My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/2001
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2001
>
12/4/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 4:26:31 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:32:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/2001
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2549
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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
Mrs. Corcoran, 980 32" Avenue SW, asked the Board not to grant the rezoning <br />because of the density and the traffic problems. <br />Bruce Barkett, Attorney 756 Beachland Boulevard, representing the contract <br />purchaser from the named applicant, asked Director Keating about the environmental impact <br />of the development, and Director Keating noted that whether the property is zoned RS -3 or <br />RS -6, any developer would have to put in roads, stormwater, etc. There is not any more <br />protection with RS -3 or RS -6. The developer would also have to set aside either 10% or <br />15% of the native uplands so there is not a significant difference in terms of environmental <br />protection. <br />Attorney Barkett also questioned Director Keating about the traffic study, and <br />Director Keating responded that there are no difficulties which could not be overcome. <br />Attorney Barkett continued that the plan shows 80 -foot lots which are wider than the <br />minimum in RS -6 zoning. 70 -foot minimum lots are predominant in Grovenor Estates and <br />those lots are either built on or available for building. He felt that to say this development <br />is incompatible with the area defies logic. The reality is that the development calls for 2.5 <br />units per acre which is not allowable under RS -3 zoning. He also noted that he had never <br />been before the Board to oppose a paving project. <br />Chairman Ginn questioned the need for the zoning change if 2.5 units per acre are <br />proposed. <br />Attorney Barkett noted that the minimum lot size for RS -3 zoning is 12,000 square <br />feet while the development proposes 9,500 square feet. <br />Commissioner Macht questioned why a PD was not proposed where the Board could <br />protect more of the environment and give the neighbors a more aesthetically pleasing design. <br />DECEMBER 4, 2001 <br />-88- <br />fw' PCf <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.