My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/18/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/18/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:22:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/18/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
Commissioner Scurlock addressed the zero lot line concept, <br />commenting that he did not believe anyone would disagree with our <br />goal of trying to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, but <br />in looking at this plan, he believed this is a unique situation <br />where possibly we don't have the safety net he was talking about <br />earlier regarding another item involving environmentally <br />sensitive lands. He felt there should be some basic requirements <br />in terms of the minimum lot size that you would not go beyond in <br />any event. He noted that RS -3 has a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. <br />and RS -6 a minimum of 7,200 and this is even smaller than RS -6, <br />with some lots being as small as 6,300 sq. ft., and now they are <br />talking about 55' lot widths. In trying to make a comparison, <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that Oslo Park has lots 50 x 120, <br />which is 6,000 sq. ft., and when he thinks of that on the Barrier <br />Island next to extremely expensive land, it bring questions to <br />his mind. <br />Chairman Lyons noted that in the ordinance we have the right <br />to question whether or not something fits in a certain area. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt we should be fair to the <br />developer as well and wished to know if we have a mechanism to <br />communicate to the developers what our concerns are so they don't <br />spend a large amount of money developing something that will not <br />be acceptable. <br />Director Keating noted that one of the reasons for the PRD <br />was to give the developer some discretion in designing a project <br />that might not meet the strict size and dimension criteria, but <br />would meet the county's objectives; therefore, we don't have <br />specific minimum requirements. He emphasized that staff does <br />encourage the developer to have a preconference with staff before <br />they get too deeply involved. In the Sixty Oaks project the PRD <br />provided the opportunity to save trees, and in each case there <br />are certain benefits to be derived and there are safeguards. <br />First of all, there is water and sewer available in this case, <br />and the developer has identified the building envelope by <br />71 <br />DEC 18 1985 BOOM 63 PALE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.