Laserfiche WebLink
The Chairman suggested the possibility of modifying or <br />redefining the lines on the northern boundary where there are <br />some single family homes on either side of 69th Street by drawing <br />a line back across to Lateral G Canal even with the bottom line <br />of the little RS -3 area south of 69th Street and keeping that <br />portion RS -3, which he felt would leave an adequate buffer for <br />the single family, and then the remainder could be Left at RS -6. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked how much acreage wouldjbe involved <br />if a line were drawn across as suggested by the Chairman, and <br />Director Keating estimated about 40 acres would be left RS -3. <br />County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that the Board could <br />rezone lesser portions of the property, if desired. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. <br />Attorney Ben Rabin from the law firm of Samuel Block <br />appeared on behalf of the Winter Beach Progressive League which <br />is in favor of rezoning to RS -3 and changing the Comprehensive <br />Plan designation to LD -1 in July. He wished to reiterate Commis- <br />sioner Bowman and Eggert's statements that without water and <br />sewer, it is virtually impossible to develop at RS -6 anyway, and <br />also agreed that development at RS -3 will be less attractive to <br />the developer, which he felt is consistent with saving the <br />aquifer and the sand ridge. Attorney Rabin pointed out that last <br />year in July the County Commission said this entire area (the <br />whole 466 acres) should be RS -3, and he requested that the <br />Commission be consistent in their rulings. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that neither Commissioner <br />Eggert nor Commissioner Wheeler were on the Commission at that <br />time, and he was not participating in the discussion, which <br />eliminates most of the present Board. <br />Attorney Rabin clarified that when he speaks of the Board, <br />he is speaking of the Board of County Commissioners whatever its <br />makeup, and he is asking this particular Board to be consistent <br />with its rulings. He pointed out that a relatively short time <br />ago this Commission, when talking about property in the 16th <br />17 <br />MAY 5 1987 <br />BOOK 68 F,kGE 227 <br />