Fort Walton Beach Council minutes — 05-28-1991 Regular — reading text

contract. Development Criteria ( 8) was also violated in that it states clearly that any acceptance by City made the Council shall be assignable and further that the non- City shall have the right to re- purchase. The simple deed does not mention these provisions. Finally as to the use of the land, the Aerotech/ Chromalloy attorney who wrote the deed for us said in the deed that the use of the land would be for manufacturing or wholesaling. Theonly zoning criteria we have that is consistent with wholesaling is M- 1, and M- 1 includes C- 2. and C- 2 is commercial retail business. None of these permit retail business. It seems to me if the new owner wishes to have a retail business, he would have a logical basis for asking the Council to rezone the property consistent with the deed given by the Council. I said at the last Council meeting that it was quite possible that an oversight had been made, and I still think that is the situation. If so, we, the Council, should have the opportunity to correct this mistake.  5- 28- 91 155 LAND SWAP ( CONT.) Mr. Maney continued, it appears to me that the property transfer was incorrectly handled in the manner I have described. I doubt seriously if we can go back and get an offer for the land to the general public to see if we I do not think that is can get a better offer. reasonable. but if you read the minutes of the April 9 meeting, time after time, everybody says we are all acting good faith. in If that is true. perhaps we can at least impose the normal Industrial Park restrictions on the land as required in Resolution 86- 50 which is 1 still in Mr. Haney moved force and has not been rescinded. toCity Attorney to take direct the necessary action to impose upon the 634 Lovej oy property all of the normal development criteria as prescribed by the teras of the current Resolution 86- 50 vhich governs the disposition of land in the Industrial Park. Motion vas seconded by Mr. deVaux. Mr. Wyatt expressed an opinion that evidence was not given to the other Councilmen to interpret in their own way. He claimed he would not vote affirmative on a motion made to Council without sufficient backup. Mr. deVaux vithdrew his second to the motion. Motion vas then seconded by Mr. Rosenbaum. Mr. deVaux moved to table the issue until backup is presented to Council. and staff' s c~ ts are provided. Motion vas seconded by Mr. Rosenbaum and carried unanUaously vith Rosenbaum. deVaux. Wyatt. Haney. Nicholson. and Wyninegar in favor. ( Saith absent) ENGINEERING CONSULTANT The City Attorney reported that with unanimous consent CHANGE OF VOTE ( CONT.) of the remainder of the Council, Maney' s vote may be Mr. shown in tonight I s record as being changed as to the last meeting. He informed the Mayor he may ask if there is any objection. Mr. Rosenbaum asked if that will pre- empt the motion to reconsider, and the City Attorney informed if there is not any objection, he will tell the Mayor the motion is now moved. Mr. Rosenbaum requested that his vote be changed, also. The Mayor asked if Mr. Maney' s wish is to have his vote 1 changed, and Mr. Maney said that is his wish. The Mayor asked if there are any objections. Mr. deVaux objected to the changing of a vote. The City Attorney explained it does take a unanimous vote, and the other alternative to reconsider the vote was not noticed and will require 2/ 3 of the vote tonight. When asked what that means, he explained Mr. Maney had not given any notice that he would come in tonight and ask to change the vote.  5- 28- 91 6 1 5ENGINEERING deVaux mentioned that when other Councilmen have CONSULTANT Mr. CHANGE OF VOTE ( CONT . ) changed a vote, it would take a majority vote. The City Attorney informed that has been when it was done on the same night; and this is the first time he recollects having a successive meeting situation. He said the motion to reconsider requires 2/ 3 vote. Mr. Haney made a motion to reconsider the vote. Motion vas seconded by Mr. deVaux and failed for lack of 2/ 3 vote by a vote of 3 to 3 vith Rosenbaum. deVaux. and Haney in favor and Wyatt. Nicholson, and Wyninegar opposed. ( Smith absent) The City Attorney informed that if notice is applied at the next meeting. it will require a majority vote. Mr. Maney asked how to give notice, and the City Attorney replied by asking to be put on the agenda. Mr. Maney asked to be put on the agenda for the next meeting to be able to change his vote. He felt there must be way to some change his vote because other Councilmen have done it. The City Attorney reported the distinction tonight has been that it was not the same meeting. Mr. Rosenbaum asked to be put on the agenda for the next meeting to be able to change his vote. DAVID de VAUX Mr. deVaux objection to Mr.