My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/23/1997
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1997
>
9/23/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:20 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:12:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/23/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
� � r <br />up with all the reasons it was a non -conforming use and should not be grandfathered, and yet <br />the Code Enforcement Board said, partially based on the petition she guessed, that staff was <br />wrong. Unfortunately we are stuck with that decision and have to go on from there. <br />Mrs. Gates believed that most of the people signed the petition brought to them by <br />Mr. Conde without even reading it. They were told it was to support Mr. Jordan's clean-up <br />efforts. She had them sign a new petition stating that they resented the way the petition was <br />used by the Code Enforcement Board and they all signed it. Most were willing to sign her <br />petition without reading it. If Code Enforcement needed any new evidence, they could have <br />asked anyone who lived on the street. Also an environmental health officer had checked the <br />property and could have added his testimony in the case. Also, the FP&L bill was only for <br />5 months and the code had changed regarding non -conformity. <br />Chairman Eggert agreed that these things might have helped, but nevertheless the <br />decision was made and the case cannot be reheard. She also pointed out that the Code <br />Enforcement Board is not pro -active and their decision would have had to have been <br />appealed from outside. <br />Commissioner Adams felt they were in a very precarious situation and saw no remedy <br />that the Board of County Commissioners could give Mrs. Gates. It is a matter of record. As <br />aggravating as the situation was, and as sympathetic as she was to the issue, and since they <br />have no control over the Code Enforcement Board, she thought it would have be to carried <br />through into the process. She asked County Attorney Vitunac if there was anything they <br />could do. <br />Mrs. Gates informed the Board that she was not an attorney and unable to respond <br />to points of law, but she did have her attorney (Samuel A. Block) with her. <br />County Attorney Vitunac suggested that her attorney meet with his office so they can <br />go over it and if there is something that can be done, they will do it. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED <br />BY Commissioner Ginn to have County Attorney Vitunac meet <br />with Mrs. Gates' attorney to determine what can be done. <br />Chairman Eggert pointed out that the request (recommendation) is to uphold the <br />interpretation that staff has made and can be subject to the conversation between Mr. Block <br />and County Attorney Vitunac. <br />39 <br />SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.