11/4/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commission approved this ordinance, and they actually voted 3 to 2 against it. Chairman Scurlock believed that Mr. Stewart's comment was that the: site plan had been approved contingent on approval of the ordinance. Mr. Hambleton pointed out that the applicant has had a approved site plan since 1981, and he felt the only thing done during that time was trying to find a way to circumvent the ordinance. Had Mr. McNutt gone ahead under the old ordinance, he could have accomplished exactly what he is after now. Mr. Hambleton expressed concern that the proposed ordinance will open the gate for other people to request this zoning, particularly when the new setback Line is put into effect, and stated that the Property Owners Association strongly opposed any change in the existing height limitation of 351. Lomax Gwathmey came before the Board speaking for the Board of Directors of the Civic Association. He believed the present ordinance is a good one which has established the character of the county and that a change at this time would set a dangerous precedent. —He noted that the City of Vero Beach is having trouble - they have a 50' height limit that got up to 71' in one case and they are seriously considering going to 351. Mr. Gwathmey felt the trade-off of 1' in setback for 1' in height is almost a sham and that a setback of 3' for 1' in height might be more reasonable. Nancy Offutt, legislative liaison for the Board of Commerce and Board of Realtors, wished to clarify that the City of Vero Beach is not seriously considering lowering its building height. The Civic Association is advocating that position. Bill Koolage, long time resident, felt the attraction of the county is that we hold down the height limits and also the densities. He believed many senior citizens feel as he does and encouraged the Board not to approve this change in the ordinance. NOV 29 BOOK 66 f q11