HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 4A_10/12/19890
G
0
�1
SUP PORT)
DOCUMENTAT = ON
to the
Vi11ag� of Teques-ta
Ctc�mg�a�ei�arzs ive
Deva 1 opmesi-t P 1 arz
October, 1988
Revised September, 1989
Prepared By
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
"Preparation of this Document and Maps was aided through
financial assistance received from the State of Florida under
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program
authorized by Chapter 87-98, Laws of Florida and administered by
the Florida Department of Community Affairs."
0
W
This revised document prepared by:
TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL
(acting as the LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY)
Mayor Joseph N. Capretta
Vice Mayor Edward C. Howell
Councilmember William E. Burckart
Councilmember Earl L. Collings
Councilmember Ron T. Mackail
VILLAGE STAFF
Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
Thomas C. Hall, Water System Manager
Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Assistant
Bill C. Kascavelis, Finance Director/Village Clerk
Scott D. Ladd, Building Official
Gary Preston, Director of Public Works & Recreation
Carl R. Roderick, Chief of Police
Iwith technical and advisory assistance provided by:
JLH ASSOCIATES
224 Datura Street
Suite 1001
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
U
W
TABL E O F CONT ENT S
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO.
1.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1-1
through 1-17
2.0
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
2-1
through 2-7
3.0
FUTURE LAND USE
3-1
through 3-45
4.0
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
4-1
through 4-27
5.0
HOUSING
5-1
through 5-17
6.0
SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE,
DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER AND
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RECHARGE
6.1 SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT
6.1-1
through 6.1-20
6.2 SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT
6.2-2
through 6.2-12
6.3 DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT
6.3-1
through 6.3-22
6.4 POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT
6.4-1
through 6.4-14
6.5 NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
6.5-1
through 6.5-17
RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT
7.0
CONSERVATION
7-1
through 7-5
8.0
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
8-1
through 8-13
9.0
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
9-1
through 9-23
10.0
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
10-1
through 10-64
11.0
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
11-1
t1wough 11-37
i
0
U
J
L
L.=ST Off' TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE NO.
3-1
Soil Type -Characteristics
3-4
3-2
Soil Limitations for Development Limitation
3-8
Summary
3-3
Flood Zone Map Key and Explanation of Zone
3-11
Designations
3-4
Land Use Classification System
3-15
3-5
Existing Land Use
3-17
3-6
Permanent Resident Population Estimates
3-22
3-7
Historical Resident Population Growth Rates
3-23
3-8
Locally Prepared Population Estimates
3-25
3-9
Population and Housing Characteristics
3-27
- 1980, Palm Beach County/Tequesta
3-10
Population and Housing Characteristics
3-28
- 1989, Palm Beach County/Tequesta
3-11
Calculation of 1989 Maximum Day Seasonal
3-30
Population
3-12A
Remaining Residential Development Potential
3-36
3-12B
Remaining Population Growth Potential
3-36
3-13
Population Estimates and Projections -
3-37
Tequesta Potable Water Service Area
3-14
Vacant Land Summary - Land Use Category
3-38
3-15
Residential Land Use Projections - 1994
3-40
3-16
Land Use Projections
3-41
4-1
Existing Major Roadway System Inventory
4-5
4-2
Traffic Volume Inventory (AADT's)
4-8
4-3
Palm Beach County Traffic Generation Rates
4-9
4-4
Generalized Roadway 24 Hour Maximum Volumes
4-13
4-5
Generalized Roadway Peak Hour Maximum
4-14
Volumes
4-6
Capacity Analysis for Existing System
4-16
(1989 Traffic Volumes)
4-7
Village of Tequesta Accident Summary
4-18
4-8
Compound Annual Growth Rates Between
4-21
1988-2010
4-9
Capacity Analysis for Projected Roadway
4-22
Traffic Volumes (1994)
4-10
Capacity Analysis for Projected Roadway
4-23
Traffic Volumes (1999)
4-11
Peak Hour Link Analysis
4-24
ii
�1
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE NO.
5-1
Building Permit Activity
5-11
5-2
Housing Units by Age
5-12
5-3
Housing Tenure Characteristics
5-13
5-4
Monthly Gross Rent of Owner -Occupied Units
5-14
5-5A
Value of Owner -Occupied Housing Units
5-15
5-5B
Value of Owner -Occupied Condominium Housing
5-15
5-5C
Monthly Costs of Owner -Occupied Units, 1990
5-16
5-6
Projected Population and Housing
5-17
Characteristics
6.1-1
ENCON Irrigation Quality (IQ) Water Summary
6.1-10
- Effluent Discharge Sites
6.1-2
Estimated 1989 Wastewater Flows
6.1-11
6.1-3
Allocation of Wastewater Flows Based Upon
6.1-12
Population Estimates and Projections
6.1-4
Calculation of Current Wastewater Level -of-
6.1-13
Service
6.2-1
Dwelling Unit Breakdown by Residential Use,
6.2-7
1989
6.2-2
Estimated Total Population by Residential
6.2-8
Use, 1989
6.2-3
Solid Waste Generation Summary, 1989
6.2-9
6.2-4
Level of Service Summary
6.2-9
6.2-5
Permanent Resident/Seasonal Unit Projections
6.2-11
6.2-6
Equivalent Population Projection by
6.2-11
Residential Unit Type
6.2-7
Non -Residential Acreage Projections
6.2-12
6.2-8
Solid Waste Generation Projections
6.2-12
6.2-9
Solid Waste Contribution to Landfill
6.2-10
Disposal Site
6.3-1
Village of Tequesta Drainage Areas
6.3-9
6.3-2
Daily Rainfall Summary (1978-1987)
6.3-14
Jupiter Fire Station
6.3-3
Drainage Basin Capacity and Level of
6.3-17
Service - 1989
6.4-1
1988 Potable Water Flows (mgd)
6.4-7
6.4-2
Water Connection - Village of Tequesta
6.4-8
Service Area
iii
�l
J
L
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE NO.
8-1
Recreation/Open Space Guidelines and
8-5
Standards
8-2
Major Recreational and Open Space Sites/
8-7
Facilities - Palm Beach County and
Martin County
8-3
Recreation and Open Space Analysis Using
8-12
County Standards
8-4
Recreation and Open Space Analysis Using
8-13
Discounted Standards
10-1
Water Dependent and Water -Related Land Uses
10-3
10-2
Common Birds of the Palm Beach County
10-8
Shoreline
10-3
Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians of the
10-9
Palm Beach County Shoreline
10-4
Animals of a Typical Mangrove Ecological
10-10
Community
10-5
Animal Life Associated with Marine Grassbed
10-11
Areas
10-6
Endangered and Threatened Species and
10-12
Species of Special Concern
10-7
Water Quality Parameters
10-17
10-8
North and South Estuary Water Quality
10-18
Results
10-9
Primary Public Shelters Serving the Village
10-26
of Tequesta
10-10
Occurrence of Plants on Coastal Dunes
10-33
10-11
Levels of Federal Aid for Shore, Hurricane
10-53
and Abnormal Tide Protection Programs
11-1
General Fund Revenues - 1987/1988
11-3
11-2
Annual Debt Service - General Fund
11-7
11-3
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes
11-8
in Retained Earnings - Water Enterprise
-
Fund for the Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 1988
11-4
Enterprise Fund Revenue - 1987/1988
11-9
11-5
Water Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1985
11-10
- Schedule of Debt Service Requirements
11-6
Available Grant and Loan Programs (Partial
11-14
List)
11-7
Tequesta Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement
11-19
Plan, 1990/1994
11-8
General Fund - Historical and Projected
11-28
Revenues and Expenditures - Current Dollars
iv
Mbz Diu.
TITLE
PAGE NO.
11-8
Capital Projects Fund - Historical and
11-29
Projected Revenues and Expenditures -
Current Dollars
11-9
Tequesta Capital Improvement Five Year
11-30
Schedule of Improvement - Capital Projects
Fund, 1990-1994
11-10
Capital Improvement Expenditure Potential
11-32
Capital Projects Fund
11-11
Tequesta Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement
11-33
Plan, 1990-1994
11-12
Capital Improvement Projects - 5 Year
11-34
Schedule of Improvements, 1990-1994
11-13
Water Enterprise Fund - Historical and
11-35
Projected Revenues and Expenditures -
Current Dollars
11-14
Water Enterprise Fund - Capital Improvements
11-36
Expenditure Potential
v
L
�I
L.=ST OF FXC?wWI2ES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE NO.
3-1
Palm Beach County Physiographic Areas
3-2
3-2
Generalized Soils Map
Map Atlas
3-3
Flood Zone Map
Map Atlas
3-4
Coastal Zone and Conservation Map
Map Atlas
3-5
Existing Land Use Map
Map Atlas
3-6
Existing Land Use of Adjacent Areas Map
Map Atlas
4-1
Existing Traffic Circulation Map
Map Atlas
4-2
Future Traffic Circulation Map
Map Atlas
6.1-1
Palm Beach County Regional Wastewater
Service Areas
6.1-3
6.1-2
Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
District Jurisdictional Area
6.1-4
6.1-3
Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
District Collection Regions
6.1-6
6.1-4
Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
Transmission System
6.1-8
6.1-5
Sanitary Sewer Map
Map Atlas
6.1-6
Septic Tank Service Area
6.1-18
6.3-1
Water Control and Drainage Districts of
of Palm Beach County
6.3-4
6.3-2
Palm Beach County Drainage Basins
6.3-6
6.3-3
Existing Drainage System Map
Map Atlas
6.3-4
1 Day Rainfall: 3 Year Return Period
6.3-13
6.4-1
Village of Tequesta Potable Water Service
Area
6.4-3
6.4-2
Potable Water System Components
6.4-4
6.4-3
Existing Potable Water Distribution Map
Map Atlas
6.5-1
Generalized Geologic Cross -Section
6.5-4
6.5-2
Base of the Surficial Aquifer System in
Palm Beach County
6.5-6
6.5-3
Subterranean Cross Section -Palm Beach
County
6.5-8
6.5-4
Palm Beach County Physiographic Areas
6.5-10
6.5-5
Normal Hydraulic Cycle
6.5-12
6.5-6
Public Water Supply Welifield Locations,
Palm Beach County
6.5-13
8-1
Existing Recreation and Open Space Areas
Map Atlas
Map
vi
L'
�i �
1.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
INTRODUCTION
As an integral part of the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan* the Village
performed a variety of activities for the express purpose of gaining public par-
ticipation and input into the process.
Public notices were placed in newspapers of general circulation and hearings
were held to inform the public of the planning process and to solicit their com-
ments on each the various elements contained in this plan.
Elected and appointed officials met in various workshop sessions as well in a
continuing effort to stay involved and informed throughout the planning process.
The following documentation presents various examples of the nature and type of
public participation efforts and activities which took place during the plan
preparation. Also included is a sample resolution which as been recommended for
approval which formalizes the public participation activities.
U
I
1. Direct notification to the presidents and directors of all condominium,
homeowner, and neighborhood associations.
2. The use of a reminder or general information notice in the utility
billings.
3. Posting a notice on the Village Hall bulletin -board.
4. Additional news media coverage.
5. Periodic press conference.
6. The availability of written public comment forms in the Village Hall
reception area and in and the Building Department.
7. Periodic public canvassing.
8. Written notice on all agendas of all upcoming meetings.
9. Verbal reminder at all Village meetings of upcoming meetings.
The Rule 9J-5 provides for an advertisement option which allows local govenments
to send a complete mail out package to all property owners of record within the
Village. Due to the population size of Tequesta, the time constraints placed
upon us by the legislation, and the limited staff resources, this would be a
lengthy and cost prohibitive option. I would therefore strongly recommend
against the selection of this alternative.
I look forward to discussing this portion of the Comprehensive Plan process with
you and the Village Local Planning Agency.
Very truly yours,
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT & ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Eugene A. Caputo,
President
EAC/cc
A 1 1-Z
TEQUESTA
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Rule 9J-5.004 pertaining to public participation, sets forth provisions
dealing with the establishment of public participation procedures that
encourage public involvement and input during the planning process. The
Village of Tequesta will meet this provision by implementing a formal and
informal process to encourage public participation.
FORMAL
The Village of Tequesta will implement 9J5.004 by providing an adver-
tisement in a newspaper of general circulation. Such advertisement will
seek to assure that real property owners are put on notice of all events
concerning the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. Said advertisements
will be published on several occasions, and at varying time intervals to
ensure the widest coverage possible. Additionally, articles dealing with
activities concerning the planning process should also be generated in
a similar manner.
This combination of articles and advertisements will include:
1.
A
calendar of events for all scheduled meetings of all boards commit-
tees, commissions and councils
responsible for the planning process;
2.
A listing of all municipal contact persons;
3.
A mail -back coupon which can be utilized by the public to -request com-
ment forms from the City;
4.
General descriptive language of the nature and purpose of the process.
INFORMAL
To
further
supplement the formal process indicated above the Village
also implement the following activities: will
1.
Post a notice of scheduled events and meetings on the planning process
on the Village Hall bulletin board;
2.
Hold periodic press conferences for public awareness;
3.
Make written public comment forms available in the Village Hall recep-
tion area;
1-3
-2-
4. Provide news releases for additional media coverage;
5. Provide written notice on all agendas for future meetings; and
6. Make verbal reminders at all Village meetings of up -coming planning
process meetings.
The formal and informal process outlined above meets the intent of Rule
9J-5 as it makes every effort to assure that real property owners are put
on notice of scheduled events. Further, continual notice is provided to
keep the public informed and opportunities are provided for the public to
make written comment. Finally, provisions are made to ensure that the
required public hearings are held and efforts to assure consideration of
and response to public comments are developed.
1-4
I
pi
VILLAGE OF TEWESTA
Post Office Roy 3273 * 357 Tcque.la I)ri%e
Teyue•r.L Florida 34694)27? • 00-5 4(1-7457
itch 23, i987
Tv: %0. afvw Cam iA44on M m6elw, Eugene Capu,&, P(�u Corwattan,i 7
&acq-o,&, Vi.l.lage �aana y ez '
Firm: 1% Szmmt eg Q �aw 64, C&j,,�
Plea4e Oti.,ti-que .the enc,(v4ed quuti,,aite and bai g .tv owt next u meet' on
Aindag fl p4iJ- 13, 1987- Add any oti e2 que4 tion.� ee.Z cm e,
�' pvZ.tarLt, We uizu jf&ie
4me Y-A" and pvw6ab-lg .submit .to tka V U,,ge Council ad i i4mted.
We uvu.& pRv6a6J-.a mail .thy,, 4) a•lt AZdident.4 o� 7eque4.ta mi.tA a 4e ,Ln envelope.
6ncL- Quu Uanaice
COPY 04 I�OAY S. CO/vt i,d quu-tivnai to At Au Capes
lv—
ED
MAR 2 5 1987
EXEC.
1-5
n
I
F.
n
U
j
VILLAGE OI= TEQUESTA
POst Office Box 3273 • 3:1 Tcyu;.ta Dri%
Tryurcta. Florida334,9-tt273 • 1_10:t746-7457
S.tudu vz Vi-Llace yr %eg,:le�.ta �vt Cvmptehert��ve �'.La,t
The' V�Cla�,e v� Tegcce,�#a c� teg�uted Gy .the S-ta.te .tv 4ulmi.t a Lv it e
P!_zn pa the Vi.Llaae. P' ea'e te4wq a' avvn ad po mZ6.Ce, tv .the Vi L& e //a.GC
&L -the eacZaded enve,Cvpe vz to tAe Water Dep Lhn
Where a que4.tcvn avnc&uw a uUing en,t wren Wu pack 'ut 6i,GC.
9 e
/.Fanci,Cq Cer:.ou.� and Suit:veu � one .tv ten with ten 6e,44
Hvw n" yw"a uwideera here? Se" -:Ot CU4jerw Ab. dkz. a NO. F enaLe
fUv,tft ' AduGt.� No. /ikz,Ce
�9 /4v. Fena. e Ch -&Aen a.t hvme No. dkUe
Nv. M e A e►nade rie� Cluldzen � �Hcme pant time
NO. FenaC Ace'
2. What do Wu �ee. avuld 6e imow ved in the §ene.:a C Apceawnce v the Vi.L
a. ��� Secti an e
6. Rewiden&a.0
C. COS
..!0 you �ee.0 out /?oada ate Sa.tiAacdoty?fw
4 `04 what imply ven&U4 ate needed2
4. Whete do wu have prw G.Len,, with t*
S. Which l'"44 do Wu and but �,u,la4e and lww opert?
Which �aciZi, u dv WU uae?
What unpty veneaf w a& Wu th e?
6. Slw ld we have a Cvrnwfu-�y CeUe/t.'
h'vw open? _ of what P",de? 'u'• U/vuld yUu uae
Suq ej.t ono: mudLc, Napa( (vaj&Z Pate), Theater, ZlboA teviev4, a/d4,Meetin
% made .the I�,C,C,e on - a / to l0 d atO.e. d f ub.l i x C
`squa,ze_ � §zUeAy Sg. Nvz,t/t Svu.t/t Faalu,vn S
New Tepee to Shuppei4� P ubli x% �' ---
8. Glv ,WU 4ee arV doge pwUern4 Whelte2
9• Giv Wu uje .the &cycCe Patk;l LIU
l✓aChv>�
Lb Wu � ee.0 Y-luy ate adequa,ie? find rule needel� l). ?
/0. Hvw 6.wu fu4e vut eAee t . i.PU4xy? Adequate? 9rtv.t whe ze neederV
wa -i"4e vut P o-Cice Der�nen,t? rUequa ze,2 fivyu avuld c,t
imp/w ve 2
F��
rv.t /(P-4cue- L4-ke juppo/U
1,3. Nvw do you fudge .the 4eAvice v ib'vn th vun,e
C y rbn bu.la,n ce.
Have yvueven had need Win?
14• Lb �u #him we 41vu.ld have out own fuze D
with �1'vn tlt vuni Arn6ulaa neat Fite Ile4cue cvvnbined
?� C �; i� Lea4 a�4tLy? moae cvI;U�7
PaU P Pmt w. wUee�t, Mould yvu
cn 6e&zg a vv, cw tee t? vz anyone in Wuz 4nay be cnee/ted.tea
Cvmnenea
15• .�' %?eA"e Co-Ueceian. by /14cla. d Sani.taei n —�aaaay,�
a weep erwugk;lCame'UA
16..74 Hv4PLW -deavice in �upc.tez 4atc� cevzy? An`V im 1wvenent.� need
P ed2
Have wu vit yvuit An,-Zy u4ed a?
!lave you used 6metgeacy at .the Hv4pLt ? Sa.&!. actvz 2
� Wu u4e an Out � - y.
Clinic Wvu, d Wu u'e one in an 6ine/cgeRCy,�
Se�tvice 'a�actvay? Any impnovenent?
.74 % 04 t () Ace Se�tviCe & Lvcaec.vn 4a t� ctv
18• Dv %weves attend u V'
a- age Cvunci.0 /1)ee Lip? fives amny .time' a yeast?
Shvuld theAe Ge mvae puG.LicUy vn Agenda Z. enj p,�,t t, meet' 7
Camp 1' —
19. Have you had any comact with VLU-age&an4 & Ra.ta then /-/0(/0 13ea f
Vi-lag.e Cvunci J , Zv J
rippea44nce Boa,,d g L3vand v� fia fu4 anent , Camay
�tg Cami..d4ivn /�anlz4 8 �ecaea,icvn
COfl�4i''a Have you 4e�tved on any v4 .the4e? IvAic/O
lvvuld u 6e cn.tene4,ted y° ut 4eZving on one? Wh,icV
What '4 you/t 6acftgzvund vz eye/Lience 4ela,eed .ev ,4iioj?
20. Have Wu had any WM&ct with the &u:l� .7rwpectv,t'4 U xzn,tmen,e?
Sa-t"4actvay? ate .then wnn
— RC en.t4 on anry exve tiertce
/..% o vca rev tez ,ti.4 2 w»nerU
C
ave. u hnd
y° any avn.tact with .the Watelt DepanhneU �la.te #hen
Cament -
/b Wu have a we.0 Alt 4piwift,Cen.�?
22• L1v Wu ZiirA we have need At a new Libna�ty:�
,went Li.bnait, ? wee%t.l Ham' vt-een do yvu u4e oust
Wvu.ld u
yo Iihe .ev flee .the Li.bnany 6ined ., .the flame a,ze+z with the Ar.t eJi
u .t1te pnvpv4ed develvpnen,t nvn.ih v� Tequu.ea Uitive and O.ld vi ie?
Canne,U -
2� ?4 ��Ye
u need a an ACLf Adu,L iv"�t
W'a-&tA ad on US`#1 in urw C �e Livvtg Fac.L&-ty), 4,-,maa/t to
&a�, in ii� newly ev 6e deve loped azea.2
Would Wu Ao tdee uae v4 tAi j pn yvu in ike AL&xe?
'24. Any v.thez Cvmneatu .ev vnp,rvve 7eque4.ta
?,
.�z wu fUCi1.� lNu mau r7LVP rwtrrn nn...n ...l.l_ - r
7
C
n
A
I
STUDY OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MARK ON THE BASIS OF 1 TO 10
C,
Performance, Village Council ..................%.7
Performance, Village Manager ..................
�.J
Performance, Village Advisory Groups ...........�'I'
General Appearance, Village
J zj
...•
........ ... .....
Appearance, Business section
�'3
....................
✓
Appearance, Residential section
...,,,.„ .......�•li
Appearance,
Condominium section�•L
Appearance, Apartment section
..................�1�
Condition of roads
..........................-7
Maintenance of roads
6'T�
............
W Traffi •,.•••.•�"
c control .........., .l�
.....................
Parks Available
G•
..............................
Y
Playgrounds available
...........................j,-y
Municipal swimming pool available
...............�•
Shuffle courts, benches and areas for Seniors
y
...
f
Junior, areas available, tennis courts. camas_
dance ..................................
f Play areas and equipment for children ............
i
1'U
E
Page 2 -
----------------------
/Public meeting place for residents ..............
a) musical performances ......................
3.f
�•I
b) ballet ...................................
3
c) theater ..................... ..............
�'1
d) book reviews ..............................
y —
e) bridge
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sufficient library space ..,,.,,,,...o.........,. y
Sufficient books ................................
Food stores suitable
Malls attractive ................................
General Merchandise available ..............
Newspaper adequate and cooperative ......
3•Y
7
F Y
Village pride and awareness ..........
f
Drainage.•.•• •••
....................... .... ..
Street lighting........0.......0................
3• y
/•�
Curbs and gutters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1j /
Sewer system ....................................
3.r
Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bicycle paths adequate ..........................
3
1 1-9
Page 3 -
---------------------
Police Protection ............................... �•r
Ambulance service ...............................
Fire Department ...........
Hospital Services available .....................9'
First Aid available .............................
Emergency Room service available and g.�J
and cooperative .............................. /
Note: Please mark this important set of questions and help make
Tequesta the best place to live in! Please add your suggestions
and input to this list. I will ask Chairman Dr. Jacobs to go
over it and we will edit and present for your approval at our
next meeting. PLEASE RETURN PROMPTLY. Thank you.
N
1-10
I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The following documentation is enclosed herewith to verify that appropriate and
sufficient opportunities for the public to comment on and participate in the
development of this comprehensive plan.
Memorandum -
Meeting Agenda -
Meeting Minutes -
Public Meeting Schedule -
I
L
�I
C
J
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Teyuesla Dri.e
Teyuesta. Florida 33469-0273 • (305) 746-7.351
VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 10, 1987
7:30 P.M,
I• CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
(Councilmember Edwin J. Nelson)
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND REPORTS
A) Village Council Meeting; January 27, 1987
B) Village Manager's Report, January 26 - February 6, 1987
V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS
VI DEVELOPMENT MATTERS
A) Application for Zoning Change from R-lA to R-1 for Noyes -
Grant Property at Tequesta Drive and Pine Tree Drive.
Discussion for Village Council direction prior to proceed-
ing with ordinance, legal notice of public hearing and
notification of adjacent property owners. Building Official. Scott Ladd,
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A)
_-" Discussion of public participation uring
"• Comprehensive Planning Process.
GeneCaPlan-
ping Consultant.
B)
Consideration of proposing utilization of Village held
lands for a new Lighthouse
Gallery facility.
C)
Ordinance No. 343 - First Reading. Providing that it shall
be unlawful for
persons to settle or trespass on private
property or public lands without legal authority.
D)
Ordinance No. 344 - First Rea
of the Code of Ordinances
ofthegVillagelng relatingotol3-13
sounding of train horns.
E)
Resolution No. 5-86/87 - Su portingcandidat for
the Countywide Planning Council.
CarltoncertStoddaraes
1 - 7
1i
�J
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Teyuesta Drive
Teyuesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (305) 746-7457
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Gene Caputo, Village Planning Consultant
FROM: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager r
DATE: February 11, 1987
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Public Participation Procedure
This is to advise you that the Village Council approved
your recommendations relative to formal procedures for public
participation as outlined in your memorandum of January 29, 1987.
As for the informal procedures, it is my feeling that the Village
should initially utilize your recommendations 1, 3, 6 and 8.
Please incorporate this information into the necessary submittals
due to the Department of Community Affairs before'March 31, 1987.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me.
ITGB/mk
VILLAGE OF TEQUES-rA
PRESENTS
IA PUBLIC INVITATION
You are cordially invited to participate in the process of planning for the
well-being, development, and future of the Village.
Tequesta is your Village. Your input and comments are of critical importance if
the future of the Village is to genuinely reflect the needs of its citizens.
A series of public meetings will be held in order to consider your opinions on
the Village's present condition and plans for the future. The meetings will be
under the jurisdiction- of the Local Planning Agency (Designated
held in the Village Council Chambers at Village Hall gnated as the LPA) and
7:00pm on each on the following dates: g 357 Tequesta Drive, at
PUBLIC
MEETING SCHEDULE
May
12,
1987
- General Discussion
May
12,
1987
- Annexation
May
12,
1987
- Existing Land Use
May
12,
1987
- Future Land Use
June
9,
1987
= Economic Development/Redevelopment
June
9,
1987
- Traffic Circulation
June
9,
1987
- Housing
July
14,
1987
- Recreation/Open Space
July
July
14,
1987
- Coastal Zone Management
14,
1987
= Police, Fire, Hurricane & Catastrophic
Protection
Aug.
11,
1987
- Utilities, Drainage, Solid haste,
Sewer & Water
Aug.
11,
1987
- Public BuildinGs
Aug.
11,
1987
- Conservation/Historical & Scenic
Preservation
Sept.
8,
1987
- CoiMnunity Finance
Sept.
8,
1987
- General D1sctjo.i,-.n
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 • 357Tcyuesta Drive
Teyucsta. Florida 33469-0273 • (305).746-7457
Dear Citizen:
I
The Village of Tequesta is in the process of requesting and utilizing your cotrt-
ments regarding the future of our Village to be utilized in the developmerit of
our Comprehensive Plan.
Attached are sheets designed for your use. You may attach additional streets if
necessary. You will notice that no specific questions are being asked. It is
our intent for you to feel free in responding by us your open cotrinents.
The elements of the Comprehensive Plan are as follows:
- Existing Land Use & Development
- Future Land Use & Development
- Traffic Circulation
- Utilities, Drainage, Solid Waste, IJater
- Conservation
- Recreation & Open Space
- Housing
- Public Buildings
- Historical & Scenic Preservation
- Police, Fire, Hurricane, & Catastrophic Protection
- Community Finance
- Coastal Zone Management
You may mail or personally deliver this packet back to us at the Ni113ge Hall,
to the Village Clerk, located at 357 Tequesta Drive.
Ifhank you for your cooperation and assistance.
1-1Z
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Ullice Box 3273 • 357 Tcgtees ;t Drive
Teyuestu. Florida 33469-0273 • (305) 746-7457
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLA.
Comprehensive Plan - Public Participation Form Comment Sheet
General Comments
MY COMMENTS AND/OR OPINIONS
ARE
LISTED BELOW FOR
DISCUSSION DURING THE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
OF
THE COMPREIMIZIVE
PLANNING PROGRAM.
PLEASE FORWARD TO VILLAGE CLERK, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA.
I_A
n
J
U
L
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE
CONTINUAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF THE TOWN'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, that;
SECTION 1. An annual public hearing will be held by the Local Planning
Agency for the purpose of monitoring, updating and evaluating the con-
dition of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. Citizen participation and
input will be encouraged during this meeting as well as throughout the
year.
SECTION 2. The Village Manager or designee shall act as chief moni-
toring official of the plan and shall compile citizen comments
throughout the year. The monitoring official shall also be responsible
for ensuring that the objectives are monitored, updated and evaluated
during the year.
SECTION 3. Upon completion of the public hearing held by the Village
Local Planning Agency, the LPA and the monitoring official shall pre-
pare a yearly report to the Village Council that addresses those items
as found in F.S.163.3191, and from a yearly standpoint, those require-
ments of 9J-5.004 F.A.C.
SECTION 4. The Village Council, Village Manager and other Village
officials shall use the report as an aid in implementing the comprehen-
sive plan and as a data source in the compilation of the required five
year evaluation and appraisal report (EAR), as prescribed by State
Statue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1988.
shall take effect upon its adoption.
Approved
Mayor
Attest:
1-17
This resolution
Village Clerk
ri,
I
2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
There are a variety of general
Local Government Comprehensive
requirements established by the
Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act (Chapter 163,
Part II, Florida Statutes), and
Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative Code, in preparing local
comprehensive plans. Chapter
9J5.005, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,
F.A.C., establishes various
format requirements; data and
analysis requirements; level of service standard requirements;
planning timeframes; internal
consistency requirements; plan
implementation requirements;
monitoring and evaluation
requirements; and, procedural requirements.
This part of the support documentation contains substantive
information and matters of
fact that require written
documentation. Specifically,
Population Estimates and
Projections are developed as
required by Chapter 9J5.005(2),
DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS, F.A.C. These estimates and
projections are developed for use in the various elements of the
required support documentation, and as a basis for developing
the comprehensive plan. There is also a section entitled
Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures, which is developed
pursuant to Chapter 9J5.005(7), MONITORING AND EVALUATION
PROCEDURES, F.A.C., which will be applied and instituted for the
purpose of monitoring, evaluating and appraising the
implementation of the comprehensive plan and in preparing the
five (5) year Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
2.2 POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
Population estimates and projections as required by Rule 9J5,
F.A.C., are presented in Section 3.2.7 and 3.3.4 of the Future
Land Use element of this Support Documentation.
2.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The intent of this section is to meet that portion of the
General Requirements of the State comprehensive planning
requirements, regarding monitoring and evaluation procedures.
Specifically, Chapter 9J5.005(7), MONITORING AND EVALUATION
REQUIREMENTS, Florida Administrative Code, states that: "For
the purpose of evaluating and appraising the implementation of
the Comprehensive Development Plan, each Comprehensive
2-1
Fi
Development Plan ... shall contain a section identifying five-year
monitoring, updating and evaluation procedures to be followed in
the preparation of the required five-year evaluation and
appraisal reports." The Florida Administrative Code further
specifies that the following matters shall be addressed:
1. Citizen participation in the process;
2. Updating appropriate baseline data and measurable
objectives to be accomplished in the first five-year
period of the plan, and for the long-term period;
■ 3. Accomplishments in the first five-year period,
!� describing the degree to which the goals, objectives
and policies have been successfully reached;
4. Obstacles or problems which resulted in
underachievement of goals, objectives, or policies;
5. New or modified goals, objectives, or policies needed
to correct discovered problems; and
6. A means of ensuring continuous monitoring and
evaluation of the plan during the five-year period.
Each of the six (6) items identified above are addressed in this
section and incorporated as part of the Village of Tequesta's
Comprehensive Development Plan.
2.3.1 Citizen Participation
The Village of Tequesta Village Council approved item VII A) at
the February 10, 1987 Council meeting which adopted specific
public participation procedures to be adhered to in updating its
Comprehensive Development Plan. The procedures are listed below
and analyzed.
"The Village shall put the real property owners of
Tequesta on notice that it has begun to update and
prepare a proposed, revised Comprehensive Development
Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report in conformance
with the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act.
Notice shall be given by providing an advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation. Such advertisement
will seek to assure that real property owners are put on
notice of all events concerning the preparation of the
2-2
U
.l
TABLE 3-6
PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES
PALM BEACH
YEAR
COUNTY TOTAL
TOTAL
TEQUESTA COUNTY SHARE ($)
1
1960
238,106
199
0.08
1
1970
348,993
2,642
0.76
1
1980
576,758
3,685
0.64
2
1981
615,165
3,750
0.61
2
1982
637,940
3,828
0.60
2
1983
652,562
3,810
0.58
2
1984
682,638
3,870
0.57
2
1985
713,253
3,928
0.55
2
1986
752,115
4,077
0.54
2
1987
789,533
4,126
0.52
2
1988
831,146
4,448
0.54
1. U.S. Bureau of the Census
2. University of Florida, Bureau of Business Economic
Research; April 1st of each year
JLH Associates; 7/89
Tequesta Table. 3-6
3-22
TABLE 3-7
HISTORICAL RESIDENT POPULATION GROWTH RATES
GROWTH
PALM BEACH
COUNTY
TEQUESTA
PERIOD
GROWTH
RATE ($)
GROWTH
RATE (8$)
1960-1970
110,887
46.6
2,443
1,227.6
1970-1980
227,756
65.3
1,043
39.5
1980-1981
38,407
6.7
65
1.8
1981-1982
22,775
3.7
78
2.1
1982-1983
14,622
2.3
(18)
(0.5)
1983-1984
30,076
4.6
60
1.6
1984-1985
30,615
4.5
58
1.5
1985-1986
38,862
5.5
149
3.8
1986-1987
37,418
5.0
49
1.2
1987-1988
41,613
5.3
322
7.8
1980-1988
254,388
44.1
763
20.7
SOURCE: JLH Associates, 7/89; Table 3-6
Tequesta Table 3-7
3-23
Ill
�I
3.2.8 LOCALLY DETERMINED RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES
According to the 1980 Census, there were 1,759 dwelling units in
the Village (Ref: Table 5-3; HOUSING Element). This figure, coupled
with resident occupancy and average household size statistics,
comprise the basis of the 1980 population estimate for the Village of
3,685 residents prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau. Based upon data
presented in the HOUSING Element (Ref: Section 5.2.1.2 and Table 5-1)
it is concluded that the 1980 dwelling unit estimate prepared by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census understated the actual number. This
conclusion is based upon the following rationale:
1. A current (i.e. May, 1989) inventory of the housing stock in
the Village indicates that there are 2,392 units within the
Village at the present time (Ref: Section 5.2.1.1; HOUSING
Element);
2. According to Village Building Permit records (Ref: Table 5-1;
HOUSING Element), 365 units were constructed during the 1980-
1988 period; and
3. Deducting the number of dwelling units constructed during the
1980-1988 period (i.e. 365 units) from the current inventory
(i.e. 2,392 units) results in the conclusion that the Village
Housing Stock -consisted of 2,027 units in 1980.
If it is concluded that the Village housing stock was
underestimated in the 1980 Census, it can be further concluded that
the resident population estimate was also understated. The following
assumptions and methodology are therefore applied, using a combination
of Census data and housing stock statistics prepared by the Village,
to derive more appropriate 1980 resident population estimates:
1. 1980 Village Housing Stock is concluded to have been comprised
of 2,027 units;
2. The 1980 Census -based Resident occupancy rate of 83.4% (i.e.
derived from Table 5-2 HOUSING Element) and average household
size of 2.46 persons per household (Ref: Table 3-9) are
presumed to be accurate; and
3. The application of Census - based occupancy rate (0.834) and
household size (2.46) factors to 1980 Village - derived
housing stock estimates (2,027 units) results in a locally -
prepared 1980 population estimate of 4,159 residents.
The application of the above assumptions and
current housing unit data can be used to derive a
population estimate as well. The only difference is
of an average household size of 2.366 residents whic
factor used by the University of Florida, Bureau
Economic Research to prepare population estimates
Revised estimates, using the above methodologies and
presented on Table 3-8.
1
3-24
methodology to
current resident
the application
h is the current
of Business and
for the Village.
assumptions are
TABLE 3-8
LOCALLY
PREPARED POPULATION ESTIMATES
VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA
Dwelling
Resident
Average
Year
Units * Occupancy
Rate**
Household Size
Population
1980
2,027
0.834
2.46 **
4,159
1988
2,374
0.837
2.366 ***
4,685
1989
2,392
0.834
2.366 ***
4,720
* Village of Tequesta Building Department
** U. S. Bureau of the Census; 1980
*** University of Florida, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research
SOURCE: JLH Associates; 7/89
3-25
C
U
L
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics for the Village of Tequesta, in
comparison to those of Palm Beach County as a whole, are exhibited on
Tables 3-9 and 3-10. Comparative figures for 1980, based upon Census
data and adjustments thereto prepared in the previous section of this
Element, are presented on Table 3-9, while 1989 estimates are
exhibited on Table 3-10.
Median and average household income in the Village is
substantially higher than Palm Beach County as a whole. In 1989,
median income in the Village was estimated to be 133% of that
witnessed Countywide, while average household income as 131% of that
exhibited Countywide. In keeping with this observation, the Village
has a smaller percentage of households within the lower income
brackets and a greater percentage in the higher income brackets than
Palm Beach County as a whole.
Median age in the Village is higher than the County as a whole.
Significant differences in age distribution are evident within the
working age groups (i.e. 21-64), where the Village has a lower
percentage than Palm Beach County, and elderly age groups (i.e. 65 +),
where the Village has a higher percentage. Younger age groups (i.e. 0-
20) comprise a relatively similar share of the population in the
Village than the County. Further, the most rapidly growing age -group
is the 65 years and older bracket.
Housing units in the Village are predominantly owner -occupied
with a substantially higher proportion of owner -occupied housing that
the County as a whole.
3-26
�i'
�1
TABLE 3-9
POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
- 1980
PALM
BEACH COUNTY, TEQUESTA
Palm Beach County
Tequesta
Population
576,863
4,159
Per Capita Income ($)
9,017
12,029
Households 234,339
1,691
Household Income
less than $5,000
11.6
5.2
$ $5,000-$9,999
16.5
11.9
$10,000-$14,999
16.4
12.7
$ $15,000-$19,999
14.2
8.9
$20,000-$24,999
11.9
14.0
$25,000 and over
29.2
47.6
Median ($)
16,714
24,021
Average ($)
22,036
30,187
Age
$ 0-20
21.3
24.1
21-64
55.3
49.3
$ 65 +
23.3
26.6
Median
40.2
46.6
Occupied Units
Renter
26.7
9.5
Owner
73.3
90.5
Households
$ 1 person
24.7
18.0
2 persons
42.7
46.5
3 or more persons
32.6
35.6
Average Size
2.42
2.46
1980 Census Tract Data Aggregated By
Urban Decision Systems, Inc.
Tequesta Table 3-9
3-27
TABLE 3-10
POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS - 1989
PALM BEACH COUNTY, TEQUESTA
Palm Beach County
Tequesta
Population
858,036
4,720
Per Capita Income ($)
15,619
20,362
Households
372,147
1,992
Household Income
$ less than $5,000
5.8
3.8
$5,000-$9,999
9.9
6.9
$10,000-$14,999
11.1
9.0
$ $15,000-$19,999
11.0
9.4
$20,000-$24,999
9.6
7.1
$ $25,000 and over
52.5
63.7
Median ($)
26,526
35,396
Average ($)
35,814
46,955
Age
$ 0-20
21.5
19.8
$ 21-64
54.5
51.0
$ 65 +
24.0
29.2
Median
42.3
47.6
Occupied Units
Renter
25.7
10.6
$ Owner
74.3
89.4
Households
$ 1 person
26.2
22.7
2 persons
41.4
43.8
$ 3 or more persons
32.4
33.5
Average Size
2.27
2.37
1986 Census Tract Data Extrapolated by
Urban Decision Systems, Inc. and JLH Associates
Tequesta Table 3/8
3-28
UA
Comprehensive Development Plan. Said advertisements will
be published on several occasions, and at varying time
® intervals to ensure the widest coverage possible."
"The notice shall
inform the property owners
that copies
of documentation
regarding the Comprehensive
Development
Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report shall
be on file
at the Village
Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive,
Tequesta,
Florida, as they
and review."
become available for public
inspection
"The notice shall explain that written comments regarding
the Comprehensive Development Plan are encouraged from
the public and that written comments shall be forwarded
to the Local Planning Agency (Village Council), 357
Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, 33469.
Copies of Support Documentation, and the Comprehensive
Development Plan document are to be placed on file at the
Village Hall as they become available. The public is encouraged
to review the materials as they are revised or amended from time
to time for public review and inspection. These provisions
afford the citizens of Tequesta the opportunity to participate
in the comprehensive planning process. This opportunity shall
remain available to the public as the Comprehensive Development
Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report are being developed and
amended in the future.
"At a minimum, the Village shall utilize its monthly
newsletter to provide a status of the comprehensive
planning program and to keep the residents of Tequesta
informed on the progress of the Comprehensive
Development Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
If, and when, deemed necessary and appropriate, the local
media shall be informed and used to keep the public
informed on the comprehensive planning program. Legal
ads shall be placed in The Palm Beach Post newspaper and
notice shall be posted on the bulletin board at Village
Hall which announces the time, date and location of Local
Planning Agency meetings that will be addressing the
Comprehensive Development Plan and Evaluation and
Appraisal report."
"The Village staff shall provide a written response to
each written comment submitted to the Local Planning
Agency (Village Council). The response shall indicate
the nature of action(s) taken by the Local Planning
Agency regarding the written comment and the date that
the comment was read and heard."
2-3
� �4
The Village
has already
begun to institute these procedures,
as
well. Times,
dates and
location of public meetings are posted
at Village
Hall for the
public's information. Also, posted
at
Village Hall
is a current listing of documentation prepared
as
part of the
comprehensive
planning program that is available
for
the public's
review.
The same procedures shall also
be
'
continued in
the future.
"At a minimum, the Village shall hold appropriate public
hearings as dictated by the 1985 Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act. However, if deemed necessary and appropriate by the
Local Planning Agency (Village Council), additional
public hearings shall be held to discuss various elements
or concerns related to the Comprehensive Development Plan
M and Evaluation and Appraisal Report."
"The Local Planning Agency (Village Council), at a
minimum, shall provide information to the property owners
of Tequesta consistent with these public participation
requirements. Executive summaries will be prepared only
when, and if, deemed necessary and appropriate by the
Local Planning Agency (Village Council)."
As particular issues or matters of an expressed community
concern arise, the Local Planning Agency (Village Council)
shall, if it deems it necessary, hold public meetings, or
hearings, to address such concerns. This will further enhance
the citizens' participation in the planning process.
Depending on the detail and need for summaries, the Local
Planning Agency (Village Council) shall decide if, and when, to
prepare Executive Summaries of Comprehensive Plan elements and
documentation.
2.3.2
Updates to Baseline Data
and Objectives
All data and
background information that
form the basis for the
Comprehensive Development Plan (Support Documentation) shall be
updated at least once every five (5) years. It is further
recommended that data and background information for all
elements of the Plan be updated at the same time, rather than at
suggested intervals. By doing so, the Village will establish a
data base that will be internally consistent for the entire
Comprehensive Development Plan. This will provide a specific
break -off point for the collection and analysis of data,
information and matters of fact upon which the Plan documents
can be developed.
2-4
r.
0
This process shall be formalized at least once every five (5)
years for a rational and methodical presentation of information,
but the Local Planning Agency (Village Council) shall assemble
data, information and matters of fact on a regular basis or as
information becomes available from sources other than from the
local government.
By proceeding in the update process in this manner, the Village
will formally synthesize and update baseline information for
each five (5) year planning increment and develop historical
trends to be analyzed for the long-term planning period.
Based on this compilation of information, the Village shall be
able to develop a logical, systematic methodology to measure the
objectives and implementation activities proposed in Tequesta's
Comprehensive Development Plan. Data will be evaluated and
assessed against those objectives of the Plan that are
quantifiable. Updates to matters of fact and basic background
information will help qualify or nullify those objectives and
implementation activities that are non -quantifiable.
2.3.3 Obstacles, Problems and Accomplishments
When baseline data, background information and matters of fact
are periodically updated and analyzed, the successes and
failures of the Comprehensive Development Plan shall become
evident. The obstacles and problems witnessed by the Village
that have effected implementation of Plan directives shall be
identified and reviewed. Based on the evaluation and assessment
of those problems and subsequent underachievement of adopted
goals, objectives and policies, the Village shall strive toward
correcting those shortcomings. Each goal, objective, and policy
of every Comprehensive Development Plan element shall be
reviewed and assessed according to its current adequacy. If the
directions for growth and development have changed in Tequesta
or -the emphasis has shifted, the goals, objectives and policies
will be modified or deleted. Likewise, new goals, objectives or
policies will be incorporated into the Plan to reflect new
directions and intentions. When the Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) is prepared, it shall follow the procedures
described above. This methodology and procedure will keep the
Village abreast of its problems and concerns while providing for
current and up-to-date growth and development directions
established in its Comprehensive Development Plan.
E
2-5
J
U
1 2.3.4 Continuous Monitoring and Assessment
Although a formalized Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is
only required to be prepared at least once every five (5) years,
Tequesta's Comprehensive Development Plan shall be continually
scrutinized and reviewed for current applicability.
Additionally, the Village shall coordinate data base collection
activities with Palm Beach County, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, its municipal neighbors, appropriate State
agencies and any other jurisdictions/entities that effect
Tequesta's growth and development. These activities will
enhance the comprehensive planning process in general and foster
increased intergovernmental coordination activities.
2.3.5 Monitoring and Evaluating Capital Improvements
In addition to the General Requirements for monitoring and
evaluation procedures identified in Chapter 9J5.005(7), F.A.C.,
it is further required that the Capital Improvements element be
reviewed on an annual basis (Ref. Chapter 9J5.016(5),
REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION). Therefore, it is
mandatory that the Village review the Capital Improvements
element of the Comprehensive Development Plan each year to
evaluate and assess what has been accomplished during the past
year.
Each capital expenditure and project shall be reviewed to
determine what has been accomplished. Those capital projects
that have been accomplished can be reported as implemented.
Those projects that have not been accomplished or that have been
partially accomplished shall be re -assessed for current
applicability. If determined to still be a valid concern and
applicable, then those capital improvements shall be re -
prioritized and re -scheduled appropriately for inclusion in the
Plan's Capital Improvements element. Those that no longer are
valid or do not apply shall be deleted in future plans and
projections. These decisions and actions shall be compiled,
reported and utilized for inclusion in the Village's next EAR.
The monitoring and evaluation of capital improvements shall be
closely coordinated and timed with the Village's annual
budgetary process. It is incumbent upon the Village to have the
Council, staff, and its consultants review the Comprehensive
Development Plan at budget preparation time to determine which
capital projects have been accomplished in the current year and
what they anticipate capital needs are for the ensuing fiscal
year. If these needs conflict with what is in the adopted
2-6
I
r.
Capital Improvements element of the Plan then appropria
te
adjustments to the Capital Improvements element shall be
accomplished.
Annual review of the Capital Improvements element in conjunction
with review and assessment of other elements of the Village of
Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan shall concur with the
monitoring and evaluation requirements established in Chapter
9J5, F.A.C.
H-
I
n
2-7
�I
1
3.0 FUTURE LAND USE
U
A
3.1 Introduction
The FUTURE LAND USE element is required to be included within the
Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and rule
criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6) (a), Florida Statutes,
establishes the future land use plan requirement and Chapter 9J5.006,
Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum criteria to guide its
preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future land use
goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the FUTURE LAND USE element is structured
according to the following format:
o Land Use Data; and
o Land Use Analysis
3.2 Land Use Data Summary
An overview of conditions pertinent to the preparation of the
future land use goal, objectives and policies are presented in the
sections that follow:
3.2.1 Topography
The Village is situated on the coastal ridge which parallels the
Atlantic Ocean (Ref: Figure 3-1). Elevations throughout the Village
generally range between ten and fifteen feet above mean sea level
(msl); however, higher elevations occur in isolated areas. The Ridge
is bisected by the Loxahatchee River and the Jupiter Inlet, a low-
lying transverse glade and drainageway. Land areas east of the
coastal ridge slope gradually to the Intracoastal Waterway, with most
areas less than five feet above mean sea level.
The Village is bordered on the west by the sandy flat lands
elevations range from ten to fifteen feet above msl. West of
areas is the Everglades region, which consists
swamps less than fourteen feet in elevation.
r' 3.2.2 Soil conditions and Mineral Resources
primarily of
where
these
flat
A majority of the natural soils underlying the Village are sandy,
with drainage characteristics ranging from poor to excessive. The
distribution of generalized soil types within the Village is exhibited
on Figure 3-2, while soil characteristics and limitations to
development are presented on Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
3-1
J
Ll
u
3-2
r.
u
L
�1,
u
I
H.
FIGURE 3-2
S O I L S MAP
(SEE MAP ATLAS)
3-3
G'
TABLE 3-1
SOIL TYPE - CIIARACTERISITCS
The general types of soils found in Tequesta and their characteristics are as
follows:
AU - Arents-Urban land complex. This complex consists of nearly level, somewhat
poorly drained, sandy soils and Urban land. The soils formed in thick layers of
sandy fill material that were placed over low, wet mineral soils to make We
areas suitable for urban use. This complex is in the eastern part of the survey
area and takes in golf courses, subdivisions, condominium developments, road-
ways, business or industrial areas, reclaimed borrow pits, and other, areas
filled over but not yet developed.
No one pedon represents this mapping unit, buy the surface layer of one of the
more common ones is dark gray and dark grayish brown sand, mixed with other sha-
des of gray and brown, about 4 inches thick. Below this there is a layer of
mottled brown sand about 20 inches thick. It has common weakly cemented
fragments of strong brown, black, or dark reddish brown sand. Between depths of
24 and 60 inches are layers of light gray and dark gray sand that have a few
thin lenses and mottles in shades of gray and brown.
This complex is about 60 to 75 percent Arents and 25 to 40 percent Urban land.
Arents consist of lawns, vacant lots, golf courses, undeveloped areas, and other
open land. Urban land consists of areas covered by streets, sidewalks, parking
lots, buildings, and other structures. The percentage of Arents and Urban land
varies.
Included with this complex in mapping are areas of better drained soils, soils
that have a higher content of shells in some layers, and a feu soils that have
limestone at a depth of less than 50 inches. Also included are small areas of
soils, near the Intracoastal Waterway and Lake Worth, that have a Layer of marl
or organic material below a depth of 20 inches.
The soil material is generally rapidly permeable in all layers. The available
water compacity is low or very low. The organic -matter content and natural fer-
tility are low in most places.
Ba - Basinger fine sand. This is a nearly level, poorly drained, deep, sandy
soil in broad grassy sloughs in the eastern part of the county. This soil teas
the pedon described as representative of the series. The water table is within
10 inches of the surface for 2 to 6 months in most years and within 10 to 30
inches for the rest of the year.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Myakka, Lwnokalee,
Pcmpano, Anclote, and Placid soils. Also included are some areas where the soil
has a thin layer of organic material on the surface and a few places where a
loamy substratum is deep in the soil.
The natural vegetation is St. Johnsworth slash pine, southern bayberry, and
scattered cypress; pineland three -awn, blue maindencane, broomsedge bluestem,
and low panicum grasses. Most areas of this oil are in native vegetation or
improved pasture. A few areas are used for vegetables. Some large areas that
were once cropped have been idle for years.
Unless drained, this soil is not suited to cultivated crops. If drained an.l
intensively managed, it is moderately well suited to vegetables. Providing a
well designed, constructed, and maintained water control system that maintains
the level of the water table and provides subsurface irrigation is a major, con-
cern of management. Frequent applications of fertilizer and lime are needed.
This soil is poorly suited to citrus. Because it is in low-lying positions and
normally has a high water table, water control is difficult. A well -designed
water control system and bedding are needed if citrus.is planted, and frequent
applications of fertilizer are needed. Maintaining fertility is difficult
because the soil is sandy and low in natural fertility. During dry periods,
irrigation is needed to insure good yields.
If Intensively managed, this soil is well suited to improved pasture of grass or
grass and clover. Providing a water control system that is less intensive but
is otherwise similar to that required for cultivated crops, applying fertilizer
and lime as needed, and carefully cont-,rolling grazing are major management con-
cerns.
3-4
Ui
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
Bn - Beaches consist of narrow strips of tide -washed sand along the Atlantic
coast line. They range from less than 100 feet to more than 500 feet in width,
but most are less than 200 feet wide. As much as half of the beach may be
covered by water during daily high tides, and all of the beach troy be covered
during storm periods. The shape and slope of the beaches may change with every
storm. Most beaches have a uniform, gentle slope up to the edge of the water.
Others have wavebuilt ridges that have short, stronger slopes; ranging to 8 per-
cent or more. There are a few shallow inland swales. Most areas have no vege-
tation, but the inland edge may be sparsely covered with moonvine, railroad
vine, sea oats, and seashore bermudagrass. Depth to the water table is Highly
variable, depending on the distance from the water, the height of the beach, the
effect of storms, or the time of year. The depth to the water table ranges from
0 to 6 feet or more, depending on time and place.
Beaches are frequently mixed and reworked by waves. They are firm or• compact
near the edge of the water, but the drier sands further back are louse. Beaches
consist of pale brown to light gray sand grains of uncoated quartz and are mixed
With multicolored, 'sand -sized to }-inch shell fragments. Few to many coarser
shell fragments occur in all parts of the soil. Some areas have pockets or len-
ses of conquina shell; other areas consist of large shell fragments and little
or• no sand. Rock outcrops are scattered throughout. Some are at the edge of
the water and act as a barrier to each incoming wave, for example, at the north
survey area line and at the Singer Island area. Others are submerged and
exposed only at low tides, for example, at Lake Worth and Boca Raton beaches.
Beaches are not suited to crops or pasture. They are suited mainly to
recreation use and wildlife habitat and have great esthetic value.
Im - Immokalee fine sand. This is a nearly level, poorly drained, deep, sandy
soil that has a dark colored layer below a depth of 30 inches that is weakly
cemented with organic matter. This soil is in broad flatwood areas in the
eastern part of the survey area. It has the pedon described as represent..ative
of the series. Under natural conditions, the water table is within 10 inches of
the surface for 2 to 11 months during wet periods, within 10 to 110 inches for 8
months or more in most years, but it is below 110 inches in dry periods.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Myakka, Basinger, Wabasso,
and Oldsmar soils.
The natural vegetation is slash pine, saw -palmetto, inkberry, fetterblish, pine -
land three -awn, and many other grasses. Most areas of this soil are in native
vegetation, but there are some areas in improved grass pasture and cultivated
crops.
This soil is moderately well suited to vegetables if irrigation water is
available. Intensive management and a very careful control of the water• table
level are necessary. A drainage system and a subsurface irrigation system that
provides rapid removal of excess water in rainy periods and a means of irriga-
tion in dry periods should be carefully designed, installed, and maintained.
Application of fertilizer and lime is needed.
This soil is poorly suited to citrus because of poor drainage, rapid leaching of
plant nutrients, and droughtiness in dry periods. If tine groves ar•e well
managed and there is a properly designed water control system, citrus trees can
be grown successfully.
A drainage system that removes during
excess water wet periods allows for a
high -quality pasture of improved grasses. Large applications of fertilizer and
lime are required. If irrigated, clover can be grown with grasses.
Mu - Myakka-Urban land complex. This complex consists of Myakka sand and Urban
land. About 25 to 50 percent of the complex is covered by streets, sidewalks,
driveways, houses, and other structures. About 40 to 65 percent of the complex
consists of open land such as lawns, vacant lots, and playgrounds. These areas
are made up mainly of nearly level, poorly drained Myakka sand, which has been
modified in most places by spreading about 12 inches of sandy fill material on
the original surface. Myakka sand has a pedon similar to that described as
representative of the series.
Included in mapping are ,Immokalee, Basinger, and Pompano soils, all of which
have sandy fill material over the original surface.
A 3-5
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
The percentage of urban area and open
land varies. Most areas have been drained
to some degree by a system
is at a greater depth than
of canals
is typical
and ditches, and the water• table generally
for Myakka soils. Following heavy rains,
tire water table may rise to
within 10
inches of the surface for periods of up to
1 month.
■
Present land use precludes
use for farming.
PbB - Palm Beach -Urban land compels. This complex consists of Palm Beach sand
and Urban land. About 50 to 70 percent of the complex is open land, such as
lawns, vacant lots, and undeveloped areas. These areas are made up of nearly
level to sloping, excessively drained, Palm Beach sand that has been graded and
leveled in many places for urban development. The original soil has a pedon
similar to that described as representative of the series. About.30 to 50 per-
cent of the complex is covered by sidewalks, streets, parking lots, buildings,
and other structures.
Included with the open areas of this complex in mapping are small areas of
Canaveral sand that has fill material on the original surface in many places.
Some of this fill material comes from the adjacent, higher Palm Beach sand
during the process of leveling.
The percentage of open land and urban areas varies. A few narrow coastal ridges
of Palm Beach sand remain undeveloped, but the amount of such land is being con-
tinually reduced by urban expansion.
PcB - Paola sand, 0 to 8 This
percent slopes. nearly level to sloping, excessi-
vely drained, deep, sandy soil has yellowish layers beneath the white subsurface
layer. It is on long, narrow dunelike ridges near the Atlantic coast. It has
the pedon described as representative of the series. The water table is below a
depth of 6 feet.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of St. Lucie, Palm Beach, and
Pomello soils; soils that lack the thick, white, subsurface layer; and soils
that have the yellowish layer at a depth greater than that described for Poola
sand.
Tire natural vegetation is sand pine and an undergrowth of scrub oak, palmetto,
and rosemary. The surface is sparsely covered by grasses, cacti, mosses, and
lichens. Large areas are in native vegetation. Some areas are cleared and
smoothed for urban use.
This soil is not suited to vegetables and most cultivated crops because it is
gr•oughty and has many other poor soil qualities. It is moderately well suited
to citrus. In citrus groves, a cover crop of weeds and grasses is neede(i to
keep the soil between the trees from blowing. Tillage should be kept to a mnirri-
mum. Sprinkle irrigation is needed to insure the survival of young trees and a
good yield of fruit from mature trees.
This soil is poorly suited to improved pasture of bahiagrass and other• deep-
rooted grasses. In such pastures, frequent application of fertilizer• and care -
Cully controlled grazing are needed.
QAB - Quartzipsamments, shaped. This mapping unit consists of nearly level to
gently sloping, well drained, deep, sandy soils in areas where natural soils
have been altered by cutting down ridges and spreading th8 soil material over
adjacent lower soils, by filling low areas above natural ground level, and by
filling and shaping soil material to form golf courses. The sandy fill material
may be hauled in from a distant source but is generally obtained at the site by
dredging nearby water areas or by excavating to create water areas. Ttre water
table is below a depth of 60 inches.
No one pedon represents this mapping unit, but of one of the most corrvion the
surface layer is dark grayish brown sand about 6 inches thick. Next, stratified
layers of gray, grayish brown, light gray, light brownish gray, and white !;ane
in any sequence and of variable thickness are between a depth of 6 and 32
inches. Below this there is a layer of strong brown sand about 10 inches ttrick
that has a few dark reddish brown fragments of weakly cemented sand. The next
layer is grayish brown sand about 18 inches thick. Below this is a layer of
white sand that extends to 80 inches or more.
Permeability is very rapid. The available water capacity is very low. Organic -
matter content and natural fertility are low.
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
ScB - St. Lucie sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes. This nearly level to sloping,
excessively drained, deep, sandy soil is onlong narrow, dune -like coastal
ridges and on isolated knolls. This soil has the pedon described as represen-
tative of the series. The water table is below a depth of 6 feet.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Paola, Palm Beach, and
Pomello soils. Also included are small areas of soils that have either, a dark -
colored, organic -stained layer, or a brownish yellow, iron -stained layer within
a depth of 80 inches. In a few places are soils that have a seasonally high
water table within a depth of 6 feet.
The natural vegetation is sand pine, scrub oak, sawpalmetto, rosemary, cacti,
reindeer moss, and sparse clumps of pineland three -awn and natalgrass. Large
areas are in native vegetation, and some areas have been cleared for future
urban development.
This soil is not suited to vegetables and other cultivated crops, improved
pasture, or citrus.
SuB - St. Lucie -Urban land complex. This complex consists of St. Lucie sand and
Urban land. About 50 to 70 percent of this complex is open land, such as lawns,
vacant lots, and playgrounds. These areas are made up of nearly level to
sloping, excessively drained St. Lucie soils. In places, these soils have been
modified by cutting, grading, or shaping for urban development. About 30 to 50
percent of the complex is covered by streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios,
buildings, and other structures.
The rest of the complex is made up of Paola and Pomello soils. These soils airy
also be modified in places, but the pedons are similar to that described as
representative of their respective series. The percentage of urban areas an.l
open land varies.
Present land use precludes use of this complex for farming.
III - Tidal swamp, mineral, is nearly level, very poorly drained, sandy m-aterial
that supports a dense growth of mangrove trees. It is only near the r_cdsL along
the Tntracoastal Waterway, around the edges of Lake Worth, and along the edges
of the Loxahatchee River and its tributaries. It consists of sandy marine sedi-
ments that are flooded by salt or brackish water during daily high tides.
Permeability is rapid in all layers. The available water capacity is high in
the surface layer and low below that. Natural fertility is low.
The surface layer is black,
very dark gray, or very
dark grayish brown and is 10
inches or more thick. It
is mucky sand or mucky
loamy sand.
Reaction ranges
from slightly acid to strongly alkaline. In many
places, the
surface layer is
fibrous muck 4 to 6 inches
thick.
The underlying material is
black, very dark gray,
very dark grayish brown, dark
gray, gray, grayish brown,
or brown sand, fine sand,
or loamy
sand. Reaction
ranges from extremely acid to mildly alkaline. In
fragments ranges to 10 percent.
places, the
content of shell
Ur- Urban land consits
of areas that
are 60 to more than 75 percent covered with
streets, buildings,
large parking
lots, shopping centers, industrial
parks,
airports, and related
facilities.
Other areas, mostly lawns, parks,
vacant
lots, and playgrounds,
are generally
altered to such an extent that the
former
soils cannot be easily
separately.
recognized and are in tracts too small to be
rrupped
SOluLC_. S011 S''L-.ey OL Palm Bza '- County" Area, Flori-a
USDA, SCS; 13j P
3-7
n
TABLE 3-2
1
SOIL
LIMITATIONS
FOR DEVELOPMENT
LIMITATION SUMMARY
TABLE 3-1
2
3
4
5
REF.
PLAYGROUNDS
DWELLINGS
COMMERCIAL
ROADS
SEPTIC TANKS
AU
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
BA
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
BN
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IM
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
MU
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
PDB
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PCB
Severe
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
QAB
Severe
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
SCB
Severe
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
SUB
Severe
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight
TM
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
UR
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
1. For Additional Detail Re: Soil Survey of Palm Beach County
Area, Florida; USDA, SCS, 12/78
3-8
0
W
The natural soil formations within the Village have been
significantly modified by urban development. In some areas, the
impact of urban development has been minimal, consisting of the
deposition of a few inches of fill over natural soils; however,
natural soils in a large portion of the Village have been radically
altered as a result of construction activities. Altered soil types
are referred to as "Urban Land Complexes" and "Quartzipsamments."
Areas within the Village most affected by the limiting conditions of
naturally occurring soil types are the ocean beaches and a small tidal
swamp area located west of the Intracoastal Waterway. There are no
known, commercially exploitable mineral resources within the Village.
3.2.3 Flooding Potential
Flood plain information and flood zone designations applied to
Tequesta are described in various sections of the COASTAL MANAGEMENT
element. Figure 3-3 graphically depicts the flood zones, while Table
3-3 presents an explanation of flood zone designations.
In order to provide a national standard without regional
discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by the Federal
Insurance Administration as the base flood for purposes of flood plain
management measures. The 500-year flood is employed to indicate
additional areas of flood risk in the community.
On Figure 3-3, the 100-year flood boundary corresponds to the
boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A and V); and
the 500-year flood boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas
of moderate flood hazards (Zone B). Zone A designations within the
Village are located in two primary areas: (1) that portion of the
Village abutting the Intracoastal Waterway; and (2) those mainland
areas located directly adjacent to the Loxahatchee River. Zone V
designations are located along the ocean beaches. Zone B designations
are located adjacent to Zone A and zone V designations in upland
areas, with the balance of the Village designated Zone C, indicating
areas of minimal flooding potential.
Flooding conditions in the Village result primarily from high
tides generated by hurricanes or severe tropical storms. While the
coastal ridge provides some protection from direct encroachment of
tidal surges, floodwaters can pass through inlets, causing abnormal
tides in the Intracoastal Waterway and Loxahatchee River. Tides from
Jupiter Inlet can extend upstream and result in inland flooding.
3.2.4. Native Vegetation
As indicated in the previous section on soil conditions (Ref:
Section 3.2.2), a majority of the area within the Village has been
developed and natural soils converted to an "urban development"
status. There are, however, four areas where native vegetation
3-9
r.
L
j
LJ
u
FIGURE 3-3
FLOOD ZONE MAP
(See Map Atlas)
3-10
E
TABLE 3-3
FLOOD ZONE MAP KEY AND EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
'EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 3-4
REF.
ZONE
EXPLANATION
A
Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined.
AO
Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; average depths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are delandned.
All
Areas of 100-year shallow tlondinR where depths
are bciwccn one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
Al A30
Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
A99
Areas of 100-year finod to be protected by flood
protection system under eomsttuctiun; hate flood
elevations and flood hazard factuts nut determined.
B
Areas between limits of the 100•year flood and 500-
year flood; or certain areas subject to IOU -year flood-
Ing with average depots less than unc (I ) loot or where
the contributing drainage atca is less than one square
mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
C
Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
D
Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
V
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
not determined.
V1-V30
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
SOURCE: FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION, 8/78
0
U
remains significantly evident: (1) a 56-acre site identified at
Ecosite #61 by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental
Resource Management (PBCDERM); (2) a 6-acre site identified as
Ecosite #63 by PBCDERM; (3) Mangrove stands located along the north
and northwest forks of the Loxahatchee River and the Aquatic Preserve
located in the Indian River Lagoon; and (4) marine wetlands located
within the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve. The specific
locations of these and other native vegetative resources and wildlife
habitats are on Figure 3-4 and further discussed in the COASTAL
MANAGEMENT and CONSERVATION elements.
3.2.5 Shown Water Bodies. Beaches and Shores
The major surface bodies in Tequesta are the Atlantic Ocean,
Intracoastal Waterway and Indian River Lagoon and the north and
northwest forks of the Loxahatchee River. These features are mapped
on Figure 3-4. The Atlantic Ocean forms a portion of eastern boundary
of the Village. Associated beaches, shores, dune and estuarine
systems are identified on Figure 3-4. Surface waters classified by
the State as:
1. CLASS II WATERS:
Coastal waters which have either actual or potential capability
of supporting shellfish propagation and harvesting. Class II waters
are the most stringent water classification within the Village.
The Loxahatchee River within the Village of Tequesta is
designated a Class II water system. Portions of the Loxahatchee River
flow through the Village of Tequesta. The North Fork of the river
traverses the Village. The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River
flows adjacent to the western corporate limits of the Village, along
the Tequesta Country Club area. The Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation has designated this river a Class II water
system based on the extensive support it provides to a variety of
wildlife, shellfish propagation and sport fishing.
2. CLASS III WATERS:
All coastal and inland waters not otherwise classified are
classified as Class III. Included are rivers, lakes, bays, estuaries
and open waters of the territorial sea.
The Intracoastal Waterway and the mouth of the Loxahatchee River
are designated Class III waters which are used extensively for
recreational activities such as boating, skiing, fishing and
swimming. They play a vital role in offering a safe and aesthetic
environment for these activities to take place.
3-12
0
n
FIGURE 3-4
COASTAL ZONE AND CONS ERVAT = ON MAP
BEACHES
WATER
SHORES, ETC.
(SEE MAP ATLAS)
3-13
1
3.2.6 Existing Land Use Inventory
U
Tequesta was incorporated in 1957. Similar to Palm Beach County,
Tequesta has experienced periods of rapid growth and, while a separate
and independent municipality, it is inexorably tied (economically,
socially, and physically) to this growing metropolitan area. The
Village is primarily a bedroom community dominated by residential
development accommodating middle to upper income families,
supplemented by commercial activities located along the arterial road
system and other less intense non-residential uses. Existing land use
data are indicative of how the land areas in Tequesta have developed.
The location, type and distribution of land use patterns and
activities are described in this section. There are slightly more
than 1,212 total acres, or 1.89 square miles contained withn the
corporate limits.
The classification system used to inventory existing land use
patterns within the Village is displayed on Table 3-4, while the
application of the system to the incorporated area is presented on
Table 3-5. Existing land use patters within the Village identified in
the survey are shown on Figure 3-5. Since there are no sites within
the Village listed on the Florida Master File or the National Register
of Historic Places nor has any similar local designation occurred, a
"Historical Site" land use category has not been included. Also,
there are no educational, agricultural or industrial areas within the
Village. As a result, these categories are not included within the
Land Use Classification System. The Village is nearly built -out to
the existing corporate limits. Only 10.1% of the total area is vacant
and potentially available for future development. Water areas
constitute a minor portion (i.e. 4.8% of the total area of the
Village.
3.2.6.1 Residential Land Use
Residential development, interspersed throughout Tequesta,
consumes approximately 42% of the developed land area. Single family
(low density) development is the predominant type of residential use.
Approximately 6 times as much land is used to accommodate single
family dwellings as for multiple family (medium density) structures.
The residential area of the golf course community at the west end of
the Village is composed almost entirely of large single family houses
and lots. The residential nature in the central portion of Tequesta,
between the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River and Old Dixie Highway,
is characterized by many single family residences, as well as some
multiple family units.
3-14
U
U
L
j
U
TABLE 3-4
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
For purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the following land use
classifications, which are applicable to Tequesta, are used to
described existing land uses in the Village. The classifications are
consistent with those defined in Chapter 9J5, F.A.C. and concurrent
with the Village's perception of use.
Residential:
Commercial:
Land uses and activities within land areas used
predominantly for housing and excluding all tourist
accommodations.
Land uses and activities within land areas which are
predominantly related to the sale, rental and
distribution of products and the provision of business
and professional services.
Recreation: Land use sand activities within land areas where
Open Space: recreation occurs and lands which are either developed
or vacant and concerned with active of passive
recreational use.
Conservation:
Land uses and activities within land areas protected
by federal, state or local legislation for the purpose
of conserving or protecting natural resources or
environmental quality, and includes areas designated
for such purposes as flood control, protection of
quality or quantity of ground water or surface water,
flood plain management, fisheries management,
protection of vegetative community or wildlife
habitats, or protection of a natural ecosystem.
Public Build- Lands and structures that are owned, leased, or
ings & Grounds: operated by a government entity, such as libraries,
police stations fire stations, post offices,
government administration buildings, and areas used
for associated storage of vehicles and equipment.
Also, lands and structures owned or operated by a
private entity and used for a public purpose such as a
privately held but publically regulated utility.
Other Public Land uses and activities within land areas concerned
Facilities: with other public or private facilities and
institutions such as churches, clubs, fraternal
organizations, homes for the aged and infirm, and
other similar uses.
3-15
U
L
LI
Land Transportation: P a d areas and uses devoted to the movement of goods
and people including streets and associated rights -of -
way.
Water: All areas covered by water or any right-of-way for the
purpose of conveying or storing water.
Vacant: Undeveloped land areas which are available for future
development, and which are not included in any of the
other land use classifications, including submerged
lands.
SOURCE: Section 9J5.006, FAC; JLH Associates; 8/89
3-16
TABLE 3-5
EXISTING LAND USE
Area
Total
$ of Developed
% of
Land Use
in Acres
Acres
Area
Total Area
Residential
Low Density
377.43
457.68
42.0
37.7
(5.5 units/acre)
Medium Density
80.25
(5.5 - 12.0 units/acre)
Commercial
104.65
104.65
9.6
8.6
(Retail, professional
and business)
Recreation/Open Space
195.33
195.33
17.9
16.1
Conservation
1.27
1.27
0.1
0.1
Public Buildings and
Grounds
79.01
79.01
7.2
6.5
Other Public Facilities
16.37
16.37
1.5
1.4
Transportation
178.26
178.26
16.4
14.7
Water
57.63
57.63
5.3
4.8
Total Development
1090.20
Vacant
122.05
--
10.1
TOTAL
1212.25
--
--
SOURCE: JLH Associates, 8/1/89
3-17
D
u
r.
u
FIGURE 3-5
EX = S T = NG LAND US E MA1P
(See Map Atlas)
3-18
A
�I
L��
J,
D
C
U
The area at the north end of the Village, which include Tequesta
Pines and the Chapel Court developments, contain a substantial number
of single family residences. Many of the multiple family areas are
situated near the major water bodies. The island area in the Village
is built up in oceanfront or Intracoastal Waterway frontage multiple
family structures. There are multiple family developments abutting
the western edge of the Intracoastal Waterway and also on both sides
of Tequesta Drive along the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River. The
remaining major multiple family residential area is located in the
central portion of Tequesta on Westwood Avenue and Garden Street.
3.2.6.2 Commercial Land Use
With U.S. Highway 1 being the major carrier of traffic through
the Village, commercial development has located in adjacent areas
through Tequesta. Commercial activities actually consume a small
percentage (9.6%) of the developed land area. There are various
professional, business, personal service and retail enterprises
abutting U.S. highway 1, thus creating a commercial strip through the
Village. A commercial mode has formed at the intersection of Tequesta
Drive and U.S. Highway 1, which establishes shopping center areas
serving the residents of Tequesta and the surrounding communities.
Smaller, less intensive type commercial development has evolved in the
interior portion of Tequesta along Cypress Drive, portions of Bridge
Road and Tequesta Drive, primarily at an identifiable focal point of
the community at its intersection with Seabrook Road.
3.2.6.3 Recreation/Open Space and Conservation Land Use
Open space/recreation areas use approximately 195 acres or 18% of
the developed land area in Tequesta. For further information, see the
Recreation and Open Space Element for locations and detailed
descriptions of the open space/recreation areas in the Village. The
Atlantic Ocean Beaches, comprising 0.1% of the developed area comprise
the Conservation Land Use category. No land within the the Village
has been designated as an Area of Critical State Concern under Chapter
380.05, Florida Statutes.
3.2.6.4 Public Buildings and Grounds Land Use
Approximately 7% of the developed land area in the Villas is in
Public uses which is a substantial percentage for this specified use.
The acreage used for public purposes is at the Village Hall, U.S. Post
office branch and various utilities locations for wellfields and water
and sewer facilities.
3.2.6.5 Other Public Facilities Land Use
Other Public Facilities Land Uses comprise a rather minor use
(1.5t) of the land in Tequesta. However, due to the nature and type
of institutions located within the Village, sufficient land area is
3-19
U
II
Ej
ill
used to accommodate the social, civic and cultural needs of the
community.
There are currently six churches located in the Village, a branch
library of the Palm Beach County Library System, the Jupiter/Tequesta
Junior Citizen's facility, the North County First Aid Squad,
Lighthouse Art Gallery and the Tequesta Post Office.
3.2.6.6 Transportation Land Use
The system of roads and streets, as well as the 200 foot Florida
East Coast Railroad right-of-way which traverses the Village, account
for the transportation usage in Tequesta. Approximately 16% of the
developed land area and 15% of the total land area is used for the
movement of people and goods in and through the village. This rather
high percentage is not an unique or unusual situation since adequate
rights -of -way must be reserved to accommodate present as well as
projected traffic loads. (Ref. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT for a
description of the major road and street network serving Tequesta).
3.2.6.7 Water Uses
The only canals within the corporate limits of Tequesta connect
the North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee River with the single
family development areas east of Country Club Drive abutting the
River. Part of the Intracoastal Waterway also lies within the Village
limits while portions of the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River
are situated within the Village boundaries. There are no lakes or
other types of natural water bodies in Tequesta. Water uses comprise
approximately 5% of the total surface area of the Village. The North
and Northwest forks of the Loxahatchee River have been designated as
Outstanding Florida Waters and the Indian River Lagoon has been
designated an Aquatic Preserve by the State of Florida.
3.2.6.8 Vacant Land
The Village currently has approximately 122 acres of land which
is vacant at the present time representing 10.1t of the total Tequesta
land area. Of this acreage, all but the marsh land area in the
Intracoastal Waterway just north of County Road 707 is available for
future development. Much of the vacant areas are in already platted
residential areas and undeveloped commercial zones with anticipated
proposals for these areas.
3.2.7 Historical Population Growth
Resident Population Growth using Census and University of Florida
Data for past permanent resident population estimates for Tequesta
from
3-20
Hk
is
1960 through 1988 are presented on Tables 3-6 and 3-7. Data sources
used are the U.S. Bureau of the Census (i.e. 1960, 1970 and 1980) and
the University of Florida, Bureau of Business and Economic Research
(1981 - 1988 estimates). Also presented on these tables are
historical accounts of Tequesta's: (1) share (i.e. percentage) of
Countywide population; (2) growth during selected intervals of time;
and (3) rate of growth during these same time intervals. Several
observations can be made using the data presented on Tables 3-6 and 3-
7. The Village share of Countywide population is currently 0.54%,
declining in a slow but steady manner from 0.64% in 1980.
Approximately 55t of the population growth in the Village occurred
during the 1960-1970 period, due primarily to the fact that a majority
of the buildable land was consumed during that period. Since 1970,
population has increased by an additional 1,806 residents, with 1,049
(i.e. 57.8%) occurring during the 1970-1980 period. Growth has
® averaged 95.4 residents per year during the 1980-1988 period.
Pi
3-21
J
IImpact of Seasonal Residents
It is the intent of this discussion to define the maximum number
of seasonal residents residing in the Village at any given time during
the year, as opposed to the total number that will temporarily reside
over the course of the year. Maximum day statistics can be used to
define peak demands upon infrastructure services, which can be used as
a basis for defining related service capabilities.
Calculations deriving this figure are presented in Table 3-11.
Basic assumptions and procedures utilized in the preparation of this
Table are as follows:
1. There are 2,392 total dwelling units in the Village
potentially available for permanent residency (i.e. single-
family homes, rental apartments and condominiums).
2. There
are
currently 84 vacant units available
for resident
occupancy.
This is based upon the 1980 census vacancy rate of
3.5%.
It
is assumed that this rate has remained
constant due
to the
relative lack of construction activity since
1980.
3. There
are
currently 1,992 resident households
in Tequesta
(i.e.
1989
population divided by average household
size).
4. There are currently 316 residential units available for
seasonal occupancy (i.e. total available residential units
less resident occupied units and vacancies).
3-29
TABLE 3-11
CALCULATION OF 1989 MAXIMUM DAY SEASONAL POPULATION LEVELS
TYPE
Single -Family Detached
Multiple Family Units
Hotel/Motel
Units Available for Residency
Less units for Sale or
Residential Rental
(i.e. vacancy) 84
Less 1989 Resident Households 1,992
Total Residential Units
Available for Seasonal
Occupancy
Hotel/Motel Units
Total Season Units
Maximum Day Seasonal Population Potential
(100% occupancy @1.89 persons/unit) **
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
1,429
963
0
2,392
2,392
2,076
316
0
316
597
* Assumed to equal 1980 rates, as per 1980 Census
(i.e. 3.5%)
** Based upon 6 year analysis of tourist arrivals to Palm Beach
County. Combined prorata share of air arrivals at 2.2 persons
per party and automobile arrivals at 1.7 persons per party.
SOURCE: JLH Associates, 7/89
Tequesta Table 13.10
3-30
L
L
U
5. There are a total of 597 units (i.e. residential units)
available for seasonal occupancy.
6. For planning purposes, it should be assumed that 100%
occupancy will occur on a peak day during the peak season.
7. Assuming 1.89 persons per seasonal unit (i.e. derived from a
six year analysis of tourist arrivals to Palm Beach County), a
maximum day potential of 597 seasonal residents exists.
3.3 LAND USE ANALYSIS
3.3.1 Availability of Facilities and Services
The SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER AND
NATURAL GROUND WATER AQUIFER RECHARGE elements describe current
utilities serving the Village and assess-- the availability of those
facilities and services.
Potable water and wastewater service are provided by Tequesta and
the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District through central
systems which are adequately serving existing development in the
Village. Systems operators state that current capacities are
available to serve a build -out situation in the Village. Individual
wells and septic tanks serve some areas in the Village. The primary
areas served by septic tanks and individual wells are identified and
discussed in the SANITARY SEWER Sub -Element and the POTABLE WATER Sub -
Element. These systems are concluded to be adequate to serve current
demands. No specific problems have been identified by the Palm Beach
County Health Department regarding their use in the Village.
Solid waste collection services are provided by a private
contractor. The Village is currently being efficiently served by this
arrangement. Services expand to accommodate growth on an "as needed"
basis. Major transportation facilities (roads and streets) are in
place and adequately serving existing and projected development. The
capacity of the drainage system has not been determined, but is
expected to be studied during the short-range planning period (Ref:
DRAINAGE Sub -Element). Groundwater recharge is discussed in the
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE Sub -Element. Further detail
regarding each of these systems, including capacities and levels -of -
service, is provided in each element referenced above.
3.3.2 Delineation of Tequesta Planning Areas
Due to the size and compact nature of the Village, the use of planning
areas is not required at this time. However, should future issues or
annexation dictate, the need will be reassessed.
3-31
I]
1 3.3.3 Planning Area Analyses
This section is reserved for future use should the need for the
definition of planning areas arise.
3.3.4 Population Projections
Resident Population Projections
Population projections are prepared for 5 and 10 year increments
from the date of the adoption of the Local Government Comprehensive
Plan. Also, two basic projecion methodologies have been defined by
the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as being most
appropriate for use by small municipal governments: "mathematical
extrapolation" and "ratio".
Realistically, population growth is a function of available,
developable land and the construction and occupancy of residential
units. According to Table 3-12A, there is a relatively small amount
of land available for residential development in the Village at this
time. Due to the limited amount of developable land remaining and the
substantial remaining growth potential of most parent populations
which would be utilized in ratio methods, it is concluded that
projections based upon the application of this technique would result
in inflated figures for.the Village over the course of the next 5 to
10 years. Therefore, the "mathematical extrapolation" technique is
utilized.
Since there is a limited amount of developable land remaining in
the Village, the first step in preparing projections is to determine
remaining residential buildout potential as a means of estimating the
maximum population that the Village can sustain. Calculations
determining residential buildout population are presented on Table 3-
12B. Using acreage data and density factors used from Table 3-12B, it
is concluded that if all remaining residential properties are totally
developed an estimated population of 364 residents would result
assuming permanent resident occupancy rates (i.e. 0.92 for Single -
Family) and 0.69 for multiple -family units) and average household
sizes (i.e. 2.66 for single-family and 1.68 for multiple -family units)
supplied by the University of Florida.
1q Utilizing Table 3-6, it is observed that the Village grew at a
rate of 56 residents per year during the 1980-1989 period. Assuming
that this rate is maintained throughout the 5 and 10 year planning
periods, buildout resident population growth potential should be
attained in 6.5 years, using 1989 as the base year. On this basis,
short-term and long-range resident population projections for the
Village areestablished as follows: 1994 - 5,000 residents (i.e. base
-
year 1989 4,720 plus 1989-1994 growth of 280; and 1999-5,084
residents (i.e. base year 1989 - 4,720 plus buildout potential of
364).
U
3-32
JZ
I
Seasonal Population Projections
Two factors can affect the growth in the peak -day seasonal
resident population in the Village: (1) construction of hotel/motel
units; and (2) additional occasional -use occupancy of "year-round"
residences resulting from projected development activity. There is no
projected development of hotel/motel units in the Village as of this
time. Also, based upon Census Data, it is concluded that, of the 153
potential residential units resulting from buildout of vacant land,
approximately 11 will be held for occasional use (i.e. 79% of the
units not utilized for permanent residency). It is assumed that units
held for occasional use will be developed on a pro-rata basis through
buildout of residential areas in 1996. The estimated current seasonal
household size of 1.89 persons per unit is assumed to remain unchanged
throughout the planning period. On this basis, seasonal population
projections are determined using the following calculations:
1989 Estimates:
1989 seasonal population 597
Hotel/Motel 0
Total 597
1994 Projections:
1989 seasonal population 597
Hotel/Motel 0
Occasional Use (10 units x 1.89) 19
Total 616
1999 Projections:
1989 seasonal population 597
Hotel/Motel 0
Occasional Use (11 units x 1.89) 21
Total 618
Total Population Projections
Total population projections are the sum of resident and seasonal
projections for any given time period and represent the maximum
population that will reside in the Village on a peak day. On this
basis, total population projections are determined using the following
calculations:
1989 Estimates:
Resident Population 4,720
Seasonal Population 597
Total 5,317
1 3-33
1994 Projections:
Resident Population 5,000
Seasonal
Population
616
Total
5,616
1999 Projections:
Resident
Population
5,084
Seasonal
Population
618
Total
5,712
POPULATION ESTIMATES WITHIN THE TEQUESTA POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREA
The Village of Tequesta supplies potable water to the following
jurisdictions in the vicinity: (1) Southeast Martin County; (2) The
northeastern portion of the Town of Jupiter; (3) Jupiter Inlet
Colony; and (4) Northeastern Palm Beach County. Geographical areas
served are illustrated on Figure 6.4.1 (REF: POTABLE WATER Sub -
Element). Population estimates and projections, by jurisdiction
served (i.e. Service Area) are projected on Table 3-13. Projections
projected on Table 3-13 will be used in conjunction with Potable Water
Connections data to prepare projections of water demands in the
POTABLE WASTE Sub -Element.
3.3.5 Vacant Land Analysis
Statistical data regarding vacant land are presented on Tables 3-
12A, 3-12-B and 3-14. Only residential and commercial properties
(i.e. based upon current zoning designations) are defined as vacant.
In terms of limitations to development (i.e. soils, topography,
natural resources and historic resources, etc.) all vacant land is
determined to be suitable for development as it is in -fill in nature
within existing developed areas where natural features have not been a
limiting factor. However, it is recommended that Mangroves (Ref:
Figure 3-4) be protected by the adoption of a Mangrove Protection
Ordinance and native vegetative species located on ecosites #61 and
#63 be protected by either one of the following means: (1) consistent
with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Policy, require that
25% of the native species be retained during land development
activities; (2) participate within the program to be established under
the County's proposed Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance and/or
(3) establish a similar, locally -derived alternative. Further
discussion of these issues is included within the CONSERVATION
IElement.
3-34
il
r.
U
3.3.6 Redevelopment Needs
The Village is an established middle to upper -middle income
community consisting of clearly delineated residential neighborhoods
and commercial districts. Field surveys undertaken as part of this
element and the HOUSING Element indicate that the housing stock is in
good condition. Normal maintenance should preclude the need for
redevelopment activities during the 5 and 10 year planning periods.
Older shopping centers located west of the intersection of Tequesta
Drive and U.S. Highway No. 1 are currently experiencing high vacancy
rates due to the loss of major tenants. All remaining commercial
properties appear viable and in good condition. Potential land use
incompatibilities between commercial and residential properties have
been minimized by using the following mitigative techniques: setbacks
at the rear -of commercial properties; privacy fencing; private
landscaping on the part of individual commercial and residential
property owners; use of density gradients; signage restrictions; and
height limitations. Uses inconsistent with the Village character
have been precluded by zoning and subdivision review processes. It is
recommended that redevelopment of the older shopping centers be
investigated through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process,
following initial plan adoption. These properties may be combined
with vacant parcels to the north in terms of developing innovative
mixed -use projects oriented to better targeting local markets.
3.3.7 Land Use Projections
The following assumptions are used as a basis for preparing
future land use projections:
1. Since the Village is 90% developed at the current time, the
following land use categories will remain unchanged through
buildout: Recreation/Open Space; Conservation; Public
Buildings and Grounds; Other Public Facilities; Transportation
and Water.
2. All vacant land will be developed for residential or
commercial uses.
3. Residential land development will occur in a manner consistent
with and proportionate to current vacant land use intensity
(i.e. low and medium density) factors.
4. Commercial land will be developed at a rate consistent with
that observed during the 1978-88 period until buildout.
Utilizing the above assumptions, land use projections for the 5
and 10 year planning periods are presented on Table 3-16.
3-35
W
jl
TABLE 3-12A
REMAINING
RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1
1
LOW DENSITY
MEDIUM
DENSITY
ACRES
UNITS
ACRES
UNITS
36.81
146
0.67
7
®
TOTALS 36.8
146
0.67
7
Total Acres - 37.48
Total Units - 163
1. Low Density (maximum of 5.5 units/acre); Medium Density
(Maximum of 12 units per acre)
TABLE 3-12B
REMAINING POPULATION GROWTH POTENTIAL
1 2
TYPE HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD SIZE POPULATION
Multiple -Family 5 1.68 8
Single -Family 134 2.66 356
Total 139 2.62 364
1. Single -Family resident occupancy rate of 0.92 and multiple -
family occupancy rate of 0.69. Source: University of Florida,
Bureau of Business and Economic Research; 1989.
2. University of Florida, Bureau of Business and Economic
Research; 1989.
SOURCE: JLH Associates; 1989
Tequesta Table 12.23a.
