Laserfiche WebLink
MAR 5 1991 <br />ROOK FnE 84 1 <br />Perhaps we could make it easier for them to qualify, however, but <br />we would continue to take them on a case by case basis. Many of <br />these lots are selling for $3,000 and for them to have the same <br />service as areas where people are paying $20,000 a lot is not <br />equitable. <br />Commissioner Wheeler believed we would be setting a <br />precedent in reverse by having the general fund subsidizing the <br />area, and Administrator Chandler felt we should address Vero Lake <br />Estates separately, change the criteria and come back with a <br />separate program. <br />Director Davis advised that some new officers have been <br />elected by the Vero Lake Estates Property Owners Association and <br />staff does meet with them quarterly. He really felt that water <br />and sewer lines should be installed before any roads are con- <br />structed, and that we should prepare a master management plan for <br />the area. <br />Commissioner Eggert understood that alternative #2 is for <br />everything and alternative #3 is for everything but Vero Lakes <br />Estates, and Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we table this <br />and have the County Administrator develop some specific recommen- <br />dations on Vero Lake Estates. <br />Administrator Chandler felt the best route to go is with our <br />point system, but perhaps liberalize it a bit. Staff could bring <br />something back for growth management. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously <br />approved Alternative #1 of staff's recommendation, <br />except for Vero Lakes Estates, which is to be <br />considered separately, and if adjustments are needed <br />in the point system, the Board will consider that at a <br />later date. <br />40 <br />