7/15/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ron Ewing, President of Vista Properties, stated that they objected, but were told by staff at that time not to worry about it because they were vested. The Chairman asked if they had actual written documentation of that statement, and Mr. Ewing did not believe so. Attorney Henderson felt that everyone realizes there was a great deal of confusion at that time with the nodal concept, and many owners were not aware their zoning had been voided. He also believed there was a strong indication in former Minutes that the Commissioners felt a neighborhood node was appropriate for this parcel but since then the nodes have been changed, not only in size but by a new separation rule. The Chairman pointed out that since that time a new Commis- sion has been elected, and a lot of things in the Comprehensive Plan have been amended significantly in a downward direction in terms of density, etc. Attorney Vitunac wanted the Board to understand the legal posture of the case. He felt it should be considered without regard to any vesting issue as he did not believe that one has been established, and this, therefore, should be treated the same as any other request to change the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the Planning staff agreed, and Planning Director Keating indicated that they did. Attorney Henderson stated that he was not arguing the vesting issue, but just brought it up to illustrate the features of fairness and unfairness. He continued,to review the sequence of events stressing that in 1986 the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the rezoning to CL. Chairman Scurlock commented that, as he saw it, the density question in County has been changing considerably through that period of time; he believed even the density Vista is developing at has been changed downward and felt the reason we didn't rezone them back is we were still trying to finalize in our minds how intensive a use this area should receive. 16 BOOK 65 PAGE 17