Loading...
Minutes 11-08-75MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP ~ETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, SATURDAY, NOVE~ER 8, 1 975 AT 2 :O0 P. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Mrs. Vicki Castello Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Enrico Rossi Oris Walker Simon Ryder ABSENT Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chman. Warren Bushnell, Acting Bldg. Official James Smoot, Planning Consultant (Excused) Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 2:06 P. M. He took roll call and announced that Col. Trauger was eEeused on account of a business engagement on the west coast. He informed the members that he was not able to prepare an agenda, but spoke to Mr. Smoot during the week and he has some things ready. However, the main purpose of this meet- ing refers to an annexation program after having received a presentation at the last regular meeting requesting annexa- tion. He also obtained Resolution 74-L with its attached Exhibit A, They must get this thing straightened out with the advice of Mr. Smoot. He then referred to the City Council meeting on Tuesday night and a motion being made by Vice Mayor DeLong and approved by the City Council requesting the City Attorney to give this Board something in writing on this. The State statute pertaining to this was called to his atten- tion after the meeting and he obtained copies and gave one to each member. He then requested Mr. Smoot to make his presen- tation. Mr. Smoot stated he thought he could summarize the problems with annexation. He informed the Board that he talked to .Assistant City Attorney Robert Federspiel and also Roger Saber~son, the City Attorney for Delray Beach. They explained to him how the three statutes were messed up. Mr. Federspiel advised him that the Board could do absolutely nothing as far as annexation is concerned until the two city attorneys can get together and find out what can be done legally. He con- curs with this, as he would, not like to see a precedent es- tablished. He requested the Board to hold anything regarding annexation in abeyance regardless how good or how bad it is. He suggests not even considering any applications for annexa- tion. He believes Mr. Federspiel, through ~M. Simon, will communicate these remarks to the City Council. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWO NOVEMBER 8, 1975 Mr. Ryder questioned what they could tell an applicant and Chairman Kelly replied that they did not have to say anything and he referred to the flow chart. Mr. Walker referred to the application coming up. Mr. Smoot gave an exampl~ of a piece of property zoned agriculture in the reserve area and the county land use plan showing a m~e contrary to the City plan. He then pointed out that the whole thing was pivotal on land use. Mr. Rossi referred to annexation having gone in, which possi- bly could have been illegal and he referred to Greenacres. Mr. Smoot agreed that Greenacres started this whole mess, but they are saddled with it. The problem is when Greenacres did all this annexation, the bill had not been amended on the second amendment and he explained. He continued that in the meantime, the State passed the Comprehensive Planning Act and this City is in the process of complying with it. Mrs. Huckle asked if it was up to the Florida Legislature to unravel all this and Mr. Smoot informed her that they were about to pass anothe~amendment. However, they must CmOme up with an interim procedure to give the applicant and the City a fair shake. Chairman Kelly asked if he suggested an interim procedure and Mr. Smoot he advised Mr. Federspiel that he would give input Chairman Kelly then read Florida Skate Statute 171.062, Para- graph 2, Page 147. Mr. Smoot pointed out that even if the applicant wanted to increase the density, he could not by statute. This law i~ this particular section was written prior to the Comprehensive Planning Act. It was w~ten primarily because only seven counties in the State had zon- ing codes. Mrs. Huckle asked when the Comprehensive Planning .Act was passed by the Florida Legislature and Mr. Smoot in- formed her it was one year old and requires compliance by ~979o Mr. ~der stated that the City Attorney must come up with an interim plan and the City Council should be notified. Mr. Smoot stated that he believed the City Attorneys were muddle~ and he told about Mr. Saberson being involved in it and he suggested that Mr. Federspiel get together with him. Mr. Ryder stated that this should particularly be brought to the City Council,s attention. Chairman Eelly stated if the Board agreed, he would present a memo to the City Council giving a synopsis of this presentation. Mr. Smoot suggested requesting that an interim procedure be suggested by the City Attorney. Mr. Smoot continued that he did not disagree with annexation, hut he explained how it must be considered thoroughly. He then referred to short term costs and how he believed the developer or applicant should pay for them and the City must acknowledge there are long term costs and responsibilities. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE NOVEF~R 8, 1975 Chairman Kelly informed him that this system has been followed during the past few years and Mr. Smoot replied that some costs have been missed. Mr. Rossi summarized that if they take action now based on the present law, they may be wrong. They are talking about zoning in reference to how the County and City sees how it looks. Also, in annexation,, they should realize what they should get with it. The people with large areas applying should pay their share of the costs. Mr. Smoot replied that it was not a question, although it is questionabl~, what con- ditions the City must apply to all annexations. The question is what does the statute say regarding their annexing. Rossi asked if there was any time involved and ~r. Smoot re- plied that he had asked Mr. Federspiel and he had no idea. However, he does want to ,ask what are the penalties if they do it wrong. Chairman Kelly referred to The Meadows annexation, which was zoned asaa PUD, and asked if this was a valid application. Mr. Smoot replied that it depended what the PUD ordinance stated regarding density. The statute states they may not increase or decrease the units as approved by the County. Mr. Rossi referred to the rules governing PUDSs in the County and questioned if the man was relieved from this set of rules? Mr. Smoot replied that he. believed this was annexed because they were having difficulties obtaining sewers and water. Mr. Rossi asked what would happen if this applicant came to the Board next week with Plat #1 and rM. Bushnell informed the Board that they had just inquired last Thursday advising that the property was changing hands and ~ked if the PUD still applied. He added that i~t was annexed under the City PUD. Mr. Rossi asked if a given set of plans or documents was attached to the resolution when p~ssed and rM. Bushnell re- plied: yes. Mr. Smoot asked if the County Plan reflected the City PUD and Mrs. Huckle gave him the PUD ordinance. Mr. the Meadows plat and ~M. man was wor~ng with only 60 acres of the property and it would be coming in pieces since it is hhanging hands. Mr. Smoot informed them when a PUD, zoning, variance, etc. is granted, it runs with the land. Chairman Kelly referred to the possibility of this 60 acres constituting the commercial area of this PUD. Mrs. HUckle referred to having a certain set of rules with this prescribed piece of land and if it changes, it must come back before this Board and the City Council. ~. Smoot added that if the new owner did not go along with the original proposal, then he would have to re- apply. Chairman Kelly referred to having a commercial piece, but only as part of the PUD. ~. Rossi explained how he worked withtthe Leisureville PUD. Mrs. Huckle pointed out MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR NOVEM~ER 8, 1975 that it had come in piece by piece and they had control over it. Mr. Rossi~suggested checking the resolution which brought The Meadows into the City. Mr. Smoot referred to the PUD ordinance and read Section 7, Paragraph H, Article 7, pertaining to neighborhood commer- cial uses. He informed them that the County code specifi- cally states these commercial uses. They must ~n~ow the uses in order to create a traffic pattern. Mr. Rossi referred totthe annexation of The Meadows agai~ and asked if a represemtative from the County was present at that time to give input and Chairman Kelly replied: mo. Mr. Smoot informed them that it was approved By the Commty, but evidently the Board did mot kmOw of the Commty plan at the time of the annexation. Mr. Rossi s~ated he believed the City should stick to the requirements made at that time and Chairman Kelly agreed. He added that he would get a copy of this res~lutiom for each member. Mr. Smoot referred to the PUD ordinance and read Article 10, Section 10, Paragraph B-3, third subsection, pertaining to the reverting of the PUD in a period of 18 months. He also read Article 11, which did not state whether it covered the entire area. He stated he didn't see where the density was controlled in the PUD ordinance and M~o Rossi informed him that the density went back to LUI. Mrs. Huckle added that it was regulated by the zoning code. Chairman Kelly stated he thought they covered annexation. They have been advised they should not c~nsider ~y annexation ap- plications until the atmosphere is cleared by the City Attor- ney as per the preliminary comference between Mr. Federspiel and Mr. Smoot. He stated that he would meet with ~. Smoot to formulate a memo to the City Council advising of this. Mr. Bushnell referred to the annexation in process for the Cogen property and Mr. Smoot replied that he didn't see how this could be processed until this was settled. Mrs. Huckle suggested taking this off the table at the nex$ regular meet- ing ~ formulating it this way to do it properly. The mem- bers agreed. Mr. Smoot imformed the Board that he talked to Mr. Federspiel in reference to the Board of Adjustment non-conforming ~ec- tion. It is in his hands for the final draft, it will be available for the Board's regular meeting on Wednesday night, He suggests that the Board include it on the agenda for dis- cussion, tf they elect to accept it as written or suggest amendments, he suggests that it then be scheduled for public hearing. He would li~e to have it resolved, so the City Council will be aware they are making progr~ss~im!