My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/19/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
5/19/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:26:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/19/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
MA <br />Mr. Wilmoth stated that they did meet all County <br />requirements and intended to put in a plant. <br />Harold Hogan, resident of St. Lucie County, came before <br />the Board representing his mother who owns acreage in St. <br />Lucie County bordering on the proposed development. He <br />believed the same people who opposed the previously proposed <br />multi -family development would be against this development <br />also. Mr. Hogan continued that his father developed Florida <br />Ridge Development, which is on the County line right behind <br />Florida ridge, and he felt these people should have the <br />right to speak about what they want in their neighborhood. <br />No one further wishing to be heard, on Motion made by <br />Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board <br />unanimously closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Lyons pointed out the differences between <br />this subject project and the Wilmoth situation - the <br />physical location of the properties in relation to the <br />ridge; the fact that the traffic generated by the General <br />Development project would not be strictly limited to old <br />Dixie; and the provision of a public water and sewer supply. <br />Planner Ragsdale felt that one of the major differences <br />was the fact that the Wilmoth lots were to be sold to <br />individual owners to build separately, while the General <br />Development project is an overall development. <br />Commissioner Bird believed one of the strongest points <br />in favor of the General Development rezoning is the fact <br />that the transition area it will provide between the <br />multi -family and single family is so well buffered on all <br />sides. <br />Planning Manager Challacombe commented that with the <br />proposed rezoning, a maximum of 59 more units could be. <br />placed on the site than with the existing single family <br />designation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.