My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/20/2004
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2004
>
07/20/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2022 4:36:30 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:04:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/20/2004
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2928
Book and Page
127, 341-401
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
431
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
Equipment for Region 5 and authorized the Chairman and <br />the Sheriff to sign the Agreement and authorized up to <br />$63,550 in unallocated drug-related Forfeiture Funds to <br />satisfy the financial obligations of the grant, as <br />recommended in the memorandum of July 14, 2004. <br /> <br />AGREEMENT IS ON FILE <br />IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br /> <br />9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE NO. 2004-022 – <br />WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OF SEBASTIAN’S APPEAL <br />OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION’S DENIAL <br />OF A REQUEST TO REZONE 1.98 ACRES FROM CL TO OCR <br />(QUASI-JUDICIAL) <br /> <br />PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE <br />OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br /> <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memorandum of July <br />9, 2004 in the backup. He emphasized that this is exempt from concurrency. The property is <br />designated commercial and either commercial district would be consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. There are constraints as to environmental impacts such as shoreline buffer <br />from St. Sebastian River, tree protection, wetlands, and possibly archeological artifacts. He <br />explained the differences between CL and OCR, gave examples of uses for each zoning, and <br />explained the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to deny the request. He explained that <br />staff felt that OCR would be more compatible than CL and therefore recommended the Board <br />support the request of the applicant. <br />July 20, 2004 <br />11 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.