My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/11/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/11/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:02:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/11/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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
E C <br />1 <br />BOOK F',1;E�. <br />Chairman Eggert <br />advised that when the Jarvis rezoning was <br />brought to the Board, it was denied by a 3-2 vote with <br />Commissioners Scurlock, Bowman, and herself voting against it. <br />She had said at the time that if certain buffering was set up and <br />there was no access, etc., she would have supported it. The <br />applicants now are agreeing to no access and putting in a <br />conservation easement on the easterly 150 feet of the property to <br />be used for buffering, and have asked her to ask the County <br />Commission if they were willing to readdress the rezoning. <br />Commissioner Bowman raised a point of order, because she <br />believed that the Board cannot reconsider it before a year has <br />elapsed, but Chairman Eggert explained that if a person who voted <br />against it initially asks that it be brought forward, it can be <br />looked at again in less than'a year. Otherwise, it must wait a <br />year. <br />Commissioner Scurlock understood that with the zoning rules <br />that the County Commission has been operating under, when <br />somebody comes in, they have one shot to put everything on the <br />table, and if it fails, they are supposed to wait one year before <br />they resubmit. He was concerned that this would set a precedent <br />that would allow individuals to come back anytime within a year <br />if they can convince one Commissioner to change his/her mind. As <br />one Commissioner, he would like to see us stick with the one shot <br />opportunity on a yearly basis. He felt we would be setting a <br />dangerous precedent if we allow things to be reconsidered just <br />because of some parlimentary procedure. <br />Chairman Eggert felt this request stemmed from the fact that <br />she had prestated her terms. <br />Reading from the Zoning Code, Attorney Vitunac advised that <br />the law does not allow a new application to be filed except one <br />year later. The only way this could be heard is if it is the <br />same application and if the Board decides that the Board has made <br />a mistake and would like to reconsider it. If they are doing <br />something different, then it is a new application. <br />142 <br />M M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.