10/29/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M Director Keating stated that there is no State law which requires a density bonus, but to get the SHIP funds we had to do a Housing Incentive Plan and the State is looking at what the County is doing to promote more affordable housing and one of the few things that we are doing is providing a density bonus. It is one way to meet the needs of State Law Chapter 163 and Administrative Code Chapter 9J5 which say that we have to identify needs in the Comprehensive Plan and come up with policies how we will meet them. This is one of the ways. Commissioner Ginn asked if the density bonuses could be reduced, and Director Keating said they could. Planning Director Stan Boling advised that the three options are related to the pending ordinance doctrine. There was lengthy discussion and then CONSENSUS to eliminate Option I on page 43, change Option 11 to 5% and Option III remains at 10%. Commissioner Ginn next strongly objected to Objective 9, on Page 48. Director Keating explained this objective really helps the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town of Orchid because the property is so expensive there, there will not be any affordable housing over there. A philosophical discussion concerning housing for low income families ensued. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Director Keating had no changes. Commissioner Ginn was happy to see on page 51 that we are supposed to have some kind of intergovernmental coordination and Objective 3 even mentions adjacent counties. On page 51, Policy 1. 1, Chairman Eggert requested the removal of the word "fully". She also suggested a change in Policy 1.5, as follows: "The county will, among others, use the mediation..." . She then suggested that in Policy 1. 10, Page 52, the year be changed to 1998. Commissioner Adams commented on Policy 1.11 and there was discussion about changing that year also, but no change was made. 43 OCTOBER 29, 1997 B03 103 PAGE 87