My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/19/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:47:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/19/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
BOOK FA 6E <br />Attorney Vitunac agreed and added that, in fact, an essential <br />element is that damage to a plaintiff caused by a one-sided <br />communication would have to be proven in court. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt this rule was directed at one-sided <br />communication. He recalled that when controversial issues have <br />come up, Commissioners have spoken with all parties. <br />Commissioner Scurlock made the point that certain subjects may <br />be discussed in one-sided private conversations which are not <br />brought up in the public forum but may weigh heavily in the <br />decision making process. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt there is a remedy in the right to <br />appeal. He agreed with the concept but stressed the need to keep <br />government accessible to the citizens. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt the advertising of public hearings <br />gives complaining parties the opportunity to be heard. <br />Attorney Vitunac gave an example of a child care facility <br />where the complaining party would be a neighbor. All that neighbor <br />has to do is say there was (a) one-sided communication with a <br />Commissioner and (b) he was prejudiced by it. This rule says he <br />has a right to go to circuit court and that would add another six <br />months and a lot of expense to every issue that went before the <br />Board. <br />Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding a particular <br />instance where members of the Board were told they could not or <br />should not meet with someone who already held a development order. <br />She could not understand how that would fall in the category of <br />quasi-judicial when it has already gone through all the processes. <br />Chairman Bird recalled that incident and there was a question <br />and the matter was referred to the County Attorney, whose advice <br />was there might be a conflict of interest and we should avoid <br />talking to this individual. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt this subject would be explored further <br />and may result in legislation. His advice was that if there is an <br />advertised public hearing at which an applicant will get a permit <br />if he makes a certain showing of facts, then the Board is acting as <br />a judge. The exception would be rezoning and comprehensive plan <br />land uses. He further explained that if a decision is totally <br />discretionary of the Board, then it is legislative. If the <br />decision is made on the showing of the applicant, then it is <br />judicial. <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.