January 10, 2023 Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 11, 2022 The Chair said Mr. Collins is shaking his head no. Ms. Morris turnedonthe zoning on the diagram so everyone can see. This line right here is the CR line. This is the property, it comes down and it wraps around the purple property. The green is where it is currently zonedcommercial, soanything in theLCthat is listed asacommercial usecan go on thisproperty. The back part iszonedCR, it has dual zoning. The back part can be developed as anything that is in CR. The request is for the entire property to be consistently zoned,and continued with that CRzoning designation,so that it can be developedfor residential. The Chair asked if there was any further discussion. There being none, he said anyone making a motion to please givereasonsto approve or deny the request. Mr. Jeff Corley MOTIONED, SECONDEDbyMr. Charles Paxton to APPROVE RZON2022- 00004rezoning request based on the reasons stated during ourdiscussion,which include that while not consistent with the land use planclassification,the adjacent properties are developed as residential. The proposed single-familyhomeis compatible with how the surrounding properties are being used. Part of the property is already zoned CR,and the applicant is asking for the same classification to be applied to the remainder of the propertyto build a single-family home.There are currently some buildings on thesite already and adding a primary structure would bring the site into better compliance with the Ordinance. The vote was unanimous. Mr. David Goldberg said actually you do not needto make a consistency statement because it is inconsistent with the plan.So, by rezoning it you are implicitlyamending theland use.Do the motion,just know that essentially you are doing a motion to amend the Midland Plan. Ms. Morris advisedthe Board to proceed with the consistency statement,which should include something to the affect like yousaid, that all though it is not consistent,it ispotentially reasonable and in the public interestto make the decision that you are makingthis evening. That is the conclusion that you are trying to come towith you consistency statement. Consistency Statement: Mr. Jeff Corley said this rezoningrequestis reasonable and in the public interest,and although not consistent with the land use classification, adjacent properties are developed as residential. It does notmeet the intent of the land use plan,but the adjacent properties are residential. It meets the intent of the proposed zoning district. A single-familyhomeisbeing proposed, part of the property is already zoned CR. The applicant is asking for the same classification to be applied to the remainder of the propertyto build a single-familyhome.There are multiplebuildings on the site already and noprimary structure,the addition of a primary dwellingwould bring the site into better compliance with the Ordinance. Mr.Jeff Corley,MOTIONED, SECONDEDby Mr.Brent RocketttoAPPROVEthe Consistency Statement. The vote was unanimous. 16