Laserfiche WebLink
<br />953 by directing staff to prepare an ordinance <br />amendment addressing the applicants impaired by the <br />Pending Ordinance Doctrine. <br /> <br />Attorney DeBraal stated this motion will bring all the contracts into play that were <br />signed. <br />Commissioner Neuberger questioned the legalities of the motion. <br />Attorney DeBraal advised the Board to direct staff to prepare an ordinance <br />amendment that would eliminate the necessity of the contract being impacted. He anticipated that <br /> <br />it would lower the number of contracts affected by the pending ordinance doctrine. <br />Administrator Baird felt it was such a complicated issue that they needed to have a <br />public hearing and realize everyone’s exposure. <br /> <br />MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Davis, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Neuberger, to have <br />legal staff look into the legal aspects and report back to <br />the Board. <br /> <br />Attorney DeBraal suggested the Planning Department staff and the County <br />Administrator have a discussion or workshop with builders and homeowners to better understand <br />the impact to the low-end homeowners. <br />Commissioner Bowden stated she needed more information before she could <br />support the motion and preferred this item be tabled. <br /> <br />Tim Zorc, <br /> President of the Builders and Contractors Association, spoke to a judge <br />in Lee County that looked at 800 contracts in relation to this issue. Out of 800 contracts there was <br />a mix of contracts that had the clause and some did not. Lee County Circuit Court Case argument <br />goes against the established court of appeals precedence. <br />24 <br />AUGUST 23, 2005 <br /> <br />