Laserfiche WebLink
environmentally important habitat. While federal, state and county regulations protect the wetlands, <br />the mangroves are protected by state law and cannot be trimmed, altered, or removed without state <br />permits. As with all riverfront properties, stonmwater management and wastewater disposal issues <br />will be addressed through the county's permitting process. <br />For those reasons, no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are <br />anticipated. <br />The requested rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan, meets all concurrency criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental quality. <br />The subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density single-family residential <br />uses and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request. <br />Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board <br />of County Commissioners approve the attached ordinance to rezone the subject property to RS -6. <br />1. Summary Page <br />2. Rezoning Application <br />3. Approved Minutes of the January 27, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting <br />4. Rezoning Ordinance <br />Community Development Director Robert M. Keating gave a brief general overview <br />of how circumstances led to this public hearing for the Board to reconsider their previous <br />action. He explained that there has been a change of circumstances in that Mr. Thomas <br />Collins has executed a Deed Restriction on the parcel under consideration. He explained the <br />different setbacks under the RS -1 and RS -6 zoning. He advised that this hearing had been <br />advertised and noticed and recommended the Board adopt the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge asked Director Keating if there was any possible way the <br />Board might retain. the RS -1 designation yet allow Mr. Collins to build his house, and <br />Director Keating explained it would be inappropriate and some of the criteria for variance <br />could not be met. <br />To respond to Commissioner Stanbridge's concern that the Board had not done this <br />May 2, 2000 <br />59 <br />BOOK hJ PAGE 24 <br />