Laserfiche WebLink
.. .....f- ,.. .._ _,._._ tT. _. �. _.� ...`_... __-...._�.��....� .._ :_...� __ _ ,4 •ePCTA�s.-� �. � F - a3kffic'+v. _ <br />NOV 19 19 80 am 45 PAGE 273 <br />INDICATED TO FLORIDA LAND COMPANY THAT ONE PROJECT STANDING ALONE <br />WOULD REQUIRE A BINDING LETTER TO SEE WHETHER A DRI APPLIES - THE <br />REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL FELT THIS WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST, HE <br />CONTINUED THAT HE INSTRUCTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOT TO PROCESS <br />THE APPLICATION; THE MATTER THEN WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND <br />THE RESULT OF THAT HEARING WAS TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S <br />DECISION TO REFUSE TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE <br />OF THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT A BINDING LETTER OF INTERPRETATION. <br />ATTORNEY SOVIERO ADVISED THAT THE AGENTS FOR FLORIDA LAND COMPANY STATED <br />THEY WOULD .INSTITUTE AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT TO HAVE THE DECISION <br />OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS'OVERTURNED. HE ADDED THAT ATTORNEY <br />HENDERSON, REPRESENTING FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, INDICATED AN OFFER BY <br />THE DEVELOPER TO SECURE AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND COMMENTED <br />THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION, HOPEFULLY, WOULD ADDRESS WHETHER <br />OR NOT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO <br />DENY LOCAL PROCESS OF THE APPLICATION, BUT ALSO WHETHER THE ZONING <br />BOARD AND/OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THAT POWER, WITHOUT AN <br />ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW GIVING THEM THAT AUTHORITY. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD <br />TAKE A REQUEST FOR AN OPINION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL. <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED WHAT DOES FLORIDA LAND COMPANY <br />WANT TO DO THAT THE COUNTY D0ES INOT WANT? , THEM TO DO? <br />ATTORNEY SOVIERO RESPONDED,STATING FLORIDA LAND COMPANY <br />WANTS TO HAVE TWO DEVELOPMENTS WHEN ONE PROJECT ALONE RAISES A QUESTION <br />OF DRI, AND THE BOARD WANTS THE DEVELOPER TO OBTAIN A BINDING LETTER <br />TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS, IN FACT, A DRI. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT ATTORNEY SOVIERO WAS JUST <br />GIVING THE BOARD A SUMMARY FOR THEIR INFORMATION. HE ADDED THAT <br />THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A POSITION, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS <br />TAKEN THE MATTER TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS. THE ATTORNEY COMMENTED THAT THE DEVELOPER <br />