Park Place Nashville (2nd & Peabody), 36 story/433' and 32 story/375' residential towers; 18 story/234' hotel

[titanhog]

Are we sure that this fight by the residents of City Lights isn’t somehow connected to the developers of that building?  Didn’t they want to go 13 stories…but were stopped at 7?  This all feels like sour grapes…like “how can you only allow 7 floors for us…but unlimited for others close by?"

[smeagolsfree]

That was the developer. I doubt that many of the residents even know about that as a lot of the forum member here do not even know about that. 

I think these are just four residents that moved to Nashville from large cities, thinking Nashville was not going to change just because they moved here. It is narcissism at its worst.

[donNdonelson2]

Saw this interesting item on Facebook.

[Rick Dalton]

57 minutes ago, donNdonelson2 said:

Saw this interesting item on Facebook.

 

[PillowTalk4]

Voicemail:  Hi, this is Louise Scott from Village Real Estate, I'm just following up to see if you have any questions following your tour of City Lights.  Call me when you have a moment.

Return Voicemail:  Hey Louise, thanks for the tour hun!  You are so right, there are stunning views from this boutique building.  I'm going to enjoy those stunning views even more from my 31st floor unit across the street at Park Place.  Looking forward to meeting my new neighbors in City Lights though.  Hey maybe we should have alternating monthly roof top viewing parties!  I'm going to love living downtown!!!  Bye hun!

[nashville born]

Here we go again...

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/neighbors-sue-2nd-peabody-developer-again/article_f0bf23be-0d12-11ed-bf54-47d9b8e7631b.html

Three residents of the City Lights condominium building are once again suing the developer of a multi-tower project planned in Rutledge Hill.

In a lawsuit filed in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday, residents Steven Snyder, Andrew Decker and Gregory Breetz are asking a judge to stop the Metro Planning Commission from granting “specific plan” zoning to The Congress Group for its planned Second and Peabody development. The Metro body meets Thursday.

[nashvylle]

A judge should dismiss this immediately 

[DDIG]

3 minutes ago, nashville born said:

Here we go again...

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/neighbors-sue-2nd-peabody-developer-again/article_f0bf23be-0d12-11ed-bf54-47d9b8e7631b.html

Three residents of the City Lights condominium building are once again suing the developer of a multi-tower project planned in Rutledge Hill.

In a lawsuit filed in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday, residents Steven Snyder, Andrew Decker and Gregory Breetz are asking a judge to stop the Metro Planning Commission from granting “specific plan” zoning to The Congress Group for its planned Second and Peabody development. The Metro body meets Thursday.

These guys are flipping maniacs. I'd love to know how much money they've wasted on lawsuits.

[downtownresident]

33 minutes ago, nashville born said:

Here we go again...

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/development/neighbors-sue-2nd-peabody-developer-again/article_f0bf23be-0d12-11ed-bf54-47d9b8e7631b.html

Three residents of the City Lights condominium building are once again suing the developer of a multi-tower project planned in Rutledge Hill.

In a lawsuit filed in Davidson County Chancery Court on Monday, residents Steven Snyder, Andrew Decker and Gregory Breetz are asking a judge to stop the Metro Planning Commission from granting “specific plan” zoning to The Congress Group for its planned Second and Peabody development. The Metro body meets Thursday.

The SP rezone process is done all of the time, and Planning/Council have the ability to rezone property. These people are clowns. 

[Bos2Nash]

9 minutes ago, downtownresident said:

The SP rezone process is done all of the time, and Planning/Council have the ability to rezone property. These people are clowns. 

Agreed they are clowns, but they are clowns that know they can hold up a project in the legal system enough to cause delays upon delays. 

I personally do not like an SP in the Downtown Core. I do think they should move the Downtown Core neighborhood policy - which requires a certain amount of public meetings and council support - but that is also part of the nature of trying to work outside of the box. Looking at the Planning Report for 07 28 (when this project is on the Agenda), Planning has recommended approval of the SP. Part of the SP process may have also been to benefit the City as they are allowed to "ask" for more improvements in an official stance.

Here are the conditions in which the development must meet for the SP to be approved. I've bolded or underlined what I thought may be the most significant to the folks here.

