Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Ralmar <br />Associates. He noted that the Board has staff's report which <br />recommends overturning of the denial and believed it has been <br />said several times that the applicant has met all requirements <br />for this standard subdivision as established by the Commission. <br />Attorney Block was not sure that any subdivision has been turned <br />down before when it has met all the minimum requirements. He <br />commented that "de novo" means this is a brand new hearing, and <br />the Board must listen and see if the project meets the criteria <br />cited. If the subdivision meets all the criteria, it was his <br />opinion that the Commission has to exercise its duty and approve <br />it. <br />Mr. Block continued that the Planning & Zoning Commission <br />last Thursday rezoned this area to RS -2, including this piece <br />even though the applicant asked them not to. He noted that the <br />whole issue started because they bought a piece of property, and <br />they have filed a PRD and a subdivision application, and they <br />felt they should not have been included in the rezoning. Under <br />the Comprehensive Plan this property is LD -2, which allows up to <br />6 units per acre. In September of 1986, the Board changed this <br />property from Agricultural to RS -3, and the applicant met the <br />requirements for their subdivision at RS -3 which was the existing <br />zoning when they filed the plat and it still is. <br />Attorney Block agreed that lot size is a concern, but the <br />applicant didn't set it as 12,000 sq. ft., the County Commission <br />did that. He pointed out that this subdivision will bring <br />county -backed water and sewer to this area, which is a positive <br />effect; there is no environmentally sensitive land involved; and <br />studies were done by both their engineers and the County's <br />engineers wherein it was determined there is no adverse traffic <br />impact. Mr. Block stressed they meet all criteria, but the <br />Planning Board picked out the one area that is subjective and can <br />only be argued emotionally. He further noted that they are only <br />asking for 69 lots there; they wanted two entrances, but the <br />59 E00r. 7 UE 348 <br />6h,__ F E B 17 19 GG 7 <br />