importantly, residents left that meeting with the clear and reasonable understanding that the only follow-up action discussed was the addition of one additional development scenario evaluating a 10-story option, as verbally referenced during the meeting. No other changes to density, waiver structure, sub-district configuration, or development framework were requested by the Commission at that time, nor were any such changes discussed with or disclosed to the public. 

As a result, residents reasonably relied on the understanding that the study would return solely with an additional scenario for comparative purposes, not with substantial policy revisions that expanded base density, restructured sub-districts, or normalized waiver mechanisms enabling significantly taller buildings. The subsequent release of a final draft containing material changes not presented, discussed, or vetted publicly represents a departure from both the expectations established at the June 2, 2025 meeting and the spirit of meaningful public participation required under Florida law. The final draft that was made public only in November, disregards this record entirely, advancing a planning framework that residents were neither informed of nor given an opportunity to review or challenge. This exclusion undermines public trust and violates the core principles of transparent, participatory planning embedded in Florida law.

2) Material Differences Between the First Draft and the Final DraftThe differences between the first draft and final draft are not minor edits or clarifications. They represent fundamental policy reversals in intensity, scale, and regulatory structure, with lasting consequences for downtown Lake Park.

A. Density Framework (48 du/acre → 60 du/acre)

• The first draft modeled residential development around the existing framework of 48 dwelling units per acre, warned against overconcentration of intensity, and did not recommend raising the base density.
• The final draft introduces 60 dwelling units per acre in the Core Sub-District without updated market analysis, traffic modeling, or wastewater capacity analysis to justify the increase.

Practical impact: higher base density drives larger footprints, deeper massing, and structured parking, incentivizes parcel aggregation, and favors large developers while destabilizing small-scale historic parcels.

B. Height, Massing, and How “16 Stories” Happens

• The first draft treated height as a compatibility control aligned with resident input (6-story preference) and consultant recommendations (6–7 story limits in Core; 4 stories in Outer).
• The final framework, even where nominal limits are stated, retains waiver mechanisms and structured parking exclusions that allow stacking provisions and effectively enable buildings far above the stated limits.

Practical impact: downtown can shift from small-scale historic character to tower-scale buildings, with corresponding impacts on neighborhood compatibility, shade, privacy, traffic, parking demand, and long-term identity.

C. Waivers: From Identified Risk → Primary Development Tool

• The first draft identified vague waiver provisions as a major risk and recommended removing the structured parking height waiver and strengthening standards.
• The final draft normalizes waivers and broadly defines “public benefit,” including infrastructure.

Practical impact: waivers stop being rare exceptions and become a predictable pathway to maximize height/density—creating an outcome-driven system where development scale is negotiated rather than planned. 

D. Infrastructure: From Constraint → Bargaining Chip

• The first draft documented severe wastewater limitations, including an estimated 1,132 ERC shortfall, and treated wastewater/transportation as limiting factors.
• The final approach reframes infrastructure as a “public benefit” that can justify increased intensity.

Practical impact: rather than protecting the Town from overbuilding beyond capacity, the amendments create a structure where infrastructure deficits can be leveraged to justify additional height/density, shifting risk and long-term costs to the Town and residents. 

E. Development Pattern and Historic Downtown Fabric

• The first draft emphasized incremental infill, adaptive reuse, and compatibility with existing small-lot patterns.
• The final framework incentivizes parcel aggregation and large-scale mixed-use construction with structured parking, which is inherently incompatible with fine-grained historic downtown parceling.

Practical impact: historic structures and small property owners are placed at increased redevelopment pressure and downtown becomes shaped by a small number of large projects rather than community-scaled growth. 

Simple Example: How 60 Density + Waivers Turn Into a Tower

Step 1: Density Increase
The base density increases from 48 to 60 dwelling units per acre — a 25% increase on the same parcel.

Step 2: Parking Pressure
Sixty units require far more parking than can fit at grade downtown, forcing the developer to propose structured parking.

Step 3: Parking Floors Don’t Count
Under the draft code, 2–4 stories of parking are excluded from height limits.

Step 4: Waivers Add More Height
By offering a “public benefit” (such as a lift station, utility work, or limited public parking), the developer receives waivers allowing additional residential stories.

