5/5/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ��M BOOK wastewater treatment plants to effectively implement the clustering provisions of various comprehensive plan policies. Capital Improvements Element As part of the Capital Improvements Element _ comprehensive plan, the County adopted its 5 Improvements Program (CIP). This CIP was prepared Since it is already 1991, the County must revise its to reflect the appropriate five year period. (CIE) of the year Capital for 1990-1995. five year CIP Some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the 5 year CIP have already been accomplished, while other improvements need to be re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization. At the time of plan adoption, it was known that the CIP would become outdated each year; therefore, one of the policies of the CIE (policy 1.1), as adopted,'requires annual evaluation and update of the 5 year CIP. Also, state regulations mandate that the CIE be amended if conditions change to warrant it. The 5 year CIP is an important part of the Capital Improvements Element. Since the 5 -year CIP incorporates improvements reflected in other plan elements, and estimates and projections reflected in other portions of the Capital Improvements Element, revisions to the CIP require amendment to the CIE as a whole. The Capital Improvements Element, as proposed for revision, is attached. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS This section includes both a summary of changes to address DCA's objections and comments and an analysis of the proposed changes by element. Consistency of the amendments with the comprehensive plan and alternatives to the proposed changes will also be addressed. Summary of Changes to Address the DCA's Objections and Comments In order to address DCA's objections and comments, planning staff coordinated with the DCA staff. As a result, staff identified various revisions which will resolve DCA's concerns. These revisions include changes to proposed policies and to the staff report. It is staff's position that these changes will resolve RCA's objections and retain the intent of the proposed amendments. DCA's principal objection to this proposed amendment focused on proposed policy 1.35. In its ORC report, DCA noted that policy 1.35 would allow the county's plan to ,be amended in a manner inconsistent with state law. To resolve DCA's concerns, county staff and DCA staff drafted revised language to policy 1.35. While more restrictive than the language proposed and transmitted to DCA, the revised policy 1.35_ language still meets the intent of allowing the county to make minor node boundary interpretations without submittal of a comprehensive plan amendment. Revised policy 1.35 is included in attachment "A" DCA's other objection related to the county's failure to include an hurricane evacuation time analysis with the proposed Capital Improvements Element amendment. To address this objection, staff has expanded this staff report to address the hurricane evaluation time analysis. Staff has also addressed each of DCA's ORC report comments. These have been addressed through the following means. o Policy 1.23 has been revised to specify County Commissioners will consider any split land use designation and proposed 122 that the Board of-- parcel having a for inclusion in M M M