Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/1981THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1981, AT 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER; AND 0 DON C. SCURLOCK, .JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINIS- TRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, SJR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERS; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING REZONING A PORTION OF PROPERTY IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA. THE HOUR OF 7:00 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY -OF INDIAN RIVER: - STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Iridian -River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being i in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 1,. �� • ��� _, Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach,. in said Indian .River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said.lndian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered .as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a- period- of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has -neither -paid nor promised any person; firm or. Corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this d of A:D. P (Bu Hess Manager)" 107 1 (Clerk of -the Circuit Court, I an River County, Florida) (SEAL) �IAY 211901 NOTICE NOTICE. IS. HEREBY GIVEN that -the. Planning 'and Zoning Commission of Indian "River, County,,,"„ Florida, did review the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to:the Zoning Ordinance of In- dian River County, Florida which changes and _ additions are'substantially as follows: That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated ON THE NORTH BEACH SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION- OF S.R. 510 AND AIA,- in Indian River County, Florida to wit: Section 25, Township .31 South, " Range 39 East, all'of government lots 1 and 2, and all of government lot 3 excepting therefrom that portion of the south SOO feet thereof (measured on the east line of State Road AIA) that lies east of AIA Highway; and -Section 26, Town- ship 31 South, Range 39 East,-all.of govern- ment lots 2,.3, S, 6, 8, 9 and the north one-half of government lots 10 and 11, be changed from R= 2 multiple family district to R -2B multiple family district..,. A public hearing in relation thereto, at which - parties in interest and citizens shall have -an Opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of CountyCommissioners of Indian _ River County, Florida ,in the City Council Chamber- of the City 'Hall, Vero Beach,: Florida, on Thursday, May 21, 1981 at 7:00 p.m:' � If any.person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may -need to insure that a verbatim record of -the -proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence -on which the appeal is based. Indian River County - Board of County Commissioners BY: -s -Patrick B- Lyons, Chairman April 15, 18, 1981. �ry�J MAY- 21198 1 . -� - - - NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS BY FREDA-WRIGHT,-CLERK OF CIRCUIT -COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA-STATUTE.1Z5.66: WM M. STAHL, DEC C/0 ROBERT E. STALL- - .JAM -I SON ALPH I LO- I LETT, ET AL - .JEAN-NETTE LIER ROBERT CAIRNS EARRING POINT GROVES; INC., &,LIER GROVES, INC. MR. :& MRS. -DONALD -G. PADDOCK MR. & MRS. ROY S, REEVES - - ABRAHAM -BAR KETT, J R .