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
MAY 719911 7 <br />.BOOK 83 NiGE 6S - <br />Community Planning Director Keating said staff had also looked <br />at the jurisdictional agency application that came through and had <br />made some negative comments on it because of our specific <br />requirements in Chapter 928. He further noted that we do not <br />differentiate between a natural or man-made water body and as far <br />as requirements regarding fill, ours are more stringent than the <br />State's. <br />Commissioner Bowman commented that, therefore, our more <br />stringent requirements would prevail. <br />Mr. Barkett argued that all that may be true and would be <br />faced when the application is submitted, but the issue before the <br />Board is rezoning and if it were rezoned RS -1 that would mean Mr. <br />Krovochek probably would have to fill more wetland to accommodate <br />larger lots. His point was that there was no justification for the <br />petition. He believed he had a legal issue that the petition is <br />not supportable and that it is not fairly debatable because it is <br />spot zoning this property differently from all the surrounding <br />property and not in accord with the Comp Plan. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if the County has not initiated <br />rezoning. <br />Attorney Vitunac saw no problem with the County initiating a <br />rezoning. The only issue possibly could be spot zoning. If the <br />Board's reasons are fairly debatable you would be sustained; but <br />that issue is not before the Board today. <br />Commissioner Scurlock and Commissioner Eggert asked if there <br />would be anything wrong with going through the process of a public <br />hearing. <br />Attorney Vitunac said it is possible for the County to set a <br />rezoning hearing to investigate-, and if there are facts to show <br />that this is somehow unique or different from the other pieces then <br />we would have to rezone. He saw no harm in that but advised it <br />would just be a waste of time and money unless Staff can come up <br />with new facts. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt a hearing was needed to find out if <br />the Board would be in favor of rezoning-. <br />Chairman Bird asked if that would be the only RS -1 property in <br />the South Beach area. Director Keating indicated we have some <br />other RS -1 zoning in the South Beach area but it is within the area <br />that is considered environmentally sensitive and if the new <br />comprehensive plan initiatives are approved, then that would be <br />rezoned C2. <br />Attorney Vitunac asked if, in a further review of that site, <br />Mr. Keating could find some reason that would make him want to <br />rezone it RS -1 instead of RS -3. <br />72 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.