4/26/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion ensued in regard to postponing the hearing for another 30 days, but it was noted that would definitely interfere with the state's twice a year requirement regarding new Land Use amendments. Attorney Vitunac noted that we have testimony from the Clerk's Office that the required letter was mailed, and the presumption is that the owner did get the letter. The property owner is here today; his Attorney is here; this identical issue has been raised in the Planning & Zoning Board hearing, at which time the property owner's attorney presumably was prepared. Attorney Vitunac, therefore, felt we have the option to go ahead with the hearing. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is no final action today, and there will be another public hearing before final decision is made. Attorney Vitunac agreed that while this is a critical step, it is not the final action. Chairman Scurlock stated that on the County Attorney's advice, he would like to go ahead and proceed. Attorney O'Haire commented that he has noted his protest. He further noted that never in his experience have there been two notices, and he can't believe that a notice was sent on April 19th and on March 22nd. Planning Director Keating advised that the Clerk to the Board is required to give 30 days' notice (and that is the letter the applicant says he did not receive), and then the Planning Department sends an additional letter a week or so ahead of the agenda item. Commissioner Bird asked if it was Attorney Vitunac's opinion that if the first letter was mailed on the 22nd as indicated that fulfills the requirements under the law, and he confirmed that it would. Attorney Vitunac requested that the Clerk who actually sent out the letter of notice be called in to testify. In the meantime, question arose as to how a court might rule on the 41 APR 261988 goo .72 f,E 200