 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Riverfront time share foes prepare for extended fight
By BRIDGET HALL GRUMET, Times Staff Writer HOMOSASSA -- Wednesday began the 30-day countdown, the opening of the window for opponents to challenge the County Commission's 3-2 decision late Tuesday night approving the Halls River Retreat condominium project. And just hours after the ink dried on one of the most controversial votes in recent county history, the talk of appeals was under way. "This project will go on forever until (developer F. Blake Longacre) gives up," said Jim Bitter, cofounder of the Save the Homosassa River Alliance. "It will never get built. Period." What remains to be seen is which path opponents will take through the legal labyrinth. They could take their case to the state Department of Community Affairs, arguing that the County Commission violated its own Comprehensive Plan by approving the 54-unit time share project. The DCA helped craft the county's Comprehensive Plan and is charged with making sure the county sticks to it. Opponents could also petition the county to reconsider its decision. Or they could file an appeal with the circuit court, essentially suing Citrus County for allegedly making legal errors that tainted the outcome of Tuesday's vote. The court could not overturn the approval but could require the commission to hold a new hearing if it finds that the last one was somehow flawed. Such errors could include procedural mistakes, lack of evidence supporting the commission's decision or a finding that the county failed to follow its own Comprehensive Plan. The upshot: Although Longacre received a divided County Commission's approval Tuesday night, he won't start construction on the banks of the Halls River any time soon. "If I've got to go through more hoops, then I'll go through more hoops," Longacre said Wednesday. "I'll have to take the attacks as they come." One challenge is already in the pipeline. The Save the Homosassa River Alliance last month formally contested the project's environmental resource permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Swiftmud staffers stand behind their decision to grant the permit, which allows wetlands impacts, boat slips and a shallow stormwater drainage system. The river alliance contends that the project will destroy wetlands, allow stormwater to drain into the river, and increase boat traffic on the Halls River, damaging the Outstanding Florida Waterway. Unless they can resolve their differences through mediation, the project opponents and the agency will plead their case before an administrative law judge. The judge would recommend to the Swiftmud governing board whether to uphold or revoke the permit. The Swiftmud permit is essential. Even with commission approval, the project cannot move forward without it. A couple more legal challenges may stem from the approval of the project. "I have been assured by my clients we will contest this decision in every way possible," said Denise Lyn, the attorney representing the river alliance. "Specifically which route we are going to take, I don't know." Carl Bertoch, the attorney for the Protect Our Waterways ad hoc committee against the condo project, said his clients are also weighing their options. Both attorneys said the hearing Tuesday spawned several appeals issues. Lyn was not allowed to return to the podium Tuesday evening to cross-examine Gary Maidhof, the county's director of development services. Nor could she question the developer's consultants, because they spoke during the public comment portion instead of the evidentiary portion of the hearing. As there was no evidence that the Homosassa Special Water District could supply central water to the project, Lyn added, the developer failed to pass a crucial concurrency test. Bertoch thinks the commissioners violated key Comprehensive Plan passages, and could face the wrath of the Department of Community Affairs for doing so. The 11-acre site falls within the Coastal High Hazard area, a region where the Comprehensive Plan specifically prohibits planned developments, Bertoch said. The project commissioners approved Tuesday is a planned development. Honoring the property's mixed use zoning also seems inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which eliminated the mixed use land category in 1997, Bertoch said. Mixed use zoning allows up to 20 residential units per acre. The property's designation of low intensity coastal lakes, on the current Comprehensive Plan map, permits just one unit per 20 acres. "It can be very serious" for the county, Bertoch said. "It goes far beyond this four-story time share deal. It goes into, 'You violated your Comprehensive Plan.' " But Jim Neal, the developer's attorney, said county planners are the experts in applying the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code standards to any project. As the experts, their recommendation to approve the project would withstand a court challenge, Neal said Tuesday evening. Longacre echoed that idea Wednesday: "I have absolutely no doubt this will stand up to the scrutiny of anybody."
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Citrus Times |
