6/9/1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ROBERT BERG, ASSISTANT COUNTY PLANNER, PRESENTED A REPORT ON A PLANNERS' MEETING HE ATTENDED IN TAMPA WHERE A WHOLE DAY WAS SPENT REVLEWING THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACTe HE STATED THAT HE HAS READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PREPARED BY ATTORNEY COLLINS AND FEELS IT FALLS RIGHT IN LINE WITH'THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT. ATTORNEY COLLINS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORDINANCE AND NOTED THAT IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME DOCUMENT THE BOARD HAS GONE OVER AND HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON IN THE PAST, HE STATED IT IS MEANT TO INCORPORATE THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF ADLEY & ASSOCIATE'S WORK AND TO MAKE USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP.WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT. IT GIVES FLEXIBILITY FOR CARRYING ON THE LAND USE PLAN IN THE COUNTY. HE CONTINUED THAT IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A RIGID DOCUMENT, BUT BELIEVES IT IS DEFINITELY A STEPPING STONE IN REACHING TOWARDS THE COMPLETE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY 1979, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHED TO BE HEARD, JERRY KRAMER APPEARED AS COUNSEL FOR THE VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION. HE NOTED THAT ON MAY 29, 1975, THE BOARD ADOPTED A COM— PREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND NOW BOTH MR. BERG AND ATTORNEY COLLINS HAVE INDICATED THE PLAN CAN BE USED AS A.GUIDE AND NOT A CONTROL, WHICH WOULD PERMITZONING INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN UNTIL 1979. THEREFORE, WHAT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED? ATTORNEY KRAMER CONTINUED THAT YOU HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE ADOPTED IT ONLY AS A GRAPHIC, AND WE FEEL YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO IM— PLEMENT IT BEFORE 1979 IN THE MANNER SET OUT IN THE STATE ACT, WHICH CALLS FOR CONFORMING YOUR ZONING REGULATIONS AND MAKING THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. ATTORNEY KRAMER SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD KEEP IN MIND THE TARGET DATE WHEN THE ZONING MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND NOT ADOPT*AN ORDINANCE WHERE YOU TELL YOUR ZONING BOARD AND YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE FREE UNTIL JULY. OF 1979 TO REZONE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. HE POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 2 OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE STATES THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO "GUIDE AND CONTROL" WHILE IN SECTION 5 IT STATES IT "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REGULATE OR CONTROL," WHICH HE FELT IS INCONSISTENT. 39 qjqy- ' , r1 � `•e q`5 ' U t1 i. #sv IDA