HomeMy WebLinkAboutEagle Bay Wood Products Letter of Final Development Order -2005 03 25
-..-.....-....
.1...'.J-..~u..-,..Ii..._',.I.I~VI......~....._.!,r1:.~,t;.._.
03/24/05 THlI 14:19 FAX 407 423 4495
LDDK&R
Lowndes
Drosdick
Doster f ~
Kantor ~
Reed, EA.
PATRIe/< K. R1NKA
DIRECT DIAl.: 407-<4 J 8.6273
NORTH EOLA DRJV! OPPlC!
POST OFfICE Box 2809
ORLAM:lO. FLORIDA 32802-2809
llatric:k,rlnlca@loWlldes.Jaw,com
ATTORNEYS
A T L A, W
'tt'
III M!RITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE
March 24, 2005
YlAFACSIMn,EAND U.S. MAn..
Anthony A. Garganese, Esquire
Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A.
225 E. Robinson Street
Suite 660
Orlando, Florida 32802
Re: City of Winter Springs - Final Development Order
Eagle B'sy Wood Products, we. :
Your File No.: 1193
Dear Anthony;
This law finn has the pleasure of representing Eagle Bay!Wood Products, Inc. ("Eagle Bay") in
connection with its mlUlufilCturing operation in the City ofWinte~ Springs, Florida (the "City"). As you
know, on November 22, 2004 the City Commission issued ;preliminary approval of a proposed
Development Ord~ (the "Development Order," copy enclosed) With respect to Eagle Bay's current use
of its proptrty located at 203 Cress Run (parcel ID. No. 03-21-31-300-0040~OOOO) (the "Property").
While the owners of Eagle Bay, Timothy and Hope MontgOmery, are pleased that the City has
demonstrated a willingness to work with them and allow Eagle Bay to continue operating its business on
the Property for a period of fifteen years, they are conceme4 that one specific provision of the
Development Order exoeeds the scope of the City's interests and; imposes an arbitrary condition on the
operation oftbeir business.
The proposed Development Order correctly points out that the City, in its consideration of Eagle
Bay's general permit request, must determine whether or not s~ch request is consistent with Section
30,112 of the Seminole COWlty Land Development Code, and,Policy FLU 12.5 of the Seminole County
. Comprehensive Plan, which provides that "the reasonable use :of property is a use which does not
adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, or. welfare: and is compatible with abutting or
proximate properties," and which is "consistent with generally ~cepted land use planning principles. II
In addition, the Development Order states that denial of Eagle ~aY'B general permit request would be
inconsistent with Policy FLU 12,5, which prOVides that "an w1f~ burden on property owners will occur
when property is too stringently regulated in View of the le~eI pf regu1ati9n necessary to protect the
21 5 NOR TlI SolJ. ORM!
ORLANDO, FLolJDA 32801.2028
TIlL: 407-84J.4GOO' PAX :407.843.4444' WWWio\\otjcl...Jaw,com
,
450 SOUTli ORANDlI A VI!NUG. SU1T1l800
ORLANDO, FLOIUDA 32801-3344
ldJ 002 .
~ ~-
~~..
.. - -. - --.-.
-..-.-..-....
.1~~.I~~f..!Ii..."'.I"I~,...y.......~%..,_.\r1:....,~,~=-:"
03/24/05 THU 14:19 FAX 407 423 4495
LDDK&R
Anthony A. Garganese, Esquire
March 24, 2005
Page 2
public health, safety, moralst or welfare, in view of consistency with the [comprehensive) plant in view
of compatibility with abutting or proximate land usest and in view of generaIJy acceptable planning
principles," The Development Order is generally consistent with the foregoing requirements of the
Seminole COWlty Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. but the conditions set forth in the
second and third sentences of item B (l)t Conclusions of Lawt are oven~hing. Specifically,' it is the
use of the Property ~ and the duration of such uset which should be of concern to the City, not the identity
of the principals or shareholders conducting the buSiness on, the Property. In the event that the
Montgomerys would suffer an illness, disability, financial hardship or other adverse event, their ability
to sell or transfer their interest in Eagle Bay would be severely limited by condition B (1) of the
Development Order. In addition, it does not appear that such condition in any way enhances public
health, safety, morals or welfaret IUtd, in fact. may "too stringently regulate" the Montgomery's use of
the Property as prohibited under Policy FLU 12.5. '
As I mentioned to you in our previous discussions, the MontgoItterys are giateful that the City
has allowed them to continue to operate their business on the Property. Unfortunately, having now
considered the potential implications of condition B (l) of the Development Order, the Montgomerys
are concerned that an unforeseen event in the future may jeopardize their business and financial secmity.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Commission'reconsider its position with respect to
condition B (1) and strike the second and third sentences thereof prior to issuing the final Development
~~. '
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please call me if you haye any questions or
require additional infonnation.
Very truly yours,
PK.RIamm
c: John Baker (via facsimile)
Timothy and Hope Montgomery (via facsimile)
0099994/0485401829537/1
~k/~
Patrick K. Rinka
0099998\01090 1
. ~003