Laserfiche WebLink
The Board also reviewed a letter of October 2, 1998: <br />L.&W Orritmse or <br />0' Il Viasss. Qi -aver & C ,,%-NMLER. <br />CU AR'PRRRD <br />MICHAEL O•MAIRE <br />JEROME D.OUINN <br />RICHARD 9. CANDLER <br />GREGG M CASALINO <br />October 2, 1998 <br />VIA HAND DELIVERY: <br />MEMORANDUM: <br />BOOR PAGE <br />RECEIVED__ <br />OCT -7, 1998 <br />CLERJ'�L�R1DA ]2963 <br />P O 90X 4378 <br />VERO BEACH•FLORIDA 32964 <br />18611 231-6900 <br />FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS: <br />19611 231-9729 <br />To: Members of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners: <br />Carolyn Eggert <br />Ken Macht <br />John Tippin <br />Caroline Ginn OCT 0 X598 <br />Fran Adams <br />Re: Windsor Conceptual P.D. Modification <br />October 6, 1998 Board Meeting <br />DISTRII3 ►TInN 1ST <br />Commklan" <br />AdnMnietratar <br />Atbmqy&.s <br />Asrsannei• CIY Ac <br />Public Works <br />Community Dev c <br />UtHluesydFW M�Co�(_I <br />Rnance <br />ON8 <br />Emwg. Serv. <br />Risk Mgt. <br />Other <br />As attorney for Windsor Properties, I wish to bring certain information to your attention concerning <br />the above referenced P.D. modification. Scott McGuire on behalf of Windsor, has filed an <br />application to modify the Windsor Conceptual Plan. Included in this application is a request that a <br />4.7 acre parcel on the oceanfront be added to the Conceptual P.D. <br />This matter came before the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Board on August 27, 1998. <br />Following a review and discussion by the members of the Board and public, a motion to approve the <br />request with conditions was passed on a 5 to 1 vote. The conditions include reduction in permitted <br />units from 30 to 24, a Type "A" buffer rather than Type "B"as required by the Regulations, and the <br />condition that no structure may be constructed East of the 1987 CCCL. <br />While my client is agreeable to accepting a reduction in density as recommended by staff and the <br />enhanced Type "A" buffer, Windsor does not accept the third condition relating to the 1987 CCCL. <br />The development plans for this parcel have not been finalized, but Windsor does not believe there <br />is any reasonable basis for this condition. If the Board should decide to follow Planning and <br />Zoning's recommendation on this item by including the condition in an approval motion, my client <br />respectfully requests that the pending P.D. Modification be withdrawn from consideration at this <br />time. <br />Based on my review of the August 27th Planning and Zoning minutes and staff memorandum, the <br />sole issue with regard to the oceanfront parcel is compatibility, particularly with the adjoining <br />Sanderling Subdivision. The issue of compatibility with adjoining non P.D. property is addressed <br />in Section 915.16 Compatibility Standards. The proposed modification meets or exceeds each of <br />these standards. <br />From a zoning standpoint, it is my understanding that both the Sanderling property and Windsor <br />property have been RM6 or RM3 from the time Sanderling was platted in 1985. The owners at <br />Sanderling were on notice of the multifamily zoning classification of these properties when they <br />purchased their lots. Their concerns have been addressed in a reasonable manner by county <br />requirements and my clients agreement to reduce density and enhance the buffer requirement. <br />While zoning is not a vested right, my client certainly anticipated having the ability to develop <br />multifamily units on this parcel subject to state regulations involving the CCCL and county P.D. <br />requirements. My client should have the opportunity to deal with the Department of Environmental <br />Protection relating to all CCCL regulations on the same basis as any other oceanfront owner <br />OCTOBER 6, 1998 <br />-45- <br />• 0 <br />