Laserfiche WebLink
matters and exhibits that were presented at the Planning & <br />Zoning meeting, and he felt the scope of the review should <br />be judged by the same criteria used by the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission in approving a site plan, which criteria is laid <br />out in the Site Plan Ordinance. <br />Attorney Henderson asked if Mr. Brandenburg were saying <br />the Board is taking the position that the floor is wide open <br />to all exhibits, testimony and evidence that they may care <br />to consider, and Mr. Brandenburg stated that was his <br />opinion; the Board has not as yet indicated their position <br />one way or the other. <br />Several Board members indicated that Mr. Brandenburg's <br />position was fine with them. <br />Attorney Henderson asked for the sake of the record <br />that the action be taken in terms of the Board ruling to. <br />that effect. <br />Chairman Scurlock stated that he personally was in <br />agreement with the County Attorney's opinion, and he felt he <br />had just heard others on the Commission indicate they were <br />also. No Board member expressed an objection to the <br />Chairman's statement. <br />Attorney Henderson asked the Board to understand that <br />these are technical arguments, and he needs to get an <br />expression of the Board to later be able to say they acted <br />improperly. <br />Attorney Henderson then proceeded to cite Court cases, <br />i.e. The School Board of Pinellas County vs. Noble on scope <br />of review, etc., and informed the Board that Florida Land's <br />position on whether competent evidence was submitted is <br />supported by the verbatim transcripts. He stated that he <br />has not heard the argument on the procedural aspects, and he <br />would just reserve their right to respond. <br />Attorney Henderson commented on the letter submitted by <br />Attorney O'Haire, which he felt was irregular, and noted <br />JAN 27 1982 4 9 <br />EOUR 8 Fd;E 755 <br />