Laserfiche WebLink
5 - 11 - 1CJ <br /> SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT <br /> This SETTLFMENT AGRFEMENT ( this " Agreement" ) is made and entered into as of the <br /> 1 1 th day of May , 2010 by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY , a political <br /> subdivision of the State of Florida ( " IRC " ) , and DIVOSTA HOMES , L . P . , a Delaware limited <br /> partnership ( " DiVosta " ) . <br /> RECITALS . <br /> A . On November 9 , 2004 , the Board of County Commissioners of IRC approved by <br /> Resolution 2004 - 137 a Development Order for a 1596 unit Development of Regional Impact known <br /> as Waterway Village ( as amended to date , the " Development Order") . On December 13 , 2005 , the <br /> Board of County Commissioners approved a Developer ' s Agreement with DiVosta for Waterway <br /> Village ( the " Developer ' s Agreement") , which Developer ' s Agreement provided for <br /> implementation of various terms in the Development Order . <br /> B . Concurrency Certificates were issued in March of 2006 for 733 units within <br /> Waterway Village Phases I A , I B , 1 C and Phase IIA . A controversy arose with IRC when it took the <br /> position that all "development orders" and " development permits , " as defined in Chapter 163 . 3164 <br /> ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) , were subject to the concurrency requirements of Chapter 163 . 3180 of the Florida <br /> Statutes , and therefore each new phase of Waterway Village must be tested for concurrency prior to <br /> approval of such phase . <br /> C . DiVosta takes the position that the entire Development of Regional Impact for <br /> Waterway Village (the " DRI ") was vested for purposes of concurrency , among other reasons , by <br /> virtue of language in Florida Statutes Section 163 . 3167 ( 8 ) and in Indian River County Land <br /> Development Code Section 910 . 03 ( 5 ) , which are substantially similar . <br /> D . On January 31 , 2007 , DiVosta filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Indian River <br /> County , Florida under Case No . 20070109 CAI 9 ( the " Lawsuit") , seeking , among other things , a <br /> declaration of its rights that the DRI was vested in its entirety for traffic concurrency , and DiVosta <br /> has made a claim under the Bert . Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act ( the ` Bert Harris <br /> Claim " ) . <br /> E . IRC and DiVosta have worked in good faith to resolve these disputes and have agreed <br /> to do so pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Settlement Agreement , <br /> RM : 6637905 : 11 <br /> 1 <br />