04/05/2016 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hearing, based upon input from Board members, staff added a sunset clause to the proposed exemption and added language that applies the exemption only to approved places of worship and retreats that existed on January 1, 2016. In its final version, the amendment will apply to only two existing projects that are experiencing water quality and fire protection problems. • Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan". For a proposed amendment to be consistent with the plan, the amendment must be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan, which identify actions the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county policies, provide the basis for all county land development related decisions, including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particularl applicability for this request is Policy 14.3 of the Future Land Use Element. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a comprehensive plan amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use !Element Policy 14.3. That policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve aicomprehensive plan amendment request. Those criteria are: • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In this case, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment meets Policy 14.3's first criterion. When Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub -element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -element were adopted, those policies were structured to be too restrictive and did not adequately address the potable water and fire protection needs of an existing place of worship and an existing camp/retreat that were approved under old regulations, that lie outside the USA, and that are located close enough to existing water and sewer lines to obtain approval from Utility Services for connection. In retrospect, it appears that limiting connections to centralized water and sewer services to the extent that Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub -element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -element currently do was an oversight that did not allow for connection of two "old" existing projects located close to the existing water and 'sewer system and that accommodate assemblies of people. The subject amendment will correct that oversight. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While Policy 14.3 is particularly applicable to this request, other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with 7 146