Laserfiche WebLink
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS <br />THIS MATTER BECAUSE IF IT IS AN APPROPRIATE APPEAL, HE FELT UNDER.OUR <br />ORDINANCES WE ARE REQUIRED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE. COMMISSIONER <br />SIEBERT. THEN READ FROM THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI- <br />NANCES, SECTION 23 (I) SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURE, AS FOLLOWS: <br />"........ANY APPLICANT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING <br />ANY L GAL INTEREST THEREIN, MAY FILE AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY <br />COMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN ALLOWING OR DIS- <br />ALLOWING SUCH APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL..." HE STATED THAT <br />THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL AS FILED BY ATTORNEY KILBRIDE <br />FOR MR. ZORC IS APPROPRIATE. HE FELT THE KEY WORDS ARE "THE APPLICANT <br />OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING ANY LEGAL INTEREST THEREIN. If <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HIS FIRM PREVIOUSLY <br />RESPONDED IN WRITING TO -MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP OVER THIS <br />PARTICULAR MATTER, AND WHILE HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS FILED DOES <br />NOT HAVE SOME MERIT, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE IS THAT THE LEGAL <br />INTERE4T IS MEANT PRIMARILY TO BE THE UNDERLYING OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY <br />AND THAT IT COULD BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE DIRECTLY <br />DAMAGED, I.E. AN ABUTTING OWNER. HE DID NOT FEEL THE INTENT OF THE <br />ORDINANCE WAS TO GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO•APPEAL JUST BECAUSE THEY DON T <br />LIKE SOMEONE IS SITE PLAN. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT IT WOULD BE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE <br />TO PROTECT THE COUNTY AND ITS CITIZENS. HE.WAS OF THE OPINION THAT <br />THIS IS A SITE PLAN WHICH IS FAULTY; IT SETS UP A SITUATION WHICH IS <br />CONTRARY TO OUR LAW, I.E. THE SETBACKS ARE INCORRECT AND WHEN THE <br />DEVELOPER GOES TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT, SOME BUILDINGS WOULD NOT CONFORM <br />WITH THE COUNTY ORDINANCE. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE A.SITUATION WHICH IS <br />INCONSISTENT WITH OUR PRACTICE, AND HOW DO WE CORRECT IT? <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT UNFORTUNATELY OUR ORDINANCE DOES <br />NOT HELP US ANY. HE STATED THAT IF THE BOARD WISHED TO OVERRULE HIS <br />JUDGMENT AS TO LEGAL INTEREST, THEY CAN INTERPRET IT .AS THEY WISH AND <br />SET UP A HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. HE <br />JUN 61979 <br />54 <br />BooK 40 PAGE 429 <br />