My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/5/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
5/5/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 11:14:12 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:33:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/05/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
Director Keating noted that this is an issue we have dealt <br />with a number of times before. When the July 1986 series of Comp <br />Plan requests were considered and finally acted on in February, <br />the Board directed staff to reconsider this area for downzoning <br />from RS -6 to RS -3 whereas originally it had been accepted for a <br />Comp Plan amendment to change an entire 066 acre area in Winter <br />Beach from LD -2 to LD -1. Basically we are dealing with a <br />property 145 acres in size bounded on the west by Late <br />raI G <br />Canal. It is on the sand ridge and characterized by scrub <br />habitat, on which we recently had a presentation by Ray Fernald <br />of the Fish & Game Commission, who advised that the only way to <br />preserve this habitat is to acquire it in large parcels. Direc- <br />tor Keating continued that over the last few years, staff consis- <br />tently has taken the position that this is an area appropriate <br />for RS -6 type development. It is between two collector roadways, <br />it is close to currently developed areas and is in a place where <br />utilities are expected within the next several years. The <br />Planning & Zoning Commission voted against down -zoning, and staff <br />again recommends that the County -initiated request to downzone to <br />RS -3 be denied. <br />Commissioner Bowman questioned how staff can recommend this <br />in tight of Mr. Fernald's report and the fact that it cannot be <br />developed at RS -6 without water and sewer, which she did not <br />believe will be available. <br />Director Keating noted that to preserve scrub you need large <br />tracts of land, and 3 units per acre would destroy it just as <br />readily as 6 units per acre, and Chairman Scurlock believed sewer <br />and water most probably will be available there within 5-7 years <br />and further pointed out that a developer could obtain a franchise <br />and it could happen much sooner than that. <br />Commissioner Bowman stressed that she would hate to see our <br />last 150 acres of sand scrub go. <br />Director Keating noted that staff is not recommending the <br />entire area of scrub be eliminated, but is just sayinglbetween <br />15 <br />LiiiiAY 5 1987 <br />BOOK °8 FAGL 2 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.