12/18/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: The Honorable Members DATE:December 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: BARRIER ISLAND MORATORIUM FRON�obert M. Keating, AICP�'�EFERENCES: Director Planning & Development Division It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 18, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On March 13, 19.85, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a moratorium which limited development on the barrier island to one unit per buildable acre. This action was taken in response to the requirements of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. As per the Hutchinson Island Plan, local governments within the study area were required to limit barrier island development until a traffic study could be completed which would depict needed improvements to maintain a level of service C/D at buildout. Since at the time the moratorium was considered by the Commission the County had already contracted with a consultant to prepare a traffic study, the Commission put a December 31, 1985 expiration date on the barrier island moratorium. Because of delays, the traffic report was not prepared in a timely manner which would have allowed adoption of the traffic study prior to the end of the year. Therefore, without further action, the moratorium will expire on December 31. Currently, the traffic impact study is scheduled for Board consideration in January. Given that timeframe, it is anticipated that Hutchinson Island Plan traffic requirements could be met by the County in February of 1986. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS - There are two principal alternatives to be considered in relation to this matter: The first would be as extension of the moratori- um. With this alternative, the Commission would, by resolution, extend the existing barrier island moratorium for three months, until the end of March. This would allow sufficient time for the County to comply with Hutchinson Island Plan traffic requirements and ensure that the County complies with plan mandates until then. The second alternative would be for the County to let the mora- torium expire,- allowing development on the island to occur consistent with comprehensive plan densities. With this alterna- tive, however, the County would not be in compliance with the Hutchinson Island Plan. The risk with this alternative is that the state could take action against the County for non-compliance with the Hutchinson Island Plan. Such action could lead to designation of the County as an area of critical state concern. 93 DEC � aooK PAGE "gid