10/21/2003 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

residential in the midst of active groves. She felt we ought to have an east-west access street (4`h Street)paved. She predicted we are"digging our own grave," and she would not vote in favor of this rezoning. Commissioner Adams commented that we thought the"wall"was on I-95,however, the Board did create the Comp Plan and USA and that is where development is designated. She was concerned because the Board has not yet addressed the problems of residential mixing in with agricultural. Commissioner Lowther queried Director Keating on how frequently the Comprehensive Land Use Plan gets reviewed and when would be the next opportunity,and Director Keating responded that applicants can submit amendments twice a year. The State requires the County to do an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on a regular basis. Our next one is due in 2008. Commissioner Lowther then asked how they could say"no". Vice Chairman Ginn contended the Board was not required to approve this application; it is quasi-judicial. County Attorney Collins counseled that when the landowner shows consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, then the burden is on the County to show that maintaining the existing zoning serves some legitimate public purpose and that the refusal to rezone is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. Also the local government has the discretion to decide that the maximum density should not be allowed,but here they are not asking for the maximum of RM-8, but RM-6. The Board has the discretion not to allow maximum development density,provided that they allow some development that is consistent with the Plan and the decision is supported by substantial competent evidence. He advised other uses that would be allowed in the M-1 multi-family zoning district include neighborhood- commercial,professional office,multi-family/mobile home classifications,as well as RM-8, RM-6, RM-4, RM-3, and RT-6- October 21, 2003 18 B�; 126 PC 057