U
3-36
. TABLE 3-13
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
TEQUESTA POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREA
Service 1989 Population 1994 Population 1999 Population
Area Resident Seasonal Resident Seasonal Resident Seasonal
Tequesta 4,720 597
5,000
597
5,084
597
Jupiter 406 73
419
73
432
73
Inlet Colony
Jupiter 2,154 272
1,154
272
2,154
272
Palm Beach
County 2,972 523
2,310
556
2,448
589
Martin
County 4,170 749
5,295
952
6,420
2,154
Total 13,622 2,214
15,178 2,450
16,538
2,685
DATA SOURCES:
1. Tequesta Comprehensive Plan
2. Jupiter Inlet Colony Comprehensive Plan
3. Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning
Organization Traffic
Analysis Zone Data (Jupiter
and Palm Beach
County)
4. Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
District
(Martin
County)
SOURCE: JLH Associates; 8/89
3-37
n
LI �
W
U
TABLE 3-14
VACANT LAND SUMMARY (ACRES)
LAND USE CATEGORY
LAND USE
CATEGORY
Residential
Low Density
Medium Density
Commercial
Total
VACANT LAND
ACRES
36.81
0.67
84.57
122.05
3-38
Residential land use projections for 1994 are prepared using
calculations presented on Table 3-15. Population projections indicate
that the remainder of the vacant residential land (i.e. 37.48 acres)
should be developed by 1996. (Ref: Section 3.3.4).
Commercial land use projections are based upon historical
absorption rates. According to the Village Building Department, there
were 62.56 acres of commercial land in 1978, while the current
estimate (i.e. 1989) is 104.65 acres. On this basis, commercial
acreage has been absorbed at a rate of 3.83 acres per year during the
1978-1989 period. Assuming this rate is maintained throughout the 10
year planning period, 45.3% of the remaining vacant commercial acreage
(i.e. 38.3 acres) will be developed by 1999.
J
3-39
U
L�
Hi
I
U
TABLE 3-15
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS
1994
1.
Resident Population Growth (1989-94) 280
Resident Dwelling Unit Growth (1989-94) 107
280 (Resident Growth)
2.62 (Average H/H size)
Total Year-round Dwelling Unit
Growth (1987-1994) 118
107 (Resident Unit Growth)
0.91 (Resident Unit Occ. Rate)
Distribution of Units by Density Category:
2
1989-94
Type
Growth Share
Growth (Units)
Low
.96
113
Medium
.004
5
Total
1.00
118
Distribution of
Land Use by Density Category:
Intensity Factor
Type
1989-94 Units
(Units/Acre)
Acres
Low
113
4.0
28.48
Medium
5
10.4
0.48
3
Total
118
4.07
28.96
Footnotes•
1. Pro rata share of buildout growth potential during 1989-99
period from Table 3-12B
2. Distribution of Residential Buildout Potential, by Unit -type
from Table 3-12A
3. Weighted average of potential densities from vacant land
analyses.
SOURCE: JLH Associates; 9/89
3-40
0
TABLE 3-16
LAND USE PROJECTIONS
1989
1994
1999
Area in
Area in
Area in
Land Use
Acres
Acres
Acres
Residential
Low Density
377.43
405.91
414.23
Medium Density
80.25
80.73
80.92
Commercial
104.65
123.8
142.95
Recreation/Open Space
195.33
195.33
195.33
Conservation (Beaches)
1.27
1.27
1.27
Public Buildings and
Grounds
79.01
79.01
79.01
Other Public Facilities
16.37
16.37
16.37
Transportation
178.26
178.26
178.26
Water
57.63
57.63
57.63
Total Development
1090.20
1138.31
1164.97
Vacant
122.05
73.74
47.08
TOTAL
1212.05
1212.05
1212.05
SOURCE: Building Department, Tequesta, 3/89;
JLH Associates, 8/89
Tequesta Table 13-16.
3-41
A
3.3.8 Development of Floodprone Areas
Designated flood zones within the Village are illustrated on
Figure 3-3. Zone A7 and A8 designation areas are within the 100-year
storm flood zones and are defined to be flood hazard areas. Low-lying
areas within the Village generally fall within the 5 feet to 10 feet
msl range of elevations. The base flood elevation has not been
determined by the Federal Insurance Administration. From Figure 3-3,
it can be seen that coastal areas (i.e. Ocean and Intracoastal
Waterway), properties fronting inland canals and properties fronting
the Loxahatchee River are most greatly affected. The Village has
recognized this potential hazard by requiring all structures built
within Tequesta to conform to the following regulations (REF: Section
XV; Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance):
SECTION XV. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
(A) Flood losses from Periodic Inundations
(1) Within the Village of Tequesta there exists certain special
flood hazard areas subject to periodic inundation which
may result in loss of life and property, health and safety
hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services,
extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and
relief and impairment of the tax base, all of which
adversely affect the public health, safety band general
welfare.
(B) Flood Hazard Areas Created
`
(1) There are
hereby created
withn the Village of Tequesta,
Florida, Flood
C, revised
Hazard Areas
September 20,
as shown on Map No. 102228 0001
1982 provided by the Federal
Management
Agency and said
Map is incorporated herein by
reference
as if set out her
in full and copies thereof may
be viewed
in the office
of the Village Manager of this
Village.
(C) Permitted Uses in Special Flood Hazard Areas
(1) The uses permitted within any flood hazard area are those
uses permitted and regulated by this ordinance for the zone
district in which the area may be located, as said zone
districts are set forth in the Village of Tequesta zoning
map, subject, however, to the following limitations:
(a) Proposed permanent structures and substantial
improvements in the flood plain area having special
flood hazards shall be required to have first floor
3-42
0
elevations at or above the one -hundred (100) year flood
level. Exceptions may be granted by the local
government only for non-residential structures which
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities,
are adequately flood proofed up to the level of the one -
hundred (100) year flood.
F' (b) No use, including land fill, shall be permitted within
the flood plain area having special flood hazards if the
proposed use, in conjunction with all other uses
permitted since enactment of this section would increase
water surface elevations of the one -hundred (100) year
flood more than one (1) foot. An applicant for such
land use may be required to furnish specific information
as to the effect of his proposed action, regarding
future flood heights, at the request of the village
building inspector or manager.
(c) All new construction and substantial improvements to
existing structures shall be constructed and placed on
the building site subject to the following requirements.
1. Minimize obstruction to the flow of flood waters.
2. Anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral
movement of the structure resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the
effects of buoyancy, which may result in damage or
restriction of the flow of flood waters.
3. Be constructed with materials and utility equipment
resistant to flood damage.
4. Be constructed by methods and practices that
minimize flood damage.
5. Electrical, plumbing, air conditioning, heating and
ventilation equipment, and other service facilities
shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent
water from entering or accumulating within the
components during flood conditions.
6. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are
subject to flooding shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of
flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement
must be certified by a Florida Registered
Professional Engineer or Architect.
3-43
C
3.3.9 ANNEXATION POTENTIAL
In the consideration of future annexation to Tequesta, the
Village should consider the following criteria as established by the
Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council.
"l.002 ANNEXATION REVIEW CRITERIA
(1) Each local government in Palm Beach County having
contiguous boundaries to the unincorporated area shall:
(a) Graphically depict, as part of the future land use
map(s) of its future land use element, the ultimate
boundaries of proposed future annexation areas as they
are developed and adopted by the Village.
(b) Where applicable, possible, graphically depict phasing
of annexation to reflect anticipated stages of its
annexation program.
(c) Be encouraged to utilize the planning timeframe of
Rule 9J5.005(4) in developing any phasing of its
annexation program.
(d)(e) Develop phases or staging of its annexation program so
that the contiguity and compactness standards of F. S.
Sec. 171.043(1) are met, and so that service delivery
problems of any adjacent local government will not be
exacerbated by the pattern of annexation.
(e)(d) Include in the capital improvements element or
intergovernmental coordination element general
provision for public facilities to meet service needs
of proposed annexation areas. and where applicable,
capital facility planning shall be correlated to
phases or stages of its future annexations program.
(f)(e) In its capital improvements element, identify provide
for its adopted levels of service to be established in
newly annexed areas.
((f) In instances where existing facilities of another
entity are to be utilized in serving newly annexed
areas, so provide in its capital improvement element -
and where applicable, plans for transition of control
of facilities shall be supported by identify necessary
interlocai agreements.
D
3-44
0
�e
(h)(g) Incorporate in its intergovernmental coordination
element a policy including cooperative mapping of
proposed future annexation areas with adjacent
jurisdictions pursuant to these guidelines, as one
program for resolving annexation issues.
(i)(h) If future annexations are not anticipated, expressly
state in its future land use element, capital
improvement element, and intergovernmental
coordination element that annexation is not addressed
because future annexations are not anticipated and
therefore have not been planned for; or expressly
state that no annexations shall be undertaken until
these three elements are amended to fully comply with
■ this rule."
3.3.10 ADJACENT LAND USES
The land areas surrounding Tequesta (Ref: Figure 3-6) are, like the
Village itself, almost completely developed. There are no major land
use incompatibilities between the Village and its neighbors. Except
for several small residential areas of adjacent municipalities, the
Village is surrounded on three sides by natural water bodies with no
potential for development.
Adjacent land uses are as follows:
1. Adjacent Land uses to the North:
The commercial corridor along U.S. Highway One through Tequesta
continues into Martin County. All other areas consist of low to
moderate density residential uses which are very similar, and
therefore totally compatible with the residential uses in the
IVillage.
2. Adjacent Land Uses to the East, South and West:
The aforementioned water bodies consist of the Atlantic Ocean to
the East, with the Loxahatchee River on the Southwest and West.
A
3-45
L
7
U
1 4.0 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
�11
L
r.
I
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The TRAFFIC CIRCULATION element is required to be included within
the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and
rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6)(b), Florida
Statutes, establishes the TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Element requirement
and Chapter 9J5.007 Florida Administrative Code, establishes
minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
goals, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the TRAFFIC CIRCULATION element is
structured according to the following format:
o Traffic Circulation Data; and
o Traffic Circulation Analysis
An essential basis for planning traffic circulation systems within
the Village is the FUTURE LAND USE element. Initial traffic
volume data is presented on a roadway link basis.
4.2 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION DATA
In order for the Village to responsibly plan for its future, it
must assess the capability of its existing traffic circulation
system to serve current demand. The ability of the traffic
circulation system and its components to promote movement of
people, goods and services, while maintaining accessibility among
the various land use activities in the Village, will determine the
overall effectiveness of the system.
This inventory of the existing traffic circulation system has been
prepared to establish the basis for examining the existing roadway
deficiencies and, further, to initiate plans to serve the Village's
future growth and development. Roads located within the Village
include those that are the responsibility of Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT, State Road), Palm Beach County (County
Road); and the Village (all the remaining roads not privately
owned) .
4-1
U
1 4.2.1 Roadway Classifications
The Village's roadways are identified according to the FDOT
Roadway Functional Classification System, as required by Chapter
9J-5.007(1)(b). The definitions presented below describe the
"functional" terminology used throughout this Element of the Plan.
Limited Access Facility - Roadways designed for through traffic,
over, from or to which users have no greater than a limited right
or easement of access (e.g. an expressway, I-95).
Arterial Roads - Routes providing service which are relatively
continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average
trip length, high operating speed and high mobility importance.
In addition, every United States numbered highway is an arterial
road.
Urban Principal Arterial Roads - Routes which generally serve the
major centers of activity of an urban area, the highest traffic
volume corridors and the longest trip purpose and carry a high
proportion of the local urban area travel on a minimum of
mileage. The routes are integrated internally between major rural
connections.
Urban Minor Arterial Roads - Routes which generally interconnect
with and augment urban principal arterial routes and provide
service to trips of shorter length and a lower level of travel
mobility. Such routes include all arterials not classified as
"principal" and contain facilities that place more emphasis on
land access than the higher system.
Collector Roads - Routes providing service which are of relatively
moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length
and moderately average operating speed. Such routes also collect
and distribute traffic between local roads or arterial roads and
serve as a linkage between land access and mobility needs.
F1 Local Roads - Routes providing service which are of relatively low
average traffic volume, short average trip length or minimal
through -traffic movements and high land access for abutting
property.
4.2.2 Roadway Description
The Village of Tequesta is a small residential community of
approximately 4,700 people located at the north end of Palm Beach
County. The Village is bounded on the north by the county line
(Martin County being the neighbor to the north), the Atlantic
Ocean and the Intracoastal Waterway on the east, the Town
4-2
�i
Fi,
of Jupiter on the south, and the Loxahatchee River and the North
West Fork of the Loxahatchee River on the southwest and west
boundaries.
F' The Village of Tequesta's roadway network can generally be
described as a modified grid system. This is due to the north -
south street designs being angular or curvilinear in layout,
following natural, man-made features or the shorelines of the area
water bodies that stretch in the same direction. The east -west
U
streets basically follow the normal grid pattern. The existing
street system in the Village of Tequesta has been significantly
influenced in its development by the existence of the Intracoastal
Waterway, the Florida East Coast Railroad, the Loxahatchee River
and its tributaries, and U.S. Highway One.
According to the Florida Department of Transportation Functional
Highway Classification System, the Village contains an arterial,
urban collectors and local roadways, but does not have any limited
access facilities. A Florida East Coast Railway line passes
through the Village on the west side of Old Dixie Highway. There
are two passing sidings but no dead end sidings and only one rail
crossing, at Tequesta Drive, within the corporate limits of
Tequesta. Also, ports, airports, high speed rail lines or related
facilities are not found in the Village and further consideration
of these facilities will not be given herein.
Primary north -south access to from and through various portions of
the Village is provided by U.S. Highway One (SR 5), County Road
(CR) 707/U.S. AIA, Old Dixie Highway, Seabrook Road and Country
Club Drive. U.S. Highway One carries the greatest volume of
traffic through the Village and this facility is classified as an
urban principal arterial with maintenance responsibility provided
by the State. U. S. Highway One is presently a six lane divided
facility extending through the Village's corporate limits.
Further, U.S. Highway 1 extends through Palm Beach County and
continues northward up the eastern seaboard of the United States.
Both CR 707 (U.S. AIA) and Old Dixie Highway are classified as
County Urban Collectors. CR 707 is a two lane undivided road
within the corporate limits of Tequesta. CR 707 intersects with
U.S. Highway One at the Village's south corporate limit and extends
easterly a short distance then northerly up the Atlantic Coast into
neighboring Martin County.
Old Dixie Highway which parallels U.S. Highway One to the west is a
two lane undivided road which also extends through the Village in
primarily a north -south direction.
Seabrook Road is identified by the State's Functional
Classification System as a City Collector. This road is a two lane
undivided roadway extending between County Line Road and Tequesta
Drive.
4-3
Country Club Drive is the westerly most north -south road classified
as a City Collector. This road is a two lane undivided roadway
® extending from Tequesta Drive north into neighboring Martin County.
East -west access through various portions of the Village is
provided by either Tequesta Drive or County Line Road. Tequesta
Drive is the main east -west access road through the Village and it
is classified as a City Collector. Tequesta Drive is a four lane
divided road from U.S. Highway One west to Old Dixie Highway then
narrowing to a two lane undivided road from Old Dixie Highway west
to Country Club Drive.
County Line road which constitutes the boundary between Palm Beach
and Martin County is classified as a County Urban Collector. This
road is a two lane undivided roadway extending from U.S. Highway
One west approximately one mile where it then makes a ninety degree
right turn and extends into neighboring Martin County.
The remainder of the roads in Tequesta are classified as "local"
streets.
Table 4-1 depicts and characterizes the major roads and streets in
the Village of Tequesta including the state functional
classification of each roadway, location, laneage, maintenance
responsibility and right-of-way easements. Figure 4-1 (See Map
Atlas) identifies the location, laneage, and configuration of the
existing roadway functional types.
4.2.3 Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts are taken at selected locations on the principal
street system located in Palm Beach County and within the West Palm
Beach Urban Study Area (WPBUSA). The primary stations are located
at designated north -south and east -west "screenlines". The volumes
aggregated at these locations aid in the determination of
laneage requirements necessary to maintain a designated level of
service where possible. Counts are also taken at selected "point"
locations along major thoroughfares and intersections of interest.
Agencies that administer traffic count programs are the Palm Beach
County Engineering Department, the Florida Department of
Transportation, the City of West Palm Beach, the City of Boca Raton
and the Town of Palm Beach. Each maintains its counting program
and cooperates with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of
Palm Beach County providing input to the long range transportation
planning process for the study area.
4-4
J
A
TABLE
4-1
EXISTING MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM INVENTORY
- Village of
Tequesta -
"Functional"
Right -of -
Name Classification
Description
Way
U.S. Highway #1 State Principal
Six (6) lane
Arterial 1
divided
120 ft.
CR 707 (AIA) County Urban
Two (2) lane
80 ft.
Collector 2
undivided
Old Dixie Highway County Urban
Two (2) lane
Collector 2
undivided
80 ft.
®
County Line Road County Urban
Two (2) lane
�1
Collector 2
undivided
80 ft.
Tequesta Drive City Urban
Four (4) lane
Collector 3
divided
90 ft.
(U.S. 1 to
Old Dixie Hwy.)
Two (2) lane
undivided.
80 ft.
(Old Dixie Hwy.
to
Country Drive)
Country Club City Urban
Two (2) lane
80 ft.
Collector 3
undivided.
Seabrook Road City Urban
Collector 3
Two (2) lane
undivided.
80 ft.
1. Florida Department of Transportation Maintained
2. Palm Beach County Maintained
3. Village of Tequesta Maintained
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta Public Works Department.
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Palm Beach
County,
1987
HI
4-5
U
i
I
L
LIB
FIGURE 4-1
EX = S T = NG TRAF F = C C = RCLJLAT = ON MAP
(SEE MAP ATLAS)
4-6
n
In an effort to capture seasonal variations that may occur and
arrive at an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume for a given
calendar year, a 24-your count is taken during the first (peak
season) and third (off-peak season) calendar year quarters. All
counts, unless otherwise noted, reflect two-way traffic. It should
be noted that since 1984, excluding permanent count stations and
Florida Turnpike counts, FDOT has been counting only once per
calendar year. FDOT is using a factoring program to arrive at an
annual daily average.
As of 1987, there were 567 count stations located in the WPBUSA. A
total of six traffic count stations are located either within
Tequesta or are in close proximity to the Village. Two count
stations on U.S. Highway One were inventoried, one of which lies
outside of the Village limits, but they are the closest count
stations serving Tequesta. One of these stations is located just
south of CR 707, and the other is located approximately three
tenths of a mile south of County Line Road.
Two Count Stations were inventoried on County Road 707 (AIA). One
is located at the Palm Beach -Martin County Line. The other is
located approximately one hundred feet east of its intersection
with U.S. Highway One at the Village's Southern corporate limit.
There is a Count Station located on Old Dixie Highway just south of
its intersection with Tequesta Drive within the Village.
The final Count Station is located on Tequesta Drive approximately
one hundred fifty feet west of Old Dixie Highway.
An historical accounting of traffic counts and volumes from 1970 to
1988 are provided in Table 4-2 for the count stations described
above.
In an effort to inventory and analyze traffic volumes on the other
roadway segments identified on Table 4-1 (i.e. Country Club Drive,
County Line Road and Seabrook Road) a Comprehensive Traffic Study
by Gee & Jenson Engineers, Architects and Planners, Inc. prepared
for the Village in April 1987 was used to obtain peak hour counts
on Country Club Drive and Seabrook Road. In this study, it was
determined that the greatest peak throughout the day occurs within
4 hours (7-9 A.M. and 4-6 .M.) with the greater peak occurring in
the afternoon. Therefore, manual 15 minute directional traffic
counts were collected during the peak hours stated above. Since a
traffic count was not available through the Palm Beach County
Metropolitan Planning Organization on County Line Road, classified
as a County road, an annual average daily trip volume was
estimated for purposes of this element, based on the Future Land
Use Element and trip generation rates as shown on Table 4-3. The
primary inventoried uses along County Line Road were residential
(i.e. Single -Family and Condominium Units -including
quadplexes/townhouses). The traffic counts obtained are shown as
follows:
4-7
r.
'D O
N CO
_-r
--Sl
co
Ln t-
? t-
Ir%
%D
GO
tT %o
tr1 N
%D
0
ON N
.4 UN
tT
M
t- . 4
CO
t-
%D Ln
O .-1
O
t-
Oo
N
%D ?
tr %
t-
N O
.1 U*j
-4
.4
%D
ON
0
Go
co
U"%
GO (n
_-r
?
?
tT tr1
%D
tT
.-+
to
-4.0,
a%
N
N
•
mtt-
GO
�M
.�i
LN-
--4, O
N tr1
GO
N
cn cn
9.4
M Ul%
•
O
0
Go
000
? 0
?
ON
'D en
cn
N N
"q
.�
00
aO
O
co
Go
00 m
a%
^
N N
.�
in
00
0
0
Ll
N
Coo
Op
N
00
GD --4r
fn
p
ON
(7N-r
.1
N
"4
N N
a
OE
O
N
�as
r
N
1 z
Co
%D Jr
en
trA
"4
N�
.,
m z
Ln
H x
0 0
O
0
0%00
�
ao
ON
p t—
. 4
0
N
U
00
O
0
wLn
cr.
o� a0
¢
u, Ir
-4 v-4
H-4
0
M
00
O
0
M
ON
Ln Co
C
O it
.4 .1
.-4
N
rl d
1 1
1 1
1
I
t-
� 7
O
moo
moo
GO
O
N
to z
-4
^
¢
La
H
p
d
O
3
v
X 0
co
x
3
O
A �
CI
o
O
a
rl x
a�
=
=)
U
0
Ey
i
4-8
TABLE 4-3
PALM BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC GENERATION
RATES
Daily Trip
Type of Use A. Residential
Generation Rate
Condominium Units ............................
(Including
7
Trips/Occupied
D..U.
quadplex/townhouses)
Condominium Units (retired) ..................
4
Trips/Occupied
D.U.
®
�1
Single Family
Up to 2,000 sq. ft. ..........................10
Trips/Occupied
D.U.
Over 2,000 sq. ft. ..........................13
Trips/Occupied
D.U.
B. Residential
Neighborhood Shopping Center ................100 Trips/1,000 S.F.
(10,000 to 80.,000 sq. ft.)
*
Large Scale Shopping Center ...............25.886 x (A-80) + 8,000
(Over 80,000 sq. ft.)
Office ................................. 18 Trips/1,000 S.F.
Financial Institutions
(Including Drive -ups)
Bank ................................... 370 Trips/1,000 S.F. or
ISavings & Loan ..........................
Light Industry
Gasoline Service Stations ..............
Restaurant .............................
Golf Course .............................
Medical Office or Clinic ................
* A = Floor Area in 1,000 Square Feet
4-9
J
500
Trips/Drive-up Lane
200
Trips/1,000 S.F. or
170
Trips/Drive-up Lane
5.46
Trips/1,000 S.F.
99.5
Trips/1,000 S.F.
100
Trips/1,000 S.F.
45.3
Trips/Hole
93
Trips/1,000 S.F.
Y
Roadway Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor AADT
Country Club Dr. 551 9% 6122
Seabrook Road 420 9% 4667
County Line Road * 403 9% 4476
*Estimated AADT derived by aerial/inventory of existing residential
units, single-family (150 units) and multi -family (212 units), then
applying trip generation factors according to Table 4-3 to obtain
an average volume. Then assumed a 50% increase to this volume to
account for traffic generated from neighboring Martin County.
[(150 (10) + 212 (7)] 1.5 = 4476 AADT.
4.2.4 Other Modes of Transportation
The Village has a bicycle/pedestrian pathway totaling over 17,860
linear feet which is over three miles. The Village intends to
continue efforts to develop a full scale integrated
bicycle/pedestrian pathway system. The majority of the
bicycle/pedestrian pathways presently extend along Tequesta Drive,
Country Club Drive and Seabrook Road.
The Palm Beach County Transportation Authority (CoTran) currently
operates bus routes through the Tequesta area. Various routes are
available at specific time schedules to other destinations of the
County. Taxi services are also available to Village residents.
The Palm Beach International Airport (PBIA) is the nearest major
airport facility to Tequesta. PBIA is approximately twenty miles
south of the Village. It is most easily accessed by Interstate
I-95.
E 4.3 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION DATA SUMMARY
This section is intended to analyze existing traffic circulation
levels and systems needs based upon existing design capacities of
the roadway system. This analysis also addresses the need for
expansion to existing facilities or the need for new facilities to
provide safe and efficient operating conditions within the
Village's roadway network.
4.3.1 Levels of Service
Levels of service (LOS) are a good means of summarizing facility
conditions. The LOS of a roadway is defined as the ability of a
maximum number of vehicles to pass over a given section of roadway
or through an intersection during a specified time period, while
maintaining a given operating condition. A level of service
definition generally describes operational conditions in terms of
such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety.
1 4-10
U
ri �
13I
L
U
The 1985 Highway
Research Board of
service for roads
Art Standard.
Capacity Manual, prepared by the Transportation
the National Research Council, defines levels of
and streets that are an accepted State of the
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for
which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter
designations, from A to F, with level of service A representing
the best operating conditions and level of service F the worst. In
general, the various levels of service are defined as follows for
uninterrupted flow facilities.
1. Level of Service A represents free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic
stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver
within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general
level of comfort and convenience provided to the motorist,
passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.
2. Level of Service B is in the range of stable flow, but the
presenca of other users in the traffic stream begins to be
noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively
unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The level of
comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS
A, because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins
to affect individual behavior.
3. Level of Service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks
the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of
individual users becomes significantly affected by
interactions with others in the traffic stream. The selection
of speed is now affected by the presence of others, and
maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial
vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of
comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
4. Level of Service D represents high -density, but stable, flow.
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the
driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of
comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will
generally cause operational problems at this level.
5. Level of Service E represents operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but
relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally
accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way"
to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels
are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is
generally high. Operations at this level are usually
unstable, because small increases in flow or minor
perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.
4-11
D, �
6. Level of Service F is used to define forced or breakdown
flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic
approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the
point. Queues form behind such locations. Operations within
the queue are characterized by stop -and -go waves, and they are
extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable
speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to
stop in a cyclic fashion. Level of Service F is used to
describe the operating conditions within the queue, as well as
the point of the breakdown. It should be noted, however, that
in many cases operating conditions of vehicles or pedestrians
discharged from the queue may be quite good. Nevertheless, it
is the point at which arrival flow exceeds discharge flow which
causes the queue to form, and Level of Service F is an
0 appropriate designation for such points.
It should be noted that these definitions are general and
conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to uninterrupted
flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary
widely in terms of both the user's perception of service quality
and the operational variables used to describe them. Each chapter
of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual contains a detailed
description of the levels of service as defined for each facility
type.
The capacity of a roadway is often defined as the maximum number
of vehicles which have a reasonable expectation of passing over a
given roadway section or through a given intersection under
prevailing road and traffic conditions during a specified period
of time. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has
identified and adopted roadway capacities for various types of
roads, and classified them by levels of service based on the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual. These capacities are given as both
general highway 24-hour maximum volumes and general highway peak
hour maximum volumes which are illustrated in Tables 4-4 and 4-5,
respectively.
Once the roadway capacities are established, the average annual
daily traffic volume demand to average annual daily traffic
capacities (V/C) ratio can be determined assuming Level of Service
E as the maximum acceptable capacity of a roadway. The same is
true when considering peak hour demand to peak hour capacity. The
following V/C ratio ranges were derived for each of the six levels
of service from Table 4-4.
LOS Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio
A
B
Less
Less
than
than
or
or
equal
equal
to
to
0.55
0.86
C
Less
than
or
equal
to
0.90
D
less
than
or
equal
to
0.95
E
Less
than
or
equal
to
1.00
F
Greater than
1.00
1 4-12
1
I
1
1
O
O
O
O
O
I 1
O
O
O
O
O
a) to I
•
•
•
1 x 1
I
O
O
0
N
a 9 10.) 1
M
lf1
1 •rl Cr 1
I
I
r-� 1
r.b•94 1
O
O
tOr%
O
� •rl a) I
•
•
•
•
a > +.)
N
I •ri I;r 1
N
N
M
M
M
A ¢ I
I
1
. 1
O
>
a •U +-) 1
O
Q\
.- i
N
1[ tr 1
N
N
M
M
M
uO¢ I
t
1
I
'd I
a) H I
+ 'C td 1
O
tc1
O
tI1
O
> �M
i
O
N
00
a •C +) 1
00
01
O
N
I O t4 1
N
N
cn
M
¢ 1
1
I
1
•d to I
a) O 1
a •r1 r-I I
N
O
.1
N
1 •O ri I
•
•
•
•
M C O 1
.--1
N
M
�•
U I
1
r-t
N
N
N
N
1
Ca I
O 1
a) 4-) 1
O
O
a r•i 1
O
-
tc1
M
I r-I 1
•
•
•
•
N O 1
M
_-
t11
�O
U
1
I
I
a) 1
r'1 U 1
O •r1 1
4-i > I
a) O s 4 I
¢
ao
U
A
W
a a) 1
!n I
I
94
r-i
4J
a)
•�
Qi
+)
tr
•r1
C.
s:.
a)
s.
O
d
4J
O
'C
¢
t+
a)
O
¢
to
b
Cd
•d
•>
'd
b
td
1~
•ram►
>
O
10
cd
C
a)
cd
cd
C
m
ri
�
1
-4-
�
1
•rl
4-w
4-4
y
O
O
0
'b
-W
•r1
Ln
U1
r-
t—
ON
cc
�
b
0
0
a)
co
a)
a)
a)
O
E
•E
b
Cd z
4J
-W
w
r-I C
U)
I~
a CO
a)
a)
O
U
tr
t4
0) >1
O
O
r-I
+) +-)
4-)
4-)
co
m •r1
•�
a�i
a�i
cn Cd
r�
e•i
4-)
A cd
O
O
94
cd U
U
U
cd
3
w
w
w
•H3
•rl
•r1
•rl
bD
• I
•H
•H
'C
't:j
'd
Ti
•ri
a
7
000
ri O\
O
O
O
�
Qi
Qj
a
a
a
I
1
I
W
M
.0-
U-\
U
.
o
+
+
O
cn
4-13
TABLE 4-5
GENERALIZED ROADWAY
PEAK HOUR
MAXIMUM VOLUMES
3-Lane* 4-Lane **
4-Lane 5-Lane *** 6-Lane
Level of
2-Lane Undivided Undivided
Divided Undivided Divided
= Service
Collector Collector Collector
Arterial Arterial Arterial
A
870
1368
1824
1920
1920 2930
®
�1
B
1310
2031
2708
2850
2850 4330
C
1390
2117
2822
2970
2970 4480
D
1470
2294
3059
3120
3120 4700
E
1540
2330
3106
3270
3270 4910
*
3-lane undivided
collector
estimated at
75% of
a 4-lane undivided
collector
**
4-lane undivided
collector
estimated at
95% of
a 4-lane divided
arterial
**
5-lane undivided
arterial considered
equal to
4-lane divided
arterial
OURCE:
Florida Highway System
Plan LOS and
Guidelines
Manual based on the
1985 Highway
Capacities
Manual.
4-14
H,
G
IJ
L
Based upon the volume/capacity ratios, the major roadway system
(i.e. arterials and collectors) are examined using the current
1988 AADT counts to determine each roadway segment's existing
level of service. According to 9J-5.005 Florida Administrative
Code, the requirement is established under 9J-5.005.4 that at
least two planning periods be considered. The first being at
least the first five-year period subsequent to the plan's adoption
and the second for an overall ten-year period. Since the Tequesta
Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for adoption in 1989, the
existing capacity analysis will be based on the 1988 AADT counts
projected to 1989 which will be the base year from which a 1994
five-year planning period and a 1999 ten-year planning period will
be established. The methodology used in deriving the projected
figures will be described in further detail in Section 4.3.4,
Analysis of Projected Needs. The results of this capacity
analysis by roadway segment are illustrated in Table 4-6.
4-15
n
O
d
d
op
d
d
d
o0
d
O
N
ON
> w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E-
•
F
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
CO
?
-4
O
U1
O\
?
%D
?
M
M
N
.•�
.-r
O
O
d
O
d
d
fn
'O
>
>
>
>
>
>
'O
a
H
-Ha
-I
a
a
O
U
M
W
w
%D
N
M
N
N
N
N
?
6
Z
F
-
00
rt
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r+
u
41
41
41
as
41
u
vi
V
V
U
V
V
V
U
fA
4
41
d
N
O
y
y
y
L�tl
d
+0+
4
H
rl
rl
r-4
rl
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
U3
Z
co
3
Ed+ E-F
G
G
V)
CO
-M
>>
o
cn
ao
Cl)
c
a
v
o
U
�
H
E-�
O
vi
cn
�
H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
a+
a+
♦a
ji
z
"
V
w
�
r1
rl
a�
rl
rl
a�
.
a
3
x
000
be
' 4
0b0
bO
-4
U
d
Q>
41
41
In
>
C
>
>
U
Z
Z
Z
Z
U
V
O
to
>
a
b
-H
d
0
In
...
'.>�
+>i
C
rl
fY.
A
CI
>b
-r4
>>
94
p
OY!
O
t
In
41
a
5
U
O
U
U
U)
H
F
Z
d
O
Q
d
d
O
O
E.
M
w
w
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
1 4.3.2 Analysis of Existing Deficiencies
It is recommended that LOS C will be adopted by the Village as the
acceptable standard, generally, for all collector and arterial
roadways within its jurisdiction. This will promote consistency with
Florida Department of Transportation, Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning
Organization and Palm Beach County, all of which have adopted LOS C
as their standard. According to Table 4-6, all the roadway segments
analyzed within the Village are at level of service B or better.
These findings indicate that the existing roadway system needs of
the Village are currently adequate and the Village of Tequesta has
no immediate roadway capacity improvements to consider.
4.3.3 Accident Data Analysis
Traffic accident data are maintained by the Village Police
Department. Accident data for 1988, best available existing data,
were extracted from the Department's records for analysis purposes.
Only those traffic accidents that were reported are contained in the
data analyzed in this section.
Table 4-7 summarizes the accidents which occurred on the FDOT
Functional classified Roadways within the Village between January
1988 and December 1988 and shows that most of the accidents (22%)
excluding off -road occurrences (i.e. Parking Lots), within the
Village occur on U.S. Highway One and/or its intersections. Based
upon the data from this figure, the following road segments and
intersections were identified as frequent accident areas within the
Village:
1. U.S. Highway One at Tequesta Drive
2. Tequesta Drive and Plaza Way Intersection
3. Tequesta Drive and Old Dixie Highway intersection
4. Tequesta Drive and Seabrook Road intersection
Analysis of the data indicates that fifty-two percent of the
accidents (i.e. 70) reported occurred off of the roadway in off-
street parking lots. Of those accidents that occurred directly on
the roadway, it is noted that the two most frequent accident
location were at the intersections of U.S. Highway One at Tequesta
Drive/Waterway Road and Tequesta Drive at Plaza Way, where six
accidents per location were reported.
The next most common accident location was reported at the Old Dixie
Highway/Tequesta Drive intersection. Thirty percent of the traffic
accidents on Tequesta Drive occurred at or near the intersection of
Plaza Way with nineteen percent recorded at Old Dixie followed
closely by Seabrook Road which had fifteen per cent of the
accidents.
4-17
r.
U
TABLE 4-7
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ACCIDENT
SUMMARY
ACCIDENT WITHIN VILLAGE (1/l/87-12/30/88)
RELATED TO FDOT FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFIED ROADWAYS
Total Accidents
134
Accidents by Roadway
Road/Nearest Intersection
# $
U.S. 1/
#
$
29 22
U.S. 1/Beach Road
2
7
U.S. 1/Bridge Road
3
11
U.S. 1/Canal Ct.
2
7
U.S. 1/Cove Road
5
17
U.S. 1/Harbor Road
1
3
U.S. 1/Plaza Way
2
7
U.S. 1/CR 707
2
7
U.S. 1/Tequesta Drive
6
21
U.S. 1/Waterway Road
Other (Americal Legion)
5
1
17
3
CR 707
2 1
CR 707 Bridge Road
2
100
Other
0
0
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway/Tequesta Dr.
3
100
3 2
Other
0
0
County Line Road
Not in Village's jurisdiction
0
0
Country Club Drive
1 1
Country Club Dr./North Place
1
100
Other
0
0
Seabrook Road
3 2
Seabrook Road/365 Blk
1
33
Seabrook Road/465 Blk
1
33
Seabrook Road/Tequesta Dr.
1
34
Tequesta Drive
26 20
Tequesta Drive/Country Club Dr.
1
4
Tequesta Drive/Cypress Dr.
3
12
Tequesta Drive/Old Dixie Hwy.
5
19
Tequesta Drive/Plaza Way
8
30
Tequesta Drive/Riverside Drive
3
12
Tequesta Drive/Seabrook Road
4
15
Tequesta Drive/Tequesta 300 Blk
1
4
Tequesta Drive/U.S. 1
1
4
Parking Lots (Off -road occurrence)
70 52
4-18
I'�
11
An improvement to
alleviate
e one of these accident
hazards is
currently in the
County's Five -Year Transportation
Improvement
Program (T.I.P.).
This improvement committed to by
Palm Beach
County is to five
lane Old Dixie Highway from SR 811
to Tequesta
Drive Road which
should provide relief to its intersection at
Tequesta Drive. According to the Palm Beach County Five -Year Road
Program (1988-1993), funding for widening Old Dixie Highway to five
lanes from SR 811 to Tequesta Drive, and three lanes from Tequesta
Drive north to County Line Road has been scheduled for completion in
the year 1990.
Also, the Village as an expression of concern for improving traffic
flow within Tequesta, authorized the preparation of a traffic study
for the purpose of providing a detailed evaluation of the existing
and future traffic congestion and accessibility within the Village.
This traffic study completed in 1987, included herein by reference,
measured the existing traffic impact on existing roadway conditions
(number of lanes, signal timing, left turn lanes, etc.) as well as
for future traffic projections for many of the local roadways in
addition to roads identified in this Element. Many of
recommendations from this study will be identified in Section 4.3.5,
Issues and Opportunities.
The remaining improvements necessary to alleviate accident hazards
entail traffic signalization, improved roadway maintenance and
additional signage which are relatively small scale and require
expenditures of less than ten thousand dollars per project. Only
the improvements of relatively large scale $10,000.00 or greater are
included in the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Element of this Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore, improvements to relieve high accident frequency
locations will be included in the Village's annual budget rather
than this plan, since they involve a range of project costs below
the scope of this TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Element and the CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS Element.
4.4 Analysis of Projected Needs
Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative
Code, projections of the future traffic circulation levels of
service and systems needs were prepared based upon the future land
uses shown on the future land use map, included in the FUTURE LAND
USE Element of this Comprehensive Plan.
The Village of Tequesta is located within an urbanized area and is,
therefore, within the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) jurisdiction. The MPO has recently completed a
transportation study referred to as the West Palm Beach Urban Area
Transportation Study, Recommended 2010 Highway Plan which projects
future traffic volumes to the year 2010. This study has not yet
been adopted by the MPO, however, for purposes of this analysis,
® these volumes will be used to project 1994 and 1999 AADT roadway
volumes.
4-19
n
U
As mentioned in the previous Section, 9J-5.0005 Florida
Administrative Code requires that both a five year (1994) and a ten
year (1999) planning period be analyzed. In order to derive traffic
volume projection for both 1994 and 1999, compound annual growth
rates were calculated in Table 4-8 based upon traffic volume between
1988 as shown in Table 4-2, and the projected 2010 traffic volumes.
However, a roadway volume for Seabrook Road was not projected in the
2010 Highway Plan. Therefore, the Seabrook Road volume was derived
based upon best available information from the traffic study
prepared by Gee & Jenson in 1987. Using the Peak Hour Link Analysis
Table, a compound annual growth rate was determined to be 1.41
percent. Using this growth rate, the analysis projected a peak
hour volume to year 2010, then applied a peak hour factor of 9
percent to
obtain a
2010 AADT volume
of 6400.
According
to the
Future Land Use
Element, Village build -out is
�I
projected to occur in 1996 resulting in a theoretical stabilized
condition from 1996 through 1999.
The methodology used for analyzing the Village's projected system
needs was the same as that utilized for analyzing the existing
roadway needs in the previous section by assuming a desired LOS C
for all traffic volumes on arterial and collector roadways, then
calculating V/C ratios for each of the roadway segments using
projected traffic volumes for 1994 and 1999. The results of these
capacity analyses are illustrated in Tables 4-9 and 4-10,
respectively. These findings indicate that the Village's roadway
system capacity is adequate through 1999 with only Tequesta Drive
being at LOS C.
Also, roadway capacities were calculated to determine operating
efficiency or level of service (LOS) C during peak hour traffic
flows. LOS C is the range of flow in which the operation of
individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with
others in the traffic stream. Table 4-11 identifies the findings for
the designated links. The results indicate that none of the links
examined exceed a Peak Hour Los of B.
4.5 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The transportation system serving Tequesta has been generally
efficient in circulating traffic in and through the Village.
Maintenance of the existing roads and streets has been effectuated
on an as needed basis, and capital improvements to the system have
been planned well in advance. The Village has continued to work
with other levels of government regarding roads that are under
jurisdictions other than Tequesta. These cooperative and
coordinated efforts, in conjunction with local programs, have
provided an effective road and street system in Tequesta. However,
the construction/maintenance of roadway improvements is one of
the Village's largest annual fiscal challenges. As indicated in
4-20
u
a
dW
OF
a
to E.d
t—
t-
O�
0
d W . H
O h a. 3
M
rr
N
O
r+
r+
00
aaoz
3ac)c�
•
00
0
0A
N
0
0
0
0�
t�Ln
tt1
_'
0
Go
t11
rr
tt1
a0
%D
.4.�
�-p
O% d
O%
N
%O
?
.N-,
t-
M M
d
-
IPA
-r
%0
-r
•.�1 Rom.
!�
.>*1
b
>
>
>
>
>
>b
C N
0
�+
,>i
C
C
C
C
C
C +I
Y O%
O
1
10
R. &
O N
E!
�
�
-4
W
Z
IO
N
N
N
N
N
N-r
Z
d
Y
W
W
.]
mc0
N
S
41
4.)
41
aO.)
� N
a
W
to
L.
0l
d
0)
01
01
01 0
7 •aS
W
d
'-I
r-I
rl
ri
r♦
r-I r-I
Y ?t a1
0o F.
r4
r-I
r-i
r-1
r-1
ri rl
V1 0.
O
O
O
O
O
00
�"
.W] [S•
m
3
0 0
co
FU
A
FCC
G
Q)f,
ad
+1A
Ct O
-�
,J
co
x
O to t
O
O1
AN
Cr-4
a0
O
¢
S
.
d
cr
� 7
4J
U
O
O
F
O
.a
A
F
01
dN
O
£
E
E
v
6
B
V
0
01S 6
U
CC
a
tr01
N
ri
r-I
.-�
p
7 N r-I
0
U"4
Id
0
..]
0
0
J
X 0 4
-4
r-I
'-1
r♦
>b x
C 7
r 4
ri
>b
r-I
ri
>,
Sw +i
.4 r4 O
7S
>
>
C
>
>
C
CA
Z
Z
U
Z
Z
V
UO
A<0
41 a
v
Lr,
—.
as c
6
'd
7Ou
N
co
S.
d
O
0)
V E-)O
>,
S
v
>
C000
3
.0
0
•'1
.rl U I:. ar
7
O
1~
OrZ
O
�
C�+O+ O
>•
3
X
>,
p
-H
>.
C.
O
N
v ++ O F.
G
A
�
t
C
C
p
7
O 3 �Q
a
d
0
U
O
U
U
t
E+
v W 0
7 x +1 r+
,d .+ t o
N v +� N
z
c
o
-•
-.
—4
0 as v as
N
1
1
1
-4 ow 4)
O CL H +�
¢
O
O
O
Nd:D as
Fr
rn
en
en
7
W
tN
o
a
a
as
a
d
d
ala
O
O+
1—
u1 N
C+
.-4
N
? O
S
M
SM
N
?
M
W?
OF
�a
0
0
00
0
0
0
00
E-
F
N�Fa
O
O
O
O
00
0
NO
s
Q U
u1
.4
N M
.4
.-r
.4
r. K1
SO
l�
en
U1u1
N
?
1—
u1u1
um
00
a
%o
In
M M
a
N
d
+i
•d 14
"4
+i
+1
+i IV
C]
+i
-4
+i +-4
-H
+i
+1
+i +i
F
a
0
00
5
O
O
Op
0
..a
0
>
to
Z
%D
N
M u1
N
N
N
N
V
�
a
fs.
a
F
H
O
00
O
O
O
O O
0
a.r
4.1 as
a+
"
u
as 41
to
M C.
4)
d IV
IV
Gl
41
d Ol
3
to
01
r-1
r-1 rA
.-I
.-I
rI
r-1 rl
G
6
a+
rq
r-4 ri
r-4
r-I
.-I
ri H
ON d
J
f+
O
00
O
O
O
0 0
10
U
a
U
UU
U
U
U
UU
tr] p
C
p
F
0
0
a'
+'
a0+
y0a
y
?�•
E r
0 O
. ]
z
y
p
a
C£7
+6i
¢ >
-E(
�
=
>,
m
ri
.a
+i
rl
r-i
A s
ti
S.
d
41
c
4)
IV
c
r--4
U
UM
0
0
J 0
0
a
sm
a.
�
H
a.
$4Hi
U
4.)
>
>
c
>
>
G
Gp
OF
z
z
z
z
U
UO
d
_
d
O
•>
a
to
to
N
6
O
a
d
..
ao
'>
•
to
x
d
a
O
c.
C
OC
p
U
+I
.]
x
10
3
x
O
C
41
41
S..d
in
U
m
a
O
U
V
N
[-Or
z
0
+
M
1
1
I
d
O
O
O
F
M
=
w
z
z
z
z
�n
.4
r.
.,
d
- 7 7
En
o
m
d
da
d
a
a
Ua
O
M
O
O U,%
o%
M
E .y
.1
U1
-
u M
N
M
0C
�a
0
0
00
0
0
0
00
H
•
W U
O
O
NO
O
O
0
00
E+ a
N
.-r
N O
.-1
4
-4
0
to A a
-41 -11
I-o
%o
%o
�
Oda
U\
v-+
N M
-4
.-+
.4
r4 fn
N
O
C.. C7%
w
%D
O
00
N N
�
%O
U1
S
d
^
d
47
Q1
-H
U3
H
.14
M
-H
-4
-H
-Hb
W
E+
A
O
00
O
O
O
OA
O
r'
U
z
%D
N
Mtn
N
N
N
N
0-4
cu
d
d
to
L
d
0v1 Gvi
�
�
y
y�
00
d
N
'i
r 4F-4
r-I
r-1
r4
r-1 /-1
0
U
1
aL.
U
UU
U
U
U
UU
a =
pi
a
1-
s
s
u
.14
O
ui
O
d
A 3
ti
x
0
to
a
to
c
c
v
y
U
O
�
E
E
OHto
O
O
to
O
O
O
00
to
4.)
a+
O
a+
41
N
a+
Za0i
.�]
a
�
A
a
Cl
"4o°c
>
-H
14¢
U3
r-4
H
r-q
r 4
d i
d
_
Co
J
Co
40
J
U"q
U
aid
t0
d
r-1
ei
++
r q
'-1
x
U
9
9
7 O'
9
9
7
C
UE-r
U
U0
z
z
Z
Z
m
U1
�►
>
0
in
cc
C
r-i
X
A
U
t0+
�
a
to
td
7
7
�
or
O
x
rl
O
O
d
N
CC
O
U
O
U
U
to
E+
z
0
-4
-4
-,
r-1
1
1
1
0
0
0
m
ago
z
z
z
z
0
O
a0
\
\
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
oq
en
kz
Q\ tr
%0
co
co
co
N
M
O`
�
%D
Q`
N
UN
O
O
N
N
9
rl
rl
9-4
x
a
cn
O
a
\
d
0, f
\
\
ON to
M
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
?.
N
O%
ON
Il\
en
m
�
r+
r+
N
m
r-
as
%
N
N
x
N
t11
Q`
Q`
t11
N
N
a
.4
O
^'
Z
to
d
d
m
m
d
d
d
oa
d
cn
co
N
m
M
aC
rn x
m
co
co
O
LCI%
en
co
co
z
•� a.
co
co
co
cn
.-+
•-4
.-4
.4
co
x
a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
4'
co
3
3
+-)
c.
bo V4
eo
O
.c
no
a
�
oG
.01
•�
•
E
a�
>,
� .
@
•'i
C
td
H Cd
rl to
O
r1 =
a
U
�n9'
)
>.c
>c
�
�
•
a)
no
ao
a a)
>, �
x
�
cr
z s
z Go
��
o
41
>> ••>i
>>
4-)
4-)
U •-+
4.) 0
al
\
\ O
41 tr
C G
cd
C
U
V O
E-
'O
7
C G
O
\7
\
v'
7
Ov
rlt
Z 3
OE
0_r
OEo
ZO
>>4)
>>
OOCO
-I
U4
�O
O
\tom
d=
Z
z�
O O
0 O\d
4)
t. O
t.
GC
H
O
.-4
G 41
ri 4.)
= O
G +3
0
A
U
d En
O +1
O co
_F4
U
04
cn
co
>>
--
"I
-H
. 3
4.►
x O
cd O
0
s
s O
xv
xa
�
OE•
41 >
4-)�
'C
= +)
t-
•H co
+i U)
A E
t+ E
O
cry ••4
0
O O
O O
In
��
Aj+i
to O
O 94
N O
O
m
O
C "i
G f i
.0 4.)
O G
:j +.)
O
U
O
O
U
U
N
E-
E-
A I n
w W
O a)
E
to 7
O
U >
G�• E
�+ E
o x
= co
a o
x
o ai
a
w
� c
o cis
O U �
ri U rl
> 4) 0
M E
94
7 E O
a to
t� w
OO4)
a.4•w
the previous section entitled "Analysis of Existing Deficiencies"
and "Analysis of Projected Needs", the need for any roadway capacity
improvements is not foreseen in the near future. Each of the State,
County and Village Five -Year Programs are discussed below with the
future projected roadway improvements shown on Figure 4-2.
4.5.1 Florida Transportation (FDOT) Five Year Work Program
Each of the State's (FDOT) roadway networks within Tequesta are
discussed below regarding improvements scheduled in the State's Five
Year Work Program.
U.S. Highway One from North Village Limit to CR 707
No road improvements are scheduled for this roadway segment in
FDOT's Five Year Work Plan (1989-93)
4.5.2 Palm Beach County Five Year Road Improvement Program
Each of the County's responsible roadway networks within the Village
will be discussed below as to any improvements scheduled in the
County's Five Year Road Improvement Program.
County Road (CR 707) from North Village Limit to U.S. Highway 1
No road improvements are scheduled for this roadway segment in the
County's Five Year Road Improvement Program (1989-93).
Old Dixie Highway from County Line Road to S.R. 811
The County has scheduled to five lane the two lane segment of Old
Dixie Highway from SR 811 to Tequesta Drive and to three lane the
two lane segment of Old Dixie Highway from Tequesta Drive to County
Line Road in FY 89/90.
County Line Road from the North Village Limit to U.S. Highway 1
No road improvements are scheduled for this roadway segment in the
County's Five Year Road Improvement Program (1989-93).
4.5.3 Vill
Scheduled for completion in Fy 1990 is the intersection improvements
to Tequesta Drive
to include widening of the east bound approach to
3 lanes
(a left
turn, thru, and right turn lanes). The west bound
approach
widened to
3 lanes (a left turn lane and 2 thru lanes).
Cypress
Drive be
widened to 3 lanes south of Tequesta Drive to
provide
a left turn
lane to Tequesta Drive west -bound.
4-25
L
U
A
Tequesta Drive and Old Dixie Highway
Scheduled for completion in FY 1990 is the intersection improvement
to Tequesta Drive by widening the west bound approach to the
railroad to 2 lanes and the east bound approach to the intersection
to 3 lanes.
Tequesta Drive - Old Dixie Highway to U.S. Highway 1
Scheduled for completion in FY 1990 are Intersection improvements to
add a left turn lane on the west bound approach to Old Dixie Highway
with 2 thru lanes thereby eliminating the confusion and delays
associated with mis-alignment and storage for turning movements.
Left turn lanes will be developed at the entrance to Lighthouse
Plaza and Tequesta Plaza.
Provide 3 lanes east bound (left turn, thru and right turn lanes) at
the intersection of U.S. Highway 1. Additional right-of-way has been
acquired both sides of Tequesta Drive. The roadway lanes will be
widened along Tequesta Drive to conform with current standards.
Both sides of Tequesta Drive will have a sidewalk from just east of
Cypress Drive to U.S. Highway One.
Tequesta's Maintenance Repaving Program
As part of the Village's Maintenance Program, Village streets are
resurfaced, where needed, on a 15-year rotating cycle. The
following roads are scheduled in the current Village Five Year
Capital Improvements program:
1. Tequesta Drive Paving - FY 1991
2. Cypress Drive Paving - FY 1992
3. Seabrook Road Paving - FY 1994
4.5.4 Adjacent Martin County Considerations
Country Club Drive presently provides access to Martin County and is
operating at an existing high Level of Service. Future traffic
projections for this Tequesta Link are also going to remain at a
very acceptable Level of Service. However, to provide better fire
and police protection services to Little Club condominiums, Little
Club Villas and future development; it is recommended that Martin
County consider opening Girl Scout Road. This would help to reduce
future spill -over traffic from adversely impacting the Village's
local streets.
4-26
U
1 4.5.5 Intergovernmental Coordination
Intergovernmental coordination is essential for the development of a
cost efficient approach to obtaining traffic circulation system
improvements within the Village. Since the arterial streets in the
Village of Tequesta are under the jurisdiction of other agencies and
levels of government, it is clear that the Village does not possess
the resources nor is it fiscally responsible for correcting all the
traffic circulation system needs to these roadways. Therefore, it
is necessary for the Village to review the transportation
improvement plans and programs prepared by the County and FDOT. In
this way, the dollars expended by the Village to improve its traffic
circulation system may be complemented or even enhanced by the
activities of the County and FDOT.
4.5.6 Future Right of Way Protection
One area of coordination should include the preservation and
protection of rights -of -way for future roadway improvements and
construction where possible. With the escalating value of land and
costs of right-of-way acquisition, it becomes essential that the
Village protect roadway corridors to the extent possible in advance
from building encroachment. Increased right-of-way costs reduce
funds available for construction. FDOT has indicated in the 1987
Florida Transportation Plan that it will consider, as part of its
project priority analysis, the availability and protection of rights -
of -way and will place a higher funding priority on projects located
where right -of -preservation and protection measures have been
implemented. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the Village to
utilize such techniques as set back requirements, zoning
restrictions, right-of-way protection regulations and official
traffic -way maps to preserve and protect existing and future rights -
of -way. The Village currently participates in Palm Beach County
Right -of -Way Protection Plan.
4.5.7 Mass Transit
Public transportation/mass transit was not considered, at this time,
as an appropriate solution for improving the level of service on the
Village roadways due mainly to its population size. The population
was found to be of neither sufficient magnitude nor density to
ensure cost-effectiveness. According to 9J-5.008, a mass transit
element needs to be prepared when the population reaches 50,000 or
more which is far above the Village's 1999 projected population
(i.e. 5,084). The provision of a public transportation system in
Palm Beach County has been in the form of bus service. The Palm
Beach County Transportation Authority (COTRAN) operates and
maintains this system. A regional public transportation system does
not exist, but the Village continues to support the concept.
4-27
I
5.0 HOUSING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The HOUSING element is required to be included within the
Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and rule
criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177 (6) (f) , Florida Statutes.
establishes the HOUSING element requirement and Chapter 9J5.010,
Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum criteria to guide
its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future housing
goal, objective and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.05 and 9J5.010
Florida Administrative Code, the HOUSING element is structured
according to the following format:
o Housing Data,
o Housing Analysis.
5.2 HOUSING DATA SUMMARY
An overview of conditions pertinent to the preparation of the
housing goal, objectives and policies are presented in the
sections that follow.
5.2.1 Housing and Household Characteristics
The Village is approximately 89.1% developed at this time (Ref:
Table 3-5; FUTURE LAND USE element) with only 37.48 acres of
vacant residential land remaining, leading to the conclusion that
there is relatively little remaining land for additional
residential growth and development within the current corporate
limits. A variety of housing types exist, including single-family
detached units, quadplexes and multiple -unit projects (i.e. 5 units
or more per structure).
5.2.1.1 Housing and Residential Development
New housing growth, as evidenced by recent building permit
activity (Ref: Table 5-1) has been relatively modest in recent
years. In accord with Village records and a field survey taken
in May, 1989, there are presently a total of 2,392 housing units
in Tequesta. The housing stock consists of 1,429 single family
detached housing units, 48 quadplex units and 915 multiple family
units. In 1980, locally prepared data (Ref: Table 3-9); FUTURE
LAND USE element) indicates that there were 2,027 housing units
in the Village. Current numbers reflect an 18.0% increase in the
housing stock during the 1980-1989 period. The current estimate
is substantiated by a history of building permit activity evidenced
in the Village during the 1980-1988 period (Ref: Table 5-1).
5-1
U
A
According to Table 5-2, 1,879 housing units were constructed in
the Village during the March, 1960 to March, 1980 period. Adding
units constructed or annexed since that time leads to the
conclusion that 96% of the housing stock in the Village has been
constructed since 1960.
The housing stock within Tequesta constitutes a small share of the
countywide totals; approximately 0.7% of the 286,784 year-round
units reported by the Census in 1980. It should be noted that
"total" units includes "year-round" housing units, "year-round"
vacant units, plus "seasonal" units.
5.2.1.2 Household Characteristics
Characteristics of housing within the Village including type,
tenure, rent,value, monthly cost and cost to income ratio are
examined in this section and compared with those characteristics
exhibited countywide. .The most current statistics available for
an inventory and analysis of this type are the 1980 U.S.Census.
The 1980 Census was concluded to be inaccurate for the Village
(Ref: Section 3.2.7; FUTURE LAND USE element). However, Census
statistics can be used for comparative purposes to analyze Village
housing conditions.
Comparative tenure statistics are presented on Table 5-3. Of the
1,759 housing units reported in 1980 by the U.S. Census, 1,353 or
77% were owner -occupied, while 8% of the units were reported as
renter -occupied. Owner and renter -occupied statistics represent
"year-round" occupancy, while the remainder are seasonal or vacant
units. The Village has a higher "year-round" housing unit
occupancy rate than Palm Beach County as a whole; 85% to 82%,
respectively. The Village has a substantially lesser percentage
of occupied rental units than the County has as a whole; 9.5% and
26.7%, respectively. Ninety-nine percent, or 1,353 units, of the
year-round owner -occupied housing units in the Village are owned
by the white population. The remaining 1% was reported as owned
by residents of Spanish Origin. Likewise, of the 142 rental units,
140 were occupied by whites and 2 by residents of Spanish origin.
In the FUTURE LAND USE element (Ref: Table 3-11), it is estimated
that there are currently 84 vacant units available for resident
occupancy. This estimate is based upon a 3.5% vacancy rate
reported by the 1980 U.S. Census. It is assumed that this rate
has remained constant due to the limited construction activity
since 1980. This compares to a 4.5% vacancy rate in Palm Beach
County (11, 156 vacant units/245,495 total units) in 1980.
Comparative monthly gross rent data fo
Tequesta, are presented on Table 5-4. Th
renter -occupied units in Tequesta was $30
$278 for Palm Beach County. Nearly 60% o
month or more in the Village, while all
$200 per month. Comparative value (i.e.
e
9
r Palm Beach County and
median monthly rent for
in 1980, as compared to
f all rents were $300 per
rents were greater than
1980) of non -condominium
5-2
L
versus condominium owner -occupied housing data for Tequesta are
presented on Tables 5-5A and 5-5B, while comparative monthly costs
(i.e. 1980) of owner -occupied units with a mortgage are presented
on Table 5-5C.
The median value of non -condominium units reported in 1980 was
$99,200 in Tequesta, as compared to $57,482 for Palm Beach County..
A total of 321 condominium units were reported for Tequesta in 1980
at an average value of $75,800, while 51,065 condominium units were
reported in Palm Beach County with a median value of $60,818.
The 1980 Census reported a median monthly cost of owner -occupied
housing in Tequesta of $520 for those units with a mortgage, and
a median cost of $167 for those without a mortgage. This compares
to median values in the County of $384 with a mortgage, and $102
for those units not mortgaged. The median household income for
renter -occupied housing units in the Village of Tequesta is
$11,579. In smaller fashion, the median gross monthly rent is
$309. These two figures from the 1980 census compute to a median
rent -to -income ratio of 32%.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs considers that housing
costs should fall below 30% of a family's income; a rent -to -income
ratio of more than 30% is indicative of an excessive amount of
household expenditure going toward housing.
According to the 1980 Census, the median household income for
owner -occupied housing units is $29,277. The median monthly cost
for owner -occupied housing units with a mortgage is $520. The
median cost -to -income ratio is therefore 21.3%.
The Village of Tequesta median ratio compares favorably with the
30% standard established as a guideline to determine when too high
a proportion of income is being spent for housing.
5.2.2 Housing and Living Conditions
There are several measures which can be used to evaluate housing
stock and living conditions within the Village, including: age of
structure; over -crowding; the lack of certain necessary
facilities; structural integrity; and Standard Housing Code
requirements. Specific indicators of substandard housing or
living conditions for each of the above measures are as follows:
1. Age of Structure - A housing unit constructed prior to
1940, which is valued at less than $25,000 (Source: Palm
Beach County Planning Division).
2. Over -Crowding - 1.01 persons per room or more within a
dwelling unit.
3. Lacking Facilities - A housing unit lacking complete
plumbing facilities, heating and cooking facilities
and/or complete kitchen facilities.
5-3
U
4. External Housing Conditions - A housing unit categorized
as either of the following by the Village Building
Department:
Deteriorated: Meaning in need of some relatively
minor exterior repair which is indicative of a lack
of maintenance. Examples include housing that
requires painting, fascias and soffits showing signs
of deterioration, cracked and broken windows, and
even severely overgrown yards which is generally
accompanied by a lack of structural maintenance.
Dilapidated: Meaning in need of very substantial
rehabilitation. The unit may be considered to be
unfit for human habitation or rapidly approaching
that condition. This category of substandard
housing needs to be addressed immediately, through
either rehabilitation or demolition, as the health
and safety of the inhabitants may be endangered.
S. Code Violations - The Village has adopted the Standard
Housing Code (1985 Edition) which incorporates the
following definition of unsafe residential buildings:
"All residential buildings or structures used as
such which are unsafe, unsanitary, unfit for human
habitation or which constitute a fire hazard or are
otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in
relation to existing use constitute a hazard to
safety or health by reason of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence or
abandonment, are considered unsafe buildings."
The Housing Code further states:
"All such unsafe buildings are hereby declared
illegal and shall be abated by repair and
rehabilitation or by demolition ..."
The following discussion outlines the rationale used for preparing
definitions of "standard" and "substandard" living and housing
conditions in terms of the five measures listed and defined above.
From Table 5-2, it can be observed that only 14 units within the
Village were constructed prior to 1940. Further, there were only
5 units in Tequesta valued in the $20,000 to $29,999 range (i.e.
in 1980 dollars; Ref: Table 5-5A). It is therefore concluded that
AGE OF STRUCTURE does not, in itself, raise any issues regarding
overall substandard living and housing conditions within the
Village.
An over -crowded condition is normally defined to occur when there
are greater than 1.01 persons per room in a dwelling unit (note:
excludes bathrooms, open porches, utility rooms, unfinished
5-4
attics, etc. - rooms not used for "living" purposes). In 1980,
there were no resident occupied units that reported a rate of 1.01
or more persons per unit. Since there are no households falling
within the 1.01 or more persons per room category, it is concluded
that OVER -CROWDING does not, in itself, raise any issues regarding
overall substandard living and housing conditions within the
Village.
The 1980 Census reported that high percentages of the year-round
housing stock had complete plumbing facilities (i.e. 100%),
complete kitchen facilities (i.e. 100%), and telephone
availability (i.e. 99%). Due to the high level of availability,
it is concluded that LACK OF FACILITIES does not, in itself, raise
any issues regarding overall substandard living and housing
conditions within the Village.
A "windshield survey" oriented to evaluating EXTERNAL HOUSING
CONDITIONS completed by the Village Building Department in 1988.
The results of the survey are presented on the following table:
Condition Percent
Standard -Acceptable 99.5
Deteriorated .5
Dilapidated 0.0
On this basis, EXTERNAL HOUSING CONDITIONS does not, in itself,
raise any issues regarding overall substandard living and housing
conditions within the Village.
The STANDARD HOUSING CODE has been utilized by the Village in a
single instance to require repairs and rehabilitation of a
residential structure. Implementation in this case demonstrated
the effectiveness of the Code in maintaining housing conditions
within the Village. There are no housing units within the Village
currently the subject of repairs, rehabilitation or demolition
activity resulting from STANDARD HOUSING CODE citations. On this
basis, CODE VIOLATION does not, in itself, raise any issues
regarding substandard living and housing conditions within the
Village.
Although the existence of substandard living and housing conditions
is not an issue within the Village at this time, it is necessary
to prepare appropriate definitions for potential future use should
the need arise. Timely preparation and adoption of definitions
will allow the institution of appropriate implementation mechanisms
oriented to preserving current high quality living and housing
conditions. Since no definitions currently exist, they will be
prepared as part of the Goal, Objectives and Policies section of
this element.
5.2.3 Subsidized Housing
There are currently no
renter -occupied
housing
developments in the
Village using Federal,
State or local
subsidy
programs.
1 5-5
U
1 5.2.4 Group Facilities and Homes
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
licenses group homes through three of its divisions: Aging and
Adult Services (Adult Congregate Living Facilities); Division of
Developmental Services (Long Term Residential Care Facilities and
Centers for Independent Living); and Children, Youth and Families
(Family Group Homes, Family Foster Homes, and Licensed Child
Caring/Child Placing Facilities). There are no State -licensed
facilities in any categories within the corporate limits of
Tequesta. State -licensed facilities located elsewhere in Palm
Beach County provide services to residents of the Village.
County officials familiar with the needs of Tequesta's special
population indicate that they have not identified a strong need
for new facilities within the Village limits.
5.2.5 Mobile Homes
Based upon official Village records, there are no mobile homes
located within the Village of Tequesta.
5.2.6 Historically Significant Housing
There are no residential structures in the Village at this time
1 listed on the Florida Master Site file or the National Register
of Historic Places nor have any been so designated by Tequesta.
5.3 HOUSING ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Housing Projections
The population of Tequesta was estimated at 4,720 residents in
1989 (Ref: Table 3-8; FUTURE LAND USE element). Applying an
estimated average household size of 2.366 persons per unit results
in an estimated 1,995 resident -occupied housing units in 1989;
approximately 83.4% of the total housing stock which was surveyed
at 2,392 units. The housing stock of the Village currently
consists of the following components: low density (single-family)
- 1,429 units (59.7%); medium density (2-4 units/structure) - 48
units (2.0%); and high density (5 or more units/structure) - 915
units/structure (38.3%). Vacant residential land analyses (Ref:
Tables 3-23 A and B; FUTURE LAND USE element) indicate that the
remaining residential buildout potential of the Village is 153
units, consisting of the following zoning -based components: low
density - 146 units (95.4%); and high density - 7 units (4.6%).
When existing housing stock (2,392 units) is added to remaining
buildout potential (153 units) it is concluded that total
residential buildout of the Village is 2,545 units, consisting of
the following components: low density - 1,575 units (61.9%);
medium density - 48 units (1.9%); and high density - 922 units
(36.2%). If a comparison is made between the components of the
projected total buildout situation and the components of the
5-6
U
L
n
A
current housing stock, particularly in light of the fact that 94%
of the total has been built, it can be concluded that the current
population and housing characteristics of the Village (Ref: Table
3-10; FUTURE LAND USE element) will remain relatively unchanged
throughout the short-term and long-range planning periods. (NOTE:
It is recognized that household income statistics will increase
due to inflation during the planning periods). Assuming a
residential buildout of 7.75 years, based upon population
projections (Ref: Section 3.3.4; FUTURE LAND USE element), the
following table presents total housing stock projections.
UNIT TYPE UNITS
DENSITY 1989 1994 1996 1999
Low
1429
1540
1575
1575
Medium
48
48
48
48
High
915
922
922
922
Total
2392
2510
2545
2545
Land requirements necessary to accommodate the above projections
are shown on Table 3-26 of the FUTURE LAND USE element.
5.3.1.2. Household Characteristics Projections
The number of current resident -occupied households in the Village
is estimated at 1,995 (i.e. 1989 population - 4,720 and a 2.366
persons per household average). Projections of total household
growth, based upon resident population projections and estimated
average household sizes of various unit types (Ref: Table 3-23B;
FUTURE LAND USE element), are presented on the following table.
1989 1994 1996 1999
Households 1995 2102 2134 2134
The above estimates have included the assumption of an adequate
number of vacant units to meet or exceed the rate defined by the
1980 Census.
Projections of population and housing characteristics to the year
1994, based upon the assumption that the current character of the
Village will be maintained, are presented on Table 5-6.
Due to the age and condition of the housing stock, as evaluated
in Section 5.2.3 of this element, it is concluded that normal
maintenance of residential properties during the short and long-
range planning periods will preclude the need for any replacement
activities. Further, due to the character of the Village and its
removed relationship to agricultural areas of the County, there is
no need to anticipate the provision of rural or farmworker housing.
5-7
1 5.3.1.3. Housing Delivery Process
From its beginnings, housing in Tequesta has been totally supplied
by the private sector. High Village household income levels (Ref:
Tables 3-9 and 3-10; FUTURE LAND USE element), high housing values
and rents (Ref: Tables 5-4 and 5-5A), low vacancy rates (Ref:.
Table 5-3) and good quality and condition of the housing stock
(Ref: Section 5.2.3) lead to the conclusion that the private sector
will continue to meet defined housing needs throughout the
projected buildout period. Vacant residential land patterns (i.e.
98.1% of the remaining residential land is within platted
single-family subdivisions; Ref: Table 3-23A; FUTURE LAND USE
element) substantiate this conclusion also. It is further
concluded, however, that the Village should consider developing
private -sector incentives for alternative housing arrangements for
the elderly (i.e. aged 65 and older - the most rapidly growing age -
group in the Village). All future residential development will
consist of "in -fill" within existing, established residential
neighborhoods whose current character has established the pattern
for any remaining growth. On this basis, it is further concluded
that the private sector housing delivery process has capably
fulfilled Village housing needs and has the capacity to meet
defined needs throughout the short and long-range planning
periods.
Indicators of the cost of housing are presented on Table 5-1.
During the past ten years, single-family (i.e. low density)
construction costs have averaged in excess of $93,000 per unit,
while multiple -family (i.e. inclusive of medium and high density)
construction costs have averaged $62,055 per unit, although
limited recent activity has occurred. Costs have substantially
exceeded average during the past few years. An analysis of vacant
residential land (Ref: Tables 3-23A and 3-23B; FUTURE LAND USE
element) leads to the conclusion that these trends will be
maintained. All future residential development will consist of
infill within established residential neighborhoods where current
land and construction costs will dictate the cost of construction
and unit selling prices. Rental housing demand will continue to
be met primarily by investor -owned supply (i.e. quadplexes and
multiple family properties) where current rents range from
approximately $500.00 to in excess of $600.00 to $800.00 per
month, depending upon the location.
1 5.3.2 Alternative Housing Issues
An analysis of household income and age -group statistics from
Table 3-10 (Ref: FUTURE LAND USE element) in relation to housing
tenure and value, monthly costs of housing with a mortgage and
monthly rents (Tables 5-3, 5-4, 5-5A and 5-5C) lead to the
conclusion that low and moderate income households (i.e. less than
$10,000 per year in 1980) consist primarily of elderly households
on fixed incomes which owned a home without a mortgage.
5-8
U
Rental unit vacancy statistics from Table 5-3 (i.e. 2.1%) indicate
that supply is not meeting demand. (NOTE: a 5% vacancy rate is
indicative of an equilibrium situation where supply equals demand,
accounting for a normal turnover of tenants.) However, due to the
small number of rental units (i.e. 145 in 1980) an equilibrium
situation can be attained without the development of a large-scale
rental project. It concluded that low -to -moderate income housing
owners will continue to consist primarily of elderly households
who purchase a home without a mortgage, therefore reducing housing
costs to affordable levels; however, it is recommended that
additional incentives for private sector development of rental
alternatives for the elderly be implemented. Adult day-care and
congregate living facilities are alternatives that should be
further pursued.
The above analyses, coupled with the limited availability of
vacant residential land and relatively small remaining growth
potential in the Village (Ref: Section 3.3.4; FUTURE LAND USE
element), lead to the conclusion that current demographic and
housing characteristics will remain relatively consistent
throughout the short-term and long-range planning periods.
However, elderly housing alternatives may be promoted by
developing mixed -use concepts within designated commercial areas.
5.3.2.1 Availability of Services
Infrastructure services are currently in place to serve projected
growth in all areas of the Village. Major system components (i.e.
wellfields, water treatment facilities and distribution mains;
wastewater collection and transmission mains and treatment and
disposal facilities; primary drainage facilities; primary roads;
and solid waste disposal systems) are in place or are programmed
to have capacities to accommodate the residential build -out of
Tequesta. Local extensions of these facilities to accommodate any
new development will be the responsibility of the developer.
5.3.2.2. Substandard Housing Conditions
Although no specific definitions of substandard housing were used
to evaluate Village housing stock in Section 5.2.3., the
application of several evaluation measures leads to the conclusion
that there are no defined concerns regarding potential substandard
housing conditions at this time. Also, substandard housing
conditions are not projected to occur during the short-term and
long-range planning periods provided that maintenance efforts on
the part of individual owners are continued. Village
responsibilities are expected to continue consisting of monitoring
and enforcement of Standard Housing Code provisions.
5.3.2.3. Low and Moderate Income Housing
Discussions in Section 5.3.1.3 led to the conclusion that the
private sector delivery process has adequately provided housing
Ito accommodate the needs of Village residents at various income
5-9
i
D
I
levels. It is anticipated that this will be the case throughout
the short-term and long-range planning periods. However, it is
recommended that additional mechanisms oriented to encouraging
elderly housing alternatives be pursued.
The Village Zoning Code which does not permit mobile home
development within Tequesta, nor are there any remaining sites to
adequately accommodate a mobile home park. As a result, the
requirement to provide adequate sites for mobile homes does not
apply.
5.3.2.4 Group Homes
"Group Home" type facilities are not permitted under Village codes
at present; however, it is recommended that special exception
procedures be incorporated to accommodate additional uses such as
Foster Care homes and day-care facilities.
5.3.2.5. Conservation Activities
The Village is expected to continue its primary role as monitoring
and enforcement agent, as discussed in Section 5.3.2.2. Further
conservation, rehabilitation or demolition activities are not
anticipated unless an emergency arises. The designation of
historically significant housing is not anticipated; however, the
need should be reassessed at the time of each 5-year Comprehensive
Plan update.
MR
TABLE 5-1
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1980-1988
NUMBER OF
UNITS
Single -Family
Multiple -Family
Mobile
No.
Unit Cost($)
No.
Unit Cost($) Motel
Home
1980
45
74,778
35
85,784
0
0
1981
20
93,630
0
N/A
0
0
1982
15
91,471
0
N/A
0
0
1983
45
87,255
4
46,802
0
0
1984
31
93,504
68
51,244
0
0
1985
27
84,377
0
N/A
0
0
1986
26
90,398
1
29,000
0
0
1987
30
113,906
0
N/A
0
0
1988
18
125,409
0
N/A
0
0
Total
257
93,533*
108
62,055*
0
0
Note:
No units
were converted or
removed
from the Housing
Stock
during
the 1979-1988 period.
*Average during
1980-1988 period.
SOURCE:
Tequesta Building Department; 1989.
t5x.teq/pl
5-11
C
ITABLE 5-2
TEQUESTA
HOUSING UNITS BY AGE
Year Structure
Number of
Percentage
Built
Units
of Total
April 180 to May 189
365
15.6
1979 to March 1980
137
5.8
1975 to 1978
133
5.7
1970 to 1974
701
29.9
1960 to 1969
908
38.7
1940 to 1959
85
3.6
0.6
1939 or earlier
14
Total
2,347*
99.9
* Does not total 2,392 due to defined Census discrepencies (Ref:
FUTURE LAND USE element).
SOURCE: 1) U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980.
2) Village of Tequesta Building Dept.
3) JLH & Associates
t5x.teq/p2
F�'
5-12
L,
TABLE 5-3
HOUSING TENURE CHARACTERISTICS
TENURE
VILLAGE
OF TEQUESTA
PALM BEACH
COUNTY
NO.
%
NO.
%
Occupied housing units
1495
100.
234,339
100.
Owner -occupied
1353
90.5
171,736
73.3
White
1347
160,416
Black
0
91968
Spanish Origin
11
4,373
Renter -occupied.. _.
142
9.5
62,603
26.7
White
140
48,240
Black
0
139094
Spanish Origin
2
31290
Vacancy Status
Vacant housing units
264
100.
529259
100.
For sale only
Homeowner vacancy rate
58
22.0
5,022
9.5
For rent
Rental vacancy rate
3
1.1
6,134
11.7
Rented or Sold,
Awaiting Occupancy
N/A
7,705
14.8
Held for Occasional Use
N/A
269587
50.8
Other Vacant
203
76.9
69811
13.0
Boarded Up
N/A
229
.4
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980.
MONTHLY RENT
Gross rent is defined as the monthly contract rent plus the cost of utilities.
The median rent of $309.00 in the Village of Tequesta is $31.00 (higher) than
the Palm Beach County Median. This is a differential of 10%.
5-13
TABLE 5-4
MONTHLY GROSS RENT OF RENTER -OCCUPIED UNITS
Village of Teguesta
Palm Beach
County
Gross Rent
No.
%
No.
%
Less than $80
-
-
1,035
1.68
$80 to $99
-
-
1,019
1.7
$100 to $149
-
-
4,325
7.0
$150 to $199
-
-
79550
12.3
$200 to $299
55
40.4
199049
30.9
$300 to $399
28
20.6
13,939
22.7
$400 or more
37
27.2
10,921
17.8
No cash rent
16
11•8
3,669
6.0
Total
136
100.0
619507
100.08
Median
309
$278
Note: Census figures derived
from samples.
Source: U.S. Dept.
of Commerce,
Bureau of the
Census
Executive
Management &
Engineering Consultants, Inc.
5-14
TABLE 5 - 5 A
VALUE OF OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS - VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
I Value No. . Dwelling Units
Percent
Less than $10,000 = 0.0
$ 10,000 - $ 19,999 0.0
$ 20,000 - $ 290999 5 .5
$ 30,000 - $ 49,999 41 4.3
I $ 509000 - $ 99,999 444 45.7
$100,000 - $149,999 318 32.7
$150,000 - $199,999 99 10.1
$200,000 or more 65 6.7
Total 972 100.0
Median Value $99,200
' Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980.
Note: Census data are estimates based on a sample.
TABLE 5-5B
VALUE OF OWNER -OCCUPIED CONDOMINIUM HOUSING - VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Condomimium Dwelling Units
Value No. Percent
Less than $10,000
$ 10,000 - $ 19,999
$ 20,000
- $ 29,999
4
$ 30,000
- $ 49,999
53
$ 50,000
- $ 99,999
137
$100,000
- $149,999
59
$150,000
- $199,999
37
$200,000
or more
31
0.0
0.0
1.2
16.5
42.7
18.4
11.5
7•
Total - 321 100;0
Median Value $75,800
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980.
L�
�I
TABLE 5-6
PROJECTED POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
1994
Population 5,000
Per Capita Income ($) 24,840
Households 2,102
Household Income
$ less than $ 5000
2.8
$ $ 5000 - $ 9999
5.4
$10000 - $14999
8.4
$ $15000 - $19999
7.9
$ $20000 - $24999
7.1
% $25000 and over
68.5
Median ($)
41,952
Average ($)
55,591
Age
% 0 - 20
18.7
%21 - 64
51.8
%65 +
29.5
Median
48.0
Occupied Units
% Renter
10.9
% Owner
89.1
Households
1 person
24.1
2 persons
42.9
3 or more persons
33.0
Average Size
2.38
SOURCE: Urban Decision Systems, Inc; JLH Associates
T5-6.teq/wp/27
5-17
TABLE 5-5C
MONTHLY COSTS OF OWNER -OCCUPIED UNITS, 1980
IVillage of Teguesta Palm Beach County
Mortgage Status & Selected
Monthly Owner Costs
No.
I
No.
%
Owner -occupied
housing units
991
97,077
With a mortgage
674
66,894
100.0
Less than $100
$100 to $199
-
6
0.0
0.8
655
7,524
1.0
11.3
$200 to $299
82
12.2
12,817
19.2
$300 to $399
85
12.6
14,736
22.1
®
$400 to $599
245
36.4
19,007
28.4
i
$600 or more
256
38.0
12,1555
18.1
Median
$520
Not mortgaged
317
30,183
Median
$167
$102
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census
Executive Management &
Engineering
Consultants,
Inc.
L
5-16
L.
0
L
J�
6.0 SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE
WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE
6.1 SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT
6.1.1 Introduction
The SANITARY SEWER sub -element is required to be included within
the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and
rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), Florida
Statutes, established the SANITARY SEWER Sub -element requirement
and Chapter 9J5.011, Florida Administrative Code, established
minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This sub -element contains the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the Village goal,
objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the SANITARY SEWER sub -element is
structured according to the following format:
o Sanitary Sewer Data;
o Sanitary Sewer Analysis;
Initial sanitary sewer data are presented on a system -wide
basis; however, for the purposes of defining Village specific
service levels and needs, the sub -system level may be utilized.
6.1.2 Sanitary Sewer Data Summary
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL-92-500), as amended,
is the controlling national legislation related to the provision
of wastewater service. The goal of this Act is the restoration
and/or maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the nation's waters. The Act established the
national policy of implementing areawide waste treatment and
management programs to ensure adequate control of various sources
of pollutants. Under Sections 201 and 208 of PL 92-500, grants
have been made available to local governments to plan and
construct wastewater facilities. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is responsible for implementing the Act.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) is
responsible for ensuring that the State implements
responsibilities assigned toit under PL 92-500. FDER has
adopted rules for the construction and operation of wastewater
facilities under Chapter 17- 6, Florida Administrative Code.
These rules apply to all facilities which treat flows
exceeding 5,000 gallons per day for domestic establishments,
6.1-1
G
3,000 gallons per day for food service establishments, and
instances where wastewater contains industrial, toxic or
hazardous chemical wastes.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
(FDHRS) regulates septic tank and drainfield installation within
the State. These requirements have been adopted by rule in
Chapter 1OD-6, Florida Administrative Code.
To ensure economic efficiency in the operation of the regional
facilities which it provides, Palm Beach County has adopted
regulations which require establishments to connect to a
wastewater system where service is available. Municipal and
privately owned wastewater systems have also adopted design
standards and review procedures to ensure that all connections
are compatible with the overall system design. The Palm Beach
County Health Department is responsible for assuring that State
and Federal requirements are met.
The Palm Beach County Health Department, under a Local Program
Agreement with FDER, oversees permitting, set-up and operation of
septic tank and package plant systems, in accordance with County
and State rules and regulations. Palm Beach County has also
adopted local rules and regulations for septic tank installation
consistent with Chapter 1OD-6, Florida Administrative Code (i.e.
Environmental Control Rule #1).
6.1.2.1 Operational Entity and Service Area
The Palm Beach County Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan,
prepared under Section 208 of PL 92-500, as amended, was
completed and adopted by Palm Beach County in 1979. Although
somewhat dated at this time, basic regional wastewater service
area designations and responsibilities remain relatively
current. Regional and sub -regional service area designations
under this program are illustrated on Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2.
Under the "208" Plan, the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control
District (ENCON) was designated as the service agent for the
"northern" Sub -region. ENCON is a special district created by
the Florida Legislature (i.e. Special Act 71-822, Laws of
Florida) with the authority to provide sewage disposal, potable
water and storm drainage services throughout its jurisdictional
area.
The District is located on the Atlantic coast of Florida
approximately twelve miles north of West Palm Beach and contains
about seventy-two square miles.. Sixteen square miles of the
District constitute Jonathan Dickinson State Park and six square
miles are estimated to be water areas. The District is bounded
on the north by the north limits of Jonathan Dickinson Park, on
the south by Donald Ross Road and extends inland from the
Atlantic Ocean to a point about two miles west of the Florida
6.1-2
G
FIGURE 6.1-1
PALM BEACH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS •�
W
C
0
W -
0
O
•. i � 11 , I .
••i
1 1 1 • I
1••
Z
Ef to
HIM
YY •
3�aUs
w
�• u
Ilk i s
CCCH
M
Him
6.1-3
,JURISDICTIONAL AREA
Ho9E
�`
N
sounr
�p
1
t
i
70
SCALE
I"=1.25
M I .
1
THWEST
FORK
01R'ARTIN NTY
u,
7
\EA
6.1-2 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT JURISDICTIONAL AREA r
J
Turnpike. Most of the populated area of the District lies in
northeastern Palm Beach County. The Loxahatchee River bisects
the District as the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 6.1-2 shows the
current District boundaries.
To date the District has concentrated its efforts on the
development of a regional wastewater collection and disposal
system. These efforts have resulted in the construction of an 8
MGD secondary wastewater treatment and disposal system and a
wastewater collection system serving major portions of the more
densely populated areas. Land uses within the ENCON District are
predominately residential. Commercial land uses are
predominantly neighborhood and community scale retail and office
uses. Industrial uses are extremely limited. ENCON currently
operates eight sanitary sewer collection regions within its
designated service area as listed below:
Region No. Region Name
1 Central Region
2 Northeast Region
3 South Coastal Region
4 West Central Region
5 South Region
6 North Region
7 Northwest Region
8 West Region
The area was divided into regions to aid in planning and system
analysis. The criteria used in determining these divisions
include natural boundaries such as the Loxahatchee River and the
Intracoastal Waterway, corporative boundaries, man-made
boundaries such as roads and the C-18 Canal, density variations
and ease of fiscal and administrative implementation. Jonathan
Dickinson State Park was not included in any collection region.
The collection regions are mapped on Figure 6.1-3. Tequesta is
within collection Region 2 (northwest region) The northwest
region included the Village, Jupiter Inlet Colony, a portion of
the Town of Jupiter and portions of unincorporated Palm Beach and
Martin counties.
ENCON owns, operates and maintains the sanitary sewer collection
system serving the Village. Collection systems include all local
sewerage which collects wastewater from various locations
throughout the corporate limits at designated "points of
delivery" (i.e. either lift stations, trunk mains or interceptors
i.e. gravity and force mains) owned by ENCON. With the exception
of the area around Tequesta Country Club, the entire Village is
served by central wastewater facilities. Major transmission
facilities are owned, operated and maintained by ENCON.
1 6.1-5
7
NA
JONATHAN DICKINSON STATE PARK
RrmwEST
FORK
JtHO8
A
RTIN CQQNTY
a, TEQUEST
C;o 6 sourwEST
AA''�- FORK --,Cg
y;
OWN ROAD
PI -MR 1
5
JURISDICTIONAL AREA
� N
�I
� a
a.
1 Z
1
70 SCALE
I"=1.25 MI.
� 1
JUPITER
c
c �
z
>• ':<{? INLET
COLONY
X1.
JUP/TER
INLET
O a
� z
o
o 3 ,
s
x �
it
BE
SOURCE: LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT
FIGURE 6.1-3 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT COLLECTION REGIONS
1 6.1-6
Components
of the transmission system are mapped on Figure 6.1-
4. Since
February 1978, when the regional
facility became
operational, a number of areas in Tequesta have come on-line to
the sanitary sewer collection system including: Tequesta Pines,
Sandpointe
Bay, Jupiter Island, Shady Lane and
Bayview Terrace,
Chapel Court, and certain properties on Country
Club Drive north
of Tequesta
Drive.
The Bridge
Road south system which services
the area between
Bridge Road and the southern limits of Tequesta between U.S.
Highway #1 and Old Dixie Highway is also on-line. In July, 1984,
the lots fronting on the west side of Cypress Drive to the
southern limits of the Village were served by central sewer. The
Pantry Pride project (including Tequesta Cove and Country Line
Plaza) have recently been brought onto the central system. There
are also plans to sewer the areas between Old Dixie Highway and
U.S. Highway #1 from Tequesta Drive to the northern Village
limits and south on U.S. Highway #1 to the southern Village
limits.
® The area referred to as the Dorner Property will be provided
�1 sanitary sewer service as development warrants it. Components of
the local collection system are illustrated on Figure 6.1-5.
6.1.2.2 Desion Capacity and Current Operations
The ENCON treatment and disposal facility currently consists of
the following components: 1) Treatment Plant - an 8.0 million
gallons per day (MGD) (design capacity) pure oxygen activated
sludge secondary treatment process, with filtrations and
disinfections by chlorination; 2) Effluent Disposal - secondary
treated effluent is disposed of via discharge to a 24-inch
diameter injection well (Permit U 050 - 134159) via a 6.54 MGD
effluent pumping station. Automatic backwash filters (2) and a
chlorination contact tank provide further treatment for up to
6.0 MGD of high level disinfected effluent utilized in
conjunction with additional total suspended solids (TSS) control
beyond secondary treatment (reclaimed water) for slow rate
application at approved off -site public access irrigation sites
(golf courses). Reclaimed water is delivered to the golf courses
A listed on Table 6.1-1. Emergency discharge is available for
reclaimed water to a 6.5 acre off -site recharge lake (restricted
access) with an overflow to a canal tributary to the northwest
fork of the Loxahatchee River. Current capacity of the injection
well is limited to 6.54 MGD; however, an additional pump will be
installed during 1991 which will double the current capacity; and
3) Sludge Disposal - sludge is currently treated via dewatering
and lime stabilization with off -site land application of lime
stabilized sludge at site 714 in Martin County and other approved
off -site disposal locations. During 1988, 3.0 dry tons per day
were disposed. As a backup, during wet periods, sludge is
trucked to the County landfill.
