Laserfiche WebLink
DEC 1 <br />989 <br />BOOK <br />78 FKL 679 <br />Director Keating agreed. He noted that this particular <br />parcel would allow that ingress and egress and the heavier types <br />of volumes of traffic, and that is why staff is saying it should <br />be a CL or CG use. The difference with CH is that it allows <br />heavy truck traffic, noise, possibly odors, and also very <br />probably activity in the late night and early morning hours. It <br />has more of an adverse effect on the adjacent residential. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. <br />Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing <br />Stanley Kahn, the applicant. He felt the Commission really needs <br />to look at the area - there is practically nothing out there. <br />Mr. Kahn's property fronts 250' on CR 512 going 660' deep to the <br />south. Mr. Kahn is prepared to back up to CG on the south half <br />of the property because what he has in mind for the front half <br />facing 512 is warehousing and offices for construction trades <br />with mini warehouses in the back. Mr. O'Haire questioned staff's <br />contention that this property is in a residential area. He <br />argued that though it is zoned residential, it really isn't <br />residential. Pine Lake Estates, which consists of 80 acres, <br />actually is an illegal subdivision; it is a "hot lot" deal that <br />goes back to the '60's. There are no dedicated roads and no <br />drainage facilities. It was simply a sketch of lots recorded in <br />the Public Records and never accepted by the County for <br />maintenance, and under the Subdivision Code, no residential <br />building permit can be issued except for the lots that front on <br />512. Therefore, although the map shows it zoned residential, it <br />cannot legally be used for those purposes. <br />Commissioner Bird believed there have been building permits <br />issued in Pine Lake Estates; there are homes there; and title <br />insurance companies have issued policies on those residences. <br />Attorney O'Haire agreed that is true but contended those <br />homes shouldn't have been built and they are illegal. He <br />continued that this property because of its proximity to 1-95 <br />interchange is exactly what his client has in mind for the <br />38 <br />