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