8/23/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG 23 `989 BOOK 77 FAi'jE r�c� County Attorney Vitunac advised that the County Commission always uses the preponderance of evidence. We don't use "strict scrutiny." That is a criminal law concept. Attorney Kindler again wished to know exactly what the county means by difficult burden of proof, and Attorney Vitunac believed it means the burden of going forward is on the applicant, not the county. Peter Robinson, local builder and developer, believed what is happening is that in many of these designated node areas, someone in that area likes growing citrus and doesn't allow his property to be developed; then the County's plan is held hostage to his wishes. He believed that a lot of people you don't see here today are those who don't care what you do because that is how they intend to continue to use their land, and he contended that by creating these nodes, the County has created monopolies. Commissioner Bird noted that if he were trying to get the node expanded, he would present that information and use it as part of his argument. Commissioner Scurlock believed we had quite a problem with "blob" nodes and went ahead and set more definitive lines so people could identify their property. Mr. Robinson continued his argument about people sitting on their property in nodes and not using it. Chairman Wheeler commented that if someone is not using their property for the node's designated purpose, he did not have a problem with downzoning that property back to agricultural use, etc., but he thought the Plan gives us leverage to look at cir- cumstances and adjust it. After considerable discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to go with Policy 1.23 as set out on the white sheet, which reads: "No Node should be considered for expansion unless 700 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development." 8