Leaders won’t vote on Lake Pickett project
The Orange County Commission decided Tuesday not to vote on rescinding its approval of the controversial Lake Pickett South project, choosing instead to let the appeal process play out.
“We are in midstream right now,” Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs argued, while still leaving open the possibility of a new vote months down the line.
The decision disappointed East Orange anti-growth activists, who were coming off a major win when an administrative court judge ruled Aug. 11 that the county broke its own growth rules in approving the 2,000-home project last year.
One of the petitioners in the lawsuit, Kelly Semrad, appeared before the board holding her baby because plans for a baby sitter fell through.
“I’m begging you as a citizen,” Semrad said in asking for a new vote. “We’re exhausted, we’re tired, and we’ve never seen the community come together like we have.”
Opponents said the project would ruin the rural area east of the Econlockhatchee River, while developers said it would provide needed housing for a growing area.
Jacobs argued Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Van Wyk’s ruling was only a recommendation, similar to a planning and zoning board decision, which does not necessarily bind the commission to follow it.
Dwight Saathoff, developer of the project, said the ruling has been sent to Gov. Rick Scott and the Cabinet, which has 90 days beginning Monday to make a final decision. No date for the Cabinet’s review had been set Tuesday.
Jacobs said if the Cabinet upholds the judge’s ruling, the commission could then decide whether to revisit its 4-3 vote in July 2016 to approve the project, also known as The Grow.
“Even though I did not support the comprehensive plan amendment for The Grow, and still don’t … I have to support the system and procedures consistent with the law, and follow due process,” Jacobs said.
East Orange Commissioner Emily Bonilla wanted a new vote placed on the agenda for next week.
It was unclear whether Bonilla, elected last year in part because of her opposition to the project, would have been able to make a motion herself to rescind a vote she didn’t participate in. But no one seconded her attempt to prompt a discussion about the project next week.
“I’m pleading with all of you, put this to rest and do what’s right,” Bonilla said.
No one seconded her other motion calling for the commission to write a letter to the governor and Cabinet agreeing with the judge’s decision. County Attorney Jeffrey Newton advised her against writing her own letter but said he couldn’t prevent her from doing so.
Jacobs did ask Newton whether the county could choose to not challenge the judge’s ruling, in effect letting the developer fight it on his own.
Newton advised against it, warning if the Cabinet ended up making a more sweeping decision, the commission would be defenseless against it if it waived its right to respond.
Meanwhile, Saathoff said he was preparing for the Cabinet’s review and told the commission “we would respectfully suggest, at least as a matter of equity and fairness, the board not look for a way to flip-flop and short circuit the process.”
Before the meeting, activists had joined Bonilla for a news conference in which Bonilla expressed optimism that as many as three other commissioners would join with her to rescind the vote.
After the meeting, the activists expressed anger at the commission and promised to continue their opposition.
“In a single word: ludicrous,” said Tom Narut, one of the petitioners in the suit. “[They’re] voluntarily making no decision at the county level on a county issue, consciously making a decision not to represent the people, hiding behind what they claim is due process.”