Laserfiche WebLink
Consistency with Comprehensive Platt <br />Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the <br />comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the <br />"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of <br />the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the <br />overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes <br />agricultural, residential recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their <br />densities. <br />The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies <br />are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the <br />community s development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the <br />basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning <br />decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more <br />applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular <br />applicability for this request are the following policies. <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 <br />In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use <br />Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land <br />use amendment request. These criteria are: <br />• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; <br />• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; <br />• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances <br />affecting the subject property; or <br />• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at <br />separate sites and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density <br />or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. <br />The proposed land use amendment meets the policy's second and third criteria. <br />On February 13, 1990 when the comprehensive plan was adopted, Subject Properties 1, 2, and 3 <br />were privately owned. At that time, those sites were correctly designated for agricultural or <br />residential uses. Since then, those sites have been purchased for conservation purposes. The <br />acquisition of Subject Properties 1, 2, and 3 by public agencies constitutes a substantial change in <br />circumstances affecting the subject properties and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use <br />Element Policy 14.3. <br />In contrast to the other sites which were privately owned when the plan was adopted, Subject <br />Property 4 has been owned by the county since 1939. Due to an oversight, however, Subject <br />Property 4 was designated L-2 instead of C-1. By designating the site C-1, the proposed amendment <br />corrects an oversight in the approved plan and meets Policy 14.3's second criterion. <br />For those reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. <br />Future Land Use Element Policies 1.5 and 1.6 <br />Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 states that the conservation land use designations are applied <br />to those areas which are vital or essential to the normal functions of ecosystems and have been <br />identified in the Conservation Element as meriting preservation. Future Land Use Element Policy <br />1 6 limits the use of C-1 designated land to conservation and passive recreational uses. <br />NOVEMBER 14, 2000 <br />-42- <br />BK 116 PG 054 <br />