5/18/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed revisions to. policy 5.8 would allow an exception to the maximum lot size requirement which is the primary vehicle through which the policy's clustering and open space objectives are achieved Therefore, adoption of the proposed amendment may result in development that is spread out and will not integrate well into the urban service area if it is expanded With development under the proposed amendment, urban densities could eventually surround subdivisions with lot sizes of five acres or more. That scenario could not occur under the existing policy 5.8 which sets the maximum residential lot size at one acre. Under the existing policy, urban densities associated with urban service area expansion would surround lots of one acre or less. Thus, developments with similar densities are more likely to abut under the existing version of policy 5.8, while developments with dissimilar densities are more likely to abut under the proposed amendment. For these reasons, the proposed amendment increases the likelihood of compatibility problems occurring. Impacts on Policy Implementation The county is committed to implementing the policies of the comprehensive plan. To achieve the plan's goals and objectives, policies must be action oriented and clearly written. The proposed amendment, however, is vague and difficult to implement. For example, several components of the amendment are not defined or explained Those components are listed in the table below. COMPONENT OF THE AMENDMENT COMMENT Building lots ... may be located ... in No size standards (neither minimum nor larger equestrian related agricultural PD's. maximum) are provided The term "larger" is highly subjective. Building lots ... may be located ... in No standards are provided Again, this is larger equestrian related agricultural PD's. highly subjective. While "equestrian related" clearly means that horses should live on the property, the amendment does not set any standards, such as types of activities, percentage of lots with horses, or the number or density of horses, for these types of Agricultural PDs. These projects may contain other approved Neither the type of animals, nor the approval animals besides horses. process is defined. Because these components of the proposed amendment lack standards, they require interpretation. The proposed amendment does not provide adequate guidance to make such an interpretation. For this reason, the proposed amendment will render policy 5.8 extremely difficult to implement. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As part of staffs analysis, each comprehensive plan amendment request is reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S. " The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability to this proposed amendment are the following policies and objectives. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 in evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances. Staffs position is that the proposed amendment request does not meet any of the criteria of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. MAY 189 1999 -43— BOOK`' PA�c