~this. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE OVEMB~IR 8, 1975 Mr. Smoot then referred to the attached front sheet outlin- ing a flow chart for re-zoning. The attached four pages are the discussions of what he believes should occur in the pro- cess of re-zoning. The last item (9) is a note that he should discuss this further with the City Attorney. He then passed out copies to the members. Mr. Smoot then referred to the request beginning with the owner, agent or Planning & Zoning Board. He pointed out that the City Council may not originate a re-zoning request, but may request this Board to do so. The City Council may not initiate er act on a re-zoning without going to this Board. He then explained the requirements for the forms to be submitted.and processed. He explained the procedure for meetings and hearings per the chart. Mrs. Huckle asked why the recormmendation must be made to the City Council with~60 days and ~. Smoot replied that he be- lieve2 the City should process any application it receives as quickly as possible. He explained how applications were post- poned in Delray Beach. Mrs. Huckle asked who it would go back to if the Board did not make a recommendation within 60 days and Mr. Smoot replied that if the Board did not arrive at a decision within the prescribed time, it went to the City Council as being approved. F~s. Huckle referred to their present procedure and questioned who would take it to the City Council and Mr. Smoot replied that if the item was not passed, it must be communicated to the City Council. Mrs. Huckle asked who would keep track of this 60 dsy limit and Mr. Smoot replied that he believed the applicant would keep track and Chairman Kelly added that they must be dated. Mr. Smoot continued with reading Page I of the discussion of the re-zoning procedure. M~. Smoot then read Page 2. Chairman Kelly suggested that the Building Department obtain a receipt if they returned the whole package and ~. Smoot replied that it was not needed. Chairman Kelly suggested attaching a memo when returning, so they would have a copy for their files. Mrs. Huckle referred to the processing and questioned if it wasnnecessary for re-zonings to be reviewed by the T.R.B. and C.A.B. and Mr. Smoot replied that he thought they should be. Mrs. Huckle asked if this was a change from their present system and ~M. Bushnell replied that it was a complete change. Mrs. Huckle stated that re-zoning previously only came to,this Board, but site plans went to the other boards. Mr. Smoot referred to the time taken by this Board at meetings trying to find information. He added that he thought it was good public relations to do it this way. He also stated that he MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SiX NOVEMBER 8, 1975 included the County, as communications are a two way street and the cities should notify the County of what is going on. In doing this, the County will be quick to respond in refer- ence to rights-of-way. Mr. Smoot continued with Paragraph (3) on Page 2 and stated he expects the Building Department to summarize the comments from the T.R.B. and County on one sheet. He assumes the re- sponses that are contradictory ~ill be worked out. M~. Smoot continued with reading Paragraph (4) and stated the municipal services would be fire, police, water, trash, sewers, schools, etc. M~. Bushnell questioned if schools should be included and Mr. Smoot replied that schools were definitely an issue and explained. Mr. Smoot continued with explaining how full consideration must be given to the extension of a sewer trunk line. Mr. Rossi referred to having had several applications that warranted a traffic impact analysis and asked if the T.R.B. should take care of this? Mr. Smoot replied that he would comment on this. This procedure goes up to a point. He also will submit to the members copies of the re-zoning ap- plication form. However, he doesn't know exactly how to re- quire a traffic impact study as they can't do it in all uses. How does the applicant know if he would qualify in submitting this report? He explained how the County had a different code with special exceptions, but require a public hearing and the staff is permitted to require certain studies and reports to validate their requests. ~. Rossi replied that they could probably establish something. Mr. Smoot replied that the County has a very well qualified group of people, who would be glad to help in this regard. Mrs. Huckle