- SUZANNE E. IRWIN GORDON NUTT / PLANNI-NG.DIRECTOR REVER-REVIEWED-THE FOLLOWING STAFF -REPORT: ZONING -CHANGE - STAFF REPORT North Beach Rezoning (Owner) Indian River County Agent Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Address March 13, 1981 (Date of Application) IRC-8I-ZC-12 File #451 Application Number Rezoning from R-2 to R -2B-. (District District Preliminary Final Hearing PROPOSED USE AND LOCATION: At the direction of the County Commission, a rezoning from R-2 Multiple ami y to R -2B Multiple Family District for 316 acres located between the Indian River and the Atlantic Ocean, from the south of Wabasso Beach Road to 2/10 of a mil -e north of the town limits of Indian River Shores has been initiated. The 316 acres would presently allow a gross density of 15 units per acre (totaling 4,740 units). The proposed rezoning to R -2B Multi -Family allows 8.1 units per acre and a gross density of 2,560 units. EXISTING SITUATION: All of the property included in this request for rezoning is presently vacant. The proposed development of Florida Land Corp., known as River Bend, is a part of this request. The area includes approximately 3200 feet of ocean frontage and approximately 3900 feet of river exposure. The main traffic access is by way of A -1-A and a minor road is provided by Jungle Trail. Both of ;these are north -south route and the only east -west road effecting the property is Wabasso Beach Road (Rt.510) on the northern border. Jungle Trail is a 30 foot unpaved road which is proposed as a scenic trail in the Comprehensive Plan now being developed. There are numerous stands of mangroves between the river and the road. A substantial portion of the road area is in the 100 year flood plain and erosion threatens to undermine the road in several areas. The surrounding properties are designated for residential uses with the exception of a C-1 commercial zone east of A -1-A immediately south of Wabasso Beach Park. Recent site plan approval has been granted for the construction of a hotel on this site. The Barrier Island study indicates a limited carrying capacity in this area and the proposed Comprehensive Plan designates a maximum density of 6 units/acre (LD -2). RECOMMENDATION: Given the information found in the Barrier Island study and the environmental sensitivity of the subject property as well as the natural constraints imposed by two significant bodies of water, the staff recommends consideration of re- zoning to the R -2D Residential classification. Davi R er l Planning and Zoning Director 2 - PLANNING DIRECTOR. METTHEN PRESENTED THE FOANG ALTERNATIVES: 1) APPROVE THE REZONING AS ADVER-TISED FOR THE 316 ACRES TO R -2B, '. OR 8 UNITS PER ACRE, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 2,560 UNITS. 2) DENY THE ADVERTISED REZONING. THE 316 ACRES THEN WOULD REMAIN IN R-2 AT 15 UNITS PER ACRE AND ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 4,740 MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS. 3) APPROVE REZONING TO AN R -1A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH 4.3 UNITS PER ACRE TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 1,459 UNITS. 4) APPROVE REZONING TO R -2D MULTIPLE FAMILY, WHICH WOULD ALLOW 6 UNITS PER ACRE, OR 1,896 MAXIMUM DENSITY. THE PLANNING STAFF REC- OMMENDS THIS ALTERNATIVE. MR. REVER THEN WENT INTO CONSIDERABLE DETAIL TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLICATED SITUATION WHICH OCCURRED AT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, LEADING TO THEIR FORWARDING TWO RECOMMENDA- TIONS, ONE APPROVING THE REZONING TO R -2B AND THE OTHER RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER REZONING THE TRACT TO R -1A SINGLE FAMILY, MR. REVER NOTED THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN REGARD TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING -COMMISSION TO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL-FOR.REZONING TO R -2B AND ALSO FOR THEM TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERA- TION THE FACT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRESENTLY BEING FORMULATED HAS A PROPOSED LD -1 CATEGORY FOR A--DENSITY.OF 3 UNITS PER ACRE. THE -MAJORITY OF THE BOARD DECIDED IT WAS NECESSARY TO VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC PROPOSAL AND DID SO BY VOTING 3 TO 2 IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING TO R -2B. THEIR SECOND -RECOMMENDATION, ALSO BY A 3 TO 2 VOTE, WAS FOR A CONSID- ERATION OF R -1A SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH IS THE ONLY CATEGORY THEY COULD -COME .UP WITH WHICH WOULD BE CLOSE TO THE LD -1 -BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN.. MR.