My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/7/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
12/7/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:56 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:35:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/07/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
There are two scenarios under which Subject Property 2 could be <br />residentially developed. The first scenario would require Planned <br />Development approval which gives the Board of County Commissioners <br />more flexibility in setting approval standards. Under this <br />scenario, the Board could require additional buffering of the <br />property. <br />The other, and more likely, scan <br />Subject Property 2 with one of <br />parcels. At 43 and 180 acres, <br />large enough to buffer themselves <br />industrial use. <br />trio involves the combination of <br />.he adjacent residentially zoned <br />respectively, these parcels are <br />from the impacts of the existing <br />Presently, the applicant has no plans to develop Subject Property <br />2. Due to its configuration, the only commercial or industrial use <br />feasible on Subject Property 2 is the expansion of the existing <br />packing house contained on the overall 15 acre parcel. Since the <br />applicant has no intention to expand the packing house, Subject <br />Property 2's greatest value and most efficient use is as a <br />residentially designated tract that can be combined with adjacent <br />residentially designated land. <br />For these reasons,, the proposed amendment will not increase <br />potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject <br />Property 2. <br />Consistency with Comprehensive Plan <br />Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with -all <br />policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of <br />the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only <br />be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of <br />the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also <br />show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as <br />depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, <br />residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and <br />industrial land uses and their densities. <br />The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of <br />the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which <br />identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the <br />community's development. As courses of action committed to by the <br />county, policies provide the basis for all county land development <br />related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all <br />comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have <br />more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment <br />requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the <br />following policies. <br />- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 <br />In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important <br />consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy <br />requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a <br />land use amendment request. These criteria are: <br />• a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• an oversight in the approved plan; or <br />• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject <br />property. <br />Future Land Use Element Policy i3.3 is especially important when <br />evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or <br />intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not <br />increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny. <br />52 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.