HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Planning and Zoning_02/04/1999
6
Memorandum
To: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
From: Scott D. Ladd, Director o~ Community Development ~ Comp Plan Coordinator
Date: January 27, 1999
Subject: Village Land Planning Agency Workshop Meeting February 4, 1999
Attached are nineteen (19) sets o~ packets, including an original, for the above subject meeting.
Each set contains the ~ollowing items:
• Cover memo 1•rom me
• Notice o~ meeting
• LPA Agenda
• Florida Department o~ Community Al~airs Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC)Report ~or Village o~ Tequesta's Comprehensive Development Plan
• Village o~ Tequesta Responses to Department o~ Community Al~airs ORC Report
The newspaper has been sent a copy o~ the Notice o~ Meeting, and the Notice o~ Meeting, along
with ten (ZO) copies of the packets, have been placed in the lobby o~ the Village Hall at 357
Tequesta Drive ~or public use. `this LPA meeting is not aQuasi-Judicial Hearing.
NOTICE OF MEETING
VILLAGE LAND PLANNING AGENCY WORKSHOP
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999
5:01 P.M.
The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta sitting as the local Land Planning
Agency (LPA) will hold a workshop meeting on Thursday, February 4, 1999,
beginning at 5:01 P.M., in the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED, "If any person decides to appeal
any decision made by this Board with respect to any matter considered at this
meeting or hearing, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such
purpose, he/she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based."
~ ~. ~~~<~
Scott D. Ladd
Director of Community Development and
Comp Plan Coordinator
/jeh
Posted: January 25 , 1999
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
LOCAL PLANIV'ING AGENCY WORKSHOP
(VILLAGE COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY)
AGENDA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1999 ~ _, ~ ~ ~ y, _ ,p , , ,~ , ,~ '
5:01 P.M.
f ,;:~ .,. p . ..
WELCOME! C
. ,.
` ,
For information regarding procedures for public participation at Village Council Meetings, please refer to
the end of this agenda. -~,.,~, , , ~-~ j-° a , , ~ ,_
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL r ~~ .._„ . , ~ .. "' ,., ,' ~,_ „_ ,. ~..f t ti.
~" ~ '
~s , ,
..
.1i- ~, /B~i ~ <~1~ APPROVAL OF AGENDA ~ ... ;~ ~, r'.. , ., r . ~, , r ~~': ; r.
C
~~ar<_- s-o~~.
III. COIVI141UNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS
(Non-Agenda Items for public comment are limited to three (3) minutes, please. Anyone wishing
to speak is asked to complete a card with the Recording Secretary and, when called, go to the
podium and state his/her name for the record prior to addressing the Village Council.)
IV. REVIEW OF VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA'S PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF C01~~1dUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND COMMENTS REPORT(ORC)
A. A brief oven~iew of Evaluations and Appraisal Report(E AR) Based Amendments Status
to date
B. Re~~iew of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report and the Village's
Responses to DCA ORC Report
C. Comments from LPA regarding Village's proposed responses to ORC Report
D. Public Comments
~, ' ~, ~ ~ `,. ~ E. LPA recommendation(s) to the Village Council regarding proposed Village's responses to
ORC Reports ,._~a~ t
~~,~ ~ ~'~` ~ ~.~~~ ANY OTHER MATTERS
_ - ~. ;_
VI. ADJOURNMENT ~ : r~ ~ ~.,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE ACID BE ADVISED: "If any person decides to appeal any decision made by
this Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, he/she will need a record of
the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon ~~hich the appeal is to be
based."
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is encouraged to offer comments to the Village Council at their meetings during Public
Hearings, Communications from Citizens and on any other agenda item. Please complete a "Comments
By The Public" card and give it to the Recording Secretary. When your name is called, please step up to
the podium and state, for the record, your name and address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Any citizen is entitled to be heard on an official agenda item under the
section entitled "Public Hearings" when the Village Council calls for public
comments.
CO1~~VIUNICATIONS
FROM CITIZENS: Any citizen is entitled to be heard concerning any matter under the section
entitled "Communications From Citizens" when the Village Council calls
from those completing comment cards.
OTHER AGEI~TDA ITEMS: Any citizen is entitled to be heard on any official agenda item when the
Village Council calls for public comments.
Village Council meetings are public business meetings, and as such, the Village Council retains the right
to limit discussion on any issue.
NOTE: Disabled persons who need an accommodation in order to participate in this Village
Council meeting are requested to contact the Village Manager's office at 575-6200 at least three (3)
working days before this meeting. Hearing impaired persons, please note that wireless Hearing
Assistance System receivers are available by requesting the same from the Recording Secretary.
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
(Unless otherwise noted, all meetings are to be held at the Village Hall Council Chambers.)
Date Time
2/ 11 /99 7:00 P.M.
2/25/99 10:00 A.M.
3/4/99 7:00 P.M.
Meeting
Village Council
Special Master Hearing
Village Council
* All Times Subject to Change
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE VII.LAGE OF TEQUESTA
Amendment 99-1 ER
November 25, 1998
Division of Community Planning
Bureau of Local Planning
'I7-is relwtt is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
Village of Tequesta, 99-1-ER
I. AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS
A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
1. Objection
Policy 1.4.5 does not give clear, meaningful, and predictable standazds for the
preservation of native plant species in Ecosites Number 61 and Number 63. Policy 1.4.5
states that the Village shall "support efforts" to preserve the sites, but does not give any
guidance in how the Village will support preservation efforts, or what the efforts in
preservation are. Without specifying the how the Village will support the efforts, and
what type of efforts will be taken, the policy is vague and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(1), F. S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.006(3)(b~; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3)(c)6,
F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.5 to specify the standazds that are to be implemented for the
preservation of the native plant species in the Ecosites. Policies should provide
meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide
meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs. Specifically, address what
efforts will be made and how the Village will support those efforts.
2. Objection
Policy 1.4.6 does not provide cleaz, meaningful, and predictable standards for the
protection of mangroves because the standards aze deferred to the Land Development
Regulations. The policy does not specify how the mangroves are to be protected.
Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.6 to indicate the standazds to be applied in the protection of mangroves
within the Village. Specifically, identify how the mangroves will be protected though the
Land Development Regulations.
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
3. Objection
Policy 1.4.7 does not give protection to potable water wellfield protection areas because
the policy does not designate the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed. The
policy simply states that the Village will designate appropriate activities and land uses.
Without specifying what those activities and uses will be, the policy does not give clear,
meaningful and predictable standards for development and does not meet minimum
requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(x), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-S.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F. A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.7 to provide immediate protection of potable water wellfield protection
areas by indicating the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed. Policies should
provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and
provide meaningfiil guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs.
4. Objection
Policy 1.5.2 does not adequately ensure that facilities and services meet locally
established level of service standazds, and aze available concurrent with the impacts of
development because the policy defers any provisions to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(6)(x), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established
level of services standards, and will be concurrent with the impacts of development
within the plan. The provision should be a cleaz, meaningful, and predictable guideline
for more detailed land development.
5. Objection
Policy 1.5.4 does not adequately provide that facilities that provide utility service to the
various land uses are authorized at the same time the land uses are authorized, because
the policy defers any measures to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(6)(x), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J5.006(3)(c)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.4 to include clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the use of
land that provide guidelines for more detailed land use development.
2
Village of Teguesta 99-1-ER
6. Objection
Objective 1.7.0 pertains to the prohibition of development within the storm flood zones
unless it is in conformance with the Coastal Construction Control program regulations.
The intention of this policy to only include coastal storm flood zones, or storm flood
zones throughout the Village is not cleaz. The Coastal Construction Control program
only regulates coastlines. Additionally, if the Village only intends for this policy to
extend to coastal storm flood zones, then the language of the objective would allow the
Village to grant a variance for development regardless of the Coastal Construction
Control program regulations.
Section: 163.3178(1), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Objective 1.7.0 to state clearly the storm flood zones that the policy is intended to
regulate. Additionally, revise Objection 1.7.0 to allow the Village to grant a variance for
development within the storm flood zones only when consistent with the regulations of
the Coastal Construction Control program.
7. Objection
Policy 1.12.2 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and the
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.2. The PLUM shows that the area designated by
Special Policy 1.12.1 as the Village Center is actually designated as Commercial. Policy
1.12.2 states that the Mixed-Use regulations that aze to be applied to the Village Center
area will contain a variety of residential and non-residential uses. However, Table FLU-1
of Policy 1.1.2 which lists the types of uses allowed under the Commercial land use
category does not contain residential uses. Policy 1.12.2 essentially creates an unmapped
land use category.
Section: 163.3177(2); 163.2177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(5)(b); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(4)(c); 9J-5.006(3)(c)1; 5; and 7, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.12.2 to be consistent with the Land use designation as shown on the
PLUM, by eliminating residential uses from the uses allowed within the Village Center.