- REVERS I-NTERPRETATION OF THIS SECOND RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE BOARD WAS NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO R -IA, BUT.RATHER TR-YING_TO STRESS THEIR PREFERENCE FOR A LOWER DENSITY THAN THE R -2B. HE REITERATED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF STILL MAINTAINS - THAT THE PROPER.ZONING WOULD BE R -2D, AND HE BELIEVED THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE -FINAL RECOMMENDATION:OF THE PLANNING &-ZONING COMMISSION THAT THIS BE LOOKED AT JOR A DENSITY OF. 6 UNITS PER ACRE. 3 800x 46. pAcE 562 MAY 211981 MAT 21 46 PA IJF 563 . COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED ABOUT THE -AMOUNT OF THE ACREAGE THAT -IS -EAST OF STATE ROAD AlA; AND IT WAS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT A FIFTH OF THE TOTAL OR 63.2 ACRES. -- CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD-. ATTORNEY MICHAEL O'HAIRE CAME FORWARD -ON BEHALF OF THE VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA. HE SUPPLIED THE COMMISSION -WITH A -TRANSCRIPT -OF THE ACTION TAKEN AT -THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MEETING. MR. O'HAIRE NOTED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING_- COMMISSION--WAS-PRESENTED WITH -A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE DENSITY AT--THE.- COUNTY.'S REQUEST,TO-R-2B.. AFTER HAVING DECIDED R -2B WAS BETTER,'BUT NOT THE BEST' OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, THEIR ULTIMATE AND FINAL RECOMMENDATION, WAS THAT THE PROPERTY -BE REZONED TO R -IA, AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS HERE TO REQUEST OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION TONIGHT. HE THEN REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF -THE -ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, STATING THAT IT WAS ZONED TO MULTIPLE FAMILY AT THE TAG END OF THE PRECEDING COUNTY COMMIS- SION S-TENURE OMMISSIONS-TENURE IN OFFICE, ANa AT THE TIME OF THIS ACTION, THERE WAS A- VERY LARGE,- IRATE CROWD PRESENT CALLING IT A "LAME DUCK" COUNTY COMMIS- SION. HE FELT IT APPEARED THAT COMMISSION. PRETTY MUCH HAD AN ATTITUDE --OF "THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED, FATHER KNOWS BEST." -ATTORNEY O'HAIRE THEN PROTESTED ATTORNEY HENDERSON'S SUGGESTION TO LEAVE ALL THE AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE IN THIS AREA, MANY OF WHOM' HAVE BEEN ON THE ISLAND SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, IN THEIR AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND LET THE NEW DEVELOPERS SOAK UP THE DENSITY FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY AND THE FRAGILE NATURE OF THE ISLAND, EMPHASIZING THE WATER PROBLEM AND QUOTING FROM THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY AS FOLLOWS: "WELL YIELDS IN THE SHALLOW AQUIFER ARE GENERALLY VERY POOR, PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTH BEACH. IT IS EXPECTED TO SUPPORT ONLY VERY SPARSE DEVELOPMENT..." MR. O'HAIRE STATED POSITIVELY THAT THE AQUIFER IS BEING DEGRADED AND THE WATER IS TURNING TO SALT, HE NOTED THAT EVEN ON PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDA- TION, WE ARE TALKING A DENSITY OF 5,000 ON 316 ACRES, AND THE ISLAND WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE CONTINUED THAT, GIVEN THE PRESENT ZONING STRUCTURE, THE ONLY REASONABLE APPROACH IS AN R -IA ZONING AND ANYTHING MORE THAN 4 UNITS TO THE ACRE IS A DESPOILATION AND RAPE OF THE ISLAND. 