asked if this was the proper place to include this and Mr. Smoot replied that this is not the way the code will come out, as he will give this to the City AttOrney and request a clear form of it. Mrs. Huckle remarked that they are always run- ning into difficulties with finding the right things in the right place. Mr. Smoot informed her that the thrust of these four pages and the flow chart was to try to systemize the process so the Board and applicant knows what is happening. Mr. Smoot continued with reading Paragraph (5) on Page 2 and Page 3. Mr. Smoot explained that the wor~kshop meeting was for their information. He stated he was referring to public hearings and the need for a workshop meeting prior to it. They can have a wor~hop meeting at any time, but he thinks they should have them. The Building Official should notify the Chairman and judge whether it is necessary tohhold a work- shop meeting. The members discussed whether regularly scheduled workshop meetings were necessary and ~r. Smoot pointed out how they ha~ other things to discuss, like today, and the regularly scheduled meetings should be for processing applications. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN NOVEMBER 8, 1975 Mr. Smoot continued with reading Page 3 and after Paragraph (10), he commented that the agenda should be solidified at the end of the workshop meeting. Mrs. Huckle stated that this meant that they must have a workshop meeting. She asked if they did~,t have a workshop meeting, what would be the cut- off date for the agenda? Mr. Smoot agreed that they must have a shut-off date for the agenda and also referred to lomg dis- cussions taking place at regular meetings which could be taken care of at workshop meetings. He suggested adding a paragraph that in the absence of a workshop meeting, the agenda would be closed one week prior to the regular meeting. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that they have made additions by polling the mem- bers and Mr. Smoot replied that he didn't think this was good, as they discuss the matter. Mr. Smoot added that if there were a~ministrative matters to be brought up by Mr. Bushnell, possibly they could be considered at the end of the aganda. Mrs. Huckle stated that occasionally there is an administra or did previously which should be She think the appli- cant should be penalized. The members discussed how the City Council had a cut-off date for their agenda. Mr. Smoot also referred to the public Re added that if a person did walk in wi call a workshop meeting for agreed stated he would ified one week matte~, they could always next day. The members all Mr. Smoot them referred to Paragraph (11) and informed the Board that they must discuss sPecifically why it is being postponed and it must be piostponed to a specific date. Mr. Smoot continued with reading Paragraph (1) under Public Hea~ing and pointed out if there was an error by their previ- ous action, it could be handled here. F~. Smoot continued with reading Page 4, Paragraph (2) and informed them that the City Clerk must give them the notifi- cation from the newspaper a~d the Chairman would then return it to the City Clerk. Mr. Smoot continued with reading Page 4 and informed them that he put the Building Department last for recommendations i~ because the applicant or people by their testimony could cause the City's recommendation to change to some degree. Mr. Smoot continued and referred to the previous school appli- cation and informed tham that the zoning law states that schools must be permitted. A school is a school and they cannot differentiate between private and public. If a public school is permitted, a private school must be permitted scud he explained. Mrs. Huckle informed him that this was not specifically spelled out in the code and they could not act. Mr. Smoot replied that a school could be run by the County, City, or private individual. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOA~RD PAGE EIGHT NOVE~J~BER 8, 1975 Mr. Smoot continued with remding the remaining paragra?hs on Page 4. He added that they must have statements of why they are approving or denying an application. He also pointed out that when an application as received, they must study that area, look at the map, consider the need, etc. They must look at the immediate demand capabilities. Mx. Rossi referred back to their discussion of a PUD and stated that this must also be resolved and he requested Mr. Smoot's input. He gave an exampl~ of the possibility of there being a need for R-1 instead of R-IA or R-1AA and hav- ing a nice plan presented~with a green area and trees, etc. He pointed out this was between a PUD and zoning and ques- tioned if they could give R-l? Mr. Smoot replied that they have always thought of zoning rather than land use planning. The orange book is their guide for the future. This example could relate in an implied way since it is single family. Possibly they could required that the applicant supply an economic analysis if the zoned