6/14/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 14 1994 �ooK 92 Par,F 66 TO: The Board of County. Commissioners FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: June 8, 1994 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA -116 (the Coraci Amendment) Compliance Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs On February 3, 1990 the County passed Ordinance No. 90-3 adopting a comprehensive plan. The Department of Community Affairs found the plan "not In,. compliance". Individual landowners intervened in the subsequent administrative hearing alleging various deficiencies. After extensive settlement negotiations- with the Department, the County approved a settlement agreement in October of 1990. The amendments required by that settlement agreement were adopted on June 18, 1991 and the Department found the main comprehensive plan "in compliance" by notice published August 15, 1991. _ Also on June 18, 1991, the Board adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 116 ( CPA -116) which was an amendment proposed by Intervenors in the main case, specifically Anthony Coraci, Norpak Corporation, - and D . S . C . Enterprises, Inc. The Department issued a Statement of Intent to find CPA -116 "not in compliance" on August 15, 1991, and filed a petition with the Department of Administrative Hearings on September 20, 1991. The Statement of Intent to find the -comprehensive plan amendment not in compliance is included in the attached compliance agreement as Exhibit "A". It sets out allegedly inconsistent plan provisions, and recommended remedial actions to _ resolve those inconsistencies - On May 4, 1992 I transmitted a 20 -page proposal to Walker Banning, the Department's Planning Manager, which addressed each of the inconsistent provisions identified in the Department's ."Statement of Intent" to find CPA -116 not in compliance, including proposed remedial amendments. This correspondence explained where existing plan policies addressed the issues raised by the Department, and proposed revisions where necessary. That correspondence formed the basis of subsequent negotiations primarily between the Department and the Intervenors. -- The Intervenors performed substantial biological studies with respect to the xeric scrub community and came to agreements with the Department as to specific land development criteria applicable to the xeric scrub community west of the St. Sebastian River. The compliance agreement would require the Board to hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting the plan amendments set out (in a 01MOMNOtli and underlined fashion) in Exhibit "B". The revised policies involve the clustering of development to .preserve the xeric scrub community as an intact habitat; protection of the St. Sebastian Watershed from pollution through the provision of appropriate sanitary sewage treatment and disposal systems; and certain development and environmental study criteria necessary as a part of -any development proposal to protect the xeric scrub habitat. If approved by the Board, the agreement will be forwarded to the Department for signature by the Secretary. Within sixty days thereafter, the Board would hold the public hearing for remedial amendment adoption. The Department would then move to have the Administrative Hearings dismissed on this amendment, and on the main comprehensive plan case, bringing the 26 s ' �