Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />EP 16 1966 <br />BOOK 1 <br />d� <br />accomplish that goal was to allocate the available capacity <br />of the Wabasso Bridge (19,100 average daily trips at Level <br />of Service "D") between the County and the Town. Within the <br />applicable traffic zone, 780 of the acreage was within the <br />unincorporated area of the County, while 220 of the acreage <br />was within the Town. Therefore, the County and the Town <br />agreed to allocate 14,898 average daily trips to the County <br />and 4,202 average daily trips to the Town. <br />Because the 1985 agreement did not impose specific <br />density requirements, ttie County became concerned that the <br />Town of Orchid would permit development which was not <br />compatible with the surrounding County zoning. A proposal <br />was presented to the Board of County Commissioners to <br />abolish the Town of Orchid by Special Act of the Legislature <br />and Representative Dale Patchett offered his assistance. <br />However the Board of County Commissioners decided in the <br />interests of fairness to have the County staff meet with the <br />Town to see if the interests of the County could be <br />protected by some way other than disincorporation. <br />To address this problem, the County Attorney's <br />.Office met with Town Attorney, Darrell Fennell; Deerfield <br />Groves Attorney, Harold Melville; and Planning Director, Bob <br />Keating. At that meeting it was made known that 100% of the <br />real property in the Town boundaries is owned by 6eerfield <br />Groves Partnership. The only assurance offered by Deerfield <br />(and by the Town) that development density within the Town <br />would not exceed that in the adjacent unincorporated area <br />was a proposed agreement whereby the County, the Town, and <br />Deerfield Groves Partnership.would agree to limit density to <br />six units per acre within the Town and the unincorporated <br />area of the County in the applicable traffic zone. <br />Deerfield Groves insists that the agreement include <br />provisions which limit the County's zoning to six units per <br />acre and which prohibit the County from seeking to have the <br />Town abolished by the Florida Legislature. This proposed <br />agreement is attached for your review. It is unenforceable. <br />Zoning authority is a police power. Florida cases <br />establish that a government cannot waive its police powers <br />by contract. For that reason, there is a strong likelihood <br />that the attached agreement, as well as any similar one <br />which might be proposed, would be unenforceable. <br />Consequently, I cannot recommend that'the proposed agreement <br />be executed. <br />I respectfully request direction from the Board <br />how it wishes to proceed. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that the Town of Orchid has only <br />9 residents and every single acre of land in the Town is owned by <br />a land developer. He recalled that a year ago the Board asked <br />the Legal Dept. to get with the attorneys for the developer, whom <br />he is treating synonymously with the attorneys for the Town, and <br />Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett met with them several <br />times and has arrived at this contract, which is the only way to <br />bind zoning that the developer would agree to; however, the <br />contract is not enforceable. <br />40 <br />