change is for a less restric- tive classification. He gave a~ example of property in Boca Raton which the city wanted to change from commercial to re- sidential. He also explained how PUD's originated. He would prefer not to do it to a subdivision process, but w~ite a PUD that would not allow more people, satisfy needs and have control by the City. He would prefer to throw out the present PUD and re-write it. There would be a lot more open space ~d they would have more conmervation and the City would have a greater to have the developer change designs. Mr. Rossi to Mr. Smoot's explanation of how ~UD~s originated and pointed out that this applied to Condominiums, but now they were leaning towards the building of single family homes. H!e doesn't think the PUD would apply as wsll to single family homes. ~. Smoot replied that it could apply to single fami~ly development and they could con- trol height, eto. They can do PUD in R-1AA~, but would have controls in size of living! area, height, etc., but would eliminate the lot area requirement and setbacks. ~. Rossi referred to the possibility of having an applicant with a nice presentation with going down one zone and showing a curvilinear layout with more lots. He asked if the Board could take aCtion? Mr. Smoot referred to the code and asked if he thought it was ~reasonable in open space and Mr. Rossi replied that as compared with the County in single f~mily, an umusmally large area must be provided.~ Mr. Smoot told about a single family subdivision in Boca Raton which more than complied with the city PUD in open space and had no problem. He stated that one of the basic advantages to the builder of a PUD is the economy of the buildings, streets, length of pipe, sidewalk and a single family design is still maintained. ~. Ryder rema~ed that they ended up with in- adequate setbacks. Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 4:28 P. M. Boynton Beach Florida P&Z workshop November 8, 1975 Draft No. 1 SUGGESTED REZONING PROCEDURE (Narrative Form) CITY CLERK < NOTIFIED ¥ P&Z HEARING SCHEDULED VARIOUS COUNTY AGENCIES CLERK MAILS NOTICES FOR PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST ORIGINATES WITH OWNER OR AGENT(*) ON FORMS SUPPLIED BY CITY CLERK SUBMITTED TO CLERK WITH REZONING FEE TWO (2) FORMS SENT TO ~BLDG. DEPT. FOR CERTI- FICATION REVIEW REQUEST CERTIFIED FOR. PROCESSING- BLDG. DEPT. DISTRIB- UTES NECESSARY INFO. ,OF,'REQUEST TO: TECHNICAL REVIEW-----~COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD BOARD ¥ 'PLANNING AND ZONING WORKSHOP PLANNING AND ZON!NG~'' NECESS Y REQUEST NO'I CERTIFIED MOTION TO TABLE Boynton Beach Florida P&Z Workshop November 8, ~ ~'~-75 Draft No. 1 DISCUSSION OF REZONING PROCEDURE (1) Since the current practice is to receive the rezoning forms from the city Clerk and since that department is charged with the certification of all city doc- uments, i% is suggested that the practice continue. However, %he Clerk shall only-provide the prospective applicant with the necessary number of forms and whatever other basic information the applicant needs for an understanding of the information requested. Under no circumstances should the Clerk attempt to offer judgments as to the veracity of the application or offer interpretations of the Zoning Code. Should the applicant require an interpretation, the matter shall be referred to the Building Department. (2) (3) (4) Once~the applicant-has returned with the required number of completed applications~nd attachments,- the Clerk shall stamp the time and date the appli- cation is received. The applicant shall be informed that unless the Building Department has notified him in writing within two (2) weeks from that date, the request for rezoning shall be heard by the Plann- ing and Zoning Board on day and month and at time. Said'information shall be placed upon- all copies of the application~for inter-departmental information. The Clerk shall distribute two (2) copies of the application to the Building Department for certi- fication review. While the Building Department is performing its assigned function, the Clerk shall spot check the accompanying "Property Owners' List" and ~ The fee f ~ the Cle~' be cf Boynton Beach Florida P&Z Workshop November 8, !5 '5 Draft No. 1 Page 2. (6) (7) (8) The applicant sP~ll revise the application as directed by the letter from the Building Department and shall resubmit same to the City Clerk, noti- fying that department that it is a resubmission. The Clerk shall reactivate the file and process in the normal fashion. A copy of the original although faulty application shall remain in the file for record purposes. Once again the applicant shall be informed of the possibility that the application will not be certi- fied and should also be informed of the public hearing date of the Planning and Zoning Board should the application be certified. (!)