9 ATTORNEY STEVE HENDERSON NEXT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRE` SENTING FLORIDA LAND COMPANY. HE EXPLAINED THAT FLORIDA LAND CO. IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPING RIVER BEND; SOUTH OF RIVER BEND, THERE IS A 93 ACRE PARCEL THEY HAVE AN OPTION ON WITH MR. CAIRNS CALLED BEACH COLONY, AND HE BELIEVED APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO MR. CAIRNS. FLORIDA LAND COMPANY STILL HAS A DEFINITE INTEREST IN RIVER BEND AND IN BEACH COLONY. MR. HENDERSON THEN PROCEEDED TO EMPHASIZE THAT FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, AS WELL AS MR. CAIRNS AND MR. MUTT, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS AREA, HAVE NO REAL OBJECTION TO R -2B BECAUSE NONE OF THEM INTEND TO DEVELOP TO MORE THAN S UNITS PER ACRE; WHAT THEY MAINLY NEED, HOWEVER, IS SOMETHING THEY CAN RELY ON, AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE R -2B IS AN INTERIM MEASURE BECAUSE OF THE COMING MASTER PLAN. ATTORNEY HENDERSON FELT WITH ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE, THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE BECOME CONVINCED THAT SINGLE FAMILY AT 4 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, SEWER AND WATER, ETC., THAN MULTI FAMILY WHICH OFFERS A'LESS -INTENSE USE OF THE PROPERTY. ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, WHICH HAS PLANS SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER BEND AT A DENSITY OF S UNITS PER ACRE, ATTORNEY HENDERSON REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE REZONING TO R -2B. ROBERT.CAIRNS, PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA, STATED THAT HE HAD FELT THE COMMISSION WAS BEHIND A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD CREATE SOMETHING THE COMMUNITY COULD BE PROUD OF. HE NOTED THAT JOHNS ISLAND, WHICH HAS A MIX OF.DENSITIES, HAS DONE THAT, AND THE COMMISSION -AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL WERE BEHIND THAT DEVELOPMENT. MR. CAIRNS CONTINUED THAT HE P-ERSONALLY HAS COMMITTED THAT THERE WOULD NEVER BE MORE.THAN_.g UNITS PER ACRE ON HIS_LAND, AND.ANYONE WHO HAS PURCHASED fROM HIM'HAS FULLY. - UNDERSTOOD -THAT_. HE THEN TALKED ABOUT THE.RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.TO*DEVELOP THE ULTIMATE BEST USE -OF'. HIS PROPERTY AND STATED THAT HE WAS -IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING TO R-29 AS PROPOSED BY -THE COUNTY COMMISSI.ON. MAX RIANNIC- OF MIAMI,_ FLORIDA, AGREED THAT -EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO -SEE MORE DEVELOPMENTS OF- THE QUALITY OF JOHN `S. ISLAND. HE FELT THE COMMISSION -HAS AN OPTION IN ADDITION TO THOSE DISCUSSED, WHICH WOULD BE TO DEFER ANY ACTION UNTIL SUCH TIME -AS THE MASTER PLAN IS 1981 5 aoor 4 .-PAGE564 _ _ MAY 2. �99�1-_E 565 COMPLETE -BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT WHATEVER THE BOARD -CONSIDERS FOR THIS AREA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ENTIRE_NORTH BEACH AREA. ROBERT REIDER OF -REEF ROAD NOTED THAT THERE.I-S NOTHING SACRED. IN BUY I NG --A PIECE OF LAND -AND BEING GUARANTEED A_ PROF I T ANY MORE THAN. WHEN YOU BUY - STOCK. -HE FELT WE HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED THAT WE ARE - INFRINGING ON SOMEONE'S RIGHTS WHEN WE -DON IT -LET THEIR BUILD TO THE TEEL AND LET THEM MAKE -MONEY. ATTORNEY O'HAIRE I-NFORMED THE -BOARD THAT FOLLOWING THE PLANNING &-ZONLNG COMMISSION MEET-ING OF APRIL 9TH, -HE CALLED ATTORNEY- HOUL-IHAN AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER TO NOTE THAT THE PLANNING &-ZONING COMMISSION HAD DETERMINED THAT R-I.A WAS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND TO ASK IF IT W-OULD BE SO ADVERTISED. HE -GOT NO ANSWER, AND THE ONLY-_ THING -ADVERTISED WAS TO REZONE TO R -2B, -NOT THE R—I.A_RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING &-ZONING COMMISSION. HE AGREED THAT HAVING ADVERTISED R -2B, THE COMMISSION'S OPTIONS -ARE LIMITED, AND HE URGED THAT THE COMMISSION IMMEDIATELY READVERTISE A DETERMINATION THAT THIS GO TO R-I.A. MR. O'HAIRE FELT -THERE IS STILL AN ATTITUDE OF "THE PUBLIC BE DAMNED," AND SINCE THE BOARD'S ACTIONS HAVE BEEN FORECLOSED, THE- --ONLY APPROPRIATE ACTION IS TO OFFER AN OPTION THE ISLAND WILL SUPPORT. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT AFTER MR. O'HAIRE CALLED HIS OFFICE, HE HAD TALKED WITH MR. REVER AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE JUST WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE AT THE MEETING IN QUESTION, AND PRIOR TO ANY AD GOING IN THE PAPER, MR. O'HAIRE WAS NOTIFIED BY HIM OF THE RESULTS OF HIS POLL AND THE ADVERTISEMENT. MR. O'HAIRE'S STATEMENT, THEREFORE, WAS TOTALLY INCORRECT. