Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> unilaterally make zoning adjustments or zoning changes to property. There are some restrictions <br /> on it; under the current Zoning Code, the basic restriction would be that you cannot increase the <br /> density of property. So to give you an example of a fairly common and legitimate use of a <br /> nonsignificant zoning change, in many resorts, the golf courses are zoned Open, and they have <br /> residential areas zoned Residential that line the golf courses. So these zonings went in typically <br /> by, strictly by metes and bounds, and the applicant had an idea of how they were going to lay out <br /> the golf course and homes. But in the actual course of development after the zoning happened, <br /> they might want to change the boundaries of the golf course. As a result, they might want to <br /> build homes where the golf course was supposed be and vice versa. So the nonsignificant zone <br /> change allows them to make an application to the Planning Director. There is notice to adjoining <br /> property owners, there is a procedure for this, but it does not involve the Council. So the <br /> Planning Director can make this kind of zoning change. <br /> <br /> My proposal here is, I feel that the current wording of the nonsignificant zone change is too <br /> wide-open and allows too much leeway. There have been instances where areas involving <br /> considerable acreages have been swapped, including changes where different densities have been <br /> moved over noncontiguous properties and involving considerable acreages and considerable <br /> distances. Before 1996 the nonsignificant zone change was limited to a maximum of one acre or <br /> five percent of a given parcel, whichever is less. So this amendment would change the wording <br /> of the Zoning Code back to the limitations in 1996 from what is currently allowed under the <br /> nonsignificant zone change. <br /> GRAHAM: Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner <br /> Siracusa? <br /> <br /> SIRACUSA: Yeah, suppose you had a lot and five percent, if you rezone that five <br /> percent, it would not be - what's the word I'm thinking of, when the zoning is different than the <br /> number of acres, begins with the "c" <br /> <br /> YUEN: Nonconforming? <br /> <br /> SIRACUSA: Nonconforming, right. <br /> <br /> YUEN: And what is your question? <br /> <br /> SIRACUSA: So you change the zoning on five percent, but that five percent then would <br /> not be in conformance. <br /> <br /> YUEN: Well, you could change up to five percent of the parcel or one acre, <br /> whichever is less. So in a case of a 100-acre parcel, five percent would be five acres, but you <br /> couldn't change five acres; you would be limited to one acre. On a 10,000, well, on a one-acre <br /> lot - let's see - five percent would be whatever five percent of 40,000-something square feet is, <br /> so you would have a maximum of 2,000 square feet that could be changed by a nonsignificant <br /> zone change. If the lot was, say the lot is 40,000 square feet, your limitation would be five <br /> percent, which would be 2,000 square feet that could be changed by a nonsignificant zone <br /> change. That's how it would work. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2 <br />