1 6.1-7
RrNWEST
FORK � 8
TI
HOB
uI
I
�;p TEQUEST
9 SOUTM'EST
RECHARGE LAKE FORK
TREATMENT
PLANT/DEEP Ic
WELL
8 - LINE SIZE IN INCHES (DIAMETE
NTOWN
MASTER
LIFT STATION
MAIN LINE'
JURISDICTIONAL AREA
`\
N
�1
1
a
1
a
Z
1
c'
70
SCALE
1"--1.25
MI.
t
*1
1
to
•h C
7.
�:: "'*2
N:•.,
JUPITER
10 :••::
INLET
COLONY
✓UPITER
IN[ ET
�
1
` a
\� 2
c
v
1`
x
a
k
FIGURE 6.1-4 LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
6.1-8
I
u
FIGURE 6.1-5
L OCAL COLLECT = ON SYSTEM
(See Map Atlas)
1 6.1-9
G
FIA
Fi
1.1
TABLE 6.1-1
LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DISTRICT
IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER SUMMARY
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE SITES
GOLF COURSE NAME DEMAND IN M.G.D.
Loxahatchee Club
0.50
Jonathans Landing
0.48
Admirals Cove #1
0.50
Admirals Cove #2
0.50
Admirals Cove #3
0.40
Tequesta Country Club
0.50
Indian Creek
0.34
Turtle Creek
0.55
Riverbend
0.40
Jupiter Hills Club #1
0.44
Jupiter Hills Club #2
0.44
Maplewood #2
0.15
North Fork Country Club
0.50
Frenchmans North
0.50
Total Current Demand
3.77 MGD
Total Permitted Demand
3.77 MGD
Total Contracted Demand
5.05 MGD
DELIVERY DATE
On Line
On Line
On Line
On Line
On Line
On Line
On Line
On Line
12/89
10/90
10/91
01/92
Proposed 192
Proposed 193
SOURCE: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District; 7/88
wp/#26/t6-1-l.teq
6.1-10
I�
�I
1 6.1.2.3 Current Demand and Level of Service
The following three system -wide wastewater flow characteristics
are important for assessing the capability of wastewater
treatment, pumping, and transmission facilities to service
customers according to industry standards:
o Annual Average Day Flow (AADF) - total system wastewater
flow for the year divided by 365 days;
o Maximum Monthly Daily Flow (MMDF) - the largest monthly
wastewater flow in the year of interest divided by the
number of days in that month; and
o Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) - the largest wastewater flow
during a single 24-hour day in the year of interest.
Table 6.1-2 represents estimated 1989 flows for the ENCON service
area and Tequesta based upon an extrapolation of 1988 data
provided by ENCON staff.
TABLE 6.1-2
Estimated 1989 Wastewater Flows
(mgd)
Customer Group Total* Tequesta*/**
AADF -
Residential
3.25
0.26
Non -Residential
0.22
0.04
Total AADF
Total MMDF**
3.78
4.07
0.30
0.32
Total MDF
4.39
0.35
* Interpolated by JLH Associates
** March, 1989
Within
the ENCON service area, it
is estimated
(i.e. by ENCON)
that
the wastewater plant treated
an average of
85 gallons per
capital
per day
during March, 1989
(i.e. MMDF).
On this basis,
it is
concluded
that 47,647 people
are currently
being served.
Of this
total,
approximately 8% are
residents of
Tequesta (i.e.
3,790
in 1989).
The distribution of
use among entities
utilizing
ENCON
facilities
is presented on
Table 6.1-3.
MMDF for the
Village of Tequesta is currently estimated at 0.322 MGD. Based
upon the report entitled Report on Wastewater Collection Master
Plan (ENCON; 3/81) it is concluded that wastewater flow in
collection Region 2 is distributed as follows: (1) Domestic
(Residential) 86%; and Commercial/Industrial - 14%. On this
basis, the current Level -of -Service within Tequesta is calculated
on Table 6.1-4.
I.,
TABLE 6.1-3
ALLOCATION OF WASTEWATER FLOWS
BASED UPON POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
1989 1994
1999
JURISDICTION POPULATION* SHARE() POPULATION* SHARE(%)
POPULATION* SHARE($
Juno Beach 4,470
9 7,180 8
9,440
9
Tequesta** 3,790
8 4,070 5
4,150
4
27,750
58 36,930 42
43,970
40
,Jupiter
Palm Beach
County 9,070
19 36,320 41
47,240
43
Martin County 2,800
6 3,650 4
4,680
4
47,880
100 88,150 100
109,480
100
* Population determined by
ENCON using data from local Comprehensive
Plans
and deducting households
currently served by septic tanks
** All growth within the Village during the 1989-99 period
is projected
to be served by Central
Wastewater Systems.
Septic tank MMDF flow is currently estimated at
,NOTE:
67,983 gallons/day
(i.e. 930 residents x 73.1 GPCD)
SOURCE: Loxahatchee River
Environmental Control District;
8/89
�wp/26/t6-1-3.teq
A
A
A
A
6.1-12
Fil
U
U
TABLE 6.1-4
CALCULATION OF CURRENT WASTEWATER
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
Current Population Served -
Current MMDF/Capita -
Current MMDF (3,790x85) -
Domestic (86%) *** -
Commercial (14%) *** -
Level -Of -Service (MMDF)
Domestic (277,049/3,790) -
Commercial (45,101/****) -
Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) -
SOURCES:
3,790 Residents *
85 gallons/capita/day**
322,150 gallons/day
277,049 gallons/day
45,101
73.1 gallons/capital/day
431 gallons/acre/day
MMDF x 1.0786*****
* Table 6.1-3
** Loxahatchee River ENCON; 8/89
*** Report on Wastewater collection Master Plan; ENCON, 3/81
**** 104.65 commercial acres in Tequesta from Table 3-5
Future Land Use Element
***** Derived from Table 6.1-2
wp/26/t6-1-4.teq
6.1-13
Maximum Month Daily Flow (MMDF) is used by ENCON to plan for
plant expansion, while Maximum Daily Flow (MDF) is used to size
facilities to accommodate short-term peak loads such as pumps,
pipelines and chlorine contact basins.
6.1.3 Sanitary Sewer Systems Analysis
6.1.3.1 Facility Capacity Analysis
The design capacity of the ENCON plant is 8.0 MGD, which will be
used as the basis for this analysis. Future demands and analysis
of system capacity is based upon resident population projections
and wastewater use factors expressed on a resident per capita per
day basis. MMDF, based upon March, 1989 wastewater flow figures,
is 85 gallons per capita per day, while maximum daily flow (MDF)
is 91.7 gallons per capita per day (Source: derived from Table
6.1- 2). Inherent in the use of these figures for projection
purposes is the assumption that the mix of residential versus
commercial land uses will remain consistent with that evidenced
in 1989 throughout the ENCON service area. Land use projections
for Tequesta (Ref: Table 3-16; FUTURE LAND USE element) indicate
that this is a valid assumption within the Village limits. On
that basis, the following table presents MMDF and maximum daily
flow projections for the Village of Tequesta.
Year
Population
Maximum Month
Daily Flow (MGD)**
Maximum
Daily Flow (MGD)***
1989
3,790
0.322
0.347
1994
4,070
0.346
0.373
1999
4,150
0.353
0.381
*
Assumes all population growth during
1989-99 will be served
by central sewer
**
Resident Population
x 85 gallons per day
***
Maximum Month Daily
Flow x 1.0786. Derived From Table 6.1-2
SOURCE: LMA, Inc.
Utilizing a plant capacity figure of 8.0 MGD and the year 1994
MMDF projections, it is concluded that 4% to 5% of the ENCON
Plant capacity should be reserved for the Village at that time.
Using population projections presented on Table 6.1-3, it is
concluded that the ENCON plant will be at 93.6% of capacity as of
1994.
Utilizing generally accepted engineering practices, ENCON should
commence planning for expansion by 1992. Based upon the above
projections, it is concluded that the ENCON Plant has the current
® capacity (i.e. 8.0 MGD) to accommodate projected growth within
in,
��t
J
the service area for the five year projection period. Further,
ENCON has the financial legislative authority, as a special
district created by the State LEgislature, to implement necessary
plant expansion during the 1994-1999 period.
6.1.3.2 General Performance Evaluation
Plant capacity is adequate to accommodate current and projected
future needs through 1994 and it is concluded that ENCON has the
capabilities to implement projected expansion needs during the
1994-1999 period.
ENCON owns and operates a single wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP). This plant is located on Figure 6.1-4. The WWTP is the
subject of an Operating Permit application to be issued by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). FDER,
based upon operating data supplied by ENCON, has issued a
"Notification of Intent To Issue Permit". The permit is expected
to be issued in September, 1989. Since FDER has issued a Notice
Of Intent To Issue An Operating Permit, it is concluded that
there are no existing problems that need to be corrected by
ENCON.
During the period of 1984 and 1985 the treatment facility
received regional and state wide recognition for the treatment
facility operation. During this period the District provided
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) with effluent discharge to
the Loxahatchee River.
The treatment facility has been under a significant capital
construction program to provide future treatment capacity and
modify treatment from a surface water discharge program to a
reuse program. Since conversion to no surface water discharge in
1986, and during the construction period, the treatment facility
has consistently met the stringent reuse requirements as set fort
by Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
The quality of the treatment process, and facilities has recently
undergone Federal (Environmental Protection Agency) and State
(Department of Environmental Regulation) scrutiny, and
successfully met the necessary requirements and obtained five (5)
year permits for the operation of the facility.
Current effluent disposal is by deep -well injection and slow rate
application to area golf courses for irrigation purposes.
Operating characteristics outlined in the permit application
indicate that there are no existing deficiencies. ENCON is,
however, planning to increase the capacity of the deep -well
injection from 6.54 MGD to approximately 13.0 MGD by constructing
an additional pump during 1991.
6.1-15
n
The removed solids sludge from the ENCON Plant are currently
dewatered and then trucked to approved land -spreading sites.
For the past 6 years, ENCON has performed an independent
quarterly analysis of sludge. The results of this testing have
continually documented that Grade I sludge criteria, as defined
under Fla. Administrative Code, Chapter 17-7 (Rules of the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation), have been met or
exceeded. Quantities generated are summarized below:
Quantity -Period Quantity
1987 2.5 Dry tons per day
1988 3.0 Dry tons per day
1989 (projected) 3.4-3.8 Dry tons per day
The average annual increase in sludge generation is estimated to
be .5 dry tons per day, using current growth patterns.
Collection and Transmission System
An "office" review, by ENCON staff, of collection mains showed
that systems are adequate to handle the capacities of the
existing system. Further, facilities serving Collection Region 2
are sized to accommodate a build -out situation. ENCON staff also
indicates that all facilities are meeting current FDER permit
standards.
Periodic inflow/infiltration review does not reveal the existence
of any extraordinary inflows or infiltration.
All components of the wastewater transmission system therefore
appear to be in generally good condition and essentially adequate
to serve the current needs of the system.
As of March, 1989, the following inventory of major collection
and transmission facilities was compiled.
Item Quantity
Gravity Sewer Mains 775,926 L.Feet (147 Miles)
Manholes 3,610
Lift Stations 129
Force Mains 281,240 L.Feet ( 53 Miles)
I.Q. Water Mains 73,718 L.Feet ( 14 Miles)
Approximately 50% of the gravity sewer mains, which range in size
from 36" to 8", have been constructed since 1983. In 1983, the
District allowed use of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) in lieu of
Vitrified Clay (VC) for the construction of sewer pipe material.
W
Facilities have grown at an extremely rapid pace during the past
eight (8) years as reflected by the following compounded rates of
growth:
Item Compounded Growth Rate
Gravity Sewer 13$
Force Mains 9%
Lift Stations 9$
The greatest control over minimizing future renewal and
replacement expenses is by assuring that installation is
performed in accordance with ENCON standards and approval by
ENCON. Prior to ENCON acceptance of any lines or facilities to
be added to the system, a thorough inspection is performed by the
ENCON Engineering Department. Approximately one-year from ENCON
acceptance of any facilities, and prior to expiration of the
Developer's Maintenance Bond, the system is reinspected by ENCON
and any defects found are to be repaired by the developer.
In 1985, ENCON expanded its inspection and maintenance program to
provide for regular cleaning and assessment of all gravity mains
within the District. Currently, all lines are cleaned and
inspected on a 3 year schedule. As problem areas are found,
necessary removal and replacement is performed and all costs are
covered by a Renewal and Replacement Fund, which is currently
maintained in excess of $2 Million.
Wastewater Pumping Stations
ENCON undertakes an annual review of the condition of the
wastewater lift stations. Based upon this review, several lift
stations have been refurbished and/or replaced, including: L.S.
#57; L.S. #65; L.S. #68; and L.S. #75. No additional lift
stations have been identified for near -term replacement within
the Village. On this basis, it is concluded that there are no
current deficiencies within the system.
Lift stations are serviced at least 3 times weekly and
maintenance is performed as necessary. Older high maintenance
stations have been replaced over the past 5 years, with
approximately 3 stations per year being replaced or eliminated as
may be appropriate.
ENCON will continue to perform regular maintenance on all
facilities as may be necessary and maintain adequate funds to
perform such work.
6.1.3.3 Septic Tank Suitability
Areas serviced by septic tanks within the Village limits are
illustrated on Figure 6.1-6.
6.1-17
At
�R1
3EOH
3Zbt!
C
U
U
The predominant soil type in the septic tank areas is St. Lucie
sand which has "slight" limitations for septic tank development
(Ref: Figure 3-2; FUTURE LAND USE element). Further, most sites
using septic tank systems have been improved in the form of
filling to mitigate adverse impacts. Additionally, Health
Department sampling stations located in the North and Northwest
Forks of the Loxahatchee River have indicated no related
violations of State Water Quality Standards (for further
discussions in the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element). However, should
further sampling programs indicate to the contrary, the Village
should investigate the need to connect residences using septic
tanks to the regional system.
6.1.3.4 Problems and Onoortunities For Expansion
The current permitted capacity of the ENCON treatment plant is
8.0 MGD; however current capacity of the facility is limited 6.54
MGD during wet weather periods when golf courses irrigation is
restricted due to the capacity of the deep -well injection system.
ENCON has programmed the construction of another pump during FY
1991 that will increase deep -well disposal capacity to
approximately 13.0 MGD. When this occurs, system capacity will
be increased to that of the treatment plant. Using the 85
gallons per capital per day (MMDF) Level -of -Service Standards
developed by ENCON, in conjunction with the population
projections prepared on Table 6.1-2, it is concluded that current
flow is 4.07 MGD (MMDF), with projections of 7.5 MGD (MMDF) in
1994 and 9.3 MGD (MMDF) in 1999. Current capacity is therefore
adequate to accommodate expected growth through 1994 and an
additional 1.3 MGD (MMDF) will be needed to accommodate growth
through 1999. ENCON will need to commence planning for
expansion during 1992 to assure that needed additional capacity
is available to meet projected needs during the 1994-1999 period.
The combination of the deep -injection well, land application of
Irrigation Quality (IQ) effluent to area golf courses and an
emergency back-up system consisting of a 6.5 acre off -site
recharge lake provides an excellent effluent disposal system.
Operating records indicate that each system component is
functioning property and meeting State Water Quality Standards.
Excess capacity, upon completion of the additional injection well
will provide disposal capacity beyond 1999.
Currently, sludge is dewatered on -site and trucked to approved
land -application sites. However, ENCON is engaged in a pilot
program to further treat and dry sludge for conversion to a soil
conditioner. Should the program prove successful, sludge in the
future will no longer be land -spread in semi -liquid form; rather,
commercial application of the conditioned soil will be sought.
Further, this will eliminate the need to rely upon the County
landfill for back-up disposal needs.
6.1-19
According to ENCON, the major transmission system serving
Collection Region 2 (Ref: Figure 6.1-3) is sized to accommodate
growth beyond buildout (i.e. based upon current zoning
categories) situation, including the potential phase -out of
septic tank areas.
Local collection systems, including lift stations are assessed
annually by ENCON and repaired or replaced as necessary. The
Developer's Agreement process assures that additional local
collection systems, as well as plant capacity is available at the
time of growth impacts.
Since ENCON is a State -created agency and has a current reserve
of approximately $10,000,000, it is concluded that legal
authority and financial capacity is in place to meet service area
needs during the 1989-1999 period.
Based upon an assessment of soil characteristics and water
quality data collected by Palm Beach County, it is concluded that
septic tanks are a viable alternative to central service within
the area illustrated on Figure 6.1-6. However, if State Water
Quality Standards are compromised in the future, the Village
should be prepared to investigate central service in these areas.
1
6.1-20
Li
U
1 6.2 SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT
6.2.1 Introduction
The SOLID WASTE sub -element is required to be included within the
Comprehensive Development Plan per requirements of State planning
law and rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6)(c),
Florida Statutes, establishes the SOLID WASTE sub -element
requirement and Chapter 9J5.011 Florida Administrative Code,
establishes minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This sub -element contains the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future SOLID
WASTE Goal, Objectives and Policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the SOLID WASTE sub -element is
structured according to the following format:
o Solid Waste Data; and
o Solid Waste Analysis.
Definitions/Terminology
In order to adequately analyze and plan for solid waste management
terms and concepts must be established. The following definitions
and concepts are used in this section:
The materials dealt with in this element fall under the definition
of "solid waste" adopted in Section 9J5.003 (88), FAC, which
reads:
"Solid waste" means sludge from a waste treatment works,
water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control
facility or garbage, rubbish, refuse, or other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained
gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial,
commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations.
In addition, this element will also address "hazardous wastes" as
defined in Section 9J-5.003(34), FAC, which reads:
"Hazardous waste" means solid waste, or a combination of
solid wastes, which, because of its quantity, concentration,
or infectious characteristics, may cause, or significantly
contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or
may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when improperly transported,
disposed of, stored, treated, or otherwise managed.
For the purpose of this element, the terms "solid waste" excludes
hazardous waste and has been used to include the following
1 6.2-1
n
classifications which indicate general characteristics of the
materials and their sources of generation.
Residential wastes are mixed household wastes, including yard
wastes, generated by the general population.
Commercial Wastes are generated by the commercial and
institutional sectors. Physical characteristics of these
wastes are similar to those of residential wastes, in that
they consist largely of combustible materials in the form of
paper and food waste from offices, restaurants, retail
establishments, schools, hospitals, motels, and churches.
Industrial wastes include wastes generated by industrial
processes and manufacturing operations, excluding hazardous
wastes. These wastes also include general industrial
housekeeping and support activity wastes.
Special wastes include wastes having special characteristics
or requiring special handling. These wastes include oversized
bulky wastes and materials generated in demolition and
construction projects.
Solid Waste Facilities
The primary focus of this element is to identify the facilities
which the County will need in order to manage and dispose of the
solid waste and hazardous waste generated in the county during the
planning period. For solid wastes these include transfer stations,
processing plants and landfills. For hazardous waste only transfer
stations will be addressed since disposal of such wastes within
solid waste landfills is not permitted in Florida (Section 403.722,
F.S.).
The term "transfer station" refers to a facility for the temporary
collection of solid waste prior to transport to a processing plant
or to a final disposal site. For the purposes of this element only
permanent facilities which would require attendance by trained
operators will be addressed.
The term "processing plant" refers to a facility designed for
incineration, resource recovery or recycling of solid waste prior
to its final disposal. This element will address only such
facilities as would serve the needs of the county as a whole. The
purpose of these facilities may include any or all objectives of
reduction of the volume of wastes disposed, energy recovery from
wastes or recovery of reusable materials.
The term "landfill" refers to the final disposal site of solid
wastes, and as it implies, involves burial of the wastes.
Landfills are classified for regulatory purposes according to the
characteristics of the wastes they are permitted to receive. This
element will address only the type identified as a Class I
landfill, which can receive the solid wastes typically generated
1 6.2-2
J
in the county and is the only type currently operating in the
county.
IRegulatory Framework
Federal
The potential environmental impacts of solid waste facilities have
led to the development of an extensive network of permitting
requirements at the federal and state levels. Impacts on air and
water quality rare reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER), and where dredging and filling might occur, by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). The regional water management district
also provides state level review for water quality and quantity
impacts. Actual construction and operation of solid waste
facilities requires further permits and review by DER. _ For
processing plants which will generate electrical power or require
tall emission stacks, further DER and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) review may be required. These federal and
state regulatory responsibilities are summarized in Table 1B
following.
pq For hazardous waste, the national Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 directed EPA to develop a national
program to regulate and manage hazardous waste and provide
incentives for states to adopt consistent programs. The national
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Compensation Liability Act
(CERCLA) passed in 1890 provided EPA with authority and funds to
respond to incidents requiring site clean-up and emergency
mitigation (the EPA "Superfund" Program). This act also defined
the liability of business engaged in hazardous waste generation,
transport and disposal, and provided enforcement processes.
State
At the state level, the Florida Resource Recovery and Management
Act (Sec. 403.7, F.S.), passed in 1980, adopted federal guidelines
and directed DER to develop and implement a hazardous waste
management program. This act provided for: (1) adoption of federal
hazardous waste definition, (2) a system to monitor hazardous waste
from generation to disposal; (3) an annual inventory of large
hazardous waste generators; (4) permit requirements regulating
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; (5) funds for
hazardous waste spill and site clean-up; (6) hazardous waste
' management facility site selection procedures; and, (7) fines and
penalties for violators.
Local
Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (PBCSWA) is responsible
for planning and management of solid waste facilities serving the
Village of Tequesta. This includes processing permit applications
1 6.2-3
n
Hi
�I
C
for new facilities and ensuring that existing facilities are
operated in conformance with permit requirements and in compliance
with water quality objectives.
6.2.2 Solid Waste Data Summary
Solid waste collection and disposal is one (1) of the many problems
that local governments must cope with today. Since it is the
responsibility of local government to provide for the public
health, safety and welfare of its residents, it is essential that
municipalities within Palm Beach County deal effectively with this
pressing problem. Urban development in the County is situated
primarily along the coastal areas. Proximity of municipalities
with large concentrations of population necessitate an organized,
well managed system of solid waste collection and disposal to
maintain a high quality standard of life within Palm Beach County
and to prevent health hazards.
6.2.2.1 Solid Waste Collection
The Village has granted the right, privilege, or franchise to
collect garbage trash and other solid waste within the Village of
Tequesta to a private contract hauler. Under the terms of this
contract, the contractor makes two (2) weekly collections to
single family residential dwelling units within the Village. The
Franchise Holder shall collect the garbage, yard and other trash
at the street line between the confines of the side lot line of
single family residents. Garbage accumulated by condominiums and
apartments shall be collected two (2) times each week as scheduled
by the Franchise Holder. The Franchise Holder shall collect the
garbage from the area where the garbage collection facilities are
usually located in condominiums and apartment complexes.
Collection of solid waste to commercial area is negotiated
privately by individual business and commercial establishments
with the private hauler.
6.2.2.2 Solid Waste Disposal
The private hauler transports solid waste approximately six (6)
miles to the Dyer Boulevard Landfill for disposal. According to
the hauler, trips are made once per day by packers servicing the
single family areas and hauled "as needed" by the packers servicing
the multi -family and commercial areas.
Based upon the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority's 1988
Annual Report, the Dyer Boulevard Landfill site received 883,722
tons of solid waste in 1988.
The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority is currently
constructing a resource recovery facility to be located on forty
acres of a 1,320 acre tract of land. The facility and the property
will be solely owned by the Authority and is located north of 45th
Street, south of the Beeline Highway, west of the Florida Turnpike,
1 6.2-4
and east of the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area. The proposed
facility will be immediately west of the existing Dyer Landfill.
Since the closing of the Lantana Landfill site, all waste disposal
from that facility has been transferred to the Dyer Landfill site.
Currently, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority is in the
process of developing a new Comprehensive Solid Waste and Resource
Recovery Plan to evaluate the impact of increased demand upon the
design capacity of the Dyer Landfill as it relates to the opening
of the new Resource Recovery Facility scheduled to commence
operation in late 1989. The Authority is also planning the
construction of a solid waste transfer station in the north end of
the County in the vicinity of Donald Ross Road, off the future
extension of Central Boulevard. The use of this transfer station
by the Village will reduce the travel time to the resource recovery
facility.
Based upon conversations with Authority staff, the current Dyer
Boulevard Landfill has an eighteen month design capacity as per the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Closure Plan which
was developed to coincide with the scheduled opening of the new
Resource Recovery Site. Flexibility of this date is understood,
since the Dyer Boulevard Landfill site cannot be closed until the
Palm Beach County Regional Resource Recovery Facility becomes
operational.
This new facility, to be known as the "North County Regional
Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Facility", is currently
under construction with January, 1989, as the most recent target
date estimated to start operation. This facility will have a
design capacity to handle the projected refuse disposal needs for
the County in conjunction with resource recovery for the next
twenty years. Further, this facility will have a level of service
capable of handling a daily disposal rate of three thousand tons
per day, a 1600 acre sister Resource Recovery Facility is planned
for the south County area. Between these two (2) facilities, the
entire County's solid waste disposal needs are expected to be
handled through build -out of the County.
6.2.2.3 Palm Beach County Hazardous Waste Assessment
F1 A report entitled "Solid Waste Authority, Palm Beach County
Hazardous Waste Assessment 1985" was issued in 1987.
The report summarizes the findings of an extensive survey of small
quantity hazardous waste generators within Palm Beach County,
Florida as required under the provisions of the Florida Water
Quality Assurance Act of 1983, as amended. The survey, conducted
by mail during the fall of 1984, was administered by the Solid
Waste Authority of Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council in accordance with guidelines established
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
6.2-5
I
The information which has been evidenced through the conduct of the
survey provided Palm Beach County and others involved in the
process of hazardous waste program planning and decision making
with a comprehensive description of the magnitude and nature of
small quantity hazardous waste management efforts within the
County. The findings presented in this report are the direct
result of responses to the survey, available data on large quantity
generators, and extrapolated data based upon employment figures and
industry -specific waste generation coefficients.
One of the survey's significant findings is that there was an
estimated 12,580 tons of hazardous or potentially hazardous wastes
generated in Palm Beach County during 1984 by small quantity
generators (SQG). This quantity was generated by approximately
1020 SQGs identified through the survey.
As previously referenced, the 12,580 tons estimated is comprised
of both hazardous and potentially hazardous waste (i.e.
non -hazardous wastes which, under certain circumstances and/or
conditions, could pose a hazard but which are not currently defined
as hazardous waste). The survey results do provide information on
the relative distribution of hazardous and potentially hazardous
waste. Of the total extrapolated, approximately 5,335 tons fall
into the category of potentially hazardous waste (42.5%).
Significant among the survey's other findings are the reported
storage and disposal methods utilized by Palm Beach County SQGs in
the management of their waste. The survey estimates that 70% of
the reported wastes are either reused or recycled, and a summary
of the storage and disposal methods are presented.
This report represents the completion of the first phase of an
ongoing program by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
to provide and maintain an accurate data base on hazardous waste
generation and management in Palm Beach County. Through its
continuation and periodic update, valuable information may be
provided to decision makers concerning the County's hazardous waste
management effort over the coming years. Program refinement and
accuracy are anticipated with the additional software currently
being added to the existing programs.
The Village complies with Florida's Right -to -Know law detailed in
Chapter 442, Florida Statutes. The Village has most recently
compiled listings of hazardous materials identified by the State.
These lists are compiled by Department and are provided as part of
this SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION for the SOLID WASTE sub -element.
6.2.3 Solid Waste Analysis
6.2.3.1 Solid Waste Generation
Generally, the generation of solid waste in all communities is
influenced by two primary factors: (1) the population of the
community, and (2) the amount and intensity of commercial and
6.2-6
U
U
la
I
J
L
FI,
I
industrial activities. These two factors, in combination,
significantly influence the amount of waste produced by the
Village.
The majority of solid waste in Tequesta is generated by residential
areas. The Village of Tequesta is a residential community,
supplemented by various commercial and other uses, with no
industrial development allowed. Obviously, then, the population
of the residential sector is the primary generator of wastes in the
Village. Commercial and other areas in Tequesta are not as
significant a factor to overall solid waste generation, as are the
residential areas.
Since the Village contracts with a private hauler for the
collection of all garbage, trash and other solid wastes within the
Village, with the exception of commercial accounts which contract
directly with the private hauler, a methodology had to be derived
to develop level of service (LOS) standards for various uses within
the Village.
To determine the residential generation rates it is first necessary
to breakdown the housing units into single family and multi -family
since they have significantly different generation rates primarily
due to trash generation between single-family and multi -family
uses. Therefore, based upon the information in the HOUSING element
Table 6.2-1 was developed to identify active single-family and
multi -family units for both permanent resident and seasonally
occupied units that receive solid waste collection service.
TABLE 6.2-1
DWELLING UNIT BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENTIAL USE, 1989
TOTAL OCCUPIED SEASONAL VACANT**
TYPE UNIT UNIT % UNITS $ UNITS $
Single -
Family 1429 1315 92 106 7.4 8 0.6
Multi -
Family* 963 780 81 107 11.1 76 7.9
Total 2392 2095 213 84
* Multi -family includes two or more units.
** Assumption is made that of the total vacant units (i.e. 84)
10% are Single-family and 90% multi -family
SOURCE: HOUSING element, Section 5.3.1 and FUTURE LAND USE
element (Tables 3-23A and B), 1989
Using Table 6.2-1 above, population by household type is derived
by applying a single-family household size of 2.66 persons per
household and a multi -family household size of 1.63 persons per
L
6.2-7
E
n
n
household (Ref: Table 3-23B; FUTURE LAND USE element) to the number
of occupied units plus seasonal units (i.e. assuming two seasonal
residents = one permanent resident) to obtain a total equivalent
population for both single family and multi -family residences as
shown in Table 6.2-2.
TABLE 6.2-2
ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION BY RESIDENTIAL USE, 1989
OCCUPIED HSEHLD. PERM SEAS. HSEHLD. SEAS* TOTAL
TYPE UNITS SIZE POP. UNITS SIZE POP.
Single -
Family 1315 2.66 3498 106 2.66 141 3639
Multi -
Family 780 1.68 1310 107 1.68 90 1400
Total 2095 4808 213 231 5039
* Converted to permanent resident; assumes 2 seasonal
residents = 1 permanent resident.
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta, 1989
The Village has a contract with a private hauler to pick up all the
residential waste including both single-family and multi -family
units within the Village based upon a generation rate of 2.21
tons/household/hear. Thus, the total residential solid waste
generated can be derived using, the total equivalent occupied
households from Table 6.2-1 of 2202 to obtain a total residential
generation rate of 26,665 lbs/day. Since, the private hauler
collects the multi -family units along with the commercial accounts
in the Village, a method was derived to obtain an estimated
single-family solid waste generation rate. Based on discussions
with the Solid Waste Authority staff, a reasonable range was
identified as between 12 to 20 lbs/hshd/day for single-family
residences. The variation in generation rates depend on many
variables of which the major ones include the size of household;
size of lot and household income. For purposes of this analysis,
the single-family generation rate used for the Village was 16
lbs/household/day resulting in an estimated 21,888 lbs/day of solid
waste (both garbage and trash) being generated by single-family
units within the Village.
The private hauler (Nichols Sanitation) was able to provide the
total commercial waste stream collected as being 867 cubic yards
per week but includes both non-residential waste as well as multi-
family wastes. However, by subtracting the estimated single-family
waste generated from the total residential waste stream, the multi-
family portion was found to be 4,777 lbs/day. Therefore, the non-
residential waste generated was found by using a factor of 200 lbs
0
6.2-8
J
per cubic yard which is used by the private hauler to obtain a non-
residential waste generation of 20,002 lbs/day (3650.4 tons/yr).
Table 6.2-3 provides a summary of the analysis described above.
TABLE 6.2-3
SOLID WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY - 1989
RATE
CATEGORY TONS/HSHD/YR HOUSEHOLDS TONS/YR LBS/DAY
Residential
2.21
2202
4866.4
26,665.3
Single-family
2.92*
1368
3994.6
21,888.0
Multi -family
--
834
871.8
4,777.3
Non -Residential**
--
--
3650.4
20,002
* Based on 16
lbs/s.f. hshd/day
-
** Subtracting
out multi -family
from
private haulers total
commercial waste
collected (867
yd /wk).
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta, 1989.
Based upon Tables 6.2-2 and 6.2-3, levels of service can be derived
as shown in Table 6.2-4. The non-residential level of service is
derived by taking all the land uses in the non-residential category
(Ref: Table 3-5; FUTURE LAND USE element: Commercial Public
Buildings, Educational and Other Public Facilities) amounting to
200 acres and dividing that into the non-residential waste
generated (3650.4 tons/yr).
TABLE 6.2-4
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
NON-RES. WASTE GENERATION
TYPE USE POPULATION
ACRES TONS/YR
LBS/DAY
LOS
Single-family 3639
-- 3994.6
21,888.0
6.01 lbs/cap/day
Multi -family 1400
-- 871.8
4,777.3
3.41 lbs/cap/day
Non -Residential --
200 3650.4
20,002
100 lbs/acre/day
Restaurants
60 lbs/acre/day
Other
40 lbs/acre/day
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta, 1989
The non-residential level of service is rather high due to the
number of restaurants within the Village that require a collection
frequency of four to seven times per week. According to the
private haulers estimates approximately sixty percent (60%) of the
non-residential solid waste generation in Tequesta is generated by
restaurants. Therefore, the non-residential level of service other
Ll
6.2-9
0
than restaurants is estimated at 40.0 lbs/acre/day (7.3
tons/acre/yr) .
6.2.3.2 Solid Waste Generation Projections
In projecting the future solid waste generation in Tequesta, a
process similar to that discussed in the previous section is used.
First, the permanent resident and seasonal units are projected.
Using information from the HOUSING element (Ref: Section 5.3.1
Housing Projections) applied to a similar distribution of occupied
and seasonal units as that shown for 1989 for each of the
projection periods, housing projections are shown in Table 6.2-5.
Then, by assuming that the household size for single-family and
multi -family, residential units remains constant through 1999,
equivalent population projections by unit type, including seasonal
influences, are developed as shown in Table 6.2-6. In projecting
non-residential wastes, it is assumed that all vacant non-
residential areas (Ref: Table 3-16; FUTURE LAND USE element) will
be developed according to the projection shown on Table 6.2-7.
When considering restaurants serviced by private haulers, it is
assumed that the level of service will remain constant with
container sizes and frequency of pick-up remaining the same. The
additional non-residential generation is accounted for in the
development of the vacant parcels assuming no additional
restaurants. By applying the Level of Service standards, as
summarized above, the Village solid waste generation by the type
of land use (i.e. single family, multi family, non-residential and
restaurant) is projected as shown in Table 6.2-8.
6.2.3.3 Solid Waste Disposal Projections
When the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority's North County
Regional Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Disposal facility open
in late 1989, it will have the capacity of handling 3000 tons per
day. Based upon the regional facilities capability, the Village
of Tequesta will contribute only a minor share of the total solid
waste disposed of at the Regional Site as shown in Table 6.2-9.
TABLE 6.2-9
SOLID WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE
REGIONAL TEQUESTA
TEQUESTA CAPABILITY CONTRIBUTIONS
YEAR SW (tons/yr) (tons/vr) M
1989
8517
0.78
1994
9285
1,095,000
0.87
1996
9558
1,095,000
0.87
1999
9820
1,095,000
0.90
6.2-10
n
U
n
U
0
D
n
A
G
TABLE 6.2-5
PERMANENT RESIDENT/SEASONAL UNIT PROJECTIONS
TYPE 1989 1994* 1996 1999
Sinale Famil
Occupied
1315
1417
1449
1449
Seasonal
106
114
117
117
Multi -Family
Occupied
780
786
786
786
Seasonal
107
108
108
108
SOURCE: Village
of Tequesta;
1989.
TABLE 6.2-6
EQUIVALENT POPULATION PROJECTION BY
RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE
OCCUP.
HSHLD
PERM.
SEAS.
HSHLD
EQUIV.*
YEAR
TYPE
UNITS
SIZE
POP
UNITS
SIZE
PERM. POP
TOTAL
1989
SF
1315
2.66
3498
106
2.66
141
3639
MF
780
1.68
1310
107
1.68
90
1400
1994
SF
1417
2.66
3769
114
2.66
152
3921
MF
786
1.68
1320
108
1.68
91
1411
1996
SF
1449
2.66
3854
117
2.66
156
4010
MF
786
1.68
1320
108
1.68
91
1411
1999
SF
1449
2.66
3854
117
2.66
156
4010
MF
786
1.68
1320
108
1.68
91
1411
*Equivalent Perm. Residents: 2 seasonal residents = 1 permanent.
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta; 1989.
6.2-11
0
TABLE 6.2-7
NON-RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE PROJECTIONS
Non -Residential Use 1989 1994 1996 1999
Commericial
104.65
123.80
131.46
142.95
Public Bldg & Grdns*
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
Other Public Facil.
16.37
16.37
16.37
16.37
160.37
180.17
187.83
199.32
*30 acres excluded from Table 3-16 for Municipal wellfield Areas.
TABLE 6.2-8
VILLAGE SOLID WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
1989
1994
1996
1999
TYPE USE
LOS
TONS/YR
TONS/YR
TONS/YR
TONS
SF -Res.
6.01
3995
4297
4395
4395
lbs/cap/day
MF-Res.
3.41
872
878
878
878
lbs/cap/day
Non -Res.
50
1460
1920
2095
2357
lbs/ac/day
Restaurant/
75
2190
2190
2190
2190
Contract
lbs/ac/day
Haulers
Totals
8517
9285
9558
9820
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta, 1989.
6.2-12
1 6.3 DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT
6.3.1 Introduction
The DRAINAGE sub -element is required to be included within the
Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and rule
criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177 (6) (c) , Florida Statutes,
establishes the DRAINAGE sub -element requirement and Chapter
9J5.011, Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum criteria
to guide its preparation.
This sub -element contains the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future DRAINAGE
goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the DRAINAGE sub -element is structured
according to the following format:
o Drainage Data;
o Drainage Analysis;
Initial data are presented on a county -wide drainage basin basis
with further sub -system levels utilized for purposes of defining
Village specific service levels and needs.
6.3.2 Drainage Data Summary
The following is provided as a brief overview of the laws and
requirements of government that currently have jurisdiction over
the regulation of drainage.
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL92-500,
1972) is the directing Federal law with respect to water pollution
abatement. In implementing the Act, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) identified pollutants carried in stormwater runoff as
a major source of water contamination. To achieve the pollution
abatement goals of the Act, EPA provided assistance to State and
local governments to develop Areawide Water Quality Management
Plans, or 11208 Plans" as they are commonly known. The 208 Plans
addressed a broad range of potential water pollution sources,
including stormwater, and focused on identifying pollutant sources
and abatement needs, as well as development of regulatory programs
to ensure implementation. At present, there are no Federal
regulations for stormwater management concerning quantities of
stormwater runoff.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) has
adopted a Stormwater Rule (Ch. 17-25, F.A.C.) to fulfill part of
the State's responsibilities under Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The Rule's basic objective is to
achieve eighty to ninety-five percent removal of stormwater
pollutants before discharge to receiving waters. This rule
6.3-1
J
I
L
C
r.
L
requires treatment of the first inch of runoff for sites less than
one -hundred acres in size and the first one-half inch of runoff
for sites one -hundred acres or greater in size.
Implementation of the Stormwater Rule is achieved through a
permitting process. DER has delegated permitting responsibility
to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which is
the regional water management district with jurisdiction over Palm
Beach County. Exemptions to the permit requirements are provided
for: 1) facilities serving individual sites for single-family,
duplex, triplex or quadruplex units; 2) facilities serving
residential sites which are less than ten acres in total land area,
have less than two acres of impervious area, and which comply with
local stormwater management regulations or discharge to a permitted
regional drainage facility; and, 3) facilities for agricultural or
silvacultural lands which have approved management plans.
The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (CSFFCD)
was created, by Special Act of the Florida Legislature in 1949
(Chapter 25270; Laws of Florida, 1949), to operate and maintain
the.Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. (Note:
The Project was designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.) Originally, District Programs were designed to
prevent damage to life and property from storm floods.
More recently, however, District priorities have become more
oriented to alleviating the problems associated with water as a
resource for consumptive use. The Water Resources Act of 1972
(Chapter 373, Florida Statutes) changed the name of the District
to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and greatly
expanded its scope of responsibilities to include water management
and resource preservation and conservation. Essentially, the SFWMD
is charged with the responsibility to manage all waters, both
surface waters and ground waters, within its jurisdictional area.
The General Drainage Laws of Florida (Chapter 293, Florida
Statutes) allows the FDER, or the majority of the owners of any
contiguous body of wet or over -flooded land or lands subject to
overflow, to form a Drainage District. These Districts are
distinguished from the SFWMD in that they are formed by landowners
for the purpose of providing drainage or irrigation services for
their own lands. Normally, these Districts are dependent upon the
SFWMD project works to dispose of excess surface waters or provide
irrigation water. Therefore, it can be said that these small
Districts provide "secondary" drainage and irrigation services that
are dependent upon the "primary" system, operated by the SFWMD.
As such, each District is subject to the Surface Water Management
Permit System administered by the SFWMD.
The General Drainage Laws grant a rather
Drainage Districts in relation to the
irrigation, and water management services
are open-ended, in that provision is mad
e
LL
to be granted the authority to provide virtually any additional
municipal service by Special Act of the Florida Legislature.
Each District is required to prepare a Water Management Plan, which
is a full and complete plan for draining and reclaiming lands,
including specifications for the length, width and depth of any
canals, ditches, dikes, levees or other works proposed. No related
improvement can be undertaken that is not consistent with this
Plan.
At the present time, there are two drainage or water control
districts with jurisdictional boundaries extending into the Village
of Tequesta's corporate limits (i.e. northern Palm Beach County
Water Control District, ref: Figure 6.3-1, and the Loxahatchee
River Environmental Control District (Lox. ENCON). Neither of
these District's have any operational responsibility for any
drainage facilities within the Village. Even though Lox. ENCON has
the legislative authority for drainage within its district, they
have not opted to exercise the authority to date, nor have they any
intention of so doing in the immediate future. The Northern Palm
Beach County Water control District (NPBCWCD) boundaries extend
into the Village of Tequesta's corporate limits, however, the
Village would have to formally petition the Water Control District
to be included within their jurisdiction. Currently, the Village
has optioned to handle the drainage within there corporate limits
without the assistance of the NPBCWCD.
Through the Village Building Department, regulation of new
development is accomplished by local ordinances in cooperation with
other regulatory agencies.
6.3.2.1 Climatological Conditions
The climate of the area is generally influenced by the warm waters
of the Gulf Stream and the Atlantic Ocean. The range of
temperatures throughout the year is comparatively small, with the
average (mean) annual temperature being approximately 75 F. Annual
rainfall for the area averages approximately sixty inches. The
average wind speed is 9.4 miles per hour and the prevailing
direction is from the east-southeast.
6.3.2.2 Primary Drainage Features
Palm Beach County is only one of sixteen Counties being served by
a major project designed and constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to prevent damage of life and property from storm floods.
The SFWMD is the local agency charged with the responsibility to
operate and maintain the project canals, structures and associated
facilities. The surface water hydrology of the SFWMD is
characterized by an extensive, heavily -managed canal network, a
series of large capacity, low head pumping installations and
several surface water impoundment areas that comprise more than
one -thousand square miles. The major systems are the Kissimmee
Lakes and River; Lake Okeechobee; the Everglades region, including
6.3-3
o< y
W ~ a
116
J Q L F
W z
> f = O
C:
o
\
e
?
`%
A
R
ATLANTIC
`J D
1� •
Lr> 4r i q ` r W
L` u
i
vo
O
W {
d
J
OCEAN
d
of
A1NnO3 AYON3H
1
�
}
1-
E
i�
O
�
U
s
i
_
I;
m
a
Cat
�g
o
(m
V
i�
W
a
�+
Pr E O It
m
C N L LL E
I
L Y P
ff
l�
�L+t0<
O
O
a a
>
I
2
'lowE N
Q
Y Y;OY
L u w
�
n
�
J
w�.«�.0
I
O
mar
D:
e
M N t% L
"Oo
�!
V
Q V
a
d Y
a
I�,`
�i�
ELP c
c
W
c
0
i3
ccca�
«✓ y w N
fo
V o
O- L Y
„_ o WWW
O
O A- N Q
[NNE=
Fon
Q
W�y�
1 W
I•
W
�'•�'�
TVYLC
c
<~
bo.
L C E «� E
' 0
��•
IL
a• v c O
ci o V 7
rUAAL)
o_3f
6.3-4
0
the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), Water Conservation Areas
and Everglades National Park; the Lower East Coast Canal System
(Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties); the Upper East Coast Canal
System (Martin and St. Lucie Counties); and the Caloosahatchee
Canal Basin.
The Lower East Coast Canal network is the
system
that has the most
direct effect on the Village of Tequesta.
Four major
canals (i.e.
the West Palm Beach, Hillsboro, North New
River,
and Miami Canals)
serve as primary drainage outlets for excess water from the
Everglades Agricultural Area and the Water Conservation areas, and
as secondary outlets for excess water from Lake
Okeechobee. The
Coastal Canal networks of Palm Beach
County
provide primary
drainage for the intensely developed southeastern urban and
agricultural areas. Stages in these canals are maintained at set
levels that vary with the seasons. During the wet season, canal
stages are generally maintained at a low level to provide
additional water storage capacity for runoff. During the dry
season, canal stages are usually maintained at higher levels to
provide additional ground water recharge and to prevent salt water
intrusion.
The coastal canals allow transfer of water from the Everglades
Water Conservation Areas to coastal communities during times of
drought. This water recharges major wellfields that are located
near the canals and raises the ground water levels in coastal areas
to provide additional water to self -supplied water systems.
Generally, the coastal canals drain to the east toward the Atlantic
Ocean. Water stages in the eastern reaches of these canals are
controlled by a series of water control structures, most of which
are automatically operated (with manual overrides) to open and
close in response to the water level in the canals.
The C-18 Canal is the coastal canal which has the greatest impact
to the Village. The C-18 Basin has an area of approximately one
hundred square miles, as shown on Figure 6.3-2. The C-18 Canal is
the only Canal in the C-18 Basin. It has three functions: (1) to
provide flood protection and drainage for the C-18 Basin; (2) to
maintain a ground water table elevation near the lower reach of
the C-18 Canal adequate to prevent saltwater intrusion into local
ground water; and (3) to augment flows in the northwest fork of the
Loxahatchee River. Excess water in the Basin is discharged into
the tidal waters of the Southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River by
way of the S-46 Salinity Control Structure. In general, the only
water supply to the C-18 Basin is from local rainfall.
C-18 is an extension of the Southwest Fork of the Loxahatchee
River. It has two branches. The west branch begins at the
northwest corner of Section 1 of Range 40E-Township 41S. The west
branch is aligned approximately west to east. Flow in this branch
is to the east. The east branch begins at State Road 710 one-half
mile northwest of the intersection of State Road 710 with Northlake
Boulevard. The east branch is aligned approximately south to
north. Flow in this branch is to the north. The confluence of the
6.3-5
. o
z ; ao
W a
0
PM
I
d
Q
u
to
z
cx
U
y
u d
z
O y
Q
CL m
W
y
Q
Z
Q
cc
G
}
1-
Z
O
V
S
V
W
W
W
m
J
tJ
U
<
d
N
1
A
O
W
'03 HW38 N1dd Ic
c�
:e-
�u•:u
6.3-6
two branches is near the northwest corner of Section 29 or Range
42E-Township 41S. From the confluence of its two branches, C-18
® extends to the northeast. Flow in this part of C-18 is to the
northeast.
There are three SFWMD structures controlling flow in the C-18
Basin: S-46, G-92 and the C-18 weir. The S-46 structure is a gated
spillway located in the alignment of C-18, 350 north of Indiantown
Road. The structure controls water surface elevations in the C-18
Canal, and it regulates discharges to the Southwest Fork of the
Loxahatchee River. A headwater stage is maintained by the S-46
adequate to prevent intrusion of saltwater into local groundwater.
The G-92 structure is a gated culvert located in the north bank of
the C-18 Canal about two miles southwest of Florida's Turnpike.
This gated culvert is used to augment flow in the Northwest Fork
of the Loxahatchee River. Finally, the C-18 weir is a steel sheet -
pile weir located in the alignment of the western branch of the C-
18 canal, 200 feet east of State Road 710. this weir maintains a
headwater stage which prevents over drainage of the lands adjacent
to the upstream portion of the C-18 canal.
6.3.2.3 Local Drainage System
Generally, the Village of Tequesta relies on a combination of
surface water discharge and natural infiltration by the use of
swales and retention and/or detention areas for handling stormwater
runoff. There are three main water bodies to which the Village
discharges stormwater, the northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River,
the north fork of the Loxahatchee River and the Intracoastal
Waterway (ICWW).
The Village has no major drainage canals under the operational
responsibility of the SFWMD or the NPBWCD. There is a drainage
canal located along the south Village corporate limits running
east/west to the north fork of the Loxahatchee River which is
tidally influenced. Another drainage ditch is located on the north
side of Tequesta Drive which carries stormwater runoff from the
Bermuda Terrace - Tequesta Drive area, which is outside Tequesta's
corporate limits but within Palm Beach County, east to the north
fork of the Loxahatchee River. Additionally, various land
developers have provided secondary drainage systems within their
respective developments.
Basically, the Village drainage system can be divided into thirteen
drainage areas, as identified in Figure 6.3-3 and Table 6.3-1. The
Table identifies, by Drainage Area, the number of outfalls in each
of the Village's drainage areas, the date the system was
constructed, the size of the outfall pipe, the pipe size ranges for
each of the closed conduit piping systems connecting to an outfall,
and observations specific to each of the various drainage systems.
6.3-7
0
�J
FIGURE 6.3-3
EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM
(SEE MAP ATLAS)
I
I
a
z
U d
'O
co
r4 O
0u'
as
Of
U
EE
O
r-I
r-4
la
co
(L)
1(t�J
►i
a
� •N
0 cn
N
A
4)
O
s~
N
r.1
$4--$4 xs�
A 3 4)
4.) 4)
4)
4.) 4) td $I 4) O R
C $4 4) >i 4) > - $4 4)
0.04)
04)
4)
IA4)01 0> WO
OO>r-j+JONO>
•44-).0
WA
V.0
4)A w•r •�
•r-I w•H .w PO1w-H
�s+o
3v
tOrJ
30>1 ar.4.)
V a0(004 a
G 0 V
V
0) V
0 9
1~ A s�
4) I~ td
v td
0
4-) 4% 4) 4) 4) —4 4)
4) V 0 4) 11 H 01 4-) 4)
4) $4 b
O�Id
Oro
0tdId4)04I~4)
4)0.0(d4-) ->4Or0
$40Xp
0Xp
Coxo
r.X>VI~U4)P
k90r-0tOLWGU
O'OR-M32'd0to
Obt-7
Ot-1
Ot-1
O�-l-$4>4O04)O
V I~
4J
41
V 04t04.)4 k
4 -) Dr. P ON 4)4-).0
tdw
w
4-4w
ro
CO (VrO I~�r4 O
to O
N O
N O
N O --10 N k i-I N
t0 x -4 to 0 W x
Z CO
k IZ
k O
i4 0 $4 4) I~ Q O C tO
O W Qp 4)r0 'd 9:0
'd a
-ri rO x
4) -rj x
4) •rl x
() -� x 4) I~ • 4 a \-r4 V
-H a H 9 41 4) -4
CO O $4
> f0 $4
> O k
> 4f $4 > -14 10 'O t0 G
t0 I~ t0 (0 t0 .0 t0
o 00,wacwacw90449VO
0 (Vc 040 040M 10 tth0 0
IV N
O
O O
d'
M M
N
co �0
d'
d' d' V
CID 10
ri M
N
N N N
r-1 M
In O
Ln
le
C C C
LnO
ri m
r-I
N
r♦ H r-I
H M
O
M
d' N
O
N d'
M N
M
co %0
O
O
d' CO O
O
e--I M
m
M
N H M
M
H
r-I
LO
O
1
0
In
O
r-I
01
M
OD
�
I`
tb
tb
10
r�
CO
r-
t`
01
M
M
0%
0►
01
0%
Qt
r-I
H
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-•I
r-I
r-1
4 m U A 4 CQ 4
r4 N M 10 U)
U+
s~
r-4
Oto
O
W
U
N N > > 'U 1
to N 0)
ro -ri
.0
-4 a .r •ri .0 •r1 G U C
O 0 U
I. $4
4) 41
•r4 r-1 4) 4-) Od 4) V GY ro ro o U
4) p
to 0
N
td O ()
(CS�'U 10 0 4) t0 O 4) 4) 4) Z tQ C
4) 4-)th O arttO � •
4) IV
O
G Q 4)
I. 4) -H O 1~ 4) O I~ 4) tT UN-H 94 0
U+ 4) N 4.) UN 0 >r 9 ro
m 0 c0
•r1 4
(0 U+ 4J -H rC -A 4 b to to ..i
to ON >1 C to r-I N —4 to
c4 4).rq°
1000090
900U400Ua RiPN4-)
C(0EQ4) 1.4) 0°•-s.t
4-)
;'
P 4J 4J
G 0 $4 4J 4-) • P V V -4 4 9 P P
-r-I r-i 0 -A > O 4) P
-H0 t4
ed
b to
N •r♦ 41 ro N ro to td N to "1 4) 0
it r—I p 4) • (d () 4-) 0)
ro a)
G 4
-4 to O .0 f.' .0 $4 M P 0 G 04
$4 •r1 0 > r4 P r0 N (4 3
)-t 4J r-I
0 4) (o
.L." p rU 0 4) IV 0 4) b ro () ro Pi 3
rU rU > v O C% rU U > r-1 Oro
N 0
O
-P .0 X
E-t V 0 4J 4 V 4 X P O r.
4) 134 i-I N, 0 •r�i r•I C:
>,,•ri
N
pX
A
�--I
.UN r-lN r�0N-P0ROO+IgiU0Cl(o>1�L7vvN)�
O r-I
)-1 r'i 4) c r-I i. r-I )d 0 0 4) 0 .0
r-t 0 0 k •H a% p r-1 m
0 0 4)
•H N A4
4) M •P9•r1 td 9 -r1 to M 0 r-I > V x 4J
(L) > +) 4) r-i U 4-1 4) 0
> r-i r4
4 % I~ $4
> rO A t4 C." $4 to f: is 4.1 td -r4 N $4
> •r1 N 4-) P 4-) N 0 4-) P
•r1 M I✓-.
3-t td O
•r1 •r1 0 )•I (0 0 )-I to 0 tt3 3 )-t >+ >r O
4) )-t >r C 0 >+ R) O O C O
)-I 3 O
Ca U44P'r
ND U(4-4C U44Z NW (0 .0 r.rO04
N•riWG4Z :r(/j•rl�.1(ll
N U
� U
04.)
O
O r-I
,r01
V •r1ro
f7
t'1 N
U U
IV co
r-I i r"
N
N .- 4
r-1 0 ,N
M
.
O U
L O
LC)d• to
c i
r-1 to
H cl r-I
J /.1
� W
W O U
!;
}I N
'� •ri d' ch N
O m ch
41-- :.I ri r-I r-I
01 N co
4),i r O w
4)
ON
•r1 rt
ro a)
$4 s4 o
O 04 %o r
6.3-19
0
0
$d H
W
0
O 4J
•
C7+ 0
�
tv :j ON
a $4
--1 0+
c
O
to
9Vr.
•
IV
-)
•r4 U •�
14 U •H
•tiroto
O
rb
N
�U�rOi�
k
A
RS Gl
$4 >i-H IV
O
14 r-i i4 >
O ri > r•-1
0ro0(1)
a+)•ria
� 14�b
0 tOb 0
(00001~$40I=0
z u z
az•�o
U
U �
O U
U �
� N
O
�
W O U
V N
0 •rl
O tJ�
N
e--I
W
4J
O
b�
O
N
s~
0
N
d
to
�
• to
«1 O
oa
H �
�
z_ „
D
U
U
0
E
f:
6.3.3 Drainaae Analysis
6.3.3.1 Capacity Assessment
The Village's existing system has been built in a piece -meal
fashion over time with the majority of the existing system having
been constructed between 1961 and 1978, as indicated in Table
6.3-1. Therefore, the major portion of the Village's stormwater
drainage system was constructed prior to any discharge regulations.
According to the Village's engineering consultant, the existing
portions of the Village's drainage system was, more than likely,
designed according to Florida Department of Transportation system
requirements with a minimum three year storm recurrence interval.
Figure 6.3-4 indicates contour rainfall lines in inches for a three
year, one day duration storm event, which for the Tequesta area
equates to an approximate rainfall depth of 5.3 inches.
A review of SFWMD daily rainfall data collected at the Jupiter _Fire
Station (the nearest rainfall recording station to the Village),
as summarized in Table 6.3-2, indicates that from 1978 to 1987,
several storm events approximating the three year, one day storm
event occurred. During this period, the Village received isolated
complaints from local residents related to excessive flooding in
the Village. Based upon the Village Public Works Department's
knowledge, experience and inspections over the past decades, an
evaluation of the Village's drainage system was performed on a
drainage basin level which is summarized on Table 6.3-3.
This drainage evaluation was performed with the understanding that
only existing information be used with no additional original date
or studies required. On this basis, the Village verified that the
existing systems have been constructed in a piece -meal fashion and
that over the past twenty (20) years the Village has continued to
improve its drainage system. Since 1978, major residential
developments have been required by the implementation of the
Village's Sub -Division Ordinance or Planned Unit Development
requirements to provide comprehensive storm drainage facilities.
The purpose of this drainage
existing drainage system a;
determine if the capacity it
three year, one day duration
without having standing wa
minutes. The rainfall da,
occurrences of storm events
to the Public Works Depart
Village records was performe
during these periods to deter
area was at least satisfacti
storm event level of service
valuation was to examine the Village's
finitely as possible, in order to
the system was capable of handling a
storm (i.e. approximately 5.3 inches)
ter for any longer than forty-five
:a in Table 6.3-2 was reviewed for
)f 5.3 inches or greater. In addition
nent's local knowledge, a review of
d to identify any drainage complaints
mine if the drainage within each basin
iry to handle the three year, one day
. Durinq this evaluation the general
performance of each of the drainage areas was assessed along with
identifying where the current demand was being met and to locate
where potential future demand will be generated. The results of
the drainage capacity assessment is summarized in Table 6.3-3.
n
6.3-12
A ! L ANTIC
O C F A N
4.5
T. PIERCE
5.0
I1 KEECNOBE
F- - -- STUART
I 4.0 r I
)UP I T ER
5.5
_ 5
0 I LA BELL ELLE _AVE ALM BEACH
4.7 ET. MYES I 6.0
~- I 77 ' 6.5
r I
BOCA RAT"
NAPLES 6.5
I .e FORT
CA LAUDERDALE
41
1
ES CIT
4.9 ♦ I MIAMI
FIGURE 6.3-4 ��♦ L''. I 1 —
1
1 DAY RAINFALL: 3 YEAR RETURN PERIOD ♦♦ �' — —11 1 6.0
I HO
GULF F O M E X I C O ME. EAO�
` 1
I L �
I) I
I I
1 I
® ♦ 5.5
♦♦4.5 4.5 �
♦ �� 5.0
O IMILES 30
4.5�.�
4.5
40
KEY WEST
SOURCE: SFWMD, PERMIT INF. MANUAL, VOL. IV
6.3-13
TABLE 6.3-2
DAILY RAINFALL SUMMARY (1978-1987)
JUPITER FIRE STATION
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
RAINFALL (INCITES)*
1978
JAN
20
3.50
AUG
1
1.65
2
1.43
24
1.90
SEPT
25
1.00
OCT
11
3.30
14
1.21
24
1.10
NOV
1
1.85
11
1.95
12
5.75
DEC
11
7.00
12
3.00
28
1.13
29
2.21
1979
JAN
24
1.83
FEB
8
1.05
APR
25
2.11
26
1.39
MAY
15
1.37
25
1.18
JUN
15
1.60
SEPT
4
3.08
10
2.21
13
1.32
14
1.21
22
1.00
OCT
15
1.81
NOV
4
1.43
13
1.68
DEC
7
1.10
1980
JAN
27
2.15
MAR
2
1.90
APR
8
1.37
MAY
22
1.08
26
1.24
27
1.10
JUN
23
1.35
JUL
3
1.00
15
1.10
20
3.15
25
1.16
AUG
3
1.20
SEPT
2
1.85
3
1.15
OCT
10
3.43
18
2.35
NOV
17
1.10
1981
FEB
12
1.55
13
1.38
MAY
8
1.68
21
1.48
6.3-14
YEAR
1982
1983
TABLE 6.3-2 (Cont.)
DAILY RAINFALL SUMMARY (1978-1987)
JUPITER FIRE STATION
MONTH
DAY
RAINFALL (INCf1ES)*
JUN
8
1.20
21
1.31
AUG
16
1.09
17
1.93
19
3.17
21
1.40
22
1.28
SEPT
18
1.68
21
2.60
OCT
27
1.18
FEB
2
2.30
MAR
6
4.85
8
1.90
APR
11
3.40
24
2.45
30
2.25
MAY
1
1.00
4
2.78
21
1.95
23
1.10
24
3.58
27
1.10
JUN
4
1.58
17
1.60
18
1.65
19
2.00
24
1.00
AUG
16
1.15
SEPT
23
1.33
NOV
1
1.10
4
1.10
9
11.70
16
1.40
17
1.90
JAN
5
1.30
11
1.10
21
1.50
FEB
7
1.10
13
1.93
17
1.40
28
2.60
MAR
25
1.28
APR
16
1.75 .
MAY
5
1.05
31
1.57
JUN
9
2.00
10
1.72
13
1.49
17
1.60
AUG
9
2.60
25
3.37
SEPT
2
2.55
16
1.05
24
2.60
25
3.60
OCT
9
1.14
17
1.40
6.3-15
YEAR
1984
1985
1986
1987
TABLE 6.3-2 (Cont.)
DAILY RAINFALL SUMMARY (1978-1987)
JUPITER FIRE STATION
MONTH
DAY
RAINFALL (INCITES)*
18
2.72
19
1.10
23
2.20
NOV
3
1.45
21
1.00
DEC
12
1.45
31
1.64
MAR
13
2.37
24
1.50
25
1.75
APR
10
2.10
MAY
27
2.45
28
1.50
29
3.45
30
1.65
JUN
17
1.45
25
1.16
JUL
23
1.50
NOV
21
3.50
22
2.80
24
1.00
26
1.00
JUL
16
1.37
19
1.09
23
1.50
27
1.70
SEPT
6
4.60
18
7.70
JUL
23
3.65
28
1.85
AUG
11
1.30
18
1.06
19
4.75
21
1.16
SEPT
23
1.12
OCT
21
2.00
29
1.10
31
1.20
DEC
6
2.00
JAN
4
1.20
MAR
7
2.45
31
1.85
MAY
10
3.80
11
3.00
AUG
24
2.30
SEPT
23
1.95
24
2.33
26
2.41
OCT
1
1.10
10
1.20
12
3.50
NOV
1
1.20
4
3.70
6
1.00
20
1.65
6.3-16
u
r.
�i
H.
W
a
G U
co� '
�° � O � 4-4
dP 14 � f6Go N w � • � � N
N9WWa >
,�►�rA�O�OV'"��
co
a,
r4
t7
4.) 4141 AJy4J4J4J
" 22244
1 �► 22 �W� .�2 W� CA N W�
a0aAr�ar�ac�aii��
M 1
>, � >. ,
4 '� � >. 4
cL .. y...rA
y....... W
E �i TI ?� TI � >, TI �'1 >� i, � � TI it >, >9 4 Gi
M M f• Y M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
41 41 iJ i.1 LG M 4J
� ��i•� ���' �� �-rod' ro-� •�
lu
49
w
r ao
rrrrrrr rrrrrr nrrrr -v
r.-Irlrrrl.-1 1 rrrrr 1 rrrrr
►i 1 rl •-1 1 1 •••1 .-1 1!1 I I •-1 1 1 1 Ln 1 I I 1 1 44
Y1 an an LD 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n 0 0 0 1n 1
"
3 M MM •-1 MM MMM.-1 MMMMM n f0
�Ca1U0 I �R1 1 �C(AUC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .� C�
w
"-i N M d' 1f1 �D r co Q, 0-i .9-1-1 N .M-1
fff t
6.3-17
I
r-
I�.
As a result of this evaluation, the current design capacities for
most of the drainage basins were observed to be at least
satisfactory in handling the three year, one day duration storm
event with the exception of Drainage Area's 4 and 8. Both Drainage
Areas 4, along Seabrook Road and Drainage Area 8, at the
intersection of Willow Road and Cypress Drive with Tequesta Drive,
have experienced flooding with standing water for greater than
forty-five minutes and up to two hours for storm events less than
the three year, one day duration. The Village has budgeted for
these drainage improvements in their five (5) year Schedule of
Improvements included in the Capital Improvements Element (C.I.E)
of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. The Schedule of Improvements
are as follows:
1) Drainage Area 8 - Intersection of Tequesta Drive at
Willow Bend and Cypress Drive currently being improved
with completion scheduled for Fy 1990;
2) Drainage Area 8 - Cypress Drive improvements scheduled
for Fy 1990 and Fy 1991; and
3) Drainage Area 4 - Seabrook Road drainage improvements
scheduled for Fy 1991 and Fy 1992.
The current demand on Drainage Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 13 were
found to be adequate to support build -out with the existing
drainage facilities. Drainage Area 2 indicates a small new
proposed development of 16 single family units which the developer
will be required to meet both the Village's Sub -division drainage
requirements and the SFWMD surface water discharge requirements
which will insure a level of service equal to or above the
Village's minimum three year, one day duration storm. Drainage
® Area 4 and 8, as previously discussed, are either scheduled, or
1� currently under going improvements to bring those drainage areas
into compliance with the Village's overall level of service
standard. Drainage Areas 7 and 9 are the basins that are the least
developed and will represent the majority of the future demand for
drainage within the Village. The Village is very much aware of
this fact and they have scheduled a Charretteto analyze all the
various development ideas including all the associated
infrastructure, environmental and adjacent area impacts in order
to comprehensively plan for the majority of the remaining
undeveloped land within the Village. The remaining Drainage Areas,
11 and 12, are primarily open space with Coral Cove County Park
occupying the majority of the drainage area it and undeveloped
government owned property making up Drainage Area 12. Both these
drainage areas are assumed to remain in there existing use with no
anticipated future drainage demand over what exists currently.
The last remaining vacant land parcels of any significance are in
Drainage Areas 7, 9 10 and 12. These few areas within the Village
have either limited or no stormwater drainage facilities. These
Drainage Areas constitute the future demand for drainage within the
1 6.3-18
J
Village. According to the land use projections (Ref: Table 3-16,
Future Land Use element), the Village is nearly ninety percent
developed, with the remaining major development areas within the
previously mentioned drainage areas. Further, it is projected in
the Future Land Use element that the Village will be built -out by
1996. Therefore, the demand for drainage withn the five year
planning period 1999, is currently anticipated to come from
development occurring in Drainage Areas 7 and 9. As mentioned
earlier, a Charrette is scheduled in September, 1989 to look into
potential development alternations with drainage being a definite
area of concern to be addressed in all the alternative.
The Village should regulate future development or redevelopment in
the remaining undeveloped or redeveloped areas to ensure that post -
development stormwater runoff rates, volumes, and pollutant loads
do not exceed pre -development conditions and that any existing
natural on -site drainage features be preserved.
It is recommended that the
drainage plan (i.e. Master
It is recommended that the S1
existing design capacity for
final outlet or discharge 1
handle all discharges from a
to the upstream portion of
determine if adequate capaci
any future projected develo]
management techniques and s,
runoff conditions, so that
over loaded. This stormwate
characteristics, elevations
each zone within a drainage
of runoff generated based of
Village have a stormwater management
)rainage Plan) done for the Village.
.ormwater Management Plan evaluate the
each drainage area beginning with the
oint to ensure adequate capacity to
11 the existing or proposed additions
:ach basin. It is then necessary to
ty exists within the system to handle
►ments upstream, utilizing stormwater
stems which maintain pre -development
3ownstream drainage sections are not
r management plan should examine soil
and amount of impermeable areas for
basin to establish the total quantity
, a standard desian storm. Then each
existing structural system can be empirically analyzed to determine
its flow and discharge capability will adequately meet the adopted
level of service standard for each individual system. From this,
addition drainage improvements both structural and non-structural
can be identified with a greater degree of certainty. Based on
discussion with a couple of local engineering firms, a broad
guideline cost for the preparation of this stormwater management
plan could run in the range of seven thousand to ten thousand
dollars plus per drainage basin which amounts to between one
hundred thousand to one hundred thirty thousand dollars for a
Village -wide study.
Prior to contracting for this study, the Northern Palm Beach County
Water Control District (NPBCWCD) should be approached to determine
if there may be an advantage to petitioning the District for
inclusion as a separate taxing unit under the district. The
district is required under their enabling legislation to prepare
a Stormwater Management Plan for each unit within the district's
jurisdictional boundary's. As previously mentioned, the NPBCWCD's
boundaries do extend into a portion of the Village's corporate
limits. By joining this District, it could provide a reasonable
L_�
6.3-19
L
n
�I
way to finance the development of a Stormwater Management Plan for
the Village.
6.3.3.2 Expected Life of the Drainage System
The Village considers the existing drainage systems within its
corporate limits to have an indefinite life expectancy. The
system has been repaired on an as -needed basis and preventative
maintenance needs to be performed to maintain system effectiveness.
A routine drainage inspection schedule should be established in
order to adequately plan and budget future repairs or improvements
to the system.
6.3.3.3 Drainaae System Impact on Natural Resources
The Village drainage system impacts upon adjacent natural resources
are considered to be minimal. Since the Village is nearly ninety
percent developed with buildout projected in 1996, it is reasonable
to assume that. future development will have a minor impact upon
surrounding natural resources provided proper planning and current
regulations are implemented. The natural resources affected are
the northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River, the north fork of the
Loxahatchee River and the Intracoastal Waterway, which all have
good flashings action due to there proximity to the Jupiter Inlet.
6.3.3.4 Major Natural Drainage Features
The major natural drainage features in the Village are primarily
the water bodies that border and run through the Villager
. The Village contains no major drainage canals to
accommodate storm water runoff or major lakes for on -site
retentions. Much of the Village is drained by swales or through
percolation. the natural drainage pattern for the eastern portion
of the Village is from west to east, sloping from 25' along US 1
to 5' near the Intracoastal. The area of the Village located
between the two forks of the Loxahatchee River is relatively flat,
varying from 5 to 10 feet. All other drainage features are due to
the design and construction of the current system.
6.3.3.5 Existing Regulations
The regulation of new development is implemented through local
ordinances and cooperation with other regulatory agencies.
Village ordinances requiring permits prior
development are administered through th
Department and include the following:
1. Subdivision Ordinance;
2. Uniform Water Control;
3. Standard Building Code;
to construction and
e Village Building
6.3-20
E
0
4. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance;
5. Coastal Zone Construction Code; and
6. Mangrove Control Ordinance.
There is no specific stormwater management ordinance; however, the
Village Subdivision Regulation incorporates provisions for
stormwater drainage. The use of grassy swales, green space and
exfiltration systems is encouraged.
More specifically, for new developments to be constructed in the
Village, the following minimum design standards must be met:
1. Minimum street grade shall exceed calculated flood
levels resulting from a ten year storm tide, plus rainfall runoff;
2. The finished floor of all structures shall exceed the
one -hundred year tidal flooding and rainfall runoff level, but in
no case shall be less than 8.5 feet above mean sea level, or
eighteen inches above the crown of the adjacent street, whichever
is highest;
3. Storm drainage facilities, including swales, inlets and
conduits, shall be designed on runoff predicted from a three year
intensity rainfall curve in general use in the Village area;
4. Open channels and outfall ditches for the purpose of
conveying storm runoff are not allowed;
5. In order to minimize the degradation of water quality
in receiving water bodies, landscaped areas, grass areas or other
natural vegetated areas must be used to receive runoff from
buildings, pavement or other impervious areas to the degree that
pollutants from these areas may be absorbed by the vegetation or
percolated into the soil;
6. No runoff from buildings, pavement or other impervious
areas shall be discharged directly into any inlet or storm -sewer
without first being given the opportunity to pass through a natural
vegetated area;
7. All potential areas of soil erosion shall be protected
to minimize siltation transport by flowing water; and
S. The R-3 apartment dwelling district and all commercial
districts must provide on -site retention of all stormwater through
soakage pits and landscape areas and/or diversion -retention basins.
These regulations are implemented during the Village development
approval process.
The Palm Beach County 208 Plan recommended that several non-
structural stormwater related Best Management Practices (BMP's)
6.3-21
be implemented on a County -wide basis. These BMP's are designed
to be a cost effective approach to reduce the detrimental impacts
of pollution from stormwater runoff. The Village should consider
the adoption of these BMP's for inclusion into the site plan review
process.
In addition, the Village remains receptive to future regulations
that further protect the environment and the quality of life of
residents and their neighbors.
6.3-22
L
�f
in
6.4 POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT
6.4.1 Introduction
The POTABLE WATER sub -element is required to be included within
the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and
rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), Florida
Statutes, establishes the POTABLE WATER sub -element requirement
and Chapter 9J5.011, Florida Administrative Code, establishes
minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
The sub -element contains the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future POTABLE
WATER goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the POTABLE WATER sub -element is
structured according to the following format:
o Potable Water Data; and
o Potable Water Analysis
Initial potable water data are presented on a system -wide basis;
however, for the purposes of defining Village specific service
levels and needs, the sub -system level may be used.
6.4.2 Potable Water Data Summary
The Federal government has established quality standards for the
protection of water for public use, including operating standards
and quality controls for public water systems. These regulations
are provided in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Law 93-523.
This law directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish minimum drinking water standards. The EPA standards are
divided into "primary" (those required for public health) and
secondary" (recommended for aesthetic quality) categories.
In accordance with Federal requirements, the Florida Legislature
as adopted the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, Sections 403.850-
403.864, Florida Statutes. The Florida Department of nvironmental
Regulation (FDER) is the State agency responsible for implementing
this Act. In this regard, FDER has promulgated rules classifying
and regulating public water systems under Chapter 17-22, Florida
Administrative Code. The primary andsecondary standards of the
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act are mandatory in Florida.
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is responsible
for managing water supplies to meet existing and future demands.
Regulation of consumptive use is achieved through a permitting
system, by which water resources are allocated among the permitted
consumers. The SFWMD rules pertinent to Palm Beach County are
contained in Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The
6.4-1
W
Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division of the Palm Beach
County Health Department is responsible for the enforcement of
rules adopted and required by the FDER regulations. Water quality
and production records are submitted by each public water system
supply operator to the Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Division for determination of compliance with FDER regulations.
6.4.2.1 Operational Entity and Service Area
There has been no centralized, countywide potable water systems
planning effort in Palm Beach County. Regional wastewater
planning in Palm Beach County was promoted by grant programs under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; however, such programs
were not made available for water supply system planning. As a
result, without the impetus of funding assistance, similar
Countywide or regional planning for water supply systems has not
been performed. Rather, system planning has been accomplished by
individual operators (i.e. County or municipal governments and
privately -owned utilities).
Since 1968 the Village of Tequesta has served its residents with
facilities for the withdrawal, treatment and distribution of
potable water. Prior to 1968, the water system was owned and
operated by Jupiter Utility Company, Inc. The Village purchased
the water system to provide a quality service to the customers
within the Village and the franchise area. The present service
area encompasses approximately 2,500 acres bounded on the South by
the Jupiter Inlet, on the East by the Atlantic Ocean, the West by
the Loxahatchee River and on the North by Jonathan Dickenson State
Park. Tequesta Water System serves not only the Village but
provides water to Jupiter Inlet Colony, portions of unincorporated
Palm Beach County, a small section of the Town of Jupiter and part
of Southern unincorporated Martin County. In addition, the
Village of Tequesta sells water to Jupiter Martin Water
Associates, Inc. which provides service to Southern Jupiter
Island and to the Rolling Hills subdivision in Martin County. The
service area is illustrated on Figure 6.4.1.
The Village of Tequesta owns, operates and maintains only one (1)
system with one (1) inter -connection to the Town of Jupiter, with
whom a contractual agreement has been established to purchase 1.5
million gallons per day until the year 2006 to meet the potable
water supply needs within the Village service area.
6.4.2.2 Wellfield and Plant Design Capacity
The Village of Tequesta system components are located on Figure
6.4-2 with the ing Village distribution system shown on
Figure 6.4-3. Tiv welifields provide the raw potable water
supply source for uesta's treatment plant. Single wellfields
are located in South rn Martin County, Tequesta Drive, North
6.4-2
U
N. _
'NoRrswe,sr
FORK
RTIN
I P.B.C. .;
TEQUEST
\� sourwrsr
FORK ��
NOB
G`
M
a
a
CNTY
Pj�F C',S�E
UPI'
Port
►NTOWN ROAD
JUPITER
lama
1
1
70
� 11
c t�£
2
JUPITER
...::. INLET
>•;: a COLOR Y
wuP/ r£R
/NLrr
1 O
O
v ` 2
� r
a t
K �
m ^1
ail 10
FIGURE 6.4-1 VILLAGE OF TEOUESTA POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREA Scale I"=1.25 MI.
6.4-3
c
,EXHIBIT "B"
I. WATER CONSERVATION
The following objectives and policies are to be included in
the comprehensive plan:
POLICY 1.4.7
The Village shall enhance its Computer Billing System by
January 1, 1991 to assist in identifying water consumptive use by
user classifications.
POLICY 1.4.8
The Village shall collect data beginning January 1, 1991 to
differentiate between residential and nonresidential uses.
POLICY 1.4.9
The Village shall amend the potable water Level of Service
standard to differentiate between residential and nonresidential
use rates on or before January 1, 1992.
OBJECTIVE 1.6.0
By October 1994, achieve an average potable water consumptive
use of 175 gallons per capita per day (defined as the total amount
of water used by all consumers in the Village divided by the
Village's population) through the implementation of voluntary
programs for existing development and mandatory programs for new
development and redevelopment.
POLICY 1.6.1
By July, 1991, the Village shall design and implement the
following water conservation education programs:
a. Conduct a water conservation workshop involving water use
and irrigation specialists who will provide practical
information on how to conserve water on a daily basis and
how to efficiently operate irrigation systems. Such a
program may be co -produced with the South Florida Water
Management District and/or other coastal communities with
high per capita water consumption rates.
b. Provide irrigation experts at a reduced fee for
individual consultations.
C. Provide through the mail quarterly updates of water
conservation goals, the success of on -going programs, and
new water -saving techniques and strategies. Such updates
should be coordinated with changes in season and
recommend appropriate irrigation adjustments.
d. The Village Utilities Department will have a
knowledgeable employee who will be available for
consultations on water conservation strategies that may
be used in site development plans and in residential and
non-residential buildings.
POLICY 1.6.2
By July, 1991, the Village shall meet individually with all
non-residential water users and the top 5% of residential water
users to identify and agree upon the implementation of specific
water reduction programs and goals which may include:
a. The identification and use of alternative (non -potable)
water sources, where available.
b,. Specific operational changes which will reduce the amount
of water consumed in activities such as dish washing,
building maintenance, and vehicle washing.
C. Limiting the number of days, time of day and/or length of
time in which irrigation systems are operated.
d. Retrofitting existing systems such as shower heads, sink
faucets, toilets, and wash basins with new water -saving
devices.
e. Retrofitting existing irrigation systems with water -
saving devices such as drip lines, timers, and
tensiometers.
In all cases, expenditures made by the water consumer shall be
reasonable in terms of the benefits received as measured by the
actual amount of water saved, the dollar amount saved and the
public recognition received. However, a cost benefit ratio of 1.0
shall not constitute the sole definition of reasonable. All
consumers that are a part of this program shall receive quarterly
updates on their progress toward the agreed upon goal.
POLICY 1.6.3
The Village shall implement a water system leak detection
program by 1992. Information from this program shall be used to
prioritize projects to repair or replace system components where
the most leakage is occurring.
POLICY 1.6.4
By July 1, 1991, adopt and implement the following regulations
which shall apply to new development and redevelopment:
a. The use of xeriscape and native vegetation on a portion
of development sites.
b. The use of soil tensiometers or similar control
mechanisms in all irrigation systems.
C. The use of in -home water saving plumbing devises such as
low volume shower heads and toilets.
POLICY 1.6.5
If the consumptive use has not been reduced to an
average o Ilons per capita per day (defined as the total
amount of water used by all consumers in the Village divided by the
Village's population) by October 1994, the Village shall adopt and
implement mandatory reduction programs within six months which will
result in achieving the average potable water consumptive use of
11 150 gallons per capita per day (as defined above) by October, 1999.
Mandatory programs to be considered by the Village include:
a. An ordinance restricting the number of days, time of day
and length of operation of all irrigation systems.
b. An ordinance which establishes a maximum water allocation
for each use such that those who consume more than the
allocated amount shall be subject to fines.
C. Adoption of an "inverted" rate structure such that the
price of water increases proportionately with amount
consumed.
d. Adoption of water use restrictions on a permanent basis.
POLICY 1.6.6
As part of the required five-year Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) to be conducted in 1994, the Village shall
specifically evaluate all on -going water conservation programs.
POLICY 1.6.7
The EAR shall identify all on -going water conservation
programs and evaluate them for their effectiveness in achieving the
conservation goals and objectives established by this plan.
POLICY 1.6.8
The EAR shall include a review of additional water
conservation techniques that are potentially applicable to the
Village and recommend adoption of those deemed appropriate.
POLICY 1.6.9
The EAR shall include an analysis of water consumption rates
found in other communities in Florida and compare them with those
found in Tequesta. Significant differences shall be analyzed to
determine if additional conservation measures should be implemented
in Tequesta.
POLICY 1.6.10
The EAR shall recommend a new water reduction schedule for the
following five year and ten year period.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN
A. Wetlands, Mangrove and Seagrass Protection.
The following objectives and policies are to be included in the
comprehensive plan:
OBJECTIVE
Tequesta will protect and conserve mangroves, wetlands and
seagrasses to ensure that there will be no net loss of the existing
natural resources within the Village.
POLICY 1
Mangrove, wetlands and seagrasses areas within the Village
shall be deemed environmentally sensitive, in recognition of their
many natural functions and values, and, to further the public
interest, shall be protected from incompatible land uses. The
Village shall afford protection to all these resources regardless
of size.
POLICY 2
The definition of mangroves and wetlands to be used for
regulatory purposes by the Village shall be the most comprehensive
definition of the definitions of wetlands used by the South Florida
Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Representatives
of these agencies will be contacted for assistance in identifying
the location of all wetland areas within the Village.
POLICY 3
The location of mangrove and wetland areas shall be identified
by survey at the time of site development review on a site -by -site
basis. The Village shall not issue a development order or permit
for a parcel until all wetland areas on that parcel or immediately
adjacent to the proposed development have been identified and ,
located.
POLICY 4
No development, including residential development, shall be
permitted within mangrove or other wetland areas unless project
alternatives that would avoid mangrove and wetland impacts are
unavailable and mitigation is provided by the applicant to offset
adverse impacts. For purposes of this policy, sufficient
mitigation is as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-
312.300 through 17-312.390. It is intended that all standards in
these citations are to apply to all new development and
redevelopment and that any exemptions or exceptions in these
citations, including project size thresholds, are not applicable.
POLICY 5
The Village shall permit within mangrove, seagrass and wetland
areas: elevated piers, docks, and walkways of no more than five
feet in width, unless vehicular access in the form of a golf cart
or similar vehicle is necessary, in conjunction with a permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, pursuant to
Chapter 17-27, F.A.C.
POLICY 6
Within mangrove, seagrass and wetland areas, all piers, docks
and walkways shall be constructed on pilings.
POLICY 7
No pier, dock or walkway shall be located on submerged land
which is vegetated with seagrasses except as is necessary to reach
waters at a depth of one foot below the lowest point in a boat
including the motor for docking facilities. The docking terminus
shall not be located over a seagrass bed.
POLICY 8
Bulkheads and seawalls shall be permitted only to stabilize
disturbed shorelines or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads
and seawalls. Rip rap shall be placed at the toe of all replaced
bulkheads and seawalls.
POLICY 9
No dredging or filling shall be permitted within mangrove and
wetland areas or on seagrass beds in the Village unless project
alternatives that would avoid mangrove, wetland and seagrass
impacts are unavailable and sufficient mitigation is provided by
the applicant to offset adverse impacts. For purposes of this
Policy, sufficient mitigation is as required by Florida
Administrative Code Rules 17-312.300 through 17-312.390. It is
intended that all standards in these citations are to apply to all
new development and redevelopment and that any exemptions or
exceptions in these citations, including project size thresholds,
are not applicable.
POLICY 10
Drainfields for septic tanks shall not be permitted in
mangrove and wetlands areas.
POLICY 11
Graywater discharge shall not be permitted in mangrove and
wetlands areas except as may be required by ENCON and as permitted
pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code ch. 17-610 and 17-611.
POLICY 12
A buffer zone of native upland edge vegetation around mangrove
and wetland areas and along the shoreline is required in order to
protect the wetland and shoreline areas from the impacts, including
stormwater runoff, of adjacent development. The buffer zone shall
consist of preserved native vegetation, including canopy,
understory and ground cover. If there is no native vegetation on
the site, a planted vegetative buffer shall be required. The
buffer zone shall begin at the upland limit of any mangrove or
wetland area, including the transitional vegetation zone, and shall
be no less than twenty-five (25) feet in width at any point unless
otherwise not achievable due to platting, right of way easements,
utility easements or access easements existing at the time of
adoption of this comprehensive plan.
POLICY 13
Alteration of mangrove and wetland areas by chemical
defoliants shall not be permitted. Any mangrove or wetland area
which serves as an active nesting site or as a nesting or breeding
area for a colony of birds shall not be altered.
B. Sea Turtles
Include the following policy:
Policy: The Village shall adopt by January 1991, a sea
turtle protection ordinance which includes, but is not
limited to the following:
(a) the prohibition of horseback riding and campfires
on or seaward of the primary dune during sea turtle
nesting season, and extending to all areas landward
of the primary dune where sea turtles are known to
nest;
(b) the prohibition of disturbing, touching, harassing,
killing or taking of any sea turtle, hatchling, egg
or part of same;
(c) the submission of a Sea Turtle Protection Plan for
Tequesta's approval, in consultation with the
Florida Department of Natural Resources, for any
development that involves coastal construction;
(d) standards for coastal construction to eliminate or
minimize impacts on sea turtles, their nests and
eggs;
(e) prohibition of off -road vehicles during the nesting
and hatching season;
(f) standards for site development that protect sea
turtles;
(g) restrictions and standards on nighttime lighting
for both new and existing development and
additional restrictions during nesting season;
(h) standards for existing beach access points;
(i) standards for beach and dune preservation,
stabilization or restoration, as appropriate, and
standards for mechanical beach cleaning so that sea
turtle nesting is not disturbed, and
(j) provides for enforcement
(k) provisions (a) (b) and (e) shall apply as policies
of this plan prior to adoption of the ordinance.
C. Manatees
The following policies are to be added:
Policy: By 1991, the Village shall request the
assistance of Palm Beach County, the municipalities and
the marina industry to develop and participate in a
manatee protection program which:
(a) requires operators of new and existing marinas and
boat ramps establish and maintain a permanent
manatee educational display at a prominate location
at these facilities. Information to be provided or
displayed would include regulations protecting
manatees and exiting slow speed or idle zones as
well as additional information available from the
Florida Department of Natural Resources and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The Village shall
establish, and maintain a display at public boat
launch facilities;
(b) requires those involved in the sale of boats and
motors to provide manatee information to the buyer
at the time of delivery of boats or motors; and
(c) ensures that prospective renters, lessees or owners
of slips be prohibited from using the facility if
they are found in violation of marine laws which
are intended to protect manatees.
Policy: By January 1991, the Village shall adopt a
manatee protection ordinance which, at a minimum:
(a) designates the waters in and around marina and boat
ramps as a no wake or idle speed zone;
(b) designates slow speed zones where manatees feed or
congregate;
(c) prohibits the touching, harassing, harming or
killing of manatees;
(d) requires, as a condition of approval for all new or
expanding marinas and boat ramps, a manatee
protection program to be implemented at these
facilities;
(e) provides standards for locating boating facilities
where there will be no detrimental impact on the
manatees;
(f) requires the Village to submit all requests for
development orders for new or expanding boating
facilities (including boat ramps and more than one
slip or docking facility per 100 feet of shoreline)
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Florida Department of Natural Resources for comment
prior to approval. Any development proposal that
is determined to cause probable harm to manatees
shall not be approved. This policy shall not
prohibit a waterfront lot from securing a single
dock for that lot;
(g) provides for the posting of manatee protection
(awareness) and speed zone signs in manatee
protection areas to advise boaters of the presence
of manatees;
(h) limits the use of motorized boats in the
Loxahatchee River to those times of the year that
manatees do not feed or congregate in the river;
and
(i) , provides for local enforcement.
