My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/12/2006 (9)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
09/12/2006 (9)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2022 11:45:34 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:11:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/12/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3125
Book and Page
131, 318-364
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
property, he filed applications for site plan approval, and the plans were approved in December <br />2005, a year after the closing. Thereafter, his Engineers submitted checks for prepayment of <br />concurrency in accordance with the standard policy and customs of the County, but the Board <br />rejected the checks, due to a proposed policy change. He felt the policy was unjust and explained <br />why he had to file Claims under the Bert J. Harris Act to protect his rights. He discussed <br />contractual obligations that he has to meet and asked the Board to be fair and correct this wrong <br />before his ability to obtain bank financing is destroyed. He proposed a fair settlement and handed <br />copies of the proposal to Board members. He reviewed the basic points of the settlement by way <br />of a slide presentation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis thought the Board should have an “executive session” to be <br />informed in light of the lawsuit. Attorney Collins did not think they could have a shade session at <br />that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Larry Deddy <br /> from Sebastian River Park expressed that all that Mr. Tabor said <br />applied to his Park. He also was seeking fairness from the County, as they have followed all the <br />rules of Law. He outlined his obligations and gave a brief history of the project from the onset. <br /> <br />Mr. Seymour <br />felt the proposed settlement was a reasonable way to resolve the <br />matter. <br />Attorney Collins provided a brief background of Mr. Seymour’s lawsuits and <br />discussed the proposed settlement. He was concerned with the proposal that the fees required to <br />vest concurrency be paid no later than 30 days after the land development permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Tabor <br /> responded to comments of jumping ahead of others reiterating a Judge’s <br />comments that there are no damages until you get the building permits. <br /> <br />September 12, 2006 <br />23 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.