Is the plan legal or not?

Does Crystal River's annexation plan meet legal requirements? Opponents say it doesn't and will appeal Monday's City Council vote in favor of it.

CRYSTAL RIVER - The first round of rancorous debate concerning the city's plan to annex more than 500 acres is over. The second round isn't far behind.

Critics vowed Tuesday to mount a legal fight against the annexation, which the City Council approved late Monday on a 4-1 vote. Citizens Opposed to RealtiCorp Annexation (CORA) will file an appeal in circuit court in the next 30 days, and the County Commission also was mulling its options.

The question, CORA attorney Carl Bertoch said, will be whether the involuntary annexation meets legal requirements.

"We contend that it doesn't. They contend that it does," he said Tuesday. "We'll see what the court says about it."

Such differences in opinion were expected before the final public hearing and vote took place Monday. But few in the packed council chambers had any idea what the evening would bring.

Would the city postpone a decision once again? Would it prove that a couple had unlawfully moved into the annexation area? Would council members give up on the plan?

Answers came quickly and in abundance.

City Attorney David LaCroix presented each council member with a stack of papers several inches thick just before the meeting began, and later spent 45 minutes explaining their content.

In the packet were memos detailing why he and City Manager Susan Boyer believed the annexation was legitimate - and criticisms of it were not.

City officials took great pains to dispute Rodger and Renee McPheeters' claim that they now reside in an office space on U.S. 19, in the heart of the annexation area. If true, the city would be forced to hold a referendum, and the McPheeterses would cast the only two votes. They previously have expressed their opposition to the annexation.

The couple informed the city of their move April 12 during the first public hearing on the annexation ordinance.

LaCroix argued Monday that the couple had established an unlawful residence. He questioned whether the county should have issued a certificate of occupancy because the single-family residence was not equipped with a shower or proper windows and ventilation.

Plus, he said, the county's land development code did not allow residential uses on major roads, such as U.S. 19.

LaCroix also questioned whether the couple had committed a felony by changing their voter registration to the strip mall shopping center address 15 days before receiving final approval from the county to occupy their new dwelling.

The city also questioned whether the McPheeterses even lived in the shopping center. A six-day review by a Crystal River police sergeant of the couple's new home produced little evidence that the couple were residing there at all, LaCroix said.

"You have the authority to determine if Mr. and Mrs. McPheeters . . . lawfully abide in that area," LaCroix told council members.

He suggested an amendment to the ordinance that would allow the McPheeterses' property to be cut from the annexation plan if their residency was successfully proved in court.

The McPheeterses did not attend Monday's meeting. But Renee McPheeters stood by their decision to move into their shopping mall as on-site managers.

"We'll be awaiting notification from the city of Crystal River about the referendum vote," she said Tuesday. "We believe that is our constitutional right."

According to a cadre of county officials at the meeting, City Council members had plenty of other issues to address before they took a final vote.

One by one, county planners, department heads and attorneys took a turn at the podium to outline their concerns with the city's plan.

Their main gripe was what they deemed as an inadequate annexation study, which was paid for by RealtiCorp and found the city's proposal to be valid.

RealtiCorp owns about 200 undeveloped acres at the southernmost tip of the annexation area. The developer approached the city with the annexation plan after negotiations with the county concerning construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter broke down.

Council officials said the report failed to explain how the city would finance water and sewer extensions into the area, enforce ordinances dealing with the Crystal River Airport, work with the county to maintain roadways or make sure there was sufficient capacity at the county landfill for new development.

"The county believes that there are significant and material issues that remain unresolved," Assistant County Attorney Michele Slingerland said.

Their uneasiness echoed issues raised during the past few months by CORA, an organization formed by business owners unhappy about being annexed into Crystal River.

Several CORA members reiterated their position Monday. They also raised a new point, noting that the city's plan had split Crystal River Marine's property in a way that will annex the front of the property into the city and leave the back two parcels in the county.

"I suggest you go back to the drawing board," Bertoch told council members. LaCroix later disputed critics' assessment of the Crystal River Marine issue and said it did not constitute any problem for the annexation plan.

Not to be outdone, the city fired back with a second annexation report. Commissioned by RealtiCorp, the new report's findings bolstered those made previously by consultant Berryman & Henigar: The annexation was valid.

Annexation opponents brushed off the report as inconsequential. The only study that matters, Bertoch said, is the one already submitted by the city to the county.

The three hours of debate included only brief remarks from council members.

Council member Kitty Ebert said annexation critics might be getting ahead of themselves when they anticipate extensive commercial and residential development at the potential Wal-Mart site.

Fifteen years ago, some people expected a similar surge around the Crystal River Mall, she said. It hasn't happened.

"We are talking about annexation," Ebert said. "That's all we're talking about."

But council member Susan Kirk said the city must be mindful of annexation's possible effects.

"You do annex with the intent of developing," she said.

Council member Roger Proffer asked whether county government could "keep Wal-Mart out" if the city didn't annex the land in question.

Chuck Dixon, the county's community development director, said the county simply had a concern about overall development in that environmentally sensitive area.

Council member John Kendall said he thought some people might consider county staff's presentation to be a "bomb" that was dropped at the last minute.

"Well, I didn't consider it a bomb," Kendall said. He had a different characterization: obstruction.

Council member Robert Holmes said he was confident the council members were considering all the issues and information and making a decision that was in the city's best interest.

With that, the council voted. Susan Kirk cast the only dissenting vote.

- Staff writer Jim Ross contributed to this report. Colleen Jenkins can be reached at 860-7303 or cjenkins@sptimes.com