Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Documentation_Workshop_Tab 07_05/29/2007
"Evaluation and Ap~~aisal ~epo~t" of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan Prepared by Village of Tequesta Local Planning Agency, Village of Tequesta Department of Community Development JLH Associates May, 2407 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. Village of Tequesta "Evaluation and Appraisal Report" ............................................. 1 - Community Profile ................................. . ................................. 1 - Purpose of the Evaluation & Appraisal Report (EAR) .......................... 2 - Public Participation ................................................................... - Major Issues ............................................................................ 4 Community-Wide Assessment ............................................................................ 4 - Population Estimates and Projections ............................................... 4 - Future Land Use ........................................................................ 8 - Transportation ........................................................................... 32 Housing ................................................................................... 39 - Utilities ................................................................................... 50 Sanitary Sewer .......................................................................... 50 Solid Waste ............................................................................... 54 Stormwater Management ............................................................... 56 Potable Water ............................................................................ 60 Natural Ground Aquifer Recharge .................................................... 69 Conservation .............................................................................. 71 - Recreation and Open Space ............................................................ 80 - Intergovernmental Coordination ....................................................... 85 - Coastal Management ................................................................... 90 - Capital Improvements .................................................................. 97 Changes to State and Regional Growth Management Plans and Laws ............................... 108 Public School Facilities Siting and Concurrency ........................................................ 109 Regional Water Supply .................................................................................... 109 Appendix A (Public Notice and Resolution) Appendix B (PBCSWA Letter) Appendix C (State Growth Management Laws) Appendix D (Palm Beach County School District & Florida Dept. of Education & DCA Letters) • Table No. LIST OF TABLES Title Population Estimates Existing Land Use Page No. 18 LIST OF FIGURES • Figure No. Tide Figure No. 1 Existing Land Use Map 19 Future Land Use Map 22 U • • "Evaluation and Appraisal Report" of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan Prepared by Village of Tequesta Local Planning Agency, Village of Tequesta Department of Community Development JLH Associates May, 2007 CJ Village of Tequesta Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Community Profile The Village of Tequesta is located in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the County's eastern seaboard. The Village is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the southeast by the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. The Town of Jupiter borders a substantial portion of the Village's southern limits while some unincorporated County neighborhoods and the Loxahatchee River border the remaining southern boundary. The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River abuts the eastern limits of Tequesta.. The Village is the most northerly municipality in Palm Beach County; therefore, Martin County lies immediately north of the Village. Tequesta has experienced modest growth in land area since existing land use was tabulated for the last EAR in 1996 and adopted in the 1999 revision to the Comprehensive Plan.. Since those last land use tabulations, the Village has annexed six (6) separate properties totaling 18.345 acres. The addition of this acreage to the Village of Tequesta has expanded its corporate limits to a total of 1456.35 acres, or 2.28 square • miles in size. The last EAR prepared for the Village revealed a 1996 permanent, year- round resident population of 4673. University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) April, 2006 population estimates reported a permanent resident population in Tequesta of 5702 while the Village estimated a 2006 resident population of 5905. This represents between an approximate 22% (BEBR) and 26% (Village) increase in population since 1996. Residential development is the predominant type of development in Tequesta. About 438 acres of the tota1548 acres, or 80% of all residential development is in single family, low density neighborhoods. There is a substantial area within the Village's corporate limits consumed by residential canals and the more significant water bodies represented by the Loxahatchee River, and its North and Northwest Forks, and the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). There are nearly 300 acres of water bodies within the Village limits. The remainder of the Village has a mix of land uses. Commercial development fronts U.S Highway 1 mostly; however, there are commercial areas in the center of Tequesta near the Village Hall that are related more to neighborhood commercial uses and more intense commercial use areas located along Cypress Drive South. There is significant amount of recreation and open space lands located in the Village ranging from a beachfront park (Coral Cove Park) to neighborhood (Village Green Park) • -1- • and community {Constitution Park) parks to eco-sites and a substantial portion of the FEC Railroad right-of--way, which is designated for a linear park, being conserved for their ecological and environmental value. Since the last EAR has completed a new Police and Fire Department facility, a new Village Hall and two (2) assisted living facilities have been completed. There are only 14.17 acres of vacant land in the Village at the present time; or 1% of the total area of Tequesta. A more detailed analysis of land use is provided as part of the Community-Wide Assessment in the Future Land Use section of this Report. Housing status, economic and social conditions of the population, the provision of essential services and the financial feasibility of accommodating the Village's growth has been maintained since last analyzed. A detailed element by element evaluation of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan is contained in the Community-Wide Assessment section of this EAR. Purpose of the EAR The purpose of this EAR is to examine the Comprehensive Plan over the past years since its most recent amendments and to assess how well the Plan is serving the Village, This . EAR will identify what changes have occurred and propose how the Plan can be modified to accommodate them. Specifically, the Purpose is to: - Identify "Major Issues" confronted by the Village. - Identify changes that have occurred in Tequesta and past Village or other governmental actions that have prompted changes in the community. - Prepare updated population estimates and projections. - Assess successes and shortcomings of the Plan. - Identify what changes need to be made to the Plan to reflect current conditions and direction. - Evaluate Plan Objectives as they relate to "Major Issues". - Determine financial feasibility of the Village Comprehensive Plan and determine to what extent adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards have been met. - Respond to changes in Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code in regard to growth management. and development. - Respond to changes to the State Comprehensive Plan and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Regional Policy Plan as it affects Tequesta's Comprehensive Plan. - Assess the success or failure of coordinating residential development in Tequesta with school capacities and in the siting of public school facilities. • -2- - Respond to the regional water supply issue as it relates to the provision of potable water supply to its customers. - Report intergovernmental coordination activities as relates to the public participation process. Public Participation The process of evaluating the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan commenced in September, 2006. The public participation program, activities and timelines undertaken during preparation of this EAR are outlined below: Date Activity Participants September - Preliminary discussions regarding VOT Dept. of Community November, 2006 EAR requirements and procedures. Development (DCD) December, 2006 Approval by Council to hire Consul- Village Council &DCD tart to assist DCD and the Local Plan- ning Agency (LPA) in preparation of the EAR. December, 2006 - Preparation of EAR DCD, Consultant &LPA March, 2007 (Village Council) April, 2007 Individual meetings with LPA mem- DCD, Consultant &LPA hers for review and comment purposes. April, 2007 Notice of LPA & Council EAR Public DCD &Village Clerk Hearings. April, 2007 LPA Public Hearing LPA, DCD & Consultant May, 2007 Council EAR Public Hearing/Adoption Council, DCD & Consul- ofEAR. tant. May, 2007 Transmittal of EAR to DCA/review DCD agencies The Village Council has appointed itself the Local Planning Agency (LPA). They have the responsibility of preparing the Comprehensive Plan, Plan amendments and the EAR pursuant to State planning requirements. The LPA prepared, and the Village Council adopted, public participation procedures when the Comprehensive Plan was originally • -3- adopted by the Village. These same public participation procedures shall be adhered to in the preparation and adoption of the EAR and EAR-based amendment to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the Resolution adopting this EAR and the Public Notice advertising this EAR are contained in Appendix A. to this Report. Maior Issues The Village has determined that there are no "Major Issues" identified for purposes of this EAR. Each element of the Comprehensive Plan, and issues related to the individual elements, is evaluated and assessed in detail in the Community-Wide Assessment section of this Report. Community-Wide Assessment The Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in October, 1988 with subsequent revisions adopted in September, 1989 pursuant to the State planning law and requirements (Chapter 163,F.S.). The Village next prepared and adopted an EAR of its Comprehensive Plan in August, 1996. Ordinance No. 541 (adopted July 22, 1999) amended the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating new, revised and/or updated text, Tables, Maps, Figures, analysis, as well as Goals, Objectives and Policies in various elements of the Plan. Since these major revisions in 1999, the Village has adopted a new Public School Facilities element in 2001 with subsequent revisions and adopted various amendments to the Future Land Use element in 2002, 2004 and 2005. These amendments are discussed in their respective sections of this EAR. All amendments have been found "In Compliance" with State planning requirements by DCA. This section of the EAR provides an analysis of population estimates and projections; an element by element summary of key data and analysis supporting each element of the Plan; as well as, an analysis of current applicability and successes and shortcomings of the Plan's Objectives and Policies. Population Estimates and Projections The permanent resident population has increased by more and grown faster than projected in the Support Documentation to the current Vllage of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan. Population estimates and projections were prepared as part of the Housing element Support Documentation to the Comprehensive Plan in 1996. The permanent resident population for Tequesta was estimated at 4642 in 1996. The Village's population projections at that time for the 5 and 10-Year planning periods were: 2002. _ 5121; and, 2007 = 5277. As it turned out, the permanent resident projections were substantially different from the estimates produced by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) for the 1996 and 2002 years which were: • ~. • 1996 = 4673; and, 2002 = 5327. The permanent resident population has grown substantially faster than the Village anticipated in its Comprehensive Plan. The 2007 BEBR estimates have not been published as of this writing, but BEBR's April, 2006 resident population estimate for Tequesta was 5702 which is already much higher than the Village's 2007 projection in its current Plan of 5277 residents. Table 1, Population Estimates, Village of Tequesta is provided for comparison purposes. Table 1 Population Estimates* -Village of Tequesta- Year U.S.Census BEBR Percentage Change 1988 4448 - 1989 4479 0.70 1990 4499 0.45 1991 4500 0.02 1992 4503 0.05 1993 4543 0.89 1994 4567 0.53 1995 4592 0.55 1996 4673 1.72 1997 4686 0.28 • 1998 5036 1.07 1999 5122 1.71 2000 5273 2.95 2001 5307 0.64 2002 5327 0.38 2003 5333 0.09 2004 5648 0.28 2005 5686 0.67 2006 5702 0.28 Source: U.S. Census and the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The current Comprehensive Plan observed that between the years 1985 and 1995, the Village grew at a rate of seventeen (17) dwelling units per year, and then predicted that the same rate of growth would occur in future projection years. In addition to this rate of growth, the Village also assumed that the Tequesta Oaks (158 units) and the Sterling House (42 units) developments would be built in the first 5-Year planning period, or by 2002. By applying an average household size of 2.66 persons for low density residential units and 2.01 persons for medium density residential units, the 2002 and 2007 populations were formulated. In actuality, what occurred during those timeframes was the following: (1) in addition to the Tequesta Oaks (158 units) and Sterling House (42 units) developments, other developments were completed in the Mixed Use area of the • -5- • Village including: Lighthouse Cove (192 units, 1998): Tequesta Trace (134 units, 2001); and, Tequesta Cay (58 units, 2002). The total number of units developed in the Mixed Use area since 1996 totaled 626 units; (2) there was another net seventy one (71) units added to the housing stock that were located in other residential areas outside of the Mixed Use area; and, (3) Riverside Oaks, a single family residential development, was annexed into the Village in 2002 containing fifty three (53) lots/dwellings. A total 708 units, or an annual average of seventy one (71) units, have been added to the overall housing stock in Tequesta since 1996. This annual increase was more than four (4) times greater than predicted by the population projections formulated in the current Comprehensive Plan. BEBR estimated the April, 2006 population for Tequesta based on an examination of electric customer billing information and local building permit information. Based on this information, the number of households in the Village is estimated and an average household size is applied to the number of households to determine the estimated resident population. BEBR estimated that there were 2586 permanent resident households in Tequesta in 2006. An average household size of 2.176 persons was applied to the number of households and a small adjustment was made to compensate for the difference between electric customer and building permit information to finally determine the current population estimate of 5702 for the Village of Tequesta. BEBR also has determined, for estimate purposes, that the Village has an approximate • 18% - 20% "seasonal" population. The seasonal population does not reside in Tequesta on a permanent, year-round basis and is not counted in the permanent resident population estimates. This is an important factor to consider when comparing local information to the BEBR estimates. Based on the analysis provided above, it is determined that a total of 708 residential units have been added to the Village's housing stock since last reported in 1996. When the 2.176 average household size utilized by BEBR is applied to this total number of units, an additional population of 1540 result. To determine the permanent "resident" population increase, a 20% seasonal factor is then applied to the total additional population (1540 X .20 = 308) and taken from the additional total population estimate (1540 -308 = 1232). Thus, the locally determined resident population for 2006 is estimated at S90S (4673 + 1232). The difference between the locally determined resident population estimate for 2006 (5905) and BEBR's estimate (5702) represents less than a 4% difference. However, this circumstance should be discussed with BEBR to determine whether or not an adjustment to the estimate is justified. This becomes important to the Village because State Revenue Sharing and other funds are based on BEBR estimates. The resident population in Tequesta represents a very small percentage of the total Palm Beach County resident population. Each year since the 2000 U.S. Census, the Florida Data Clearinghouse (Shimber~) information indicates that Tequesta's resident population has consistently represented about 1% of the total County resident population. The Future Land Use section of this Report reveals that there are only 14.17 acres • -6- currently Vacant and available for future development. lath the limited amount of potential for future growth and development, it is expected that the 1Tllage's portion of the overall County resident population will remain smalls The locally determined resident population is used as the baseline for making future population projections for the 5-Year (2012) and 10-Year (2017) planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. BEBR does not prepare population projections, but the Florida Data Clearinghouse (Shimberg) makes projections in five (5) year increments out to 2025 which is well beyond the short and long term planning periods of the updated Plan. Their projections indicate an expected resident population for Tequesta of 5676 in 2010; 5902 in 2015; and, 6135 in 2020. The Shimberg projections for 2010 and 2015 are less than what the lrllage has locally determined to be the resident population in 2006 (5905). The Shimberg 2020 projection is only slightly more than what the Village estimates for its current resident population. The significant amount of development in the last ten (10 years as described above that was not predicted may provide cause for the underestimation of resident population growth projections. This situation should be discussed with the Florida Data Clearinghouse (Shimber~ to determine whether or not adjustments to these projections are justified. Basically, population growth is a function of available, developable land and the construction and occupancy of residential units. There is a relatively small amount of land available for new residential development in the Village at this time, all of which is zoned for residential development. Due to the limited amount of developable land remaining within the corporate limits of Tequesta, reasonable projections of development and resulting permanent resident population levels can be locally determined. The following are used as a basis for preparing future population projections: Since the Village is approximately 99% developed at the present time (See Table 2, Existing Land Use, Pillage of Tequesta, 200b in the Future Land Use of this EAR), the following land use allocations are expected to remain unchanged throughout build-out: Commercial; Recreation and Open Space; Conservation; Public Buildings and Grounds; Other Public Facilities, Trans- portation and Water Bodies. 2. All Vacant will be developed as either residential or as mixed use with a resi- dential component. 3. Residential development will occur in a manner consistent with and propor- tionate to current land use densities as allowed by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. 4. The average household size of 2.176 as utilized by BEBR will be used for projection purposes. • ,. . 5. These population projections are based on future development within the existing corporate limits of Tequesta and do not factor in potential annexation. 6. It is expected that the remainder of Vacant land in the Village will be deve- loped sometime during the long term planning period of the new, updated Comprehensive Plan. For future projection purposes, it is predicted that ten (10) currently Vacant single family residential lots will develop as low density residential single family units. It is also anticipated that the 6.03 acre site approved for the Atlantis development will generate seventy (70) condominium units. The remaining Vacant parcel located between Tequesta Drive and Bridge Road, east of Old Dixie Highway and west of U. S. Highway 1 (approximately 4.2 acres} is also expected to develop sometime during the long term planning period of the updated Comprehensive Plan. This site, if developed to the eighteen (18) dwellings per acre as allowed in the Mixed Use district, maximum could produce another seventy six (76) residential units. Therefore, there are a potential 156 additional residential units that could be built in the Village sometime during the short and long term planning periods of the updated Plan. These additional residential units could generate an additional 340 people to the total population of Tequesta if developed to saturation density levels (156 units X 2.176 average household size = 340 persons). To determine the additional "resident" population, the seasonal factor of 20% must be applied and subtracted from the additional 340 total population; resulting in an additional . 272 residents. Since it is very difficult to predict exactly when the currently Vacant residential areas will develop, for planning purposes, it is assumed that 50% of the new residential development and resultant resident population will occur within the first 5- Year planning period of the updated Plan (by 2012) and 50% will occur between 2012 and 2017. The projected "resident"population for the S and 10-Year planning periods based on an additional 136 persons added to the current locally determined resident population of 5905 during each planning timeframe are: 2012 = 6041 (5905 +136 =6115) and 2017 = 6177 (6041 + 136 = b177J. Future Lands Use Major amendments to the Future Land Use element were adopted by the Village in 1999 by Ordinance 541 which incorporated additional Objectives and Policies to the element. identified in the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Since 1999, the Village has adopted five (5) small-scale land use amendments and one (1) large-scale land use amendment which were all a result of annexations. These amendments were all found to be "In Compliance" by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This element of the EAR is reviewed and updated from the data and analysis contained in the Support Documentation to the Future Land Use element and the Goals, Objectives and Policies contained in the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan • -8- 1. Change in Land Area There has- been a change in the total land area of Tequesta since last reported and officially updated in the Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan. (TABLE. 3-S, EXISTING LAND USE dated 1996 from Future Land Use element). There have been six (6)` annexation actions comprising four. (4) separate annexation areas/projects since that time comprising 18.345 acres The Zainos restaurant property comprising 0.66 acres and located at 801 U.S. Highway 1 was annexed into Tequesta in September, 1999. A "Commercial" land use designation was officially applied to this site in October, 2002. This action constituted asmall-scale amendment to the Future Land Use element and Map. In September 2001, the-Rood property consisting of 15:23 acres was annexed into the Village. This large-scale amendment to the Future-Land Use element and Map was assigned a "Residential Low Density" classification to this properly. Later, in January 2002, the Morgan property consisting 0.29 acres and .the Glendenning .property comprising 0.34 acres were also annexed into the,Village. These two (2) properties were combined with the Rood property to form one (1) ow density residential::development known today as Riverside Oaks. The Morgan and Glendenning properties were also assigned a "Residential. -Low Density" classification. They represented small-scale amendments to the Future Land Use element and Map, as well. Another small Commercial property (known as Turtle Beach} .located east of U. S. Highway 1 between Palm Court N: and.Harbor Road was annexed into Tequesta in April, 2004. This annexation facilitated asmall-scale amendment to the Future Land Use element and Map, This nearly 0.5 acre property was designated with a "Commercial" land use designation. The most recent annexation was a 1.33 acre area of land (including the Phoenix building Baldino's restaurant and Rocchio property) also lying on the east side of U.S. Highway 1 and just north of the Canal Court. This area was annexed in December, 2004. The Village classified this property "Commercial" through the small-scale amendment process. These annexations are detailed further below: • -9- • Annexations (Since those Identified in the 1996 EAR) Ordinance No./ Adoption Date Brief Description Size Ordinance No. 546/ Parcel generally known as the Zainos 0.66 acres September 21, 1999 property located at 801 U.S. Hwy. 1, just south of Canal Court. Ordinance No.561/ Parcel generally known as the Rood 15.23 acres September 27, 2001 property located at 4546 County Line Road. Ordinance No. 566/ Parcel generally known as the Morgan 0.29 acres January 10, 2002 property located at 19654 N. Riverside Drive. Ordinance No. 567/ Parcel generally known as the Glendenning 0.34 acres January 10, 2002 property located on the north side of River- side Drive just south of the Rood property. Ordinance No.586/ Parcel generally known as Turtle Beach 0.495 acres April 8, 2004 located east of U. S. Hwy. 1 between Palm Court N. and Harbor Road. Ordinance No. 592/ Parcels located east of U. S. Hwy. 1 just 1.33 acres December 9, 2004 north of Canal Court. Total 18.345 acres The Village of Tequesta has extensively analyzed a number of unincorporated enclave areas lying adjacent to its corporate limits for potential annexation into the Village. Consultants and staff have worked cooperatively with Palm Beach County and neighborhood groups in these efforts and investigated various annexation incentive programs offered by the County. Cost/benefit analyses have been prepared for each of the potential annexation areas for presentation to the respective neighborhood groups and for Village Council consideration. Efforts toward annexation of these identified areas have not come to fiuition as of this date, but discussions with these areas are on-going and encouraged. • -10- • Objective 1.1 S. 0 and Policy 1.1 S.1 of the Future Land Use element specifically address the approach to annexation of future areas: Objective 1.1 S. 0: The Village should actively pursue annexation of neigh- boring areas that are consistent with the character of the community, which can be provided facilities and services consistent with levels of service standards established by the Vllage, and which specifically discourage urban sprawly Policy 1.15.1: The annexation of future areas into the Vllage shall dis- courage urban sprawl consistent with standards contained within Chapter 9J5-.006(5), Florida Administrative Coda (F.A. G). The Village has adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards in its Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations which are utilized in the site plan review and building processes to ensure that adequate facilities and services will accommodate proposed growth and development. The annexation of enclave and adjacent areas would not only "square ofF' the Village corporate boundaries, but allow for more efficient provision of various urban facilities and services. Objective 1.15.0 and Policy 1.1 S.1 are still consistent with the lTllage's approach to annexation and should be maintained in the • update to the Future Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan. The Village has developed and coordinated relationships with Palm Beach County, neighboring municipalities, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Loxahatchee River District (LRD), Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District (NPBCID), Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and other entities/jurisdictions in reviewing land use and annexation issues of common interest. These agencies and entities continue to be included in the land use decision- making process, where applicable, through the Village's development review processes. 2. Vacant Land Available for Future Development There are only 14.17 acres currently Vacant and available for future development within the existing corporate limits of Tequesta. This compares to 84.5 acres reported as Vacant in the Village's last EAR (1996) and subsequent Comprehensive Plan revisions. Vacant lands are defined as those lands that are currently undeveloped (including parcels with development order approval, but have yet to commence development) and which do not carry any other land use designation (such as Conservation use) as of the December, 2006 Existing Land Use survey conducted for this EAR. Vacant lands currently represent 1 % of the total land area in Tequesta. This percentage is down from the near- • -11- • ly 6% Vacant lands reported in 1996. This decrease in Vacant lands is explained by increased development in the Village and by the way land uses are reported in the current December, 2006 existing land use analysis. For example, some lands located between Tequesta Drive and Bridge Road, and between Old Dixie Highway and U. S. Highway 1 that were reported as Commercial use in 1996 are Vacant today. Likewise, some lands fronting U.S. Highway 1 at the north end of the Village (e.g. old car dealership) were also reported as Commercial in 1996, but this use has since been discontinued and is currently Vacant. In-fill development of existing residential and commercial areas and extensive development of the Mixed Use designated areas are responsible for the substantial decrease in Vacant lands reported in Tequesta today. For example, the residential area located along Cypress Drive North has developed substantially since the last existing land use analysis was conducted. There has been in-fill of single family lots in established residential areas such as the Country Club, Tequesta Pines and the older established neighborhoods in Tequesta. There has been some limited, new Commercial development such as: Palm Court office complex located at the northeast corner of Cypress Drive North and Tequesta Drive; the gas station/convenience-store at County Line Road and U.S. Highway 1; and, the Commercial office portion of the Casa Del Sol mixed use development located south and west of the gas station/convenience store facility cited previously. The remaining new Commercial development is attributed to the annexation areas discussed above. The most significant development of previously Vacant • properties, however, has been in the Mixed Use designated area in the lTllage. Since 1996, the following major residential developments have developed within the Mixed Use area: Tequesta Oaks (158 units); Tequesta Trace (134 units); Lighthouse Cove (192 units); Tequesta Cay (58 units); and, the Crossings site is currently approved and under construction (152 units). Also, the Sterling House (84 units) and Tequesta Terrace {100 beds), a congregate living facility, have been developed since the last reporting. The development of the Mixed Use area has been encouraged by various Objectives and Policies adopted in the Future Land Use element A way of implementing Objective 1.3.0 to, "Prohibit land uses which are inconsistent with the community's character and future land uses" is by implementing and maintaining the intent of Policy 1.3.1 which is, "Through adoption of planned unit development, mixed use and other innovative regulations, encourage the development of housing types within a physical setting that permits both comfortable and creative living, while affording both privacy and sociability. " The Village has adopted and maintained both Planned Residential Development (PRD) and Planned Commercial Development (PCD) regulations in their Zoning Ordinance. PRDs and PCDs are regulated as Special Exception Uses within their respective residential and commercial zoning districts, Since the last EAR, the Village has also delineated a Mixed Use land area in the Village, established a Mixed Use zoning district and developed and adopted -12- specific Mixed Use regulations. All of the Mixed Use developments cited above have been subject to these regulations. Objectives 1.11.0 and 1.12.0 also address Mixed Use and Mixed Use regulations: A Special Policy 1. l ~ 1 was adopted to specifically address Special District Urban Standards (erg, urban design standards, architectural standards, street design standards), and Policy 1.1 Z. 2 which established maximum densities, maximum lot coverage, maximum heights, and a minimum percentage required for landscaping was adopted as a result of comments from DCA in the last EAR process With substantial development of the Vacant land area being attributed to Mixed Use development since the last EAR, the development of Mixed Use areas has been well regulated and monitored. Therefore, the Objectives and supporting Policies identified above have been effective. Objective 1.3.0, Policy1.3.1, Objective 1.11.0 and Policy 1.11.1, Objective 1.12.0 and Policies 1.12.1 and 1.12.2 should all be maintained in the Future Land Use element update to the Comprehensive Plan. 3, Change in band Use There has been a very modest change in total land area of the lrllage of Tequestc~ Today, there are approximately 1456 acres within the corporate limits of Tequesta. As reported above in 1. Change in land Area above, annexations have added just over eighteen (18) acres to the municipal limits. This represents a modest 1% increase in land • area since the existing land use was last reported in the 1996 EAR and subsequent updates to the Comprehensive Plan. 7'he largest user of land in the illage continues to be Residential use. Residential use has increased from approximately 473 acres in 1996 to 547.9 acres in December, 2006. This represents a 15.8% increase in Residential land use in that time period. In 2006, Residential areas represent 38 % of the developed area and 37.6% of the total land area of the Village. Most residential development continues to be in single family, dow density development (maximum 5.4 dwelling units/acre). About 438 acres of the 547.9 acres of residential use is in single family, low density development. The amount of land consumed by medium density Residential development (maximum 12 dwelling unitx/acre) has changed insign~cantly. Approximately sixty nine (69) acres are currently used for medium density Residential as compared to 65.4 acres in 1996. There has been a substantial amount of Mixed Use development in Tequesta that is exclusively developed as Residential There are over forty (40) acres reported as Mixed Use in the existing land use analysis reported in Table 2. The current Comprehensive Plan does not list Mixed Use separately in the existing land use analysis. Since much of the Mixed Use acreage is developed primarily and exclusively for residential purposes, a separate Residential land use category has been established to identify and quantify Mixed Use azeas. The residential density in Mixed Use allows up to a maximum eighteen (18) dwelling units/acre with the exception of Congregate Living Facilities -13- (CLFs) which may have a maximum twenty four (24) dwelling units/acre; thus representing the highest residential areas in the Village. Policy 1.3. S specifically addresses the Village's desire to, "Continue trend of low- density type of residential developments, kept in high-density areas by requiring consistency between the Future land Use Map and Official Zoning Map': Policy 3.2 also emphasizes, "Maintain the existing high quality of single family neighborhoods through the community by prohibiting commercial and high density residential development in these areas': All development in the Village has continued to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the Official Zoning Map of the Village. Commercial and high density residential have been prohibited from locating in low density residential azeas. This trend and direction should continue in the futures Therefore, Policies 1.3.2 and 1.3. S should be maintained in the updates 7'he amount of Commercial acreage reported in Tequesta has actually decreased since reported The current existing land use analysis as revealed in Table 2 reports 79.09 acres of Commercial development in Tequesta. This is down from the 97.5 acres reported in the 1996 existing land use analysis. The reason for this difference is easily explainable. The azea (approximately 15 acres) occupied by the Tequesta Oaks residential area today was an older major commercial shopping center when the existing land use analysis was last performed. Likewise, there was nearly five (5) acres reported in the downtown area that no longer exists, while a car dealership on U.S. Highway 1 has been • discontinued, as well. The amount of new Commercial development amounts to less land azea than the Commercial land area lost since the last update. Only 5.5% of the developed area and 5.4% of the total land azea in Tequesta is occupied by Commercial development, The amount of Recreation and Open Space area has increased since the last Existing land use analysis (199b). Some private open space areas (1,26 acres); a Village maintained detention area on Cypress Drive North (approximately 0.4 acres); an open area on Point Drive; and, neazly eighteen (18) acres within the FEC Railroad right-of--way which is either dedicated for a lineaz park or is retained in open space represent the open space areas added to the recreation and Open Space inventory, as well. This acreage added to the 213 acres of Recreation and Open Space reported at the time of the last update results in a current 234.3 acres of Recreation and Open Space areas currently reported in the Village. This represents 16.2% of the developed area and 16.1% of the total land area in the Village. The major recreational areas in Tequesta continue to be; the Tequesta Country Club, a 120 acre private golf course; Coral Cove pazk, a County-awned and maintained beachfront community park on the Atlantic Ocean; Village Green Park, a neighborhood park owned by the Village and located at the Village Hall complex on Tequesta Drive; Constitution Pazk, another neighborhood park; and, the nearly fifty (50) acres of State owned land located north of CR 707 and east of U.S. Highway 1. • -14- . The amount of land identified as Conservation use has not changed since the last update. There are 7.1 acres of Conservation use designated in the Village representing only 0.5% of the developed and total land area within the Village.. Conservation uses are represented by two (2) upland areas (referred to as Ecosites #61 and #63), which are areas identified as areas of environmental concern, and the beaches and shoreline areas throughout the Village. The Conservation section under Community-Wide Assessment of this report discusses Conservation in greater detail. The amount of land used for Public Buildings and Grounds has changed minimally since the last updates This is attributed to the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue site that was previously reported as low density residential and the Village Recreation Center that was previously reported in the Other Public Facilities category. Otherwise, the land uses for Public Buildings and Grounds has remained relatively the same. There are approximately twenty one (21) acres in the Village used for these purposes; representing 1.5% of the developed area and 1.4% of the total area. A new Village Hall facility has been built since the last update, but is situated on land that was already dedicated for this purpose. Other major Public Buildings and Grounds uses include the Tequesta Police and Fire Department facility, U.S. Post Office and Library. The amount of land areas utilized for Other Public Facilities has increased This land • use classification includes uses for churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the aged and i~rm, educational uses and other similar uses. Since the last update, the Sterling House (4.42 acres) and Tequesta Terrace (3.39 acres) congregate living facilities have been developed. They comprise an additional 7.81 acres of Other Public Facilities use. The total acreage for these uses is 39.34 acres representing 2.7% of the developed and total land area in Tequesta. Transportation use has increased slightly with the annexation and development of new areas The acreage dedicated to public right-of--way for roads and streets accounts for the slight increase in acreage for these purposes. Approximately 215 acres, or 14.9% of the developed area and 14.7% of the total area of the Village are dedicated to streets and roadways. There are nearly 300 acres of Water Bodies located within the corporate limits of Tequesta. Water Bodies represent over 20% of the developed and total area of the Village. Portions of the Loxahatchee River, its North and Northwest Forks; a portion of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW); and, canals serving residential areas lie within the boundaries of Tequesta. This circumstance has not changed since the last update to the existing land use. • -15- The amount of Vacant land in the pillage has decreased significantly. As revealed in 2. Vacant Land Available for Future Development above, the amount of Vacant lands has decreased from approximately eighty four (84) acres to 14.17 acres since the last land use update. It is expected that currently Vacant lands will entirely build-out within the long range planning period of the Comprehensive Plan update. Population projections are based on this premise as reflected in the Population .Estimates and Proiections section already presented in this Report. There continue to be no agricultural or industrial land uses in Tequesta. These uses are strictly prohibited by virtue of not being provided for on the Future Land Use Map and in the Village's Official Zoning Ordinance. There are no public school facilities, recognized historic sites or areas of critical state concern in the lrllage of Tequesta The Village has been found to be "exempt" from State school siting and co-location requirements by the Palm Beach County School District and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (Ref. Public School Facilities Siting and Concurrence section of this EAR). Even though the School District does not have any plans for locating any public school facilities within the corporate limits of Tequesta during the short term (Year) or long term (IO--Year) planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan, the Village has adopted Objective 2.1.0 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 in the Future Land Use element in the unlikely