If the intention of the Village is to create amixed-use category, revise Policy 1.12.2 to
delineate the percentage distribution of the types of uses allowed, and to establish density
and intensity standards for each use. Additionally, revise the PLUM to show the addition
of the new land use category.
8. Objection .
Policy 1.15.1 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future
Land Use Element. This policy states the Village should pursue annexation of the areas
3
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
delineated on the Future Annexation Area Map, Figure FLU-5. However, there is not an
annexation map within the amendment package. Additionally, astrike-though of the
Future Annexation Area Map under the Future Land Use Map Series section of the Future
Land Use Element (FLU-7) shows that the Future Annexation Area Map has been
eliminated from the map series and replaced by a hurricane surge map.
Section: 163.3177(2), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(a); 9J=5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation
If the Village chooses to adopt the amendment, include a Future Annexation Area Map
within the amendment package and revise the Future Land Use Map Series section to
reflect the addition of the map.
9. Comment
Our review has determined that the Village has not established intensity standazds for
non-residential uses. The Village should establish intensity standards for non-residential
uses within each land use category described in Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2. They
should provide objective measures of the maximum extent to which land may be
developed or used. Intensity standazds can include floor to air ratios (FA1Zs) or a
combination floor coverage percentages with height limitations.
B. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
10. Objection
Policy 1.1.5 list density and intensity of land uses as examples of land use strategies to be
coordinated with transportation demand management strategies. This policy does not
coordinate transportation demand strategies with land use strategies, but simply states
that the Village will at some unspecified time: Without specific guidelines to implement
coordination between these two strategies, the policy is ineffective. Additionally, there
are no intensity standards established in the Future Land Use EIement to be implemented
with transportation demand management strategies.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j)8, F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; and 9J-5.006(7)(c)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standazds within Policy 1.1.5 for the
coordination of transportation demand management strategies and land use strategies.
Additionally, provide intensity standards for each commercial use within the Future Land
Use Element that can be applied in Policy 1.1.5.
4
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
11. Objection
Policy 1.1.6, which addresses the reduction of per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips, is not adequate. The policy does
not specify how the Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the discouragement of
single occupant vehicle trips. Without this specification, the policy is vague and
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)6, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.1.6 to provide meaningful and predictable standazds for the use and
development of land, and to specify the how the Village will promote the reduction of
VMT or the discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips.
12. Objection
Objective 1.2.0 does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use
map or map series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment
patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services. The
objective cannot give a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achievable, and
that results in the coordination of the transportation system with the Future Land Use
Map. .
Section: 163.3177(1), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); and 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Objective 1.2.0 to include a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is
achievable and mazks progress toward a goal, so that it coordinates the transportation
system with the future land use map or map series, and ensure that population densities,
housing and employment patterns, and land uses aze consistent with the transportation
modes and services.
13. Objection
Policies 1.2.5 and 1.2.6, do not establish guidelines for the accessibility of new
development in public transit corridors, are not adequate. These policies lack the
specification needed to provide guidance in how the LDRs are to promote accessibility to
public transportation, and how the Village will encourage future land uses which promote
public transportation. Without this specification, the policies aze ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(45); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)9, F.A.C.
5
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Recommendation
Revise policies to provide meaningful and predictable standazds for the use and
development of land, and that describes the way in which the Village is to encourage
future land uses which promote public transportation in public transportation comdors,
and the way in which the LDRs are to be revised for this purpose, so as to be consistent
with 9J-5.019(4}(c)9.
14. Objection
Objective 1.5.0 and accompanying Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6, 1.5.7, 1.5.8,
and 1.5.9, which address the provision and planning of transit within the Village, aze not
adequate. The Objective and each Policy use vague and ineffective language, and simply
state that the Village will support the efforts of the County, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, or the Florida Department of Transportation in the improvement of transit
services to the Village residents. The Objective and Policies do not specify how the
Village will support these efforts_ Therefore, the Objective and Policies do not meet
minimum requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a); 163.3177(6)(j); F.S.
Ruie: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(b)4, F.A.C.
15. Objection
Objective 1.8.0 and accompanying Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 1.8.5, which
attempt to promote the use of bicycles and walking, aze not adequate. These policies
continuously use vague language such as "consider" and "encourage," without specifying
the strategies .that are to be implemented to promote the use of bicycles and walking. In
the absence of clear and meaningful strategies within the Policies, they are vague and
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; 9J-5.019(4)(b)1; 9J-5.003(86),
F.A.C
Recommendation
Revise the above Objective and accompanying Policies to specify the strategies that are
to be implemented in the promoting the use of bicycles and walking. Additionally,
include meaningful language that provides cleaz guidelines and operational standards that
can be measured.
16. Objection
The Transportation Element does not adequately meet the requirement of 9J-
5.019(4)(c)10, which states that a policy must establish numerical indicators against
which the achievement of the mobility goals of the community can be measured.
6
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.019(4)(c)10, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Establish a policy which gives numerical indicators against which the achievement of the
mobility goals of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit
trips per capita, and automobile occupancy rates.
17. Comment
The phrase "continue to" should be deleted from Objective 1.4.0.
C. HOUSING ELEMENT
18. Objection
Policy 1.2.1, which provides for affordable housing by supporting activities that lower
costs for housing construction by adopting the Countywide Amendment to the Standard
Building Code, is not adequate. The policy does not specify the activities that the.
Village is to support through adopting the Countywide Amendments. Without this
specification, the policy is ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(f)a, F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.010(3)(c)2, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.2.1 to specify the actual activities or programs to be implemented that the
Village is supporting in the facilitation of affordable housing construction with the
adoption of the Countywide Amendment to the Standazd Building Code.
19. Objection
Policy 1.2.2, addresses the confirmation of the current agreement the Village has with
Palm Beach County concerning the provision of affordable housing, is not adequate. It
does not describe the responsibility of the Village in assisting and supporting the County
in the provision of affordable housing. The policy simply states that the Village will
"encourage programs" by participating in the agreement without establishing
implementation measures that the Village is to take in encouraging programs through an
agreement with the County.
Rule: 9J-5.010(3)(c)10, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.2.2 to generally describe the responsibility of the Village in supporting
the County in the provision of affordable housing through the interlocal agreement.
Additionally, establish implementation measures for facilitating the implementation of
7
village ojTequesta 99-1-ER
the County's Community Block Grant Program.
20. Objection .
Policy 1.2.5 which states that low income housing efforts will be oriented toward the
provision of elderly rental units, is not adequate because it only provides a vague
provision for the elderly population and the data and analysis is not consistent with this
policy:
a. The support documents state that 21.7% of the total households have a housing cost
burden of 30 percent of the total household income. Additionally, 13.4% of the total
households have a housing cost burden of more than 35 percent of the housing income.
However, Table 5-6 shows that the wrong numbers are reported in the text and that
21.7% should actually be 30.1%; and 13.4% should actually be 18.5%. The Village is
understating the number of households in the community with a housing cost burden.
b. The Village states that the cost burden is over represented because of the lazge elderly
population that own homes without mortgages. This would be an adequate assumption
for the population of homeowners. However, there are 212 rental units in the Village,
and 47.2% of them exhibit a cost burden of more than 30 percent o f the total household
income.. This is close to half of the rental population. The Village does not provide data
to show a significant population of elderly persons in the rental units to justify excluding
younger adults and families from the policy.
This policy, therefore, is internally inconsistent with Objective .1.2.0 which calls for the
provision of adequate and affordable housing all segments of the population. Without
providing for all segments of the population, this policy is inadequate.
Rule: 9J-5.005(a); and 9J-5.10(3)(b)(1); 9J-5(2)(b), F.A.C.
Recommendation:
Provide data and analysis that accurately.describe a lazge proportion of elderly renters to
support the exclusion of families and younger adults, and revise Policy 1.2.5 to specify
what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income rental housing for elderly.
Otherwise, revise Policy 1.2.5 to include families and younger adults with specifications
of what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income housing for all segments of
the population. •
D. UTILITIES ELEMENT
Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
21. Objection
Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 are both vague and lack clear and meaningful standards for
implementation. The policies use vague language, such as "should encourage" and
"should consult." Policy 1.3.1 also defers implementation guidelines to the LDRs, while
Policy 1.1.3 simply states that the Village should consult with the wastewater service
provider. Without clear and meaningful standards of implementation, these policies aze
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.011(2)(c)I, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 to include specific standazds of implementation to achieve
Goal 1.0.0. Replace language that is vague with more detailed guidelines for the
establishment of the most effective wastewater system and the minimization of point and
non-point discharge into surface waters.
22. Objection
Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the. Village's commitment to cease the use of septic tanks if water
quality standards aze violated. The Village deletes a detailed guideline for the elimination
of septic tanks in the event of violating water- quality standards, and replaces it with a
vague and ineffective policy that lacks the standards to be implemented when water
quality is threatened by septic tanks. This policy is inconsistent with policies in the
Strategic Regional Policy Plan regarding septic tanks.
