My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/3/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
6/3/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:09:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/03/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
Since it is not possible to render an opinion whether any of the <br />proposed North Beach developments is in a position to favorably assert <br />a vesting claim, we would recommend that any developers who feel that <br />their rights have become vested under existing zoning should be given <br />the opportunity to present, as a part of the public hearings on either <br />a rezoning or the land use element of the comprehensive plan, any evi- <br />dence that they feel pertinent to establish their claim. <br />After such a presentation, the Board would be in a better position <br />to weigh the validity of the claim and, if deemed meritorious, appropriate <br />adjustments could be made in either the land use element or the zoning <br />ordinance prior to adoption. <br />Because the state mandated comprehensive plan will be the result of <br />an intensive, well documented planning process, it would be preferable <br />to defend any claims based upon densities determined under the compre- <br />hensive plan.rather than upon another Board initiated rezoning. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE OVERALL DENSITY MUST BE <br />REDUCED IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA AND THE OVER-ALL COUNTY BASED ON <br />CONTINUED INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT WHETHER ALTERNATIVE 1 OR 2 WAS CHOSEN FROM THE <br />ATTORNEY'S MEMORANDUM, HE FELT THEY SHOULD ENTER INTO AN INTERIM <br />REZONING, ENACT A MORATORIUM, AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC <br />HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT. <br />PROCEDURE, <br />DISCUSSION WAS HELD ABOUT FOLLOWING THE PROPER LEGAL <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM-- <br />MISSIONER FLETCHER, TO AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC <br />HEARING FOR REZONING THE WEST SIDE OF AIA TO R2A AND THE EAST SIDE <br />OF AIA TO R2D.IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO VOTE <br />FOR THE MOTION AS SOME PARTS OF THAT AREA ARE ZONED FOR 15 UNITS PER <br />ACRE AND BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE VESTED INTEREST THAT MIGHT BE THERE. <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THE VARIOUS TYPES OF <br />ZONING AND THEIR DENSITIES. <br />LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED, AND THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT <br />THAT THS BOARD OUGHT TO CONSIDER THE HANDLING OF THIS ISSUE IN RELATION- <br />SHIP TO THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AS IT COULD <br />THEN BE HANDLED WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY. <br />JUN 31991 45 6 PAGE 615 <br />�°G� `� <br />L_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.