Laserfiche WebLink
LARRY B. ALEXANDER <br />GEORGE H. BAILEY <br />ROBIN A. BLANTON <br />W. CHESTER BREWER. JR. <br />DAVID A. CAIRNS <br />JAMES R. COLE <br />MARGARET L. COOPER <br />B. JEANE CRIPPEN <br />CHARLES H. DAMSEL,JR. <br />BRUCE A. EPPLE <br />JEFFREY H. FISHER <br />L. MARTIN FLANAGAN <br />WILLIAM A. FOSTER <br />MARJORIE D. GADARIAN <br />THADDEUS D. HARTMAN <br />Joy p,s, FOSTER & Moss <br />MEMBERS OF JONES 6 FOSTER. P. A. <br />ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS <br />HAYWARD D. GAY <br />STEVE L. HENDERSON <br />THORNTON M. HENRY <br />THEODORE W. HERZOG <br />PETER S. HOLTON <br />R. BRUCE JONES <br />THOMAS A. KOVAL <br />CLINTON W. LANIER <br />ROBIN A. LLOYD <br />STEVEN A. LONG <br />JOHN BLAIR MCCRACKEN <br />S. CAROL McLEAN <br />BRIAN J. MORRISSEY <br />GEORGE H. MOSS <br />817 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD <br />P. 0. BOX 3406 <br />VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 <br />(305) 231-1900 <br />PATRICK M. O'HARA <br />RICHARD J. OLACK <br />WILLIAM W. PRICE <br />BRUCE M. RAMSEY <br />CHRISTOPHER J. SCHILLING <br />ROBERT L. SELLARS <br />SIDNEY A. STUBBS, JR. <br />GEORGE P. SUPRAN <br />.ALLEN R. TOMLINSON <br />EVERETT J. VAN GAASBECK <br />KEVIN D. WILKINSON <br />PAUL C. WOLFE <br />Mr. Bruce King <br />Community Development Director <br />Planning Department <br />Dear Bruce: <br />WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE <br />.SONES & FOSTER, P. A. <br />601 FLAGLLR DRIVE COURT <br />P. 0. DRAWER E <br />WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 <br />(30S) 6S9-3000 <br />July 8, 1982 <br />By Hand <br />Since the Public Hearings on the adoption of the Master <br />Land Use Plan are coming up soon, I thought I would call <br />your attention to a glaring case of spot zoning (or "spot <br />planning") which I think needs correction. <br />I'm enclosing a map and have outlined thereon the land <br />use plan districts applicable to Sections 35 and 36, <br />Township 32 South, Range 39 East. You will note that <br />Section 36 is in the LD -1 district (3 units per acre) while <br />Section 35 has been designated MD -1. While this rather <br />large gap in permitted densities does not really create a <br />problem with respect to larger portions -of Sections 35 and <br />36, (those properties are largely undeveloped) the desig- <br />nation of the area marked "subject proper -Ey" as MD -1 <br />creates a very significant conflict between permitted <br />densities and actual densities existing. I should disclose <br />that I have just purchased a residence located on Lots 5 <br />and 6, Arbor Oaks Subdivision, lying adjacent to the subject <br />property near the northeast quarter (see crosshatch). <br />I believe that the subject property is zoned R-3 so that no <br />rezoning would be necessary in order for the property owner <br />to construct 8 units per acre. The designation of the <br />subject property as MD -1 ignores the existing uses and the <br />mandates of Chapter 163 which require coordination of land <br />use zones with the plans adopted by municipalities within <br />the County. I believe the City's plan has adjoining pro- <br />perties at a much lower density. <br />I believe the best solution is to amend the Plan during the <br />upcoming Hearings so as to designate this property as LD -1. <br />If the County does not desire to change the land use desig- <br />nation, at least a rezoning to R -2A should be in order. <br />This would require the land owner to come in and request <br />rezoning to a higher density at the time any project is <br />developed. Further, it would enable the land owner to <br />develop a multi -family project at a reasonable density con- <br />sistent with adjoining properties. <br />I would appreciate it if you would <br />planned designation with respect to <br />let me have your comments on same. <br />Thanks for you assistance. , <br />Kindest regards, <br />JUL 131982 11/__1 <br />S Leve L. Henderson <br />131 <br />take a hard look at this <br />the subject property and <br />ac�nK : 50. 407 <br />