Laserfiche WebLink
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved <br />the engagement of an architect to design the <br />renovations involved in the relocation of the Utility <br />Department and the moving of the County Administrator <br />Into the space vacated by the Utility Dept. <br />DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON CORNER OF A -I -A AND CR -510 <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/9/87: <br />TO: The Board of Coun y Commissioners <br />THROUGH: Charles P. c - County Attorney <br />DATE: July 9, 1987 <br />SUBJECT: Dedication of -Right -Of -Way on Corner of S.R. A -1-A <br />and C.R. 510 (SUMMERPLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP) <br />FROM: Bruce Barkett Assistant County Attorney <br />Application for Site Plan Approval No. SP -MA -84-02-14, <br />having been submitted by applicant Tom Collins, is pending <br />approval subject to dedication of 7 feet of right-of-way <br />along S.R. A -1-A and dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way <br />along C.R. 510. The site plan is for development -of a <br />bank/office building on the subject corner. The applicant <br />has already received one extension of time, and the site <br />plan will expire in the near future unless construction <br />begins. <br />Recent case law (Lee County vs. New Testament Baptist Church <br />of Fort Myers, Florida) has addressed a county ordinance <br />scheme similar to Indian River County's, which requires <br />dedication by a site plan applicant of that portion of its <br />property needed to bring the abutting road's right-of-way <br />into conformance with the minimum width requirements imposed <br />by the county. In that case the court declared Lee County's <br />ordinance unconstitutional. The court stated there must be <br />a reasonable connection or relationship between the amount <br />of property required to be dedicated by the developer and <br />the anticipated needs of the community because of the new <br />development. Lee County's ordinance did not comply with <br />that test because it did not require any reasonable <br />connection between the requirement that the land be given to <br />the county and the amount of increased traffic, 1f any, <br />generated by the proposed development. <br />Staff is in the process of proposing alternatives to the <br />current Indian River County ordinances. In the interim, Tom <br />Collins feels he should not be required to dedicate 7 feet <br />and 10 feet of right-of-way respectively because of the <br />pronouncements of the court in the Lee County case. The <br />applicant proposes the following solution: <br />51 BOOK 6 <br />L_ )JUL 211987 <br />C <br />