My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/2/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
7/2/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:13:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/02/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
4 <br />ZONING PROCEDURES OR IF IT IS UNDER THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE <br />DIVISION OF CHAPTER 125, WHICH HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED FOR <br />TONIGHT. ATTORNEY COLLINS ADDED THAT MR. SMITH POINTED OUT OTHER <br />STATES HAVE CONSTRUED MORATORIUMS AS BEING ZONING, AND THERE ARE <br />OTHER STATES THAT CONSTRUE JUST THE OPPOSITE. FLORIDA HAS NO SET <br />OF INSTRUCTIONS AND NO GUIDANCE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE THAT <br />IS BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT IS IN FACT A FORM OF REZONING OR IF IT <br />IS AN AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE COUNTY CAN PASS AN ORDINANCE_UNDER <br />CHAPTER.125, HE EXPLAINED. IT WAS THE ATTORNEY'S OPINION THAT SUCH <br />A POWER DOES EXIST, ALTHOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED, AND THAT THE <br />BOARD NEEDS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THEIR DESTINY AND <br />THEY NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROPERLY PLAN THE COUNTY PRIOR TO <br />ENACTMENT OF THE LAND USE PLAN, THE SOLE ISSUE, HE COMMENTED, IS <br />WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC AND PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE RECEIVED THE <br />REQUIRED NOTICE. THEY HAVE, UNDER THE ZONING PROCEDURES OF SECTION <br />125; UNDER THE COUNTY'S OWN ORDINANCES, THIS MATTER WOULD BE REQUIRED <br />TO 60 BACK TO THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR ORIGINATION, ACTION TO BE <br />TAKEN BY THE ZONING COMMISSION, AND THEN ACTION BY THE BOARD - ALL <br />THIS WOULD TAKE 2k TO 3 MONTHS. SUCH A TIME DELAY WOULD DEFEAT THE <br />CONCEPTS IN THE PLANNING ACTIVITIES THAT THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO <br />ACCOMPLISH TONIGHT BY CONSIDERATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND HEARING. <br />UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, ATTORNEY COLLINS THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IN <br />THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING BUT DID <br />WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN FLORIDA THERE IS NO SPECIFIC AUTHORITY OR <br />CASE LAW INTERPRETING IT. SINCE THE PARTIES WERE PRESENT AND THE <br />ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD, THE ATTORNEY FELT THE MATTER SHOULD BE <br />CONSIDERED. <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER REPORTED THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN <br />THIS MATTER: HE THOUGHT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS A MATTER OF <br />PROTECTING THE COUNTY'S INTEREST AT THIS POINT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY <br />ADOPT A NEW DOCUMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. HE ADDED <br />THAT THE ISSUES AT STAKE WERE AND ARE THE QUESTIONS OF IMPACT OF <br />BOOK 46 PAGE 79.E <br />JUL 2 1981 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.