1/16/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

we would not be in this bind . When you apply for a permit, part of the requirement is construction to withstand water and you give up the right to come back later for armoring . The public is upset -about using this land in accordance with the regulations . It is not fair to work with staff for months on the regulations , have staff approve the plan and say we meet all LDR requirements , and then we go to P &Z with no representation , expecting to get their approval and instead get their denial . The same thing is true when the appeal to the Board is filed and the Chairman opens the floor to public comment . We have no idea what they are going to present and no way to prepare for their objections . He had never seen their handouts or examined their challenges . He was told there are no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan . County staff represents Mr . Brown and every other person in this County . They are supposed to be the watchdogs for the County . Mr . Evans objected to the Chairman ' s opening the discussion to the public and asked that the Board overturn P &Z ' s denial . ( CLERK ' S NOTE : MR . EVANS SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD ( 1 ) A COPY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ' S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN APPELLATE DIVISION , CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO . 000259 - CA- 20AND (2 ) EXCERPT OF COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF CCCL ON MARCH 21 , 2000 . THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY ' S MEETING IN THE CLERK ' S OFFICE . ) Mr . Bruce wondered if the owners of the new development would like it when they move in and realize that the neighbors were all worried about the erosion and might take some action against the developer for putting them in harm ' s way . Chairman Ginn then closed the meeting to public comment . JANUARY 16 , 2001 - 37 -