(j) provisions (c), (d) and (f) shall apply as a policy
of this plan prior to adoption of a manatee
protection ordinance.
D. Protection of Uplands
The following objectives and policies are to be added:
Objective: The Village shall implement measures to
identify and protect native wildlife and their habitats,
including state and federally protected plant and animal
species (endangered, threatened and species of special
concern), within proposed development sites and protect
these natural resources from the impacts of development.
Policy 1: Require the evaluation and proper management
of native wildlife and vegetative communities including
endangered, threatened, and species of special concern by
requiring that all proposed development sites of 5 acres
or more regardless of use be surveyed by an ecologist,
biologist or other similar professional for the presence
of state and federally protected plant and animal
species. Criteria for site surveys shall be specified in
the Village's land development regulations and are to be
professionally accepted techniques for such surveys.
Site surveys shall address the size and distribution of
the native habitat, wildlife and listed species
populations within a proposed development site, the
feasibility and viability of on -site protection and
management, whether the proposed development site
includes a wildlife corridor and the feasibility of
maintaining the wildlife corridor. The survey shall also
address the appropriateness of mitigation to an
acceptable offsite location in the event that onsite
mitigation is shown to be ineffective. Protection of any
wildlife and protected plant and animal species found on
the site and their habitat will be required as part of
the overall development plan submitted for development
approval.
Policy 2: The Village shall request the assistance of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Department of
Natural Resources in the implementation of recovery
programs for state and federally protected plant and
animal species as part of the development plan for sites
of 5 acres or more in size.
Policy 3: For development on sites less than 5 acres,
the Village's land development regulations shall require
the retention and use of native vegetation on -site to
fulfill part of the landscaping requirements; require the
protection of specimen trees (specimen trees shall be
defined as those trees which have a diameter at breast
height (dbh) of twelve inches or more); require the use
of tree protection barriers during the time heavy
construction equipment is used on -site for landclearing
and delivery of building materials; and, require site
development design using such techniques as clustering
and locating driveways and roadways on the least
environmentally sensitive portion of the site.
E. Upland vegetation
The following objectives and policies are to be added:
Objective: The Village shall require the conservation
and use of native plant species in the developed
landscape and prohibit the spread of exotic nuisance
species such as Australian pines, melaleuca and Brazilian
pepper.
Policy 1: The Village shall require the use of native
plant species in the landscaping of new development
projects and additions to existing projects and require
the removal of exotic nuisance plants from the sites of
new development.
Policy 2: The Village shall maintain and distribute a
recommended native plant list and other educational
materials to increase public awareness of the need to
utilize native plant species in the developed landscape
and eliminate exotic nuisance plants from exiting
developed areas.
Policy 3: The Village shall require the conservation of
specimen trees and existing native vegetation in new
development projects and retain these trees in existing
developments.
Policy 4: The Village shall develop a program to plant
native trees in public rights -of -way and other public
lands, whenever practical, thereby adding to the
Village's aesthetic appeal and providing habitat for
urban wildlife.
Policy 5: The Village shall develop programs on Village -
owned or leased lands to eliminate exotic nuisance plant
species.
jaj\13153_1\tequesta.mis
lj
�_
r I
iL
I
0* �r
f7 Ie VY MIIOY�Y]! �
/ I C
IIZ,
W
W O p s
1 I �
W < O O J <
FIGURE 6.4-2 VILLAGE OF TEOUESTA POTABLE WATER SYSTEM COMPONENTS Scale: 1"=?000'
6.4-4
'j
Cypress Drive, RussaLl Street and the water treatment pi t site.
The wellfields in combation, are served by wells.
Of these 04 ybteen wells, 4rkx are primary wells and the remainder
are -ea-dw- standby wells.
-INAMMe. The Village presently uses an operational rotation
schedule, alternating between wells 7R, 8R, 18, 19, 20 and 23.
The average depth of all wells is approximately sixty feet, with
diameters ranging in size from six inch to twelve inches.
Permitted capacity for the water system is expressed both on an
average day and a maximum day basis. Total permitted average day
withdrawal is 1.6 m.g.� while total permitted maximum day
withdrawal is 2.7 m.g.d. Two of the wellfields are located outside
the municipal limits, and defined wellfield protection areas do no
encroach upon the Village limits.
modes rgiV Capacity of the water
treatment plant is equivalent to the maximum day water withdrawal
rate permitted by South Florida Water Management District
(S.F.W.M.D.). Four structures, with a combined capacity of �► r
m.g. provide potable water storage for the Tequesta system as`'��v
illustrated below:
Year
Life Exp Built Type Capacity Location
40-45 yrs
1977
Reinforced concrete
.750
m.g.
Water Plant
25-30
1964
Steel
.5
m.g.
Teq. Drive
25-30
1964
Steel
.5
m.g.
Bridge Road
1954
Elevated Steel
,Q6
, ,,.
Bridge Road-- mo
C25-30
TUNS ��'%
Iq�2
KPr ti p Grr.r,i
;.p
N-e
Total
3.150
Using the FDER preferred standard (i.e., storage capacity should
equal 0.5 x maximum daily flow) the capacity of Tequesta's storage
facilities are e. To meet
the future needs of the Water System, an expansion of the storage
system with the construction of a 3.0 m.g. reinforced concrete
tank has been budgeted and planned for FY 1990 in the capital
improvement program.
6.4.2.3 Current Demand and Level of Service
The following water demand characteristics are important for
assessing the capacity of water treatment, pumping and
transmission facilities to serve customers, according to industry
standards:
o Annual average daily flow (AADF) - total system water flow
for the year divided by 365 days.
o Maximum daily flow (MDF) - the highest water flow during a
single 24-hour period during any given year.
6.4-5
o Peak hour flow
one horiod.
* Tabl 6.4-1,.p�esents
of the T a System.
(PHF) - the highest water flow during any
the 1988 wager flows for the service area
Within the Jupiter Inlet Colony service area single family
residences are consumers of 272 gallons per capita per day. The
unincorporated Palm Beach County service area is comprised of
single family and multi -family residences with very little
commercial users. Their gpcd average is 209 gallons. Martin
® County service area is primarily single family with some
0
commercial uses along U.S.#l. This area has a 309 gpcd. The
small portion of the Town of Jupiter served by Tequesta has a 182
gpcd. The total system average for 1988 is 236 gallons per capita
per day.
The Village of Tequesta Water Department Computer Billing System
does not at this time have sufficient programs installed to help
establish levels of service for non-residential users. For
purposes of record keeping enhancement, the computer system is to
be modified in 1989 to establish and quantify user
classifications. The Village of Tequesta would like to reduce per
capita consumptions to less than 200 gallons per day. The Village
currently uses Palm Beach County Environmental Control Rule I as
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1988, to
establish levels of service for new commercial applications and
calculation of ERC's.
Table 6.4-2 shows connections to the water system have continued
to increase in the 1980's. With most of the Growth occurring
outside the municipal boundaries of the Village.
AADF - is useful for estimating annual operation and maintenance
costsand annual revenues from water sales.
-
MDF is utilized for sizing water supply facilities, such as
wellfields, raw water mains and treatment facilities. Finished or
treated water transmission and distribution lines are sized to
meet the MDF Plus Flows required for fighting fires.
PHF - is used for sizing water storage and pumping facilities.
Typically, demands exceeding the MDF are met by water available
in storage facilities. PHF is also used in sizing finished water
transmission mains. Pipe performance is checked for both PHF and
MDF with fire flows. The most severe condition is used to size
the mains. Tequesta water facilities currently meet the
applicable design criteria and water industry standards. Based
upon the above flows and per capita rates and for planning
purposes, the following levels of service should be used for
planning in the Village. Average daily consumption 236 gallons per
capita per day; and maximum peak daily consumption of 354 gallons
per capita per day. It has also been determined that a pro-rata
6.4-6
1i
TABLE 6.4-1
1988 POTABLE WATER FLOWS (M.G.D.)
Jupiter Inlet
Palm Beach
Martin
Town of
Village of
System
Colony
County
County
Jupiter
Teguesta
Total
RAN
5.236
13.324
24.203
7.070
34.462
84.295
FEB
3.916
11.636
20.657
6.836
26.741
69.786
wKAR
3.877
12.336
19.269
5.712
27.945
69.139
PR
5.674
12.929
21.299
8.338
30.765
79.005
Y
5.459
14.687
21.039
10.199
35.020
86.404
UN
5.395
11.718
17.925
9.876
31.078
75.992
UL
5.318
13.505
20.937
8.403
41.342
89.505
UG
4.636
10.135
21.854
7.920
29.124
73.669
SEP
4.571
13.200
21.797
9.683
30.283
79.534
4.910
14.533
22.908
7.984
32.370
82.705
1CT
0V
5.351
13.295
20.323
7.975
31.347
78.291
DEC
4.887
12.380
20.455
7.954
33.680
79.356
1
59.230MG
153.678MG
252.666MG
97.950MG
384.157MG
947.681MG
A.A.D.F.
.165
.427
.702
.272
1,067
2,632
I.A.G.
P.C.D.
272 gal.
209 gal.
309 gal.
182 gal.
225 gal.
236 gal.
tered
kervices
225
757
841
553
1,756
4,132
1, .D.F.
4.009 1yvG-0,
4,900 9Pm
lource: Village of Tequesta Water Department
4 6.4-7
6
TABLE 6. 4-2
WATER CONNECTIONS
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA SERVICE AREA
Inside
Outside
Year
Village
Change
Village
% Change
Total
1980
3,144
N/A
1981
3,271
3.9
1982
3,342
2.1
1983
3,472
3.7
1984
3,620
4.3
1985
1,672
2,076
3,748
3.4
1986
1,701
1.7
2,183
5.1
3,884
3.6
1987
1,742
2.4
2,253
3.2
3,995
2.8
1988
1,756
0.8
2,376
5.2
4,132
3.3
Source: Village of Tequesta Water Department
M15s1
I
1
Ll
share of the treatment plant facilities based upon total flows
through the distribution system for 1988 is as follows:
Jupiter Inlet Palm Beach Martin Town of Village of
Colony County County Jupiter Tequesta
6.31% 16.2% 26.7-t 10.3% 40.596
6.4.3 Potable Water System Analysis
6.4.3.1 Facility Capacity Analysis
r -""Jo
Plant capacity o llage of Tequesta Water Treatment Facility
is currently 1,8 M.G.D.).
presently unde arr8' wiT1' 6e "fed. , by ..__ .PD mhAr 19$9
spa_._„uP"'�"'��--�perm-•ma�i'"m"ui'�'d ay
. Combined with purchased water from the
Town of Jupiter, the Tequesta System will have the following
capacity:
Maximum Day �(MD) (2.7 �+2 25)
Current flows are a fo
llows:
ollows:
1988 Flows ( MGD ) 19 gc. 9
AADF 2.632
MDF 4.009
Five and ten year projections of
of Tequesta Water System,
consumption rates developed
presented on the following Table.
water consumption for the Village
based upon current per capita
above in Section 6.4.2.3, are
Per capita consumption rates for the system are used (i.e. average
daily consumption - 236 gallons per capita per day; and maximum
daily consumption - 360 gallons per capita per day) to determine
projected increases in flow.
Year
Population*
1989
15,836
1994
17,628
1999
19,223
* Ref. Table 3-13,
Average Daily
Flow (MGD)
3.737
4.160
4.537
Maximum Daily
Flow (MGD)
Future Land Use Element
5.606
6.240
6.806
The above Table is based upon current per capita consumption rates
and a 1.5 max day peak factor. Population projections include
both permanent residents and seasonal influences.
6.4-9
0
Based on the
above projections, the Village
of Tequesta has
applied
for a
10-year water use modification
permit from South
Florida
Water
Management District (SFWMD). Allocations requested
are from the
surficial aquifer 2.6(MGD) average day and maximum
day of
4.0(MGD). Additional requests are for
one new surficial
aquifer
well
and two floridan aquifer supply
wells for Reverse
Osmosis treatment purposes. Allocations requested from the
Floridan Aquifer consist of 3.5 (MGD) average day withdrawal and
maximum day withdrawal of 5.2 M.G. It is the goal of the Village
of Tequesta through this permit modification to obtain a long-term
supply of water and insure a supply to the Village's service area
over the next decade.
6.4.3.2 General Performance Evaluation
Although plant capacity is adequate
the Village is budgeting and
planning in its capital improvement program for expansion of the
water treatment facility. e n
�na� ca= ari t _a-.»�"`Ii"}Will b'e `bSTnplt�"tn
Fib 93--a g �a�rot�rer 7 : 8-_ram , e - rrt z m -G p
Based upon the five and ten year projections of water consumption
for the Village System, planned expansions will be adequate for
provision of service through 1999.
Wellfields and Potable Water Supply
The Village of Tequesta operates Uwe wellfields. Each have been
evaluated by the Village engineer and budget allocations have been
approved for their recommended actions.
The life expectancy of the wells is considered indefinite provided
maintenance of the pumps and motors are performed on a regularly
scheduled basis and that the water quality from the supply source
is continually monitored.
Wellfield No. 2 is located northeast of the Village Hall and has
four existing wells (5, 6, 7 and 7R). Well 7R is the only
operable well in this wellfield. The water quality of Well 7R is
good. W€ 16---S - fa -and._ 7.
Welifield No. 3 is located west of Old Dixie Highway
and west of
the railroad track an st of
three existing wells, 8R 9 and
North Cypress Drive.
10. Wells 9 and 10
There are
are in poor
condition and have his orically
been subject to iron bacteria,
infestation and rapid reduction in
capacity. These wells have not
been in service since 1975. Well
8R was constructed
in 1982 and
produces good quality water.
6.4-10
L
i
Wellfield No. 4 is located east of Old Dixie Highway south of
County Line Road in an undeveloped tract of property around the
Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Facility. There are five
wells (11, 12, 14, 15 and 17) still remaining. These wells have
remained as standby and are scheduled for proper abandonment.
Well 17 may be utilized as an irrigation well for the treatment
plant facility in the near future.
Wellfield No. 5 is located north of County Line Road in Tequesta
Park. There are -,�4 wells (18, 19, 20, 21 and along the west
and north perimeter of the Park. Wells 18, 19 and 20 are the only
operational wells at this time. Wells 21 and 22 are scheduled for
proper abandonment.
Wellfield No. 6 is Well No. 23. This well is located at the west
end of and between Wingo and Robert Streets. This well is bounded
by residential dwellings on all sides. Access to this well is
from Robert Street through a drainage easement. This well is a
major. production well capable of 1,250 gpm. Water quality is
good. f Listed below are the current production wells and pumpage
rates.
Primary Well Pump
Capacities
Well No.
GPM 7-11
?�
7R
8R
650
18
150
19
150
20
150
23
1,250
Total:
3,000 gpm/4.320 mgd
Since the Village of Tequesta's peninsula location necessitates a
considerable monitoring effort to protect its potable water supply
from saltwater intrusion, the Village has dedicated itself to
continuously record the water levels and monitor the water quality
at different depths and locations. Currently there are 31 swim
(saltwater intrusion monitoring) wells providing monthly data.
Numerous other monitoring wells exist on the peninsula. Figure
6.4-2 shows the location of these wells throughout the Tequesta
service area. Quarterly, the USGS monitors a few of their 28
known wells. One well is equipped with a continuous water level
recorder. Since 1979, eleven of these USGS monitoring wells have
been incorporated into the Village of Tequesta's monthly swim
program.
As referenced in Section 6.4.3.1, the current maximum peak
total system flow (treated water plus purchased water) i
mgd.
3.�3z
L
_.._ .._
,4reieesi�entta'Y�o7nitiisn} a:_. that
j�taibM,
: •,tcapac�fy and the standard of 350 gallons per day per ERC
As indicated in Section
6.4.2.3 Tequesta's maximum average per capita,, consumption if
extrapolated, shows Tequesta can only serve a4,7/ additional ERC's
® when current expansion is completed. Of the 847 ERC's available
F� for sale, 651 have already been committed leaving 196 ERC's
available. The purchase rate of ERC's per year has averaged 124
per year. This indicates an additional water supply will need to
be constructed within 2 to 3 years. Therefore, construction of
the next water supply and treatment facilities should start within
the next year beginning with design and permitting in the very
near future. The proposed Village of Tequesta capital improvement
program for the water system in FY 1990 has included funds for the
necessary expansion work to begin.
TrPatmPnf-
The Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is currently
permitted for 1.8 MGD and is being upgraded to 2.7 MGD with the
addition of two filters. The treatment facility is in good
condition and undergoing renovations with the current expansion.
Normally the life expectancy of a water treatment plant is
designed for a twenty to thirty year life cycle. The Village's
treatment plant with proper maintenance along with the current
plant expansion with the associated system improvements is
considered to have at least twenty remaining years of operating
life.
Storage
Storage structures as illustrated in Section 6.4.2.2 are in good
condition with no major problems. Additional storage capacity of
3.0(mg) will be added in FY 1990 with the addition of a ground
level reinforced concrete tank.
The four existing storage facilities are regularly maintained and
they are all expected to exceed their indicated life expectancy
(Ref. Section 6.4.2.2).
Transmission System
The water transmission/distribution system is considered to be in
good condition with the exceptions as follows:
1. Improve inventory of system.
2. Provide complete record drawings of system.
3. -Loperate valves throughout the system and make
appropriate repairs.
6.4-12
0
4. Provide a fire hydrant maintenance program and make,,5
necessary repairs and replacements.
® 5. Loop all dead-end water mains where possible.
1 6.4.3.3 Individual Water Wells
There are currently 8 permitted private wells within the Tequesta
service area east of the Loxahatchee River. All of these wells
serve irrigation needs.. The largest user is Jupiter Hills, which
is located North of Tequesta and east of the railroad. They are
permitted for 1.25 mgd withdrawal. A summary of users is listed
below:
Name No. of Wells Permitted Use
Jupiter Hills 5 868 gpm - 1.25 mgd
Rood Nurseries 2 84 gpm - .121 mgd
Indian Hills 1 4.9 gpm - .007 mgd
Total 957 gpm - 1.378 mgd
6.4.3.4 Problems or Opportunities
Problem: High System Per Capita Consumption
Resolution: The Village is presently developing ideas toward a
planned conservation program for 1989. This program may include,
but is not limited to, educational ideas, new step rates to
encourage conservation, landscape ordinances requiring natural
vegetation, adoption or revision of plumbing codes to require low
volume fixtures on new installations and limiting hours and days
for lawn irrigation.
Problem: Lack of available space within the Village corporate
limits for expansion of its potable water wells in the surficial
aquifer.
Resolution: Pursue and negotiate for well site locations within
the surrounding distribution service area. Negotiations are
presently underway for a well site in Southern Martin County.
As referenced in Section 6.4.3.1 should it become necessary for
expansion of treatment process by using reverse osmosis, the
Village has sufficient land available at the water plant to expand
that facility as well as construction of wells into the upper
Floridan aquifer.
6.4-13
L
LIB
FIGURE 6.4-3
EX = ST = NG POTABL E
WATER D = STR =BUT = ON SYSTEM
(SEE MAP ATLAS)
6.4-14
Li
6.5 NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT
6.5.1 Introduction
The NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE sub -element is required
to be included within the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of
State planning law and rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter
163.3177 (6) (c) , Florida Statutes, establishes the NATURAL
GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE sub -element requirement and Chapter
9J5.011 Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum criteria
to guide its preparation.
This sub -element contains the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for future NATURAL
GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.006
Florida Administrative Code, the NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RECHARGE sub -element is structured according to the following
format:
o Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Data;
o Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Analysis; and
The following is provided as a brief overview of the laws, and
requirements by various governments having jurisdiction in the
regulation of groundwater resources or aquifer protection.
In 1986, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) was
amended to strengthen protection of public water system wellfields
and aquifers that are the sole source of drinking water for a
community. The amendments for wellfield protection require states
to work with local governments to map wellfield areas and develop
land use controls that will provide long-term protection from
contamination for these areas. The aquifer protection amendments
require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
criteria for selecting critical aquifer protection areas. The
program calls for State and local governments to map these areas
and develop protection plans, subject to EPA review and approval.
Once a plan is approved, EPA may enter into an agreement with the
local government to implement the plan. As of this writing, EPA
has not completed development of the criteria needed to implement
this program.
In implementing the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act (Chapter 403,
Florida Statutes), the State has developed rules classifying
aquifers and regulating their use (Chapter 17-22, Part III, Florida
Administrative Code). These rules are currently being amended to
strengthen protection of sole source aquifers and their wellfields.
The State has also established regulatory requirements for
facilities which discharge to ground water (Chapter 17-4.245,
Florida Administrative Code) and which inject materials directly
underground (Chapter 17-28, Florida Administrative Code). The task
6.5-1
il
of identifying the nature and extent of ground water resources
available within the State has been delegated to the regional water
management districts. Each district must prepare and make
available to local governments a Ground Water Basin Resource
Availability Inventory (GWBRAI), which local governments are to use
to plan for future development in a manner which reflects the
limits of available resources. The criteria for the inventories,
and legislative intent for their use, are found in Chapter 373,
Florida Statutes, which reads: "Each water management district
shall develop a ground water basin resource availability inventory
(GWBRAI) covering those areas deemed appropriate by the governing
board. This inventory shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
1. A hydrogeologic study to define the ground water basin
and its associated recharge areas.
2. Site specific areas in the basin deemed prone to
contamination or overdraft resulting from current or projected
development.
3. Prime ground water recharge areas.
4. Criteria to establish minimum seasonal surface and
ground water levels.
5. Areas suitable for future water resource development
within the ground water basin.
6. Existing sources of wastewater discharge suitable for
reuse, as well as the feasibility of integrating coastal
wellfields.
7. Potential quantities of water available for consumptive
uses."
Upon completion, a copy of the ground water basin availability
inventory shall be submitted to each affected municipality, county,
and regional planning agency. This inventory shall be reviewed by
the affected municipalities, counties, and regional planning
agencies for consistency with the local government comprehensive
plan, and shall be considered in future revision of such plan. It
is the intent of the Legislature that future growth and development
planning reflect the limitations of the available ground water or
other available water supplies (Chapter 373.0395, Florida
Statutes).
The Florida Legislature has also directed local governments to
include topographic maps of areas designated by the water
management districts as prime recharge areas for the Floridan or
Biscayne aquifers in local comprehensive plans, and to give special
consideration to these areas in zoning and land use decisions
(Chapter 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes). As of this writing,
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has not
6.5-2
A
completed the GWBRAI for Palm
has not adopted or designated
within Palm Beach County.
undeveloped and open space ar
recharge areas due to the ;
supporting the County.
Beach County. Further, the SFWMD
any areas as prime recharge areas
However, the SFWMD regards all
aas in Palm Beach County as high
hallow Aquifer/Surficial Aquifer
The Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County, under the
authority granted in the Palm Beach County Charter, has proposed
a Countywide Ordinance known as the Palm Beach County Wellfield
Protection Ordinance. This Ordinance will be used for the
protection of wells and wellfields by providing criteria for
regulating and prohibiting the use, handling, production and
storage of certain deleterious substances which may impair present
and future public potable water supply wells and wellfields. All
provisions of this Ordinance are to be effective within both the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. Palm
Beach County has recently established a Department of Environmental
Resource Management (DERM) whose responsibility it will be to
administer this Ordinance within the County.
6.5.2 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Data Summary
During the Ice Age of the Pleistocene period, which occurred
approximately one million years ago, glacial movement created
tremendous fluctuations in the levels of the seas. Intrusion and
withdrawal of the seas across the peninsula greatly influenced the
geology of the region by eroding much of the sand from beaches in
Central Florida. These sands, mixed with shellfish, were deposited
in an area extending from southern Palm Beach County north to St.
Augustine. This deposit of sand and shell material called the
Anastasia Formation, underlies the Village of Tequesta and much of
eastern Palm Beach County.
Much of the Anastasia deposit in Northeastern Palm Beach County is
composed of loose sand and shell covered by a thin layer of sand.
The remaining rock formations in this area are the Caloosahatchee
Marl of the Pliocene Age, and the Ft. Thompson Formation, and the
Miami Oolite from the age of the glaciers, the Pleistocene Age.
(See Figure 6.5-1).
6.5.2.1 Hydrogeologic Divisions*
Geologic formations can be divided hydrogeologically into aquifers,
units which produce water, and confining zones, units which
separate aquifers and retard the movement of water from one aquifer
to another. The hydrogeologic units underlying Palm Beach County
are the Surficial Aquifer System (commonly referred to as the
Shallow Aquifer), the intermediate Aquifer System (Hawthorn
Confining Layer), and the Floridan Aquifer System, which are
further described below.
*South Florida Water Management District, Data Documentation for
Palm Beach County, 5/3/87.
6.5-3
WEST
EAST
0
U
O V
p
U R
W
Z
>- m
p
Q
m
O 7
W
Z J
= a
J
Jv
100�
m
cV
F-
SEA LEVEL 151"M "lull '"
PT ►ton►som roltw ANASTASIA -""
C4
4 0 ~ .'' r; FORMATION
100'-
q ray •.r., •�.
200l-
400'
506HAWTHORN
FORMATION
600'
700 0 1 A4
Mq T�oN
B00' IOmi
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC
FIGURE 6.5-1
SOURCE, U.S.G.S., 1972.
PREPARED BY -AREA PLANNING BOARD
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY.
SHALLOW NONARTESIAN
AQUIFER; SOURCE OF
WATER SUPPLY.
CROSS-SECTION
*Preparation of this map was aided through
financial assistance received from the State
Compreh.nsive Planning Assistance Ptogram
authorized by Chapter 86-167, Laws of Florida
and administered by the Florida Department of
Community Affalrf.1
6.5-4
Hj�
The Surficial Aquifer System provides almost all of the ground
water used in Palm Beach County. It covers the entire County and
ranges from about one -hundred -fifty to three hundred -fifty feet
thick. Figure 6.5-2 identifies the base of this Surficial Aquifer
System. Regionally, the system is composed of unconsolidated sand
and shell with discontinuous clay and silt lenses overlying
limestone and sandstone. The relative percentages of these
different components vary considerably throughout the County and
may change rapidly over short distances. As a result, the
productivity of the system also varies considerably. Trans-
missivity, which is a measure of the ease with which water can move
through an aquifer, ranges from less than 10,000 to greater than
1,000,000 gallons per day per foot.
The most productive portion of the Surficial Aquifer System is the
zone of secondary permeability in the eastern one-third
of the County extending from Juno Beach south to the Broward
County line. This zone, also referred to as the Turnpike aquifer
or cavity riddled zone, is the northern extension of the Biscayne
Aquifer. The zone is composed of limestone, cemented shell, and
sandstone in which the cementing materials have been dissolved to
varying degrees. The dissolution of the cementing material creates
small holes and tubes in the rock which form passageways allowing
the water to flow easily through the dissolved zones. The zone of
secondary permeability is generally about ninety-two feet thick
with its top averaging about forty-five feet below sea level, and
its bottom averaging about one -hundred -thirty-seven feet below sea
level. Transmissivities of greater than 1,000,000 gallons per day
per foot have been reported for the zone of secondary permeability
and, in general, its productivity is up to double that of the
nonsolutioned part of the system in the eastern part of the County.
The aquifer in the western two-thirds of the County is signifi-
cantly less permeable than in the eastern one-third due to a higher
clay and silt content and poorer sorting of aquifer materials.
This portion of the aquifer is overlain by a nearly impermeable
fresh water marl ranging from a few inches to several feet thick.
Residual sea water is common in this part of the aquifer due to low
permeabilities.
Water levels in the Surficial Aquifer System range from a high of
twenty-two feet NGVD in the north -central part of the County to
close to sea level at the coast.
Water levels
by the canal
the system i
conservation
particularly
the Lake to
infiltration.
k
Ln the Surficial Aquifer System are largely controlled
network extending from Lake Okeechobee. Recharge to
s through infiltration from rainfall, canals, the
area and Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee is
important during dry periods when water is moved from
the canals and then into the aquifer through
6.5-5
f�
I
III
z15
6
Fito
113
I n.
L—
Ld
m
O
Y U
¢J W
w
Y
.O
w�41�
C! O N
'03 ASON3I1
6.5 - 6 -Preparation of this map was aided through
financial assistant• received from the State
Comprehrnsive Planning Assistance Program
authorized by Chapter 86-167p Laws of Florida
and a..ininistered by the Florida Department of
C omm-ini t> Cif f airs.'
i
Ground water flows from areas with high water levels to areas with
lower water levels. In the Surficial Aquifer System, this causes
several different regional flow patterns in the County. In the
southeastern portion
of the County,
ground water flows primarily
eastward from Florida's Turnpike.
Ground water flow from this
mound is east toward
the coast in the
northeast part of the County
and southeast toward
the C-51 Canal
in the north -central part of
the County. In the
western portion
of the County, flow is away
from both sides of
major canals into ground water depressions
located between canals. The flow patterns described are regional;
however, ground water flow on the smaller scale may differ as a
result of the influence of wells or smaller canals.
Water quality in the Surficial Aquifer System is generally best in
the zone of secondary permeability. Water quality to the west is
poorer due to residual sea water. Water quality is also poorer
along the east coast of the County as a result of saltwater
intrusion.
The Hawthorn Formation underlies the Surficial System and serves
as a confining layer separating the Surficial and Floridan Systems.
The formation is made up of semipermeable to impermeable green
clays and silts and is several hundred feet thick. (Ref: Figure
6.5-3).
The top of the Floridan Aquifer System in Palm Beach County ranges
from about eight -hundred feet below land surface along the
southeast shore of Lake Okeechobee, to about one -thousand feet
below land surface in the Boca Raton area. It is composed
primarily of limestone and dolomite, is about one -thousand feet
thick, and is artesian. Artesian wells dug to the Floridan Aquifer
System naturally flow to the land surface.
The water quality of the Floridan Aquifer System in Palm Beach
County is poor with chloride levels and dissolved solids generally
greater than 1,000 mg/1 and 3,000 mg/1, respectively. Because the
water is both highly mineralized and relatively corrosive, the
Floridan Aquifer System is not generally used as a source of water
in Palm Beach County. The Floridan aquifer does have potential
for use either as a source of brackish water for potable water
supply by using reverse osmosis treatment, or as a reservoir for
storage and recovery of fresh water.
Dense, low permeable limestones and dolomites occur throughout the
Floridan Aquifer System. These low permeable units divide the
Floridan Aquifer System into several semi -confined aquifers. The
occurrence of a regionally extensive impermeable sequence divides
the Floridan into two parts: The upper portion, which contains
water generally below 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids; and the
lower portion, which contains water similar to sea water. The
aquifers in the lower portion are extremely cavernous and have been
informally referred to as the Boulder Zone.
6.5-7
'heFarollen of 1111 nq rat oldrd IArowo Ilaantlal auHlua
eetelred la At $1811 of Florida on1Ae IAt total latermeal
tv-prelr.tlef /laanl.r AtsUlanta ►rope telAarind by CQg1rr
II INr lwt of Florida lad adrlaltltr/d by Flo Florida
Ir►arinrnl of [amanita Al1aIH.'
FIGURE 6.5-3
SUBTERRANEAN CROSS
SECTION
r. BALM BEACH COUNTY
0
m
c
V s
• n -4
0
Z �!
>
40, O o
'17 v
fn
x
—' --
d71 rn
D> 40a
SEA_
LEVEL
—
_ BASE ... ...
LEVEL ATLANtI
...
'
.... OCEAN
E
--40'
rn
rn
BO <
0
— - 80e
IIORIZONTAL SCALE
O 90G
5 toMILES
t2a
,t^,p
0 4 9 12 16 KILOMETERS
120e
ISO
160a
zod
200t
SOURCE U.S. Geological Surrey
JUNE
1979
6.5-8
The Boulder Zone is a highly transmissive dolomitic limestone. It
is also named because its drilling characteristics are similar to
those of boulders; however, there are no actual boulders in the
zone.
Water quality in the Boulder Zone is very poor and not suitable
for use. The Boulder Zone is artesian, but, because of the high
density of the saltwater in the zone, it does not flow to the land
surface. The Boulder Zone is significant because it is extensively
used for waste disposal through deep injection wells.
6.5.2.2 Topography
The Village of Tequesta is situated on the Coastal Ridge which
parallels the Atlantic Ocean. Elevations across most of the
Village range between five and ten feet mean sea level (msl);
however, elevations of up to twenty-five feet occur in isolated
areas (i.e. along U.S. Highway 1). Specifically, this occurs along
the crest of the coastal ridge, immediately west of the Atlantic
Ocean.
The Village is bordered to the west by the sandy flatlands, which
have elevations ranging from ten to fifteen feet msl. West of
these areas is the Everglades region which consists primarily of
flat swamps less than fourteen feet in elevation. (Ref: Figure
6.5-4).
1 6.5.2.3 Soils
A description and mapping of the soils present in Tequesta are
contained within the FUTURE LAND USE element. Based upon the
SANITARY SEWER sub -element, there are a number of septic tanks in
use at the present time. General soil types within the Village are
relatively favorable (i.e. "slight" limitation) for septic tanks.
Further, most sites using this system have been improved in the
form of filling to further mitigate this concern. Since the
Village is nearly ninety percent developed with no intention to
allow additional septic tanks, potential detrimental impacts
created by their use to either the soils or to the ground water
aquifer recharge capability is deemed minor. Additional
information regarding soil suitability for septic tanks can be
found in Section 6.1.3.3 of the SANITARY SEWER Sub -element.
6.5.2.4 Saltwater Intrusion
The Village of Tequesta is very much concerned about the problem
resulting from excessive saltwater intrusion. Saltwater normally
moves inland through the lower part of the shallow aquifer, which
is in contact with Lake Worth. As the saltwater moves inland, it
decreases in salinity. This allows it to rise to the base of the
I fresh water portion of the aquifer. The diffused saltwater then
tends to follow natural hydraulic gradient back toward the sea.
6.5-9
No Text
i
This "zone of diffusion" may naturally extend inland approximately
fifteen to fifty feet, depending on the permeability of the aquifer
in hydraulic contact with the saltwater body. (Ref: Figure 6.5-5).
The barrier island separating the IntraCoastal Waterway from the
Atlantic Ocean is subject to saltwater intrusion from two
directions. Some degree of saltwater intrusion into the shallow
aquifer also occurs along the various waterways and bodies located
within the Village.
The prime cause of excessive saltwater intrusion in Palm Beach
County is municipal water pumping. This can locally reduce the
seaward hydraulic gradient and result in allowing saltwater seepage
into the aquifer. The municipal water supply for Tequesta is drawn
from points west of U.S. Highway 1 within the Village, which are
affected by the seaward gradient in the area. However, if pumpage
withdrawals are not closely monitored which they apparently are,
by the Village Water department, wellfield cones of depression
could be directly affected by the seaward gradiant in the area.
1 6.5.2.5 Climate
The climate encompassing the Village is considered subtropical,
having an average annual temperature of approximately 75 F.
Rainfall is seasonal with approximately sixty-five percent of the
annual rainfall occurring during the rainy season from June through
October. The average annual rainfall in the Village, as well as
surrounding areas is approximately sixty inches.
6.5.3 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Analysis
The Surficial Aquifer System supplies almost all the ground water
used in Palm Beach County. It is the water source for thirty-three
public water supplies, which are shown in Figure 6.5-6 as well as
for numerous private users. The Surficial Aquifer System is
expected to continue to be the primary source of ground water in
the future. However, because the productivity within the system
varies greatly, the potential for future development within the
system also varies greatly.
The zone of secondary permeability (the Turnpike Aquifer) has the
best potential for additional development within the Surficial
Aquifer System. It presently provides over one-half the ground
water used by public water supplies and private users in Palm Beach
County. Its high productivity and good water quality make it an
excellent ground water source, except in areas along the coast
where saltwater intrusion is a threat. With proper management, the
Turnpike Aquifer should be capable of meeting the County's future
ground water needs.
The Surficial Aquifer System north of the zone of secondary
permeability presently provides water for several water supplies
and is expected to continue to do so in the future. However,
additional development of the Surficial Aquifer in this area is
6.5-11
L
LAND SURFACE
HAM? TABU'
SEA LEVEL ►
• •'•••.�~ ;•� ••�'!1.1• ►tip •lt' •t klt•��.:•t' •t}ip••�:+
+ :..:r•' : •r.(`, '�r�!Ii:ZrJs;;1! ���lk�r't'�'�':�fa��`ti
L C (»,, :s r •1.::,: .+.,•:.;!: ?lit: :i!:'
Fri
•; '*�•.•s'.r�. �1'�ti'}. ,�iir�i�' • .�� �•'�' .;. :tY3 .}i!t;: ti.a.�...:;rIc,?��.:
• .. — .r[ �,�•' 1 .t• �•. 14,
>>'{ •i•.r.. '►►:' '�• • '��it'i;:. ' �:• ..;; :,.,: is
t. , �, t I j 1 '••• }ai: :i:; •,• :i ,'1... r i !:itt•1:?
ME51111A TE�-• , •'r,r•;�,il.,r.:, . �:. .:•.:••,..., 1}��: ;r%::::::�:!,::•:` r:�i;':�':;' is
.t' ,• : ::i;:�• is •. •'!ii
Al
r' ► 'i•• . .. .•. j:'"'i::':, 'i is ;;::E':•et!'.:.?!•:::��: C
'��:.1• t ,�• :•••.1. �:•• •! .••^:;::::�•. .: .t%: •'.•. •'t ��:::��::: '' :li; lam:.. �./�:•:•j��::::::•:•1
} �• ••• f:,•,.• .. .• ...,..;.•;: ;..� .t" ;�;:::;; �':,�, �'::;:�.•��:: :'::�:.•: tit:: :::
' - -._ .:J. •• .1:a''e'f:[i•.11at:• :rs Wit:{• :i7 .t:
FIGURE 6.5-5
NORMAL HYDRAULIC CYCLE
'-Mlarsttee of this Map van .teed thrash
Ilranelal sss1:tana msl•d tee. the state
of
/lurid• under the Leeil CO•ertIent Ceaprs-
henal•e ♦lanning Aaelelame he6ru aathertsd
b7 Chapter 86-167. La•v of nerlda and &Wnl-
•tsr.e by thenudurtl
e. ap.re..nt e[ peutY
Art s.lre
Source: Scott, W., Land, L., and Rodis,,11., Saltwater Intrusion
in the Shallow Aquifer in Martin an a m Beach counties
19 j-
6.5-12
t
O
3
IL
Ia.
LLJ
L,J
O
W
Q U
J LEJ
LLJ
O
e
q ~
ZA
-OO H3V39 ►QVcl
'OO AMON3M
0
6.5-13
likely to be limited by low transmissivities and the threat of
saltwater intrusion. The development potential of the Surficial
Aquifer System west of the zone of secondary permeability appears
marginal as a result of low transmissivities and poor water
quality.
Saltwater intrusion is presently a problem at several wellfields
in Palm Beach County and is expected to become a problem at others
in the future. Saltwater intrusion in the County can occur from
the Ocean and Intracoastal Waterway to the east, from residual
saltwater to the west, and from the Loxahatchee River in the
northeast. This intrusion can be caused by wells located too close
to the saltwater front, or as a result of regional declines in the
ground water level. Regional declines in water levels may be
caused by the cumulative impacts of many wellfields, or by
decreased aquifer recharge. Thus, extensive development in the
west could potentially cause regional ground water declines
resulting in saltwater intrusion in the east.
Wellfield management on a regional scale could help prevent such
a problem. At the present time, information is available to allow
the County or Village to institute a site specific comprehensive
aquifer recharge area protection. program. However, additional
support information should be available with the completion of the
Ground Water Basin Resource Availability Inventory (GWBRAI) for
Palm Beach County by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD). Until the GWBRAI becomes available, the County has
adopted interim measures in the form of the County's Wellfield
Protection Ordinance to promote protection of aquifer recharge
functions based on known characteristics of development within the
County and general knowledge of aquifer recharge principles.
According to the FUTURE LAND USE element, the Village is nearly
ninety percent developed with build -out projected by 1996.
Thereafter, it is assumed that the Village will stabilize as far
as services and impacts provided there are no annexations or major
zoning changes. Thus, the major impact to the Village prior to
1995 regarding ground water recharge will be from the limited
reduction of land area remaining within the corporate limits
available for recharge to the immediate groundwater aquifer.
The source of water recharge within the Village of Tequesta is
predominantly rainfall. All undeveloped and open surfaces are
considered recharge areas for the surficial aquifer. Some
additional recharge is provided by the wetlands to the north of
Tequesta due to the fact their location is up gradient of Tequesta
wellfields. The wetland recharges, however, are also controlled
by rainfall. It should be noted the Jupiter Hills withdrawals as
indicated in Section 6.4.3.3 of POTABLE WATER sub -element,
significantly reduces some of the up gradient recharge the Village
receives from the north. This impact will be reduced in 1990 or
1991 as Jupiter Hills will begin purchasing Irrigation Quality
(I.Q.) wastewater effluent from ENCON. Approximately .440 M.G.D.
(160/m.g./Year) I.Q. water will replace the current withdrawals and
add recharge to the aquifer.
6.5-14
I
[ The Village of Tequesta, in May 1981, adopted Ordinance 296, the
Water Shortage Plan of the South Florida Water Management District.
The purpose of this Water Shortage Plan is to provide an approach
for allocating and conserving water resources during periods of
drought, and to maintain uniform approach towards water use
restriction throughout the County. The Village, by adoption of
this Ordinance, has accepted the SFWMD's request for assistance in
enforcement within the Village corporate limits.
6.5.3.1 Local Groundwater Regulation Review
Palm Beach County has recently adopted a Wellfield Protection
Ordinance to regulate the existing and new nonresidential use,
handling, storage, and production of hazardous and toxic materials
within certain zones of influence of the major potable water
wellfields in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the
County. A major wellfield is defined as one which produces or is
planned to produce 100,000 gallons or more per day of potable
water.
A wellfield is subject to the Ordinance only when zones of
influence maps have been developed which is the case for the
Village's municipal water system at supplies the Village with
potable water. There are three regulation zones (i.e. zones of
influence) developed around each regulated wellfield - Zone 1 is
in the land area situated between the well and the thirty day
travel time contour line; Zone 2 is in the land area between the
thirty day and the two -hundred -ten day travel time contour lines;
Zone 3 is the land located between the two -hundred ten day and the
one -foot drawdown contour line, whichever is greater. In general,
Zone 1 is a prohibition zone, and Zones 2 and 3 are permitting
zones.
The types of requirements provided for in the Ordinance include
permitting of the use of regulated substances in Zones 1, 2 and 3.
These requirements are common sense management practices and
structural devices which serve to isolate high -risk contamination
points from entering the adjacent ground water.
Review of the Zone of Influence Maps developed for the Village of
Tequesta's wellfields, indicate that all five wellfields' cones of
influence extend into residential areas only (Ref: Figure 3-4,
FUTURE LAND USE element). The two wellfields located on North
Cypress Drive and Russell Street within the Village corporate
limits are the only wellfields that could be directly affected by
future development since their one foot drawdown contour line
extends into the undeveloped area east of Old Dixie Highway. Since
the Village is aware that the area between Old Dixie Highway and
U.S. 1 is the major remaining development area within the Village,
they have scheduled a Charett for September 1989 to analyze a
variety of development alternatives along with all the associated
infrastructure, environmental and adjacent are impacts in order to
develop a comprehensive plan specifically for this area.
6.5-15
14
The Village of Tequesta, in May 1981, adopted Ordinance 296, the
Water Shortage Plan of the South Florida Water Management District.
The purpose of this Water Shortage Plan is to provide an approach
for allocating and conserving water resources during periods of
drought, and to maintain uniform approach towards water use
restriction throughout the County. The Village, by adoption of
this Ordinance, has accepted the SFWMD's request for assistance in
enforcement within the Village corporate limits.
6.5.3.1 Local Groundwater Regulation Review
Palm Beach County has recently adopted a Wellfield Protection
Ordinance to regulate the existing and new nonresidential use,
handling, storage, and production of hazardous and toxic materials
within certain zones of influence of the major potable water
wellfields in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the
County. A major wellfield is defined as one which produces or is
planned to produce 100,000 gallons or more per day of potable
water.
A wellfield is subject to the Ordinance only when zones
of
influence maps have been
developed which is the case for
the
Village's municipal water
system at supplies the Village with
potable water. There are
three regulation zones (i.e. zones
of
influence) developed around each regulated wellfield - Zone 1
is
in the land area situated
between the well and the thirty
day
travel
time contour line; Zone 2 is in the land area
between the
thirty
day and the two -hundred -ten day travel time contour lines;
Zone 3
is the land located between the two -hundred ten
day and the
one -foot drawdown contour line, whichever is greater.
In general,
Zone 1
is a prohibition zone, and Zones 2 and 3 are
permitting
zones.
The types of requirements provided for in the Ordinance include
permitting of the use of regulated substances in Zones 1, 2 and 3.
These requirements are common sense management practices and
structural devices which serve to isolate high -risk contamination
points from entering the adjacent ground water.
Based upon the review of the Zone of Influence Maps developed for
the Village of Tequesta's wellfields, indicate that all five
wellfields cones of influence extend into residential areas only
(Ref: Figure 3-5, FUTURE LAND USE element). The two wellfields
located on North Cypress Drive and Russell Street within the
Village corporate limits are the only wellfields that could be
directly affected by future development since their one foot
drawdown contour line extends into the undeveloped area east of
Old Dixie Highway. Since the Village is aware that the area
between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1 is the major remaining
development area within the Village, they have scheduled a Scharett
for September 1989 to analyze a variety of development alternatives
along with all the associated infrastructure, environmental and
adjacent are impacts in order to develop a comprehensive plan
specifically for this area.
6.5-16
Contamination of groundwater has extremely costly impacts when the
groundwater is needed for potable water supply. To control
potential groundwater contamination from affecting the Village's
potable water supply, the Village should develop a wellfield
protection program cooperating closely with the Palm Beach County
Department of Environmental Regulation and Management (DERM). The
program should be designed to regulate land use activities within
the Village's wellfields Cones of Influence areas. This program
should address the following issues:
1. Identify restricted type land uses to be allowed within
the Village's Cones of Influences.
2. Perform an inventory of existing land uses within the
Cones of Influence to identify harmful uses;
3. Develop procedures for the removal or correction of all
harmful uses, along with the establishment of financial
responsibility;
4. Develop a manual for the evaluation of future
developments within the Villages Cone of Influence;
5. Establish requirements for monitoring water quality prior
to development, as well as, a permanent monitoring schedule during
occupancy;
ri 6. Establish procedures for reporting emergency spills,
cleanup and any other reporting or operating functions.
In addition, the Village should coordinate closely with ENCON to
develop a program, whereby, irrigation quality (IQ) water from
ENCON can be economically implemented within the Village.
Initially, large users of irrigation water, such as, golf course
communities should be targeted.
The adoption of the Palm Beach County Wellfield Protection
Ordinance is a major milestone towards ensuring a potable water
supply of adequate quality for the County. However, a few issues
exist that have not yet been addressed. Since the Village is
nearly 90 percent developed with build -out projected in 1996, it
is possible that any change in the one -foot drawdown contour line
could be a result of development outside of the Village. This
being the case, there are only limited measures the Village can
employ which can have any beneficial impact on the overall
condition. Also, many of the municipalities within the County have
only limited expertise or financial resources to implement, monitor
or enforce this regulation within their respective jurisdictions.
Therefore, it is crucial that the Village cooperate and coordinate
closely with the County, neighboring municipalities and any private
utility in its area to ensure the protection and future adequacy
of the County groundwater supply.
6.5-17
iI
1 7.0 CONSERVATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The CONSERVATION element is required to be included within the
Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and rule
criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177 (6) (a) , Florida Statutes,
establishes the future land use plan requirement and Chapter
9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code establishes minimum criteria
to guide its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the Conservation
goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.013
Florida Administrative Code, the CONSERVATION element is structured
according to the following format:
® o Conservation Data;
o Conservation Analysis
Much of the data and information contained within this element is
either highly interrelated with other elements of the Village of
Tequesta's Comprehensive Plan, or is contained in other plan
elements (i.e., COASTAL MANAGEMENT; FUTURE LAND USE; SANITARY
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUND
WATER AQUIFER RECHARGE). In these cases, it is so noted.
RI 7.2 CONSERVATION DATA SUMMARY
Pursuant to Chapter 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code and
requirements of Florida Statutes, the following inventory of
natural resources is presented.
7.2.1 Natural Resources
7.2.1.1 Surface Waters and the Estuarine System
Figure 3-4, Coastal Management/Conservation Map identifies water
bodies, wetlands, upland vegetative communities, submerged lands
and various other natural resources found within the Village. The
Village contains both Class II and Class III waters within the
jurisdiction.
Class II waters are those coastal waters which have either actually
or potentially the capability of supporting shellfish propagation
and harvesting. Class II waters are the most stringent water
classification.
7-1
D
U
J
The Loxahatchee River within the Village of Tequesta is designated
a Class II water system. Portions of the Loxahatchee River that
flow through the Village have been designated as outstanding
Florida Waters by the State Legislature. The North Fork of the
river traverses the Village with the Tequesta Country Club area
lying to the west and the mainland of Tequesta on the east. The
North West Fork of the Loxahatchee River flows adjacent to the
western corporate limits of the Village, also along the Tequesta
Country Club area. The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation has designated this river a Class II water system based
on the extensive support it provides to a variety of wildlife,
shellfish propagation and sport fishing.
Class III waters include all coastal and inland waters not
otherwise classified. Includes rivers, lakes, bays, estuaries and
open waters of the territorial sea.
The Intracoastal Waterway and the mouth of the Loxahatchee River
are designated Class III waters. The State Department of
Environmental Regulation has classified these waterways as Class
III waters which are used extensively for recreational activities
such as boating, skiing, fishing and swimming. They play a vital
role in offering a safe and aesthetic environment for these
activities to take place.
The Village also contains surface water bodies that have been
designated as aquatic preserves. Aquatic preserves are exceptional
biologically, aesthetically, educationally and/or scientifically
valuable waters set aside by the Florida Legislature for special
management consideration.
The Loxahatchee River and the Intracoastal Waterway are designed
as Aquatic Preserves. The Loxahatchee River and its Forks are
designated as an aquatic preserve. The designation was placed on
the River and Waterway due to its biological attributes, in
providing support habitat for certain forms of animal and plant
life, and its aesthetic value which amplifies certain scenic
qualities for recreational users.
As the present time portions of the Loxahatchee River, including
the North West Fork, are under consideration for Federal
designation as a wild and scenic river.
M 7.2.1.2 Wetlands and _Coastal System
Shore -fringing stands of red, black, and/or white mangrove have
major significance regarding maintenance of biological
productivity, stabilization of shorelines or aesthetics. These
include the "High" mangroves above the mean high water line.
Coastal mangrove stands are found in various locations along the
Intracoastal Waterway in Tequesta. These mangrove areas provide
habitat for numerous birds and other wildlife. They are intimately
1 7-2
�I
L
involved in the food chain from a variety of aquatic organisms to
man himself. These stands provide food to various aquatic
organisms by the decomposition of leaves that drop off the mangrove
trees. The smaller organism then become food for larger forms of
aquatic life such as shellfish, worms and forage fish. The cycle
continues to the larger fish who are then used by man for a food
source.
In addition to the mangrove's vital contribution to the food chain,
they provide habitats for birds such as anhingas, egrets ,herons
and many others. The root systems provide a substratum for tree
oysters, barnacles, hydroids and filamentous algae.
The mangroves contribute greatly to the stabilization of the
shoreline by providing a buffer against wave erosion and allowing
sedimentation to occur. Reduction of tidal current velocities and
decomposition of suspended materials is a product of these mangrove
stands. The prop roots, with their collection of algae and other
sessile organisms provide the active force for this essential
function of shoreline stabilization.
The COASTAL MANAGEMENT element contains a thorough analysis of
mangroves, their role in the estuarine environment and wildlife
species associated with them.
Ocean -fronting beaches are located along the Atlantic shorelines.
The Beach Zone extends inland beyond the mean high water (MHW) line
to the coastal construction setback line and may extend inland one
or more dunes. The COASTAL MANAGEMENT element also contains an
extensive discussion of the Village's beaches and beach processes.
7.2.1.3 Floodplains
Those areas subject to flooding during a hurricane or relating
conditions are designated as floodplains. These lands are located
between the shoreline and the 100 year flood line and are
identified on the Flood Zone Map contained in the LAND USE element.
7.2.1.4 Fisheries and Wildlife Habitats
The forces of urban development have displaced and altered many of
the region's natural habitats and vegetative communities. Most of
the mangrove and wetland areas abutting the Intracoastal Waterway
in Palm Beach County have now been lost to dredge and fill
activities or intensive development. The pine -palmetto forests,
which were once the dominant type of vegetation in this area, have
now largely disappeared.
Tequesta has been fortunate, however, to retain some natural
vegetative associations and wildlife communities. Mangrove
estuaries, for example, are located in the eastern part of the
community where they support a wide variety of birds and marine
species including crabs, oysters, numerous species of fish, egrets,
herons, cormorants, anhingas, ibis, spoonbills, osprey, pelicans,
1 7-3
Pi
C
U
n
I]
r
J
J
etc. The Intracoastal Waterway and the Loxahatchee River are also
rich in marine life including manatees. There are no commercial
fisheries within the Village.
See the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element for a list of fish and
invertebrates in the estuary and endangered wildlife species.
7.2.1.5 Minerals and Soils
There are no known deposits of commercially valuable minerals in
the Village of Tequesta. Beach erosion is a serious concern for
all communities with ocean beaches. Past trends, present planning
efforts and the potential for renourishment are discussed in the
COASTAL MANAGEMENT element.
7.2.1.6 Air Ouality
Air quality refers to atmospheric conditions that may be polluted
by, but not limited to, industry, commercial business, automobile
exhausts, and trash burning.
Present air quality conditions for Palm Beach County, including
Tequesta, are generally designated as good. However, the County
has been placed in a non -attainment category for atmospheric ozone
levels. Air quality is monitored by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation at fifteen (15) sites scattered throughout
Palm Beach County. Site number two (2) located at Tequesta Water
Department, handles daily air pollution monitoring for the Village
of Tequesta and surrounding areas.
In December 1977, it was determined by FDER through the local
program office that Palm Beach County was in violation of allowable
atmospheric ozone levels. The Metropolitan Planning Organization
has been charged with the task of developing clean-up measures
which will ultimately be carried out at the local level.
In direct relation to air pollution programs, the MPO developed a
Transportation Control Program (TCP) to measure and provide means
to reduce emissions of mobile sources. Likewise, the Palm Beach
County Health Department has developed RACT, Reasonably Available
Control Techniques, programs to measure and reduce emissions from
fixed sources. Both of these programs were instituted as a result
of the County being placed in a non -attainment category by FDER
because it was in violation of allowable atmospheric ozone levels.
All of Palm Beach County is considered in these planning efforts.
7.3 CONSERVATION ANALYSIS
7 3 1 Recreation and Conservation Land Use Analysis
The surface water bodies in the Village provide a recreational and
leisure time resource to visitors and Village residents. The
beaches of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly Coral Cove Park,
provide a major recreational resource to the Village. Likewise,
'It
7-4
the Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River Lagoon) and the Loxahatchee
River provide opportunities for boating, fishing and other water -
related activities.
" The FUTURE LAND USE element provides an acreage breakdown of
conservation areas, water bodies and recreation/open space areas.
In addition, the Coastal Management/Conservation Map (Figure 3-4)
identifies two (2) upland areas (referred to as Ecosites 61 & 63
in the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element) as areas of environmental
concern. Future development of these two areas as well as the
beach and shoreline areas, should be limited to those land uses
consistent with Village policies for protecting natural resources,
preserving coastal wetland vegetation and providing for water
related land uses.
7.3.2 Hazardous Waste Disposal
Although the Village does not have any industrial land uses and
thus does not generate the typical hazardous wastes associated with
such land uses, many of the common household and commercial waste
products requiring care in disposal are generated within the
Village including car batteries, pesticides, degreasing solvents
and petroleum waste products. In addition, service stations and
marinas are a potential source of fuel and solvent waste products
and leaks to ground and surface waters. It is recommended that a
program defining such wastes and provisions for collection and
Idisposal thereof be initiated by the Village.
U
7-5
8.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE element is required to be included
within the Comprehensive Development Plan per requirements of State
planning law and rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6),
(e), Florida Statutes, establishes the recreation and open space
element requirement and Chapter 9J5.014, Florida Administrative
Code, establishes minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for recreation and open
space goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.014,
® Florida Administrative Code, the RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE element
is structured according to the following format:
o Recreation and Open Space data; and
o Recreation and Open Space analysis.
8.2 EXISTING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE DATA
The recreation areas and facilities. provided by the Village are
classified either as "neighborhood" or "community" facilities and
as "actve" or "passive" type activities. Neighborhood type
facilities are located within or near residential areas and are
primarily designed to serve Village residents. Community type
facilities are designed to serve the general community, both
Village and nonresident populations.
"Active" recreation facilities represent an array of special
activity facilities that can be provided in close proximity to
population centers. They often require specially constructed
fields, courts or other aparatus which lend themselves to a
particular user -oriented activity. Since active recreation
® facilities are more easily accommodated in large open spaces, they
1� do not normally require a significant natural resource base as do
most passive activities. "Passive" recreation facilities require
a resource base, either natural or manmade, with which the user
interacts. Oceans, lakes, woodlands and other natural areas offer
a variety of passive recreational experiences. Generally, large
resource -based areas provide the best setting for passive
recreation. However, smaller areas may serve a special need.
The Village
owns two (2) passive
parks (The Village Green and
®
Constitution
Park) and operates
Tequesta Parks which has bot
�1
passive and
active recreational opportunities available to the
public.
The Village Green is an one (1) acre passive park located adjacent
to and east
of the Village Hall
complex. The park is softly
lighted with
walkways, benches and
a fountain. Constitution Park
8-1
�I
is an .8 acre park with benches and assorted shade trees. Both of
these parks are classified as neighborhood parks. Coral Cove Park
is also a community park offering a variety of recreational
opportunities. This 5.01 acre Atlantic Ocean park was annexed into
the Village in 1985, and it is owned and operated by Palm Beach
County. This park has 600 feet of beach, one (1) mile of nature
trail, a fishing site and a tot lot. Parking is provided on -site.
In addition to the parks identified above, there are various other
public recreation and open space areas within Tequesta. There are
nearly fifty 950) acres of federally owned lands (Coast Guard)
located east of U.S. Highway #1 and north of CR 707 that is
currently used for all antennae and reserved in open space.
Three (3) open space easements are established in the Tequesta
Country Club area off of River Drive and abutting the Northwest
Fork of the Loxahatchee River. These easements provide access to
the River primarily for passive recreational use; however, one (1)
of the easements is used for a boat ramp and has a dock. These
parcels have been zoned R/OP, Recreational/Open Space, to assure
their preservation as public open space areas.
There are three (3) other parcels located in Tequesta Pines
identified as parcels B, C and Russell Road that are retained in
open space and used for drainage purposes primarily. The
Intracoastal Waterway and Loxahatchee River provide water -oriented
recreational opportunities to the public for boating, swimming and
other water -related activities at the beach areas of private
_ developments and at Coral Cove Park.
1'! While the Village of Tequesta has undertaken to provide residents
and visitors with abundant recreational opportunities, the private
sector also provides numerous recreational facilities. Private
developments within the Village often include recreational
amenities although these facilities are not available to the
general public. These facilities have been identified as condo
organizations and the recreational facilities offered at them are
usually confined to shuffle board courts, swimming pools, and
recreation buildings. Several of the larger developments also have
tennis courts and those on the waterways provide dockage.
The major private recreational facility in the Village is the 120
acre Tequesta Country Club which offers golf, tennis and other club
activites. This facility provides a limited source of recreation
for the residents and visitors of Tequesta because it is only
available for use by those who are members of the Club.
In addition, a bicycle/pedestrian path system has been developed
in the Village. The bicycle/pedestrian path system is comprised
of those areas listed below:
8-2
Pik
Location Approximate Length
Tequesta Drive 4,200 feet
Seabrook Road 4,000 feet
Beach Road (CR 707) 1,200 feet
Country Club Drive 8,460 feet
Riverside Drive 860 feet
18,720 feet
The bicycle/pedestrian paths do meet at intersections and can form
a continuous network through the Village. The paths are well -
marked, paved and sufficiently set back from vehicular traffic to
provide safe corridors. These paths were constructed in response
to popular demand and would appear to satisfy requirements for the
foreseeable future.
The parks, recreational and open space sites located within the
corporate limits of Tequesta are depicted on Figure 8-1.
Various church and privately owned residential land holdings exist
that could provide sites for other neighborhood recreational
facilities through special arrangement between the Village and the
owners. Many of the churches presently cooperate with the
municipality in providing certain recreational facilities such as
in the installation of basketball hoops in their parking lots. The
Jupiter/Tequesta Junior Citizen Involvement, Inc. has a facility
on Seabrook Road and it offers various activities and programs for
teenages and senior citizens. It is available a few nights a week
for those purposes. Outside, but nearby, the Village of Tequesta
are eleven (11) public facilities which offer tennis, ball fields,
swimming, golf, fishing and boat ramps with a total of
approximately 10,500 acres of activity based recreation.
These facilities are all within a thirty (30) minute drive time or
less from the Village of Tequesta and provide a variety of public
recreational facilities including covered picnic areas, playgrounds
and protected public beaches. Ease access to these facilities
fulfills a portion of the demand of Tequesta residents for
recreation and open spaces. There are another 275 acres of private
facilities within a similar distance from Tequesta.
Tequesta Park is a forty two (42) acre park located in south Martin
County and adjacent to the north Village limits. The Village has
a fifty (50) year lease on Tequesta Park from the State of Florida.
This recreation area is classified as a community park and contains
the following facilities and offers various active recreational
activities:
0 one
(1)
lighted baseball field (activity based)
0 one
(1)
five (5) acre sports complex consisting of two
(2)
soccer field and two (2) Little League baseball
fields
o two
(2)
full length basketball courts
0 four
(4)
lighted tennis courts
o one
(1)
Pavilion
8-3
Fi
L
L
Ld
W
FIGURE 8-1
EX = S T = NG RECREAT = ON AND
O PEN SPACE AREAS
(See Map Atlas)
8-4
o playground area
o picnic area
On November, 1972, the residents of the Village of Tequesta
supported a referendum to lease, operate and maintain the forty-
two (42) acre Tequesta Park. Since 1972 the Village has
constructed new facilities and provided limited recreational
programs for all residents in northern Plam Beach County and
southern Martin County at Tequesta Park. Tequesta is presently
negotiating with Martin County on a cost sharing plan for Tequesta
Park.
In the Jupiter-Tequesta area, recreation and open space facilities
such as Jupiter Beach Park, DuBois Park, Carlin Park, Burt
Reynolds Park, Jupiter Island Park, and Lighthouse Park are all in
close proximity to each other. Loggerhead, Juno, Juno Beach and
Bert Winters Parks are also available in the Juno Beach area and,
further south Phil Foster Park and Ocean Reef Park offer a variety
of recreational opportunities. Jonathan Dickinson State Park,
Blowing Rocks Park and Tequesta Park is located at the southern end
of Martin County, providing camping, picnic areas, boating,
horseback riding and other activities. There are a number of
public and private golf courses which are also in close proximity
to Tequesta. Descriptions of types, activities and jurisdictions
of each of the above facilities are presented on Table 8-2.
8.3 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS
Total population, based on U.S. Bureau of Census figures,
® University of Florida estimates and projections by mathematical
�! extrapolation, are used to measure the potential recreational
demands created by Village population growth. Population
projections to the year 1999 are used for calculating demand and
ultimately the need for future parks and recreational facilities.
Guidelines and standards for park classes, beaches, special uses
(i.e. marinas, boat ramps, golf courses), active and passive
recreation facilities are presented in order to calculate need
® based on estimated demand and availability of existing recreation
sites and facilities.
C
I
8.3.1 Guidelines and Standards
TABLE 8-1: Recreation/Open Space Guidelines and Standards
Park Service Population
Classification Standard Area Site Size Served
Neighborhood 2.5acres/1000 under 0.5mi. under 10acres up to 5,000
Community 2.5acres/1000 0.5 - 3.Omi. 5 - 60 acres up to 25,000
Source: Needs Assessment Study, 1985
Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department
8-5
I
I
Recreation Area Standard (unit/pop) User Guideline Turnover/Day
Beaches
lmi/25,000
4224/day
2
Marinas
Islip/2,000
4/day
1
Boating
1ramp/5,000
160/day
40
Golf Course
9holes/25,000
240/day
60
Source: Needs Assessment Study, 1985
Palm Beach
County Parks and Recreation Department
Recreation
Activity
Standard*
(Unit/Pop.)
User
Guideline
Turnover/Day
Swimming
1
pool/25,000
389/day
2
Tennis
1
court/2,000
24/day
8
Basketball
1
court/2,000
72/day
6
Shuffleboard
1
court/5,000
22/day
8
L.L. Baseball
1
field/3,000
100/day
5
Sr. Baseball
1
field/6,000
100/day
5
Adult Softball
1
field/6,000
100/day
5
Football/Soccer
1
field/4,000
140/day
5
Exercise Trail
10
station/10,000
200/day
20
Handball and
Racquetball
1
court/5,000
32/day
12
Playground
1
area/3,000
160/day
8
Volleyball
1
court/6,000
144/day
8
*Source: "Regional
"Outdoor
Recreation
Comprehensive Development
in Florida,
Plan" APB
1981"
1976
8.3.2
Projecting
Park and Recreation Needs
In order to
establish current and
future needs
for recreation
sites, open space and recreation facilities, the existing supply
must be analyzed in terms of the demand created by the present and
growing population base. By utilizing data presented in TABLE 8-1,
demand may be projected by comparing existing and projected
population figures to the established park and recreation
standards. Needs, on the other hand, may be measured in terms of
whether or not the demand exceeds the existing supply for a given
park class or facility. The methodology utilized is as follows:
The existing or projected population figures are multiplied by the
appropriate standard to determine total demand. The existing
supply is then compared to the result in order to determine
respective needs.
Table 8-2 identifies the major recreational and open space
facilities in Palm Beach County in close proximity to the Village.
While current and future needs of recreational and open space
facilities are based on demand generated by the population base of
the Village, it is apparent that some of this demand is being met
8-6
2
a
COO
�4
5a�
U) •���-''
�•i
_ 04
� a
r•1
N
N
•� rPt-�i
U
N
Q2
w �
a �
� •fr�-i
o u•N
W
N E
o-�
�U
w4—
av
o""w
ro-.ram
W •-1
Ln
0
... )
>ONv
> �•rl c14
4 N
a
•-4
w � U
N
co
4J
ro
44
ro
w,o
g8
U
r 4 44 44
r�
r-I 4J
vNNN`-'v
vr-I
4> �
4'
4J
E f�
a
98
N
rn
i
00
N U)
N
N
•U •U (a .•Ni
!� ++ i)
_ o ww rt w
t ¢�
cn V
a �iov u
w a pia a,c�o,Ns
H
a
w�
w
C U] �•-i U to U
LZ1 c� -W U rrq �
co Q 0 O
S -H
COI �•H0 �•ri-4J
ER a � S2?
E+GZPII U 0�o N ya O 1
� to
,T.
U N r•1 N N r-i UI 44
q a au° a 28 h ac°�
�
x
�
a
a
x
to
a
�
�a
u
ha
aaa
Ln
r,
00
ON
I I I I
H
a
w�
a
44...
AU)"
O E
541
t!�
oW��RC
I
U�
MhE•i
iaT� OU�
a
�
O
E-4o
raa •� 'Oi
4JN24U�8
a�4S2
raw
N v N N
s
I 1 1 1
�a
I
o
�
ss)1
Uuwi
•Vs.�l
N
U
I 3-�
L A ctis •�
•p+
44
►
d w
O 44
w V
V V
0 co
�M�
I I I
I I
a a u a M
fA
�tp
U
•�
E
4�
4T
N
N
U .�
'
QU
44J
G
A �
LO
O�T�q�
U
w
$4
tU0 'NI
41
4J
O
O
•
q
44
O
V w14
W
I I
I I
r,i
1 1 1
a�
8
w
r
O N O
•5
•N
4.)
�O
w
.�
w
1-3 — 16D
O
4►
wq
+►
O
+�
44
I 1
1 1
1
I
.E
a
x
x
c3
4-3
a a
44
a
a
3
Mgw
h
h
a
�
�
�
2
1
H
E-4
H
a
H
a�w
U2
H
UU�N
a
00
E-4 0Z
al
ra-i
W
44
EQ-
W
H O
� 1
s
Q
�
1 I
1
t
1 1
44 W
44
4-4
44
44
8 8
1 1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
o
i 8
14
E � •�
z u au°
44
gF.
rn
ru
•����
U
) u
U
U
aU
U
hC�
E�
wc7
ht
h
�i
�
r-I
N
C4
N
co
m
r-I
41
1a
•ri
41
a
ca
a
4J
u
U
E
CIO.
QD
11
by County -owned and privately -owned facilities and open ace areas
Y P Y P P
within or in close proximity to the Village limits. The
facilities and areas outside the Village limits are not assigned
a percentage of the demand but are noted in each instance.
8.3.3 Present and Future Population Base
The following population data, as presented in the FUTURE LAND USE
element are used to calculate demand of recreational and open space
facilities within the Village.
987 1994 1999
Resident 4,720 5,000 5,084
Seasonal 597 616 618
Total 5,317 5,616 5,702
(Note: 1989 represents the year the Plan is adopted; 1994, the
5-year projection; 1995, the buildout year; and 1999,
the 10-year projection.)
8.3.4 Summary of Current and Future Recreation and
Open Space Needs
Table 8-3 identifies the various park classifications, recreation
areas and activities within the Village and analyzes each in terms
of current and future demand using standards prepared by Palm Beach
County. The analysis presented in this Table identifies one (1)
area of potential current and future needs: neighborhood parks.
The analysis of the present and future recreation and open space
needs as illustrated on Table 8-3 does not take into account the
impact of parks and facilities presently owned and operated by Palm
Beach County. It is estimated by the County Parks and Recreation
Department that 20% of the demand for recreation and open space
facilities is met through the County system. By applying a 20%
"discount factor" to the current and future needs analysis
presented in Table 8-3, an assessment of the open space and
recreation facilities needs for the Village is calculated and
presented on Table 8-4. The application of the 20% "discount
factor" leads to the conclusion that the Village has a need for
additional neighborhood parks areas. There are 99.07 acres of
private recreation areas at the condo and multiple family
developments which would supplement the necessary difference
between "existing supply" and "need" for neighborhood park areas,
if calculated with the County "discount rate" (20%). Current
"need" without the County discount figure would be 1.0 acres for
1989 and nearly 2.0 acres for 1994.
8-11
E•
z
a
O
U
C7
z
a�
4
0
W
co
a
H[-
I
I I
I I I I
I
a
o
a
W
N
W
o
z
4
Ey
u
z
(d
W
a
o
� � O
co m
V) .dl
4J 4J 'd 'C7
w
0
d
LOitO.
Hr-1
�a4)4)
OOp
+, O
o O r1 +i
4
ri
owC
lt1 u-%
N 0%
en N -4 (NJ
N
�
.-r1
p�
w
C
O
+�
>
ao
.Ni
c
4
�
+i
O
a
z
o
W
c
d
o
W
0
0 U)
o 4)
Ul N
d d
4-) 4-) 'O 'C
L. L. r-1 r 4
dl
ed
N
Ln
cd
�
Ld
4 4
r4H
0 7 4) IV
4)W
�
z
co
-,4.0
u "4�. 44.4
�
a
O
a
w
c+'1N.1N
N
O
O
a
".4
c
+-I
r 4
ed
41
ri
cd
cd
a
r1
O
ri
O
+1
4
yy�o
O
m
a
>Pa
v
C7
<U
4 4
d
ri ri
L. 4 r♦ ri
O Q1
cd
Iv
O
a
4-a
a
d
OC
H >
ed 0
S .G
V U W W
co
41
V
c
En 6
W O
N
N cY 1 N
N
4)
•rl
.�.{
H G
xa
-r-
e
w En
41
+i
4
S
4
C
3
a�
41
Q`
v ON
O
U
00
00
0000
�
y�
C
�
00
00
0000
0
1-4O
.0
00
O
0000
0
4b
pp
.Lr%
O
ri
OCd
•-� •�
c11 N
z
\\
N \
\\\\
en
41
cd ter
cd
O
tll to
\ w
4.) a� 'd 'O
\
O
�► O
�+
A H
y y
y 0
4 4 r4 r4
cd
O a
w
x E•
44
Hr♦
07dd
d
41
.-.
d\ d
u ci
•r1 o
O o-H -H
4
c
ap
Im EE+-{ =
co 0
8
U C) W W
ad
O
c c
Z
F z O
U N Lr%
O •r1
C
4
C1
E+
[y
°
H
ri
,G
cyd a
�
>
r4
A
..
Q
�
b
N
Q
w cUi
8
>b
Cd
M
V
\O
O
z
z
r-i t°n cn
0
--
>
O
4
O
ri \\ C
a
cf
H
0
H
co r•I r-I a
4J
!L
O •r1
E•
N O
EF
.0 r-4 ri O
c
cA
••
Hz
.0
d
dU
d
0l4-)cdco49)
y
4 y
O
W
V) O
= 7
W
.0
w
•r+ d a A DG
4-)
4
7>
O
U
aGcnH
00E
a
uW
w
C-V 4) 4J >,0
4
4-J—H
a
Lr
OC d E+
+1 E
U
cd r-4
U
c 0 0 O 0
r 4
z
=
m0
U
EOU
Gd+UU
aEm°a
-4mw
n
3-12
,a, 0
IA y
L$r Lr
a Cd 0
H
Ls. 000
0 N
0
z
d
o
L. L.
F U U
w cc 0
a --r u,
a •N
U �
Q) W
Iv a)
0 fr L.
">4 0Cd
vFia co
Ha
xo
W to
00
00
00
- 1-1
z
0 co ril
aOC E+ LO+ LU.
Z 1F-1 � a0 OD
EE-- Z0 00
w a NN
d
W
a
OM
z
I
.c a
0
Ld
Ac
wo
m
bOE
adF
U
aUU
ZU
a
UK
nm
0
L-1
r-I r-4
e .c
1— CO
N -4
rr
O O
In O
N 0
-4 en
U d
•�rl O
E .0
F
H
9
H
F
Ly. o
� H
U W
c0 ri U
GUO C07 i=
0 07
Lo Lr H
r 4 00
O O "
"4 L0i
U U w
W Cd
N N r4 -4 N
0 to
41 41 'd
V 0
L� it ri
r-I 4i
770
Gl U
U U w
W Id
N N -4 .4 (M
0 N 0
0)
a
s �
� lz
O O +4
rl L.
U U W
W ed
�NM N N
000
O
000
O
O
to In N
w
0
La L. ri
ri
4i
O O "1
COI
LUr
U UW
w
0
L.
1
Q11�
0
W
U
ri U09
N '07
ArirIri O
N4-)10"10 L+0
+1 O A O A OC 41
Crn04AOc0rI
m m
E-�
U. aa.
tv
x
C
O
0
0
NIf1
t•
O
W C
O O
O C
00 d
r-1 O
7 d
a
a
b
nci �
y
d a\
coo ti-I r�
L. b
cd ri "I
4.4 co L.
O d
C 00
O Or.
A ed LL
CD 0
A
Ld
E co
A d
A Ln
41 v
LU• O >
L. 41 a4
7 7 0.+
r•I U N �
8-13
9.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This Element offers a review of the various agencies/entities
which provide differing levels of service to the residents of
Tequesta. While the majority of these service providers or
vendors are governmental agencies, all of the services are
provided through the authority of the Village or other
governmental entity. This section therefore, lists, describes,
and analyses each of the services provided within the Village.
Intergovernmental coordination, as applied to local governments
in general and specifically to Tequesta, is a broad term and
takes many forms of implementation. It ranges from informal
understandings which ease the friction of daily conduct of
governance to the formal written agreements between the various
local governments, agencies and/or entities.
The necessity of coordination and cooperation between
governments, long recognized informally, has been formalized in
the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulations Act. In that Act, the need is
recognized to establish and implement specific programs to guide
and control future development, not only on the local municipal
level, but in the county, region, and state as well.
The INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION element is required to be
included within the Comprehensive Development Plan per
requirements of State planning law and rule criteria.
Specifically, Chapter 163.3177 (6)(h), Florida Statutes,
establishes the INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION element
requirement and Chapter 9J5.015, Florida Administrative Code,
establishes minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This Element contains a summary of the data, analyses and
support documentation necessary to form the basis for
intergovernmental coordination goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.015
Florida Administrative Code, the INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
element is structured according to the following format:
So Intergovernmental Coordination Data Summary; and
o Intergovernmental Coordination Analysis
The need for intergovernmental coordination stems from a basic
need to provide service in the most effective and efficient
manner. As the demands of urban growth rise, the need for
�t
intergovernmental interdependence increases. Tequesta's ability
to meet the challenge of guiding sound, quality development is
dependent upon a spirit of cooperation between the Village and
9-1
other agencies and levels of government. Thus, it is recognized
that positive attitude precedes effective coordination. By
working toward resolution of mutual problems and concerns, the
Village is better able to manage the complex social organization
and all involved benefit from the mutual cooperative effort.
The originators of the Growth Management Act intended that
municipalities develop various forms of
intergovernmental agreements and activities which would
maximize their strength and ability to respond to future
development. The language of the Act grants considerable
latitude to the municipality in specifying proposed and
existing intergovernmental agreements and the mechanisms with
which the responsibilities of the agreements are carried out.
There are two types of formal agreements. The first are general
mechanisms which provide a forum for reaching consensus in
areawide issues. The second makes provision for specific
functions and services, and type represents the preponderance of
Village agreements. They may be categorized as follows:
1. A single government (Tequesta) performs a service or
provides a facility for one or more jurisdictions
2. A single government (Tequesta) receives a service or
uses a facility supplied by one or more
jurisdictions, or
3. Two or more jurisdictions administer a function or
operate a program or a facility on a joint basis. The
Village has developed an effective network of
intergovernmental coordination, and has been responsive
to development activities in adjacent jurisdictions. The
Village coordinates with all levels of government agencies
charged with planning and/or review responsibilities. It
communicates with adjacent jurisdictions and responds
promptly to requests from review agencies for Village
evaluations of projects and developments.
Every effort is made to cooperate and coordinate with the Towns
of Jupiter Inlet Colony and Jupiter, Martin County and Palm
Beach County.
The Village will continue to coordinate its planning and
development activities with all levels of local regional and
state government in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act.
9-2
:
l
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element is to identify and resolve incompatible goals,
objectives, policies and development proposed in local
government comprehensive plans. Identification of existing and
potential conflicts is the first step. The second step is to
determine the need for developing coordination processes and
procedures with adjacent local governments and regional and
state agencies.
The effect is to utilize and strengthen the existing role,
processes, and powers of local government in Florida with the
intent to preserve and enhance present advantages and to
encourage the most appropriate use of all natural resources,
address present governmental handicaps and effectively deal with
future problems that may result from these handicaps by proper
and adequate planning. Through such planning, it is intended
that Florida units of local government can preserve, promote and
improve the health, safety, appearance, and development of their
local governmental units.
The Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element will set forth the Village's plan to
resolve existing and potential conflicts through coordination
procedures. The intent of this element is to inventory existing
coordinating mechanisms, analyze their effectiveness, identify
the need for additional coordinating procedures in the future,.
and establish realistic Goals, Objectives and Policies.
9.1.2 Area of Concern
The area of concern for a municipality is defined by Chapter 9J-
5, Florida Administrative Code, to include adjacent
municipalities, the county, and counties adjacent to the
municipality. For Tequesta, the areas of concern include the
Town of Jupiter and the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, as
adjacent municipalities, Palm Beach County, and Martin County,
as additional abutting jurisdictions.
9.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES:
DATA AND ANALYSIS
Coordinating opportunities within the area of concern may
include intergovernmental agreements, joint planning and service
agreements, special legislation and joint meetings or work
groups that are used to further intergovernmental coordination.
In Tequesta, the Village Manager has the primary responsibility
for intergovernmental coordination.
The following is a listing of organizations and entities
affecting the Village of Tequesta, and an analysis of each:
9-3
J
L
9.2.1 United States Government
Of the numerous federal departments having jurisdiction within
the Village, Tequesta officials specifically address the issues
and/or areas, as follows:
9.2.1.1 Corps of Engineers
Close cooperation in review of all dock permits is mandated by the
Village and all dredge and fill permits within the Village are
reviewed by the Corps.
The permit review process occurs in the Building Department of
the Village, under the direction of the Building Official, who
reports to the Village Manager. Individuals applying for a
Village dock permit must submit copies of any permits received
by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps permit becomes a part of
the Village permit. There is no formal agreement governing this
procedure.
Analysis: The current situation is effective.
WIN 9.2.1.2 Compliance with Federal Mandates
All federal mandates and guidelines are observed by the Village,
including non-discrimination and equal opportunity.
9.2.1.3 United States Coast Guard
The United States Coast Guard has jurisdiction in the adjacent
waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Intracoastal Waterway and, when
necessary, can render aid and service with or without
coordination through the Tequesta Police Department.
The Coastal Guard has authorized the Village Police Department
to enforce trespassing on Coast Guard property (at C-707 and U.S.
Highway 1) via a Letter of Authorization. The Chief of
Police coordinates this relationship.
Analysis: To the extent that the Village is concerned with
effectiveness (i.e., this relationship is primarily of benefit
to the Coast Guard) this relationship is adequate.
9.2.2. Florida, State of
The State has several agencies which have jurisdiction and
provide varying levels of service, administration, or funding to
the Village. The exact function of these agencies is specified
in either the Florida Statutes or the Florida Administrative
Code.
9-4
�I
9.2.2.1 Florida Department
of Transportation
The Florida Department
of Transportation
(FDOT) has primary
responsibility for
coordination
of transportation
facilities, planning
and development.
Formal contracts and
agreements are the
primary mechanisms
for coordination. There
is one (1) State road located in
Tequesta (U.S. Highway
1). Planning and
development of
the State transportation
system is of concern to
the Village.
U
F.,
The Future Land Use and Traffic Circulation Elements will
benefit from continued coordination between the FDOT, Palm Beach
County, and the Village. The Department of Transportation is
required to prepare a comprehensive plan that is coordinated
with local government comprehensive plans. This requirement
will result in a higher level of coordination between the FDOT
and local government planning.
The mechanism of coordination depends on the nature of the
project or issue in which the Village and the FDOT share
interest. There is no formal mechanism. In most instances, the
Village Manager directs the coordination, although the Building
Department, Police Department and the Village Engineer may
interact directly with FDOT.
Analysis: The current relationship with the FDOT is
generally satisfactory. Occasional problems arise when the Village
wishes to accomplish a task quickly, but is hampered by the
relatively slow pace with which the FDOT operates.
9.2.2.2 Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is
involved in monitoring and preventing water pollution. Pursuant
to Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, the Department of
Environmental Regulation has delegated to the HRS the
responsibility for monitoring hazardous wastes. There are
formalized coordination procedures for licensing of hazardous
waste generators in order to insure compliance with State
regulations. There are no licensed hazardous waste generators
within the Village.
The Village has no specific coordination mechanism with the
HRS. In the event coordination was required, either the Village
Manager's Office or the Building Department would probably
coordinate the contact.
Analysis: The current mechanism for coordination may be
effective, although it is not possible to know for certain at
this time as no coordination has occurred.
9-5
W
n
1 9.2.2.3 Florida Department of Natural Resources
F.
�I
The Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is authorized
by Section 375.021, Florida Statutes, to develop and implement a
comprehensive,multi-purpose, outdoor recreation and conservation
plan for the State of Florida.
o Division of Recreation and Parks
Currently the procedure for coordination ofn the
recreation portion of the State's recreation plan is an
informal one. There is no formal agreement in effect. The
DNR Division of Recreation and Parks makes available
current listings of recreational facilities to local
governments for review and update. The State's conservation
program is administered state- wide by various divisions and bureaus
of the DNR.
Analysis: The listings of facilities are helpful to the Village
and so the current relationship, to the minimal extent that one
exists, is satisfactory.
o Division of Recreation and Parks,
Bureau of Environmental Land Management
The Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Environmental
Land Management (HELM) is responsible for administration of
aquatic preserve management plans. Construction, excavation or
other activities waterward of the mean high water line that can
impact on environmental quality are coordinated on an as -needed
basis by the Building Department with the BELM.
Analysis: This relationship, which is coordinated on the local
(County) level, is sufficient.
o Division of Beaches and Shores,
Beach Restoration Management Plan
The DNR Division of Beaches and Shores is responsible for
monitoring beach erosion problems and authorizing State
participation in beach erosion control projects. Pursuant to
Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, the Division has this year
completed a Beach Restoration Management Plan for the State
which includes a plan for restoration of Palm Beach County
beaches.
There is no formal mechanism for coordination at the State
level. However, the Village is actively involved in the Palm
Beach County Beaches and Shores Council. The Mayor serves as
the Village's representative on the Council, bringing Village
concerns to the Council's attention.
n
Analysis: The Village's active membership on the County Beaches
and Shores Council provides an open and effective means of
communication and coordination.
o Coastal Construction Control Line Program
The DNR is responsible for establishing and administering the
Coastal Construction Control Line program. By formal inter-
agency agreement, the DNR has delegated to the Village the
authority to locally administer the Coastal Construction Control
Line permitting program within its boundaries.
Analysis: This relationship is effective, in that it consists
of a clear transfer of responsibility.
9.2.2.4 Florida Department of Community Affairs
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the responsible
agency for overseeing implementation of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.
Formal mechanisms for coordination between the DCA and local
governments are set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. These include
contracts providing for State financial assistance to local
government comprehensive planning efforts and for compliance
review of local government comprehensive plans by the DCA. The
Village of Tequesta has a current contract with the State for
financial assistance in preparation of the Village's
Comprehensive Development Plan. The contract and agreement
mechanism has been effective thus far.
Informal mechanisms of coordination include State -sponsored
instructional workshops and meetings and provision to local
governments of data sources and model methodologies for
comprehensive plan elements. Prior to final compliance
review, the DCA assists local governments by providing a
preliminary review of methodologies and plan elements. The DCA
has made a preliminary review and comments on contracted work
products submitted by the Village. The preliminary review has
aided the Village in preparing a comprehensive plan that will
comply with State requirements.
In addition to comprehensive planning assistance and review, the
DCA also provides local governments with model coastal
construction and land development regulations. Tequesta has
adopted the DCA's revised model "Coastal Construction Code" as
the Coastal Construction Code for the Village of Tequesta.
All comprehensive plan elements will benefit from continued
coordination between the DCA and the Village. The need for
additional coordination will be determined as the effectiveness
of current mechanisms is measured.
9-7
U
o Division of Emergency Management
The Village coordinates with this Division primarily in the
area of flood plain management. The Building Official is the
Flood Plain Manager for the Village and coordinates the
Village's participation in the Flood Insurance Program with this
Division and with the Federal Emergency Management Association's
Atlanta office. The Village entered into the Flood Insurance
Program by Ordinance and resulting intergovernmental activities
are governed by the administrative rules of the Program.
Analysis: The current mechanism is satisfactory.
o Division of Housing and Community Development
There is no formal mechanism or significant coordination
directly with this Division of the DCA. However, the Village
does participate in the Palm Beach County Housing and Community
Development Department's Community Development Block Grant
Program. This participation is by Interlocal Agreement with Palm
Beach County and is coordinated by the Village Manager.
Analysis: The existing mechanism is satisfactory.
o Florida Housing Finance Agency
No formal agreement or significant informal coordination is
occurring at this time.
Analysis: not applicable.
9.2.2.5 Department of Environmental Regulation
The Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
is
authorized pursuant to Section 373.026, Florida Statutes,
to
collect data
on and classify surface waters and groundwater,
to
share information on the use and conservation of water, to
be
involved in
coastal area management and to monitor the disposal
of hazardous
wastes. The monitoring of hazardous wastes
is
performed in
conjunction with the Department of Health
and
Rehabilitative
Services.
The Coastal Management and Conservation Elements will be
benefited from continued coordination between the DER and the
Village, both in the collection and sharing of data and in
permitting procedures.
Development projects within the Village are required to procure
the appropriate permits prior to commencing construction. This
requirement is administered by the Building Department.
9-8
Analysis: This coordination mechanism is effective as currently
operating.
9.2.2.6 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FWFC) is
authorized by Chapter 372, Florida Statutes, to manage Florida's
fish and game resources. This responsibility includes both the
collection and dissemination of information identifying
threatened or endangered species or species of special concern
and management of designated wildlife management areas. The
information provided by the FWFC on threatened species has been
valuable to local government comprehensive planning. There are
no State wildlife management lands within the Village of
Tequesta.
The Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Management
Elements of the comprehensive plan will benefit from continued
coordination between the FWFC and the Village. No deficiencies
in the current arrangements have been identified.
There is no formal mechanism for coordination. If the Village
annexed areas containing State Wildlife Management lands, an
unlikely event, the Village Manager and/or Building Official
would coordinate activities as necessary.
Analysis: Not Applicable.
9.2.2.7 Department of Administration,
Division of Retirement
The Village has participated in the Florida Retirement System
since 1975. The Director of Finance coordinates activities with
the Division according to Florida Statutes, Ch. 121 and FRS
regulations. These activities consist of enrollment procedures,
processing of Village contributions to the System and other
M administrative functions.
Analysis: The Village Council in March of 1989 adopted
Resolution No. 5-88/89 "Requesting that the 1989 Session of the
Florida Legislature Enact Legislation which would Allow
Municipalities to Withdraw from the Florida Retirement System."
