My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/18/2008 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
03/18/2008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2018 10:14:15 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:18:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/18/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4017
Subject
Ocean Concrete
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7232
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attorney Collins responded to questions from the Board regarding his views on <br />setting precedent that for the appeal to be proper it must be accompanied with the required fees, <br />and the same scenario had come up with another applicant (the Source). <br />Doug Vitunac, Esquire, 756 Beachland Boulevard, wanted to clarify the judge's <br />ruling because he thought there was a misinterpretation of the court's ruling in that case (on <br />Judge Hawley's ruling of his client's case — the Source.) <br />Attorney Smith wanted the record to reflect that we have just heard from Counsel <br />(Doug Vitunac) for the party that was seeking to preclude the hearing from going forward in the <br />Source. He gave his interpretation of Judge Hawley's ruling in that matter, and reiterated the <br />facts of the matter regarding the filing fees in the Ocean Concrete's issue. <br />Attorney Collins responded to Commissioner Flescher's query regarding the <br />County having a defensible position in this matter. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Flescher, <br />SECONDED by Vice Chairman Davis, under discussion, <br />to approve Option 2 -"Uphold the opinion of the County <br />Attorney's Office that the appeal is defective because, <br />including the required filing fee, it was not filed in a <br />timely manner." <br />Under Discussion, Vice Chairman Davis thought that by having the "bright line" <br />requirement of the filing fee this was going to be significant in other appeals. <br />The Board continued to discuss the appeal and whether the payment was in place <br />at the time of application. Mr. Wilson said payment did accompany the application. <br />32 <br />March 18, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.