My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/7/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/7/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:18:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/07/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
�IAY 7 T pOOK 83 PA E �0 7 <br />7 <br />consider rezoning unless petitioned by the owner of property; so, <br />in this case, using a football analogy, the petition before the <br />Board could be considered an "end run." As staff reported, the <br />current zoning is consistent with all of the surrounding property; <br />RS -3 zoning is appropriate to the land; and there is no <br />justification to treat this property differently than any other <br />similarly situated properties through the County. There is no <br />justification for environmental reasons, as suggested by Mr. <br />O'Haire, because any development of the property will have to <br />receive the same permits from DER, St. Johns and the Army Corps of <br />Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources will not be <br />involved in the process because the water body that Mr. O'Haire <br />refers to is artificially created and lies totally within the <br />confines of Mr. Krovochek's property. Attorney Barkett urged the <br />Board to say no to this unjustified petition. <br />There was discussion about the body of water in question <br />extending onto Mr. Luther's property. However, Mr. Barkett pointed <br />out that the shoreline and vegetation in question is all on Mr. <br />Krovochek's property. <br />Mr. Barkett questioned whether the rezoning is even legal and <br />County Attorney Vitunac explained if there is no justification for <br />the rezoning, then it's not fairly debatable, and if it's not <br />fairly debatable, it's not legal. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if the lagoon were filled as <br />described in the application, what effect would it have on the <br />other half of the lagoon and, -therefore, Mr. Luther's property. <br />Mr. Barkett responded that they wouldn't be filling in on Mr. <br />Luther's property and, secondly, that issue is not before the <br />Board; but he would be able to do that under any zoning. <br />Chairman Bird recognized Mr. Krovochek. <br />Jack Krovochek came before the Board speaking for both himself <br />and his wife. He stated that when he received paperwork regarding <br />rezoning from Planning and Development Division of the County, he <br />was shocked that Mr. O'Haire had asked the Administrative Body of <br />the County to do something he, Mr. O'Haire, could not do himself. <br />He described this request for Administration -initiated rezoning as <br />"un-American." Mr. Krovochek stated he has a major investment in <br />his home and certainly would not decimate his property, in effect, <br />shooting himself in the foot, and hoped the Commission would follow <br />the recommendations of its staff. <br />Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to address the <br />Board. <br />John, Luther came before the Board and said he lives south of <br />Mr. Krovochek on about three and a half acres and contrary to what <br />70 <br />M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.