My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/20/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
4/20/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:00 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 3:12:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/20/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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
M <br />on the county. He personally felt we needed a larger node at the <br />Roseland intersection whether this land was annexed or not. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke to grant the <br />waiver regarding rezoning of Lots 55 & 56, Wauregan <br />Subdivision, as requested. <br />MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked about a C -1A designation, and Mr. <br />Solin noted that he tried to define the distinction between <br />County C-1 zoning and the City of Sebastian C-1. The County's is <br />general commercial and allows a more intensive use. City C-1 is <br />restricted commercial, and under the terms of their new Zoning <br />Code, the terminology will be CL - Commercial Limited. <br />Chairman Bird believed that we do have a certain responsi- <br />bility to cooperate and coordinate with the municipalities, and <br />felt that, unless we see that an item such as this is going to <br />have an obvious adverse affect on the unincorporated area, we <br />should cooperate. He felt the fact that the City has sent down <br />three of their key people demonstrates that the City Council <br />feels very strongly about this request. Even though he agreed he <br />might prefer to see this some other way, he realized they are <br />faced with a unique set of circumstances. <br />Discussion ensued re the fact that the subject property was <br />zoned R-1 when annexed, not C-1, and Attorney Kilbride stressed <br />that the City's interest is not this particular property; the <br />reason for their interest is because they feel the subject <br />property is just one part of the 40 acres that was annexed as an <br />entire piece. <br />Argument continued at length regarding the probable spread <br />of strip commercial - and the fact that, if the Board grants this <br />75 <br />A R2 0 1983 9009 53 ?AcF x+03 <br />A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.