5/25/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 89 FAGE 651 MAY � 51�9� amendment. These objections, all involving node expansion without sufficient justification, relate to inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and provisions in the county's Comprehensive Plan, state law (Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, F.S.), the State Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Specifically, DCA cited the following four main objections: • The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21 which discourages strip commercial development [Rules 9J -5.005(5)(b), 9J -5.006(3)(b)7., and (4), F.A.C.]. • The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.23 which requires a 70% level of node development prior to node expansion. • The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use Policy 13.3 which prohibits plan amendments unless an oversight or mistake in the original plan or a change in circumstances affecting the subject property has occurred. • Based on projected population, the proposed amendment does not justify the need for additional C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl [Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J - 5.006(2)(c), (3)(b)7., and (4), F.A.C.]. DCA also cited the following inconsistencies with the State Comprehensive Plan and with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan: • The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, including Land Use Goal (16) and Policy (16)(b)3., because the. proposed change does not discourage commercial sprawl within the county; and Plan Implementation Goal (26) and Policy (26)(b)7., because the proposed change is not supported by a demonstration of consistency with the analysis of the amount of commercial land needed to accommodate the projected population. • The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, specifically Regional Policy 16.1.2.2, regarding the need to ensure that the Future Land Use Map is based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners -is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning. Existina Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District, and is vacant land. The southern parcel has been previously cleared, while the northern parcel has not. Across U.S. #1, to the west, is vacant, uncleared land zoned CL, Limited Commercial District, and OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District. Property to the south is also vacant. It is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District. To the east of the subject property is a citrus grove owned by Earring Point Groves. Most of this land is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The exception is a small area in the southwest corner of the property which is zoned RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District. Property to the north of the subject property consists of the Copeland's Landing West subdivision. This subdivision is zoned RM - 3, Multiple -Family Residential District, although some RS -3, Single -Family Residential District, property exists along the eastern -most part of the site. The Copeland's Landing West subdivision is a Planned Residential Development approved for 28 50