7/23/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

zy -34 With respect to drainage, both single-family and multi -family projects are subject to the same requirements in terms of retention/detention, discharge, and treatment. Although drainage impacts would be similar with both project types, multi -family developments will generally have a lower per unit drainage impact, because multi -family units usually have less square footage, a smaller footprint (because of multistory design), and less parking and driveway area than single family. In terms of natural and archeological resources, multi -family development generally has less impact than single-family. Since multi -family development concentrates dwelling units while single-family development disperses dwelling units, multi -family projects have more flexibility in siting building footprints outside of wetlands and other natural areas. The Inlet at Sebastian project is an example of this. That project design provides 67 percent open space, allowing preservation of wetlands areas, native uplands areas, and archeological resource areas. Overall, a multi -family project will generally have slightly more traffic impacts, about the same drainage impacts, and fewer natural resource impacts than a single-family development project on the same site. • Legal Considerations Regardless of land use, infrastructure, and natural resource considerations, there are legal issues associated with a county initiated rezoning of property from multi -family to single-family. While the impact of such a change may be insignificant on small lots or parcels, such a change would significantly impact the few larger tracts that exist. Even more important is the fact that no rezoning action would affect the Inlet at Sebastian project. Because that project has received site plan approval, it is considered grandfathered in, and may proceed to construction regardless of any rezoning action. Other properties in the study area, however, would be affected by a rezoning of multi -family zoned property to RS -6. Because of the Bert Harris Property Rights Act, any land owner whose property is "inordinately burdened" by the rezoning would be entitled to relief from the County. Given the Act's definition of inordinately burdened and recognizing that RM -6 provides more value to most properties than RS -6, most land owners in the study would be entitled to compensation from the County if their property were rezoned from RM -6 to RS -6 and if they took legal action. Given the number of small lots and parcels as well as the number of existing single-family homes on land zoned RM -6 most property owners would probably consent to an RM -6 to RS -6 rezoning That was the case on the north barrier island, where no property owners objected to a rezoning of all multi -family zoned land to single-family. In the North Indian River Drive Study area, however there is a high probability that some property owners would object to a rezoning action changing all multi -family zoned property to RS -6 ALTERNATIVES As with any proposed rezoning action, there are various alternatives for the North Indian River Drive area. In this case, the three principal alternatives are: to rezone all multi -family zoned land in the study area to single-family, to rezone some of the multi -family zoned land to single-family, or to make no change to the current zoning pattern in the study area. Each of those alternatives is addressed below. July 23, 2002 64