My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/16/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
3/16/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:52 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:53:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/16/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MAR 16 1993 <br />March 10, 1993 <br />Page 2, Cont. <br />BOOK 89 F.{,F 44 <br />DCA then only has the option of issuing a notice of intent <br />to find the amendment in non-compliance and the amendment would <br />go to a hearing' -officer for a recommended order and then to the <br />Administration Commission for final agency action. The Adminis- <br />trative Commission is then given the authority to impose various <br />sanctions on the local government but is not authorized to re- <br />verse or modify the local government action. <br />2. Presently, Florida Statute 163.3189 establishes, an <br />alternative method for adopting a plan amendment. This section <br />allows a county to avoid the possibility of sanctions by making <br />the effectiveness of the amendment contingent upon DCA approval <br />or approval by the Administration Commission. <br />However, R,-55 will make this optional method mandatory. <br />Counties will no longer have authority to make their local land <br />use decisions effective. <br />There is.absolutely no reason why counties should give away <br />this most basic home rule power to decide local land use issues. <br />DCA knows that it is more difficult for DCA to prevail in a plan <br />amendment hearing than in a hearing on the original comprehensive <br />plan. Additionally, the likelihood of the Administration Commis- <br />sion imposing sanctions for the supposive non-compliance of a <br />single plan amendment is much less than for non-compliance of an <br />original comprehensive plan. <br />House Bill (PCB -CA 93-01) and Senate Bill 1166 are rapidly <br />moving through the process towards legislative approvall If we <br />do not immediately contact our legislators and voice our strong <br />objections, R-55 will soon become law. <br />Sincerely, <br />0 <br />d1tra'.ae <br />Xa Hewatt <br />Chairman <br />Director Keating explained that he discussed the letter with <br />Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins. The Department of <br />Community Affairs (DCA) has the authority to determine whether <br />comprehensive plan amendments are in compliance. Under current <br />law, the Board has the option to adopt an amendment with the <br />provision that it can only go into effect after the DCA finds it in <br />compliance, in order to avoid state -imposed sanctions. <br />Attorney Collins advised that changing the wording from <br />"optional" to "mandatory" would mean that all comprehensive plan <br />amendments would be subject to DCA determination. He had some <br />concerns about whether this transfer of authority to the State was <br />legal. Attorney Collins agreed with the letter from the Board of <br />Commissioners of Santa Rosa County. - <br />40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.