Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11181975SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 18, 1975 - 7 P.M. MAYOR F. EUGENE CRAGG CALLED THE MEETING TO. ORDER. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN PAT FLOOD JR., JAMES C. KINARD, LEWIS GRAY. MR. L. B. VOCELLE, CITY ATTORNEY, AND MR. R. LLOYD, CITY ENGINEER. ARRIVED AT 7:35 P.M.) MAYOR CRAGG, (VICE MAYOR HOOSE MR. LLOYD, CITY ENGINEER, REPORTED ON THE DRAINAGE SITUATION IN UNIT #2, SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS. HE READ A LETTER HE HAD WRITTEN TO MR. MARK BAGGETT, GDC, ON NOVEMBER 5, 1975, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE SKETCH FORWARDED TO THE CITY BY MR. BAGGETT BY LETTER OF OCTOBER 31, 1975. AT A MEETING WITH BOB BLEUM AND OTHER MEMBERS OF GDC ON A FIELD TRIP TO THE PROJECT, THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR THE RENOVATION OF THESE DITCHES WERE SUBMITTED BY MR. LLOYD: (1) ADEQUATE SHOULDERS BE PROVIDED FOR SAFE DRIVING, (2) THE SLOPE BE FLAT ENOUGH FOR NORMAL MAINTENANCE, (3) ADEQUATE DRAINAGE BE PROVIDED, AND (4) THE SWALES BE SHALLOW ENOUGH THAT THEY WILL BE SWALES AND NOT DITCHES. A FURTHER LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY MR. LLOYD TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL STATING HE HA~ DISCUSSED THE STREET DRAINAGE SITUATION WITH MR. MARK BAGGETT, ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, WHO WILL COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. MR. LLOYD SUGGESTED THEY PROCEED WITH FILLING THE DITCHES AND SHOULDERS TO MAKE THE STREETS SAFE AND PASSABLE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN. MR. BAGGETT AND MR. LLOYD WILL MEET MONDAY TO RESOLVE THE MAXIMUM SWALE DEPTH THAT WILL BE PERMITTED. IT IS ANTICIPATED THIS FIGURE WILL BE BETWEEN 18" AND 24" BELOW THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT. MAYOR CRAGG STATED THE CITY ENGINEER AND GDC ENGINEER WILL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS PROJECT. THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS THE MATTER OF THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS YACHT CLUB. MAYOR CRAGG INTRODUCED MR. SAUL SACK, ATTORNEY FOR GDC: MR. RUSSELL PETERSON, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION: AND MR. L. B. VOCELLE, CITY ATTORNEY. MAYOR CRAGG ASKED THAT DISCUSSIONS BE LIMITED TO THE THREE ATTORNEYS. MR. SAUL SACK WAS ASKED TO SPEAK FIRST. HE READ GDC'S PROPOSAL TO THE CITY SIGNED BY MR. DAVID A. DOHENY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL. GDC PROPOSED TO DEED TO THE CITY A RECREATIONAL FACILITY TOGETHER WITH ALL LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS APPURTENANT THERETO, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS YACHT CLUB, ON THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY ACCEPT OWNERSHIP OF SUCH FACILITIES AND AGREE TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE FACILITIES FOR THE FREE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY. GDC MAINTAINS THEY ARE IN A POSITION TO CONVEY TO THE CITY GOOD, INSURABLE AND MARKETABLE TITLE TO THE YACHT CLUB. THEY AGREE TO IDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY AGAINST ANY LITIGATION THAT MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY BY ANY RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS BY VIRTUE OF THE CITY'S ACCEPTANCE, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS, PROVIDING THE CITY AGREES TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE YACHT CLUB AND TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR THE FREE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS. GDC'S PROPOSAL IS FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER BY THE DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS, OR IF SUCH APPROVAL IS DENIED UPON A DETERMINATION BY A COURT OF LAW THAT SUCH TRANSFER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA LAND SALES ACT. MAYOR CRAGG CALLED UPON MR. PETERSON TO SPEAK NEXT. MR. PETERSON COMMENTED HE FELT MR. SACKS HAD PRESENTED A FAIR PROPOSAL AND THAT GDC HAD ALSO PRESENTED A FAIR PROPOSAL IN THE PAST WHEN THEY PROPOSED A TAXING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS STILL INTERESTED IN A TAXING DISTRICT WHEREBY SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS WOULD CONSTITUTE THE DISTRICT AND THE MEMBERS INSIDE WOULD PAY A TAX IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH THEY ARE NOW PAYING. HOWEVER, IF THE TAXING DISTRICT WAS NOT FEASIBLE AND THE CITY FELT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OVER THE YACHT CLUB TO MAINTAIN IT AND SPREAD THE COST THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY, THEREBY ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF GDC, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH THIS TYPE OF AGREEMENT, AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF CERTAIN TERMS. SPECIFICALLY, MR. PETERSON REFERRED TO THE NEXT TO LAST LINE IN PARA. 2, "FOR THE FREE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS." THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THE WORD "RESIDENTS" AND ASKED IF THAT MEANT RESIDENTS WHO HAD BOUGHT PROPERTY DIRECTLY FROM GDC, OR RESIDENTS NOW RESIDING OR IN THE FUTURE RESIDING IN SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS. HE FELT THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT AND SOMETHING THAT SHOULD GO ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY INTEREST THAT THE HOMEOWNERS FELT THEY SHOULD HAVE THROUGH A SERIES OF BROCHURES OFFERED THRU THE LAND SALES OFFICE. IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIO~ COULD COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH GDC ON TERMS LIKE THAT, MR. PETERSON DID NOT FEEL THEY WOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEM COMING TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, IF THE CITY CHOSE TO ACCEPT GDC'S PROPOSAL. HE EXPLAINED FURTHER THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE CLUB, THAT WAS NOT AN