09-07-1989 Special
o
o
. ----- .ft t'
IIY C. .~J/1'ltl
r- ()." ~'
LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1989
7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Chairman Nancy Blazi called to order a special meeting of the
Land Development and Regulatory Agency at 7:00 p.m., September 7,
1989, in the Community Center to discuss Eastern Shores Mobile
Home Park.
ROLL CALL:
Members present were Mr. Bennington, Mrs. Blazi, Mr. Garthwaite,
Mrs. Glover, Mr. Hellsten, and Mrs. Martin. Also present were
Lynne Plaskett, Acting Planning and Zoning Director, and Beverly
Kinney, Secretary. Mr. Klein was absent. There were
approximately 24 residents of Eastern Shores Mobile Home Park
present.
Mrs. Blazi read the minutes of the Land Development and
Regulatory Agency of January 26, 1989, into the record, as to the
reason the Agency denied the request by Eastern Shores Mobile
Home Park to close the U.S. 1 access and open another access to
the park.
Mr. Bennington stated the traffic directed onto Eaton Road (a
dirt road) or Industrial Road would be a traffic hazard. He
added that the State has ~~te~~ed-that the City cannot put more
traffic on U.S. 1, unless the City can keep current level of
service standards.
~
Mr. Garthwaite stated Eaton Road was not paved, it dumps onto
Edgewater Drive at a 30 degree angle or South at a 120 degree
angle. He added there was a community swimming pool and
industrial uses in the immediate area. Mr. Garthwaite believed
with the industrial uses, the incoming bank, and the apartments
which increase the traffic flow would overload the intersection
and it would not be safe.
Mrs. Glover agreed with Mr. Garthwaite.
Mrs. Martin stated she believed the way the park was set up is
the way the people liked it. It is a safe access for residents
of the park, and she cited safety reasons for leaving the access
as it currently is.
Mrs. Blazi cited safety reasons for leaving the access as it is.
She stated the members believed the safety and welfare of the
residents and the City of Edgewater were the major concern at
this time. Mr. Garthwaite believed the zoning needed to be
verified before this issue went back to the Council. Mr.
Bennington pointed out the prospectus for the park stated it was
zoned MH-1A as of 1985.
Mr. Bennington questioned the proper zoning of the park, as to
whether it is MH-S, MH-1, or MH-1A. After some discussion it was
decided, zoning was not the issue, but the reason for the
Agency's denial to the park owner's request was.
Mrs. Plaskett believed the Agency could request a site plan, the
Council could forward the site plan to the Agency for approval
prior to Council making a final decision to make sure all codes
were met.
City Attorney Alvarez arrived at
7:30 p.m.
the meeting
at approximately
1
.-
o
Q
Mr, David Hood, attorney for the park owner, Mr. Vidibor, stated
the owner had the right to close the U.S. 1 access and not open
another access. He added the request would be withdrawn by the
owner if no proof can be given as to the requirement that there
be two accesses for the park. He added the owner had come before
the agency only to gain another access.
After further discussion it was
after researching the legal
access, inform the City Council
City Council would do regarding
was another issue.
believed the City Attorney could,
requirement on opening another
of his findings. As to what the
the closing of the U.S. 1 access
Attorney Hood believed the research Mrs. Plaskett had done
regarding the issue proved that closing the U.S. 1 access would
make no difference, because the traffic would end up on U.S. 1
eventually via a side street.
City Attorney Alvarez stated the rights of the property owners In
the park would have to be determined by their own attorney. He
added a plat of the park may be involved which would aid in
making a decision. Mr. Hood stated there was no plat on record,
and the City could not cite requirements for a second means of
access for the residents of the park.
Mr. Alvarez questioned how a park, which originally had two
accesses, could function properly with and safely with only one
access. He added the health, safety and welfare of the citizens,
if impaired, would give the City the right to become involved.
Mr. Hood believed not being able to close the U.S. 1 access would
devaluate the property and then the owner may have a suit against
the City, because the owner would be denied the full extent of
use of the property, which is zoned B-3 (reverse condemnation).
Mr. Hood stated that was the owner's objection. Mr. Alvarez
stated the City was not aware of any plans for developing the
property.
Mr. Alvarez believed the access on U.S.
than another access. Mr. Hood stated
the residents of the park stated the
closed when the park was full.
1 served a better purpose
the perspectous given to
U.S. 1 access would be
Mr. Bennington believed since there was no site plan, the park
was not legal, and no changes could be made to the park. There
was a debate between Mr. Hood and Mr. Bennington regarding the
zoning. After further discussion, the Agency agreed they were
acting in the best interests of the "whole" city.
Mrs. Louise Klick, 24 Camino Real Drive discussed prescriptive
rights. Mr. Alvarez stated the residents would need to speak
with their attorney, because the roads in the park are private.
After further discussion, Mr. Garthwaite moved the Agency had
denied the request, because of all the reasons stated during the
meeting be sent to the Council. Mrs. Glover seconded. Motion
Carried 6-0.
There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Garthwaite moved
to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Glover. The meeting adjourned at
approximately 7:50 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Beverly Kinney
Land Development and Regulatory Agency
Special Meeting
Thursday, September 7, 1989
2