My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/1/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
12/1/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:37:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/01/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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
11982 <br />B ttK <br />. <br />F <br />hUL 259 <br />medium density <br />or R -2D, which would be cleaner cut. <br />He <br />could not agree to indicate that this land is totally <br />unsuitable and unacceptable for LD -2, which would go against <br />everything said in the Comprehensive Land Use hearings. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Bird for purposes <br />of discussion, to adopt Ordinance 82-30 <br />rezoning the subject property to R -2D as re- <br />quested, with the exception of the 200' on <br />the north boundary and with the exception of <br />the environmentally sensitive land. <br />CommissioneriBird brought up the point that the R-lA <br />buffer property would have to be platted and subdivided, and <br />he wondered how the 200' dimension would work out with the <br />road requirements. <br />Commissioner Lyons believed that R-lA is a more <br />restrictive classification than River Shores enjoys in their <br />own subdivision. <br />Mr. Portuondo, of the Southeast Enterprises, felt-tthe- <br />problem in the way this is presented in the Motion is that <br />this property is going to be developed on a condominium <br />basis with maintenance, security, private roads, etc., and <br />he felt that would present a major problem with different <br />zoning. Mr. Portuondo believed they were accomplishing the <br />same thing in their declaration of restriction, but in"a <br />more controlled way. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked why a single family zoning with <br />single family lots could not be accommodated with a <br />condominium concept, and Community Development Director King <br />believed it can basically; the only additional requirement <br />would be the process of the plan that would be under the <br />R-lA zoning district. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.