Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Herzog pointed out the Williams' property located <br />in the lower center of the map, and advised that they are in <br />tavor of retaining the existing land designation of LD -2 and RS -6 <br />zoning. He explained that wherever you see a name typed in on <br />the map there is a letter from those individuals in favor of <br />retention of the land use and zoning. The land owned by the <br />Hobart brothers is under option to sell, but the prospective <br />buyers also are in favor of retaining the present zoning and land <br />use designation. <br />Attorney Herzog recalled that when the Comp Plan was being <br />written, there was significant interest by the Board of County <br />Commissioners, in densities up to 14 upa in that area. He <br />stressed that the 6 upa actually equates to 4.2 or 4.5 upa <br />depending on how the developer works out his site plan. He <br />stressed that this is not just a situation where we have raw <br />land; the Roberts, Tuckers, and Nyquists have homes or home <br />improvements on their property. He realized that there has been <br />considerable opposition to the retention of this land use <br />designation, but pointed out that it has come from homeowners <br />west o f-the—cana-l. However, the owners of 900 of the acreage <br />east of the canal are in favor of retention of the present land <br />use designation of LD -2 with densities of 6 upa. Attorney Herzog <br />emphasized that staff is still recommending to the Board that the <br />LD -2 Land use designation and the RS -6 zoning be retained. He <br />understood that one of the reasons is that it would not be cost <br />feasible for the County to service the area with water and sewer <br />if densities are at 3 upa. He realized there is no vested right <br />in zoning or land use designations, but pointed out that there <br />has not been a substantial change or significant development <br />since the time the Comp Plan was adopted. He urged the Board to <br />preserve the LD -2 and RS -6. <br />Paul Carini, representing the property owners of 900 of the <br />property east of the canal, stated that they are in opposition to <br />any downgrading of zoning. He felt that since the zoning was <br />47 <br />OCT 211986'aooK Fac5 <br />