My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/10/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
1/10/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:16:39 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:40:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/10/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />1------'r 0 ; <br />• v tic .- i " '... .' - -C< <br />FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />DATE: January 9, 1989 <br />RE: FARBER CASE <br />I am enclosing a copy of an Order issued by Judge Kanarek in <br />the Farber vs. Indian River County case, relating to the <br />site plan of the McKee Jungle Garden's area. The Order <br />rules in favor or Indian River County's position that the <br />County's denial of the site plan submitted by the Petitioner <br />was proper under the law. The County was lucky to have the <br />able representation of William G. Collins on this matter, <br />and I congratulate him for his victory. <br />On Friday, January 5, the attorney for Vista Properties hand <br />delivered a new lawsuit challenging the recent down zoning <br />of the McKee Jungle Garden's property. Mr. Collins will be <br />able to handle this case full time now that he is back in <br />our office. <br />Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that the County has won <br />the case instituted by Farber appealing our site plan refusal. <br />The judge ruled that the applicant did not meet alt the criteria <br />in the site plan and our denial was correct; that was a major <br />victory. The very next day, however, they filed another lawsuit <br />challenging the rezoning issue. <br />Attorney Collins believed the Order pretty well sets out why <br />the Judge found as he did, and that basically was that the <br />petitioner had the opportunity to amend the site plan and go back <br />to the Planning Commission, but did not available himself of that <br />process. He felt if the site plan had been amended as staff <br />recommended, it might well have been approved. He continued that <br />there was a second lawsuit they had filed originally that alleged <br />a "taking." That was dismissed for procedural matters, but hE <br />anticipated they wilt file again. <br />57 <br />JAN I 0 199 <br />BOOK <br />75 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.