The difference was this 'other' rezoning issue went mostly under the radar of the public and didn't draw too much attention after all the fuss and uproar that was initially created. To say that many in the community were outraged at the possibility of "up-zoning" their residential neighborhood would be an understatement: the response was quick and loud. Many in real estate sales and other ancillary businesses also took quick notice of this idea and made their thoughts known.
Below is a short excerpt from this very long blog post about a rezoning idea that was being promoted by some residents to greatly broaden the scope and definition of "home occupation" here in the City:
"The re-zoning of a tiny parcel, a part of a City block, for the Gulf Stream hotel project is the big news of the day but there was another re-zoning story that created quite the fuss in July. This is, I think, a study in contrasts and how powerful an 'impact' a zoning change can make. It comes down to whether that impact is, on balance, positive or negative for the community."
The subject of home occupations is on next Tuesday's (4/5) City Commission agenda, Exhibit G (pages 224–225; use this link and scroll down to the "Apr 5, 2016 Regular Meeting" and click on "Full Version". Below are two screen grabs from the agenda:
|Note the old rules are replaced by new language that is underlined. The rules are much more clear.|
|More added language defining what "home occupations" can and cannot do.|