APPEAL Denied

August 4, 2015

My comments will be focused primarily on objections to the Application review process and the Applicants.
The County accepted a single application for related, but qualitatively different, land use permissions following several Code citations. Co-applicants represent different forms of corporations— different forms of land ownership—and, importantly-- very different interests—profit seeking on one hand and a fiduciary duty to over 750 owners on the other.

The consolidated application places the Association in a difficult position should SLohA wish to withdraw its support at some point. Mr. stab has publicly represented having spent 8 million dollars building unpermitted towers on our common property and legal dispute would surely follow any attempt to withdraw. My objection is the county erred in not requiring separate applications.

Until 5 days ago, Applicant Brnd served the Association in the capacity of Board President.   As you may be aware, Mr. Brnd abruptly and without explanation resigned from the Board. This resignation followed alarming revelations about the troubled past of his long-time partner and co-applicant, Mr. stab. The Application, at present, has no designated sponsor.

I object that the county failed to validate the authority of Mr. Brnd to submit the application in the first place. Formal objection and supporting governing documents, including case law citations, were delivered to your General Counsel 3 weeks ago.
Mr. stab’s application supposedly represents the interest of Kay c Networks. The corporate registrations clearly show that Mr. stab owns no part of KCNetworks or its parent KioskCenters. The owner of these companies is Virginia stab, who did not sign the application nor provide written permission to the Applicant to represent her interests. My objection is the County did not seek or require validation of ownership or agency.
 
The county did not thoroughly validate all exhibits submitted with the Application for internal consistency with the Application. Three Deeds to common property were attached without corresponding reference in the Application. I brought this “irregularity” to Mr Pet erson’s attention who was unaware of the discrepancy. My objection is that the county erred with what appears to have been a less than comprehensive Level 3 review.
 
The county staff inserted a biased opinion describing the presumed benign cosmetic impact of the towers on the community saying that “towers are more common than wearing sox and that our dependence on internet overrides the nuisance of towers”. My objection is Staff inserted subjective bias and an unverifiable assessment and did not consider owners’ comments and photographs refuting its opinion.

Finally, FL statute 70, also called the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act of 1995 is intended to protect citizens who are victimized by governmental entities which impair or remove the use of their property without compensation. Owners do not wish to pursue judicial review; we want to enjoy our retirement! If necessary, we will reluctantly-but vigorously-pursue all avenues to preserve our property rights.

I appeal to the Commissioners to exercise extreme caution before authenticating this Application and enabling progression of a situation which is contentious, fluid and developing. STOPPED

In closing, I beg you to reconsider the opinion of Commissioner Beach at the June 3 hearing, who voted to postpone the hearing to a later time. He said something to the effect “ I am afraid that we may be wading into waters where we don’t want to go”. I suggest to you that Commissioner Beach’s statement was the lone voice of insight, caution and wisdom.
 
I ask that you do not affirm the approval of the Land Commissioners on June 3 lest we ALL “wade into and become immersed in waters where we don’t want to go.”