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
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
not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, that Mr. O'Haire has cited cases that they do <br />not think apply. <br />Attorney Vitunac referenced several case laws, in particular, the Ocean Concrete's case, <br />where the Board took the advice of the County Attorney and recognized that the decision to <br />strictly enforce its appeal procedures as outlined in the Ordinance would be precedential to their <br />case today. He thought it was the proper decision, and one that shows the community that we <br />have a consistent government that gives equal treatment to all applicants. He urged the Board to <br />make the decision that the appeal was invalid and to reaffirm the July 10, 2006 letter stating that <br />they have legal nonconforming use status. <br />(Clerk's Note: Attorney Vitunac submitted to record an approved excerpt from that <br />portion of the Minutes of March 18, 2008, regarding Ocean Concrete hearing - Exhibit 1) <br />OPENING STATEMENT BYATTORNEYHENDERSON <br />Steve Henderson, Esquire, Collins, Brown, et al, representing The Source, recalled that <br />following the Board's February 13, 2007 hearing, holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction, <br />there were various comments made afterwards that this was a technicality and that The Source <br />prevailed on the basis of a technicality. He believed the question of jurisdiction has very <br />important issues of public policy involved in it, and the terms of our ordinance represent a <br />balance between two competing interests; one being the right of an affected party in a land use <br />decision to complain and appeal a decision by an administrative official or this Board, and on the <br />other hand the right of an applicant, or a developer, or a person issued a permit or an approval, to <br />rely upon a finality of that approval in proceeding with its business. His point in case was that <br />The Source obtained an official administrative approval dated July 10, 2006; it was properly <br />issued pursuant to the County's ordinance; and they relied upon that in proceeding with the <br />purchase of the property. He suggested those were important things. <br />April 24, 2008 4 <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.