10/27/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 2 7 1987 RooK 69 PAGE 837 that it is because of the character of the neighborhood. What happened here some months ago cost him about 300 units on his property, and if that doesn't amount to "taking," he would like to know why. James Taylor, 69th St., advised that he is not a direct resident of the subject property, but he does live in the overall corridor, and he is here on behalf of a number of people living there. He advised that he has a letter from John Hanson, which states that the Hansons and the Gayneys, who own and have developed 3 acres of land on 69th -St., -are in favor of downzoning the 145 acres. Mr. Taylor then spoke eloquently re environ- mental issues and the importance of protecting the sand ridge and the natural habitat, emphasizing that the property is essential to aquifer regeneration. He stated that the residents have no objection whatsoever to the development of this property, but they do have a concern, as Mr. Herzog mentioned, that his client has the right not only to develop at RS -6 but to come back and badger for the right to develop at RM -6. He continued that the reason for RS -6 west of the canal is because those properties are totally enclaved in that they are surrounded by properties that will not allow encroachment into the mini -estate development of the area. Mr. Taylor felt that Planning Departments are of themselves a bureaucratic entity and they work out of books, which is why the final process comes before the elected council. He felt that it is the Commission's duty to go along with those who have elected them and entrusted them with their lives and homes, and he continued to stress the need for LD -1 to protect the area. Tom DeBarry, 69th St., agreed with Mr. Taylor and wished to see the density as low as possible. It was determined that no one further wished to be heard, and the Chairman thereupon closed the public hearing. 64