7/18/1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The discussion ended with their views, and I stated that the Board would help speed up the process of adopting a Master Plan. Your Associations, in their letter of May 25, 1973, ac - cased this Board of not taking any action on the Petition and merely tabling or setting it aside. From the facts just stated it is clear that this Board fully considered and discussed the Petition and chose not to impose a Moratorium or cease work on the Master Plan. The second criticism in your letter of May 25, 1973, is that this Board ignored your letter and request of February 13, 1973, which requested some action by the Board on the previous Petition, requested that the Board comply with the requirements of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, or seek anAttorney General's opinion on whether or not this Board had to comply with Chapter 163. The Board answers these criticisms, as follows: First, your Attorney was present at the meeting on, November 22, 1972, when the Petition was presented by him, dis- cussed, and the Board chose not to comply with the request and -the Board assumed the results of this discussion would-be relayed* to . each of you by your attorney. Second, this Board employs an attorney in whom it has confidence and has relied on his opinion that Chapter 163 is permissive only and the actions of the Board are legal and did not feel that it was necessary to seek an opinion of the Attorney General. If differences of opinion between the public and this Board on interpretations of the law were always settled by an Attorney General's opinion, this Board would not need an attorney, would be unable to expeditiously carry out its duties, and the staff of the Attorney General would have to be grea4tly increased. You are correct in your criticism that the Board did not formally answer your request for an Attorney General's opinion, Qa VPW22i4