12/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

residential units which they objected to, there would be a wash, but as far as the urban sprawl issue and trying to preserve AG, he felt that could work against us a little bit. Commissioner Scurlock commented that his problem is the inconsistency on the two sides of the road. He asked if Mr. Poppell has had flood problems on his property, and Mr. Poppell advised that he has never had any flood problems; in fact, he does not even have a pump. He disagreed with the FEMA map. Commissioner Bird commented that he could agree with Mr. Poppell as to his property being overlooked, and he would be willing to do something about it if it would not jeopardize our Compliance Agreement. He, however, is not willing to do that today if it means taking away some of the density on the other side of the road because he felt it would unfair to those property owners. If we can't do it the first way, he would consider it later as a Comp Plan amendment. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this person had no more notice than the others had, and Mr. Poppell stated that he would have been here months ago if he had special notice. He again stressed that the DCA would prefer not to have the 6/1 on the other side of the street and that is how the compromise idea arose. Commissioner Scurlock inquired if it would jeopardize anything if we convey to DCA that we would like to request this property in the flood prone area to be reduced to an average of the 3/1 on both sides of 43rd Avenue. Attorney Collins did not know but read the Board one sentence from the Compliance Agreement that supports Mr. Poppell's position and one that works against it. Commissioner Scurlock asked why we can't transmit to DCA that we accept the plan as it is, but we suggest as a possibility modifying it to incorporate a downzoning from 6 to 3 as just discussed. In other words, say we will accept the agreement the way it is, if that is what you choose to do, but would you DEC 111990 57 BOOK F. i.