Home > News & Media > Loxahatchee Groves Council Rejects Settlement

Loxahatchee Groves Council Rejects Settlement

Town Crier – February 18, 2011

The Loxahatchee Groves Town Council scrapped a proposed settlement agreement with Callery-Judge Grove on Tuesday.

The agreement, more than a year in the making, was aimed at settling Callery-Judge’s challenge to the town’s comprehensive plan. Instead, council members said they would go to court if Callery-Judge doesn’t offer a road connection plan more palatable to residents.

The citrus grower, which owns 4,000 acres just north of the town, has insisted that Loxahatchee Groves do nothing to impede the efficiency of traffic flow, which would decrease access to Callery-Judge when it develops its property.

In the agreement, the town would have had to meet certain deadlines to make road improvements, including road openings to the north, east and west of the community, and improvements to Okeechobee Blvd.

More than an hour of discussion on the topic included comments from Indian Trail Improvement District President Michelle Damone, who said her constituents near a proposed connection to Sycamore Drive East would not agree to it.

Damone did say, however, that ITID would consider a connection of E Road to 140th Avenue North by means of a roundabout or other traffic-calming device. Applicants seeking to make connections into The Acreage must get ITID permits.

Town Attorney Michael Cirullo asked the council for direction on what to do next with the settlement agreement after residents roundly rejected it at a recent meeting. An administrative law hearing — the next step if a settlement is not reached — has been delayed until at least April 1.

Cirullo emphasized that no commitments had been made on the agreement. “I’ve had conversations with Callery-Judge’s attorneys subsequent to the last meeting,” he said. “It took quite some time to get to where it is today. At this point, it is appropriate for the council to make some determinations on what it wants to do in this case.”

Councilman Jim Rockett made a motion to reject the settlement offer and move to the court hearing, which was seconded by Vice Mayor Dennis Lipp.

Councilman Ron Jarriel wanted to know how much money had been invested in the mediation process. “I hate the thought of all that being wasted,” he said. “We’ve got a workshop coming up for all the residents of Okeechobee Blvd. I would go back to Callery-Judge and propose that they make the workshop.”

Jarriel would also like to see more communication with ITID in the matter. “I’ve always said that as western communities, we’ve got to work together. In the past, I think we got shafted as far as getting benefits from the county. If we don’t work with Indian Trail and communicate with Callery-Judge for our future and their future, we’re going backward,” he said.

Jarriel said he has supported an east/west connection at 40th Street for the benefit of students at Seminole Ridge High School. “We have a lot of high school kids who come through our area,” he said. “They come from The Acreage, but they also come from Loxahatchee Groves, and we’ve had a couple of them — one was a personal friend of mine — who went in the D Road Canal.”

Councilman Ryan Liang said he felt the council should let Callery-Judge know what has transpired. “If they are willing to work it out and change things, then we can possibly keep moving forward, but if they are unwilling to budge, we’ll go to court,” he said.

Lipp said he has always had reservations about the proposed settlement, which was crafted in executive sessions among Mayor Dave Browning, Cirullo, three Callery-Judge attorneys and Callery-Judge staff. He pointed out that the proposal has 54 requirements for the town and not one for Callery-Judge.

Lipp added that he does not want to talk about the settlement agreement in a workshop on Okeechobee Blvd. “We will end up rushing through one to get to the other and not come to a conclusion,” he said.

Damone agreed that the town and ITID should work together on this topic. “Our board was caught by surprise,” she said, noting that most of the proposed connections would need ITID approval.

Damone said a Loxahatchee Groves connection to Sycamore Drive is a non-starter with her constituents. “I understand that pressure for more connections to the high school, but I have a whole bunch of constituents over in that area who would just light my world on fire,” she said.

Resident Grace Joyce felt the town must look at how much it would cost to go through with the agreement to build the roads as opposed to fighting it. “Callery is being a bully here to our community,” Joyce said. “This is our first really big challenge as a community, and are we going to let them bully us into something that doesn’t address any of the concerns and just helps them with future development? It doesn’t help us. It doesn’t meet the goals of our comprehensive plan.”

Lipp said that he thinks the town should find the best land use attorneys in the state and begin looking toward the court fight.

“I think if we’re going to go down the road of having workshops with these folks, I think we ought to simultaneously instruct staff to start conducting interviews… At this point we need to consider all options,” he said.

Rockett said he had made the motion to reject the agreement because there was nothing in the agreement that people favored.

“I don’t see anything that we can hold on to, because there is no reward,” he said. “I’m reflecting what I think I heard from people to reject the entire proposal. If the council was to do that, and then we hear back from Callery-Judge to do something other than continue to trial, then let’s hear what they have to say.”
Browning suggested dividing the motion, first voting whether to reject the agreement, and then deciding whether to go to trial.

Rockett modified his motion to simply reject the settlement. That motion carried 5-0.

Cirullo said he was aware of one case where a land use complaint had been resolved through workshops. “The other option is to go directly to litigation,” he said.

Lipp made a motion to abandon negotiations with Callery-Judge and direct counsel to go forward with litigation. Rockett seconded the motion for discussion.

Rockett said he felt the discussions have been one-sided. “It is difficult to see an alternative,” he said, but suggested going back to Callery-Judge representatives once more. “It is a chance we need to take.”
Jarriel said he felt the Sycamore Drive to 162nd Avenue and D Road to 140th Avenue connections in the settlement agreement are constructive.

“Sycamore is a dirt road,” he said, adding that a roundabout at 140th and E Road is needed badly. “We’ve got guardrails there and they don’t keep cars from going in the canal.”

Jarriel favored a workshop on those two connections with residents, ITID representatives and Callery-Judge representatives, if they wish to participate.

Damone reiterated her support for a somewhat improved connection at E Road and 140th Avenue, but not Sycamore Drive to 162nd Avenue.

Browning called the question to abandon negotiations and proceed immediately to litigation, but the motion failed.

Rockett then made a motion to inform Callery-Judge that the council had rejected the proposal and ask Callery-Judge for suggestions on how to proceed. That motion carried 5-0.

Cirullo said that in the meantime, he would contact land use attorneys to recruit for the case.

Click here to view this article online