HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 032-2006
Page 1 of2
Belle Desantis
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Pam Hancock" <phancock@monroe-c1erk.com>
"Belle Desantis" <idesantis@monroe-clerk.com>
Thursday, March 02,20069:21 AM
Fw: February 10th BOee Re: The Resolution That Shouldn't Have Happened Because It Had
Already Been Acted On by the Board the previous meeting
Can we use this with an affidavit to clear to record?
---- Original Message ----
From: Peters-Katherine
To: Pamela Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, March 01,20065:09 PM
Subject: FW: February 10th BOee Re: The Resolution That Shouldn't Have Happened Because It Had Already
Been Acted On by the Board the previous meeting
Per our conversation, below is the email on this one. Hope this helps! Have a
great day Pam!!
.-...-.........,.-.............-.-...............,.-.....,.........-.-.-.........-.-.-.-...........-.-.-.-...........,.-.....,.......,...............-.............-.-.-...........-.-...-...........-.-...........-.-.-.-.........-.-.-.-...........-.-...,.............,...........-.,.............-.-.-...........-...........-...-.............-.-...............-.............-.,.............-.-...........-.-.-.-...........-.-.............-.-...............-.......,...............,.....-.-...-.........-.-.............-.-.....,.
From: Peters-Katherine
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:48 PM
To: 'Pamela Hancock'
Cc: Sanders-Jerry
Subject: FW: February 10th BOCC
At the time of the Special Meeting held 2/10/06, written Resolution No. 029-2006
had already been passed at the soee meeting on 1/18/06 extending Resolution
No. 320-2005; however, the physical resolution had not processed through the
Clerk from Growth Management and a verbal Resolution was approved at the
Special Meeting on 2/10/06 - thinking the action had not taken place and time
was of the essence. Immediately following the meeting, it was realized this
action had already been accomplished by the soee on 1/18/06 (Resolution No.
029-2006 1/18/06) which you were kind enough to "fast-track" and process from
your mail. However, because of the fact that a verbal Resolution was approved
on 2/10/06 extending Resolution No. 320-2005 - even though it was done in error
- on 2/15/06 the soee verbally rescinded their approval of the verbal
resolution at the Special Meeting held 2/10/06.
I ran this by Suzanne and it is her opinion that we do not need to draft a
resolution "after-the-fact" that was only approved verbally by the soee on
2/10/06 (no physical Resolution was presented on 2/10), and was then rescinded
verbally five (5) days (2/15/06) later to reverse the error.
3/8/2006
AFFIDA VIT
See attached correspondence. The record shall reflect that there will not
be Resolution No. 032-2006 on file.
J:kab1(}.~~
Isabel C. DeSantis, Deputy Clerk
March 14, 2006
Page 2 of2
.............................................................~....~........................................................................................................................................................................~..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
From: Pam Hancock [mailto:phancock@monroe-c1erk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Peters-Katherine
Subject: February 10th BOCC
Jerry is suppose to draft the following Resolution (this was rescinded at the 2/15
BOee); however, it was approved at the 2/10 Workshop/Special Meeting.
Resolution to extend Resolution No. 320-2005 which Resolution directed
the staff of Growth Management to continue the policy of the deferring
the acceptance and processing of development applications and the
issuance of development approvals for the redevelopment or conversion
of ten units or more of multi-family rental housing and or mobile home
parks' and requests for a land use district zoning map amendment from
Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) and Urban Residential Mobile
Home-Limited (URM-L) to any other land use zoning district designation
continuing this policy until new land development regulations or
amended land development regulations are adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners or until the passage of 180 days from the date of
this Resolution whichever occurs first. After discussion, motion was made
by Commissioner Neugent and seconded by Commissioner Rice to extend
the defined Resolution until the next County Commission meeting in Key
Largo on February 15,2006. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 032-2006
3/8/2006