Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 131982 <br />C .50 PA,,- t378 <br />Mr. Challacombe commented that staff was recommending <br />the possibility of taking some of that acreage and <br />transferring it up to the Roseland area. <br />Discussion followed about the area at U.S. #1 and - <br />Roseland Road, and it was determined that it would be <br />pertinent to know what the City of Sebastian would be doing <br />with their annexation. <br />Commissioner Bird commented that when they first <br />discussed commercial nodes, they talked about designating <br />the type of commercial or industrial activity, and about <br />assigning certain acreage numbers to these nodes, -leaving <br />the actual boundaries flexible. He inquired if staff had <br />changed their minds on that issue, and were the nodes going <br />to have definitive boundaries? <br />Mr. Challacombe explained that they still have a degree <br />of flexibility; the public ought to know what the boundaries <br />are of their property, what they can do with their land, and <br />whether they would be permitted to rezone to a commercial or <br />industrial use. <br />Lengthy discussion followed about having the <br />flexibility of moving a node around, and of land use plan <br />change requests. <br />Mr. Challacombe added that if the node was zoned by <br />parcels, then the applicant would have to come in for a <br />change in zoning. The staff would know through the site <br />plan and subdivision process where the growth is, and the <br />area could be better monitored, he explained. Mr. <br />Challacombe recommended withdrawing Item 2 until the City of <br />Sebastian developed that area; then the County could look at <br />it some time in the future. <br />Motion was made by Carolyn Eggert, seconded by John <br />Tippin, that the north Sebastian Node be deleted. <br />Discussion followed, and it was determined this item <br />should be considered after Item #6 had been discussed. <br />