Laserfiche WebLink
neighborhood would not look or be the same, but would be many times <br />better; they would be very proud of the results and would receive <br />maximum benefit for the expenditure. He recommended they approach <br />it in a very business -like manner with one general contractor. <br />Commissioner Bird asked how long it would be before the final <br />sign -off on the project, and Mr. Clark reported it normally took <br />20-30 days to finish paperwork after the contractor completed his <br />work. <br />Commissioner Bird wanted the designated administrator to be <br />one of the Assistant County Attorneys and would not support the <br />ordinance if it was the County Administrator. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if we could just put "or his <br />designee" and that would take care of it, because the County <br />Administrator may want to designate Community Development or some <br />other department or person. <br />Commissioner Bird commented that the (County) attorneys don't <br />work directly under the Administrator, they work for the Board, and <br />the program administrator may want some support from the Board. <br />Commissioners Eggert and Adams agreed that an Assistant County <br />Attorney should act as the administrator under this ordinance. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, Vero Beach, concerned citizen, <br />commented that this was a "hidden or camouflaged funded mandate," <br />as opposed to an unfunded mandate. <br />Sam Elliott, Vista Royale, was concerned about the ordinance <br />and its impact on the 55 -and -older HUD Act at Vista Royale, and <br />Attorney Vitunac assured him it would exclude subdivisions like <br />Vista Royale. <br />Prompted by Mr. Elliott's questions, Deputy Attorney Collins <br />confirmed that he had checked with the consultant and a clause had <br />been included in the proposed ordinance (Section 4, paragraph <br />(3)h.) to address his concern about retaining the 55 and over <br />exemption: <br />Bar any person from restricting sales, <br />rentals,leases or occupancy to persons over <br />age 55, to the extent allowed by state or <br />federal law. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the <br />Chairman closed the public hearing. <br />25 <br />March 14, 1995n :. <br />BOOK -94, PAGE <br />