|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Growth Management Report 19. 1.
|
| BCC Regular Meeting |
|
|
|
| RECOMMENDATION: |
Recommendation Concerning the Review of the Rezoning Cases heard by the Planning Board on June 3, 2013
That the Board take the following action concerning the rezoning cases heard by the Planning Board on June 3, 2013:
-
Review and either adopt, modify, or overturn the Planning Board’s recommendations for Rezoning Cases Z-2013-04, Z-2013-11, and Z-2013-12 or remand the cases back to the Planning Board; and
-
Authorize the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners for the rezoning cases that were reviewed.
|
1. |
Case No.: |
Z-2013-04 |
|
|
Address: |
2842 Nowak Dairy Road |
|
|
Property Reference No.: |
36-1N-31-2000-000-000; 36-1N-31-1200-000-000 |
|
|
Property Size: |
47.98 (+/-) acres |
|
|
From: |
VAG-2, Villages Agriculture Districts, Gross Density (one du/five acres) |
|
|
To: |
V-2, Villages Single-Family Residential, Gross Density (two units/acre) |
|
|
FLU Category: |
MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban |
|
|
Commissioner District: |
5 |
|
|
Requested by: |
Buddy Page, Agent for, Poly Surveying |
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation: |
Denial |
|
|
Speakers: |
Buddy Page, Brett Orrell, Vince Lacoste, James Wells, William Thompson, Richard Moye, Karl Henderly, Dominique Hudgens, Jeanne Henderly, Peter Hurd, Jack Walters, Jan Walters, Carter Granat, Lynn McNorton, |
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Case No.: |
Z-2013-11 |
|
|
Address: |
10200 Pensacola Boulevard |
|
|
Property Reference: |
09-1S-30-1101-000-009 |
|
|
Property Size: |
2.37 (+/-) acres |
|
|
From: |
C-1, Retail Commercial District (cumulative) (25 du/acre) |
|
|
To: |
C-2, General Commercial and Light Manufacturing District (cumulative) (25 du/acre) |
|
|
FLU Category: |
C, Commercial |
|
|
Commissioner District: |
5 |
|
|
Requested by: |
Frank Sanders, Owner |
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation: |
Approval |
|
|
Speakers: |
Frank Sanders |
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Case No.: |
Z-2013-12 |
|
|
Address: |
7649 Mobile Highway |
|
|
Property Reference: |
17-1S-31-4201-000-000 |
|
|
Property Size: |
10.5(+/-) acres |
|
|
From: |
R-2, Single-Family District (cumulative), Low-Medium Density (seven du/acre) |
|
|
To: |
AG, Agricultural District, Low Density (1.5 acres/du) |
|
|
FLU Category: |
MU-S, Mixed-Use Suburban |
|
|
Commissioner District: |
1 |
|
|
Requested by: |
Susan Thibodeaux, Owner |
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation: |
Approval |
|
|
Speakers: |
Susan Thibodeaux |
|
| BACKGROUND: |
The above cases were owner initiated and heard at the June 3, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Under the Land Development Code (LDC) 2.08.00.E.1., “the Board of County Commissioners shall review the record and the recommendation of the Planning Board and either adopt the recommended order, modify the recommended order as set forth therein, reject the recommended order, or remand the matter back to the Planning Board for additional facts or clarification. Findings of fact or findings regarding legitimate public purpose may not be rejected or modified unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. When rejecting or modifying conclusions of law, the Board of County Commissioners must state with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying the recommended conclusion of law and must make a finding that its substituted conclusion of law is as or more reasonable than the conclusion that was rejected or modified. However, the Board of County Commissioners may not modify the recommendation to a more intensive use than recommended by the Planning Board; rather the matter shall be remanded with instructions. The review shall be limited to the record below. Only a party of record to the proceedings before the Planning Board or representative shall be afforded the right to address the Board of County Commissioners and only as to the correctness of the findings of fact or conclusions of law as based on the record. The Board of County Commissioners shall not hear testimony."
To further the County’s policy of “decreasing response time from notification of citizen needs to ultimate resolution,” the Board is acting on both the approval of the Planning Board recommended order and the LDC Map Amendment for this month’s rezoning cases. This report item addresses only the review and upholding of the Planning Board’s recommendation. The next report item will address the Public Hearing for the LDC Zoning Map Amendment.
|
| BUDGETARY IMPACT: |
This action may increase the ad valorem tax base for Escambia County.
|
| LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/SIGN-OFF: |
The recommended order is the result of deliberations by the Planning Board based on staff analysis, public testimony, and knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as well as case law and Florida Statutes.
|
| PERSONNEL: |
|
|
| POLICY/REQUIREMENT FOR BOARD ACTION: |
The Chairman will need to sign the Orders of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners either denying or approving the rezoning requests.
|
| IMPLEMENTATION/COORDINATION: |
The cases under review are presented to the Planning Board for collection of evidence. The Planning Board conducts a quasi-judicial public hearing and issues a recommended order to the Board.
|
|
|
|
|