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
- M M <br />that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with <br />the comprehensive plan. <br />Potential Impact on Environmental Quality <br />Since Subject Property 1 is presently used for a grove, and <br />therefore has been disturbed, development of that site under either <br />the existing residential or the requested commercial/industrial <br />land use _designation would have* no significant negative <br />environmental impacts. <br />While Subject Property 2 has also been disturbed, it does contain <br />some uplands communities and wetlands. County environmental <br />permitting requirements, including the 10$/15$ native upland plant <br />community set-aside requirement, are the same under either the <br />existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land <br />use designation. However, compared to a commercial/ industrial use, <br />residential development may be more likely to preserve the native <br />habitat and wetland areas for their aesthetic value. <br />For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no <br />significant detrimental effects on the environment at either site. <br />Alternatives <br />This land use designation amendment request involves two sites. In <br />order to meet the criteria of several comprehensive plan policies, <br />including Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23, the redesignation of <br />both sites must be considered jointly. Redesignating only one of <br />the subject sites would not be consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan and, therefore, is not an option available to the County. <br />With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has <br />three alternatives. The alternatives are: <br />1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to the Department of <br />ommunity Affairs. <br />2. Approve transmittal of this amendment to the Department of <br />Community Affairs. <br />3. Approve transmittal of this amendment, with changes, to the <br />Department of Community Affairs. <br />Conclusion <br />As proposed, the land use designation changes at both sites are <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all <br />surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the <br />environment or the provision of public services. For these <br />reasons, staff supports the request. <br />Recommendation <br />Staff recommends that the Board <br />transmittal of this- land use <br />Department of Community Affairs. <br />55 <br />of County Commissioners approve <br />designation amendment to the <br />aoo� 91 F�,cF157 <br />C_ - � 199 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.