My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/13/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
6/13/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:02 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:36:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/13/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
JUS .1 3 <br />t3ooK 77 11a,r,E 5 <br />tourist trap type scenario such as existed before. They want to <br />preserve the beauty and the natural elements that are there, and <br />they want to develop a resource the entire county can share in. <br />Commissioner Bowman stated that she would never envision it <br />as a tourist attraction but as an educational facility and a hobby <br />facility. She did not feel the Gardens type attraction would work <br />any more in any event. Commissioner Bowman believed that nothing <br />has been said about the most important part of this acquisition to <br />her mind, which is to get the wetlands, and she felt that is much <br />more important as natural infrastructure than manmade infra- <br />structure. <br />Commissioner Bird asked about the status of the on-going <br />lawsuit to get the commercial zoning restored. If we proceed with <br />this and vote to purchase it or take it to referendum, what affect <br />would that have on the lawsuit. He did not want to buy the <br />property and then end up on the losing end of a lawsuit. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised, as part of the contract, he would <br />recommend that all litigation be voided simultaneously with the <br />closing. <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the anticipated expense <br />of the lawsuit, and Assistant County Attorney Collins advised that <br />the basic nature of the lawsuit is for inverse condemnation where <br />they are saying there is no reasonable use for the front 10 acres <br />as offices. If, in fact, the county purchases the property, there <br />has to be a value to the property and the case would be moot and <br />the lawsuit would be dismissed. <br />Commissioner Bird had some problem with the value that has <br />been placed on the wetlands in relation to the overall purchase <br />price as he believed they are already protected, and that we don't <br />have to buy them. He could justify it if the public has some <br />access to those wetlands and we could have some nature walks and <br />possibly get some benefit that way. In regard to the question of <br />a referendum versus none, while in his experience there has never <br />been a more dedicated sincere group of citizens working to bring <br />52 <br />_ M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.