My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/28/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
1/28/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:16 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:51:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/28/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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
JAN 291991., <br />noK .. 45 PAGE -738 <br />1 0► C_ MI M-WORMIMAIMM <br />CHAIRMAN LYONS COMMENTED THAT HE IS DISTURBED BY THE FACT <br />THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A RUSH TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY ON THE -NORTH <br />BEACH AND THAT WE STILL HAVE CONSIDERABLE AREA UP THERE THAT IS <br />DIFFERENT IN ZONING THAN THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. <br />HE STATED THAT HE HAD EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT LARGE CHUNKS OF THIS <br />PROPERTY ARE JUST BEFORE BEING BROUGHT IN FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND <br />HE, THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE THIS COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE THE REZONING <br />PROCESS ON THE LAND THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMPRE- <br />HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY <br />BE SOME PROPERTY THAT MAY HAVE TO BE REZONED AGAIN AFTER THIS IS DONE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THE <br />BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO REZONE AS LONG AS WE HAVE REASONABLE STANDARDS, <br />BUT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO TAKE THAT ACTION PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY <br />OWNERS VESTING THEIR RIGHTS BY SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY FOR <br />PLANNING, GETTING PERMITS, ETC. IT, THEREFORE, IS IMPORTANT, IF IT <br />IS THE BOARDS INTENT TO REZONE, THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS BE <br />NOTIFIED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE ATTORNEYS OTHER POINT WAS THAT <br />WE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN GUIDED BY THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE COUNTY, <br />AND HE FELT THAT THE PROBABILITY OF SUSTAINING THE BOARDS ACTIONS IN <br />COURT ARE{MUCH SOUNDER BY REZONING CONSISTENT TO THE EXISTING MASTER <br />PLAN THAN TO A PROPOSED PLAN WHICH IS NOT YET ADOPTED. <br />CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DISCUSS <br />DENSITIES AND DEFINITIONS. <br />MR. REVER INFORMED THE,BOARD THAT THE DEFINITION THAT EXISTS <br />RIGHT NOW FOR THE SO-CALLED MEDIUM DENSITY ISA VERY BROAD DEFINITION, <br />AND THE LOWER END OF THAT MEDIUM DENSITY INCLUDES WHAT WE ARE PRO- <br />POSING ON THE NEW PLAN. HE, THEREFORE,,FELT THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE <br />OUT OF BOUNDS TO REZONE TO THE 6 UNITS PROPOSED IN THE RECENT <br />ORDINANCE 13ECAUSE IT WOULD FIT INTO THIS CATEGORY. <br />IT WAS NOTED THAT UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN WHICH WE <br />ADOPTED AS A GUIDE, THE LOW DENSITY IS 0-4, MEDIUM DENSITY 4-12 AND <br />HIGH DENSITY 12-16, <br />— _72 =- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.