My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/17/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
2/17/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:17 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:44:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r SEB 1? 1987 <br />' e f <br />BOOK FATE=iJ <br />executed by declarant shall constitute record proof that said <br />rezoning was not effected. <br />3. Term of Restrictions: <br />These restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding <br />on all parties and all parties claiming under them for a period of <br />fifty years from the date these restrictions are recorded. <br />4. Enforcement: <br />Enforcement shall be by action against any person or persons <br />violating or attempting to violate any of the covenants herein, <br />either to restrain violation or to recover damages. The party <br />bringing the action shall be entitled to recover, in addition to <br />costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the court may <br />adjudge to be reasonable for attorney's fees. Indian River County <br />and all owners of fee simple title to property which is contiguous <br />to the property described on Exhibit A are hereby declared to have <br />standing (in addition to any other proper parties) to enforce the <br />restrictions contained herein. <br />County Attorney Vitunac stated that this would be zoning by <br />contract; it is not legally enforceable by us; and we have never <br />given someone a zone in reliance on this. <br />Discussion continued regarding how the restrictions could be <br />enforced and whether this would represent contract zoning. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt that it is contract zoning as the way <br />it is written the restrictions are conditional on its being <br />rezoned, but Attorney Henderson argued that it is not contract <br />zoning because the restrictions are already recorded. <br />Dennis Zambataro, agent for the owner, stated that the only <br />impact he could see on adjoining owners is a positive one as he <br />felt the requested change would increase property values. What <br />they are planning is an upscale commercial development on the <br />order of the Village Shops in Indian River Shores., and they are <br />self-limiting themselves. Mr. Zambataro expressed his dismay <br />over the mobile homes in the 6th Avenue area and the high density <br />apartments on the north side of 17th St. which he felt are more a <br />blight on the area than what they are proposing. The subject <br />property is zoned RM -10 and could have those same uses, but as a <br />long time county resident, that is not acceptable to him as he <br />felt it would be a misuse of a beautiful piece of real estate. <br />Mr. Zambataro felt that 17th Street is a key corridor and <br />continued to argue the benefits of limited commercial use. He <br />20 <br />� � r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.