3/18/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Element of the county's comprehensive plan. The Future Land use Element Policy to be added will limit Subject Property 1 to industrial uses, rather than other commercial, retail, or'office uses. On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. On November 21, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested amendments to the comprehensive plan. ORC— Report Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated January 30, 1997), which planning staff received on February 4, 1997. The DCA ORC Report (Attachment 8) contained two objections to this proposed amendment. One of those objections was procedural in nature and related to the county's state mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The other objection related to the analysis of transportation impacts. - EAR Related Objection According to state law, the county was required to submit an adopted EAR to DCA by January 1, 1997. The county complied with that requirement by adopting its EAR on December 17, 1996, and transmitting it to DCA on December 20, 1996. Once a local government's adopted EAR submittal date has passed, state law prohibits that local government from amending its comprehensive plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. On February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was sufficient. Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA's February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report contained an objection based on the county's EAR not having been determined to be sufficient [Section 163.3187 (6), F. S. and Rule 9J - 5.0053(4)(e), F.A.C.] . - Transportation Impact Related Objection The DCA ORC Report stated: The amendment did not provide data and analysis that adequate transportation facilities are, or will be, available to serve the proposed Future Land Use Map change based upon the maximum allowable use. The amendment also did not evaluate the maximum impacts on the roadway network (Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11 F.A.C.). The analysis section of this staff report contains a response to DCA's objections. Existing --Land Use Pattern - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and land to the west consist of citrus groves. The east 72.3 acres of the site are zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), while the west 29.5 acres of the site and land west of the site are zoned A-2, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/10 acres). South of the site, across SR 60, land is also zoned A-1 and A-2. That land contains groves and the Kenilworth Estates subdivision of single-family houses on large lots Southeast of the site, land is zoned A-1 and contains citrus groves. To the east of the site, across 98th avenue, is the RS -6, Single - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) zoned Vero Tropical Gardens subdivision. Land North of the site is zoned A-2 and contains rangeland and a sand mine. MARCH 18, 1997 89 BOOK I00 PAGE