|
A. Density/Intensity Standards. The proposed future land use designation of
<br />Commercial/Industrial lacks density or intensity standards. Development standards for this
<br />land use designation have not been established within the County's Comprehensive Plan.
<br />Provision of development standards in local government land development regulations is not
<br />sufficient to satisfy the statutory and rule requirements regarding density and intensity
<br />standards. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a),163.3177(8), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Rules 9J5-.005(2),
<br />9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J-5.006(3)(c)l. and 7., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).]
<br />B. Public Facilities Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the
<br />Commercial/Industrial future land use designation'. the analysis of the availability of public
<br />facilities, including transportation, sewer and water, solid waste, and stormwater drainage
<br />facilities, is inadequate. [Sections 163.3177(3)(a)3., 163.3177(6)(x), 163.3177(8), F.S.
<br />.Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(2)(a), 9J=3.006(3)(b)I., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3., F.A.C.]
<br />C. Suitability. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis which assesses the
<br />suitability of the site for the types of uses allowed under the Commercial/Industrial land use
<br />designation. In particular, the amendment is not supported by data and analysis
<br />demonstrating that the use of septic tank systems on this site at the densities or intensities
<br />allowed by the Commercial/Industrial land use category will not result in adverse impacts
<br />to environmentally sensitive resources, such as groundwater quality or water quality of the
<br />Indian River Lagoon estuarine system. The amendment proposal states that centralized
<br />wastewater service is not available to the site. The proposal indicates that the Central
<br />Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate wastewater generated by the site,
<br />but does not commit to extending centralized wastewater service to the site. The St. Johns
<br />River Water Management District has expressed concerns over the soil limitations for septic
<br />systems, as well as potential impacts to water quality of the Indian River Lagoon. The
<br />Florida Department of Environmental Protection has recommended that central sewer service
<br />be extended to the site prior to amending the future land use designation. [Sections
<br />163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -5.005(5)(b), 9J -5.006(2)(b), 9J-
<br />5.006(3)(b)l. and 4., 9J -5.012(3)(b)2., 9J -5.013(2)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(c)l., F.A.C.]
<br />D. Data and Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the
<br />Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, the proposed amendment is not supported
<br />by data and analysis appropriate to the Future Land Use Element. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a),
<br />163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9L-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J -5.006(2)(c)1., F.A.C.]
<br />E. Internal Consistency. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the
<br />Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, and the consequent inadequacy of the
<br />public facilities analysis, the proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with
<br />the goals, objectives, and policies of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan,
<br />including, but not limited to, the following: Future Land Use Element Policy 2.4 (public
<br />facility capacities and intensity of future land use designations), Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
<br />Objective 1 (sanitary sewer concurrency), Potable Water Sub -Element Objective 1 (potable
<br />water concurrency), Solid Waste Sub -Element Objective 1 (solid waste concurrency),
<br />Transportation Element Objective 1 (transportation capacity), and Capital Improvements
<br />Element Objective 3 (Concurrency Management System). [Sections 163.3177(2),
<br />163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), 163.3180, F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005,
<br />9J-5.0055(1), 9J -5.006(3)(b)1. and 9., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3, 9J -5.011(2)(b)2., 9J -5.016(3)(b)3. and
<br />5., 9J -5.019(4)(b)2., F.A.C.]
<br />Objections A, B, D, and E relate to one issue; that issue is the Comprehensive Plan's lack of
<br />density/intensity standards for commercial/industrial areas. This is the same objection raised by the
<br />DCA during its recent review of the Horizon Outlet Mall Comprehensive Plan amendment. As with
<br />the DCA's Horizon objection, this objection does not relate to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
<br />amendment, itself. Rather, it relates to the county's adopted plan. Objection C, which is an issue
<br />more suited for the site planning process, is based on the suitability of the site for
<br />September 22, 1998
<br />59
<br />B��R 0.7 PSGi2 6
<br />
|