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT SUPPLIED BY MR. O'HAIRE SHOWS ONLY THE SECOND VOTE THAT WAS TAKEN, NOT THE FIRST. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT HE HAD ATTENDED THE MEETING UNDER DISCUSSION, AND IT WAS VERY CONFUSING. GORDON NUTT OF ORLANDO, A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE SUBJECT AREA BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING, NOTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, THAT SAME BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT THE LAND USE BE LD -2, WHICH IS 6 UNITS PER ACRE. IN REGARD TO MR. O'HAIRE'S COMMENTS ABOUT WATER, MR, NUTT FELT THAT THE R-lA CATEGORY e X WOULD PUT A GREATER DEMAND ON' -THE SHALLOW AQUIFER, AND HE WAS IN FAVOR OF A CHANGE TO R -2B, WHETHER',.AN INTERIM MEASURE OR NOT. ON MIOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER FLETCHER, THAT THE ADVERTISED REZONING TO R -2B BE DENIED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE REQUEST TO REZONE TO R -2B WAS INSTIGATED BY THIS COMMISSION, AND IF THIS ZONING IS DENIED, THE ZONING WILL REMAIN AT R-2 WHICH ALLOWS 15 UNITS PER ACRE. HE URGED THAT THE BOARD VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THAT WHEN WE INITIATED THIS REZONING, IT WAS FOR FEAR OF THIS PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED AT 15 UNITS PER ACRE, AND HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND PASSING UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO REZONE TO 8 AND LEAVING OURSELVES OPEN TO 15. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO HAS DEVELOPED OVER TWO COUNTY COMMISSIONS AND OVER A VARIETY OF INFORMATION BEING GATHERED, INCLUDING THE BARRIER ISLAND STUDY, AND IT WAS OBVIOUS•TO HIM AFTER THAT STUDY, THAT THE R -2B ZONING IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS QF THE COUNTY. HE, THEREFORE, WOULD LIKE TO - READVERTISE FOR A LOWER DENSITY. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CONCURRED THAT -DUE TO NEW INPUT FROM THE STUDY AND ALSO THE REALIZATION OF OUR WATER SHORTAGE, WE DO NEED TO DRAW BACK AND LOOK AT THIS VERY CAREFULLY, AND HE STATED HE WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO GO TO R -1A. HE CONTINUED TO DISCUSS THE WATER SITUATION AND AGREED WITH MR. O'HAIRE THAT THE.SALT CONTENT OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER IS INCREASING WEEKLY AND MONTHLY. HE THEN QUOTED FROM A `WATER SUPPLY FEAS-IBILITY STUDY..NORTH BEACH AREA, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY" DONE BY ENVIRONMENTAL -ENGINEERS IN 1978, -WHICH STATES THAT THE ONLY WATER -SUPPLY TO THIS -AREA IS BY PIPELINE UNDERNEATH THE --WABASSO BEACH BRIDGE -AND THAT THE -PIPELINE WITHDRAWAL) S LIMITED BY THE ST. J OHN'.S WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER THEN STRESSED THE FACT THAT THE -NEIGHBORING OWNERS DO NOT WANT THIS -INCREASED DENSITY'_AND FELT IT IS THE COMMISSION'S DUTY TO REFLECT WHAT THE MAJOR- ITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT. SAY 211981= 7 �oQ�4.6 ParF-596. r A9I1Y 211981 dK.46FmF 56 / . -- COMMISSIONER BIRD UNDERSTOOD COMMISSIONER FLETCHER'S CONCERN FOR WATER AND CONSERVATION, BUT ASKED -IF WE REALLY HAVE ANY HARD FACTS THAT WILL TELL US THAT FOUR UNITS -SINGLE FAMILY WILL USE LESS WATER THAN S UNITS OF MULTI FAMILY-, HE CONTENDED THAT THE LARGEST CONSUMERS OF WATER -ON THE BEACH ARE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT USE THE WATER, FOR LANDSCAPING, ETC „_AND NOTED T-HAT.THE LOWEST CONSUMPTION WOULD BE BY THE SPIRES, -WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY ON THE BEACH. