8/27/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L had voiced his feelings to Mr. Krovocheck about wishing to keep the area as it was and inferred that Mr. Krovocheck felt the same. Mr. O'Haire concluded by stating the reason he and his wife and the Luthers were asking for the rezoning is because he wants to see happen what he was told would happen. Commissioner Scurlock asked whether Mr. O'Haire had argued before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the variance request when Mr. Krovocheck's house was built. Mr. O'Haire answered that he had not and should have; but the variance was not a new fact and was not considered by him nor planning staff for purposes of this rezoning. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there has been a request to the various agencies to fill the lagoon. Director Keating responded that he had reviewed a jurisdictional use permit. Discussion ensued regarding application for a fill permit and the number of lots to be platted, and Director Keating summarized that there have been some pre -application discussions, but no formal preliminary plat plan has been submitted. Commissioner Wheeler believed, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed, that rezoning matters are not decided based on conversations between neighbors but rather on the land use. Attorney Vitunac added that the Board's only concern should be what is the better zoning category for that piece of property, given the zoning criteria as described by Mr. Keating. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that his reason for considering this matter in the first place is because of the lagoon and conservation, and he is not concerned with disagreements between neighbors. Commissioner Wheeler felt the discussions were clouding the ,issue of rezoning and felt Director Keating had made the point that an RS -3 zoning was adequate. Chairman Bird agreed that Director Keating and Environmental Planning Chief DeBlois had indicated there was development up and down the river involving lagoons and there had been no problems. He felt our subdivision regulations are more stringent now, so there is even more protection for the lagoon and estuary. Commissioner Scurlock asked the county attorney, if there were statements made in front of the variance board and a variance was - granted on those assurances, does that have a legal implication. County Attorney Vitunac advised that it is not relevant at all. The variance granted was for height limitation. The issue before the Board is a zoning question having to do with the land, not the ethics of the owner or the owner's neighbor. 23 AUG 27 Ngi BOOK � F,u IJ i I