8/27/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I AUG 2 7M ; � � BOOK �� F',1E to be another reason to warrant such action. One circumstance which could justify a county initiated rezoning would be characteristics of the property which warrant a reduced density. In preparing the county's comprehensive plan, the Board considered land use intensity and density on the barrier island as well as in the county as a whole. At that time, the Board determined that the 3 unit/acre density of the L-1 designation was appropriate for the barrier island, given hurricane evacuation concerns, availability of public services and facilities and proximity of the sensitive river and ocean shorelines. The subject property is not substantially different from other parcels on the barrier island, with the same factors and concerns applicable to its use. While many policies in the comprehensive plan could be cited to justify a zoning reduction of the subject property, these are policies that were considered in assigning the L-1 designation to south barrier island areas. The adopted plan policies, including hurricane evacuation, natural resource protection, public facility availability and others, could justify a lower density for the barrier island, but this would affect all areas of the island. Other sites comparable to the subject property have already been developed. Shorelands West and Little Harbor are two subdivisions on the barrier island which had physical characters similar to the subject property prior to their development. Both are located proximate to the subject property, and both have inlets or lagoons connected to the Indian River. These areas were developed under the RS -3 zoning district without measurable adverse environmental effects. This indicates that the subject property is not unique with regard to the physical characteristics of barrier island properties. The subject property is rare only in that it has not, as of yet, been developed. . Staff feels this rezoning is unnecessary and that current local, state, and federal requirements provide adequate protection. Conclusion Given the characteristics of the subject property, it is staff's position that the proposed rezoning is not warranted. It is not warranted based upon environmental factors, since the property has little natural area, is characterized by the existence of nuisance exotic vegetation, and includes an altered wetland area. It is not warranted based upon compatibility, since the densities and developability do not vary significantly from the existing to the proposed zoning designation. -It is not warranted based upon comprehensive plan consistency since the existing zoning of the property is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Finally, the proposed rezoning is not warranted because its effect would be to treat the subject property differently than similarly situated properties. Recommendation Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny this rezoning request. 18 M M _