My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/19/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
1/19/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:17:58 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:02:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/19/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
after February 24, 1982, did so at the expressed intent of the <br />Commission to make them legal. He further noted that at the same <br />meeting, Planner Nearing presented a map representing the <br />businesses located within the ROSE -4 area, which was erroneous by <br />his own admission. Mr. Nearing also stated that some businesses <br />were identified through visual means, but no license could be <br />found, possibly because they were in a corporate name. Mr. <br />Kirrie did not feel that was a valid excuse for not finding the <br />license. <br />Mr. Kirrie noted that mention was made of two site plan <br />applications submitted by people who want to open a new business <br />in ROSE -4. One of those is his, and Mr. Kirrie advised that he <br />was not quite ready to go ahead and put up a building instantly, <br />but the very fact that ROSE -4 Ordinance 87-22 showed every <br />indication of being rescinded left him with no choice but to <br />submit a site plan, and he believed the other person is in about <br />the same position. However, he pointed out there is some good <br />news - the great land rush and subsequent devastation of Roseland <br />has not materialized and is not likely to because of the very <br />stringent and expensive site plan routine. <br />Mr. Kirrie felt other counties handle this situation better. <br />Orange County gets the residents involved, and if they are <br />satisfied with a particular area, they zone to suit the area. <br />That is exactly what this Commission has done, but now we have a <br />lot of noise coming from people who are not residents of the area <br />- the Roseland Property Owners Association who hold themselves up <br />to be the voice of ROSE -4, as well as Roseland, which is totally <br />untrue. He. continued that in Osceola County they go to the <br />agricultural. minimum of 5 acres for mixed use, and they grand- <br />father existing uses. In Brevard they had existing mixed mobile <br />home and conventional construction, and they simply made it a <br />legal zoned area; they grandfathered existing uses; and they have <br />a 6 -month reversion period if the business is not continued. In <br />JAN 15 1988 <br />51 <br />BOOK 70 FK,F 611 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.