12/7/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr__ -1 DEC - 7 1993 BOOK 91 NAGE 166 Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets policy 13.3's second criterion. Prior to February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was adopted, land use was governed by the previous comprehensive plan's future land use map which was adopted in 1982 and last amended in 1988 (see attachment 4). Inspection of previous future land use maps shows that the subject property historically had an agricultural designation. Although the Board of County Commissioners never intended to change the subject property's land use designation, an oversight caused the subject property to be included in the expanded L-1 designated area east of I-95 and south of 8th Street. The Board did not consider that agricultural uses existed on the subject property. This oversight occurred when the current comprehensive plan was adopted. For this reason, the proposed amendment meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7 states that the agricultural land use is applied to those areas of the county that have been traditionally used for agricultural purposes and are sufficiently removed from urban areas. This -policy also states that the agricultural land use category will ensure continuation of the industry. Located in an area dominated by agricultural and vacant land, the subject property's only use is and has been agricultural. Since the site, at the edge of the urban service area, is removed from urban development and has traditionally been used for agricultural purposes, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7. - Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3 Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3 states that the county shall permit the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95. The purpose of this request is to provide for the continuation and expansion of an existing agricultural use. Additionally, the site is not only east of I-95, but also contiguous to agriculturally designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3. - Future Land Use Element Objective 10 Future Land Use Element Objective 1.0 states that the county will reduce the number of uses which are inconsistent with the future land use map. Since the existing use on the site is inconsistent with the current future land use plan designation, but would be consistent with the proposed land use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 10. - Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage the expansion of existing businesses. Since the existing use is non -conforming under the present land use designation, but not under the requested land use designation, this request facilitates expansion of the existing business. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy.l.l. 64 M