SRPP: Policy 6.3.3.1, and Policy 6.5.1.6
Rule: 9J-5.011(2)(c)1; 9J-5.006(b)1,4; 9J-S.OI2(3)(6)2; 9J-5(3)(c)6; (9J-5.013(3)(b)1; 9J-
5.013(3)(c)1,6, F.A.C.
Recommendations
Revise Policy 1.1.7 to promote the elimination of septic tanks within the Village, as well
as a provision that requires the connection to regional wastewater collection facilities in
areas where the potential for ground or surface water contamination is high.
E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT
23. Objection
Policies 1.2.1,1.3.1,1.4.1,1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and Objectives 1.2.0, 1.3.0,
1.4.0,1.5.0,1.6.0,1.8.0, and 1.9.0 are not cleaz, meaningful, and predictable and defer
protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.2.1 pertains to maintaining on-site stonnwater
retention/detention criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Palm
Beach County. This policy does not give a description of the implementation criteria, but
. defers this specification to the LDRs.
9
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites #61 and #63, which are
identified on the Coastal Management /Conservation Map. This policy does not specify
what controls are to be used in the restriction of development on this site.
Policy 1.4.1 pertains to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation.
The wording of this policy is uncleaz, as it only states, "The Village shall require
preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e. replanting)." The Village does not specify the
general criteria used to determine which strategy, preservation or mitigation, will be
implemented to ensure the protection of mangroves.
Policy 1.6.1 pertains to the protection of native wetland vegetation buffers adjacent to the
Loxahatchee River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries. The protection measures aze
defered to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.2 pertains to the designation of Ecosites #61 and #63 as environmentally
sensitive lands and their protection and preservation. This policy defers the protection
measures to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.3 pertains to the restriction of development activities which may affect the
survival of endangered species, as well as the mitigation of the development impacts on
their habitats. This policy defers all restriction and mitigation criteria to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.4 pertains to the restriction ofnon-recreational development of park site
reservations. This policy defers all implementation measures to the LDRs.
Objective 1.2.0 pertains to maintain the recommendations of the Palm Beach County.
Area-Wide Plans related to the Urban Best Management Practices, and the restriction of
off-site stormwater pollutants in accordance with the criteria of the SFWMD. This
objective does not describe how the Village intends to implement the recommendations
and criteria of these two agencies.
Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation of the native vegetation of undeveloped land.
This objective defers implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.4.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves, except when the proposed use
is water-dependent or awater-related land use. This policy defers implementation criteria
to the LDRs.
Objective 1.5.0 pertains to the restriction of public works projects from disturbing
mangroves, except in case of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the
10
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.6.0 pertains to the protection of natural wildlife azea and environmentally
sensitive lands. The protection measures are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 1.8.0 pertains to requiring the use of native vegetation for dune stabilization.
This policy defers implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new
developments in the coastal area. The policy defers implementation measures to the
LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(d), F.S. .
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(86}; 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)1;
9J-5.013(2)(c)3; 9J-5.013(2)(c)5; 9J-5.013(Z)(c)7; 9J-5.013(2)(c)9, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise the above policies and objectives to provide a general description of the programs,
measures, and activities for protecting natural resources, so as to establish cleaz,
meaningful, and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide
meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development. Additionally,
provide cleaz language in Policy 1.4.1 to clearly state the commitment of the Village to
the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation strategies, and specify the
implementation criteria.
24. Objection
Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 address the requirement to protect and conserve wetlands.
However, the policies do not contain implementation strategies or criteria. Policy
2.11.14 simply states that wetlands will be protected through a comprehensive planning
process with supporting data and analysis without specifying the strategies or measures
that will be taken to ensure the protection of the wetlands.
Policy 2.11.15 states that incompatible uses will be directed away from wetlands or
development will undergo a mitigation process. However, the policy does not provide
the implementation measures for the protection of the wetlands. Additionally, the policy
states that the it would be consistent with Policy 2.13.4 of the same element. Policy
2.13.4, however, refers to the planting of native trees for aesthetic purposes. The
consistency with this policy is uncleaz.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(3)(a); 9J-5.013(3)(b), F.A.C.
11
Pillage of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Recommendation
Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 to include a general description of the measures and
actitities for the protection and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the
inconsistency in Policy 2.11.15 by correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4.
F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
25. Objection
Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, which pertain to establishing a multi jurisdictional interlocal
agreement to coordinate a comprehensive intergovernmental program with the County,
surrounding cities, the School Board, SFWMD, and various other agencies, are not
present in the plan. However, the policies are not shown to have been deleted from the
plan. Additionally, the EAR report recommends that the policies be amended from being
time-specific to on-going since the agreement has been established.
Recommendation
Include Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the plan, and revise the policies to reflect the EAR
recommendation. If the Village's intention is to delete the policies, properly note the
deletion in the plan.
G. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
26. Objection
Objectives 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 2.1.2, 3.1.0, 3.3.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.2.0, 5.3.0, 5.4.0, and
6.1.0 are not clear, meaningful, and predictable, and defer measurements of coastal
management to the LDRs. Objective 1.1.0 pertains to enhancing the coastal environment
quality through ordinances related water quality, shoreline stabilization, wetland
preservation, and wildlife and habitat protection. This objective defers coastal
environmental enhancement measures to the LDRs.
Objective 1.2.0 pertains to the protection of estaurine water quality and resources. This
objective defers the measures of protection to the LDRs.
Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation and protection of existing coastal resources.
This objective defers the measures of protection to the LDRs.
Objective 2.1.2 pertains to the provision of adequate controls over hazardous wastes.
This objective defers the provisions of hazardous wastes to the LDRs.
Objectitive 3.1.0 pertains to the identification of and protection of mangroves and other
environmentally sensitive wetlands. This objective is unclear in the wording. The
12
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
objective states that the Village will maintain in its Ordinances, "regulations in enforcing
and identifying mangrove..wetlands." This objective does not state what the regulations
are enforcing. The objective also defers any protection measures to the LDRs.
Objective 3.3.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves. The criteria and standazds for
preservation are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 4.1.0 pertains to the prohibition of disturbances of the sea grass beds and
productive mangrove and high marsh areas, except for the purposes of public, health,
safety and welfaze. The measures and criteria for this objective aze deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 4.2.0 pertains to the limiting of development and redevelopment in the
construction of infrastructure in the coastal high-hazard area. The measures and criteria
for this objective are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 5.1.0 pertains to the limiting of public expenditures that subsidize development
permitted in coastal high hazazd azeas, with the exception of natural restoration. This
objective defers implementation criteria to the LDRs_
Objective 5.2.0 pertains to the hurricane evacuation procedures. This. objective is not
cleaz in the wording. The wording indicates that the Village wishes to maintain
evacuation procedures to reduce evacuation. Additionally, the objective defers any
measures to the LDRs.
Objective 5.3.0 pertains to the provision ofpost-disaster redevelopment plans. The
general specifications of the plans are not included in the objective, and the
implementation of the plans are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 5.4.0 pertains to the protection and preservation of historical resources by a
azchaeological and historic review procedure. The general implementation of the
procedure is deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 6.1.0 pertains to the establishment of Level of Service standards for beach
access, water-dependent land uses, and infrastructure. The LOS standazds are deferred to
the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(6)1; 9J-5.012(3)(6)2; 9J-5.012(3)(6)4; 5; 6;
7; and 11, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and
13
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
activities for coastal protection and management, to provide clear, meaningful, and
predictable standazds for development. Additionally, reword Objectives 3.1.0 and 5.2.0
to cleazly state the intentions of the Village.
27. Objection
Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 4.2.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 are not cleaz, meaningful, and
predictable and defer measures to the LDRs. Policy 3.1.1 addresses the preservation and
mitigation of existing of mangroves. The Policy does not state the-criteria used to
determine which strategy the Village will employ or how the Village will them. These
criteria and specifications are deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 3.1.2 provides for the cooperation by governmental authorities in the preservation
of natural resources. The provisions and criteria for cooperation and preservation aze
deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 3.1.3 pertains to the restriction of public and mangrove areas, except for reasons of
public health, safety, and welfare. The restriction standards aze not included in the policy
and are deferred to the LDRs. Additionally, the Village does not specify exactly what is
to be restricted from the areas.
Policy 3.3.1 pertains to the protection of mangrove areas. The policy defers protection to
the LDRs.
Policy 4.2.3 pertains to the providing regulations regarding the relocation, mitigation, or
replacement within the coastal high-hazard area. The policy does not specify exactly
what is to relocated, mitigated, or replaced. Additionally, and measures are deferred to
the LDRs.
Policy 5.3.1 addresses the immediate and tong term repair and cleanup actions. The
policy does not contain any measures for the distinction, and defers to the LDRs.
Policy 5.3.2 provides for the general hazard mitigation of regulation of flood plains and
beach and dune alterations. This policy defers all measures to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5), 163.3177(6)(g),F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(c)1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9; 15, F.A.C.
