My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/3/2001
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2001
>
4/3/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2023 9:40:32 AM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:17:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
04/03/2001
Archived Roll/Disk#
2277
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
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
I <br />the pool be moved landward of the 1987 CCCL. He believed the comparison between the <br />U.S. Trust Building and the proposed development to be an "apple and orange" comparison. <br />The multi -family zoning of the property has been in place for a number of years. The issues <br />of erosion. storms, collapse of buildings, and access by the Fire Department have been <br />discussed but the most significant thing is that every applicable requirement of the law has <br />been met and that is what is at stake for this owner who has property rights. In every <br />instance when he appeared before the PZC the first question asked was, "Can we legally <br />deny this?" The answer, was "No" the first time, but it was denied anyway. The second <br />time, after much discussion, the PZC recommended approval. <br />Mr. Glynn stated that he disagreed with Mr. Evans' interpretation of rP public interest" <br />which was to comply with the law. Mr. Glynn believed "public interest" was consideration <br />of the people, their homes, what it will do to an area, and the possibilities of homes burning <br />down because of improper areas for firefighting equipment. He felt this proposed <br />P <br />condominium to be a definite attack on the community standards of the surrounding area. <br />He acknowledged this was his opinion and that of the other residents on the barrier island <br />and asked that the Board support the appeal. <br />Commissioner Adams was struck by the similarity of this issue and the Publix issue <br />back in 1994. Back then, the Board voted the law and figured it would go to Court either <br />way but, interestingly, the owners in the Moorings got together, worked out the issue <br />' ,and <br />purchased the property. This is the same issue with existing zoning and now it is not <br />compatible with the way the neighborhood has evolved. This may be one of those times <br />r <br />when what is legal is not right. <br />e <br />Commissioner Macht thought the Board ought to look at the global community from <br />CR510 north. He thought law could be modified de facto by what people have done which <br />is build single-family houses. In his opinion, this would be an anomaly to the Summerplace <br />area and impinge on its ambiance. He thought it differed from the Publix issue due to <br />April 3, 2001 <br />71 <br />iT� i l PG 759 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.