5/21/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAX 2 1 N91 moa 83 P,%4 03' CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. While environmental issues have been identified relating to the site, these can be addressed at the time of development review. In addition, the requested amendment has a positive concurrency determination. Despite those positive findings, the staff has identified major inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and the adopted -Comprehensive Plan. While all policies of the comprehensive plan are important, not all of the policies are equal in reviewing a plan amendment request. For example, if one policy prohibits an action or use under certain circumstances, then that policy outweighs every other policy in the plan, and the specific action or use could not be approved if the circumstances prohibiting it prevailed. An example is concurrency. Concurrency•is.a comprehensive plan policy prohibiting development order approvals if inadequate service levels would result. No matter how many economic development policies support a requested project, the.project may not be approved if it is inconsistent with the plan's concurrency policy. The node expansion policy (Land Use Policy 1.23) referenced above is similar. Unless the Board of County Commissioners finds that there are overriding circumstances "otherwise warranting" expansion of the node, the 70% criterion prohibits it. Where the comprehensive plan prohibits an action, whether' it involves developing in wetlands or expanding nodes, or where the .comprehensive plan requires action such as setting aside a portion 'of native uplands, then the requirement or prohibition cannot -be. 'ignored because of the existence of other policies. Two of those ,policies with specific requirements are Policies 1.23 and 13.3 .of the Future Land Use Element. .. ,:In this case the comprehensive plan amendment .request is =inconsistent with those two policies. This inconsistency warrants denial of the proposed land use amendment. Presently, the subject property is in an area designated for low and medium density residential development, and based upon staff's analysis this request does not warrant a change in,that designation. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny transmittal of the land use amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and deny the request to rezone the property. 26