My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/13/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
2/13/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:43 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:46:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/13/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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
0 <br />M <br />M <br />�I <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed that if you look at Policy <br />5.3 in terms of utilities expansion, that provides for adequate <br />service to any development in our county. He felt it is a very <br />stringent requirement on the county to provide water and sewer <br />service when needed. <br />Attorney Kneller next took the floor representing Norpak <br />Corp., owner of 8,000 acres in northeast Indian River County. He <br />felt the Board must remember this is a Local Government Compre- <br />hensive Planning Act and large land owners are unique in that <br />they have the opportunity to hire private planners and consult- <br />ants and come in and plan their land properly. They have even <br />built belt lines around cities and often donate millions of <br />dollars for sewer lines and c'apacities. There are a lot of large <br />tracts in this county, and they all deserve a separate look. The <br />DCA is advocating a population based plan, and Attorney Kneller <br />contended that will drive up the price of every lot in Indian <br />River County. He informed the Board that Norpak Corporation <br />objects to the 1 unit to 5 acre AG designation on their property <br />east of 1-95 and to the 1 to 40 designation west of 1-95. This <br />is a large tract of land that needs to be planned as a large <br />tract of land and a planned.community. They also object to lack <br />of commercial and industrial uses. Attorney Kneller felt that by <br />just having these nodes, the County is cutting their own throats <br />and these opportunities are lost. He continued that the main <br />reason he is here today is regarding the property surrounding the <br />Sebastian River. This has been designated Conservation, and it <br />is their position that this is a "taking" and a denial of their <br />constitutional rights of equal protection. Attorney Kneller <br />stated that federal case law and federal statutes, particularly <br />42 U.S.Code, Section 1983, requires him to make a public warning. <br />They read the newspapers and know that the property around the <br />Sebastian River will be acquired. The public wants that land. <br />In fact, Land Use Element Policy 1.6 states the county's intent <br />to acquire that property. <br />L_ <br />77 <br />-ROOK A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.