My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/17/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
7/17/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:45 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:11:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/17/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attorney Collins advised that he has provided copies of this <br />memo to both the applicants and the County Commissioners. <br />Attorney O'Haire had no problem with making it a part of the <br />record, and didn't think it differs from what he is saying <br />because as long as they are consistent with the County's land use <br />plan, they are entitled to reasonable use of the property. He <br />asked Commissioner Scurlock if he agreed, and Commissioner <br />Scurlock replied that he hasn't had a chance to read it through. <br />TO: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney <br />FROM:c4-Y�-.Will1am G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney <br />DATE: May 22, 1990 <br />SUBJECT: Post February 13, 1990 Development Orders - United <br />Financial Group, Inc. Rezoning Request <br />The Planning and Zoning Commission of May 10, 1990 <br />highlighted the fact that neither the Planning staff, the <br />Planning Commission nor the public is aware of the <br />implications of Comprehensive Plan adoption on February 13, <br />1990. <br />Legal Status of Plan <br />The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan confers a legal <br />status on the plan which overrides any land development <br />regulations now in place. (F.S. 163.3194(1)(b).) <br />Furthermore, all actions taken in regard to development <br />orders (which include building permits, subdivision <br />approvals, rezonings, special exceptions, etc.) shall be <br />consistent with the plan. Thus, any rezoning, subdivision <br />approval, etc. which Is not consistent with the plan is <br />subject to an action against the local government for <br />Injunctive or other relief by any aggrieved or adversely <br />affected party who feels that such subdivision approval, <br />rezoning, etc. materially alters the density or intensity of <br />use on a particular piece of property in a manner not <br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (F.S. 163.3215(1).) <br />Statutory Definition of Consistency <br />"A development order or land development regulation shall be <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, <br />densities o*r intensities, and other aspects of development <br />permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with <br />and further the objec,,tives, policies, land uses, and <br />densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it <br />meets all other criteria enumerated by the local <br />government," F.S. 163.3194(3)(a). <br />J U L 17 1� <br />36 �OC�K J <br />'JC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.