Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock believed the property was traded and felt <br />possibly through the process the ramifications of the zoning <br />weren't clearly communicated. Although staff probably is <br />interpreting the language of the ordinance correctly, he did not <br />believe that had been his intent nor that of a majority of the <br />Commission. <br />Commissioner Bowman pointed out that this agricultural use <br />is a non -conforming use in a residential area, and as such, you <br />can't expand it. <br />The Chairman agreed, but he still did not believe that was <br />the intent and felt it is wrong. <br />Commissioner Wheeler agreed it was wrong also. He preferred <br />agricultural to condos. <br />Planner DeBlois advised that the Board of Adjustment has <br />already ruled it is an unpermitted expansion of a non -conforming <br />use, and staff's position in upholding this as an unpermitted <br />expansion was on the basis of the buffer strip and the problems <br />associated with spraying near residences. Concerns have been <br />expressed by Oceanaire Heights residents. <br />Commissioner Eggert realized the Board of Adjustment has <br />already passed on this, but she did not agree with them because <br />she also felt we got into something that was not the original <br />intent. <br />Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like to see the <br />ordinance readdressed where it applies to agriculture as he <br />believed the intent of the ordinance re non -conforming use <br />applies more directly to a commercial use than to agriculture. <br />Attorney Vitunac stated that he would prefer to see the <br />Board rezone this piece of property to agriculture rather than <br />destroy the symmetry of our whole Code; otherwise, we would have <br />agriculture as the one use that can expand without regard to <br />zoning throughout the county, and this may not be desired in <br />other cases. <br />FEB 161968 <br />37 <br />POOK 70 855 <br />