event a school facility may be deemed necessary in future planning periods or as a result of future • annexation: Objective 2.1.0: The Vllage shall identify sufficient available land in the adopted future land use element to acconunodate Public Educational Facilities as necessary to serve the current and projected student populartion. Policy 2.I.1: Public Educational Facitities of the School Diskzct shall be an ollowable use within the "other Public Facilities" land use category on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.1.2: In the event of a future annexation that has sufficient land area to site schools or co~locate schools with public facili- ties such as; parks, libraries, and community centers, prior to the amendment to incorporate the area into the Vllage Comprehensive Plan, the Village shall coordinate with the Palm Beach County School Board to determine the need to site a school in the annexed area This plan amendment will allow for a public school if there is a need • -16- Objective 2.1.0 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 should all be retained in the new, updated Future Land Use element Objective 1.4.0, in part, and Policy 1.4 2 specifically address historic resources including historically significant housing: Objective 1.4.0: Ensure the protection of natural resources and historic resources Policy 1.4.2: At the time of each S year Comprehensive Development Plan update, the pillage wild where applicable, identify designate, and protect under provisions of the Standard Housing Code, areas of historical signif:cancer -lswen though there currently are no designated historically significant housing in the Village, Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.2 should be maintained in the update to address such housing when, and if, it is designated in the futures Policy 1.4.2 should be revised to delete the S year reference and to change Standard Housing Code to the Florida Housing Codes Table 2 identifies the 2006 Existing Land use in the Village of Tequesta and Figure 1 illustrates the Existing land use for Tequesta. C • -17 • Table 2 Existing Land Use Village of Tequesta - 2006- Of % Of Land Use Acres Developed Area Total Area Residential 547.90 38.0 37.6 - Low Density 438.23 (Max. 5.4 units/acre) - Medium Density (Max. 12 units/acre) 68.60 - Mixed Use (Max. I S units/acre) 41.07 Commercial 79.09 79.09 S. S S. 4 Recreation & Open Space 234.30 234.30 16.2 16.1 Conservation 7.10 7.10 0. S 0. S • Public Buildings & Grounds 21.01 21.01 1. S 1.4 Other Public Facilities 39.34 39.34 2.7 2.7 Transportation 214.34 214.34 14.9 14.7 Water Bodies 299.10 299.10 20.7 20.6 Total Developed 1442.18 100.0 99.0 Vacant 14.17 - 1.0 Total 1456.35 - 100.0 Source: Village of Tequesta & JLH Associates, 12/06. I • -18- • Existing Land Use Map (To Be Inserted) • Figure 1 • -19- • 4. Future Land Use Projections There is very little land that is currently Vacant and available for future development within the illage of Tequesta (14.17 acres, or 1 % of the total land area); therefore, future development in Tequesta will be limited Most low density residential development in the future will be in-fill development of individual single family lots and dwellings. There is an insignificant amount of land available for medium density development. There is less than five (5) acres within the Mixed Use area that is not yet developed that could potentially develop at the higher densities allowed in the Mixed Use district. So, little difference is anticipated in the short (S--Year) and long (10-Year) term land use projections for new Residential development There is land available within the commercially zoned areas for some new commercial development as part of Mixed Use development. It is not expected that Recreation and Open Space (parks, beaches, eco-sites), Conservation, Public Buildings and Grounds, Other Public Facilities (churches, clubs, homes for the aged and infirm) uses will increase in the future within the existing corporate limits. It is not expected that Transportation (roads, streets, railroad rights-of--way) and Water Bodies will change in the near or long term planning periods either. Redevelopment or subdivision of land that would cause a substantial change in land use is not anticipated within the Village. It is expected that the few individual single family lots that are currently Vacant will be built upon within the next few years. The remaining medium density residential currently classified as Vacant already has development approval. The Vacant acreage in the Mixed Use area will likely have development approval within the same time period. It is reported in the Population Estimates and Projections section of this EAR that a 4.2 acre parcel located in the Mixed Use area (located between Tequesta Drive and Bridge Road and east of Old Dixie Highway and west of U.S. Highway 1) is expected to be developed sometime within the long range planning period of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The development of this site could very likely occur within the 5- Year planning period; however, occupancy of units in that developed area is not expected to occur until after that planning timeframe. Therefore, development of the entire Mixed Use area is expected in the short term planning period, but the additional population generated in the Mixed Use area is expected to be split between the short and long term planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The other land use areas are expected to remain the same. Therefore, it is projected that build-out within the existing corporate limits of Tequesta will occur within the S-Year planning period of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Based on this conclusion, future land use projections as presented in Table 3 are reasonably predictable and will be the same for the short term (2012) and long term (2017) planning periods of the updated Plan. Figure 2 represents the Future Land Use Map. • -20- • Table 3 Future Land Use Projections Village of Tequesta 2012 &2017 Land Use Acres Residential 562.07 - Low Density 440.96 (Max. 5.4 units/acre) - Medium Density 74.63 (Max. 12 units/acre) -Mixed Use 46.48 (Max. 18 units/acre) Commercial 79.09 79.09 Recreation & Open Space 234.30 234.30 Conservation 7.10 7.10 Public Buildings & • Grounds 21.01 21.01 Other Public Facilities 39.34 39.34 Transportation 214.34 214.34 Water Bodies 299.10 299.10 of Total Area 38.6 5.4 16.1 0.5 1.4 2.7 14.7 20.6 Total 1456.35 100.0 Source: Village of Tequesta & JLH Associates, 12/06. • -21- • Future Land Llse Map (To Be Inserted) Figure 2 -22- 5. Natural Resources Tequesta has asub-tropical climate which is generally influenced by the waters of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean. The average temperature is (annual) nearly seventy five (75) degrees. Rainfall is seasonal with approximately 65% of annual rainfall occumng during the rainy season between June and October. The Village is situated on the "coastal ridge" which parallels the Atlantic Ocean. Although the Vllage is rather small in land area (1453 acres or 2.3 square miles), there continues to be a variation in elevations throughout the Tequesta. Elevations throughout the Village generally range between ten (10) and fifteen (15) above mean sea level (msl); however, higher elevations occur in isolated areas. The coastal ridge is bisected by the Loxahatchee River and the Jupiter Inlet. Land areas east of the coastal ridge slope gradually to the ICWW, with most areas less than five (5) feet above msl. The majority of natural soils underlying the Village are sandy. Drainage characteristics of the sandy soils range from poor to excessive. The natural soil formations within the Village have been significantly modified by urban development over time. 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 significant portion of the Village have been radically altered as a result of construction activities. Areas within Tequesta most affected by limiting conditions of naturally occurring soil types are the ocean beaches and a small tidal swamp area located west of the ICWW. There continues to no known commercially exploitable minerals resources within the ~Ilag~ Although a majority of the area within the Village has been developed, there are still identifiable areas where native vegetation remains significantly evident There are four (4} areas where the native vegetation remains evident: (1) a 56-acre site identified as Ecosite #61 located east of U. S. Highway 1 and north of CR 707; (2} a 6-acre site identified as Ecosite #63 located south of Village Boulevard just west of the Tequesta Cay development; 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. Flooding conditions in the Village result primarily from high tides generated by hurricanes or severe tropical storms. This circumstance has been especially evident from the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. While the coastal ridge provides some protection from direct encroachment of tidal surges, floodwaters can pass through inlets causing abnormal tides in the ICWW and Loxahatchee River. Tides entering the Jupiter Inlet can extend upstream and result in inland flooding. -23- The major surface water bodies in Tequesta continue to be the Atlantic Ocean the ICWW (and Indian River Lagoon), and the Loxahatchee River and its North and Northwest Forks. The portion of the Loxahatchee River and its Forks located within the Village of Tequesta continues to be classified a Class II water system based on the extensive support it provides to a variety of wildlife, shellfish propagation and sport fishing. The ICWW and the mouth of the Loxahatchee River are designated as Class III waters which are used extensively for recreational activities such as boating fishing and swimming. A number of Objectives and Policies in the Future Land Use element of the Plan regard the protection and preservation of the natural resources existing in Tequesta. Objective I.I.O and Policy I.I.1 address the importance of coordinating all future land use decisions with the topography, soil conditions, periodic and seasonal f boding, as well as with the availability of required facilities and services: 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. Policy 1.1.1: Continue to maintain regulations (subdivisions, zoning, signage, etc.) which guide future land use configurations so as to preserve topography and soils; require facilities and services; anal protect against seasonal or periodic f boding. Topography, soils conditions, availability of facilities and services and drainage considerations aze all considered site plan review and the Village's Development Review Committee (DRC) processes. All proposed developments which are subject to site plan review (all development except single family and duplexes/two units) are, and continue to be, subject to review by department heads and staff assigned to the DRC. The condition, protection and preservation of natural resources are scrutinized in, and by, these processes. The Village also maintains regulations in its Official Zoning Ordinance and Subdivisions Regulations which specifically address the protection and preservation of these natural resources. Objective 1.1.0 and Pdicy 1.1.1 should be maintained in the updated element to assure that the protection and preservation of these natural resources is continually scrutinized in all future development and/or redevelopment. Protection of Ecosites #61 and Ecosite #63 are specifically addressed in Policies 1.4. S and 1.4.8, respectively: Policy 1.4. S: The pillage supports the U.S Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management/Palm Beach County Environmental R~ source Management Interlocal Agreement to co-fund and co- manage the preservation of native plant and animal species on • -24- Eco-Site #61 as part of the "Jupiter Inlet Natural Area Manage- ment Plan': Policy 1.4.8: The Vllage supports the preservation of plant and animal species on Ecosite number 63 (which occupies a portion of St Jude's Church) in accordance with the "Sz Jude's Church Mitigation Plan" as required by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The Village should review both of these Policies for the current status and applicability of the "Jupiter Inlet Natural Area Management Plan" and the "St. Jude's Mitigation Plan". Policies 1.4. S and 1.4.8 should be updated, revised or deleted as appropriate, in the updated Future Land Use element The protection of mangroves is also addressed in the Future land Use element in Policies 1.4.4 and 1.4.6: Policy 1.4.4: The trimming and removal of mangroves should be consistent with the County Mangrove Protection Ordinance, if applicably or alternative regulations and subject to approval of the ~llag~ Policy 1.4.6: The Tillage shall protect mangroves within Tequesta by deferring the review of mangroves in proposed development and redevelopment areas to the County for enforcement and protection under the Palm Beach County Countywide Mangrove Ordinances This shall be made a part of the Village Site Plan Review Process These practices continue to be followed by the Village, and review by the County has been incorporated into the site plan review process. Policies 1.4.4 and 1.4.6 should be maintained as written in the updated elemenx Development and/or redevelopment of areas within Tequesta that are flood prone or are in designated flood zones continue to be subject to site plan and building review processes, restrictions and requirements and flood insurance programs. The current Future Land Use element addresses these issues. Objective 1.7.0 states that, "Development within the storm flood Zone shall be subject to restrictions implemented through the Vllage of Tequesta on going participation in the National Flood Insurance Program/Community Rating System (CRS) and more restrictive requirements established in the Pillage Zoning Ordinance, Section X, Supplemental Regulations, (A) General Provisions (8) floor elevation above sea level': -25- • Policies 1.7.1 and 1.7.3. respectively, require that the ~Ilage be kept abreast of the federal requirements for resident's eligibility for flood insurance and to continue to operate within the f rood insurance and CRS' programs to maintain and improve the Village's status in these programs Policy 1.7.2 requires that, "The Village should carefully scrutinize all developments in flood zone areas as part of the planning and review process. The Village continues to participate in the National Flood Insurance and CRS programs and have kept abreast of all requirements and restrictions of these programs. The Village through its site plan review and building permit processes scrutinizes all development against these programs and regulations. Approvals and permits will not be issued unless in conformance with them. Objective 1. ~ 0 and Policies 1.7.1 through 1.7.3 should all be kept in the update to the Future Land Use element; however, the sections and sub- sections referenced in Objective 1.7.0 should be updated per the most recently adopted Code of Ordinances of the ~Ilage of Tequesta (msg. Article IX, Supplemental Regulations, Division 1. Generally, SeG 7&293, Floor elevation above sea level). Policy 1.7.4 is specific to a local Village requirement regarding minimum finished f loot elevation. Policy 1.7.4: A minimum finished f first f loot elevation above mean sea level (msl) for all new construction, additions and substan- tial improvements to existing structures shall be 8. S fx msl; however, f finished first f loot elevations that are between the minimum finished first f loot elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the more re- strictive requirements established by the Village, can obtain a variance which meets the minimum NFIP requirements of f 0, f~ for zone A6 areas & 7.0 f ~ for zone A7 areas Policy 1.7.4. should be reviewed for current applicability in regard to the variance requirements and revised, if necessary, in the updates Objective 1.10.0, "Encourage(s) local residents within hurricane flood areas to utilize the f loud insurance programs... "and Policy 1.10.1 suggests that, "All structures in the hurricane flood zone should be protected by flood insurance in an effort to ensure that the financial burden from flooding is borne by those desiring to live in such areas': The Village should continue to encourage local residents to participate in the flood insurance program The Village, as a governmental entity, should also continue to support the federal insurance program as stated in Policy 1.10.2. Objective 1.10.0 and-its supporliing Policies 1.1 D.1-1.10.2 should be reviewed in the updated Future Land Use element -26- All new development and redevelopment, except single family development, within the special flood hazard areas continue to be subject to site plan review and building permit processes. These assurances are established in Objective 1.8.0 and Policies 1.8.1.-1.8.3 of the Future Land Use element, especially in regard to the provision of sanitary sewer systems in hurricane flood zones and in discouraging high density development in flood hazard areas. Objective 1.8.0 and Policies 1.8.1-1.8.3 continue to be implemented through the site plan review and building processes; therefore, they, too, should be maintained in the updates Objective 1.9.0 establishes that the Village should, "Create regulations in existing building codes requiring new construction in the hurricane f food zone to utili,Ze the latest wind damage and flood prevention techniques': The Village has adopted the Florida Building Code which addresses Objective 1.9.0 and the 100-year hurricane flood zone building standards as addressed in Policy 1.9.1. Objective 1.9.0 and Policy 1.9.1 should also be maintained in the updated element 6. Utilities and Services The Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge sub-sections of this Report under Community-Wide Assessment describe the utilities serving the Village and assess the availability of those facilities and services in more detail. The pillage owns and operates its own central potable water system. The Tequesta water system serves the Village, and provides potable water to all of Jupiter Inlet Colony its municipal neighbor), portions of unincorporated Palm Beach County adjacent to its corporate boundaries, and to parts of southern Martin County. Since the last EAR, and subsequent Comprehensive Plan revisions, the Village no longer serves that portion of the Town of Jupiter lying adjacent to the Village southern limits and north of the Loxahatchee River. The agreement with Jupiter to serve this area will expire in 2007. Recent expansions to the Village's system and a new 20-year "Consumptive Use Permit" issued by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) assures that adequate capacities will be available in both the short term (5-Year) and long term (10- Year) planning periods of the updated Plan. There are no properties in Tequesta utilizing individual wells for potable water consumption. All properties in the Village are connected to the central water system for drinking water purposes. There are some private wells being used for irrigation purposes only. The Village does not awn or operate a central sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewer service is provided to Tequesta by the Loxahatchee River District (LRD), The Loxahatchee River District (LRD) serves most of the Village residences and businesses. -27- The LRD indicates that capacities are available to serve Tequesta through its build-out. There still are some properties in Tequesta utilizing individual septic tank system There are less than twenty (20) residences utilizing septic tanks, and they should be identified in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Solid waste collection services continue to be provided by a private contractor to all properties in Tequesta. Solid waste disposal services are provided by the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (PBCSWA) at their facilities. The PBCSWA has provided Tequesta with a Letter that states that there will be adequate capacities at their disposal facilities to meet the 5 and 10-Year planning needs of the Village, as well as the need Countywide for solid waste disposal service. Generally, the Vllage 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 (3) 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 ICWW. There is a drainage canal along the southern Village limits that runs east/west to the North Fork of the River which is tidally influenced. Another drainage canal is located on the north side of Tequesta Drive which carries stormwater runoff from the Bermuda Terrace-Tequesta Drive area east to the North Fork of the River. Additionally, various land developers have provided secondary drainage systems within their respective developments. The Village is part of a 40- member co-permittee of the Palm Beach County National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Program. As part of its responsibilities under the permit, the Village must prepare an annual NPDES Report that assess the condition of the stormwater management system serving Tequesta and which measures the quality of water entering State and Federal waters from the Village system. The stormwater management and drainage system serving Tequesta has been effective and will have to meet standards and requirements of the NPDES Program in the future. Groundwater supply is supplied by both the Su>~cial Aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer. The Village's "Consumptive Use Permit" is reactive to the increasing demand and dependence on the Florida Aquifer with continued Surficial Aquifer use to provide groundwater supplies to the Village of Tequesta. The new 20-Year Permit will allow the Village to have access to groundwater supplies to serve the future population of Tequesta, and its water service area, for both 5 and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Objective 1.5.0 specifically, "Require(s), through the land development review process that suitable land is made available for infrastructure facilities necessary to support all proposed development and which are consistent with locally adopted level of service standards". The provision of, and assurance that, adequate infrastructure facilities will be made available at the time of development, and which meet the Village's adopted -28- • Level of Service (LOS) Standards, is standard practice and required in the site plan review and approval process. Policies 1.5.2 and 1.5.4. were added and adopted as part of the Future Land Use element as a result of the last EAR, and subsequent Plan revisions: Policy 1.5.2: The Village shall ensure that the availability of public facil- ities and services meet acceptable levels of service, be con- sistentwith development impacts, and that provide for utility services to be authorized at the same time land uses are au- theori.zed Policy 1. S. 4: The approval and authorization of land use development within the Village shall be concurrent with the provision of utility services Objective 1. S. 0 and Policies 1.5.2 and 1. S. d should all be retained in the updated Future Land Use element 7. Meaningful and Predictable Standards The current Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan establishes land use density standards for low and medium density residential development. Maximum residential densities are delineated on both the current Existing Land Use and Future Land Use Maps within the Future Land Use element of the Plan, Low Density Residential allows a maximum S. 4 dwelling units /acre and Medium Density Residential allows a maximum 12.0 dwelling units/acre. The density standards are implemented through the Village Official Zoning Ordinance. The residential land use densities should be maintained in the update; however, the current Plan does not establish these maximum densities by Policy within the Future Land Use element. A Policy should be added to the updated Future Land Use element establishing these residential categories and densities Also, a Mixed Use Residential category should be added to both the Existing Land Use and Future Land Use Maps in the update which would allow a maximum 1 ~ 0 dwelling units/acre. This category would regulate those Mixed Use areas developed solely as residential (as allowed for in the Mixed Use zoning district). Policy 1.12.2. already establishes a maxi- mum density of 18.0 dwelling units/acre for residential development in Mixed Use areas Policy 1.12.2 should be maintained in the element updates There are no intensity standards established in the current Future Land Use element for Commercial uses in the pillage. Intensity of commercial development is dictated by the building site requirements (e.g. minimum lot size, minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, setbacks, maximum building height and minimum landscaped area) of the -29- Commercial zoning district in which they are located. Anew Policy should be added to the Future Land Use element that relates directly to, and is consistent with, the intensity standards already established in the Commercial zoning district The following is suggested.• Policy (# to be determined): Land development regulations adopted to implement this Future Land Use element shall be based on, and be consistent with, the following standards for Com- mercialland use intensities as indicated below: - Location shall be in accordance with the Future Land Use Map. Commercial uses shall not be permitted within areas designated for residential development, unless as part of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) or as part of a Planned Community Development (PCD). - The building site area requirements established in the SCHEDULE OFSITE REQU~EMENTS in Sec. 7&143, Tillage of Tequesta Official Zoning Ordinance for the Gl, Neighborhood Commercial District; G2, Community Com- mercial District; and, C-3, General Commercial District • shall provide the basis for intensity of use and be the deve- mentcriteria standards for neighborhood commercial, com- munity commercial and general commercial development, respectively, in Tequesta. Even though a minimum building area can be calculated from these standards, a maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R), or equivalent standard for commercial development, should be established in the updated Future Land Use element to further define and clarify these standards. Recreation and Open Space standards are established by Policy 1.4.6 in the Recreation and Open Space element in the current Plan for recreation types, recreation areas and recreation activities. Buildings in recreation and open space areas are regulated by the Site Requirements established in the zoning district in which recreation and open space uses are permitted. It is recommended that Policy 1.4.6 be expandedi or a new Policy be added to the Recreation and Open Space element and/or the Future Land Use element in the update that establishes a F.A.R, or equivalent intensity standard, to restrict the amount of building area coverage and/or impervious surface area allowed in these areas to accommodate buildings, parking, accessory uses or other special conditions -30- There are no intensity standards established in the current Future Land Use element for Conservation uses. Conservation uses are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land uses and activities or conditions within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality, and include areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of ground water or surface water, floodplain management, commercially or recreationally valuable fish and shellfish, protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitats". This definition establishes the types of uses permitted within Conservation areas, but does not establish intensity standards for types of uses allowed within these azeas. It is recommended that a Policy be added to the Future Land Use element that establishes a maximum F.A.R, or equivalent standard, to restrict the amount of impervious surface allowed in these Conservation areas to accommodate such things as buildings, parking, accessory uses or other special conditions There are no intensity standards established in the Future Land Use element for Public Buildings and Grounds. Currently, public buildings aze subject to the Site Regulations standards established in the zoning district in which they are permitted. It is recommended that a new Policy be added to the Future Land Use element that establishes a F.A.R, or equivalent standard, to restrict the amount of building coverage and/or impervious surface allowed for these areas Likewise, land use intensity standards for Other Public Facilities are established in the • Zoning districts where churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the aged and infirm, and other similar uses are permitted Special land use intensity standards, and/or a maximum F.A.R should be established for these uses, as well, in the updated element Transportation land use in the current Comprehensive Plan represents the roads and streets, as well as railroad right-of--way within the Village. Level of Service (LOS) Standards for roads and streets are established in Policy1.3.1 of the Transportation element of the Plan as follows: Collector Roadways -LOS Standard C, Peak D, except for Country Club Drive and Seabrook Road which will be LOS Standard C, Peak C; Urban tenor Arterials- LOS Standard C, Peak D; Urban Principal Arterials -LDS Standard C, Peak D. The LOS Standard should be reviewed for current applicability, and appropriate revisions and updates to the LOS should be made to the Policy, if necessary. Objective 1.2.0 (pertaining to an inventory of the housing stock for blighted conditions) and Policy 1.4.2 (pertaining to idenh: ftcation of historically sign cant housing) should be revised in the updated element to delete the 5-Year time references as these relate to the timeframes required of EARs that have changed over the years All references to particular laws (Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code), sections or sub-.sections of law; government agencies and jurisdictions; anc~ other -31- references particular to the time period that the element was last adopted, should be reviewed for current applicability and revised appropriately, if necessary. All Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use element that have not been specifically addressed in this section, shall be maintained in the updated Comprehensive Plan. All text, Tables and Figures (Maps) contained in the Support Documentation to the Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be updated in the EAR- based amendment to reflect current data and analysis Transportation The Transportation element was highly scrutinized in the 1996 EAR, and many Objectives and Policies were added to the element as a result of that process Those Objectives and Policies will be identified in this section as already having been found "In Compliance" during the last EAR process. The Village of Tequesta roadway system continues to be described as a modified grid system. This is due to the north-south street designs being angular or curvilinear in layout following natural and man-made features or shorelines of the areas water bodies that stretch in the same direction. The east-west streets basically follow the normal grid • pattern. The existing street system serving Tequesta has been significantly influenced in its development by the existence of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW}, the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad, the Loxahatchee River and its tributaries, and by U. S. Highway I . The Village roadway system continues to be served by a combination of arterial, collector and local roadways, but does not have any limited access roads. The FEC railway line passes through the pillage in a north-south direction and lies west of Old Dixie ~ghway. There continues to be two (2) passing sidings, but no dead end sidings and only one (1) railroad crossing within the corporate limits at Tequesta Drive. There continue to be no ports, airports, high speed rail lines or related facilities located within Tequesta Primary north-south access to, from and through various portions of the Village continues to be provided by U.S. Highway 1, CR 707, Old Dixie Highway, Seabrook Road and Country Club Drive. U.S. Highway I carries the most volume of traffic and continues to be classified as an "urban principal arterial': U.S. Highway 1 is a State owned and operated roadway which continues to be a six (6) lane divided facility. U.S. Highway 1 traverses Tequesta and continues in a north-south direction through Palm Beach County and the entire State of Florida. -32- CR 707 (Beach Road), Old Dixie Highway and County Line Road all continue to be categorized by the federal functional classification system as "urban collectors': They continue to carry much less traffic than U. S. Highway 1. CR 707 continues to be a two (2) lane, undivided road within the corporate limits of Tequesta. CR 707 intersects with U.S. Highway 1 at the Village's southern boundary and extends easterly a short distance then northerly up the Atlantic coast into neighboring Martin County. Old Dixie Highway lies west of and runs parallel to U. S. Highway 1. Old Dixie Highway has been expanded since last reported in the 1996 EAR and subsequent Plan amendments Today, Old Dixie Highway is a four (4} lane, undivided roadway between Tequesta Drive and CR 707, with a left hand turning lane at its intersection with Tequesta Drive. North of Tequesta Drive, Old Dixie Highway continues as a four (4) lane undivided roadway until Village Boulevard where it continues north to County Line Road as a two (2) lane, undivided road. There is also a left turn lane on Old Dixie Highway where it intersects Tequesta Drive from the north. County Line Road; which constitutes the boundary between Palm Beach and Martin Counties, continues to be a two (2) lane, undivided road running in a east-west direction at the north end of the irllag~ County Line Road extends westward from U.S. Highway 1 approximately one (1) mile before it turns north and extends into Martin County. • Tequesta Drive, Seabrook Road and Country Club Road continue to be identified as a "City Collectors': Tequesta Drive provides the primary east-west access through the Village. Tequesta Drive remains a four (4) land, divided road from U. S. Highway 1 west to Old Dixie Highway, then narrowing to a two (2) lane, undivided road from there west to Country Club Drive. Seabrook Road is still a two (2) lane undivided roadway extending between County Line Road and Tequesta Drive, while Country Club Drive remains the westerly most north- south city collector running from Tequesta Drive north into Martin County. The remainder of the roads in Tequesta are classified as "local streets': The "urban principal arterial" (U.S Highway 1) and the "urban collectors" (CR 707, Old Dixie Highway 1 and County Line Road) are part of the State and County roadway systems, respectively, and are not the operational and maintenance responsibility of Tequesta. The Village continues 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 for a transportation system that has been generally efficient in circulating traffic in and through the Village. There are a number of Objectives and Policies in the current Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan that stress the importance of coordination and cooperation with the -33- Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Palm Beach County, adjacent local governments and other agencies. The following Objectives and Policies currently adopted in the Transportation element of the Village Comprehensive Plan shall be revised, updated or deleted, as necessary, to reflect current plans and programs: Objective 1.3.0: In the review of development projects in Tequesta, to assure consistency with other jurisdiction's plans and programs of a The Florida Department of Transportation (FDO7), Florida Transportation Plan; b. FDOT Adopted Work Program; c. The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Palm Beach County (MPO); d The Palm Beach County Engineering Department (Traffic Engineering Division); and, ~ The Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organi- zation and Engineering Department • Policy 1.3.2: Adopt the Year 2015 Cost Feasible Plan (~'PBUATS) Objective 1.9.0: The illage shall provide for the coordination of trans- portation plans and' programs with appropriate land use and transportation planning and implementation organi- zations on a continuing basis. Policy 1.9.1: The Village shall continue to participate and utilize inter- governmental programs, such as the Countywide Inter- governmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) and theMulti-Jurisdictional Issues Forum, to implement the Goal, Objectives and Policies of the Village's Transportation element (Policy 1.9.1 is discussed in greater detail in the Intergovernmental Coordination section of this Report). Policy 1.9.2: To ensure the availability of adequate transportation facilities, the Village's transportation system shall be coordinated with adjacent local governments' comprehensive plans to reflect the demand created by anticipated development -34- Policy 1.9.3: The Vtllage shall continue to work with Palm Beach and Martin Counties and the Town of Jupiter in cooperation and coordination of transportation related issues, such as (1) the locations and dimen- sions of thoroughfare rights -of way and to address multi juris- dictional traffic impacts to assure maintenance of acceptable Level of Service on the traff c circulation network, (Z) the future transit needs and delivery services, and (3) the provisions and operations ofnon-vehicular modes as they relate to inter-county travel Policy 1.9.4: The lrllage shall continue to coordinate with FDOT, MPO, DCA Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Governor's Com- mission for a Sustainable South Florida, and other municipalities to promote sustainable transportation principles within Palm Beach County. The Vllage has continued to work actively in developing a cohesive and coordinated pedestrian and bicycle network throughout Tequesta The Village bicycle/pedestrian pathway system currently consists of more than three (3) miles of sidewalks and bicycle paths. The Village intends to continue efforts to expand and develop an integrated system for pedestrian and non-pedestrian use. The Transportation element of the current Comprehensive Plan addresses this issue in great detail. Objective 1.8.0 states that, "The pillage shall promote the increased use of the bicycles and walking as viable means of . transportation through implementation of Policies below": Policy 1. g 1: Bicycles shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of the pillage roadway and transportation facilities and programs as part of the Site Plan Review process. Policy 1.8.2: The Vllage shall work toward providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages between existing residential and non-residential land uses, especially for commercial and open space, as part of its capital improvements and budgetary review process each year Policy 1.1.2 establishes that the }Tllage should "Construct pathways in the planning of upgraded transportation facilities and require sidewalks in areas of new development': Sec. 66-336 of Chapter 66, Subdivisions of the Village Code of Ordinances requires that sidewalks/pathways and crosswalks shall be required in all residential, multiple family and commercial areas and along arterial highways. These requirements are strictly enforced in the site plan review process. Capital improvements and expenditures for pe- • -3 5- destrian and bicycle pathways continue to be considered in the annual budgetary process. Policies 1. g 3 and 1. g 4 pertain to the incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian systems in mixed use and multi-use developments: Policy 1.8.3: The Village shall provide for the design of mixed use and multo-use developments and planned developments to be of a pedestrian scale and design by incorporating transit stops, bicycle and sidewalk connection Policy 1.8.4: The Vllage shall amend its local development regulations to require all new mixed use, commercial and residential developments or redevelopment proposals to include con- sideration of interconnection to adjacent uses. The Village has developed mixed use regulations that promote pedestrian scale and design, and the Village has required the construction of sidewalks and bicycle paths, where it could, to link residential and non-residential high use areas. These efforts have worked toward implementing Policy 1.8.6 of the element: Policy 1.8.6: The illage shall work toward increased mobility in the community by providing for increased amounts of bicycle • paths and sidewalks in new development and redevelopment areas. Because the growth potential is projected to be very limited in the 5 and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan (Ref. Poaulation Estimates and Projections section of this EAR), opportunities for expansion of the existing bicycle/pedestrian will be limited. The Village must realize that the cost of completing the system will be primarily the responsibility of the Village because of the limited development potential within the existing corporate limits. Objective 1.8.0 and Policies 1.8.1-1.8.4, Policy 1. x 6 and Policy 1.1.2 are still relevant to completing an integrated bicycle/pedestrian pathway system, however, and they should all be retained in the updated Transportation element Policy 1.8. S refers to the MPO's Long Range Bicycle Facilities Concept Plan. The Village should revisit this Policy in the update process and determine the status of this Plan. Policy 1.8. S should be revised or deleted, whichever is most appropriate, in the element update based on the status of the MPD ,Plan. Objective 1.2.0 states, "?'he transportation system shall be consistent with the future land uses shown on the Future Land Use Map, population and densities, employment patterns and which are consistent with the transportation modes and services provided -36- for in the 5-Year Schedule of Improvements': All development and redevelopment in the Village since last reported in the 1996 EAR and subsequent amendments have been consistent with the land use densities and intensities of residential, commercial and other allowable uses adopted on the Future land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The site plan review process established as Division 2, Site plan Review in Chapter 78, Zoning in the Village's Code of Ordinances requires that proposed developments be scrutinized to assure that transportation needs and concerns will be addressed and met. Policy 1.2.1 requires free and clear visibility triangles at intersections and driveway access points while Policy 1.2.4 emphasizes utilizing the site plan review process and on-site traffic f low Policy 1.2.3 regards the use of signage and other traffic control techniques to assure efficient traffic control to, from and within development areas. All of these techniques and requirements are emphasized and enforc~l, where applicable, in the site plan review and development processes. Visibility triangles are specifically required by Sec. 66-194 (e) under Chapter 66, Subdivisions of the Village's Code of Ordinances. Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 are still relevant and should be maintained in the updates Policy 1.2.2 identifies that, "The Vllage shall construct road and street improvements and/or expansions which are consistent with the S-Year Schedule of improvements... " Maintenance of the roads and streets in Tequesta has been effectuated on an as needed basis, and capital improvements to the system have typically 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. The construction/maintenance of roadway improvements has historically represented one of the Village's most significant annual fiscal challenges. The limited new growth potential projected for the S and 1 aYear planning periods of the updated Plan, however, should limit most of the future transportation system capital improvements to maintenance of the existing roadway system serving Tequesta. All future transportation system capital improvements shall be consistent with the 5-Year Schedule of Improvements alluded to in Policy 1.2.2. Therefore, Policy 1.2.2 should be maintained in the update to the Transportation element Transportation system capital improvements, and associated costs, for the S-Year planning period are identified in the 1-5 and X10--Year Capital Projects Schedules identified in the Addendum to the CIE of this Reporx Objective 1.4. D addresses the need to, "Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment" while Policy 1.4.1 emphasizes the need, "To establish and maintain measures for the reservation and preservation of existing and future rights-of-way... " Setbacks are established in each zoning district in the Village which are deemed appropriate for their particular district, and road rights-of--way are delineated on the Future Transportation Map and identified in the Support Documen- -37- tation to the current Transportation element. These measures reserve and protect the use within those rights-way for transportation system and related uses. Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1 should remain in the updated element All roads and streets in Tequesta must meet the adopted LOS Standards established in the Transportation and Capital Improvements elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.1 in the Transportation element establishes LOS Standards for the roads and streets in Tequesta: Policy 1.3.1: The Village hereby adopts the following LOS Standards for each listed facility type: Collector Roadways -LOS Standard C, Peak D, except for Country Club Drive and Seabrook Road which will be LOS Standard C, Peak C; Urban Minor Arterials -LOS Stan- dard C, Peak D; Urban Principal Arterials -LOS Standard C, Peak D. The roadway classifications and nomenclatures have changed since the last EAR and subsequent amendments. Roads and streets in Tequesta have been properly identified and classified in discussions within this section. The new, updated road and street classifications and nomenclatures should be incorporated into the updated Support • Documentation and Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The LOS Standards should also be reviewed for current applicability in the update and revised appropriately, if necessary. The Village of Tequesta lends its support to multi jurisdictional, countywide and regional transportation systems. The Village cannot act on its own to effect these systems, but as a result of the 1996 EAR and Comprehensive Plan update process, a number of Objectives and Policies were added to the Transportation element to address these issues. The Village lies within the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO} jurisdictional area which is responsible for the planning and coordination of Countywide transportation systems, and is the coordinating agency for multi-county and regional transportation planning efforts. A number of Objectives and Policies were added to the Transportation element as a result of the 1996 EAR and Comprehensive Plan update process that address coordinating with and supporting the MPO in the development of multi-modal transportation systems in Palm Beach County that are energy efficient and clean (Ref. Objective L 1.0 and Policies 1.1.5 and L 1. ~; which reduce per capita vehicle miles, provide for alternative fuels, ride sharing, alternative work hour programs, public transit, parking management and other innovative transportation system measures (Ref. Policy 1.1.6); which support Transportation Systems Management (TS111) strategies that optimize the use of traffic signals, turning lanes and other innovative transportation systems management activities that are implemented by the appropriate agencies within Palm Beach County (Ref. Policy 1.1.8) • -3 8- • which encourage and use mass transit facilities (Ref. Objective 1. S. 0 and supporting Policies 1.5.1 - 1. S. 6); that encourages Palm Beach County through Palm-Trap to provide pars-transit transportation services (Ref. Objective 1.6.0 and Policies 1. ~ 1 and 1. (2); and which supports the MPO's coordinating responsibilities regarding services for the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to Chapter 427, F.S (Ref. Objective 1.7.0 and supporting Policies 1.7.1 - 1.7.3). All of the referenced Objectives and Policies identified above were approved by DCA and found to be "In Compliance". The above referenced Objectives and Policies should all remain in the updated Transportation element All text and Figures (Maps) contained in the Transportation element Support Documentation shall be updated to reflect current data and analysis. Any Objectives or Policies not addressed in this section shall be maintained or revised, as appropriate, in the updated Comprehensive Plan. A new, updated Existing Transportation Map (Support Documentation) and a new Future Transportation Map (Comprehensive Plan) shall be prepared as part of the EAR-based Comprehensive Plan amendment Housin 1. Housing Inventory The Village of Tequesta is 99% developed at the present time within its existing • corporate limits leading to the conclusion that there is very little currently Vacant land available for future development. The Future Land Use section of this Report indicates that there is only 14.17 acres currently Vacant. The current permanent, year-round resident housing stock in Tequesta consists primarily of single family detached units with the remainder in multiple family (2 or more units) units. This circumstance has remained consistent since the last EAR (1996) and subsequent amendments. In 2002, the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse (Shimber~ estimated 2654 permanent resident housing units in Tequesta of which 1683 units, or 63.4% were single family units and 966 units, or 36.4%, were multiple family units. Five (5) mobile homes were reported (probably erroneously) in this year. In 2005, the Shimberg data estimated that there were 2628 total permanent resident housing units of which 1671 units, or 63.6%, were single family units and 957 units, or 36.4%, were multiple family units. No mobile homes were reported in this year or any subsequent years. >~th the limited amount of growth and development projected in the Population Estimates and Projections section of this Report, it is expected that the ~ type and representation of residential units will remain relatively the same in the S and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. The pillage of Tequesta continues to contribute a minor share of the overall housing stock in Palm Beach County. The 2000 U.S Census is the latest data source to use for comparative purposes. In 2000, it was estimated that there were 2791 total housing units in Tequesta. There were 556,428 units reported for all of Palm Beach County. Based on • -39- • that data, Tequesta had only 0.5% of the entire County housing stock. nth the limited amount of growth and development projected for Tequesta in both the 5 and 1 aYear planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan, it is expected that Tequesta will contribute a minor share of the overall housing stock in both the short and long range planning periods of the updated Plan. There are no mobile home parks or subdivisions in Tequesta. As reported in the Shimberg data above, there continues to be no mobile homes reported in the Village of Tequesta, and none are expected in the future, There continues to be no residential structures in the Irllage designated as historically signifccan~ There are no residential structures listed on either the Florida Master File or the National Register of Historic Places, nor have any been so designated by the Village. .. Policy 1.4.4 in the Housing element of the current Plan does state that, "At the time of each required Comprehensive Development Plan update, consider the need to designate any housing structure as historically significant and in need of special consideration under the Standard Housing Code and/or Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance': Even though there are no such residences in Tequesta today, Village should continue to maintain this Policy. Policy 1.4.4 should be maintained in the Housing element updates There continues to be no subsidized housing developments located in Tequesta There currently are no renter-occupied housing developments within the Village using federal, State or local subsidy programs. There are two (2) group homes located in Tequesta. This circumstance has changed since reported in the last EAR and subsequent updates to the Plan. The current Housing element reports there is one (1) assisted living facility (ALF) in Tequesta; the Sterling House containing 42 units and 55 licensed beds. Since this element was last updated ,Tequesta Terrace, a 100 bed ALF, was approved in 2000 and today is a fully functioning ALF facility. Policy 1.4.2 of the current element addresses group homes: Policy 1.4.2: Group homes consistent with Florida Statutes, Chapter 419, shall be accommodated as a mix with resiaientia~ 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 fancily districts The two (2) group homes identified above, both are located in the Mixed Use area as assigned on the Future Land Use Map and in the Mixed Use zoning district. Group homes of less than six (6) units are exempt from local zoning per State statutes. Therefore, group homes are allowed in residential zoning districts (Rl-A, R-1, R-2 and R-3) as Special Exception Uses with qualification and reference to applicable State laws. • -40- Policy 1.4.2 should be maintained in the Housing element update however, it should be revised to qualify its permission in residential districts. Foster Care and Daycare facilities are addressed in Policy 1.4.5: Policy 1.4. S: "Foster Care Facility" shall be damned as a licensed... residential unit, otherwise meeting the requirements of the Village Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, where a family living environment is provided for individuals un- related by blood or legally, to the householder: The total number of residents within a Foster Care Facility, include- ing permanent residents and foster care residents shall not exceed 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kit- chens and utility roomer Further, the >/illage shall permit Daycare facilities, for up to five (5) persons, within single family residential areas as required by Florida House Bi11782. There are no Foster Care or Day Care facilities that are licensed by the ~llag~ There are some Day Care facilities in the Village that are operated by local churches and exempt from local zoning. Foster Care and Day Care facilities are permitted in the residential districts of Tequesta as Special Exception Uses, and as permitted by Florida law. Policy 1.4. S should remain in the updated element Policy 1.4.6 states that, "The jrllage shall publicize the availability of any subsidy programs available to promote the implementation of daycare and foster care living accommodations within Tequesta': It has not been necessary, or requested of the Village to publicize this information. Policy 1.4, 6 should be reviewed in the update process to determine its need and current applicability. The Goal of the housing element is, "To guide the preparation of plans and policies necessary to assure the availability of safe, sanitary, affordable and otherwise adequate housing for projected growth and future needs of the Vllage': With the limited growth and development projected in the Poaulation Estimates and Projections section of this Report, it is expected that the inventory, condition and characteristics of the current housing stock will be similar in Tequesta during the 5 and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Objectives 1.3.0 and 1.4.0, and their supporting Policies, set the direction for development of residentiaX areas in Tequesta~ Again, there is limited growth projected for Tequesta within its existing corporate limits; however, these Objectives and Policies should be retained to set direction for redevelopment of residential areas and for areas of potential annexation. • -41- • Policy 1.3.1 emphasizes the importance of providing urban services concurrent with residential development The Village has adopted, and continues to enforce, a concurrency management system to assure that essential services and facilities are provided concurrent with development and which are adequate to meet adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards established by the Village. Article IV, Adequate Facilities and Concurrency Management under Chapter 62, Planning and Development of the Village's Code of Ordinances establishes that "concurrency" means that the necessary public facilities and services to maintain the adopted LOS Standards are available when the impacts of development occur. LOS Standards, as adopted in the individual elements of the Comprehensive Plan, are identified in this Article. The concurrency management system established by Article 6, Adequate Facilities and Concurrency Management is strictly reviewed and enforced in the site plan review and land development processes. Develo ers are re uired to rovide evidence from the service roviders that ad uate p q P P ~l capacities of systems serving the proposed development are available and will meet the LOS Standards adopted by the Village. Policy 1.3.1 is essential to the site plan review and land development processes and should be maintained in the update to the Housing element The Village has also adopterly and continues to enforce, various regulations that protect the environment and natural resources in the land development process of residential and other areas in Tequesta. The Village has adopted an Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL} Ordinance and regulations which are intended to protect and • preserve the values and functions of these lands. The Village has also adopted, and enforces, Coastal Protection regulations and participates in, and is subject to, the Countywide Mangrove and Wellfield Protection Ordinances. Additionally, Water Protection and Conservation regulations and a Tree Protection Ordinance are adopted and enforced by the Village. These regulations are all incorporated in Chapter S0, Natural Resource Protection of the Village's Code of Ordinances These regulations all implement the intent of Policy 1.3.2, "Continue to institute policies which minimize environmental effects of residential development...': Policy 1.3 2 is essential to protecting the environment and natural resources from residential development; therefore, it should remain in the updated element Policy 1.3.5 establishes that the Vllage shall, "Require housing in newly annexed undeveloped areas to be consistent with the character of housing within the Vllage adjacent to those areas by assigning compatible zoning districts': There has only been one (1) residential annexation into the Village since the last EAR-based Comprehensive Plan amendments. As revealed in the Future Land Use section of this Report in 1. Change in Land Area, a 15.86 acre Vacant parcel of land was annexed into the Village in September, 2001. This property was eventually developed as a low density residential development, zoned R-l, Single Family Dwelling District and called Riverside Oaks. It lies west of and adjacent to Chapel Court and Tequesta Pines residential developments which are also low density residential neighborhoods zoned R-1. The intent of Policy • -42- 1.3.5 was adhered to in this case and should be followed in future residential annexations. Policy 1.3. S, therefore, should also be retained in the Housing element update. Policy 1.3.4 is very specific, "Maintain the current character of the Country Club by designating the golf course as a recreational use on the Future Land Use Map': The Tequesta Country Club is a low density residential golf course community. To preserve this character, the Village has designated the Golf course as Recreation and Open Space on its Future Land Use Map. The golf course has also been zoned R/OP, RecreationlOpen Space District. Policy 1.3.4 has been accomplished; therefore the wording of this Policy should be revised in the update to reflect that the golf course be "maintained" as a Recreation and Open Space use on the Future land Use Map. Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1 are aimed at providing incentives to the private sector in the development of residential areas and to reflect this on its Future Land Use Map and Zoning regulations: Objective 1.4.0: Continue to rely on the private sector to provide the limited "in fill" housing that the Irllage can accom- modate while providing incentives such as zoning code amendments and mixed use regulations to pro- mote development of group r e foster and daycare facikties) and elderly housing alternatives. • Policy 1.4.1: Utilize the Future Land Use Map and zoning map to assure a diversity of housing. The Village has established a Mixed Use land use classification on its adopted Future Land Use Map and established a Mixed Use zoning district and regulations to implement the Future Land Use Map. A residential housing component has been a significant part of the development of the Mixed Use designated area As discussed previously in this Housins section, foster and daycare and elderly housing alternatives (ALFs) have been accommodated on the Future Land Use Map and in the residential zoning districts of the Village. Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1 should be on going concerns of the pillage and maintained in the updates 2. Housing Characteristics and Affordability The percentage of owner-occupied housing units continues to be much greater than renter-occupied units in Tequesta. In 1990, as reported in the current Comprehensive Plan, the U. S Census reported that 75% of all housing units in the Village were owner- occupied and 9 % were renter-occupied. The balance of units (16%) were classified as vacant. Owner-occupied plus renter-occupied units represent year-round occupancy • -43- while the remainder of the units are vacant or held for seasonal or occasional use. The 2000 U.S. Census reported that 1991of the 2356 households, or 84.5%, were owner- occupied units while 365 households, or 15.5%, were renter-occupied. Most recent 2002 Shimberg data reveals that there was a similar home ownership rate of 84% in Tequesta as was reported in the 2000 Census. This rate compared to a 70% home ownership rate Statewide in 2002. nth the limited growth potential predicted for the S and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan, it is expected that the homeownership rates will remain similar in both the short and long term timeframes of the updated Plan. Shimberg projections to 2020 substantiate this claim, projecting that 84-85% of households will be owner-occupied while 15-16% are projected to be renter- occupied. Most of the owner-occupied housing units in Tequesta are mortgaged The U. S. Census data in 2000 revealed that approximately 70% of the housing units in Tequesta were mortgaged. This percentage of mortgaged housing units is the same in Tequesta as reported for the County as a whole. The Census also reported that 70% of all housing in Palm Beach County was mortgaged. Median gross rents are substantially higher in Tequesta than in Palm Beach County and the State as a whole. The 2000 Census reported that median gross rent in Tequesta was $1068 compared to $739 in Palm Beach County and $641 Statewide. Rents in Tequesta are expected to continue to exceed those in the County and Statewide in both the S and 10-Year planning periods'. A substantial percentage g~' households in Tequesta fall into the "Moderate" (approximately 20%) and "Moderate+"(nearly 44%) household income ranges Household incomes are estimated by the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse (Shimberg. Household incomes are classified as "Very Low", "Low", "Moderate" and "Moderate+", and for Tequesta are measured against the median incomes for a family of four (4) in Palm Beach County. Households with less than 49.9% of the County median income level are considered to be households with "Very Low" incomes. Households with incomes between 50% and 79.9% of the County median income are considered to be "Low" income households. Households with between 80% and 119.9% of the County median are considered "Moderate" income households, and households with incomes of 120% or more of the County median are classified as "Moderate+" income households. In 2000 and 2002 the Shimberg statistics indicated that nearly 64 % of household incomes in Tequesta were in the "Moderate" and "Moderate+" range; "Moderate: approximately 20% and "Moderate+": nearly 44%. The majority of households in Tequesta are projected to have household incomes in the "Moderate" and "Moderate+" ranges during the short range (S--Year) and long range (10-Yaer) planning periods of the updated Plan. Shimberg estimates for 2005 and Shimberg projections for 2010 and 2015 reflect nearly identical percentages for "Moderate"and "Moderate +" household incomes; "Moderate" -nearly 21% and • -0° • "Moderate+" -nearly 44%. The most prevalent income level in Tequesta is, and is projected to be, the "Moderate+"income level The least prevalent household income level in Tequesta is the "Low" category. In 2000 and 2002, Shimberg estimates revealed that only 16.3% of all households were of "Low" income levels in the Village. In 2005, their estimates reflected a slight drop to 16% for "Low" income households. The percentage of "Low" income households is projected to remain a relatively small percentage of all households in Tequesta during both the short and long range planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Shimberg projections for 2010 and 2015 indicate a similar percentage (15.9% and 16.1%, respectively). "Very Law" income households represent a significant portion of all households in Tequesta. In 2000 and 2002, the Shimberg data revealed that approximately 36% of all households in Tequesta were represented by "Very Low" income levels. In 2005, the percentage dropped slightly to 35%. Future projections predict that these percentages will remain similar {34.7% projected for 2010 and 35.1 % projected for 2105). The value of housing continues to be higher in Tequesta than in Palm Beach County as a whoh The current Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan reported that the "median" value of specified owner-occupied units in Tequesta in 1990 was $154,400 as compared to $98,100 for Countywide. Shimberg data revealed that the "median" sales • price for single family homes increased from $145,000 in 1996 to $278,000 in 2003; representing a 94.4% increase in sales price for that time period. The "median" sales price for condominiums increased from $102, 500 in 1996 to $168, 518 in the same time period; representing a 64.4% increase. These statistics reveal, at a minimum, the ever increasing value of housing in Tequesta. It is expected that the cost of housing will continue to increase in the Tillage during the future planning periods of the updated Plan, and that the value of housing in Tequesta will continue to exceed that of Palm Beach County and the Stag Household incomes in relation to housing costs determine the "Cost Burden" of households In the Shimberg analysis, "Cost Burden" is expressed in terms of percentage of household income spent for housing. If less than 30% of household income is spent on housing, it is determined that there is "No Cost Burden" on the household. If between 30% and 49% of household income is spent for housing, then a "Cost Burden" exists. Further, if greater than 50% of household income is spent for housing, then there is a "Severe Cost Burden" on the household. A substantial portion of all households in Tequesta are experiencing "No Cost Burden" in meeting housing costs In both 2000 and 2002, the Shimberg analysis revealed that nearly 73% of the households in Tequesta had "No Cost Burden". This compared to 71% reported Countywide. In 2005, it was reported that 72.3% of all house- • -45- • holds had "No Cost Burden". It is projected that the percentage of households experiencing "No Cost Burden" will be similar in the S and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Plan. The Shimberg analysis projects a slight increase to 72.5% in 2010 and 72.8% in 2015. For all years reported above, renter-occupied households have a lower percentage of "No Cost Burden" (55-56%) as opposed to owner-occupied households (75-76%). Conversely, a significant portion of households are experiencing a "Cost Burden': In 2000 and 2002, the Shimberg analysis revealed that approximately 27% of the households in Tequesta had a "Cost Burden" in terms of meeting housing costs. ("Cost Burden" - 16% and "Severe Cost Burden" - 11.5%). This was lower than that reported Countywide (29%), however. In 2005, it was reported that the "Cost Burden" percentage had increased slightly to 27.7%. It is projected that the percentage of households experiencing a "Cost Burden" will be similar during the short and long range planning periods of the updated Plan. The Shimberg analysis projects that the percentage of households experiencing a "Cost Burden" will remain the same; approximately 27% ("Cost Burden" - 16% and "Severe Cost Burden" -11%). Adequate and affordable housing has been available for the most part in Tequesta. The need to provide such housing consistent with the character of the population and which meets specialized needs is recognized in Objective 1.2.0: Objective 1.2.0: To prm~de for adequate and affordable housing to all existing and projected segments of the pillage popula- tion, including appropriate group home, foster care, elderly housing and mobile home alternatives': Group homes, including foster care and daycare facilities, as well as mobile homes, historically significant housing and subsidized housing have already been discussed and reported in this section. The elderly population has been addressed, in part. The Vllage has a move elderly population than is typical Statewide. The Shimberg analysis revealed that 855 households in 2005, or 36% of all Tequesta households, were headed by persons age sixty five (65} or older. In comparison, 27% of households Statewide were headed by persons of the same age group. A high percentage of the elderly population owns their homes. In 2005, Shimberg reported that 751 of elderly households (88%) owned their homes, and that 26% of these households were paying more than 30% of income for rent or mortgage costs Policy 1.2. S addresses, in part, this concern: Policy 1.2. S: Low income housing efforts shall be oriented towards the provision of elderly rental units by permitting development of independent supportive congregate living facilities within the Mixed--Use areas up to a maximum 24 dwelling units per acres -46- • As previously identified, there are two (2) assisted living facilities (ALFs) located within the Mixed Use area of the Village and as designated on the Future Land Use Map. Mixed Use zoning provisions allow ALFs to be developed at up to twenty four (24) dwelling units per acre. These developments provide for the elderly and specialized needs of the community. Policy 1.2.5 was added to the Housing element as a result of the last EAR review in 199b. It was found to be "In Compliance" and should be maintained as an on going policy of the updated Housing element Policies 1.2.1 'and 1.2.3 are aimed at providing housing that facilitates lower costs for housing construction and which promotes housing construction consistent with the needs of the Vllag~ The data and statistical analysis presented in this section seem to indicate that the majority of housing in Tequesta is, and has been, adequate and affordable. Any efforts by the Village that further promotes housing consistent with the characteristics and needs of its community should be maintained in the updated element. Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 should also be maintained in the updates Reference to the Standard Building Code in Policy 1.2.1 should be revised in the update to reference the Florida Building Coda Policy 1.2.4 regards mobile homes and the discouragement of them in coastal high hazard areas. This Policy should be reviewed in the update process for current applicability and revised, or deleted: as appropriate There is no publicly funded, subsidized housing located within the corporate limits of Tequesta, and the private sector has adequately provided housing that accommodates housing needs of all income level households. This trend is expected to continue in the future. Therefore, for the most part, housing in Tequesta has been affordable and projections indicate that housing for the majority of the population will be affordable in the S and IO~Year planning timeframes of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Significant affordable housing issues, however, are evident in some areas of Palm Beach County outside the confines of Tequesta, The Village has historically lent its support to Countywide housing assistance programs. For example, the Village continues to support the County's Community Development Block Grant Program by lending its population to the County and, thus, increasing its population base for housing assistance grant programs. Policy 1.2.2 was added to the Housing element subsequent to the 1996 EAR process to address Countywide housing assistance programs: Policy 1.2.2: Encourage programs throughout Palm Beach County which attempt to alleviate housing problems, including continued interlocal participation at the current level in the Community Development Block Grant Program and associated activities by entering into Interlocal Agree- ments with Palm Beach County Housing and Community Development to accomplish these ends. -47- I • Policy 1.2.2 should be maintained in the Housing element updates From the observations, conclusions and projections made above, the program for adequate and affordable housing in Tequesta should be to maintain, conserve and upgrade, where necessary, the housing stock which is consistent with the quality of that which currently exists through the strict enforcement of current and effective building and housing codes. 3. Housing Conditions The high percentage of households with "No Cost Burden" estimated for today and in the future is a positive situation for Tequesta homeowners, however, the ever increasing cost of "new" homes will seemingly begin to have an effect on homeowners in the future. Therefore, it is important to stress the importance of maintaining the existing housing stock through effective building and housing codes and code enforcement. The current Housing element recognizes the importance of not only maintaining the existing housing stock in a good condition, but also recognizes that by doing this it can prevent sub- standard housing conditions. Objective 1.1.0 stresses this concern: Objective 1.1.0: To conserve existing standard condition housing, pre- ventsubstandard housing conditions, and to assure that new construction is of the same high quality by strictly enforcing adopted building, construction and housing codes. As cited in 2. Housing Characteristics and Affordability of this section, an adequate and affordable housing stock has been maintained in Tequesta, as well as a high quality housing stock. Therefore, the intent of this Objective continues to be, met in the Village. Objective L L 0 should be maintained in the updates Policy 1.1.4 also requires that new housing construction be compatible with the quality of existing housing in the pillage. New housing in the Village continues to be of a high quality and compatible with the existing housing in Tequesta. Policy 1.1.4, likewise, should remain in the updated element Reviewing and updating its land development regulations has been an on-going endeavor of the Village. Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 further address the establishment and enforcement of codes: Policy 1.1.1: Continue enforcement of the Standard Building Code and Standard Housing Code, and updated additions thereof as they become available, to: (1) assure new -48- building materials and techniques are allowed with- in the Village in order to reduce construction costs; anti; (2) maintain existing housing stocl~ Policy 1.1. Z: Continue to develop and enforce other ordinances (eg, landscaping code) as necessary to assure that the quality of residential neighborhoods is main- tained The Florida Building Code is now the standard building code being utilized and strictly enforced by the Village. This code contains building requirements for materials and techniques which assure a quality housing stock. The Village has also adopted and continues to enforce local addendums to plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes. Other regulations, such as landscaping, building site requirements (minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage and maximum heights allowed), off-street parking and others provide effective means to maintain quality residential neighborhoods. Their continued enforcement should be continually stressed. Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 should also be maintained in the updated element, but revised to refer to the "Florida Building Code': The Standard Housing Code is adopted in the ~Ilage's Code of Ordinances and continues to be strictty enforced. Another way to assess the overall condition of housing is to analyze units for complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. In 2000, the U.S. Census revealed that all units in Tequesta had complete plumbing facilities. This compared to 0.4% Statewide. There were thirty three (33) units reported lacking complete kitchen facilities, or 1.2% of its housing stock, which compared to 0.5% Statewide. Overall, the condition of the housing stock in Tequesta is good The Vllage has established definitions for "Standard Condition ; "Substandard Condition" and "In Need of Replacement" in Policy 1.1.3 of the Housing elemenx These definitions continue to serve the Village well, and there continue to be few apparent problems with exterior conditions of housing reported. Where individual, isolated cases of homes in disrepair or substandard condition have been reported, they have been corrected. Policy 1.1.3 also establishes that a Village housing official be designated. The Building Official acts in this capacity and works with residents in an effort to maintain and upgrade, where necessary, housing conditions in the Village. Policy 1.1.3 is still relevant and should be maintained in the updated element but the reference to designating a housing official should be deleted Policy I.1. S emphasizes that the Village, "Require land developers to coordinate with the lTllage during the design and completion of residential developments by strictly enforcing provisions of the Zoning and Building Code to assure that housing characteristics of the ~Ilage are maintained' : As stated throughout this section and •' -49- other sections of this EAR, developers are subject to the site plan review and land development processes established by the Village. Residential developments are highly scrutinized in these processes, and land development regulations aze strictly enforced to assure that a quality residential environment is maintained throughout the Village. Policy 1.1. S should be maintained in the update to the Housing element to assure that the high standard for residential neighborhoods and housing is being met All text and Tables contained in the Support Documentation to the Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be updated to reflect current conditions, data and analysis. Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code shall be reviewed closely for updates to the Housing element Utilities The Utilities element of the Comprehensive Plan contains the sub-elements of Sanitazy Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Rechazge. They aze addressed sepazately below. 1. Sanitary Sewer It is noted that references are made throughout this Sanitary Sewer sub-section of the EAR to the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District, or ENCON as it consistently appears in the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan of the ~llag~ Since the last EAR (1996) and subsequent amendments to the Plan, the name of ENCON has been officially changed to the "Loxahatchee River District'; or "LRD': The title Loxahatchee River District (LRD) is used in this discussion when referring to current situations and for future planning purposes. The Village does not own or operate a central sanitary sewer system. The Loxahatchee River District (LRD) owns, operates and maintains the sanitary sewer system serving Tequesta Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal services are provided to the Village by the LRD. With the recent severing of the Tequesta Country Club and surrounding areas that previously did not have collection and transmission faci- lities available to them, the Village is nearly totally severed. Objective 1.1.0 of the Sanitary sewer sub-element states, "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 (ENCOIV) and discourage urban sprawl': The recent completion of the sanitary sewer system in Tequesta was a result of cooperative efforts between the LRD and the Village to provide a system at reasonable cost to the homeowner. These cooperative efforts and consultation with the LRD met the intent of Policy 1.1.3, "T'he Vllage should consult with ENCON, the Village's service provider, in determining the most effective and ef- -50- ftcient wastewater systems for use in Tequesta, and eliminate the use of septics in all new developments". The LRD continues to provide a cost effective central sanitary sewer system to the users of the system that is maintained in good condition. Because of the physical location of Tequesta, expansion of its boundaries is limited; therefore, the future possibility of urban sprawl type development is almost non- existent. Tequesta cannot expand northward into Martin County by annexation because it is not allowed by Florida Annexation law. East/west expansion of the Village limits is constrained by adjacent water bodies (ICWW and Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, respectively), and the southern boundary of Tequesta abuts either the Loxahatchee River or a portion of the Town of Jupiter lying north of the River. This physiography allows for the efficient provision of sanitary sewer service to the Village Even though central sanitary sewer facilities are available, not all properties in the Village have connected to the system. There still are some individual properties utilizing septic tank systems (less than 20 residences). Septic tank usage is addressed in the Sanitary Sewer sub-element of the Plan. Policy 1.1.7 was added, and approved by DCA, as a result of the last EAR (1996), and Policy 1.1.8 assures that septic tank systems must meet State Water Quality Standards: Policy 1.1.7.• The use of existing properly constructed and function- ing septic tank systems within the >rllage is acceptable; however, when analysis indicates that septic tank systems are adversely impacting the environment according to State Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302, FACfor sur- face water, Ch. 62-520, FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100-6, FACfor bathing places) and that public health stan- dards are endangered, septic tank systems causing the situ- ation will be repaired or replaced Policy 1.1.8: When a central sanitary sewer system becomes available to currently unsewered areas, and the current septic tank sys- tems fail to meet State .Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302, FAC for surface water, Ch. 62-520, FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100-6, FAC for bathing places) and endanger the public health, hook-up to the central system shall be required After consultation with the LRD, it is suggested that Policy I.1.7 be further modified in the update to the following: "The use of properly constructed and fuctioning septic tank systems within the pillage is acceptable only for areas where sanitary sewer acilities are not available: however, ... " -51- The predominant soil type in the septic tank areas continues to be St. Lucie sand. While St. Lucie sand is well drained and has slight limitations to transmissivity, it has few organics that retain bacteria to provide the needed treatment as leachate passes through the soil. The sand and gravels typical of this soil type have slight limitations to the use of septic tanks. Objective 1.1.0 and Policies 1.1.3,1.1.7 and 1.1.8 are being met continue to be relevant and should all be maintained in the Sanitary Sewer sub-element update. Policy 1.1.1 states, in part, that, "The installation and use of septic tanks in new development areas shall be governed by Environmental Control Rule 1, Chapter 31, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code... " The remainder of Policy 1.1.1 states, "Further, the Village shall require that all new development connect to and utilize the central system. This latter part of the Policy should stand alone as a separate Policy in the updated sub-element because all new development must connect to the central system; septic tanks are not allowed in new developments. The first part of the Policy should be re-written as a separate Policy to require that existing properties currently using septic tanks -must meet the referenced laws and requirement The Village continues to utilize the LRD in the site plan review and permitting process. The Village requests comments from the LRD on new proposed projects/developments regarding wastewater system requirements as part of its site plan review requirements. Also, the Village requests LRD's approval, or approval with conditions, of proposed projects/developments prior to the issuance of building permits These are specifically stated requirements in Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, respectively. As a folla-wup to site plan approval and the issuance of permits, Policy 1.1.6 establishes that, "The ITllage should request that ENCON submit evidence of acceptance of the wastewater system to serve proposed projects/developments and evidence that contractual obligations placed on the developer regarding the wastewater system are being met prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy': This practice continues to be implemented by the Village. Policies 1.1.4 -1.1.6 should be retained in the update as they are effective, on going practices implemented by the LRD and the Vrllagc~ Policy 1.1, 2 is no longer applicable and should be deleted in the updated Plan. The site plan review and building processes established by the Village and the requirements established in the Policies discussed above provide an effective way to coordinate with developers in the planning and phasing of development to meet waste- -52- water collection and treatment needs. Objective 1.3.0 furthers this intent and Policies 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 expand on the need for coordination of wastewater systems between the Vllage, LRD and developers: Objective 1.3 0: Coordinate with developers in the planning and phasing of development to meet wastewater collection and treat- mentneeds Policy 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 stan- dards set forth in local codes and ordinances relating to waste- water systems Policy 1.3.3: Under the purview of this requirement, ENCON shall be in- cluded in the pre- application meeting to make appropriate comment on speciftc wastewater systems needs and requirements The Village does encourage and make themselves available for preliminary/pre- application meetings to inform developers of code requirements. Developers are encouraged to meet with LRD representatives in the preliminary stages to clarify LRD requirements and standazds. These opportunities aze on-going practices of both the Village and the LRD, and they continue to be available to developers. Objective 1.3 0 and Policies 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 should be maintained in the updated sub-element Policy 1.3.Istates that, "The Vllage shall 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': The LRD regulates the central sanitary sewer system serving Tequesta and septic tank systems are regulated by various State and County laws already cited in this section. Discharges into surface waters aze monitored and reported through the Village's participation in the NPDES (National Pollution Dischazge and Elimination System) Stormwater Permitting Program. Policy 1.3.1 should be revisited in the update to determine whether it is still applicable and relevant Policy 1.3.4 establishes the adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards for the central sanitary sewer system serving Tequesta. The LOS Standards for the central sewer system should be reviewed with the LRD for current applicability and updated, as appropriate, as part of the EAR based amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Vllage's on going coordination and participation in LRD's annual facilities planning effort is established in Objective 1.2.0 and Policy 1.2.1 of the Sanitary Sewer sub-element: -53- Objective 1.2 0: Annually participate in the ENCON facilities planning effort Pdicy 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. Policy 1.2.3 encourages support and local membership on the ENCON Board. This support should be continued in the future. Policy 1.2.3 should be maintained in the updates Policy 1.2.2 refers to "Northern Region" programs. These are no longer active or relevant. Policy 1.2.2 should be deleted in the update to the sub-elemenx There are no capital improvements costs for sanitary sewer facilities in either the 1-5 or G-10.Year Capital Projects Schedules presented in the Addendum to the CIE of this Report because the Tillage does not own or operate the sanitary sewer system serving Tequesta All data and analysis in the Support Documentation to the Sanitary Sewer sub-element shall be updated, as necessary, 2. Solid Waste The majority of solid waste in Tequesta continues to be generated by residential areas. The Village of Tequesta is developed primarily as a residential community (See Table 2, Existing Land Use, Village of Tequesta, 2006, Future Land Use section under Community-Wide Assessment in this Report}. Therefore, the residential population in Tequesta continues to be the primary generator of wastes in the Village. Commercial and other uses are not as significant a factor to overall solid waste generation as are the residential uses. Since population projections indicate that there will be modest growth in Tequesta during the S and 10.Year planning periods, it is projected that there will be modest increases to the solid wastes generated in the Tillage. However, current data needs to be collected from the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (PBCSWA) to update this information contained in the Support Documentation to this sub-element. Objective 1.2.0 states the Village's desire for solid waste collection services:. -54- • Objective 1.2.0: Maintenance of collection service that best serves the residents and businesses of Tequesta': Policy 1.1.2 states that, "When in the public interest, institute competitive bidding procedures in the letting of new contracts for collection and disposal services to ensure the lowest possible cost to Tequesta taxpayers relative to the highest level of service': Solid wastes continue to be collected by a private hauler who is granted the right, privilege and franchise by the Village to collect residential (both single family and multiple family developments) garbage, trash and other wastes within the Village limits. Objective 1.2. D, therefore, continues to be implemented and should be madntained in the updated Solid Waste sub-element. Commercial and other uses in Tequesta. contract privately for collection services. Policy 1.2.1 requires that, "...the Vllage enforce regulations which require residents to place waste materials at curbside...': Under terms of the franchise agreement the contractor makes two (2) weekly collections from single family residences. Per terms of the agreement, collection of garbage, yard and other trash is collected at the street line between the side lot lines of single family residences. Policy 1.2.2 requires, "As part of the site plan review process, continue to require new multiple family living areas to consider utilizing single large containers for ease and time savings in collecting solid wastes... "The location of waste collection facilities continues to be scrutinized for ease and safety in access in the site plan review process for multiple family developments. Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 should be maintained in the update as they both continue to be implemented by the ~Ilage through terms of the contract with the private hauler. The Vllage continues to maintain a close liaison with its contracted hauler for collection services which is the intent of Policy 1.1.1, which should also be retained in the update. Objective 1.3. D states, "To continually ensure that a sanitary means of solid waste disposal exists for Tequesta's use". The Village continues to be provided solid waste disposal services by the PBCSWA. The North County Regional Resource Recovery and Solid Waste Disposal Facility satisfies the disposal needs of the entire County, including Tequesta. The Village also continues to contribute a minor share of the total solid waste disposed of at this Regional facility. Policy 1.3.1 establishes that a liaison with PBCSWA be maintained for various purposes including management of facilities while Policy 1.3.2. directs that a recycling program be implemented in accordance with State law The Village continues to maintain an effective liaison with the PBCSWA, and the Village continues to implement an effective recycling and resource recovery program. Objective 1.3.0 and Policies 1.3.1 -55- • and 1.3.2 should continue to formulate the solid waste disposal policy of the Village in i the updates The intent of Objective 1.1.0 to provide a responsive and cost effective solid waste system is being implemented through the Objectives and Policies cited above in the provision of solid waste collection and disposal services; therefore, Objective 1.1.0 should be maintained in the updated Solid Waste sub-section. The LOS Standards for solid waste established in Policy 1.1.3 need to be reviewed with the PBCSWA and revised appropriately, if necessary. The PBCSWA has notified the Village by Letter (dated January 19, 2006) that for concurrency and comprehensive planning purposes, adequate disposal capacity is available at their facilities jor the 5 and IO-Year planning periods (See Appendix B). There are no solid waste capital improvements identified in either the 1-5 or 6-10-Year Capital Projects Schedules in the Addendum to the Capital Improvements section of this EAR. Capital improvements are not the responsibility of the Village in the provision of solid waste collection and disposal services. These responsibilities lie with the private contract hauler and PBCSWA. Therefore, Objective 1.4.0 which states, in part, "To maintain a five (S) year schedule of capital improvements to be dated annually, in conformance with the Capital Improvements element..." should be deleted in the Solid Waste sub-element update . Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 under Objective 1.4.0 do not really relate to Objective 1.4.0 , but are still relevant, and they should be maintained in the updates All data and analysis in the Support Documentation to the Solid Waste sub-element should be updated, where necessary, in the update process Any Objectives and Policies relating to solid waste facilities and services not already addressed herein shall be reviewed for update, revision or deletion in the EAR based amendmenx 3. Stormwater Management The drainage/stormwater management system serving Tequesta continues to rely 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 (3) main water bodies to which the Village dischazges stormwater: the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River and the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). There is a canal located along the southern limits that runs in an eastlwest direction to the North Fork of the River that is tidally influenced. Another drainage canal located on the north side of Tequesta Drive carries stormwater runoff from the Bermuda Terrace-Tequesta Drive area east to the North Fork of the River. Additionally, land developers have provided secondary drainage systems within their respective developments. There aze also four (4) parcels in the Village that are dedicated -56- to drainage and retention/detention purposes. They are referred to as parcels B, C, Russell Road and Cypress Drive North. There is also a drainage easement located in the Bayview area. This basic drainage system has not changed since reported in the last EAR and in subsequent updates to the Plan. The Village's drainage and stormwater management system has been constructed in a piece-meal fashion over time with the majority of the system having been constructed between 1961 and 1978. Therefore, the major portion of the stormwater drainage system was constructed prior to any discharge regulations. Objective 1.2.0 in the Stormwater Management sub-element addresses this concern: Objective 1.2 0: pillage stormwater drainage regulations incorporated within the appropriate ~Ilage land development regulations, shall provide for protection, and where possible, enhancement of natural drainage features and ensure that future development utilizes stormwater management systems to protect the func- tions of recharge areas and natural drainage feature Objective 1.2.0 was adopted as part of the sub-element in the original Comprehensive Plan and has been implemented in a variety of ways since that time. Policy 1.2.1 regards enforcing landscape and open space requirements, preserving • native vegetation and minimizing the amount of impervious areas Minimum landscape and open space requirements are established in each zoning district while preservation of native vegetation and the amount of allowable impervious areas are established in the site plan review process and requirements. All of these requirements continue to be strictly enforced and scrutinized in the site plan review and building processes. Policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 require that the Vllage increase on-site retention/detention capacity requirements and require new development to limit post-development runoff rates and volumes to pre-devetopment conditions, respectively. As a general drainage requirement, each proposed development project and/or site in the Village must maintain 95% of all stormwater runoff on -site. This requirement is established in the Site Plan Review section of the Village's Official Zoning Ordinance (Re£ Division 2. Site Plan Review, Sec.78-331 Required; development standards; required facilities and infrastructure (8) (c)) and in the Subdivisions Ordinance (Ref. Article V. Design Standards, Division 1. Generally, Sec. 66-161 General Standards; level of service standards (~ (2)). Limiting post-development runoff to pre-development conditions is also a requirement of site plan review and subdivision requirements. Since the intent of Objective 1.2.0 continues to be met and Policies 1.2.1 - 1.2.3 continue to be implemented by local regulations, they should be maintained in the update to the Stormwater Management sub-element • -57- The Village of Tequesta is a co-permittee in the Countywide NPDES (National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System) Stormwater Permitting Program. The Storrnwater Management sub-element must be consistent with any requirements of this program. The Village has participated in the NPDES program since its inception in the early 1990's, and Policies have been added to the sub-element to address some of the NPDES program issues. Policies 1.2.5 - 1.2.7 specifically address NPDES stormwater permitting program requirements, and Policy 1.2.4 addresses construction site best management practices (BMP's) ; also, a requirement of the NPDES program: Policy 1.2 4: The Vllage shall protect and preserve water quality by use of construction site best management ractices (BMP's) and the incorporation of techniques such as on-site reten- tion and/or detention, use of pervious surfaces, native ve- getation and Xeriscape landscaping practices when con- sidering all proposals for development and/or redevelopment Policy 1.2 S: l~thin the S year planning period, the pillage shall maintain levels of pollutants at all outfalls within its jurisdiction into the North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee River as part of its "Wet Weather" Sampling regulations of the NPDES Stormwater Permitting Program Policy 1.2.6: l~thin the S year planning period the Vllage shall maintain • levels of pollutants at all dry weather sampling uses (areas with 3 days of no rain) as part of its "Dry Weather" Sampling re- gulations of the NPDES Stormwater Permitting Program Policy 1.2.7.• 7'he Village shall establish water quality standards consistent with the NPDES Pt~ogram after the S year program period All of the practices and requirements cited in the Policies above are implemented and presented in the Village's NPDES Annual Report These represent on-going activities and requirements of the NPDES program Therefore, Policies 1.2.4 1.2.7 should all be retained in the updates Policy 1.3.3 states that, "All development and/or redevelopment activities associated with on-site drainage facilities shall be designed and reviewed to maximize non- structural techniques (i. ~ on-site retention and/or detention, use of pervious surfaces, Swale areas, native vegetation and Xeriscape landscaping) in combination with structural drainage facilities (~ ~ underground drainage facilities) to reduce stormwater runoff, maintain local recharge and protect water quality': These practices continue to be required as part of the NPDES program and are implemented through local -58- • code requirements and enforcement. Policy 1.3.3, likewise should be maintained in the sub-element update The NPDES stormwater permitting program also requires that catch basins, culverts, outfalls and retention/detention .areas be routinely maintained, monitored and reported in the NPDES Annual Report Policy 1.3.4, specifically addresses these issues and should also be maintained in the updates Policy 1.3.1 establishes the LOS Standard for drainage facilities and stormwater management practices: Policy 1.3.1: Public drainage facilities Level of Service standard of a twenty five (25) year frequency, twenty four (24) hour 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 This is a stringent LOS Standard, but it is strictly enforced in the land development approval process. This is clearly the intent as established in Objective 1.3.0 and as stated in Policy 1.3.2: Objective 1.3.0: The pillage 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. Policy 1.3.2: All development and/or redevelopment activities shall be undertaken in a manner consistent with adopted Level of Service standards Developers must design their drainage systems to meet the twenty five (25) frequency, twenty four (24) hour storm event, or their project will not be approved. Objective 1.3.0 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 shall be maintained in the Stormwater Management sub-element updates It is noted, however, that this LOS standard should be incorporated into the site plan review requirements in the Official Zoning Ordinance and also in the design standards section of the Subdivisions Ordinance (both sections, respectively, cited above). Policy 1.1.4 of the Sub-element requires that drainage facilities be provided that are cost effective without any reduction in the LOS. This is a consistent and required practice in the land development approval process. Policy 1.1.4 should be retained in the updates -59- Objective 1.1.0 established that, "The Village shall, at a minimum, maintain a five year schedule of public facilities Capital Improvements needs, to be updated annually, in conformance with the Capital Improvements element...'; and Policy 1.1.1 references TABLE SM-1 (for fiscal years 1998 through 2002) which represents the 5 year capital improvement program for drainage facilities only. Objective 1.1.0 and Policy 1.1.1 should be retained in the update, however, the timeframe referenced in Policy 1.1.1 should be kept up-to-dates Policy 1.1.3 should be deleted in the update because it references a Stormwater Management Plan to be completed in FY 1998/99. This Policy is no longer applicable. The Village has an established Stormwater Utility that maintains a 10-Year Capital Improvements Program of proposed drainage facilities. Policy 1.1.2 specifically requires that such a schedule be maintained by the Utility. This schedule is identified on TABLE SM-1 referenced above which contains projections for both the 5 and 10-Year planning periods. Policy 1.2 should be maintained in the updated sub-element. The S and 10-Year projected drainage improvements are contained in the 1-S Year and (r10 Year Capital Projects Schedules in the Addendum to the CIE section of this EAR The data and analysis contained in the Support Documentation to the Stormwater Management sub-element shall be updated, as necessary. . 4. Potable Water The Village owns and operates a central potable water system. Since 1968, the Village of Tequesta has served its residents and businesses with facilities for the withdrawal, treatment and distribution of potable water. Prior to 1968, the central 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 franchise area. The entire pillage of Tequesta is provided central potable water service, and all properties are connected to the system There continue to be eight (8) permitted private wells within the Tequesta service area. All of these wells serve irrigation needs only. The Tequesta water system service area extends beyond the Village limiter The present service area encompasses more than 2500 acres. Besides providing service to residents, businesses and other uses located within the corporate limits of Tequesta. Additionally, the current Village water system serves portions of unincorporated Palm Beach County north of the Loxahatchee River and south of the Martin County line; a portion of Southern Martin County including north to Jonathan Dickinson Park including Jupiter Hills, Rolling Hills and a part of southern Jupiter Island; and, the entire Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, a peninsula lying adjacent to the ICWW, Jupiter Inlet and Atlantic Ocean. . -60- The Vllage water system consists of public wells, a distribution system and treatment • facilities The composition of the overall Village water system has changed significantly since reported in the last EAR and subsequent Plan updates. The existing well facilities, as most recently described in the Village of Tequesta Water Use Permit Renewal Application, Permit No. SO-00046-W, February, 2006, include: seven (7) active surficial wells on the eastern peninsula (well numbers 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 7 and 8); three (3) active surficial wells on the western peninsula (well numbers 25, 26 and 27); and, two (2) active Floridan wells on the eastern peninsula (1R and 2R). There are also three (3) other proposed wells, all located on the eastern peninsula as follows: Well 28 (surficial, proposed future); Well 3R (drilled and on schedule to be equipped in 2006-07); We114R (scheduled to be drilled in 2006); and, Wel15R (proposed future). The Permit renewal anticipated that the proposed allocation would be adequate through the year 2026. The Village had historically been dependent on the Surficial Aquifer for potable water supply. The potable water allocation for the Tequesta water system is reactive to a phased-in increasing dependence on the Floridan Aquifer coupled with the continued use of the Su>~cial Aquifer. The Village has taken significant steps and incurred substantial expense over the past fifteen (15) years to reduce its use of the Surficial Aquifer. These steps included: abandonment of seven (7) wells on the eastern peninsula; construction of a western peninsula wellfield; construction of three (3) Floridan Aquifer wells (with a fourth pending); and, construction of a new reverse osmosis treatment facility. The Village has worked cooperatively with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in developing this long term program The Village realizes that a permanent, albeit proportionately reducing dependency on the Su>~cial Aquifer is needed in order to achieve a suitable finished water quality and, not insign~cantly, to befiscally responsible to its water customers. The Vllage also secures a portion of its potable water from the Town of Jupiter. The current contract stipulates that 1.35 MGD (million gallons per day) must be paid for, whether used or not. The actual purchased quantity over recent years averaged 1.3 5 MGD. These purchases are made pursuant to a thirty (30) year contract with Jupiter. The contract expires in July, 2007, and the Village has advised the Town of Jupiter that it does not intend to renew. The Village's reverse osmosis plant was designed and built in anticipation of the contract expiration and the intent not to renew. The Village operates two (2) plants at the wastewater treatment plant site. The plants share some common elements and, in a sense, function as a single facility, but the two (2) processes are rated separately. The filter plant treats all of the water from the Surficial Aquifer and is rated at 2.7 MGD. The reverse osmosis plant has a current capacity of 1.2 MGD (1 train), but is expandable to 3.6 MGD (3 trains). One (1) additional train will offset mast of the loss of volume induced by expiration of the Jupiter contract. A well to support the second train has already been drilled. -61- • Objective 1.1.0 of the Potable Water sub-element to the Utilities element of the Village Comprehensive Plan states, "Maintain water supply and distribution systems which utilize water resources in a safe, economical manner': Policies 1.1.1-1.1.3 recognize managing its potable water system consistent with local, regional or areawide plans and to investigate alternative water sources and methods of treatment The SFWNID has been preparing the Lower East Coast Water Supply Facilities Plan for eventual adoption. This Plan is not adopted as of this date, but it is expected to be adopted in early-mid 2007. The Village will be subject to the Plan, so the Village has coordinated with the SFWNID, as stated above, especially in the development of its Water Use Permit Renewal Application to assure that alternative water sources and other matters pertinent to the potable water supply have been mutually considered by the Village and SFWNID. Objective 1.1.0 and Policies 1.1 1.3 are being, and have been, met in the Permit application process The Objective and Policies should be maintained in the Potable Water sub-element update as these efforts should be on-going and established policy of the illage. Objective 1.2.0 and its supporting Policies address protection, availability and quality of water resources The raw water quality is variable within the Surficial Aquifer and reasonably constant within the Florida Aquifer. The filtration plant effectively reduces the iron and color concentrations/levels in the SurFcial Aquifer and yields a product that is excellent for blending with reverse osmosis plant product to provide a stable, aesthetically acceptable result, which satisfies all applicable standards. Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 specifically regard the establishment of regulations to protect water resources: Policy 1.2.1: lTllage development regulations should provide for the protection and availability of water resources Policy 1.2.3: The ITllage Building Department in its site plan review process shall require site plans which incorporate inno- vative urban, architectural and/or engineering design of impervious areas (msg. parking lots) to maximize the retention of rainfall to these areas which will increase the recharge of the groundwater while reducing storm- water runoff. The Village has established in Sec. 78-143, Schedule of Site Regulations of its Off cial Zoning Ordinance site regulations within each zoning district to provide for increased impervious areas which, in turn, are established to protect groundwater quality and water resources (e.g. maximum lot coverage, minimum landscape and open space and yard requirements). The site plan review process is utilized to review proposed systems to assure that maximum retention of rainfall and stormwater runoff are retained on site. • -52- Other best management practices are employed by the Village in the site plan and development approval processes to ensure that the quality of water resources is protected and recharge to the groundwater supplies are maximized. Objective 1.2.0 and Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 are on going concerns and should be retained in the sub-element updates The Village Building Department reference should be changed in the update to the Village Department of Community Development. Policy 1.2.2 specifically addresses salt water intrusion Policy 1.2.2: Future wells should be located in the irllage's water service area where the potential for salt water intrusion into the su>f cial aquifer and existing wellfields in per- iods of drought is neinimized The Water Use Permit Renewal Application stated that it was reasonable to conclude that the Surficial Aquifer allocation over the previous permit cycle had not yielded any indication of saltwater intrusion on either peninsula and that conductivity levels for all Surficial Aquifer monitoring wells have remained within acceptable ranges. Monitoring of potential saltwater intrusion should be a continuing concern of the Village in the future. Policy 1.2.2 should also be maintained in the update, The Tequesta potable water supply and central system must meet strict standards. • Objective 1.4.0: specifically states that the Tillage shall, "Establish criteria necessary to maintain adopted Level of Service Standards for the extension of public water facilities within the Tillage's designated service area': The }rllage continues to adhere to, and be subject, to various standards of other agencies and levels of government The Village potable water system must meet the standards established in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Public law 93-523. The Village is also subject to, and a participant in, the Palm Beach County Wellfield Protection Ordinance. Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 require adherence to these federal and County requirements, respectively; therefore they should be retained in the updated Potable Water sub-element This Countywide Wellfield Protection Ordinance regulates land use activities within travel time contours of the Village's wellfields. These travel time contours (zones of influence) are identified and overlayed on the currently adopted Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The travel time contours (cones of influence) locations should be reviewed with the County and updarted, if necessary, The Village Water Department also requires that certain industry design standards that meet acceptable fire flow and water quality requirements be met in the construction of and/or expansion of water supply and distribution systems. Policy 1.4.3 specifically identifies those professional standards They should be reviewed for current applicabil- -63- • applicability in the update process and revised in the Policy 1.4 3, if necessary. Potable Water Level of Service (LOS) Standards are established in Policy 1.4.6 of the Potable Water sub-element and in the Capital Improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan. These LOS Standards should be reviewed closely with the Village Utilities Department in the update process for current applicability, and revised appropriately. The Village currently has in effect amulti-element water conservation program. This program has been in place over most of the previous Consumptive Use Permit period (10 years). Objective 1.6.0 established a strict water conservation goal: Objective 1.6~ 0: Achieve an average potable water consumptive use of 175 gallons per capita day (fined as the total amount of water used by all customers in the Village divided by the pillage's population) through the implementation of voluntary programs for existing development and man- datory programs for new development and redevelopment Historical water usage trends indicate that average potable water consumption has been decreasing since 2000. Records dating back to FY 1991 have been recorded by the Village and reflect the average water consumption on a gallons per capita day (GPCD) • basis through FY 2005: FY Consumption (GPCD) 91 178 92 187 93 173 94 175 95 175 96 184 97 144 98 180 99 167 00 211 O1 206 02 199 03 189 04 183 OS 176 -64- • • The Village instituted a water conservation ratestructuring program that charged incrementally higher rates for higher usage of the potable water system. The improvement since 2000 has been a direct result of the implementation of this water conservation rate structuring that has been implemented. It is anticipated that the success of the program will continue, and the Village is committed to the vigorous pursuit of all efforts toward water conservation. The goal of achieving an average water consumption rate of 175 gpcd as expressed in Objective 1.6.0 has nearly been met; however, for planning purposes, it is not realistic to expect relative per capita consumption to reduce further without the implementation of additional conservation measures Policy 1.6.4 states that, "If the water consumptive use is not maintained at an average 175 gallons per capita day or... the irllage shall adopt and implement additional reduction programs which will result in achieving the average potable water consumptive use of 1 SO gallons per capita day... " There are a variety of water conservation measures being implemented that work toward fiurther conservation. Whether or not 150 gpcd is realistic needs to be reviewed in the update process. Based on new data and analysis in the update, Policy 1.6.4 should be reviewed for current applicability and revised or deleted in the updates The Irllage continues to implement a leak detection program. The program is based on the concept of comparing the volume of water produced for consumption and the volume billed. This calculation is performed on a monthly basis and the yearly results are submitted to the SFWMD. Action levels have been established. As part of the program and to improve the accuracy of the calculations, the Village has adopted a residential and commercial meter replacement program. Policies I.4.5, 1.4.7 and 1.4.8 address these issues: Policy 1.4. S; The pillage Water Department shall continue testing water and replacing meters to control system water loss by f low measurement The program is designed for improved accuracy of flow measurement and ac- countability of water lass Policy 1.4.7.• The Village shall continue to review, improve and enhance its Computer Billing System. Policy 1.4.8: The Village shall collect data on an on-going basis to differentiate between residential and non-residential uses. These Policies are being implemented and are still relevant Policies 1.4. S, 1.4.7 and 1.4.8, also, should be maintained in the updates The Village has adopted, and continues to implement various regulations that improve water conservation. The Village has adopted water protection and conservation measures • -65- • in Article VI. Water Protection and Conservation of Chapter 50, Natural Resources Protection in the Village Code of Ordinances. Specifically, Article VI, Sec. SO-187 requires the use of low volume plumbing fixtures and Article VI, Sec.50-189 requires rain sensor overrides for all irrigation systems and recognizes SFWMD criteria related to limiting irrigation hours for lawns and ornamentals. Policy 1.6.2 addresses specific water reduction programs such as those identified in Article tfI of the Village Code of Ordinances Policy 1.6.2 actually goes further in identifying potential conservation program Objective 1.3.0 establishes that the Village, "Continue a program for water conservation of potable water resources within the Village which includes the utilization of available non potable water for purposes other than human consumption when neither the health of the population nor the environment will be adversely affected': Many individual irrigation systems being utilized by private property owners are connected to the central water system. In an effort to address this issue, Policy L3.1 suggests that "...development codes and ordinances should make provision for use of native vegetation using xeriscape concepts in future development': The Village recommends use of xeriscape principals and requires in its landscaping regulations adopted in the Village Zoning Ordinance (Ref. Sec. 78-402, Vegetation selection criteria) the use of native vegetation as referenced in the SFWMD Xeriscape Plant Guide. Objective 1.3.0 and Policy 1.3.1 continue to be implemented by adopted Village regulations and should, therefore, be retained in the updated Potable Water sub- • element Policy 1.6.3 also requires the use of xeriscape and natural vegetation, as well as other in-home water saving devices. It, too, should be retained in the updates It is noted here that Objective 1.3.0 in the Conservation element of the current Comprehensive Plan establishes that 60% native vegetation which is indigenous to the South Florida area be required in all new development and redevelopment areas. This requirement is also required by the landscaping regulations adopted by the Village. Policy 1.3.2 of the Conservation element requires that the landscaping provisions of the Village's regulations be enforced in the site plan review and development processes. All developments continue to be reviewed and scrutinized against these water conservation related landscaping requirements. Objective 1.3.0 and Policy 1.3 2 of the Conservation element should be retained in the update to the Conservation element to further water conservation practices Policy 1.3.3 establishes that, "The Vllage 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': This is an on-going statutory requirement which is aimed at water conservation in times of emergency and water shortage. Policy l.3 3 should be • -66- • kept in the update to the sub-elemenx Water conservation measures are also addressed in Objective 2.9.0 and Policy 2.9.1 of the Conservation element of the current Comprehensive Plan: Objective 2.9.0: The Vllage shall maintain water conservation measures to provide for emergency conservation of water resources Policy 2.9.1: The pillage shall develop its water utilities rate structure to provide for a surcharge for heavy users of water and institute a program designed to cooperate with the South Florida Water Management District in times of water conservation emergencies through its Code of Ordinances These requirements of the Conservation element aze similaz to those required in the Potable Water sub-element above. Therefore, Objective 2.9.0 and Policy 2.9.1 of the current Conservation element should also be maintained in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes is an effective water conservation • measure. The Village does not own or operate a wastewater treatment facility and, as such, does not manufacture reclaimed water. The Village, however, is located within the LRD service area, and the LRD does produce reclaimed water. The Village continues to work with the LRD to encourage its use. There aze customers within the Village water service azea that currently use reclaimed water for these purposes. The lrllage should consider adding a Policy to the updated Potable Water sub-element that encourages the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes Policy 1.3.4 establishes that, "The Vllage 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 water resources within the V'illage's service area': This continues to be accomplished by the Village and is an on-going task of the Village. Policy 1.3.4 should be retained in the update. The Village makes water conservation literature available to all customers In addition, the Village improves public awareness of water conservation through distribution of re- lated information in water bill messages, the Village Newsletter and other literature displayed in information racks at Village buildings. Policy 1.6.1 establishes that the Village should design and implement water conservation education programs similar to those identified above -67- Policies 1.6. S -1. f 7 all state water conservation update activities to be performed at the time of this EAR preparation. These Policies have been implemented in this portion of the Reporx Update activities are a normal course of the EAR process. Whether or not these activities need to be stated in Policy form should be reviewed by the pillage in the update process There are some water conservation related issues addressed in the Coastal Management element of the Village's Comprehensive Plan which will be addressed in the Coastal Management section of this EAR Objective 1. S. 0 of the Potable Water sub-element states that, "The illage 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 and maximum utilization of existing potable water facilities are provided in compliance with adopted potable water Level o Service Standards... " The maintenance of a 5-Year Capital Improvements Schedule of Improvements is a requirement of this EAR. This is a requirement of Chapter 163, F.S. The annual update to the Schedule will become effective this year. Therefore, Objective I.S.O should remain in the update. Policies 1. S.3 and 1. S. S identify how the extension ojpotable water service and potable water capital improvement projects will be evaluated, respectively. The Village should review these Policies for current applicability and revise, or delete them, as appropriate • in the updates Policy 1. S.1 lists improvements to Tequesta's central potable water system These improvements were tied to specific years and have been accomplished. Policy 1. S.1 should be deleted in the update. Any potable water facilities capital improvements and associated costs that are scheduled for the S and IO-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan are identified in the 1-S Year and 6-IO-Year Capital Projects Schedules of the Addendum to this CIE. Policy 1.5.2 states that, "The lrllage shall maintain a permitting procedure to ensure that adequate facility capacity exists or will exist concurrently with development to maintain adopted Level of Service Standards': LOS Standards have already been discussed in this section. Potable Water LOS Standards must be met before development may proceed per requirements of Article IV, Adequate Facilities and Concurrency Management under Chapter 62, Planning and Development of the Village's Code of Ordinances Policy 1.5.2 is relevant and should be maintained in the update. Policy 1.5.4 establishes that, "The ~Ilage shall maintain its on-going monitoring and maintenance program for the potable water system as administered by the Water De- i -68- partment': This Policy represents an on-going activity of the Department. Policy 1.5.4 should remain in the updates All data and analysis in the Support Documentation to the Potable Water sub-element of the Comprehensive Plan should be revised where necessary, in the updates Any Objectives or policies of the Potable Water sub-element that have not been specifically addressed in this section, shall be reviewed at time of the EAR based Comprehensive Plan updates 5. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (NGAR) The Surficial Aquifer continues to provide most of the groundwater supply used in Palm Beach County, including Tequesta; however, as revealed in 4. Potable Water sub-sectionof this Report, the Vllage is ,experiencing an increasing dependence on the Floridan Aquifer. The Village of Tequesta Water Use Renewal Permit Application (Permit No.50-0004~N~, February, 2006 recognizes aphased-in increasing dependence on the Floridan Aquifer coupled with, and supplemental to, continued use of the Surficial Aquifer. The Village realizes that a permanent, albeit proportionately reducing dependency on the Surficial Aquifer is needed to achieve a suitable finished water quality. The Village of Tequesta is situated on the coastal ridge which paralles the Atlantic • Ocean. Elevations across most of the Village range from five (5) to ten (10) feet msl; however, elevations in isolated areas can be twenty five (25) feet or more. Specifically, these elevations occur along the crest of the coastal ridge west of U. S. Highway 1. These basic topographic features have not changed since the last EAR and subsequent Plan amendments As identified in 1. Sanitary Sewer above, there are a few isolated properties in the lTUage where septic tanks are still in use. With the recent sewering of the Tequesta Country Club and immediate area, few areas remain without the capability to connect to the central sewer system. There still are a few individual properties that have not connected to the central system and remain on septic tank systems. General soil types within the Village are relatively favorable for septic tank use. They consist primarily of deep, well drained sands and gravels and have a high rate of water transmission. Therefore, there continues to no major detrimental impacts created by the use of septic tanks (that are in proper operating condition) either to the soils or to the groundwater aquifer recharge capability. Even though these favorable conditions exist, it is noted that Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the Sanitary Sewer sub-element of the current Compre- hensive Plan, and as discussed in L Sanitary Sewer sub-element of this EAR are established to properly regulate the future use of septic tanks in Tequesta i -69- Wellfield protection is important to preserving the quality of groundwater supplies. The protection of these valuable resources are expressed in the Goal of the Natural Goundwater Aquifer Recharge sub-element of the current Comprehensive Plan: Goal: The functions of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas within the Village will be protected and maintained There are a number of public wellfields and facilities located within the corporate limits of Tequesta. As described in more detail in 4. Potable Water, there are currently seven (7) active surficial wells on the eastern peninsula, three (3) active surficial wells on the western peninsula and two (2) active Floridan wells on the eastern peninsula. The Village continues to be a participant in, and subject to, the Palm Beach County Wel~eld Protection Ordinance. This Ordinance regulates existing and new non- residential uses, handling, storage and production of hazardous and toxic materials within zones of influence of the major potable water wellfields throughout the County, including Tequesta. The source of groundwater recharge continues to be predominantly rainfall. All undeveloped and open space surfaces are considered recharge areas for the surficial aquifer. Some additional recharge is provided by the wetlands located to the north of Tequesta because their location is up gradient of the Tequesta wellfields. The wetland • recharges, however, are also controlled by rainfall. Protection of the wellfields in Tequesta and the groundwater recharge areas is established by Objective 1.1.0 in the NGAR sub-element: Objective 1.1. D The pillage shall develop an active program that pro- vides for the protection and maintenance of natural groundwater recharge areas, including natural drainage features, within the pillage to ensure or enhance ground- water recharge to the surficial aquifer. Objective 1.1 0 should be maintained in the updated NGAR sub-element, but should be revised to include the "Floridan"aquifer. Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. which regard developing standards in the Subdivision Regulations for inclusion of recharge areas in open space preservation areas, and regulations that require retention of stormwater runoff to maximize groundwater recharge have been fully implemented. Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 remain relevant and should be maintained in the update. Policy 1.1.3 which states, "The Village shall coordinate development and implementation of aquifer recharge area protection programs to meet national, state • -70- and regional objectives" is also being accomplished by the ~llag~ As discussed in 3. Stormwater Management sub-section of this Report, the Village is a co-permittee in the Palm Beach County NPDES permit program which is a federally mandated and State administered stormwater management program. One of the purposes of this program is to monitor the water quality emanating in and from retention areas in Tequesta which, in turn, will help protect the quality of groundwater supplies. Policy 1.1.3 should be retained in the NGAR update, as weld Policy 11.4 regards coordinating with the LRD in the use of IQ water. This continues to be an on-going concern. Policy 1.1.4 should be retained in the updated sub-elemenx Policy 1.1.5 regards a drainage and landscape project on Seabrook Road in FY 2000 and 2001. Policy 1.1. S is no longer relevant and should be deleted in the updates Because the pillage has very limited growth potential within its existing corporate limits (currently 99% developed and less than 1 % Vacant and available for future development), future development in either the 5 or 10-Year planning periods will have minimal impacts on the overall condition and quality of groundwater supplies All data and analysis in the Support Documentation to the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge sub-element should be updated and revisea~ as necessary. Conservation • The Conservation element was highly scrutinized in the 1996 EAR process and subsequent EAR-based Comprehensive Plan amendments. Those Objectives and Policies will be identified in this section as already having been found to be "In Compliance" as a result of that process. This element of the EAR is updated from the data and analysis contained in the Conservation Support Documentation and the current Goal, Objectives and Policies contained in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Goal of the current Conservation element of the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: Goal: To preserve and enhance natural feabsres in Tequesta. The natural features and resources assessed in this section include: surface waters and the estuarine system; wetlands and the coastal system; floodplains; air quality; aquatic and wildlife habitats; landscape and recreational opportunities of the natural features; and, other associated features. The Coastal Zone & Conservation Map in the Comprehensive Plan identifies water bodies, wetlands, upland vegetation communities, submerged lands and various other natural resources found within the Village. • -71- • The Vllage contains both Class II and Class III water within its jurisdiction, Class II waters are those coastal waters which have either actual or potential capability of supporting shellfish propagation and harvesting. Class II waters are the most stringent water classification. The portion of the Loxahatchee River located within the lrllage of Tequesta, and its tributaries, are classified as a Class II water system. This circumstance has not changed since the last EAR and subsequent Plan amendments. Portions of the Loxahatchee River that flaw through the Village have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters by the State. The North Fork of the River traverses the Village with the Tequesta Country Club are lying to the west and the mainland of Tequesta to the east .The Northwest Fork of the River flows adjacent to the western corporate limits, also along the Tequesta Country Club area. The State has designated the Loxahatchee River and its tributaries Class II waters 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. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICWK~ and the mouth of the Loxahatchee River at the Jupiter Inlet are classified Class III waters This circumstance, also, has not changed These waters continue to be used extensively for recreational activities. There are also surface waters within the Tillage designated as aquatic preserves. Aquatic preserves represent exceptional biologically, aesthetically, educationally and/or scientifically valuable waters set aside by the State for special management purposes. • The Loxahatchee ,River and the ICWW continue to be designated Aquatic Preserves The ICWW and a portion of the Loxahatchee River at its confluence with the ICWW are located within the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve. Objectives 2.2.0, Policy 2.2.1 and Objective 2.3.0 of the Conservation element of the current Plan recognize the importance of preserving the unique estuarine environment of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve: Objective 2.2.0: 7'he Village shall recognize the unique estuarine en- vironment of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve and prohibit development along its shores that will de- story or disturb the vital sea grasses within its jurisdiction through its Code of Ordinances Policy 2.2.1: The ~Ilage shall prohibit development or modification of the shorelines within the Indian River lagoon Aquatic Pre- serve 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 marina Siting Ordinance upon application to the Village or where modification or development is necessary for the continued health, safety and welfare of the public. -72- Objective 2.3.0: The Village shall 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 through its Code of Ordinances The Village has adopted various ordinances and regulations in its Code of Ordinances that address protecting and conserving the environmental resources and systems identified in the Objectives and Policy cited above. Chapter S0, Natural Resource Protection of the Village's Code of Ordinances contains regulations to protect and conserve coastal resources. The Vllage has adopted by reference Palm Beach County's Coastal Protection Ordinance which establishes measures to protect and conserve the coastal environment, and is subject Palm Beach County Boat Facilities Siting Plan. There are other natural resource-related Ordinances and regulations discussed later in this section that further protect and conserve the natural resources in Tequesta. Objective 2.2.0, Policy 22.1 and Objective 2.3.0 are being implemented and should be maintained in the Conservation element of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Coastal mangrove stands are found in various locations along the ICWW and Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. These locations are illustrated on the Coastal Zone & Conservation Map contained in the current Plan. The location of mangroves has not changed since reported in the last EAR and update process. Mangrove areas provide habitats for numerous birds and other wildlife and are a vital part of the food chain from aquatic organisms to man himself. In addition to the mangrove's contribution to the food chain, they provide a habitat for birds. Mangroves also contribute greatly to stabilizing the shoreline by providing a buffer against wave erosion and allowing sedimentation to occur. The lrllage has adopted the Palm Beach Count Mangrove Ordinance in Article IY, Mangrove .Protection under Chapter S0, Natural Resource Protection of its Code of Ordinances as the mangrove protection Ordinance for the ~llage~ Article IV, Mangrove Protection specifically adopts the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection Ordinance as the mangrove protection ordinance of the Village with the additional restriction to Section S of that Ordinance prohibiting the disturbance of mangroves in high marsh areas adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve except when necessary for public health and safety. Objective 2.11.0 and its supporting Policies were developed and added to the Conservation subsequent to extensive discussions with DCA in the last EAR process and EAR-based amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the Policies under Objective 2.1 LO directly emanates from the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code and Mangrove Protection Ordinance to constitute the Village Policies and regulations concerning mangroves, wetlands, sea grasses and other estuarine system issues. • -73- Objective 2.110: Tequesta will protect and conserve mangroves, wetlands and sea grasses to ensure that there will be no net loss of the existing natural resources with- in the ~llag~ In regard to wetlands protection, Policy 2,11.13 states that, The Village shall continue to implement the Wetlands Protection Section of the Unified Land Development Code...': Other Policies under Objective 2.11.0 relate to issues which are additionally regulated by other local regulations Policies 2.11.6 and 2.11. ~ regard the construction of piers, docks and walkways over submerged lands containing mangroves wetlands and sea grasses. The Village further regulates the construction of all piers and docks within the Village through Article XIII, Uniform Waterway Control in Chapter 78, Zoning of the Village's Code of Ordinances. Policy 2.11 I S states that, The Village shall conserve and protect wetlands by directing incompatible future land uses away from wetlands; or where incompatible uses are allowed, mitigation shall be a means to compensate for loss of wetland functions...': The site plan review and land development processes continue to scrutinize the conservation and protection of all natural resources, including wetlands All Policies under Objective 2.11.0 have been found to be "In Compliance" as result of the last EAR process, and they are still relevant and applicable. Objective 2.11.0 and • Policies 2.11.1- 2.11.1 S should all remain in the updated Conservation element Objective 1.4.0 and its supporting Policies are all requirements of the Palm Beach County Mangrove Protection Ordinance which is adopted as the Village's mangrove protection regulations. Objective 1.4.0 and Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2, are still relevant and applicable, as well, and should remain in the updates Objective 1. S. 0 pertains to the one exception from the County's Mangrove Protection Ordinance which, "...restricts public works projects from disturbing existing mangroves except where such work is essential to the continued health, safety and welfare of the Public". This Objective should continue to be implemented by the Village in the future. Therefore, Objective 1.5.0, too, should be retained in the updated element Objectives 1.6.0 and 2.12.0 regard the protection of native wildlife and their habitats. Objective 2.12.0 and its supporting Policies also emanate from, and are consistent with, Palm Beach County regulations. Objective 2.12.0 and Policies 2.12.1 - 2.12.3 were added to the element as a result of the last EAR updating process, as well, and, likewise were found to be "In Compliance" at that time. Objective 2.12.0 and Policies 2.12.1 - 2.12.3 should therefore, be maintained in the update to the element • -74- Objective 1.6. D and its supporting Policies are more locally oriented: Objective 1.6.0: The illage shall protect natural wildlife areas and environmentally sensitive lands by implementing the following policies Policy 1.6.1: Preserve all existing wetland areas identified on the Coastal Management/Conservation Map by adopting regulations that require the protection of existing native vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries Policy 1.6.2: The Vllage shall designate Ecosites #61 and #63 de- scribed in the support documentation and identified in the Coastal Management/Conservation Map as environ- mentally sensitive lands, and in its Code of Ordinances shall continue to provide for their protection and preser- vation. Poticy 1.6.3: The pillage shall restrict development activities that may adversely effect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife species and provide for the mitigation of develop- ment impacts on their habitats and food sources by requiring an environmental assessment at the time of a development or redevelopment proposal as part of the site plan review process It is noted that the Coastal Management/Conservation Map referenced above was changed to the "Coastal Zone & Conservation Map" in the Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands identified on the current Coastal Zone & Conservation Map have been preserved as intended in Policy 1.6.1. Ecosites #61 is recognized as a low hammock area on the Coastal Zone & Conservation Map and Ecosite #63 is identified as scrub vegetation. The lrllage has adopted, and continues to enforce, an environmentally sensitive lands Ordinance in Article II, Environmentally Sensitive Lands under Chapter S0, Natural Resource Protection of the iTllage's Code of Ordinances Also, the site plan review process continues to be utilized to require an environmental assessment of a proposed development area to assure that natural wildlife habitats are protected, if such endangered and threatened habitats exist at the site. Objective 1.6.0 and Policies 1. ~ 1-1. (3 are still relevant and applicable and should be maintained in the update Objectives 2.6.0 and 2.7.O,and their supporting Policies, regard maintaining and expanding the outdoor recreational facilities in the coastal Zone and to establish and maintain land use controls for such expansion of these facilities Park and recreational • -75- • areas in the Village are designated, and are being preserved, as Recreation and Open Space areas on the Future Land Use Map. These areas are also zoned R/OP, Recreation and Open Space on the Village's Official Zoning Map to assure their preservation. The Recreation and Oven Soace section of this EAR speaks in more detail to the recreational value of these areas. Policy 2.6.2 and Objective 1.9.0 both regard establishing public beach access and dedicating public beach easements LOS Standazds are established in the Recreation and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan which establish standazds for all recreation and open space facilities. Objectives 2.6.0, 2.7.0 and 1.9.0 and their supporting Policies should be maintained in the updates Objectives 1.3.0, 1.8.0 and 2.13.0 all address the need to conserve the use of native plant species in the landscaping of developed areas in the Vllage and to prohibit the spread of exotic species Objective 2.13.0 and its supporting Policies specifically requires the conservation of native species in all development areas while Objective 1.8.0 requires the use of native vegetation to stabilize the dune system. Objective 1.3.0 specifically requires that a minimum 60% of native vegetation that is indigenous to the South Florid area be preserved in all development areas. The landscaping regulations adopted in the Village's Zoning Ordinance require the use and preservation of native vegetation. Specifically, Sec.78-402, Vegetation Selection Criteria of Chapter 78, Zoning in the Village's Code of Ordinances requires the use of native vegetation as referenced in the South Florida Water Management District Xeriscape Plant Guide II, as • amended. Also, the landscape regulations require, and the Village continues to enforce, a minimum 60% native landscaping be provided that is consistent with the Xeriscape Plant Guide. Objectives 1.3 0, 1. g 0 and 213.0 and their supporting Policies are all being implemented by local regulations and should be maintained in the Conservation element updates The conservation of water resources is addressed in Objective 2.9.0 aced Policy 2.91: Objective Z.9.0: The lrllage shall maintain water conservation measures to provide for emergency conservation of water services Policy Z. 9.1: The Village shall develop its water utilities rate structure to provide for a surcharge for heavy users of water and institute a program designed to cooper- ate with the South Florida Water Management Dis- trict in times of water conservation emergencies through its Code of Ordinances Similaz water conservation issues are discussed in the Potable Water sub-section of the Utilities section in this Report (See discussion regazding Objective 1.6.0 and Policies 1.6.1- 1.6.7 in the Potable Water sub-section herein). Additionally, the pillage has -76- adopted regulations in its Code of Ordinances that require cooperation with the • SFWMD in times of water conservation emergencies. These regulations are established in Division 3, Conservation o, f' Water in Emergency Situations of Article II, Water Service within Chapter 74, Utilities of the Village's Code of Ordinances. Objective 2.9.0 and Policy 2.9.1 continue to be relevant and should be maintained in the updated element Objective 2.I.0 and its supporting Policies require that the quality of water that flows into estuarine and oceanic waters be protected, Policy 2.1.0 directs that the site plan review process require drainage%nvironmental statements for proposed developments to determine potential impacts on Class III waterer Drainage statements and environmental statements/assessments continue to be a requirement of the site plan review process. Policy 2.1.3 states, "The Village shall protect water quality by restricting activities and land uses known to adversely affect the quality and quantity of identified water sources such as natural ground water recharge areas and wellhead protection areas': The Village has identified Wellfield cones of influence and their travel time contours. These contours are illustrated on the Coastal Zone & Conservation Map. Land use activities within the travel time contours are subject to restrictions established in Article i ; Wellfield Protection under Chapter S0, Natural Resource Protection of the Vllage's Code of Ordinances The Village has adopted the Palm Beach County Wellfield Protection Ordinance by reference. Policy Z.1.2 establishes that the ~Ilage should coordinate with the County and State regarding impacts of development as they may affect the Loxahatchee River Estaury and Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve This should remain an on-going practice of the Village. Objective 2.1.0 and Policies 2.1.1- 2.1.3 should all be retained in the element update The irllage contains various flood-prone areas (Zones A and i~ with the majority being located along the Atlantic Ocean on the barrier island, the ICWW and fringe areas along the North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee River. These areas are subject to inundation during the 100-year flood event. The only "V" zone within or contiguous to the Village limits continues to be along the Atlantic beaches while "A" zones are located at the fringe areas of the western peninsular and small portions in Tequesta Pines subdivision and the east part of the North Fork within the Village limits. Objective 2.4.0 and Policy 2.4.1 encourage residents in f food-prone areas to utilize the National Flood Insurance Program and encourages the pillage to continue to support that program as well as the Community Rating System (CRS). The Village has continued to support these programs and work with residents and businesses in regard to program requirements. Objective 2.4.0 and policy 2.4.1, therefore, should be continuing policy of the Vllage and retained in the updated element The Vllage should review the relevance of the CRS program in the update Objective 1.2 0 and 2. S. 0 and their supporting Policies concern adopting and maintaining standards and criteria to provide proper relief from flooding and to restrict off-site of stormwater pollutants. The Village specifically requires in Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2. Z that minimum off-site runoff of stormwater pollutants and on-site . -77- . stormwater retention/detention criteria established by the SFWMD be restricted. These criteria are scrutinized in the site plan review and land development processes, and evidence must be provided that these criteria will, and can be, met. Policy 2.5.2 specifically states that land development regulations should be maintained that limits the amount of impervious area permitted in developments The landscape regulations establish maximum ground coverage and minimum landscape and open space area requirements to minimize impervious areas. These established criteria and standards should be maintained in the Village's land development regulations. Objective 1.2.0, Policy 1.2.1, Objective 2. S. 0, Policies Z. S.1 and 2. S. 2 should also be continually enforced and maintained in the Conservation element in the futures In an effort to conserve dune and beach areas, Objective 1.7.0 prohibits new construction Oceanside of the State designated coastal construction setback line or in areas what would threaten the stability of either the dune or the beach. Objective 1.7.3 goes so far as to establish new setback lines in the Village codes if the State line proves to be inadequate This has yet to be the case, but it remains a valid issue. Objective 1.7.0 and its supporting Policies should be maintained in the update. In another effort to conserve the dune system, Objective 1.10.0 states, "Prevent certain motorized vehicles from driving on the primary dunes except in emergency situations': Policy 1.1 D.1 species that local regulations should identify which motorized vehicles are to be prohibited The Village has adopted, and continues to enforce Article IV, Vehicles on Beaches of Chapter 46, Motor Vehicles and Traffic in its Code of Ordinances This Article specifies that, "... it is unlawful to operate any motor vehicle upon the public beaches within the village at any time, except that authorized emergency vehicles are per- mitted thereon while attending to duties". Objective I.IO.O and Policy 1.10.1 continue to be implemented by the irllage and should be maintained in the future. Air quality conditions in Palm Beach County, including Tequesta, continue to be rated generally as good. Air quality is monitored at various locations throughout the County. The Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (ADO) measures and provides means to reduce automobile emissions while the Palm Beach County Health Department measures and provides means to reduce emissions from fixed sources. Objective 2.8.0 and its supporting Policies encourage the continuation of these programs: Dbjective 2.8.0: Encourage air monitoring programs throughout the area by local pollution control agencies Policy 2.8.1: The ~Ilage should continue to support efforts of local pollution control agencies to monitor air quality in the Village. • -78- • Policy 2.8.2: The Village should coordinate and cooperate with local pollution control agencies to assure appropriate local inpux Objective 2.8 0 and Policies 2. g 1 - 2.8.3 should be retained in the Conservation element updates Objective 1.1.0 and Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 of the Conservation element also address air quality in terms of being compliant with local and State air quality standards and should be maintained in the update. 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 including car batteries, pesticides, degreasing solvents and petroleum waste products. In addition, service stations and marinas are potential sources of fuel and solvent waste products and leaks. Objective 2.10.0 and Policies 2.10.1 and 2.1 D.2 require that the Village shall maintain regulations and measures to manage hazardous wastes and materials: Objective 2.10.0: The Vllage shall maintain measures regulating the management of hazardous wastes and materials. • Policy 2.10.1: The Vllage shall maintain an ordinance regulating the storage and disposal of hazardous wastes and materials. Policy 2.10.2: The Vllage shall provide for the management of ha- zardous wastes to protect natural resources through its local Haz Mat team. The Village has adopted, and enforces, Article I Chapter 30, Environment of the Village's Code "...properly regulate the use, handling, storage substances and materials within the Village..". Objective 2.1 D. 0 and Policies 2.10.1 and 2.10 maintained in the update to the elemenx Toxic and Hazardous Materials under of Ordinances whose purpose is to, and disposal of toxic and hazardous Haz--Mat is available when needed 2 are still relevant and should be There are no capital improvements, or associated costs, regarding Conservation uses anticipated in the updated Capital Improvements Element (CIE). All data and analysis contained in the Support Documentation to the Conservation element shall be revised and updated, as necessary, to re, f lest current conditions and issues. Any Objectives or Policies not specifically addressed in this section will be re- -79- visited in the EAR-based amendment The Conservation element should be reviewed closely against State statutes and rules for necessary updates not identified in this section. Recreation and Open Space The Goal of the Recreation and Open Space element of the current Comprehensive Plan is, "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': There continues to be an array of recreation and open space opportunities available within the corporate limits of Tequesta for resident and general population use. The recreation areas and facilities provided by the Village are classified as either "active" or "passive" activities and as "neighborhood" or "community" type facilities. "Active" type facilities often require specially constructed fields, courts or other apparatus which lend themselves to a particular user-oriented activity. "Passive" recreation facilities require a resource base, either natural or man-made, with which the user interacts. Oceans, beaches woodlands and other natural areas offer a variety of passive recreational experiences. "Neighborhood" parks are facilities that typically 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 Tequesta and non- . resident population. Objective 1.1.0 of the current element establishes that the Village, "Maintain community and neighborhood parks and facilities meeting the needs of all age groups in Tequesta during the five (S) year planning period': The Vllage owns two (2) neighborhood parks (The Vllage Green and Constitution Park). The Village Green is a one (1) acre passive park located adjacent to the Village Hall complex. The park is softly lighted with walkways, benches and a fountain. Constitution Park is a 3.93 acre park offering a variety of passive and active activities (playgrounds, basketball, trail, benches, skate park, picnic pavilion, shade trees and other activities}. There is one (1) community park located within the corporate limits of Tequesta; Coral Cove Park. This community park is a 8.6 acre beachfront park located on the barrier island portion of Tequesta. Coral Cove Park was annexed into the Village in 1985 and is owned and operated by Palm Beach County. The park has 600 feet of beach, one (1) mile of nature trail, a fishing site and a tot lot. The pillage operates another community park that lies outside of its corporate limits; Tequesta Parr Tequesta Park is a forty two (42) acre park located in southern Martin County and adjacent to the northern Village limits. This facility is leased from the State Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Tequesta operates the facility and directs the recreation programs at the park. -80- The "neighborhood" and "community"park facilities meet the direction established in Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 in the Recreation and Open Space element: Policy 1.1.1: Provide recreation facilities which offer sufficient choice and variety for all age groups Policy 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 Vllag~ Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, as well as, Objective 1.1.0 should be continued and maintained in the element updates In addition to the parks identified above, there are various other public recreation and open space areas in Tequesta. There are fifty (50) acres of County-owned land located east of U. S. Highway 1 and north of CR 707, referred to as Eco-site #61, that is preserved as open space with very limited activity allowed. The Village recently received an easement from the FEC Railroad to utilize a portion of its right-of-way for a linear parr The remaining portion of the FEC Railroad right-of -way not being used for the park is being retained in open space, except for a small • portion south of Tequesta Drive and abutting Old Dixie Highway which is retained in Commercial use. There continue to be three (3) open space easements established in the Tequesta Country Club area off of River Drive and abutting the Northwest Fork of the Lozahatchee 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. There are four (4) other parcels located in Tequesta identified as parcels B, C and Russell Road that are retained in open space and used for drainage retentionldetention purposes There is also a parcel on Cypress Drive North that has been dedicated to the Vllage since the last EAR and subsequent updates. It, too, is used for drainage and retentionldetention purposes. Objective 1.2 D states that, "As part of the Special Exception and/or site plan review process require that recreation areas be provided as a part of the development, or ac- cept arecreation fee in lieu of land; where and when applicable': This practice has only been required if the development was subject to the subdivision and platting requirements of the Villages The jrllage should re-visit Objective 1.2.0 in the update process to determine whether or no it should be maintained, revised or deleted -81- Policy1.2.1 states that, "The Village shall zone all properties they want for recreation and open space purposes as R/OP, Recreation/Open Space': The Village, to date, has zoned the Tequesta Country Club golf course, the drainage easements in the Tequesta Country Club area, the drainage easement in the Bayview area, The Village Green, Constitution Park, Coral Cove Park and Eco-site # 61 as R/OP. There are areas in the Village that are classified as Recreation and Open Space land use on the current Future Land Use Map, but are not currently zone R/OP. They include: the three (3) retention/detention areas (parcels B, C and Russell Road). If these areas are to be preserved in open space for retention/detention purposes, they, too, should be zoned R/OP. Additionally, the Cypress Drive North retention/detention area, FEC Railroad right-of--way as described above and the Point Drive open area should be classified as Recreation and Open Space in the updated Existing and Future land Use Maps. By zoning all lands currently classified as Recreation and Open Space on the Future Land Use Map would create consistency between land use and zoning. This action would also implement Policy 1.4.1: Policy 1.4.1: Preserve currently allocated recreational areas within the pillage by zoning those parcels and properties R/OP, Recreation/Open Space. Policies 1.2.1 and 1.4.1 regarding the zoning of recreation and open space properties R/OP should be maintained in the updated Recreation and Open Space elemenx The private sector offers an array of recreational opportunities for the areas and people they serves While the Village has undertaken to provide residents and visitors with abundant recreational opportunities, the private sector also has provided numerous recreational facilities. Private developments often include recreational amenities, although these facilities are not available to the general public. The major private recreational facility continues to be the 120 acre Tequesta Country Club. It offers golf, tennis and other club activities and is only available for use by members of the Club. Various churches in the lrllage provide some neighborhood oriented recreation facilities and programme Many of the churches provide basketball hoops in parking lots and offer recreational programs on a limited basis. Access to recreation and open space areas within Tequesta that is safe and convenient is readily available. There has over three (3) miles of bicycle/pedestrian pathways developed throughout the Village. This system is described in detail in the Transportation section of this EAR. Objective 1.3,0 and its supporting Policies all re- gard providing safe and easy access to recreation and open space areas and that the Recreation and Open Space element be closely coordinated with the Transportation element and the Capital Improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan to assure that access is provided, maintained and adequately funded in the future. Objective 1.3.0 and • -82- Policies 1.3.1 -1.3.4 should all be maintained in the update as they remain relevant and on going concerns. Objective 1.3.0, however, should replace reference to the Traffic Circulation element with reference to the "Transportation" element and reference should be made to both the S and 10 year Capital Improvements Program. Likewise, Policy 1.3.1 should be revised to make reference to both the S and 10-Year Capital Improvements Program. Policy 1.3.5 should be deleted in the update as it is no longer relevan& Because of the limited amount of land available for future development in Tequesta, the opportunity for expansion of recreational and open space lands is limited. There are, however, adequate recreation and open space facilities within the Village to meet future needs of the Tequesta population. Objective 1. S. D and Policy 1. S.1 establish a direction to pursue other ways to expand recreational opportunities within Tequesta: Objective 1. S. 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. • The Village should always be seeking alternative means to expand facilities. It should also be continually developing recreation programs that meet the needs of the community. Objective 1.6.0 and Pdicies 1. ~ 1 and 1.6 2. address this concern: Objective 1.6.0: Consider all concerns in determining recreational needs of the community. Policy 1. (1: Encourage citizen participation in determining recreation facility needs for the various existing and future neighbor- hood recreation developments by adhering to the public participation procedures established by this Plan. Policy 1.6.2: Maintain citizen input in the planning of additional recrea- tional facilities within the Vllage by adhering to the public participation procedures established in this Plan. The Village Recreation Department continually assesses citizen needs and develops its recreation programs accordingly. Objective 1. ~ 0 and Policies 1. (1 and 1.6.2 should all be retained in the updated elemenx Outside, but nearby, the Vllage of Tequesta are numerous public facilities which offer a myriad of recreational opportunities to the residents of Tequesta and to the general . -83- public. 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 and Blowing Rocks Preserve are located in southern Martin County. There are a number of public and private golf courses which are in close proximity to Tequesta, as well. Objective 1.4.0 further expresses the desire to expand recreational opportunities in the Village while maintaining the Level of Service (LOS) Standards established in the Plan for recreational and open space facilities. Objective 1.4.0: Continue to 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 Objective 1.4.0 should be expanded in the update to include the 10-Year planning period, as weld Policies 1.4.3 and 1.4, respectively, address encouraging the private sector and public school facilities to provide additional recreational facilities for use by the public These efforts should continue to be encouraged. Policies 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 should be maintained in the update. LOS Standards are established in Policy 1.4.6. These standards should be reviewed in the update for current applicability and revised, if necessary. nth the modest population growth projected for Tequesta in the S and 10-Year planning periods the combination of pillage owned neighborhood and community parks, the County-owned and operated Coral Cove park, Tequesta Parr other public recreation and open space facilities available nearby for use of Village residents and other facilities provided by churches and the private sector, there are adequate recreation and open space facilities to meet future needs of the community. Capital improvements costs for the short and long range planning periods for recreation and open space facilities are established in the 1- S and(r 10-Year Capital Projects Schedules presented in the Addendum to this CIE section of this Report All data and analysis in the Support Documentation to the Recreation and Open Space element shall be updated, as necessary. -$4- . Intergovernmental Coordination The lrllage continues to receive certain essential services from other jurisdictions/entities - As identified in the Sanitary Sewer sub-element of the Comprehensive Plan, central sanitary sewer service is provided to Village residents, businesses and other users by the Loxahatchee River District (LRD). The LRD is established as a special district that was created by the Florid Legislature with the legislative authority to provide central sanitary sewer service within its identified service area. Central sewer is now available to the entire Village although some individual properties aze still utilizing septic tanks. Coordination and liaison with the LRD lies primarily with the Utilities Director. - Solid waste collection services continue to be provided to Village residents and businesses by a private hauler. The Village has granted an exclusive franchise to the hauler for collection of solid wastes in Tequesta The Village Manager is the local official responsible for its administration. - Solid waste disposal services continue to be provided by the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (PBCSWA) at their facilities The PBCS WA was established by special act of the Legislature and is responsible for providing these facilities to . serve the entire County. The pillage Manager is the liaison with the Authority. Objective 1.6.0 in the Intergovernmental Coordination element of the Comprehensive Plan requires that the Vllage, "Coordinate with other agencies having maintenance and/or operational responsibility of facilities within and affecting the lrllage in the establishment of Level of Service standards for such facilities': As stated in the Sanitary Sewer and Solid Waste sub-sections of this report, the Village should review the LOS Standards currently established for sanitary sewer and solid waste for current applicability with the LRD and the PBCSWA, respectively, and revise those LOS Standazds, as appropriate in the update to the element. Policy 1.6.1 suggests that a complete analysis of all LOS Standards for facilities serving the Village and operated by other entities be performed. This a good practice to follow. Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1. ~ I should both be retained in the Intergovernmental Coordination element (ICE)) update; however Policy 1.6.1 should reflect that analyses be performed regularly to assess LDS Standards of service providers The tillage continues to provide certain essential services to other jurisdictions - The Village provides central water service to por~iions of unincorporated Palm Beach and Martin Counties, and the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. The Village purchased the water system and franchise area in 1968 from Jupiter Utilities, Inc. -85- a The Utilities Director is responsible for the operation of the system and coordina- tion with those jurisdictions that it serves. - The Vllage continues to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. This service is formalized by interlocal agree- ment. The Fire Chief is principally responsible for administration of these ser- vices and coordination with the Colony. The intent of Objective 1. S. 0 in the current element is to, "Maintain high standards in the execution of service agreements...': The Village has effectively accomplished this over the years in the provision of essential services to other jurisdictions. Also Policy 1.5.1 is concerned with, "Assess(ing) the effect of rezoning, annexation and development activities on existing interlocal agreements which exist between the pillage and other jurisdictions to determine any effect on the ability to provide the services which are the subject of the interlocal agreements': Affected jurisdictions are contacted and requested to comment on any development activities as part of the site plan and building review processes if such development matter affects the provision of services to them. Objective 1. S. 0 and Policy 1.5.1 should be maintained in the updates Objective 1.1.0 and its supporting Policies are aimed at considering the effects of Village development activities on neighboring jurisdictions while Objective 1.2. D and its supporting Policies require coordination with agencies charged with planning and/or review responsibilities at all levels of government: The Village utilizes its site plan review process to inform and coordinate with neighboring or affected jurisdictions/entities of proposed development and any potential impacts Developers are required to submit a number of copies of site plan proposals so that they may be distributed to affected jurisdictionsJentities for review and comment in the site plan and development approval processes. Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 specifically address this issue: Policy 1.1.1: Identify those development activities which affect other jurisdictions, and also evaluate the impacts of such acti- vities at the time of development as part of the site plan review process. Policy 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 addressed as part of the site plan review process established in the Village Zoning Code Ordinance. -86- Policies l.l.l and 1.1.2 should be maintained in the ICE updates Policy I.2.1 states, "Communicate with adjacent jurisdictions projected impacts of new development and changes in local government': The Village site plan review process and development approval process are utilized to assure this communication. Policy 1.2.1 should also be maintained in the updates The pillage has entered into Interlocal agreement with other municipalities, the County, special districts and service providers to assure mutual coordination among entities in the comprehensive planning process A Countywide intergovernmental coordination program has been established in Palm Beach County entitled IPARC (Intergovernmental Planning and Review Committee). There were two (2) programs to be overseen by IPARC. One was to participate in the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment Interlocal Agreement", and the other was to participate in the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement", Tequesta is a participant in IPARG Under the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment Interlocal Agreement", it is the purpose of IPARC to review proposed amendments to comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments and the plans of other units of local government providing services, but not having regulatory authority over the use of land. Policy 1.1. S states that the lrllage should enter into the "Comprehensive Plan Amendment Interlocal Agreement. The Village did enter into this Agreement in 2003. . Policy 1.1. S should be maintained in the ICE update, but revised to indicate that the Village shall continue to be a participant in this Agreement The irllage is also a participant in the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement': The purpose of this Agreement is for cities, the County, SFWNID and special districts to participate in a formalized effort to create amulti- jurisdictional issues forum which facilitates the identification, and possible resolution, of Countywide issues by providing a vehicle for consensus building through the joint research of issues and debate on same. Policy 1.1.6 states that the Pillage should enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement". The Village entered into this Agreement in 2003 and continues to be a participant. Policy X.1.6 should be maintained in the ICE update, but revised to indicate that the Vllage shall continue to be a participant in this Agreement Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 further the intents of the lrllage to have open communication through notif cation requirements to assess how potential impacts of development upon public facilities and services within one jurisdiction may affect another jurisdiction: Policy 1.2.6: Notify by letter and involve all potentially affected entities, jurisdictions and/or service providers in the initial stages of the planning and development review process when the action • -87- • of one government may create an impact on neighboring jur- isdiction public facilities and services. Policy 1.2.7.• Secure the cooperation of neighboring entities, jurisdictions and/or service providers through interlocal agreements and intergovernmental coordination that addresses how the cost for impacts to public facilities and services will be borne, and by whom, when the impacts are imposed upon other entities, jurisdictions and/or service providers Interlocal agreements and the IPARC process will be used to identcfy and implement joint planning areas, when deemed to be appropriates These Policies continue to be effective and implemented by the Village. Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2 7 should also be retained in the updated ICE. Policy l.2 4 emphasizes the importance of constantly reviewing the Comprehensive Plans of the Town of Jupiter, Jupfter Inlet Colony, Palm Beach and Martin Counties, as well as, plans of State agencies and the School Board Through this process any incompatibilities that are identified can be commented upon and a resolution reached locally. Policies 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 further promote compatibility between adjacent municipalities and Counties in coordinating goals, objectives and policies of respective Comprehensive Plans and land development regulations, respectively. These actions should be continually promoted in the future. Policies 1.2.4,1.1.3 and 1.1.4 should all be carried forward in the updated CIE Objective 1.3.0 emphasizes the importance of strengthening interlocal mechanisms which provide a means of implementing social, environmental and service concerns The Village continues to coordinate with the agencies identified in Policy 1.3.1 (e.g. Loxahatchee Council of Governments, LRD, Beaches and Shores Council, PBC Municipal and IPARC) and to support management programs of these and other agencies. Objective 1.3.0 and Policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 have been effective and should be maintained in the ICE updates Policy 1.1.7 states that, "The Vllage shall coordinate with those schools within its jurisdiction which are a part of the State University system regarding the development of campus master plans, or amendments thereto, to be done in accordance with Section 240.155, F.S. There are no schools of the State University system located within the Village, nor are there any planned during the 5 or 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.1.7 should remain in the update, however, as it is a requirement of State planning law The Village has adopted a Public School Facilities Element (PSFE), and subsequent amendments, as part of its Comprehensive Plan The PSFE shall continue to be coordi- a -88- mated with other relevant elements of the Plan, particularly Future Land Use, Capital Improvements and the ICE. Various land use or environmental planning and permitting activities within the Village continue to require coordination with State planning agencies. Tequesta is mandated to prepare this EAR and Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (LGCP/LDRA)". Likewise, any development of unique environmental features often requires obtaining permits from appropriate State environmental planning and permitting agencies. In those instances, the appropriate ~Ilage staff person is assigned to coordinate activities depending on the particular program or activity being pursued. The Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to State planning law, must be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.2.3 of the ICE states, "The State Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed to determine if it implies a need for intergovernmental coordination at the local level At the time of the last EAR amendment and subsequent amendments, it was determined that the Village Comprehensive Plan was consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Since there has been no changes to the State Comprehensive Plan that affects Tequesta, the lTtlage of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan is still consistent with the State plan. Policy 1.2.3 is still relevant and should be continues in the updated element • Also, pursuant to State planning law, the Village's Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the regional plan of its area. The Village of Tequesta is located within the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) jurisdiction. Policy 1.2. S of the ICE states, "Formally consider regional goals and objectives during the land development decision-making process... " At the time of the last EAR and subsequent amendments, it was determined that the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan was consistent the TCRPC regional plan. Since there have not been any changes to the TCRPC Strategic Regional Policy Plan that affects Tequesta, the illage's Plan is still consistent with the regional plan. Policy 1.2 S should be maintained in the ICE updates Objective 1.4.0 and supporting Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 stresses the importance of developing intergovernmental coordination strategies and mechanisms to obtain funding for various pillage concerns Alternative sources and mechanisms should be a continuing effort of the Village. Objective 1.4.0 and Policies 1, 4,1 and 1.4.2 should be maintained in the ICE update. Objective 1.7, 0 and Policies 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 regard coordinating with appropriate State and federal agencies in the identification and maintenance of dredge spoil sites in the Tillage. There currently are no dredge disposal sites in Tequesta, but the possibility of future sites may exist. Objective 1.7.0 and Policies 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 should be retained in the ICE update should dredge disposal sites be identified in the futures • -89- The Stormwater Management sub-section of this Report noted that the Village is a co- permittee in the overall Palm Beach County NPDES program. The Village should continue to be a cooperative and coordinating partner in this program in the future. Therefore, a Policy should be added to the ICE in the Plan update that addresses coordinating the irllage's NPDES stormwater permitting program with the overall Countywide program. Data and analysis contained in the Support Documentation to the ICE shall be updated as necessary, in theEAR-based Comprehensive Plan amendment Coastal Mana eg ment The Coastal Management element, like the Conservation element, was highly scrutinized in the 1996 EAR process and subsequent EAR based Comprehensive Plan amendments. Those Objectives and Policies that were revised or added as a result of that process will be identified in this section. It is noted that those were all found to be in "In Compliance" with State planning and rule requirements. Coastal management and coastal management -related issues are addressed in both the Coastal Management and Conservation elements of the existing Comprehensive Plan, and many of the common issues are discussed in this section. This Coastal Management section of the EAR should be reviewed in complement with the Conservation section. There are six (6) separate Goals established in the current Coastal Management element of the Comprehensive Plan. Many of their Objectives and supporting Policies interface with each other and with corresponding Objectives and Policies in the Conservation element. Each of the Goal areas of interest are discussed herein. 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 Water-dependent uses are defined by Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code as activities that can be carved out only on, in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for one of the following purposes: water-borne transportation, 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, including the J.I. Club marina facilities, continue to be the only water-dependent and water-related uses within the ~Ilage. There are no ports, electrical generating facilities, water supply utilities that are dependent on surface waters, or water related uses directly associated with any such uses. This circumstance has not changed since the last EAR or subsequent • -90- Comprehensive Plan amendments. There are no future water-dependent or water- related uses planned for either the short or long range timeframes of the updated Plan. Objective 1.1.0 under this Goal regards the protection and enhancement of the estuarine environment and natural resources existing in Tequesta. A thorough description of the estuarine environment is contained in the Conservation section of this Report. Policy 1.1.1 establishes that "The Village shall cooperate with agencies and municipalities serving to protect the resources of the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve...': The Village continues to cooperate with the appropriate agencies and adjacent municipalities in supporting management plans and policies within those plans. Policy 1.1.2 emphasizes the preservation of wetland areas identified on the Coastal Management/Conservation Map by adopting regulations that protect native wetland vegetation. Wetlands identified on the Map include sea grasses and mangroves. Objective 2.11.0 and Policies 2.11.1 - 2.11.15 in the Conservation element of the current Plan dealing with wetlands, mangroves and sea grasses were negotiated during the last EAR process, found to be "In Compliance" and added to the element. This is discussed in the Conservation section of this EAR. Objective 1.1. D and Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 are continuing, relevant concerns and are internally consistent with the Conservation elementi therefore they should be maintained' in the updated Coastal Management element Objective 1.2.0 under this Goal relates to protecting the water quality of the estuarine environment The Village continues to be a participating member as a co-permittee in the Palm Beach County NPDES Program, as reported in the Stormwater Management sub-section to the Utilities section of this EAR. The major goal of this program is to monitor stormwater runoff into surface waters and to implement measures to assure that runoff entering surface waters meets State Water Quality Standards. The Village's program is being implemented, so the intent of Objective 1.2.0 continues to be met. Policy 1.~1 and Policy 1.2.2 regard restricting runoff from entering the Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve (ICWR~ and to monitor water quality at various locations throughout the pillage, Both of these Policies are being implemented as part of the NPDES program requirements, as well. Objective 1.2.0 and Policies 1.2.1 and 1.~2 should also be retained in the updated element As stated above, the only water-dependent and water-related uses in the Village are the beach and shoreline recreational areas and the J.LB. Club facilities. Objective 1.3.0 regards this issue and Policy 1.3.1 specifically requires that the Vllage establish LOS Standards for such water-dependent and water-related uses. LOS Standards aze established in the current Comprehensive Plan for beaches and beach access areas. These Recreation and Open Space standards are identified in the Capital Improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan and are listed in the CIE section, 1. Level of Service (LOS) Standards, of this Report. Policy 1.3.2 requires that sea greases be protected. The Conservation section this Report reveals that the Village implements the Wetland Pro- • -91- tection Section of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code. Sea grass protection is required by that Section. Policies 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 regard marina siting. The Village is subject the Palm Beach County Boat Facilities Siting Plan. Therefore, these Policies continue to be being implemented. Objective 1.3.0 and Policies 1.3.1 -1.3.4 continue to be implemented, are still relevant and should be maintained in the update Objective I.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1 regard coordinating with the Jupiter Inlet District and supporting its programs intended to renourish the beaches. The Village continues to support these efforts and has adopted regulations to protect the dune system and its vegetation. Article Ill, Coastal Protection in Chapter SD, Natural Resource Protection of the Village's Code of Ordinances adopts the Palm Beach County Coastal Protection Ordinance which addresses, in part, protection of dune systems and vegetation. The Village also enforces Article IV, Vehicles on Beaches of Chapter 46, Motor Vehicles and Traffic in its Code of Ordinances which prohibits the use of motor vehicles on the beaches and dune area. Policy 1.4.2 is implemented by these regulations, and Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1,4.1 are represent continuing concerns of the l~llage; therefore, they should all remain in the updated Plan. Objective 1. S.0 states, "Continue the Vllage policy of avoiding an increase in infrastructure capacity unless public safety so requires': The concern of this Objective and its supporting Policies is to maintain densities in the defined coastal area so as not to jeopardize hurricane evacuation times. The Village has not increased densities since the • last EAR, so this Objective and Policies are not affected. Objective 1.5.0 and Policies 1. S.1 and 1. S.2 should be reviewed in the update process to clarify their intent as the current wording is vague Objective 1.6.0 regards providing public access easements to the beaches and shoreline areas. This issues has already been discussed above and in the Conservation section of this Report. Policies 1. b.l and 1.6.2 specifically regard Coral Cove: Policy 1.6~ 1: Work with the County to maintain general public parking and access via the Coral Cove Parr Policy 1.6.2: Encourage intergovernmental coordination with Palm Beach County in future planning of Coral Cove Parr Coral Cove Park is the only beachfront park located in Tequesta. The Village continues to coordinate with the County to ensure that adequate parking, access and other related matters are mutually addressed where necessary. The Village continues to provide police protection services to the Park area. Objective 1.6.0 and Policies 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 should also be maintained in the Coastal Management element update • -92- Goal: 2.0.0 - To preserve and enhance the significant natural features Objective 2.1.0 and Policies 2.l.l.and 2.I.Z, respectively, regard aims to reduce stormwater runoff, require development to retain/detain substantial portion of runoff on-site, and to reduce non point source pollutant loading to the Loxahatchee River and ICWW. The NPDES Program discussed above, and in other parts of this Report, are aimed at maintaining a stormwater management system that meets State Water Quality Standards by reducing pollutants into the surface waters within Tequesta. Also, the Village requires that a minimum 95% of stormwater emanating from developments be retained on-site. The Village also maintains four (4) drainage easements (Parcels A and B, Russell Street and N. Cypress Drive) for retention/detention purposes. T'he intents of Objective 2.1.0 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 continue to be met and should be retained in the element updates The protection of native vegetation and wildlife habitats is a major emphasis of the Coastal Management element, as well as, the Conservation element of the current Comprehensive Plan. Objective 2.2.0 and its supporting Policies address the protection of native vegetation and wildlife habitats Objective 1.6.0 and its supporting Policies in the Conservation element of the Plan also address these issues in great detail and are discussed in the Conservation section of this Report. Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 under Objective 2.2.0 regard the establishment of landscape regulations that protect mangrove areas the beach and dune system by requiring pervious areas and the • removal of exotics in the local regulations. As revealed in the Conservation section, the Village landscape regulations establish that a minimum 60% of all vegetation shall be of those species native to the South Florida area and that certain non-native or invasive species are prohibited. Also, the Village Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum landscape and open space requirement that will preserve pervious areas in all developments. Therefore, Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 continue to be requirements of local regulations. Objective 2.2.0 and Policies 2,2.1 and 2.2.4 should be maintained in the update. Policies 2.2.3 and 22.5, respectively, regard preserving Ecosite #61 by implementing .appropriate zoning for this purpose and to identify any public-owned spoil islands as conservation areas on the Future Lund Use Map. Ecosite #61 is identified on the Future Land Use Map as Recreation and Open Space and designated on the Village's Official Zoning Map as R/OP, Recreation and Open Space. Likewise, the spoil island located in ICWW right-of--way just north of the CR 707 bridge to the barrier island is identified as Conservation use on the Future Land Use Map. These Policies are being implemented by appropriate land use and ,zoning designations and should be maintained as such in the futures • -93- Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 regard manatee protection. Palm Beach County has adopted a Manatee Protection Ordinance which the Village is subject to and which implements an effective manatee protection program. These two (2) Policies were added to the Coastal Management element as a result of the last EAR process and should be maintained in the updated Coastal Management element Policy 2.2.2 establishes that the Village shall, "Work with the County and State park offtcials to assure that any park improvements are sensitive to the mangrove and other vegetative/wildlife/marine habitats': The Village continues to coordinate with other governments to assure that local regulations are enforced in the development of all areas in an effort to protect vegetative, wildlife and marine habitats. Policy 2.2.2 should, also, be maintained in the updates Goal: 3.0.0 -Protection of preservation areas to the maximum degree possible while consistent with private property right Objective 3.1.0 and Policy 3.1.1 also address protection of mangrove areas from a somewhat different perspectives The Objective is concerned with protecting mangroves from public works activities such as road and drainage improvements while the Policy expressly prohibits the expenditure of public funds that will adversely impact existing mangrove areas. As identified on the Coastal Zone & Conservation Map, mangrove areas are located along the fringes of the ICWW and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River in already developed areas. Therefore, the protection of these mangrove areas is basically assured. Objective 3.1.0 and Policy 3,1.1 are still relevant, on going concerns of the 1~illage and should be retained in the update to the element Objective 3.2.0 and its supporting Policies 3.2.1- 3.2.3 prohibit construction seaward of the State designated coastal construction setback lines Policy 3,2.3 specifically states that, "The pillage should establish new setback lines if the State lines prove to be inadequate': This has not been necessary, but should continue to be considered in the future if it becomes necessary. Objective 1.7.0 in the Conservation element of the Comprehensive Plan also addresses the prohibition such development and is addressed in the Conservation element of this Report Objective 3.2.0 and Policies 3.2.1 - 3.2.3 should all be maintained in the element updates Objective 3.3.0 and its supporting Policies regard maintaining landscaping regulations to require the use of native vegetation and dune stabilization. The Village's landscape regulations and requirements have been discussed in detail throughout this EAR and have been determined to address the issues expressed by this Objective and supporting Policies. Objective 3.3 0 and Policies 3.3.1 - 3.3.4 should also be maintained in the updated element • -94- Public beach access is an issue that also been Recreation and Onen Space sections of this E the Coastal Management element also address should be maintained in the updates addressed in the Conservation and AR Objective 3.4.0 and Policy 3.4.1 of the public beach access issue and Objective 3. S. 0 establishes, in part, that, "The Village shall prohibit all private vehicles from driving on the beach and dune system by strictly forbidding such practices through its Code of Ordinances...': Policy 3.5.1 specifically states that, "Vllage ordinances and regulations should delineate which motorized vehicles are to be prohibited from driving on the primary dunes': Sec. 46-92, Motor vehicles prohibited; exceptions of Article IV, Vehicles on Beaches, Chapter 46, Motor Vehicles and Traffic of the Village's Code of Ordinances establishes that motor vehicles are prohibited on the beaches with the only exception being emergency vehicles when performing their duties. Objective 3. S.0 further states that specific provisions of the Palm Beach County Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance shall be met while Policy 3.5.2 states that, "The pillage shall maintain a sea turtle protection ordinance...': The i'illage has adopted and continues to enforce a sea turtle protection ordinances These regulations are adopted in Article III, Sea Turtle Protection in Chapter 10, Animals of its Code of Ordinance Objective 3, S 0 and Policies 3. S.1 and 3.5.2 continue to be implemented and enforced by the pillage and should be retained in the updated Coastal Management element of the Plan. • Goal: 4.0.0 -The complete consideration of identified use limitations in future coastal zone planning and management decisions by the lrllage: Objective 4.1.0 and policy 4.1.1 address the protection of mangroves, sensitive sea grass beds and further landscaping requirements. This section and the Conservation section have already discussed these issues in detail. The pillage should maintain Objective 4.1.0 and Policy 4.1.1 in the update as on going policy of the pillage. Objective 4.2.0 and Policy 4.2.3 address the coastal high hazard areas Pursuant to Ch. 163.3178(3)(c)(2), F.,~, the coastal area was redefined as the "coastal high hazard area" (CHHA) which encompasses the Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Zones Rule 9J-S, Florida Administrative Code also defines the "coastal high hazard area" as the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricanes 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. Also, in Tequesta, the North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee River could experience similar flooding. The existing land uses in the CHHA in Tequesta are primarily residential and recreation uses. The only recreational facility located in the CHHA within the Village continues to be Coral Cove Park. Some residential areas that abut the Forks of the River and ICWW lie in the CHHA and are subject to coastal construction regulations of the Village. Limiting development in these areas should remain a priority of the pillage; therefore, Objective 4.2.0 and Policy 4.2.3 should be retained in the updated elemeri~ -95- The protection, conservation and maintenance of coastal resources and the coastal environment must be balanced with, and consistent with, private property rights and property values to the maximum degree possibly The Village has not taken any action since the last EAR and subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that would affect or diminish individual properly rights or the value of property within the CHHA of Tequesta Neither residential densities nor non-residential intensities have been amended, decreased or in any way changed that would directly affect or diminish said property rights or property values: Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 address scrutinizing development in flood Zone areas, and with the requirements of the nationat flood insurance program. The village contains various flood-prone areas (Zones A and V) with the majority being located along the Atlantic Ocean on the barrier island; the ICWW and fringe areas along the North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee River. This also is discussed in detail in the Conservation section of this Report. Objective 2.4.0 of the Conservation element of the Plan encourages residents in flood-prone areas to utilize the National Flood Insurance Program, as well. Policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 continue to be relevant and should be maintained in the update Goal: S. 0.0 -Protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disaster Objective 5.1.0 and its supporting Policies under this Goal also address limiting public expenditure of funds in the CHHA except for restoration and enhancement or to upgrade public infrastructure facilities, as needed. Also, it is recommended that coastal construction regulations be reviewed from time to time based on natural disaster mitigation techniques and redevelopment plans. Objective 5.1.0 and its supporting Policies are still applicable and should be maintained in the element updates Objective 5.2.0 and its supporting Policies regard maintenance of hurricane evacuation procedures, methods and contingency plans while Objective 5.3 0 and its supporting Policies regard post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or elinunate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazard, The Village coordinates with Palm Beach County in hurricane planning and management efforts. These on-going management and coordination efforts continue to be refined, as necessary, and have been implemented several times in recent years. Objective 5.2.0 and Policies 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 should continue to represent on going policy of the Vllage and maintained in the update Objective 5.3.0 anc~ particularly, Policy 5.3.1 were adopted as a result of the last EAR update process; therefore, they should remain in the updated Plan, as well No officially designated historic preservation or historic resources sites are located in Tequesta. This circumstance has not changed since the last EAR or subsequent amend- -96- ments to the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 5.4.0 and its supporting Policies establish the need to protect and preserve historic resources by establishing a review procedure for archaeological and historic resources. Even though there have been no such sites or resources identified in the Village, the site plan review process is available to review such archaeological and historic resources should they be identified in the future. Objective 5.4.0 and its supporting Policies should be retained in the update in the event that archaeological or historic resources are identified within Tequesta in the futures 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 Vllage residents and the public to the coastal area. Objective 6.1.0 states, "The Village shall establish Level of Service standards for beach access, infrastructure and water-dependent land uses and incorporate them into the Code of Ordinances. "The LOS standards as adopted in the current Comprehensive Plan have been incorporated in both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the Village. Policies 6.1.1, X1.2 and 6.1.3, respectively, address establishing these standards for beach access, infrastructure and water-dependent land uses. LOS Standards are adopted and identified in Division 2., Site Plan Review, Article IX, Supplemental Regulations of Chapter 78, Zoning and in Sec. 66-161, General standards; level of service standards, Division 1, Generally, Article V, Design Standards of Chapter 66, Subdivisions in the Village's Cade of Ordinances. These standards continue to be strictly . enforced and adhered to. Objective 6.1.0 and Policies 6.1.1 - ~ 1.3 should all be maintained in the updated Coastal Management element of the Comprehensive Plan. There are no capital improvements, or associated costs, regarding Coastal Management anticipated in the Schedule of Improvements contained in the Capital Improvements section of this EAR. Capital projects and costs associated with the coastal area will be listed under their appropriate element of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Infrastructure, Transportation, Recreation and Open Space, etc.). All data and analysis contained in the Support Documentation to the Coastal Management element shall be revised' and updated, as necessary, to reflect current conditions and issues Any Objectives or Policies not specifically addressed in this section shall be maintained in the updates Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code shall be thoroughly researched as part of the update process to meet all Comprehensive Plan requirements for coastal management Cauitat Unarovements This evaluation and assessment of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the Comprehensive Plan includes: an identification of Level of Service (LOS) Standards established in the existing Comprehensive Plan; a discussion of the condition of all public -97- • facilities during the EAR period and a determination of whether or not these LOS Standards have been met, or are in need of revision in the updated Plan; a summary of available capacities for those public facilities and services having adopted LOS Standards; a forecast of capacity availability over the subsequent 5-Year (2012) and 10- Year 2017) planning periods; an identification of needed public .facilities capital improvements in a new updated Capital Improvements Program (CIP); and, an examination of revenue sources available to the Village to fund identified capital improvements in the future which will, in turn, determine the financial feasibility of the Village's Comprehensive Plan. 1. Level of Service (LOS) Standards The following LOS Standards are presently established in the CIE of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan Public Facility Level of Service (LOS) Standards Sanitarx Sewer Max. Month Daily Sewage Generation Rate Residential: 93 gallons/capita/day Non-Residential: 478 gallons/acre/day Max. Daily Flow Residential: 100 gallons/capita/day Non-Residential: 516 gallons/acre/day Solid Waste Average Generation Rate Residential: - Single Family: 6.01 Ibs/capita/day - Multi-Family: 3.41 lbs/capita/day Non-Residential - Total: 1251bs/acre/day -Restaurants: 75 lbs/acre/day - All Other: SOlbs/acre/day Potable Water Average Day Water Consumption Rate Residential: 120 gallons/capita/day Non-Residential: 2020 gallons/acre/day Max. Dav Water Consumption Rate Residential: 180 gallons/capita/day Non-Residential: 3030 gallons/acre/day Storage CapacitX System: 3.75 million gallons Stormwater Mana ement Design Storm Public Facilities: 25 Year, 24 Hr. duration -98- Transportation Collector Roadways: LOS C, Peak D Urban Minor Arterials: LOS C, Peak D Urban Principal Arterials: LOS C, Peak D Recreation and Open Space Unit/Population Neighborhood parks: 2acres/1000 Community Parks: 2acres/1000 Beaches: 1 mile/31,250 Tennis: 1 court/2500 Basketball: 1 court/2500 BasebalUSoftball: 1 field/7200 FootbalUSoccer: 1 field/4800 Playground Areas: 1 acre/3600 Beach Access Easements: 1/ 0.5 mile of developed, or redeveloped, beach frontage Source: Village of Tequesta, 11/97 The Sanitary Sewer LOS Standards shall be reviewed with the LRD and revised, if necessary, in the updated Sanitary Sewer sub-element and CIE of the Comprehensive Plan. The central sanitary sewer system serving Tequesta is owned and operated by the LRD. This system and service is available to all of Tequesta; however, some properties have not yet connected to the central system and remain on individual septic tank . systems. The Sanitary Sewer LOS Standards should be reviewed with the LRD to assure that there will be adequate facilities to serve the limited growth and development projected for Tequesta in the next 5 and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Those properties still using septic tanks must meet Palm Beach County Environmental Control Rules for septic tank usage. Policy 1.1.1 of the Sanitary Sewer sub-element requires that Palm Beach County Environmental Control Rules regarding the use of septic tanks be met while Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1 8 require that septic tank systems meet State Water Quality standards or else they will be required to connect to the central sanitary sewer system The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (PBCSWA) has indicated to the Village that, for comprehensive planning purposes, there are adequate capacities at their disposal facilities to meet the solid waste disposal needs of the entire County for the 5 and 10- Yearplanning periods. The )pillage should, however, review the currently adopted Solid Waste LOS Standards with the PBCSWA and be revised, if necessary, for inclusion in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Vllage shall review the LOS Standards for Potable Water adopted in the Comprehensive Plan for current applicability and revised, if necessary, in the update process. As identified in the Portable Water sub-section of this EAR, the Village owns and operates its own central potable water system. The Village not only serves all properties in Tequesta, but it also serves certain unincorporated areas of Falm Beach and -99- Martin Counties, as well as, the entire Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. The only use of private individual wells is exclusively for irrigation purposes. As a water supplier to a service area that extends beyond its own corporate boundaries, the Village will be required to coordinate with the other jurisdictions that it serves in updating LOS Standards for inclusion in their respective Comprehensive Plans and to provide assurances that future capacities will be available to serve their areas When the SFWMD Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan is adopted, the Village will have to coordinate regional water supply issues with SFWMD and those jurisdictions that it serves (See Regional Water Supply section in this EAR). The Stormwater Management Design Storm LOS Standards established in the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed by the tillage Utilities Department for current applicability and revised, if appropriate, for inclusion in the updated Stormwater Management sub-element and CIE of the updated Plan. The twenty five (25) year frequency, twenty four (24) hour duration storm duration LOS has been an adequate standard to be established for development in Tequesta. With minimal change and growth projected for the S and 1 D-Year planning periods, the LOS will be maintained in the updated Plan. The LOS Standards for roadways are established in Policy 1.3.1 of the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. U,S. Highway 1 is currently identified in the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan as a State FDOT-owned and maintained arterial roadway while CR 707 and Old Dixie Highway are categorized as County-owned and maintained county urban collectors. Local streets and city collectors are the responsibility of the Village. The LOS Standards established for State and County roadways should be reviewed against their respective standards and nomenclatures for arterials and collectors; anrl; revised, if necessary in the Transportation element and CIE of the updated Plan. The limited growth and development potential for the 5 and 10-Year planning periods of the updated Comprehensive Plan will create insignificant traffic impacts on the existing local roads serving Tequesta, Growth outside of the corporate limits could create more significant impacts on the arterial and collector roads serving the Village, The LOS Standards for Recreation and Open Space facilities established in the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed in the update process for current applicability. Policy 1.4.6 in the current Recreation and Open Space element establishes LOS Standards for recreation and open space facilities in Tequesta. These LOS Standards should be reviewed and updated, if necessary, in the Comprehensive Plan. The Village has adopted LOS Standards consistent with the "Palm Beach County Interlocal Agreement with Municipalities of Palm Beach County and the School District of Palm Beach County to Establish Public School Concurrency". The Public School LOS Standard adopted in the current Public School Facilities element of the Plan is 110% utilization rate up to 120% which is consistent with the Interlocal Agreement cited above. -100- Level of Service (LOS) Standards are addressed throughout the CIE, as well Objective 1. S. 0 and Policies 1. S.1 and 1.5.2 specifically state that LOS Standards shall be met prior to building permits being issued and that a concurrency management system shall be maintained by the Village to assure that adequate facility capacity is available to accommodate future development in the Village: Objective 1. S. 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 develop- mentregulations, and availability of necessary public facili- ties needed to support such development at the time needed Policy 1.5.1: Prior to issuing a development order or building permit, the 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 pu- blic facility provision. The ITllage shall not issue a develop- ment order or building permit which results in a reduction in service for affected public facilities below these Level of Ser- vice Standarai~ A listing of LOS Standards is exhibited on Table CI-1. Policy 1.5.2: T'he pillage shall maintain Concurrency Management Ordi- nancerequiring that at the time a development permit is is- sued, adequate facility capacity is available, or will be avail- ableupon occupancy of the development based upon the ap- plication of the Tequesta Level of Service Standards to the proposed development Objective I.7.0 further states that, "The Vllage shall maintain a concurrency management system to ensure that public facilities, at a minimum, and services to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development". During the site plan review process developers are required to provide evidence that service providers have available capacities to serve the proposed development. Letters from those service providers must be provided as part of the application and review process. Also, the Village has adopted, and continues to enforce, a concurrency management system that is contained in Article II ;Adequate Facilities and Concurrency Management in Chapter 62, Planning and Development of its Code of Ordinances. Developers must exhibit that all requirements of this Article can be met and that the LOS Standards adopted in this Article and in the Comprehensive Plan will be satisfied before -101- any development order or permit will be issued by the Village. Objective 1. S. 0, Policies 1. S.1 and 1. S.2 and Objective 1.7.0 continue to be relevant and enforced by the Village; therefore, they should be maintained in the updated CIS The Policies under Objective 1.7.0 establish other standards that also must be met to meet the concurrency requirement. Policy 1.7.1 cites these additional standards established for sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water; Policy 1.72 establishes additional standards for park and recreational facilities; and, Policy 1.7.3 establishes additional standards that must be met for transportation facilities (e.g. roads and mass transit). All of these Policies continue to implemented through the site plan and land development review processes. Policies 1.7.1 - 1.7.3 are still relevant and should be retained in the update. The Statute references cited in the Policies should be reviewed in the update, however, for current applicability. 