My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/12/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
3/12/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:11:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
MAR 12 1,991 <br />BOOK 82 PAGE J0'U <br />mobile homes. He noted that there was a meeting on February 11 and <br />certain problems were brought up. It was his understanding then <br />that certain language was to be changed regarding mobile homes. <br />The mobile home industry in the State of Florida is governed by a <br />certain law, 723, which supersedes anything adopted by the County. <br />He felt the present ordinance is an imposition on that law. Page <br />20, Section 12 of the existing ordinance says existing agreements <br />will be adopted. There have been a lot of existing agreements made <br />t between these package plants and the County regarding these mobile <br />homes, and no two of them are alike. The residents' concern about <br />this particular section is that this is being used against them by <br />the park owner, forcing them to pay an impact fee upon the sale of <br />their homes. That is putting over 4,000 people in this County at <br />a disadvantage because there is no way they could sell their home <br />and take on such a fee. In the Park, it is mandatory, on the sale <br />of their homes, to pay the impact fee. They are not owners of the <br />property; they are renters. Mr. Pitiak contended that this <br />agreement stipulates that anything government -mandated can be <br />passed on to the mobile home owners. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that we do not have the power <br />to change valid agreements by this ordinance adopted later. He <br />believed that on Page 17 of the proposed ordinance we did change <br />some of the language in response to Mr. Pitiak's concern to state <br />that, "An impact fee shall be imposed on each ERU." We did not <br />take sides on who paid it. In none of our agreements does the <br />County require the tenant to pay the fee. If the tenants' <br />agreement with the developer requires it, that is between them and <br />the developer. All the County is concerned with is that the ERU is <br />paid for. The only connection between the tenants and the County <br />is that the agreement says at the time of the sale that fee shall <br />be paid. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked why we even bring up the subject <br />and Attorney Vitunac noted that -some tenants thought our agreement <br />required them to pay the impact fee. He explained that this is <br />from contract law. We do not take a position on who has the <br />obligation to pay this money. <br />Mr. Pitiak pointed out that under Section 201.09, Paragraph A, <br />that ordinance states very specifically, "The obligation to pay the <br />impact fee shall occur at the earliest of the following dates: <br />when the capacity is reserved, when a water or sewer permit is <br />granted, or when a building permit is issued." He then read from <br />the Developer's Agreement about Park Place, "Whereas Seller has <br />agreed to this purchase by County, provided that he will have five <br />years within which to finish his development without paying impact <br />38 <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.