The Wellington Village Council rejected a settlement Tuesday with the Palomino Executive Park Property Ownersā Association. The settlement, proposed by village staff, would have had Wellington pay $90,000 to resolve Palomino Parkās dispute with the neighboring Wellington Parc development for cross access to join the two properties.
Village Engineer Bill Riebe said there have been issues with the cross-access easement agreement between the Wellington Parc and Palomino Park developments on the west side of State Road 7. Cross access was imposed as a condition of development and is intended to keep traffic off of SR 7. The cross-access point is at least partially finished, but a barricade has been put up.
āThis attempts to resolve those issues by the Village of Wellington participating in a settlement agreement, whereby we would contribute roughly $90,000 to pay for the construction of an entrance into Palomino Park,ā Riebe said.
Village Attorney Laurie Cohen pointed out that the proposed agreement was not a settlement of any legal challenge.
āWeāre saying āsettlement,ā but itās not a settlement of any claim thatās been levied or any lawsuit thatās been threatened or pending,ā Cohen said. āItās really just a resolution of a disputed issue.ā
Vice Mayor John Greene said he was ready to make a motion to deny the payment.
āI donāt feel the village has any financial obligation to participate in this,ā Greene said. āWe certainly want to do everything we can between these two parties, but I look at it as this is a private matter between two different groups. Everybody has done exactly what they were required to do in terms of the money that was spent, in terms of developing and constructing that cross easement. If these parties cannot come to some agreement on how theyāre going to move forward with that, thatās not our problem.ā
But Councilwoman Anne Gerwig asked how that action would resolve the issue. āRight now we donāt have the access,ā she said.
Riebe said Wellington Parc had constructed the necessary culvert crossing.
āThere is a crossing over that section of the Lake Worth Drainage District right of way,ā he said. āThere is a culvert in the canal and the roadway on top is paved, and thereās a sidewalk. It extends almost to the property line of Palomino Park.ā
Gerwig asked why the access is almost to the property line. āThey were supposed to go to the property line,ā she said.
Riebe said the road goes as close as possible to the Palomino Park property line without touching it.
āLennar actually paved that all the way to the fire access, and then thereās a section of shellrock to the culvert crossing,ā he said. āWhen the commercial piece comes online, it is their responsibility to complete the roadway, bring it up to standards, curb and gutter, all of those improvements. When that commercial piece comes online, all of that connectivity will be in place.ā
āSo we already have that access,ā Gerwig said. āWhat still needs to be done?ā
Riebe said that in January 2009, the council approved a resolution that added two conditions that were not in Palomino Parkās master plan, requiring that it record a cross-access easement in a form approved by the village attorney, as well as a requirement for Wellington Parc to reimburse Palomino Park a pro-rated share of the cost to construct the entrance drive.
āThe issue is Palomino Park recorded the cross-access easement,ā he said. āIt was approved by the village attorney at the time, and that cross-access easement requires Wellington Parc to reimburse. The only problem is that Wellington Parc didnāt have a like condition in their development order, so you canāt really place a condition on another party thatās not party to that approval.ā
Riebe said that the cross access is currently barricaded and will not be opened until they come to some sort of agreement.
Gerwig asked who owns the barricades, and Riebe said he thought it was Wellington Parc.
āSo Wellington Parc doesnāt want access?ā Gerwig asked.
Riebe said the barricade is up currently because construction is not complete.
āThe item that causes the issues is the reimbursement part,ā he said. āIn an attempt to kind of clean that up, we set off to see if we could come up with a solution, and this is the best solution that we were able to come up with amongst all the different parties ā and weāve been doing this for two-and-a-half years.ā
Gerwig said the condition was put in place to get traffic off of SR 7 and complete the connectivity that was required by the comp plan.
āThe problem is that we are the ones who want the cross access, and we have created a situation,ā she said. āWe want the traffic off of SR 7. If we donāt participate, I donāt see a resolution to it.ā
Councilman Matt Willhite also wanted the cross access completed, and to use the new traffic light to its maximum capacity.
āI do want to see the safest route for any resident, visitor or traveler in that area,ā Willhite said. āI have tried to persuade both sides to make this cross access amenable to everybody. I do think itās inappropriate for Palomino to require previous costs to be incurred from the new person, however, that was in the plan.ā
But Willhite did not favor using taxpayer dollars to solve the dispute. āI donāt support using someone elseās village tax dollars to mitigate a problem between two private landowners. Thatās not our issue. We have tried to make sure that they would work together. We have talked to both sides⦠but itās not my financial obligation or the residentsā financial obligation to fix a problem between two private landowners. Theyāre neighbors; they need to be good neighbors and work together to resolve this.ā
Councilman John McGovern asked what would happen next if the village paid the money, and Riebe said the payment would go to Palomino Park.
āThey and Wellington Parc have worked out the details for a new cross-access easement,ā he said, explaining that the existing barricaded access is for a fire lane.
McGovern said that he felt that ultimately, the market would move the two parties to come to an agreement, particularly when the commercial portion of Wellington Parc is finished, but he did not see any monetary obligation by the village.
Greeneās motion to deny the settlement carried 4-1 with Gerwig opposed.
ABOVE: The Wellington Village Council.