My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/24/2008 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
04/24/2008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2018 4:29:18 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:18:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call The Source
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/24/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4018
Subject
The Source Special Call Meeting
Jurisdictional Determination
I Am Ministries
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7238
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
improvements done by the seller after closing. That was generally how he understood Attorney <br />O'Haire's arguments, and felt it was in Attorney Henderson's court, in the Closing, to show that <br />there was not intentional and voluntary abandonment; and that there were consistent efforts to go <br />forth and make the useable property as it formally had been used as a residential treatment <br />center. <br />Director Boling reiterated that staff had reviewed this and partially relied on data from <br />Mr. Barkett's letter dated September 27, 2006. Looking at the timeline, he asked if there was <br />some portion of the site used or some component of the residential treatment center use going on, <br />intermittent or sporadic, or did the use completely cease for any 12 -month period. Under the <br />reconstruction aspect of Section 904, he asked if that modified or applies to the cessation of use. <br />Director Boling argued other points of consideration as follow: If the Code says you are <br />allowed to rebuild a nonconforming use or structure that houses a nonconforming use, do you get <br />to use it; does the Code allow you to rebuild a structure that has been damaged by the hurricanes, <br />but not let you use it for the previous use or not. He said staff's reading of Section 904 and the <br />practice of the County has been to allow that timeframe to be modified when there is hurricane <br />damage involved, and there is nothing in Section 904, he continued, that speaks to how long one <br />has to recover from a hurricane. Therefore, we do not apply one (that provision) and have not <br />done so for people recovering with repairs. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan questioned staff regarding Section 904 of the Code that deals <br />with hurricanes and recalled that said section referenced another section of the Code. He asked <br />Director Boling if that was correct. <br />Director Boling affirmed it was correct, and elaborated that that specific Section of the <br />Code that is referenced had to do with the 50% threshold (if a building is damaged, 50% or less <br />one could rebuild it; and if it is damaged 50% or more one could not rebuild it.) <br />April 24, 2008 45 <br />Special Call Meeting (The Source) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.