Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Riverview Rezonings C3 C4 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two related Riverview rezonings explained: applicants seek to remove PD and apply standard residential zoning; one case continued for coordination
Summary
At the Feb. 18, 2025 Zoning Hearing Master meeting, applicants asked to rezone parcels taken out of PD 06‑1721 in Riverview to standard zoning (AS‑1 and RSC‑6) with access restrictions; one companion case was continued to March 24 to synchronize owner agreements and board scheduling.
At the Feb. 18, 2025 Zoning Hearing Master meeting the master heard two companion standard rezoning cases that would take parcels out of Planned Development (PD 06‑1721) in the Riverview area and convert them to standard residential zoning with restrictions on access.
The first case (standard rezoning 25‑0177) would rezone roughly 9.85 acres removed from the PD to AS‑1 (agricultural single‑family at 1 unit per 2.5 acres) with a restriction limiting access for the affected folios to a single point on Riverview Drive. The applicant (represented by Joe Moretta) and development services explained the proposal would reduce allowable density compared with the PD and was consistent with surrounding residential and agricultural uses; planning commission staff found the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. No public opposition was recorded for that case and the hearing was closed.
The companion case (25‑0178) covered a separate set of folios (about 4.54 acres) that the applicant asked be rezoned to RSC‑6 with a restriction prohibiting access onto Riverview Drive and directing access to Oak Street. A Moreno family representative appeared and said the Moreno folio opposed the proposed access restriction; because ownership and access agreements across folios were not all in alignment, the applicant requested and the hearing master granted a continuance of the 25‑0178 rezoning to the March 24, 2025 Zoning Hearing Master meeting so that the related cases could be heard together before the Board of County Commissioners and owner agreements could be clarified.
Why it matters: The two rezonings are related by their location in the same PD and by proposed conditions that restrict where driveways and access points may be located. Where multiple owners and folios are involved, the hearing master noted it is important the related PD‑removal rezonings be coordinated so the Board of County Commissioners can consider them together.
Procedural and technical notes: Development services clarified a reported discrepancy in acreage (9.84 vs. 12.84) by noting the larger figure on one staff report reflected the entire PD acreage; the actual acreage included in the 25‑0177 rezoning is 9.85 acres. Both rezonings were presented with proposed restrictions developed in coordination with the county’s transportation department; staff recommended approval of 25‑0177 subject to those restrictions. The continued case (25‑0178) was placed on the March 24 agenda to allow the applicant to reconcile owner positions and ensure the Board of County Commissioners receives the related items together.
