My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/23/2003
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2003
>
12/23/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2017 11:45:37 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:06:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/23/2003
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2574
Book and Page
126, 330-350
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
523
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Vice Chairman Ginn wanted to look into at that. <br />Bob Johnson submitted a detailed recommendation for inclusion in the Comp Plan <br />concerning rezoning CH to CG which recently occurred on the NE corner of Oslo Road and <br />43rd Avenue SW (See his written notes filed with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to <br />the Board along with a cover letter from Chester Clem concerning same.). He suggested a <br />member of the Taxpayers Association be added to P & Z. He was shocked recently in a <br />Regional Planning Council meeting that a new development was presented there before <br />coming to the county for consideration (Referring to Waterway Village). He believed golf <br />courses should be excluded for open space and that it was time to start considering <br />availability of water. He was concerned about traffic analysis in the rezoning process and <br />the authority of staff on what they can and cannot approve. <br />It was explained that the reason Waterway Village went to RPC first is that it is a <br />development of regional impact (DRI). <br />Renee Renzi noted that The Palms of Vero is not a pretty perspective from the <br />exterior roadways but the interior has nice wide roads and no driveways. She thought they <br />should insist on an architectural rendition of a development. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn liked that idea. She stressed that we need to determine why <br />The Palms turned out the way it did and see that it does not happen again. <br />Director Boling stressed this was a site plan project and not a planned development. <br />County Attorney Collins explained that under our regulations, PDs are an optional <br />form of development for either single- or multi -family. There is a standard set of <br />regulations for site plans. The unique thing about the PD is we can impose more restrictive <br />conditions, but the developer can also ask for waivers from our existing regulations. So <br />there is a give and take to get a better product. It is completely at the discretion of the Board <br />whether to approve or deny a PD. Because it is totally discretionary, there has to be some <br />December 23, 2003 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.