My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/01/2013AP
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
10/01/2013AP
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 10:38:40 AM
Creation date
3/23/2016 9:02:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
10/01/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
271
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000G\S0004NN.tif
SmeadsoftID
14228
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
271
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property and the subject <br /> property is within the urban service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy <br /> 2.2. <br /> Consistency Summary <br /> As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives <br /> and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staff s position is that the request is <br /> consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> Compatibility with the Surrounding Area <br /> In this case, the subject property is a parcel in Pompey's subdivision. That subdivision has split <br /> zoning, with the lots north of the subject parcel zoned RM-6 and the tracts located south of the <br /> subject parcel zoned RS-6. Currently, the owner of the RS-6 zoned subject property also owns the <br /> RM-6 zoned lots to the north of the subject property. <br /> Staffs position is that either the current zoning district or the requested zoning district is <br /> appropriate for the site and that development under the requested zoning district will be compatible <br /> with surrounding land uses. <br /> Because property to the north is zoned RM-6 and owned by the same owner, the proposed zoning <br /> will be a continuation of that zoning, and development on the subject property under the RM-6 <br /> zoning district should not have any adverse impacts on the property to the north. <br /> Even though the proposed rezoning, if approved, would be an extension of the RM-6 zoning to the <br /> north, the result will be an RM-6 zoned parcel with RS-6 on three sides. While it could be <br /> problematic if it were commercial zoning that was extended such that it abutted single-family <br /> residential on three sides, that is not the case with RM-6 abutting RS-6. Generally, RM-6 is <br /> considered a transitional district between single-family zoning and other more intense zoning. <br /> Therefore, RS-6 and RM-6 are generally considered compatible zoning districts. <br /> For those reasons, it is staff s position that development of the site under the requested RM-6 <br /> district will be compatible with surrounding areas. <br /> Potential Impact on Environmental Quality <br /> Since the existing zoning and the proposed zoning are both residential and since the property has no <br /> important environmental characteristics, there will not be any adverse environmental impacts from <br /> rezoning the site from RS-6 to RM-6. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The requested zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area and is consistent with the <br /> Le goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Located in an area deemed suitable for <br /> 5 121 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.