7/28/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the pay request of $25,000 from CDM as payment in full for additional services rendered, as recommended by staff. PAY REQUEST WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF MICHAEL O'HAIRE REGARDING RROVOCHECK PERMIT Deputy County Attorney Will Collins presented the following recommendation dated 7/22/92: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: ry G-- William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: July 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Verified Complaint of Michael O'Haire - Krovocheck Permit On June 2, 1992 the Board of County Commissioners heard Michael O'Haire's appeal of the issuance of a wetland resource permit to Jack Krovocheck. As a precondition to seeking judicial relief, Mr. O'Haire is required by Section 163.3215 to "file a Verified Complaint with the local government whose actions are complained of setting forth the facts upon which the complaint is based and the relief sought by the complaining party". Mr. O'Haire filed a Verified Complaint with the County within the 30 days prescribed by the statute, on June 30th. The statute requires the local government to respond within 30 days after receipt of the complaint. After the County's response, Mr. O'Haire has 30 days to initiate suit in Circuit Court. • The theory behind Mr. O'Haire's complaint is that the wetland resource permit materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on Mr. Krovocheck's property in a manner that is not consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. O'Haire asked the County to void the wetland resource permit issued to Mr. Krovocheck. The Verified Complaint indicates that if the permit is not voided, Mr. O'Haire will sue Indian River County for violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection -of the law, and that he will seek attorney's fees for violating his civil rights. I have reviewed the facts relied on by Mr. O'Haire in paragraphs 8a through 8f of his complaint. All of the facts relied on by Mr. O'Haire in complaint paragraphs 8a through 8f to point out inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan were raised in his appeal letters dated April 24, 1992 and February 19, 1992. Each of these matters was addressed in the Staff Report dated May 21, 1992 and considered by the Board at the public meeting of June -2, 1992. (In the complaint, Mr. O'Haire raises as a new matter Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 as implemented by Chapter 915 of the County's Land Development Regulations. Chapter 915 is the Planned Unit Development Chapter of the County Land Development Regulations. Future Land Use Policy 5.4 states "A special planned development (PD) district may be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility from the 90 JULL- 281992 MOK C.> 6 Fa,vE