The village of Wellington said it would not reverse a decision that allows developers to build new showgrounds and homes while removing 96 acres from the Equestrian Preserve.
The decision came after opponents of the project petitioned the village for a rehearing since it believed the developer violated village code because the developers’ environmental attorney works for the village as a special magistrate judge.
Opponents also petitioned the village for a rehearing due to other issues like an investigation over permit issues and environmental concerns over endangered species.
Developers Wellington Lifestyle Partners, a company made up of several investors including Mark Bellissimo, received approval to close down a showgrounds, Equestrian Village, and turn it into houses. Then it will build a new showgrounds on Gracida Street with additional houses near the other showgrounds called Wellington International.
The group has consistently argued the project is required to keep the future of equestrian events in Wellington rather than competitors like Ocala.
“The group that controls Wellington International is actually up for sale, so throughout this process, we’ve provided a lot of stability to ensure the showgrounds can expand,” McMahon said in February. “Literally double in size acreage and have the ability for Wellington to continue to garner new investment in the showgrounds. So, again all domains can thrive there and it can really be the horse sports capital. That’s really critical to everybody.”
Although the project was approved, a group of people are researching different ways to stop construction and reverse the council’s decision. The latest effort revolves around Wellington Lifestyle Partner’s environmental attorney, John Fumero, who is also a special magistrate judge for the village of Wellington.
Lauren Brody, who has helped organize opposition against the development, said his connection with the village wasn’t disclosed. She feels like it was inappropriate for him to represent clients in the private sector while also representing the village.
“It makes the whole process disingenuous,” Brody said. “Did they believe they were going to get special attention? Did they think they were going to get things pushed through that wouldn’t normally get pushed through? Was he going to be able to have back-door meetings? Was he able to learn things that a normal attorney wouldn’t have access to?”
She argued he could have access to certain files on the village’s IT network or talk with officials within the city.
Wellington Lifestyle Partners didn’t respond to WPTV’s request for comment by publication. Fumero said no conflict of interest has ever arisen during my one-year tenure as a special magistrate for the Village in an email. He said code stops him from participating in a code enforcement proceeding where he previously, or currently, represents any party.
“I never have, nor could I ever, participate in ANY code enforcement proceeding, as the special magistrate, where the proceeding involved a project or client that I previously or currently represent,” Fumero wrote. “If such an instance ever arose, I would recuse myself and another special magistrate would be assigned. No such instance has ever arisen.”
WPTV received documents showing opponents used this issue to ask Wellington’s Village Council to rehear Wellington Lifestyle Partners’ petition to rezone the land, potentially reversing the decision. It argues the developer’s “application and presentation contained misrepresentation, fraud, deceit or a deliberate error of omission” while citing issues WPTV has previously covered like environmentalists concerned about endangered species losing their habitat, asking to remove members of the Equestrian Preserve Committee and an Army Corps of Engineers investigation into the developer’s permit.
Village Manager Jim Barnes said the council will not rehear the developer’s application because it found no basis to initiate
a re-hearing in an email with almost 3,000 words going through opponents’ statements line by line. He disagreed
strongly with any accusations of fraud, misrepresentation or deliberate errors from the applicant.
“The statements in the request do not establish any misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, or a deliberate error of omission in the applications or in the presentations to warrant a re-hearing of the Wellington North and South development applications,” Barnes wrote. “Disagreement with staff’s positions or dissatisfaction with the approval of the Wellington North and South development applications does not justify a re-hearing.”