The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 09D1_9/13/1990�i STONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AND CO3N4ELOR$ FLAGLER CENTER TOWER 505 SOUTH FLAOLEn DRIVE ELEVENTH FLOOA LAM♦ KE.ANp(A Ur, AML T +tRAW P. 0. DRAINER E III BFMOC N aA, e. A>' -AA LIT ILZJ..N i�� Wits, .KTAAFY IIF VIN `KVTTf MM111 FA f1mhU I ArXja WEST PALM 6E AGH. FLOAIOA 33�O1-J47� 1 'w 0 AAOWN Jo-w ALAIP U onAo.ca •UTNY CLL WE 415 ►AWLA YC4q A%r- 459.3" .tNA. r LA-A•KTNu K.O" w CO. TON TWOTNY E I.OINLONAN FAX 1�. JO•CE A CONWAT Ov. W- A OE♦ (4QT) gay-+,A� Iw wAAQ RAC+ GOOI`CA AYIW, . COANwc L. � JfNw G MNOQ.M NEMCC& O OON+C ANW n 00A � K1, AAMD• D EL L160+1 CKNJ �•MMAN L MAATIAI IL AICA AN :rOT A ! At E10 , L 11 A W.10 LOAD C RAh", S%j- N J0tL T ETlikk . 3QNCT A STUDS JH K0T7 0 NA.Ww@ TNOANTOM w McN IICN A TowL,NWd KTEA 6 NQ�TpM Jaw : TA,w.LA wr..Ai( I »K4+ NAAAT A JonNITON ii M AoA..A IRVAV[A J A Qt IAUL L v"01 FT G+ANLfS I KOYAL September 5, 1990 WRiTER'S DIRECT LINE: Mr. Thomas G. Bradford Village Manager Village of Tequesta Post Office Box 3273 Tequesta, Florida 33469 RE: Village of Tequesta Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council Our File No. 13153.01 Dear Tom: .L&%Rl A, LiSON JONNATQN ,AKin* A" AIH fn i AMA FCMTIN CT.40 LOCAro" 64 ME pc""14 AY\ 0CLAAT 6GACN, R9nOA nAa Please find enclosed the response and Resolution which we propose be forwarded to the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council. The Resolution and response should be included in the next meeting of the Council and forwarded back to the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council no later than September 21, 1990. Sincerely, John C. Randolph JCR/sm Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott D. Ladd $f GNED 1N TN[ ABSENCE OF JOHN C. EXPEDITE DEL. VERY, 091/0Ei90 14:31 JONES FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUEBS 005 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNcTt, OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO TRANSMIT THE VILLAGE'S RESPONSES TO FINDINGS MADE BY THE PALM BEACH COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL AS To MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICTIUNAL INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN THE VILLAGE'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF ADJACENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AS TO POTENTIAL INTbl�JURISDICTIONAh INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE VILLAGE'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PLANNING COUNCIL'$ ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE POLICIES. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.8 of the Palm Beach County Charter, the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council has advised the Village of Tequesta of its findings in regard to mapped potential interjurisdictional incompatibilities between the Village's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the adopted comprehensive Plans of adjacent local governments; and WHEREAS, the Village of Tequesta has reviewed the findings of the Countywide Planning Council; and WHEREAS, Section 7.8 of the County Charter provides that affected local governments shall be given an opportunity to respond in writing to the Planning Council regarding mapped potential incompatibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, as follows: Section lr_ The Mayor i5 hereby authorized to transmit to the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council the attached responses to the Planning council's lisidings of mapped potential interjurisdictional incompatibilities. Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to inform the Countywide Planning Council that the Village will not respond at this time to the Planning Counc:il's findings of potential interjurisdictional incompatibilities regarding the goals, objectives and policies in the Village's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and further that the village questions whether the Planning Council has the authority to independently compile policy 09/06/90 14:32 JONES FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS 006 statements and require a municipality to expend time and financial resources to respond to said policy statements. Sectign 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was offered by Councilmember , who moved its adoption. The Resolution was seconded by Councilmember and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows! FOR ADOPTION AGAINST ADOPTTON The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of September, 1990. MAYOR OF TEQUESTA Joseph N. Capretta ATTEST: Village Clerk JCR\13153-01\CPC.RESOLUTION PALM • BEACH • COUNTYWIDE PLANNING • COUNCIL 2290 Tenth Avenue N., Suite 501 Lake Worth, FL 33461 (407) 582-8259 / FAX 533-6112 / Toll -Free in Palm Beach County 1-800.273-5401 July 24,1990 Mayor Joseph Capretta Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta FL 33469 Dear Mayor Capretta: The Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council is in the process of creating a Countywide Future Land Use Element. Pursuant to Article VII of the Palm Beach County Charter, the first steps in developing this Element include creating a composite of all adopted comprehensive plans, analyzing the composite for potential interjurisdictional incompatibilities, and advising all affected local governments of the nature of the incompatibility findings and of the opportunity for written response. At its July 23, 1990 meeting, the Planning Council directed staff to transmit its findings to local governments for review. The findings made by the Council at this meeting are of two types: policy incompatibilities and mapped incompatibilities. Policy incompatibilities are instances where a local comprehensive plan is inconsistent with any of the Council's "ensure" statements from the Council's adopted polices and with the policies necessary to meet Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. requirements for a future land use element. Mapped incompatibilities are instances where a local government's land uses along its border are in conflict with adjacent land uses in neighboring communities. These findings are based on the matrix of potentially incompatible land uses developed with the assistance of the Co:jnril's Working ioup earlier this year. These incompatibility findings are presented in two report forms: the Pony Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Report Form and the Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Resolution Table. The Policy Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Report Form lists each Council or 9J-5 requirement, the citation for the local plan policy or objective where that requirement was found to have been met, the comment Not Found" if the requirement was not met, and additional comments explaining the finding where necessary. The Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Resolution Table lists the boundary polygons of each local government which are potentially incompatible with an adjacent land use polygon in a neighboring local government. The column titled "poly no." lists identification numbers of the land use polygons on the boundary analysis map(s) from which these reports were developed. Copies of the Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Matrix, the Common Classification System, and the Conversion Matrix used to conduct the boundary analysis are enclosed. A complete set of these materials, and a copy of the boundary analysis map, have been provided to the administrator of your local government. Be advised that the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council's Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibilities maps were created only for the explicit purposes of the Planning Council for future land Samuel J. Ferreri, Chairman • Peter L. Pimentel, Vice Chairman • Karen T. Marcus, Treasurer • Clarence E. Anthony, Secretary Carmen S. Annunziato, Executive Director use potential interjurisdictional incompatibility identification, analysis, and representation. The Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibilities maps were compiled from the future land use maps of the 38 local governments within Palm Beach County; they are not ground -controlled, and they do not meet National Mapping Standards. The use of the Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibilities maps should be limited to only the identification of: the future land use categories assigned to each future land use polygon; the relative and approximate positions of future land uses; and, the pairings of adjacent kcal government future land uses that have been identified by the Planning Council as Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibilities. Local government responses to these findings are du September 21. Other materials which may facilitate your local government's response to these findings also enclosed. These include a Policy Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Response Form, and a Sample M 1 P ty P p Mapped Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Analysis. Responses to mapped potential incompatibilities are to be noted by the local governments on the Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Resolution Table and on copies of the additional blank form provided if necessary. Instructions accompany both forms to be completed by the local government. Also provided is a sample resolution to be used by the governing body to formally transmit its responses to the Council's findings. Also enclosed is a chronology of key dates and events leading up to the transmittal of these findings. This set of findings represents both the culmination, of two years' work developing definitions of policy and mapped interjurisdictional incompatibilities, and the beginning of a process that will include bringing together local governments to resolve incompatibilities, presenting the composite plan for public