Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Glynn <br /> continued that when Disney originally presented their plan, 12 years ago, <br />everyone thought they would be good neighbors. They promised jobs, tourists, and timeshare <br />units to appeal to tourists. They have now sold the property to another outfit and there are no plans <br />for timeshare units. He felt this project would take away from the entire North Beach area and <br />commented that they will be building in an emergency erosion area. He asked the Board to support <br />no more than 6 units to an acre and to count the cabanas as living units. He also noted that each <br />“cabana” has 2 assigned parking spaces. <br /> <br />Bill Johnson, <br /> Sea Oaks Property Owners Association, agreed with Mr. Glynn and stated <br />that the residents are very proud of their area and want it to stay the way it is now. <br /> <br />Kathy Dunlop, <br /> 426 Indies Drive, felt the Board has the right to overrule their previous <br />decision as Disney is no longer the owner of this parcel. This is clearly a change of use. These <br />cabanas will each function as a nonpaying guest house and should be treated as separate living <br />units. Other cabanas in the area strictly prohibit overnight usage. She also felt the plans for the <br />development of Parcel C on the west side of A1A should be presented with these plans as they will <br />certainly impact one another. She urged the Board to deny the plan as submitted. <br /> <br />Norm Lange, <br /> 8880 Sea Oaks Way North, pointed out that the conceptual plan which was <br />approved was an extension of the timeshare type properties developed by Disney and the footprint <br />of those buildings were acceptable at that time. This proposal is very different. He made the <br />analogy that Disney had a house and planned to add a couple of rooms, where someone is now <br />building a new house. This new house should conform to the existence of the rules in effect today. <br /> <br />Silas Axtell, <br /> Sea Oaks, expressed his concerns over the use of the beach and noted that <br />someone walking on the beach at high tide would have to walk in the water or on private property. <br />He also was opposed to the project. <br /> <br />OCTOBER 19, 2004 30 <br /> <br />