2/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1990 t9 Fa 'E 13 much more a nuisance than a benefit. We have pretty much dropped that requirement now, and now he sees us going back to that on a bigger scale. Commissioner Bowman felt you must consider that was a donation then, and now it is what we would call an impact fee. Commissioner Scurlock felt it is site related and asked Attorney Vitunac how he viewed this particular requirement. Attorney Vitunac stated that it is legal and his office can defend it. Chairman Eggert pointed out that what is in here that hasn't been before, and she felt makes a difference, is the sentence: "The preserve set aside shall be allowed as credit toward other county land development regulations." Commissioner Bird asked if staff has followed through as to just who maintains the acreage that is required to be set aside, who pays taxes on it, who has access to it, etc. Director Keating confirmed that has been addressed. He advised that now in the Subdivision requirements, any time there is any type of common property, there has to be a Property Owners or Home Owners Association set up to take care of the maintenance responsibility. If areas such as that are not maintained adequately, there is an ability for Code Enforcement to take action, and we have done that with many things we have approved where wetland tracts have been set aside, recreation areas, etc. Director Keating felt the Board's questions bring up two issues. First, is the Board concerned and do they want to protect the native upland communities, and, if that is their objective, what is the fairest and most equitable way to achieve that. Commissioner Bird continued to question just how these set-aside lands would be handled, and Director Keating explained that the Property Owners Association would pay taxes on it and only the people within the project would have access to it. He noted that is the big difference between this and the beach 32