- April 18, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
It was standing-room only inside the commission chambers at the Orange County Administration building Tuesday, Oct. 18. Neon orange — the color about 50 individuals wore in a show of solidarity against a decision to be made after the final public hearing of the day — was everywhere.
The neon orange shirts read: “Save the open space permanently.”
The motto became the rallying cry for a group of homeowners who were staunchly opposed to the proposed redevelopment plans for the Windermere Country Club by the new property owner, Bryan DeCunha.
DeCunha, a Canadian developer who also owns Dragon’s Fire Golf Club in Ontario, purchased the golf club in 2011 for $2.1 million. After the golf club’s membership declined, he closed the course in April and advanced the idea of converting 155 acres of the Windermere Country Club into 95 single-family homes.
However, to accomplish that, DeCunha needed to be granted the development rights, which have belonged to Orange County per a condition included in the original agreement from 1985.
DeCunha’s development request met fierce opposition from longtime homeowners on the property from the start. A public hearing held during the Board of County Commissioners meeting had 31 speakers sign up to express their concerns on the issue, and Orange County Commissioners finally put the homeowners’ anxieties to rest by firmly denying DeCunha the development rights.
The room erupted in cheers and applause once the commissioners announced their decision. Mayor Teresa Jacobs showed strong support for the homeowners after all the speakers conveyed their thoughts.
“So in the interest of protecting your property rights and what you’ve invested in, we were entrusted with these development rights,” Jacobs said. “And I think it’s been a very, very clear and compelling case, and I’ve seen no legal arguments to suggest anything other than we are completely in our legislative authority to make this call and the call is clearly on the side of honoring the development rights for those of you who have paid so much for them.”
Homeowners in the Windermere Country Club were upset to hear about DeCunha’s proposal to add more homes to the development because they all paid a premium when purchasing the property, expecting the course to retain its open green space and allow them an escape from unbridled development. They stated the development, if approved, would add more traffic to already-congested roads, result in years of construction in their backyard and reduce their property values.
Leigh Ann Dyal, president of the Windermere Country Club’s Homeowners Association, has lived in the club for 20 years. Dyal went door-to-door and collected 133 signatures out of 147 homes who were against the development; six homes were in foreclosure, and two homes did not care either way.
Jeff Moody, who moved into WCC three years ago with his family, was particularly upset about the construction that would result from the development.
“When we purchased, we relied on the dedication of the permanent open space that was contained within the plat and dedicated to the county,” Moody said. “What we do not want is five to 10 years of construction behind our house. My children are now 4 to 6 years old. That means that if we have 10 years of construction back there, they will be living their formative years with a construction site in their backyard. That’s not what I paid $800,000 for, OK? The negative impact that it will have on home values, I think, the current analysis was about $18,000. That’s unacceptable to us.”
Others, such as WCC resident Fred Hernandez, were concerned about the strain all the new homes would put on the surrounding environment and roads, which he says are already stressed. He said the demand from the 95 new homes might negatively impact their septic tanks, lakes and well water.
Several homeowners added accusations, such as 25-year WCC resident Galen Miller, who said DeCunha deliberately destroyed the course and membership numbers so he could use the excuse the golf course was not economically viable. Miller said the developer filled the pool with dirt, put Roundup on the greens to kill it, turned off the A/C of the facility, which caused mildew growth, and drove his car around the course.
All the homeowners were in agreement that their expectation was the open green space, having been dedicated to the county in an effort to preserve it permanently, should be respected.
“Permanent space means permanent,” said Michael Eckhoff, a WCC resident. “We are not for sale.”
DeCunha’s attorney, Truong Nguyen said he considered it an unfair violation of due process to require DeCunha to receive the development rights to obtain permission to apply for the development itself.
“We just want the ability to go forward and finish and complete our application to show the merits of why we’re asking,” Nguyen said. “The problem is that P&Z’s (Planning and Zoning Board) position is that we can’t proceed forward unless we go through this. … And all the points you made are valid, but whether they are valid or not, should be shown after all the merits have been considered.”
Jacobs responded that this is a routine procedure that serves as DeCunha’s due process and clarified that the County Commission is under no obligation to grant the development rights.
“Well I would argue that this is your due process, and that sometimes in the course of due process, the answer is no,” Jacobs responded, to the laughter of many in the room. “In this particular case — and I’m not trying to be funny — but due process is not a guaranteed right to develop, it just gives you the right to come forward and go through the process.”
County commissioners, in the end, voted unanimously against relinquishing their development rights to DeCunha, pointing out that nothing Nguyen had said managed to convince them or indicate a compelling need to revert the original 1985 decision.
“If you look at the original premise of this cluster, it was that there is going to be a certain amount of open space. And you ask us now, to give back that property so that you have the ability to change that agreement and that zoning that we entered in 1985 or ’86,” Jacobs said. “We’re not compelled to do that. … Nothing that I have heard here, at all, has compelled me to believe that there is any need to change the arrangement that we established in the 1980s.”
––––
Contact Gabby Baquero at [email protected].
