8/27/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas In reviewing this request, staff looked at compatibility from two perspectives. One is compatibility of this request with the entire south barrier island area, while the other involves looking at the compatibility of this request only within the area of consideration. - Compatibility with the Barrier Island Compatibility is not a major concern for this property when looking at the general development pattern of the south barrier island. The south barrier island, particularly in the unincorporated area, is predominately developed with single family residences in densities generally less than two units per. acre. Since the subject property exceeds 11 acres in size and contains an existing single-family home on each of three parcels, this property is less dense but compatible with the existing densities on the south barrier island. While the lots on the subject property are larger than most other lots in the general area, their density is compatible with the remainder of the south island area. - Compatibility within the Area of Consideration Compatibility is an even more important issue within the area of consideration. When the eleven acre subject property is considered in isolation, a different conclusion can be drawn. Of the three parcels comprising the subject property, the smallest is 2.74 acres in size, while the.largest is approximately 5 acres. Even with this almost 100 percent size variation, the three parcels are similar and compatible. All have houses along the Indian River Lagoon shoreline, all have an extensive setback/vegetative buffer from State Road A -1-A, and all are much larger than other nearby lots. The compatibility issue in this case is whether a relatively small enclave of eleven acres in three parcels warrants a separate zoning designation different from surrounding lands. When these large lots were created, the property's zoning was 3 units/acre (R1 -A at that time), the same designation it is now. It was then a conscious decision by the property owners to develop at less than the maximum density. Generally, a decision by one or several property owners to develop at a density less than the maximum allowed by county zoning does not, in and of itself, justify a zoning reduction. While such a downzoning does benefit property owners not interested in further development of their property, it would result in a disjointed and ineffective land use pattern if applied county -wide. In this case, with only three parcels and eleven acres involved, the proposed rezoning would be a special benefit to two of the property owners rather than an appropriate density determination based upon objective factors. Impact of Rezoning Probably the most important consideration in this proposed rezoning is the impact or consequence of changing the zoning of the subject property from RS -3 to RS -1. The table below contrasts the size and dimension criteria for each of those districts. 15 . BOOK � f',':�r L_