|April 7, 2016 - Land Use Meeting|
Agenda Item #9
Proposed settlement agreement; Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe LLLP, et. al. v. Manatee County
Contact and/or Presenter Information
William E. Clague, Assistant County Attorney
Christopher M. De Carlo, Assistant County Attorney
I move to approve the settlement agreement presented by the County Attorney’s Office and to authorize execution of same.
Section 125.01, Florida Statutes.
- This proposed settlement agreement relates to a lawsuit filed in 2013 concerning transportation conditions in a 2004 site plan for a portion of Long Bar Pointe. This proposed settlement has no bearing upon the ongoing litigation relating to environmental policies that apply to the development of that property.
- The County Attorney’s Office recommends approval of the proposed settlement agreement because it provides that:
a. no monetary damages or attorneys’ fees will be paid by County; and
b. development of Long Bar Pointe (including any transportation requirements) will have to comply with the County’s current standards and practices.
- On July 25, 2013, Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe LLLP, et. al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida (Case No. 2013-CA-4788) alleging violations of Plaintiffs’ right to substantive due process and a taking of Plaintiffs’ property in violation of the federal and Florida constitutions. The allegations relate to conditions included within (a) County Ordinance PDR-03-32(P)(R2) (the “Development Order”) that approved a preliminary site plan for Parcel F, one of a collection of land parcels collectively referred to as the Long Bar Pointe Property, and (b) the Local Government Development Agreement for Long Bar Pointe / El Conquistador Parkway (the “LDA”). In their complaint, Plaintiffs challenged specific conditions of the Development Order and LDA that require (a) dedication of right-of-way and stormwater easements for El Conquistador Parkway, (b) a waiver of impact fee credits for right-of-way and stormwater easements, and (c) reimbursement to the County for costs of construction of El Conquistador Parkway.
- The CAO and Plaintiffs’ counsel have negotiated a proposed settlement \sgreement, which provides for the following:
1. Development Order: The County will hold a public hearing to consider amending the Development Order to remove the transportation stipulations objected to by Plaintiffs.
2. LDA: The County will hold a public hearing to consider terminating the LDA pursuant to Florida Statute 163.3235.
3. Impact Fee Credits. Plaintiffs will apply for and receive impact fee credits for right-of-way and non-site-related stormwater easements dedicated to the County.
4. Release from Obligation to Reimburse County. Plaintiffs will no longer be obligated to reimburse the County for the cost of construction of El Conquistador Parkway.
5. Dismissal and Release: Once Manatee County terminates the LDA, approves the amendment to the development order and awards the impact fee credits, Plaintiffs will dismiss all claims in the lawsuit with prejudice. Note that the proposed Settlement Agreement does not obligate the County in advance.
6. No Payments of Money. Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, and the County will pay no damages to Plaintiffs.
7. No Development Rights Conferred. Plaintiffs will not receive any development rights or development advantages as a result of the litigation or settlement. Plaintiffs will be required to proceed with seeking development approvals (including concurrency) in accordance with the County’s current requirements and practices.
- The settlement agreement requires approval by the Board. The Board’s approval need not occur in a noticed public hearing, but is subject to the requirement to allow public comment pursuant to Florida Statute 286.0114.
- The CAO takes the position that the original Development Order and LDA were negotiated in good faith under the legal standards and planning practices in place at the time. Nevertheless, court decisions in recent years have placed legal constraints on the County’s ability to negotiate and enforce such arrangements. Too, the statutory law of concurrency has changed significantly. Finally, no physical development has occurred on the property. The proposed settlement agreement allows the Board to follow its current policies and practices as development moves forward, with no money damages paid by the County.
- Accordingly, the CAO recommends that the Board approve the Settlement Agreement.
County Attorney Review
Other (Requires explanation in field below)
Explanation of Other
This is a County Attorney item.
Instructions to Board Records
Provide the County Attorney's Office with one executed copy of the settlement agreement for its file and for delivery to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Cost and Funds Source Account Number and Name
Amount and Frequency of Recurring Costs
Attachment: Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release.pdf