Laserfiche WebLink
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Minutes - Final September 9, 2025 <br />requirement for traffic impact studies in favor of the County Code, particularly given <br />the community's ongoing concerns regarding traffic. <br />Chief of Long -Range Planning Patrick Murphy responded that the Policy currently <br />under consideration would still require Traffic Impact Studies. However, it referred <br />back to Chapter 952 of the Transportion Sub -element, which outlined specific <br />parameters that the study must follow. The existing language in the policy is somewhat <br />outdated, as it was based on an older approach to evaluating studies. Staff now have <br />a new method for assessing additional intersections and understanding how traffic <br />dispersed throughout the network, as detailed in Chapter 952, which the policy being <br />amended would reference. <br />Commissioner Adams stated that this approach aligned more with what <br />Commissioner Moss sought regarding the expansion of traffic studies and the areas <br />being examined. <br />Economic Development Sub -element <br />Administrator Titkanich informed the Board that updates to the Economic <br />Development Strategic Action Plan would be reviewed individually to ensure <br />alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that outdated language from <br />2007-2008 was being removed and emphasized the importance of infill development, <br />referencing Policy 1.2. He suggested that retaining this policy could benefit community <br />confidence and stated it would be incorporated into the Economic Development <br />Element based on public feedback. <br />Commissioner Moss raised concerns about Policy 2.2, which had its mention of all <br />residentially designated land within the Urban Services Boundary (USB) removed. <br />She argued for retaining this statement for clarity on accommodating population <br />growth. Administrator Titkanich explained that the development community often <br />looks to the Future Land Use Element for guidance. Commissioner Adams expressed <br />confusion about why only part of Policy 2.2 should be kept. <br />After discussion, it was confirmed that Policy 2.2 would retain the statement regarding <br />residential land within the USB. Commissioner Moss clarified that she intended to <br />ensure expectations for population growth within the existing USB were clear. Mr. <br />Sweeney proposed establishing a separate policy acknowledging the USB study's <br />findings, which the Board agreed to formalize. <br />Capital Improvement Sub -element <br />Indian River County, Florida Page 27 <br />