HomeMy WebLinkAbout0887 ~
~ ~
C`
~ .
RESC~LUTION NO. 76-44 '2
~
~
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County,
Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 65-2180, Laws of
Florida, held a public hearing on the 27th day of April, 19~6 for
the purpose of giving the owners, agents or any persons, firm or
corporations having a lien on or interest in the herein~fter described
building an opportunity to show cause why said building should
not be.demolished and the cost of such demolition be assessed against
the land upon which said building is located, and ~
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was given to the owners thereof
and all parties appearing to have an interest of record therein by
certified U. S. Mail with Return Receipts Requested on the 24th day
of March, 1976 and copies of said Notice were posted in a conspic-
uous place on said building on the 27th day of March, 1975; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing Frank J. Mahovetz, Sr. and
Jeanne E. Mahovetz, his wife, and Joram O. Petersen were represented
by Richard M. Schopp, Attorney at Law, who stated that the report
on the condition of the building filed by the Zoning Director was
not detailed enough to inform his clients whether or not said _
building was repairable, and he requested that the hearing be
' continued until such a detailed report was available to him, and
~ WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners continued said
~
; hearing until May 11, 1976 and directed the Zoning Director to
~
~ prepare a detailed report on the condition of said building ancl to
~
~ make a copy thereof a~?ailable to Mr.-Schopp, and
~ WHEREAS, the County construction, electrical and plumbing
~ inspectors made a thorough inspection on April 29, 1976 and the
~
~ Zoning Director filed a detailed report of said inspection with
~
~ the Board on April 30, 1976 in which~he recommended that said
building be demolished. A copy of said report was secured by said
~
~
ti attorr.ey on April 30, 1976,and
~
~
~ - WHEREAS, at said continuation of the public hearing on May 11,
~ 1976 Mr. Schopp advised the Board that none of his clients were
~
~ present although he had expected them to be and had so advisecfi them.
~
~ He requested that the matter be again continued and upon being
~
~
~ advised by the Board that his request for a continuation was denied, .
~
he stated that he had no evidence to present to show why said '
f
~
_ F ~ ~i-~ ~
- ~53:• ~~7