Chairman Flescher opened the Public Hearing.
Attorney Pete Sweeney, on behalf of the Firm MTC Law and the Applicant, stated
that Section 7 of the agreement addressed potential traffic complications due to the
Venetian Groves development, which would consist of 900 units. The Harmony Isles
project was only one-third the size and alone did not contribute to traffic issues, but
completion of both developments would total 1,200 units. Responsibilities outlined in
Scenario A and Scenario B depended on the progression of Venetian Groves.
Multiple meetings had been held and traffic expert Shaun MacKenzie of MacKenzie
Engineering was available to address technical concerns related to the project. The
development had already received approval through necessary Ordinances and
planning processes. The agreement ensured the County incurred no costs for the
development, clarifying the financial responsibilities among multiple developers.
Mr. MacKenzie stated his firm had conducted the traffic study analysis, examining
scenarios with and without the proposed Venetian Groves Development. It was
important to note that the developer of Venetian Groves would be accountable for
installing a traffic signal if the project moved forward. Conversely, if the development
does not materialize, the traffic signal would not be required.
Chairman Flescher noted that the Board was examining the non-empirical aspects of
traffic studies as they related to this application and development. There was a
concern about what might happen if another subdivision progressed more quickly than
anticipated.
Mr. MacKenzie stated the Harmony Isles Developer had no control over the
Venetian Groves Development. Still, an agreement had been established that protects
the County's investment in both scenarios, whether or not it developed. This ensured
that Venetian Groves’ Development paid its fair share, and he trusted that it would be
accountable and responsible.
Attorney Prado informed the Board that, per Florida Statute, staff must assess
developers' agreements annually to ensure they comply with specific requirements,
including traffic enhancements. Staff undertakes this review on a yearly basis to
confirm that developers fulfill these responsibilities. If any modifications were
required, the County could suggest an amendment to the agreements. Nonetheless, as
Florida law requires, an amendment would be required go through two additional
Public Hearings. Agreements could be altered to incorporate additional items or
eliminate existing ones. The Board could terminate an agreement if a developer does
not follow the agreed-upon terms.
County Attorney Jennifer Shuler responded to Chairman Flesher, stating that the
Board could table the Item and reschedule the second hearing if more negotiations
