My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/08/2014 VAB
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
01/08/2014 VAB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 3:27:24 PM
Creation date
8/20/2015 9:30:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Value Adjustment Board
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/08/2014
Meeting Body
Value Adjustment Board
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Chairman Davis sought legal advice regarding the specifics needed in the motion. <br />VAB Attorney Hancock said he would reference this discussion and instruct the Special <br />Magistrate to look at the VAB's concern with the terms of the lease, and with respect to the two <br />petitions that are Commercially Zoned properties, the VAB is concerned that it would be an <br />illegal use; and request the Special Magistrate to adjust her recommended decision. <br />Chairman Davis questioned, and Vice Chairman O'Bryan responded that C-1, <br />Commercial Zoning was not in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />The CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion <br />carried unanimously. The Board approved to reject the Special <br />Magistrate's recommended decision, for Petitions 2013-005 and <br />2013-006, based on the conflict of the zoning allowances within <br />the City of Vero Beach., and directed the VAB Attorney to <br />instruct the Special Magistrate to review the concerns of the <br />Board, and resubmit her recommended decisions for Board <br />approval. <br />Vice Chairman O'Bryan asked VAB Attorney Hancock, and he was advised that legally <br />the Board cannot reject the other six petitions, because the recommended decisions met the <br />criteria of the three statutory sections of the Florida Statutes. <br />Vice Chairman O'Bryan felt that going back to the Special Magistrate was not going to <br />resolve this, and felt the true resolution would be getting a legal opinion from a judge. He <br />strongly expressed his objection to the recommended decisions to grant Ag exemption on these <br />properties and told the Board that he was not going to make a motion to move them forward. He <br />disclosed that he had no idea who the property owners were. He said he did his research, and <br />after driving by the properties, he did not believe the owners have met statutory requirements. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.