My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/13/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
12/13/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:28:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:37:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/13/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
DEC i U'J - poor 75 FA 394 <br />VERO BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/8/88: <br />TO:\ Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler <br />FROM:' A -William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney <br />DATE: , December 8, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: Vero Beach Community Redevelopment Agency <br />Florida Statute 163.367(3) says that "No commissioner or <br />other officer of any community redevelopment agency, board, <br />or commission exercising powers pursuant to this part shall <br />hold any other public office under the county. ..." The <br />question becomes whether the advisory board that you have <br />been appointed to "exercises any powers" under "this part" <br />which is the community redevelopment section of Chapter 163. <br />I am also concerned that Chapter 163, Part III no where <br />provides for an advisory board of the'sort that is being <br />utilized by the Community Redevelopment Agency. Normally <br />the Community Redevelopment Agency itself would be the <br />advisory board to the governing body. However Vero Beach <br />has appointed its own governing body plus two others as the <br />Community Redevelopment Agency. It seems if the City truly <br />wanted an .advisory board, they could have simply appointed <br />the Community Redevelopment Agency with a membership other <br />than City Council members themselves. I am also concerned <br />because the Community Redevelopment Agency can prepare plans <br />for redevelopment but must submit such plans to the local <br />planning agency of the municipality. I believe that the <br />City Council has also appointed itself as the local planning <br />agency in place of the Planning and Zoning Commission. <br />However, the power to adopt the plan is reserved to the <br />municipality's governing body itself and can only be done <br />after a public hearing. Also, the power to rezone land is <br />reserved to the governing body itself. <br />Conclusion <br />There is enough uncertainty as to lack of statutory <br />authority for such an advisory board, which together with a <br />concern about dual office _holding leads me to recommend <br />against your sitting on this advisory board. My main <br />concern arises out of the.statement made at the Joint <br />City/County Workshop that no planning or rezoning matters <br />would have to go to the City Planning Commission if the <br />property was located within the redevelopment area, but <br />rather could be approved by the redevelopment agency and its <br />advisory board. I am still not clear even after talking <br />with the City Attorney about the power of this board and <br />absent some clarification, would recommend that you not <br />participate. I believe that you certainly have other <br />avenues to provide input to the City on your concerns about <br />the downtown without putting yourself in a position of <br />having to resign your office due to the dual office holding <br />problem. <br />cc: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney <br />49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.