Step 5: The Stacking Effect
What appears on paper as “6–7 stories” becomes in reality:

• 3–4 stories of parking (not counted)
• 7 residential stories (base allowance)
• 2–3 additional stories (via waivers)

Result: a 13–16 story building, even though residents were told the limit was far lower.

3) Invalidation of Study Findings Due to Density Increase to 60 Dwelling Units per AcreA critical and unresolved defect in the final PADD draft is that all supporting infrastructure, traffic, and service analyses were performed using a maximum residential density of 48 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Town’s adopted Comprehensive Plan at the time the study was conducted. Specifically, the following analyses were explicitly prepared at 48 du/acre and not recalculated for higher density:

• Transportation modeling, including trip generation and intersection Level of Service (LOS);
• Wastewater capacity analysis, including Equivalent Residential Connections (ERCs), average daily flow, peak hour flow, and lift station capacity;
• Parking demand assumptions and structured parking scenarios;
• Buildout assumptions used to evaluate infrastructure constraints and mitigation feasibility.

By subsequently introducing a 60 dwelling unit per acre density framework in the final draft — without re-running traffic modeling, recalculating wastewater flows and ERC requirements, reassessing parking demand, or evaluating downstream impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods — the analytical foundation of the PADD study is no longer valid or transferable to the proposed policy. Under §163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, comprehensive plan amendments must be supported by relevant, appropriate, and current data and analysis and must be internally consistent. Reliance on traffic, infrastructure, and utility studies prepared for a materially lower density does not satisfy this statutory requirement. In practical and legal terms, increasing density from 48 to 60 dwelling units per acre invalidates the study’s original findings. The Town cannot lawfully adopt Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Code amendments premised on higher density without:

• conducting new transportation modeling at the proposed density;
• recalculating wastewater capacity, ERC requirements, and lift station impacts;
• reassessing parking demand and structured parking feasibility;
• evaluating cumulative impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods and municipal services.

Proceeding with adoption absent this updated analysis would render the amendments unsupported by competent substantial evidence, internally inconsistent, and legally vulnerable to administrative and judicial challenge. The only defensible action available to the Town are to restart the analysis at the proposed 60 du/acre density or to revert to the 48 du/acre framework on which the study was actually based.

4) Role of the Planning and Development Department and Expansion of Discretionary Authority The record reflects a significant redirection of the consultant’s work between drafts—from identifying limits and constraints to structuring mechanisms that enable higher density and expanded waiver functionality. 

Rather than establishing clear, objective policy standards, the final draft concentrates power in discretionary waivers granted by the Town Commission. Height and density controls presented to residents as firm limits are no longer binding once parking exclusions, density averaging, and loosely defined “public benefits” are applied.

 In effect, the second draft (November 2025) does not create clear policy at all. Instead, it grants the Commission broad discretion to approve outcomes far exceeding stated limits. As some commissioners appear to be sympathetic to particular developers, this framework allows approvals up to 16 stories, notwithstanding repeated public assurances of lower heights. 

This approach replaces adopted planning policy with ad hoc negotiation, undermining internal consistency, equal treatment, and transparency. It raises serious legal concerns under §163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that comprehensive plan amendments be internally consistent, data-driven, and not arbitrary. Concentrating such discretion via waiver provisions exposes the Town to claims of outcome-driven decision-making and capricious approvals.

5) A. Unilateral Amendments, Lack of Public Notice, and Procedural Defects 

Creation of a New Sub-District With Increased Density and the Appearance of Preferential Treatment

The final draft introduces a new or expanded sub-district within the PADD that carries a 60 dwelling units per acre density entitlement, a material increase over the 48 du/acre framework analyzed in the first draft. This sub-district was not identified, evaluated, or discussed with residents during earlier phases of the study, nor was it the subject of separate infrastructure, traffic, or market analysis.

Critically, the geographic boundaries of this newly favored sub-district correspond directly to parcels controlled by a small number of large developers, including those actively pursuing approvals for projects that would exceed the scale and intensity discussed with the public. Meanwhile, surrounding areas—particularly those characterized by smaller parcels, historic structures, and long-standing local ownership—do not receive comparable increases in density or flexibility.

This raises serious and legitimate questions regarding the selective application of planning policy. The creation of a higher-density sub-district in locations controlled by specific development interests, without a data-driven justification applicable to the district as a whole, creates the appearance that zoning and density were tailored to accommodate particular projects rather than derived from neutral planning principles.

