This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.


. toallow the projects “erroneous, Sitrary, capricious,” or in layman’s terms, unnecessary, says a	^—
brief filed in circuit by-attorney Riley Morse.
Morse represents a number of residents who live in or near the affected area and say that zoning changes voted in earlier this year by county officials that will allow unrestricted height and density developments should never have taken place. The case gc )o court on OctoDer 3. With original zoning, condo projects would have been subject to height and density restrictions already „ ...........
on the books.
The most troubling aspect of the case is how empty the record was, said Morse.
“The record of key things that you would need to make a decision of this kind were not there,” he said.
There were no maps showing actual change in the area, no record of testimony, other than the name listed, of a large number of the people who spoke at a public hearing, no updated future land use study or plans, no economic study, no data or sta-
^	CONDOS-PAGE 7A
Condos — zoning suit
Continued from Page 1A
The record of key things that you would need to make a decision of this kind were not there. ’
-Rflev Morse
tistics about actual increases in commercialism, road or utility infrastructure or traffic capacity, says the brief.
“There were gaping holes in this record,” said Morse.
Included was a document from James Manness, a landowner and proponent of the C-4 zoning, which contained photographs of mobile homes in several locations accompanied by Manness’ comments on the poor condition of the area, said the brief.
Excluded from the record was a series of letters mentioned in Planning Commission minutes submitted by opponent Ina Day, the brief states. The Commission’s findings state that they received no adverse comments about the creation of the C-4 area, the brief continues.
To change zoning, Morse says, an applicant, whether
it be county government or an individual applicant must offer clear proof of reason. The county did not prove criteria necessary to effect such a change, said Morse.
They did not submit any evidence to prove that the area had gone through a substantial change in character since it was zoned in 1997 that was not contemplated in the comprehensive plan, says the brief. The new casino development was already expected, says Morse, to replace the defunct Jubilee. Talks with condominium developers who say that the area is a hot market for their projects, does not prove this criteria, Morse says.
Further, no proof is offered as to public need. The expectation of tax revenue increases is not enough on its own to prove the need for a zoning
change, he says.
The wheel for change started turning in early 2005 the brief states, when building official Mickey Lagasse met privately with high rise financiers regarding the rewriting of zoning ordinances.
There are strong indications of other private meetings behind the scenes between developers and zoning officials and between developers and the Board of Supervisors regarding the rezoning proposals before he public hearing and before the votes by the two boards, states the brief. Because this information and developer’s intentions were not disclosed publicly, these actions violate due process rights, said the brief.
Building official Mickey Lagasse said he had not seen the brief and would reserve comment until he
had a chance to look at it and consult the county attorney.
District 2 Supervisor Rocky Pullman said it was not uncommon for officials to meet with businesses or others proposing projects in the county.
“I think we have to have communication with people coming into our county,” he said.
Pullman said he and others met with some of the developers one time to go over questions regarding wastewater treatment.
“I told them there really wasn’t any available and that they would probably have to pay for it themselves,” he said. As far as discussing the particulars of a project, Pullman said, he personally asked that the proposals be presented in a public forum.


Condo Controversy Document-(2)
© 2008 - 2024
Hancock County Historical Society
All rights reserved