Because of the mandatory nature of the system and the constantly
rising contribution rates over which the Village has no
control, this relationship is not satisfactory.
The Department of Administration also cooperates, assists
and provides information to the Village in planning
various activities, programs and procedures. In addition, the
Village invests a portion of General Fund and Water Enterprise
idle funds through the Department because of the high
rate of interest and quick access to funds without the
penalty which would be incurred in some other investment
procedures.
9-9
U
1
9.2.2.8 State Comptroller's Office
As a recipient of State Revenue Sharing Funds, the Village
provides annually all necessary reports and financial
information to the State Comptrollers' office. The Director of
Finance coordinates this reporting.
Analysis: This relationship is satisfactory.
9.2.2.9 Department of Revenue
In accordance with the Truth in Millage (TRIM) Act of the
State of Florida, the Director of Finance annually provides
the required information to the Department. This information
is transmitted via the Certification of Compliance Form DR-487.
Analysis: This relationship is satisfactory.
9.2.2.10 Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles
The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles works
closely with the Tequesta Police Department and monthly reports
on accidents, citations and other pertinent information are
supplied to that Department.
There is no formal mechanism for this coordination. The Chief
of Police coordinates the activities.
Analysis: This relationship is satisfactory.
9.2.2.11 Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce receives reports of payroll and
employee verification on a quarterly basis from the Village, and
all unemployment compensation is coordinated through that
Department. There is no formal mechanism in addition to State
Statutes for this coordination which is administered by the Director
of Finance .
Analysis: The relationship is satisfactory.
9.2.2.12 Other State Agencies
Additional State of Florida Departments and Agencies having
statutory jurisdictions within the Village are as follows:
o Department (Secretary) of State
o Water Certification
fl
G
U
U
U
o Bureau of Police Standards
o Florida Crime Information Center
o State Fire Marshal
o Commission on Ethics
o Attorney General
o Board of Elections
There are no formal mechanisms between the Village and the above
agencies, as none have been found to be necessary.
9.2.3 Regional and County Planning Agencies
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC).
The TCRPC has State Statutory jurisdiction over all developments
which are deemed to be of regional significance. Additionally,
it reviews all comprehensive plans within its boundaries for
compatibility with adopted regional policies.
The Board of elected officials includes County Commissioners and
municipal representatives recommended by the Palm Beach County
Municipal League, subject to final selection by the County
Commission. Any and all plans developed by the Village under
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulations Act must be reviewed by the Council.
In addition to its Regional Policy Plan, the TCRPC has issued a
policy plan for wetlands and deepwater habitats. As discussed
in the Coastal Management Element, the TCRPC seeks to
coordinate with and go beyond the programs of environmental
regulatory agencies in wetlands and deepwater habitat
management. The Council also plays a valuable role in preparing
regional studies, and collecting and disseminating information
for use by local governments in preparing their plans.
Analysis: The effectiveness of TCRPC review procedures and
conflict resolution activities has not yet been determined. No
deficiencies have been identified at this time. Although the
Village is not directly represented on the TCRPC Board, Village
staff have coordinated with TCRPC staff on particular issues and
have found the relationship satisfactory.
Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council
The Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council (PBCPC) created in
November, 1987, by County Charter Amendment, is responsible for
coordinating land use planning throughout Palm Beach County. An
9-11
Ll
�LAI
initial policy, requiring that all municipalities define and
plan for future annexation areas, was adopted by PBCPC in May,
1988. Coordination with the PBCPC and implementation of
activities related to the annexation policy are the
responsibility of the Village Manager.
9.2.4 Water Management Districts
South Florida Water Management District
This is regional entity that has jurisdiction over all water
related utilities within the South Florida region, was
established by State Statute, and is a sixteen (16) county
taxing district governed by a Board appointed by the Governor,
including one (1) member from Palm Beach County. Coordination
and continual planning with this agency is critical to the
Tequesta Water Department. The District mandates the approved
water supplies and amounts available for withdrawal and permits
all activities incidental thereto, including consumptive water
use, deep well injections, well abandonments, and surface water
management.
The Future Land Use, Sanitary Sewer, Coastal Management and
Conservation Elements all benefit from coordination between the
Village and SFWMD. No specific needs for additional
Icoordination have been identified.
Developments over a certain threshold in size must be permitted
for surface water management through the SFWMD. This
arrangement is beneficial to the Village as the Village does not
have sufficient staff to provide the review. The Building
Department coordinates with SFWMD in such developments.
IAnalysis: The current relationship is generally satisfactory.
9.2.5 Independent Special Districts
Jupiter Inlet Navigational District
The Jupiter Inlet Navigational District is responsible for
maintenance of the inlet connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the
Intracoastal Waterway. Inlet improvements, including regular
dredging, sand transfer facilities, and other inlet protection
structures have an impact on the Village's beaches. There is no
formal mechanism for coordination between the Village and the
Inlet Navigational District.
Analysis: The current relationship is satisfactory.
Florida Inland Navigational District (F.I.N.D.)
9-12
This organization, established by State Statute, was legislated
for the purpose of construction, maintenance, and operation of
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. In this role, FIND
coordinates with all local governments along the waterway and
other navigational districts by providing administrative
services, by controlling speed and boat traffic, and by offering
funding assistance to those affected entities.
Because of the relationship between inlets, beach conditions to
the north and south of inlets, and the Intracoastal Waterway the
future plans of these three entities should be coordinated.
Analysis: Although there is little direct contact, this
relationship seems to be adequate.
9.2.6 Local Utility and Service Providers
�41 Coordination between the Village and those entities providing
service to the Village is necessary to ensure future provision
of essential services. As discussed in the UTILITIES ELEMENT,
the Village has franchises with the Florida Power and Light
Company and with Southern Bell for provision of electric and
telephone service. Centel Cable TV is franchised by the Village
to provide cable TV service to Village residents. The main
area of coordination is in necessary facilities improvements
within the Village's jurisdiction.
Analysis: The coordinating mechanisms between these entities
and the Village are satisfactory.
9.2.7 Loxahatchee Council of Governments (COG)
The Village is an active member of the Loxahatchee Council of
Governments (COG). The COG was established for the purpose of
providing a forum to study area problems of mutual interest and
concern to the counties, (Palm Beach and Martin), cities
(Jupiter, Jupiter Inlet Colony, Juno Beach) and other interested
entities (ENCON, drainage districts, etc.,) of the Loxahatchee
River area. The COG has appointed staff personnel from each of
the jurisdictions to study areawide planning needs and issues.
Analysis: This coordinating mechanism is effective in allowing
for discussion of issues of mutual concern between the members.
9.2.8 County Governments
9.2.8.1 Martin County
To prevent any future development and/or land use conflicts, the
Village maintains coordination with the Martin County Planning
Department. This consists of communication and review of
development proposals along the northern Tequesta boundary.
9-13
U
1 9.2.8.2 Palm Beach Count
Palm Beach County is a charter county and as such has
jurisdictional authority over a variety of public services.
There is close communication between the Village and the
County. Tequesta officials often attend County Commission
meetings and are well informed as to the County's activities.
In addition, there is coordination between the Village and
various departments of County government. The coordination
mechanisms for these points of contact are discussed below.
Numerous general activities are coordinated on a county level
through various governmental and quasi -governmental agencies.
These include, but are not limited to, functions through the
various constitutional officers, the County Commission, Palm
Beach County School Board, Palm Beach County Construction
Industry Licensing Board, Palm Beach County Municipal League,
Palm Beach County City Management Association, Palm Beach County
Police Chiefs' Association and the Building Officials'
Association of Palm Beach County. Activities include assessment
of properties, collection of taxes, elections, mosquito control,
jail and holding facilities, planning and pertinent statistics
and data for same, garbage and collection sites, civil defense,
licensing regulation, and support or defeat of specific
legislation. Specific County activities include the following:
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
The Palm Beach County, MPO is responsible for planning and
development of the County's public transportation facilities.
The upkeep of these facilities are the responsibility of the
County. Coordination of needed repairs and maintenance has been
effective in the past.
Health Department
The Palm Beach County Health Department is the responsible
agency for reviewing and permitting installation of on -site
sewage disposal facilities, to insure that no adverse impact
on groundwater sources will result and to insure adequate
drainfields for sewage disposal. Coordination in this area has
been effective in the past.
9.2.8.3 Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
The Solid Waste Authority has countywide responsibility for
disposition of solid waste. Solid waste in Tequesta is
collected by a private contractor which utilizes the County
Landfill for disposal. The Village pays a fee based on tonnage
0 for use of the facility.
9-14
C
J
I�
The Village is coordinating implementation of a recycling
program with the Solid Waste Authority, and has entered into an
Interlocal Agreement with the SWA to apply for State funding for
recycling programs. The Village Manager's Office coordinates
these activities, which are satisfactory.
9.2.8.4 Department of Civil Defense
This Department coordinates hurricane evacuation procedures for
the County, including Tequesta. The Village is responsible
during an evacuation to coordinate all activities through the
County Emergency Operations Center. The Tequesta Police
Department is the responsible coordinating agency.
Coordination of evacuation procedures in the past has been
effective.
The Coastal Management Element will benefit from continued
coordination between Palm Beach County and the Village. Any
proposed changes in the evacuation routes for Tequesta, as
discussed in the Coastal Management Element, should be
coordinated with the County.
9.2.8.5 Other Agencies/Entities
o Jupiter Inlet Colony: Through letter agreement, the Village
provides Building Inspection Services to the Colony.
o Department of Natural Resources: The Village has leased
Tequesta Park, a forty-two (42) acre tract in Martin County,
to provide a public recreation facility for the area. An
amendment to this lease also allows the Village of Tequesta
to drill wells for water supply on the site.
o Water Supply: Tequesta provides potable water to all Tequesta
and Jupiter Inlet Colony; to the area of the Town of
Jupiter north of the Loxahatchee River; and to contiguous
areas in Palm Beach and Martin Counties.
o Sheriff's Office: The sheriff of Palm Beach County agrees to
hold prisoners in the County Jail prior to filing charges.
o Palm Beach County: Interlocal Agreement for Roadway.
Improvements in Tequesta. In consideration of Village
participation in the County's Impact Fee program, the
County agreed to reimburse the Village up to $630,000 in
traffic impact fee collections for a roadway improvement
project of the Village during Fiscal Years 88, 89 and 90.
9-15
U
o Palm Beach County: Traffic Engineering Services Agreement.
Under terms of this agreement, Palm Beach County
assumes responsibility for certain traffic engineering
services and functions pertaining to the planning,
installation, operation and maintenance of traffic control
devices on certain roadways and signalized intersections.
o South Florida Water Management District: The Village holds a
water withdrawal permit for the surficial acquifer for
the amount of 1.6 million gallons per day average.
o Palm Beach County and Municipalities:
Local Option Gas Tax. This agreement authorizes a
local option gas tax to be distributed among Palm
Beach County and eligible municipalities. A.
distribution formula for dividing the proceeds has been
established for a 5-year period beginning September 1, 1983.
o "208" Plan, Palm Beach County: This agreement resolved to
join with other general purpose units of government to develop
a 208 Plan resulting in the coordination of a waste
treatment management system, and to consider the adoption of
Water Quality Management strategies when preparing
or revising its Comprehensive Development Plan.
o Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other Municipalities:
The Village participates in the E-911 Emergency
System. Tequesta operates as a Public Safety servicing point
in the E-911 system for public safety purposes.
o Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Department: The Village
receives fire protection from Palm Beach County Fire
Rescue Department. The services are financed through
Village ad valorem tax revenues.
o Palm Beach County School Board: The Village and the School
Board agree to cooperatively operate a Community School
Program at the Jupiter Senior High Community School. Village
students attend public schools in Jupiter.
o Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (ENCON): The
district supplies the Village Wastewater Collection
and Treatment service. (Ordinance No. 209).
9-16
L
9.3.1.5 Conservation Element
Continue to urge the State Department of Transportation to undertake
the planned street widenings and intersection improvements in order
to facilitate traffic flow. The Director of Public Works will
continue to coordinate this effort.
Work with County and State park officials to assure that any park
improvements are sensitive to the mangrove and other vegitative/
wildlife/marine habitats. The Director of Public Works and, as
necessary, the Building Official will coordinate these
communications.
Preserve all existing wetland areas identified on the Coastal
Management/ Conservation map by adopting through ordinance, the Palm
Beach County Mangrove Protection Ordinance... (Pol. 1.6.1) The
Building Official and, as necessary, the Village Manager's Office
will direct this activity.
The Village shall review all proposed developments within the
coastal area for consistancy with the on -going planning efforts for
the Loxahatchee River Esturary and the Indian River Aquatic Preserve
by cooperating with the Palm Beach County Department of
Environmental Resource Management and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation. (Pol. 2.1.2) The Building Official shall
continue to coordinate with these agencies in development review.
9.3.1.6 Recreation and Open Space Element
Encourage the use of private recreation facilities within the
Village and work cooperatively with the private sector to provide
public recreation areas in future developments as part of the site
plan review process. (Pol. 1.4.3) The Director of Public Works and
Recreation will coordinate this effort.
The Village should work cooperatively with the Federal Government
and Palm Beach County to direct the development of the Coast Guard
property north of CR 707 for future recreation/open space, culture/
civic and/or other appropriate public use. The waterway frontage
should be pursued for public access and usage. This cooperative
action should begin in FY 1990. Since there is similar federally
owned property south of CR 707 within the corporate limits of the
Town of Jupiter, the Village should investigate coordination with
their work towared similar development of the entire area. (Pol.
1.4.8) The Village Manager's Office will continue to direct this
coordination.
9.3.1.7 Coastal Management
The Village shall cooperate with agencies and municipalities serving
to protect the resources of the Loxahatchee River and.Indian River
Lagoon Aquatic Preserve by actively coordinating with the
9-20
I
development of estuarine policies that shall be, at a minimum,
consistent with present management plans through participation in
agencies including, but not limited, the Loxahatchee Council of
Governments, Jupiter Inlet District, Martin County and the Palm
Beach Countywide Beaches and Shores Council. (Pol. 1.1.1) The
Building Official will continue to coordinate this effort, along
with the Village Manager's Office, as necessary.
The Village shall ensure that marinas are sited to minimize impacts
on coastal and estuarine resources by coordinating the development
of a marina -siting ordinance with Palm Beach County and the Regional
Planning Council. (Pol. 1.3.3) The Building Official will
coordinate this development.
Coordinate with the Jupiter Inlet District to achieve more adequate
renourishment to the south of the Jupiter Inlet; otherwise continue
to protect the beach and dune system. (Obj. 1.4.). See also related
Policies 1.4.1 - 1.4.2. The Village Manager's Office will
coordinate this effort.
9.3.1.8 Capital Improvements
Defined Recreation Facility needs may be met by any of the following
means: (1) on -site provision of public or private facilities; (2)
dedications; or (3) fees in lieu thereof. Plant expansion for
potable water and sewer systems shall be accommodated by charges
administered by the Village and the Loxahatchee River Environmental
Control District. Major road improvements shall be accommodated by
participating in the County's Fair Share road Impact Fee Program.
Solid Waste collection and disposal improvements shall be
accommodated by the fee schedule annually levied by the private
hauler (Note: Tipping Fees are levied by the Palm Beach County Solid
Waste Authority). (Pol. 1.3.2) These activities are coordinated by
the Building Official and other Departments as necessary.
1 9.3.2 Comprehensive Development Plans of Adjacent Governments
U
Adjacent governments are defined as those municipalities and
counties which share a common boundary with the Village.
Adjacent governments include: (1) the Town of Jupiter, (2) the
Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, (3) Palm Beach County, and (4)
Martin County. Coordination of land use planning and
development of properties adjacent to Tequesta is accomplished
on an informal basis through available notification, review and
comment mechanisms during comprehensive planning and land
development approval processes. Additional coordination with
various entities on specific issues is further discussed in
sections that follow. The Village Manager is primarily
responsible for implementing coordination of planning, except
where noted below.
9-21
9.2.9 Adjacent Local Governments
Coordination among adjacent local governments is particularly
important for resolution of potential land use conflicts along
the shared boundary as well as transportation and utility issues
arising from land use decisions. In a more positive sense,
cooperation among adjacent local governments can contribute to
the protection and enhancement of shared natural resources.
The local governments of the Town of Jupiter and Jupiter Inlet
Colony are the only adjacent municipal jurisdictions and are
located in Palm Beach County.
Issues of potential concern include land use conflicts among
these cities, traffic, and coastal resource management. The
municipalities negotiate short-term agreements as needed for any
joint concerns. Such mechanisms have been generally effective.
The FUTURE LAND USE, TRAFFIC and COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS
will benefit from continued cooperation between these cities
in the future. No specific needs for additional coordination
have been identified.
9.3.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ANALYSIS
9.3.1
Analysis of Comprehensive
Plan
Elements
Each of
the individual
Comprehensive
Development Plan elements
identifies particular problems and needs and the appropriate
actions, if these problems and needs exist. Either in the element
or in the Objectives and Policies, mechanisms have been delineated.
See the revised elements of the Comprehensive Development Plan
Support Documentation.
Below are listed significant Objectives and Policies for each
element and the Village agency or official responsible for the
coordination specified.
9.3.1.1 Future Land Use Element
The Village will coordinate its future planning and development with
the South Florida Water Management District by requiring the
issuance of a Surface Water Management Permit or Water Use Permit,
as appropriate, prior to issuing a development order. (Pol. 1.6.1)
This coordination will occur in the Building Department.
The Village should keep abreast of federal requirements to assure
residents' eligibility for flood insurance. (Pol. 1.7.1) The
0 Building Official coordinates this activity.
9-17
L
U
The Village shall continue to support the Federal Flood Insurance
Program. (Pol. 1.10.2) The Building Official would coordinate any
necessary activity.
9.3.1.2 Traffic Circulation Element
In the review of development projects in Tequesta, to assure
consistency with other jurisdictions' plans, the Village shall
coordinate with the plans and programs of the Florida Department of
Transportation, the West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study,
the Metropoliton Planning Organization of Palm Beach County, the
Palm Beach County Engineering Department and the Martin County
Metropoliton Planning Organization and Engineering Department.
(Obj. 1.3.0) The Building Official will continue to coordiate this
review.
The Village will adopt the Year 2000 Cost Feasible Transportation
Plan (WPBUATS). (Pol. 1.3.2) This action will be coordinated by the
Building Official and, as necessary, the Village Manager's Office.
Establish measures for the reservation and preservation of existing
and future rights -of -way by requiring such reservations and/or
preservations in the site plan review process and by abiding by the
Palm Beach County Right -of -Way Protection Plan. (Pol. 1.4.1) The
Building Official coordinates this activity.
9.3.1.3 Housing Element
Support activities which facilitate lower costs for housing
construction by adopting the Countywide Amendments to the Standard
Building Code. (Pol. 1.2.1) This shall be coordinated by the
Building Official.
Encourage programs which attempt to alleviate countywide housing
problems, including continued participation at the current level in
the Community Development Block Grant Program and associated
activities. (Pol. 1.1.2) This will continue to be coordinated by
the Building Official.
9.3.1.4 Utilities Element
Sanitary Sewer:
The Village should continue to request that the Loxahatchcee River
Environmental Control District (ENCON) submit comments on proposed
projects/developments regarding wastewater system requirements prior
to, or as a part of, the site plan review process. (Pol. 1.1.4)
This will continue to be coordinated by the Building Official.
9-18
n
U
U
Continue to coordinate with the Palm Beach County Health Department
and/or the Palm Beach County Department of Enviromental Regulation
regarding septic tank utilization in the Village. (see Pol. 1.1.7)
The Building Official would coordinate any necessary activities.
Annually participate in Northern Region Wastewater Facilites
Planning and the ENCON facilities planning effort. (Obj. 1.2.0)
See also related policies 1.2.1-1.2.3. This would be coordinated by
the Building Official and, as necessary, the Village Department of
Public Works and/or the Village Manager's Office.
Solid Waste:
Maintain a liason with the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach
County in order to ensure the Village input to the management of
existing landfill sites -and the purchase/ development of future
landfill sites. (Pol. 1.3.1) The Department of Public Works and,
as necessary, the Village Manager's Office fulfills this liason.
Request the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority to initiate a
pilot program for (toxic household) refuse separation within the
Village during FY 1990. (Pol. 1.4.1) The Director of Public Works
will coordinate this activity.
Potable Water:
Establish the necessary procedure with ENCON to require all new
developments to incorporate irrigation quality (IQ) water systems
for irrigation usage, once it is available and economically
feasible, as a method to reduce potable water demand and increase
aquifer recharge potential. (Pol. 1.3.2) This coordination would
be primarily under the charge of the Building Official, with the
Water System Manager and Public Works Director assisting as
necessary in the effort.
The Village shall coordinate with the Palm Beach County Department
of resource Management to establish a wellfield protection program
by 1991 which will regulate land use activities within the travel
time contours of the Village's welifields. (Pol. 1.4.2) This
process will be coordinated by the Water System Manager.
Drainage:
Investigate by FY 1991 the most cost-effective approach for
developing a Village -wide Stormwater Management Plan by either: (1)
petitioning the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District
for inclusion as a unit into their District or; (2) contract an
engineering firm to prepare a proposal for developing a
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, which could be prepared in
phases, for the Village including necessary capital improvements
with their associated costs. (Pol. 1.1.3) The Public Works
Department will coordinate this procedure, with assistance as
necessary from the Village Manager's Office.
9-19
1 9.3.1. Town of Jupiter
In the preparation of the Village's Comprehensive Development Plan,
Village consultants and staff met with staff of the Town of
Jupiter. The only major concern was related to potable water, as
discussed below.
Future Land Use
The Town of Jupiter's Future Land Use Map dated 3/89 indicates
harmonious uses designated in the area of the Town abutting
Tequesta. The land area in common is the isthmus north of the
Loxahatchee River and east of the Intracoastal Waterway. This
area can be reasonably subdivided by U.S. Highway One, creating
a western and an eastern sub -district.
In the western sub -district, residential abutts residential and
commercial abutts commercial along the boundary_ line
between the two jurisdictions.
The eastern subdistrict contains the boundary line of County
Road 707 dividing Jupiter and Tequesta. The area of Jupiter
south of CR-707 is designated Public/Institutional and consists
of a single parcel of land owned and operated by the U.S
Coast Guard as a base, Lighthouse and park. The area of
Tequesta north of CR-707 is also owned by the U.S. Coast Guard,
but is much less developed than the Jupiter parcel. The
Village intends to continue to coordinate efforts with the Federal
Government, Palm Beach County and the Town of Jupiter to direct
development of these properties.
Water System
As discussed in the UTILITIES Element, the Town of Jupiter
currently provides the Village of Tequesta Water Department bulk
water sales of 1.5 million gallons daily annual average, and
maximum day of 2.25 mgd. This sale occurs according to a formal
agreement between the two governments, which expires in the year
2007. A potential problem for the Village Water Department is
evidenced in Jupiter's identification of its Future Potable
Water Service Area (Figure I-2, 5/01/89, Town of Jupiter
Comprehensive Development Plan, "Land Use Element). This area
does not include the Village of Tequesta, or the portion of
Jupiter currently served by the Tequesta Water Department. It
is clear that the Village and the Town must discuss the future
expansion and/or contraction plans of both water systems well in
advance of the expiration of the current agreement.
The Village should also examine Jupiter's projections of service
area population. If Jupiter has under -estimated its
eventual population, its capital requirement projections
would be correspondingly low. This situation could result in
inadequate potable water supply available to Tequesta, as well
as to direct Jupiter customers.
9-22
L
The Village is -
g currently preparing and updating a 10 Year Water
System Capital Improvements Plan. Village staff intend to
update the Water System CIP annually to assess impacts of new
technology (i.e. lower costs), service area changes, and
situations both geologic and political affecting sources of
potable water. This annual update, along with the fact that the
Village is already attempting to avoid any increase in purchases
from Jupiter, should provide the Village with sufficient
capacity and timely warning of lack of reliable supply from
Jupiter.
9.3.2.2. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony
Village consultants have reviewed the plan submitted by Jupiter
Inlet Colony have determined no problems or inconsistencies.
9.3.2.3. Palm Beach County
Village staff have reviewed the Palm Beach County plan as
submitted. One glaring problem was in the County's Potable Water
sub -element, in which the Village's Water System was ommitted from
the County's listing of like utilities. Village staff advised
County staff of the discrepancy. Palm Beach County has indicated
that upon adoption (scheduled to occur after Tequesta adoption) they
will forward a copy for further review.
9.3.2.3 Martin County
The Village's consultant reviewed the Martin County plan and the
major issue of concern was relative to the RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
element and Martin County's usage of Tequesta Park. Martin County
requested that Tequesta share 8 acres of Tequesta Park (located in
Martin County, owned by the State, and leased by Tequesta) to aid
Martin County in meeting recreation Level of Service standards for
southern Martin County. The coordination mechanism to mutually
accomplish this situation is discussed and presented in the
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE element of this Comprehensive Development Plan
(Policy 1.4.9).
9-23
0
•COASTAL-VtNAGEMENT
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The COASTAL MANAGEMENT element is required to be included within
the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and
rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6)(a), Florida
Statutes, establishes the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element requirement
and Chapter 9J5.012 Florida Administrative Code, establishes
minimum criteria to guide its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for coastal management
goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.012
Florida Administrative Code, the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element is
structured according to the following format:
o Coastal Management Data; and
o Coastal Management Analysis.
10.2 COASTAL MANAGEMENT DATA SUMMARY
Coordinated and effective planning in the areas of land use,
resource management, and disaster preparedness is needed to insure
these related purposes are fulfilled. The goals, objectives and
policies of the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element embody the future plan
for the coastal area as adopted by the village. The support
document provides a background of information for development of
the plan.
10.2.1 Land Use
For the purposes of the COASTAL MANAGEMENT element, the coastal
area may be defined according to a local government's choosing.
However, Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative Code, provides that
it must be defined in accordance with requirements relating to
hurricane evacuation, hazard mitigation, water quality and
quantity, and estuarine pollution and environmental quality. In
addition, the coastal area must include water and submerged lands
of oceanic water bodies or estuarine water bodies, shorelines
adjacent to oceanic waters, coastal barriers, living marine
resources, marine wetlands and waterdependent facilities on oceanic
waters.
Coastal area definition is further refined in Chapter 161, Florida
Statutes, which provides for the division of the coastal area into
three zones. They include the areas seaward of the mean high water
line; areas 1,500 feet landward of the mean high water line; and
10-1
I
U
n
L
I
areas between the mean high water line and the coastal construction
control line.
For purposes of planning for land uses in the coastal area, the
coastal area within the Village is defined as the Atlantic Ocean,
Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve (Intracoastal Waterway) and
the Loxahatchee River (North and Northwest forks) as well as the
wetlands along their shoreline and upland areas contiguous to these
water bodies.
Water -dependent uses are defined by Rule 9J5, Florida
Administrative Code, as activities that can be carried out only on,
in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to
the water body for one of the following purposes: waterborne
transpotation, including ports and marinas; recreation; electrical
generating facilities; or water supply. Water related uses are
defined as activities that are not directly dependent upon access
to a water body, but provide goods and services directly associated
with water -dependent or waterway uses.
The beach and shoreline recreational uses within the Village,
including the J.I.B. Club marina facilities, are the only water -
dependent or water related uses in the Village. There are no
ports, electrical generating facilities, water supply utilities
dependent on surface waters, or water related uses directly
associated with any such uses. No future water -dependent or water
related uses of these types are planned. Existing water related
and water -dependent land uses are identified on the Coastal
Management/Conservation Map (Figure 3-4)* and described in detail
in Table 10-1.
The residents of Tequesta enjoy a variety of public and private
beach and shoreline recreational opportunities. These include
recreational areas and facilities that are located within or in
close proximity to the Village.
Traditionally, the residents' needs for ocean and shoreline access
and recreation facilities have been met by private facilities.
However, the Village of Tequesta has recognized and addressed the
public need for access to the beach and shoreline areas as well as
the need to conserve these natural resources. The Village has
addressed the need for a good public beach access point by
providing police protection for the Coral Cove Park. Development
of any additional public beach access points with large parking
facilities within the Village has been deemed inconsistent with the
community character.
Many private recreational opportunities are available to the
residents of the Village. Many residents have their own swimming
pools. Oceanfront property owners have access to the beaches,
while many owners of Intracoastal waterfront lots have exclusive -
use docks.
* Figure 3-4 referenced several times in this element.
Refer to Map Atlas.
10-2
J
TABLE 10-1
WATER -DEPENDENT AND WATER -RELATED LAND USES
FACILITY PUBLIC/PRIVATE
Coral Cove Park Public
(Palm Beach County)
JIB Club Private
(open to the public)
Access Points Public
Along Loxahatchee
River
10-3
LAND USE SUMMARY
600' ocean beach frontage
600' Intracoastal frontage
Nature trail
Lifeguard station &
restrooms
83 parking spaces
40 wet -slips
Fuel facilities
Ship's store
Passive open space
In addition, many of the Village's residents are members of the
Tequesta Country Club. The recreational opportunities offered by
this private club include an 18-hole golf course and clubhouse.
The golf course contributes to a characteristic sense of green open
space.
Public recreational uses are those that provide public access.
According to Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative Rules, public
access is defined as the ability of the public to physically reach
or use recreation sites, including beaches and shores. Public
access to beach and shoreline recreational areas in the Village is
unlimited.
The majority of the ocean and estuarine shorelines of the Village
are developed with medium density residential and low intensity
recreational uses or are designated for conservation or
preservation. The small amount of ocean shoreline property
remaining vacant is designated for medium density single-family
development in the future.
There are no identified conflicts among the recreational and
residential land uses.
The Village's land uses are inventoried and analyzed in detail in
the LAND USE element support documents. Only water -dependent or
water -related uses, including public recreation access facilities,
and other shoreline uses are addressed in detail in this document.
The residents of Tequesta are blessed with miles of ocean and
estuarine shoreline. These natural assets constitute a major
element of the Village's community character as a low -density,
high -quality residential neighborhood. Severe restriction of
commercial development has contributed greatly to the exclusively
residential character of Tequesta. In addition, high development
standards have resulted in a low density of residences constructed
with the least possible disturbance of the natural environment.
Through these land use and development standards, the community has
created a peaceful and scenic natural setting that should be
preserved.
The coastal area of the Village is divided into two geographical
areas that portion of the Village east of U.S. Highway #1 (Atlantic
shoreline and the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve/Intracoastal
Waterway) and the area adjacent to the Loxahatchee River (North and
Northwest Forks).
The predominant land use in the eastern portion of the coastal area
is high -density residential (see Existing Land Use Map, Figure
3-5 ) x Coral Cove Park ( Palm Beach County) , the Jupiter Inlet Beach
Club and the 56-acre U.S. Government tract located at the northeast
corner of the U.S. Highway 1 and S.R. 707 are the only non-
residential land uses in this area. This area is almost entirely
* See Map Atlas.
10-4
n
built -out and future development will not have any significant
impact on adjacent natural resources, provided that the 56-acre
government tract is not developed for a use that is
non -recreational in nature.
Land use in the western coastal area (Loxahatchee River) is almost
exclusively single-family residential. The Coastal Management/
Conservation Map (Figure 3-4) identifies several recreational areas
in this portion of the coastal area but these are passive, open
space areas that act as access points to the River. This portion
of the coastal area is also built -out.
The economic base of
the coastal area can be described
as
residential, with the
exception of the JIB Club. No commercial
land uses exist along
the shorelines of either portion of
the
coastal area. No land
any anticipated.
use conflicts have been identified nor
are
10.2.2 Natural Resources
Figure 3-4, Coastal
Management/Conservation Map, depicts
the
various natural resource features within the Village.
In
particular, the Map shows the extent and location of mangroves, sea
grasses, rock outcrops (reefs), beach and dune systems, water
bodies and upland areas of environmental concern.
Two sites have been designated as environmentally sensitive lands
by Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resource
Management, one of which is located in the coastal area. Ecosite
No. 61, the 56-acre U.S. Government tract, contains fringing
mangroves along its shoreline and significant low hammock and scrub
vegetation. Ecosite No. 63, located west of U.S. Highway #1 in
the northern portion of the Village, contains significant upland
scrub vegetation, but is outside the coastal area. Both sites are
discussed further in the Conservation Element.
The four species of mangroves occurring in the lagoonal system are
the red mangrove (Phizophora mangle) , which is dominant in and near
the water at low tide; black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), which
usually occurs inland of and sometimes mixed, with the red
mangroves; white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), found upland
of the blacks; and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), upland of and
mixed with the whites. The occurrence of these species in
succession generally indicates the relative frequency of saline
inundation. The red mangrove is adapted to the highest salinity
levels, the white to the lowest. Table 10-4 lists animal species
commonly associated with the mangrove community.
Marine grassbeds are possibly the most productive habitat within
the estuarine system. These submerged flowering plants serve to
stabilize sediments, entrap silt, recycle nutrients, and provide
shelter and habitat for animals and other plant forms. They
10-5
�I
function as important nursery grounds for many commercially
valuable fish species and are direct food sources for the
endangered Florida manatee.
The most common marine grass in the Indian River Lagoon is manatee
grass (Syringodium filiforme). The next in dominance is Cuban
shoal grass (Halodule wri tii). Other marine grasses found in the
lagoon include turtle grass (Thallassia testudinum) and widgeon
grass (Rugpia maritima, Holophila johnsonii and H. enaelmanii).
The denser grassbeds occur in shallow water that has a fairly
consistent salinity. There is a recognized need for more data on
the animal life of marine grassbeds in the lagoonal waters, but
® certain species have been identified as being found in or commonly
1 associated with grassbeds. These are listed in Table 10-5.
Mangroves are located on both shorelines of the Indian River Lagoon
(Intracoastal Waterway) and both forks of the Loxahatchee River.
In addition, the spoil island located north of the S.R. 707 bridge
supports a healthy mangrove community. Marine grasses are also
located in both bodies of water, with the species and width of the
grassbeds varying according to location. In the Indian River
Lagoon Aquatic Preserve,for example, turtle grass has colonized the
near -shore shallows while Cuban shoal grass extends waterward to
the edge of the ICW channel. Patchy grass beds are characteristic
of the northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River, thickening as one
proceeds down river. Halodule wrightii and Holophila johnsonii
both occur in this area.
Both mangroves and marine grasses are located on Figure 3-4,
Coastal Management/Conservation Map, and an attempt was made to
indicate the relative thickness and concentration of these valuable
natural resources.
Although few birds nest along the Tequesta shoreline, thousands of
migrating birds have been recorded along the Palm Beach County
shoreline. Those bird species that have been designated as
abundant (common species that occur in large numbers) or common
(species certain to be seen in suitable habitats) are shown in
Table 10-2.
In addition to the bird species listed in Table 10-2, the shoreline
also is home to a variety of mammals, reptiles and amphibians.
These species are listed in Table 10-3.
Drift algae are associated components of the marine grassbed system
in the lagoon. About 60 species of red, brown and green algae
either grow on or are found interspersed with marine grasses. They
begin as attached forms, but eventually break away and drift,
providing refuge for many organisms, including numerous
invertebrates, associated algae and fish.
10-6
0
Deep water areas within lagoon include natural and artificial
inlets, channels, rivers and creeks. These areas are critical to
tidal flushing and exchange, and are inhabited by the bottlenose
dolphin and the manatee. They also provide access to the lagoon
for predator fish.
Because of the relative lack of disturbance to the natural
environment along portions of Jupiter Island and in the Indian
River Lagoon, the area supports a number of endangered and
threatened species and species of special concern. Those sighted
or known to be associated with habitats in upland areas, along
shorelines, in near -shore and offshore areas, and within the
estuary have been identified. Table 10-6 lists them by species,
status,and agency of jurisdiction. A number of government agencies
share responsibility for protection of these species, including
Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNE), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (FWFC).
The sea turtle nesting beaches along many portions of Jupiter
Island and Brevard County south of Melbourne Beach are the highest
density nesting beaches in the United States. Three of the
endangered or threatened turtle species nest in significant numbers
on these and other beaches of the Florida east coast. These are
the loggerhead, the green and the leatherback.
Loggerhead: The loggerhead turtle is found in temperate and
subtropical waters worldwide, but its nesting habitat in the
southeastern U.S. is one of its most important breeding areas in
the world. The size of the Florida loggerhead nesting population
is probably second only to that of Masirah Island, Oman, in the
Middle East. In Florida, most nesting on the east coast occurs
from Volusia to Broward Counties. During nesting season, which
peaks in late June and July, loggerheads remain in inshore waters
and estuarine areas near the nesting beaches. At other times they
range widely, as far as 500 or more miles out to sea. Immature
Florida loggerheads are thought to remain in coastal and lagoonal
waters throughout the year.
Surveys of loggerhead nests were taken in 1973 and from 1979
through 1981 along the entire shoreline of Jupiter Island
shoreline. The average loggerhead nesting densities were from 170
to 213 nests per kilometer.
Green turtles range primarily in the tropics. They nest only in
small numbers along the Florida east coast, but there are
indications from recent surveys that the nesting population in
Florida in increasing. Juvenile greens are known to frequent
Florida waters, especially where sea grasses are abundant. Nesting
densities on the Island are much lower for greens than for
loggerheads.
10-7
I
0 9�134 �Wx(=
COMMON BIRDS OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY SHORELINE
Fish crow
Pied -billed grebe
Brown pelican
Snowy egret
Tricolored heron
Yellow -crowed nigh heron
White ibis
Black vulture
Turkey vulture
Osprey
American Kestrel
Blue jay
Carolina wren
House wren
Blue gray gnatcatcher
American robin
Gray catbird
Northern mockingbird
Brown thrasher
Yellow-rumped warbler
Black -and -white warbler
Black -bellied plover
Semipalmated plover
Greater yellowlegs
Willet
Sanderling
Least sandpiper
Dunlin
Short -billed dowitcher
Ring -billed gull
Caspian tern
Least tern
Mourning dove
Common ground -dove
I
L
Belted kingfisher
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10-8
W
n
I
r�
C
TABLE 10-3
MAMMALS, REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY SHORELINE
MAMMALS
Gray fox
Cottontail rabbit
Armadillo
Opossum
Raccoon
Gray squirrel
Florida mouse
Beach mouse
REPTILES
Alligator
Loggerhead turtle
Green turtle
Leatherback turtle
Florida box turtle
Gopher tortoise
Southern ring -neck snake
Eastern indigo snake
Corn snake
Yellow rat snake
Scarlet kingsnake
Eastern coral snake
Rough green snake
Florida pine snake
Black racer
Southeastern five -lined skink
Indo-pacific gecko
Eastern coachwhip
Florida scrub lizzard
AMPHIBIANS
Barking treefrog
Cuban treefrog
Squirrel treefrog
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
10-9
C
I
U
TABLE 10-4
ANIMALS OF A TYPICAL MANGROVE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY
March rabbit
Rice rat
Raccoon
BIRDS
Yellow -crowned night heron
Green -backed heron (formerly green heron)
Black -crowned night heron
Little blue heron
Great blue heron
Snow egret
American egret
Cattle egret
Roseate spoonbill
Osprey
REPTILES
Diamond -backed terrapin
FISHES
Bobcat
Otter
Brown pelican
White ibis
Belted kingfisher
Fish crow
Northern parula warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Yellow -throated warbler
Red -winged blackbird
Clapper rail
Tarpon
Mosquitofish
Bay anchovy
Sailfin molly
Rainwater killifish
Tarpon snook
Sheepshead minnow
Gray snapper
INVERTEBRATES
Mangrove tree crab
Oysters
Fiddler crab
Shrimp
Blue crab
Snails
Oysters
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources
10-10
TABLE 10-5
ANIMAL LIFE ASSOCIATED WITH MARINE GRASSBED AREAS
MAMMALS
Atlantic bottle -nosed dolphin
Florida (West Indian) manatee
Spot
Southern kingfish
Red drum
Sheepshead
Pinf ish
Striped mullet
White mullet
Tidewater silverside
Lined sole
INVERTEBRATES
Northern quahog
Southern quahog
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources
ITABLE 10-6
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL
CONCERN
Species
Status
Agency
ATLANTIC/INTRACOASTAL REPTILES
Loggerhead turtle (Carett3 c3rett3)
T
FWS,
NPIFS
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
E
Fd3,
NMFS
Leatherback turtle Wel s coriace3)
E
FWS,
NMFS
Hawksbill turtle (Ere moo a ys imor'TcaEa)
Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepodochelys kempii)
E
E
FWS,
FWS,
NMFS
NMFS
Atlantis salt marsh snake (Nerodi3 fasciata)
E
FWS
ATLANTIC/INTRACOASTAL MARINE MAMMALS
West Indian itinatee (Trichecus m3n3tus)
E
FWS
Finback whale (Ba13enO sera h salus)
E
E
NPIFS
NMFS
Humpback whale (r�ovaeng 13e)
Right whale (Eubalaena glaci3lis)
E
NMFS
3ei whale (B31aeno ter3 borealis)
E
NMFS
Sperm whale ( hyseter cata on
E
14•IF3
COASTAL WADING AND SHORE BIRDS
Peregrine f31:on (Falco Deregrinus)
E
F'.,Fd
Bali eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalis)
T
FWFC
American kestrel (Fal:o soarvsriu.; oa•rlus)
T
FIdFC
Le33t tern (Sterna 31bifrons)
T
FWFC
Roseate tern tTe�na�3liii)
T
FWFC
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occLdentali 0
T
FWFC
American oystercatcner (Haen3to us oalllatus)
S3z
F'.dFC
Little blue `Heron (Flori a�s)
SSC
FeFC
Snowy egret (Egrett3 thu13)
S3C
F.dFC
Louisiana heron (Hydr3nass3 tricolor)
Reddish egret (Dichromanassa rule —as)
33C
3SC
FWFC
FWFC
Roseate ;poonoill (Aj1i3 a]3j3)
3SC
FWFC
REPTILES
Ameri_3n 311ii3tor (Alli33t3r
mi_;;i33iPpi-?n3i5
33C
F.I C
FISHES
G:mm-n snook (Centropomus undeciamlis)
Sit
F'.dFC
Riiulus (Rivulus marmoratus)
55C
F(dFC
E = Endangered: A species, subspecies, or isolated population so limited or
depleted in number, or so restricted in range or habitat due to any man-made or
natural factors, that it is in imminent danger of extinction, or extirpation from
the state, or may attain such a status within the immediate future.
T = Threatened: A species, subspecies, or isolated population that is so
acutely vulnerable to environmental alteration, or declining in number at a
rapid rate, or whose range or habitat is declining in area at a rapid rate, that
. as a consequence it is destined or very lic±ly to became an endangered species
within the foreseeable future.
SSC = Species of Special Concern: A species, suospecies, or isolated population
that: warrants special protection, recognition, or consideration because it has
an inherent significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental
alteration, human disturbance, or substantial human exploitation that may, in
the foreseeable future, result in its becoming 3 threatened species but for
whi:h conclusive data are limited or lacking; may occupy suer an unusually vital
and -ssential ecological niche that shoal] it decline significantly in numbers
or distribution other species wouli be adversely affected to a significant
degree; or has not sufficiently recovered from past population depletion.
Sources: Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comnissiarr
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
10-12
]i
I
U
n
n
Leatherback: Like the green sea turtle, the leatherback nests in
small numbers in Florida. However, recent evidence suggests they
do not spend their lives out at sea, as previously thought, but
rather in relatively shallow coastal waters, including the east and
west coasts of Florida. Nesting densities of the leatherback on
Jupiter Island are low. One leatherback nest was recorded on the
central portion of the Island beach in 1979 and seven were recorded
in 1980.
The West Indian manatee, or sea cow, is an endangered marine mammal
that inhabits shallow coastal waters, bays, lagoons, estuaries,
rivers and lakes throughout its range. The current distribution
of the manatee includes the southern United States, the Caribbean
Islands, eastern Central America, Colombia, Venezuela and the
northeast coast of Brazil. During the winter manatees concentrate
in Florida, but may travel as far north as Virginia during the
summer.
The total population of manatees in Florida is difficult to
estimate. An aerial survey of Florida habitats in the winter of
1976 indicated a maximum count of 800 animals. A more recent
survey at warmwater refuges in 1985 counted a minimum of 1,500.
This count was higher than previous estimates probably because of
improved survey methods and more favorable weather conditions
during the survey.
Nearly all of Florida's manatees bear s(
collisions with boats and propellers. C
barges with manatees have historically been
of manatee injury and death. According to
the Manatee Salvage Program, the primary c
over 24 feet long with inboard motors,
inches in diameter. However, small, fast
and injure many manatees. The effect
populations is critical because adults a3
accidents. Manatees reproduce so slowly th;
rate is critical.
ars and injuries from
)llisions of boats and
one of the major causes
Lnformation gathered in
ilprits are large boats
.nd propellers over 15
moving boats also kill
of boats on manatee
e the main victims of
.t a high adult survival
Manatee Protection Zones: Thirteen manatee protection zones were
established by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978 and more
have been added since then. Within manatee sanctuaries and
designated critical habitats, boating speed limits are posted in
order to protect the manatee population from injury. The
protection zones include refuges, where no entry is allowed, and
areas in which idle and slow speed limits are enforced. In some
cases the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway is exempt from speed
limits.
The Tequesta/Jupiter Island area from the St. Lucie Inlet to the
Jupiter Inlet has been established as a winter season slow speed
zone. The speed limit is effective only from November.15 through
March 31, the period of higher manatee populations when they seek
10-13
U
warmer waters. The restriction does not apply to the channel of
the Intracoastal Waterway. The Indian River Lagoon is used by
manatees migrating south for the winter, and manatees are known to
use main channels as they migrate. Further, a small number of
manatees are known to use main channels as they migrate. Further,
a small number of manatees are known to inhabit portions of the
area year-round. For these reasons, caution should be exercised
by boaters during all seasons and in the channel as well as in
shallower waters.
In addition to the marine
animals and beach
habitats discussed
above, the near shore rock
outcrops of coquina
rock off the Island
shoreline represent a valuable
living marine resource.
Some of the
outcrops were about 1,000
feet from shore and
about six to seven
feet in relief at their northernmost point off
the wildlife refuge
beach. Throughout the
remainder of the
study area, the
outcroppings were variable
in relief.
A 1985 survey found a low -profile algal -sponge community associated
with the outcrops. Macroalgae included Dictyota sp., Padina
gumnocarnum, Brxothamnn_ion seaforthii, Caulerga sertularioides and
Halimeda discoidea. Underlying these macroalgae was a low -profile
algal mat. Sponges were represented by encrusting forms such as
Cliona. Other sessile epibiota included ascidians, hyriods, star
coral (Siderastrea_ radians) and (Carejoa riisei). Fish species
inhabiting the outcrops were the hardier members of the offshore
reef fauna, including spottail pinfish (DiBlodus holbrooki),
prokfish (Anisotremus virginicus), black margate (Anisotremus
surinamensis), and hairy blenny (Labrisomus nuchininnis).
Future development and redevelopment in the Island portion of
Tequesta will be multiple -family residential exclusively. Future
densities are expected to be similar to those of current develop-
ment. Accordingly, pressures on natural resources from new
development are expected to be minimal. All shoreline
construction, whether associated with new development,
redevelopment or alteration, is required to comply with applicable
State and Village ordinances.
10.3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
10 3 i Estuarine Pollution Assessment
Non -point sources of estuarine pollution,
in
the form of urban
stormwater runoff, pose a continuing threat
to
the maintenance of
water quality in the Indian River Lagoon and
the
Loxahatchee River.
The Palm Beach County Health Department (PBCHD)
of Environmental Resource Management (ERM) jointly
and the Department
monitor water
quality in a number of locations in waters
within Palm Beach
County. Three (3) such sampling stations
are
located on FIGURE
3-4, Coastal Management/Conservation Map.
0
10-14
Historical data from these sampling stations do not indicate
occurrences of water quality standards violations; however,
frequency of sampling is not sufficient to conclude that water
quality problems do not exist. The Village should support future
efforts to increase monitoring frequency of these stations.
The Indian River Lagoon is a long, shallow lagoonal estuary bounded
on the west by the Florida mainland and on the east by the barrier
islands of St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. Freshwater
flow into the estuary comes from the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee
Rivers and from coastal drainage canals. Saltwater enters the
lagoon at the Fort Pierce, St. Lucie and Jupiter Inlets. The
salinity regimes in the lagoon range from 4.0 to 36.0 parts per
thousand (ppt) . The average depth of the waters is five feet, with
the deeper channels of the Intracoastal Waterway running throughout
the lagoon. The majority of the estuarine shoreline is fringed
with mangroves, with scattered development of single-family
■ residences and a few condominiums.
The surface waters are classified as Class III waters according to
the
State's surface water
classification system (Chapter 17-3,
Florida
Administrative Code).
Class III waters are intended to be
used
for swimming, fishing,
boating and other recreational uses.
The
ambient water quality of
Class III waters should be maintained
at a
level that is suitable
for recreation and the propagation of
fish
and wildlife.
0
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation monitors Class
III water quality according to the following system: a water
quality rating of "Good" indicates that waters can fully support
the uses for which they are classified; a rating of "Fair"
indicates that waters can only partially support the uses for which
they are classified; and a rating of "Poor" indicates that waters
cannot support the uses for which they are classified.
In 1987, the surface waters were rated "Good." More detailed
information on the ambient water quality of these water bodies was
presented by the DER Loxahatchee Basin Water Quality Assessment of
1984.
During 1983 and 1984, the DER conducted a detailed water quality
assessment of the Loxahatchee Basin and the adjacent coastal
waterways. This study was one of a series of basin studies
undertaken throughout the coastal area in an effort to establish
an ambient water quality data base for future investigations. The
survey area included the Loxahatchee River and drainage basin and
the following water bodies traversed by the Intracoastal Waterway;
Great Pocket, Pecks Lake, Hobe Sound, Jupiter Sound and Lake Worth
Creek. The study results were based on quarterly water samplings
taken at 21 individual monitoring stations throughout the area
during the period from October 1983 to July 1984.
10-15
J
I
I
The field-tested water quality parameters or characteristics
sampled in the study included temperature, specific conductance,
pH, and dissolved oxygen. The laboratory -tested parameters were
turbidity, color, fecal coliform bacteria, and nutrients, including
nitrite, nitrate, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and phosphorus. The units of
measure and significance of each of these water quality parameters
are outlined in Table 10-7.
Loxahatchee Basin Study Findings
The sub -areas of most interest are the coastal sub -areas of the
north estuary, which extends from Jupiter Inlet north to St. Lucie
Inlet, and the south estuary, from the Jupiter Inlet south to the
study area boundary. The north estuary is adjacent to Jupiter
Island. This sub -area included five individual stations from St.
Lucie Inlet to Jupiter Inlet.
The data collected in the study were presented in the form of
averages for each sub -area. For the purposes of comparison the
average findings for these two sub -areas are presented in Table 10-
8.
The Loxahatchee basin study concluded that the water quality of the
north and south estuary was fair to good, with some dissolved
oxygen and fecal coliform bacteria voliations. Generally the
nutrient levels were low to moderate.
There are no major disruptions to normal circulation patters within
the lower portions of the Indian River Lagoon.
Detailed studies have not been made of the accumulation of
contaminants in sediments in the Indian River Lagoon. However,
biocides entering the lagoon from runoff waters and major drainage
canal outfalls are of concern.
The main point sources of pollution for the Indian River Lagoon are
the sewage treatment plants of the Fort Pierce Utility Authority
and the Vero Beach treatment plant. The sewage effluent from both
plants has undergone secondary treatment. Engineering studies have
indicated that the plants have no significant water quality impact.
In addition to these major sewage treatment plants, there are
approximately 25 smaller plants located on the mainland,
discharging into the lagoon, and at least 60 package plants on the
barrier islands.
Another source of potential pollution problems is the massive
amount of freshwater entering the lagoon from the extensive manmade
drainage systems in the surrounding areas. In addition, mosquito
impoundments impact the lagoon by restricting the flow of nutrients
and the ingress and egress of fishes. A further discussion of
drainage practices and the Village's drainage system can be found
in the drainage sub -element.
0Vo=C
TABLE 10-7
r.
r.
J
r.
L15
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Unit of Measure
Significance
Temperature
Degrees Centrigrade
A factor in chemical reactions and
gas solubility; can contribute to
stratification which can promote
water quality degradation.
Specific
Umhos
A measure of water's ability
Conductance
to conduct electrical current due to
dissolved ionic chemicals; used to
indicate salinity.
pH
Standard Units
A measure of acid-oase equilibrium
of various dissolved materials; can
influence forms of chemical elements
present in water.
Dissolved
Milligrams per
The most important dissolved gas;
Cxygen
Liter (mg/1)
prerequisite for most aquatic life
and decomposition through oxidation.
Often used as single parameter to
indicate health of water. State
minimum standard for saltwater is
4.0 mg/1 at any one time.
Tirbility
14TU
A measure of suspended material in
water that causes "muddiness", inhi-
biting light penetration; affects
photosynthetic activity that
releases oxygen to water.
Co1:>r
Pt -Co Units
Caused by dissolved substances such
as minerals, metals, and/or organic
materials. Inhioits light penetra-
tion; affects photosynthetic acti-
vity that releases oxygen to water.
Focal
Plumber per
Indicators of fecal contamination by
Coliform
100 milliliters
warm blooded animals; indicate a
Bacteria
(#/ml)
potential health hazard when present
in high numbers. State maximum
standard for Class III waters is
800/100 ml at any one time.
Nitrite
Milligrams per
Important forms of nitrogen that are
Plus
Liter (mg/1)
readily assimilated by plants with
Nitrate N
little or no conversion; nitrogen is
a major nutrient for plant main-
tenance and growth.
Total
Milligrams per
A measure of dissolved and par-
Kieldahl
Liter (mg/1)
ticulate organic nitrogen that must
Nitrogen
be converted prior to assimilation
by plants; represents a reservior of
nitrogen.
Total
Milligrams per
Sum of both organic and inorganic
Fhosphorus
Liter (mg/1)
forms of phosphorus; a major
nutrient for plant maintenance and
growth.
Sources: Lorahatchee Basin Water Quality Assessment,
Terry L. Davis, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1984.
J
10-17
TABLE 10-8
NORTH AND SOUTH ESTUARY WATER QUALITY RESULTS
Average Measurements:
Parameter
North Estuary
South Estuary
Temperature
25.1 Degrees C
26.0 Degrees C
Specific Conductance
44378 Umhos
43254 Um1ios
pH
7.1 Std. Units
7.2 Std. Units
Dissolved Oxygen
6.2 mg/1
6.0 mg/l
Turbidity
4.4 NTU
5.1 NTU
Color
26 Pt -Co Units
33 Pt -Co Units
*Fecal Coliform
83/100 ml
28/100 ml
Bacteria
*Nitrite Plus
0.011 mg/1
0.010 mg/1
Nitrate N
Total Kjeldahl
0.410 mg/l
0.427 rn;/1
Nitrogen
*Total Phosphorus
0.052 mg/l
0.040 rno/l
* The data for these parameters included erratic high values that caused the
averages for individual stations to be high. The average values reported
here are the alternate averages for the sub -area calculated after removal of
the erratic high values.
Source: Loxahatchee Basin Water Quality Assessment
Terry L. Davis, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1984.
10-18
Future land use and development in the Village of Tequesta is not
expected to have additional adverse effects on estuarine
conditions. Present and future shoreline development or
redevelopment will be permitted in accordance with applicable State
and local regulations. The Village will preserve its character as
a low density residential community and continue to develop with
® minimal impacts on the natural environment of the estuary.
L
Future traffic and infrastructure improvements are not expected to
have significant impacts on estuarine environmental quality.
No distinct existing pollution problems have been identified in the
Indian River Lagoon. However, potential areas of concern have been
identified, as discussed above. Preventive measures are needed now
to insure the continued health of the estuary as the region
continues to grow.
The environmental quality of wetlands and estuaries is protected
by a number of existing and proposed regulatory programs. The
following federal, state, regional and local programs seek to
protect wetlands and estuaries through permitting procedures
regulating land uses and activities that could adversely impact
environmental quality.
The USCOE has regulatory authority and jurisdiction over dredge,
fill and construction activities that occur within all inland (non -
tidal waterways used for transport of interstate commerce
currently, in the past or potentially in the future). The Corps,
jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters of the United States,
and any adjacent wetlands and tributaries that have surface water
or hydrologic connection to any navigable waters.
Review of applications for permits that would allow alteration,
degradation or destruction of wetlands habitats is based on
evaluation and balancing of the probable short-term and cumulative
impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Generally, permits that would result in destruction of
wetlands are not granted unless the benefits of the proposed
activity are deemed to outweigh the damage to the wetland resource.
Although mitigation of damage is not required as a matter of
policy, it is often necessary where wetland loss is involved in
order to shift the balance of the impact evaluation in a more
favorable direction.
The DER has regulatory authority and jurisdiction over dredge,
fill, and construction activities and activities affecting water
quality that occur within wetlands defined to be waters of the
State pursuant to Chapters 17.3 and 17.4 ,of the Florida
Administrative Code. The DER may deny or limit permission for
activities within navigable waters that would negatively impact
water quality or habitat value. Within tributaries or wetlands
10-19
U
Ll
U
��
L
U
J
connected to navigable waters, the DER's authority is limited to
activities affecting water quality.
Review of applications for permits that would allow alteration,
degradation, or destruction of wetlands is based on water quality
and habitat impacts, including cumulative impacts on the
environment. Permits are not generally granted for activities that
would destroy wetlands, but wetland loss can occur due to
jurisdictional limitation, public interest considerations, and
mitigation. Mitigation of habitat loss or degradation of water
quality is often required by the DER on a case -by -case basis.
The DNR has regulatory authority and jurisdiction over coastal
construction and use of lands owned by the State, including
submerged lands. Most of these lands are also within the
jurisdiction of the USCOE and DER.
Review of proposed activities is based on conformance to the
guidelines and policies of the State's land management plans.
Activities that would have significant negative impact on habitat
value, the natural environment, or recreational use are generally
not permitted. Mitigation is not considered by the DNR as a basis
for allowing activities that would destroy habitats and is not
required as a matter of policy.
The SFWMD has jurisdiction and regulatory authority over the
following activities that would impact wetlands:
1. Construction of surface water management systems;
2. Construction of stormwater management systems;
3. Certain activities affecting water quality (as delegated
by DER); and
4. Withdrawal of ground water.
The SFWMD has only a limited ability to prevent clearing or removal
of vegetation from wetland areas. Generally the District only
restricts such activities when they would alter or degrade habitats
in hydrologically sensitive areas or areas deemed to be of
significant value.
Issuance of permits that would directly or indirectly allow
alteration, degradation or destruction of wetlands habitats is
based on evaluation and balancing or probable impacts. Permits
that would result in unmitigated destruction of regionally
significant and valuable wetlands are not generally granted.
Mitigation of significant losses is considered as a basis for
allowing certain activities and is required as a matter of policy.
10-20
The Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Policy of the TCRPC seeks to go
beyond existing federal, state, and regional programs in protection
of the region's valuable wetland habitat resources through the
Development of Regional Impact Review process and through advisory
comments to agencies, entities or persons with implementing
capability. The policy outlines the regulatory proposals relative
to each existing regulatory program as follows:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE)
1. To address wetland areas not within the jurisdiction
of the USCOE; and
2. To require mitigation in all cases where protected
habitats are altered, degraded or destroyed, and
where functions and values of regional significance
are lost.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
1. To address wetland areas not within the jurisdiction
of the DER; and
2. To determine the extent to which mitigation would
be required for lost wetland functions and values.
Water Management Districts (WMD)
1. To prohibit removal of vegetation or clearing of
habitats unless approved by exception;
2. To consider all wetland habitats as regionally
important until proven otherwise; and
3. To prohibit consideration of mitigation as a basis
for allowing an activity within regionally important
habitats.
The Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve includes the area from
Vero Beach to Fort Pierce and from Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet.
These aquatic and wilderness preserves were created pursuant to
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes by the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust. The management plan was prepared and
is administered by the Florida Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Environmental Land Management (BELM), as agent of the
Trustees.
The jurisdiction of the BELM extends to the state-owned submerged
lands within the designated waterways. These sovereignty lands
include tidal lands, islands, sandbars, shallow banks and lands
waterward of the mean high water line. The management plan
requires special reviews of all proposed activities on State-owned
10-21
lands that may have an adverse impact on the natural condition of
the waterways. Such activities include bulkheading of the
® shoreline, erection of docks and other structures, and dredging and
filling.
These special reviews are coordinated with other Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies with jurisdiction over navigation,
fish and game propagation, and water quality.
7.3.2 Natural Disaster Planning
The lower southeast Florida region has been identified by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as one of the most
hurricane -vulnerable areas of the country. Hurricane -strength
storms have impacted this region about once every three years since
1900. Between 1930 and 1965, 52 hurricanes have passed within a
150-mile radius of Tequesta. During that period, 15 hurricanes,
or an average of one hurricane every nine years, have passed within
a 50-mile radius of the island. The hurricane season lasts from
June to November, with most events occurring during the months of
September and October.
Based on the historical record, it has been determined that
Category 2 and 3 intensity storms are the most likely to strike the
lower southeast Florida coast. Of the two, Category 3 storms are
the most damaging. The intensity of storms is commonly measured
according to the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale.
The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane scale is utilized by the National
Weather Service to provide an initial and continuing assessment of
potential wind and storm -surge damage from a hurricane in progress.
The scale numbers are first made available when a hurricane is
within 72 hours of landfall and are revised regularly based on new
observations. The categories of the scale are based on maximum
sustained winds in miles per hour as follows:
_Category 1 -
74 to 95
mph
Category 2 -
96 to 110
mph
Category 3 -
111 to 130
mph
Category 4 -
131 to 155
mph
155
mph
Category 5 -
above
Potential damage to
be expected from high winds and flooding during
a Category 3 storm
includes:
Foliage torn from trees;
large trees blown down;
Poorly -constructed signs
blown down;
10-22
U
�I
Damage to roofing materials; window and door damage;
Structural damage to small buildings;
Mobile home destroyed;
Serious flooding at coast;
Smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger structures
near coast damaged by waves and floating debris; and
Low-lying escape routes blocked by rising water three to five
hours prior to landfall.
The official warning process for an approaching hurricane begins
with issuance of a hurricane watch by the National Hurricane Center
of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. A
hurricane watch alerts residents of a specified area to the
potential of a hurricane and advises them to monitor hurricane
advisories, which are issued every six hours. A hurricane watch
suggests that residents begin preparations for a possible
evacuation. Some residents will evacuate when a hurricane watch
has been issued, based on previous experience in hurricane
situations.
The second step in the warning process is issuance of a hurricane
warning for a large geographical area. A hurricane warning is
issued when a hurricane is expected to make landfall within 24
hours with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more and/or
dangerously high water or a combination of high water and high
waves. Many residents begin evacuating after issuance of a
hurricane warning, based on media coverage or previous experience
in hurricane situations. Municipal officials in low-lying or
barrier island areas may issue local evacuation orders when a
hurricane warning has been issued for their area.
Issuance of a hurricane evacuation order is the most important step
in the hurricane warning system. Determining the appropriate time
for issuance of an evacuation order is
critical to safe and
effective evacuation of threatened areas.
The earlier
an order is
issued, the more time residents will have
to evacuate.
But if an
order is issued too early, there is a possibility
the
storm will
change course, making the evacuation unnecessary
or putting
evacuees in a more hazardous location.
It must be
determined
locally whether or not an evacuation order
should be ordered prior
to receipt of a hurricane warning.
W
The legal authority for issuing evacuation orders and coordinating
evacuations in the State of Florida resides with the Governor. The
Governor has delegated this authority to local governments. Thus,
an evacuation order may be issued by a municipality in the absence
10-23
I
1
of an order by a higher level of government. However, an order
issued by a higher level of government takes precedence.
The Tequesta Hurricane Evacuation Plan is the operative plan for
evacuation of Tequesta. The plan is based on hurricane hazard
research undertaken by Kimley-Horn Associates in 1983 and on the
findings of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Hurricane
Evacuation Study of 1982. The plan is implemented by the Village
Manager. Upon issuance of an evacuation order, the Manager is
responsible for dissemination of information to the public
concerning evacuation. This task is carried out by the Police
Department.
In Tequesta, the Police Department is responsible for carrying out
evacuation orders and coordinates evacuation procedures. Upon
receipt of a hurricane watch, the Department initiates emergency
procedures, including 24-hour staffing of the Department. Door-
to-door notification of residents of the potential threat of a
hurricane is begun upon commencement of emergency operations. Upon
receipt of an evacuation order, Department personnel coordinate
evacuation of Village residents. The residents' arrangements to
obtain private or public shelter are assisted by the Department.
As defined in Chapter 9J-5, the term "hurricane vulnerability zone"
(also "areas subject to coastal flooding") means areas delineated
by the regional or local hurricane evacuation plan as requiring
evacuation. This zone must include areas requiring evacuation in
the event of a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm event.
The coastal portion of Tequesta lies within the highest risk zone,
Zone 1, which extends from the Atlantic shoreline westward to the
Intracoastal waterway.
Regional behavioral studies have not estimated the number of
Village residents who would seek public hurricane shelter during
an evacuation. Village officials report that a substantial
proportion of residents choose to stay with friends or seek motel
accommodations, rather than public shelters. Studies of the
behavioral patterns of other populations indicate that about 20 to
® 25 percent of the island population would use Red Cross shelters
in an evacuation.
�i
Following notification of evacuation, the American Red Cross
coordinates with responsible agencies to insure that adequate
public shelters are opened and maintained. Working with the
Division of Disaster Preparedness, the Board of Public Instruction
and local government officials, the Red Cross determines the
specific number of shelters and their time of opening.
The primary public shelter nearest Jupiter Island is Hobe Sound
Bible College, which has an estimated capacity of 1500 to 2000 in
a "worst case scenario." The Hobe Sound Elementary School, a
10-24
second shelter with a capacity of 1200 in a "worst case scenario"
P Y
would be used if necessary to accommodate evacuating residents.
The 1988 primary shelters in Martin County and their addresses are
listed in Table 10-9.
The Village participates in the Palm
Beach County Peacetime
Emergency Management Plan.
The Plan designates fifty-four (54)
hurricane evacuation zones.
The Village
is part of two (2) such
zones: Zone 1 - the barrier
the Indian River Lagoon and
island, and
north of the
Zone 2 - the area west of
Loxahatchee River.
Since the entire Village
is located
in these two hurricane
evacuation zones, the entire population of the Village is required
to evacuate in the event of a hurricane, upon specific order by the
Village Manager. Using the 1989 population figures as a basis,
4,720 residents will require evacuation with 20% or 944 requiring
shelter. The following information concerning hurricane evacuation
of shelter assignments is excerpted from the County's Hurricane
Evaluation Plan.
Evacuation Shelter Route Shelter
Zone Assignment Assignment Capacity
1 Jerry Thomas Indiantown Road 1,500
Elementary School west to Maplewood;
south to shelter -
800 Maplewood Dr.
2 Same Same Same
Two bridges, the Tequesta Drive Bridge and the S.R. 707 Bridge (see
FIGURE 3-4), are both two-lane roadways. The S.R. 707 Bridge,
which traverses the Intracoastal Waterway, is a controlled draw
bridge while the Tequesta Drive Bridge is a fixed bridge.
Evacuation times for the Village should range from 6-8 hours.
The sole evacuation route for the portion of the Island that is
within the Village limits is Beach Road (County Road 708) which
crosses the Intracoastal Waterway by means of a drawbridge.
According to the Hurricane Evacuation Plan, residents are directed
south to exit the Island, and to utilize U.S. 1 or the Florida
Turnpike for evacuation of the area.
The vulnerability of the Island area to pre -landfall storm hazards
makes it imperative that evacuation procedures be instituted early.
Potential hazard constraints on evacuation routes include the
arrival of pre -landfall gale force winds (40 mph or greater) , which
may make travel difficult due to downed trees, wires, road
obstructions and vehicle handling characteristics. The time of
pre -landfall hazard may precede the eye of a storm by as much as
nine hours in the event of a Category 3 storm or eleven hours in
the case of a Category 4 storm.
10-25
TABLE 10-9
PRIMARY PUBLIC SHELTERS SERVING THE VILLAGE UN 'TEQUES'1'A
SHELTER
*Jerry Thomas Elementary
*Jupiter Middle School
Jupiter High School
*Includes Handicapped Facilities
ADDRESS
800 Maplewood Drive
Jupiter
15245 N. Military Trail
Jupiter
601 Toney Penna Drive
Jupiter
Source: American Red Cross, Palm Beach County American Red Cross
Primary Shelters, 1988.
10-26
0
The limited number of egress points available to evacuating island
residents is an important transportation constraint on evacuation
routes. Evacuation is dependent upon draw span bridges to two-lane
capacity.
One of the assumptions in evacuation planning procedures for Zone
1 is that draw span bridges will be locked in the closed position
during an evacuation. However, consideration is given to the
possibility of power outages, which may cause a bridge to be left
in an open position. Increased traffic volumes resulting from
movement of other evacuating residents into the area constitute
another serious transportation constraint. The Hurricane Evacuation
Plan recognizes the transportation and hazard constraints on Zone 1
and urges the earliest possible evacuation of island residents in
order to complete evacuation prior to the arrival of gale force
winds and flooding.
The permanent population of the Village of Tequesta is projected
to increase from the current estimated 4720 to5000 in 1994, and
5084 in 1999. The Village's population is expected to stabilize
when total build -out is reached. These additional persons are not
expected to significantly change evacuation routes or increase
evacuation times during the planning period.
The large elderly and disabled population residing in Palm Beach
County presents special problems in that these residents do not
always receive preparedness instructions because of hearing or
other disabilities. Furthermore, they may be unable because of
physical limitations to effect evacuation within the required
amount of time.
Local disaster preparedness agencies are required by Section
252.355, Florida Statutes, to provide for voluntary registration
of disabled citizens who require special assistance for evacuation.
As recommended in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Hurricane Evacuation Study, elderly and disabled persons are
notified of evacuation procedures during the off -hurricane season.
In order to lessen their concern for the security of their property
during their absence, it is stressed that local law enforcement
officers are involved in any hurricane evacuation.
The willingness of those at risk to evacuate early is the primary
factor in a successful regional evacuation. The most effective
means of reducing overall evacuation times for the Village may be
achieved by attempting the quickest possible evacuation of persons
in highly vulnerable areas. By evacuating at -risk populations
early, Tequesta can most effectively reduce its local evacuation
times and contribute to the successful evacuation of others who are
at risk.
10-27
L
L
H,
The Village Police Department initiates preliminary evacuation
procedures upon receipt of a hurricane watch. Residents are
contacted individually and are advised to begin preparing for a
possible evacuation. Written instructions on how to secure their
property and prepare for an evacuation are disseminated.
.. .� t. - .�. •.
"TEN 14TA
The coastal high hazard area has been defined to include the areas
seaward of the coastal construction control line. This includes
the following areas of high hazard.
1. Areas Experiencing or Predicted to Experience Storm Damage
Based on regional and local hurricane studies, the barrier
islands of Palm Beach County, including Jupiter Island, may
be expected to experience storm tide flooding, or storm surge,
and possible damage during storms of hurricane strength.
2. Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding
Areas subject to the 100-year coastal storm are identified by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are V-zones.
The land area within the V-8 zone in Tequesta consists solely
of the beach area along the shoreline. According to FEMA, the
land portions of the V-8 zone have base flood elevations of
10 and 11 feet above Mean Sea Level (SML). For zones V-1
through V-30, base flood elevations have been determined
taking into account wave velocity.
The existing land uses in the Tequesta coastal high hazard
areas are primarily residential and recreational.
Because of the landward shift of the coastal construction line
in 1985, a large proportion of the areas within the high
hazard area are privately owned, developed multiple -family
lots.
The only recreational facility located within the Village
coastal high hazard area is the Coral Cove Park.
The conservation/preservation areas within the high hazard
area are the Atlantic beaches and dunes.
3. Structures with a History of Repeated Storm Damage
Structures within the coastal high hazard area are primarily
residential. These structures have survived previous
incidences of flooding due to storms with acceptable levels
of damage. This damage has not been deemed sufficient to
10-28
�,i
C
justify relocation of these structures or an alteration in
existing land use patterns.
Areas seaward of the mean high water line are state-owned and
encompass the public beach areas. In the Village of Tequesta,
these beach areas are further defined by the erosion control line.
The Erosion Control Line of 1970 provided for the fixing of the
boundary between public and private beach areas pursuant to beach
restoration projects. Usually the erosion control line is set at
the mean high water line or at the bulkhead line on severely eroded
beaches. Under the law, design beach fill placed seaward of the
erosion control line remains state-owned and, with adequate public
access, can qualify as a public shoreline. Riparian rights of
upland owners are reserved under the law, except that proportions
of private property no longer increase or decrease based on natural
or artificial erosion or accretion.
Areas extending 1,500 feet landward of the mean high water line are
designated by the State as the coastal building zone, which must
be regulated locally. In the Village of Tequesta, the eastern
boundary has been incorporated into the coastal building zone and
is subject to coastal construction regulations.
Areas seaward of the coastal construction line are identified as
high hazard areas. All construction within this area is subject
to State and local permitting procedures.
The coastal construction control line was established by the
Department of National Resources (DNR) pursuant to Chapter 161.053,
Florida Statutes. The line essentially constitutes a required
setback for structures along the coastline. The objectives of the
setback line are to prevent beach encroachment that would endanger
the existing beach and dune systems and to help prevent existing
and future structures from being unreasonably subject to great or
irreparable harm.
I
G
Establishment of the coastal construction control line was based
on study and analysis of historical data and a field program that
collected current data on the effects of tides, winds, and waves
on the shoreline. The analysis considered measured topographic
factors, including dune elevations, foreshore and offshore slopes,
beach widths, adjacent profiles, upland development, vegetation
bluff lines, and computed dynamic factors, including storm surge
elevations, erosion trends, wave uprush, and fluctuations of beach
profiles.
The coastal high hazard area is the focus of post -disaster
redevelopment planning. As defined by Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code, the terms "coastal high hazard area" (also
"high -hazard coastal areas") means areas designated pursuant to
10-29
U
A
Paragraph 163.317d(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and includes the
following:
1. Areas that have historically experienced or are
scientifically predicted to experience destruction or
severe damage from storm surge, waves, erosion, or other
manifestations of rapidly moving or storm driven water;
2. Areas within a local government's jurisdiction where
public facilities have been damaged or undermined by
coastal storms;
3. Areas designated as V zones (areas subject to 100-year
coastal flood event) by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency;
4. Areas seaward of the coastal construction control line
established by the Florida Department of National
Resources; and
5. Inlets that are not structurally controlled.
The beaches and dunes of the Village have suffered a long history
of beach erosion and storm damage. Their condition is discussed
in the section on beach and dune systems.
All new future land uses within the coastal high hazard area will
be residential. New construction within the coastal high hazard
area is subject to the Coastal Construction Codes of the Village.
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council addresses three broad
areas of hazard mitigation in its Hurricane Hazard Mitigation
Policy Plan for the region, set forth in the Treasure Coast
Hurricane Contingency Study.
Recommended measures that can potentially reduce exposure to
hazards within coastal high hazard areas include relocation of
damaged housing and infrastructure, structural modification, and
public acquisition of threatened properties.
The Treasure Coast regional study has identified Category 3
Vulnerable areas for the purpose of evaluating the possible
relocation of damaged housing, water facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, health care facilities, electrical facilities
and transportation facilities within these areas that might be
eligible for relocation during post -disaster redevelopment.
The Village contains none of the facilities considered by the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to be eligible for
relocation to low -risk areas during post -disaster redevelopment.
10-30
in
H.
�I
ni
New construction in the coastal high hazard area is governed by
local codes in conformance with Chapter 161.56(1), Florida
Statutes.
Shore protection structures are privately owned and maintained.
Modification of damaged seawalls and bulkheads is undertaken by the
owners of private waterfront property in order to protect the
structures and upland properties from storm damage. The
construction and/or modification of all such structures is
regulated by the Village.
Infrastructure within the Tequesta coastal high hazard area
includes the roadways, any potable water facilities east of the
coastal construction control line, beach renourishment projects,
and shore protection structures.
Of these infrastructure elements, the public facilities include
only the portion of Beach Road that lies within the coastal high
hazard area, and the water and sewer facilities.
These infrastructure elements
elsewhere in this document and in
Comprehensive Plan.
are inventoried and analyzed
the Infrastructure Element of the
t• �- -�1 .1• • -
Profiles running across a beach from dune to deep water have
characteristic features which reflect the action of the physical
processes in the littoral zone. At any given time an actual beach
may exhibit only a few of these specific features.
A sand beach provides the shore with natural protection against
attach by waves, currents and storms. The sloping nearshore bottom
causes waves to break offshore, dissipating their energy over the
surf zone. The formation of an offshore bar along the beach also
promotes the offshore breaking waves. If the waves break far
enough offshore, they will reform as smaller waves to break again
closer to the shore. The process of waves breaking and reforming
may continue in this cycle until the substantially reduced wave
rushes up onto the beach foreshore. A wide beach offers
considerable protection to the property behind it. In other words,
if the berm contains more sand than a storm erodes, then structures
behind the beach will not be threatened by the receding shoreline.
Alternatively, a narrow beach does not afford as much protection
to the property behind it.
Beaches are shaped by wave conditions which vary with season, with
the berm build up gradually from February through August, eroded
back from November through January, and then rebuilt in March
through September. This process is typical of the cyclical process
of storm -caused erosion in winter, following by rebuilding in
response to the lower and longer waves during the summer.
10-31
U
Onshore winds can move sand inland from the beach.
Foredunes are
often created and maintained
by the action of
beach grasses
trapping and stabilizing sand
blown from the beach.
Foredunes
function as a reservoir of sand
to nourish eroding
beaches during
high water and to act as a
levee to prevent wave damage to
backshore areas. As such, dunes, like the beach berm are valuable
non -rigid shore protection structures. The important role dunes
play in protecting the landward property has been recognized by
layman and expert alike. Public awareness has been responsible for
the formulation of special dune ordinances to protect the foredune.
One of the major causes of damage to dune systems is pedestrian
traffic (Foolier, 1977 Report No. 20, Florida Seagrant Program).
Shore visitors often opt for the shortest route between their car
and the beach. Large numbers of people crossing the dunes have
resulted in:
1. Dissection of the dune filed by formation of numerous
pathways across and along the foredune;
2. Development of large, barren areas (blowouts), where
vegetation has been completely destroyed; and
3. Retardation of new dune growth and development.
With heavy and continued use initial pathways quickly become large
breachways through the foredune. Field studies have shown that the
loss of elevation in a devegetated pathway can amount to over 2
feet annually (Leatherman, 1979, Barrier Island Handbook, National
® Park Service).
�1 A discontinuous dune system is vulnerable to further erosion. In
the case of a major storm, gaps in the system allow water and
debris to be washed inland. To preserve this natural protection,
it is important to provide dune crossover structures at access
® points allowing the beach visitor a path to the beach and
protecting the inland areas.
Dunes that form just behind the beach perform an important role in
littoral processes. The foredunes function as reservoirs of sand
to nourish eroding beaches during high water conditions and as
levees to prevent wave damage to backshore areas. As such, they
are valuable non -rigid, natural shore protection features. Well -
stabilized inland dune ridges are a second line of defense against
erosion if the foredunes are destroyed by storms. Use of native
vegetation will stabilize dune sands that might otherwise migrate
over adjacent areas and damage property by sand burial. The
vegetation helps to trap and hold sand on the dunes and therefore
contributes to their growth and repair. Table 10-10 lists plant
species identified in Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Field Studies
as having good potential for dune revegetation. The species are
selected because of their favorable characteristics for erosion
10-32
I'�
U
I
TABLE 10-10
OCCURRENCE OF
PLANTS ON
COASTAL DUNES
Most
likely in
Frequency on
Frontal
Backdune
study sites'
Plant Name
Zone
Zone
SE
Grasses:
bitter panicum
X
57
coastal panicgrass
X
23
common bermudagrass
X
3
crowfoot grass
X
11
saltmeadow cordgrass
sandbur
X
X
31
31
seaoats
X
97
seashore dropseed
X
6
seashore paspalum
X
23
seashore saltgrass
X
12
St. Augustine grass
X
9
stiffleaf eustachys
X
17
Other herbaceous plants:
beach bean
X
40
beach morningglory
blanket flower
X
X
71
6
Burrowing four o'clock
X
9
cucumberleaf sunflower
X
80
fiddle -leaf morningglory
X
3
largeleaf pennywort
X
2
partridge pea
X
21
sea purslane
X
17
Trees:
baycedar
X
14
buttonwood
X
17
cabbage palm
X
9
coconut palm
X
12
cocoplum
X
14
seagrape
X
49
Spanish -bayonet
X
40
Shrubs:
beach creeper
X
9
cactus
X
14
coin vine
X
14
inkberry
X
26
lantana
X
23
saw -palmetto
X
17
sea lavender
X
14
seashore elder
X
80
silverlead croton
X
23
"SE - Atlantic coast of Florida from Indian River County south to
®
the Florida Keys, 50 sites.
Source:
Craig, 1984
- Agriculture
Information Bulletin 460, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
w
10-33
control, their frequency of occurrence, and their dominance in the
natural ecosystem.
Wind waves affect beaches in two major ways. Short, steep waves
generated by nearshore storms tend to erode a sand beach. Long
swells generated by distant storms tend to move sand back toward
shore, thereby rebuilding the beach. Typically a beach undergoes
an annual erosion/accretion cycle in which winter storms erode the
beach and the summer swells rebuild it. Long term erosional/
accretional cycles may also develop. The intensity, duration, and
direction of waves are significant factors in the orientation,
slope, and grain size of a beach.
Hurricanes and severe storms moving near shore can produce
significant changes in water levels along the coast. The term
"storm surge" is used to indicate a rise in water level above
normal due to the action of storms. In addition to the obvious
flooding implications of storm surge, these conditions can also
contribute significantly to beach erosion. The beach berms are
built naturally by storm waves to about the highest elevation
reached by normal storm waves. The storm surge allows large, steep
storm waves to act at higher beach elevations not normally
subjected to wave action.
When the storm waves with high storm tides attach and erode the
beach dune system, the sand is moved seaward until the offshore
beach slope becomes stabilized. An offshore bar often forms which
acts to dissipate the storm wave energy further. After the storm
the offshore bar material is gradually returned to the beach under
favorable wave conditions.
Hurricane erosion protection includes shore protection methods for
both the elevated water levels of the associated storm surge and
the erosive force of the large storm waves acting at the higher
water levels. Traditionally hurricane protection has consisted of
massive seawalls capable of withstanding the direct impact of storm
waves. More recently wide beaches such as the Miami beachfill have
been used. Such beaches serve as buffers by providing large enough
sand volumes to safely endure large storm erosion losses and still
maintain a residual protective beach berm. For the purposes of the
Plan, the following hurricane conditions are adopted as design
criteria for the hurricane protection objective:
1. Maximum wave runup elevation of 10.1 feet MSL;
2. Maximum waterlevel of 7.6 feet MSL.
These levels are approximately equal to the 100-year flood levels
with added wave height effects (Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District, 1985, "Beach Erosion Control Projects for Palm Beach
County, Florida, General Design Memorandum with Palm Beach Harbour
Section III Report and Environmental Impact Statement").
10-34
i
l
Functional and structurally sound seawalls with good toe protection
in the form of adequate embedment and a sufficiently wide fronting
beach are considered capable of providing hurricane protection.
Plate 5 shows the elevations of existing seawalls along the Town's
ocean front. In general the seawalls in Reaches 1 through 4 have
sufficient height to satisfy the wave elevation criteria. If these
walls are maintained and protection in the form of dunes and/or a
narrow beach berm is maintained, then the seawalls can be
considered as functionally sufficient to satisfy the hurricane
protection objective.
Sufficiently wide beaches with dune systems are also capable of
providing hurricane erosion protection. Beach profiles change
frequently in response to winds, waves and tides. The most
dramatic beach profile changes are the result of storm wave action,
especially when accompanied by storm surge which enables waves to
attach higher elevations on the beach. It is important to know the
magnitude of beach erosion to be expected during storms when
planning and designing a beach fill section.
The Coastal Engineering Research Center (USACOE, CERC, 1984) has
compiled some limited storm erosion profile change data. They
suggest that the average volumes of sand eroded from above MSL for
beaches with lengths comparable to that of Palm Beach Island have
a limited range of values. A moderate storm may remove 4 to 10
cubic yards per foot of beach front above MSL. An extreme storm
or a moderate storm which
persists for many hours or days
may
remove 10 to 20 cubic yards
per foot. Rare storms that are
most
erosive due to a combination of intensity, duration,
and
orientation, may remove 20 to 50 cubic yards per foot. For
comparison, a typical berm 50 feet wide and +9 feet MSL contained
118 cubic yards per foot of
beachfront.
W
Moderate storm erosion protection includes shore protection methods
resistant to the erosive force of moderate storm waves.
Significant storm surge influences are not included in this level
of erosion protection.
A moderate storm is one which would produce the following
conditions:
1. Wave runup up to 6.3 feet MSL;
2. Water levels up to 3.8 feet MSL.
These values are representative of 10 year storm conditions (Corps
of Engineers, 1985). For the purpose of this plan the following
coastal structures or shoreline conditions should generally be able
to resist moderate storm criteria conditions without an immediate
risk of damage to upland property;
1. All hurricane protective structures discussed previously;
2. Appropriately designed revetment sections;
10-35
J
HA
I
A
3. Beaches with narrow berm widths and continuous dunes; and
4. Beaches with narrow berm widths and elevated uplands.
A wide recreational beach may be appropriate where there is
adequate parking and public access to justify the full recreational
utilization of the beach. The following assumptions apply to the
estimation of the required beach area:
1. 75 square feet of beach area is required per person per
day;
2. Only parking areas within 1/4 mile of the beach area will
normally be used by beach users; and
3. An average of 2.5 persons will occupy each car.
metered spaces = 150
timed spaces = 458
permitted spaces = 212
for residential parking
TOTAL SPACES
= 820
Based on these parking facilities and the earlier stated beach
utilization assumptions a nominal dry beach width of 50 feet is
required. This would give at this site the following requirements:
berm width = 50
berm elevation = +9 feet MSL; and
beach slope = 1:10 Maximum
A narrow public beach is one which can support the recreational
requirements of local residents. The berm width is large enough
to provide a winter beach width sufficient for some limited
protection for upland structures and toe protection for dunes,
seawalls and bulkheads. A long duration moderate storm of the
northeaster type can remove about 20 cubic yards of sand per foot
of beachfront. A 25 foot berm contains about 60 cubic yards per
foot. Such a berm could withstand the erosion loss of a moderate
storm and still provide some residual dry beach area for
recreational use by the residential community. The criteria for
the narrow recreational beach are defined as:
beach width = 25 feet;
berm elevation = +9 feet MSL; and
beach slope = 1:10 maximum
Littoral transport is defined as the movement of sediments in the
nearshore zone by waves and currents in either the longshore ( shore
parallel) or onshore -offshore directions. Longshore transport
results from the suspension of sediment by breaking waves and the
movement of this sediment by wave generated longshore currents.
The direction of wave approach to the shore determines the
direction of longshore transport. The quantity of material
10-36
W
D
U
0
actually moved is related to the wave height, with high waves being
capable of moving more material than low waves.
The rate and direction of longshore transport are variable because
of the variability of wave conditions. Although rate and direction
change at random, the net direction of littoral transport is
seasonal. These seasonal changes in littoral transport are
partially responsible for the cyclic erosion/accretion patterns
discussed earlier. Onshore -offshore transport is determined by
wave steepness, sediment size and beach slope. The erosion
characteristics of steep storm waves and the beach building
characteristics of long period swell are the principal mechanisms
in onshore -offshore transport.
Although a beach may be temporarily eroded by storm waves and
restored by swell, and seasonal patterns of erosion and accretion
may occur, the long term condition of the beach is determined by
differences in rates of supply and loss of littoral material. The
shore will accrete, be stable, or erode depending on the relative
magnitudes of the supply and loss rates.
Inlets may have significant effects on adjacent shores by
interrupting the longshore transport and trapping the moving sand.
Sands can either be transported into the inlet where a portion may
be lost to inner bar deposits, or the sand may be transported by
ebb tidal flows and then deposited offshore on outer bars. In this
way, tidal inlets may store sand and reduce the supply to adjacent
shores. The sand accumulated on the outer bar also plays an
important part in the changing direction or refraction of the
advancing wave crests as they approach shore. The bars built
around the mouth of inlets in Florida often contain ideal sand for
nourishment of the adjacent beach. Over long time periods, the
natural process is to slowly move the sand along the outer bar as
on a conveyer belt from the updrift shore to the downdrift shore.
The highly dynamic changes of the inlet often disrupt this natural
transport of sand.
The ocean level has never remained constant over geologic time, but
has risen and fallen relative to the land surface. The last major
reversal in sea level change occurred about 15,000 years ago when
the Ice Age brought sea levels about 400 ft lower than its present
elevation. In recent times the rate of rise has slowed to about
1 ft per century. The most recently determined rate of sea level
rise along the Florida coast is about 2mm/year or about 8 in/
century (Hicks, et al., 1983).
The causes of relative sea level change are both global and
regional. They include:
1. Changes in the volume of the contained water and the
volume of the ocean basis;
10-37
0
1 2. Volume of ice above sea level;
3. "Greenhouse" warming due to atmospheric CO2 buildup;
4. Tectonic adjustments;
5. Land subsidence; and
6. Long term changes in atmospheric pressure, temperature
and wind patterns (Everts, 1985).
