Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK PAGES <br />Commissioner Adams believed that the intent of her request at the prior meeting was <br />to remove the units closest to the "not -included" neighbors and have a 125 -foot lake there, <br />moving the units from the west side of Village F to the entry road between Villages E and <br />F. She noted that she lives on 10 acres and finds it too small but understands that some <br />people would prefer 50 -foot lots with no mowing involved. She felt she could support the <br />project if the developer were to make these changes and take care of the neighbors. <br />Commissioner Ginn felt the speakers had made excellent presentations and raised <br />some very important points. She felt it is a good spot for a PD but she ran for office on a <br />platform of low-rise and low-density so she could not support this development. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge was still very concerned about the green space and the <br />small lot size. She also did not believe that the trees should be the responsibility of the <br />homeowners and saw no amenities with the project. She could not support the PD as <br />presented. <br />Commissioner Tippin felt the developer had been more than amenable in trying to <br />meet the desires of the Board and stated this has been a very difficult decision for him. He <br />noted that the County's Comprehensive Plan had been praised by the state and used as a <br />model for its low-density, green space philosophy. Now the state is saying that the Plan <br />creates urban sprawl. He enjoyed the area more when it was a more rural area but there are <br />now 13 major subdivisions in the area and the smallest lot there would be 85 feet wide. He <br />wished he could do otherwise but felt he was not able to support this project. <br />Chairman Macht commented that he had been impressed by all of the presentations <br />and believed that the developer is a good developer and an honest man, but accustomed to <br />developing in communities with different philosophies. He could not support the project as <br />presented. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn., SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board, by a 4-1 <br />vote (Commissioner Adams opposed) denied the <br />request for rezoning from A-1 and RS -3 to Planned <br />Development (PD) and denied the conceptual plan <br />approval for Citrus Springs (Suntree Partners, Inc.). <br />AUGUST 3, 1999 <br />-46- <br />• 40 <br />