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
Planner DeBlois noted that the applicant contends the C-2 <br />designation of 1/40 is unreasonable on his xeric scrub upland <br />property, and the main disagreement at this point is the density <br />that would apply to that property. Staff recommends 1/5 instead <br />of the 1/22 the applicant is requesting here. This particular <br />ares is one of the most valuable natural communities left in the <br />county; it represents approximately 1/3 of the remaining scrub in <br />the county; and it has a unique combination of characteristics <br />beyond the other scrub areas in the county. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if this is supported by the <br />analysis done in the CARL Program and if staff has identified <br />that unique nature to be different than any other xeric scrub in <br />the county. <br />Planner DeBlois confirmed that staff has looked at all the <br />biological data accumulated and looked largely at the Fish & Game <br />Commission scrub community report, and their assessment is that <br />the combination of diverse characteristics makes this area unique <br />and more valuable than other areas. <br />Commissioner Scurlock explained that he wanted to establish <br />consistency with what we have done with other xeric scrub, and he <br />wishes to set a record that staff has identified it as being <br />different so that it is clear that we are not being inconsistent <br />because it does have characteristics the other properties do not <br />have. <br />Planner DeBlois noted that staff has conceded that 1 unit to <br />40 acres on that upland, as it was adopted in February, was <br />probably too low a density and not consistent with densities in <br />the county in that most of the C-2 density elsewhere in the <br />county is specific to wetlands and islands. In re-evaluating <br />this, they looked at several factors. One of those factors is <br />the aspect of the west side of the St. Sebastian River not being <br />within the urban service area. The highest density the county <br />has presently in other areas that are outside the urban service <br />area in the county is 1/5. Also, historically before the update <br />DEC 11 1990 79 <br />Root< 821; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.