The Punta Gorda City Review Committee continued a request for an initial determination of vested rights affecting properties at 297 E. Virginia Ave. and 407 Wood St. to the committee’s Oct. 24 meeting after the applicant’s attorney asked for more time to consult with staff about whether the current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) allow the proposed work under existing rules.

Jeri Waxler, of counsel at the McCrory law firm representing Don b Construction, asked for a continuance after being retained the prior day and said she needs to meet with staff and the file to determine whether a vested‑rights determination is necessary. "I am requesting a continuance of this matter," Waxler said, adding that after review she believes the project “may be able to do what they're seeking to do by right under the codes that are in effect now, which would make the need for a vested rights determination moot.”

Interim City Attorney Steven Leskovich told the committee he had no objection to tolling the period and moving the item to a later DRC date without waiving time constraints. Leskovich explained the legal framework the committee should apply when considering vested‑rights claims under Chapter 27, section 2.3: the committee must evaluate whether the applicant made a substantial good‑faith investment, whether the applicant reasonably relied on prior approvals, whether government action adversely affected the previously approved development, and whether recognition of vested rights would harm public safety, health or welfare. Leskovich said these factors are case‑by‑case and that "a lot of things are left open" for the committee to interpret.

Why it matters: a vested‑rights determination can allow a property owner to proceed under prior regulations despite subsequent code changes; it can have material consequences for what uses and designs a property owner may pursue.

Committee action and next steps
The committee agreed to table the item to the Oct. 24 meeting and directed staff to continue discussions with the applicant’s counsel. Leskovich and Waxler both indicated the continuance may render the request moot depending on the outcome of their review. The committee did not make a formal merits determination at this meeting.

Ending: The vested‑rights request will return to the DRC on Oct. 24, 2025, after the applicant’s counsel consults with staff; if unresolved, the committee may consider the substantive criteria from Chapter 27 at that hearing.