Laserfiche WebLink
DRIs, vested rights, meeting concurrency test and the Spoonbill Marsh Project. <br />Mr. Seymour responded to questions from Mr. Paladin, discussed the acreage <br />involved, and what the project is designed to accommodate. He also responded to questions and <br />concerns from the Board. <br />George Christopher, Planning & Zoning Commission, discussed substantial <br />deviation and confusion therewith. He argued that the only relevance is whether it needs regional <br />review because if it is substantial deviation it must go through regional review. He felt the <br />question before the Board is whether they have to approve this change to the Development <br />Order and whether or not that change has to apply with the Comprehensive Plan and other laws <br />that guide us. <br />Discussion ensued regarding vested rights, the Riverbend PD, and whether a new <br />owner would still have to meet concurrency. There was also discussion regarding case law and <br />vested right to a change, greater rights, and traffic impacts. <br />Spencer Simmons, Simmons Home, agreed with staff that if this DRI is allowed <br />and they are given until 2012, they would have to bring this back before the Board again. <br />Alfred Baldwin, Lindsay Lanes, felt all the arguments were about Items 9.A.4 and <br />9.A.5 and he had not heard anything about the rezoning (Item 9.A.3). He did not understand and <br />needed clarity on the change from a PD to other zoning. He also believed that what was being <br />proposed has got to have impact and wondered if the Commissioners were losing control. <br />Chairman Wheeler gave his understanding of a PD zoning and asked for staff's <br />concurrence. Director Keating said he was correct. <br />February 6, 2007 30 <br />