Laserfiche WebLink
P IOK 82 F',�' d <br />requirement limits creation of large lots and limits the -choice of <br />a rural lifestyle. However, a sufficient number of large lots <br />already exist to accommodate expected demand for such lots well <br />beyond the planning period. <br />Conclusion <br />The Board of County Commissioners has the option to approve these <br />amendments as they have been presented, to approve them with <br />modifications, or to deny the amendments. <br />i <br />Denial of these amendments will force the county to go to an t <br />administrative hearing. If the county loses and a hearing officer <br />finds the comprehensive plan not to be in compliance, the county <br />will lose approximately 10 million dollars annually in revenues. <br />It has been demonstrated that these amendments to the cbunty's <br />comprehensive plan will eliminate urban sprawl, will protect <br />environmental and agricultural lands, and will have a significant <br />impact on development potential, but will not stifle development. <br />i Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed <br />comprehensive plan amendments should be adopted. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve <br />the comprehensive plan amendments as identified in attachment "A", <br />direct staff to transmit these amendments -,to the DCA for their <br />review, and announce their intention to hold a final public <br />hearing. <br />Director Keating explained that essentially most of the <br />changes and remedial actions referenced in the Compliance <br />Agreement include changes to the map itself, and he referred <br />those present to the map being displayed which reflects those <br />changes, advising that the three maps displayed show the <br />evolution of the process leading up to the Compliance Agreement <br />Map which is the map located on the left. He informed the Board <br />that the big changes to this map are moving in the Urban Services <br />boundary, particularly in the south and central parts of the <br />county. All the area east of 1-95 and not in the Urban Service <br />Area is AG at a density of 1/5. The other major changes to the <br />Compliance Agreement were establishing 2 other AG Districts that <br />are further west in the county - AG 2 at 1/10 and AG 3 at 1/20. <br />Director Keating advised that there are several policy <br />changes that go along with this - a major one which was <br />incorporated in the LDRs was establishing several AG zoning <br />districts that correspond to the AG Land Use Districts. He <br />further advised that these policies also require clustering <br />48 <br />