Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner: zoning process left one building out of compliance; developer given time to address setback
Summary
Commissioner Dawson questioned how a building came to be 31 feet into the setback after rezoning; planning staff Andrew Mills explained the layered review process, BZA denial of a variance for that building and a 90-day window for the developer to produce a corrective plan.
Commissioner Dawson asked planning staff to clarify a case where a property rezoned to commercial now had a building 31 feet into the setback. He expressed concern that the county’s prior actions may have contributed to the compliance problem and asked how the setback changed from a 25-foot easement to a 75-foot setback after rezoning.
Andrew Mills, a planning staff member, explained that zoning and site-plan reviews are layered processes. He said the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a variance for one already-built structure that sat inside the setback; the remainder of the site plan was approved by the planning commission with the problematic area grayed out. Mills said the developer was given about 90 days to return with a smaller site plan addressing the offending building and that the remainder of the development may continue to operate while that front-area issue is resolved.
Dawson pressed whether easement width should have changed automatically with rezoning and whether county steps contributed to the noncompliance; Mills replied that easement width and setback are distinct controls and do not automatically change with rezoning and that staff had reviewed the traffic study and site plan, and that the denial applied only to the building in the setback.
