5/25/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

while the northern parcel could. accommodate 26. The parcels are also large enough to provide a buffer from U.S. #1 and the commercially designated land south of the subject property. Berms, walls, fences, and/or vegetative buffers could be used to shield homes on the site from the lights, traffic, and noise of U.S. #1 and other adjacent uses. The feasibility of this kind of development is demonstrated by the many single- and multiple -family homes and developments along U.S. #1. Some examples of these are Pelican Pointe, Reflections, River Run, Garden Grove, Grove Isle, Vista Royale, and Vista Garden. Numerous other uses, especially recreational uses, are also permitted on the subject property, given its present land use and zoning designations. Approval Alternative In 1992, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 163 Part II (County and Municipal Planning and Land Development Regulation) of the Florida Statues to provide an alternative means for local governments to adopt amendments to their comprehensive plan. This alternative adoption measure was established to allow local governments the opportunity to protect themselves from being penalized by adopting comprehensive plan amendments "subsequently found not in compliance by the state. Under the regular procedure, a comprehensive plan amendment becomes effective when a local government adopts the amendment. Even though the state Department of Community Affairs has forty-five days from plan adoption to issue a compliance determination, an applicant can apply for and obtain a development permit immediately after local government approval of a plan amendment request. That situation could cause a problem for local governments in that once an applicant obtains a development order and makes expenditures based upon that development order, his project usually becomes vested. When a project is vested, the project developer has the legal right to proceed with development, and the project can be stopped by a local government only if that local government compensates the developer for damages. In cases where a comprehensive plan amendment is found not in compliance by DCA, the local government approving the amendment faces various financial penalties if DCA's decision is subsequently upheld by the Administration Commission. To avoid those penalties, local governments often enter into compliance agreements with DCA, whereby the non-compliant amendment is modified to make it acceptable. If, however, an applicant has obtained a development .order and started construction on property which was the subject of a plan amendment found not in compliance, the approving local government may be unable to enter into a compliance agreement without terminating the site's development approval and incurring significant costs for damages. To address that issue, the legislature, in 1992, amended Section 163.3189, F.S. to allow local governments to adopt plan amendments that would not become effective until DCA has issued a final order finding the amendment in compliance. This, however, is an alternative process, and it is at the discretion of a local government as to whether to adopt a plan amendment by the regular method or by the alternative. In this case, staff recommends that the Board not adopt the proposed amendment. If, however, the Board opts to adopt the amendment, both planning staff and the county attorney's staff recommend that the Board use -the alternative procedure. By doing so, the Board would delay the issuance of any development order request for the subject property until DCA or the Administration Commission has issued a positive compliance determination for the subject amendment; however, the County's interest will be protected and its potential liability reduced. 63 MAY 2 51993 9 FA"'r 6194