Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing several homeowners on <br />Rosewood Road, felt that his clients have rights that are well <br />and truly vested. He felt this particular street never shouAd --- <br />have been designated as LD -2 on the Comp Plan and that this <br />mistake should be rectified. He stated that he has been told <br />that if the residents do not roll over and play dead in terms of <br />what Ralmar wants, there will be a conventional subdivision <br />meeting minimal standards, and what is proposed is prefabricated <br />homes. Attorney O'Haire continued that when they are asked to <br />gauge the developer's creditability, such things as threats don't <br />do the developer a lot of good. He believed the density of 2 upa <br />is the maximum of what is appropriate for that area, and the <br />developer is asking for the maximum density that they can get in <br />a PRD, 3 upa. He quoted the following statement under Section <br />25.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as the standard that the Board of <br />County Commissioners is required to consider in acting on the PRD <br />application, and noted that it also is the standard that dictated <br />the action of the P & Z Commission when they voted against the <br />PRD. <br />"Section 25.3, Sub -section 2:- Compatibility with Surrounding <br />Land Uses "The proposed use and its location shall be compatible <br />with surrounding land uses and the general character in the area <br />based on consideration of such potential impacts as traffic <br />generation, effect on property values, nuisance impacts, and <br />other factors potentially impacting the character and stability <br />of the surrounding areas." <br />Attorney O'Haire concluded by noting that the RS -2 zoning <br />district will be available in the next month or so and urging the <br />Board to fix a mistake that was made years ago by either denying <br />the PRD or approving it conditioned on a density of 2 upa. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if we have the flexibility to pass <br />the PRD contingent upon a density, and Attorney Vitunac explained <br />that since the Board has the discretion to deny it, they can <br />approve it conditioned on less density, which gives the developer <br />41 800.E6Fvuc 889 <br />JAN 133 1987 <br />