Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Keating made the following <br />presentation: <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RM K <br />Community Development Director <br />a <br />DATE: December 4, 1990 • <br />SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS <br />It is requested that the information provided herein be given <br />formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners _-at -their <br />regular meeting of December 11, 1990. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS <br />Indian River County's comprehensive plan was adopted on February <br />13, 1990. Subsequent -to adoption, the plan was submitted to the <br />state Department of Community Affairs for their compliance review. <br />After review, the DCA issued a statement of intent to find the plan <br />not in compliance. <br />Upon DCA's issuance of its notice of intent, several actions <br />occurred. One action was the initiation of negotiations between <br />the state and the county to develop a set of actions that -would <br />bring the county's plan into compliance and avoid an administrative <br />hearing. At the same time several parties formally intervened in <br />the plan approval process. The intervenors then became <br />participants in the administrative hearing process. <br />After several months of negotiation, the county and the state <br />agreed on a set of remedial actions to bring the county's plan into <br />compliance. Incorporated into the formal compliance agreement that <br />was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 26, <br />1990, the remedial actions must be officially adopted by the county <br />as amendments to its comprehensive plan. That remedial actions <br />comprehensive plan amendment request is attached to this item. <br />While the compliance agreement resolved county/state issues, it did <br />not address the intervenors' concerns. In an effort to resolve the <br />intervenors' issues and also avoid a separate county/ intervenor <br />administrative hearing, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to <br />allow each intervenor to submit a comprehensive plan amendment <br />request to change those plan provisions which he opposed, those <br />amendments to be considered concurrently with the remedial actions <br />amendment. Three intervenors submitted amendment requests, and <br />these are attached to this item. <br />During the negotiation process between the county and the state and <br />between the county and the intervenors, the adopted plan was being <br />implemented. One provision of the plan with which the staff <br />complied was to accept proposed amendments to the plan during the <br />month of July. Since the comprehensive plan had not yet been found <br />in compliance, staff determined at that time that it would be <br />unreasonable to process the four amendment requests received until <br />the plan's non-compliance issues had been resolved. <br />Besides the non-compliance status of the plan, another issue <br />affected processing of the July amendment requests. That was the <br />state requirement limiting comprehensive plan amendment requests to <br />two times in each calendar year. Because of the amendment process, <br />U E G 1 1 199® 37 <br />BOOK. 82 rarE ��a <br />