6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?SUN is VW moo 8 3 F,grF 63C 1.8, 2.5, 5.41 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 7.3 were revised, and new policies 1.32.and 5.8 were added to the future land use element as identified in attachment "A". C Protection of Upland Plant Communities: The remedial actions which address the protection of upland communities include revisions to the objectives and policies of the future land use element and the conservation element. These actions require specific site design for environmental lands to minimize impacts upon endangered and threatened plants and animals, and preservation of native upland areas through establishment of conservation easements and/or fee simple purchase. The county proposes to comply with TCRPC's 25% preservation objective. Rather than exacting land from developers, however, the county has opted for acquisition to compensate for its lower (15%) preservation requirement. As indicated in 'attachment "A", the following policies were revised: Land Use Element policy 7.3; Conservation Element, objective 6, and policies 6.1, 6.3. The following new policies were added to the Conservation Element: 6.14 and 6.15. O Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements There are several minor changes to the data and analysis portion of the plan to address inaccuracies and typing mistakes. There are also changes to the data and analysis portions of various plan elements to justify various policy changes and to address internal consistency. These changes are identified in attachment "A". On November -15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Local Planning Agency, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the request as presented by the staff to the Board of County Commissioners and to recommend transmittal of this request to the DCA. On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for DCA 's ninety (90) day review. On April 19, 1991, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The DCA's objections to this proposed plan amendment were not substantive issues affecting the stipulated settlement agreement. Rather, the objections were made because the proposed amendment included several plan changes not specifically referenced in the stipulated -settlement agreement. Those changes related to modifications associated -with other proposed plan amendments. Those modifications were included with the remedial actions amendment for consistency and clarification. Specifically, DCA had three objections to this amendment. The first was that proposed future land use element policy 1.31 should not be included with the remedial actions amendment because policy 1.31 changes are a part of proposed amendment CPA -116 and because these changes were not included in the stipulated settlement agreement. The second objection was similar in that DCA objected to references in the remedial actions amendment to the C-3 district and the mixed use district because each of those categories is the subject of other proposed amendments and because neither is referenced in the stipulated settlement agreement. Finally, DCA objected to incorrect references in the data and analysis portion of the remedial actions amendment to the C-2 district. r 40 M