Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Commission <br />May 9, 2007 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />I celiainly recommend acceptance of this settlement offer because the critical documents do not <br />contain a prohibition against the sale of the unit as a residential condominium, The documents <br />also do not preclude the unit from being used as a residential condominium. Thus, it will <br />probably be difficult for the City to require the buyers to vacate the unit when the buyer had no <br />notice as to the unit being designated as the Manager's apartment. More importantly, the <br />settlement will probably eliminate any legal claim that the buyers may have against the City. <br />There is a strong likelihood that the City would be named as a party if the buyers had to sue the <br />developer. Furthermore, under the settlement offer, the developer has agreed to hold harmless <br />the City and its officials for all legal claims that may arise out of the sale of the Manager's unit. <br /> <br />Additional Information <br /> <br />This settlement is consistent with the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive <br />Plan. There is no increase in density since the unit in question was approved as a residential unit. <br />The Resolution, the Declaration of Restrictions, and the site plan do not indicate that a <br />commercial unit was approved in the project. For information purposes, the developer asserts <br />that that all impact fees, ad valorem taxes, and other fees have been paid for 100 units. <br /> <br />/ Attachments <br />