hearings, and developing the Countywide Future Land Use Element by integrating solutions based on i0cal government responses and public comment into the composite plan. The draft Countywide Future Land Use Element will then be transmitted to local governments for comment, and the Planning Council shall recommend the Element to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption. The success of the Countywide Future Land Use Element planning effort relies in large part on the willingness of all local governments to cooperate in its development. The direction taken by the Planning Council has been to involve local governments in every important decision, and to carefully consider any comments offered. This "findings" process is clearly a most ambitious attempt to keep do6sion-making at the local government level. It is in this spirit of cooperation that we ask for a timely and thorough response. If you should have any questions about the findings process, or wish to have Council staff either meet with your staff or attend a meeting of your governing body, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely yours, C_ Ci-c-,...r.-. J Carmen S. Annunziato Executive Director Enclosures Vbndngs/mayors cc man ktwPrbdcUWW kwmVdbft Roo A,rtide VII of the Palm Beach County Code requires that the Palm Beach Countywide Plan+ _ Element that coordinates the planning processes of all governments within the Count omt6cls among local governments' land use planning efforts. The Countywide Future Land Use Element is required to be created from a composile of k b corred interjurisdictional incompatiblities. The Planning Council has adopted pock resolve incompatWities as defined in Amide VII. The Counal has also developed a cornpor identified for each local government those land uses along Its borders which, when pairer goverrowt, are potentially incompabble. These findngs are based on a matrix of pot assistance of the Courd's Working Group of Local Planners earlier this year. These i alteded local governments may conclude that no ocnfict exists, as a result of a more detailed analysis of the land uses, the applicable land development regulations, existing uses If any, and any other pertinent information. The Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Resolution Table Ists the potentially incompatible pairs. The column titled 'poly no.' Est identification nmbers of the land use polygons on the enclosed boundary analysis maps from wtuch these reports were developed. Copies d the Potential Into rjurisdictonal Incompabblity Matrix, the Common Classification System, and the Conversion Matrix used to conduct the bx+dary analysis are enclosed Carrpbdng the Respam Form: t_ The Planning Courd requires a response only for each item identified on the Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional IncompgWity Report Form. 22 Using the polygon numbers ('poly no.1 provided on the Resolution Form, locate each incompatible polygon pair on the boundary analysis map(s). A colored boundary Ine on the map indicates the location of an ir�%e pair. 3. Ar*4ze information contained in tt* a,:jacenl local governments comprehensive plan, land development regulations or other documents Pertinent b the land use involved in the incompabbiiity. t. If, based on more detailed your analysis, you axidude that no interjtxisdw J (a) We submit that no interjurisdictional incompatibility exists, and rea if ,fC pmd ck&l f<� adjacent local government submit that an incompabbrlity exists (b) We have met with the adjacent local government, and jointly conclude 0f r �% •fin r'�C/l'� S. It, based on your more detailed analysis and mse&W with the adjaa 601't<� c 57, : j i c inwmpatibiI4 does exist, indcate the appropriate response: (a) An Interjurisdic0onal incornpabbdity exists, and a resolution has been ��s , �• the resdutfeon or attach a oW / (b' An media � ' n0 resolurlon has been reCoxaft Oh,, �� C T• 1 C are reqiesled. 6- Ptease call 582-8259 to contact the PWYw Isted at the by right of to representation at a meeting of the adjacent local governments to &cuss the he M 7. Please return all corroW Response Forms to the Pt inning Coxd by t _�.�. ,,., c i, r emu, along wtfi an oftW resokNon of ttre Qoverning body transmitting the responses recorded on theMapped Potential Inlerjurisdc5onai 11noompabUlty Resolution Form. A sample resolution for 16 purpose Is endosed; the same resolugon can be used to tram the responses recorded on Ilhe Polq Potential triter dsddlord IncompahUty Response Form SAMPLE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 90- A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING THE RESPONSE OF (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) TO FINDINGS MADE BY THE PALM BEACH COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL AS TO POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITIES OF THE (LOCAL GOVERNMENTn ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section Charter, the Palm Beach Countywide (local government) of its findings interjurisdictional incompatibilities comprehensive plan; and 7.8 of the Palm Beach County Planning Council has advised in regard to the potential of the (local government) WHEREAS, (local government) has reviewed the findings of the Countywide Planning Council; and WHEREAS, Section 7.8 of the County Charter provides that affected local governments shall be given an opportunity to respond in writing to the Planning Council regarding the incompatibilities, which the Planning Council shall then consider and evaluate. