9/23/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BPCA wants some guarantee. Because everyone is aware that an initial developer might not be the final developer, he asked for cooperation from the Commissioners to structure their approval in such a way to ensure that guarantee. Gene Winne, 2096 Windward Way, a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and speaking on behalf of the Civic Association, supported the last speaker's comments. He urged that the Board make the proffered development limits a binding condition on the current developer. He stated that County Attorney Collins told the P & Z that the Board could approve something "less than" 6 units per acre. He thought it important. Donna Keys, 734 S. Fleming Street, Sebastian, a member of the P & Z, advised that when you read the P & Z minutes, you do not hear the discussion or the arguments of the P & Z members about this development. She supposed that Mr Barkett is probably one of the best real estate attorneys she has seen before the P & Z and he comes before them more frequently because of that reason. His job is to get what his client wants and he is very good at that. She pointed out that RS -6 is consistent with the Comp Plan, but so is RS -3 and she asked the Board to approve RS -3. She asked that they look at the common sense of this; if the Board gives RS -6 they cannot discriminate against future requests by giving less density in the future in this same area. She had concern that this developer may not be the one to develop this property. George Gross, 1230 39th Avenue, also a member of P & Z, opined that the rules are written and the applicant has complied with those rules. He pointed out that the purpose of the urban service area is to concentrate development within the USA. If we don't permit what is on the books, then we will bear the liability for urban sprawl. The same units prevented will go somewhere else. His reason for voting in favor of this application was because it met the rules. September 23, 2003 24