1. Permitted uses shall be a maximum of 830 multi-family residential units, 286 hotel units, and16,250 square feet of non-residential uses per the Downtown Code – South Area. Short term rental property, owner occupied and short-term rental property, not-owner occupied shall be prohibited for the entire development.
2. The maximum height of Tower 1 shall be 32 stories in 375 feet, of Tower 2 shall be 36 stories in 433 feet, and of Tower 3 shall be 18 stories in 234 feet.
3. The project shall obtain a minimum of LEED Silver certification, or equivalent, as described within the LEED section of the DTC.
4. The developer shall propose an agreement for reasonable public access (e.g. hours of operation and other operational expectations) to the privately-owned, publicly accessible open space. This shall be reviewed by Metro Planning and Metro Legal and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. The applicant shall coordinate with NDOT and WeGo Transit on future mobility needs on 2nd Avenue South and 3rd Avenue South prior to final site plan approval.
6. On the corrected copy of the plan, indicate that existing overhead lines along all frontages shall be buried.
7. The proposed open spaces shall be included in a public access easement. Provide recorded easement documentation prior to issuance of a building permit,.
8. The final site plan shall include a minimum of 34,000 square feet of pervious area as identified on Section 0.5. H. of the Preliminary SP plan set.
9. Comply with all conditions and requirements of Metro reviewing agencies.
10. With the submittal of the final site plan, provide architectural elevations complying with all architectural standards outlined on the preliminary SP for review and approval by Planning Staff.
11. A corrected copy of the preliminary SP plan incorporating the conditions of approval by Metro Council shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to or with final site plan application.
12. If a development standard, not including permitted uses, is absent from the SP plan and/or Council approval, the property shall be subject to the standards, regulations and requirements of the DTC – Lafayette Subdistrict as of the date of the applicable request or application. Uses are limited as described in the Council ordinance.
13. Minor modifications to the preliminary SP plan may be approved by the Planning Commission or its designee based upon final architectural, engineering or site design and actual site conditions. All modifications shall be consistent with the principles and further the objectives of the approved plan. Modifications shall not be permitted, except through an ordinance approved by Metro Council that increase the permitted density or floor area, add uses not otherwise permitted, eliminate specific conditions or requirements contained in the plan as adopted through this enacting ordinance, or add vehicular access points not currently present or approved.

[BnaBreaker]

I'm all for the free and fair judicial system that we've been blessed with in this country and all that of course, but it's astonishing to me that just three dbags with sticks up their asses can hold up a multi-million dollar project that would benefit everyone in the community in a variety of ways, all because the skyline view from their $500K condos might change a bit.  Cry me a freaking river.  Don't these guys have a child's lemonade stand to shut down or something instead?

Edited July 26, 2022 by BnaBreaker

[MLBrumby]

I've lost track, but haven't they lost twice already?  If so, they're suing a third time?  We call people like that in my business, "stupid". 

[nashvylle]

2 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I'm all for the free and fair judicial system that we've been blessed with in this country and all that of course, but it's astonishing to me that just three dbags with sticks up their asses can hold up a multi-million dollar project that would benefit everyone in the community in a variety of ways, all because the skyline view from their $500K condos might change a bit.  Cry me a freaking river.  Don't these guys have a child's lemonade stand to shut down or something instead?

They remind me of Save Our Fairgrounds. Tactic is clearly to delay delay delay. 

[nashwatcher]

Can the developers countersue these individuals?

[henburg]

3 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

I'm all for the free and fair judicial system that we've been blessed with in this country and all that of course, but it's astonishing to me that just three dbags with sticks up their asses can hold up a multi-million dollar project that would benefit everyone in the community in a variety of ways, all because the skyline view from their $500K condos might change a bit.  Cry me a freaking river.  Don't these guys have a child's lemonade stand to shut down or something instead?

Not to mention that all of the money being thrown at this lawsuit could be used for, oh I don't know, probably a thousand more productive and meaningful things than what essentially amounts to preserving the view from your downtown condo. I don't know how those backing this aren't just horribly embarrassed to continually fund and boost a tantrum like this.

Edited July 27, 2022 by henburg

[MLBrumby]

2 minutes ago, nashwatcher said:

Can the developers countersue these individuals?

Yes, but I wouldn't advise it based on what I know from news reports.  Not knowing the developer's timetable I'm left to wonder how much of their actual work has been stalled (at additional cost) because of these suits; I doubt much/any construction costs, but these things are planned and scheduled far in advance (so there may be things that have been paid for already).  I'd know better as their attorney that they're getting close to breaking ground and any other damages incurred at this point. 

From what I can tell, this has all the marks of a nuisance suit at this point.  Assuming they're not ready to break ground yet, I'd advise them to see how "deep the plantiffs' pockets" are.  It seems that's been the developers' strategy so far. Usually it's best for developers to avoid being antagonistic to their future neighbors. So I'd rely on the court's timetable and see how the judge responds to this latest action; but I don't see from this article if there are any new damages which they need to present in a new case. From what I've read, I expect this one to be dismissed after a thorough review (not necessarily a hearing). The judge is ethically obligated to consider prior judgments in ruling for or against continuing.  I'm not familiar with Davidson County's chancery, but the judges I know are capable of seeing through motives in cases like this. 

My focus was in healthcare (overwhelmingly in malpractice and settlements). So I do not have the best litigious perspective on these types of cases.  I'd say the developers have the upper hand and would be surprised if this case is not dismissed barring any new significant articles from the "injured" party.  On that note, a loss of a view is a tough claim to make (I think they've already lost this claim). I haven't read anything that this case is based on any breach of contract or misrepresentation by any party.  A planning agency that deals with zoning on a case-by-case basis (not to mention the evolution of their processes over time) would have to show egregious loss of faith to lose this one.  

