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
that with respect to some of these areas east of the south prong <br />that are already partially developed, he agreed with staff <br />recommendation that special consideration should be given but <br />that in no case should the density be greater than 1 upa in areas <br />that don't meet the criteria for either C-2 or C-3. <br />Warren Dill, Roseland resident, first of all felt that the <br />Brevard County zoning issue is a bogus argument; what another <br />county does should have no influence on this Board at all. <br />Secondly, while he felt it is elementary that the Board cannot° <br />use its power to downzone property so that it can be purchased by <br />a government agency at a lower price, in this case, the land <br />owner is asking to be upgraded in order for him to get a higher <br />price. This whole procedure today sounds to him like the old <br />"Let's make a deal" TV program. Mr. Dill felt strongly that the <br />Board should only transmit something to DCA that they have faith <br />in and can support. He did agree that the Board needs to be <br />consistent and probably should grant them the 1/5, but possibly <br />the Board should decide that other similar properties in the <br />county should be 1/5 also. <br />Getting back to the specific proposal presented today, Mr. <br />Dill felt it is essential to have mandatory clustering, which the <br />applicant now has agreed to. Mr. Dill felt one further change <br />should be considered in the applicant's proposed amendment. He <br />suggested that the Board consider imposing an 1,000' setback from <br />the river or 500' from the environmentally sensitive land. This <br />would not deny the applicant their density, but with this, they <br />would be contributing to the protection of that corridor which is <br />under consideration for purchase, as well as maintaining the <br />scenic visual integrity of the river. He, therefore, urged that <br />the Board support staff's proposed 1/5 and also a more signifi- <br />cant setback to preserve the corridor. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and <br />the Chairman closed the public hearing. <br />1193 �- <br />800 r �' <br />P.',sc ��1ti <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.