07/10/2007 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It was clarified for Vice Chair Bowden that Mr. Barkett's invitation from staff to appeal the decision was done publicly. Chairman Wheeler although not disagreeing with some of Mr. Barkett comments, interpreted the matter differently. He did not think it should be a consideration to change the zoning because it means more profit. Mr. Barkett believed it should be a consideration because there were no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. He agreed that if it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, with its Zoning Code, and it might help make a profit, then the Board should approve the request. Chairman Wheeler disagreed with Mr. Barkett and did not think the Commission should be a determining factor about what the profit level or motivation is on any rezoning they do. He felt the Board should look at it individually and independently and make a decision based on that, and not that it is going to make less or more money. Mr. Barkett reminded Commissioners that they have to comply with the law if there are no adverse impacts or incompatibility with the request. Attorney Collins concurred that Mr. Barkett was correct, that if his client could show they are consistent with the plan, then they are presumptively entitled, and the burden shifts to the Board to show that not changing it to the use that is consistent with the plan, serves some general purposes and is not unreasonable and arbitrary. He did not think the Board was required to rezone the property, but thought they had to have reasons for not rezoning it, and so long as they were not arbitrary and unreasonable, they have some discretion. John Lambert wanted to clarify that the community was previously against RM -6 zoning for this property. He again voiced the community's opposition to the request and provided various reasons including case law to support their cause. He did not believe the rezoning was in July 10, 2007 21