ISSUE, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THE CITY AND GDC COULD AGREE ON THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "RESIDENTS." THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY FELT THEIR INTER EST LAY BOTH IN THE ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THEIR PROPER~Y BECAUSE THEy WERE MEMBERS OF THE YACHT CLUB AND NEEDED THE OFFER MADE TO THEM FROM GD~WHEN THE PLOTS WERE FIRST SOLD, AND WHEN EACH PLOT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD, SINCE THE YACHT CLUB WAS AN INDUCEMENT TO THE SALE. HOWEVER, AS STATED PREVIOUSLY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WERE STILL INTERESTED IN A TAXING DISTRICT. THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MR. CHRISTENSON FROM THE DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, A STATE AGENCY WHICH DEALS DIRECTLY TO THIS PROPERTY, IN THAT THE DIVISION OF LAND SALES HAD SENT A LETTER TO GD~PUTTING THEM ON NOTICE -- THAT UNTIL ALL THE PARTIES COULD COME TOGETHER AND MAKE SOME AGREEMENT, OR GDC COULD COMPLY WITH THE FLORIDA LAND SALES BOARD, WHICH MR. PETERSON FELT THEY WOULD BE DOING BY THIS PROPOSAL. MR. PETERSON FURTHER STATED THAT UNLESS GDC COULD CLEAR IT WITH THE DIVISION OF LAND SALES, THE CiTY WOULD BE ADVISED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT TAKING THE PROPERTY. THEIR AGREEMENT SHOULD INCLUDE FLORIDA LAND SALE APPROVAL. HE WAS AWARE OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 1975 MEETING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND GDC AT WHICH TIME THEYCONSIERED A TAXING DISTRICT AND IT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH PARTIES. NOW THE SPECIAL MEETING ~ NOVEMBER 18, 1975 (CONT'D) SITUATION HAS CHANGED SOMEWHAT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH GDC OR THE CITY, IF IT BECOMES INVOLVED. AT ANY RATE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THE TAXING DISTRICT. MR. VOCELLE, CITY ATTORNEY, MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS. HE FELT THE LETTER SIGNED BY VICE PRESIDENT OF GDC WAS SELF-EXPLANATORY. THEY STATED IN WRITING THAT THEY HAVE GOOD MARKETABLE AND INSURABLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THEY ALSO STATED IN WRITING THEY WOULD IDEMNIFY THE CITY AGAINST ANY LITIGATION THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY BY ANY RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS BY SO ACCEPTING THIS DEED. NOW, THIS TRANSFER MUST BE APPROVED, AS MR. VOCELLE UNDERSTOOD IT, BY THE DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES BOARD AND THOUGH IT WOULD BE LEGALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO PASS A MOTION, IF THEY DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FLORIDA LAND SALES BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS. OR, IF THAT APPROVAL WAS DENIED, A DETERMINATION BY A COURT THAT THE TRANSFER DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA LAND SALES ACT. QUOTfNG;I ATTORNEY VOCELLE, "MR. PETERSON DOES BRING UP THE QUESTION THAT REALLY THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS WHOLE PROBLEM. THAT IS THAT GDC DID, THROUGH THEIR ADVERTISING (AND THEY DID FILE IT AS PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA) OFFER A BROCHURE WHICH INDICATED THAT 'LOCATED ON THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER JUST ONE MILE FROM THE ENTRANCE OF THE COMMUNITY, THE YACHT CLUB IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS.' THE QUESTION NOW IS AS TO WHAT VESTED RIGHT DO THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLAND PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE IN THIS LAND AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT VESTED RIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO TOOK PROPERTY - AND MR. PETERSON HAS BROUGHT OU~ THE. QUESTION AS TO THE TERM "RESIDENTS" OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS. HE IS ASKING IT TO BE BROAD.AND INCLUDE ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS AND NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WHO INITIALLY PURCHASED UNDER THE BROCHURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE COULD BE A QUESTION AS TO WHO HAS THAT VESTED RIGHT." MR. VOCELLE'S UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE COULD NOW GO FROM AN EXCLUSIVE USE TO A NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND THAT MEANT IT WOULD BE USED BY ALL CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. MR. VOCELLE THOUGHT THERE WERE NOW FEDERAL CASES CITING THAT IF THERE WAS A FACILITY THAT WAS OPERATED BY THE TAXES OF THE CITY, THAT THE MEMBERSHIP AND USE COULD BE LIMITED TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. ACCORDINGLY, THAT CONSTITUTED NON-EXCLUSIVE USE TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN WITH THE CITY RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE MEMBERSHIPS OF THOSE RESIDENTS OF SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN KINARD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FLOOD, THAT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN ACCEPT THE SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS YACHT CLUB UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 17, 1975 SUBMITTED BY GDC WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE LAST LINE OF PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 READ "...TO OPERATE SUCH FACILITIES FOR THE FREE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS OF GDC'S SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY AND EVERY OTHER RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN." CARRIED. AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMAN FLOOD, COUNCILMAN GRAY MOVED TO RELEASE FUNDS FROM THE RECREATION BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 TO COUNCILMAN FLOOD TO BE USED FOR SALARY OF A RECREATION DIRECTOR. SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR HOOSE AND CARRIED. MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 8:10 P.M. CITY CLERK -2-