Laserfiche WebLink
F__ -7 <br />1986 BOOK 6t`5 <br />the recommendation always has been to wait and see how it <br />develops. Attorney Block explained that when the Comp Plan was <br />adopted in 1982, this area was in groves and there are 26 acres <br />still in groves that are being maintained. He pointed out that <br />there are other undeveloped acres along 16th Street which are <br />entitled to develop at RS -6 and emphasized that all they are <br />asking for is the same basic zoning that has been there all <br />along. Attorney Block concluded by emphasizing that their main <br />evidence is the two maps which show the same zoning (RS -6) and <br />land use designation (LD -2) since 1957, and urged the Board to <br />uphold the appeal and grant the RS -6 zoning. <br />Commissioner Bird pointed out that when the Comp Plan was <br />adopted, it created quite a lot of nonconformity in some areas <br />which they realized would have to be brought into zoning <br />conformance eventually. He asked staff to explain why some of <br />the area was left at Agricultural, and Mr. Shearer explained that <br />staff_ r=ecommended downzoning a lot of property that was in <br />nonconformance, but did not recommend rezoning to a higher <br />-.-density any Agricultural property that was still in groves. In <br />those cases, staff felt it was up to the individual property <br />owner to apply for rezoning. Basically, they left agricultural <br />property alone. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed this is the exact same situation <br />as the one in Winter Beach, and asked staff why they did not <br />consider RS -3 for that entire area since the majority of it has <br />developed at low densities --large homes on large lots. <br />Mr. Shearer advised that we may want to do that, but we have <br />to be careful because there is an existing subdivision northeast <br />of the subject property which has developed at RS -6. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that when a postponement of this <br />public hearing was discussed during the meeting of August 26th, <br />he personally felt that we needed to take a better look at the <br />entire area because there is other undeveloped property along <br />that road which is currently zoned RS -6. From a legal standpoint <br />21 <br />