HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93011_1097of this process, the applicant was advised by Subdivision staff that the area
was zoned R-20; the applicant had thus drawn their lots according to these
applicable standards (see Watershed Regulations above). Upon approval of
the subdivision, the developer proceeded to stake out the lots. A complaint
was then registered with the Planning Department; the complainant
questioned the tot sizes, thinking that the larger lot size (40,000 square feet)
was required. Upon research into the 1997 case file, it was confirmed that
the rezoning was indeed conditioned with the greater minimum lot size
requirement. Upon notifying the developer of this mistake, the developer
decided to submit the present request for rezoning which, in effect, seeks the
elimination of the larger lot size condition from the R-20 designation. *The
Subdivision Department computer was not activated with the GIS layer that
indicated the existence of Conditional Use Districts; therefore, it was believed
that the zoning on the property was a straight R20 without conditions. The
mistake was not realized until the complaint was issued.
Present request: The applicant requests a rezoning to eliminate the 40,000
square foot minimum lot size requirement. Again, there are presently a total
of 13 lots recorded on 8.245 acres. Should the larger lot size be enforced on
the project, the plat will need to be redrawn in which case the project would
only be allowed a maximum of eight (8) lots.
Summary & Recommendation: Because of the unique nature of this
application, staff has put considerable thought into this case. Staff
understands that this property is located on the outer edge of the R20 -CUD
district while also being located adjacent to RA property. Additionally, there
are watershed regulations applicable to this property that, in and of
themselves, require larger lot sizes than those within the standard R20
classification. At the present time with the approved subdivision plat, the
applicant is indeed meeting these requirements. However, the fact remains
that a non -owner rezoning petition was submitted several years ago in which
the majority of property owners made a conscious and collective decision to
maintain the rural, low-density nature of the surrounding community.
Although the Pinecrest subdivision is relatively small in scope, an approval of
rezoning could set a precedent that is contrary to the intent of the
Conditional -Use District and thus open the door for future requests that seek
higher densities. In this context, it is important to realize that the rural
character of the community has remained so since the rezoning of 1997.
There has been little subsequent construction within this CUD area; therefore
from a public -policy standpoint, there appears to be little pressure to rezone
the property to allow for additional housing beyond that which would be
allowed under the CUD requirements. For these reasons, and after due
consideration of all facets of this case, staff recommends against this request.
Statement of Land -Use Plan Consistency: This case does not hinge on the
County Land Use Plan per se; therefore, denial of the rezoning would be
neither consistent nor inconsistent with the Plan. However, denial of the
rezoning would be consistent with the goals of the surrounding community in
terms of the existence of the nonowner-petitioned R20 -Conditional Use
District that specifically requires larger minimum lot sizes.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION: On March 1, 2006 the Planning Board
voted 11-0 to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
sssss
Commissioner Williams mentioned the tract was especially large to be rezoned
as R-20 CUD.
Steve Warren said this was correct, and it could be largest nonow-ner rezoning
in the county's history. He said, however, that everything was in compliance, with 55
out of 68 landowners (81%) originally requesting the zoning.
Commissioner Johnson said that in 1997, the ordinance requirement was 80%.
Chairman Tice said she also recalled that 80% was the needed percentage.