Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

What's next in land battle?

The county is not sure if some of the land Crystal River approved for the RealtiCorp subdivision is even buildable by county standards.

By RAGHURAM VADAREVU
Published June 26, 2005

CRYSTAL RIVER - With the battle over the legality of the city's annexation now essentially over, a new skirmish may be lurking on the horizon.

It is between opponents who know each other well: on one side, Citrus County government; on the other, RealtiCorp, a South Carolina developer that owns roughly 200 acres in the formerly annexed area south of Crystal River's city limits.

The reason for the potential skirmish can be traced back to June 10, when the city had jurisdiction over the 520 annexed acres and days before Senior Circuit Judge Richard Weinberg quashed the annexation.

On that day, City Manager Phil Deaton, city attorney David La Croix and other city staff convened a plat review committee at City Hall and approved a request from RealtiCorp to subdivide about 124 acres into nine lots.

Using the county's comprehensive plan and the county land development code, they analyzed the proposal for the subdivision, which is located between W Venable Street, Penn Drive and U.S. 19 in the area of the Home Depot east of U.S. 19.

They could not use the city's land development code and comprehensive plan, La Croix said at the time, because the city had not formally adopted the annexed land into its own comprehensive plan.

The committee members unanimously approved the request with three conditions:

The developer must conduct a boundary survey for each lot prior to actual development.

The subdivision map must clearly delineate that the land is in a runway protection zone for the nearby Crystal River Airport.

The development must comply with land access management standards for the site.

Clark Stillwell, the attorney representing RealtiCorp at the meeting, told an official that the approval was "like a baby step" in the process to develop the site.

County officials are now reviewing the city's approval of the subdivision request, said Chuck Dixon, the director of the county's Community Development division. His staff had previously expressed concerns about the subdivision request and conveyed them to the city.

Deaton had asked the county to help review the request because the city at the time was without a city planner, and the top administrative staff at City Hall was in transition.

Dixon said the county had several problems with the city's subdivision approval.

First, he said, county officials were concerned about the subdivision's compliance with the U.S. 19 access management plan which, among other things, dictates the distance between driveways on U.S. 19 and the proximity of entrances and exits to intersections.

Second, Dixon said, the county has concerns with some of the subdivision lots being within the airport's runway protection zone.

Third, he said, the subdivision request was not accompanied by a boundary survey of the property, with lot lines, as required under county regulations for a subdivision.

"The main problem is that they didn't submit a survey; they submitted a sketch," Dixon said. "They did not show detailed information that is required for a thorough review and approval, which may mean that some of the lots they (the city) approved are not buildable."

"I think that we may be appealing the subdivision," he said.

County officials have not yet decided the appropriate corrective action.

Assistant County Attorney Michele Lieberman said the county can either ask a judge to invalidate the subdivision approval or it can have the decision reviewed by the Planning and Development Review Board.

"I don't know whether both of those are possible or one is possible," she said, adding that county commissioners would ultimately make the decision whether the county opts for litigation or some other kind of resolution.

The two sides, however, know something about impasse.

RealtiCorp approached the city with the annexation plan after negotiations for construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter fell through with the county. RealtiCorp and county officials could not agree on how to deal with the wetlands in the area.

The county also argued that large-scale development planned for the area could hurt the county economically and environmentally. The city's decision in April 2004 to go ahead with the annexation spawned the yearlong legal battle.

As the legal process moved slowly through the courts, RealtiCorp applied for a wetlands alteration permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The application is still pending, said Jon Salem of RealtiCorp.

Salem declined to comment on what the developer's plans were for the site. When asked where the annexation ruling left the developer, Salem said, "All this is just very new, and we will have to move forward."

That means with county government.

"I don't know if anything has changed with what they want to do there. Whether it would be Wal-Mart or anyone else," Dixon said. "We will just move forward with whatever proposal is brought to us.

"And try to keep the city staff in the loop so that they are aware of the development near their border."

Raghuram Vadarevu can be reached at rvadarevu@sptimes.com or 352 564-3627.

[Last modified June 26, 2005, 00:33:18]