Laserfiche WebLink
NOV 1 6 1993 c� <br />BOO CE-5PAC'Ec� 1 <br />Chairman Bird informed Mr. Scent that we do not <br />presently have any ordinance that would force anyone to <br />clear their lot. <br />Attorney Brandenburg noted that the County used to have <br />such an ordinance, but there were several difficulties with <br />its enforcement and it was repealed. He was sure the <br />Commission will be addressing another ordinance in the <br />future that will accomplish the same kind of thing but be <br />consistent with this ordinance. <br />Attorney Paull stated that the ordinance before the <br />Commission is nothing like the City's. They are based on <br />different philosophies, and he did not feel we invade the <br />province of the individual land owner as much as some people <br />who have not read the ordinance might think. <br />William Priestly, local businessman, stated that <br />although he sympathizes with Mr. Davison and hates the very <br />nature of the proposed ordinance, he did believe, because of <br />the few who will thoughtlessly denude beautiful property, <br />that it is something that has to be done to protect our <br />community. Mr. Priestly noted that a lot of good people put <br />a lot of time and thought in this ordinance, and he did not <br />feel the Commission should be villified. He did agree that <br />the ordinance should be monitored carefully to see how it <br />does work out. <br />Tom Culler, spoke representing the Construction <br />Industry Management Council of Indian River (CIMC) and <br />reported that they did have representation at the workshops. <br />Mr. Culler stated that although this ordinance represents <br />another layer of restrictions, the CIMC realizes it is a <br />necessity in order to preserve the quality of life in this <br />county and endorses the ordinance as written. <br />93 <br />