City, State and Developer Compromise on Planned $1B Development

The planned venture is one of the largest of its kind in Florida, according to the state's Department of Community affairs, which also played a role with Stock in settling the residential component's size of the project.

Pruitt initially sought approval for 15,000 multifamily and single-family units. The city argued 7,500 units would be its top number. The state wouldn't go over 6,000 units. When the talks ended Sept. 23, Pruitt wound up with 7,500 to 8,300 units.

"The 7,500 units are pretty close to the (minimum) 9,000 number we need to be at" to make the project profitable, Pruitt's Mount Dora, FL lawyer Bruce G. Duncan told GlobeSt.com in a telephone interview in July.

Also planned: four million sf of industrial and 1.3 million sf of retail/office. Multifamily units initially planned totaled 5,320 units.

Stock made certain the project would be phased in over a 20-year development period and not erected on a fast track such as the Villages community in nearby Lady Lake, FL.

Villages developer plans to build 32,000 new homes and one million sf of commercial on 11,300 acres over the next 10 years in Lake, Sumter and Marion counties.

In working out the compromise with Pruitt, Leesburg had to revise its comprehensive land use plan, assuring residents 790 acres out of the 3,334 acres would be set aside exclusively for conservation.

Low-density single-family housing or apartment development will go up on 2,209 acres. Commercial projects will be restricted to 136 acres; industrial ventures to 310 acres.

Another 490 acres bordering the Pruitt property but owned by other landowners will also be protected from future development under the city's revised land use plan.

Leesburg (Pop. 17,000) prepared itself in June 2001 by annexing Pruitt's property, putting the land within the city's boundaries. At the same time, however, the city will be ultimately responsible for providing utilities to the planned community in measured development phases, Leesburg city staffers tell GlobeSt.com.

"What happened here is that instead of allowing a developer to build willy-nilly all over the place, the city took control of the project, first with its annexation move and next with its cap on component growth in the project itself," an independent Lake County planner not associated with the project tells GlobeSt.com on condition of anonymity.

"You are going to see this approach in many small, medium and large cities across the country as residents demand stricter controls from their elected officials on area growth," the planner says.