There are many ways to fight development of the property located inside the Eastwood Community. The developers are attempting to convince the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to allow the development even though the Developmental Review Committee determined that converting a portion of the golf course land into a subdivision of homes is “a substantial change”. *link to DRC video Our goal, as the Eastwood Community, is to fight the proposal by giving the BOCC compelling reasons why development would not only be ethically and legally questionable, but also damaging to the community. Our offensive stance comes from many positions which you can read Here … We need the entire community activated and ready to present a solid front to our Commission Board. (What You Can Do…)
If the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) were to decide in favor of allowing development in Eastwood, and the preliminary subdivision plan (PSP) is submitted and approved, we would then have the option to move on to fight in civil court. Previously, our HOA Board has hired attorneys for legal counsel. Based on very narrow legal opinions written by an attorney firm in response to a singular legal position (our Declarations), many have deemed civil court as vain. It is important to note that one attorney firm submitting these opinions has since severed ties with the Eastwood Community due to conflicts of interest (read more here…), citing their employment with the County. It is our belief that there may be several strong legal positions that could be used to win in Civil Court. These include:
- The initial design of community (planned development) was that of a golf-course community. It was marketed as a golf course community. The names of the streets (Golfway) and the names of several sub communities within the community are golf courses.
I think the Eastwood residents need to file a class action lawsuit now against the owner and the developer. Class action lawsuits work when investors are defrauded in stock purchases and it would work with our problem. We have been defrauded in our home purchases and are entitled to pain and suffering rewards. There is no way a jury of our piers would rule against our argument.