9/26/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

By convincing DCA to consider only land within the urban service area in measuring residential land allocation, by more specifically delineating available land by removing commercial and institutional uses, by removing land needed for infrastructure use, and by reducing the size of the urban service area, the staff succeeded in reducing the ratio from 11.6 to 4.5. Even at that amount, however, Indian River County's residential allocation factor is higher than many other areas. Several counties have ratios under two. Besides the density issue, the DCA was concerned with agricultural preservation in agricultural areas even with the reduced densities. To address- that issue, required clustering provisions have been included in the proposed compliance agreement. The effect of these requirements will be to ensure that development in agricultural areas is limited to lots of one acre or less, with most of the remainder of the site left in agricultural use or as native vegetation. Finally, the proposed compliance agreement addresses upland preservation. It does so by requiring that the county preserve 25% of the amount of native uplands that will be developed over the life of the plan -- 20 years. To achieve the 25%, the compliance agreement commits the county to acquisition of 450 acres of uplands to supplement the land that will be preserved through the county's 15% set-aside requirement. Attached to this item is the proposed compliance agreement. This document is a legal agreement between the county and DCA committing the county to amend its plan within 60 days by adopting the map changes and policy revisions specified in exhibit B. The agreement specifies that this action will serve to make the plan be found in compliance. DCA staff and Secretary Pelham have already approved the actions reflected in exhibit B. The Board's alternatives are to approve the compliance agreement and thereby postponing the administrative hearing until the plan can be formally amended or proceeding with the administrative hearing on October 9, 1990. It is staff's position that the better alternative is to execute the compliance agreement. Doing so would not only postpone the administrative hearing; it would also preclude imposition of sanctions -- a loss of $10 million in revenue. If the board so desires, legislative action to address these issues could be pursued concurrently in conjunction with other counties. In this manner, the county can achieve its desires at less cost and with less risk. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the board of county commissioners adopt the proposed compliance agreement. Attachment: 1. Proposed Compliance Agreement IS 1990 5 BOOK 81