Laserfiche WebLink
The Moorings has offered the County $60,000.00 to re -purchase the <br />parcel in question. It was represented to the Moorings, although, <br />it was not made a condition of their offer, that their purchase <br />money would be used for parks and recreation in Indian River <br />County. The only condition to the sale of the property is <br />contained in Exhibit "A" of the proposed contract, and requires <br />that the County stipulate that the property may be used for <br />construction of a duplex, provided it meets all site plan <br />criteria. This condition should be clarified, however, since the <br />only "approval" the County could guarantee in advance is zoning, <br />and current zoning does allow for a duplex. <br />The final attachment to this document is a 1985 letter expressing <br />interest in purchasing the property by a third party. It is not <br />known whether the third party is aware of the deed restrictions <br />and title insurance questions involved with the purchase of this <br />property. Further, the Moorings' attorney has represented that <br />the Moorings would sue to prevent sale of the parcel to a third <br />party. <br />The parcel is currently valued on the tax roll at $179,400.00. <br />Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas pointed out that <br />if the Board agrees to this, these funds will go to the Parks <br />Department. He believed the situation goes back to when this <br />property was set aside in contemplation of a site for the 17th <br />Street Bridge. <br />Chairman Scurlock inquired about the size of the lot, noting <br />that he has not seem a lot in The Moorings go for $60,000 in <br />quite some time. <br />Dorothy Hudson, Attorney for The Moorings, advised that <br />because of restrictions the lot is not worth that much, and that <br />price was set over her objections. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if The Moorings gets it <br />back, they get a marketable lot, and Attorney Hudson agreed. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if we can advertise the lot for <br />sale, and Miss Hudson stated that it is unmarketable at this <br />point. She reviewed the history of the lot, as set out in the <br />following letter, and stated that she personally felt it should <br />be conveyed back without consideration. <br />87 <br />BOOK 64 pn(A-73 <br />