2. Capital Improvements Program (CID) The current CIE of the Comprehensive Plan established a eve (S) year capital improvement program (FY 1998 - 2002) for the Village of Tequesta Capital Projects Fund (Table CI-2) and a five (S) year capital improvement program (FY 1997 - 2002) for the Vllage Water Department (Table CI-3). The capital improvement projects identified in the Village Capital Projects Fund were for Public Works/Transportation facilities (roads, bridges and landscaping), Stormwater Management facilities and Recreation facilities. There were no capital improvements projected for Housing facilities or for Conservation or Coastal Management matters. The capital improvements projected in the Village Water Department program were exclusively for Potable Water facilities. Many of these projects were accomplished while others were carried over to subsequent y~ Major infrastructure systems including sanitary sewer, potable water, stormwater management facilities, roadways, solid waste and recreation/open spaces are currently in place to meet existing demands. lath the limited growth projected for the S and 10-Year planning periods, these public facilities are expected to meet future needs of the community, as well. There continues to be no public school facilities located in Tequesta and none are planned for the future. As already discussed in this EAR, the Village is dependent on other entities for the provision of central sanitary sewer service, solid waste disposal facilities, the maintenance and operation of County and State roads and in the provision of public schools. The major capital improvements responsibilities of the Village are in the operation and maintenance of its local road network, stormwater/drainage system, Vllage--owned buildings and facilities such as 1`~illage Hall, Police and Fire facilities, recreation facilities and public work -102- A capital improvements project is defined in Policy 1.1.1 of the CIE as, "...all projects...determined to be of relatively large scale and high cost ($10,000 or greater)...': Policy 1.1.1 further clarifies that, "...A capital improvements project is defined to include land and/or improvements, plus any studies oriented to defining the initial need for land and/or facilities': This identification and definition of capital improvements projects and costs should be reviewed in the update process to determine its current applicability and revised, if necessary in the updated element Policy 1.1.2 states that, "... as a matter of priority, schedule for funding any capital improvement projects in the S-Year Schedule of Improvements which are designed to correct existing public facility deficiencies': This Policy is consistent with and implements Objective 1,1.0 of the CIE: Objective 1.1.0: Capital improvements will be provided to: (1) correct existing ~ciencies; (2) accommodate desired future growth; and/or (3) replace worn-out or obsolete facilities Objective I.I.O and Policy 1.1.2 remain valid and should be maintained in the CIE updates It is specifically established in Policy 1.1.4 how capital improvements will be evaluated, ranked and what conditions must be met The evaluation and prioritization of capital improvements projects is a part of the normal budgetary and capital improvements programming process. Therefore, Policy 1.1.4 should be maintained in the update Policy 1.1.3 states that a Capital Improvements Coordinating Committee is created composed of the Village Council Finance and Administration Committee, the Village Manager and Finance Director. Policy 1.1.3 should reviewed for current applicability in the updates Objective 1.2.0 and it's supporting Policies establish how costs for facilities located within the coastal high hazard area will be determined Objective 1.2.0: Vllage 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 (msg. potable water systems and public streets and recreational facilities). Policy I.2.1: The Vllage shall expend funds in high hazard coastal areas for the replacement and renewal of public facilities over which Tequesta has operational responsibility. -103- • Policy 1.2.2: The Village shall continue to maintain existing facilities and services under the jurisdiction of Tequesta at their existing Levels of Services Objective 1.2.0 and Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are still relevant and should be maintained in the updated element Not all capital improvements will incur Village costs. Objective 1.3.0 of the CIE requires that, "Future development shall bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements in order to maintain adopted Tequesta Level of Service Standards...': The Village has established a variety of impact fees in its land development regulations that the developer must pay as part of the development process. Chapter 38, Impact Fees of the Village's Code of Ordinances establishes impact fees for Fire Rescue, Police, and Park and Recreational Services. Objective 1.3.0 continues to be implemented by the Village and should be retained in the CIE updates Policy 1.3.1 states that, "The pillage 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 development necessitated by such development': This has been, and continues to be, standard procedure for new development. Policy 1.3 2 specifically defines how recreation facility needs must be met while Policy 1.3.3 establishes that needed public facility improvements shall be made prior to the time that a building permit is issued Policies 1, 3,1,1.3, Z and 1.3.3 are still applicable and should remain in the updates The Village has adopted a short range capital improvements program entitled "pillage of Tequesta Estimated 1-S Year Capital Projects (Inflation Included)" and a long term capital improvements program for the second five (S) year planning timeframe entitled, "Village of Tequesta X10-Year Capital Projects (Injlati,vn Included)': Capital improvement projects proposed for the 5-Year planning period are more readily predicted because they reflect more immediate and identifiable concerns. At the end of each fiscal year another year of projected capital improvements will be added to the end of each short and long term planning period, This logical progression will utilize the same parameters and requirements established in the CIE of the Comprehensive Plan. This practice will, in turn, provide the Village with an on-going current projected schedule of improvements. Beginning in December, 2007 State planning law requires that capital improvements program be updated on an annual basis. Both the short range (1-5 Years) and long range (6-10 Years) estimated schedules are provided as an Addendum to this CIE section. 3. Revenues/Financial Feasibility The revenue sources generated by the pillage are basically the same as those generated at the time of the last EAR and subsequent amendments The General Fund represents • -104- . the chief operating fund of the Village. This fund accounts for all financial resources except for those required to be accounted for in other funds. This means that all of the Village's financial activities should be accounted for in the General Fund unless there is a compelling reason that requires it to be reported in another fund. Legal requirements or bond requirements might require the Village to account for financial activities in a separate fund. The major source of revenue identified in the General Fund continues to be generated from taxes Ad valorem (property) taxes by far is the major tax revenue generated in the Village. It is reported in the FY 2006-2007 Budget that ad valorem taxes represent 63.5% of the total revenues and 85.1% of total tax revenues for the Village. Current Palm Beach County Tax Appraiser's Office records indicate a Village gross property assessed valuation of $981,627,378. This represents a 18.9% annual increase in the assessed valuation over the FY 2005-2006 assessed valuation. The current budget is based on an ad valorem tax rate of 6.4980 mils. The estimated ad valorem tax value based on this millage rate is $6,378,615, However, historically, the Village has collected between 93% and 96% of taxes levied. This is due to exclusions, exemptions differentials and credits. Therefore, the Village budgets ad valorem taxes at 95% to account for possible reductions to this revenue source. The FY2006-2207 ad valorem tax revenues are estimated at $6,061,684. Other General Fund tax revenues are derived from charges for services, intergovernmental and intragovernmental revenues, licenses and permits, interfund transfers, and miscellaneous and other taxes The majority of General Fund expenditures continue to be for Public Safety (Police, Fire and emergency medical services). They represent approximately 58.5% of the total General Fund costs General Government (administration) expenses represent nearly 16% of the budget while Transportation (roads and associated costs) expenditures represent more than 10% of the budget. The remaining expenses are for leisure services (parks and recreation), debt service, transfers-out and other expenditures. The Village's General Fund budget adopted for FY200F,-2007 is $9,548,054. The Village held its millage rate at 6.4980 mils to what it was in FY 2005-2006. The other funds operated by the Vllage outside of the General Fund are the Improvement Bond Revenue Fund, Capital Project Funcl, Enterprise Funds and Fiduciary Fund The Improvement Bond Revenue Fund is a special revenue fund which accounts for the accumulation and disbursement of planned revenues that are legally restricted by improvement revenue refunding bonds, series 1994, covenants. Revenues are generated from franchise fees, licenses and permits, transfer from Stormwater and miscellaneous revenues to be appropriated for pay down of the debt service and transfer to the General Fund. The FY200(r227Budget for this fund is $550,200. -105- • The Village reports its major capital acquisition and construction separately from its on-going operating activities in the Capital Project Fund Separate reporting enhances an understanding of the government's capital activities. The illage has established two (2) Capital Project Funds; Capital Improvement Fund (#301) and Capital Projects Fund (#303). The Capital Improvement Fund is dedicated to making pathway improvements, providing landscaping, bridge improvements, improvements to Constitution Park, and to street lights on Cypress Drive South. The Capital Improvement Fund budget for FY 2006-2007 is $36,000. The Capital Projects Fund dedicates appropriations to various projects such as Constitution Park, Tequesta Park, the Municipal Center, pathways, streetlight conduits, FEC Railroad project, landscaping, kiosks and the Public Safety facility. The FY 2002007 budget for the Capital Projects Fund is $1,085,210. The pillage operates three (3) Enterprise Funds. An Enterprise fund may be used to report any activity for which a fee is charged to external users for goods or services. The Village has established the following Enterprise Funds: (1) Water Utility (#401); (2) Stormwater Utility (#403); and, (3) Refuse and Recycling (#402). The Water Utility Fund budget for FY 2006-007 is $6,483,250. The majority of revenues come to this account via Charges for Services (user fees) while other revenues are derived from connection charges interest income, grants, Tropic Vista and other revenues. The FY 2006-2007 budget for the Stormwater Utility is $725,484 The majority of revenues to this fund are derived from stormwater utility fees assessed (non-ad valorem) to property owners. The Refuse and Recycling budget for FY 2006-2007 is $284,300. The majority of revenues to this fund are derived from refuse and recycling fees while some revenue is derived from interest income. The pillage has adopted various cash management and investment policies as part of its budged It is Village policy to deposit all funds the day following receipt of those funds. It is further policy that investment of Village funds will emphasize the preservation of principal. The primary investment vehicle utilized by the }rllage is the through the State Board of Administration. As of the end of February, 2007, the Village's General Fund balance was approximately $6.9 million. A major aim of the Village in meeting capital improvement needs of the community is expressed in Objective 1.4.0 of the CIE, "The Vllage 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 " The Village has typically tried to foresee and fund capital improvements in its annual budgeting process. If capital improvement expenses have been unforeseen or unanticipated, the Village will generally determine whether other funds can be shifted within the General Fund to fund such expenses (line item transfer). If revenues cannot be found internal to the General Fund, -106- then the Village will determine whether or not to draw from investment funds (Reserves), grants, loans, or other available specifically establishes the importance of seeking other fun facilities and services and should be maintained in the updates other sources such as sources. Policy 1.4 4 ds to provide necessary Policy 1.4.4: Efforts should be made to secure grants or private funds, whenever available, to finance the provision of capital improvements': The Vllage has also adopted debt policies as part of its budged These policies include: the Village will only issue debt for capital improvements and capital projects, infrastructure and major capital acquisitions; the term of any debt shall not exceed the useful life of the capital item being financed; the Village will not issue debt to subsidize or fund current operations; general obligation debt will not be used to fund enterprise activities; and, the Village will pay off existing debt issues if the resulting savings are sufficient. The lrllage has bonded debt to finance various capital improvements and projects The Water Utility has an outstanding 30-year revenue bond due in 2028 for greater than $6 million of improvements. The Village also has a 1994 improvement revenue refunding bond with a payoff in 2009. The Village has some other debt, however, like other indebtedness, it will be paid off with generated revenues. All outstanding bonds are revenue bonds • Policy 1.4.2 in the CIE specifically limits general obligation debt: Policy 1.4.2: In providing capital improvements, the pillage shall limit General obligation debt to an amount equal to or less than S% of the property tax baste The Vllage should review Policy 1.4.2 in the update process for current applicability. As revealed previously, many public facilities capital improvements are funded by the private development community as new development occurs Typically, all developers are required to make provision for essential services and facilities as the projected impacts of development demand. Policy 1.4.3 in the CIE states, "The lrllage shall annually update the S-Year Schedule of Improvements The results of this update shall be incorporated within a capital budget as part of the annual Vllage budgeting process': As stated previously in this section, this update must be accomplished in the future to meet State planning requirements. Policy 1.4.3 should be maintained in the updated CIE. • -107- • Based on the Vtllage's obligations in the provision of essential sen~ices and facilities in relation to its strong revenue position from General Fund revenues, its investment portfolio, grants and other sources, and adopted Village policies, it is expected that there will be adequate revenues to accommodate future capital improvements needs; and, to render the Irllage of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan "financially feasible". Both the short term (1-S Years) and long term (6-10 Years) Schedules of Improvements shall be included in the updated CIE. In response to the 2005 amendments to the Florida Statutes, the Vllage was required to adopt a proportionate fair-share Ordinance by December 1, 2006. The intent and purpose of this Ordinance is to allow developers to proceed under certain circumstances, notwithstanding the failure of traffic concurrency, by contributing their fair-share to improve the impacted transportation facility. In addition, and in coordination with this Ordinance, DCA requires the inclusion of the following Policies in the updated Comprehensive Plan: Policy (# to be determined): The Village shall review and update the CIE annually as necessary to ref lect proportionate fair-share agreements and contributiorr~ Policy (# to be • determinea~: The Village is responsible for ensuring thefinancial feasi- bility of capitasl improvements in the adopted CIE All data and analysis contained in the Support documentation to the CIE shall be updated, as appropriates Any Objectives or Policies not spec~cally addressed in this section shall be reviewed and maintained, revised, or deleted as deemed necessary. Objective 1.6.0 and Policies 1.6.1 and 1. ~ 2, which regard establishing an Urban Service Area, should be revisited in the updates Changes in State and Regional Growth Management Plans and Laws There have been no changes to the State Comprehensive Plan or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) Strategic Regional Policy Plan that affect the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan since its last EAR (1996) and subsequent amendment An assessment, in matrix format, of amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statues and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code since the last EAR of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 is included in Appendix C of this Report. The • -108- assessment consists of (1) applicability of State law changes to the Village's Comprehensive Plan; (2) whether the amendment has been addressed in the current Comprehensive Plan; and, (3) whether an amendment is required. Public School Facilities Siting and Concurrence The Village of Tequesta was determined to be "exempt" from the public school siting and co-location requirements by the Palm Beach County Schoot District and State DCA. Palm Beach County and many of its cities, including Tequesta, have officially addressed the public school concurrency issue. The "Palm Beach County Interlocal Agreement with Municipalities of Palm Beach County and the School District of Palm Beach County to Establish Public School Concurrency" is an executed Agreement signed in 2001 by twenty six (26) municipalities, the Palm Beach County Commission and the Palm Beach County School Board and remains in effect today. The Village of Tequesta subsequently prepared and adopted a Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) as part of its Comprehensive Plan. Later amendments were also prepared and adopted by the Vllage in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement The PSFE, and all subsequent amendments to the PSFE, have been approved and found "In Compliance" by DCA. Regional Water Supply • As identified in the Potable Water sub-section to the Utilities section of this EAR, the Village is the potable water supplier not only to its residents but to portions of unincor- porated Palm Beach and Martin Counties and the entire Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. Most properties in the Village Service Area are connected to the central potable water system. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is in the process of preparing its regional water supply plan (Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan). It is expected that the SFWMD will finalize and adopt this Plan sometime in 2007. The Village is required to coordinate with SFWMD in the preparation of its Long Range Water Supply Facilities Work Plan which will identify needed water supply facilities. for at least a ten (10) year planning period. The Village, as a water supplier, must provide to those jurisdictions/governments that it serves a letter and supporting documentation confirming that the Village has identified adequate alternative water sources, considering the regional plan, and that they have the necessary infrastructure to serve projected needs of its Service Area. Because the SFWMD Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan has not been adopted as of the date of preparation of this EAR, this issue cannot be addressed at this time, but it is understood that the pillage's Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended in the future to accommodate the regional water supply issues . -I09- The Village has adopted various Objectives and Policies in its current Comprehensive Plan to protect and conserve potable water supplies. Specifically, Objectives 1.2.0, 1.3.0 and 1.6.0 in the Potable Water sub-section of the Utilities element, with their supporting Policies, address water protection and conservation. Likewise, Objective 2.9.0 in the Conservation element with its supporting Policies also addresses water conservation measures. These Objectives and Policies are discussed in detail in their respective sections under the Community-Wide Assessment portion of this Report. • • -110- • Addendum ~o CIE ~ • DRAFT VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ESTIMATED 1-5 YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTS (INFLATION INCLUDED) • DEPARTMENTAL KEY ~ FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS 8. RECREATION ~ POLICE ~ PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT NAME 8~ NUMBER 1 YEAR PROJECTION FY 07/08 2 YEAR PROJECTION FY 08/09 3 YEAR PROJECTION FY 09/10 4 YEAR PROJECTION FY 10/11 5 YEAR PROJECTION FY 11/12 TOTAL 5 YEAR COSTS 653.600 -BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 653.601 -ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 131,000 107,120 141 026 379,146 653.605 -BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 662.600 -BUILDINGS 76,491 78 786 155,277 662.631 -CONSTRUCTION 662.632 -ARCHITECT & ENGINERRING 30,000 30,900 21,855 22,510 105,265 663.600 -IMPROVEMENTS OTHER BUILDINGS 2,060 2,122 2 251 6433 663.632 -ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING OTHER 663.650 -PATHWAYS 20,000 20000 663.652 -PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 663.653 - SIGNAGE 6,000 3,183 9,183 663.655 -LANDSCAPING 70,000 26,523 112 551 209,074 663.656 -ROADWAY DESIGN 663.657 -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 663.658 -PARK IMPROVEMENTS 257,500 58,350 32,781 225,102 573733 663.659 -IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 21,218 22 510 43728 663.660 -STREETLIGHTS ss3ss~ - sTREFT uGHTS coNDUlr 100,000 103,000 106,090 109,273 112 551 530,914 663.665 -CURBS & GUTTERS 663.672 - MISC PARK PROJECTS 90,000 5,464 95,464 ss3.s7s -BALL FIELD PROJECTS 3,914 4,589 45 020 53523 663.676 -BALL FIELD PROJECTS 37,080 3,713 4 502 45295 663.677-PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS 92,700 92700 ssasoo - MACFIwE/EQUIPMENT-FIRE 25,600 32 136 18,445 71,993 33,765 181,939 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT-POLICE 14,500 21 836 7 957 6,195 5 628 58,116 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT-PARK & REC. 25,000 15,450 40,450 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT 0 664.601 -COMPUTER EQUIPMENT-FIRE 6,000 6 180 6,365 24,259 6,753 49,557 664.601 -COMPUTER EQUIPMENT-POLICE 32,410 29,777 1,697 0 0 63,884 664.602 -VEHICLES-POLICE 68,000 49,440 50 923 52,451 27 012 247826 664.603- FURNITURE,FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT 0 0 3,183 2,295 1,801 7,279 664.603 - FURNITURE,FIXT & EQUIP-PARK & REC. 42,436 42,436 ssa.so5 - FIRE vEwaES 34,479 393,928 428,407 699.600 -CONTINGENCY 0 OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: 598,510 789,093 386,684 429,646 1,235,696 3,439,629 .• • • DRAFT VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA ESTIMATED 1-5 YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTS (INFLATION INCLUDED DEPARTMENTAL KEY ~ UTILITIES ACCOUNT NAME & NUMBER 1 YEAR PROJECTION FY 07/08 2 YEAR PROJECTION FY 08/09 3 YEAR PROJECTION FY 09/10 4 YEAR PROJECTION FY 10/11 5 YEAR PROJECTION FY 11/12 TOTAL 5 YEAR COSTS FILTER PLANT & RO PLANT REHABILITATION 80,000 80000 GROUND STORAGE TANK REHABILITATION 75,000 75000 RO TRAIN MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT 175,000 175000 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 430,000 309,000 318,000 328,000 338,000 1,723,000 WTO EXPENSE (RO TRAIN N0.3) 646.605 -WELL REHAB 662.640 - MISC WATER MAIN EXTENSION 663.641 -WELL CONSTRUCTION ¢0,000 ¢0,000 663.642 -WELL ENGINEERING 664.602 -VEHICLES 50,000 28,000 78,000 699.600 -CONTINGENCY OTHER TOTAL: 520,000 309,000 318,000 686,000 338,000 2,171,000 • • • DRAFT DEPARTMENTAL KEY ~ FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKS RRECREATION POLICE ~ PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNT NAME & NUMBER 6 YEAR PROJECTION FY 12/13 7 YEAR PROJECTION FY 13/14 8 YEAR PROJECTION FY 14/15 9 YEAR PROJECTION FY 15/16 10 YEAR PROJECTION FY 16/17 TOTAL 10 YEAR COSTS 653.600 -BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 s53.so1 - Rono IMPROVEMENTS 132,870 151,343 66 743 3505 653.605 -BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 1,287,500 1287500 662.600 -BUILDINGS 662.631 -CONSTRUCTION 662.632 -ARCHITECT & ENGINERRING 663.600 -IMPROVEMENTS OTHER BUILDINGS 2,000 2,652 2,732 7,384 663.632 -ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING OTHER 15,000 20,600 35,600 663.634 -SITE WORWUTILITY & LANDSCAPE 663.650 -PATHWAYS 663.652 -PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 26,523 26523 663.653 - SIGNAGE 663.655 -LANDSCAPING 50 000 74,263 124,263 663.656 -ROADWAY DESIGN 663.657 -ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 663.658 -PARK IMPROVEMENTS 200 000 103,000 84 413 387,413 663.658 -PARK IMPROVEMENTS 265 225 273,182 225 102 763,509 663.659 -IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 20,000 20,000 663.660 -STREETLIGHTS 663.661 -STREET LIGHTS CONDUIT 100,000 103,000 106,090 109,273 112 551 530,914 663.665 -CURBS & GUTTERS 663.672 - MISC PARK PROJECTS 7 210 7 000 14210 663.676 -BALL FIELD PROJECTS 663.677-PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT-FIRE 56 579 33,000 49,449 17,359 22,2$5 17$,672 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT-POLICE 5 000 13,390 16,444 5 464 8441 48,739 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT 664.600 -MACHINE/EQUIPMENT 0 664.601 -COMPUTER EQUIPMENT-FIRE 6 000 6 180 6 365 24,259 6,753 49,557 664.602 -VEHICLES-POLICE 24 000 49,440 50 923 52,451 54 024 230838 664.602 -VEHICLES 664.602 -VEHICLES 664.602 -VEHICLES 664.603 - FURNITURE,FIxrURES & EQUIPMENT 12 000 0 7,996 1,858 0 21,854 ssa.so5 - FIRE vEHICLES 25 600 37 595 180 353 0 0 243,548 699.600 -CONTINGENCY O O O 0 0 0 1 .. • DRAFT • • DEPARTMENTAL KEY ACCOUNT NAME & NUMBER .TER PLANT & RO PLANT REHABILITATION tOUND STORAGE TANK REHABILITATION i TRAIN MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT \TER MAIN REPLACEMENT "O EXPENSE (RO TRAIN N0.3) i.605 -WELL REHAB ?.640 - MISC WATER MAIN EXTENSION 3.641 -WELL CONSTRUCTION 3.642 -WELL ENGINEERING 5.602 -VEHICLES 3.600 -CONTINGENCY UTILITIES 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YEAR TOTAL PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION PROJECTION 10 YEAR FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 COSTS TOTAL: • Appendix A (Public Notice & Resolution) • L ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOI~'I'IIE PROPOSED EVALUATION OF APPRAISAL REPORT t31~ THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITIZENS OF THE VH,LAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA:' TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND TO ALL TT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that a Public Hearings will be held at the Village of Tequesta Council Chambers, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta; FL on May 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. before the Village Council acting as the Local Planning Agency, and immediately following the Local Planning Agency meeting by the Village Council as the governing body or as soon as may be heazd, on the following application: RESOLUTION N0.49-06/07 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCH, OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH - COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA; STARTING THE INTENT OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED UPON RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT; AND APPROVING TRANSMITTAL OF THE -REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 163.3191, FLORH)A STATUTES; .AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This Evaluation and Appraisal Report may be inspected by the public at the Office of the Village Clerk, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, FL between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. All interested parties . are encouraged to come to the Public Hearings and be heazd. At these Public I-Iearings the. Local Planning Agency and / or Village Council will hear all evidence and azguments in support or m oppos~t~on of this item. Anyone desiring to appeal a decision of the presiding body on matters considered at this meeting or this hearing will need a record of the proceeding. They may need to ensure that a verbatim record is made, including the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based: The Village of Tequesta does not provide such a record. The above item(s) maybe postponed or withdrawn without prior notice: Questions should be directed to the Director of Community Development at 561-575-6200. Lori McWilliams, CMC Village Clerk PUBLISH: Sunday, Apri129, 2007 Wednesday, May 2, 2007 • • 5/10/07 LPA Meeting 7:00 p.m. Resolution 47-06/07 - Geraldine Genco spoke about the CRS program • • ~ `AAA\11111111///~~' I NERERY CERTIFY THE A~O'> c Af~1D FOREGOIP~r I~ A T.--~:?~ AAl~ ~~~ p13 ~O~ ~~~ GORRECi' G!~'Y APPEAR{l~Ca Fi;~^~PA THE RECCRU~ .N THE ~ti! ! ~':~E `s``fl~`~~~~°ti~N.;(6,°,.r. CLERtt'~ ~:~F;={CE. V! LAGS Ci~T`"CUESTA, FL R~Ij.~;; A1`:C~ ~iER~~Y ~ ..i,; ~ ~ii.YN~ AFFIX iINF CFFi 1 ~e.AL i C1AY OF-~~~'~-~--- ~ ~L~ ._ :431b'a0da©JNI; ICRi Pv~c`,"yILL{l;~:i~~, ~ILL;1~G GLER{t : c ',~~ , bbo aao, a^~.,. RESOLUTION NO. 47-06/07 ~~~i~b~ l~~l~l~~ ``\ A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA; STATING THE INTENT OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED UPON RECONIlVIENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT; AND APPROVING TRANSNIITTAL OF THE REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 163.3191, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the state legislature of the State of Florida has mandated that all municipalities draft and adopt comprehensive development plans to provide thorough and consistent planning with regard to land within their corporate limits; and, WHEREAS, the Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, Florida (Village) has adopted the • Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Tequesta pursuant to the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (the Act); and, WHEREAS, the Village's Comprehensive Plan (Plan) has been determined to be in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code; and, WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature intends that local planning be a continuous and ongoing process; and, WHEREAS, Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes (F. S.), directs local governments to periodically assess the success or failure of their adopted Plan to adequately address changing conditions and stated policies and rules; and, WHEREAS, Section 163.3191, F.S., also directs local governments to adopt amendments to ensure that the Plan provides appropriate policy guidance for growth and development; and, • WHEREAS, the Village of Tequesta, Village Council, sitting as Local Planning Agency, has • reviewed the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", held an advertised public hearing, provided for participation by the public in the process, and rendered its recommendations to the Village Council; and, WHEREAS, the Village Council has reviewed the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and held an advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 163.3191(6), F.S.; NOW THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA: Section 1: The Village Council does hereby adopt the Evaluation and Appraisal Report for the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Tequesta, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". Section 2: The Village Council does hereby state its intention to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Tequesta in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Section 3. The Village Council does hereby approve transmittal of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs for the purpose of a sufficiency review in accordance with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage. Section 5. All Resolutions and parts of Resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed. ~J 2 • The foregoing Resolution was offered by Vice Mayor Watkins, who moved to approve to adopt for transmittal to DCA. The motion was seconded by Council Member Turnquest, and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: For Adoption Against Adoption Jim Humpage Pat Watkins Daniel Amero Tom Paterno Calvin Turnquest The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of May, 2007. MAYOR OF TEQUESTA l • m Humpage y' ~ ATTEST: ld y~ Lori McWilliams, CMC Village Clerk • 3 • • Appendix B (PBCSWA Letter) ~. • January l9, 2006 Mr. Michael Couzzo Village ManageF Village of Tequesta P.O. Box 3273 Tequesta, FL 33469 YOUR PAR'T'NER FOR S©LfB WASTE SOLUTlUNS Subject: Availability of Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Dear Mr. Couzzo: The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County hereby provides certification that the Authority has disposal capacity available to accommodate the solid waste generation for the municipalities and unincorporated county for the coming year of 2046. This letter also constitutes notification of sufficient capacity for concurrency management and comprehensive planning purposes. Capacity is available for both the corning year, and the five and ten year planning periods specified in 9J- 5.005(4}. As of September 3Q 2005, the Authority's North County Landfills had an estimated 36,448,726 cubic yards of landfill capacity remaining. Based upon the existing Palm Beach County population, the . most recently available population growth rates published by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business and Research (BEBR}, medium projection, and projected rates of solid waste generation, waste reduction and recycling, the Solid Waste Authority forecasts that capacity will be available at the existing landfill through approximately the year 2021, assuming the depletion of the Class I and Class III Landfills is approximately balanced. fn fiscal year 2005-06 the Board. of the Salicl Waste Authority authorized the initial design and permitting efforts to develop a new landfill on 1640 acres owned by the Authority. The capacity of this new landfill facility will extend the life of the solid waste system beyond the year 2065. The Authority continues to pursue options to increase the life of its existing facilities and to provide for all the County's current and future disposal and recycling needs. As part of its responsibility, the Authority will provide an annual statement of disposal capacity, using the most current BEBR projections available. Flease provide copies of this letter to your plan review and concurrency management staff. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please da not hesitate to contact me. Ye truly yours, ~~ Marc C. Bruner> Ph.D. Director of Planning and Environmental Programs • 7501 North Jog Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33412 (561)640-4000 FAX (SG1) 640-3400 RecraeaYare: NOV 22,2006 10:44A 561&403400 page 3 • Appendix C (State Growth Management Laws) • Table Changes~Chapter 163.F.S. • Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed -- (wherefhow) By Element boards and community college boards. 2 Required that the future land use element cleaxly 163.3177(6}(a) ~t identify-those land use categories where public i schools are allowed. 3 Established certain criteria for local governments 163.3180(1)(b) wanting to er-tend concurrency to public schools. [Now: 163.3180(13)] later amended b s. 5, Ch. 98-:176, Laws of Florida} 996: {Ch, 96-205, s, 1; Cl; 96-320, Ss. 1011; 96=416, ss: 1-6, i5; Laws of Florida) t Substantially amended the criteria for email scale 163.3187(1 }(c) Applicable Yes - in small-scale amend- No amendments that are exempt From the twice-per- menu. ear limitation. further amended in 2005 5 Revised the objectives in the coastal management 163.3177(6)(g)9. NA No No ____ element to include the maintenance of orts. i Provide that certain port related expansion 163.3178(2}, (3), and NA No No ro'ects are not DRIB under certain conditions. (5) 7 Allowed a county to designate areas on the future 163.31.77(6)(a) NA No No land use plan for possible future municipal into oration. 3 Required the ICE to include consideration of the 163.3177(6}(h) Applicable Yes -processes & procedures No plans of school boards and other units of local adhered ta. government providing services but not having re ato authori. over the use of land. Revised the processes and procedures to be 163.3177(6)(h) Applicable Yes -satisfied ICE require- No included in the ICE. menu ~ .Required that within 1 year after adopting their ICE 163.3177(6}(h)2, Applicable Yes -satisfied. TCE require- No each county and all municipalities and school boards menu. therein establish by interlocal agreement the joint racesses consistent with their ICE. 1 Required local governments who utilize school 163.3180(1)(b)Z. Applicable Yes -satisfied ICE require- - Na 1 concurrency to satisfy intergovernmental [Now: rnents. coordination r uirements of 163.3177(6 (h)1. 163.3180 13 Z Permitted a county to adopt a municipal overlay 163.3217 NA No No amendment to address future possible municipal inco ration of a s cific eo luc area. 3 Authorized DCA to conduct a sustainable 163,3244 NA No No communities demonstration ro ect. Now re Baled. 497: {Ch. 97-253, ss. 1-4, La~~s of Florida) .. } Amended. the definition of de minimis impact as it 163.3180(6) NA No No 13 Table Changes'f Chapter 163.F.S. c:nanges to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed pertains to concurrenc re uirem t f h (where/how) B Element y q en s. [ urt er amended in 2005 S Established that no plan or plan amendment in an 163.3184(14) NA No No area of critical state concern is effective until found in com fiance b a final order. 5 Amended the criteria for the annual effect of Duval 163,3187(1)(c)1.a.III NA No No County small scale amendments to a maximum of 120 acres. 7 Prohibited amendments in areas of critical state 163.3189(2)(b) NA No No concern from becoming effective if not in com Hance. 998; {Ch, 98.75, s1 i4; Ch. 146, ss. 2-~; Ch. 98176; ss, 2-6 and 12-iS,Gh. 98-258, ss; 4-5} 3 Exempted brownfield area amendments from the 163.3187(1)(g) NA No No twice-a- ear limitation. 9 Required that the capital improvements element 163.3177(3)(a)4. Applicable Yes -CIE No set forth standards for the mana ement of debt. J Required inclusion of at least two planning periods 163,3177(5)(a) Applicable Yes - in this EAR & past No - at least 5 years and at least 10 years. Amendments. 1 Allowed multiple individual plan amendments to 163.3184(3)(d) Applicable Yes - in this EAR & past No be considered to ether as one amendment cle. amendments Z Defined optional sector plan and created section 163.3164(31) and NA . No No 163.3245 allowing local governments to address 163,3245 DRI issues within certain identified geographic areas. 3 Established the requirements for a public school 163,3177(12) Applicable Yes - PSFE adopted No facilities element. mandato as of 2005 1 Established the minimum requirements for imposing 163.3180(12), (now Applicable Yes - Interlocal Agreement No school concurrenev. Section 13)) 5 Required DCA adopt minimum criteria for the 163.3180(13), (now Applicable Yes - Interlocal Agreement No compliance determination of a public school Section 14)) facilities element im osin school concurren 5 Required that evaluation and i l appra sa reports 163,3191(2)(1) Applicable Yes - PSFE No address coozdination of the comp plan with existing [Now: public schools and the school district's 5-year work 163,3191(2)(k}; see ro ram. 2005 for latest 7 Amended the definition of "in co li " mp ance to 163.3184(1)(b) NA No No include consistency with Sections 163,3180 and 163.3245. 14 Table Change~o Chapter 163.F.S. • Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 3 Required DCA to maintain a file with ll 163, F.S. Citations 1 Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed By Element a documents received or generated by DCA relating to plan amendments and identify; limited DCA's 63.3184(2), (4), and (6) NA No No xeview of proposed plan amendments to written comments, and required DCA to identify and list all ~7-itten communications received within 30 days after transmittal of a ro Deed lan amendment. 3 Allowed a local overnment to am d it l f 3 g en s p an or a period of up to one year after the initial 16 .3187(6}(b) Applicable Yes -this EAR process. No determination of sufficiency of an adopted EAR even if the EAR is insufficient. J Substantially reworded Section 163.3191, F.S., related to evaluation and a raisal re orts. 163.3191 Applicable Yes -this EAR. No 1 Changed the population re uirement f 163 q s or municipalities and counties which are required to .3177(6)(1) NA No No submit otherwise o tional elements. 999: Ch. 94-25 l;ss, 6S-6r and 9©; Ch. ~9-37~, ss~ 1, 3-~, and 8-9, Laws o~ Florida] -. 2 Required that ports and local governments in the coastal area, which has spoil disposal. 163.3178(7) NA No No responsibilities, identify dredge disposal sites in the com lan. 3 Exempted from the twice- er- ear limitati 163 3187 p y on certain port related amendments for port . (1)(h) NA No No transportation facilities and projects eligible for funding by the Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Develo ment Council 1 Required rural counties to base their f t l d 16 u ure an use plans and the amount of land designated 3.3177(6)(a) NA No No industrial on data regarding the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development and the need to strengthen and _ diversi local economies. 5 Added the GroR~th Polic Act to Ch 163 Part II t 163 2511 6 y . , o promote urban infill .and redevelopment. elaborated in 2005 . ,1 3.25,14,1 63.2517,163.2520,16 3.2523,163.2526 Applicable Yes -addressed in FLU. Yes 5 Required that all comp plans com l with the 163 3177 6 p y school siting requirements by October 1, 1999. . ( )(a) [this sentence Applicable Yes -met requirements No stricken in 2005 7 Made trans t ti f ili i ~ por a on ac t es subject to 163.3180(1)(x) Applicable Yes -Conc. Mgt. System/LDRs No 15 Table Chan es to Cha ter 163.F.S. • 9 p c;nanges to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F,S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed (where/how) B Element concurrency. 3 Required use of professionally accepted 163.3180(1)(b) Applicable Yes -Conc. Mgt. System/LDR No techniques for measuring level of service for cars, trucks, transit, bikes and destrians. ~ Excludes public transit facilities from 163.31$0(4)(b) NA No No concurrenc re uirements. JO Allowed multi-use DRIB to satisfy the 163.3180(12) NA No No transportation concurrency requirements when authorized by a local comprehensive plan under limited circumstances. J1 Allowed multi-modal transportation districts in 163.3180(15) NA No No areas where priorities for the pedestrian environment are assigned by the plan. [elaborated in 2005 J2 Exempted amendments for urban infill and 163.31879(1)(h) and Applicable Yes No redevelopment areas, public school concurrency (i) from the twice- er- ear limitation. Now: i and ' J3 Defined browntield designation and added the 163.3220(2) NA No No assurance that a developer may proceed with development upon receipt of a brownfield designation. [Also see 163,3221(1) for "brownfield" definition.] D00: Ch:~2000-1'58, ss. 15-1~, Ch. ,2004-28~, s. 1, ~h. ~~~,000-3~1~7, s. 1$, Laws,:of f'Iorida] J4 Repealed Section 163.3184(11)(c), F.S., that 163.3I84(11)(c) NA No No required funds from sanction for non-compliant Tans o into the Growth Mana ement Trust Fund. JS Repealed Section 163,3187(7), F.S. that required 163.3187(7) NA No No consideration of an increase in the annual total acreage threshold for small scale plan amendments and a re ort b DCA. J6 Repealed Sections 163.3191(13) and (15), F.S. 163.3191(13) and NA No No (15) J7 Allowed small scale amendments in areas of 163.3187(1)(c)l.e NA No No critical state concern to be exempt from the twice- per-year limitation only if they are for affordable housin , 78 Added exemption of sales from local option surtax 163,2517(3)(j)2 NA No No imposed under Section 212.054, F.S., as examples of incentives for new develo ment within urban 16 Table Change~o Chapter 163. F.S. • ~nanges to t:napter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed - (where/how} B Element infill and redevelopment areas. col: ~cn~ 2ooz-279, s:'64) J9 Created the rural land stewardship area program. 