From a planning and legal perspective, comprehensive plans are intended to apply uniformly and equitably, based on land use compatibility, infrastructure capacity, historic context, and community vision—not ownership patterns or pending development proposals. When a density increase is geographically limited in a manner that aligns with specific developer holdings, and when that increase is unsupported by new analysis or public process, it raises concerns regarding favoritism, unequal treatment of property owners, and departure from adopted policy objectives.

This concern is heightened by the fact that:

• the increased density was introduced after resident opposition was clearly documented;
• the increase was not requested or authorized by a Commission vote;
• the underlying traffic and infrastructure analyses do not support the higher density; and
• the change materially benefits a small subset of property owners while imposing long-term impacts on the broader downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

While intent cannot be presumed, the appearance of preferential treatment alone is sufficient to warrant scrutiny. These circumstances justify further inquiry into how the sub-district boundaries were drawn, who proposed the increased density, what alternatives were considered, and why similarly situated properties were treated differently. 

Such questions fall squarely within the scope of proper oversight review and further underscore the necessity of halting the adoption process, restoring transparency, and ensuring that land use policy is guided by objective planning criteria rather than project-specific accommodation. 

B. Public Benefit Waivers Create Structural Inequity Between Large and Small Property Owners 

“The public benefit waive” framework embedded in the final draft operates in a manner that systematically advantages large-scale developers while effectively excluding small property owners, despite being nominally available to all.

 In practice, the types of “public benefits” identified—such as utility infrastructure construction, structured parking, publicly accessible amenities, or overbuilding system capacity—require significant capital investment, parcel aggregation, financing complexity, and long development timelines. These requirements are realistically achievable only by large developers with substantial financial resources and multi-parcel control. 

Small property owners, historic property stewards, and local businesses within the PADD lack the scale necessary to provide such benefits and therefore cannot meaningfully access the same waiver pathways, even when their projects are otherwise compatible with the downtown fabric. 

As a result, the waiver framework does not function as an equitable regulatory tool but instead creates a two-tier development system: one in which large developers can negotiate substantial increases in height and density, and another in which small owners are constrained by base limits without comparable opportunity for flexibility. 

From a planning perspective, this outcome is inconsistent with the stated goals of preserving historic character, encouraging incremental infill, and supporting diverse ownership patterns. From a legal perspective, it raises concerns regarding unequal treatment of similarly situated property owners, particularly where discretionary waivers materially alter development rights and outcomes. 

Rather than promoting fairness or public benefit, the waiver structure as drafted risks accelerating consolidation of downtown parcels, displacing small owners, and concentrating development power in the hands of a few large actors—outcomes that were neither supported by the first draft analysis nor expressed by residents during public engagement.

Following these revisions, the Planning and Development Department prepared Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendments based on the revised, higher-density, waiver-driven framework without informing residents that the consultant’s conclusions had materially changed or explaining what those changes would mean for downtown Lake Park. 

Simultaneously, staff is urging the Commission to move quickly, asserting that businesses and the CRA require clarity. While certainty is important, urgency cannot lawfully substitute for transparency, statutory compliance, or public participation. Advancing amendments of this magnitude under these circumstances creates substantial and avoidable legal risk. 

6) Formal Demand for Immediate Procedural Action

 For the reasons outlined above, we formally demand the following actions before any further consideration of the PADD amendments:

1. Immediate removal (“pulling”) of this agenda item from Commission Meeting of January 21, 2026 for consideration until all above issues are addressed properly and with residents’ participation;
2. Direction from the Town Commission to the Planning and Development Department to suspend the current amendment package; and
3. A full revision of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code amendments, including:
   • Reversion to the 48 dwelling unit per acre framework, or
   • A complete restart of all traffic, wastewater, infrastructure, and parking analysis at any proposed higher density;
   • Alignment with the June 5, 2025 first draft of the Kimley-Horn study;
   • Incorporation of resident testimony and written input;
   • Full compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, including §163.3177(6)(a).

   Any consideration of density exceeding 48 dwelling units per acre requires a complete restart of traffic, wastewater, and infrastructure analysis, as the existing report cannot lawfully support higher-density adoption.

