10/21/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF- OCT 211981 Poox 47 PAUc 837 , the park and believed this should be worked out before we reach an agreement. Mr. MacAdam stated that while he could not commit the Town, it would seem to him to be highly logical and correct to assume that the Town would assist in the funding and development of a park within its boundaries, particularly in attempting to accomplish the kind of quality necessary to protect the existing environment. He noted they would be paying for police service. Discussion continued re the necessity of having contiguous property for a legal annexation, and Attorney Collins stated that the State requires that the property to be annexed must be contiguous; he felt Mr. MacAdam's point about an enclave was valid and was of the opinion they must either have the 5 acres or go across the street. He pointed out, however, that this would not be contested. Commissioner Wodtke spoke of his strong commitment to the park and the utilization of this property for all county residents. He believed we need to develop it and get it into final stages under county control and jurisdiction and not have to be involved with possible other restrictions. Commissioner Scurlock noted that apparently Commissioner Wodtke would not oppose an annexation with an agreement after the park is developed, and Commissioner Wodtke agreed he would feel much better about it. Argument continued for some time about the Town's need for haste and annexation this year, past history, court action, etc. The Board members generally agreed they wished to get on a better relationship with Indian River Shores, but did not see the time element allowing it to happen. The Chairman called for the question, agreeing to the annexation as proposed by Indian River Shores, with the exception of the park properties (parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4.) It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Chairman Lyons voting in opposition. - M4 _