Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Brian Seymour <br />Attorney , Gunster Yoakley, stated the County would be saying that a <br />developer was in a better position if he did not meet concurrency. He thought staff had come up <br />with a plan that seems to make sense and encouraged the Board to make it fair so everybody is <br />treated the same by amending the pending ordinance. <br />County Attorney Collins announced that, in the interest of fair disclosure, Mr. Seymour <br />represents 3 clients who have sued the County over the pending ordinance doctrine. Further, he <br />thought that staff acknowledged there is an anomaly here. This ordinance has not been changed <br />because we are waiting on a consultant’s report, commissioned in January, that is due in a couple <br />of weeks. That report is supposed to give the County advice on the best practices as to when <br />people should be allowed to vest and it may turn out to be when Mr. Seymour and Mr. Swift <br />suggest is the appropriate time. He thought we should not lift the pending ordinance now, but <br />address it after the consultant’s report is in. <br />Mr. Seymour <br /> predicted, even if the consultant comes back in 2 weeks, the County would <br />create a problem relating to some type of concurrency during the time period it would take the <br />Board to pass a new ordinance. He reiterated his request to treat everybody the same. <br />Commissioner Davis wanted to review the consultant’s report first; he stated it was never <br />the Board’s intention to cause any problems but to level the playing field. <br />Nancy Offutt <br />, on behalf of the Treasure Coast Builders, advised of their concern about the <br />accuracy and proximity of the roads being designated as being deficient. <br /> <br />There were no additional speakers and the Chairman closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Davis, to approve staff’s <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bowden inquired if there is a mechanism in this <br />ordinance that would allow the Board to revisit and address the formula as necessary, and Director <br />April 11, 2006 14 <br /> <br />