3/19/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a � � Capital Improvements Element One of the principal components of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 was a requirement that each local government in the state include a concurrency management plan as part of its capital improvements element. As enacted, the state planning law defined concurrency strictly, essentially requiring that adequate facilities (for potable water., sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks, and roads) be available concurrent with the impacts of new development. Recently, however, the legislature amended the concurrency law, providing local governments more flexibility in implementing the concurrency requirement. This proposed amendment to the capital improvements element would allow the county to apply the state's more flexible concurrency regulations. Although six types of facilities are subject to the state's concurrency mandate, the major focus is on transportation. Statewide, it has been the lack of adequate roads which has delayed or eliminated development projects. This has occurred not only because of the cost of building new roads or widening existing roads, but also because of the long lag time between identification of a roadway level -of -service problem and completing a major roadway improvement project. For these reasons, the legislature recently modified several provisions of the state concurrency law. Among those changes, the most significant was a modification of when a roadway improvement would have to be in place in order to consider the capacity provided by the improvement available to accommodate the demands of new development. Previously, state law required that a roadway improvement necessary to serve a development project either be in place or be under construction prior to issuance of a development order for a project needing that improvement. Besides those transportation concurrency provisions, state law also allowed issuance of a development permit for a project, where roadways impacted by the project would not maintain adequate service levels, as long as the needed roadway improvements were guaranteed by an enforceable developer's agreement or an executed contract to be under construction within one year of development order approval, or were included within the first three years of the local government's or FDOT's five year capital improvements program with the condition that minimum level of service standards for the roadways be maintained. As amended, the state concurrency law now allows local governments to approve development projects where existing roads are inadequate to accommodate additional development, but necessary roadway improvements will be under construction within three years of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. The major difference between state law as it was before and as it is now is that previously a local government could approve a development project where adequate roads to serve the project were not in place at the time of development order approval if the local government had requirements in :lace '-,o esesare that adequate roads would be in place to accommodate the project's impacts. Under present state law, a local government may approve a development project, where adequate roads to serve the project do not exist, even if the needed roadways will not be under construction until three years after issuance of the development project's certificate of occupancy --with no requirement to maintain minimum acceptable levels of service. 73 March 19, 1996 BOOK 97 PAGE 613