Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hitchcox displayed numerous documents on the overhead projector as he sought to <br />clarify his situation. <br />Chairman Bowden asked Mr. Hitchcox if it would be permissible to release staff, and Mr. <br />Hitchcox stated that he wanted the Board and staff to understand that everything he had done was <br />according to the rules of Indian River County, and he agreed to let them go. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan stated that he did not see enough grounds on which to grant a <br />variance. <br />Mr. Hitchcox said he had bought the property with the understanding that he would be <br />able to put six mobile homes on the lot, and that it was something he could afford. He emphasized <br />that he was not trying to get out of making improvements to his property. <br />Chairman Bowden asked Mr. Hitchcox if there were any "new" points that he wanted to <br />clarify to the Board, to which he displayed his mortgage documents and stressed how the bank was <br />"very much involved" in his situation. <br />Discussion ensued as the Board questioned Mr. Hitchcox in an attempt to gain clarification <br />of the variance objective. <br />Director Boling detailed the history of what occurred in 2006 (memorandum in Backup). <br />He explained that in 2006, Certificate of Occupancies were then allowed to be issued on the new <br />mobile homes and that Mr. Hitchcox was allowed to proceed; however, he never removed the two <br />older mobile homes, which is the subject with the Code Enforcement Application. Today, there <br />are four mobile homes on the site, two new ones which staff issued Certificate of Occupancies for, <br />and the two older ones. He said Mr. Hitchcox had initially paid impact fees for one of the mobile <br />homes, but felt certain that the fee was refunded once staff realized what the situation was in 2006. <br />14 <br />February 12, 2008 <br />