12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At its regular meeting of November 14, 199 lathe Planning and Zoning Commission voted to: 1. affirm that it evaluated the subject appeal pursuant to the four criteria cited in section 902.07(4) of the LDRs; and 2. find that staff did not fail to act appropriately in relation to any of the four areas; and 3. deny the appeal of staff's determination; and 4. uphold staff's determination that the AG -1•±5 acre minimum parcel size standard be applied to the ±5 acre subject property and the proposed parcel split. Mr. Schlitt is now appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to the Board of County Commissioners, requesting that the parcel split be allowed on grounds of "fairness". Mr. Schlitt's position is that the new comprehensive plan density limitation should not apply to his situation because he: 1. Relied upon the May 11, 1990 RS -1 zoning approval; 2. Was unaware of the effect of the June 18, 1991 re -designation action; and 3. Made a "good faith" effort to sell-off a portion of the ±5 acre parcel since the May 11, 1990 rezoning. In essence, Mr. Schlitt is requesting that, for the reasons cited above, the. current comprehensive plan land use designation not be applied to his proposed property division. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: •Agreement on Relevant Information Mr. Schlitt and staff appear to be in agreement over the following information and statements related to the request. On May 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved Mr. Schlitt's request to rezone the subject ±5 acre parcel from A=1 (Agriculture, up to 1 unit per 5 acres) to RS -1 (Residential Single Family, up to 1 unit per acre). - At the time of the rezoning (May 11, 1990), the comprehensive plan land use designation wasR (Rural, up to 1 unit per acre) and allowed for the rezoning to the RS -1 district. The reason Mr. Schlitt requested and obtained the rezoning was .� to divide the subject ±5 acre tract into separate parcels. - To date, the subject ±5 acre tract has not been divided into two separate parcels and has not been subdivided by,platting. - On June 18, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners,_ in: accordance with a stipulated settlement with the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA), amended the comprehensive plan and changed the land use designation of many. properties in the county. Among those changes was a change in the land use designation of the subject property to AG -1 (Agriculture, up to 1 unit per 5 acres). [Note: due to ....the extent of area covered by the changes, the county was not legally required to and did not attempt to individually contact all potentially affected property owners. Public notices and advertisements were run in the local newspaper.) Since June 18, 1991, the subject property has been designated for development at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres with -.a ±5 acre minimum parcel size. The land use designation takes precedence over the zoning. -Thus, the subject property is now restricted to a 1 unit per 5 acre density and a 5 acre minimum parcel size. 25