12/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF,_ 7 -DEG 11199® BOOK F�1GE 161 agricultural areas will encourage development in these areas and the county plan does not have sufficient control mechanisms for development in rural and agricultural areas to discourage urban sprawl. The DCA contended that the county's Urban Service Area (USA) is too large for the projected population and will cause urban sprawl. The DCA also contended that the county's plan does not ensure that public water and sewer expansion will occur in a manner that discourages urban sprawl. P - Protection of Upland Plant Communities and Agricultural Lands: The DCA contended that the county's plan is not consistent with the comprehensive regional policy plan. While the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's plan calls for preservation of a least 25% of each native plant community occurring on-site, the county plan calls for only 15% -to be set aside. In the county's plan, the 15% set aside could be reduced to 10% if preservation is in a contiguous tract. This objection has arisen despite the fact that TCRPC found the county's plan to be consistent with the regional policy plan. The DCA contended that the adopted goals, objectives and policies do not ensure that residential development in the Agricultural area will proceed in a manner that preserves _- agricultural values and provides for clear separation of urban _,nd rural land uses. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13, 1990. Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive -Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, a copy of the adopted plan was then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for its compliance review. After review, the DCA issued a statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance. The principal reasons for the noncompliance finding were the DCA's contention that the plan promoted urban sprawl, allocated too much land for residential use, and failed to protect upland plant communities. Summary Of DCA's Non -Compliance Objections s On April 9, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs issued a statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance. DCA's objections are summarized below: c Over -allocation of Land for Residential Development: The DCA contended that the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is not supported by the data and analysis because it allocates more residential acreage and allows for the development of more residential dwelling units than are projected to be needed by the date depicted on the map (2010). The DCA stated that the county allocated 5.9 times as many acres and 11.3 times as many dwelling units within the Urban Service Area as are projected to be needed throughout the planning period. It stated that the county allocated 27.9 times as many acres and 11.6 times as many dwelling units for the county as a whole than are projected to be needed. Over- allocation of land is one of the indicators of urban sprawl, and the above multipliers are the indicators of over- allocation of land. 42