Recommendations
Revise the above policies to provide a general description of the specific activities and
implementation strategies to be employed, so as to provide cleaz, meaningful, and
predictable standards for development. Additionally, revise policies 4.2.3 and 3.2.3 to
14
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
cleazly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific guidelines as described
above.
H. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
28. Objection
The proposed comprehensive plan does not meet the minimum requirements of
9J-5.0055, which states that the Village must adopt as a component of the comprehensive
plan, objectives, policies, and standards for the establishment of a concurrency
management system that will ensure that the issuance of a development order or permit is
conditioned on the availability of public facilities and services for the new development.
The proposed comprehensive plan does not contain objectives, policies, or standards for
this requirement.
Section: 9J-5.0055(1)(b) et.seq., F.A.C.
Recommendation
Include objectives, policies and standards to provide a concurrency management system
that ensures that the issuance of a development order or permit is conditioned of the
availability of public facilities and services to serve the new development.
II. STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. OBJECTION-
1. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following goals of the State
Comprehensive Plan [Section 163.3177(10)]:
Goal (9) Coastal and Marine Resources and Policies (b)4; and (b)9
Goal (10) Natural Systems and Recreational Lands and Policies (b)1; (b)3; (b)4; (b)6;
~)7~ ~)g; and (b)9
Goal (16) Land Use and Policies (b)l; (b)3; and (b}4
Goal (18) Public Facilities and Policies (b)1; (b)4; (b)5; and (b)7
Goal (20) Transportation and Policies (b)2; (b)4; and (b)15
Goal (26) Plan Implementation and Policies (b)3
B. RECOMMENDATION
The Village should revise the proposed plan, as necessary, to be consistent with the
above-referenced goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan.
15
Village o~ Tequesta
Responses to
Department
Of
Community A~~airs
Objections, Recommendations and Comments
For
Tequesta
February 1999
Tequesta Local Planning Agency
Consultant: JLH Associates
DR,q
OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS
A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Objection
Policy 1.4.5 does not give clear, meaningful, and predictable standard for the preservation of native plant
species in Ecosites Number 61 and Number 63. Policy 1.4.5 states that the Village shall "support efforts"
to preserve the sites, but does not give any guidance th how the Village will support preservation efforts, or
what the efforts in preservation are. Without specifying the how the Village will support the efforts, and
what type of efforts will be taken, the policy is vague and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(1), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6}; 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.006(3)(b)4; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.45 to specify the standards that are to be implemented for the preservation of the native
plant species in the Ecosites. Policies should provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed LDRs.
Specifically, address what efforts will be made and how the Village will support those efforts.
Response
Two (2) separate Policies will be developed to address Ecosite Number 61 and Ecosite Number 63 and the
preservation of native plant and animal species on those sites. Policy 1.4.5 will be re-written as follows:
Policies• 1 4 5 The Village su~orts the U S Department of Interior Bureau of
LandManagement /Palm Beach County Environmental Resourcx
Management Interlocal Agreement to co-fund and co-manage the
preservation of native plant and animal species on Eco-Site #61 as Hart
of the "Jupiter Inlet Natural Area Management Plan".
A new Policy 1.4.8 will be added to address Ecosite Number 63:
Policies• 1 4 8 The Village supports the preservation ofplant and animal
~ecies on Ecosite Number 63 (which occupies a portion of St. Jude's
Church) in accordance with the "St. 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.
Objection
Policy 1.4.6 does not provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the protection of mangroves
because the standards are deferred to the Land Development Regulations. The policy does not specify how
the mangroves are to be protected Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J5-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.6 to indicate the standards to be applied in the protection of rnar-groves within the
Village. Specifically, identify how the mangroves will be protected through the Land Development
Regulations.
Response
Policy 1.4.6 shall be re-written as follows:
Policy 1 4 6 The Village shall protect rnan~roves within Tecauesta by
deferring the review of mangroves in proposed development and re-
development areas to the County for enforcement and protection under
the Palm Beach Countywide Iylan~rove Protection Ordinance. This
shall be made a part of the Village Site Plan Review Process.
3. Objection
Policy 1.4.7 does not give protection to potable water wellfield protection areas because the policy does not
designate the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed The policy simply states that the Village
will designate appropriate activities and land uses. Without specifying what those activities and uses will
be, the policy does not give clear, meaningful and predictable standards for development and does not meet
minimum requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F. S_
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c~, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.7 to provide immediate protection of potable water wellfield protection areas by
indicating the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed Policies should provide meaningful and
predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the
content of more detailed LDRs.
Response
Policy 1.4.7 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1 4.7 The Village shall protect potable water wellfields by
designating_appropriate activities and land uses as identified within the
wellfield drawdown zones of influence shown on the Future Land Use
Man'
4. Objection
Policy L5.2 does not adequatety ensure that facilities and services meet localty established level of service
standards, and are available concurrent with the impacts of development because the policy defers any
provisions to the LDRs.
Section: 1633177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)D3, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established level of service
standards, and will be concurrent with the impacts of development within the plan. The provision should
be a clear, meaningful and predictable guideline for more detailed land development.
Response
Policy 1.5.2 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1.5.2 The Village shall ensure that the availability of public facilities
3
and services meet acceptable levels of service be concurrent with
development impacts and provide for utility services to be authorized
at the same time land uses are authorized.
Objection
Policy 1.5.4 does not adequately provide that facilities that provide utility service to the various land uses
are authorized at the same time the land uses aze authorized, because the policy defers any measures to the
LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c}3, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.4 to include clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for the use of land that provide
guidelines for more detailed land use development.
Response
This Policy shall be revised by deleting the second sentence to be read as follows:
Policy 1.5.4 The approval and authorization of land use development
within the Village shall be concurrent with the provisions of utility
service.
Objection
Objective 1.7.0 pertains to the prohibition of development within the storm flood zones unless it is in
conformance with the Coastal Construction Control program regulations. The intention of this policy to
only include coastal storm flood zones, or storm flood zones throughout the Village is not clear. The
Coastal Construction Control program only regulates coastlines. Additionally, if the Village only intends
for this policy to extend to coastal storm flood zones, and then the language of the objective would allow
the Village to grant a variance for development regazdless of the Coastal Construction Control program
regulations.
Section: 163.3178(1), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Objective 1.7.0 to state cleazly the storm flood zones that the policy is intended to regulate.
Additionally, revise Objection 1.7.0 to allow the Village to grant a variance for development within the
storm flood zones only when consistent with the regulation of the Coastal Construction Control program.
Response
Objective 1.7.0 shall be revised as follows:
Objective 1.7.0 Development within the storm flood zones shall be subtect to
restrictions implemented through the Village of Teguesta on going
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program /Community
Rating_System (CRS) and more restrictive requirements established in
the Village Zoning Ordinance, Section X Supplemental Regulations,
(A) General Provisions (8) floor elevation above sea level.
A new Policy 1.7.4 is added to further clarify the objective as written below:
Policies 1.7.4 A minimum finish first floor elevation above mean sea level
(MSL) for all new construction. additions and substantial
improvements to existing structures shall be 8.5 ft. MSL: however
finished first floor elevations that are between the minimum finished
first floor elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance
Program (NF1P) and the more restrictive requirements established by
the Village can obtain a variance which meet the minimum NFIP
requirements of 6 0 ft for zone A6 azeas and & 7.0 ft. for zone A7
areas.
Objection
Policy 1.122 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and the Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.1.2. The PLUM shows that the area designated by Special Policy 1.12.1 as the Village
Center is actually designated as Commercial. Policy 1.12.2 states that the Mixed-Use regulations that are
applied to the Village Center area will contain a variety of residential and non-residential uses. However,
Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2, which lists the types of uses, allowed under the Commercial land use category
does not contain residential uses. Policy 1.12.2 essentially creates an unmapped land use category.
Section: 1633177(2); 163.2177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(5)(b); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(4)(c); 9J-5.006(3)(c)1;S;and 7, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.12.2 to be consistent with the land use designation as shown on the PLUM, by eliminating
residential uses from the uses allowed within the Village Center. If the intention of the Village is to create
a mixed-use category, revise Policy 1.12.2 to delineate the percentage distribution of the typed of uses
allowed, and to establish density and intensity standards for each use. Additionally, revise the PLUM to
show the addition of the new land use category.
Response
The PLUM will be revised to reflect the Mixed-Use land use category.
Policy 1.12.2 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 1.12.2 Mixed Use land use areas shall provide for a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses: however. commercial uses
shall be limited to small-scale retail sales and services, business
services and professional services primarily designed to serve
residential neighborhoods. Mixed-use azeas shall provide for a rar-~e of
residential uses from lower density single family uses to higher density
multiple family uses. Maximum density for residential uses shall be
limited to 18 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Assisted
Living Facilities (ALFs) which can have a maximum density of 24
dwelling_units per acre. Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 62%
in residential areas while non-residential areas with single lots of 3200
s9 ft minimum may have 60% lot coverage while non-residential uses
with two or more lots in excess of 3200 sq. ft. may have a 70%!ot
coverage. A maximum six (6) stories shall be the maximum height for
all uses in the mixed-use area and a minimum 25% of the lot shall be
required for landscaping on all residential and non-residential uses.
