4/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Foplasco Developers for the reason that it seems to be spot zoning; that we need to revisit the whole situation; and that we will be able to legally modify the Land Use Plan in July. Commissioner Bird noted that we have some rather unique areas in the county both historically and geographically. For instance, he believed we have been very protective of Roseland, and he felt the Winter Beach area falls in the same category with a very rural development pattern. He, therefore, believed we should continue to maintain the single family characteristic of the area and he also felt a 300' buffer is adequate, at least for the present time. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could go ahead and zone the subject property RS -6 in concurrence with other property in the area so it can be used in single family residential as the appli- cant might prefer this to a denial which would leave it in A-1. Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this was advertised only as an appeal, and he, therefore, did not feel the Board is in a posture to grant the RS -6 zoning at this time. Discussion continued at length with Commissioner Wodtke contending that we would not be increasing the density, and he felt in the past we have had the prerogative to grant such a change if the density is not higher. Mr. Moler stated that if they cannot get single family in a Motion to deny the multi family, they would prefer to withdraw their application for multi family. If there is any way the Motion can be modified to change to RS -6, they would accept that. Attorney Vitunac reiterated that all this is today is an appeal for a denial of RM -6 and there is nothing in the adver- tisement re RS -6. Attorney Block concurred that the people are here today in regard to a specific appeal, and, from a legal standpoint, he contended rezoning to RS -6 would be upzoning from Agricultural. _ 33 APR 2 1986 BOOK r, 4 F,�cE 33