My take is these people are being played for attorney's fees ( or maybe one/several of them is an attorney), and they want to create leverage for something here.  Their strategy here of dragging deep-pocketed developers into litigation to delay (drive up costs) does not seem well-advised.  If I were their counsel, I'd tell them they could get a lot worse built next door and they ought to see if they can get some changes to the current APPROVED plan, but they're being antagonistic and have little leverage at this point. Dragging this out for additional time only gets the developers more determined to build something they will not like.  

Neighbors should try and be good neighbors. 

[BnaBreaker]

1 hour ago, henburg said:

Not to mention that all of the money being thrown at this lawsuit could be used for, oh I don't know, probably a thousand more productive and meaningful things than what essentially amounts to preserving the view from your downtown condo. I don't know how those backing this aren't just horribly embarrassed to continually fund and boost a tantrum like this.

Exactly.  And what is it about their specific view of the skyline exactly as it stands now that these guys are so obsessed with?  It'd be one thing if their view was being blocked by a giant brick wall three feet from their balcony or something.  But in this case, their view of glass skyscrapers is being partially "blocked" (one might say just altered, or even enhanced?) by other glass skyscrapers.  As MLBrumby alluded to, this has the feeling as this point of these guys just not being used to losing in life in general (okay, I added that bit lol) and just wanting to be as much a thorn in the developer's side as they possibly can as a result.  Either way, time to hang it up and move on, ya weirdos. 

[titanhog]

In the end, why does it matter if it’s a 45 story building or a 7 story building?  Both will block their views.  

[smeagolsfree]

I knew this would happen and like what was said above, this happens all the time. They have not got a leg to stand on, much less a wing to fly on. They are fighting a losing battle. In the end they will lose. If not this development, then another one will take its place, maybe even larger. 

The longer they try to delay one and cost them money, they may end up selling. if they sell to another developer, they may come in with even a larger plan to get a bigger return on the ROI. The same goes for the 500 2nd Ave project. These guys are clowns and have no clue they are fighting a long-term war instead of little battles. They think these are big battles, they may win through attrition if the developer gets tired. However, they can only fight this battle once. If they lose, then the court has decided, and any further lawsuits are decided. 

With SP's in Metro this is done all the time and the chance of an appeal if they lose is much less, I think than the other case that is going through. There is way too much precedence here and I think their lawyer knows this, and it is just another delaying tactic to wear down the developer. I smell a counter suit coming. If I were the developer at this point, I would say what the hell do I have to lose. I am going to sue the hell out of these people for harassment and delays in construction cost increases which have to be in the tens of millions and let them hire the attorneys to defend that. I would bet they would drop their suits in a heartbeat.

It just takes a lawyer to say you are served and the cost of the lawyer fees alone would be enough to scare them. The Congress Group is big enough and has lawyers on retainer that the cost is minimal as compared to the construction delay.

[nashvylle]

What I don't understand is the SP process takes +/- six months. The judge already dismissed the initial case, and it was appealed. Wouldn't the verdict from the appellate judge be given prior to the SP? I guess the case could be appealed the TN Supreme court, but who knows. 

[jjbradleyBrooklyn]

Wow, this group of individuals is intent on derailing this project. They might succeed. 

Disappointing to read this. The project is already well-delayed. Hopefully this is dismissed quickly and the developers are still highly motivated and interested.

[downtownresident]

Planning approved the SP last night. Now it goes before council. 

[lmc123]

What's going on with this one?

[smeagolsfree]

It is on its way to Metro Council for approval of the SP. When the SP is approved the folks at City Lights will bring a lawsuit again to try and stop it. My guess it will be slapped down like the other lawsuits.

The judge told them they cannot sue until it is passed by council as they tried to sue before it was passed. Thier lawyer should have known better than that. I am not a lawyer, and I could have told them you cannot do a preemptive lawsuit on something that has not happened yet. Again, I think the lawyer is grasping at straws trying to keep it alive for them knowing it will be a fruitless effort. Hopefully he has explained it to them. 

I just wonder it the developers can show if these lawsuits were frivolous then they can countersue for damages due to increased labor, construction, interest cost?

[nashvylle]

18 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

The judge told them they cannot sue until it is passed by council as they tried to sue before it was passed. Their lawyer should have known better than that. I am not a lawyer, and I could have told them you cannot do a preemptive lawsuit on something that has not happened yet. Again, I think the lawyer is grasping at straws trying to keep it alive for them knowing it will be a fruitless effort. Hopefully he has explained it to them. 

I just wonder it the developers can show if these lawsuits were frivolous then they can countersue for damages due to increased labor, construction, interest cost?

Their lawyer most likely knew this but is gladly sending the invoice for his/her services!

I do think that if Developer countersue for damages, that could be the move that ends the appeals and lawsuits.