10/10/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Shearer stated that Mr. Anderson's property is not part of the property that is being proposed for rezoning; he confirmed that B-1 does require a front yard setback of 75 ft. along any highway right-of-way line. Mr. Anderson stated that he is also in the real estate business and could understand why strip commercial zoning was discouraged , but never would he envision this area from 82nd Ave. to I-95 as anything other than commercial. He further noted that the multiple family zoning does not allow for duplexes unless they are built on more than one or two lots', and most of the ownerships in Paradise Park are in one or two lots except in the first block off SR -60. Therefore, the owners in Paradise Park are not really being helped by this rezoning. Mr. Anderson hoped that the Board would consider restricting the proposed rezoning on the north side of SR -60 to property north of the first block in Paradise Park and let the present zoning remain on the south side of SR -60. Aubrey Sapp, owner of four lots on the north side of SR -60, pointed out that back when he purchased his property, people could build a house on commercial property. His property included a house and had 100 ft. frontage on SR -60. When they 4-laned SR -60, they took off 6" of his 110' lot, which left him with less than the amount the County required for a 2 -bedroom house, but he was allowed to continue living there. He since has moved to Georgia, but complained that there is no way to rent the house without converting it into an office of some sort, and he has been unable to sell it. He recalled that when it was rezoned from C-1 to B-1, the County agreed they would work with him if he could get some sort of small business in there. Now, he would really appreciate it if the Board would continue to work with him by retaining the B-1 zoning. 27 0 CT 16 1984 BOOKS F}{:c