8. Objection
Policy 1.15.1 is internally inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future Land Use
Element. This policy states the Village should pursue annexation of the areas delineated on the Future
Annexation Map, Figure FLU-5. However, there is not an annexation map within the amendment package.
Additionally, astrike-through of the Future Annexation Area Map under the Future Land Use Map Series
section of the Future Land Use Element (FLU-7) shows that the Future Annexation Area Map has been
eliminated from the map series and replaced by a humcane surge map.
Section: 163.3177(2), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(a); 9J-5.005(b}, F.A.C.
Recommendation
If the Village chooses to adopt the amendment, include a Future Annexation Area Map within the
amendment package and revise the Future Land Use Map Series section to reflect the addition of the map.
Response
Policy 1.15.1 was supposed to be have been deleted in the update, but was inadvertently missed. Policy
1.15.1 will be deleted and Policy 1.152 will become Policy 1.15.1.
9. Comment
Our review has established that the Village has not established intensity standards for non-residential uses.
The Village should establish intensity standards for non-residential uses within each land use category
described in Table FLU-1 of Policy 1.1.2. They should provide objective measures of the Maximum extent
to which land may be developed or used. Intensity standards can include floor to air ratios (FARs) or a
combination floor coverage percentages with height limitations.
Response
The comment is aclaiowledged.
B. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
10. Objection
Policy 1.1.5 list density and intensity of land uses as examples of land use strategies to be coordinated with
transportation demand management strategies. This policy does not coordinate transportation demand
strategies with land use strategies, but simply states that the Village will at some unspecified time. Without
specific guidelines to implement coordination between these two strategies, the policy is ineffective.
Additionally, there are no intensity standards established in the Future Land Use Element to be
implemented with transportation demand management strategies.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j)8, F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; and 9J-5.006('n(c)3, F.AC.
Recommendation
Provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards within Policy 1.1.5 for the coordination of
transportation demand management strategies and land use strategies. Additionally, provide intensity
standards for each commercial use within the Future Land Use Element that can be applied in Policy 1.1.5.
Response
Policy 1.1.5 shall be re-written as follows:
Policy 1.1.5 The Village shall coordinate transportation demand strateeaes
with land use strategies by requiring that facilities for bicycle and
pedestrians are provided for in future development and redevelopment
proposals and these requirements be made a part of the site plan review
rp ocess.
11. Objection
Policy 1.1.6, which addresses the reduction of per capita vehicular miles traveled (VM'1~ and the
discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips, is not adequate. The policy does not specify how the
Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the Discouragement of single occupant vehicle trips.
Without this specification, the policy is vague and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
6
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(c)6, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.1.6 to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land,
and to specify the how the Village will promote the reduction of VMT or the discouragement of single
occupant vehicle trips.
Response
Policy 1.1.6 shall be re-written as follows:
Policy 1 16 The Village shall work with the Ml'O towazd reducing tier
capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and discourage sin~~e occupant
vehicle trips, recognizing that these programs assist in reducitt~ the
overall airguality emissions This can be accomplished through
municipal representation on the iy1P0 and providing for Tri-Rail.
alternative fuels ride sharing alternative work hour pro~-am. public
transit pazkin~ management and other transportation control measures
that are being continually developed as part of a Countywide effort.
12. Objection
Objection 1.2.0 does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map or map series,
and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with
the transportation modes and services. The objective can not give a specific, measurable, and intermediate
end that is achievable, and that results in the coordination of the transportation system with the Future Land
Use Map.
Section: 163.3177(1), F. S_
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); and 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, F.A.C..
Recommendation
Revise Objective 1.2.0 to include a specific, measurable, and intermediate end that is achievable and marks
progress toward a goal, so that it coordinates the transportation system with the future land use map or map
series, and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent
with the transportation modes and services.
Response
As a result of discussion with Department of Community Affairs staff, the objective was found adequate as
written and no changes are proposed
13. Objection
Policies 1.2.5 and 1.2.6, do not establish guidelines for the accessibility of new development in public
transit corridors, are not adequate. These policies lack the specifications needed to provide guidance in
how the LDRs are to promote accessibility to public transportation, and how the Village will encourage
future land uses which promote public transportation. Without this specification, the policies are
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)9, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise policies to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and
that describes the way in which the Village is to encourage future land uses which promote public
transportation in public transportation corridors, and the way in which the LDRs are to be revised for this
purpose, so as to be consistent with 9J-5.019(4)(c)9.
Response
Policy 1.2.5 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 2 5 Encourage future land uses which promote public
transportation in public transportation corridors in new development
areas and in re-development areas.
Policy 1.2.6 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 1 2 6 Require land uses building, and site design guidelines that
assure accessibility to public transit.
14. Objective
Objective 1.5.0 and accompanying Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, I.5.5, I.5.6, 1.5.7, 1.5.8, and 1.5.9, which
address the provision and planning of transit within the Village, are not adequate. The Objective and each
policy use vague and ineffective language, and simply state that the Village will support the efforts of the
County, the Metropolitan Planning Organizatioq or the Florida Department of Transportation in the
improvement of transit services to Village residents. The Objective and Policies do not specify how the
Village will support the efforts. Therefore, the Objective and Policies do not meet minimum requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a); 163.3I77(6)(j); F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4)(b)4, F.AC.
Response
Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows:
Objective 1 5 0 Encourage the use and provision of mass transit facilities in
Palm Beach County by supporting P.B.C.'s efforts established in the
Transportation Element of their Comprehensive Plan by implementing
the following Policies.
Policies 1.5. l and 1.5.6 shall be combined into one Policy as Policy 1.5.1 re-written as follows:
Policies 1 5 1 The Village shall work with the County and support the
Metropolitan Planning Orgaanization's (IyIP01 efforts through municipal
representation on the MPO to increase the presence and use of mass
transit services in the County through modification of the existing route
system increasing service in areas with high propensity for transit use.
and through increased services in the coastal communities, including
Tequesta.
Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 shall be deleted.
Policies 1.5.5 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 5 5 The Village supports the County's effort, through municipal
representation on the MPO to declare guidelines by the year 2000 to
improve design and functionality of transit station /stops Attention
should be given to how their location relates to surrounding areas and
how then promote a pedestrian environment and usage. Design should
relate to transit user amenities, sidewalks and bicycle paths that link to
other nodes in awell-developed system.
Policies 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 1.5.7 The Village shall not object to the County's efforts to
encourage the future location of Palm Tran bus routes within new
developments.
Policies 1 5 8 The Village shall not obiect to the Metropolitan Planning
Organisation's efforts to encourage the use of rail modes of
transportation, as Tequesta can be favorablyimpacted by these efforts.
Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.5.9 shall not be revised and shall remain as written.
Z5. Objection
Objective 1.8.0 and accompanying Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 1.8.5, which attempt to promote
the use of bicycles and walking, are not adequate. These policies continuously use vague language such as
"consider" and "encourage" without specifying the strategies that are to be implemented to promote the use
bicycles and walking. In the absence of clear and meaningful strategies within the Policies, they are vague
and ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 4J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)5; 9J-5.019(4)(b)1; 9J-5.003(86), F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise the above Objective and accompanying Policies to specify the strategies that are to be implement in
the promoting the use of bicycles and walking. Additionally, include meaningful language that provides
clear guidelines and operational standards that can be measured.
Response
Objective 1.8.0 shall be re-written as follows:
Objective 1 8 0 The Village shallpromote the increased use of bicvcle and
walking as viable alternative means of transportation through
implementation of the Policies below.
Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.5 shall be re-written as follows:
Polite 1 8 1 Bikeways shall be given full consideration in the manning and
development of the Village roadway and transportation facilities and
programs as part of the Site Plan Review Process_
Policy 1 8 2 The Village shall work toward providingpedestrian and bicvcle
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 8 3 The Village shall provide for the desi~ of mixed use and multi-
use develoQments and planned developments to be of a pedestrian scale
and design by incorporating transit stops bicvcle and sidewalk
connections.
Policy 1 8 5 The Village shall review the recommendations of the MPO's
Long_Range Bicycle Facilities Conceit Plan and implement appropriate
recommendations of the Plan as an alternative means of transportation
throughout the Village.
As a result of discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.8.4 shall remain the same.
16. Objection
The Transportation Element does not adequately meet the requirement of 9J-5.019(4)(c)10, which states
that a policy must establish numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals of
the community can be measured
Section: 163.3I77(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.019(4)(c)10, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Establish a policy, which gives numerical indicators against which the achievement of the mobility goals
of the community can be measured, such as modal split, annual transit trips per capita, and automobile
occupancy rates.
Response
Anew Policy 1.8.6 is developed as follows to address the Objection.
Policy 1 8 6 The Village shall work toward increased Mobility in the
commumty by providmg for mcreased amounts of bicycle oaths and
sidewalks in new development and re-development areas.
