My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/28/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
11/28/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 9:59:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
N 0 V 28 1984 BooK 59 F-nF 66 <br />can all feel comfortable that these requirements are not going to <br />be imposed on this county, then we could just withdraw the <br />resolution and the ordinance and go about business as we have <br />done in the past. <br />Ben Bailey urged the Board to go to Tallahassee to consult <br />Mr. Nabors on this matter because he felt that if we just roll <br />over and play dead on this matter, it is going to happen to us <br />again in other areas. He recalled that on their previous trip to <br />the capitol, he thought they had won an exclusion from the <br />designation, as they had presented extensive information and <br />evidence that Indian River County has made satisfactory progress <br />in implementing the HIMP, only to find out now that we are to be <br />included in the designation. <br />William Stewart, attorney representing Vero Beach Trading <br />Company, asked why the line is being drawn at site plans that <br />have received final approval as opposed to those that have simply <br />been filed. He also noted that the resolution essentially stops <br />the process of site plans that have been filed with the Planning <br />Dept. and are presently under review. He pointed out that Vero <br />Beach Trading Company has been working for a long time with the <br />Planning Department on a site plan, and now they are stopped <br />cold. <br />Attorney Brandenburg answered that this does not apply to <br />projects that have received final development approval, and if <br />the Vero Beach Trading Company has received that, they do not <br />have any problem. He continued to explain that this Commission <br />has to live by the new requirements of one unit per acre, and if <br />we continue to review and process plans, the DCA will find us in <br />violation of the provisions of the HIMP. <br />Attorney Stewart certainly felt that the DCA understands the <br />basic concepts of vesting and thought that when a plan has been <br />filed prior to the time that the Commission takes action, that it <br />should be distinquished from the plans that have just been rushed <br />to the County Commission at the last minute. <br />66 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.