Laserfiche WebLink
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS <br />I. REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM JOSEPH PALADIN, CHAIRMAN OF <br />GROWTH A WARENESS COMMITTEE, RE: THE WALL AROUND <br />MICHAELS CREEK PROJECT <br />Joseph Paladin updated the Board on the subject wall since he last approached the <br />Board on the matter. He read into the record a letter he received from Dr. David Cox (a member <br />of the Growth Awareness Committee) stating his objection to the wall and seeking the Board's <br />help to remedy the problem. Mr. Paladin clarified that the Subdivision on the CR 510 that has a <br />surrounding wall was not his property. He displayed an area map showing the subject wall and <br />surrounding landscaping and wanted to see more done, if possible, because a 7 -foot berm would <br />not create the look or feel desired. <br />Mr. Paladin argued pertinent points in support of his desire to have the wall <br />removed. He also sought the County Attorney's legal opinion on whether there was any legal <br />standing in having the matter addressed. <br />Attorney Collins shared his opinion of what could be done to resolve the problem. <br />He said when we invoked the pending ordinance, there were certain clear and specific provisions <br />including buffers for arterial roads, articulated walls, and openings in walls that were put in <br />place, and because the subject application was in before the pending ordinance, it was not <br />required to comply with the pending ordinance provisions. <br />Director Boling responded to questions from the Board regarding height of the <br />buffer, and whether there was any room for interpretation for the application process. Attorney <br />Collins outlined all the necessities to complete an application process. <br />Chairman Bowden likened this issue to Waterway Village, and made it clear that <br />they all thought walls were not appropriate for our community, nor were they beneficial. <br />13 <br />March 18, 2008 <br />