12/4/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK VP GuE Discussion continued at length regarding taking action on only the Land Use Plan designation. Attorney Caldwell agreed that obviously they would prefer the rezoning, but he did understand the other side of the argument in regard to protection'' for the county. In any event, he believed they would end up with more rights than they have today. Attorney Vitunac stressed that one of the findings the County would make today if the Comprehensive Plan were changed would be that this property is no longer good agricultural land, and that finding on the record with a court reporter present would make it very difficult to insist on an agricultural zoning for it once the Comprehensive Plan has been changed. Commissioner Scurlock agreed, but pointed out that it still would allow us to say that the use of the property should be even more restrictive than one unit per acre, and he felt that's the hook he has found that says we don't want something out there we can't deliver services to. Attorney Caldwell stated that his client has been advised that there is that potential, and while it certainly is not what they want, it would be almost impossible from an economic standpoint for them to try to go forward with the planning if they did not have some basis to feel this project could be worked out. Chairman Lyons pointed out that there is no guarantee that they will be able to get through the D.R.I. process successfully; so, he did not feel that anything the Board could do would provide them much comfort. Attorney Caldwell felt strongly that a change in the Land Use designation would be comfort to them in any event. He asked how the County staff would work with a Development Order. Chairman Lyons explained that when the D.R.I. comes in, it says the property must have the proper Land Use Plan designation and zoning, and it also says that unless all the requirements are met within a certain time, --the Board can change the zoning back. 44