My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/16/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
5/16/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:18 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 4:05:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/16/2000
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
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public <br />hearing. <br />Commissioner Macht asked for clarification on the lots which have no multi -development <br />capabilities. <br />Chairman Adams understood that Mr. Hawkins was in the process of developing his 30+ acres <br />and Mr. Smith was not able and had no intention to develop his property. <br />In response to Chairman Adams, Director Hubbs explained that Indian River County Code <br />Section 206.07 allows the Commission to sit as an "equalization board". He suggested they keep that <br />in mind. This area is unique because the lots are smaller than in some of the other areas of the <br />county. If the Board agrees it would be logical to assess only 100 feet, staff could support that. The <br />only downside is that reducing one assessment increases the assessment on the other properties. <br />Administrator Chandler pointed out that over the years staff has looked at ways of assessing <br />the properties and square footage has been found to be the most equitable. A few years back, the <br />150 -foot rule was used as opposed to 100% of the acreage. <br />In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Acting County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien <br />stated that the Board is now sitting as an "equalization board" and the purpose is to bring justice and <br />right to the equalization, because no rule will fit 100% of the cases. <br />Commissioner Tippin favored the project, but believed that staff should be given authority to <br />have the option of being able to apply a100 -foot setback to those lots which are found to be not able <br />to be developed. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn agreed and pointed out they were getting the same "service" as others <br />even though their lot might be deeper. <br />Chairman Adams recalled they hadsat through many of these hearings. In 1990, they had <br />talked about the 150 -foot rule because of the acreage involved and sort of looked at that like a <br />maximum lot depth. That was what she remembered about using the 150 -foot rule. The cost in this <br />project has been spread out according to square footage; staff will have to go back and recalculate <br />May 16, 2000 <br />33 <br />BOOK 113 PriGE `#iJIL <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.