10/22/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT BOOK 84 F�?Gt ' Mr. Bruce in his letter cites a part of the -1hold t at was it which is denser than the one unit per five acre density used to represent "undeveloped" in the CBRS criteria. Based upon that factor, Mr. Bruce feels that the northern portion of the P-10 unit was inappropriately included within the CBRS. However, when one considers the density of the revised P-10 unit,as a whole, that overall density is approximately one unit per 100 acres of upland. As a result, the P-10 unit as a whole meets the CBRS definition of undeveloped, while Mr. Bruce has a valid point that the unit's north boundary should have been drawn several hundred feet south. 3 Regardless of the specific characterisLl%;m -i -- ---- Bruce's request is consistent with the county's 1982 and 1987 positions regarding the P-10 unit. For that reason, the staff feels that the county can support Mr. Bruce's position. Besides the area referenced by Mr. -Bruce, staff feels that the P-10 area is appropriately designated, since it is mostly land with major i development constraints. While correspondence from the Department of Interior indicates that changes of the magnitude requested by Mr. Bruce constitute more than minor technical revisions and therefore can only be made by an act of Congress, staff would recommend that the board authorize staff to send a letter to the Department requesting a modification of the P-10 boundary. a RECOMMENDATION: 'Staff recommends thatthe board of county commissioners direct !staff to draft and authorize the chairman to sign a letter to the ,Department of Interior requesting that a minor technical revision be made to the P-10 unit of the CBRS moving the north boundary :south a distance of 750 feet. 7 o a • r 0 9 EXCLUDED .y FROM Pio �901e0 ' r Properly .I P70 , z P10� N, -, 21 SW M MpN wA• M W 61X6 .w• OoeM rw d ••Mw.tr• Pe1teNA wwu• a LNIw &fMMr Vt..4 ..6W. 30