City commissioners are moving ahead with a $750,000 renovation of Tom & Kitty Stuart Park despite residents’ claims that the redesign violates a 1987 deed restricting the land to public use.
The conflict centers on a small parcel next to Caddy’s restaurant, where residents say public green space is being sacrificed for private commercial parking. At an April 8 meeting, the commission took no action to halt construction, and the city maintains the project fulfills long-standing agreements.
The project includes a $200,000 restroom facility that, to comply with FEMA requirements after Hurricane Helene, must be elevated to 9.3 feet. The footprint needed for an ADA-compliant ramp and stairs will reshape the lot, eliminating two golf cart spaces and one compact vehicle space.
Acting City Manager Clint Belk told commissioners the site plan at 141st Avenue is 95% complete.
“We are looking at getting the structural engineering underway for the elevated bathroom foundation, and it is in progress,” Belk said. “We’re just waiting on finalization of the foundation, and CXT bathroom has been ordered.”
The city is finalizing utility connections and contractor selection, he said.
That update drew immediate pushback from residents who argue the project reached near-completion without adequate public input.
John Connolly, a resident who also serves on the city’s planning board, presented a petition with nearly 100 signatures demanding a halt.
“I have in front of me the original deed from Kitty Stuart to the city,” Connolly said. “These people are in objection to where the city is going now with this parking lot. They want it back to the original park.”
Connolly said even he had been kept in the dark and requested a Saturday workshop so working residents could attend.
Deborah Bradbeer, a longtime family friend of the Stuarts, read a statement citing the deed’s specific language.
“Kitty donated in 1987 ... stating it must be used solely as the site for a city park,” Bradbeer said. “In my opinion, a bathroom facility isn’t needed at this park and would be better served elsewhere for the town tourists and visitors. You have absolved yourself from representing the voice of residents who have poured out their hearts’ concerns.”
The family’s intent, she said, was a passive recreational space, not a high-traffic utility hub.
The debate also revisited a 2013 development agreement that allows Caddy’s to count part of the park toward its commercial parking requirements.
Former Mayor Jim Rostek questioned the legality of using public land to satisfy a private business’s zoning needs.
“It is very abnormal for a municipality to allow city-owned parking spaces to be counted in the requirements for a commercial property,” Rostek said. He also alleged the 2013 deal was tainted by past ethical breaches within city management.
Residents also raised safety concerns about the drive-in-only parking configuration along Gulf Boulevard, one of the county’s busiest roads.
“How can more traffic be safer?” Rostek said. “One commissioner I had spoke to said it’s safer now. More traffic equals more issues with that particular area. It’s drive-in parking only, no back in. No matter what you do, you still have to exit onto Gulf Boulevard. That’s the danger zone.”
Granting vehicular access to a private business through city-owned park property “increases the liability to the city,” he added.
Resident Stephanie Druding said the city is overpaving a “postage stamp” of land.
“I think there’s probably a lot of accommodation for business ... including the business that is right butted up next to the park who spent $750,000 to turn it into a parking lot,” Druding said. “We don’t have to pave every inch of land that leads up to the beach. It’s just not necessary.”
Caddy’s owner Marcus Winters defended the project and his $750,000 investment in the site’s infrastructure.
“I just find that it’s unfortunate that we’re back speaking in front of the commission for something I thought was put to bed a long time ago,” Winters said. “In 2013 there was a development agreement done between the city and the owner. It goes through public meeting, planning and zoning meeting twice, and then it goes through two city meetings. At all those meetings there’s plenty of time for residents to come up and give their objections.”
Winters said the project faced extensive regulatory scrutiny and addressed drainage problems that had long plagued the site. He has also provided public bathroom access during construction, he said.
Mayor Anne Marie Brooks acknowledged the frustration but pushed back on the premise that the project was eliminating a natural area.
“I just want to remind people that the city didn’t give away the park,” Brooks said. “The park was an asphalt park. There was no green space in the sense of a green space like a park. It was a park as it is today. It’s still a parking lot.”
Four parking spaces remain available for public use while work continues on the restroom facility and the rest of the park, city officials said.