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHETHER SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI FAMILY CONSUMES MORE WATER. MR. REVER-OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL -ALTERNATIVE, NOTING THAT THIS COULD BE REZONED AND THEN REZONED AGAIN, BUT HE BELIEVED IT IS BETTER TOGO TO A DENSITY OF S FOR THE INTERIM THAN NOT TO CHANGE AT ALL. IF THERE IS A STRONG FEELING TO GO TO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, HE STRONGLY URGED -THE BOARD TO -CONSIDER R -2A,- WHICH WOULD STILL STAY AT THE 4 -UNITS PER ACRE, BUT WOULD ALLOW MULTI FAMILY. _ COMMISSIONER FLETGHER ASKED COMMISSIONERS BIRD AND WODTKE IF THEY DID NOT FEEL THE PRIMARY CONCERN SHOULD BE FOR THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT THIS, OF COURSE, PLAYS A MAJOR PART, BUT YOU ALSO MUST GIVE, CONSIDERATION TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS SURROUNDING PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN SPOKE OF A GEODETIC SURVEY FOR COUNTY WATER AND STATED THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO WATER THERE NOW TO SUPPORT THE PEOPLE IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE COUNTY, THE INDICATION IS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT WATER TO MAKE SUPPLIES AVAILABLE. WE HAVE TO SUPPLY THE ENTIRE COUNTY, AND HE DID NOT THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THE WATER IS NOT THERE TO SUPPORT THE BEACH AREA. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CONTINUED TO DISCUSS WATER STUDIES AND THE DEGRADATION OF THE AQUIFER. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BELIEVED THERE IS A TECHNICAL CAPA— BILITY TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING, AND HE WAS SURE AT A DOLLAR COST, WE COULD SUPPLY NEW YORK CITY ON THE ISLAND IF THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANTED. HE NOTED THAT IT IS CLEAR THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE COMMISSION, AND UNDOUBTEDLY, THIS COULD BE DEBATED FOREVER, BUT HE ' HAS LOOKED AT MANY DEVELOPMENTS AND STUDIED THIS MATTER AND HAS COME TO A FIRM CONVICTION FOR AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 4; R -IA ON THE WEST OF AlA AND R-21) ON THE EAST IS WHAT HE WOULD FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE WITH. CAROLYN EGGERT OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE DENSITY OF JOHN'S ISLAND AND BELIEVED THEIR AVERAGE DENSITY IS JUST UNDER 5, AND IN ANY EVENT, MUCH LOWER THAN THE 7.9 AND 12 SHE HAD HEARD QUOTED TONIGHT. COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT THE DENSITY FIGURES HE HAD USED FOR JOHN'S ISLAND WERE ARRIVED AT FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER; AND THEY DID WORK OUT TO 7.9 PER ACRE. ATTORNEY COLLINS REMINDED THE BOARD THAT THE MATTER BEFORE THEM IS THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE FACT THAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WOULD LEAVE THE PROPERTY ZONED FOR 15 UNITS PER ACRE AND THAT IT THEN WOULD BECOME NECESSARY TO INITIATE ANOTHER -REZONING FOR A LOWER DENSITY AND GO THROUGH REGULAR CHANNELS, WHICH WOULD TAKE ANOTHER MONTH OR SO. COMMISSIONER WODTKE DID NOT FEEL THAT HE WAS TOO FAR APART FROM WHAT THE -OTHER COMMISSIONERS WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE OVERALL PICTURE AND HAVING PART A DENSITY OF4 AND PART AT 6, BUT STATED HE WOULD RATHER NOT LEAVE THIS PROPERTY AT 15 UNITS PER ACRE IN THE MEANTIME. ATTORNEY COLLINS.CONFIRMED THAT WHEN YOU INITIATE REZONING, YOU MUST HAVE DUE PROCESS.AND NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS. HE NOTED THAT THE ACTION THE BOARD IS TAKING -TONIGHT I.S THAT THEY ARE ANALYZING THE SITUATION AND-SAYING.THE COMMUNITY IS BEST SERVED BY THE PROPERTY BEING -ZONED SUCH- AND SUCH,. AN.D. HE FELT IT WOULD BE-- INCONSISTENT FOR THE-: BOARD A -MONTH LATER TO SAY WE.NOW THINK-IT_SHOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE. HE ADVISED THAT IT.