My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/05/2013AP-B
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
11/05/2013AP-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
6/26/2018 10:57:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
11/05/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
195
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000G\S0004NT.tif
SmeadsoftID
14234
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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
retained one half acre of the PD as a level of security to protect his original rights <br /> because all owners had to agree to any rezoning. Mr. Richey submitted into <br /> evidence a copy of an agreement between himself and Legend Properties, Inc., <br /> the developer/owner. He indicated he was not opposed to the proposal; however <br /> he wanted the agreement to be part of the record. <br /> Mr. Richey stressed he was opposed to the RM-3 line encroaching much <br /> more to the east and wanted to be sure the zoning was kept where it was and not <br /> be expanded eastward. <br /> Mr. Rohani explained the difference in the current proposal to what it had <br /> been previously. <br /> Chairman Zimmerman asked what was on the southwest corner of the <br /> property. <br /> Mr. Richey thought it was an old oak hammock. <br /> Chairman Zimmerman asked Mr. Richey what he thought about the <br /> increase in density. <br /> Mr. Chris Cleary, representing the applicant, pointed out there was no plan <br /> �— before the members, so any increase in density was a theoretical number. He <br /> clarified he was not asking for any additional units; however he would be allowed <br /> to seek approval at the time there was a plan. Mr. Cleary stated this was a <br /> housekeeping issue and all that was before the members today was to revert the <br /> property back to what it was originally in the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Mr. Richard Bialosky, one of the owners of the subject property, explained <br /> there was an agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife restricting <br /> building within a radius of an eagle's nest located on the site. He related it was <br /> the intention to eventually do a mixed-use development with some walk-to <br /> commercial on U.S. Highway #1, with buffers, etc., and it would be a PD that had <br /> to be approved and reviewed. Mr. Bialosky did not feel there were any negative <br /> implications to the rezoning because whatever was proposed would be subject to <br /> approval by the PZC and the BCC. <br /> Chairman Zimmerman closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. <br /> Chairman Zimmerman agreed it was a dead PD; but felt it was more than a <br /> simple housekeeping issue because of the intensity of the use. <br /> Discussion ensued. <br /> PZC/Unapproved 5 October 10, 2013 <br /> F:16CC1All Committees\P&Z12013—AGENDAS & MINUTEST&Z-10-10-13.doc <br /> 116 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.