1/2/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JAN 2 1995 BOOK 56 F."cc `968 essence, exempted Indian River County from this provision and asked if the Board wished to repeal this Resolution. He continued that at this time staff has had no new applications come in in that area, but they still have the same feeling that without any kind of structure in effect that would curtail development in some way, some kind of moratorium should be kept in place. He informed the Board that the Last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Tom Collins, a developer, had a subdivision application that had been submitted previously and staff had reviewed it, but put him on hold when Resolution 84-101 was adopted. Mr. Collins was on the agenda and demanded to be heard. Staff informed him that the Planning & Zoning Commission could not legally take action and approve the plan, but they did. Mr. Keating reported that he has appealed their action because it is in conflict with the existing Resolution. Commissioner Bird stated that he did not particularly want to be bound by the one unit per acre limitation, but, he did not particularly want to have the gates wide open either. Commissioner Scurlock suggested a limited moratorium at 3 units per acre until our Transportation Study is in. Attorney Brandenburg explained that to accomplish that, the Board would have to adopt a Resolution modifying the previous one, and at the same time authorize staff to send out notices of a full fledged moratorium at three units per acre until such time as the study is done. Commissioner Scurlock reported that he has talked with the Town of Orchid, and they have verbally agreed they would reduce density consistent with the County. He believed they would cooperate. Commissioner Bird asked if we did modify our previous Reso- lution whether the Attorney felt Mr. DeGrove and the Governor might take this as a breach of good faith. Attorney Brandenburg believed that is difficult to predict; although We never made any formal promises. He noted that one "rZ3