   
   

   7) Notice to the Town Commission Regarding Legal Exposure

   Commissioners are hereby placed on notice that continued advancement of these amendments after the issues outlined in this letter have been placed on the record may be viewed as knowing disregard of statutory planning obligations. Pulling the item and directing corrective revisions is the most prudent, defensible, and legally responsible course of action.

   
   

   8) Request for Written Explanation

   We respectfully request a written response addressing:

1. Who directed Kimley-Horn to revise the study after June 5, 2025, and the precise instructions given;
2. Why 60 dwelling units per acre was introduced without supporting analysis or formal request from the Commission or public;
3. Why waiver mechanisms identified as risks in the first draft were retained and expanded;
4. Why residents were excluded from review of material changes; and
5. How the proposed amendments comply with §163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

Closing

In short, the Commission is being asked to ratify amendments that were materially altered outside public view, rely on inapplicable infrastructure and traffic analysis, and replace enforceable standards with discretionary waiver authority capable of producing 16-story buildings in a historic downtown. 

This course of action is neither required by law, legally defensible, nor consistent with the public record reflecting the clearly and repeatedly expressed wishes of Lake Park residents.

Respectfully,

Katia Zhestkova

President of Lake Park Society for the Advancement of Civic Engagement
 

 Article: Nautilus 220 opening depends on sewage lift station

Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission 9/04/2025:

Public Comment on Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget Considerations

Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr. pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547

I want to thank the Commissioners, Town Manager, and Finance Director for their work spent preparing a proposed budget. Concurrently, I sense you are aware of the growing resident resentment specifically around department head salaries and any considered increases in that sector.

Your responsibility is to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Every dollar we approve for salaries cannot be used for maintaining infrastructure, supporting public safety, or providing essential services. When many residents are facing rising costs of living, from groceries to property taxes, it simply feels burdensome to increase spending on already excessive administrative salaries.

Many hardworking families in this community haven’t seen raises that keep pace with inflation, yet we’re being asked to approve increases upon residents who feel tapped out.

Furthermore, outside of union contracts, salary increases should be tied directly to individually measurable performance. Before considering giving every single town employee a merit increase of 3%, across the board, (and how is that action individualized?), we need clear benchmarks showing how a raise will improve efficiency, accountability, or the quality of services delivered. Otherwise, we risk approving spending without evidence of benefit. Something you never do. The excuse about having to pay excessive wages to attract and retain quality people is old and unproven.

Two ideas come to mind. One, to freeze all town expenses of any kind for a one-year period and live off the budget we have had this past year. With Forest Development’s future lease and tax payments now uncertain, we cannot plan budget projections around this revenue stream. We lived well enough under the current budget terms. And we can better study competitive salary ranges with more accurate and relevant research, than the one D’Agostino used to justify his generosity to earn loyalty.

Second, I could advocate for no merit or COLA increases for all employees making above $100,000. We would witness a substantial savings for the town with a one-year freeze. No employee making over $100,000 will resign in protest and find better paying employment.

These ideas position us for a stronger fiscal house, with more accurate budget projections, and to have saved money for projects like a mixed-use community center, for example.

Thank You.

 Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission 9/03/2025:

Public Comment on Terminating the Relationship with Forest Development

By:  Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr. Pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547 

I have previously appeared before you on several community issues, one of which focused on the Mayor, Commissioners, and Town Manager’s gun violence safety, and another about the personal and professional value systems necessary for you to make difficult decisions. As a private resident, and as a leader of a local resident engagement nonprofit, I have strived to be of good faith, thoughtful, and empathetic, serving as your community partner.

Tonight, I will speak because I think we are soon at a cross-roads decision about P-3 and Forest Development, which in my view also encompasses consideration of the PADD project and Nautilus status. I seek a brave, value-driven Mayor or Commissioner to consider a motion I will suggest.

[Regrettably, I do not have the allotted time necessary to cite all 22 of my Whereas preambles –

I expect they are essentially correct. They support my motion and are for you to digest]

1) Whereas all remaining Developer projects fundamentally alter the character of the small town feel residents hold so dear.

2) Whereas it was widely reported in public media sites that the Lake Park Comprehensive Plan, several changes in zoning codes, and new levels of density for the Nautilus project were inappropriately waived to accommodate the developer. This holds true with the PADD proposal.

3) Whereas the town attorney does not recommend the changing of the purpose and intent of Ordinance 78-70 and associated State statutes as sought by the Developer.

