My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/21/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
7/21/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:19 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:43:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/21/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
would not have bought in this development had they known the <br />tragedies that would befall them, and they are asking that the <br />Commission instruct staff to initiate a Comp Plan amendment for <br />the purpose of rezoning this site back to RM -10. <br />With respect to the wetlands, Attorney Putnam understood <br />that several years ago this developer offered to give the County <br />the wetlands along the river, but was turned down. He hoped the <br />County would review that proposition and make it a part of the <br />settlement of all the uses of land in this area, as he believed <br />it would be very beneficial to everyone concerned. - <br />Attorney Putnam realized that the Commission was concerned <br />about the extent of their powers in settling this dispute in a <br />reasonable way, and pointed out that many years ago, the State <br />Legislature gave the county commissions the power to determine <br />the best land uses within a county, and while the Board has <br />designated some of these powers to the P & Z Commission, they are <br />the superior authority and can take back some of those powers and <br />make the final decision. Referring to the case of "Graham vs. <br />Estuary Properties", the Supreme Court held that the owner of <br />land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential, <br />natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for <br />which it is unsuited in its natural state, or injures the rights <br />of others. Attorney Putnam felt there is no question that a <br />heavily concentrated commercial development at this site will be <br />injurious to the area, and the residents of Vista Gardens are <br />convinced that if this shopping center is approved, there will be <br />more crime, more traffic accidents, more water pollution, etc. ._ <br />These are matters of deep concern to thousands of people who <br />thought they were moving into a quiet, residential area. <br />In conclusion, Attorney Putnam urged the Board to consider <br />the following solutions to this problem: <br />1. Rezone the entire 15 acres back to multiple family. <br />2. Rework site plans after review by the P & Z Commission <br />so that the Board has more input in questionable <br />locations. <br />3. Bring in an outside professional land use consultant. - <br />33 <br />1987 ':J i. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.