Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Local Planning Agency_02/04/1999• VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 250 Tequesta Drive Suite 300 Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6200 Fax: (561) 575-6203 VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP (VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDLR AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Local Planning Agency held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Thursday, February 4, 1999. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer. A roll call was taken by Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, and Councilmembers Joseph N. Capretta and Ron T. Mackail. Also in attendance were Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. Absent from the meeting were Cauncilmember Alexander W. Cameron and Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Covacilmember Mackail made submitted. Councilmember vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer Joseph N. Capretta Ron T. Mackail a motion to approve the Agenda as Capretta secoaded the motion. The - for - for - for Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 2 ------------------ The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III. CO~UNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) There were no communications from citizens. IV. PUBLIC HEARING REVIE~P OF VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA'S PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COb~UNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) OBJECTIONS, RECOMEENDATIONS AND COb~~NTS REPORT (ORC) • A) A brief overview of Evaluations and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments Status to date. B) Review of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report and the Village's Responses to DCA ORC Report. C) Commnents from LPA regarding Village's proposed responses to ORC Report. Consultant Jack Horniman explained that the current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1989, required an update every five years. The plan was to be updated based upon the EAR report submitted to and approved by the State. Changes were made and reviewed by the State, with comments and objections provided to the Village in the ORC report. The Village's answers to those comments and objections would be sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Mr. Horniman explained there was very little comment on the substance of the plan. The major part of the objections were to policies adopted in the original Comprehensive Plan stated to be accomplished by • a certain date, and the Village responded in the EAR that those had been done. The village's proposal was to • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 3 ------------------ change those policies from something that had been accomplished to an ongoing requirement, and therefore responded in the following manner: Continue to enforce .... ordinance. The State reported there had been a number of administrative hearings with precedents set so that the language must include standards and criteria for each item continued. Mr. Horniman reported most of the State's objections were dealing with this type of situation. Mr. Horniman reported he had held a series of telephone conversations with staff and DCA, and had reviewed every objection to determine the proper response. Mayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman whether DCA could be notified in regard to Policy 1.15.1 that the Village • had tried to annex Anchorage Point and that the annexation had failed. Mr. Horniman responded this policy was to have been deleted, referred to page 5 and 6 of the update report which indicated it would be deleted, and stated DCA had been told that the attempt to annex Anchorage Point had failed. Mayor Schauer questioned Mr. Horniman in regard to Objection 15 concerning promoting the use of bicycles and walking, which was stated to be inadequate. Mr. Horniman explained DCA had agreed to the re-written policies in regard to transportation. Mayor Schauer questioned how the village would encourage programs for affordable housing in regard to Objection 19, Policy 1.2.2, to which Mr. Horniman responded the village participated in the Countywide program through population base. Mr. Horniman explained that Objection 20, Policy 1.2.5, was background and support for the plan, which was an explanation for DCA since they had originally misinterpreted the numbers. • Councilmember Capretta requested an example of a Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 4 ------------------ particular case where DCA had asked for detailed criteria and the village had responded with the detailed criteria. Mr. Horniman referred to Objection 6 of the updated report in which DCA had requested further clarification of a storm flood zone, and standards and criteria for construction. Anew policy 1.7.4 had been added stating the standards for construction. An objection to Policy 1.1.7 had been initiated by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council as a result of an objection from ENCON regarding septic tanks, which Mr. Horniman explained had been re-written in the language requested, which contained nothing contrary to the original statement. Councilmember Capretta commented he had previously suggested a program to measure to see if any septic tanks were discharging into the river, which would have to be • done if the village won the case regarding delaying the sewering for three years. Mr. Horniman stated that Policy 1.1.7 should be corrected to read: The current utilization of septic tanks within the village is deemed to be an acceptable al ternative presuming State water quality standards are met. If State standards are not being met, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided. Councilmember Capretta questioned the village's position regarding low-cost housing, when 250 new rental units were going to be constructed which were not low