4) Whereas the P-3 Comprehensive Agreement has been breached several times by Forest Development

5) Whereas critical path deadlines for P-3 were missed without formal extensions.

6) Whereas the P-3 agreement is a town-threatening 99-year lease with payments to the town for only 10.

7) Whereas the Developer has no apparent or known P-3 secured financing in place.

8) Whereas the town attorney, incorporating his vast experience in land planning and zoning, has regularly cited the challenges related to development of each Forest project.

9) Whereas the town attorney has publicly cited challenges related to the PADD project due to wastewater capacity.

10) Whereas the Developer achieves long term control over the P-3, 12-acre site for an entire century.

11) Whereas the marina project leaves little public space and parking.

12) Whereas the marina project proposed dock and fuel space satisfies the needs of only the wealthy citizens of Nautilus and large boats.

13) Whereas the town attorney has stated that the PADD project is not entitled to the height or density sought by the Developers application.

14) Whereas the PADD project establishes the unusual approach of allocating residential units based upon a basket or bucket of units, which does not provide equal opportunities for all property owners in the downtown area.

15) Whereas the town attorney has stated that the PADD projects are out of scale with the downtown.

16) Whereas the Developer has demonstrated poor lift station planning on the PADD project, to again request zoning waivers using an off property residential site.

17) Whereas the Developer is currently pumping 24/7 or intermittently, discharging dissolved and suspended solids into the lagoon at the marina.

18) Whereas Nautilus 220 has had Seven Clean Water Act violations in 2022 & 2025 for pumping into the lagoon.

19) Whereas the town attorney has deemed it reckless to have the Developer rely on a future Tri-Rail station for planning purposes around the PADD.

20) Whereas, some site plans, permits, and financing documentation are absent.

21) Whereas the Developer has threatened lawsuits if they don’t achieve their for-profit goals.

22) Whereas the Developer has misrepresented their projects in social and mass media outlets.

At the end of the day, how many reasons do we need to have all the stakeholders in this town endure the pain of working with Forest?

I encourage and suggest a motion: “that Lake Park elected representatives and the Town Manager immediately cease all further negotiating, planning, and approval efforts with Forest Development projects of any sort”. Or similar language.

Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this necessary motion may result in legal action. Do not fear short-term challenges in this regard, as compared to the long-term loss of control of the P-3 space, and the sacrifice of intelligent agreements that benefit the town, and our value system.

Leadership is not about power; it’s about purpose. You were chosen to serve, not to sit — lead boldly!

Your decisions today will shape generations tomorrow and your title gives you authority, but your actions

Check Out This Invite On Our Facebook Page!

https://www.facebook.com/share/16ypckskQ1/

Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission

Regarding Public Comment on the P3 Development

August 6, 2025 Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr., Lake Park. Pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547

Good evening.

Last night at the Budget Workshop, Mayor Michaud, commenting on the P3 Project and the leadership of Forest Development stated, “I am in a flux about my partner.” He felt, “uneasy to move forward,” and that, “a pause on the recruiter clause,” is necessary. Tonight is the night you pass such a motion and, as the Mayor said, “hold off very quickly.” Yes, pull the Reverter clause request and the scheduled upcoming meeting. We then can consider some favorable developer agreement and if Forest, they should begin to demonstrate some competence in their craft. Devise a resident focused plan, while obviously maintaining the town’s financial integrity.

In my written testimony I cite 5 potent reasons for questioning the current planning. 

Let me get this straight. When I add up :

· Forest Development's non-adherence to MULTIPLE critical timelines. 

· That the Developer has NEVER submitted any financials as required, so we can validate they can afford to build projects and not leave us with an empty, rotting spaces when they must walk away. Is that what happened with the hotel building? No explanation ever provided. Even Commissioner O’Rourke was held to a rare moment of silence to explain that.  

· That plans have NO OBVIOUS public spaces for residents or public parking. If it were obvious, Nadia would have told us yesterday.  

· That the Developer has media ads that mislead the public about the project; and

· That the land we own will purchase lease for 99 years, while payments are only required the first 10!

ENOUGH! Beyond the P3 debacle, Nautilus is not completed, the tenants are angry that they can't move in as promised and have no hard date to do so, and it appears that the Developer's partners are either in financial stress themselves or are suing each other! How well did the Nautilus lift station planning go? How well is the 10th and Park lift station planning going? Find another developer! 

