Laserfiche WebLink
r- A L 2 9 <br />IS <br />0 <br />BOOK 65 FAE 248 <br />the matter from which he is abstaining from voting and, <br />within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of <br />his interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with <br />the person responsible for recording the minutes of the <br />meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the' <br />minutes." <br />It was my opinion that this section does prohibit your <br />voting on any matter relating to property owned by your <br />principal, Barnett Bank. On Monday, July 21, 1986, 1 <br />telephoned Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Executive Director of the <br />Florida Commission on Ethics, who, after discussing the fact <br />pattern concerning your case, indicated that it was his <br />unqualified opinion that you are prohibited from voting on <br />this issue by Florida law. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that at the previous hearing, the <br />Board generally indicated they felt the proposed node should be <br />smaller than requested, and he wished to know what staff has <br />determined and the present status of Vista Properties' request, <br />the acreage involved, etc. <br />Chief Planner Shearer stated that staff has talked to the <br />applicant since the last meeting, and he believed they may want <br />to speak to that. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that they presently have multi <br />family and OCR on the subject property, and he wished to know how <br />the acreage is split among those zonings. <br />Chief Planner Shearer advised that they have approximately <br />2 acres of RM -10 and approximately 8 acres of OCR. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard re <br />Item #3 (Vista Properties). <br />Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing <br />Vista Properties. He noted that the current zoning is OCR on the <br />north of Vista Royale Boulevard and RM -10 on the south, and it <br />breaks down about 50/50 as part of the original commercial <br />zoning. Attorney Henderson felt there was some confusion at the <br />last hearing as to the effect of the plating of a ten acre node <br />at this location when actually the request of the property owner <br />was for only 5.5 acres of commercial zoning. The OCR already <br />there is grandfathered in because of an existing office use so it <br />is not necessary to include that property in the node, and the <br />26 <br />