Laserfiche WebLink
MR. RUSSELL COMMENTED THAT THE ZONING PROPOSAL EXCLUDES THE <br />EAST 240.88' OF TRACT B, WHICH IS A FINGER OF LAND PROJECTING INTO THE <br />INDIAN RIVER, AND THE RESIDENTS WISH IT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE R-1 ZONING. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE REZONING THAT IS TAKING <br />PLACE TODAY IS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE LEGAL NOTICES WHICH WERE SENT OUT, <br />AND THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THE LAND DESCRIBED BY MR. RUSSELL. THE ATTORNEY <br />STATED THAT UNLESS MR. RUSSELL HAS SOME OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED RE- <br />ZONING, IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD <br />AND ASK FOR A HEARING ON THE REZONING OF THE FINGER. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THE PETITIONERS ARE REQUESTING THE <br />COUNTY TO READVERTISE AND INCLUDE THE FINGER. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THIS CAN BE REQUESTED, BUT REITERATED <br />THAT THE MATTER NOW BEFORE THE BOARD IS ONLY THAT WHICH HAS BEEN <br />ADVERTISED, AND HE FELT THE BOARD SHOULD ACT ON WHAT IS BEFORE THEM TODAY <br />AND THEN TAKE WHATEVER INDEPENDENT ACTION IS DESIRED. <br />VICE CHAIRMAN LOY AGREED THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES <br />RELATING TO THE SAME THING, AND THAT THE BOARD CANNOT TODAY ADDRESS A <br />REZONING OF THE PARCEL EXCEPTED FROM THE NOTICE. SHE ASKED IF MR. RUSSELL <br />AND THE OTHER RESIDENTS HAD ANY OBJECTION TO THE ACTUAL REZONING PROPOSED <br />IN THE NOTICE, AND MR. RUSSELL STATED THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF IT. <br />FRED BRIGGS, MANAGER OF HOBART BROTHERS COMPANY, CAME BEFORE <br />THE BOARD. HE NOTED THAT AT THE BOARD MEETING OF MAY 23RD, HE EXPLAINED <br />THAT THIS FINGER WOULD BE THE GATEWAY TO THE WATERFRONT FOR ANY FUTURE <br />DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. HE CONTINUED THAT RESIDENTS CAME TO HIS OFFICE <br />BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE COMPANY WANTED TO CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN <br />ALL THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO WAS COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S REQUEST TO <br />REZONE, TO R-1. MR. BRIGGS POINTED OUT THAT BY REZONING FROM R-3 TO <br />R -I, THEY ARE LOWERING THE LAND VALUE, BUT THEY WENT ALONG WITH THE <br />BOARD'S REQUEST. HE FELT THAT IT HAS BECOME A REAL MISUNDERSTANDING AND <br />SINCE IT WAS THIS BOARD'S REQUEST, HE SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD NOW WITH- <br />DRAW THEIR REQUEST AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS, AND THEN THERE WOULD <br />BE NO PROBLEM. <br />49 <br />AUG 2 21979 Boas 4a FaGE 418 <br />