My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/21/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
4/21/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:13:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/21/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
V <br />At this point, Planner Dennis Ragsdale reviewed the staff <br />recommendation, noting that there is also the matter of a water <br />franchise which has not been granted so far. He confirmed that <br />the development of the subject property would be subject to <br />subdivision criteria and SPA criteria, which would include <br />access, drainage, landscaping, etc., and that the staff agrees <br />this zoning would serve as a transition area.and would recommend <br />approval. <br />Considerable discussion followed in regard to the land <br />requirements for a duplex, the number of units allowed under the <br />current zoning and that would be allowed under the proposed <br />rezoning, and the fact that 8 bedrooms per acre are allowed with <br />a public supply of water so that a duplex could be built on 1/3 <br />acre. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that all we are addressing today is -- <br />rezoning, not site plan. He then asked if anyone present wished <br />to be heard. <br />Ruth Hallstrom, 1723 SE Old Dixie, owner of citrus property <br />to the north of Mr. Fedele where she has lived since 1910, stated <br />that her main concern was the impact on water demand. She asked <br />that the Commission limit density and keep South Indian River <br />County green. <br />Mrs. Stoddard, area resident, inquired whether it was true <br />that the County would have more to say about the buildings if <br />duplexes were erected rather than single family homes. <br />It was explained that multiple family dwellings must go <br />through site plan approval and comply with additional <br />5 <br />requirements over those required for building single family <br />residences. <br />Commissioner Bird brought up the point that the proposed <br />rezoning is not for an overall development. If it is granted, <br />each lot then can be sold individually for the purpose of <br />building duplexes, and although there are certain requirements <br />49 <br />APR 211982 <br />poln, 49 WE 4A.4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.