My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/2/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
1/2/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:03:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/02/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
_I <br />JAN 2 1995 <br />BOOK 59 <br />.138 <br />Director Keating noted that a project on the mainland was <br />the reason for implementing the change to the ordinance. He <br />stressed that it is very difficult to set specific criteria as to <br />what constitutes a "good faith" effort and this, therefore, was <br />left for the Commission to determine. He felt, as with other <br />projects that will be considered today, that the site plan <br />approval might have been premature since this does not have to <br />adhere to later ordinances such as the Stormwater Management <br />Ordinance, Landscaping, etc. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that another problem in this <br />particular area is the allocation under the Hutchinson Island <br />Resource Management Plan, which necessitates our determining <br />which projects really are active and which are not. He asked <br />Attorney Brandenburg if he had anything to add to staff's <br />comments as to what the Commission should be looking at to <br />determine whether the site plan is valid. <br />Attorney Brandenburg felt the Board should confine its look <br />at the criteria set out in the ordinance as opposed to arguments <br />about vested rights and equitable estoppel, and the Ordinance <br />sets out that construction at the site itself should be used to <br />determine what constitutes a "good faith" effort. The County <br />Attorney felt if the individual wants to pursue arguments re <br />vested rights, etc., they should pursue them at the courts. He <br />noted that the criteria is that if construction of the site plan <br />itself, at a level indicating a good faith effort to proceed with <br />completion of the project, has not occurred for a continuous <br />period of 6 months, the Board has the ability to determine the <br />site plan is void. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if that would include pulling <br />building permits, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that would be <br />one of the factors that would enter into it. <br />Chairman Lyons asked if he had not heard that the site plan <br />has expired, and Planner Goetzfried reported that on December 1, <br />1982, the Board approved the appeal by Florida Land and granted <br />48 <br />r � r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.