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the (local government) as follows: Section 1. (Local government) hereby transmits to the Palm Beach Countywide Planning Council the following responses in regard to the Planning Council's finding of potential interjurisdictional incompatibilities. (Responses) Duly passed and adopted by a majority of a quorum of the (local government) this day of , 1990. (Signatures) MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY RESOLUTION TABLE LOCAL GOYERNNTk I Village of Tequesta LOCAL covE MB: LTown of Jupiter Inlet Colony pays 1 * See Mapped Potential Interjurisdictional Incompatibility Comment Form. ', ..J..:�t.OJtWM�.:bP.J.MIaq.A.'i'.a.t6KON4k'>�M\\\.MN.<O��M'.:MMOiOG.a'� MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY COMMENT FORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TEQUESTA - JUPITER INLET COLONY Map Pair No. ( 1 ( Polygon Nos. 90 & 114 Land Use Codes R12 & R6 c.. The higher density residential area in Tequesta is adequately buffered and fenced from the low density residential area in <> Jupiter Inlet Colony. Therefore, no incompatibility exists. Map Pair No. l L l Polygon Nos. 9 0 & 115 Pags I_ MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY RESOLUTION TABLE LOCAL GOVERMENT k I Village of Tequesta Town of Jupiter LU Code Potential InterjurUM lonal h=patiblflty SEE Page 1 See Mapped Potential Inter jurisdictional Incompatibility Comment Form. Page 1 See Mapped Potential Inter jurisdictional Incompatibility Comment Form. MAPPED POTENTIAL Il',JTERJURISDICTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY COMMENT FORM I t"UAl r-AVC:DKlRACKrr. District (Council's CON Classification ) does not go as far south as shown. That area in Jupiter is really in railroad right-of-way. Therefore, no incompatibility exists. Pap 2 MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICI-IONAL Page 3 MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDICI-IONAL INCOMPATIBILITY COMMENT FORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TEQUESTA JUPITER 95 Map Pair No. Polygon Nos. C & Land Use Codes BF & Teguesta's water storage tank location is not considered incompatible with adjacent commercial uses. Therefore, no in- compatibility exists. Pap 4 Map Pair No. Polygon Nos. 86 & 95 Land Use Codes- cBF & Both areas are very compatible to each other; each preserved in an open space and/or recreation status; and the uses are separated by a major road (CR 707) Therefore, no incompatibility exists. ... ....... ............ . ... . .... ........ .. ....... . . ....... . Page 5 MAPPED POTENTIAL INTERJURISDIMONAL INCOMPATIBILITY RESOLUTION TABLE LOCAL GOVVOWNT A. Village of Tequesta LOCAL GMRNWNT 8: Palm Beach County Pdlr LG 'A" Coundl Poly LG "8- Cotxcp No.W w cod. �u cod. No w cod. �u cod. POtent181 Interjurlsdictbnal hcompaobny FMdkV 1 10 RLD R6 9 INST C8F 2 10 RLD R6 w.�.Cavef1ra*rtbwgowwwkadjw*o 3 10 RLD R6 15 CL/5 C1 f RM Racas to air[bat¢ AMAK go 4 10 RLD 16 12 R12 wr howRats toI� bd ;•.—.at aa =Cbb fat a: omepa� s R6 17 12 R12 Y% P..,e.t.s a a�a�snc,r��,,,a,,,� 5 27 C C2 17 12 R12 b hwe Rar.w a b W and p.w mad. ter afl em ...ta 6 27 C C2 20 12 R12 re, Rrn RW WIM fa aft bet gcvwww ; No Iv+r mad. ed 7 27 C C2 79 5 R6 i r -via 8 29 PBG CBF wr hoe m.c a a4fant b w gzee�a� mmaw. fs Ro aas 9 34 C' 17 12 R12 ft bn Ratrs fa a*WM batgoee . zW 1®+M maae. f+d 10 35 ROS C2 CON 17 12 R12 We?MoNMI* raTo�— V=9 am - ►�+r�o.e�.Ra��` 11 36 11 12 R 12 vw na. R�.r.s f. avcarw bct „t jam* =ck* fs 12 46 ROS ROS CON CON 17 43 12 PARK R12 w. ran mr.d, to a�aon bd gawast,r Imo' �a tr no =Mpager =w 13 ROS w. rar. Mess fa aura bry gawRtirrit arti I� mad, Nd m emaprl� s 47 CON CON 43 PARK ROS 14 47 CON CON 62 PARK ROS'r wr �. R,a fa ar40=1 bw 9a+e .art ark iv+r a fr. 15 56 RMD R12 YMr N� Rat rAi b a bdiei.K art jar1� mad• fat Rs aims aar< 16 56 RMD R12 49 5 R6 vrr nin art rs er aunt bd � SO �r�.eatRo�� 17 56 RMD R12 32 S R6 vw�ow�aagmmsba�osasatsdb�mss�ts�� 18 83 RMD � 5 R6 w. n.r. MK.s b a#mt b�pvma,.� a� i� mma ti s em.ga�.us 19 R12 51 1 RR1 ft NOW OKV* fabd�K an Omer aNdsknow6ft as 20 85 OPF C8F 52 5 R6 ft R.. MK rs a a�ataa brs 9 c as i�+M mncsa. Hd m ecar¢,d, as 91 CON CON 62 PARK ROS ` - - _ _ w. R.. Rat r a km ad jdet rr s =m tt ?2 24 23 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 See Mapped Potential InterjurisdiPct'ional Incompatibility Comment Form. .:A! lbx :H6':. •i.;jM.i.'?":q!�4,' `:•9,',9.+. '.: �Lw.`C.."x.?ia y.?? C%W:...: X:. !Fe;wn Page 6