7/24/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�nilrl V �.�VC. 71-16 ,JUL 2 4 1990 It was pointed out that the problem is that if we don't buy this property, the owner can build on it, and Director Davis explained that what we have in Mr. �arkett's specific case is that in the City of Vero Beach we have.%a BlockBuster Video coming in, and we are telling them that our Thoroughfare Plan calls for 20' more of R/W in the City limits in that area. Even though it is a state and federal roadway and is in the City limits, we still have it on our Thoroughfare Plan, but as he interprets our impact fee ordinance, he cannot give an impact fee credit unless that link is on our 20 Year Road Plan; so, instead of using impact fee revenue or giving them impact fee credit, the question is should we be using the unincorporated portion of the Gas Tax revenues to buy that R/W when the cities already have their fair share of those same revenues. Director Davis felt that ethically the City ought to be buying that R/W within their City limits. Attorney Barkett stated that if that is the case, then don't tell the City to make it a requirement of site plan that they dedicate 20' of R/W, but Director Davis pointed out that U.S.I. is on our Thoroughfare Plan and in our Comprehensive Plan and the County is responsible for the collector road system. Administrator Chandler believed that Asst. County Attorney Terry O'Brien was addressing this particular case and possibly advising new policy. Commissioner Scurlock felt this agenda item is more complicated than he expected, and he did not believe he can react to it today. Director Davis agreed but felt it is good to have the DOT participate to some degree in this discussion. He confirmed that he will be bring Mr. Barkett's particular item back in the next few weeks. Commissioner Bird asked if the DOT needs any specific action, and Mr. Yesbeck advised that the first step, if the Commission has any comments regarding the plan presented today, 30