My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/14/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
6/14/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:25 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:23:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/14/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
JUN 14 1994 �ooK 92 Par,F 66 <br />TO: The Board of County. Commissioners <br />FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney <br />DATE: June 8, 1994 <br />SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA -116 (the Coraci <br />Amendment) <br />Compliance Agreement with the Department of Community <br />Affairs <br />On February 3, 1990 the County passed Ordinance No. 90-3 adopting a <br />comprehensive plan. The Department of Community Affairs found the plan <br />"not In,. compliance". Individual landowners intervened in the subsequent <br />administrative hearing alleging various deficiencies. After extensive <br />settlement negotiations- with the Department, the County approved a <br />settlement agreement in October of 1990. The amendments required by that <br />settlement agreement were adopted on June 18, 1991 and the Department <br />found the main comprehensive plan "in compliance" by notice published <br />August 15, 1991. _ <br />Also on June 18, 1991, the Board adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />No. 116 ( CPA -116) which was an amendment proposed by Intervenors in the <br />main case, specifically Anthony Coraci, Norpak Corporation, - and D . S . C . <br />Enterprises, Inc. The Department issued a Statement of Intent to find <br />CPA -116 "not in compliance" on August 15, 1991, and filed a petition with <br />the Department of Administrative Hearings on September 20, 1991. <br />The Statement of Intent to find the -comprehensive plan amendment not in <br />compliance is included in the attached compliance agreement as Exhibit "A". <br />It sets out allegedly inconsistent plan provisions, and recommended remedial <br />actions to _ resolve those inconsistencies - <br />On May 4, 1992 I transmitted a 20 -page proposal to Walker Banning, the <br />Department's Planning Manager, which addressed each of the inconsistent <br />provisions identified in the Department's ."Statement of Intent" to find <br />CPA -116 not in compliance, including proposed remedial amendments. This <br />correspondence explained where existing plan policies addressed the issues <br />raised by the Department, and proposed revisions where necessary. <br />That correspondence formed the basis of subsequent negotiations primarily <br />between the Department and the Intervenors. -- The Intervenors performed <br />substantial biological studies with respect to the xeric scrub community and <br />came to agreements with the Department as to specific land development <br />criteria applicable to the xeric scrub community west of the St. Sebastian <br />River. <br />The compliance agreement would require the Board to hold a public hearing <br />for the purpose of adopting the plan amendments set out (in a <br />01MOMNOtli and underlined fashion) in Exhibit "B". The revised policies <br />involve the clustering of development to .preserve the xeric scrub community <br />as an intact habitat; protection of the St. Sebastian Watershed from pollution <br />through the provision of appropriate sanitary sewage treatment and disposal <br />systems; and certain development and environmental study criteria necessary <br />as a part of -any development proposal to protect the xeric scrub habitat. If <br />approved by the Board, the agreement will be forwarded to the Department <br />for signature by the Secretary. Within sixty days thereafter, the Board <br />would hold the public hearing for remedial amendment adoption. The <br />Department would then move to have the Administrative Hearings dismissed <br />on this amendment, and on the main comprehensive plan case, bringing the <br />26 <br />s ' � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.