6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M c Promotion of Urban Sprawl: The DCA contended that the county's plan fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl because the densities and intensities of uses assigned in the FLUM to rural and 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. o 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 and rural land uses. C Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements: The DCA contended that the data and analysis in the Future Land Use and Housing Elements do not present a consistent projection of demand for future dwelling units and residential acreage, and the projections do..not utilize the same residential categories. Despite the noncompliance finding, the adopted plan was and still is the county's official plana Not only has the staff been implementing the plan since its adoption, but the staff prepared and the Board of County Commissioners on September 11, 1990, adopted a set of land development regulations consistent with the plan. Compliance Agreement In an effort to avoid the administrative hearing process and potential financial sanctions, the county and the DCA negotiated an agreement to find the plan in compliance. Throughout this negotiation process, county officials twice traveled to Tallahassee„ while DCA staff came to the county once. As a result of this process, the county staff and the DCA staff reached agreement on measures to be taken by the county to have its plan found in compliance. These changes involve future land use plan map amendments, including density reductions in agricultural areas and reduction in the extent of the urban service area; future land use plan policy changes to promote clustering of residential development in agricultural areas; conservation element changes to reflect more upland preservation; capital improvement element changes to reflect upland acquisition; and various data and analysis amendments. On September 26, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed compliance agreement and directed the staff to proceed - with the actual Comprehensive Plan amendments which will implement 37 JUN 18 1991