12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W DEC V7 1991 BOOK 5GE d The subject property is a ±5 acre parcel owned by Bob Schlitt and located on the west side of 66th Avenue, north of 4th Street -(see attachment #1). Mr. Schlitt's residence is located on the southern portion of the subject property, The site is currently zoned RS -1, Residential Single Family (up to 1 unit per acre), but has a land use designation of AG -1, Agriculture (up to one unit per 5 acres). As provided for in policy 10.5 of the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan, the land use designation governs the use and development of a parcel whenever there is a conflict between that parcel's zoning and its comprehensive plan land use designation. Therefore, the subject property is restricted to the lot size and density standards of the AG -1 designation. Because of. the AG -1 5 acre minimum lot size requirement, it is staff's position that the parcel cannot be divided into smaller lots without violating the county's current land use designation standards. The conflict between the parcel's one unit per acre (RS -1) zoning density and its one unit per 5 acre land use designation arose on 77 June 18, 1-991, when the Board o"ounty Commissioners- re -designated large areas of the county (which included the parcel) from R, Rural (up to 1 unit per acre), to AG -1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit per 5 acres). The redesignation was required by thea stipulated settlement agreement between the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the county. On May 11, 1990, slightly more than a year before the settlement agreement comprehensive plan amendment was adopted, the subject property was rezoned from A-1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit per 5 acres), to RS -1, Residential (up to 1 unit per acre). At that time, the property had an R, Rural, land use designation which allowed for the one unit per acre zoning. During the thirteen month period between the rezoning action which increased the parcel's allowable density to 1 unit per acre and- the subsequent land use plan redesignation which reduced the parcel's density to 1 unit per five acres, no subdivision action occurred with respect to the subject property. Mr. Schlitt is now proposing to divide the ±5 acre tract into "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2" by selling -off- a portion of the ±5 acres to Michael Schlitt, a contract buyer (see attachment #2). Michael Schlitt proposes to construct a residence on "Parcel 2" and intends to subdivide "Parcel 2" into two parcels at some point in the future. Staff -has informed Mr. Schlitt that the ±5 acre parcel cannot be split under the current AG -1 land use designation, since such an action would not comply with the adopted comprehensive plan (see attachment #3). At the November 14th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,. Michael Schlitt asserted that in September, 1991 he had a conversation with a staff planner during which several items were discussed. One matter involved building a residence on all or a portion of the subject ±5 acre parcel. Michael Schlitt asserts that the staff planner did not warn him or inform him of any problems with a proposal to construct a house on the subject Property. While the staff planner involved does not recall all the Specifics of the discussion, he does remember that several items were briefly discussed, and he does not recall checking the land use map in relation to any discussion items. Staff is not able to assess whether or not details of the proposal were discussed in a complete enough manner for an assessment to be made of--all.- applicable planning requirements. Since Michael Schlitt had contacted staff regarding this matter, he believed .there was no problem with the proposal to construct a second residence on the subject property. Believing there to be no problem, he subsequently filed a building permit application. It should be noted that no specific proposal was submitted to staff until a building permit application and accompanying plot plans were filed. Upon review'of the actual proposal, staff determi-ned that two residences could not be constructed on the -subject parcel and determined that the subject parcel could not be divided under the current land use designation. _ 24