My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/23/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
1/23/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:06:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/23/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
JAN 2 3 1995 BOOK 59 Flu. 653 <br />any formal agreement on the site plan; they have just approved <br />the concept; and 2) To propose that the 23 residents in <br />Summerplace might have signed the petition in favor of the site <br />plan only because they objected to traffic coming through Shell <br />Lane and they had not realized the plan infringed on Lot L, which <br />is the buffer lot to the subdivision. Mr. Pickard explained that <br />this has all come about in the last 30 days and approximately 25 <br />of the residents object to the infringement on Lot L because they <br />purchased their property in the subdivision because of the deed <br />restrictions and felt these restrictions should be etched in <br />stone. He recalled that in 1961 John Morrison, the original <br />owner, realigned Lot L and M with a straight line with the <br />proper buffer zones and easements in between and designated only <br />Lot M as -commercial, and he has been assured that Mr. Morrison <br />would testify to his intent and also provide the history of the <br />subdivision. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt that if Lot M is zoned <br />commercial, the County must allow the owner ingress and egress to <br />his property, but Director Keating advised in that case staff <br />would recommend that it be used for office use or some other less <br />intensive use. <br />Osborne McKay, 1920 Shell Lane, explained that if they had <br />their wish, all the lots would be R-1. He was impressed that the <br />Commission moved 30.88 acres on the other corner from commercial <br />back to residential, and did not see why they cannot do that in <br />this case also. He wished that the Commissioners would check out <br />this intersection to see how dangerous it would become with a <br />bank and office space located there. <br />Attorney O'Haire recalled that just recently staff had <br />recommended that the southeast corner of that intersection be <br />rezoned to commercial use, and he felt this is now a 180° turn <br />from staff's feeling in regard to the intersection. He again <br />stressed that beach banks are different than mainland banks, and <br />felt that the size of the facility is not tied to the number of <br />Kia <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.