My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/4/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:18:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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 />stated that while he did believe all these factors can be taken <br />care of, he believed we must have the answers to how this can be <br />done before we change the zoning and designation of this <br />property. One possibility he felt might be worth considering was <br />to go ahead and consider the Land Use redesignation at this time <br />but not the rezoning with the thought that the County still would <br />have control of its destiny. He asked Attorney Vitunac if the <br />Board has the option to do that. <br />Attorney Vitunac stated there is nothing illegal about it, <br />but pointed out that it does limit the County's option because <br />once the County says this should be a designation other than <br />Agricultural, then the owner has a right to one of the zonings in <br />that range. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt it has been documented that <br />because of soil conditions and drainage problems, the land is not <br />suitable for agricultural purposes. If we approve just the Land <br />Use Plan change, he felt there is a possibility we could end up <br />with a fine quality development if all the problems can be worked <br />out, but if they can't, we still would have the ability to say <br />that while this may not be suitable for agriculture, it also is <br />not suitable for anything more than a very low density, i.e., <br />possibly only one,unit in ten acres such as in flood areas. <br />Attorney Vitunac did not see how it would help the applicant <br />to have the Comprehensive Plan change without the rezoning unless <br />It would be a comfort factor. <br />Attorney Caldwell stated it very definitely would be a <br />comfort factor for them considering the cost of going through the <br />whole process. He stressed that they have talked.with the <br />Kromhouts about a fee easement to deal with their drainage <br />problems, and the Kromhouts have indicated their willingness to <br />work with the adjoining property owners to solve these problems. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised the applicant they should not be <br />too comforted with just a Land Use Plan change because of the <br />County's controls. <br />43 <br />DEC 41985 <br />BOOK 62 PDE 15i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.