My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/18/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
2/18/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:07:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/18/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
Commissioner Scurlock thought if a precedent has been set by <br />charging a fee to Florida Gas, we should be consistent. <br />County Administrator Chandler noted that if we follow the <br />precedent in terms of charging a reasonable fee, it would help in <br />the trade-off of recreation lands. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was not opposed to the City"s electrical <br />line, but felt that since we would be giving up 60 feet to an <br />enterprise fund and there would be a cost to the County to acquire <br />more property to trade, at least that portion should be covered. <br />Commissioner Bird inquired if we still have the ability to use <br />that land given for easement for something related to recreation if <br />we develop that as a recreational site, and Attorney Vitunac <br />advised that the easement just gives them certain rights, and we <br />can use the land for anything that does not interfere with the <br />easement rights. <br />Commissioner Bird asked why it would not count as acreage in <br />an exchange of land if we can use the land for recreational <br />purposes, and Attorney Vitunac explained that because this is a 69 <br />KV line there is probably nothing you would want to do under it. <br />Commissioner Bowman could not understand why they have to run <br />it through sand scrub as opposed to another route. <br />Commissioner Scurlock said their consultants had analyzed the <br />situation and found it to be the best, most cost-effective <br />solution. <br />Commissioner Bowman was not sure it was best. <br />Mark Johnson, representing Black & Veach in Orlando, came <br />before the Board and enumerated the reasons for choosing this <br />route, which were explained by Mr. Chandler in his presentation. <br />Administrator Chandler recounted that originally staff <br />rejected the application because of the vegetation and buffers. <br />After discussion with the applicant and getting more details on the <br />actual placement of the poles, staff determined it would not <br />substantially affect the buffer or the vegetation. <br />Mr. Johnson said the poles would be about 350 feet apart and <br />approximately 25 feet west of the east right-of-way, which leaves <br />a 20 -foot buffer between the adjacent property and the poles. They <br />will selectively clear the vegetation for the pole sites, and <br />vegetation would be left between the poles so habitat could <br />continue between the poles under the lines. <br />Commissioner Bird supported exploring the question of our <br />entitlement to compensation for giving up this amount of property. <br />24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.