5/13/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

they go through a municipality, especially 27th Avenue in Vero Beach. Mr. Little felt that while the City and County were together on this matter, one of the differences is that the City believes that we cannot require a developer to donate the right-of-way to the County. Chairman Scurlock felt that the County's philosophy has changed over the past 4 or 5 years and are coming to realize that we should not take right-of-way without paying. He felt that with the implementation of the impact fees and other vehicles for assessing the costs of the roadway project and how the roadways benefit the fronting property owners, we have an ability to reach a equitable situation. He felt that all the Commissioners would agree that taking rights-of-way has been a -difficult process at best. Mr. Little suggested that the County require the developer not to put any bulding out there, but felt that just to convey a fee simple title gets a little sticky. Attorney Vitunac advised that the City should not sign off on a site plan for a development on a County road until the County signs off on the road right-of-way issue. If the County is taking land without paying for it, that would be an issue between the developer and the County. The safety mechanism is for the developer to give the land under protest and then we would fight the issue of payment at a later date. The County has been very successful in showing developers that they do, in fact, need to give that land for the impact of their own developments on the County's road system. Sometimes the developers agree with that and decide to give the right-of-way. We are not sure who is right in that, but in every case the County .has the burden of fighting that issue. All the City has to do is hold up its approval until the County signs off, and if we have to go to court, we will not hold up the development if the developer gives us the land under protest. 12 MAY 13 1986 BOOK 6 Ft,F