Laserfiche WebLink
RPR 14 1987 <br />To: <br />BOOK 68 FAGc 56 <br />WRITTEN COMMENTS <br />Board of County Commissioners of Indian River <br />County <br />From: "Citizens for Responsible Zoning", an association <br />of persons owning property, residing, or owning or <br />operating businesses within the boundaries of Indian <br />River County (See Appendix A for names and addresses). <br />Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment by an ordinance <br />of Indian River County, Florida, amending the Land Use <br />Element of the Comprehensive Plan by creating a thirteen <br />acre commercial node on the northside of 17th Street west <br />of Indian River Boulevard. <br />Date: April 14, 1987 publicly advertised transmittal hearing. <br />Introduction <br />The "Citizens for Responsible Zoning" submit the following written <br />comments on the above Plan Amendment for review by Indian River <br />County prior to the adoption hearing on the Plan Amendment, pursuant <br />to Florida Statute 163.3184(7). Consideration of and response to <br />these public comments is required as a minimum criteria for <br />compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes under Rule 9J-5.004 <br />(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code. <br />Since F.S. 163.3187(2) states "comprehensive plans may only be <br />amended in such a way -to preserve the internal consistency of the <br />plan pursuant to s. 163.3177(2)", the primary focus of these <br />written comments shall be on whether this proposed amendment is <br />consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan of <br />June 12, 1985. Additional consideration will be given to compli- <br />ance of the plan amendment to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the minimum <br />criteria for review of local government comprehensive plans by <br />the State Department of Community Affairs. The language of the <br />Plan and the Rule may be somewhat paraphrased herein to enhance <br />readability, but the substance is maintained in all cases and <br />footnotes are provided for reference to the express language of <br />the Plan and the Rule. <br />AMENDMENT'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY WITH PLAN <br />1. The Plan states "Commercial uses...appear to be adequate <br />for current needs."1 "The amount of commercial land outside <br />the City is generally sufficient to accomodate the outlying <br />population." <br />Comment: Page 15 of the Plan contains an inventory of lands <br />in Indian River County as of 1982. At that time there was one <br />(1) acre of commercially developed land for every sixteen (16) <br />acres of residentially developed land. However, for every <br />eight and two thirds (8 2/3) acres of vacant residential <br />land there was one (1) acre of.vacant commercial land. This <br />means that there is currently enough vacant commercially <br />zoned land to service double the historically demonstrated <br />need for commercial zoning. This proposed plan amendment <br />would change thirteen acres from Medium Density Residential . <br />(10 units/acre) to General Commercial. In a recent case, <br />the Fourth District Court of Appeals stated that "where the <br />zoning authority approves a use more intensive than that <br />proposed by the plan,...the decision should be subject to <br />stricter scrutiny then the fairly debatable standard contem- <br />plates".3 <br />-I 56 <br />