Laserfiche WebLink
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD DEFER MAKING ANY <br />DECISION AS TO STANDING AT THIS TIME AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE MERITS <br />OF THE APPEAL. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISCUSSED THE APPEAL PROCESS AND WISHED <br />TO KNOW IF THERE IS A VEHICLE BY WHICH THIS COMMISSION COULD TAKE ACTION <br />AND OVERRULE AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IF THEY <br />FEEL IT IS INAPPROPRIATE, HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE BOARD HAS NO PRO- <br />CEDURE FOR FINAL REVIEW OVER SITE PLANS, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS CONFIRMED THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE <br />FOR THE COMMISSION TO FILE AN APPEAL. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD, <br />ATTORNEY O'HAIRE EXPLAINED THAT THE CRUX OF THEIR APPEAL IS <br />THAT THE NAMES OF THE REAL OWNERS WERE <br />NOT DISCLOSED <br />20 <br />DAYS PRIOR <br />TO <br />CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING & ZONING <br />DEPARTMENT <br />AS <br />REQUIRED, <br />BUT <br />ONLY THREE DAYS, HE CONTINUED THAT WHEN YOU HAVE OUT-OF-TOWN OWNERS <br />AND CAN DETERMINE THEIR IDENTITIES ONLY THREE DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, <br />YOU CAN'T FIND OUT WHO THESE PEOPLE REALLY ARE IN THAT TIME SPAN. <br />ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT IT WAS CLEAR TO HIM UPON READING <br />THE ORDINANCE THAT THIS 20 DAY PERIOD WAS SELECTED TO PROVIDE THE STAFF <br />THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION, HE <br />DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS A DORMANT PERIOD OF 20 DAYS TO HAVE EVERYTHING <br />PERFECT, AND.HIS INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED <br />IN APPROPRIATE TIME, <br />ATTORNEY RICHARD BOGOSIAN APPEARED REPRESENTING THE SURF & <br />RACQUET CLUB AND STATED THAT IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE SIMPLE ISSUE THAT <br />ATTORNEY O'HAIRE AND HIS CLIENTS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DENSITY OF THIS <br />PROJECT, WHICH IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 7.1 AND 7.6, AND WHEN YOU DON'T <br />LIKE SOMETHING, YOU HIRE A SHARP LAWYER TO NITPICK AND DELAY THE PRO- <br />CEEDINGS. HE FELT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING <br />COMMISSION HAD ALLOWED MR. O'HAIRE'S OBJECTIONS TO DELAY THE DECISION <br />AT THE ORIGINAL MEETING BECAUSE THE APPLICATION STATED THE PROPERTY <br />WAS HELD BY A TRUSTEE, WHICH IS THE LEGAL OWNER. HIS CLIENTS DID'NOT <br />OBJECT, HOWEVER, TO SUBMITTING THE NAMES OF THE "INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOM <br />THE TRUSTEE WAS HOLDING THE PROPERTY, ATTORNEY BOGOSIAN POINTED OUT <br />AUG 191991 83 <br />Box .47 PAGE 286 <br />