163.3177(11)(d) NA No No amended in 2004 and 2005 X02: (Ch;.2002=296, SS. 1 - l I £,awso ~Blorida 10 i n s~ 163.3174 Applicable es -member included in No omprehens ve pla amendment and rezoning S to plan review process. include a nonvoting representative of the district school board. ' 11 Required coordination f l l o oca comprehensive plan ' 163.3177(4)(a) Applicable No - will be prepared as part ~:~~ ° - e with the re onal water su 1 lan. of EAR-based u date ~r 12 Plan amendments for s h l iti . c oo -s ng maps are exempt 163.3177(6)(a) NA No No from s. 163.3187(1)'s limitation on fre uen . 13 Required that b ado tion f h EAR y p o t e , the sanitary sewer solid waste dr i bl 163.3177(6)(c) Applicable No - will be completed as part es"~; ~ ~~ , , a nage, pota e water and of EAR update. °'~ natural groundwater aquifer recharge element . consider the regional water supply plan and include a 10-year work plan to build the identified water su 1 facilities. 14 Required consideration of the regional water supply I i h 163.3177(6)(d) Applicable No - will be completed as part erg,<ffi an n t e r aration of the conservation element, of EAR u ate 15 Required that the intergovernmental coordination element (ICE) include relationshi s rinci les and p p p 163.3177(6)(h} Applicable . No - will be completed as part '~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ guidelines to be used in coordinating comp plan of EAR update with re 'onal water su 1 lane. 16 Required the Iocal governments adopting a public 163.3177(6)(h)4 Applicable Yes - Interlocal Agreement No educational facilities element execute an inter-local agreement with the district school board, the county, and non-exem tin munici alines. 17 Required that counties larger than 100,000 163.3177(6)(h)6,7 & Applicable Yes -completed as part of No population and their municipalities submit ainter- 8 overall County report. local service delivery agreements (existing and proposed, deficits or duplication in the provisions of service) report to DCA by January 1, 2004. Each local government is required to update its ICE based on the findings of the report. DCA will meet with affected parties to discuss and id strategies to ,-_ remed an deficiencies or du lications. 17 Table ChangesTo Chapter 163. F.S. 18 Lnanges to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 Required local governments and s ecial di t i t 163, F.S. Citations 163 Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed B Element p s r c s to provide recommendations for statutory changes for .3177(6)(h)9 I~7A No No annexation to the Le 'slature b Feb 1, 2003. 19 Added a new section I63 3I776 that allo 163 . ws a county, to adopt an optional public educational facilities element in cooperation with the applicable school board. .31776 [163.31776 repealed in 2005] NA No No 20 Added a new section 163 31777 h i . t at requ res local governments and school boards to enter into an inter-local agreement that addresses school siting, enroliment forecasting, school capacity, 163.31777 Applicable Yes - adopted an Interlocal Agreement No infrastructure and safety needs of schools, schools as emer en shelters, and sharin of facilities. Z1 Added a provision that the concurrenc r i 163 y equ rement for transportation facilities may be waived by plan .3180(4)(c) Applicable No No amendment for urban infill and redevelopment areas. Z2 Expanded the definition of "affected er on " t 163 31 p s s o include property owners who own land abutting a chan a to a future land use ma . . 84(1)(a) NA No No 23 Expanded the definition of "in com liance" t 163 3184 p o include consistency with Section 163.31776 (public educational facilities element). . (1)(b) NA No No 24 Streamlined the timing of com rehensive lan 163 3184 3 LS p p amendment review. Required that local governments rovide ali i . ( ), (4), (6), (7 ,and (8 163 318 Applicable Yes - has an expedited site lan review rocess. No p gn- n form at the transmittal hearing and at the adoption hearing for persons to provide their names and . 4(15)(c) Applicable Yes -Completed No addresses. 26 Exempted amendments related to providing transportation improvements to enhance life safety on "controlled access major arterial highways" from the limitation on the frequency of plan amendments 163.3187(1)(k) NA No No contained in s.163.3187 1). 27 Required EAR's to include (1) considerati f th 163 31 on o e appropriate regional water supply plan, and (2) an evaluation of whether past reductions in land use - 91(2)(1) Applicable Yes -addressed in EAR No densities in coastal high. hazard areas have impaired roe ri hts of current residents where 18 Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. ~.«anges to ~napter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicab redeveiopment occurs. 28 Allowed local governments to establish a special 163.3215 master process to assist the local governments with Applicable challenges to local development orders for consistency with the comt)rehens;ve titan Z9 30 31 32 ~~ ,..., Laval v~vcriuneni ~ompretlenstve 163.3246 Planning Certification Program to allow less state and regional oversight of comprehensive plan process if the local government meets certain criteria. Added a provision to Section 380.06(24), Statutory 163.3187(1) Exemptions, that exempts from the requirements for developments of regional impact, any water port or marina development if the relevant local government has adopted a "boating facility siting plan or policy" (which includes certain specked criteria) as part of the coastal management element or future land use element of its comprehensive plan. The adoption of the boating facility siting plan or policy is exempt from the limitation on the frequency of plan amendments contained in s.163.3187(1). Prohibited a local government, under certain 163.3194(6) conditions, from denying an application for development approval for a requested land use for certain re osed solid waste mans ement facilities. [Clt, p3-1, ss. 14-15, ch. 03--:162; s. 1; cl~. 03-2r.,1, s. I~B; ch. 03-256, s. 6,1,1:; Created the Agricultural Lands and Practices Act. 163.3162 (2): Provided legislative findings and purpose with respect to agricultural activities and duplicative regulation. (3): Defined the terms "farm," "farm operation," and "farm product" for purposes of the act., (4): Prohibited a county from adopting any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit or otherwise limit a bona fide farm operation on land that is classified as agricultural land. (4)(a); Provided that the act does not Limit the NA NA Yes -process established. Yes -has adopted a Boating Facility Siting Plan & Policy No Amendment Needed By Element No No No No ~Flarida.] NA . ~~ No No 19 Table Changes to Chapter 163, F. S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed (where/how) B Element powers of a county under certain circumstances. (4)(b): Clarified that a farm operation may not expand its operations under certain circumstances. (4)(c): Provided that the act does not limit the powers of certain counties. (4)(d). Provided that certain county ordinances are not deemed to be a du lication of re ation. 33 Changed "State Comptroller" references to "Chief 163.3167(6) NA No No Financial Officer." 34 Provided for certain airports to abandon DRI orders. 163.3177(6)(k) NA No No 35 Amended to conform to the repeal of s. 235.185 and 163.31776(1)(b)(2}- NA No No the enactment of similar material in s. 1013.35. (3) [163.31776 re Baled in 2005 36 Amended to conform to the repeal of ch, 235 and 163.37111(1)(c), NA No No the enactment of similaz material in ch. 1013. (2)(e)-(fj, (3)(c), (4), (6)~) Db4: [Ch. 04-5, s 11; ch: 0~-37Q s. 1; c~, 04-~3~Oy ss. 1~5 ch, ~4-372,ss. 2~5:ch. 04381, ss l-2;'ch, 04-384, s. 2, LawsofF'lorida.~ 37 (10): Amended to conform to the repeal of the 163.3167 NA No No Florida High-Speed Rail Transportation Act, and the creation of the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority Act. (13): Created to require local governments to identify adequate water supply sources to meet future demand. (14): Created to limit the effect of judicial determinations issued subsequent to certain development orders pursuant to adopted land develo ment re tions. 38 (1): Provided legislative findings on the Creates 163,3175. NA No No compatibility of development with military installations, (2): Provided for the exchange of information relating to proposed land use decisions between counties and local governments and military installations. (3); Provided for responsive comments by the commanding officer or his/her designee. (4): Provided for the county or affected local .. overnment to take such comments into 20 Table Chan es to Cha ter 163. F. S. 9 P • Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed B Element consideration. (5): Required the representative of the military installation to be an ex-officio, nonvoting member of the county's or local government's land planning or zoning board. (b): Encouraged the commanding officer to provide information on community planning assistance _ ants. 39 163.3177 163.3177 NA No No (6)(a): [substantially - Changed to require local governments to amend amended in 2005; the future land use element by June 30, 2006 to see latest] include criteria to achieve compatibility with military installations. - Changed to specifically encourage rural land stewardship area designation as an overlay on the future land use map. (6)(c): - Extended the deadline adoption of the water supply facilities work plan amendment until December 1, 2006; provided for updating the work plan every five years; and exempts such amendment from the limitation on frequency of adoption of amendments. (10)(1): Provided for the coordination by the state land planning agency and the Department of Defense on compatibility issues for military installations. (11)(d)(1): Required DCA, in cooperation with other specified state agencies, to provide assistance to local governments in implementing provisions relating to rural land stewardship areas. (11)(d)(2): Provided for multieounty rural land stewardship areas. (I1)(d)(3)-(4): Revised requirements, including the acreage threshold for designating a rural land stewardship area. (11)(d)(6)(j): Provided that transferable rural land use credits may be assigned at different ratios _~ accordin to the natural resource or other beneficial 21 Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Nat Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed (where/how) By Element use characteristics of the land. (11)(e); Provided legislative findings regarding mixed-use, high-density urban infill and redevelopment projects; requires DCA to provide technical assistance to local governments. (11)(fJ: Provided legislative findings regarding a program for the transfer of development rights and urban infill and redevelopment; requires DCA to rovide technical assistance to local overnments. 30 (1): Provided legislative findings with respect to the Creates 163.31771. NA No No shortage of affordable rentals in the state. (Z): Provided definitions. (3): Authorized local governments to permit accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single family residential use based upon certain findings. (4); Provided for certain accessory dwelling units to apply towards satisfying the affordable housing component of the housing element in a local government's comprehensive plan. (5); Re uired the DCA to re ort to the Le 'stature. 11 Amended the definition of "in compliance" to add 163.3184(1)(b) NA No No language referring to the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. t2 (1)(m): Created to provide that amendments to 163.3187 NA No No address criteria or compatibility of land uses adjacent to or in close proximity to military installations do not taunt toward the limitation on frequency of amending comprehensive plans. (1)(n): Created to provide that amendments to establish or implement a rural land stewardship area do not count toward the limitation on fre uen of amendin tom rehensive Tans. t3 Created to provide that evaluation and appraisal 163.3191(Z)(n) NA No No reports evaluate whether criteria in the land use element were successful in achieving land use tom atibili with milita installations ?~5 [Ch. '?t?OS"-~-~0 ind '. 20U~-~~j1~~~ ~.~~~~ I~rtas:y~'.Flotida] , '' - :,-r, t4 Added the definition of `financial feasibility." Creates 163.3164(32) Applicable Yes No 15 (2) Required comprehensive plans to be 163,3177 Applicable Yes - EAR/CIE section No 22 • ~ • Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 _.~.. 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed B Element "financially" rather than "economically" feasible. under Communitywide Assess- (3)(a)5. Required the comprehensive plan to include went. ' a S-year schedule of capital improvements. Applicable Yes - EAR/CIE Yes Outside funding (i.e., from developer, other government or funding pursuant to referendum) of these capital improvements must be guaranteed in the form of a development agreement or interlocal agreement. (3)(a)6.b.1. Required plan amendment for the Applicable Yes -adopted in current CIE No annual update of the schedule of capital of Comp. Plan. improvements. Deleted provision allowing updates and change in the date of construction to be accomplished by ordinance. (3)(a)6.c. Added oversight and penalty provision Applicable No No for failure to adhere to this section's capital improvements requirements. (3)(a)6.d. Required along-term capital Applicable Yes No improvement schedule if the local government has adopted along-term concurrency management system. (6)(a) Deleted date (October 1, 1999) by which NA No No school sitting requirements must be adopted. (6)(c) Required the potable water element to be Applicable No No updated within 18 months of an updated regional water supply plan to incorporate the alternative water supply projects selected by the local government to meet its water supply needs. (11)(d)4.c. Required rural land stewardship areas NA No No to address affordable housing. (11)(d)5. Required a listed species survey be NA No No performed on rural land stewardship receiving area. If any listed species present, must ensure ade uate rovisions to rotect them. 23 Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 -- 163; F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed B Element (11)(d)6. Must enact an ordinance establishing a NA No No methodology for creation, conveyance, and use of stewardship credits within a rural land stewardship area. (11)(d)6.j. Revised to allow open space and NA No No agricultural land to be just as important as environmentally sensitive land when assigning stewardship credits. (12) Must adopt public school facilities element. Applicable Yes - adopted PSFE Na (12)(a) and (b) A waiver from providing this element will be allowed under certain circumstances. (12)(g) Expanded list of items to be to include Applicable Yes -addressed in PSFE No colocation, location of schools proximate to residential areas, and use of schools as emergency shelters. (12)(h) Required local governments to provide maps NA No No depicting the general location of new schools and school improvements within future conditions maps. (12)(i) Required DCA to establish a schedule for Applicable Yes -PSFE adopted No adoption of the public school facilities element. (12)(j) Established penalty for failure to adopt a NA No No public school facility element. (13)(new section) Encouraged local govemments to Applicable No No develop a "community vision," which provides for sustainable growth, recognizes its fiscal constraints, and protects its natural resources. (14)(new section) Encouraged local governments to NA No No develop a "urban service boundary," which ensures the area is served (or will be served) with W... ade uate ublic facilities and services over the next 24 Tabie Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed where/how) B Element 10 years. See 163.3184(17). , ~6 163.31776 is repealed 163.31776 NA No No 17 (2) Required the public schools interlocal 163.31777 Applicable Yes - PSFE No agreement (if applicable) to address requirements for school concurrency. The opt-out provision at the end of subsection (2) is deleted. (S) Required Palm Beach County to identify, as part of its EAR, changes needed in its public school element necessary to conform to the new 2005 public school facilities element requixements. {7) Provided that counties exempted from public school facilities element shall undergo re- evaluation as part of its EAR to determine if they continue to meet exem tion criteria. 1$ (1)(a) Added "schools" as a required concurrency 163.3180 Applicable Yes No item. (2)(a) Required consultation with water supplier Applicable No No prior to issuing building permit to ensure "adequate water supplies" to serve new development is available by the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (2)(c) Required ALL transportation facilities to be Applicable No No in place or under construction within 3 years (rather than 5 years) after approval of building permit. (4)(c) Allowed concurrency requirement for public Applicable No No schools to be waived within urban infi11 and redevelopment areas (163.2517). (S)(d) Required guidelines for granting Applicable No No eoncurrency eaeeptions to be included in the comprehensive plan. 25 • Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. to Chapter 163, F.S. (5)(e) - (g) If local government has established transportation exceptions, the guidelines for implementing the exceptions must be "consistent with and support a comprehensive strategy, and promote the purpose of the exceptions." Exception areas must include mobility strategies, such as alternate modes of transportation, supported by data and analysis. FDOT must be consulted prior to designating a transportation concurrency exception area. Transportation concurrency exception areas existing prior to July 1, 2005 must meet these requirements by July 1, 2006, or when EAR update. (6) Required Iocal government to maintain records to determine whether 110% de minimis transportation impact threshold is reached. A summary of these records must be submitted with the annual capital improvements element update. Exceeding the 110% threshold dissolves the de minimis exceptions. 163, F.S, Citations Not Applicable NA NA No Amendment Needed $y Element No (7) Required consultation with the Department of Transportation prior to designating a transportation concurrency management area (to promote infill development) to ensure adequate level-of-service standards are in place. The local government and the DOT should work together to mitigate any impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System. (9)(a) Allowed adoption of a long-term concurrency management system for schools. (9)(c) (new section) Allowed local governments to issue approvals to commence construction notwithstanding 163.3180 in areas subject to a long- term concurrency management system. (9)(d) (new section) Required evaluation in EAR of progress in improving levels of service,. No NA I No ~ No NA No No NA No No 2s Table Chan es~ Cha ter 163. F. S. g P Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 -- 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed B Element (10) Added requirement that level of service NA No No standard for roadway facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System must be consistent with FDOT standards. Standards must consider compatibility with adjacent jurisdictions. (13) Required school concurrency (not optional). Applicable Yes - PSFE No (13)(c)1. Requires school concurrency after five NA No No years to be applied on a "less than districtwide basis" (i.e., by using school attendance zones, etc). ' (13)(c}2. Eliminated exemption from plan NA No No amendment adoption limitation.for changes to service area. boundaries. (13)(c)3. No application for development approval NA No No may be dewed if aless-than-districtwide measurement of school concurrency is used; however the development impacts must to shifted to contiguous service areas with school capacity. (13)(e) Allowed school concurrency to be satisfied NA No No if a developer executes a legally binding commitment to provide mitigation proportionate to the demand. (13)(e)1. Enumerated mitigation options for NA No No achieving proportionate-share mitigation. (13)(e)2. If educational facilities funded in one of NA No No the two following ways, the local government must credit this amount toward any impact fee or exaction imposed on the community: ~ contribution of land • construction, expansion, ox payment for land acquisition __a._ (13)( )2. Section deleted - it is no Ion err wired NA No No 27 Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 _._. 163, F,S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how) Amendment Needed By Element that a local government and school board base their plans on consistent population projection and share information regarding planned public school facilities, development and redevelopment and infrastructure needs of public school facilities. However, see (13)(g)6.a. for similar requirement. (13)(g)6.a. (formerly (13)(g)7.a.) Local Applicable Yes -Conc. Mgt. System/LDR No governments must establish a uniform procedure for determining if development applications are in compliance with school. concurreney. (13)(g)7. (formerly (13)(g)8.) Deleted language that NA No No allowed local government to terminate or suspend an interlocal agreement with the school board. (13)(h) (new 2005 provision) The fact that school NA No No concurrency has not yet been implemented by a local government should not be the basis for either an approval or denial of a development permit. (15) Prior to adopting Mnltimodal Transportation NA No Na Districts, FDOT must be consulted to assess the impact on level of service standards. If impacts are found, the local government and the FDOT must work together to mitigate those impacts. Multimodal districts established prior to July 1, 2005 must meet this requirement by July 1, 2006 or at the time of the EAR-base amendment, whichever occurs Last. (16) (new 2005 Section) Required local NA No No governments to adopt by December 1, 2006 a method for assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation options. FDOT will develop a model ordinance by December 1, 2005. 28 • Table Changes to Chapter 163. F. S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed Amendment Needed (where/how} B Element ~9 (17) (New 2005 Section) If local government has 163.3184 NA No No adopted a community vision and urban service boundary, state and regional agency review is eliminated for plan amendments affecting property within the urban service boundary. Such amendments are exempt from the limitation on the frequency of plan amendments. (18) (New 2005 Section) If a municipality has adapted an urban infill and redevelopment area, state and regional agency review is eliminated for plan amendments affecting property within the urban service boundary. Such amendments are exempt from the limitation on the frequency of plan amendments. 50 (l)(c)l.f. Allowed approval of residential land use 163.3187 NA No No as a small-scale development amendment when the proposed density is equal to or less than the existing future land use category. Under certain circumstances affordable housing units are exempt from this limitation. (l)(c)4. (New 2005 provision) If the small-scale development amendment involves a rural area of critical economic concern, a 20-acre limit applies. (I}(o) (New 2005 Provision) An amendment to a rural area of critical economic concern may be approved without regard to the statutory limit on com rehensive lan amendments. 51 (2)(k) Required local governments that do not have 163.3191 NA No No either a school interlocal agreement or a public school facilities element, to determine in the EAR whether the local government continues to meet the exemption criteria in s.163.3177(12). (2)(1) The EAR must determine whether the local Applicable No ~~ "' government has met its various water supply requirements, includin develo went of 29 • • ~ Table Changes to Chapter 163.F.S. Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2D03 163, F.S. Citations Not Applicable Addressed (where/how Amendment Needed B Element alternative water supply projects. (2)(0) (New 2005 Provision) The EAR must NA No No evaluate whether its Multimodal Transportation District has achieved the purpose for which it was created. (2)(p) (New 2005 Provision) The EAR must assess NA No No methodology for impacts on transportation facilities. ~ d, I N` (10) The EAR-based amendment must be adopted Applicable Yes ~ rA J r ~'{ ~~~ ~' within a single amendment cycle. Failure to adopt ~~+~. within this cycle results in penalties. Once updated, w the comprehensive plan must be submitted to the DCA. 30 Table Changes to Rule 9J-5, F. A. C Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003 9J-5, F.A.C. Citations NA Addressed where/how Amendment Needed B Element 50 Required policies of the conservation element to address 9J-5.013(2) and (3) land uses known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of water sources, including natural groundwater recharge areas, well head protection areas and surface waters used as a source of public water su 1 ,and the rotecfion and conservation of wetlands. r'ebruary 2U, 1996 51 Repealed rule requirements for the Traffic Circulation 9J-S.007, 9J-5.008, NA No No Element; Mass Transit Element; Ports, Aviation and and 9J-5.009 Related Facilities Element. Note: Certain local governments must continue to prepare- these elements ursuant to 163.3177, F.S., and 9J-5.019, F.A.C. 52 Repealed rule requirements for the Recreation and 9J-S.014 NA No No Open Space Element. Note: Section 163.3177, F.S., re wires local overnments to re are this element. 53 Repealed rule requirements for consistency of local 9J-5.021 NA No No government comprehensive plans with Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans and with the State Comprehensive Plan. Note: Local government comprehensive plans are required by section 1 G3.3184(1)(b), F S., to be consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan. October 20, 1998 54 Established requirements for the Public School Facilities 93-5.025 Applicable Yes -adopted PSFE No Element for Public School Concurrency for local overnments that ado school concurre March 21, 1999 SS Defined public transit and stormwater management 9J-5.003 Applicable Yes - EAR/Drainage section No facilities under Communitvwide Assess- ment 56 Revised the definitions of affordable housing, coastal 9J-5,003 Applicable Yes -EAR No planning area, port facility, and wetlands.. 57 Repeal the definitions of adjusted for family size, 9J-5.003 NA No No 9 • • • Table Changes to Rule 9J-5, F. A. C Lnanges to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003 9J-5, F.A.C. NA Addressed Amendment Needed area or prime recharge area, mass transit, Citations where/how B Element aratransit, ublic facilities, ve low-income Tamil . 58 Revised provisions relating to adoption by reference 9J-5.005(2)(g) and NA No No into the local com rehensive tan. (g) ') 59 Repealed transmittal requirements for proposed 9J-5.0053(2) through NA No No evaluation and appraisal reports, submittal (5) requirements for adopted evaluation and appraisal reports, criteria for determining the sufficiency of adopted evaluation and appraisal reports, procedures for adoption of evaluation and appraisal reports. Note: transmittal requirements for proposed evaluation and appraisal reports and submittal requirements for adopted evaluation and appraisal reports were incorporated Rule Cha ter 9J-11, F.A.C. 60 Repealed conditions for de minimis impact and 9J-5,0055(3)6 NA No No referenced conditions in subsection 163.3180 6), F.S. 61 Required the future land use map to show the 9J-5.006(4) NA No No transportation concurrency exception area boundaries of such areas have been designated and areas for possible future munici al inco ration. 62 Required objectives of the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, Potable Water and Natural 9J-5.011(2) Applicable No e ~ ~~._, Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element to address rotection of hi rechar a and rime rechar a areas. 63 Repealed the Intergovernmental Coordination Element 9J-5.015(4) NA No No process to determine if development proposals would have significant impacts on other local governments or state or regional resources or facilities, and provisions relating to resolution of disputes, modification of development. orders, and the rendering of development orders to the De artment of Communi Affairs (DCA) 64 Clarified that local governments not located within the 9J-5.019(1) Applicable No Na urban area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization are required to adopt a Traffic Circulation Element and that local. governments with a population of 50,000 or less are not required to prepare Mass Transit and Ports , Aviation and Related Facilities Elements. 10 ~ • s Table Changes to Rule 9J-5, F. A. C Changes to Rule 9J-S, F.A.C. 1989-2003 9J-5, F.A.C. NA Addressed Amendment Needed _ Citations where/how B Element 65 Re wired ob'ectives of the Trans rtation Element to: 9J-5.019(4)(b) • Coordination the siting of new, or expansion of NA No No existing ports, airports, or related facilities with the. Future Land Use, Coastal Management, and Conservation Elements; • Coordination surface transportation access to NA No No ports, airports, and related facilities with the traffic circulation stem; • Coordination ports, airports, and related NA No No facilities plans with plans of other transportation roviders; and • Ensure that access routes to ports, airports and NA No No related facilities are properly integrated with other modes of tran ortation. 66 Re wired olicies of the Tran ortation Element to: 9J-5.019(4)(c) • Provide for safe and convenient on-site traffic Applicable Yes -Transportation element No flow; • Establish measures for the acquisition and NA No No preservation of public transit rights-of-way and corridors; • Promote ports, airports and related facilities NA No No develo ment and a ansion; • Mitigate adverse structural and non-structural NA No No impacts from ports, airports and related facilities; • Protect and conserve natural resources within NA No No orts, ai orts and related facilities; • Coordinate intermodal management of surface NA No No and water transportation within ports, airports and related facilities; and • Protect ports, airports and related facilities from NA No No encroachment of incom atible land uses. 67 Added standards for the review of land development 9J-5.022 Applicable Yes -Land Development Regu- No re lations b the De artment. Lions (LDR's) 6A Added criteria for determining consistency of land 9J-5.023 Applicable No No develo went re lations with the com rehensive lan. 11 • Table Chano Rule 9J-5, F. A. C g • Changes to Rule 9J-S, F.A.C. 1989-2003 9J-5, F.A.C. NA Addressed Amendment Needed Citations where/how) B Element February 2.5, 2002 69 Defined general lanes 9J-5.003 Applicable No No 70 Revised the definition of "marine wetlands." 9J-5.003 Applicable No No 71 Repeal the definition of "public i'acilfties and services." 9J-5.003 NA No No 72 Revised procedures for monitoring, evaluating and 9J-5.005(7) Applicable Yes No a raisin irn lementation of local tom rehensive Tans. 73 Repealed requirements for evaluation and appraisal 9J-5.0053 NA No No re orts and evaluation and a raisal amendments. 74 Revised concurrency management system requirements 9J-5.005(1) and (Z) Applicable Yes - Interlocal Agreement & No to include provisions for establishment of public school PSFE concurrent . 75 Autliorized local governments to establish multimodal 9J•5.0055(2)(b) and NA No No transportation level of senrice standards and established (3)(c) re uirements for muttimodal trans ortation districts. 76 Authorized local governments to establish level of 9J-5.0055(2)(c) Applicable Yes -Transportation element No service standards for general lanes of the Florida Intrastate Highway System within urbanized areas, with the concurrence of the De artment of Trans nation. 77 Provide that public transit facilities are not subject to 9J-5,0055(8) NA No No concurren xe uirements. 78 Authorized local comprehensive plans to permit multi- 9J-S.OOSS(9) Applicable In Process No use developments of regional impact to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a ro ortionate share contribution. 79 Required the future land use map to show raultimodal 9J-S.OOb(4) NA No No trans ortation district boundaries, if established, 80 Authorized local governments to establish multimodaI 9J-SA06(6) NA No No transportation districts and, if established, required local governments to establish design standards for such districts. ail Required data for the Housing Element include a 9J-S.O10(1)(c) Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan Housing No description of substandard dwelling units and repealed Element the requirement that the housing inventory include a locally determined definition of standard and substandard _, hausin conditions. ~ 12 • • Table Changes to Rule 9J-5, F. A. C Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003 9J-S, F.A.C. NA Addressed Amendment Needed Citations where/how B Element,,.; 82 Authorized local governments to supplement the 9J-5.10(2)(b) Applicable Update during EAR process •','~~wy' affordable housing needs assessment with locally generated data and repealed the authorization for local overnments to conduct their own assessment. 83 Required the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to 9J-5.015(3)(b) NA No No include objectives that ensure adoption of interlocai agreements within one year of adoption of the amended Intergovernmental Coordination Element and ensure intergovernmental coordination between all affected local governments and the school board for the purpose of establishing requirements for public school concurrent . 84 Required the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to 9J-5.015(3)(c) include: • Policies that provide procedures to identify and Applicable Yes - Cornp. Plan IC$E No implement joint planning areas for purposes of annexation, municipal incorporation and joint infrastructure service areas; • Recognize campus master plan and provide Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan ICE No procedures for coordination of the campus master devel ment a Bement; • Establish joint processes for collaborative Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan ICE No planning and decision-making with other units of local overnment; • Establish joint processes for collaborative Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan ICE No planning and decision making with the school board on population projections and siting of ublic school facilities; • Establish joint processes fox the siting of Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan ICE No facilities with count -wide si ificance; and • Adoption of an interlocal agreement for school Applicable Yes -Comp. Plan ICE No concurrent . 85 Required the Capital Improvements Element to include 9J-5.016(4)(a) Applicable Yes - PSFE No implementation measures that provide a five year financially feasible public school facilities program that demonstrates the adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained and a schedule of ca ital 13 ~i • APPENDIX D PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT & FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & DCA LETTERS • May 16, 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks Plan Processing Administrator State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Division of Community Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 RE: Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Mr. Eubanks: Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Transmitted herewith are three (3) copies of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held on May 10, 2007 by the Village's Local Planning Agency (LPA). A copy of the Public Notice and advertising to the public for the EAR was published in the Palm Beach Post. A copy of the notice is enclosed within this transmittal, The LPA recommended approval and adoption of the EAR to the Village Council. The Village Council met immediately after the LPA hearing on May 10, 2007 and recommended approval and adoption of the EAR for transmittal to DCA and the other required Departments and Agencies. The Village Council adopted the EAR by Resolution. The Resolution is also enclosed within this transmittal, The public had an opportunity to comment at the public hearings. They were heard, considered and responded to by the Village Council. The Village expects to adopt the EAR-based amendment in January 2009. Copies of this transmittal also being sent to: The State Department of Education (FDOE); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); Florida Department of State; Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), District Four; Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC); South Florida Water Management District (SFWNID); Palm Beach County (PBC) Planning & Zoning Division; Palm Beach County School District; the Town of Jupiter; and the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal or require additional information, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at (772-545-2404) Since Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 c: Alex L.Carswell, Administrator, FDOE Jim Quinn, Environmental Manager, DEP Susan Harp, Historic Preservation Planner, Florida Department of State Gerry O'Reilly, Director of Production & Planning, FDOT, District Four Terry Hess, Planning Director, TCRPC P. K. Sharma, Lead Planner, SFWNID Barbara Alterman, Driector, PBC PB&Z Angela Usher, Palm Beach County School Board John Sickler, Planning Director, Town of Jupiter Joanne Manganiello, Administrator, Jupiter Inlet Colony Jack L. Horniman, JLH Associates, Inc. Mayor & Councilmembers, Village of Tequesta Michael R Couzzo, Jr., Village Manager 1 f • May 16, 2007 Department of Education ATTN: Alex L. Carswell, Administrator Educational Facilities Planning Florida Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, #1054 Tallahassee, FL 32399 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Mr. Carswell: Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, G~af.~2r.~G.J~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Assocaites VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • May 16, 2007 Department of Environmental Protection ATTN: Jim Quinn, Environmental Manager Office of Intergovernmental Programs 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Mail Station 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Dear Mr. Quinn: Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, ~~~~u,e%L~~ l / Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 L~ • • May 16, 2007 Department of State ATTN: Ms. Susan Harp Historic Preservation Planner Bureau of Historic Preservation S00 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Ms. Harp: Sent via Certified Mail wlReturn Receipt Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regazding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • May 16, 2007 Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Department of Transportation, District Four ATTN: Gerry O'Reilly, Director of Production & Planning 3400 West Commercial Boulevazd Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Mr. O'Reilly: • Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, G~c~~.e~~ i~~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • • May 16, 2007 Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. ATTN: Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Director 301 East Ocean Blvd, Suite 300 Stuart, FL 34990 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt • Dear Mr. Hess: Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, G~r~.e2~ s~aZ~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • • May 16, 2007 South Florida Water Management District ATTN: P. K. Sharma, Lead Planner P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Dear Mr. Sharma: • Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, G%t~-~~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • • May 16, 2007 Palm Beach County Planning Building & Zoning ATTN: Barbara Alterman, Executive Director 2300 N. Jog Road West Palm Beach, FL 33411 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Ms. Alterman: Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt i Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Honwnan, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, G~,~.~.~vil" Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /rnk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 • • May 16, 2007 Ms. Angela Usher Palm Beach County School District Planning Department 3300 Forest Hill Blvd., C-110 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Ms. Usher: Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt • Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, ~~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development irector /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 i• i• r~ ~J May 16, 2007 Town of Jupiter ATTN: John Sickler, Director ' Department of Community Developmem 210 N.1Vlilitary Trail Jupiter, FL 33458 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Transmitted herewith is one (1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. Dear Mr. Sickler: If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, ~~~~~ Catherine A. Harding Community Development Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 -- _ ~ • May 16, 2007 Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony ATTN: Joann Manganiello, Administrator 1 Colony Road Jupiter, FL. 33469-3507 RE: Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Dear Ms. Manganiello: Sent via Certified Mail w/Return Receipt Transmitted herewith is one {1) copy of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report {EAR) to the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan that was adopted May 10, 2007 and subsequently transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or the Village's Planning Consultant, Jack Horniman, JLH Associates at 772-545-2404. Sincerely, Catherine A. Harding Community Developmen Director /mk Attachment c: Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Jack Horniman, JLH Associates VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 345 Tequesta Drive •Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 (561) 575-6220 • Fax: (561) 575-6224 •