3/5/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Ginn expressed her opposition to increasing to this density; Commissioner Macht agreed especially since there is RS -3 across the street. Commissioner Adams stressed this property lies within the urban service area and although it is currently agriculture, the Comprehensive Plan envisions six units per acre and she deemed 6 -units per acre is appropriate. She asserted that everyone does not like to live on large lots, that some people like to live in more heavily populated areas. In response to Commissioner Macht's inquiries, Director Keating responded that the lots are 7,000 square feet with 70 -foot minimum frontage. Commissioner Ginn defended her stance by stating that she believes in low density, and Commissioner Macht suggested the Board consider his preference for 3 -units per acre. Commissioner Ginn responded that she could support that. Director Keating thought that while technically 6 units per acre will be allowed, he assumed it will be developed with 3-4 units per acre. Chairman Stanbridge thought it could be in the flood plain. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, Attorney representing the applicant, read a letter from Ben Bailey into the record. (LETTER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD) Then with a location map on the overhead, Mr Barkett identified the property and advised that the roads in the area had been built anticipating this growth. Mr. Bailey is being squeezed out of his use of the land for citrus. The L-2 land use was designated by the County and therefore the density being requested has been invited. According to the County's regulations, Mr. Bailey is entitled to approval ofhis application. Summing up, Mr. Barkett specified that the infrastructure is in place and the designation is in the March 5, 2002 74 81