Laserfiche WebLink
M M M <br />Chief Planner Shearer explained that it is standard <br />procedure for staff to look at the whole property when <br />considering the rezoning. Possibly we may need to look at <br />another way to do this in the future, but this is how it has been <br />done in the past. An environmental survey of the property has <br />been done, and this will be indicated on the Zoning Atlas. <br />Director Keating advised that you have to have a PRD to do <br />the environmentally sensitive transfer and when that is done, <br />certain actions are taken where that land is depicted in the <br />Public Records as already having had its density transfer. <br />Commissioner Bowman continued to emphasize her concern that <br />environmentally sensitive lands remain in that category in <br />perpetuity, and Commissioner Scurlock believed that what <br />Commissioner Bowman is concerned about is how Boards in the <br />future track the fact that there already has been a density <br />transfer. He believed we are going to have to look at the whole <br />issue of density transfers in more detail and find a better <br />mechanism to provide a "safety net." <br />Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac's opinion of the <br />idea of considering density transfers whennd if the wetlands <br />property is deeded to the public. This wou d get it out of <br />private ownership and ensure it won't be developed in the future. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that the whole transfer concept is <br />brand new and the law is still evolving. He felt the Board could <br />be in the forefront and develop an ordinance as he believed the <br />state is now in favor of looking at novel methods of saving <br />wetlands at no cost to the public while still giving the real <br />estate owner the right to develop his densities, but pointed out <br />that as long as it is protected on the record, they have lost <br />their right to develop it. <br />Director Keating advised that, in going through the whole <br />PRD concept, this possibility was considered but there was a <br />question of whether the county actually wanted this or whether it <br />would be preferable to have the owners keep paying taxes on it, <br />31 <br />D E C 18 1985 BOOK 63 PAGE <br />