3/21/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 30 year erosion line in that area and allows an additional 20-30 feet of development. Mr. Grinstead has received preliminary approval to put a pool in the back of his property. It seemed that the Board's action on March 7`t would halt all construction in that area. - Jim Young, James W. Young and Associates, advised that he has Lot 99 just east of the lot referred to by Mr. Barkett. They have a permit and are about ready to start construction. He has two other projects going in Ambersand which would be severely and negatively affected if the Board's action of March 7' is not rescinded. He urged the Board to reconsider their March 7' action. Chairman Adams asked Acting County Attorney O'Brien to clarify the action the Board took on March 7. Acting County Attorney O'Brien advised that he could clarify the law and stated it was basically the law of equitable estoppel which runs against the government. Citizens have a right to rely on government rules and regulations. When they do rely on them and make investments and if, for some reason, there is an act or omission of the government which causes a substantial change in their position with respect to what they can do with their private property, then you have a "doctrine of estoppel" (Bert -Harris). There are several remedies and he mentioned some of them. He pointed out that 161.053 F.S. allows local government to take over the DEP process, but Indian River County has not done that so perhaps someone could make a good argument against the County. Commissioner Macht thought that the owner was not deprived of his right to build, but because of the adjacency of critically eroded beach, the Board felt that dictated that he build safely behind the CCCL. Their decision on March r was site specific and had nothing to do with any other project in the county. Chairman Adams thought that staff needed clarification as well as those who had projects in process so everyone can move forward. March 21, 2000 120