5/25/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MAY 25 1993 Recommendation BOOK 89 F,1GF 631 Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve thio request to redesignate the subject property to C/I, but rezone the subject rortto instead of the requested CL. Staff further recommends hat theesse changes become effective when DCA or the Administration Commission issues a positive compliance determination for the subject amendment. Director Keating further stated that the Approval Alternative is a mechanism to protect the County. Without this alternative, if the Board approved the land use amendment, the applicant immediately could come in and get a development order and start construction on the property. If the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) subsequently finds the amendment not in compliance, the County could find itself in a position between an applicant that has invested in a project and the State DCA that essentially could impose sanctions because of a finding of non-compliance. Director Keating advised that legal staff concurs that having an effective date which is contingent upon a DCA finding of compliance is a beneficial change for the County in the adoption of Comp Plan amendments. Director Keating explained that staff's recommendation is to approve the land use change from L2 to C/I, rezone the property to OCR, and in both ordinances make the effective date contingent upon the Department of Community Affairs or the Administration Commission finding the land use plan amendment in compliance. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicants, stated that the applicants feel there is nothing to be gained with OCR and that C/L zoning is appropriate. Mr. Barkett disagreed with the alternative allowing the amendment to become effective contingent upon approval by DCA because under those circumstances there is no room to negotiate or deal with DCA staff at that point. County staff cannot fight for the applicant's position and the ordinance never will become effective. It gives the DCA more power and less reason to be amenable to staff's rationale. County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that staff is recommending the Approval Alternative to protect the County's interest. If the amendments are found in non-compliance by DCA, then it a becomes a situation of who wants to go to the expense of proceeding further. 30