6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

once the administrative proceeding was indicated, it is our understanding that Indian River County was advised of the policy of the Administration Commission (Governor and Cabinet) to withhold state revenue funds in the event that DCA's appeal was ultimately successful, and that the way to avoid the imposition of such penalties was to enter into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement with DCA requiring certain remedial actions. In fact, such a Settlement Agreement was executed on April 9, 1990 following a public hearing which in our view did not meet lawful notice requirements by clearly advising property owners of the effect of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on their land as it pertain to future amendments to be considered pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Simply stated, the Settlement Agreement requires the County Commission to adopt amendments as specified in Exhibit B under the implied threat that if the amendments are not adopted as required, Indian River County would lose $10 million in state revenue funds. This conclusion was further confirmed by your Chief, Long Range Planner, Saam ohani by telephone conversation held on Friday, June 14, 1991, whereby he advised that any effort to obtain a different designation at the County Commission hearing to be held on Tuesday, June 18, 1991 would be "futile" because of the Settlement Agreement and the revenue sharing situation, and that relief should occur through future land use plan amendments. Based upon experience with other counties, I can advise that seeking relief through a future land use plan amendment is no relief at all because DCA finds such amendments to be "not in compliance" with Florida law and the adopted comprehensive plan. My point is that the hearing process being afforded my clients is inherently unfair and fails to provide any meaningful citizen participation. This is clearly in violation of Florida law. In other proceedings on the comprehensive plan adoption process, the Administration Commission has recognized that citizens should be afforded timely access and education concerning the growth management decisions entrusted to elected and appointed officials. Egg Austin v.Department of Community Affairs and the City of Cocoa, 89 F.A.L.R. 128 (Fla. Admin. Comm'n., Sept. 29, 1989). Indeed, the Florida Legislature has expressed its intent that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible, and Section 163.3181(2), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.004, F.A.C., specify minimum requirements to assure such meaningful public participation. on balance, the Administration Commission has concluded that "public participation" is an essen- tial supporting element in preparing and adopting a local comprehensive plan pursuant to Part II of Chapter 163, F.S., and that the "public participation" element is a proper subject of compliance review under Section 163.3184, F.S. Meaningful citizen participation is precluded when Indian River county, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation Agreement, is obligated, under penalty of sanction, to prepare and transmit comprehensive plan amendments that must result in the reduction of intensity of uses that includes my client's property. Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement requires such revision by specifically deleting my client's property from the Urban Service Area and requiring a reduction in intensity of use from one unit per acre to one unit per five acres. Any argument that meaningful public participation will occur at this juncture of the plan adoption process is without basis. Meaningful public participation cannot occur when a decision already has been mandated under penalty of sanctions and the County Commissioners conclude that it has no alternatives under the Joint Stipulation Agreement but to adopt the proposed plan without change. The problem is further compounded when the Joint Stipulation Agreement is not properly advertised so as to place property owners on notice as to the actual effect the Compliance Agreement will have on their properties both immediately and during the amendment proceedings which implement it. 47 BOOK �:j SAI 4�r� 6 Jlu, 1991