My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/21/2009 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
07/21/2009 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2022 10:59:07 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:22:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/21/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4028
Book and Page
137, 702-750
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7374
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Flescher, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner O'Bryan, the Board unanimously <br />approved: (1) the total project construction amount of <br />$1,410,414.84; (2) the amount due for Application for <br />Payment No. 6 before delay charges deduction as <br />$76,353.89; (3) hold $29,559.88 for delay charges from <br />Application for Payment No. 6; (4) payment of $46,794.01 <br />to SPS Contracting, Inc. for Application for Payment No. <br />6; and (5) payment of $29,559.88 to Ranger Construction <br />Industries, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum of <br />June 4, 2009. <br />13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS <br />13.A. DIVOSTA HOMES L.P. AND DIVom Hows HOLDINGS, L.L. C vs. <br />INDIANRIVER COUNTY, CASE NO.20070109CA19 - SETTLEMENT <br />PROPOSAL <br />County Attorney William Collins recapped his memorandum of July 15, 2009, providing <br />an update on the proposed terms of settlement of the lawsuit with DiVosta Homes, Inc., as a <br />result of a number of meetings and Attorney Client Sessions, relating to a Development of <br />Regional Impact, known as Waterway Village. Changes to the Development Order and <br />Developer's Agreement were presented requiring two Public Hearings — one before the Planning <br />Commission and one before the County Commission. He said the determination must be made <br />at the hearings as to whether the changes constitute a substantial deviation (which would require <br />further development of regional impact review at the regional and state levels), or whether they <br />are a minor deviation (that can be approved at the local level with notice to the region and the <br />state). He said that after reviewing the Statutes, it was his opinion that this would be a minor <br />amendment, not a substantial deviation. He recommended the Board approve the findings and <br />26 <br />July 21, 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.