Your own attorney last night clearly warned about the consequences of moving forward on this project and giving up all control over everything! Once and for all, listen to his wisdom. Do not accept any $1.2m checks until we work out smart planning.

ENOUGH! The Lake Park Marina MUST remain a true public benefit. I like the marina just the way it is! Vote tonight by motion and a roll call (let’s see who wants to be reelected) and pull the town’s request around the Reverter process and at least pause the madness. 

The Marina’s budget crisis is the town’s budget crisis. When in doubt, do nothing. 

If you are concerned about high-rise development in Lake Park, please read on FB by Lake Park News, a lengthy research and editorial piece about the developer and  their affiliates. Nautilus is already in dire trouble and the same developer is proposing building another monstrosity on the West end of town at 10th and Park Ave. You can read all of the information at https://www.facebook.com/share/14GnB5uFYwF/.

I have pasted the editorial below, with a comment by the nonprofit, Lake Park Society for the Advancement of Resident Engagement (Lake Park SACE), for which I am a board member. Michael Steinhauer

Lake Park News Editorial: In light of recent revelations and mounting legal disputes involving Forest Development and its partners, it is imperative that the Town of Lake Park immediately suspend all pending, current, and future business with Forest Development and its affiliates. The evidence is clear: this is not just a case of mismanagement—it is a pattern of high-risk financial behavior, unpaid debts, and entanglements that jeopardize the stability and reputation of any community involved.

Forest Development, the company behind the controversial Nautilus 220 project in Lake Park, secured a $269 million construction loan in 2022 to finance the massive twin-tower venture. The loan was arranged by Concord Summit Capital LLC and funded by Fortress Investment Group. On the surface, it appeared to be a strong capital-backed initiative. But what lies beneath the surface is far more troubling.

Forest Development is in a joint venture with Royal Palm Companies—yes, the same Royal Palm Companies that is now embroiled in a $31.9 million foreclosure lawsuit filed just this month in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. That lawsuit alleges massive nonpayment on a previous construction loan and cites a breached payment schedule. The defendants? Royal Palm, its CEO Daniel Kodsi, and a string of affiliated entities. The result? Yet another stalled construction project, more financial instability, and zero accountability.

It doesn’t stop there. In a counterclaim, Royal Palm has accused its lenders of fraud, tortious interference, and financial sabotage, claiming that nearly $3 million in capital was deliberately withheld in a so-called “loan-to-own” scheme. Whether these counter-allegations hold water or not, the fact remains: this is not the kind of clean, transparent business environment that any town—especially one like Lake Park—should be entangled in.

Even more disturbing is the ripple effect of this dysfunction. As of March 2024, over a dozen contractors had filed liens or lawsuits against Royal Palm Companies due to unpaid services totaling $27 million. These aren't abstract disputes—they are real legal actions in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, driven by financial negligence and breached trust.

So what does this mean for Lake Park? It means the Town is potentially partnered with a developer whose financial dealings have left a trail of unpaid bills, lawsuits, and stalled projects across South Florida. It means we are risking our public image, our infrastructure, and our residents’ trust by continuing to do business with an entity that is now the centerpiece of multiple high-profile legal battles. It means Lake Park could be next in line for half-finished towers, unpaid subcontractors, and more finger-pointing than accountability.

We cannot afford to ignore the red flags. The Town of Lake Park should act swiftly to protect its taxpayers, contractors, and future. That begins with halting all active and proposed business with Forest Development and its joint venture partners. We must demand transparency, financial responsibility, and a proven track record—not lawsuits and excuses.

Lake Park deserves better.

Lake Park SACE: There's a lot at stake here for Lake Park, especially when you look at how Forest Development’s ties to Royal Palm Companies and the broader legal issues could affect the community. The financial instability surrounding these entities—like the foreclosure lawsuit and ongoing construction delays—puts any further partnership in serious jeopardy. The fact that multiple contractors are already involved in legal disputes due to unpaid services makes the risks even more glaring.

Suspending all future and current dealings with Forest Development would certainly be a prudent move, especially if their track record continues to be one of missed payments and unresolved legal challenges. The town needs to protect its interests, particularly in terms of maintaining a solid financial and reputational standing. The town should act to immediately halt all consideration of doing any business with this developer anywhere in town. There should be NO CHANCE the current building proposals might continue given all these risks.