New method used by opponents to prevent construction of new exhibition parks in Wellington

The village of Wellington said it will not reverse a decision that allows developers to build new showgrounds and homes while removing 96 acres of equestrian preserve.

The decision came after opponents of the project asked the village for a new hearing because they believe the developer violated village code because the developers’ environmental attorney works for the village as a special magistrate judge.

Opponents also asked the village for a new hearing because of other issues such as an investigation into permitting issues and environmental concerns about endangered species.

Developers Wellington Lifestyle Partners, a company made up of several investors including Mark Bellissimo, have been granted permission to close a showground, Equestrian Village, and convert it into housing. They will then build a new showground on Gracida Street with additional homes near the other showgrounds called Wellington International.

The group has always maintained that the project was necessary to ensure 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 that the showground can grow,” McMahon said in February. “It would literally double the size of the showground and allow Wellington to continue to attract new investment into the showground. So all areas can thrive here and this showground can really become the capital of equestrian sport. That’s really important for everyone.”

Although the project has been approved, a group of people are exploring different ways to stop construction and overturn the council’s decision. The latest initiative is from John Fumero, an environmental attorney with Wellington Lifestyle Partners who also serves as a special judge for the Village of Wellington.

Lauren Brody, who helped organize opposition to the project, said his ties to the village were not disclosed. She believes it was inappropriate for him to represent private sector clients while representing the village.

“It makes the whole process disingenuous,” Brody said. “Did they think they were going to get special attention? Did they think they were going to get results that they wouldn’t normally get? Was he going to be able to have backroom meetings? Was he able to learn things that a regular lawyer wouldn’t have access to?”

She argued that he could access certain files on the village’s computer network or speak with town officials.

Wellington Lifestyle Partners did not respond to WPTV’s request for comment by publication. Fumero said in an email that no conflicts of interest arose during his one-year term as a special magistrate for the village. He said the code prevents him from participating in any code enforcement proceeding in which he previously or currently represents a party.

“I have never participated, and could never participate, in ANY Code enforcement proceeding, as a special magistrate, where the proceeding involved a project or client that I previously or currently represented,” Fumero wrote. “If such a case arose, I would recuse myself and another special magistrate would be appointed. No such case has ever arisen.”

WPTV has obtained documents showing that opponents used the issue to ask the Wellington Village Council to reconsider Wellington Lifestyle Partners’ petition to rezone the land, potentially reversing the decision. It contends that the developer’s “application and submission contained misrepresentations, fraud, deception or willful error of omission” while citing issues WPTV has covered before, such as environmentalists concerned about endangered species habitat loss calling for the removal of equestrian preserve committee members and an Army Corps of Engineers investigation into the developer’s permit.

Village Manager Jim Barnes said the council would not reconsider the developer’s application because it found no basis to proceed
a new hearing in a nearly 3,000-word email going through the opponents’ statements line by line. He disagreed
respond firmly to any accusation of fraud, misrepresentation or deliberate error on the part of the applicant.

“The statements contained in the application do not constitute misrepresentation, fraud, deception or a deliberate error of omission in the applications or submissions that would justify a rehearing of the Wellington North and South development applications,” Barnes wrote. “Disagreement with staff positions or dissatisfaction with the approval of the Wellington North and South development applications does not justify a rehearing.”

Scripps Content Only 2024