Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />OCT 15 1980 <br />..' 4 BOOR .. .44 Fig 029 <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY THE DEVELOPER <br />USED, SHOWING THE WATER SUPPLIES, WAS DATED OCTOBER, 1951. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON RESPONDED THAT THE SURVEY WAS PART OF <br />A 1975 REPORT; OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE WHO ASSEMBLED THE REPORT FELT <br />IT WAS RELEVANT. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ESCAMBIA <br />COUNTY WAS THE SOLE COUNTY LEFT IN THE STATE WHERE THERE WERE N0. <br />ZONING REGULATIONS, AND ASKED IF THAT WAS CORRECT. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON STATED THAT IS THE CASE IN ESCAMBIA <br />COUNTY - IT IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTIES IN FLORIDA THAT DOES THIS. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT MR. ACOR REFERRED TO THIS <br />REQUEST AS A SPECIAL REZONING - IT MAY BE SPECIAL TO HIM, BUT THE <br />BOARD DOES RECEIVE THESE REQUESTS ALL THE TIME AND IN TERMS OF ZONING <br />REQUESTS, THIS IS NOT A SPECIAL REZONING. HE ADDED THAT MR. ROSE <br />SPOKE ABOUT THE HIGH LIVING STANDARDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND <br />THAT THIS WOULD BE SPOT ZONING, BUT THE CHAIRMAN STATED THIS REQUEST <br />IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING. THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT THE <br />UTILITIES PROBLEM IN THE AREA WAS ONE OF HIS GREATEST CONCERNS; <br />HOWEVER, THE PROCESS THAT A DEVELOPER MUST GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO <br />GET A FRANCHISE FOR A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IS QUITE EXTENSIVE. HE <br />ADDED THAT THE FRANCHISE ITSELF IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, <br />AND THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET. THE CHAIRMAN <br />STATED THAT ATTORNEY HENDERSON WAS RIGHT THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION <br />CHARGE THAT MUST BE PUT IN ESCROW. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT THEN REVIEWED <br />SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS MADE BY THE CITIZENS. HE STATED THAT <br />HAVING A REFERENDUM VOTE ON SOMEBODY ELSE IS PROPERTY IS UNACCEPTABLE, <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THEIR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF <br />BOCA RATON TRIED TO PLACE A DENSITY CAP ON WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS <br />REALISTIC FOR THEIR CITY, AND THE LOWER COURT STRUCK DOWN THAT <br />ORDINANCE, VOTED UPON BY REFERENDUM, PROVIDING .FOR A DENSITY CAP SAYING <br />THAT IT WAS UNREALISTIC AND COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY FACT. REGARDING <br />DENSITY, THE CHAIRMAN FELT IT WAS NOT A QUESTION THAT COULD BE <br />DECIDED BY REFERENDUM - HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS TO DO <br />18 <br />