10/26/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.) The proposed policy appears to create some internal inconsistencies within the comprehensive plan. The proposed policy allows uses, such as non -agriculturally related businesses, within the Agricultural land use designation (Policy 1.10) that are inconsistent with the uses allowed within that designation. It is also not clear whether accessory dwelling units allowed in traditional neighborhood developments will be included in the calculation of density. Additionally, it is not clear how the grid and interconnection to appropriate uses on adjacent site requirements of Policy 18.1 shall be applied to an isolated rural area. [Rule 9J -5.005(a), F.A.C., and Section 163.3177(2), F.S.] 4.) The proposed amendments are inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187.201, Florida Statutes): Goal 16 (Land Use), Policies 2., and 6. The ORC report also contained two comments listed below. In contrast to objections, comments cannot form the basis of a non-compliance determination. These comments, however, do indicate DCA findings that should be addressed. 1.) Although Coastal Management Element (CME) Policy 5.1 references a definition for coastal construction that may be applicable to coastal high hazard areas, the reference to Rule 9J- 5.003(19), F.A.C., may be incorrect. It appears that the intent of CME Policy 5.1 is to address the coastal high hazard areas of the County. Therefore, CME Policy 5.1 would be improved if Rule 9J-5.003(17), F.A.C., which is the definition of `coastal high hazard areas," was referenced. 2.) The County indicates that Economic Development Element (EDE) Policy 7.2 will be moved to EDE Objective 2. However, the County does not assign a new policy number to EDE Policy 7.2 to reflect the proposed change. The adoption public hearing for this text amendment was originally scheduled for September 28, 1999. At that meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to postpone the text amendment final adoption hearing to its October 26, 1999 meeting. In this section, an analysis of the proposed changes by element will be provided, including a discussion of the county's response to DCA's ORC Report and the consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan. For policies being recommended for revision, new text is identified by a double underline, while deleted text is identified by a strikeout. Due to significant changes in many of the policies of the Economic Development Element, the double underline and strikeout method was not used to illustrate recommended changes; instead, revised polices are provided entirely. Policy 5.1 has been revised to correct a citation to the Florida Administration Code (FAC). As shown below, -the original policy referred to Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J -5(3)(c)(3). In the revised policy, the citation has been corrected to refer to the rules 9J-5.003(17) and 9J-5.012, F.A.C.. OCTOBER 26, 1999 • -29- BOOK ill, PAGE JL45