Fort Lauderdale Planning & Zoning Board October 17, 2007 Page 4
the owners, but have concerns about green space. The neighbors are concerned that the owners keep the area green and not paved over or sold to developers. Mr. Holloway added that, if possible, the Association wishes for an opportunity to review this application with the committees.
J.D. Kamp, a Victoria Park resident, stated he was displeased that the project did not go through the Association’s formal committee review process.
Jim Kevern, 211 NE 16 Avenue, stated he was displeased that the neighborhood’s committees were circumvented. He felt if the City is going to give away property, it should at least sell the land or give it back to the neighborhood so a park can be made for residents.
William DeMartini, 2146 NE 56 Street, spoke of his experiences growing up on this property. He noted his parents’ efforts to maintain this property. Mr. DeMartini stated he attended the Civic Association meeting recently and reminded the Board that the Association voted in favor 23-1.
Mr. Lochrie stated the property owners will maintain the property as they have done over the years. Mr. Lochrie stated the 15-foot area proposed to be dedicated will not have signage that might invite non-residents to the property. Additionally, Mr. Lochrie stated that by law, property can be dedicated for any purpose; this property was dedicated as a street and not as a park. He further explained that the City cannot request that a property owner pay the City for a vacation.
Ms. Golub asked if the Board votes to vacate the easement, how they can be sure it goes back to the two current owners and not the original owner who dedicated the land. In response, Mr. Lochrie explained that there are plats in existence stipulating that if a right-of-way is vacated, it will go back to the original owner; however, this is very rare. He added the general rule is that current property owners take title to interest in properties. Mr. Lochrie stated that developers are not allowed to build on this property as it is zoned RSH which requires a minimum of 75 feet for building.
Mr. Lochrie stated the property is about 5,000 square feet or 97 ft long by 50 ft wide.
Chair Curtis asked what would preclude the property owners from dividing the property into two lots as currently seen in Rio Vista. In response, Mr. Lochrie stated the zoning provides a minimum of 75 feet for a family lot; this means a 100-ft. minimum is required for two family lots; if there is an existing 50-ft lot, it can be maintained as such.