Comment
The phrase "continue to" should be deleted from Objective 1.4.0.
Response
The comment is acknowledged
C. HOUSING ELEMENT
18. Objection
Policy 1.2.1, which provides for affordable housing by supporting actrvities that lower costs for housing
construction by adopting the Countywide Amendment to the Standard Building Code, is not adequate. The
policy does not specify the activities that the Village is to support through adoptmg the Countywide
Amendments. Without this specification, the policy is ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(fja, F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.013(3xc)2, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 12.1 to specify the actual activities or programs to be implemented that the Village is
supporting in the facilitation of affordable housing construction with the adoption of the Countywide
Amendment to the Standard Building Codes.
Response
Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.2.1 will remain the same.
19. Objection
Policy 12.2, addresses the confirmation of the current agreement the Village has with Patin Beach County
concerning the provision of affordable housing, is not adequate. It does not describe the responsibility of
the Village in assisting and supporting the County in the provision of affordable housing. The Policy
simply states the Village will "encourage programs" by participating in the agreement without establishing
implementation measures that the Village is to take in encouraging programs through an agreement with
the County.
Rule: 9J-5.010(3)(c)10, F.A.C.
10
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.2.2 to generally describe the responsibility of the Village in the provision of affordable
housing through the interlocal agreement Additionally, establish implementation measures for facilitating
the implementation of the County's Community Block Grant Progxam
Response
Policy 1.2.2 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 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 Block Grant
Program and associated activities by entering into Interlocal
Agreements with Palm Beach County Housing and Community
Development to accomplish these ends.
20. Objection
Policy 1.2.5 which states that low income housing efforts will be oriented toward the provision of elderly
rental units, is not adequate because it only provides a vague provision for the elderly population and the
data and analysis is not consistent with this policy:
a. The support documents state that Z 1.7% of the total households have a housing cost burden of 30% the
total household income. Additionally, 13.4% of the total households have a housing cost burden of more
than 35% of the housing income. However, Table 5-6 shows that the wrong numbers are reported in the
text and that 21.7% should actually be 30.1%, and 13.4% should actually be 18.5%. The Village is
understating the number of households in the community with a housing cost burden_
b. The Village states that the cost burden is over represented because of the large elderly population that
owns homes without mortgages. This would be an adequate assumption for the population of home
owners. However, they are 212 rental units in the Village, and 47.2% of them exhibit a cost burden cost
more than 30% of total household income. This is a close to half of the rental population_ The Village
does not provide data to show a significant population of elderly persons in the rental units to justify
excluding younger adults and families from the policy.
This Policy therefore, is internally inconsistent with Objective 1.2.0 which calls for the provision of
adequate and affordable housing all segments of the population. Without providing for all segments of the
population, this policy is inadequate.
Rule: 9J-5.005(a); and 9J-5.10(3)(b)(1); 9J-5(2)(v), FAC.
Recommendation
Provide data and analysis that accurately descnbe a large proportion of elderly renters to support the
exclusion of families and younger adults, and revise Policy 1.2.5 to specify what efforts the Village will
take to provide low-income rental housing for elderly. Otherwise, revise Policy 1.2.5 to include families
and younger adults with specification of what efforts the Village will take to provide low-income housing
for all segments of the population.
Response
a The percentages reported in the text are correct• 440 / 2 026 (total households) = 21.?%; and
271/2026=13.4%
b Supplemental Census data (STF 3A File) indicate that 77% of the rental households in the Village that
>?av 35% or more of their income for gross housing costs are headed by a household aged 65 years and
older This further justifies a policy to focus upon the provision of elderly affordable rental amts.
Policy 1.2.5 shall be re-written as follows:
11
Polio 1.2.5 Low income housin efforts shall be oriented towards the
provision of affordable elderly rental units by permitting development
of independent supportive con~re~ate Itvma facilities vv~thm the
Mixed Use areas up to a maximum 24 dwellm~s amts tier acre.
D. UTII,I'I'lES ELEMENT
Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element
21. Objection
Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 are both vague and lack clear and meaningful standards for implementation. The
policies use vague language, such as "should encourage" and "should consult'. Policy 13.1 also defers
implementation guidelines to the LDRs, while Policy 1.1.3 simply states that the Village should consult
with the wastewater service provider. Without clear and meaningful standards of implementation, these
policies are ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 to include specific standards of implementation to achieve Goal 1.0.0.
Replace language that is vague with more detailed guidelines for the establishment of the most effective
wastewater system and the minimization of point and non-point discharge into surface waters.
Response
As a result of discussion with DCA staff, there will be no changes proposed to Policy 1.1.3; therefore it will
remain the same. Policy 1.3.1 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1 3 1 The Village shall incorporate into local plans, codes and
ordmances venous land use and wastewater system design and
construction criteria that will minimise point and non-point discharges
into surface waters.
~~,
' 21 Objection
Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the Village's commitment to cease the use of septic tanks if water quality standards
are violated. The Village deletes a detailed guideline for the elimination of septic tanks in the event of
violating water quality standards, and replaces it with a vague and ineffective policy that lacks the
standards to be implemented when water quality is threatened by septic tanks. This policy is inconsistent
with policies in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan re~rding septic tanks.
SRPP: Policy 6.3.3.1, and Policy 6.5.1.6
Rule: 9J-5.011(2)(c)1; 9J-5.006(b)1,4; 9J-5.012(3)(6)2; 9J-5(3)(c)6; 9J-5.013(3)(b)1; 9J-5.013(3)(c)1,6,
F_AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.1.7 to promote the elimination of septic tanks within the Village, as well as a provision that
requires the connection to regional wastewater collection facilities in areas where the potential for ground
or surface water contamination is high.
Response ~ ~ ~'
Policy 1.1.7 shall be changed to read as follows: p~ t.~~~~,1
Policies 1 1 7 The current utilization of septic tanks within the_Villa~e ism L(
~ 4~ ti deemed to be an acceptable alternate ~'. ~~ State water quality
~~~ 1 ~ ~, . ~ standards are not being met .central saiiitarv sewer system must be
/ F ~
` `'~ provided.
.. ~ ~,
~ 0. ,~
G _.
.
> ,
..
~~,._~._ _ ~ ra_~ r.
E. CONSERVATION ELEMENT
23. Objection
Policies 1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, and Objectivel2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.8.0, and
1.9.0 are not clear, meaningful, and predictable and defer protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 12.1
pertains to maintaining on-site stormwater retention/detention criteria of the South Florida Water
Management District and Palm Beach County. This policy does not give a description of the
implementation criteria, but defers this specification to the LDRs.
Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites #61 and #63, which are identified on the
Coastal Management/Conservation Map. This policy does not specify what controls are to be used in the
restriction of development on this site.
Policy 1.4.1 pertains to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation. The wording of
this policy is unclear, as it only states, "The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e.
replanting)." The V llage does not specify the general criteria used to determine which strategy;
preservation or mitigation will be implemented to ensure the protection of mangroves.
Policy 1.6.1 pertains to the protection of native wetland vegetation buffers adjacent to the Loxahatchee
River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries. The protection measures are deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.2 pertains to the designation of Ecosites #61 and #b3 as environmentally sensitive lands and
their protection and preservation. This policy defers the protection measures to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.3 pertains to the restriction of development activities which may effect the survival of
endangered species, as well as the mitigation of the development impacts on their habitats. This policy
defers all restriction and mitigation criteria to the LDRs.
Policy 1.6.4 pertains to the restriction of non-recreational development of park site reservations. This
policy defers all implementation measures to the LDRs.
Objective 12.0 pertains to maintain the recommendations of the Palm Beach County Area-Wide Plans
related to the Urban Best Management Practices, and the restriction of off-site stormwater pollutants in
accordance with the criteria of the SFWNID. This objective does not describe how the Village intends to
implement the recommendations and criteria of these two agencies.
Objective 13.0 pertains to the preservation of the native vegetation of undeveloped land. This objective
defers implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.4.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves, except when the proposed use is water-
dependent or awater-related land use. This policy defers implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective1.5.0 pertains to the restriction of public works projects from disturbing mangroves, except in
case of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.6.0 pertains to the protection of natural wild life area and environmentally sensitive lands. The
protection measures are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 1.8.0 pertains to requiring the use of native vegetation for dune stabilization_ This policy defers
implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new developments in the coastal
area. The policy defers implementation measures to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(d), F.S.
13
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2; 9J-5.013(2)(c)1; 9J-5.013(2)(c)3;
9J5.013(2)(c)5; 9J-5.013(2)(c)7; 9J-5.013(2)(c)9, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise the above policies and objectives to provide a general description of the Programs, measures, and
activities for protecting natural resources, so as to establish clear, meaningful, and ~edtctable standards for
the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land
development. Additionally, provide clear language in Policy 1.4.1 to clearly state the commitment of the
Village to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation strategies, and specify the
implementation criteria.
