My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
P & Z Minutes 09/10/2008
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
Advisory Board Minutes
>
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
>
P & Z Minutes Archives
>
2008 P & Z Minutes
>
P & Z Minutes 09/10/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2008 10:54:02 AM
Creation date
10/29/2008 10:16:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Regular
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
9/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning & Zoning Commissionl <br />local Planning Agency <br />September 10, 2008 <br />Page 3 of6 <br /> <br />David Henson Yes <br />Michael Buchanan Yes <br />Harley Parkhurst Yes <br />Stanley Weinroth Yes <br />Anthony Aramendia Yes <br />Nathan Van Meter Yes <br />Edmund Bakalla Yes <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Third Item of Business: lPA 07-13: Eminent Domain Continued. UlDR Amendment to add criteria for eminent <br />domain for acquisitions for public projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Sandra Smith, Chief Planner, reviewed the information provided in her memorandum dated September 5, <br /> <br />2008, to the City of Casselberry Planning and Zoning Commission (a copy is on file in the Community Development <br /> <br />Department). Ms. Smith said she has had discussions with Ms. Robin Drage, City Attorney, regarding conforming and <br /> <br />nonconforming status of a site taken by eminent domain. Ms. Drage spoke with the attorneys that have implemented this <br /> <br />ordinance in Orange County and the City of Orlando. Ms. Smith said based on the information provided by Ms. Drage, it <br /> <br />would be appropriate to add some additional verbiage to the ordinance for clarification purposes, Ms. Smith deferred to Ms. <br /> <br />Drage to explain further. <br /> <br />Ms. Drage said the purpose of the ordinance is to avoid the City or other governmental agency from having to pay <br /> <br />damages to property owners because a use that was conforming became nonconforming because of a taking. She said this <br /> <br />ordinance only applies to the nonconformity that resulted from the taking. She said if a property is presently nonconforming <br /> <br />it would not become conforming in the nonconformities that are presently there. The only part of the property that would <br /> <br />become conforming is that property related to the taking. She suggested revising the language in sections E.1, E.3 and E.6. <br /> <br />Ms. Drage said Orange County adopted this ordinance in 1995. She said they found it to be a very positive tool in <br /> <br />dealing with any type of eminent domain issue. She said it has been very beneficial to Orange County and to the Florida <br /> <br />Department of Transportation. Ms. Drage said she also spoke with several attorneys from the City of Orlando. The City of <br /> <br />Orlando's experience has been more limited; however, when they have utilized it, it has been very helpful to them. <br /> <br />A general discussion ensued regarding determination of conforming and nonconforming in a taking, the <br /> <br />administrative official's role and property owner's damages due to the loss of value in the taking. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.