My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/6/2005 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2005
>
12/6/2005 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2018 2:54:28 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:00:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/06/2005
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
3096
Book and Page
129, 929-1004
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
268
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Brackett <br /> requested getting 3 appraisals on the lots based on undeveloped land <br />with approved lots. He stated those lots are under contract at market price. He was willing to go a <br />different route and let 3 appraisers determine the fair market value. He suggested he pick one, the <br />County pick one, and the two appraisers pick the third one. <br />Commissioner Wheeler cited LDR 952 (8)(B) regarding County purchase of land <br />for future rights-of-way, that the County shall purchase based on undeveloped condition of the <br />land. He thought the School Board’s purchase of property for nearly $100,000 per acre outside the <br />urban service area was way over the mark. He preferred to see the appraisal based on undeveloped <br />land criteria. <br />Director Davis gave reasons why the appraisal needs to be predicated on <br />undeveloped land without an approved PD already imposed on it because a PD requires a public <br />benefit test. <br />Mr. Brackett <br /> would not agree to have the appraisals based on undeveloped land <br />value without the PD because he believed the PD was approved by the P & Z Commission and the <br />Board of County Commissioners and the County did not require him to redesign the complex to <br />leave those 3 acres (13 lots) vacant. He claimed the old minutes were clear saying that the County <br />was purchasing “lots”. <br />Discussion ensued on the semantics of the basis for the appraisals with Mr. Brackett <br />insisting the appraisal of the property be based on highest and best use. <br />Vice Chairman Neuberger challenged that basis and recalled the trust placed on the <br />developer to work out the Developer’s Agreement, whereupon Mr. Brackett claimed his offer to <br />sell was proffered a week later, and, once again, County Administrator Baird took issue with that <br />statement. <br />It was noted there was a motion on the floor. <br /> <br />The MOTION WAS AMENDED by Chairman Neuberger, <br />and SECONDED by Commissioner Bowden, that the <br />County would choose an appraiser, Mr. Brackett would <br />December 6, 2005 34 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.