County sued for $3 Million+

[wrobert]

Anybody look up the LLC on sunbiz.org?

MY understanding is that they had approval up to the BCC hearing based on the fact that the designs met code. Once the hearing in front of the BCC occurs it is open to the public and the BCC is making it's final decision based on public input. In this case the public didn't want it so it was denied.

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

 

[wrobert]

You state that Ms Blackshear, "removed the requirement for compatibility." However, she doesn't have authority to do such a thing. She cannot be selective as to which parts of the Code she wants to follow.

So you aren't the applicant, and are not the applicant's hired guns, you obviously didn't attend the meetings, and are getting your information third-hand.

I will certainly have to go back and look, but I believe the Planning director is given extraordinarily wide latitude in code interpretation and that the code reserves that discretion solely to the position.

 

[waltonco lover]

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

All quasi judicial hearings require exparte from the Commissioners. Which is emails, letters, or conversations they have had with people regarding the issue. So if those things that show support or opposition have to be documented, I would think that they could play some role in the decision making.

 

[wrobert]

All quasi judicial hearings require exparte from the Commissioners. Which is emails, letters, or conversations they have had with people regarding the issue. So if those things that show support or opposition have to be documented, I would think that they could play some role in the decision making.

Some role, I am sure, but what weight do you give a communication versus actual evidence?

 

[Smiling JOe]

I will certainly have to go back and look, but I believe the Planning director is given extraordinarily wide latitude in code interpretation and that the code reserves that discretion solely to the position.

She is given wide range, and final say with regards to interpretation, which is done to cover any thing like parts of the Code which were inadvertently omitted, or to clarify confusing and perhaps conflicting language in the Code. However, she cannot simply strike parts of the Code at will if she doesn't want them to apply to a particular applicant.

 

[Creeklover]

I think their development whould have been a boost to the property around thet area and may have made the county make them clean up some of the trash in the area. It is not like this area is rual and all. I live in the area and tried to have chickens and things when i mover to the area because it was rual then but was told they did not meet county code in that area and when i did the reserch i found that to be true. I do not belive any area in that neighborhood would be allowed to have any type of farm animals

 

[Creeklover]

I do believe in part that the height limit had something to do with it. The BCC passed a emergency ordinance for a height limit after their Jolly Bay app. was received. They had to allow the App. to go through because it was before the ordinance. When they did not approve it they passed the ordinance for good. Now the county has robbed the property rights from everyone who owned property before the ordinance was passed who had property zoned to allow multistory buildings. I think the county should haft to pay everyone who had their rights removed from or resend the ordinance for their properties.

 

[Matt J]

I thought these hearings were quasi-judicial. If so then decisions should be made on competent evidence submitted, not 'feelings'.

So if I wanted to open a strip club next to your business and there was no code preventing me from doing so you wouldn't want the BCC to listen to the surrounding businesses/home owners as to their opinion of that business opening?

I do believe in part that the height limit had something to do with it. The BCC passed a emergency ordinance for a height limit after their Jolly Bay app. was received. They had to allow the App. to go through because it was before the ordinance. When they did not approve it they passed the ordinance for good. Now the county has robbed the property rights from everyone who owned property before the ordinance was passed who had property zoned to allow multistory buildings. I think the county should haft to pay everyone who had their rights removed from or resend the ordinance for their properties.

No problem, they'll just need to increase the property taxes you pay to cover that.

 

[full time]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do remember the first thread about this project. All of the opposition then was to the building height and density. Now it appears that height is no issue .... but the neighbor's pigs ........ Do I have this right?

 

[Smiling JOe]

height is mixed into the non-compatibility of this project, but compatibility is the issue, due to the requirements for such in the Code.