My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-047
CBCC
>
Resolutions
>
2000's
>
2007
>
2007-047
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2017 11:20:35 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 4:47:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
2007-047
Approved Date
05/08/2007
Agenda Item Number
9.A.5
Resolution Type
Amendment
Entity Name
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Subject
Amendments to Capital Improvements Element
Text Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Public Schools Facilities Element
Archived Roll/Disk#
3129
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
2096
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element <br />ANALYSIS <br />In planning for growth, the county has to coordinate with a number of other governments or <br />government agencies which affect land development in Indian River County. Because of the number <br />of governments and governmental agencies, extensive coordination is required. <br />Despite the effort required, the county has a good working relationship with all local and state <br />entities. As part of its intergovernmental coordination efforts, the county is coordinating with the <br />municipalities within the county on various issues, including provision of services, interjurisdictional <br />development impacts, and notification of affected jurisdictions regarding proposed rezoning and land <br />use amendment actions. For most of those issues, however, there is no formal coordination <br />mechanism, and there is no formal dispute resolution process. <br />Overall, intergovernmental coordination involves several different activities. These are: <br />communication, identification of interjurisdictional impacts, mitigation of impacts, resolution of <br />disputes, cooperative or joint activities, and others. Not all of these activities apply in every <br />intergovernmental relationship. <br />Communication <br />At the local level, communication with municipalities and other local entities is good. Some of this <br />communication occurs through existing county committees which meet on a regular basis, have a set <br />structure, and maintain minutes. Other communication, however, is informal with no set <br />mechanism. <br />Locally, county staff currently notifies appropriate municipal staff whenever a development project is <br />proposed close to a municipal boundary. Municipalities sometimes notify county staff of proposed <br />projects within their jurisdictions which could impact the county. Currently, notification of local <br />governments is not formally required either by the county or adjacent municipalities. If each local <br />government were required to inform adjacent governments of proposed projects, intergovernmental <br />coordination could be enhanced. <br />Communication with some state agencies seems to be an issue. Local government is not always kept <br />apprised of changes in rules and regulations. This sometimes results in lack of a clear understanding <br />of state regulations for both applicants and the county. Some of the issues related to general <br />coordination with state agencies are summarized below: <br />Number of agencies with which the county must coordinate <br />Lack of communication between various offices of the state agency <br />Duplication of efforts <br />In some cases, lack of clear written guidelines <br />In some cases, lack of formal procedures or agreements and lack of clear understanding of all <br />Community Development Department Indian River County 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.