Laserfiche WebLink
ALTEMATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />All parties support the attached agreement and recam-end its approval. <br />The Attorney's office and attorneys for the other two parties <br />have reviewed and approved this agreement. <br />RECONMENDATIONS AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends the Agreement be approved by the Board and the Chairman <br />be authorized to execute it on behalf of the County. Raiding to be from <br />Fund 304, Indian River.Boulevard South construction. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed Item #3 might require a variance <br />and did not know how this Board could take action as the Variance <br />Board is an autonomous group and their appeal is not to this <br />Board but to the Circuit Court. He wondered if we should broaden <br />our ability to do more things within our own right-of-ways <br />instead of looking for variances all the time. <br />County Attorney Vitunac explained that the Board of <br />Adjustments has a right to grant a variance only if the unique <br />shape of the property creates an undue hardship on that piece of <br />property, which is probably not the case here. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked who would grant the variance for the <br />wall construction at Vista Royale, and Assistant County Attorney <br />Jim Wilson believed that the Board of County Commissioners has <br />the authority to grant the variance by ordinance or resolution. <br />Planning & Development Director Robert Keating advised that <br />there is no need for a variance. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the <br />tri -party agreement with Vista Gardens Property Owners <br />Association and Vista Properties and authorize the <br />Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would <br />vote for the Motion with the understanding that a variance is not <br />required to construct the wall or fence at Vista Royale. <br />17 <br />JUL � Boor. DI -)E 845 <br />