5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, MAY 0 5199 DCA Objections and Comments In its ORC report, the DCA identified two principal objections to this proposed comprehensive plan amendment. In addition, the DCA noted an inconsistency between the proposed amendment and the State Comprehensive Plan. Of the two objections, one related to proposed policy 1. 35, while the other related to the capital -improvements element revision. With reference to its objection to proposed policy 1.35 (Minor Node Boundary Adjustment) of the Future Land Use Element, DCA stated that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of S.163.3187,F.S., regarding comprehensive plan amendments. Specifically, DCA's position is that all comprehensive plan amendments, regardless of size, must be processed through the regular comprehensive plan amendment process. DCA's second objection was that the proposed revision of the Capital Improvements Element was not consistent with policy 11.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In reference to that objection, DCA correctly noted that policy 11.3 requires the county, as part of its annual review of the Capital Improvements Element, to conduct an assessment of the impact of new development on hurricane evacuation times and the need for improvements to evacuation routes in order to maintain or reduce evacuation times. Besides the referenced objections, the ORC report included three minor comments -.on another portion of the proposed county, initiated amendment. As comments, these statements cannot form the basis of a non-compliance determination. However, the comments do indicate a DCA finding that should be addressed. Of the three comments, only one has policy implications. That is the first comment. Relating to proposed revisions to policy 1.23, this comment suggests modifications to the proposed policy that would indicate that, besides including land within a node, the county could also exclude land from a node. In addition, the comment notes that one condition for node modification would be unlikely to occur. DCA's two other comments address inaccuracies in the staff report. One correctly notes that a table number reference in the Capital Improvements Element was wrong. The other comment indicates that the staff report inappropriately identified DCA as the sole source of a clustering mandate. That comment recommends that the staff report note that the county incorporated clustering provisions in its comprehensive plan not only to meet DCA requirements, but also to satisfy comprehensive plan intervenors. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS By ELEMENT In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of the plan needing amendment and to present the justification for the amendment requests. The proposed amendments and additions to the plan are shown on Attachment "A". Future Land Use Element At this time, the County is proposing plan amendments to four (4) existing policies of the Future Land Use Element. These are policies 1.23, 1.19, 2.41 and 4.3. The County is also proposing the addition of two new policies to the Future Land Use Element. These are policies 1.35 and 1.36. 118 -1