- (2) (3) (4) PROCESSING The Building Department shall prepare a form which summarizes the thrust of the rezoning request also noting the probable date Of. the public hearing. A distribution shall be made to all members of the Techhica! Review Board (with a response time so noted), to'the chairman of the Community Appearance Board, and to the Planning, Zoning and Building Depar'tme~t of Palm Beach County as well as to the Land Development Division of the County Engineering Department for record or response purposes. The Building Department shall coordinate all responses incorporating same into the file together with a summary recommendation from the Building Department. questions applica%" Boyn%on Beach Florida P&Z Workshop ~J~-~m~ 8, 197 Draft No. ! Page 3, (5) (e) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) A coN of the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Reguia%ions. The Planning and Zoning Board sh~!! fami!arize %hem- sei%~es with each appiica%ion and the recommendations of the ~rious ~ c~uy departments. Prior to the begim~ing of ~he meeting, %he Building Department sh~i! distribute %0 each member an informaqionai package which shall include the following: (a) A copy of the sum~mary recommendation; (b) Copies of the various depar~menta! recommen- dations; (c) A copy of the form ~-hich summarizes the thrust of th~ request~ and, (d) A copy of a locationa! drawing. The purpose of the ~orkshop is for informational ~rposes ~~ The Board as a whole or as individuals shall no~ express appro~ral or denial of any of the applications. Discussion f~om the floor sh~!! not be permit%ed unless the Chairman or any member of the Board requests additional information or clarification from app_mcant. The applicant sh~!l not be permit%ed %o argue the merits of the ~ppiication nor shall any member phrase informational questions begging ~n argument. Men,ers of the public sh~l! also be governed by %he same rule. Aside from t~ose items %ha% have been scheduled~ public hea~n~ ~v ~h~ £i~ Clerk and those items not requ~ process~ prese~ sba? Boynton Beach Florida P&Z Workshop November 8, 1975 Draft No. 1 Page 4. (2) (3) The proof of publication shall be presented authenicat- the validity of the noticed public hearings. Further reference to said noitce is not necessary. sinCe the Board has been made aware of the background information on each petition~and since each member has a complete informational package, the BuildinG Department shall briefly discuss for the public present the following~ Using the Zoning Map previously discussed at the workshop, the property to be rezoned shall be identified as to location and exist- ing zoning; ~ (4) (b) (c) The nature of the request should be explained to th~ public as should the surrounding zoning and land uses~ and, Should there be other exhibits explaining the request, they shall be located for later public comment. Arguments from the applicant may now be heard and additional exhibits, documents, and testimony may be referred to. It is suggested that the applicant be asked to coordinate his presentation at the outset so informing the Board as to ~{ho his speakers shall be. (5) (6) Questions and statements from the public may now b~~ taken. Caution is advised here against allowing the public from arguing with the applicant or he w~th them. The purpose of the hearing is to hear from the public, but this can be carried to rather a~k%-ard extremes the Board i~ · datlons a dec~ Ha~ (7) - I I ' BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA 33435 SUBIECT: Annexation Guidelines MESSAGE I I Nov. 6. 1975 I DATE: The City Council at their regular meeting of November 4, 1975 directed that you'prepare.for the Planning and Zoning Board guidelines' for annexation indicating specifics to upgrade the existing annexation ordinance. P!ease.take appropriate action. . ~ E R. L Y ~:): Fr~~'~ '.a~er - ' --~- '' c~9.~elly,~ --C~ira~/n of Planning & ' Zoning Board (with encl.) - "In.lmy: discus~fons: with Joe KellsrT--h~i~fformed me that the only question to be .arified in the Planning and Zoning Board's mind is whether~or not the Board's recommendation to annexation should include its recommendation as to the zoning classification for the The present guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 74-L include the applicant's of the proposed zoning. Th~refor~:..~the application is submitted to the Board for tudy and recommendation'~ it would appear that the Council wishes the Board's recomm~ndatio~ : to the total application. If the City C~ncil desires otherwise, the question should be arified by CounciL. by revising the guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 74-L. In addition, I have furnished Mr. Kelly with copies of Sec. 171.062, Florida Statute~ ~opy tached hereto, regarding adherence to the county land-use plan. I would suggest tha~ the application be amended to include the applicant's statement of the present county '~ in order t~hat appropriate, consideration is to the ~.estrictions in sec. 171.Q62,F.S. Ernest G.$~mon, City Attorney co..,~c....oo.~.. ,.~. ,,=3= .'-- 'TH~5 COPY FO~ P~$ON ADDRESSSD -