These factors account for the alongshore variations in sea level
change rates.
The general
rise in sea level has been associated
with the
recession of
shorelines. Long term monitoring shows that
shoreline
changes vary
greatly in time and space and not sympathetically with
relative sea level change. Other factors involved in
shoreline
erosion can
obscure the sea level rise effect.
The effect of rising relative sea level on the coast is
two fold:
�I
1. A higher sea level causes a direct encroachment on the
shoreline leading to an "apparent" shoreline recession
which is larger on milder slopes; and
2. The volume of sand from the upper beach profile will
slough off to maintain an equilibrium bottom profile
(Walton, 1979, "Coastal Erosion - Some Causes and Some
Consequences with Special Emphasis of Florida," Shore and
Beach).
Bruun (1962) first discussed this concept and developed a model to
relate the rate of shoreline retreat to the rate of relative sea
level rise. He assumed that the inner continental shelf profile
would maintain a constant shape and position relative to the sea
surface by translating landward and up as the relative sea level
rose. The beach and the upper shoreface would erode and the lower
part of the shoreface profile would acquire an equal volume of
sediment.
Everts (1985, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, ASCE, Vo. III, No. 6) further develops the analysis
to account for changes in sand volume within a shoreline reach
including that caused by longshore and crosshore transport,
transport into inlets, overwash, beach nourishment, and other
sediment losses. Field application of Evert's method shows that
sea level rise accounts for about 53% of the total shore retreat
of 18 ft/yr at Smith Island, Virginia and for about 88% of the 5.6
ft/yr retreat along the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
10-38
Hi
W
]i
I
Pi,
Jupiter Island is typical of Florida's east coast barriers in that
it consists of beach and dune sands underlain by a rock core. The
rock core is a ridge of the Anastasia Formation Conquina which is
a beach rock formed from a cemented mixture of sand and shell
(Cooke, 1945, "Geology of Florida," Florida geologic Survey
Bulletin No. 29). The formation originated as a beach -bar complex
with repeated exposure in the geologic past. Recently deposited
sands and shell have been draped over the formation resulting in
a "perched" island (Tanner, "Florida Coastal Classification, Gulf
Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions," V 10., P.
259-266). Studies consisting of seismic surveys and borings place
the coquina surface between 14 to 17 ft MSL. Typical overlying
sand thicknesses are between 9 to 12 ft. The rock core serves to
protect the island and slow the rate of erosion attributable to the
rise in sea level.
The sabellariid worm, Phragmatopoma lapidosa, is known as the reef
builder. After the initial state as planktonic larvae, the worms
attach themselves to a site and begin their reef building process.
Each worm constructs a cylindrical tube by grabbing particles
suspended in the water column and cementing them together with a
secreted substance. Colonies of cemented worm tubes form
sabellariid worm reefs.
These worm reefs are generally found in the turbulent surf zone
where wave energy suspends sand grains and shell fragments that the
worms gather. The reefs are found in every major ocean on earth.
The reefs grow to approximately mean sea level oriented
perpendicular to the prevailing wave energy. Many are parallel to
the shoreline. The reefs act as natural breakwaters, dissipating
wave energy before it reaches the shore. As a result, the shore
behind the reef progrades rather than erodes (Mehta, 1973, "Coastal
Engineering Study of Sabellariid Reefs" Report No. UFL/CoEL/73/024,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL).
The honeycombed, mound shaped reefs can withstand hurricane
conditions, yet can be crushed with the hand. Many studies have
been conducted to determine the durability of the worm and its
reef. Most were tests of the worm's ability to withstand
conditions likely to occur during a beach stabilization project.
The worms were tested for tolerance to sediment burial, exposure
to sulfides, heavy silt loads, and oil spills. In all cases, the
worms could withstand the conditions for at least 24 hours (Nelson
& Main, 1985 and Mulhern, 1976). The worms were also found to be
adaptable to transplantation to a new location. A study was also
conducted to learn if the juvenile worms would settle on a concrete
surface, such as a man made structure. The results showed that the
worms will settle on a concrete surface, especially if an exterior
layer of ground reef material has been applied (Kreuger, 1974,
"Transplantation and Settling Studies concerning the Sabellariid
Phragmatopoma Lapidosa onto Artificial Concrete Substrates" Florida
Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida).
10-39
�Ii
Artificially induced reef growth may eventually become an important
option of shorefront protection plans. The use of a worm reef in
addition to renourishment could reduce the frequency of sand
replenishment. The breakwater effect of the reef could be used to
build up areas of the shore or prevent further erosion of the
shore. The worms' use of fine particles in their reef building
process results in a better sorted beach sand distribution.
Consequently, in areas where sabellariid reefs exist, the beach
contains less fine grains and therefore will not erode as easily.
Cracks and crevices in the reefs also trap sediment, changing the
beach sand distribution (Gram, 1968).
The sabellariid worm has been found to be a hardy, adaptable
species. More study is needed to learn specifically how conditions
such as water temperature, food, predation, sand supply, and
turbulence affect the reef building process. With the current data
though, it appears possible to artificially induce reef building.
Only general predictions of variables such as growth rate and reef
size are possible at present. Further research will enable the
engineer to accurately estimate reef development and incorporate
' it into the total shore protection design.
Zoning involves limiting land use type, intensity, and structural
configuration within a clearly defined mapped area such as an
erosion or flood hazard area. This limitation on, or prohibition
of, development within an area must be designed to protect the
public health, safety and welfare (e.g., prevent erosion -related
losses), and/or promote welfare (preserve beach and dune areas,
provide additional open space). Zoning is generally implemented
at the local government level. The extent of the regulated area
can be tied to an observed erosion rate and its boundary can be
periodically readjusted to account for continuing erosion.
An example of zoning would be the establishment of a dune and beach
preservation district. This would involve the establishment of a
regulatory zone that forbids further development or other specified
activities in dune and beach districts. Such a program recognizes
the natural protective function of the dunes and beaches in
attenuating storm and long-term erosional forces. It would enable
a maintenance or re-establishment of the natural integrity of the
shore ecosystems.
This alternative involves the maintenance of a public easement
(either acquired or prescriptive) at a beach during periods of
erosion or accretion. Under erosion, the easement would move
inland preceding the advance of the mean high water line. Thus,
private shorefront property would revert to public use.
The promulgation of design standards and materials specifications
could be applied to structures located in erosion hazard areas.
These regulations are designed to limit the probability of, or
amount of property damage that would accompany continuing erosion
10-40
r,
n
i�
1,
or a major storm. Common specifications include: 1) deep
foundation standards, 2) minimum floor elevations, and 3) design
standards for parts and columns.
The Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 (Florida Statutes 161.52 -
161.58) requires that all local governments with jurisdictions
fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Florida Bay, or
Straits of Florida to establish a "coastal building zone."
Increased minimum standards for construction of major habitable
structures will apply within this designated zone.
The legislation gives the local governments two basic
responsibilities which are:
1. Implement new building code requirements for the coastal
building zone; and
2. Delineate the geographic boundary of the coastal building
zone for their respective jurisdictions.
Amendments to the State Minimum Building Codes have been prepared
and approved by the Board of Building Codes and Standards.
Adoption of these building code standards will minimize the
necessity for each local government to revise their individual
codes. The Village has adopted a building code pursuant to the
requirements of the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Building setbacks entail the establishment of a line seaward of
which new construction, excavation and other activities would be
regulated or prohibited. Thus, additional construction in erosion
hazard areas, or in areas which would preclude the maintenance or
re-establishment of the natural beach and dune profile would be
prevented. Setback lines have been employed at the state level by
Florida, Delaware, and Michigan. The extent of a regulated area
can be based on historical erosion rates. In addition, its
boundary can also be regularly adjusted to account for continuing
erosion or changes in erosion trends.
In Florida, setback requirements are delineated by the coastal
construction setback line (SBL) (Purpura and Sensabaugh, and
University of Florida, 1974) which has evolved into the Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL). This is administered by the
Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Beaches and
Shores, Department of Natural Resources.
In order to prevent beach erosion the following criteria has to be
analyzed in a step by step detail.
There are tw
engineering
structural),
effects of
o
basic approaches to shore protection. First are the
techniques and concepts (structural and non -
designed primarily to reduce the direct adverse
erosion on shorefront property by controlling or
10-41
n
mitigating the natural forces that cause the erosion. Second, are
the non -engineering approaches which seek to either avoid future
erosion losses through land management programs, or to lessen or
eliminate the direct social and economic costs and hardships
incurred by shorefront property owners where erosion is occurring.
In addition to the above limited alternatives there is the "no
action" alternative. This policy is simply as stated. No
mitigation of shore erosion or storm protection is adopted. The
community accepts the natural course of events, and no attempt is
made to control, maintain, or prepare for future scenarios.
Clearly, the no -action policy is not advisable in lieu of minimal
procedures which could be developed.
This section discusses engineering techniques for shore protection.
These techniques are classified into two major categories -
structural methods including breakwaters (including erosion
prevention reef s), seawalls, revetments, groins, and bulkheads;
and non-structural methods such as beach nourishment, intertidal
vegetation, and dune stabilization. The application of any
specific engineering technique to mitigate an erosion problem
normally requires systematic and thorough study. In particular,
the selection of a technique for a given environment and location
requires detailed site -specific consideration of needs, cause -
effect dynamics, and cost and cost -benefit relationships. Detailed
summaries of engineering methods, techniques, and data pertinent
to the control of shore erosion problems are included in the Army
corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (USACOE, CERC, 1984),
as well as other Corps publications. A detailed bibliographical
listing of research related to many of the engineering alternatives
referred to here has been published by Sperling and Edge (November
1978). Clemson University Hydraulics Laboratory Report,
"Engineering Solutions to Coastal Erosion." Properly applied, the
methods summarized in this chapter can aid in controlling erosion
of the Palm Beach shores; but improperly used, the methods may
accelerate or aggravate existing erosion conditions and increase
the short-term erosion damage associated with storms. Some general
comments regarding various traditional shore protection methods are
provided below.
Offshore breakwaters are structures designed to protect shore areas
from direct wave action. Breakwaters function by dissipating and
reflecting incident wave energy. Some wave energy finds its way
into the lee or geometric shadow of the breakwater through
diffraction around the ends of the breakwater. This wave energy
generally represents a small percentage of the incident wave
energy. The lack of wave energy which drives the littoral
transport system results in a deposition of sediment behind the
breakwater. As sand is deposited, a seaward projection of the
shore is formed in the still water behind the breakwater. This
projecting shore alignment in turn acts as a groin, which causes
the updrift shoreline to advance. As the projection enlarges and
10-42
I
the zone of longshore transport moves closer to the breakwater, it
becomes increasingly efficient as a littoral barrier. In this
situation there generally is accretion updrift of the breakwater
and erosion downdrift (USACOE, CERC, 1984).
The effectiveness of an offshore breakwater as a sand trap and in
providing a protected area is dependent on its height in relation
to the wave action. To avoid the problems associated with a
breakwater which acts as a complete littoral barrier, it may be
desirable to design the breakwater so that a degree of wave
overtopping is allowed. Such partial barriers need not extend
above low water. Adequate markings are required, however, so as
not to cause a navigation hazard.
F1 Recently an erosion prevention reef was installed offshore Palm
Beach Island which is being monitored on a 90 day basis for the
next two years. Permit applications for areas surrounding the
Village of Tequesta are currently underway. The structural design
and actual performance of this reef has been studied and evaluated
by Florida Atlantic University (Ocean Engineering Department).
Seven months of scientific research and tank simulation tests
revealed positive significant data on its function and
environmental impact.
W
The erosion prevention reef is placed in the near offshore zone and
its upper edge located 2 to 4 feet below the surface at mean low
tide. The reduction of wave energy ranges from 40% to 70% in
relation to a 12 month wave cycle (based upon source data from U.S.
Corps of Engineers), which assures shoreline stabilization, and
will reverse the erosion process under certain conditions. Also,
as a submerged barrier, the reef provides a safe habitat for marine
life, and enhances the ecosystem on a wide scale.
Below surface placement assures no interference with the migration
of fish, turtles, crustaceans etc. The reef material is wholly
compatible with its environment. It forms a foundation for
barnacles, coral and many other forms of marine growth. The vital
oxygenation zone between reef and shore benefits greatly by wave
energy reduction and reduced turbulence.
Seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments are structures placed parallel
to the shoreline to separate a land area from a water area. The
distinction among these structures is mainly a matter of purpose.
In general,.seawalls are built as a last resort and are the most
massive because they are intended to resist the full force of the
waves. Bulkheads are next in size; their function is to retain
fill, and they are generally not designed for direct exposure to
severe wave action. On the oceanfront, bulkheads are normally
located above the ordinary water level so that they are not brought
under direct wave attach except during the storms or at times of
very high water levels. Revetments are flexible _structures
designed to protect shorelines against erosion by currents or wave
10-43
�I
U
J
0
action. The degree of protection afforded depends on the materials
used and the method of construction.
Seawalls, bulkheads, or revetments protect only the land
immediately behind them. These structures provide no protection
to either upcoast or downcoast areas and have no effect on
shoreline erosion updrift. Also, as erosion of the beach proceeds,
wave forces will be directly acting on these structures during
storm events. In these instances, erosion is likely to be
intensified in the downcoast areas.
Seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments can also have an effect on
seaward beach profiles. Scour can be anticipated at the toe of the
structure as an initial short-term effect. Scour will form a
trough with dimensions governed by the type of structure face, the
nature of the wave attach, and resistance of the seabed material.
At a rubble -mound seawall, scour may undermine the toe stone,
causing it to collapse or sink to a lower stable position. It is
safe to assume that these structures would not be effective in
reducing loss of the seaward beach.
Groins are shore erosion control structures designed to retard
erosion of existing or restored beaches. Groins are generally
narrow structures placed perpendicular to the shore. They are
designed to extend from a point landward of the predicted recession
shoreline to an offshore point sufficient to trap the portion of
littoral drift required by their design. Since most of the
littoral drift moves in a zone landward of the normal breaker depth
(about the 6-foot depth contour), extension of groins beyond that
depth is generally unnecessary and uneconomical (USACOE, CERC,
1984).
The groin acts as a partial dam intercepting a portion of the
normal longshore transport. As material accumulates on the updrift
side, supply to the downdrift side is reduced, and the downdrift
shore recedes. Accretion on the updrift side continues in
accordance with the grain size characteristics of the sand and the
height of the groin. At some point accretion stops, and all
littoral drift passes the groin. If a groin is high enough to
prevent the passage of sediment, then the littoral drift is
diverted around the seaward and the groin. Material in transport
around a groin does not move directly shoreward after passing the
groin. In fact, groins affect the normal movement of beach sands
for some distance downdrift. Thus, a system of groins (or groin
field) too closely spaced would tend to divert sediment offshore
rather than create a widened beach, and the loss of sediment would
worsen erosion problems on downdrift beaches.
Groins are usually considered for application in areas where the
supply of littoral drift is less than the capacity of the littoral
transport forces. In these areas, a shoreline adjustment resulting
from the installation of groin or a groin system may not reduce the
10-44
J
actual transport
rate, but result
only in a reduction
of the
expected additional losses from beach fills within the
groin
system. However,
for this to occur,
the groins must extend
to the
surf zone.* In
the case of high
profile groins some
of the
littoral material
can be thereby diverted
to the offshore zone,
resulting in adverse erosion effects
to downdrift beaches.
Where the littoral drift supply satisfies the capacity of the
transporting forces, the adjustment in the shore alignment from a
groin system may reduce the capacity of longshore transport forces
at the groin site. Thus, less material is transported longshore
than prior to the construction of the groins, and a permanent
adverse effect to the downdrift shore would occur. Adverse effects
on adjacent shores described above are not necessarily a measure
of the effectiveness of the groin or groin system since these
groins might well have diverted some of the longshore transport to
deep water depriving the downdrift beaches from receiving a full
amount of longshore transport (USACOE, CERC, 1984).
The construction sequence for groin fields, which depends on
littoral drift material for filling, is important in minimizing the
detrimental effects on downdrift areas. Any natural filling after
construction tends to reduce the supply of sediment to downdrift
beaches (littoral starvation). The time required for an entire
system to fill and for the littoral drift to resume its downdrift
movement may be so extensive that downdrift beach areas will be
severely damaged. To reduce such effects, construction should
begin at the downdrift end of the planned system. Construction of
subsequent groins is not recommended until the first groin has
filled and sand passing around or over the groin has again
stabilized the downdrift beach. As an alternative, the groin field
should be artificially filled as they are constructed. Such an
operation minimizes the disruption of littoral transport to
■ downdrift beaches.
Groins are structurally and functionally different from jetties,
which are larger structures with more massive components and are
primarily to confine the tidal flow at an inlet and to prevent
littoral drift from shoaling the channel. The jetties and inlet
stabilization at Lake Worth Inlet are directly considered in the
planning efforts of this study.
Beach nourishment can range from the periodic replacement of sand
lost by erosion to the extensive placement of sand to construct
large new beach areas suitable for recreation. Beach nourishment
represents the replacement of a resource, but in and of itself does
little to avoid the need for subsequent renourishment. In
*Surf zone is defined as the area between the outermost breaker and
the limit of wave uprush (Corps of Engineers, 1985, Shore
Protection Manual).
10-45
addition,
beach nourishment costs have escalated rapidly
in recent
years. Continuation of this trend could result in more
projects
becoming
uneconomical, even in high recreational demand areas.
Thus, the use of nourishment as an erosion control
technique
requires
a continuous financial commitment. (See next
section -
"Funding
options for beach improvements.")
The Federal beach erosion and hurricane protection project in Dade
County, Florida, is an example of a recent beachfill operation.
The project consists of placing 13.5 million cubic yards of sand
on the shore along about 9 miles of Miami Beach. This plan
provides dry beach berms between 130 and 250 feet in width,
together with a dune system for hurricane protection. The 10-year
program provides periodic nourishment to make up for erosion losses
at an estimated rate of 211,000 cubic yards per year. The present
estimated project costs, including the beach nourishment, is $56
million. The Federal share of the cost, as determined by ownership
of adjacent land and public access to the beach, is 55 percent or
about $31 million.
Physical effects of beach nourishment operations are most evident
in the sand source or borrow areas. Sand dredging in backbay areas
is generally avoided because of the potential for disturbance of
sensitive productive biological assemblages. The loss of such sand
source areas is not particularly significant because the fine sands
typically found in such areas are generally not suitable for ocean
1 beach nourishment.
The exploitation of offshore sand resources is not without
potential
problems, which can include:
1.
Increasing the offshore transport of sand during storms
and limiting its return as a result of excavations near
enough to the shore to upset the beach dynamic
equilibrium;
2.
Interruption of the supply of sediment to the shore due
to the depression left from nearshore dredging which may
trap a portion of the dredged material - if a beach is
being fed from offshore by currents and wave action; and
3.
Changes in offshore bathymetry by excavating sand from
protective offshore banks or bars, which can result in
changes in the refraction of incident waves and therefore
changes in the next angle of wave attack (such changes
may affect the rate of littoral drift along the
shoreline, which can change erosion or accretion
patterns).
A detailed study of each proposed dredging operation is required
to estimate its actual effect on the beaches and the environment.
10-46
E
it
LA,
U
�i
Beach nourishment and erosion control projects can be undertaken
in conjunction with DNR and the federal government (Florida
Statutes 161.141 through 161.45). There are several ways in which
such projects can be implemented. Florida's support Coastal
Barrier Resources System (CBRS) (Coastal Barrier Resources Act of
1982, Public Law 97-348) and Florida Executive Order 81-105 tend
to discourage such activities in the CBRS units.
There are legal implications related to the natural or artificial
changes in shoreline position. Florida recognizes the line of mean
high water as the legal boundary between privately owned uplands
and adjoining sovereign lands. The Florida Coastal Mapping Act of
1974 (Florida Statutes 177.25, et seq. ) defined the mean high water
(MHW) Line as the intersection of the tidal plane of MHW with the
shore as consistent with National Ocean Service practice which is
the average of all low water heights observed over the 19 year
National Tidal Datum Epoch (Hicks, 1984). Tide and current
glossary, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey.
The law recognizes that physical processes can change the location
of the shoreline over time and distinguishes between the types of
changes which may occur. The legal terminology used by the
statutes and courts to describe the various shoreline changes are:
1. Accretion - the gradual, imperceptible addition to
littoral land of solid material by water. The legal test
of "imperceptibility" was set by the United States
Supreme Court in 1874 as "that though the witnesses may
see from time to time what progress has been made, they
could not perceive it while the progress was going on."
2. Erosion - the gradual, imperceptible wearing away of
littoral land.
3. Reliction (Dereliction) - the gradual recession of water
formerly covering land, leaving dry land. The practical
effect is the same as in accretion.
4. Submergence - the gradual disappearance of land under
water and the formation of a navigable body of water over
it. The practical effect is the same as erosion.
5. Avulsion - the sudden perceptible changes in the
shoreline. Physically avulsive changes may result in
either gain or loss of littoral land as may occur as a
result of artificial filling or in response to severe
natural phenomena such as earthquakes or hurricanes
(Graber, 1982). Shore and Beach, Vol. 50 No. 3 P.318.
The law generally treats avulsive changes differently from the
slower processes of accretion, erosion, reliction and submergence.
The property boundary is generally frozen at its location before
10-47
I
the avulsion. In the slower shoreline changes the property
boundaries shift with the process and the upland property owners
gain or lose title to the affected lands.
In Florida, the avulsion concept is further detailed in the case
of artificial filling or beach nourishment. The Beach and Shore
Preservation Act (Florida Statutes, 161.011 et seq.) provides for
the establishment of an erosion control line (ECL) in such cases.
The ECL permanently fixes the boundary of private and sovereign
lands at the old or prerestored beach. The law requires that an
ECL must be recorded prior to the beach restoration. Approval for
establishment of line is granted by the State after the need for
beach restoration is demonstrated and approval from at least 50
percent of the property owners fronting the project is obtained.
Beach scraping is the removal of material from the lower part of
the beach for deposition on the higher part of the beach or at the
dune toe. Beach scraping is usually performed by a scraper pan
which removes or skims the uppermost layer of the beach.
Bulldozers are used on narrow beaches which do not provide
sufficient maneuvering room for a scraper.
Beach scraping is different from artificial nourishment.
Artificial nourishment is replacement of eroded material by new
materials. Scraping is the distribution of the available beach
material in a manner which improves the coastal protection
capabilities of the overall beach profile without providing any new
beach material.
Bruun* (1983) examines the advisability of beach scraping. He
concludes that:
1. Beach scraping by skimming thin surface layers where
surplus material is available in the profile is
beneficial as protection for eroding dunes;
2. Technically responsible beach scraping does not have an
adverse effect on adjacent beaches; and
3. Beach scraping is a method of arranging the available
beach material in a more sensible manner on a short term
basis. It is a temporary procedure which does not
replace artificial nourishment.
Bruun* (1983) states that beach scraping should only be done where
beach material is available in relative surplus in the profile.
This is the area of active fluctuation of the profile where ridges
*Coastal Engineering, Vo. 7, No. 2, pp. 167-173.
0 10-48
�i
build up by swell activity following a storm or during the spring
and summer seasons. The material which comprises the beach ridge
comes from the near shore bottom. The scraped beach material
should be used to protect the dune by placing it at the dune toe.
A reasonable scraping program will skim no more than about one foot
of the upper surface of the beach.
Present indications are that the Florida Department of Natural
Resources is generally in favor of the beach scraping concept.
Proposals for scraping projects may receive approvals conditioned
with mitigation and monitoring requirements. Beach scraping
projects could lose a good deal of their attractiveness depending
on the specific conditions which are imposed.
Sand bypassing involves the mechanical transfer of sand around
littoral barriers such as jetties and breakwaters. The basic
methods of sand bypassing are by means of permanent bypassing
plants, floating bypassing plants, and land -based mobile equipment.
Sand bypassing schemes are designed to relieve the erosion
conditions which occur downdrift of littoral barriers. Sand from
the accretion area updrift of the barrier is used to nourish the
eroded downdrift beaches. In other situations, sand traps are
excavated in inlet areas. These traps are periodically dredged to
remove the sand which is deposited there by the tidal currents in
® the inlet. Effective bypassing can be accomplished when the
dredged sands are deposited on the downdrift beaches.
The extent to which a beach management plan can be implemented
depends upon the available source of funds to underwrite the
program. Therefore, an analysis of available monies is an
important factor to enable proper scaling and timing of a possible
plan. Four potential sources of financing may be available to the
Village:
1. Federal participation;
2. State participation;
3. County participation; and
4. Village participation.
Prior to 1930, Federal interest in shore problems was limited to
the protection of Federal property and navigation improvements.
Beginning in that year, a series of laws were passed by Congress
which gave Federal agencies a broader role in studying and
mitigating shore problems. The shore protection program of the US
Army Corps of Engineers is the most important of these programs.
The Corps of Engineers currently researches the causes of beach
erosion, investigates and studies specific shore erosion problems,
and constructs, or in certain cases, reimburses local and state
governments for construction of shore protection and beach
restoration projects.
10-49
The US Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program relates
Federal participation to public benefit and requires the active
participation of the sponsoring local interests. Under this
concept, Federal participation is greatest where the protected
shore areas are publicly owned and appropriate facilities to
encourage full public use are provided. As much as 70 percent of
the construction cost can be borne by the Federal government in
such cases. At the opposite end of the scale, no Federal funds can
be provided where the protected shore area is privately owned and
public access is restricted. Federal participation in providing
shore protection is proportional to public use and benefit. Other
legislation provides that the Federal Government bear the entire
cost of protecting Federally owned shore areas and of mitigating
® or preventing shore damages attributable to Federal navigational
1 works. Any remaining costs are borne by the sponsoring local
interests. Additionally, local interests are normally required to
provide all necessary lands, easements, and rights -of -way, hold and
save the United States free from claims for damages, prevent water
pollution which would affect the health of the bathers, maintain
® the completed works, and assure continued use of the protected
area.
The Federal Government is not normally held responsible for damages
incidental to shore protection works or activities. Usually, as
a precondition of project authorization, local interests are
required to hold and save the United States free from damages due
to construction, operation, and maintenance of the project works.
The Chief of Engineers does, however, have discretionary authority
under certain conditions to provide remedial work to correct
certain adverse conditions resulting directly from a shore
protection project.
The Corps is authorized (River and Harbor Act of 1968 P.L. 90-483
Section III) to investigate and construct, operate, and maintain
projects, at full Federal expense, for the prevention or mitigation
projects, at full Federal expense, for the prevention or mitigation
of shore damages attributable to Federal navigation works. The
authority to provide mitigation at Federal expense is not
mandatory, however. Where such projects are undertaken, the degree
of mitigation is normally dependent on a reduction of erosion or
accretion only to the level which would be attained without the
influence of the navigation works at the time the works were
accepted as a Federal responsibility. The damaged shorelines need
not be restored to historic dimensions; rather, the work is usually
performed to lessen the existing damage or prevent subsequent
damage. Federal shore erosion control legislation does not
authorize:
1. Restoration of damaged beaches by extension beyond their
historic shoreline unless required for protection of
upland areas; or
0 10-50
i�
Pi
2. Funding of shore protection devices for limitation of use
to specific segments of the population, such as local
residents, or similar restrictions on outside visitors,
directly or indirectly.
In addition to the shore erosion control program described above,
the Corps also provides programs for hurricane and emergency
coastal storm and flood protection. The Federal interest in shore
projects to protect against hurricanes or abnormal tidal damage
from coastal storms is not well defined by legislation.
Congressional authorization for Corps construction of such projects
on a case -by -case basis has essentially established the Federal
policy. Hurricane -related projects generally provide the same kind
of protection in the same areas as erosion control projects -
differing primarily in the degree of protection. In addition, new
protection of areas that have generally not been protected under
shore erosion control programs is often provided. Both programs
benefit public recreation and protect against storms, but hurricane
protection offers a greater degree of safety.
Emergency shore protection under The Flood Control Act of 1955 (PL
84-99) involves restoration and repair of existing Federally
authorized shore protection structures, whereas shore erosion
control and hurricane programs are for new work. Emergency
restoration of hurricane or shore erosion protection structures,
under P.L. 84-99, is not a program under which non -Federal
interests can substitute shore erosion control or hurricane
protection programs.
Under P.L. 84-99, as amended, the Corps does not have any authority
for the emergency protection of non -Federal works being threatened
or the repair or restoration of such works damages by a storm.
This does not, however, preclude the Corps from furnishing
emergency flood -fighting assistance during a storm, including
strengthening project features where preservation of a Federally
constructed project is threatened. Emergency shore protection is
usually for the rehabilitation or restoration of damaged Federal
projects already constructed under one of the other two protection
programs.
Under authority provided by the Disaster Relief Acts of 1970 and
1974 (P.L. 91-606 and P.L. 3-288), the Corps can provide shore
restoration where there has been no Federally authorized project
if the President has declared the damaging storm event a major
disaster.
All shore protection projects must demonstrate positive net
benefits to be eligible for Federal assistance. A summary of
existing cost -sharing rules and program requirements for shore
erosion control hurricane, emergency coastal storm and flood
protection are provided below.
0 10-51
1i
n
The Corps' participation in shore protection and beach restoration
projects can be basically categorized into two programs
(33CFR.282). The first includes those projects for which
individual authorization by Congress is not required. This
category of projects is limited to those for which the Federal
share of construction cost will not exceed $1 million. If the
project is proposed to control erosions attributable to Federal
navigation works, mitigating measures costing not more than $1
million can be constructed entirely with Federal funds. The second
category of projects includes those for which the Federal share of
construction will exceed $1 million. These projects require
individual authorization by Congress.
The Federal law places limitations on the Corps' financial
participation in a project depending on whether it is for beach
erosion control, hurricane and flood protection, or emergency
protection. The Corps' financial participation in shoreline
protection projects, where the Federal cost share exceeds $1
million, is presented in Table 10-11 which shows the maximum
Federal shares to be paid under different programs and for
different categories of shore -front ownership, with varying degrees
of public benefits or use. Under the same participation terms, the
Chief of Engineers, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army,
can also approve Corps participation in authorized beach erosion
control projects when the total cost of a project does not exceed
$1 million. Traditional Federal cost -sharing programs are
described as follows.
Federal participation in any shore erosion control project is based
on shore ownership, use, and type of benefits. An applicant for
aid must demonstrate public ownership or public use to be eligible
for assistance. The maximum Federal share of construction costs
varies from 0 to 70 percent for shore erosion control projects
depending on the category of ownership of shore frontage and the
degrees of public benefits and use.
Prior to Corps of Engineers participation in funding construction
of any authorized erosion control project, the project co-sponsor
(Village of Tequesta) must also agree to the following terms:
1. Contribute in cash the non -Federal share of the first
cost of any construction, maintenance of jetties and
groins, and periodic nourishment to be accomplished by
the Corps of Engineers;
2. Provide without cost to the United States all lands,
easements, right-of-way, and relocation required for
construction of the project, including that required for
periodic nourishment;
10-52
U
e
TABLE 10-11
LEVELS OF FEDERAL AID FOR SHORE, HURRICANE
AND ABNORMAL TIDE PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Construction(s) Percentage of Costs
Program/
Maximum
Lands,
Pre -
Ownership
Federal Non-
Easements,
Operation Authori-
and Use
Cost Federal
and Rights-
and zation
Category
Shares Shares
of -Way
Maintenance Surveys
Shore
Erosion Control
I
Federally
owned(b)
100
II
Publicly
owned, non -
Federal
Parks and
conservation
areas
70
III
Publicly
owned, non -
Federal
shores other
than parks
and conser-
vation areas
50
IV
Privately
owned -
publicly used
will result
in public
benefits
50(d)
V
Privately
owned; pro-
tection will
not result
in public
benefits
susceptible
of evaluation
0
0 100 100 100
30 0 0(c) 100
50 0 0(c) 100
50(d) 0 0(c) 100
100 0 0 0
10-53
1�
in,
LI
I
Hurricane and Abnormal
Tidal Protection
Single
purpose
70
30(e)
0(e)
0(f)
100
Combined with
beach erosion
control
70(f)
30(f)
0
0(c)
100
Emergency Protection
100
0(g)
0(g)
0(g)
100
Mitigation
of damages
caused by
nagivation
projects
100
0
100
100
100
Mitigation
of damages
caused by
shore protec-
tion projects
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
(h)
Notes:
(a) Construction costs include post -authorization engineering and
design and interest costs during construction.
(b) Costs or work specifically to protect lands controlled by a
Federal agency other than the Corps are borne by the agency
concerned.
(c) Where periodic beach nourishment is a principal technique used
in a shoreline protection project, the costs of periodic
nourishment can be federally shared, for a specified period,
usually 10 years. This nourishment is defined as construction
by law, with cost sharing the same as with construction.
(d) The cost share varies directly with the degree of public
ownership and public use. The 50 percent Federal share is
multiplied by the ratio of public benefits to total benefits
along the subject private shore. The local share includes the
cost allocated to private benefits.
(e) Costs for determination of local share include costs of lands,
easements, right-of-way, and relocation.
(f) Corps has discretionary authority for 70 percent participation
of construction cost of shore projects which include hurricane
10-54
W
0
protection as well as beach erosion control. Normally
combination project costs area allocated among the various
purposes so that cost shares can be determined by. purpose
according to the prescribed rules for that purpose.
(g) Under certain circumstances the true costs of operation and
maintenance to local interests may be altered or eliminated
by the Federal government.
(h) Cost sharing is the same as for the purposes causing the
damages (causative purposes). The entire costs of mitigation
including construction, lands required for mitigation, and
computed present worth of further operation and maintenance
® are cost shared on the same basis as for the purpose causing
!� the damage. Responsibility for actual performance of
operation and maintenance is normally assigned to non -Federal
■ interests.
Source: 33 CFR Part 282, 1985
r.
u
I
10-55
CI
0
3. Hold and save the United States free from all claims for
damage that may arise before, during, or after
prosecution of the work, except damages due to the fault
or negligence of the United States or its contractors;
4.
Prior to the commencement of any work, obtain approval
of the Chief of Engineers for detailed plans and
specifications for the project or suitable sections
thereof and also for the arrangements for completing the
work;
5.
Ensure continued public ownership of public and private
shores upon which the amount of Federal participation is
based and their administration for public use during the
economic life of the project;
6.
Ensure the maintenance and repair of structures and the
local share of periodic nourishment, where appropriate,
as required to serve the project's intended purpose
during the useful life of the work; and
7.
Provide and maintain necessary roads, parking areas, and
other public use facilities open and available to all on
equal terms.
Specific
cases may also warrant assigning additional responsibili-
ties such
as provided minimum land use controls or appurtenant
facilities required for realization of recreational benefits.
No Federal contribution toward operation and maintenance of a
complete shore erosion control project is authorized unless such
a program (e.g., periodic beach renourishment) is found to include
a more suitable and economical remedial measure for beach erosion
control than other reconstruction. If beach nourishment is
considered the most suitable method for shore protection, the Chief
of Engineers may recommend Federal aid for the life of a project.
It is Corps policy to limit the Federal share of project cost to
a maximum of 70 percent including the cost of lands, easements,
rights -of -way, and relocation and alteration of utilities.
Operation and maintenance cost for the life of the project is
generally a non -Federal responsibility. Public shore ownership and
use are not normally required for hurricane or emergency protection
programs.
For emergency protection, the maximum Federal cost share is 100
percent for existing Federal projects. Local interests are usually
required to bear the costs of lands, easements, rights -of -way,
operation and maintenance, and relocation and alteration of
utilities. Under certain circumstances, the Chief of Engineers can
eliminate any of the local cooperation requirements upon adequate
10-56
J
justification. Under authorizing legislation (P.L. 84-99 and P.L.
87-874), emergency assistance by the Corps is intended to
supplement state and local interests and does not provide explicit
cost -sharing rules.
Some shore protection projects provide beach erosion control as
well as hurricane protection. For these multi -purpose combination
projects, total costs are normally allocated among the various
purposes so that cost shares and benefits can be determined by
purpose according to the prescribed appropriation rules. For
multiple -purpose hurricane protection and beach erosion control
projects, the Flood Control Act of 1970 provides discretionary
power to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, to authorize a Federal share up to 70 percent of the
project cost (exclusive of land cost).
Federal project participation is restricted to public lands. This
restriction is satisfied by corresponding Florida law, specifically
Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (F.S.) which requires pre -project
establishment of an Erosion Control Line. This line delineates
private upland from sovereign beach. An Erosion Control Line is
generally established at the line of mean high water existing prior
to the project. In turn, it does not alter private upland, while
assuring that the "new" or restored beach which is publicly
financed is available to all users. Like the State, the Federal
government also requires upland access to the restored beach
through legal requirements for adequate access and parking. The
adequacy of access has customarily been determined to be at half
mile intervals.
Florida receives $40 to 80 million annually for construction of
Federally -authorized public works projects. Included within this
program is a category for beach erosion control activities.
Uniquely, Florida has established a corresponding public works
program within the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to
establish and set forth State priorities for subsequent
consideration by the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for the President, and Congress. Authorization of such projects
is a time-consuming process and funding is contingent upon passage
of the Federal budget. Competition between states and internally
between competing state priorities is extreme. Nevertheless,
Florida has been the past recipient of numerous Federally -
authorized beach restoration and erosion control projects. In all
such cases to date, the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 161,
F.S., has financially participated in satisfying the non-federal
share of total project costs, resulting in a Federal -State -local
partnership for beach restoration and subsequent nourishment.
Actual funding
control project
as part of the
for a federal
is relatively
Federal budget
point in the process can, i
beach restoration
straight -forward;
process. However,
n some cases, take
10-57
or other erosion
it is considered
getting to that
8 to 12 years.
L.
First, study
funding must be congressionally appropriated, then
there is an
extensive study phase, and finally Congress must
authorize the
project. At this point, no construction money, just
authority is
provided. To put this in proper perspective, there
has not been
an authorizing resolution passed since 1975. If a
study is funded,
its development must proceed through various
stages within
the Army Corps of Engineers. Once completed, a study
sign -off must
occur at various levels within the Corps, go through
Florida's various
agencies A-95 review process, and be reviewed by
other Federal
agencies. If the study concludes beach restoration
or another identified erosion control alternative is viable in
terms of cost -benefit, the Corps may submit the study for
congressional
consideration. At this point, an actual request for
construction
funding can be submitted to the State -Federal public
works appropriations process discussed in detail later in this
section.
Just before the first of every calendar year, the Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) mails all local Florida governments
a notice of intent to initiate the next cycle of Federal public
works project proposals. Interested local governments may submit
to DER "Requests for State Support." This is a project description
which will determine whether the State of Florida will include a
given local government request in the State's overall request to
the President and Congress. An annual conference is held in mid -
February to give local governments the opportunity to present their
project proposals to various representatives of State agencies.
By the following August, DER presents an overall public works
priority list to the Governor for his consideration. Applicants
are then notified of their proposal status.
In January of the following year, the Secretary of DER presents the
State's public works priorities to OMB to be considered for
inclusion in the President's Budget. In April, the Secretary of
DER also presents the State request to both Senate and House Public
Works Appropriations Committees. State priority revisions may be
made_ at this time as a result of the President's budget
recommendations. Historically, appropriations bills, when passed,
have been acted upon in late summer or early fall for the fiscal
year beginning on October 1. If a proposal for study,
construction, or maintenance funding is fortunate enough to be
included in the appropriations act, funds generally reach the Corps
by the first of the calendar year, or two years after the process
began. Generally, for a beach erosion control project, this
process must be repeated for the study and construction phases as
well as for funding requests for subsequent maintenance or
renourishment.
Few major beach restoration or other erosion control projects have
been undertaken in Florida without substantial Federal financial
participation. Without Federal tax dollars, State and local
governments have simply not pursued the costly beach restoration
10-58
U
U
alternative. This is particularly relevant, given the reality that
no new beach restoration projects have been Federally -authorized
in the last ten years. Therefore, Federal expenditures for
Florida's beaches have been limited to renourishment of previously -
authorized project areas and "small project" grants with a $1
million cap. In turn, there has recently been considerable
discussion among State and local officials concerning alternative
funding formulas which involve substantial private sector
participation. This discussion has been fueled by recent instances
where beach restoration projects have been pursued with totally
private funding, thus pre-empting the necessity to satisfy Federal
and State access requirements. In such cases, the hurricane
protection afforded and recreational benefits have been considered
to be cost-effective by the private upland owners when compared
with other shore -protective alternatives.
The Corps public works funding program described herein can also
be avoided for small beach restoration projects or projects with
other primary funding sources. The Federal government, through the
Army Corps of Engineers, can participate in a beach restoration or
other beach erosion control project in an amount up to $1 million
under the "Small Projects Program." There is $10 to 12 million
available annually for this program and Federal funding is at the
discretion of the Chief of Engineers -- an 18 month to 2 year
process without necessity for Congressional authorization and
financial consideration. Recent Federal participation in Florida's
Key Biscayne Beach Restoration Project was pursuant to this
authority.
Pursuant
to the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, specifically Sec.
161.091,
F.S., Florida, through the Department of Natural
Resources,
administers a local government grants-in-aid program for
the purpose
of assisting local governments in alleviating serious
beach erosion
problems and for protection and preservation of the
State's
sandy beaches fronting the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico.
Program
funding may be provided in support of the following beach
preservation
and erosion control activities:
a)
Beach restoration or nourishment
b)
Sand transfer, stockpiling
c)
Jetties, groins, breakwaters, reevetments
d)
Bypass plant construction and maintenance
e)
Dune construction and revegetation
f)
Beach -dune overwalks
g)
Dune protective walkways or other measures of dune
protection or preservation
h)
Sand fencing
i)
Biological and hydrological monitoring studies
j)
Sand source studies
k)
Educational signs
10-59
�II
U
(Source: Section 16B - 36.04, Florida
Administrative Code)
Up to 75% of the total project cost (or up to 75% of the non -
Federal share of a Federal aid project) may be provided by the
State under this Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program. The
State is authorized to pay according to the following schedule of
items:
a) Project design engineering and construction supervision
and inspection;
b) Biological monitoring;
c) Dune revegetation and stabilization;
d) Construction easements, rights -of -way, public access
easements, and vehicle parking spaces;
e) Obtaining required permits;
f) Establishing erosion control lines; and
g) Enhancement of marine turtle propagation.
In addition to 25% of the total contracted project cost, the local
government sponsor must assume full responsibility for all project
costs in excess of the State cost limitation. The State may pay
up to 100% of the cost of sand -source data collection.
There are no statutory limitations on the amount of money a local
government may request under Florida's Beach Erosion Control
Assistance Program. Discretionary funding is provided annually by
the legislature through individual line -item appropriations to
designated local governments. It should be noted, however, that
current Statewide program funding has been reduced to approximately
$3 million annually.
Beach preservation and erosion control must be the primary purpose
of a project receiving a program grant, pursuant to Section
161.091, F.S. For a project to qualify for State funding under
this program, the local government applicant must provide permanent
public access to project areas at approximately one-half mile
intervals; including adequate vehicle parking spaces. The adequacy
of the provision of parking is determined on a case by case basis
by the Department of Natural Resources with regard to the public
interest. Past Department actions have allowed for partial
substitution of on -site parking requirements with off-site/mass
transit alternatives. Exceptions to the public access and parking
requirements may be made for emergency removal of coastal
protection structures which are a hazard to public safety and cause
beach erosion, and for sand transfer and placement associated with
Federal or non -Federal inlet navigation channel construction or
maintenance.
All requests for financial assistance under this program must be
made on forms provided by the Department of Natural Resources.
Applications are accepted between April 1 and July 1, although the
10-60
Department has the discretion to extend this submission period.
While the Department routinely mails application packages to
eligible local governments, applications may be requested in
writing at any time.
Application requirements include: designation of agents; a
resolution in support of the requested project, approved by the
local governing body; a map illustrating type of upland ownership
within the project area; a project description including a site
plan, access and parking designations, legal descriptions, and
locational references to DNR permanent monuments; estimated project
costs and breakdowns; and estimated design life and maintenance
costs.
After application submission, the Department staff transmits those
applications determined to be eligible for funding to the Governor
and Cabinet, the Governor's Office, and subsequently to the
Legislature for consideration. If funding is provided by the
Legislature for a given project, it becomes available for
contracting on July 1, the beginning of the next State f iscal year.
The likelihood of receiving a grant cannot be specified. It is a
function of Legislature priorities, total dollars earmarked for
this program, and comparative assessment of need among local
governments requesting erosion control project funding.
The Department of Environmental Regulation administers Florida's
Coastal Management Program pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act. This program recognizes that coastal areas play
a critical role in providing for the public's health, safety and
welfare, and that these areas are subject to increasing growth
pressures. Florida's Coastal Management Program far transcends a
beach erosion control perspective. It is instead a coordinative
effort to integrate various Federal and State substantive program
areas to assure consistency and effectiveness in managing coastal
development and providing environmental protection. This is, for
the most part, a Federally -funded program in which Florida has
elected to pass-thru a proportion of dollars to local governments
for coastal "studies." Study topics may relate to marine habitat
protection, hazard mitigation, hurricane evacuation, waterfront
development, port planning, beach access inventories, etc. It is
the intent of the CZM program to fill in voids in existing State
and local programmatic areas rather than to supplant or supplement
existing efforts. To date a small proportion of total funding has
been provided to local governments for beach access and erosion
control studies, preparation of beach management plans, and
biological monitoring.
Florida's annual Federal program allocation pursuant to Section 306
generally falls between $1.75 and $ 2 million. Historically,
approximately $500,000 annually has been contracted for local or
regional studies. Local government grants have been limited to
10-61
G
U
$50,000 and require a 25% local match. Grants under Sec. 306 can
not be used for land acquisition or construction activities.
The Department of Environmental Regulation calls for applications
in the beginning of the calendar year by letter and by publication
in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Applications must be
received by the Department by March 1. Notice of whether or not
a specific grant request is included in the State's grant
submission to the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)
is given all applicants in the beginning of May. A Federal
response to this State submission is usually provided in early
August. Individual project grants may be awarded on or after
October 1, the beginning of the federal fiscal year, and are
usually of one-year duration.
In terms of general application, Part II of Chapter 161, F.S.,
provides the Board of County Commissioners with the power to act
as the beach and shore preservation authority for a given county,
and to create beach and shore preservation districts. Further, it
authorizes uses of an available County funds for beach erosion
control, including authority to levy a uniform ad valorem tax and
issue bonds.
Additionally, Section 120.0104, F.S., the Tourist Development Tax,
was amended
this past legislative
session. Beginning October 1,
1985, the use of such tax revenue
has been expanded to include
financing
beach improvements,
maintenance, renourishment,
restoration
and erosion control.
Specifically, up to 50% of the
revenues to
be derived from the
Tourist Development Tax may be
pledged to secure and liquidate revenue bonds issued by a County
for the aforementioned beach management purposes.
Funding participation by Palm Beach County requires that the
project co-sponsor (Village of Tequesta) must agree to Federal and
State requirements including requirements on parking and access.
The County will further require that all available parking be
equally available to all County residents. Additionally, the
Village of Tequesta is required to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with Palm Beach County. This agreement requires that the
Village finance all construction costs and all other 'first time'
costs which are not reimbursed through Federal or State financial
participation. The agreement provides that Palm Beach County
maintain the project over the life of the agreement assuming
continued Federal and State reimbursement. Maintenance costs
beyond those originally estimated at the time of the
intergovernmental agreement are the financial responsibility of the
Village.
s� Under the Municipal Service Improvement District legislation as
established by Florida, a municipality may elect to create a tax
assessment district to fund the selected beach maintenance program.
The system is extremely flexible and can be set up to weight
10-62
r.
assessment on the basis of proximity to the improvement. The
creation of special taxing districts and the use of special
assessments have been employed by various local governments for
financing major beach erosion control projects (specifically beach
restoration and nourishment).
® Special tax districts have financed beach nourishment projects on
!� Captiva Island and at Jupiter Island, Florida. The proposed North
Boca Raton beach nourishment project may also be funded through an
independent special tax district. Details of funding for these
examples are briefly provided below.
The Town of Jupiter Island established a special erosion district
nearly twenty years ago. This special district has funded three
major erosion control projects along private Atlantic Ocean
shorefront. The district currently assesses an ad valorem tax of
4 mills on all taxable property in the district. Tax generated
revenues are placed into a beach erosion project fund isolated from
the Town's general fund. The district has specific guidelines for
disbursement of these funds for any erosion control program.
The Captiva Erosion Prevention District was formed in 1959. (59-
1496, Laws of Florida 1959). The district is responsible for beach
and shore preservation programs on Captiva Island and has completed
several projects concerning erosion control structures along the
Gulf of Mexico shorefront.
The Army Corps of Engineers completed a study of erosion control
for Lee Countywhich recommended a federal beach erosion control
project at Captiva Island. The project was authorized by Congress
in 1970 but because of funding problems was never constructed.
Subsequent studies have further recommended beach nourishment along
Captiva Islands eroding shorefront.
A The Captiva Erosion Prevention District now proposes to nourish
three miles of Gulf of Mexico shorefront. Financing is necessary
for $5.6 of the 6 million dollars in estimated project costs. In
1979, the District surveyed local residents for their input on
project financing. The results of the survey indicated that the
residents favored a locally financed project since local public
financing would limit stipulations on public access, parking and
use inherent to Federal participation. An economic apportionment
plan was developed by the District to finance the project. The
basis of the paln is that the apportioned cost should reflect the
benefits received by each property owner. The plan followed
assessment procedures outlined in 81-413 laws of florida and
identified costs apportionment by zone, land use and property
location relative to the proposed project. The District Board of
Commissioners plans to conduct a socio-economic study to further
evaluate the determination of benefits as required by the districts
enabling legislation. The economic costs apportionment plan has
been indefinitely tabled pending the results of this future study.
I
10-63
L
In 1978, property owners of South Seas Plantation initiated a
petition to Lee County for establishing a special tax district to
fund a $3.6 million beach nourishment project. This project (known
as the South Seas Plantation Beach Improvement Project) provided
for placement of beach fill along nearly two miles of private Gulf
of Mexico shorefront. The special tax district, called a municipal
services taxing unit (170 F.S.) as adopted included a cost share
arrangement which weighted the expected individual benefits derived
from its project. The project was completed in 1981.
The City of Boca Raton owns and administers several beach front
parks. Funding for property acquisition and park development is
generally through the Greater Boca Raton Beach Tax District. The
District was established by legislature (74-423, Laws of Florida)
in 1974 and amended in 1976 (76-323, H.B. 3624, Laws of Florida).
It is an independent special tax district with two mills taxing
authority. Presently, the levied district millage is approximately
0.9 mills.
An estimated 4.8 million dollar beach nourishment project is
proposed along municipal and private Atlantic Ocean shorefront in
Boca Raton. This project is included in the Army Corps of
Engineers Study of Beach Erosion Control Projects in Palm Beach
County. Although the City is actively seeking federal and state
funding assittance, the project may be initiated before federal or
state funds are committed. The City is presently considering a
general obligation bond issue to finance the project. Thereafter,
if congressionally authorized finances become available, those
funds reimbursed to the City would be placed in a sinking fund to
finance future beach projects in Boca Raton.
Beach erosion continues to be a serious problem along the Atlantic
shoreline in Palm Beach County. According to the Palm Beach County
Atlas Shoreline Management Plan (1987) the average width of beach
in the Village is approximately forty (40) feet. This narrow
beachfront extends from the Martin County line to the Jupiter
Inlet. The width of beach south of the inlet, beginning at the
Town of Jupiter, is considerably greater.
The Atlantic beaches of Tequesta have been designated as lying
A within Reach 1 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion
Control Projects for Palm Beach County (General Design Memorandum
with Environmental Impact Statement), 1987. The estimated volume
of material for restoration of this area is 366,000 cubic yards (69
cubic yars per linear foot of shore). Fill material is proposed
to be obtained from an offshroe borrow area. The reach considered
for restoration is 1.0 miles long, beginning 1,400 feet south of
the Martin County line and ending at the southern limit of the
Village.
According to the County's Shoreline Management Plan, this area has
experienced a net loss of approximately 2 ft./year, increasing to
approximately 6 ft./year at the south end of the Village.
10-64
W
J
11.0 Capital Improvements
11.1 INTRODUCTION
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element is required to be included within
the Comprehensive Plan per requirements of State planning law and
rule criteria. Specifically, Chapter 163.3177(6) (f), Florida
Statutes, establishes the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element requirement
and Chapter 9J5.016, Florida Administrative Code, establishes minimum
criteria to guide its preparation.
This element contains a summary of the data, analyses and support
documentation necessary to form the basis for the future capital
improvements goal, objectives and policies.
In keeping with the requirements of Chapter 9J5.005 and 9J5.010
Florida Administrative Code, the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element is
structured according to the following format:
o Capital Improvements Data; and
o Capital Improvements Analysis
Data and analyses presented are important to the development of goal,
objectives and policies statements in that capital improvements needs
are defined and assessed in terms of the Village's financial
capabilities.
11.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DATA SUMMARY
An overview of conditions pertinent to the preparation of the capital
improvements goal, objectives and policies is presented in the
sections that follow.
11.2.1 Financial Resources
In order to effectively plan for needed current or future capital
improvements, and to systematically arrange for necessary financing
through the budgeting process, a logical preliminary step is to
inventory the various major sources of funding available to the
Village of Tequesta. Revenue sources identified in the following
section comprise a working inventory of financial resources available
to the Village. However, the discussions that follow include all
major financial resources available to the Village and are not
limited to those sources which will necessarily be used for capital
improvement projects included in the Five -Year Schedule of
Improvements.
W,
I
i
11.2.1.1 Revenue Resources Currently Being
Utilized by the Village
Revenue sources currently available to the Village can be grouped
into two primary sources: Government Fund sources and Proprietary
(Enterprise) Fund sources. In addition to the above, the Village
also utilizes a Fiduciary Fund (Trust and Agency Fund) to account
for assets held by Tequesta as agent for its employees. Trust and
Agency Funds are custodial in nature and are not used to finance
® operations or capital improvements.
1� The Government Fund consists of three separate funds: General Fund;
Debt Service Fund; and Capital Projects Fund. The following briefly
describes each fund type:
n
1. General Fund - This fund is used to account for all financial
transactions not accounted for in another fund. Revenue is
derived primarily from taxes, and state and county
distributions.
2. Debt Service Fund - This fund is used to account for the
accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, general
long-term debt principal, interest, and related costs.
3. Capital Projects Fund - This fund is used to account for
financial resources to be used for the acquisition or
construction of major capital facilities (other than those
financed by proprietary funds).
General Fund revenues include all sources except those which are
required to be accounted for in another fund and are used to finance
the ordinary operations of the Village. General Fund revenue
sources, utilizing audited Fiscal Year (FY) 1987/88 figures, are
summarized on Table 11-1.
11-2
TABLE 11-1
GENERAL FUND REVENUES -
1987/1988
Source
Percent
Totals
of Totals
Taxes
Current ad valorem taxes
$1,496,727
49.56
Delinquent ad valorem taxes
1,468
Franchise fees
246,658
Utility service taxes
399,080
Total taxes
$2,143,933
71.00
Licenses and permits
Professional and occupational licenses
51,545
Building permits
109,091
Other licenses and permits
Total licenses and
10,198
permits
170,834
5.65
Intergovernmental revenues
Cigarette tax
$ 16,019
State revenue sharing
129,228
Alcohol beverage licenses
8083
Municipal fuel tax
18,054
Local option gas tax
94,848
Countywide registrations
24,967
One-half cent sales tax
197,123
1
Comprehensive planning assistance
5,322
1�
Total intergovernmental revenues
$ 493,644
16.35
Charges for services
Zoning fees
12,450
Map sales
904
Certification, copying, record search
880
Building inspection service
2,450
Municipal police academy
700
Tennis lights
2,084
Public Works - service
94
Total charges for services
$ 19,562
.65
L
11-3
Lli
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
GENERAL FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
Actual
Fines and forfeits
Court fines
$ 52,555
Parking tickets
479
Total fines and forfeits
53,034
1.75
Miscellaneous revenues
Interest
57,042
Other
10,466
Abandoned bicycle sales
Total miscellaneous revenues
67,508
2.24
Intragovernmental services
Administrative management - water fund
71,400
2.36
Total revenues
$3,019,915
100.00
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (9/30/88)
Tequesta Finance Department, December 19, 1988
11-4
U
L
0
The Debt Service Fund is established to account for current debt
service and/or lease payments for any long-term debt or lease
obligations financed by General Fund revenues. Currently, the only
function of the Fund is to accumulate and disburse funds to finance
current debt service obligations under the 1979 Series Improvement
Revenue Bonds.
The 1979 Bonds were issued for $910,000 for the purpose of financing
certain drainage improvements within the Village. The Bonds are
secured by the pledge of and first lien on the Guaranteed
Entitlement portion of the State Revenue Sharing Trust Funds, as
defined in and payable to the Village under Chapter 218, Part II,
Florida Statutes and by the pledge of and first lien on certain
Franchise Fees, Public Service Taxes and Occupational License
Taxes. The 1979 Bonds do not constitute a general indebtedness of
the Village of Tequesta or of the State of Florida. Annual debt
service on the current outstanding obligations during the 1988 to
1994 period is shown in Table 11-2. The 1979 Series Bonds will
mature in the year 2004. As of September 30, 1988 total Bonds
outstanding were $735,000.
The Enterprise Fund is established to account for Village operations
that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private
business where the costs of providing goods and services on a
continuing basis are financed primarily through user charges. The
Village Enterprise Fund is established to finance the operation of
the Tequesta Water System. Specific Enterprise Fund revenues and
expenses, utilizing FY 1987/88 audited figures, are summarized on
Table 11-3. Revenue categories listed on Table 11-4 may be used to
finance Water System operations, Debt Service Costs and
improvements and expansions of the system.
Tequesta issued $1,525,000 Water Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
1985 dated January 1, 1985. The Refunding Bonds are issued under
and pursuant to Chapter 166, Part II, Florida Statutes (1983), and
other applicable provisions of law, and Resolution No. 2-84/85
adopted by the Village Council of the Village of Tequesta on October
23, 1984 as amended and supplemented, for the purpose of refunding
the Village's outstanding Water Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
1978, dated April 1, 1978.
The Refunding Bonds are special obligations of the Village payable
solely from the net revenues of the Villages's Water System. The
Refunding Bonds do not constitute a general obligation or a pledge
of the faith, credit or taxing power of the Village, the State of
Florida, or any political subdivision thereof, and no Bondholder
will ever have the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem
taxing power of the Village for the payment of the principal of or
interest in the Refunding Bonds.
11-5
The Village is obligated by the Securities Contract to purchase an
aggregate of $980,000 par amount of U.S. Treasury Bonds due February
15, 2007, bearing interest at 7-5/8%, at an aggregate purchase price
of $928,323.57. Purchase must be made semi-annually on April 1 and
October 1 from April 1, 1985 through October 1, 1993, at semi-annual
prices increasing from approximately $33,000 in 1985 to
approximately 71,000 in 1993. Neither the U.S. Treasure Bonds nor
their income is pledged for payment of the Refunding Bonds.
However, the purchase prices of the Treasury Bonds are added to
gross debt service and the income from the Treasury Bonds is
subtracted from gross debt service to compute Bond Service
Requirements.
The total amount of Refunding Bonds outstanding as of September 30,
1988 is $1,290,000. Annual debt service requirements are shown on
Table 11-5.
11-6
I
TASL E 1 1 — 2
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
GENERAL FUND
FISCAL YEAR
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
1989
$25,000
$61,655
$86,655
1990
30,000
59,580
89,580
1991
30,000
57,090
87,090
1992
35,000
54,600
89,600
1993
35,000
51,660
86,660_
1994
40,000
48,720
88,720
SOURCE: Official Bond Statement
Village of Tequesta, Florida
Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1979
11-7
L
1
L'
TABLE 11-3
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND
CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS -
WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
Operating revenues
Charges for services
Operating expenses
Purchased water
Personal services
Contractual services
Supplies
Heat, light and power
Repairs and maintenance
Depreciation
Bad debts
Total operating expenses
Operating income
Non -operating revenues (expenses)
Interest revenue
Interest expense and fiscal charges
Total non -operating revenues (expenses)
Income before operating expenses
Operating transfers (out)
Net income
Retained earnings, beginning of year as
previously reported
Prior period adjustment - error in amor-
tization of contributed capital
Retained earnings as restated,
October 1, 1987
Retained earnings, September 30, 1988
Proprietary
Fund Type
Enterprise
$ 1,668,127
467,952
227,894
158,437
38,117
89,800
84,252
369,990
965
$ 1,437,407
230,720
166,803
(126,173)
40,630
271,350
(50,000)
221,350
3,719,214
(15,120)
3,704,094
$3,925,444
Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (9/30/88)
Tequesta Finance Department, December 19, 1988
11-8
TABLE 11-4
ENTERPRISE FUND REVENUE 1987/88
SOURCE
Charges for Service
Interest on Investments
Capital Contributions
TOTAL
REVENUE
$ 1,668,127
166,803
158,546
$ 1,993,476
PERCENT OF
SOURCE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (9/30/88)
Tequesta Finance Department, December 19, 1988
11-9
Fiscal Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
TABLE 11-5
WATER REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985
SCHEDULE OF DEBT
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
Bond Amortization
Principal
Interest
Account Bonds
Total
$ 80,000
$ 106,705
$ 110,000 $
296,705
85,000
100,855
115,000
300,855
90,000
92,236
125,000
307,236
100,000
87,005
140,000
327,005
110,000
78,737
145,000
333,737
265,000
66,405
-
331,405
290,000
43,280
-
333,280
270,000
17,355
-
287,355
$1,290,000
$ 594,578
$ 635,000 $2,519,578
Source: Official Statement
$1,525,000 Village of Tequesta, Florida
Water Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1985
dated February 26, 1985
11-10
W
I
11.2.1.2 Revenue Sources Available But Not Being
Utilized by the Village
Depending upon priorities assigned by the Village Council and the
availability of other revenue sources, it may be necessary to seek
additional funding sources. The following sources of revenue
represent some of the more common funding vehicles available to the
Village to finance capital improvements.
1. Impact Fees. These fees are charged in advance of
development and are designed to pay for infrastructure needs, but not
operating costs, which directly result from new projects. These fees
must be equitably allocated to the specific group(s) which will
directly benefit from the capital improvement, and the assessment
levied must fairly reflect the true costs of these improvements.
Community improvements such as roads, parks and drainage systems
expansions can be partially funded utilizing this revenue source.
The Village established a Recreational Impact Fee of four (4%)
percent of the land value for all new construction within the Village
by adoption of Ordinance No. 352 dated March 24, 1988.
2. Special Assessments. Like impact fees, special assessments
are levied against residents, agencies, or districts who directly
benefit from the new service or facility. For example, road and
drainage system improvements for an existing neighborhood can be
financed through a special assessment of that neighborhood's property
owners rather than through the Village's General Fund.
3. General Obligation Bonds. These bonds are backed up by the
full faith and credit of the local government, and are required to
be approved by voter referendum. General obligation bonds offer lower
interest rates than other bonds as they are, in effect, secured by
the taxing power of the government. Revenues collected from the ad
valorem taxes on real estate and other sources of general revenue are
used to service the government's debt. Capital Improvements financed
through general obligation bonds should benefit the Village as a
whole rather than particular areas or groups. Presently, the Village
does not have any outstanding General Obligation Bonds.
4. Additional Revenue Bonds. Unlike general obligation bonds,
revenue bonds are generally financed by those directly benefiting
from the capital improvement. Revenue obtained from the issuance of
these bonds is used to finance publicly -owned facilities. Charges
collected from the users of these facilities are used, in turn, to
retire the bond obligations. In this respect, the capital project is
self-supporting. Interest rates tend to be higher than for general
obligation bonds, and issuance of the bonds may be approved by the
Village Council without voter referendum.
J
I
i
I
7
5. Industrial Revenue Bonds. This type of bond is issued by
a local government, but is actually assumed by companies or
industries who use the revenue for construction of plants or
facilities. The attractiveness of these bonds to industry is that
they carry comparatively low interest rates due to their tax-exempt
status. The advantages to a local government are that the private
sector is responsible for retirement of the debt and that new
employment opportunities are created within the community.
6. Grants and Loans. The United States State and Local
Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, which formerly provided for a system
of federal general revenue sharing, has now been substantially
modified. Federal funds are currently either: a) allocated to state
agencies which administer block grants in accordance with the
programs which they monitor; or b) reserved at the federal agency
level and disbursed as block grants directly to state and local
agencies or other eligible organizations and individuals. The
purpose of the block grant program is to enable greater latitude by
recipients in the actual use of funds, although recipients are still
required to use the funds for specific categories of projects.
These funds are not distributed by allocation; rather, competitive
applications are required. Consequently, these grants monies are
generally a non -recurring source of funds and, as such, cannot be
accurately projected for budgeting purposes.
In addition to block grants, several federal agencies offer
direct loan programs, however, their applicability to capital
improvement projects is extremely limited. State loans, on the
other hand, are usually available to finance such capital projects
as land acquisition for low-income housing and water and wastewater
system improvements.
11-6. A partial list of grant and loan programs is includes on Table
11.2.2 Capital Improvements Needs Assessments
The only major and municipal public facilities located within
the Village of Tequesta are Coral Cove Park located on a 5-acre
parcel on a barrier island within the Village. The park is
scheduled for approximately a 19 acre expansion in the near future.
The park is owned and maintained by Palm Beach County Government.
Also, located within the Village is the Tequesta Branch of the Palm
Beach County Library located adjacent to the Village Hall at
Gallery Square North Shopping Center. The current library consists
of approximately 20,000 volumes. A new library facility with the
minimum of 4,000 square foot area is planned to be built within the
Village in the near future.
11-12
I
�i
The impacts on municipal services are projected to be minimal.
Municipal infrastructure and services are available to Coral Cove
Park and the proposed new site for the library and no expected
increases in current capacity are required to service the needs of
the facilities. Also, the proposed new library facility financing
has been provided by a recent referendum vote of Palm Beach County
electors.
There are no public schools or major public health facilities
within the Village. Therefore, the requirement to address the
impacts of the expansion of these facilities does not apply. For this
reason, a map illustrating the locations of public schools and health
facilities, including their service areas, is not included.
H.,
11-13
li
P1
L"
D
U
U
n
TABLE 11-6
AVAILABLE GRANT & LOAN PROGRAMS (Partial List)
A. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
Contact: Glenn Walden
Farmers Home Administration
Room 214, Federal Building
401 S.E. 1st Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32602
904-376-6107
1. Water & Waste Disposal Loans & Grants
Uses: Installation of or improvements to central community
water systems, sewage disposal systems and solid
waste disposal systems.
Service Area: Rural communities of not more than 10,000.
Priority given to local public bodies.
Types of Assistance: Loans providing service to communities
of 5,500 or less. Grants may cover up to 75$ of
project costs.
2. Community Facilities Loans
Uses: Build/improve public -use facilities
hospitals, health clinics, fire
departments, community centers, roads
libraries, schools, recreation centers,
essential community service facilities.
of equipment installation as well
construction.
Service Area: Same as above.
Types of Assistance: Loans. No grants.
3. Business & Industry Loan Guarantee Program
such as
and police
& streets,
and other
Covers cost
as cost of
Uses: Purchase of land, building, & equipment.
Working capital. some debt refinancing.
Service Area: Areas of 50,000 or less. Preference to areas
of 25,000 or less.
Types of Assistance: 90$ guaranteed loan program backed by
FmHA. $500,000 - 10 Million.
11-14
Special Assistance: Women owned businesses, Minority owned
businesses, job producing enterprises in deeply
distressed areas. Modernizing and upgrading
distressed business centers in rural communities.
4. Industrial Development Grants
Uses: Grants for rural areas to help finance development
of industrial sites necessary to attract private
business enterprises. Acquisition and development
of land. Construction of buildings, plants, access
roads, parking areas and utility extensions. Pur-
chase equipment and pay fees.
Service Area: Areas of 50,000 or less. Preference to areas
of 25,000 or less.
Types of Assistance: Grants
B. Florida League of Cities
Contact: Ann Jenkins
Florida League of Cities
201 W. Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
904-222-9684
Low Interest Loan Pool
Uses: Exterior, repainting, plaster, bricking for facade
improvements.
Service Area: Downtown business areas in need of redeve-
lopment.
Type of Assistance: Program is intended to improve the
visual aspect of downtown. Only exterior improve-
ments can be made.
C. Community Development Block Grants
Contact: Thomas Yeatman
Bureau of Community Assistance
Community Redevelopment Section
Department of Community Affairs
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
904-487-3644
1. Neighborhood Revitalization
Uses: Streets, water and sewer, drainage, senior citizens
centers, handicapped centers.
11-15
Service Area: Contact Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
for eligibility determination.
Types of Assistance: Grants up to $650,000 per funding
year.
2. Commercial Revitalization
Uses: Street improvements,
loan pool for commercial facade
improvements. Downtown parking, building exterior
rehabilitation, and infrastructure.
Service Area: Contact DCA
for eligibility determination.
Type Assistance:
of Grants
up to $650,000 per funding year.
3. Economic Development
Uses: Can be used to attract or fund a specific business.
Project may include
infrastructure.
Service Area: Contact DCA
for eligibility determination.
Types of Assistance: Grants and loans up to $650,000 per
funding year requiring a 1 to 1 private match.
4. Housing
Uses: Rehabilitation, demolition and construction of
single and multi -family housing units.
Service Area: Contact DCA for eligibility determination.
Type of Assistance: Grants up to $650,000 per funding
year.
D. Urban Development Action Grants
Contact: Mr. Jeff Forsgren
U.S. Department of Housing Q Urban Development
325 West Adams Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
904-791-3587
Uses: Gap financing for industrial and business
development projects. Eligible activities include:
land acquisition, purchase of machinery and
equipment, construction and renovation.
Service Area: Variable, consult with HUD regarding your
projects eligibility.
n
Types of Assistance: Grant to eligible local government
with no set dollar ceiling.
0 E. Economic Development Administration
Contact: Margaret McIntosh
Economic Development Administration
1365 Peachtree Street Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
(404) 347-7861
1. Public Works & Development Facilities
Uses: Construction of public facilities to initiate job
creation in areas of high unemployment. Activities
include: sewer, water, roads, railroad sidings or
spurs, port facilities, public tourism facilities, and
site improvements for industrial parks.
Service Area: Contact EDA for eligibility determination and
project designation.
Type of Assistance: Guaranteed/insured loans up to 80 percent
®
of private lending institutions loan
l�
exposure.
2. Business Development Assistance
Uses: To provide financial assistance to businesses for job
creation or retention. Activities include start-up or
expansion of plants. May be used for working capital.
Service Area: Contact EDA for eligibility determination.
Type of Assistance: Guaranteed/insured loans up to eighty
percent of private lending institutions
loan exposure.
Source: Land Research Management; 9/88
I
in
0
W
11.2.2.1 Comprehensive Plan Directed Capital
Improvements
The analyses prepared in the preceding Tequesta Comprehensive
Plan elements have identified facility improvements needed to meet
the demands of existing and future development. For the purposes of
this element, any studies or engineering reports needed to define, or
further refine, land and/or improvements expenditures are included
within the definition of a capital improvement. Further, one of the
primary objectives of such a study will be to specifically define and
schedule necessary improvements including the expected source of
funding for proposed capital expenditures.
The inventory that follows is concerned with those needed
improvements which are of relatively large scale, are of generally
non -recurring high cost, and which may require multi -year financing.
For the purposes of this element, a capital improvement is defined as
any expenditure for a fixed asset (i.e. the construction, acquisition
or installation of facilities) or for acquisition of land, including
any studies, engineering reports or appraisals related thereto.
Useful life of the asset must be one year or more and the cost must
exceed $10,000. Improvements derived from the preceding elements of
this Plan which qualify as capital improvements during the 1990-1994
period are listed on Table 11-7.
This is consistent with the provision of Section 9J-5.016,
Florida Administrative Code, which requires this element to address
existing and future capital improvements needed for at least the
first five fiscal years after the adoption of a municipal
comprehensive plan. The need for additional improvements or
modifications to the current assessment of needed improvements will
be evaluated during the required annual review of this element.
Table 11-9 provides a brief description of each of the capital
improvements projects, indicates whether the project is needed to
correct an existing deficiency or address a projected need, and
provides an estimate of the total project cost. It should be noted
that any studies, surveys or engineering reports listed may result in
the identification of additional capital improvements. Capital
improvements defined in this manner will be evaluated during the
required annual review of this element. Projects are grouped by
Comprehensive Plan element. Capital improvement projects have been
identified for the following elements:
Traffic Circulation Facilities, Drainage Facilities,
Conservation Measures and Potable Water Facilities.
11-18
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
t
1
I
1
w
i
O
I
I
I
O
O
1
O
1
I
I
1
O
CY)I
O
I
1
1
O
O
1
O
1
I
1
1
O
1
O
I
1
I
O
0
CAL
M
CO
•i
CO
.�
69
0
1
1
I
1
0
O
1
O
1
1
0
0
I
O
1
1
I
t
O
N
O
1
O
i
1
O
O
1
O
I
1
I
I
C
In
I
O
1
I
LrA
O
1
ON
Co
t:.
o
In
_-r
_-r
M
•o
.4
N
CO
69
O
O
O
O
0
1
1
O
1
1
I
1
1
O
•�
0
0
0
0
0
1
I
Ln
I
t
1
1
1
O
O
O
O
0
1
1
N
1
I
I
1
1
N
>�
.
%O
O
O
.
CG
.
C�
.
can
�G
w
O
fY)
to
W4
%D
0
ti
-cr
69
O
O
I
O
O
I
I
O
1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
1
O
O
1
1
Lf1
I
O
O
O
O
In
N
1
O
0
1
I
t--
I
O
O
O
O
.
>�
N.
.
t�
IC
.
C0
C�
.
t:
.
N
C�
O
N
--.r
%D
O
r 4
CO
M
N
rn
M
K
d
A
H
r-I
C 'O
C 'O
it-r 6
c
c
H
V4
C
O
r-I
d
d
O 00
O 00
00
O
O
+I
3
3
3
e
6
1114
41
�
cd
O
.O
rq
3
0
U
0
00
O
to
>b
A
A
c M
c CO
4)
Id
cd
44
Cd
41
c
4.)
a
v
a.)
tb -
co -
c U
Id U
u
c.
O
a)
-H
0
-H
"q
a •-4
a •-+
O -rt
3 O
o
+1
C3
6
4-)
tU
U
V
x
X
r-I >
.0 ri
Iv r-t
c
U'
O
x
0
Y
0
to
17a I
w I
H 9.
AO O
> O
Iv
dG
w
a
V
a
a
ow
sr
X
'O
a3
cd
0
m
41 a»
a) m
0 to
:a
+)
a�
c
V
4
c
0
c :~
c L4
C
o C
co
�r 1
Lr
cts
r--I 4.)
ri 41
04.)
-ri Id
CS cd
!r cd
r�
i-)
E
_-r
In
%10
t-
a r-I
G4 r-I
"q .a
x E
41 E
Ey r-I
cd
4)
N
N
N
N
-r1
-r-I
H 3
-H
0)
13.
:a
6
94
t, tL
$4 G4
r�
Cl
4)cG+
t4
J
�
a)
a�
ri
r-t
H
Iv
a)
-H W
a)
O Iv
Iv a)
a
c
r-i
41
r-I
r-I
r-1
r-t
iJ M
4J j
E c
'O i-)
v +.)
4.)41
Ey
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
cd
O-,
0
r-I 0
O 0
0 -H
O
U
E4
3
3
3
33
3 3
3 3
MEy
03
E+3
3N
E�
11-19
0
11.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS
11.3.1 Local Policies and Practices
The Village of Tequesta uses several formal means (i.e. policies
and/or practices) that, in combination, guide the allocation of
capital funds. Also, there are additional practices which may be
employed to further guide capital funds allocation. The following
discussion includes practices which the Village currently utilizes or
may wish to incorporate within the capital improvements decision -
making process.
1. Level of Service Standards. Level of Service (LOS) standards
are indicators of the extent or degree of service provided by, or
proposed to be provided by a type of facility based upon and related
to the operational characteristics of that facility. LOS indicates
the desired use per unit of demand of a particular public facility.
LOS standards are, in short, a summary of existing or desired public
facility conditions.
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code, now require LOS standards to be included for
public facilities addressed by local governments in their
comprehensive plans. Specifically, these LOS standards will be
established for the purpose of issuing development orders or permits
to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be maintained and
Iprovided for future development conditions.
LOS standards can also effect the timing and location of
development by encouraging development in areas where facilities may
have excess capacity. On the other hand, development will not be
permitted unless needed facilities and services are provided. As a
result, service provision and development activities may occur in a
phased sequence over time.
CURRENT STATUS: The Village had not formally adopted LOS standards
for public facilities prior to the completion of this Comprehensive
Plan. However, within the other elements of this Comprehensive Plan,
LOS standards have been prepared.
2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A capital improvement
program (not to be confused with the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element of
this Comprehensive Plan) is a plan for capital expenditures to be
incurred each year over a fixed period of years to meet anticipated
capital needs. It sets forth each capital project, or other
contemplated expenditures, which the Village plans to undertake and
presents estimates of the financial resources needed to finance the
project.
11-20
The CIP should be consistent with the CIE of the local
comprehensive plan, reflecting appropriate goal, objectives and
policies statements, including the Five Year Schedule of
Improvements. The CIP is, however, more inclusive than the CIE, as
it is not limited to those public facilities addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Time
periods covered by a CIP may
range up to ten years, but
most are
typically six -year programs. In
many cases, the first year
of the
CIP is programmed into the current
fiscal year capital budget
with longer
range expenditures depicted in a supplementary five-year
program.
The capital budget entails enacting appropriations for
projects
in the first year of the CIP.
Like the CIE, the CIP is
reviewed
on an annual basis.
CURRENT STATUS:
Tequesta currently prepares a five-year CIP.
Capital
Village
expenses are considered annually, as part of the normal
budget process. The CIP for the period 1990 to 1994 capital
expenditures for the
Capital Improvement Fund and Water Enterprise
Fund is
shown on Tables
11-7 and 11-11.
3.
Impact Fees.
Impact fees are imposed by many local
governments on new developments to offset the costs of additional
capital facilities necessitated by that development. This financing
technique may be used by local governments as a strategy for
implementing the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element. Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes, includes impact fees as an innovative technique that may be
integrated into land development regulations.
Impact fee development is one logical outgrowth of CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS element preparation. The analyses of a local
government's capital improvement needs and its capabilities to
provide for those needs, as required by Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code may be a rational basis for developing an impact
fee ordinance.
CURRENT STATUS: The Village of Tequesta does currently levy a
recreational impact fee and administers a County road impact fee.
The limited remaining development potential within the Village
precludes the use of other impact fees as a means of raising
substantial additional revenues.
r' 4. Urban Service Areas. The demarcation of urban service areas
within a comprehensive plan or Capital Improvements Program may be
used to indicate the areas for which the local government intends to
provide public facilities and services when used in conjunction with
the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element. This mechanism may be used to
orchestrate the timing and/or level of public facility and service
provision within various areas of a community.
11-21
Fi
Additionally, the use of urban service areas may offer the
following benefits:
1. Encourage efficient growth patterns; and
2. Provide the basis for controls on facility extensions.
CURRENT STATUS: Due to the compact nature and development
status of Tequesta, the Urban Service Area concept has not been
utilized, nor is it anticipated.
5. User Charges and Connection Fees. User charges are designed to
finance the operational costs of public facilities or services by
charging those who benefit from them. They are employed in many
areas of local government service and are a common source of funds
for financing improvements and/or paying off revenue bonds.
CURRENT STATUS: The Village of Tequesta currently employs the
following user fees:
General Fund User Fees:
1. General Government - Sale of maps and publications,
certifying, copying, research and miscellaneous services;
2. Public Safety - Alarm Permits, special truck permits and
protective inspection fees;
3. Culture and Recreation - Tennis court lighting fees.
During Fiscal Year 1988, these fees generated $121,371 or 4% of
the General Fund revenues.
Water Enterprise Fund User Fees:
1. Water Sales
2. Connection Charges
3. Fire Hydrant Rents
4. Capital Improvement Charges (New Water Service)
During fiscal year 1988, fees generated $1,826,673 or 92% of the
Enterprise Fund revenues.
6. Adequate Facilities Ordinance. An adequate facilities ordinance
controls the timing and location of development by conditioning
development approval upon a showing that sufficient facilities and
services are present or will be provided in order to maintain adopted
LOS standards. It may, in effect, implement the 1985 Legislative
mandate (Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) which requires public
facilities to be available to support the impacts of development.
The ordinance may make development approval contingent upon the local
government's ability to provide facilities and
11-22
G
services and may require a developer to furnish facilities and
services in order to maintain adopted LOS standards. Additionally,
adoption of an adequate facilities ordinance may offer the following
benefits:
1. Assure consistency of the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT with
the FUTURE LAND USE element;
2. Provide for the orderly expansion of public facilities; and
3. Stabilize capital improvements expenditures and taxing
structures for capital improvements.
Typically, an adequate facilities ordinance interacts with the
development approval process by conditioning zoning, subdivision, or
planned unit development (PUD) approval on demonstrated compliance
with the ordinance. An adequate facilities ordinance may also
function at the building permit stage. The ordinance may, in this
context, control development in areas that are already approved but
not as yet built out, such as pre -platted subdivisions.
CURRENT STATUS: No such ordinance has been adopted by the
Village; however, this vehicle should be incorporated within the
Village of Tequesta Land Development Regulations.
7. Mandatory Dedications or Fees In Lieu Of. The Village may
require, as a condition of plat approval, that subdivision developers
dedicate a certain portion of land in the development to be used for
public purposes such as roads, parks and other community facilities.
Dedication may be made to the governing body or to a private group
such as a homeowners association.
When a subdivision is too small or topographical conditions such
that a land dedication cannot reasonably be required, the local
government may require the developer to pay a fee in lieu of
dedication which is equivalent to he amount of land that would
otherwise have been dedicated. The fee may be deposited into a
separate account for future use toward provision of such facility.
CURRENT STATUS: This practice is currently used by the Village
of Tequesta (Ref: Section 9-(2) of the Subdivision Code) to provide
public sites and recreation facilities. Fees in lieu of dedication
may be required by the Village under this section. Also, streets,
access waterways, easements, limited access strips and canals may be
dedicated to the Village, as per requirements of the Subdivision
Code. The Code also contains the flexibility to negotiate the other
types of dedications, on an as needed basis.
11-23
E
�4
8. Moratoria. A moratorium, or stop -gap ordinance, may temporarily
halt or freeze development for a specified period of time on an
emergency basis. It may be imposed upon building permits,
development approvals, or governmental services such as potable water
and sanitary sewer extensions or hook-ups. Moratoria may generally
be imposed for a "reasonable time" to allow for necessary planning
activities, including comprehensive plan preparation, adoption, or
amendment. Florida courts have found development moratoria to be a
valid measure of last resort for the protection of local public
health, safety, and welfare when adopted in accordance with
applicable procedures. Additional considerations in adopting a
moratorium include:
1. Determining the legal status of existing permit
applications and approvals to define the extent of "vested
rights" for developments approved prior to ordinance
adoption;
2. Specifying the geographic extent of the moratorium
(whether it will be jurisdiction -wide, or limited to
specific hazard areas or areas with existing service
insufficiencies); and
3. Specifying the time frame and conditions under which the
moratorium will be imposed.
CURRENT STATUS: The Village has utilized
the moratorium
practice occasionally in the past for specific zoning
districts while
a zoning/planning change was in progress.
9. Intergovernmental Contracts. Intergovernmental
contracts are
similar to user fees, with the exception that they
are designed to
partially recoup the costs of public facilities
or services by
providing such facilities or services to another
municipality or
unincorporated area under the terms of a contract.
CURRENT STATUS: Tequesta currently provides building
inspection
services and public works services to Jupiter Inlet Colony by
contract; however, Village recreational and cultural
facilities are
open to non-residents without charge. The only fee
tennis courts lighting.
charged is for
� 11;
11.3.2 The Use of Capital Expenditures To Support Efficient
Land Development.
Most major infrastructure systems, including water and sewer and
roads and streets are currently planned or in place to accommodate
growth and development in Tequesta and facility expansions and
capacities are programmed to accommodate additional growth withn the
current corporate limits through build out of the Village. Drainage
issues will be addressed by project studies identified in the 5-year
Schedule of Improvements. All projected
11-24
�I
future growth in Tequesta is expected to be accommodated by in -fill
activities within existing developed areas. This conclusion should
be revisited, however, if and when the Village entertains major
annexations activities.
11.3.3 Fiscal Assessment
This
section begins the examination of the
Village's ability to
fund the
capital improvements listed on Tables
11-9 and 11-12. The
purpose
of this section is to determine whether sufficient revenue
will be
available within the existing budgeting
framework utilized by
Tequesta
to finance planned improvements at
the time they are
required.
The assessment process consists of estimating future receipts of
revenues which the Village uses for capital improvement financing and
then, balancing these receipts against anticipated expenditures for
capital improvements. Using this process, it is possible to -quantify
annual revenue surpluses or shortfalls which, in turn, provide a
basis for examining additional alternatives for financing needed
capital improvements.
In addition to the direct cost of capital improvements, this
section will review the general fiscal impacts of the capital
improvements derived from the other elements upon the operation of
the Village departments responsible for facility management.
11.3.3.1 Accounting System.
The accounting system employed by the Village records financial
transactions in individual accounts which are called "funds." Records
for each fund provide a complete accounting of fund assets,
liabilities, reserves, equities, revenues and expenditures. The
following is a brief description of the funds which the Village has
established for capital improvement financing.
® General Fund
The General Fund is the general operating fund of the Village.
It is used to account for all financial resources except those
required to be accounted for in another fund.
Debt Service Fund
The Debt Service Fund is used to
resources for, and the payment
interest, and related costs. The
accumulates monies for payment of
Series 1979.
11-25
P1
account for the accumulation of
of, long-term debt principal,
Debt Service Fund of the Village
the Improvement Revenue Bonds,
Capital Projects Fund
The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for financial
resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major
capital facilities (other than those to be financed by the
Proprietary Fund).
Enterprise Fund
The Enterprise Fund is used to account for operations that are
financed and operated in a manner similar to private business
enterprises - where the intent of the governing body is that the
costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or
services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or
recovered primarily through user charges. The Enterprise Fund of the
Village is the Water Fund which accounts for the provision of water
services to the residents of the Village and some residents of the
County. All activities necessary to provide such services are
accounted for in this fund including, but not limited to,
administration, operations, maintenance, financing and related debt
service and billing and collection.
11.3.3.2 Projected Capital Projects Fund
Capital Improvements, Revenues and
Budget Potential
It is anticipated that all capital improvements resulting from
the analyses prepared in this Comprehensive Plan will be financed
using General Fund revenues and Water Enterprise Fund Revenues.
Projections of revenues and expenditures will be used as the basis
for analyzing the capabilities of the Village to finance future
capital improvements. General Fund revenues for capital improvements
are transferred by (1) interfund transfer to the Capital Projects
Fund; and (2) interfund transfer to the Debt Service Fund to finance
the annual debt service requirements of a project requiring bond
financing.
The Village's tax base is projected to increase assuming an
average annual 6.94% rate of growth for the adjusted taxable value of
real and personal property (including new construction) as shown on
the Table below. The assessment ratio is assumed to remain stable at
95%. Figures are in current dollars.
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX BASE ($ THOUSAND)
FISCAL YEAR TAXABLE VALUE BUDGET (95$)
1989/90
$ 312,860.7
$ 297,217.7
1990/91
334,760.8
318,022.9
1991/92
358,194.2
340,284.5
1992/93
383,267.8
364,104.4
1993/94
410,096.6
389,591.8
11-26
Ad valorem tax yields are projected assuming that the historical
average annual percentage increases in adjusted taxable values (i.e.
6.94%) continues in the future. Millage rates for the 1984 to 1989
period evidenced a 26.5% increase; however, a detailed analysis of
projected revenues using historical data and projected revenues
increases resulting from increased user fees more accurately
reflected other revenue sources, resulting with Ad Valorem tax
revenues increasing only 24.5% during such period. Figures reported
are in current dollars and the collection to assessment ratio is
assumed to remain stable at 95%.
TAX BASE
MILLAGE
TAX YIELD
FISCAL YEAR
($ THOUSAND)
RATE
($ THOUSAND)
1989/90
297,217.7
6.1828
1,837.6
1990/91
318,022.9
6.3310
2,013.4
1991/92
340,284.5
6.6533
2,264.0
1992/93
364,104.4
6.9578
2,533.4
1993/94
389,591.8
7.2738
2,833.8
As stated previously, a detailed analysis of other revenue
sources resulted with the following revenue projections for the
period 1990 to 1994.
FISCAL YEAR
TAX YIELD
($THOUSAND)
1989/90
1,837.6
1990/91
2,013.4
1991/92
2,264.0
1992/93
2,533.4
199394
2,833.8
OTHER REVENUES
($THOUSAND)
1,706.2
1,735.7
1,777.2
1,819.9
1,865.2
TOTAL REVENUE
POTENTIAL
($ THOUSAND)
3,543.8
3,749.2
4,041.2
4,353.3
4,698.0
A detailed analysis of historical data of expenditures for
operating expenses and projected annual increases for each line item
appropriation contained in the Village operating budget and required
debt service expenditures taken from the bond amortization schedule,
less capital outlay expenditures resulted with the following
projected expenditures for the 1990-1994 period.
