My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/2/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
5/2/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:18 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 4:04:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/02/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
BOOK J13 PAGE Z41 <br />Currently, zoning in the county is based on future land use designations depicted on a future land <br />use map that is part of an adopted comprehensive plan. That, however, has not always been the case. <br />Although zoning was established in the county in 1957, the county's first comprehensive plan was <br />not adopted until 1976. Not until 1985 was zoning made to conform to the county's comprehensive <br />plan. <br />Prior to 1985, the subject property was zoned R 2D, Multiple -Family. That zoning district required <br />that all conforming lots be at least 7,200 square feet in size. The maximum density for the R -2D <br />district, therefore, was approximately 6 units/acre. <br />In 1985, a countywide rezoning effort was undertaken to make zoning in the county correspond to <br />the 1982 comprehensive plan's land use designations. The 1982 plan designated the site as LD -2, <br />Low Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre). Land consisting of estuarine wetlands, however, was <br />designated as environmentally sensitive. The subject property fell into that category. <br />Since the county at that time did not have a special zoning district for environmentally sensitive land, <br />and the extent of the estuarine wetlands was not known, the entire parcel was down -zoned from R - <br />2D to RS -1. The RS -1 zoning district, which allows a residential density of up to 1 unitlacre, was <br />consistent with the then applicable 1 unit/acre density of the environmentally sensitive land use <br />designation. <br />When the current comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the site was given the L-2 land use <br />designation on the Future Land Use Map. The county, however, recognized that, because of the <br />scale of the Future Land Use Map, the map provides generalized, not site specific, information. For <br />that reason, the county also added a provision to the plan that requires the boundaries of the C-2, <br />Privately Owned Estuarine Wetland Conservation -2, land use designation to be based on a site <br />specific environmental survey of estuarine wetlands on a site. <br />In 1991, the county adopted Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which created the Con -2, <br />Privately Owned Estuarine Wetland Conservation, zoning district for privately owned estuarine <br />wetland areas. Although generally not depicted on the county's zoning atlas, the Con -2 district is <br />established when development is proposed for a site containing estuarine wetland habitat. The <br />boundaries of the Con -2 zoning district (like the boundaries of the C-2 land use designation) are then <br />based on a site specific environmental survey of the property. <br />This information is important because it indicates that the subject property is currently zoned RS -1 <br />because of a past "broad brush" approach to designating environmentally sensitive land. Since the <br />underlying comprehensive plan designation is L-2, the upland portion of the subject property may <br />be rezoned to any of several residential districts, including the requested RS -6 district. Although not <br />depicted on the zoning atlas, the small wetland portion of the subject property is zoned Con -2. <br />In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the request will be presented. Specifically, this <br />section will include: <br />• an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; <br />• an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; <br />• an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; and <br />• an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality. <br />May 2, 2000 <br />56 <br />0 1* <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.