My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/9/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
5/9/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:02 PM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:50:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/09/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
Elm <br />800rK 830 <br />VISTA PROPERTIES LAWSUIT OVER DOWNZONING TO OCR <br />Assistant County Attorney Collins reviewed his memo: <br />TO: The Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM:Lx)6- William G. Collins If - Assistant County Attorney <br />DATE: May 2, 1989 <br />SUBJECT: Vista Properties Law Suit Over Down Zoning to OCR <br />On December 6, 1988 the Board of County Commissioners <br />rezoned approximately 101 acres of land in the vicinity of <br />U.S. 1 and Indian River Boulevard from CL to OCR. After a <br />public hearing on that date, the Board determined that the <br />OCR rezoning was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan <br />which designated the property as a portion of the U.S. 1 <br />commercial corridor and that the rezoning would lessen <br />traffic impacts in an area where the adjacent street <br />intersection was operating at a Level of Service E during <br />peak season, peak hour (unstable traffic flow and delays); <br />and that the OCR zoning would be more compatible with <br />adjacent residential development in the existing CL zoning. <br />On January 5, 1989 the owner of the property, Vista <br />Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., sued the County and <br />requested that the Circuit Court declare the down zoning <br />unconstitutional. Vista alleges no reasonably viable, <br />economic use of the property and no foreseeable market for <br />such uses as are allowed in the OCR zone. <br />In order to properly defend the County, expert testimony. <br />must be presented in court as to this issue. Thus, 1 would <br />request that the Board authorize the retention of an <br />appraiser and/or marketing analyst to address the issue <br />raised by Vista, i.e., the economic viability and <br />foreseeable marketability for any of the OCR uses on the <br />property which is the subject of this suit. <br />Attorney Collins informed the Board that this will be coming <br />out of the Planning Department's budget, and they have no funds <br />for legal defense costs; so, they will have to come back with a <br />budget amendment from the MSTU contingency funds. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) moved <br />staff recommendation and authorized the retention of <br />an appraiser and/or marketing analyst to address the <br />issue raised by Vista Properties as requested by staff. <br />42 <br />S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.