12/17/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CT 17 Ml BOOK 85 r,{Ut — 7C+ 4. Staff did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and LDRs of the county. It is the application of the existing comprehensive plan standards that is being appealed. If the Board of County Commissioners agrees with the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff, and finds that staff did not fail in any of these four areas, then the appeal cannot be approved. • Alternatives In essence, there is one other alternative available to the applicant. Mr. Schlitt could now or at some later date request to amend the>_comprehensive plan or—he could even wait -toa see if the comprehensive plan "evolves" over time and is eventually modified to allow non-agricultural densities and parcel sizes on the subject property. Given the fact that the stipulated settlement agreement amendment was only recently adopted, changing the land use plan at this time may not be feasible but may be feasible in the future. The next comprehensive plan amefi—&ent filing "window"71s January, 1992. •Summary Although Mr. Schlitt's circumstances are unfortunate, he failed to act upon development standards advantageous to him resulting from the RS -1 zoning he obtained on May 11, 1990. Thirteen months later, the standards changed for Mr. Schlitt and many similarly situated owners of property affected by the comprehensive plan_ land use amendments adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Since the AG -1 land use standards apply to the subject property and the Proposed parcel split, it is staff's position that the administrative decision on this issue must be upheld. Furthermore, no equitable estoppel argument has been made that would compel or allow the county not to apply the existing comprehensive plan standards. The comprehensive plan standards and effective date must continue to be applied and enforced uniformly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 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 the Planning and Zoning Commission's action to deny the appeal of staff's determination; and 4. uphold the determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff that the AG -1 t5 acre minimum parcel size standard be applied to the t5 acre subject property and the. proposed parcel split. 28