- .WOULD BE BETTER I -F THE BOARD ADDRESSED THIS -SITUATION THROUGH THE -COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, - DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO WHETHER TONIGHT'S VOTE WOULD - JEOPARDIZE A FUTURE VOTE. MAY 211981- 9 ROOK- 46 PDGF 568 MAY -21.199 46NcF9 CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT -HE HAD INSTIGATED THE REQUEST _ .FOR -REZ-ONING-THIS PROPERTY -TO R -2B, AND HE DID IT -BECAUSE HE FELT WE WOULD BE -BETTER OFF HAVING THE LAND IN A POSITION WHERE -IT IS SOMEWHAT - BETTER -PROTECTED THAN IT *IS NOW IN THE PRESENT R=2 ZONING. HE SAW THIS IN THE BEGINNING AS AN INTERIM ACTION WHILE WE WERE WAITING. FOR THE MASTER -PLAN TO -COME INTO EFFECT. WITH ALL THE INFORMATION THAT- HAS-COME.TO LIGHT SINCE THIS REZONING WAS STARTED, HOWEVER,. -THE CHAIRMAN BELIEVED THAT IF THE BOARD WANTED TO DO' -SOMETHING FURTHER THAN THE.R-2B, WE'WOULD BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. - COMMISSIONER .SCURLOCK AGREED THAT THE R -2B WAS -JUST A STEPPING STONE AND FELT THE MINUTES WOULD'REFLECT THAT WE DO NOT WANT THIS HIGHER CLASSIFICATION AND -THAT WE -HAVE THE FACTS TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION TO DENY THE ADVERTISED REZONING TO R -2B. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED A TO I WITH COMMISSIONER BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE THEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD BEEN CONFUSED BY THE NEGATIVE MOTION_ AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT, MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS - _SIGNER FLETCHER TO READVERTISE THE APPROXIMATE 252.8 ACRES OF R-2 PROPERTY IN THE AREA PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED, AND LYING WEST OF S.R. AM FOR REZONING TO R -1A AND THE 63.2 ACRES OF R-2 LYING EAST OF AIA FOR REZONING TO R-21), BASED ON CONVERSATIONS FROM OTHER MEETINGS, BASED ON THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY THAT MR. SCHLITT REPRESENTED EARLIER, AND BASED ON COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK'S CONTENTION THAT THE OVERALL AREA SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 4 UNITS PER ACRE. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED RE THE FLEXIBILITY PROVIDED BY R -2A, WHICH IS THE SAME DENSITY BUT WILL ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY, AND COMMIS- SIONER SCURLOCK AMENDED HIS MOTION TO READVERTISE THE APPROXIMATE 252 ACRES OF R-2 PROPERTY IN THE AREA PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED, LYING WEST OF S.R. Alk TO R -2A AND THE 63.2 ACRES OF R-2 ON THE EAST OF AIA TO R -2D. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AGREED TO THE AMENDED MOTION. DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO VESTED PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SUBJECT AREA AND ALSO THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME AREA RECENTLY REZONED To R -2B. 1=0 11 COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK-,-,REWORDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, TO ADVERTISE --FOR REZONING OF ALL R-2 AND R -2B PROPERTY IN THE AREA PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED, LYING WEST OF S.R. AIA, TO R -2A, AND ALL R-2 AND R -2B PROPERTY IN THE SUBJECT AREA LYING EAST OF S.R. AlA To R -2D, DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF IDENTIFYING THE VESTED PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA, AND COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND FLETCHER WITHDREW THEIR MOTION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, TO EVIDENCE THE BOARDS INTENT TO RECONVENE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WITH ADDED INFORMATION FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS TO THOSE WHO HAVE A VESTING INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT AREA, TO CONSIDER REZONING THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED R-2 AND R -2B PROPERTY WEST OF S.R. AlA TO R -2A AND EAST OF S.R. AlA TO R -2D; THIS TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN TEN DAYS OR THE NEXT REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO 2 WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND BIRD VOTING IN OPPOSITION. - THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 9:05 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK CHAIRMA MAY 211981 11 r . 46 -Ar,F 570'