My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/15/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
7/15/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:42:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/15/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
J U L <br />15 <br />19 6BOOK <br />65 <br />Full <br />Attorney Quinn's first concern was that <br />the discussion <br />this <br />evening seems to have centered about a 5 acre rezoning and not <br />the applicant's request for a 10 acre commercial node at the <br />entranceway. Attorney Quinn agreed that the developer has <br />enjoyed a good reputation over the years, but did not believe <br />that is reason enough in itself for granting a commercial node <br />nor did he feel the statements re the developer's intention over <br />the years of developing this commercially or the reduction of the <br />size of their request are sufficient reason to entitle the <br />developer to a 10 acre node. <br />As to the discussion re vesting, Attorney Quinn noted that <br />the County is presented with a constant parade of conceptual <br />plans of beautiful tuture developments, and if the County were <br />legally bound by every developer's conceptual plan, we would not <br />be living in the county or city we have today. He agreed with <br />the Chairman that this is a matter of timing and not a question <br />of what the developer could have done, but what is proper or <br />appropriate under today's rules. Attorney Quinn stated that he <br />had seen nothing presented that would come close to making the <br />vesting a legitimate argument. As to the argument that the <br />property is not appropriate for residential use, he noted the <br />County Commission is not in business to make sure that every <br />developer gets the highest and best use out of his property. <br />Ordinances becomes contiscatory only when they preclude all <br />"reasonable" use of the property. <br />Attorney Quinn then addressed the criteria set out for <br />determining the most valid basis for establishment of a <br />commercial node and quoted from the Land Use Element of the <br />Comprehensive Plan as follows: "All areas of commercial <br />development shall be located in a compact manner to discourage <br />strip development patterns which negatively affect the aesthetic <br />quality, safety, land use patterns and traffic handling capacity <br />of the transportation system." He noted that another element <br />speaks of the commercial and industrial growth which has <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.