My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/3/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
12/3/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:55 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:44:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/03/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
DEC 31990 <br />aooK 5 PAGE 344 <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNTY PROCESS THE <br />APPLICATION TO RIVER BEND, AND IF THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO PURSUE <br />THE BEACH COLONY PROJECT, HE WOULD STOP DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER BEND <br />AND GET A BINDING LETTER. HE THOUGHT THIS FIRST ALTERNATIVE WAS A <br />REASONABLE APPROACH. ATTORNEY HENDERSON COMMENTED THAT THEY MUST <br />APPEAL THIS MATTER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT BY DECEMBER 10TH. THE SECOND <br />ALTERNATIVE THE ATTORNEY HAD IN MIND WAS FOR THE COUNTY TO OBTAIN A <br />DECISION THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BECAUSE THEY, AS PRIVATE <br />INDIVIDUALS, CANNOT MAKE THIS REQUEST, HE ADDED THAT THE DEVELOPER <br />WOULD AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE ATTORNEY GENERALS DECISION AND WOULD <br />NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION ANY FURTHER, HE SUMMARIZED THAT IF THE <br />COUNTY CHOSE THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE, THE LAW SUIT WOULD NOT BE FILED. <br />IF THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE WAS CHOSEN BY THE COUNTY, THEY WOULD FILE <br />THE LAW SUIT BUT NOT PURSUE IT UNTIL THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION <br />WAS RECEIVED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED ABOUT THE ZONING IN THAT AREA. <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR ADVISED THAT RIVER BEND HAS R-2 ZONING, <br />WHICH HAS 15 UNITS PER ACRE, AS WELL AS R -2B ZONING, WHICH HAS 8 UNITS <br />PER ACRE. HE ADDED THAT BEACH COLONY IS ZONED R-2, WHICH HAS 15 UNITS <br />PER ACRE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS WONDERED, IF THE PROJECT WERE TO BE FILLED <br />OUT TO ITS FULL DENSITY, WHAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, ROUGHLY, <br />FOR THE PROPERTY. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON RESPONDED THAT IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY <br />1,020 UNITS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THE BOARD THAT THE APPLICATION <br />BEFORE THEM FOR RIVER BEND WAS JUST FOR 11. UNITS, BUT THEY REALLY <br />DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE REQUESTED ON THE BALANCE <br />OF THE PROPERTY. <br />MR. REVER STATED HE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD <br />INDICATED THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE 672 UNITS, BUT THIS_HAD NO BINDING <br />EFFECT ON THAT PLAN, HE COMMENTED THAT THE PLAN NOTES THAT IT COULD <br />BE UPGRADED TO ACCOMMODATE ZONING; AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR ONLY 11 <br />UNITS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.