Response
Policy 1.2.1 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 2 1 The Village shall maintain on-site stormwater
___ _ -
-- -__
retention/detention cnten~estabhshed by Chapter 6~-302-F.A.C. an ___ __ - -
as administered by South Florida Water Management 1?tstnct and Palm
Beach County in its land development regulations.
Per discussion with DCA staff, Policies 1.3.1, 1.6.1, and 1.6.2 shall remain as written.
Policy 1.4.1 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 4 1 The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation
(i e re planting) through unplementahon of its adopted manerove
regulations.
Policy 1.6.3 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1 6 3 The Village shall restrict development activities that mz~
adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife
species and provide for the mitigation of development tmuacts on their
habitats and food source by requiring an environmental assessment at
the time of adevelopment or re-development proposal as part of the
site plan review process.
Policy 1.6.4 shall be deleted from the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Objective 1.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 1 2 0 Require future development to restrict off-site runoff of
stormwater pollutants in accordance wtth drainage cnteria established
the South Florida Water Management District and the Urban Best
Management Practices established by area wide plans.
Objective 1.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 1 3 0 The Village shall maintain landscape regulations that provide
for the preservation of a muumum 60% native vegetation that is
indigenous to the South Florida area on all new development and re-
devel~ment areas.
Objective 1.4.0 and 1.8.0 shall remain as written due to discussion with DCA staff.
Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows:
14
Objective 1 5 0 Notwithstanding the intent of Policy 1 4 0 of this element, the
Village shall contmue to restnct public works protects from disturbing
existing mangroves except where such work is essential to the_
continued health, safety and welfare of the public.
Objective 1.6.0 shall be revised as written below:
Objective 16 0 The Village shall protect natural wildlife areas and
environmentally sens~Uve lands by unplementmg the following
lpo icier.
Objective 1.9.0 will be re-written as follows:
Objective 1 9 0 The Village shall require the dedication of public access
easements for new development m the coastal area.
24. Objection
Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 address the requirement to protect and conserve wetlands. However, the
policies do not contain implementation strategies or criteria. Policy 2.11.14 simply states that wetlands will
be protected through a comprehensive planning process with supporting data and analysis without
specifying the strategies or measures that will be taken to ensure the protection of wetlands.
Policy 2.11.15 states that incompatible uses will be directed away from wetlands or development will
undergo a mitigation process. However, the polity does not provide implementation measures for the
protection of wetlands. Additionally, the policy states that it would be consistent with Policy 2.13.4 of the
same element Policy 2.13.4, however, refers to the planting of native trees for aesthetic purposes. The
consistency with this policy is unclear.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(3)(a); 9J-5.013(3)(b), FAC.
Recommendation
Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 to include a general description of the measures and activities for the
protection and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the inconsistency in Policy 2.11.15 by
correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4.
Response
The Village of Tequesta is part of the Countywide Wetlands Protection Ordinance, as the Village has not
adopted it's own wetland regulations. Therefore, the Village is subject to the countywide regulations.
Policies 2.11.13 and 2.11.14 should be deleted and replaced by a new Policy 2.11.13, which incorporates
the phrase and terms of the Palm Beach County Wetlands Ordinance. New Policy 2.11.13 shall read as
follows:
Policies 2 11 13 The County shall continue to implement the Wetlands
Protection Section of the Umfied Land Development Code and shall
continue to review and comment on wetland alteration applications
being reviewed by other agencies to ensure that no activity results in
the net loss of wetland values and functions- Ensure that the following
steps are taken in order when assessing proposed activities that may
result in wetlands im~act• 1 Avoidance of wetland impacts. 2.
Minimization of unavoidable wetlands impacts and 3. Compensation
for wetland impacts through mitigation Require for an~wetland that is
degraded or destroyed, that mitigation be provided through the creation
of new wetland habitat, through the restoration of degraded habitat, or
through the enhancement of functions and values provided by existing
15
habitat Mitigation efforts that include creating new wetland habitat
shall be designed constructed, and maintained in a manner winch will
reflect the habitat being altered, degra_~B nr destroyed; Designate
appropriate and inappropriate uses for wetlands including the use of
wetlands for wastewater treatment to ensure that the functions and
values of existing wetland systems are maintained or enhanced: Do not
allow activities that would diminish the functions and values of
wetlands by altering the quantity or times, of water availability to
existing wetlands or altering their water regimes' Require when
reviewing development activities adiacent to or within wetland areas,
that a buffer zone of native vegetation, which may include canopy,
understorv and ground cover as appropriate be provided and
maintained around all wetlands The area requirements for the buffer
zone shall be consistent with the Treasure Coast Strategic Regional
Policy Plan and support wetland creation, restoration, enhancement,
and preservation and shall encourage public and pnvate sector
initiatives for these efforts.
F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
25. Objection
Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, which pertain to establishing a multi jurisdictional interlocal agreement to
coordinate a comprehensive intergovernmental program with the County, surrounding cities, the School
Board, SFWMD, and various other agencies, are not present in the plan. However, the policies are not
shown to have been deleted from the plan. Additionally, the EAR report recommends that the policies be
amended from being time-specific to on going since the agreement has been established.
Recommendation
Include Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the plan, and revise the policies to reflect the EAR recommendation_ If
the Village's intention is to delete the policies, properly note the deletion in the plan.
Response
Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 were inadvertently left out of the Plan. They will be reinstated in the
Comprehensive Development Plan as sited below:
Policy 1 1 5 The Village shall enter into the "Comprehensive Plan
Amendment" with its fellow cities County School Board. South
Florida Water Management District and various special districts that
to partici~te in a formalized effort to establish a countywide
intergovernmental coordination program for reviewing proposed
changes to comprehensive plans of adiacent local eovernments and the
Mans of other units of local government providing services. but not
having reaulatorv authority over the use of land
Policy 1 16 The Village shall enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues
Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement" with its fellow cities,
County, School Board, South Florida Water Management District and
various special districts that opt to participate in a formalized effort to
create amulti-iurisdictional issues forum which will facilitate the
identification and possible resolution of countywide issues by
providing a vehicle for consensus building_throug.,~e joint research of
issues and debate on same.
G. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
16
26. Objection
Objectives 1.1.0, I.2.0, 1.3.0,2.1.2, 3.1.0, 3.3.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.2.0, 5.3.0, 5.4.0, and 6.1.0 are not
clear, meaningful, and predictable, and defer measurements of the coastal management to the LDRs.
Objective 1.1.0 pertains to enhancing the coastal environment quality through ordinance related water
quality, shoreline stabilization, wetland preservation, and wildlife and habitat protection. 'T'his objective
defers coastal environment enhancement measures to the LDRs.
Objective 1.2.0 pertains to the protection of estuarine water quality and resources. This objective defers the
measures of protection to the LDRs.
Objective 1.3.0 pertains to the preservation and protection of the existing coastal resources. 'This objective
defers the measures of protection to the LDRs.
Objective 3.1.0 pertains to the identification and protection of mangroves and other environmentalty
sensitive wetlands. This objective is unclear in the wording. The objective states that the Village will
maintain in its ordinances, regulations in enforcing and identifying mangrove.wetlands." This objective
does not state what the regulations are enforcing. The objective also defers any protection measures to the
LDRs.
Objective 3.3.0 pertained to the preservation of mangroves. The criteria and standards for preservation are
deferred to the LDRs.
Objection 4.1.0 pertains [o the prohibition of disturbances of the sea grass beds and productive mangrove
and high marsh areas, except for the purposes of public, health, safety and welfare. The measures and
criteria for this objective are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 4.2.0 pertains to the limiting of development and redevelopment in the construction of
infrastructure in the coastal high-hazard area. The measures and criteria for this objective are deferred to
the LDRs.
Objective 5.1.0 pertains to the limiting of public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in
coastal high hazazd azeas, with the exception of natural restoration. This objective defers implementation
criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 5.2.0 pertains to the hurricane evacuation procedures. This objective is not clear in the wording.
The wording indicates that the Village wishes to maintain evacuation procedures to reduce evacuation.
Additionally, the objective defers any measures to the LDRs.
Objective 5.3.0 pertains to the provision of post~isaster redevelopment plans. The general specifications
of the plans are not included in the objective, and the implementations of the plans are deferred to the
LDRs.
Objective5.4.0 pertains to the protection and preservation of historical resources by an archaeological and
historic review procedure. The general implementation of the procedure is deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 6.1.0 pertains to the establishment of Level of Service standards for beach access, water-
dependent land uses, and infrastructure. The LOS standards are deferred to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.012(3)(b)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b)4; 5; 6; 7; and 11, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and activities for coastal
protection and management, to provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for development.
Additionally, reword Objectives3.1.0 and 52.0 to clearly state the intentions of the Village.
17
Response
Per discussion with DCA staff, Objectives 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 shall remain as written.
Objective 1.3.0 shall be re-written as follows:
Objective 1 3 0 The Village shall continue to preserve and protect exist
coastal resources while providm~ for future water-dependent and
water related land uses by implementing, the Policies below.
