Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NEXT CAME BEFORE THE POARD TO <br />REVIEW THE RECENT ANNEXATIONS MADE BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND <br />PRESENTED A MAP SHOWING THE ANNEXATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING MEMO: <br />April 1, 1930 <br />h1LM0 <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: David M. Rever, Planning and Zoning Director <br />SUBJECT: Sebastian Voluntary Annexations - March 10, 1980 <br />As requested, this memo represents a swimary of the Planning Department <br />staff analysis of the two recent annexations undertaken by the City of <br />Sebastian. Please note that consideration was given to Chapter 171, <br />Florida Statutes, which deals with "Municipal Annexation or Contraction"; <br />however, the staff did not delve into all the legal issues. Suffice it to <br />say that there is substantial evidence which would indicate that "reasdM- <br />ableness" of the boundary extensions are marginal based on the following <br />statutory language: <br />1) Procedural guidelines - Prerequisites 171.042 <br />A. Plan of services - Paragraph (1) C subparagraphs 1 - 4 <br />B. Notification to Board of County Commissioners - 171.042 <br />Paragraph (3) <br />2) Character of area to be annexed - 171.043 <br />Urban in character (all or part)- Paragraph 1, 2, and/or 3 <br />3) Voluntary annexation - 171.044 <br />Creation of enclaves -Paragraph 5 <br />Additionally, there is a question as to the procedural requirements on <br />ening consistency. It is the staff's understanding that the zoning of <br />a parcel of property when annexed must be maintained in a like classifi- <br />cation for a period of at least two years unless the "increase or decrease <br />in density" is approved by the governing body of the County. Of course <br />Seba�-*ian does not have an Agricultural zone which is consistent with the <br />County zoning on the southerly (Myatt property) annexation. This inter- <br />pretation is based on the wording in Chapter 171.062, Paragraph (2) <br />entitled "Effects of Annexations or Contractions". <br />4 <br />In terms of the viability of.the actions, and the practicality from a <br />planning standpoint, the issue takes on a broader perspective. In actu- <br />ality the two annexations -should be analyzed on the individual rirerits and <br />circumstances of each case, thus a summary review of both actions are <br />provided below: <br />137 <br />Q001t .�, r 4�`, iadGf 1, <br />k" <br />