My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/27/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
1/27/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2018 11:36:22 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:39:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/1987
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
It is our understanding that the intention of the developer is to offer or provide <br />membership in the proposed club to purchasers of dwelling units in the Grand Harbor <br />Development presently planned for the mainland, which will eventually total nearly <br />3000 dwelling units, a resort hotel, etc. This proposal is totally inconsistent with the <br />character of the Town of Indian River Shores and is in conflict with the interests of <br />our property owners who have chosen to live in a community which is dedicated to <br />the principles of low density and minimum commercial development. The prospect of <br />increased traffic and overflow parking caused by hundreds of people travelling to and <br />from this facility and yet having no proprietory interest in the community is appalling <br />indeed. <br />Therefore our Association respectfully urges all members of the County Commission <br />to reject outright this proposed use of the county enclave in the middle of our town. <br />Sincerely, <br />John C. McDonald <br />-"President <br />IRS Property. Owners <br />Commissioner Eggert understood that the Planning Dept. <br />feels a 30 -ft. buffering is needed even though it would normally <br />call for a Type C buffering, and Robert Keating, Director of <br />Planning & Zoning, explained that the requirements of the Zoning <br />Ordinance mandate a 25 -ft. side yard setback , but staff feels <br />an extra 5 feet would ensure greater separation and that a more <br />intensive screening, Type A, would provide a better buffer. He <br />noted that the developer has accepted those conditions. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any thought given when <br />the special exception was first created to the potential impact <br />of allowing large concentrations of really commercial activities <br />on the beach, activities that allow much more than just beach <br />access, and if any consideration was given to this setting a <br />precedent for requests by large developments such as Sebastian <br />Lakes or Village Green to provide beach accesses for their <br />residents. <br />Director Keating felt that was the reason why beach clubs <br />are a special exception, particularly given the fact that beach <br />clubs can range from just a beach access to a very intensive <br />use. He believed that there is a need to review these requests <br />on a case by case basis, and that if there were a proliferation <br />of beach clubs providing more than just beach access, then there <br />JAN -71987 - 2 s aoo� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.