Policy 2.1.2 (identified as Objective 2.1.2, which was wrong) will be deleted from the text.
It is recommended that Objective 3.1.0 be deleted from the Coastal Management Element because a revised
Policy 1.4.6 in the Future Land Use Element is developed regarding protection and preservation of
mangroves. Also, Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1.6.1 in the Conservation Element address the protection of
wetlands.
It is recommended that Objective 3.3.0 be deleted as well due to the new revised Policy 1.4.6 in Future
Land Use and it's coverage under Objective 1.4.0 and Policy1.4.1 in the Conservation Element.
Objectives in the Coastal Management Element will have to be re-numbered appropriately based on the
above-proposed changes.
Objective 4.1.0 shall remain the same with no changes, as a result of discussion with DCA staff.
Objective 4.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 4 2 0 The VillaC a shall limit development and re-development in the
construction of infrastructure m the coastal lu~li-hazard area as
provided for in Policy 42.3.
Objective 5.1.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 5 1 0 The Village shall limit public expenditures that subsidizes
development permitted m coastal high-hazard areas except for
restoration or enhancement of natural resources.
Objective 5.2.0 has not been accomplished The Village needs to "adopt" a Hurricane Evacuation
Procedure. Therefore, this objective should stay the same as in the currently adopted Comprehensive
Development Plan as follows:
Objective 5 2 0 The Village shall adopt hurricane evacuation procedures that will
maintain or reduce humcane evacuation times.
Objective 5.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 5 3 0 T'he Villa e~~ovide for post-disaster re-development
plans which reduce or elmtmate the exposure of human life and public
and private property to natural hazards.
Objective 5.4.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 5 4 0 Protect and preserve historic resources by establishing
archaeological and historic review procedures m the site plan review
r
18
Per discussion with DCA staff, there are no changes proposed to Objective 6.1.0.
27. Objection stable and defer
Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.3.1, 4.2.3, 5.3.1, and 5.3.2 are not clear, meaningful, and predi
measures to the LDRs. Policy 3.1.1 addresses the preservation and mitigation of existing of mangroves.
The policy does not state the criteria used to determine which strategy the Village will employ or how the
Village will them These criteria and specifications are deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 3.1.2 provides for the cooperation by the governmental authorities in the preservation of natural
resources. The provisions and criteria of cooperation and preservation are deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 3.1.3 pertains to the restriction of public and mangrove areas, except for reason of public health,
safety, and welfare. The restriction standards are not included in the policy and are deferred to the LDRs.
Additionally, the Village does not specify exactly what is to be restricted from the areas.
Policy 3.3. I pertains to the protection of mangrove areas. The policy defers protection to the LDRs.
Policy 4.2.3 pertains to the providing regulations regarding the relocation, ntigation, or replacement
within the coastal high-hazard area. The policy does not specify exactly what is to be relocated, mitigated,
or replaced. Additionally, and measures are deferred to the LDRs.
Policy 5.3.1 addresses the immediate and long-term repair and cleanup actions. The policy does not
contain any measures for the distinction, and defers to the LDlts.
Policy 5.3.2 provides for the general hazard mitigation of regulation of flood plains and beach and dune
alterations. This policy defers all measures to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5), 163.3177(6)(g), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(c)1; 2; 3; 5; 7; 9; 15, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise the above policies to provide a general description of the specific activities and implementation
strategies to be employed, so as to provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for development
Additionally, revise policies 4.2.3 and 32.3 to clearly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific
guidelines as described above.
Response
It is recommended that Policy 3.1. I be deleted because of the newly proposed Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land
Use Element and because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1.
It is recommended that Policy 3.1.2 be deleted because it is already addressed in the Conservation Element
in Objective 2.11.0 and Policy 2.11.1.
It is recommended that Policy 2. L3 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element in
Objective 1.5.0.
It is recommended that Policy 3.3.1 be deleted because it is addressed in the Conservation Element, Policy
1.32.
The Policies will have to be re-numbered based on the Proposed changes stated above.
Policy 4.2.3 shall be revised to read as follows:
policy 4 2 3 The relocation, mitigation or replacement of infrastructure
within the coastal hig,~- hazard area shall be pnontized when State
funding_is anticipated to be neede as follows: 1. When the General
19
health. safety and welfare of the communit~is directly impacted the
use of state funding shall be for replacement of infrastructure: 2. When
thegeneral health, safety and welfare is not directly impacted
mitigation of infrastructure can be considered while relocation of
infrastructure shall be the lowest of priorities when using State funds.
Policies 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 shall be combined into one Policy as follows:
Policy 5 3 1 The Villagesshall distinguish between immediate repair and
clean-up action needed to ~xotect the public health and safety and long
term repair and re-development activities by abiding by the following
criteria andprocedures- 1 Mobilize Village crews, contractors, and
appropriate entities to assess and re-activate essential services (e. g.
power water sewer roads cable telephone, etc.) as part of the
immediate repair and clean-up•activities• 2 Issue press release to
establish a hotline for impacted residents and businesses to assess post-
disaster damages and send out "Disaster Relief Information Forms"
directly to residents and businesses to help assess same: 3. Cooperate
and coordinate with FEMA DCA and the PBC Department of Public
Safety Division of Emergency Management to perform on-site
inspection of damages 4 Based on the previous activities perform the
final repair and re-development of damaged facilities and: 5. The
Village shall seek post-disaster redevelopment funds to offset local
costs ofpost-disaster re-devel~ment activities.
H. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
28. Objection
The proposed comprehensive plan does not meet the minimum requirements of 9J-5.0055, which states that
the Village must adopt as a component of the comprehensive plan, objectives, policies, and standards for
the establishment of a concurrency management system that will ensure that the issuance of a development
order or permit is conditioned on the availability of public facilities and services for the new development.
The proposed comprehensive plan does not contain objectives, policies, or standards for the requirement.
Section: 9J-5.0055(1)(b) et.seq., F.AC.
Recommendation
Include objectives, policies and standards to provide a concurrency management system that ensures that
the issuance of a development order or permit is conditioned of the availability of public facilities and
services to serve the new development
Response
The Village shall add an Objective 1.7.0 and Policies under the Objective to meet the recommendation.
Objective 1 7 0 The Village shall maintain a concurrence management system
to ensure that public facilities and services to support development aze_
available concurrent with the impact of development.
Policy 1 7 1 For sanitary sewer solid waste, drainage, and notable water
facilities at a minimum, the Village shall meet the following standards
to satisfy the concurrency requirements:
I A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that,
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent, the necessary facilities and services are in place and
available to serve the new development; or
20
2 At the time the devel~ment order or germit is issued. the necessary
facilities and services are guazanteed in an enforceable development
agreement pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes. or an
agreement or development order issued piusuant to Chapter 380
Florida Statutes to be in place and available to serve new development
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
e_guvalent {Section 163 3180(2xa), Florida Statutes}
Policy 1 7 2 For~azks and recreation facilities at a minimum, the Village
shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence
requirement:
1 At the time the development order or permit is issued. the necessary
facilities and services are in place or under actual construction: or
2 A development order or permit is issued subyect to the condition that,
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent, the acre~~;e for the necessary facilities and services to serve
the new development is dedicated or acquired by_the Village or funds
in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed; and
a A development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions that
the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new
development aze scheduled to be in place or under actual construction
not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or
its functional equivalent as provided in the adogted local government 5-
year schedule of capital improvements- or
b At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary
facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement
which requires the necessarrv facilities and services to serve the new
development to be in place or under actual construction not more than
one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent; or
c At the time the development order or permit is issued. the
necessaryfacilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable
development agreemen pursuant to Section 163.3220 Florida
Statutes or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to
Chapter 380 Florida Statutes to be in place or under actual
construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or its functional equivalent. f Section 163.3180(2)(b),
Florida Statutesl
Policy 1 7 3 Transportation facilities (roads and mass transit designated in
the adopted Village Comprehensive Plan) at a minimum, the Village
shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence
requirement except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) - (7) of
this section.
l At the time a development order or permit is issued the necessary
facilities and services are in place or under construction; or
21
2 A development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions
that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new
development are scheduled to be in place or under actual conshuction
not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or
its functional equivalent as provided in the local government five-year
schedule of capital improvements. The schedule of capital
improvements may recce and include transportation proiects
included in the first three years of the applicable, acbpted Florida
Department of Transportation five-year work program. The Capital
Improvements Element must include the following policies:
a. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the
estimated date of proiect completion.
b A Qrovision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate defer; or
delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which
is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is
listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements: or
3 At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary
facilities and services are the subject to a bindini~ executed agreement
which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new
development to be in place or under actual construction no more than
three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent: or
4 At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary
facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development
a~eement pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an
akrepment or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380,Florida
Statutes to be in place or under actual construction not more than three
years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
equivalent (Section 163.3180(2)(c) Florida Statutesl
22