Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />JUN 18 1991 <br />BOOK e F,i.UE 6 6 <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />Robert M. eatin , A <br />Community Devel men Director <br />FROM: Sasan Rohani S !c <br />Chief, Long -Range Planning <br />DATE: May 28, 1991 <br />SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE <br />REMEDIAL ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DCA <br />COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration- by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular <br />meeting of June 18, 1991. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13, <br />1990. Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and <br />Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, a copy of the adopted plan <br />was then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for <br />its compliance review. After review, the DCA issued a statement of <br />intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in- <br />compliance. The principal reasons for the noncompliance finding <br />were the DCA's contention that the plan promoted urban sprawl, <br />allocated too much land for residential use, and failed to protect <br />upland plant communities. <br />Summary Of DCA's- Non -Compliance Objections <br />On April 9, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs issued a <br />statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive <br />Plan not in'.compliance. DCA's objections are summarized below: <br />C Over -allocation of Land for Residential Development: <br />-The DCA contended that the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) <br />is not 'supported by data and analysis because it allocates <br />more residential acreage and allows for the development of <br />more residential dwelling units than are projected to be <br />needed by the date depicted on the map (2010). <br />The DCA stated that the county allocated 5.9 times as many <br />acres and 11.3 times as many dwelling units within the Urban <br />Service -Area as are projected to be needed throughout the <br />planning period. It stated that the county allocated 27.9 <br />times as many acres and 11.6 times as many dwelling units for <br />' the county as a whole than are projected to be needed. Over- <br />allocation of land is one of the indicators of urban sprawl, <br />and the above multipliers are the indicators of over- <br />allocation of land. <br />36 <br />