BlueMtnBeachVagrant
Beach Fanatic
I'm reposting the following here as I feel it deserves its own thread. Thanks.
On Tuesday, Nov. 14th, the BCC meeting will include the following in the agenda:
5:10 PM George R. Miller, Attorney - Lot 260 Blue Mountain Road
Redfish Village still has not secured the permits needed to utilize the 2nd lot they purchased at 260 Blue Mountain Road for the purpose of private deeded access for all the owners, guests and invitees of Redfish Village (80 condos) as stated in their literature and on their website.
The use of the first lot for this purpose was denied by the County because of residential zoning. At the end of August, Redfish Village purchased this 2nd lot just down the road for the same purpose. This lot is located between two single family homes just 3 lots west of the 83 access. The zoning difference is residential "infill".
What is to be determined at the BCC meeting is the following...whether or not the project would be a Minor Development Order or a Major Development Order.
If it is considered a Minor Development Order by the County Commisssioners, then basically the developer has their way with no neighborhood involvement or review.
If it is considered a Major Development Order, the developer must then follow the normal course of such an action:
1. advertise their intent in a local paper
2. notify all property owners within 300 feet by certified mail
3. hold a public meeting
It should be obvious that the developer wants the County to classify it as a Minor Development Order.
Feedback from "professionals" indicate that this "by its very nature" should be considered a Major Development Order.
It very much appears that if there was no neighborhood involvement, the developer would have had their way with no resistance. They tried it on the first lot and failed. Now they are attempting a variation (via "infill" zoning) of the same idea on a 2nd residential lot.
Note that if the Commissioners say its a Minor Development Order, then whatever the developer and the Planning Department agree to behind closed doors goes. The Commissioners (and the public) have no further say.
The intent of this post is not to determine whether the lot should be used for this purpose but rather that the County should do the right thing and classify it as a Major Development Order. Then the issue can be PROPERLY addressed.
Your attendance at this meeting can affect the outcome.
On Tuesday, Nov. 14th, the BCC meeting will include the following in the agenda:
5:10 PM George R. Miller, Attorney - Lot 260 Blue Mountain Road
Redfish Village still has not secured the permits needed to utilize the 2nd lot they purchased at 260 Blue Mountain Road for the purpose of private deeded access for all the owners, guests and invitees of Redfish Village (80 condos) as stated in their literature and on their website.
The use of the first lot for this purpose was denied by the County because of residential zoning. At the end of August, Redfish Village purchased this 2nd lot just down the road for the same purpose. This lot is located between two single family homes just 3 lots west of the 83 access. The zoning difference is residential "infill".
What is to be determined at the BCC meeting is the following...whether or not the project would be a Minor Development Order or a Major Development Order.
If it is considered a Minor Development Order by the County Commisssioners, then basically the developer has their way with no neighborhood involvement or review.
If it is considered a Major Development Order, the developer must then follow the normal course of such an action:
1. advertise their intent in a local paper
2. notify all property owners within 300 feet by certified mail
3. hold a public meeting
It should be obvious that the developer wants the County to classify it as a Minor Development Order.
Feedback from "professionals" indicate that this "by its very nature" should be considered a Major Development Order.
It very much appears that if there was no neighborhood involvement, the developer would have had their way with no resistance. They tried it on the first lot and failed. Now they are attempting a variation (via "infill" zoning) of the same idea on a 2nd residential lot.
Note that if the Commissioners say its a Minor Development Order, then whatever the developer and the Planning Department agree to behind closed doors goes. The Commissioners (and the public) have no further say.
The intent of this post is not to determine whether the lot should be used for this purpose but rather that the County should do the right thing and classify it as a Major Development Order. Then the issue can be PROPERLY addressed.
Your attendance at this meeting can affect the outcome.
