04/24/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Collins looked at the timeliness of the appeal, the form of the appeal, the place of filing, and filing fee, and presented his findings. He recommended that the Board make findings that it does not have jurisdiction over the merits of this case because: 1. The September 5, 2008 letter from Mr. O'Haire was not an appeal 2. As an "appeal", the letter was untimely under Code Section 902.07(3)(b). 3. The appeal was not filed on the form prescribed by the County, as required by Code Section 902.07(3)(b). 4. The appeal was not filed within a specified time limit with the Planning Department as required by the Code Section 902.07(3)(b). 5. The appeal was not accompanied by a fee as required by Code Section 902.07(3)(b). Attorney Collins, after presenting his review and analysis, reminded the Board that due process requires that they do not simply accept his recommendations, but to make its own findings with respect to the issues, after hearing from the parties involved. OPENING STATEMENT BYATTORNEY VITUNAC Douglas Vitunae, Esquire, Collins, Brown, Caldwell, 756 Beachland Boulevard, Attorneys for The Source, presented his client's arguments in opposition to the Board of County Commissioners hearing the matter. He described how his client bought the property in reliance on the July 10th determination (by the Community Development Department), which allowed use as a residential treatment facility, and as a legal continuation of a non -conforming use. He argued that the July 10th decision was never properly appealed by the Metzes or by anyone else, and he provided relative facts in support of his arguments. He also argued that they have cited case law that explains where the County Ordinance contains mandatory language relative to the appeal procedures of the Code that those procedures have to be followed or else the County does April 24, 2008 3 Special Call Meeting (The Source)