Laserfiche WebLink
Director Keating revealed that there was uncertainty as to whether each of the sixteen <br />elements/sub-elements in the Comprehensive Plan would require a separate ballot; however, the <br />Consensus among interested parties was that the amendments could not be approved as one <br />issue. <br />Chairman O'Bryan surmised that each amendment within the elements would require <br />approval. <br />Discussion ensued as Board members speculated on how the passage of Amendment 4 <br />might affect the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in the future, and what the effective <br />date of the initiative would be. <br />Vice Chairman Solari wanted to know what the Energy Conservation Map was supposed <br />to show. <br />Director Keating said the requirement for the Energy Conservation Map carne from <br />House Bill 697 (HB 697), and the rules for implementing the bill are still being promulgated. <br />He clarified that the purpose of HB 697 was to designate an area of more concentrated <br />development, which would result in less urban sprawl and enhanced energy conservation, which <br />is consistent with the reasons staff has depicted an Urban Service Area (USA) on the Future <br />Land Use map. <br />A comprehensive discussion followed on how the inclusion of the Energy Conservation <br />Map might impact the County. Several Board members declared that the inclusion of the Energy <br />Conservation Map, when the rules were not yet formulated, was unwarranted and might lead to <br />future unfunded mandates or other detrimental consequences for the County. Other discussion <br />points included selecting a different area (other than the Urban Service Area) for the Energy <br />Conservation Map; whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendments could be sent to DCA without <br />the Energy Conservation Map; whether the item should be TABLED for one week to garner <br />more information on House Bill 697; and what the intent of HB 697 is. <br />13 <br />October 12, 2010 <br />