FISCAL YEAR
OPERATING
EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE
($ THOUSAND) ( $ THOUSAND)
INTER -FUND
TRANSFERS
TO CAP. PROJ.
($ THOUSAND)
1989/90
3,380.8
90.3
215.0
1990/91
3,435.6
87.8
225.7
1991/92
3,713.8
90.4
237.0
1992/93
4,017.0
87.4
248.9
1993/94
4,347..2
89.5
261.3
SOURCE: Village of Tequesta
Finance Department
11-27
TABLE 11-8
GENERAL FUND
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
($ THOUSAND) CURRENT DOLLARS
DESCRIPTION
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Beginning Fund
Balance
473.2
415.8
415.8
415.8
415.8
Operating Rev.
3,543.9
3,749.2
4,041.2
4,353.3
4,698.0
Operating Exp.
3,295.9
3,435.6
3,713.8
4,107.0
4,347.2
Debt Service
Expense
90.3
87.8
90.4
87.4
89.5
Inter -Fund
Transfer
Capital Projects
Fund
215.0
225.8
237.0
248.9
261.3
Ending Fund
Balance
415.8
415.8
425.8
415.8
415.8
11-28
TABLE 11-8 (CONTINUED)
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES (S THOUSAND)
(CURRENT DOLLARS)
Beginning Fund
Balance 169.1
22.8
-
-
-
Operating Revenues
Intergovern-
mental Transfers
Palm Beach County 350.0
-
-
-
-
Interest Income 2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Interfund Transfers
General Fund 215.0
225.8
237.0
248.9
261.3
Water Enter.
Fund 55.0
57.8
60.6
63.7
66.9
Recreation Impact
Fees 105.6
-
-
-
-
Total Capital
Project. Fund
Potential 897.2
308.9
300.1
315.1
330.7
Source: Village of Tequesta
Finance Department
11-29
Z
1-4
ON
W
O�
E• z
.�
zw
w>
z0
r�ac
>a.z
OZa
O,aHG`
O0.
1 i LL to zr
O�
•4 UON
...3 w W .-4
U3<-3P) 1
.a E- 0 0 0
m " = ON
dawaON
•
E•az
UUJ
W
dU)Ed-4
H
!9
1
M 000
N .-4 LCN�O
O
00
o
coo
t.:
%- O
M
�%.p
44
N
d
d
z
z
0
0
0
d
d
CO
\
\
cr
Z
Z
cr
W4
0
0
z
z
0
d d
Z z
.-i
0
0
0
r-+
O
. 4
•�
N
M
cr
ri
tr
r.
r,
O
0
O
tf1
N
fcn¢aco
a mocmmocaccc
w a
�
O>•U
Oar.7
H >
O
.-I
0
00 Q
C
•rl
r-I
c
C
C 4)> V C Oo m
�
-r4
O
C
-.a 00 0 4)-H C C
+1
m
a�
•d
W
.0 G
•rl
O
c c0 0. z > -H •rc
U
C
4.)
-H
4) c Cd > >
O
r 4
m
•rl
%4 $4
C
nt cd co
°° a
rL
a
.H
. -I
O a)
•�
t4
H
•Heo t4 c a a
3 In c G t+ O O
c.
W
O
U
cd
.0
U
.i
r-I
Z +-)
W
U
7
W
-r1 O > sv 'C
O
OC
D6
C
•a
N Id
W
U
4)
C • Q 4 tl- >b-H > cd
3
m
U
>
d)
94
.-1
C. d) 94 co O 1 co fr -H O
d)
d)
U
Lr
eQ
rl
n
-H+1
0 so UrI= 30 c.a
W
N
ao
4-)U,
W
c.as
U
-H
O W U U .0 G
r-1
cd
m
in
r-I
ed > cd V ao 0 x
0
>1
H
Id
v
Iv
x W
4-) O 4J C >, O -H T W O
4.)
L.
►-t
3
O
be
W O >> ri
W 94 W td tr OQ = W W O
O
0
•rt
U
cd
W 010 cd
d a O J4-) cd O O tr
E 4
>
'd
"I
C
a) !.. c 41
O
U4
O E 7 C C O 94.0
•rl
.i
>
"4
to ,1] O
t:,
co
a H cy ea 0 how cr a cd
C
ri
td
C
a O N E-
a
94
d1 d) O •rl • d) >, d)
cd
O
O
O
t:.
>, d)
Eq
E4 E4 UNOE-4Uw
to
z
mto
G
UN
11-30
R
'M
0
O
0
O
tr
rI
M
0I
0
0
0
0
O
c�
0
.
.
r-+
cry
Ir
ao
�o
N
N
N
N
oc zz rr a ac
00 0
00 0
00 0
.i C 14
N Lr
69
m
d
Z
¢
z
co
Z N
0
O
co
Z N
m
a
�
41
c
>>^ ^ U m
.0
4)
M
�
�4)0 - 3mt>
r-I
�0
O
•H
cd a .0 .0 'O co +1 Go C '�eo
ayi
�
V.
ca �
a >, 4-) >, 4-) ,i a L4 -H -r4
co
3 an
aci
E a
E C
V
U 0 4f 10 C. O OC >
0 a 1 3 a o0 c0
'C!
0.
1-4e
co
w
> O .0 > U m a .x
,-1
r-1
O
a�i f
N O
0 4)i
+1 oC
� 0
-H v . ,.► 1 -H U � c.
c. $4 v m c� S4 c..se m
«i
0
H
0
c
O
.c Id
c.
0
10 >
41 O
C
O
OXOMaO-VO 1 c.a
cd
'd
•r1
U 00
m
-H I~
-H
O O 00
at 0 c0 3 aC of O cd 0 U a a0
in
r-1
w
0
.0
41
0.�
4J
c co
0 �
a s
Id E
4J
cd
41s~�OO41c.+)m 41
Cd
bt
>
XH
U1-4
0.00H0040'o0NIA
4J
C
!A
i+
Id
"i
9+
000+Ip000:+CC0
E+
In
0
0
OIn
O
4fC
U
v'cAv'3cdv'cnvcacCa
7
C
C
>0
4!4-►
4O
O
OvOv� a)— 4) O d
O
O
O
O O
O O
Ow
OG
E+ E to E E4 E E• E
=
Z
U
O U
m Z
E
r1l
A
I
L�,
TABLE 11-10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE
POTENTIAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
CAPITAL
LESS PLANNED
SURPLUS
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES**
DEFICIT
FISCAL YEAR
POTENTIAL ($)*
($)
( )
1989/90
897,200
874,400
22,800
1990/91
308,900
287,400
21,500
1991/92
300,100
203,200
94,400
1992/93
315,100
150,700
164,400
1993/94
330,700
287,000
437,000
Source: Village of Tequesta
Finance Department
* REF: Table 11-8 (Continued)
** REF: Table 11-9
Utilizing data from the above tables, revenue and expenses can
therefore be projected for the 1989/90 to 1993/94 period.
Projections are presented on Table 11-8. The "Balance" figures, as
per Table 11-8, are concluded to represent the maximum theoretical
yearly amounts available for additional capital expenditures
including additional debt service, without utilizing alternative
financing sources, as discussed in Section 11.2.1.2.
Historically, the Village has attempted to maintain a fiscal -
year end General Fund Balance to General Fund Budget ratio of 8% to
12%. By maintaining annual capital expenditures (i.e. including debt
service) within the parameters indicated on Table 11-7, this policy
should be able to be maintained without increasing taxes above levels
projected herein.
Available capital funding and capital expenditure projection
figures, for the 1990-1994 period, are displayed on Table 11-8.
11.3.3.3 Projected Water Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements,
Revenues and Budget Potential
The following Tables 11-11 through 11-14 show the capital
improvement potential of the Water Enterprise Fund.
11-32
1
1
1
1
1
t
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
r>~
I
O
1
1
1
O
O
1
O
t
1
I
1
O
1
O
1
1
1
O
O
1
O
1
1
I
1
O
I
O
1
1
1
O
O
Z
m
M
t.co
co
a
�
Ey
z
W
O
I
O
1
1
O
O
1
o
i
i
i
i
o
W
N
O
1
O
1
1
O
O
1
O
1
I
1
1
O
O
LC%
1
O
w
1
1
ul,
O
1
w
.
�
V"'4
N
CO
�d
E- -zr
(--I as
O
O
O
O
O
I
I
O
I
1
1
1
1
O
a o.
O
O
o
0
0
1
1
u,
1
1
1
I
I
Ln
O
w
O
.
O
.
O
.
O
1
1
N
1
I
1
I
1
N
C.
w
JZO
W
0
M
u
O
0a O O*%
d Lr. ON
69
E-+ "4
W
N
a
o
O
0
O
0
I
1
O
0
O
0
1
1
I
1
O
Wn
1
1
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
oac
v�
U*N
N
1
O
O
1
1
1
O
O
o
o
Ln
_-r
[�
-:r
co
M
N
ON
W
M
fprl
E-
69
W
O'
W
O
.-.
41
m
r-4�
C 'Ci
C 'O
L.. E
C
C
r-4
-r1
C
O
r-i
O
O
O 00
O 00
0 7
O
O
to
3
3
3
3
8
E
0.
O
-O
y
N
�
4
CU
0o
O
v1
>,
>,
A
M
C oo
O
>, 0
C
u.
cd
+.)
C
Cd
C U
c6 U
U
94
O
a W4
0 -r1
3 0
0
+)
E
U
U
U
x
r-i >
4 ri
U ri
C
C7
O
x
0
.x
0
cd
W I
W I
r-4 L.
00 Iv
> U
Iv
CG
W
a
U
of
a
cc Iv
-H =
-rl =
E
-d
cd
cd
ad
cd
4J N
0 0)
N
v
U
U
C t+
c 94
C
G C
c0
Id U
4S U
C C
"1
Lr
cd
r-I 4J
H +)
O A.)
-ri 0
0 cd
L. cd
r-4
4-)
-:r
Ln
.c
I—
iL r-I
a r-I
-r1 -r1
x E
z
E-+ r-i
cd
Iv
N
N
N
N
-r1
-r1
r-I 3
-r-4
cA
0.
L+
E
L.
L. DW
L. EL.
r-I
C L.
U L.
L+
J
4-)
O
O
r-I
r-I
r I
H
Iv
Iv
-H .�C
U
7 a)
U U
d
C
r-4
4-)
ri
ri
r-I
r-I
4-)M
4J �
2
'Ly
04 Aj
4-) 4.)EH
U
Iv
cc
U
U
(v
Iv
cc -,
cd -,
0
r-I cd
<v C
cd -rq
O
U
Ey
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3 3
M E-4
0 3
E-+ 3
3 cA
E-
11-33
-j-)
O
0
CT
CYN
0
000
w
w w
m
00 Oo r-r
_:r
69
O 000
N_I
O 000
0
w w w
p
N CT [� OO
mNOO
Ln
0000
0
0
CM O O
O
w w w w
w
N
ON mom �
p
0 en r4 1�0
U1
p
r-4
r4
69
69
Ey
0 0 0 0
�n w
LCI%
O O O
0
UW
NNOOt`
O O O
w w w w
w w w
h 0
r+ O �O �O �O
OC M- N
0 a
`Y' m
�
04
Fez
jN
zr4�
z
.-�w0r44-21
�wwwrn
•+>aCl)
O0�'I
AAAAz
z z zz z
v c
awa I
) wwwwa
a a au. a
a) O
MX=XO
4
'04-)
¢HUcarn
U)
Cd
Ei`nzaN
a U
Hew
a
-)
n >w.
w
a�
U
•H
Cd
�
O E
J-)
G •rl
G4
Gq
ri
C/n •� to
A 3
a)
C 1
w -, > a)
+-)
H t. A Cn r-I — to +)
•rl Cd r-I ri
•ri
•rl W
E- 00 (2) ri ri a) cd
t♦ ri m q Uri r-I
t♦
U
► -H $ >> +.) a) ri Cn 3
a) •rf I~ O a) a)
Q,
•.�
•a Cn 4-) vi 3 (2) �--
+) U O •rl ri 3 3
t+
o, •w
�-+ O m •rl Cn 3 3
Cd Cd •.i m Cd
a) +�
U IZ • U A >>
3 p4 Cn O I~ >> >>
+�
A I~
¢a.i00a)4ax�
�-
r:. X I a� •rl g
� 4)) a-H -H• i
w
en a
w Cd O U 04
a) I~ +-) x+) U U
m
a a)
rx M U E Cd x F4 ha--
> -- a) -- x w •'i co co
L. 4-)
.,i U
w 4-) to a) a U .r,
0 •r1 s~ s~ w b a a
a) s~
4-) Cd
E- C; a) ri X 0 CO a) =
O t+ O +.) Cd 4-)Id Cd Cd
+) a)
(n ri
¢ 0 +-) (d U A h0
•r1 A •rl Cd ri C: r. Cd U U
Cd E
"I a
3 ri ri I~ A---- CO (1)
+) +J (2) 04 •r1 CC •��
3
a •r1 O to to •rl
cd 0cd i t� cd rA
>
W a
w 4-4•ri+) -4-Lc,0 x
U+) 0E4 0)w0.ot-
ri O
-] 1-) a) N N4-) •rl
O Co O +-) N N
Cd to
1 I
CO to M •rl Cn A
ri a) ri t+ •rl t4 to
4-) C1�
¢ a) �- 10 a) ri ri
a) Z a) (1) Cn a) a) OO ri ri
O E
A
E� +.> 3 b ri ri ri 0 •d
OG V M +.) -- :-) 4-) • ri ri
0 Id -- as a) a) a) M ri
a) Id co Id
a+3 Ey33M0
E•+ 3 33 33
•
11-34
TABLE 11-13
WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES ($ THOUSAND)
(CURRENT DOLLARS)
Description
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Beginning Cash
Position
$1,300.0
$ 400.0
$ 400.0
$ 400.0
$ 400.0
Operating Revenue
2,141.7
2,193.0
2,245.6
2,299.5
2,354.8
Interfund Transfers
Capital Projects
Fund
55.0
57.8
60.7
63.7
66.9
Debt Service
Ending Cash Position
303.8
400.0
322.2
400.0
330.0
400.0
336.7
400.0
234.4
400.0
Surplus Funds
1,262.9
188.3
134.9
77.0
123.9
Capital Contributions
195.0
195.0
195.0
195.0
195.0
Total Capital Improve-
ments Potential
1,457.9
383.3
329.9
272.0
318.9
Source: Village of Tequesta
Finance Department
U
TABLE 11-14
WATER ENTERPRISE FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL
Capital
Less
Fiscal Year
Budget
Potential ($)
Planned Surplus
Expenditures Deficit (
Accumulative
) Totals
1989-1990
$1,457,900
$1,545,450
(87,550
( 87,550)
1990/1991
383,300
370,250
13,050
( 74,500)
1991/1992
329,900
1,516,000
1,186,100
(1,260,600)
1992/1993
272,000
771,000
(439,000)
(1,699,600)
1993/1994
318,900
-
318,900
(1,380,700)
Source: Village
of Tequesta
Finance
Department
11-36
i
11.3.3.4 Projected Water Enterprise FuAd
Capital Improvements In Excess of Budget Potentials
The projected Water Enterprise Fund capital improvement budget
potential cash shortfalls deficits will be addressed by the
issuance of long term bonded debt as previously stated in Section
11.2.1.2, should the current projections become a reality. Current
conservation measures are being taken by the Village to encourage
water usage conservation by customers of the system. If such efforts
are successful, the time frame for implementing a portion of the
improvements can be deferred resulting with a reduction of the
projected cash shortfalls. These items will be monitored on an
annual basis in accordance with the provision of Section 9J-5.016,
Florida Administrative Code.
U;
11-37
U
W,
V = L LAGE
O F
'I'EQLTESTA
COMPREHENS = VE
D EVEL O PMENT
PLAN
October, 1988
Revised September, 1989
Prepared By
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
"Preparation of this Document and Maps was aided through
financial assistance received from the State of Florida under
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program
authorized by Chapter 87-98, Laws of Florida and administered
by the Florida Department of Community Affairs."
This revised document prepared by:
TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL
(acting as the LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY)
Mayor Joseph N. Capretta
Vice Mayor Edward C. Howell
Councilmember William E. Burckart
Councilmember Earl L. Collings
Councilmember Ron T. Mackail
VILLAGE STAFF
Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
Thomas C. Hall, Water System Manager
Wendy K. Harrison, Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager
Bill C. Kascavelis, Finance Director/Village Clerk
Scott D. Ladd, Building Official
Gary Preston, Director of Public Works & Recreation
® Carl R. Roderick, Chief of Police
with technical and advisory assistance provided by:
JLH ASSOCIATES
224 Datura Street
Suite 1001
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
V=LLAGE OF TEQLJESTA
COMPREHENS =VE D EVEL O 1PMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
FUTURE LAND USE
FLU-1
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
T-1
HOUSING
H-1
UTILITIES
SANITARY SEWER
SS-1
SOLID WASTE
SW-1
POTABLE WATER
W-1
DRAINAGE
DR-1
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFIER RECHARGE
NG-1
CONSERVATION
C-1
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
R/OP-1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
IGC-1
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
CM-1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
CI-1
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CMK-1
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
ME-1
0
= NTRODUCT = ON
Chapter 163.3161 - 163.3215, Florida Statutes (i.e. Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act), and Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative Code
(i.e. Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government
Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance),
establish basic requirements for the format and content of the
Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan.
Chapter 163.3164 (3), Florida Statutes, defines "Comprehensive
Plan" as a "Plan that meets the requirements of Sections
163.3177 and 163.3178." Section 163.3177 lists required
conditions, studies, surveys and elements of the Comprehensive
Plan, including:
1. Written and graphic material necessary to support the
principles, guidelines and standards for the orderly
and balanced future economic, social, physical,
environmental and fiscal development of the area;
2. Elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent
with each other and the Plan must be economically
feasible;
3. A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS element, to be reviewed on an
annual basis, designed to consider the need for and
the location of public facilities to encourage the
efficient use of such facilities;
4. Coordination of the Comprehensive Plan with: (1)
those of adjacent municipalities; (2) the County; (3)
the Region (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council);
and (4) the State Comprehensive Plan;
5. Policy recommendations for the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
6. The following elements: FUTURE LAND USE; TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION; SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE,
POTABLE WATER AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
RECHARGE; CONSERVATION; COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT;
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; HOUSING; AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION.
In addition, it is required that local Comprehensive Plans be
compatible with and further the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council Regional Policy Plan and the State
Comprehensive Plan.
- 1 -
W
Further, the following two (2) provisions of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, are emphasized by the State:
1. Local governments are charged with setting Levels of
Service for public facilities in their Comprehensive
Plans in accordance with which development must occur
and permits will be issued; and
2. Public facilities and services needed to support
development shall be available concurrent with the
impacts of such development.
Chapter 9J5.005, Florida Administrative Code, established the
general requirements for a Comprehensive Plan.
Format Requirements
The Comprehensive Development Plan shall consist of those
items listed below. All other documentation may be considered
as support documents. Support documents need not be adopted
unless the local government desires to include all or part
thereof within the Comprehensive Development Plan. All
background data, studies, surveys, analyses and inventory maps
not adopted as part of the Comprehensive Development Plan
shall be available for public inspection, while the
Comprehensive Development Plan is being considered for
adoption and while it is in effect. Unless the local
government desires to include more, the Comprehensive
Development Plan shall consist of:
1. Goals, Objectives and Policies;
2. Requirements for capital improvements implementation;
3. Procedures for monitoring and evaluation of the local
plan;
4. Required maps showing future conditions; and
5. A copy of the local Comprehensive Development Plan
adoption ordinance at such time as the Plan is
adopted.
The Comprehensive Development Plan format shall include:
1. A table of contents;
2. Numbered pages;
3. Element headings;
0
�A=
i
4. Section headings within elements;
5. A list of included tables, maps, and figures;
6. Titles and sources of all included tables, maps, and
figures;
7. A preparation date; and
8. The name of the preparer.
All maps included in the Comprehensive Development Plan shall
include major natural and man-made geographic features, city,
county and state lines, when applicable; and shall contain a
legend indicating a north arrow, map, scale and date.
Data and Analysis Requirements
All Goals, Objectives, Policies, standards, findings and
conclusions within the Comprehensive Development Plan and its
support documents shall be based upon relevant and appropriate
data. Data and summaries thereof shall not be subject to the
compliance review process. All tables, charts, graphs, maps,
figures and data sources, and their limitations shall be
clearly described where such data occur in the above
documents.
Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative Code, shall not be
construed to require original data collection by local
government; however, local governments are encouraged to
utilize any original data necessary to update or refine the
Comprehensive Development Plan data base, so long as
methodologies are professionally accepted.
Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing
sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center,
State University System of Florida, -regional planning
councils, water management districts, or existing technical
studies. The data used shall be the best available existing
data, unless the local government desires original data or
special studies. Where data augmentation, updates, or special
etudies or surveys are deemed necessary by a local government,
appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or
referenced and shall meet professionally accepted standards
for such methodologies.
The , Comprehensive Development Plan shall be based upon
resident and "seasonal_ population, estimates and projections.
Resident and seasonal population estimates and projections
shall be either those provided by the University of Florida,
Bureau of Economic and Business Research, those provided by
- 3 -
I
the Executive Office of the Governor, or shall be generated by
the local government.
All data and analysis requirements are contained in the
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION for the Comprehensive Development Plan
document.
"# Level of Service Standard Requirements
L
Level of Service Standards shall be established for ensuring
that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future
development and for purposes of issuing development orders or
development permits, pursuant to Section 163.3202 (2) (g),
Florida Statutes. Each local government shall establish a
Level of Service standard for each public facility located
within the boundary for which such local government has
authority to issue development orders or development permits.
Internal Consistency Requirements
The required elements shall be consistent with each other.
All elements of a particular Comprehensive Development Plan
shall follow the same general format. Where data are relevant
to several elements, the same data shall be used, including
population estimates and projections.
Each map depicting future conditions must reflect Goals,
Objectives, and Policies within all elements and each such map
must be contained within the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Plan Implementation Requirements
Recognizing that the intent of the Legislature is that local
government Comprehensive Plans are to be implemented, pursuant
to Subsection 163.3161(5), and Sections 163.3194, 163.3201,
and 163.3203, Florida Statutes, the sections of the
Comprehensive Development Plan containing Goals, Objectives,
and Policies shall describe how the local government's
programs, activities, and land development regulations will be
initiated, modified or continued to implement the
Comprehensive Development Plan in a consistent manner. It is
not the intent of Chapter 9J5 to require the inclusion of
implementing regulations in the Comprehensive Development
Plan, but rather to require identification of those programs,
activities, and land development regulations that will be part
of the strategy for implementing the Comprehensive Development
Plan and the Goals, Objectives, and Policies that descrlbe'how
the programs, activities, and land development regulations
will be carried out consistent with Section 163.3201, Florida
M,M
0
Statutes. Chapter 9J5 does not mandate the creation,
limitation, or elimination of regulatory authority for other
agencies, nor does it authorize the adoption or require the
repeal of any rules, criteria, or standards of any local,
regional, or state agency.
Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements
For the purpose of evaluating and appraising the
implementation of the Comprehensive Development Plan, the
Comprehensive Development Plan shall contain a section
identifying five (5) year monitoring, updating, and evaluation
procedures to be followed in the preparation of the required
five (5) year Evaluation and Appraisal Report. That section
shall address:
1. Citizen participation in the process;
2. Updating appropriate baseline data and measurable
objectives to be accomplished in the first, five (5)
year period of the Plan, and for the long-term period;
3. Accomplishments in the first, five (5) year period,
describing the degree to which the Goals, Objectives,
and Policies have been successfully reached;
4. Obstacles or -problems which resulted in
underachievement of Goals, Objectives, and Policies;
5. New or modified Goals, Objectives, or Policies needed
to.correct discovered problems; and
6. A means
evaluation
of ensuring
of the Plan
continuous monitoring and
during the ensuing five (5)
year period.
Procedural Requirements
The Comprehensive
Development Plan, Plan elements,
and Plan
amendments shall be considered,
adopted and amended,
pursuant
to the procedural
requirements
of Sections 163.3161
- .3215,
Florida Statutes,
following:
including,
but not limited
to, the
1. The Comprehensive Development Plan for the Village
shall be prepared and submitted within the same
timeframes as the counties in which the municipalities
are located and all Plans shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the schedule adopted by
the Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to
- 5 -
0
Subsection 163.3167 (2), Florida Statutes;
2. The Comprehensive Development Plan or element shall be
prepared in accordance with Section 163.3174 and
Subsection 163.3167 (4), Florida Statutes, relating to
Local Planning Agencies. Prgposed plans, elements,
portions thereof, and amendments shall be considered
at a public hearing with due public notice by the
Local Planning Agency (LPA) prior to making its
recommendation to the governing body, pursuant to
Subsection 163.3167 (4), and Section 163.3174, Florida
Statutes;
3. The Comprehensive Development Plan, element or
amendment shall be considered and adopted in
accordance with the procedures relating to public
participation adopted by the governing body and the
LPA, pursuant to Section 163.3181, Florida Statutes,
and Section 9J5.004, Florida Administrative Code. The
local government shall submit with its initial
transmittal, pursuant to Subsection 163.3167 (2),
Florida Statutes, and subsequent transmittals,
pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, a copy
of the procedures for public participation that have
been adopted by the LPA and the governing body;
4. The Comprehensive Development Plan and any
Comprehensive Development Plan amendments shall be
transmitted after formal action by the governing body
in accordance with the provisions of Section 163.3184
and 163.3187, Florida Statutes, and the procedural
rule adopted by the Department of Community Affairs,
pursuant to Subsection 163.3177 (9), Florida Statutes;
5. The Comprehensive Development Plan shall not be
amended more than two (2) times during any calendar
year except in the case of amendments directly related
to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to
Sections 380.05, 380.061, and 163.3187 (1) (c),
Florida Statutes, or in the case of any emergency,
pursuant to Section 163.3187 (1) (a), Florida
Statutes. The Comprehensive Development Plan,
elements and amendments shall be adopted by ordinance
and only after the public hearings required by Section
163.3184 (15) (b), Florida Statutes, have been
conducted, after the notices required by Sections
163.3184 (15) (b) and (c), Florida Statutes. Upon
adoption, the local government shall transmit to the
Department of Community Affairs a copy of the
ordinance and the required notices; and
6. The Comprehensive Development Plan shall be evaluated
and updated as required by Section 163.3191, Florida
Statutes, and Chapter 9J5, Florida Administrative
Code. A copy of the adopted report required by
Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, shall be
transmitted to the Department at the time of the
governing body's transmittal -of related amendments,
pursuant to Section 163.3191 (4), Florida Statutes.
- 7 -
I
n
COMPREHENS =VE D EVEL O PMENT PLAN
There are various aspects of growth and development addressed
in this Comprehensive Development Plan. Some elements of the
Plan are directly related to physical development, while
others are socio-economic or management orientated. It is
imperative that the user understand this distinction because
each type of proposal is considered within the context of
comprehensive planning.
Goals, Objectives and Policies
This Comprehensive Development Plan documents the proposed
direction of growth and development in the Village of
Tequesta. The elements set out Goals, Objectives and
Policies. These are defined as follows:
A Goal is a generalized statement which describes an
end state or ideal condition which the Village strives
to attain. Chapter 9J5, F.S., specifically describes
a "goal" as, "The long-term end toward which programs
or activities are ultimately directed."
- An Objective is viewed as a more specific statement
which contributes to the accomplishment of a goal and
serves as a basis for scheduled action and formulation
of , plan recommendations. Chapter 9J5, F.S.,
specifically describes an "objective" as, "A specific,
measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and
marks progress toward a goal."
- A Policy applies to a specific objective and provides
direction for implementing the goals and objectives of
each individual element. Chapter 9J5, F.S.,
specifically describes a "policy" as, "The way in
which programs and activities are conducted to
achieve an identified goal."
The initial step in developing a Comprehensive Development
Plan for the Village involves formulating desirable overall
Goals and establishing Objectives and Policies which support
and move toward the accomplishment of these Goals. To
effectively accomplish this requires input from the citizenry,
interested persons and the designated Local Planning agency.
The agreed upon Goals, Objectives and Policies are provided
herein. These established guidelines will carry through in
the development of the Plan and also will be utilized in
making future decisions in the development of Tequesta. -
8
W
Planning Timeframes/Measurability
According to Chapter 9J5.005 (4), Florida Administrative Code,
each Comprehensive Plan shall include at least two (2)
planning periods; one (1) for at least.the first five (5) year
period subsequent to the Plan's adoption and one (1) for an
undesignated long-term period. On this basis, the following
planning periods are utilized in the Village of Tequesta
Comprehensive Development Plan: Short-range - 1989 to 1994;
and Long-term - 1994 to 1999.
It is the intent of this Comprehensive Development Plan to
develop Objectives which are measurable and Policies which
provide the means by which to measure the effectiveness of
Objectives in moving toward the end state or Goals of the
Plan. It is further the intent of this Plan to establish
planning timeframes to measure the effectiveness of the
Objectives and Policies, as adopted. For purposes of this
Comprehensive Development Plan, it is presumed that the
accomplishment of Objectives and Policies will occur within
the five (5) year planning period, unless otherwise
specifically stated or identified in the Plan; or, if the
Objective or Policy specifically regards the update, revision
to, or preparation of development regulations to implement the
Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan. Where
revisions, updates or preparation of development regulations
are required, they will be accomplished within one (1) year
from the submittal date of- the Comprehensive Development Plan,
pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes, or as State
requirements may change from time to time.
I
0
FUTURE LAND US E
Goal: 1.0.0 Provide for the development of suitable and
compatible land uses which will preserve,
enhance, and be within the established
character of the Village of Tequesta.
Objective: 1.1.0 Coordinate all future land use decisions
with the appropriate topography and soil
conditions, the availability of facilities
and services and land use designations as
per the Future Land Use Map.
Policies: 1.1.1 Enact development regulations in 1990
(subdivisions, zoning, signage, etc.) which
guide future land use configurations so as
to preserve topography and soils; require
facilities and services; and, protect
against seasonal or periodic flooding.
1.1.2 The Land Use Classification System presented
on Table FLU-1 is adopted as the "Future
Land Use Classification System" of the
Village of Tequesta.
1.1.3 Coordinate with and support Palm Beach
County in the protection of potable water
wellfields and adopt the Palm Beach County
Wellfield Protection Ordinance or a locally
developed version.
Objective: 1.2.0 During each 5-year update to the
Comprehensive Development Plan, inventory
the housing stock to determine whether there
are blighted areas within the Village in
need of renewal or redevelopment.
Policy: 1.2.1 There are no blighted areas within the
Village of Tequesta. However, the Village
will, wherever and whenever appropriate,
cooperate with other local governments in
these efforts to redevelop and renew such
areas within their respective jurisdictions.
Objective: 1.3.0 Prohibit land uses which are inconsistent
with the community's character and future
land uses;
FLU-1
I
Policies: 1.3.1 Through the adoption of planned unit
development, mixed -used and other innovative
regulations, encourage the development of
housing types within a physical setting that
permit both comfortable and creative living,
while affording both privacy and
sociability.
1.3.2 Maintain the existing high quality of single
family neighborhood throughout the community
by prohibiting commercial and high density
residential development in these areas.
1.3.3 Maintain architectural control through
implementation of the Community Appearance
Board Ordinance.
1.3.4 Continuelow-level profile for future
buildings or structures, except in the areas
zoned C- 2 and R-3 where multi -level may be
permitted, through implementation of height
limitations in the zoning ordinance.
1.3.5 Continue trend of low -density type of
residential developments, except in
designated high -density areas by requiring
consistency: between the Future Land Use Map
and the Official Zoning Map.
1.3.6 Require, through the implementation of the
Zoning Ordinance that adequate parking,
suitably arranged and attractively
landscaped is provided within all
developments.
1.3.7 Commercial developments shall be developed
in a manner that will compatibly serve the
community's needs by restricting their
location to those areas indicated on the
Future Land Use Map.
1.3.8 Strive for compatible developments that will
benefit the Village and compliment the
aesthetic character of the community.
1.3.9 Require signs that are visually attractive
and low-key through implementation of
Village sign regulations.
n, FLU-2
L,
rk
L
ri
1.3.10 Require parking areas that are generously
landscaped and appropriately lighted by
implementing provisions within the Zoning
Ordinance.
1.3.11 Respect the privacy associated with the
existing open space.
1.3.12 As part of the Site Plan Review process,
compatibility with adjacent land uses shall
be demonstrated. Compatibility is defined
as consistency with the Future Land Use Map
and compliance with Village land development
regulations.
Objective: 1.4.0 Ensure the protection of natural resources
and historic resources;
Policies: 1.4.1 Utilize orientations to water, to the
fullest extent.
1.4.2 At the time of each 5-year Comprehensive
Development Plan update, the Village will,
where applicable, identify, designate, and
protect under provisions of the Standard
Housing Code, areas of historical
significance.
1.4.3 Implement an ordinance requiring a land
development permit prior to commencement of
development activities to protect natural
resources.
1.4.4. Prohibit construction eastward of the
coastal construction setback line.
1.4.5. The trimming or removal of mangroves should
be consistent with the County Mangrove
Protection Ordinance and subject to approval
of the Village Council.
1.4.6. During 1990, the Village shall institute a
program to preserve native plant species in
Ecosites Number 61 and Number 63.
1.4.7 During 1990, the Village shall adopt an
ordinance protecting mangroves within
Tequesta.
FLU-3
I
I
Objective: 1.5.0 Require, through
process, that
available for
necessary to
development.
the land development review
suitable land is made
infrastructure facilities
support all proposed
Policies: 1.5.1 By continuing with existing land use
patterns and categories, along with current
zoning regulations requiring specific
densities and intensities, the Village will
establish standards for future land use
development.
1.5.2 The Village shall adopt and enforce an
Adequate Facilities Ordinance to ensure that
facilities and services meet acceptable
levels of service.
1.5.3 The site plan review process of the
Village's current Planned Unit Development
regulations shall be written to specifically
condition the issuance of permits on the
availability of facilities and services
necessary to serve the proposed development.
1.5.4 The approval and authorization of land use
development within the Village shall be
concurrent with the provision of utility
service. Concurrently shall be defined in
the Adequate Facilities Ordinance referenced
in Policy 1.5.2.
1.5.5 Apply the standards and requirements of the
adopted hurricane evacuation and civil
defense regulations where applicable.
1.5.6 Provide for drainage and stormwater
management, open space, and safe and
convenient parking and on -site traffic flow
by applying the site plan review
requirements of the current land development
regulations within the Village.
1.5.7 Ensure that adjacent land uses are protected
by strictly enforcing setback, height,
landscaping and signage provisions within
the Village land development regulations.
FLU-4
1.5.8 Designate a Village staff person to
coordinate the impacts of new development
within the coastal zone against existing
hurricane evacuation plans.
Objective: 1.6.0 Coordinate with any appropriate resource
planning and management plan prepared
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
and approved by the Governor and Cabinet.
Policy: 1.6.1 The Village will coordinate its future
planning and development with the South
Florida Water Management District by
requiring the issuance of a Surface Water
Management Permit or Water Use Permit, as
appropriate, prior to issuing a development
order.
Objective: 1.7.0 Development
shall be
conformance
under the
program and
Ordinance.
Policies: 1.7.1
1.7.2
Objective: 1.8.0
within the storm flood zone
prohibited unless it is in
with regulations promulgated
Coastal Construction Control
the Village Flood Protection
The Village should keep abreast of federal
requirements to assure resident's
eligibility for flood insurance.
The Village should carefully scrutinize all
developments in flood zone areas as part of
the planning and review process.
All new development within the special flood
hazard areas shall be subject to site plan
review.
Policies: 1.8.1 The Village should examine the latest land
use control criteria relating to flood zone
development for inclusion in the site plan
review process.
1.8.2 High intensity developments in Tequesta's
hurricane flood zone should be serviced by
central sanitary sewer systems.
1.8.3 The Village should discourage high intensity
land uses in hurricane flood zones.
FLU-5
n
I
Objective: 1.9.0 Create regulations in existing building
codes requiring new construction in the
hurricane flood zone to utilize the latest
wind damage and flood prevention techniques.
Policy: 1.9.1 The Village should study special building
standards for the 100 year hurricane flood
zone, with provisions for utilization of
these latest techniques.
Objective: 1.10.0 Encourage local residents within the
hurricane flood areas to utilize the flood
insurance programs developed by the Federal
Insurance Administration.
Policies: 1.10.1 All structures in the hurricane flood zone
should be protected by flood insurance in an
effort to assure that the financial burden
from flooding is borne by those desiring to
live in such areas.
1.10.2 The Village should continue to support the
Federal Flood Insurance Program.
Objective: 1.11.0 Adopt land development regulations,
including Planned Unit Development, overlay
zoning, mixed -use .development or other
innovative development and redevelopment
concepts.
Policy: 1.11.1 By 1990, the Village shall define and master
plan the Downtown area and develop a Village
Center concept which promotes all
integration of land uses, pedestrian and
vehicular movement and mixed -use
development.
Objective: 1.12.0 Special land use Policies shall be developed
by the Village of Tequesta when necessary to
address site specific land development
issues related to implementing the Future
Land Use Goal Statement.
Special 1.12.1 Utilize the mixed -use provisions of the
Policy: Village's Planned Unit Development
regulations or develop new Special District
Urban Standards (e.g. urban design
standards, architectural standards, street
FLU-6
I
design standards) and utilize them in the
development and/or re -development of the
Village Center as defined by the recent
Design Charrette (e.g. properties of
Lighthouse Plaza Shopping Center, Tequesta
Plaza Shopping Center, St. Jude's Church and
the Dorner property). Development of the
property or properties shall be subject to
Village Council approval of the Master Plan
for this site(s) and the land development
regulations cited above.
FLU-7
in
FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The Future Land Use Classification System presented on Table FLU-
1 is adopted as the "Future Land Use Classification System" of
the Village of Tequesta.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
Future Land Use Map
The 1999 Future Land Use Plan for the Village is displayed on
Figure FLU-1. There are no designated historic districts or
significant properties meriting protection within the Village,
nor are there any listed on the Florida Master Site File or the
National Register of Historic Places. Recreation/Open Space
areas are identified on Figure FLU-1; however, due to their
character and Village -wide appeal, the delineation of specific
service areas is not appropriate. Each facility is deemed to
serve the Village as a whole.
Natural Resource Maps
The following natural resources data are exhibited on Figures
FLU-2 through FLU-4:
1. Natural Habitat, Wetlands, Coastal Vegetation and
Beaches (Ref: Figure FLU-4);
2. Surface Water Features (Ref: Figure FLU-4);
3. Generalized Soils Map (Ref: Figure FLU-2 and Table
FLU-2); and
4. Flood Zones (Ref: Figure FLU-4 and Table FLU-3).
Existing and/or planned potable water wells or cones of
influence in the Village of Tequesta are illustrated on Figure
FLU-4. There are no minerals of determined value within the
Village.
Future Annexation Area Map
By the end of 1990, the Village shall adopt a Future Annexation
Area Map.
FLU-8
FIGURES
FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES
FLU-1
- FUTURE LAND USE
page
FLU-17
FLU-2
- GENERALIZED SOILS
page
FLU-18
FLU-3 -
FLOOD ZONES
page
FLU-19
FLU-4 -
COASTAL ZONE AND CONSERVATION
page
FLU-20
FLU-9
I
0
rl
W
TABL E FLU — 3-
FUTURE LAND US E
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the following land
use classifications, which are applicable to Tequesta, are used
to describe existing land uses in the Village. The
classifications are consistent with those defined in Chapter
9J5, F.A.C. and concurrent with the Village's perception of use.
Residential:
Land uses and activities within land areas used
predominantly for housing and excluding all
tourist accommodations.
Commercial: Land uses and activities within land areas
which are predominantly related to the sale,
rental and distribution of products and the
provision of performance of services.
Recreation/
Open Space:
Conservation:
Land uses and activities within land
areas where recreation occurs and lands which
are either developed or vacant and concerned
with active or passive recreational use. These
uses can also be suitable for conservation
uses.
Land uses and activities within land areas
"designated" for the purpose of conserving or
protecting natural resources or environmental
quality, and includes areas designated for such
purposes as flood control, protection of
quality or quantity of ground water or surface
water, flood plain management, fisheries
management, or protection of vegetative
community or wildlife habitats.
Public Build- Lands and structures that are
ings & Grounds: operated by a government
libraries, police stations,
FLU-10
owned, leased, or
entity, such as
fire stations, post
i►i
offices, government administration buildings,
and areas used for associated storage of
vehicles and equipment. Also, lands and
structures owned or, operated by a private
entity and used for a'public purpose such as a
privately held but publicly regulated utility.
Educational: Land use activities and facilities of public or
private primary or secondary schools,
vocational and technical schools, and colleges
and universities licensed by the Florida
Department of Education, including the areas of
buildings, campus open space, dormitories,
recreational facilities or parking.
Other Public Land uses and activities within land areas
Facilities: concerned with other public or private
facilities and institutions such as churches,
clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the
aged and infirm, and other similar uses.
Transportation: Land areas and uses devoted to the movement of
goods and people including streets and
associated rights -of -way.
Water: All areas covered by water or any right-of-way
for the purpose of conveying or storing water.
FLU-11
TABLE FLU-2
Soil TYPE - CHARACTERISITCS
The general types of soils found in Tequesta and their characteristics are as
follows:
AU - Arents-Urban land complex. This complex consists of nearly level, somewhat
poorly drained, sandy soils and Urban land. The soils formed in thick layers of
sandy fill material that were placed over low, wet mineral soils to make the
areas suitable for urban use. This complex is in the eastern part of the survey
area and takes in golf courses, subdivisions, condominium developments, road-
ways, business or industrial areas, reclaimed borrow pits, and other areas
filled over but not yet developed.
No one pedon represents this mapping unit, buy the surface layer of one of the
more common ones is dark gray and dark grayish brown sand, mixed with other sha-
des of gray and brown, about 4 inches thick. Below this there is a layer of
mottled brown sand about 20 inches thick. It has common weakly cemented
fragments of strong brown, black, or dark reddish brown sand. Between depths of
24 and 60 inches are layers of light gray and dark gray sand that have a few
thin lenses and mottles in shades of gray and brown.
This complex is about 60 to 75 percent Arents and 25 to 40 percent Urban land.
Arents consist of lawns, vacant lots, golf courses, undeveloped areas, and other
open land. Urban land consists of areas covered by streets, sidewalks, parking
lots, buildings, and other structures. The percentage of Arents and Urban land
varies.
Included with this complex in mapping are areas of better drained soils, soils
that have a higher content of shells in some layers, and a fei+ soils that have
limestone at a depth of less than 50 inches. Also included are small areas of
soils, near the Intracoastal Waterway and Lake Worth, that have a layer of marl
or organic material below a depth of 20 inches.
The soil material is generally rapidly permeable in all layers. The available
water compacity is low or very low. The organic -matter content and natural fer-
tility are low in most places.
Ba - Basinger fine sand. This is a nearly level, poorly drained, deep, sandy
soil in broad grassy sloughs in the eastern part of the county. This soil has
the pedon described as representative of the series. The water table is within
10 inches of the surface for 2 to 6 months in most years and within 10 to 30
inches for the rest of the year.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Myakka, Imrnokalee,
Pompano, Anclote, and Placid soils. Also included are some areas where the soil
has a thin layer of organic material on the surface and a few places where a
loamy substratum is deep in the soil.
The natural vegetation is St. Johnsworth slash pine, southern bayberry, and
scattered cypress; pineland three -awn, blue, maindencane, broomsedge bluestem,
and low panicum grasses, Most areas of this oil are in native vegetation or
improved pasture. A few areas are used for vegetables. Some large areas that
were once cropped have been idle for years.
Unless drained, this soil is not suited to cultivated crops. If drained and
intensively managed, it is moderately well suited to vegetables. Providing a
well designed, constructed, and maintained water control system that maintains
the level of the water table and provides subsurface irrigation is a major con-
cern of management. Frequent applications of fertilizer and lime are needed.
This soil is poorly suited to citrus. Because it is in low-lying positions and
normally has a high water table, water control is difficult. A well -designed
water control system and bedding are needed if citrus.is planted, and frequent
applications of fertilizer are needed. Maintaining fertility is difficult'
because the soil is sandy and low in natural fertility. During dry periods,
irrigation is needed to insure good yields.
If intensively managed, this soil is well suited to improved pasture of grass or
grass and clover. Providing a water control system that is less intensive but
is otherwise similar to that required for cultivated crops, applying fertilizer
and lime as needed, and carefully controlling grazing are major management con-
cerns.
FLU -1,2
TABLE FLU-2.(continued)
Bn - Beaches consist of narrow strips of tide -washed sand along the Atlantic
coast line. They range from less than 100 feet to more than 500 feet in width,
but most are less than 200 feet wide. As much as half of the beach may be
covered by water during daily high tides, and all of the beach may be covered
during storm periods. The shape and slope of the beaches may change with every
storm. Most beaches have a uniform, gentle slope up to the edge of the water.
Others have wavebuilt ridges that have short, stronger slopes; ranging to 8 per-
cent or more. There are a few shallow inland swales. Most areas have no vege-
tation, but the inland edge may be sparsely'. covered with moonvine, railroad
vine, sea oats, and seashore bermudagrass. Depth to the water table is highly
variable, depending on the distance from the water, the height of the beach, the
effect of storms, or the time of year. The depth to the water table ranges from
0 to 6 feet cr more, depending on time and place.
Beaches are frequently mixed and reworked by waves. They are firm or compact
near the edge of the water, but the drier sands further back are loose. Beaches
consist of pale brown to light gray sand grains of uncoated quartz and are mixed
with multicolored,*sand-sized to 1-inch shell fragments. Few to many coarser
shell fragments occur in all parts of the soil. Some areas have pockets or len-
ses of conquina shell; other areas consist of large shell fragments and little
or no sand. Rock outcrops are scattered throughout. Some are at the edge of
the water and act as a barrier to each incoming wave, for example, at the north
survey area line and at the Singer Island area. Others are submerged and
exposed only at low tides, for example, at Lake Worth and Boca Raton beaches.
Beaches are not suited to crops or pasture. They are suited mai-nly to
recreation use and wildlife habitat and have great esthetic value.
Im - Immokalee fine sand. This is a nearly level, poorly drained, deep, sarxly
soil that has a dark colored layer below a depth of 30 inches that is weakly
cemented with organic matter. This soil is in broad flatwood areas in the
eastern part of the survey area. It has the pedon described as representative
or the series. Under natural conditions, the water table is within 10 inches of
the surface for 2 to 4 months during wet periods, within 10 to 40 inches for 8
months or more In most years, but it is below 40 inches in dry periods.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Myakka, Basinger, Wabasso,
and Oldsmar soils.
The natural vegetation is slash pine, saw -palmetto, inkberry, fetterbush, pine -
land three -awn, and many other grasses. Most areas of this soil are in native
vegetation, but there are some areas in improved grass pasture and cultivated
crops.
This soil is moderately well suited to vegetables if irrigation water is
available. Intensive management and a very careful control of the water table
level are necessary. A drainage system and a subsurface irrigation system that
provides rapid removal of excess water in rainy periods and a means of irriga-
tion in dry periods should be carefully designed, Installed, and maintained.
Application of fertilizer and lime is needed.
This soil is poorly suited to citrus because of poor drainage, rapid leaching of
plant nutrients, and droughtiness in dry periods. If the groves are well
managed and there is a properly designed water control system, citrus trees can
be grown successfully.
A drainage system that removes excess water during wet periods allows for a
high -quality pasture of improved grasses. Large applications of fertilizer and
lime are required. If irrigated, clover can be grown with grasses.
Mu - Myakka-Urban land complex. This complex consists of Myakka sand and Urban
land. About 25 to 50 percent of the complex is covered by streets, sidewalks,
driveways, houses, and other structures. About 40 to 65 percent of the complex
consists of open land such as lawns, vacant lots, and playgrounds. These areas
are made up mainly of nearly level, poorly drained Myakka sand, which has been
modified in most places by spreading about 12 inches of sandy fill material on
the original surface. Myakka sand has a pedon similar to that described as
representative of the series.
Included in mapping are .Immokalee, Basinger, and Pompano soils, all of which
have sandy fill material over the original surface.
FLU-13
TABLE FLU-2 (continued)
The percentage of urban area and open
land varies.
Most areas have been drained
to some degree by a system of canals
and ditches,
and the water table generally
is at a greater depth than is typical
the water table may rise to within 10
for Myakka soils. Following heavy rains,
inches of the surface for
periods of up to
1 month.
Present land use precludes use for farming.
PbB - Palm Beach -Urban land compels. This complex consists of Palm Beach sand
and Urban land. About 50 to 70 percent of the complex is open land, such as
lawns, vacant lots, and undeveloped areas. These areas are made up of nearly
level to sloping, excessively drained, Palm Beach sand that has been graded and
leveled in many places for urban development. The original soil has a pedon
similar to that described as representative of the series. About.30 to 50 per-
cent of the complex is covered by sidewalks, streets, parking lots, buildings,
and other structures.
Included with the open areas of this complex in mapping are small areas of
Canaveral sand that has fill material on the original surface in many places.
Sane of this fill material comes from the adjacent, higher Palm Beach sand
during the process of leveling.
The percentage of open land and urban areas varies. A few narrow coastal ridges
of Palm Beach sand remain undeveloped, but the amount of such land is being con-
tinually reduced by urban expansion.
PcB - Paola sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes. This nearly level to sloping, excessi-
vely drained, deep, sandy soil has yellowish layers beneath the white subsurface
layer. It is on long, narrow dunelike ridges near the Atlantic coast. It has
the pedon described as representative of the series. The water table is below a
depth of 6 feet.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of St. Lucie, Palm Beach, and
Pomello soils; soils that lack the thick, white, subsurface layer; and soils
that have the yellowish layer at a depth greater than that described for Poala
sand.
The natural vegetation is sand pine and an undergrowth of scrub oak, palmetto,
and rosemary. The surface is sparsely covered by grasses, cacti, mosses, and
lichens. Large areas are in native vegetation. Some areas are cleared and
smoothed for urban use.
This soil is not suited to vegetables and most cultivated crops because it is
groughty and has many other poor soil qualities. It is moderately well suited
to citrus. In citrus groves, a cover crop of weeds and grasses is needed to
keep the soil between the trees from blowing. Tillage should be kept to a mini-
mum. Sprinkle irrigation is needed to insure the survival of young trees and a
good yield of fruit from mature trees.
y'g This soil is poorly suited to improved pasture of bahiagrass and other deep-
rooted grasses. In such pastures, frequent application of fertilizer and care-
fully controlled grazing are needed.
QAB - Quartzipsamments, shaped. This mapping unit consists of nearly level to
gently sloping, well drained, deep, sandy soils In areas where natural soils
have been altered by cutting down ridges and spreading th8 soil material over
adjacent lower soils, by filling low areas above natural ground level, and by
filling and shaping soil material to form golf courses. The sandy fill material
may be hauled in from a distant source but is generally obtained at the site by
dredging nearby water areas or by excavating to create water areas. The water
table is below a depth of 60 inches.
No one pedon represents this mapping unit, but of one of the most common the
surface layer Is dark grayish brown sand about 6 inches thick. Next, stratified
layers of gray, grayish brown, light gray, light brownish gray, and white sane
in any sequence and of variable thickness are between a depth of 6 and 32
inches. Below this there Is a layer of strong brown sand about 10 inches thick
that has a few dark reddish brown fragments of weakly cemented sand. The next
layer is grayish brown sand about 18 inches thick. Below this is a layer of
// white sand that extends to 80 inches or more.
Permeability is very rapid. The available water capacity is very low. Organic -
matter content and natural fertility are low.
n
TABLE FLU-2 (continued)
ScB - St. Lucie sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes. This nearly level to sloping,
excessively drained, deep, sandy soil is onlong narrow, dune -like coastal
ridges and on isolated knolls. This soil has the pedon described as represen-
tative of the series. The water table is below a depth of 6 feet.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Paola, Palm Beach, and
Pomello soils. Also included are small areas of soils that have either a dark -
colored, organic -stained layer, or a brownish yellow, iron -stained layer within
a depth of 80 inches. In a few places are soils that have a seasonally high
water table within a depth of 6 feet.
The natural vegetation is sand pine, scrub oak, sawpalmetto, rosemary, cacti,
reindeer moss, and sparse clumps of pineland three -awn and natalgrass. Large
areas are in native vegetation, and some areas have been cleared for future
urban development.
This soil is not suited to vegetables and other cultivated crops, improved
pasture, or citrus.
SuB - St. Lucie -Urban land complex. This complex consists of St. Lucie sand and
Urban land. About 50 to 70 percent of this complex is open land, such as lawns,
vacant lots, and playgrounds. These areas are made up of nearly level to
sloping, excessively drained St. Lucie soils. In places, these soils have been
modified by cutting, grading, or shaping for urban development. About 30 to 50
percent of the complex is covered by streets,. sidewalks, driveways, patios,
buildings, and other structures.
The rest of the complex is made up of Paola and Pomello soils. These soils may
also be modified i.n places, but the pedons are similar to that described as
® representative of their respective series. The percentage of urban areas and
open land varies.
Present land use precludes use of this complex for farming.
TM - Tidal swamp, mineral, is nearly level, very poorly drained, sandy material
that supports a dense growth of mangrove trees. It is only near the coast along
the Intracoastal Waterway, around the edges of Lake Worth, and along the edges
of the Loxahatchee River and its tributaries. It consists of sandy marine sedi-
ments that are flooded by salt or brackish water during daily high tides.
Permeability is rapid in all layers. The available water capacity is high in
the surface layer and low below that. Natural fertility is low.
The surface layer is black, very dark gray, or very dark grayish brown and is 10
inches or more thick. It is mucky sand or mucky loamy sand. Reaction ranges
from slightly acid to strongly alkaline. In many places, the surface layer is
fibrous muck 4 to 6 inches thick.
The underlying material is black, very dark gray, very dark grayish brown, dark
gray, gray, grayish brown, or brown sand, fine sand, or loamy sand. Reaction
ranges from extremely acid to mildly alkaline. In places, the content of shell
fragments ranges to 10 percent.
Ur- Urban land consits of areas that are 60 to more than 75 percent covered with
streets, buildings, large parking lots, shopping centers, industrial parks,
airports, and related facilities. Other areas, mostly lawns, parks, vacant
lots, and playgrounds, are generally altered to such an extent that the former
soils cannot be easily recognized and are in tracts too small to be mapped
separately.
Source: Soil Survey of Palm Beach County Area, Florii'a
USDA, SCS; 12/;8
FLU-15
ri
IJ
�I
j
rki
TABLE FLU-3
FLOOD ZONE MAP KEY AND EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
*EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 9-4
REF.
ZONE
EXPLANATION
A
Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors not determined.
AO
Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; average dcpths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
All
Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feel; base flood
elevations arc shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
A1-A30
Areas of 100year flood; bast (loud elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
A99
Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood
protection system under construction; haae flood
elevations and flood hazard factors not delermined.
0
Areas between Ihnlls of the 100-year flood and 500-
year flood; or certain areas subiecl to 100-year flood-
ing with average depths less than one (1) loot or where
the contributing drainage area Is less than one square
mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
C
Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
D
Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
V
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
not determined.
Vl-V30
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
SOURCE: FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION, 8/78
0
FLU-16
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
Post Office Box 3273 357 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 575-6200
FAX: (407) 575-6203
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official and
Comprehensive Plan Coordinator
FROM:
Thomas
G.
Bradford,
Village Manager
DATE:
March
6,
1991
SUBJECT: DCA Stipulated Settlement Agreement; DCA Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report
Attached hereto, please find a copy of the above referenced
dated March 1 and received March 4 of this year. The second
paragraph confuses me in that while it states that the
Department raises no objections to the proposed amendment, it
implies that the state, regional, and local agencies' comments
are a part of the Department's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report. Does this mean that we are required to respond
to the comments of the state, regional and local agencies?
Please review this question with Jay Jergens, Esq. and advise of
his recommendation.
Assuming that we must make a determination relative to including
the Agency comments within our proposed amendment, please set up
a timely process whereby you will review the concerns of each
applicable Department Head for their input in this regard. In
the event that we are required to include these Agency comments
or we conclude that inclusion of the same would be practical,
any such changes which are ultimately recommended to the Village
Council must be clearly indicated to them by way of inclusion
within a matrix that will delineate the following:
o All amendments as contemplated by the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement as last reviewed by the Village Council.
o All external Agency comments included herein.
o All amendments as recommended by Village Staff.
Please coordinate all activities necessitated by virtue of this
attached correspondence in a timely manner so that the Village
will comply with all applicable State Statutes and
Administrative Codes.
TGB/ j mm
Attachments
cc: All Department Heads, w/attachments
Jay Jergens, Esq., w/attachments
Jack Horniman, Planning Consultant, w/attachments
Recycled Paper
V
ea o
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
V1l��E OF
UfSTA
0 4 loc.
�� N LABE 2
AGEq S
OFFICE ,
AFFA -FPS
2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW DRIVE T A I. L A H A S S E E, FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9- 2 1 00
Lawton Chiles
Governor
March 1, !991
The Honorable Joseph N. Capretta
Mayor of Tequesta
Post Office Box 3273
Tequesta, Florida 33469
Dear Mayor Capretta:
William E. Sadowski
Secretary
The Department has completed its review of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment (Amendment 91-1) relating to the
Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department (DOAH Case
No. 89-6979GM) for the Village of Tequesta which was submitted
on November 21, 1990. Copies of the proposed amendment have
been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agen-
cies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for
consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, Chapter
163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Department raises no objec-
tions to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the
Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are
being issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative
Code. Upon receipt of this letter, the Village of Tequesta has
60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that
the Village of Tequesta will not adopt the proposed amendment.
The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments
is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011,
Florida Administrative Code.
Within five working days of the date of adoption, the
Village of Tequesta must submit the following to the Department:
Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment;
A copy of additional changes not previously reviewed;
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The Honorable Joseph N. Capretta
March 1, 1991
Page Two
A copy of the adoption ordinance; and
A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any,
which were not included in the ordinance.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the
Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance
determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
As a deviation from the requirements above, you are requested
to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment directly
to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council. The regional planning councils have been asked to review
adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan compliance
with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Your cooperation in
this matter is appreciated.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert Pennock,
Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, or Maria Abadal, Plan Review
Administrator, at (904) 487-4545.
Sincerely,
R ooev t q. 411 av�
Robert G. Nave, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
RGN/bdm
cc: Scott D. Ladd, Building Official
Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
/,.
South Florida Water Management District
P.U. Boa 24680 • Z*)l Gun Club Road • West Palm Beach, FL 53416-46&+ • 1407t 686•8800 • FL 1A'ATS 1.81MI 4.32 LhNS
GOV 08-28
January 15, 1991
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
BUREAU OF LOCAL
t< RESOURCE PLANNING
a
Enclosed are the South Florida Water Management District staff comments on the
Plan Amendments for Village of Tequesta Stipulated Settlement Agreement #91-1.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please do not hesitate to
call with questions..
Sincerely,
LU44 -
Patricia Walker
Assistant Director
Planning Coordination Division
Planning Department
PW/JC/ng
c: Mr. Bob Nave
Enclosure
(. n erninK A and
James I Garner. Chairman Fort Myer Fritz Stein Belle Glade \'alerw K,%d \aples John R %k odraska Executive Director
Duran \ .lason. \ ice Chairman Key Biscayne Mike Stout Windermere James F. \all Fort Lauderdale Tilfurd C Creel. Ikput) Executive Director
\rsento Milian .Miami Ken \dams West Palm Beach Charles W CauserIslamorada Thomas Mac\ icar.lkpun ExecutiveDtre for
NAME OF AGENCY: South Florida Water Management District
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: Comprehensive Planning Division
REVIEW COORDINATOR: Patricia Walker: PHONE: (407)686-8800, ext. 6302
NAME OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Village of Tequesta
DATE PLAN AMENDMENT RECEIVED FROM DCA:December 3, 1990
REQUIRED RETURN DATE FOR COMMENTS: January17, 1991
WATER CONSERVATION
COMMENT: The new Objective 1.6.0 and its implementing Policies 1.6.1 through
1.6.10 deal with how the city will implement water conservation measures. The
Stipulated Settlement Agreement calls for adding the one new objective and the ten
new policies to the Potable Water Sub -Element.
The South Florida Water Management District has adopted a district -wide
comprehensive year-round water conservation program since the city adopted its
comprehensive plan. The Program was adopted in July 1990. The program has six
specific conservation measures identified for immediate implementation. They are-
r
1) Limiting lawn watering to between 5 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.�r __--
2) Supporting adoption of a local ordinance requiring Xeriscape
(drought -tolerant landscaping)
3) Supporting adoption of a local ordinance requiring ultra -low volume
plumbing fixtures in all new construction
4) Supporting adoption of water -conservation rate structures by utilities which
would penalize excessive water use
5) Supporting implementation of leak -detection programs by utilities with
unaccounted-for water loss of greater than 10 percent
6) Implementing programs to encourage public education of year round water
conservation
The SFWMD has a model landscape code to assist local governments meet this
requirement. It also has other materials to more fully explain all of the components
of the SFWMD's water conservation program.
The list of water conservation measures being included in the plan's policies should
be compared to the list of the SFWMD's year-round conservation program measures,
and those items that are part of the District's program should be included as
permanent water conservation activities in the city's comprehensive plan, so that it
will be as current as possible with the District's Water Conservation Program.
�. nKrs tr o�Cuvte
regional
• • � planning
council
January 22, 1991
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
The Rhyne Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
L�
BURE-
RESOURCE F� :' • '•'
Subject: Village of Tequesta Draft Local Government
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Pursuant to a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between the
Town and the DCA; Reference #91-1
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
Attached is a copy of a letter received after the Council
Review Report on the above referenced amendments which was
approved and transmitted to you.
Sincerely,
I —f- 4-`�
Ter L. Hess, AICP
Planning Coordinator
TLH:sk
Enclosure
e (- 'S611
JAN •ld 1991
I PL.&N REVWW
i'
3220 s.w. marlin downs blvd.
su"o 205 • p.a. box 1529
palm city, florlda 349"
phone (407) 221-4060
sc 269-4060 tax (407) 221-4067
s
COUNTY OF MARTIN
CO-91-MH-144
January 16, 1991
Mr. Kevin J. Foley, Chairman
c/o Mr. Terry Hess, Planning Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, FL 34990
STATE OF FLORIDA
Re: Village of Tequesta Local Government Comprehensive Plan Documents
Dear Chairman Foley:
At our regular meeting on January 15, 1991 the Martin County Board of County
Commissioners considered the set of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments
tentatively approved by the Village of Tequesta, pursuant to the Village's
Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. The Board determined that these amendments will not adversely affect
Martin County and do not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft amendments to the
Village's Comprehensive Plan. Please notify us if we may be of further
assistance in this review.
Sincerely,
Y
Maggy Hum al}a
Chairman. Board of County Commissioners
MH/CH/gg:[2415h]
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Joseph R. Grassie, County Administrator
Harry W. King, Comprehensive Planning Administrator
ate- ''I5 t'
January 18, 1991
trewure�Pcocv
■ regional
planni 9
council
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
The Rhyne Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
L.3
BUREAU OF L�--=L
RESOURCE PL4N:\illu
o (e-7II
JAN 24 1991
.,.__�U ._.r- L. !.
Id.MKING / tLXKEVILVY
Subject: Village of Tequesta Draft Local Government
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Pursuant to a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement Between the
Town and the DCA
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
The draft amendments to the Village's Comprehensive Plan
have been reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's
adopted plans and policies. Enclosed is a copy of the full
staff report to Council.
The report was approved by Council at its regular meeting on
January 18, 1991, for transmittal to the State Department of
Community Affairs pursuant to Sections 163.3184, Florida
Statutes, and for consideration by the Village prior to
adoption of the documents.
If you need additional information or have any questions,
please do not hesitate to calla
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Cary
Executive Director
DMC:lb
Enclosure
3228 smarlin downs bkd
suitesuite205 0S pA. box 1529
palm city, Honda U9"
phone (407) 221-4060
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 5B4
From: Staff
Date: January 18, 1991 Council Meeting
Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review -
Draft Amendments to the Village of Tequesta
Comprehensive Plan Pursuant to a Stipulated
Settlement Agreement Between the Village and
the Department of Community Affairs
Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (PS), the Council must be
provided an opportunity to review and comment on
comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. The
Village of Tequesta has submitted proposed amendments to the
State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which in turn
is seeking council's comments.
Council's review of the information provided by the DCA is
to focus on the consistency of the proposed amendments with
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan developed pursuant to
Section 186.507, Florida Statutes. A written report,
containing any objections, recommendations for modification,
and comments (as defined in Chapter 9J-11, Florida
Administrative Code) is to be provided to the DCA within 45
calendar days of receipt of the plan, elements or
amendments.
On November 17, 1989, Council found the Village plan to be
inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Council based this
recommendation on the Village's failure to adequately
address the following regional issues: 1) affordable
housing for the low and moderate income; 2) environmental
assessments; 3) water• conservation; 4) the protection of
manatees and sea turtles; 5) the preservation of native
habitat; and 6) funding for water system improvements.
B. Comment
1. New policy 2.1.4.1 calls for an evaluation of native
wildlife and vegetation communities on parcels of
five acres in size and larger. Site surveys are to
be carried out to determine the presence of
federally protected plant and animal species.
Council would encourage surveys on all sites or that
a general survey be conducted of subdivided lands
since the Town includes endangered habitat types and
endangered species may occur on sites of five acres
or less in size. In addition, it is noted that
council's concern in calling for environmental
assessments was not limited to site impacts, but
rather the impacts of all decisions that could
affect the environment. By way of example, an
environmental assessment could be done regarding the
impacts of proposed water use or traffic policies.
Currently, the plan does not require assessments of
this sort. Site surveys should be carried out to
determine the presence of plant and animal species
which are listed as protected by other federal or
state agencies.
Conservation Element
A. Obj ection
1. New objective 2.1.4.0 indicates that the Village
will implement measures to identify and protect
native wildlife and their habitats. New policies
2.14.1 (surveying for the presence of protected
plant and animal species), 2.14.2 (calling for
assistance from State and federal agencies in
vegetation recovery programs), and 2.14.3 (calling
for retention and use of native vegetation on small
parcels, including the protection of specimen trees)
are reasonable policies which improve the Village's
comprehensive plan. The plan still falls short of
consistency with the Regional Plan, however, because
it does not call for the preservation of a minimum
of at least 25 percent of the native upland habitat
on all sites. Only if a survey identifies protected
species will the Village require preservation
(amount unspecified). For sites under five acres,
the Village requires only that native vegetation be
retained or used as part of landscaping
requirements. No standard is set, however.
Although Council is very concerned about protection
of listed species and their habitats, it is impor-
tant that the Village understand that this is not
Council's only concern. Habitat protection is
important for other reasons, including 1) assuring
3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2401 S.E. ?Monterey Rand • S=n, Florida 34996
COUNTY OF MARTIN
January 7, 1991
STATE OF FLORIDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Phone (407) 288-5495
Mr. Terry Hess, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, FL 3A990
Re: Village of Tequesta local Government Coniprehensive.Plan Documents
Dear Mr. Hess:
The Marti n County Growth Management Upartaent has camel eted i is revi ewr of the
draft aaoendweents to the Vi l l age, of Tequesta Comprehensi ve Plan. The
maendments contain changes to the village's water conservation. environmental
conservation, and Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) policies. Staff finds
that these changes will not adversely affect Martin County and do not pose any
conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Martin County
Coaeprehensive Growth Management Plan.
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners will review the above
referenced draft amendments at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 15.
1 "l . At that time the Board racy direct staff to forward additional comments
to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft amendments to the
Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact my
office with any questions.
F
elyB. Iler
Growth Management Director
HK/Wgg: [ 2384h ]
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Joseph R. Grassi*. County Administrator
Harry W. King, Planning Admi ni strator
Compnhenme Plarnetng . Development Review 5. Weillteld Protection . Environmental
Tf1TGJ O :1'7
` 'requests Comprehensive Plan Amendments
1 /8/91
Terry Hess
Page 2
master plans for utilities, identifying future potable water demands and
conflicts, and agreeing upon conservation measures.
a. Consistency with the Regional Plan
DCA objection - The Plan is in conflict with and does not further the
following goals and polices of the Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan
(Rule W-5. 021 (1). E.A. C. ): Goals 9.1.1 and Policy 8.1.16 (water
conservation); Goals 9.2.1 (ensuring function of marine And estuarine
resources): Goal 10.2.1 (protection of endangered and threatened species):
Goal 10.1.2 and Policy 10.1.2.2 (preservation of Native habitat); and Goad
16.1.1. and policy 16.2.1.2 (environmental assessment for decisions with
potentially adverse ecological or environmental impacts).
Comment
The revised Policies in the Conservation Element of Tequesta's
comprehensive plan do not set minimum criteria for the protection of native
Plant communities. Policy 10.1.2.2 of the Regional Polity Plan states;
"All development except commercial agricultural development shall sett, aside
through selective cleating and micro -siting of buildings and other
construction activity, all a m101!llUii. 25 percentt, of each native plant
communUywhicr occurs on -site (e.g. pine flatwoods, sandpine, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, etc..)"
Staff recanmends that the Village set a txninimum criteria for the protection
of native plant communities which is consistent with Regional Policy
10.1.2.2. and Policy 2-c of the Conservation Element in the County':
comprehensive plan.
Please be advised that the comments represent staff analysis and not the position of the
Board of County Commissioners. Think you for considering our comments. Please
inciude these comments with your backup materials for all meetings and hearings where
this plan is discussed. Also, fed free to contact this office if you should have any
questions.
S'nc iy, _ _
D s Folt2z.Alk�
Planning Direc
PC: Board of County Commissioners
Donna Kristaponis, Executive Director PZ&B
Bob Weisman, Assistant County Adminis=or
.Board of County Commissioners
Karen T. Marcus, Chair
Carole Phillips, Vice Chair
Carol A. Roberts
Carol J. Elmquist
Mare McCartv
Ken Foster
Maude Ford Lee
PPS
County Administrator
Jan Winter~
Department of Planning, Zoning & Building
January 14, 1991 D '�'�Y..rg`i it WAS
�� wWAS JAf 3
Mr. Robert Arredondo 1}' JAN 2A 1991 BUREAU RESOURCE FL LOCAL
L
State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs F �OCA►-
2740 Centerview Drive BUREAU 0 VIEW
Tallahassce, Florida 32399 y�.4iVr I p1AN RE
�.
Re: Palm Beach County's review of the proposed Village of Tequesta comprehensive plan
amendments (DCA ref # 91-1).
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
The Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning and Building Department has coordinated the
review of the proposed Village of Tequesta comprehensive plan amendments. Plan
amendments were reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the County's
comprehensive plan and policies.
Staff comments are as follows:
I. Utilities - Potable Water Sub -Element
DCA objection - the Plan does not adequately address establishing and
utilizing potable water conservation strategies and techniques, as required
by Rule 9J-5.011 (2) (c) 3., F.A.C., because it permits potable water
consumption at excessive levels. The provisions of the plan addressing
water conservation are not based on adequate data and analysis. Rule 9J-
5.005 (2) (a), F.A.C.
Comment:
Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1.6.5 are inconsistent with each other. Objective
1.6.0 requires an average consumptive use of 175 gallons per day per capita
by Oct. 1994. However, Policy 1.6.5 requires an average consumptive use
of 150 gallons per day per capita by the same date.
Staff recommends revising Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1.6.5 of the Potable
Water Sub -Element to reflect a single level of service for the consumption of
potable water.
With regards to options for water conservation, the Countywide Planning
Council is coordinating a Countywide water resource planning effort. This
effort involves the municipalities and utilities in a process of comparing
master plans for utilities, identifying future potable water demands and
conflicts, and agreeing upon conservation measures.
".fin Equal Opportunio, - Affirrn,,tiNC .-\ction Fml)Imer'
3400 BELVEDERE ROAD . WEST PALM BEACH- FL - tAn71 d71_2C)n
ca
Tequesta Comprehensive Plan Amendments
V14/91
Robert Arredondo
Page 2
II. Consistency with the Regional Plan
DCA objection - The Plan is in conflict with and does not further the
following goals and polices of the Treasure Coast Regional Policy Plan
(Rule 9J-5.021 (1), F.A.C.): Goals 8.1.1 and Policy 8.1.16 (water
conservation); Goals 9.2.1 (ensuring function of marine and estuarine
resources); Goal 10.2.1 (protection of endangered and threatened species);
Goal 10.1.2 and Policy 10.1.2.2 (preservation of Native habitat); and Goal
16.1.1. and policy 16.2.1.2 (environmental assessment for decisions with
potentially adverse ecological or environmental impacts).
Comment:
The revised Policies in the Conservation Element of Tequesta's
comprehensive plan do not set minimum criteria for the protection of native
plant communities. Policy 10.1.2.2 of the Regional Policy Plan states;
"All development except commercial agricultural development shall set aside
through selective clearing and micro -siting of buildings and other
construction activity, as a minimum, 25 percent of each native plant
community which occurs on -site (e.g. pine flatwoods, sandpine, xeric oak
forest, hardwood hammock, etc..)"
Staff recommends that the Village set a minimum criteria for the protection
of native plant communities which is consistent with Regional policy
10.1.2.2. and Policy 2-c of the Conservation Element in the County's
comprehensive plan.
Please be advised that the comments represent staff analysis and not the position of the
Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for considering our comments. Please
include these comments with your backup materials for all meetings and hearings where
this plan is discussed. Also, feel free to contact this office if you should have any
questions.
Si cerely,
Dennis R. Foltz, A P
Planning Director
PC: Board of County Commissioners
Donna Kristaponis, Executive Director PZ&B
Bob Weisman, Assistant County Administrator
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
am N&KFUW
SECEZIAM
780 Southwest 24th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2696
Telephone: 305-524-8621
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
December 7, 1990
DEC 14 199'
BUREAU OF LOCAL
RESWRCE PLANNiNG
RE: Department of Transportation Review Proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Tequesta - Ref.# 91-1
As requested in your memorandum of November 28, 1990, the
Department has reviewed the documents for the Proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Tequesta.
We have no Objections, Recommendations or Comments.
Sincerely,
4 Jos ph M �Yebeck, P.E.
Di�trict Director, Planning and Programs
JMY/wlc
cc: Mr. Patrick McCue
Mr. Gus Schmidt
Mr. Mike Tako
-Mr. John Anderson
OF Ep1V1ROl��til. \
V4
` - �`nt
O
i
S141fOF P
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • TkHahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Bob Martinez, Governor Dale Twachtmann, Secretary
January 17,1991
John Shearer, Assistant Secretary
t+�
JAN _ 1991
Robert Pennock, Chief BU;;EhU OF LCE-AL
Bureau of Local Planning PLA;q'",!rd-' ; PLI N REVIEW
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re:City of Tequesta Comprehensive Land Use Amendment - 91-1
Dear Mr. Pennock:
The proposed amendments were reviewed in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C..
We have no comments, recommendations or objections to make
concerning these proposed amendments.
If you have any questions regarding our response please
contact me at 487-2498.
Sincerely,
Dan Pennington
Planning Manager
A-Xk Pap-
/01�k
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building a 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard *Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Tom Gardner, Executive Director
January 4, 1991
Mr. Robert Arredondo
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of Local Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Arredondo:
BUREAU OF LOCAL
RESOURCE PLANNING
Attached are proposed objections, recommendations, and
comments from the Department of Natural Resources concerning
the comprehensive plan amendment, reference number 91-1, for the
Village of Tequesta. Please direct inquiries you have regarding
these comments to the individuals indicated on the attachments.
Sincerely,
o E . Duden
Assistant Executive Director
DED/mpp
Attachments
cc: Fran Mainella w/attachments
Albert Gregory w/attachments
Kirby Green w/attachments
Jeremy Craft w/attachments
Pam McVety w/attachments
Ed Wood w/attachments
David Arnold w/attachments
yea io ,gym
BUREAU OF LOCAL
PLANNING J PLAN RE iiM
Administration Beaches and Shores law Enforcement Marine Resources Recreation and Parks Resource Management State Lands
Bob Martinez Jim Smith Bob Butterworth Gerald Lewis Tom Gallagher Doyle Conner Betty Castor
Governor SLIMryofState Attorney General State Comptroller StateTieasurer CommusionerofAgnculture Commissi nerofEduntion
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
COMMENTS ON THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
9J-5.011 SEWER AND DRAINAGE ELEMENT
9J-5.011(2)(b)5.
OBJECTION: The installation of drainfields adjacent to mangroves
and wetlands would allow groundwater seepage to filter into these
areas. Such a process would adversely affect these biological
communities which are associated with both an aquatic preserve and
a waterbody designated as an Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW).
Prohibiting drainfields from locating in buffer zones should
prevent this process which in turn should not degrade the
Loxahatchee River Aquatic Preserve or its OFW status.
RECOMMENDATION: Policy 10 should include language that prohibits
the installation of septic tank drainfields in buffer zones around
mangrove and wetland areas.
9J-5.012 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMEN
9J-5.012 (3) (c) 14.
OBJECTION: Policies 5, 8, and 9 do not include nor do they
recognize the existing Loxahatchee River Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan regarding (1) the construction and design of
structures, (2) the installation of seawalls, and (3) conducting
dredging and/or filling activities on state-owned submerged lands.
With the possible exception of some privately -owned parcels, most
of the submerged lands surrounding the Village of Tequesta are
state-owned and, therefore, in the Loxahatchee River Aquatic
Preserve. All of the above activities have adverse effects on
natural resources. In the interest of protecting natural
resources, it is important that the Department of Natural
Resources, as the managing authority, be included in the review
process of such activities.
RECOMMENDATION: Revise these proposed policies to reflect the
management responsibilities of the Department of Natural Resources
with regards to the protection of natural resources. Specifically,
these policies should include the requirement for proprietary
approval from the Department prior to conducting any of these
activities.
Village of Tequesta 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
9J-5.013 CONSERVATION
9J-5.013(2)(b)6.
COMMENT: While this policy section recognizes that the location
of boating facilities can have detrimental impacts on manatees, it
does not include nor recognize the importance of protecting manatee
habitat.
Comments prepared by: Kalani Cairns
Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves
4842 South U.S. 1
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
(407) 468-4097
W
G�
TRAF F = C C = RCULAT = ON
Goal: 1.0.0
Strive to establish the long term end toward
which traffic circulation programs and
activities are ultimately directed.
Objective: 1.1.0
Provide a transportation system by 1995 which
circulates traffic safely and conveniently
within the Village and which separates
vehicular and non -vehicular traffic.
Policies: 1.1.1
Provide safe and convenient on -site traffic
flow by revising parking regulations as
appropriate, within the zoning ordinance.
1.1.2
Construct pathways in the planning of upgraded
transportation facilities and require sidewalks
in areas of new development.
1.1.3 Promote traffic safety by proper traffic
control devices and street design improvements.
1.1.4 Restrict fast through traffic to major or minor
arterial roads.
objective: 1.2.0 The traffic circulation system shall be
consistent with the future land uses shown on
the Future Land Use Map and concurrent with the
traffic circulation improvements provided for
in the 5-year Schedule of Improvements.
Policies: 1.2.1 Control of the connections and access points of
driveways and roads to roadways by requiring in
the Village visibility triangles that are free
and clear of obstruction.
1.2.2 The Village shall construct road and street
improvements and/or expansions which are
consistent with the 5-Year Schedule of
Improvements, and the Village shall require
developers to develop other roads not
designated in the Village's 5-Year Plan or
other jurisdictions' plans which will
facilitate additional development and remain
consistent with desired growth.
1.2.3 Use signage, enforcement and other traffic
control techniques to minimize the impact of
"bypass" traffic on Village streets.
T-1
L
HODS =NG
Goal: 1.0.0 To assure the availability of safe,
sanitary, affordable and otherwise adequate
housing for projected growth and future
needs of the Village.
Objective: 1.1.0 To maintain the quality of existing housing
and to assure that new construction is of
the same high quality by strictly enforcing
adopted building, construction and housing
codes.
Policies: 1.1.1 Continue enforcement of the Standard
Building Code and Standard Housing Code, and
adopt updated additions thereof as they
become available, to: (1) assure new
building materials and techniques are
allowed within the Village in order to
reduce construction costs; and (2) maintain
existing housing stock.
1.1.2 Develop and adopt other ordinances, (e.g.,
landscaping code) as necessary, to assure
that the quality of residential
neighborhoods is maintained.
1.1.3 Adopt administrative and enforcement
procedures necessary to implement minimum
housing regulations and which, at a minimum:
A. Designate a Village housing official;
B. Establish the following definitions of
housing condition:
Standard Condition - A residential structure
meeting all minimum standards for basic
equipment and facilities, as set forth in
the Standard Housing Code, 1985 edition.
Substandard Condition - A residential
structure which does not meet all minimum
standards for basic equipment and
facilities, as set forth in the Standard
Housing Code, 1985 edition, as determined by
the Housing Official, where the costs of
rehabilitation, renovation or code
compliance are valued at less than 50% of
the total value of the structure.
H-1
HODS =NG
Goal: 1.0.0 To assure the availability of safe,
sanitary, affordable and otherwise adequate
housing for projected growth and future
needs of the Village.
Objective: 1.1.0 To maintain the quality of existing housing
and to assure that new construction is of
the same high quality by strictly enforcing
adopted building, construction and housing
codes.
Policies: 1.1.1 Continue enforcement of the Standard
Building Code and Standard Housing Code, and
adopt updated additions thereof as they
become available, to: (1) assure new
building materials and techniques are
allowed within the Village in order to
reduce construction costs; and (2) maintain
existing housing stock.
1.1.2 Develop and adopt other ordinances, (e.g.,
landscaping code) as necessary, to assure
that the quality of residential
neighborhoods is maintained.
1.1.3 Adopt administrative and enforcement
procedures necessary to implement minimum
housing regulations and which, at a minimum:
A. Designate a Village housing official;
B. Establish the following definitions of
housing condition:
Standard Condition - A residential structure
meeting all minimum standards for basic
equipment and facilities, as set forth in
the Standard Housing Code, 1985 edition.
Substandard Condition - A residential
structure which does not meet all minimum
standards for basic equipment and
facilities, as set forth in the Standard
Housing Code, 1985 edition, as determined by
the Housing Official, where the costs of
rehabilitation, renovation or code
compliance are valued at less than 50% of
the total value of the structure.
H-1
W
Policies: 1.3.1 Phase residential development with the
availability of urban services in an effort to
minimize untimely and undue burden upon the
Village tax base by the adoption of and
implementation of an Adequate Facilities
.� Ordinance.
1.3.2 Institute policies which minimize adverse
environmental effects of residential
development. Utilize those management
practices which will alleviate residential
water pollution problems. Special attention
should be given to the environmentally
sensitive areas abutting the Loxahatchee
River, Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic
Ocean.
1.3.3 Minimize traffic on local residential streets
by instituting site plan controls which will
prevent traffic generated by the commercial
areas from directly accessing local residential
streets.
1.3.4 Maintain the current character of the Country
Club area by designating the golf course as a
recreational use on the Future Land Use Map.
1.3.5 Require housing in newly annexed undeveloped
areas to be consistent with the existing
character of housing within the Village
adjacent to those areas by assigning compatible
zoning districts.
Objective: 1.4.0 To rely upon the private sector to provide the
limited "in -fill" housing that the Village can
accommodate while providing incentives such as
zoning code amendments and the adoption of
mixed -use regulations to promote the
development of group (i.e. foster and daycare
facilities) and elderly housing alternatives.
Policy: 1.4.1 Utilize the Future Land Use Element and zoning
map to assure a diversity of housing.
Policy: 1.4.2 Group homes with lower intensities and
providing minimal levels of care shall be
accommodated in limited zoning districts as a
mix with residential. These would be
considered areas of residential character in
conformance with State requirements. Group
homes, other than Foster Care and Daycare
Facilities shall not be permitted in single-
family districts.
a
H-3
I
0
1.4.3 Initiate partnerships between the Village and
private and not -for -profit sectors to meet
defined housing needs by soliciting their
participation in the development of local
regulations (e.g. zoning revisions, mixed -use
ordinances, etc.) oriented to implementing
Objective 1.4.0.
1.4.4 At the time of each required Comprehensive
Development Plan update, consider the need to
designate any housing structures as
historically significant and in need of special
consideration under the Standard Housing Code
and/or Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
1.4.5 "Foster Care Facility" shall be defined as a
licensed (i.e., by the Florida Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services) residential
unit, otherwise meeting the requirements of the
Village Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, where a
family living environment is provided for
individuals unrelated, by blood or legally, to
the householder. The total number of residents
within a Foster Care Facility, including
permanent residents and foster care residents
shall not exceed 1.01 persons per room,
excluding bathrooms, kitchens and utility
rooms. Further, the Village shall permit
Daycare facilities, for up to five (5) persons,
within single-family residential areas as
required by Florida House Bill 782.
1.4.6 The Village shall publicize the availability of
any subsidy programs available to promote the
implementation of daycare or foster care living
accommodations within Tequesta.
1.4.7 Require that reasonably located, standard
housing, at affordable cost, is available to
persons displaced through any public action
prior to their displacement.
0
H-4
0
�i
UT = L = T = E S
SANITARY SEWER
Goal: 1.0.0 Maintain a quality wastewater collection and
treatment systems.
Objective: 1.1.0 Develop, or support the development of,
wastewater collection and treatment systems
that are cost-effective and which are
consistent with the plans of the Loxahatchee
River Environmental Control District (ENCON)
and discourage urban sprawl.
Policies: 1.1.1 The installation and use of septic tanks in new
development areas shall be governed by
Environmental Control Rule I, Chapter 31,
Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 17,
Florida Administrative Code. Further, the
Village shall require that all new development
connect to and utilize the central system.
1.1.2 Ensure that interim wastewater collection and
treatment facilities can be effectively
incorporated into regional systems when they
become operational.
1.1.3 The Village should consult with ENCON, lead
planing agency for the Northern Region planning
effort, and the Palm Beach County Water Quality
Management Plan in determining the most
effective and efficient wastewater systems for
use in Tequesta, and eliminate the use of
septics in all new developments.
1.1.4 The Village should continue to request that
ENCON submit comments on proposed
projects/developments regarding wastewater
system requirements prior to, or as a part of,
the site plan review process.
1.1.5 The Village should request ENCON's approval or
approval with conditions, of proposed
projects/developments prior to the issuance of
building permits.
1.1.6 The Village should request that ENCON submit
evidence of acceptance of the wastewater system
to serve proposed projects/developments and
evidence that contractual obligations placed on
SS-1
the developer regarding the wastewater system
are being met prior to issuance of certificate
of occupancy.
1.1.7 The current utilization of septic tanks within
the Village is deemed to be an acceptable
alternative. However, in the event that water
quality sampling programs administered by the
Palm Beach County Health Department and/or Palm
Beach County Department of Environmental
Resources Management (i.e. in the North and
Northwest forks of the Loxahatchee River)
indicate that State Water Quality Standards
(i.e. dissolved oxygen, bacteria, coliforms,
turbidity, TKN and/or Phosphorous) are being
violated, the Village, within one calendar
year, shall initiate a study to determine
whether or not violations are caused by the use
of septic tanks. If conclusive evidence is
collected, the Village shall establish a
program to eliminate septic tank use within
Tequesta.
Objective: 1.2.0 Annually participate in Northern Region
11 Wastewater Facilities Planning and the ENCON
facilities planning effort.
ni Policies: 1.2.1 Annually, at the time of the Village budget
process, request a written assessment by ENCON
of wastewater facilities serving Tequesta,
including a statement of deficiencies and
required improvements, costs of improvements
and a schedule for implementation.
1.2.2 The Village should participate in the various
phases of developing and implementing the
Northern Region programs by making appointments
to the various Committees made available
through their organizational structures.
1.2.3 The Village should encourage and support local
membership on the ENCON board by concerned and
qualified residents of Tequesta and/or the
District.
Objective: 1.3.0 Coordinate with developers in the planning and
phasing of development to meet wastewater
collection and treatment needs.
Policies: 1.3.1 The Village should incorporate into local
plans, codes and ordinances various land use
and wastewater systems design and construction
criteria that will minimize point and non -
point discharges into surface waters.
it SS-2
1.3.2 The Village should encourage preliminary
meetings with developers prior to the initial
stages of site plan preparation and review to
alert developers to
the requirements and
standards
set forth
in local codes and
ordinances
relating to wastewater systems.
1.3.3 Under the
purview of
this requirement, ENCON
shall be
included
in the pre -application
meeting to
make appropriate
comment on specific
wastewater
systems needs
and requirements.
1.3.4 Village Level of Service Standards for central
wastewater
service are hereby established as
n.
follows:
n"
Category
Maximum Month
Daily Flow (MMDF)
Maximum
Daily Flow (MDF)
Residential
73.1 gallons/
78.8 gallons/
capita/day
capita/day
Non-
431 gallons/
464.9 gallons/
Residential
acre/day
acre/day
SS-3
I
I
UT = L = T = E S
SOLID WASTE
Goal: 10.0 Adequate and efficient solid waste services and
facilities meeting the needs of the population
and providing for their health, safety and
general welfare.
Objective: 1.1.0
Provision of a responsive and cost effective
solid waste system.
Policies: 1.1.1
The Village should maintain a close liaison
with its contracted private hauler to represent
Tequesta residents in transferring complaints
to the hauler, and offering information to its
residents regarding collection, disposal and
other related information in an effort to
provide responsive service to its citizens.
1.1.2
When in the public interest, institute
competitive bidding procedures in the letting
of all new contracts for collection and
disposal service to ensure the lowest possible
cost to Tequesta taxpayers relative to the
highest level of service.
