Laserfiche WebLink
FEB 29 1994 <br />BooK 56 F,+P.t 2 7,4 <br />into supporting a de -annexation procedure. He did not feel <br />that concern is so real, however, that the City could not <br />sign this agreement now. i <br />Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the County has a <br />paramount responsibility to protect the park's property and <br />we just want to establish for the record that it will be a <br />public park for public use in order to eliminate some of the <br />problems that might crop up in the future. He recalled that <br />there were objections by surrounding property owners when <br />the County began development of the Tracking Station Park. <br />Attorney Vitunac suggested that in Item #3, line 10, <br />the wording be changed from "In the event the County <br />requests such de -annexation from the City of Vero Beach, the <br />City shall support such annexation", to "the City shall not <br />oppose such annexation." <br />Attorney Brandenburg stated that he prefers it the way <br />it stands because the State Legislature has never passed; -;a <br />special act if it affects a County and municipality unless <br />both bodies support it. That is the reason -for including <br />the provision in the agreement that the City adopt a resolution <br />supporting it. <br />Attorney Vitunac suggested that in second line of the <br />first Whereas clause, that the word "absentee" property <br />owners be changed to "all" property owners. Attorney <br />Brandenburg agreed to deletion of "absentee" from the <br />sentence. <br />Commissioner Lyons felt that if the County and the City <br />vote for this, then it is certainly the wish of the people <br />at this time. He did not feel the City of Vero Beach really <br />wants -to see anything different than what we are looking at <br />right now in the long run. <br />Commissioner Scurlock emphasized how important it was <br />that the City adopt the resolution as discussed, because if <br />A <br />i <br />M <br />