Laserfiche WebLink
48 PAGE 75A <br />JAN 27 1982 <br />the Board that they are appealing on both procedural and <br />merits, and it is his opinion that they have standing on <br />both those counts to come before the Board. He further <br />felt the hearing should be what is called "de novo" and the <br />Board should listen to other than what was previously <br />presented. <br />Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by <br />Commissioner Lyons, to indicate that the Commissions feels <br />the Audubon Society has standing to initiate an appeal in re <br />the River Bend Site Plan, in both areas - procedural and <br />merit. <br />Commissioner Bird expressed concern that in the Board's <br />zeal to change the rules on who may make an appeal, it might <br />have been made a little too broad, and possibly we should <br />take another look at this when the Zoning Code is rewritten. <br />Commissioner Lyons agreed this might need some <br />clarification, but he was not for further restricting <br />appeals. He pointed out that in the three years he has been <br />on the Commission, there have been only two or three. <br />The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on <br />and carried unanimously. <br />Attorney Henderson then indicated that there should be <br />a ruling of the Board as to whether they were going to <br />expand the scope of review to include new testimony with <br />regard to the substance and merits of the action taken by <br />the Zoning Board or whether they were going to restrict the <br />scope of their review to hearing only the argument on the <br />procedural aspects. <br />Attorney Brandenburg was of the opinion that the County <br />Code is very clear in regard to allowing the Board to take <br />additional testimony in that it specifically says "at which <br />time all interested parties will have a right to appear <br />before the County Commission in regard to the appeal." He <br />continued that the Commission also has to consider all <br />48 <br />