Laserfiche WebLink
S E P 25 1985 <br />BOOK FA:t 02 i2 <br />address a change in that law; he felt that Attorney O'Haire will <br />say this is in violation of a higher law. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked if it would be legal to require <br />the FEC Railway to give the 141, which probably would entail <br />condemning and purchasing. She noted that perhaps the land <br />owners on either side would rather pay an impact fee so that we <br />could acquire from FEC. <br />Director Keating noted that is an issue he has been <br />avoiding; in -cases on Old Dixie, staff has only asked for half <br />because it was assumed we could get the other half from FEC when <br />we needed it, but it appears that may not be a good assumption. <br />Attorney Vitunac stated that if the County, which has <br />condemnation powers, wants to condemn land owned by FEC, which <br />also has condemnation powers, it is a balancing of impacts and he <br />believed it requires a high burden of proof. <br />Discussion ensued as to whether we are going to enlarge Old <br />Dixie in that area or change the road network, and Public Works <br />Director Davis explained that most of the land along Old Dixie is <br />zoned for fairly high use, and the need for additional right-of- <br />way can be justified for turn lanes, deceleration lanes, etc. He <br />did feel comfortable with the 80' right-of-way. <br />Commissioner Bowman did not believe we are saying that if <br />land on either side of Old Dixie is going to be developed, it is <br />either a question of providing better right-of-way or stopping <br />development on Old Dixie. <br />Chairman Lyons pointed out that we have an ordinance that <br />requires certain things. The Planning & Zoning Commission <br />apparently chose to ignore that ordinance, and now it is up to us <br />either to say the ordinance should be enforced or that it should <br />be changed. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission acted illegally. <br />Attorney O'Haire came before the Board representing the <br />applicant, Riverfront Groves, and stated that the ordinance as <br />59 <br />_ M M <br />