priced. Mr. Horniman explained that the Village had been able to demonstrate low and moderate income relative to the local situation, through census tracking information, and that was how the Village had been able to qualify for funding for the drainage improvement project. Mr. Horniman commented that low and moderate in this area was different than. low and moderate in other areas. Councilmember Mackail questioned how disasters affecting non-conforming use properties applied to the plan, to which Mr. Horniman responded the non-conforming uses were • defined within the Zoning ordinance and allowed a certain time for reconstruction. If the time allowed for • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 5 ------------------ reconstruction was not met then the non-conforming use would revert to the new regulations. Director of Community Development Scott D. Ladd explained that if a non-conforming use property was destroyed more than 50g of its assessed value then it must be brought up to a conforming use. The same was true of a non-conforming building, which if destroyed more than 50~ of its assessed value, must be brought up to building codes. If a non-conforming use were abandoned for more than 90 days, the use would revert to that allowed within the zoning district. Mr. Ladd explained that the only objections in this area that the State had ever made were in the coastal areas. Mr. Horniman and Mr. Ladd agreed the Village was in good standing regarding this issue. Mr. Horniman explained how new criteria could be written • for non-conforming current code. Mr. owned by Mr. Hern~ Village, on which Only one other lot, conforming . lots so that they would conform to Ladd discussed a non-conforming lot ~ndez currently existing within the something was allowed to be built. a small commercial property, was non- Village Manager Bradford requested review of Policy 1.1.7; questioned the use of the word presuming, and recommended substituting in the event that. The Village Manager stated if someone announced State water quality standards were not being met, the way the policy was written, that would automatically trigger removal of septic tanks when the water quality standards could be reduced by virtue of upstream pollution not associated with property within the Village of Tequesta. Discussion ensued. The final wording was as follows: The current utilization of septic tanks within the Village is deemed to be an acceptable alternati ve in the event that State water quality standards are being met. • In the event that State Water quality standards are not being met due to septic tank degradation as determined by • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 6 ------------------ official State DEP findings, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided in the areas subject to the findings. Village Manager Bradford questioned whether the response to Policy 1.12.1 was so detailed that it would make a variance difficult. Mr. Horniman responded it would not because it would still be subject to the Village ordinance. Mr. Horniman commented regarding the Conservation Coastal Zone that a lot of explaining had to be done because the Village was subject to several county-wide ordinances for which the State had requested standards and criteria, which the Village could not provide since these were not • village ordinances. Mr. Horniman explained how response language had been written to be acceptable to the State. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Ladd explained that the Village wished to be included under many of the county's ordinances because of the costs which the Village would have to pay if they had their own ordinances. Mayor Schauer questioned whether the village planned to object to the Town of Jupiter's western corridor. village Manager Bradford explained that Jupiter's amendment proposed construction of the corridor as set forth in mediation. Mr. Horniman commented it was a County road; therefore, Jupiter could make very little comment. Mr. Horniman also commented that the county's plan indicated the Central Boulevard area was not to be resolved until after the western corridor was built; however, most of that land was owned by the MacArthur Foundation, who was in the process of selling it, causing scenarios of development to change. D) Public Comments • Hattie Siegel, 498 Dover Road, asked whether State • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 7 ------------------ statutes were being followed and what the penalty would be for not following those statutes. Mr. Horniman responded State statutes were being followed and the penalty for not doing so would be that the State would not grant compliance of the village's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horniman explained that final comments had not been received and he expected a few more comments to be received. Discussion ensued regarding when the Village Council would accept the LPA~s recommendation. Mr. Horniman explained that could be done at the next Village Council meeting and if there were a couple more comments later then those could be heard at a regular meeting. Preference was to wait until the March meeting of the Village Council, or until after final comments were • received. E) LPA recommendation(s) to the village Council regarding proposed village's responses to ORC Report Councilmember Mackail made a motion to recommend to the village Council that they approve the responses to the ORC Report. Councilmember Capretta seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no other matters to come before the Local Planning Agency. • Village Local Planning Agency Workshop Meeting Minutes February 4, 1999 Page 8 ------------------ VI. ADJOIIRN~NT Councilmember Mackail made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Capretta. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. • ATTEST: Joann Manganiel village Clerk DATE APPROVED: Respectfully submitted, `~ Joann Manganiello, Village Clerk Acting Recording Secretary C7