Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT <br />This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the <br />day of , 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 1A, 1B, 1C 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 CA19 (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 J. 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:663 7905:1 1 <br />1 <br />