My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/18/2022
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2022
>
01/18/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2022 11:25:10 AM
Creation date
3/10/2022 11:03:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
01/18/2022
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
234
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
Mr. Sweeney explained that in July 2021 the Florida legislature enacted SB 896, which <br />requires solar facilities be added as a permitted use in all agricultural zoning districts in <br />any unincorporated area of the County. The Board of County Commissioners directed <br />staff to proceed with a Ccounty initiated land development regulation (LDR) amendment <br />to allow solar facilities as a permitted use in all agricultural zoning districts. The Planning <br />and Zoning Commission is now to consider the proposed LDR amendment. <br />Chairman Day opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Day asked if there were any <br />comments. There were none. <br />Chairman Day closed the Public Hearing. <br />ON MOTION BY Mr. Mark Mucher, SECONDED BY Mr. <br />Curtis Carpenter, the members voted unanimously (6-0) <br />to approve the amendment. <br />Chairman Day read the following into record. <br />C. County Initiated Request to Amend the Text of the County's Comprehensive <br />Plan to add a new Chapter 13 Property Rights Element [Legislative] <br />Mr. John Stoll, Indian River County Chief of Long Range Planning spoke and explained <br />the comprehensive plan amendment process. The proposed amendment is required due <br />to new legislative mandates. In particular, House Bill 59 requires all local governments to <br />have a property rights element included in their comprehensive plan. Mr. Stoll explained <br />the proposed comprehensive plan text amendment, Chapter 13, which adds a property <br />rights element. Mr. Stoll explained the goals, objectives and policies of proposed Chapter <br />13. Mr. Stoll finished his presentation by recommending the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission approve the comprehensive plan text amendment for transmittal to state and <br />regional agencies for review. <br />Mr. Polackwich brought up the point of local control, and how do we overlay our code with <br />these individual rights. Mr. Reingold noted his point and commented they are doing the <br />best they can to incorporate the states required language. Mr. Carpenter commented that <br />in reading this, he understands we are required to adopt a property rights element. Mr. <br />Carpenter went on to ask, does that mean we have to adopt the state's word for word, or <br />can we adopt our own? Mr. Matson responded we could but it would have to meet the <br />legislative intent and that the new language acknowledges the intent of the legislature but <br />doesn't change our way of doing business. Mr. Reingold commented the objective was <br />to stay within the context of what the legislature was trying to accomplish. Mr. Mucher <br />asked if this changed anything that was already written in our comprehensive plan. Mr. <br />Matson responded that it does not. Chairman Day said that he shared in Mr. Polackwich's <br />comments. Chairman Day asked about the definition of "mineral rights". Mr. Reingold <br />gave some basic examples how this would apply, Mr. Polackwich commented that he <br />believed staff is on the right path with this interpretation. <br />131 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.