1.1.3
Enlist the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach
County to assist the Village in analyzing
private haulers and comparative rates of those
haulers.
1.1.4 The following solid waste Levels of Service are
established by the Village:
Residential
Single -Family -
Multi -Family -
Non Residential
6.01 lbs/capita/day
3.41 lbs/capita/day
Total - 125 lbs/acre/day
Restaurants - 75 lbs/acre/day
All Other - 50 lbs/acre/day
Objective: 1.2.0 Maintenance of collection service
serves the residents of Tequesta.
SW-1
that best
0
I
Policies: 1.2.1 In a continued effort to avoid potential
sanitation and health hazards created by
containers being upset and waste materials
subsequently being scattered about, the Village
should develop regulations which require
residents to place solid waste materials at
curbside at a reasonably determined time prior
to collection.
1.2.2 As a part of the site plan review process,
encourage new multiple family living areas to
consider utilizing single large containers for
ease and time savings in collecting solid
wastes by requiring that the applicant
coordinate with the private hauler to assure
containers are provided that the hauler can
service. Evidence must be provided by the
applicant as part of the site plan review
process.
Objective: 1.3.0 To continually ensure that a sanitary means of
solid waste disposal exists for Tequesta's use.
1.3.1 Maintain a liaison with the Solid Waste
Authority of Palm Beach County in order to
ensure the Village input to the management of
existing landfill sites and the
purchase/development of future landfill sites.
1.3.2 Implement recycling programs in accordance with
State law.
Objective: 1.4.0 To maintain a five (5) year schedule of capital
improvements needs, to be updated annually, in
conformance with the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
element. Capital improvements needs are
defined as: (1) those improvements necessary to
correct existing deficiencies in order to
maximize the use of existing facilities; or (2)
those improvements necessary to meet projected
future needs without encouraging urban sprawl.
Policies: 1.4.1 Existing deficiencies will be addressed by
undertaking the following activities:
Solid Waste - Initiate a program in cooperation
with the contracted private hauler for
centralized collection of toxic household
wastes that are not currently being collected.
Also, request the Palm Beach County Solid Waste
Authority to initiate a pilot program for
refuse separation within the Village during FY
1990.
SW-2
1.4.2 The basic solid waste service policy shall
consist of the following components:
1. Maintain a high Level of Service for the
residents of the Village with a system that
ensures the lowest possible cost to Village
of Tequesta taxpayers relative to the
highest Level of Service.
2. Maintain a close liaison with the contracted
hauler of solid waste in handling all
service complaints and offer information to
residents concerning services provided.
3. Develop and maintain regulations which
should address, but not be limited to, the
location of containers and other solid waste
to be collected, requirements of residents
to place solid waste for collection at a
reasonably determined time prior to
collection, and the enforcement of said
regulations to avoid potential health
hazards from solid waste being scattered
about. These regulations shall be
established during FY 1990.
SW-3
ui
LIT=L=T=ES
POTABLE WATER
Goal: 1.0.0 To provide a safe and sufficient potable water
supply and an adequate network of a
distribution system.
Objective: 1.1.0 Maintain water supply and distribution systems
which utilize water resources in a safe,
economical manner.
Policies: 1.1.1 The Village water systems should be managed and
operated consistent with local plans and
proposals developed for the Village, as well as
any regional or areawide plans affecting the
Village water systems.
1.1.2 The Village should continually investigate
alternative sources/water systems and methods
of treatment for providing and upgrading water
supplies.
1.1.3 The recommendations and requirements
forthcoming in the Water Use and Water Supply
Development Plan being prepared by the South
Florida Water Management District should be
.reviewed as they become available. Land use
plans and development regulations should be
consistent with the findings and
recommendations of this Plan.
1.1.4 The Village should carefully consider all
municipal expenditures and revenues resulting
from proposals by developers or owner regarding
water systems when determining the cost and
benefit of those proposals. A clear statement
of costs and benefits should be prepared for
the Village before any determinations are made.
Objective: 1.2.0 Environmental impact of growth in developing
areas should preclude unacceptable degradation
of water resources and water treatment systems
and prevent irreversible damage to the
ecological balance of environmental resources.
Policies: 1.2.1 Village• development regulations should provide
for the protection and availability of water
resources.
PW-1
i1
1.2.2 Future wells should be located in the Village's
water service area where the potential for
saltwater intrusion into the surficial aquifer
and existing well fields in periods of drought
is minimized.
1.2.3 The Village Building Department in its site
plan review process shall require, site plans
which incorporate innovative urban,
architectural, and/or engineering design of
impervious areas (e.g. parking lots) to
maximize the retention of rainfall to these
areas which will increase the recharge of the
groundwater while reducing stormwater runoff.
Objective: 1.3.0 Establish by FY 1991, a program for the
conservation of potable water resources within
the Village which includes the utilization of
available noh-potable water for purposes other
than human consumption when neither the health
of the population nor the environment will be
adversely affected.
Policies: 1.3.1
In an effort to conserve the use
irrigation, local development
ordinances should make provision
native vegetation using xeriscape
future development.
of water in
codes and
for use of
concepts in
1.3.2 Establish the necessary procedure with ENCON to
require all new developments to incorporate
irrigation quality (IQ) water systems for
irrigation usage, once it is available and
economically feasible, as a method to reduce
potable water demand and increase aquifer
recharge potential.
1.3.3 The Village shall implement and enforce Water
Shortage Emergency Provisions, established
under Chapter 40-21, Florida Administrative
Code, upon declaration of a water shortage
emergency by the South Florida Water Management
District.
1.3.4 The Village shall continue to actively enforce
all existing potable water planning policies,
as well as continue to research and develop
additional planning policies for the
conservation of potable water resources within
the Village's service area.
PW-2
11
I
Objective: 1.4.0 By 1991, establish criteria necessary to
maintain adopted Levels of Service Standards
for the extension of public water facilities
within the Village's designated service area.
Policies: 1.4.1 The Village drinking water systems should
conform to the standards set forth in the
"I Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Public
Law 93-523.
1.4.2 The Village shall coordinate with the Palm
Beach County Department of Resource Management
to establish a wellfield protection program by
1991 which will regulate land use activities
within the travel time contours of the
Village's wellfields.
1.4.3 Expansion to the Village's water supply and
distribution systems shall be constructed to
current engineering and American Water Works
Association (AWWA) design standards meeting
acceptable fire flows and water quality
requirements as defined in Palm Beach County
Environmental control Rule II, as well as
Florida Adminstrative Code 17-550, 555,560.
1.4.4 The looping of dead-end water mains within the
Village's potable water service area shall be
made a priority in planning improvements and
new construction of the Village's potable water
distribution system.
1.4.5 By 1995, the Village Water Department shall
have completed its current 1987 water meter
changeout program to control system water loss
by flow measurement. This program was
implemented to enable the Village to achieve
its goal of total meter standardization,
increased flow measurement accuracy and system
water loss of less than fifteen percent (15t).
1.4.6 The following potable water Level of Service
standards are hereby adopted and shall be used
as the basis for estimating the availability of
facility capacity and demand generated by a
proposed development project:
Average Day Water Consumption Rate
Residential - 236 gallons/capita/day
Non -Residential - None Established/LOS
Standard shall be estab-
lished by 1991.
PW-3
W
0
Maximum Day Water Consumption
Residential - 354 gallons/capita/day
Non -Residential - None Established/LOS
Standard shall be estab-
lished by 1991.
Objective: 1.5.0 The Village shall maintain a five-year schedule
of public water facilities capital improvement
needs, to be updated annually, in conformance
with the Capital Improvements Element to ensure
that proper management and maximum utilization
of existing potable water facilities are
provided in compliance with adopted potable
water Level of Service Standards. Capital
Improvements needs are defined as: (1) those
improvements necessary to correct existing
deficiencies in order to maximize the use of
existing facilities; or (2) those improvements
necessary to meet projected future needs
without encouraging urban sprawl.
Policies: 1.5.1 Improvements to the Village's Potable Water
System include:
a) Water Treatment Plant - Phase 1 Expansion,
by 1991, 1.3 MGD plant capacity expansion by
the installation of, three (3) additional
filters. Phase 2 expansion by 1993, plant
capacity expanded an additional 1.8 MGD by
the installation of four (4) additional
filters.
b) Wells: By 1991, installation of one (1)
potable water supply well and one (1) backup
well. By 1993, installation of two (2)
additional supply wells.
c) Storage: By 1990, completion of a 3.0
million gallon storage tank with service
pumps.
d) Transmission Lines - 8 inch - 2,900 feet -
By 1990, raw water main relocation.
10 inch - 2,000 feet - By 1991, extension of
distribution water main.
PW-4
I
Policies: 1.5.2 The Village shall establish a permitting
procedure to ensure that adequate facility
capacity exists or will exist concurrently with
development to maintain adopted Level of
Service Standards.
1.5.3 Extension of service to any area within the
Service Area is dependent upon approval of both
the Water Department and the Village Council
based upon:
a) Availability of existing capacity as
determined by the Water Department;
b) Cost-effectives of provision of service on
a long term basis; and
c) That service extension would be in the
best interest of the Village.
1.5.4 The Village shall maintain its on -going
monitoring and maintenance program for the
potable water system as administered by the
Water Department.
1.5.5 Proposed capital improvement potable water
facility projects will be evaluated and ranked
according to the following priority level
guidelines:
Level One - whether the project is needed to
(a) protect public health and safety in order
to fulfill the Village's legal commitment to
provide facilities and services; or (b) to
preserve or achieve full use or efficiency of
existing facilities.
Level Two - whether the project: (a) prevents
or reduces future improvement costs; or (b)
provides services to developed areas currently
lacking full service or promotes in -fill
development.
Level Three - whether the project represents a
logical extension of facilities and services
within a designated Village Planning Area.
PW-5
UT = L = T = E E
DRAINAGE
Goal: 1.0.0 Economical, efficient and effective networks
of stormwater drainage facilities and
services.
Objective: 1.1.0 The Village shall maintain a five-year
schedule of public facilities Capital
Improvement needs, to be updated annually, in
conformance with the Capital Improvements
element to ensure that proper management of
the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff
is provided to minimize both potential
flooding and runoff pollution based on
compliance with the adopted drainage Level of
Service Standard. Capital Improvements needs
are defined as: (1) those public drainage
improvement necessary to correct existing
deficiencies in order to maximize the use of
existing facilities while maintaining the
adopted Level of Service; or (2) those public
drainage improvements necessary to meet
projected future needs based upon the adopted
Level of Service without encouraging urban
sprawl.
Policies: 1.1.1 Improve the existing drainage facility at the
following locations by FY 1990:
1) The intersection of Tequesta Drive and
Willow Road;
2) The intersection of Tequesta Drive and
Cypress Drive; and
3) Along Cypress Drive in 1990 and 1991.
1.1.2 Improve the existing drainage facilities
along Seabrook Road beginning in FY 1991 with
completion in FY 1992.
1.1.3 Investigate by FY 1991 the most cost-
effective approach for developing a Village -
wide Stormwater Management Plan by either:
(1) Petitioning the Northern Palm Beach
County Water Control District for inclusion
as a unit into their District or; (2)
Contracting an engineering firm to prepare a
proposal for developing a Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan, which could be
prepared in phases, for the Village including
necessary capital improvements with their
associated costs.
DR-1
0
1.1.4 Proposed capital improvement drainage
9
facility projects will be evaluated and
ranked according to the following priority
level guidelines;
Level One - whether the project is needed
to: (a) protect public health and safety in
order to fulfill the Village's legal
commitment to provide facilities and
services; or (b) to preserve or achieve full
use or efficiency of existing facilities.
Level Two - whether the project: (a)
prevents or reduces future improvement costs;
or (b) provides services to developed areas
currently lacking full service or promotes in -
fill development.
Level Three - whether the project represents
a logical extension of facilities and
services within a designated Village Drainage
Area.
1.1.5 Expansion of drainage areas shall be based on
ability to serve new customers in a cost
effective manner without any reduction in the
adopted Level of Service within the drainage
area for the present and future customers.
1.1.6 The Village shall by 1995 commit funds to
the next five-year (i.e. 1995-1999) Capital
Improvement schedule for the preparation of a
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for
the Village.
1.1.7 By 1997, the Village shall have completed a
Village -wide Stormwater Management Plan to
include, at a minimum, the following:
a) Delineation of drainage basins;
b) Inventory and location of all drainage
lines, retention and/or detention areas,
culverts, canals and outfalis, including
a capacity analysis of each system;
c) Determination of adequacy of the drainage
system based upon historic storm events,
including an inventory of problem areas
within each system;
DR-2
d) Determination of the condition
and
regular
maintenance needs of
the
drainage
system;
e) An analysis of stormwater impacts to
the
quality
methods
of receiving waters and the
used to protect the natural
drainage
features within each basin, and
f) Recommendation for design, construction
and maintenance to both correct and/or
upgrade existing systems to meet adopted
Levels of Service and identify new system
requirements on a priority basis to
satisfy future demand.
Objective: 1.2.0 Village stormwater drainage regulations,
incorporated within the Subdivision
Regulations Ordinance, shall provide for
protection, and where possible, enhancement
of natural drainage features and ensure that
future development utilizes stormwater
management systems to protect the functions
of recharge areas and natural drainage
features.
Policies: 1.2.1 The Village shall actively support and
enforce new development stormwater drainage
requirements for the retention of one half of
the runoff from a 25-year, 3-day storm event
consistent with the requirements of the South
Florida Water Management District's
Management and Storage of Surface Waters,
Permit Information Manual Volume IV, dated
September 1986 and as updated January 1987.
1.2.2 The Village shall continue to actively
enforce its existing open space requirements
for new development with emphasis on
preserving native vegetation and the
reduction of impervious areas.
1.2.3 The Village shall continue its efforts to
increase on -site retention/detention capacity
of drainage basis in order to minimize to the
extent possible stormwater runoff to the
Loxahatchee River and Intracoastal Waterway.
DR-3
Ft
I
il
1.2.4 The Village shall require new developments to
limit post -development runoff rates and
volumes to pre -development conditions.
1.2.5 The Village shall.protect and preserve water
quality by use of construction site Best
Management Practices (BMP's) and the
incorporation of techniques such as on -site
retention and/or detention, use of pervious
surfaces, native vegetation and Xeriscape
Landscaping practices when considering all
proposals for development and/or
redevelopment.
Objective: 1.3.0 The Village shall ensure through the land
development approval process that, at the
time a building permit is issued, adequate
public drainage capacity is available or will
be available at the time of occupancy.
Policies: 1.3.1 Public drainage facilities Level of Service
standard of a three (3) year frequency,
twenty-four (24) hour duration storm event is
hereby adopted, and shall be used as the
basis of estimating the availability of
capacity and demand generated by a proposed
development project.
1.3.2 All development and/or redevelopment
activities shall be undertaken in a manner
consistent with adopted Level of Service
standards.
1.3.3 All development and/or redevelopment
activities associated with on -site drainage
facilities shall be designed and reviewed to
maximize non-structural techniques (i.e. on -
site retention and/or detention, use of
pervious surfaces, swale areas, native
vegetation and Xeriscape landscaping) in
combination with structural drainage
facilities (i.e. underground drainage
facilities) to reduce stormwater runoff,
maintain local recharge and protect water
quality.
Policies: 1.3.4 The Village shall continue its routine
maintenance program by inspecting, at least
annually, the catch basins, culverts,
outfalls and retention areas as a
preventative measure against any major system
failure.
DR-4
I
Hi
L.TT=L=T=ES
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE
Goal: 1.0.0
The functions of natural groundwater aquifer
recharge areas within the Village will be
protected and maintained.
Objective: 1.1.0
By 1993, the Village shall develop an active
program that provides for the protection and
maintenance of natural groundwater recharge
areas, including natural drainage features,
within the Village to ensure or enhance
groundwater recharge to the surficial aquifer.
Policies: 1.1.1
The subdivision regulations shall be amended to
include standards for inclusion of recharge areas
in open space preservation requirements.
1.1.2
The stormwater drainage regulations shall be
amended to require retention of stormwater runoff
to maximize groundwater recharge potential.
1.1.3
The Village Engineering Department shall
represent the Village in coordinating development
and implementation of aquifer recharge area
protection programs to meet national, state and
regional objectives.
1.1.4 Encourage and work closely with ENCON to
facilitate IQ water systems for irrigation usage
to aquifer recharge.
1.1.5 The Village shall coordinate and cooperate with
the Palm Beach County Department of
Environmental Regulation and Management to have a
wellfield protection program in effect by 1993.
The program will be designed to regulate land
use activities within existing and future
wellfield site's cones of influence.
NG-1
0
CONS ERVAT = ON
Goal: 1.0.0 To preserve and enhance the significant natural
features in Tequesta.
Objective: 1.1.0 To undertake programs to help achieve compliance
with State Department of Environmental Affairs
air quality regulations.
Policies: 1.1.1 Continue to require landscaping as a part of new
private development and to landscape public
areas.
1.1.2 Continue to urge the State Department of
Transportation to undertake the planned street
widenings and intersection improvements in order
to facilitate traffic flow.
Objective: 1.2.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
adopt the recommendations of the Palm Beach
County Areawide Plans related to Urban Best
Management Practices (BMP) and amend the Code of
Ordinances to require future development to
restrict off -site runoff of stormwater pollutants
in accordance with drainage criteria established
by Palm Beach County and the South Florida Water
Management District.
Policy: 1.2.1 The Village shall adopt the on -site stormwater
retention/detention criteria established by the
South Florida Water Management District and Palm
Beach County as part of its land development
regulations.
Objective: 1.3.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its landscape regulations to provide for
the preservation of the native vegetation on
undeveloped portions of the Village.
Policies: 1.3.1: Institute controls for restricting development on
Ecosites 61 and 63 as identified or the Coastal
Management/Conservation Map and the support
documentation.
1.3.2 Continue to review all development applications
in the context of the pervious cover and
landscaping provisions of the development code;
be particularly diligent in the review of any
coastal zone projects such as any development in
mangrove areas.
C-1
'M
i�
is
1.3.3 Work with County and State park officials to
assure that any park improvements are sensitive
to the mangrove and other
vegetative/wildlife/marine habitats.
1.3.4 The Village shall amend its land development
regulations to require the planting of native
plant species, particularly shade trees, as part
of the landscape requirements for development
approval.
Objective: 1.4.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
adopt the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection
Ordinance and amend its Code of Ordinances to
require preservation of existing mangroves except
where the proposed use is for a water -dependent
or water -related land use deemed to be in the
public interest.
Policies: 1.4.1 The Village shall require preservation or
mangrove mitigation (i.e. replanting) by
amendment to its code of Ordinances within one
(1) year of the submittal of the Comprehensive
Development Plan.
1.4.2 Discourage development in coastal mangrove
systems, except in cases shown by assessment of
all pertinent factors to be not contrary to the
public interest.
Objective: 1.5.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend. the Code of Ordinances to restrict public
works projects from disturbing existing mangroves
except where such work is essential to the
continued health, safety and welfare of the
PI public.
Objective: 1.6.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village will
amend its Code of Ordinances to protect natural
wildlife areas and environmentally sensitive
lands.
Policies: 1.6.1 Preserve all existing wetland areas identified on
the Coastal Management/Conservation Map by
adopting through ordinance, the Palm Beach County
Mangrove Protection Ordinance and by requiring
the protection of existing native ' wetland
C-2
W
0
in,
vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee
River and Indian Lagoon estuaries.
1.6.2 The Village shall designate Ecosites #61 and #63
described in the support documentation and
identified in the Coastal Management/
Conservation Map as environmentally sensitive
lands and amend its Code of Ordinances to provide
for their protection and preservation.
1.6.3 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
restrict development activities that may
adversely affect the survival of endangered and
threatened wildlife species and provide for the
mitigation of development impacts on their
habitats and food sources.
1.6.4 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
restrict future non -recreational development of
park site reservations identified in the
Recreation and Open Space Element.
Objective: 1.7.0 To expressly prohibit new construction to take
place oceanside of the designated construction
setback line or in an area that would threaten
the stability of either the primary dune or the
beach itself.
Policies: 1.7.1 No construction should be allowed that would
threaten the stability of either the dune systems
or the beach itself. All new construction should
be restricted to areas landward of the primary
dune line, except for walkovers and other
acceptable beach access structures.
1.7.2 The Village should prohibit new development east
of the state designated state coastal
construction setback line unless the Village
establishes more restrictive provisions at the
local level. In such cases, the local provisions
should be adhered to.
1.7.3 The Village should establish new setback lines in
local codes or ordinances if the state setback
lines prove to be inadequate.
Objective: 1.8.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its landscape regulations to require the
use of native vegetation to stabilite'the dune
system identified in the Coastal
Management/Conservation Map and described in the
support documentation.
C-3
Policies: 1.8.1 In the areas where beaches and dunes are being
eroded, the Village should encourage a
multijurisdictional approach to stabilization and
restoration projects, preferably by using native
vegetation as a stabilizing medium.
1.8.2
Where appropriate, previously disturbed
indigenous vegetation areas should be renourished
and replanted.
Objective: 1.9.0
Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for the
dedication of public access easements for new
developments in the coastal area.
Policy: 1.9.1
When appropriate, the Village should seek means
and innovative techniques to allow proper access
to beaches while protecting the integrity of the
dune system in such future beach acquisitions.
Objective: 1.10.0
Prevent certain motorized vehicles from driving
on the primary dunes except in emergency
situations.
Policy: 1.10.1 Village ordinances and regulations should
delineate which motorized vehicles are to be
prohibited from driving on the primary dunes.
Goal: 2.0.0 The complete consideration of identified use
limitations in future coastal zone planning and
management decisions by the Village.
Objective: 2.1.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for the
continued enhancement of water quality within its
jurisdiction by providing for the review of all
development activities in or contributing to the
coastal area as part of its development review
process.
Policies: 2.1.1 The Village shall require, as part of its
development review process, the submittal of a
drainage / environmental statement describing how
the proposed development will affect the
estuarine water quality of the Class III waters
of the Village by amending its Code of
Ordinances.
C-4
I
Hi
n�
2.1.2 The Village shall review all proposed
developments within the coastal area for
consistency with on -going planning efforts for
the Loxahatchee River Estuary and the Indian
River Aquatic Lagoon Preserve by cooperating
with the Palm Beach County Department of
Environmental Resource Management and the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation.
Objective: 2.2.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
adopt an ordinance recognizing the unique
estuarine environment of the Indian River Lagoon
Aquatic Preserve and amend its Code of Ordinances
to prohibit development along its shores that
will destroy or disturb the vital sea grasses
within its jurisdiction.
Policy: 2.2.1 The Village shall prohibit development or
modification of the shoreline within the Indian
River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve except to provide
for the water -dependent and water -related land
uses such as marinas, provided that the siting of
such shall be consistent with the proposed Palm
Beach County marina siting ordinance and Policy
1.1.7 of the Coastal Management Element or where
the modification or development is necessary for
the continued health, safety and welfare of the
public.
Objective: 2.3.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for the
protection of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic
Preserve by prohibiting development in the area
that will degrade or otherwise adversely affect
the water quality or wetlands of this unique
estuarine environment.
Objective: 2.4.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its land development codes to direct future
development away from the coastal high -hazard
areas as defined and established by Policy 2.1.1,
Coastal Management Element.
Policy: 2.4.1 The Village shall amend its land development
regulations and review process to prohibit
development in the coastal high -hazard area and
continually update its Code of Ordinances to
assure that changes in the federal flood
insurance policies are incorporated.
C-5
W
I
Objective: 2.5.0 Within one
1
( ) year
of the
e submittal of the
Comprehensive
Development plan, the Village
shall amend
its Code
of Ordinances to prohibit
development
in flood
hazard and coastal high -
hazard areas
and
shall prohibit public
expenditure of funds for infrastructure in these
areas.
Policies: 2.5.1 The Village
regulations
shall amend
to limit the
its land development
amount of impervious
area permitted in the development of flood prone
areas by
establishing
minimum green space
requirements
pursuant to
a master drainage plan
for the coastal area.
2.5.2 the Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
prohibit septic tank and private sanitary sewer
systems in the coastal high -hazard areas.
Objective: 2.6.0 Encourage local residents within the hurricane
flood areas to utilize the flood insurance
programs developed by the Federal Insurance
Administration.
Policies: 2.6.1 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
provide for the continued support of the Federal
Flood Insurance Program and make available to
Village residents and developers information on
flood zones, flood rates and flood insurance.
Objective: 2.7.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
review its internal drainage system and analyze
its capability of providing proper relief from
hurricane flood waters. Based upon this
analysis, the Village shall provide for necessary
improvements to the existing system through
updates to the Capital Improvement Program.
Policy: 2.7.1 Specifically, support the Jupiter Inlet District
in achieving the above objective by channel
dredging or other effective measures.
Objective: 2.8.0 Maintain, and where needed, create and expand
outdoor recreational facilities in the coastal
zone for the benefit of the environment and
residents of this areas. (See other related Plan
Recommendations in Recreation/Open Space
Element).
C-6
W
Policies: 2.8.1 The Village shall establish Level of Service
standards for public access areas within the five
(5) year planning period and amend the Code of
Ordinances to require public access easements to
the beaches and shoreline for new development in
the coastal area.
2.8.2 Park and recreation development in Tequesta
should carefully consider wildlife values.
Objective: 2.9.0 Establish land use controls that will encourage
recreational -oriented develop and allow for
future expansion of recreation facilities in
desired areas of the jurisdiction.
Policy: 2.9.1 The Village should consider lease arrangements of
public areas to private entities to develop
recreational facilities, when appropriate.
Objective: 2.10.0 Encourage air monitoring programs to continue
throughout the area by local pollution control
agencies.
Policies: 2.10.1 The Village should continue to support efforts of
local pollution control agencies to monitor air
quality in the Village.
2.10.2 The Village should coordinate and cooperate with
local pollution control agencies to assure
appropriate local input.
Objective: 2.11.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
adopt water conservation measures to provide for
emergency conservation of water services.
Policy: 2.11,1 The Village shall develop its water_ utilities
`nQA rate structure to a surcharge for
heavy users of water and institute a program
Msigne2l cooperate with the ou on a
c n I of water
Uns throuah Its Code__ot
WOrall-n-ances.-_
Objective: 2.12.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Village shall adopt
measures regulating the management of hazardous
wastes and materials.
Policy: 2.12.1 The Village shall adopt an ordinance regulating
the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and
materials.
C-7
W
I
W
RECREAT = ON AND OPEN S PAC E
Goal: 1.0.0 The development, of an open space system
that adequately provides for the
recreational needs of the Village and
enhances the overall environmental
characteristics of the area.
Objective: 1.1.0 Maintain Tequesta Park as a community park
and a total recreation area meeting the
needs of all age groups in Tequesta during
the five (5) year planning period.
Policies: 1.1.1 Provide recreation facilities and programs
for school age youngsters in Tequesta Park
which offer sufficient choice and variety
for all age groups.
1.1.2 Continue the implementation of recreation
programs for Tequesta Park, with periodic
evaluations of how these programs are
meeting the recreation needs of the
Village.
Objective: 1.2.0
Work cooperatively with the private sector
in the future to provide recreation and
open space areas in their developments to
supplement the recreational need in the
community.
Policies: 1.2.1
As part of the Special Exception Use
and/or site plan review process, require
that recreation areas be provided as a
part of the development, or accept a
recreation fee in lieu of land, where and
when appropriate.
1.2.2
Review the Village codes appropriately to
provide for Policy 1.2.1 within FY 1990.
1.2.3
The Village shall zone all properties they
want for recreation and open space
purposes as R/OP, Recreation/Open Space.
Objective: 1.3.0
Coordinate development which allows safe
and easy access to recreational facilities
outside and within the Village's corporate
limits that is consistent with the TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION element of this Plan and which
is consistent with the Village of Tequesta
5-Year Capital Improvement Program.
R/OP-1
0
Policies: 1.3.1 The Village should provide for safe access
to recreation areas by making road
improvements and pathway improvements
consistent with,the Village 5-Year Capital
Improvement Program.
1.3.2 Existing roads and thoroughfares should be
considered as primary locations to
accommodate bicycle traffic when they lead
to the Village's park and recreation
facilities.
1.3.3 Obtain easements or use road rights -of -way
for bicycle and pedestrian paths well in
advance of development where they are
desired.
1.3.4 In providing pathways with safe access to
recreational areas, the Village should
coordinate this activity with surrounding
involved local governments by reviewing
Comprehensive Plans and Capital
Improvement Programs of adjacent
governments as part of the annual
budgetary process.
1.3.5 The Village shall construct the following
public pathways during the five (5) year
planning period to improve access to
recreation/open space and other areas in
Tequesta.
1. Tequesta Drive pathway between Seabrook
Road and Cypress Drive (FY 1990).
2. Tequesta Drive pathway between Willow Road
and U.S. Highway #1 (FY 1990).
3. Seabrook Road pathway (FY 1992).
4. Tequesta Drive pathway between Seabrook
Road and bridge over North Fork of the
Loxahatchee River (FY 1990).
5. Tequesta Drive pathway between bridge over
North Fork of the Loxahatchee River and
Country Club Drive (FY 1993).
Objective: 1.4.0 Expand recreational facilities with the
growth of the Village to meet the needs of
the residents and Level of Service
Standards within the five (5) year
planning period.
R/OP-2
Policies: 1.4.1 Preserve currently allocated recreational
areas within the Village by zoning those
parcels and properties R/OP,
Recreation/Open Space district.
1.4.2 Strive to meet minimum recreation
standards for space, service area and
facilities as established in the Level of
Service Standards Table below.
1.4.3 Encourage the use of private recreation
facilities within the Village and work
cooperatively with the private sector to
provide public recreation areas in future
developments as part of the site plan
review process.
1.4.4 Through cooperative arrangements,
encourage the use of existing school and
publicly owned recreation facilities in
the North County area to meet the
recreation needs of Village residents.
1.4.5 Analyze existing and future neighborhood
park service areas and determine the
majority age group served. Structure
facilities to meet the needs of that
majority.
1.4.6 The following Level of Service standards
shall be adopted. for recreation and open
space facilities within the Village of
Tequesta.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS TABLE
Classification Area/Activity Standard (unit/population)
Neighborhood Parks
2
acres/1,000
Community Parks
2
acres/1,000
Beaches
1
mile/31,250
Golf Courses
Tennis
9
1
holes/30,000
court/2,500
Basketball
1
court/2,500
Baseball/Softball
1
field/7,200
Football/Soccer
1
field/4,800
Playground Areas
1
acre/3,600
1.4.7 The Village shall revise its landscaping
regulations in its Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance to establish new landscaping and
used open spaces definitions, standards
R/OP-3
III
and regulations. This shall be
accomplished within FY 1990.
1.4.8 The Village should work cooperatively with
the Federal Government and Palm Beach
County to direct the development of the
Coast Guard property north of CR 707 for
future recreation/open space, culture/
civic and/or other appropriate public
use. The waterway frontage should be
pursued for public access and usage.
This cooperative action should begin in FY
1990. Since there is similar federally
owned property south of CR 707 within the
corporate limits of the Town of Jupiter,
the Village should investigate
coordination with their work toward
similar development of the entire area.
(See Intergovernmental Coordination for
additional comment regarding this matter.)
1.4.9 During FY 1990, enter into a form of joint
use agreement with Martin County for
shared expenses associated with Tequesta
Park (located in Southern Martin County)
to help them meet level of service
standards for community parks. (See
Intergovernmental Coordination for further
iterations.)
Objective: 1.5.0 Consider utilizing methods of obtaining
additional land to increase the community
and neighborhood recreational facilities
within the corporate limits of Tequesta
when necessary.
Policy: 1.5.1 Establish methods for the use of and
purchase of privately owned lands suitable
for recreation.
Objective: 1.6.0 As part of the annual budgetary process,
the Public Works Committee,- made up of
various Councilmembers, shall consider all
citizen concerns in determining
recreational needs of the community.
Policies: 1.6.1 Encourage citizen participation in
determining recreation facility needs for
the various existing and future
neighborhood recreation developments by
adhering to the public participation
procedures established by this Plan.
R/OP-4
LiJ
f
1.6.2 Maintain citizen input in the planning of
additional recreational facilities within
the Village by adhering to the public
participation procedures established by
this Plan.
R/OP-5
i
0
=NT ERGOVERNMENTAL COORD =NAT = ON
Goal: 1.0.0 Coordinate with other governmental entities for
the purpose of maintaining the high quality of
life for the residents of Tequesta.
Objective: 1.1.0 To consider the external effects of Village
development activities on neighboring
municipalities, Palm Beach County, Martin
County, the Palm Beach County School Board, and
the region as development occurs and as part of
the site plan review process as an integral part
of the Village Comprehensive Planning
activities.
Policies: 1.1.1 Identify those development activities which
affect other jurisdictions, and also evaluate
the impacts of such activities at the time of
development and as part of the site plan review
process.
1.1.2 Recognize that planning and zoning initiated by
the Village can have diverse effects on
neighboring jurisdictions and develop procedures
by which such external effects can be assessed
as part of the site plan review process
established in the Village Zoning Code
Ordinance.
1.1.3 Promote compatibility between the Village and
adjacent jurisdictions in such matters as
traffic regulations, aesthetics, by coordinating
goals, objectives and policies of respective
Comprehensive Plans and by having the Village
staff coordinate with adjacent jurisdiction
staffs to develop, where feasible, similar
regulations for inclusion in local development
regulations.
1.1.4 Promote compatibility with Martin County in
utilities, traffic regulation, zoning, etc. by
coordinating goals, objectives and policies of
respective Comprehensive Plans and by having the
Village staff coordinate with adjacent
jurisdiction staffs to develop, where'feasible,
similar regulations for inclusion in local
development regulations.
Objective: 1.2.0 To coordinate with agencies charged with
planning and/or review responsibilities at all
levels of government.
IGC-1
Policies: 1.2.1 Communicate to adjacent jurisdictions projected
impacts of new developments and changes in local
government.
1.2.2 Respond in a prompt and thorough manner to
requests from review agencies for Village
evaluations of civic projects, developments,
etc. which require federal and/or state
assistance.
1.2.3 The State Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed
to determine if it implies a need for
intergovernmental coordination at the local
level.
1.2.4 Coordinate with agencies including the Town of
Jupiter, Jupiter Inlet Colony, Martin and Palm
Beach Counties, the Palm Beach County School
Board and the State agencies referenced in the
support documentation, by annually reviewing the
appropriate elements of these agencies
comprehensive plans and/or other planning
sources. This review should determine any areas
of incompatibility with Village planning
elements.
1.2.5 Formally consider regional goals and objectives
during the land development decision -making
process, and utilize the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council informal mediation process to
resolve conflicts with other local governments.
Objective: 1.3.0 To strengthen existing interlocal mechanisms
which provide a means of discussing and
implementing social, environmental and service
concerns for mutual benefit.
1.3.1 Promote the purposes and participate in the
functions of such areawide organizations as the
Loxahatchee Council of Governments, Inc., Local
Government Comprehensive Planning Act Technical
Advisory Committee, Coastal Zone Management
Citizens Advisory Committee, the Loxahatchee
Environmental Control District, the Beaches and
Shores Council, and the Palm Beach County
Municipal League.
1.3.2 Prepare and adopt an official annexation policy
using methods and guidelines established by the
Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council in its
annexation policy adopted May, 1988.
IGC-2
L",
Policy: 1.3.3
The Village shall cooperate with agencies and
municipalities serving to protect the resources
of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve
(Intracoastal Waterway) by actively coordinating
with the development of estuarine policies that
shall be, at a minimum, consistent with present
management plans through participation in
agencies including, but not limited to, the
Loxahatchee Council of Governments, Jupiter
Inlet District, Martin County and the Palm Beach
Countywide Beaches and Shores Council.
mechanisms,
Objective: 1.4.0
to continuously develop alternative
strategies and methods for obtaining funds
through intergovernmental coordination.
Policies: 1.4.1
Ensure that opportunities for acquiring funding
or other forms of assistance through
intergovernmental relations with
municipalities, Palm Beach County and/or Martin
County, the state or federal government are
fully explored.
1.4.2
Direct or indirect contact should be maintained
with federal, state, and local agencies in order
to monitor opportunities for acquiring
assistance.
Objective: 1.5.0 To maintain high standards in the execution of
service agreements by reviewing all agreements
prior to renewal to assure that all terms of
the service agreement have been met. If the
terms have not been met, adjust the agreements
through negotiation.
Policy: 1.5.1 Assess effect or rezoning, annexation, and
development activities on interlocal agreements
which exist between the Village and other
jurisdictions to determine any effect on the
ability to provide the services which are the
subject of the interlocal agreements.
Objective: 1.6.0 Coordinate with other agencies having
maintenance and/or operational responsibility of
facilities within and affecting Village in the
establishment of Level of Service standards for
n, such facilities.
Policy: 1.6.1 Within one year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, complete an
analysis of Level of Service standards for
facilities within the Village operated by Palm
Beach County, the Loxahatchee Environmental
Control District, the Florida Department of
Transportation and neighboring jurisdictions to
determine the compatibility with Village
planning efforts.
IGC-3
i
n
COAS TAL Z ONE MANAGEMENT
n
Goal: 1.0.0 Protect, conserve and enhance coastal resources
while providing for water -dependent land uses in
a manner consistent with the general health,
safety and welfare of Village residents and
visitors.
Objective: 1.1.0 Protect and enhance coastal and estuarine
environmental quality and other natural resources
by adopting specific ordinances or revising
existing code provisions related to water
quality, shoreline stabilization, wetland
preservation and wildlife and habitat protection
within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Policies: 1.1.1 The Village shall cooperate with agencies and
municipalities serving to protect the resources
of the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon
Aquatic Preserve by actively coordinating with
the development of estuarine policies that shall
be, at a minimum, consistent with present
management plans through participation in
agencies including, but not limited to, the
Loxahatchee Council of Governments, Jupiter Inlet
District, Martin County and the Palm Beach
Countywide Beaches and Shores Council.
1.1.2 Preserve all existing wetland areas identified on
the Coastal Management/Conservation Map by
adopting through ordinance, the Palm Beach County
Mangrove Protection Ordinance and by requiring
the protection of existing, native wetland
vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee
River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries as
revisions to the appropriate Village land
development regulations. Exceptions shall be
provided for water -dependent and water -related
land uses that have been determined to be
consistent with management plans for these
estuaries or when modification of said wetlands
is necessary for the continued health, safety and
welfare of the public.
Objective: 1.2.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Viilage shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for the
continued protection of estuarine water quality
and resources.
CM-1
i
Policies: 1.2.1 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
restrict urban stormwater run-off from entering
the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon
estuaries and amend its landscape regulations to
promote vegetative . filtering of stormwater
pollutants.
1.2.2 The Village shall cooperate with the Palm Beach
County Health Department and Department of
Environmental Resource Management to continue to
monitor their water quality sampling stations
located within the Village and incorporate
substantiated water quality controls (e.g.
drainage) into the development review process to
ensure that future development in the coastal
area does not contribute to the degradation of
estuarine water quality.
Objective: 1.3.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend the Code of Ordinances to preserve and
protect existing coastal resources while
providing for future water -dependent and water -
related land uses.
Policies: 1.3.1 The Village shall establish Level of Service
standards for siting water -dependent and
shoreline land uses, including but not limited
to, marinas, boat ramps and public access areas,
by incorporating into its Code of Ordinances
access and land dedications for future
development and redevelopment in the coastal
area. These Level of Service standards shall be
established within the five (5) year planning
period.
1.3.2 The Village shall preserve and protect existing
sea grass areas as a vital food source for
manatees and a nursery for estuarine species by
prohibiting dredging and filling activities in or
near these areas except where expressly provided
for in the development of water -dependent land
uses or where it is necessary for the general
health, safety and welfare of the public.
1.3.3 The Village shall ensure that marinas are sited
to minimize impacts on coastal and estuarine
resources by coordinating the development of a
marina -siting ordinance with Palm Beach County
and the Regional Planning
Council.
CM-2
If
4
1.3.4 The Village shall promote the protection of the
Loxahatchee River through adoption of the
Loxahatchee River Wild and Scenic River
Management Program and adoption of its
recommendations.
Objective: 1.4.0 Coordinate with the Jupiter Inlet District to
achieve more adequate renourishment to the south
of the Jupiter Inlet, otherwise continue to
protect the beach and dune system.
Policies: 1.4.1 Cooperate with the Jupiter Inlet District to
ensure adequate renourishment to the beach area
south of Jupiter Inlet and continue to support
County efforts to implement the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers plan for additional sand pumping
capability by adopting a coordinated, multi -
jurisdictional plan in cooperation with the
Council of Governments, Jupiter Inlet District,
Palm Beach County, and the Corps of Engineers.
1.4.2 Continue to use land use controls to prevent
construction that adversely impacts the dune and
its vegetation system.
Objective: 1.5.0 Continue the Village policy of avoiding an
increase in infrastructure capacity unless public
safety so requires.
Policies: 1.5.1 The Village shall review any infrastructure
capacity increase that would induce and subsidize
development
1.5.2 Maintain the current basic density controls in
the Coastal Area so that the Village will
experience only minor new residential development
and thereby not jeopardize hurricane evacuation
times.
Objective: 1.6.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village will
amend the Code of Ordinances to require
dedication of public access easements to those
privately -owned shoreline areas that receive
public funds for beach renourishment and
shoreline stabilization projects.
Policies: 1.6.1 Work with the County to maintain general public
parking and access via the Coral Cove Park.
1.6.2 Encourage intergovernmental coordination with
Palm Beach County in future planning of Coral
Cove Park.
Goal: 2.0.0 To preserve and enhance the significant natural
features in Tequesta.
CM-3
i
Objective: 2.1.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
review and analyze its internal drainage system
to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing urban
stormwater pollutants from entering the estuaries
and groundwater within its jurisdiction.
Policies: 2.1.1 Continue to review development plans in order to
require on -site detention of a substantial
portion of stormwater runoff in the coastal
zone, in coordination with the South Florida
Water Management District.
2.1.2 Within one year of submitting this plan, change
appropriate development codes, as necessary, to
assure adequate controls over hazardous wastes.
2.1.3 The Village shall incorporate the appropriate
recommendations of the Areawide 208 Plan
designated to reduce non -point source pollutant
loading to the Loxahatchee River and Indian River
Lagoon Aquatic Preserve into its development
review procedures and review its current drainage
system in terms of design criteria established by
the South Florida Water Management District.
Objective: 2.2.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for the
protection of existing native vegetative
communities and wildlife habitats.
Policies: 2.2.1 Continue to review all development applications
in the context of the pervious cover and
landscaping provisions of the development code;
be particularly diligent in the review of any
coastal area projects such as any development in
mangrove areas.
Policies: 2.2.2 Work with County and State park officials to
assure that any park improvements are sensitive
to the mangrove and other vegetative/ wildlife/
marine habitats.
2.2.3 The Village shall incorporate Ecosite No. 61,
identified in the Coastal Management/Conservation
Map and the support documentation text, by
appropriate zoning and provide for its continued
protection by limiting future use of this site
to uses that are compatible with its important
vegetative covering and wildlife habitats.
CM-4
2.2.4 The Village shall amend its landscape regulations
to require the removal of exotic species on the
beach and dunes during renourishment,
stabilization or revegetation projects and the
substitute replanting of native dune and beach
vegetation.
2.2.5 The Village shall designate all publicly -owned
spoil islands within its jurisdiction as
"conservation areas" on the Future Land Use Map
to ensure their future as protected wildlife
habitats.
Goal: 3.0.0 Protection of preservation areas to the maximum
degree possible while consistent with private
property rights.
Objective: 3.1.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village will
adopt the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection
Ordinance and assist the County in enforcing the
Ordinance and identifying mangrove areas and
other sensitive environmental wetlands.
Policies: 3.1.1 The Village shall require the preservation or
mitigation of existing mangroves in accordance
with the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection
Ordinance.
3.1.2 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
provide for the cooperation by appropriate
governmental authorities to ensure the
maintenance of protected natural resources such
as mangroves and sea grasses.
3.1.3 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
restrict public and private development affecting
coastal mangrove areas, except where such
development is necessary to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public.
Objective: 3.2.0 Avoid or minimize adverse impact upon coastal
mangrove systems from public works activities,
such as transportation; mosquito control, and
drainage activities, by the review of such
projects' adverse effects on the system.
Policy: 3.2.1 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
prohibit public expenditure of funds that will
adversely affect existing mangrove areas or sea
grass beds.
CM-5
Objective: 3.3.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to preserve all
existing mangroves within its jurisdiction by
incorporating the standards and criteria of the
Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection Ordinance.
Policy: 3.3.1 The Village shall amend its landscape regulations
to provide for the protection of all mangrove
areas within one year of submittal of
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Objective: 3.4.0 To expressly prohibit new construction to take
place oceanside of the designated construction
setback line or in an area that would threaten
the stability of either the primary dune or the
beach itself.
Policies: 3.4.1 The Village shall prohibit new construction
seaward of the coastal construction setback line
and modification to the existing dune system.
All access from upland areas to the beach will be
by way of a dune walkover.
3.4.2 The Village should prohibit new development east
of the state designated coastal construction
setback line unless the Village establishes more
restrictive provisions at the local level. In
such cases, the local provisions should be
adhered to.
3.4.3 The Village should establish new setback lines
in local codes or ordinances if the state setback
lines prove to be inadequate.
Objective: 3.5.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
[1 amend its landscape regulations to require the
use of native vegetation for dune stabilization.
Policies: 3.5.1 In areas where beaches and dunes are being
eroded, the Village should encourage a multi -
jurisdictional approach to stabilization and
restoration projects as appropriate.
3.5.2 Where appropriate, previously disturbed
indigenous vegetation areas should be renourished
and replanted.
CM-6
k
3.5.3
The Village shall
amend its landscape regulations
to encourage the
removal of exotic vegetative
species and the
substitute replanting of native
species.
3.5.4
The Village shall
amend its landscape regulations
to require the use of Xeriscape materials, where
possible, and
identify which non-native
landscaping might
be appropriate for use within
the Village.
Objective: 3.6.0
Support programs
that will ensure adequate access
to public beaches while maintaining dune
stability.
Policy: 3.6.1
When appropriate,
the Village should seek means
and innovative techniques to allow proper access
to beaches while
protecting the future integrity
of the dune
system in such future beach
acquisitions.
Objective: 3.7.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
prohibit all private motor vehicles from driving
on the beach and dune system by strictly
forbidding such practices through its Code of
Ordinances. An exception shall be provided for
emergency vehicles and those associated with
beach restoration and cleanup, provided that the
latter are restricted to the area adjacent to the
mean high water line and meet the specific
provisions of the Palm Beach County Sea Turtle
Protection Ordinance.
Policy: 3.7.1 Village ordinances and regulations should
delineate which motorized vehicles are to be
prohibited from driving on the primary dunes.
Goal: 4.0.0 The complete consideration of identified use
limitations in future coastal zone planning and
management decisions by the Village.
Objective: 4.1.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development, the Village will amend
its Code of Ordinances to prohibit the
disturbance of the sensitive sea grass.beds and
productive mangrove and high marsh areas adjacent
and within the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic
Preserve, except when necessary for the continued
health, safety and welfare of the public.
Policy: 4.1.1 The Village shall amend its landscape regulations
to require a twenty (20) foot landscape buffer
zone along the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic
Preserve in order to insure that this
environmentally sensitive estuary is left
undisturbed.
CM-7
I
Ft
Objective: 4.2.0 The Village shall establish, by amendment to the
Code of Ordinances, a coastal high -hazard area
and provisions limiting development and
redevelopment in the construction of
infrastructure in the coastal high -hazard area
within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan except for dune
walkovers and beach -related structures.
Policies: 4.2.1 The Village should keep abreast of federal
requirements to assure residents' eligibility for
flood insurance.
4.2.2 The Village should carefully scrutinize all
developments in flood zone areas as part of the
planning and review process.
Goal: 5.0.0 Protect human life and limit public expenditures
in areas subject to destruction by natural
disasters.
Objective: 5.1.0 Within one (1) year of the submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to restrict public
expenditure that subsidizes development permitted
in coastal high -hazard areas except for
restoration or enhancement of natural resources.
Policies: 5.1.1 The Village shall establish a coastal high -hazard
area, as defined in support documentation, and
prohibit, by amendment to its development
regulations, any public expenditure for new
infrastructure, including, but not limited to,
water and sewer lines, roadways and drainage
systems within this area.
5.1.2 Identify areas needing redevelopment, including
eliminating unsafe conditions and inappropriate
uses as opportunities arise.
5.1.3 The Village shall review existing coastal
construction regulations to determine the need
for revision based upon natural disaster
mitigation techniques formulated by State and
County agencies and the Village post -disaster
redevelopment plan.
Objective: 5.2.0 The Village shall adopt hurricane evacuation
procedures that will maintain or reduce hurricane
evacuation times within one (1) year of submittal
of the Comprehensive Development Plan.
CM-8
Policies: 5.2.1 Review at regular intervals any hurricane
evacuation methods and keep abreast of procedures
regarding integration into the regional local
evacuation plan.
5.2.2 The Village shall incorporate hurricane
contingency planning into the marina siting
criteria and procedures referenced in Policy
1.3.3 of this Element.
Objective: 5.3.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its Code of Ordinances to provide for post -
disaster redevelopment plans which will reduce or
eliminate the exposure of human life and public
and private property to natural hazards.
Policies: 5.3.1 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
distinguish between immediate repair and clean up
actions needed to protect public health and
safety and long term repair and redevelopment
activities.
5.3.2 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
provide for general hazard mitigation including
regulation of flood plains, beach and dune
alterations, (building practices, stormwater
management, sanitary sewers, septic tanks and
land use) to reduce exposure of human life and
public and private property to natural hazards.
Objective: 5.4.0 Within one (1) year of submittal of the
Comprehensive Development Plan, the Village shall
amend its development codes to prohibit
residential development in coastal -high hazard
areas as defined in the amended Code of
Ordinances.
F1 Policies: 5.4.1 The Village shall provide for the service and
maintenance of infrastructure in the coastal
area, including but not limited to, roadways,
drainage and utilities, through the Capital
Improvements Program and annual budget process
but shall restrict expenditure of public funds in
areas designated as coastal high -hazard areas.
5.4.2 The Village shall amend its Code of Ordinances to
restrict redevelopment in the coastal high -hazard
area as part of a post -disaster redevelopment
plan.
CM-9
Objective:
5.5.0 Protect and preserve historic resources by
establishing an archaeological and historic
resource review procedure in the Village Code of
Ordinances within one (1) year of submittal of
the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Policy:
5.5.1 The Village shall prohibit development and/or
redevelopment of sites that may be determined to
have archaeological or historic significance by
amending the Village development codes to provide
for a review process by State and local agencies
and, if appropriate, the requirement to conform
to a preservation plan.
Goal:
6.0.0 Provide for the continued use of the natural
resources of the Village and ensure that adequate
services are available to serve Village residents
and the publice to the coastal area.
Objective:
6.1.0 The Village shall establish Level of Service
standards for beach access, infrastructure and
water -dependent land uses within one (1) year of
the submittal of the Comprehensive Development
Plan by amendment to the Code of Ordinances.
Policies: 6.1.1 The Village shall establish a Level of Service
standard for providing beach access and
incorporate that Level of Service into the
development review process in the coastal area by
amending its codes where necessary.
6.1.2 The Village
shall
define a service area in the
coastal area
and
establish a Level of Service
standard for
the
phasing of infrastructure by
amending its
codes,
where appropriate.
6.1.3 The Village
shall
establish a Level of Service
for water -dependent
land uses and priorities for
shoreline uses and amend its Code of Ordinances,
where necessary, to provide for their future
development.
CM-10
I
CAP = TAL = MPROVEMENT ELEMENT
Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: 1.0.0 Undertake actions necessary to: (1) keep present
public facilities in good condition; (2)
accommodate new development, using sound fiscal
policies; and (3) maximize the use of existing
facilities and promote orderly, compact municipal
growth. Further, decisions to finance public
facilities improvements shall be based upon the use
of sound fiscal policy oriented to minimizing
Village debt service liabilities.
Objective: 1.1.0 Capital Improvements will be provided to: (1)
correct existing deficiencies; (2) accommodate
desired future growth; and/or (3) replace worn-out
or obsolete facilities.
Policies: 1.1.1 The Village shall include all projects identified
in the policies of the various elements of this
Comprehensive Plan and determined to be of
relatively large scale and high cost ($10,000 or
greater), as capital improvements projects for
inclusion within the 5-Year Schedule of
Improvements. Provision of Capital Improvements so
defined shall be implemented through procedures
outlined in Policies 1.1.2 - 1.1.4 and 1.4.1 -
1.4.4 of this Element. A capital improvements
project is defined to include land and/or
improvements, plus any planning, engineering,
feasibility or appraisal studies related thereto.
This shall include any studies oriented to defining
the initial need for land and/or facilities.
1.1.2 The Village shall, as a matter of priority,
schedule for funding any capital improvement
projects in the 5-Year Schedule of Improvements
which are designed to correct existing public
facility deficiencies.
1.1.3 A Capital Improvements Coordinating Committee is
hereby created, composed of the Village Council
Finance and Administration Committee, the Village
Manager and the Finance Director for the purpose
of annually evaluating and ranking in order of
priority projects proposed for inclusion in the 5-
Year Schedule of Improvements.
CI-1
W
n
1.1.4 Proposed capital improvement projects shall be
evaluated and ranked in order of priority
according to the following guidelines:
a) Whether the proposed project
is financially
feasible, in terms of its impact
upon local
budget potential;
b) Whether the project is needed
to protect
public health and safety, to
fulfill the
Village's legal commitment
to provide
facilities and services, or
to preserve,
achieve full use of or increase
the efficiency
of existing facilities;
c) Whether the project prevents or
reduces future
improvement costs, provides
service to
developed areas lacking full
service, or
promotes in -fill development;
d) Whether the project represents a logical
extension of facilities and services within a
designated Village Planning Area; and
e) Whether the proposed project is consistent
with plans of State agencies and the South
Florida Water Management District.
Objective: 1.2.0 Village expenditures in high hazard coastal areas
shall be limited to 100% of those post disaster
improvements costs for facilities over which
Tequesta has operational responsibility (e.g.:
potable water systems and public streets and
recreational facilities).
Policies: 1.2.1 The Village shall expend funds in high hazard
coastal areas for the replacement and renewal of
public facilities over which Tequesta has
operational responsibility.
1.2.2 The Village shall continue to expend funds to
maintain existing facilities and services under
the jurisdiction of Tequesta at their existing
Levels -of -Service.
Objective: 1.3.0 Future development shall bear a proportionate
cost of facility improvements in. order to
maintain adopted Tequesta Level -of -Service
standards. Proportionate costs are defined to
CI-2
I
mean 100% of that amount necessary to assure that
Tequesta Level -of -Service standards are
maintained as a result of development approval
for those facilities over which Tequesta has
operational control.
Policies: 1.3.1 The Village shall require local street, drainage,
sewage collection and potable water distribution
systems improvements, as required by the
application of the Tequesta Level -of -Service
Standards, of any new development necessitated by
such development.
1.3.2 Defined Recreation Facility needs may be met by
any of the following means: (1) on -site provision
of public or private facilities; (2) dedications;
or (3) fees in lieu thereof. Plant expansion for
potable water and sewer systems shall be
accommodated by charges administered by the
Village and the Loxahatchee River Environmental
Control District. Major road improvements shall
be accommodated by participating in the County's
Fair Share Road Impact Fee Program. Solid Waste
collection and disposal improvements shall be
accommodated by the fee schedule annually levied
by the private hauler (Note: Tipping Fees are
levied by the Palm Beach County Solid Waste
Authority).
1.3.3 Determination of needed public facility
improvements shall be made prior to the time that
a Building Permit is issued.
Objective: 1.4.0 The Village shall manage its fiscal resources to
ensure the provision of needed capital
improvements at a level equal to, or exceeding,
the adopted Tequesta Level -of -Service standards.
Policies: 1.4.1 Prior to the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy, the Village shall require that all
public facilities are available to-' serve
development for which development orders were
previously issued. Development orders for future
development shall not be issued unless the
Village has demonstrated either of the
following: (1) Compliance with Tequesta Level -of -
Service Standards; or (2) Provision of needed
public facilities in compliance with the.Tequesta
Level -of -Service Standards within the adopted 5-
Year Schedule of Improvements.
CI-3
1.4.2. In providing capital improvements, the Village
shall limit general obligation debt to an amount
equal to or less than 5% of the property tax
base.
1.4.3 The Village shall annually update the 5-year
Schedule of Improvements. The results of this
update shall be incorporated within a capital
budget as part of the annual Village budgeting
process.
1.4.4 Efforts shall be made to secure grants or private
funds, whenever available, to finance the
provision of capital improvements.
Objective: 1.5.0 Decisions regarding the issuance of development
orders and permits shall be based upon
coordination of the development requirements
included in this Plan, the Village land
development regulations, and the availability of
necessary public facilities needed to support
such development at the time needed.
Policies: 1.5.1 Price to issuing a development order or building
permit, Village shall use Level -of -Service (LOS)
standards adopted in the various elements of this
Comprehensive Plan to review the impacts of new
development and redevelopment upon public
facility provision. The Village shall not issue
a development order or building permit which
results in a reduction in service for affected
public facilities below these Level -of -Service
standards. A listing of LOS standards is
exhibited on Table Ci-1.
1.5.2 The Village shall adopt an adequate facilities
ordinance during 1990 requiring that, at the time
a development permit is issued, adequate facility
capacity is available, or will be available upon
occupancy of the development, based upon the
application of the Tequesta Level -of -Service
Standards to the proposed development.
1.5.3 Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
requests for new development or redevelopment
shall be evaluated according to the following
guidelines as to whether the proposed action
would:
a) contribute to any condition of public hazard
as described in the SANITARY SEWER, SOLID
WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE element, and COASTAL
MANAGEMENT element;
CI-4
i
b exacerbate an existing condition of public
Y g
facility capacity deficits, as described in
the TRAFFIC CIRCULATION element; SANITARY
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER
AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE element; and
R RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE element;
c) generate public facility demands that may be
accommodated by capacity increases planned in
the 5-year Schedule of Improvements; and
d) conform with future land uses as shown on the
Future Land Use map of the FUTURE LAND USE
element, and public facility availability as
described in the SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE,
DRAINAGE, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
element.
If public facilities are developer -provided, they shall
accommodate public facility demands based upon adopted
LOS standards.
If public facilities are provided, in part of wholly,
by the. Village, financial feasibility shall be
demonstrated subject to this element.
Effects upon appropriate state agency and/or Water
Management District facilities plans shall be
evaluated.
Objective: 1.6.0 The Village shall designate an Urban Service Area
as a means of: (1) Implementing future land use
designations, as per the Future Land Use Map; and
(2) limiting potential Village post disaster
redevelopment expenditures.
Policies: 1.6.1 That portion of the Village not located within
the Coastal High Hazard Area, as defined in the
Coastal Management element, shall be designated
as the Tequesta Urban Service Area.
1.6.2 The Coastal High Hazard Area, as designated in
the Coastal Management element shall be
designated as a Limited -Urban Service Area where
the level of facilities and services provided by
Tequesta shall be limited to those currently
provided.
1.6.3 Consideration of the expansion of the Village
Urban Service Area shall be made coincident with
any annexation actions.
CI-5
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION
5-Year Schedule of Improvements
The Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements for Fiscal Years
1989/90 through 1994/95 is presented on Table A review of
other Comprehensive Plan Elements leads to the conclusion that the
goal, objectives and policies and five-year schedule of improvements
of the Capital Improvements Element are internally consistent with
the remaining Elements.
Operational Impacts of Proposed Capital Improvements
A review of proposed capital improvements, as presented on Table X-2
in relation to projected increases in Village operating expenses
(Ref. Table 12-2; Support Documentation Report) leads to the
conclusion that little or no increases in Village staffing levels
should result from programmed projects.
Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
The Capital Improvements Element including the Five -Year Schedule of
Improvements, shall be reviewed by the Capital Improvements
Coordinating Committee on an annual basis as part of the Village
annual budget procedure. Any revisions and/or amendments to the
Five -Year Schedule of Improvements shall be made at that time.
Further, the following programs shall be adopted by the Village to
ensure implementation of the Capital Improvements element:
Program
Establish Capital Improvements
Coordinating Committee
Adopt Adequate Facilities
Ordinance specifically implementing
Objectives 1.3.0 and 1.5.0
Review, adopt and amend, if necessary,
the Palm Beach County Fair Share Traffic
Impact Fee Ordinance
Enact the appropriate vehicle (e.g.
ordinance, Charter Amendment, etc.)
Limiting Debt Service, as per
Policy D.2
Adopt an Ordinance designating
® the Village Urban Service Area,
as per Objective 1.6.0
Fil
CI-6
Time Frame (Fiscal Year)
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
TABL E C = — 1
TEQUESTA LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS
FACILITY LOS STANDARD
Sanitary Sewer MAX. MONTH DAILY SEWAGE GENERATION RATE
Residential - 73.1 gallons/capita/day
Non -Residential - 431 gallons/acre/day
MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW
Residential- 78.8 gallons/capita/day
Non -Residential- 464.9 gallons/acre/day
Solid Waste
Potable Water
Drainage
AVERAGE GENERATION RATE
Residential
Single -Family - 6.01 lbs/capital/day
Multi -Family - 3.41 lbs./capita/day
Non Residential
Total - 125 lbs/acre/day
Restaurants - 75 lbs/acre/day
All Other - 50 lbs/acre/day
AVERAGE DAY WATER CONSUMPTION RATE
Residential - 236 gallons/capita/day
MAXIMUM DAY WATER CONSUMPTION RATE
Residential - 354 gallons/capita/day
STORAGE CAPACITY
System - 1.810 million gallons
DESIGN STORM
Public Facilities - 3-Year,
24-Hour Storm
CI-7
FACILITY
Traffic
Circulation
Recreation and
Open Space
LOS STANDARD
Collector Roadways - LOS Standard C,
Peak D
Urban Minor Arterials - LOS Standard C,
Peak D
Urban Principal Arterials - LOS Standard C,
Peak D
UNIT/POPULATION
Neighborhood Parks - 2 acres/1,000
Community Parks
- 2
acres/1,000
Beaches
- 1
mile/31,250
Golf Courses
- 9
holes/30,000
Tennis
- 1
court/2,500
Basketball
- 1
court/2,500
Baseball/Softball
- 1
field/7,200
Football/Soccer
- 1
field/4,800
Playground areas
- 1
acre/3,600
*Non-residential includes the following land use types: Commercial;
Public Buildings and Grounds; Educational; and Other Public
Facilities.
Source: Village of Tequesta; 8/89
CI-8
ri
Ei
z
rn
w
rn
E-H
�-
zw
w>
�O
wxm
>az
o�: =)
W 1-i E 4
0
N a4
ON
t E r14
rn
HH0E-4
.�
U U
.-IEi00
WHmwON
¢rs.wa(ON
s
Ei ¢ x
UUa
to
¢ E•+
+-)
O
000
O
000
I
m
000
N
O
00
O
00
0
000
l�
�D 0
m
�.O
69
Jv �
O C
O C
¢ ¢
z z
N
¢
¢
m
z
z
641)
O
0
0
0
0
E--
¢
¢
O
a0
N
cn
z
z
69
O
0
0
0
z
z
r+
O
`-9
¢ ¢
z z
�
an rx as ao ac x x
Cl a
U) 0►4
a
ww¢
cn
a>+U
O'
a)
W W
to
4-)
bO
Ey >
rn
U
•,i
co
H
bO C.
-.i
r-I
t~
ts.
C: Cc
4-)
•H
U)
•r-1
G
t~ Q) > '0 1~ bO bit
r-i
p
•r•1
t4
O
c
•r-I bO ad 0-1 G C:
•r1
to
4-)
'd
co
4 m
•r♦
O
C CO a > tii -ri
U
G
•ri
a)
a)
+-)
+�
•r-I
a) C: Cd > >
cc
o
ri
to
•ri
to to
a
+)
'd bO a) a ad W
�.
a
-H
-H
4-)
O (1)
.H
Cc
-H bO to C a a
to
U
.0
•H
z 4-)
to
ri
3 V) C m t— 0 (2)
tr
Q)
cc
U
r-I
co
-r-I 0 > Old
(1)
tz
CLd
C:
•ri
Q) Q3
to
U
Q)
C 04.0 t— >> -r1 > cd
3
C
U
> m
t~ Q) to cd :� t cd to -H O
Q)
O
N
t4
cd
-H
m
•rt
+�
m 60 U r-4 0: 3 m to W
U)
V)
bO
4-)
G4
44
t+ 06
U
U U Cl
m
4-)
ri
ad > td 'o ho 0 X
cd
r-I
cd
'd
a)
x
U)
U
U
-r-I
i-) O 4-) C. A Q) -ri -P U) O
1-)
tr
r-i
3
Q)
bf
cA o >>
ri
Q)
•rl
U
U) to 0 094 b0 U) to O
O
0-HU
cd
U) O 'd
cd
•�
4-�
ad
Q) iU 0 . j � m Q) N to
E-
+)
>
10
-H
C:
a) s. Z)
+�
O
4-4
D4
7 E G C � to .0
•�i
•rt
>
•r I
t-o .0 �
O
t.,ad
VbO ad
Cr H al � V) tT a
C
4
ri
to
cd
a td to
Ey
a
to
d) Q) o -r•t • a) >> a)
cd
o
O
a)
to
a a)
Ey
H E4 0 W =) E- U V)
V)
z
to
Cl)
m
U cn
CI-9
cnl
rn
rn
NI
Cr
CT
O
O
.H
+)
.r.,
r-1
-rl
U
Cc
rLI
C:
0
-H
Cd
a)
G4
U
a�
x
.4
0 0
.4 N
O
0
m
0
0
0
0
O
CT
C--
O
Lr
Lr
0
11
N
N
N
N
a zzW a x
04
O
O
o
�
69
e-1
O
O
¢
m
z
z
O
z
O
.4
69
h0
0
a^ a U h0
Cd U) Cd co C»
cn
3 U) a a ^ 3 ^ CO-4 b0 • 4
a)
400 • Cda)Ca)s4 C +)
s�
+-) s~ 3 Cn 3 h0 4-) > 7 •rl 4
(n
�
cd a .� • 4 10 Cd -H 0 > h0
a)
U)
a a 4-) a � •rt a ;-4 a) ^- Cd i— •rl
•H
Cd
U Cd co co s~ A x x a x. 3
4-)
a)
0 a 1 3 a m a) s4 t
•r+
10
> 0 > U co Cd x Cd x
r-1
a)
-H 4-) 1 -H U +) a $-d a %a
•�
.--I
C:
C+ t.4 'd Cd to G4 f 4 Cd Cd
U
0
A x A x a4 JM Q 1 :J Cd a Cd a.
Cd
10
•r♦
0cd3xcd0Cda)C Cd)wcdcnco
r-I
co
4-) Ca +-) 00 +) C+ +-) hO a) +-) a) 4-)
Cd
hcU
>
cnpcnH0(1)�ov)•CyCn113Cn:IO
4-)
a
U)
�
a) Cd (1) H s+ O Cd a) •r1 -rl v a) v a)
0
-H
a)
a4)7-•-Ip:J4):$9-,C:4)a(1):J
E-
v)
a)
v�
a' cn V 3 cd V U)V CO C; E- Cr E- Cr
:1
O
a)— a) -- O O -- a) -- a) -- a) -- O
O
O
0
E+ E-4 U)F- E 4 E 4 E- E-F
x
z
U
r-i
rl
co
Cd a)
a) s~
cn a
Cd
4-)�
•rl
A Cd
�4 4-)
> Cd
00
A U
0
0
0
00
z N
I.
0
0
¢ 00
z N
d --J-
z
N
00
69
a
4-)
4-)
-H
C~
�
a)
•.�
s
p
a)
.,�
>
+) cn
0
C; C:
t4 to
C
E a
E
HE
��
;4
>
::l a)
4-).0
bO
•a a
� c
xH
UH
.0 >
cd 4.)
4-) ::S
a) O
0 w
m z
E4
W
E-
z
H9
00
04
H Q
E-+ z
zw0
mU3Ow�
H w w w ON
U O O H
wacAx 1
wawa
aa�xaco
¢HUwo4%
E-+ Cl) E-+ rn
a z •-1
¢aw
E-4 d
H w
a. >4
U �
H
w
0
cn 0
0 00
0
o.l O
000
•
cn
co ao r-1
ti
�
e9
0
000
N
O
000
0
o�
.
.
p
O�
N
t— Oo
•
ul,
mN00
.�
69
LfIN
.4
U*N 0 0 0
O
0
•-+
N O O O
O
Ir)
O�
. . . .
CM
O'
cn O CO ON
0
•
O c ri -1.o
LrN
p
V--1
.-a
t—
cn
69
69
00000
0
0
O
p
O
1�N00
0
O
O
0
tf)
•-+
O .o .� %D .o
ao
m
N
ar
m can
U1
fA
a AAAAz z z
zz z
wwwwa4 a a
a.a. a
can
v1
U)
a�
a
�
E
�
aCd
w
a:
a� x C
� •�
w
U •rl
� U
W
Sad
>4) E ��',
H
Q M ri ^ to 4-) •.i
CO ri r-I
-H
E-+
O U' N r-I r-I N cd to ri
0 c U ri H
R+
H
•ri >, +.+ a) r-I w 3 4) tii
C o 4) a)
a
a
4-) -H 3
o •r1 r-I 3 3
to
H
C M •rl !!) 3 3 ad cd
•r♦ rn ai
�
, .
i a �
D4
X 4-) � G 3 +�
4) 04 -Hi ,r-I •H
w
Do cd0U cdc 4) r.
4-)x+-)UU
U)
x
to U E cd x E4 b0^ > ^
^ X w •r1 cd cd
t+ +)
w
+� s~ 4) a U -r1 c -r-I E
G w 10 a s
4) C
Ey
OriCC 0 cd Ox O to O+)
0 +JV cd 0
+J O
d
+-) Gd U 4 bo •r1 A "I cd
ri f, C', Cd U U
s
3
ri ri C >b— - 0 O 4J 4-)a.i O
•cd �•�
3
a •r1 O to to •r1 cd CC cd 9.4
cd r-I A
>
W
4-1 -H -P� Ln o X U +-) U E-4
1v M a o .o t—
r-I o
.j
41 ONN 41 -H O to O
41 xNN
Cd to
fQ
to cm •r 4 E In A ri W r-I $4
-H tr s.
4-) a
d
4) r-I ri O a O O
(A O N ao r-I r-I
O E
O03
Cd4)4)a)Err-i
E'H
4w0
co cd
043
Ey33cn0 Ey 3
33 33
b
4)
z
b
4)
4) 0
""q
°t. a
a U
1 4-1
z i-)
as
Cd
A o00
U
C 1
a�
H ai
U
a •.
G C
G
•rl U
41 1d
to ri
•r1 a
wa
I 1
A
wa
t
n
CONSISTENCY WITH THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
"Preparation of this doement me aided through
financial assistance received from the State
of Florida under the Local Goverment Compre-
hensive Planning Assistance Progran authorised
by Chapter 86-167, Lam of Florida, and admini-
stered by the Florida Departaeat of Coanaunity
Affairs."
CMK-1
il
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Chapter 163. 3177(10) (b) , Florida Statutes, establishes the
consistency requirement and Chapter 9J5.021(4), Florida
Administrative Code, establishes minimum criteria to guide its
preparation.
This element contains an analvsis, in matrix form, of the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the various elements of this
Comprehensive Development Plan in terms of their consistency with
the adopted goals of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Consistencv Requirements
Specific requirements for addressing the consistency mandate are
established by Chapter 9J5.021(4) of the Florida Administrative Code
as follows:
" ..the local government shall attach to its comprehensive
plan or plan amendment at the time of transmittal to the
Department a listing entitled "Consistency of the Local
Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan," which
shall list the State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
which are addressed in its proposed plan or amendment and
which shall indicate the plan element or elements, subsection
or subsections and page number or numbers, where each of the
State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies is addressed."
Consistency Analysis
A listing of adopted State Comprehensive Plan Goals is presented in
the Consistency Matrix Key, while an analysis of the Tequesta
Comprehensive Development Plan, in terms of the State Goals, is
presented on FIGURE 3. The Matrix indicates which Tequesta
Objectives and Policies, by Comprehensive Development Plan element,
further specific State Goals.
Due to the clarity of the Comprehensive Development Plan element
identification and numbering system to identify Objectives and
Policies within Comprehensive Development Plan elements, it is
concluded that page references are not necessary.
CMK — 2
n
MATRIX STATE PLAN
REF. NO. ELEMENT
CONSISTENCY MATRIX KEY
STATE GOAL
1. EDUCATION:
The creation of an educational
environment which is intended to
provide adequate skills and knowledge
for students to develop their full
potential, embrace the highest ideas
and accomplishments, make a positive
contribution to society, and promote
the advancement of knowledge on human
dignity.
2. CHILDREN:
Florida shall provide programs
sufficient to protect health, safety
and welfare of all its children.
3. FAMILIES:
Florida shall strengthen the family and
promote its economic independence.
4. THE ELDERLY:
Florida shall improve the quality of
life for its elderly citizens by
promoting improved provision of
services with an emphasis on
independence and self-sufficiencv.
5. HOUSING:
The public and private sectors shall
increase the affordability and
availability of housing for low-income
and moderate -income persons, including
citizens in rural areas, while at the
same time encouraging self-sufficiency
of the individual and assuring
environmental and structural quality
and cost-effective programs.
6. HEALTH:
Florida shall cultivate good health for
all its citizens, promote individual
responsibility for good health, assure
access to affordable, quality health
care, and reduce health care costs as a
percentage of the total financial
resources available to the State and
its citizens.
7. PUBLIC SAFETY:
Florida shall protect the public by
preventing, discouraging, and punishing
criminal behavior, lowering the highway
death rate, and protecting the lives
and property from natural and man-made
disasters.
CMK - 3
n
n
MATRIX
REF. N0.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CONSISTENCY MATRIX KEY
(CONT.)
STATE PLAN
ELEMENT
WATER RESOURCES:
STATE GOAL
Florida shall assure the availability
of an adequate supply of water for all
competing uses deemed reasonable and
beneficial and shall maintain the
functions of natural systems and the
overall present level of surface and
ground water quality. Florida shall
improve and restore the quality of
waters not presently meeting water
quality standards.
COASTAL & MARINE Florida shall ensure that development
RESOURCES: and marine resources use and beach
access improvements in coastal areas do
not endanger public safety or important
natural resources. Florida shall
through acquisition and access
improvements, make available to the
State's population additional beaches
and marine environment, consistent with
sound environmental planning.
NATURAL SYSTEMS Florida shall protect and acquire
RECREATION LANDS: unique natural habitats and ecological
systems such as wetlands, tropical
hardwood hammocks, palm hammocks and
virgin longleaf pine forests, and
restore degraded natural systems to a
functional condition.
AIR QUALITY: Florida shall comply with all national
air quality standards by 1987, and by
1992 meet standards which are more
stringent than 1985 State standards.
ENERGY: Florida shall reduce its energy
requirements through enhanced
conservation and efficiency measures in
all end —use sectors, while at the same
time promoting an increased use of
renewable energy resources.
CMK — 4
r,�
MATRIX STATE PLAN
REF. NO. ELEMENT
CONSISTENCY MATRIX KEY
(CONT.)
STATE GOAL
13. HAZARDOUS &
All solid waste, including hazardous
NON —HAZARDOUS
waste, wastewater, and all hazardous
MATERIAL & WASTE:
materials, shall be properly managed,
and the use of landfills shall
be
eventually limited.
14. MINING:
Florida shall protect its air, land
and
water resources from the adverse
effects of resource extraction and
en—
sure that the disturbed areas are
re—
claimed or restored to beneficial
use
as soon as reasonably possible.
15. PROPERTY RIGHTS: Florida shall protect private property
rights, and recognize the existence of
legitimate and often competing public
and private interests in land use
regulation and other government action.
16. LAND USE: In recognition of the importance of
preserving the natural resources and
enhancing the quality of life of the
State, development shall be directed to
those areas which have in place, or
have agreements to provide, the land
and water resources, fiscal abilities,
and the service capacity to accommodate
growth in an environmentally acceptable
manner.
17. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Florida shall protect the substantial
investments in public facilities that
already exist, and shall plan for and
finance new facilities to serve
residents in a timely, orderly and
efficient manner.
18. CULTURAL & By 1995, Florida shall increase access
HISTORICAL to its historical & cultural resources
RESOURCES: and programs and encourage the develop—
ment of cultural programs of national
excellence.
CMK — 5
W
H,
I
CONSISTENCY MATRIX KEY
(CONT.)
MATRIX STATE PLAN
REF._ NO. ELEMENT STATE GOAL
19. TRANSPORTATION:
Florida shall direct future transporta-
tion improvements to aid in the
management of growth and shall have a
State transportation system that
integrates highway. air, mass transit,
and other transportation modes.
20. GOVERNMENT
Florida governments shall economically
EFFICIENCY:
and efficiently provide the amount and
quality of services required by the
public.
21. ECONOMY:
Florida shall promote an economic
climate which provides economic
stability, maximizes job opportunities
and increases per capital income for
its residents.
22. AGRICULTURE:
Florida shall maintain and strive to
expand its food, agriculture,
ornamental, horticulture, aquaculture,
forestry, and related industries in
order to be a healthy and competitive
force in the national or international
marketplace.
23. TOURISM:
Florida will attract at least 55
million tourists annually by 1995, and
shall support efforts by all areas of
the state wishing to develop or expand
tourist -related economics.
24. EMPLOYMENT:
Florida shall promote economic opportu-
nities for its unemployed and economic-
ally disadvantaged residents.
25. PLAN
Systematic planning capabilities shall
IMPLEMENTATION:
be integrated into all levels of
government in Florida with particular
emphasis on improving intergovern-
mental coordination and maximizing
citizen improvement.
CMK - 6
I
ii
n
oom000�000
111111111
000mm
nmm�
)14
loll
nn
lollNINO
loll
loll
11111
HIM
7
III
III
No Text
eeseeeeeeeeee
nmmmn
nmmmn
nmmnen
nmmnen
nmmnen
nmmn■..
ii
num
nrm�
mm�
mm�
nm�e
mm�
I
�000000�oo��vo��
nommn
nmmm
vummn
uomm�m�o
nmmu�
C
nmmmmmmmn
num��mmmmm�
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmmmmmn
nmmmm�ssossememm
nmmmmmmmn
nmm
11111331
�I
is
mmirilin
I
P
�e�eeee�eeeee0�
nm� mun
nmumuu
nmmmm
nmmmm
nmmmrn
nmmmen
nmmmm
nmmmm
nmmmor�
nmmmm
nmmmm
e
1�
nmmn�m�v��5ea
nm�ormmmme
nmmmmmme
nmm
nmm
�rmm
UNION
nmm
nmu�
nmm
11151111111
151151111
limmillim
11111111155
go
nmmmmmmmno
nmu��mmmmm�o
nmmmmmmmno
nmmmmmmmno
nmmmmmmmno
nmmmmmmmno
nmmmnomm�m�o
nmmmeammmumo
e���mmeiiiiii°iioovaomoo°o°oa
nmmmmmmmna
ummmmmmmna
nmm�emmmmona
nmmmmmmmna
nmmmmmmmna
ommomne�emm�e�a
nrummummmme
nmmmmmmmne
nmmmmmmmna
nmmmmomnsm�e
nmmmotmmmme
���1�11�1����1�
�����♦1��������
�����0���������
nmmmmmmm
nmm�mmmmn
nmmmmmmn�
nmmmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
nn�m�mnavommmmo
nmmmmmmmno
emm0000mvoovomoon000vono
emneum�eeeeeem�eea
nmmmmummme
nmmmmmmmna
nmmmmmmmna
nmmmmmmme�a
nummmmmm�
�eemmm�enoemao
neeem�eemmmm
�ommmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
neeem�eemmmm
nmmmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
nmmmmmmm
i�on9��vamamnoa�o
1111111111111111118
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
1111111111111111110
No Text
nm�ro�n�
nummn
nmum'�
nnn�m �
n na �a��o
Hi
0 MOM=TOR=NG AND EVALWZLW=ON
PROCEDURE S
The intent of this section is to meet that portion of the
General Requirements of the State comprehensive planning
requirements, regarding monitoring and evaluation procedures.
Specifically, Chapter 9J5.005(7), MONITORING AND EVALUATION
REQUIREMENTS, Florida Administrative Code, states that: "For
the purpose of evaluating and appraising the implementation of
the Comprehensive Development Plan, each Comprehensive
Development Plan... shall contain a section identifying five-
year monitoring, updating and evaluation procedures to be
followed in the preparation of the required five-year
evaluation and appraisal reports." The Florida Administrative
Code further specifies that the following matters shall be
addressed:
1. Citizen participation in the process;
2. Updating appropriate baseline data and measurable
objectives to be accomplished in the first five-year
period of the plan, and for the long-term period;
3. Accomplishments in the first five-year period,
describing the degree to which the goals, objectives
and policies have been successfully reached;
4. Obstacles or problems which resulted in
underachievement of goals, objectives, or policies;
5. New or modified goals, objectives, or policies
needed to correct discovered problems; and
6. A means of ensuring continuous monitoring and
evaluation of the plan during the five-year period.
Each of the six (6) items identified above are addressed in
this section and incorporated as part of the Village of
Tequesta's Comprehensive Development Plan.
Citizen Participation
The Village of Tequesta Village Council approved item VII A)
at the February 10, 1987 Council meeting which adopted
specific public participation procedures to be adhered to in
updating its Comprehensive Development Plan. The procedures
are listed below and analyzed.
ME-1
informed on the progress of the Comprehensive
Development Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
If, and when, deemed necessary and appropriate, the
local media shall be informed and used to keep the
public informed on the comprehensive planning program.
Legal ads shall be placed in The Palm Beach Post
newspaper and notice shall be posted on the bulletin
board at Village Hall which announces the time, date and
location of Local Planning Agency meetings that will be
addressing the Comprehensive Development Plan and
Evaluation and Appraisal report."
"The Village staff shall provide a written response to
each written comment submitted to the Local Planning
Agency (Village Council). The response shall indicate
the nature of action(s) taken by the Local Planning
Agency regarding the written comment and the date that
the comment was read and heard."
The Village has already begun to institute these procedures,
as well. Times, dates and location of public meetings are
posted at Village Hall for the public's information. Also,
posted at Village Hall is a current listing of documentation
prepared as part of the comprehensive planning program that is
available for the public's review. The same procedures shall
also be continued in the future.
"At a minimum, the Village shall hold appropriate public
hearings as dictated by the 1985 Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act. However, if deemed necessary and appropriate by
the Local Planning Agency (Village Council), additional
public hearings shall be held to discuss various
elements or concerns related to the Comprehensive
Development Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report."
"The Local Planning Agency (Village Council), at a
minimum, shall provide information to the property
owners of Tequesta consistent with these public
participation requirements. Executive summaries will be
prepared only when, and if, deemed necessary and
appropriate by the Local Planning Agency (Village
Council)."
As particular issues or matters of an expressed community
concern arise, the Local Planning Agency (Village Council)
shall, if it deems it necessary, hold public meetings, or
hearings, to address such concerns. This will further enhance
the citizens' participation in the planning process.
ME-3
r
I
"The Village shall put the real property owners of
Tequesta on notice that it has begun to update and
prepare a proposed, revised Comprehensive Development
Plan and Evaluation and Appraisal Report in conformance
with the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act.
Notice shall be given by providing an advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation. Such advertisement
will seek to assure that real property owners are put on
notice of all events concerning the preparation of the
Comprehensive Development Plan. Said advertisements
will be published on several occasions, and at varying
time intervals to ensure the widest coverage possible."
"The notice shall inform the property owners that copies of
documentation regarding the Comprehensive Development Plan and
Evaluation and Appraisal Report shall be on file at the
Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, as they
become available for public inspection and review."
"The notice shall explain that written comments regarding the
Comprehensive Development Plan are encouraged from the public
and that written comments shall be forwarded to the Local
Planning Agency (Village Council), 357 Tequesta Drive,
Tequesta, Florida, 33469.
The Village has accomplished this part of the public
participation process. The property owners in the Village
have been notified through the multiple advertisements.
The same procedures shall be followed in future amendments to
the Comprehensive Development Plan and Evaluation and
Appraisal Report.
Copies of Support Documentation, and the Comprehensive
Development Plan document are to be placed on file at the
Village Hall as they become available. The public is
encouraged to review the materials as they are revised or
amended from time to time for public review and inspection.
These provisions afford the citizens of Tequesta the
opportunity to participate in the comprehensive planning
process. This opportunity shall remain available to the
public as the Comprehensive Development Plan and Evaluation
and Appraisal Report are being developed and amended in the
future.
"At a minimum, the Village shall utilize its monthly
newsletter to provide a status of the comprehensive
planning program and to keep the residents of Tequesta
ME-2
w
Depending on the detail and need for summaries, the Local
Planning Agency (Village Council) shall decide if, and when,
to prepare Executive Summaries of Comprehensive Plan elements
and documentation.
Updates to Baseline Data and Objectives
All data and background information that form the basis for
the Comprehensive Development Plan (Support Documentation)
shall be updated at least once every five (5) years. It is
further recommended that data and background information for
all elements of the Plan be updated at the same time, rather
than at suggested intervals. By doing so, the Village will
establish a data base that will be internally consistent for
the entire Comprehensive Development Plan. This will provide
a specific break -off point for the collection and analysis of
data, information and matters of fact upon which the Plan
documents can be developed.
This process shall be formalized at least once every five (5)
years for a rational and methodical presentation of
information, but the Local Planning Agency (Village Council)
shall assemble data, information and matters of fact on a
regular basis or as information becomes available from sources
other than from the local government.
F' By proceeding in the update process in this manner, the
Village will formally synthesize and update baseline
information for each five (5) year planning increment and
develop historical trends to be analyzed for the long-term
planning period.
0
Based on this compilation of information, the Village shall be
able to develop a logical, systematic methodology to measure
the objectives and implementation activities proposed in
Tequesta's Comprehensive Development Plan. Data will be
evaluated and assessed against those objectives of the Plan
that are quantifiable. Updates to matters of fact and basic
background information will help qualify or nullify those
objectives and implementation activities that are non -
quantifiable.
Obstacles, Problems and Accomplishments
When baseline data, background information and matters of fact
are periodically updated and analyzed, the successes and
failures of the Comprehensive Development Plan shall become
evident. The obstacles and problems witnessed by the Village
that have effected implementation of Plan directives shall be
ME-4
I
I
identified and reviewed. Based on the evaluation and
assessment of those problems and subsequent underachievement
of adopted goals, objectives and policies, the Village shall
01 strive toward correcting those shortcomings. Each goal,
objective, and policy of every Comprehensive Development Plan
element shall be reviewed and assessed according to its
current adequacy. If the directions for growth and
development have changed in Tequesta or the emphasis has
shifted, the goals, objectives and policies will be modified
or deleted. Likewise, new goals, objectives or policies will
be incorporated into the Plan to reflect new directions and
intentions. When the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is
prepared, it shall follow the procedures described above.
This methodology and procedure will keep the Village abreast
of its problems and concerns while providing for current and
up-to-date growth and development directions established in
its Comprehensive Development Plan.
Continuous Monitoring and Assessment
Although a formalized Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is
only required to be prepared at least once every five (5)
years, Tequesta's Comprehensive Development Plan shall be
continually scrutinized and reviewed for current
applicability.
Additionally, the Village shall coordinate data base
collection activities with Palm Beach County, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, its municipal neighbors,
appropriate State agencies and any other
jurisdictions/entities that effect Tequesta's growth and
development. These activities will enhance the comprehensive
planning process in general and foster increased
intergovernmental coordination activities.
Monitoring and Evaluating Capital Improvements
In addition to the General Requirements for monitoring and
evaluation procedures identified in Chapter 9J5.005(7),
F.A.C., it is further required that the Capital Improvements
element be reviewed on an annual basis (Ref. Chapter
9J5.016(5), REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION).
Therefore, it is mandatory that the Village review the Capital
Improvements element of the Comprehensive Development Plan
each year to evaluate and assess what has been accomplished
during the past year.
ME-5
4
I
Each capital expenditure and project shall be reviewed to
determine what has been accomplished. Those capital projects
that have been accomplished can be reported as implemented.
Those projects that have not been accomplished or that have
been partially accomplished shall be re -assessed for current
applicability. If determined to still be a valid concern and
applicable, then those capital improvements shall be re -
prioritized and re -scheduled appropriately for inclusion in
the Plan's Capital Improvements element. Those that no longer
are valid or do not apply shall be deleted in future plans and
projections. These decisions and actions shall be compiled,
reported and utilized for inclusion in the Village's next EAR.
The monitoring and evaluation of capital improvements shall be
closely coordinated and timed with the Village's annual
budgetary process. It is incumbent upon the Village to have
the Council, staff, and its consultants review the
Comprehensive Development Plan at budget preparation time to
determine which capital projects have been accomplished in
thecurrent year and what they anticipate capital needs are for
the ensuing fiscal year. If these needs conflict with what is
in the adopted Capital Improvements element of the Plan, then
appropriate adjustments to the Capital Improvements element
shall be accomplished.
Annual review of the Capital Improvements element in
conjunction with review and assessment of other elements of
the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Development Plan shall
concur with the monitoring and evaluation requirements
established in Chapter 9J5, F.A.C.
ME-6
I