9/29/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

deny it, that is the "taking." That is what has occurred here. Although we don't actually want the property now, we want it reserved; so, we promise to pay in the future -when we actually get title to the property. Chairman Scurlock still did not see how it is a taking when they can use that property to calculate density. We did set setbacks on SR 60, and people were impacted, and he asked if the attorneys are saying those people can file now and receive compensation. Attorney Vitunac advised that a setback is a valid police power function and that setback we do not have to pay for, but if you then make them setback in addition to that setback, it becomes a taking. Chairman Scurlock noted that if he were to determine a setback for King's Highway for public safety, it would be a significant setback, and he would rather do that for the entire length than work with each property owner as we go through. Attorney Vitunac felt in that case what you are really trying to do is protect your road R/W by making the setback very large so that some day when you come through, you can put your road in, and the law now says any denial of a proper use is a "taking." The Chairman again argued that you are not denying the use if they can use it to calculate density, and Attorney Vitunac noted that we are not ruling out paying for the land by transfer of density credits,but that is a separate topic and in any event, when you do that you are paying for the land. He noted that staff has spent many hours on this reviewing the Supreme Court cases and the Florida law, but he will be happy to set up a workshop with the Board. Commissioner Eggert was still blank as to what the differ- ence is in getting a sufficient roadway easement for safety and a 10' setback in the back of that, and why we have to pay for L_ SEP 2 2� 1937 19 BOOK 69 FACE 572 J