HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06A_03/04/1999
r
~= A,B, ~-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
FROM: Scott D. Ladd, Director o~ Community Development ~Gt7
DATE: February 24, 1999
SUBJECT: Village Council Agenda Item Concerning Acceptance and
Transmittal o{ ORC Report Responses and First Reading o~
Ordinance Adopting E.A.R. Based Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Tom, attached are nineteen (19) sets of paclzets, including one original, for the above
referenced subject. Each set contains the following items:
• Cover memo ~rom me
• Notice of Meeting
• Objections,. Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC) ~rom Department of
Community A{~airs, State o~ Florida
• Village o~ Tequesta ORC Report Response
• List o~ Changes made to Response Report Auer LPA Meeting February 4, 1999
• Copy o~ Ordinance to Adopt E.A.R. Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Palm Beach Post and Jupiter Courier have been sent a copy o{ the Public Hearing
Notice, and the Public Hearing Notice, along with ten (10) copies o£ the paclzets have
been placed in the lobby o~ the Village Hall at 357 Tequesta Drive. Copies {or public
inspection are also available in the Department o~ Community Development.
Please place this item on the March 4, 1999 agenda ~or the Village Council Meeting.
Staff recommends approval. This is not aQuasi-Judicial. Hearing.
/lzli
~ PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
VQ.LAGE OF TEOUESTA
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, Florida, will consider an ordinance, amending its
1989 adopted Comprehensive Plan to include new, revised and/or updated data, text, tables,
maps, figures, analysis, as well as goals, objectives and pobcies in the hrtroduction, Future Land
Use Elemem, Transportation Element, Housing Element, Infrastructure Elernent, Coastal
Management Element, Conservation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element,
Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital Improvement Element, Plan Monitoring and
Evaluation Section relating to consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and Public
Participation Program requirements and other textual amendmerrts and modifications; ap in
relation to items identified in the Village's 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR);
providing for severability; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for
codification; providing for an effective date.
The Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, sitting as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a
public hearing on Thursday,, February 4, 1999 at 5:01 P.M at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta
Drive, Tequesta, Florida The subject of the public hearing was the consideration of proposed
responses to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) for the Village and the preparation of
recommendations to the Village Council pertaining to the Response Report and its transmittal to
the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
The Village Council will conduct a second public hearing on March 4, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. at the
Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida to consider the recommendations of tbe
Local Planning Agency concerning the Village's proposed responses to the Objections,
Reconaneadations, and Comtents Report and its transmittal to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs.
All imerested parties may appear at these public hearings and be heard concerning the.proposed
Response Report and its transmittal to the State for review and comment. Copies of the proposed
Response Report are available for inspection at the office of the Village Clerk, 250 Tequesta
Drive, Suite 300, Tequesta, Florida.
Parties are hereby advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Village
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, they will need a record
of the proceedings and for such puryose a Party may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proccedings is made, which record inchrdes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based.
Disabled persons who need an accommodation in order to partiapate in this Village Council
Meeting are requested to contact the Village Manager's Office at (561) 575-6200 at least duce
(3) worlong 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.
Joann ManganieBo
Village Clerk
Publish: February 24,1999
_ _ :~.:fis~;xxat:
•:: ~ N
!.
h
;.
x' c~:
..:: .;,~:~...s.~:.,':~ is
+•.. x
pr,.y .. :..._..yy
..
:.
....
'
....a...... ..
:.z. ~:~.Y_j ..
,.
.... i: a^:;.
A.'~
~~qq `
~
iv?e':rjr:
diM
;~p~
t
:Ti
•v
~tiE'-~i3::•
` L . :_._
`:
G6G6ND .:~...
:.
~...: ~.:..a.:::.
r r.~wr u ~ _~
rnr ..n ~. r~
u+ axon - ur~uavr~ ura
GOYYfweYL
tt
IYCws~mM ~:+s orsx ilNel - 11
® /V~uc w/ILUNav ANO wVnM
~ ~,...,..~,....
~ ..~.,,..~,,. The Village of
- -- -=--
~ o,,....~,..,~,.~.,.,., TF7QUF7STA --
-
P~WI BFJiCH CWNI'Y, FI.ORID~
~~.~~s...°~ EXISTING LAND USE MAP
FIGURE ~-5
1006
oA~r
fv.gY/ ~ YNWV
DEPAR'CMENT OF CO1~ll~TY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECONIlVIENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE VII,LAGE OF TEQUESTA
Amendment 99- I ER
November 25, 1998
Division of Communit~r Planning
Bureau of Local Plancung
r~ ~,c ~ yea v~ tt~k 9r-i ~.oio
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 standards 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(2xb)3; 9J-5.006(3xc)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 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: 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 standards 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 cleaz,
meaningful and predictable standards for development and does not meet minimum
requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Rnle: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(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
azeas 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.
4. Objection
Policy 1.5.2 does not adequately ensure that facilities and services meet locally
established Level of service standards, and are available concurrent with the impacts of
development because the policy defers any provisions to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3I77(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.0050; 9J-5.006(3xc)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established
level of services standazds, 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
5. Objection
Policy I.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)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J5.006(3xc)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise Policy I.5.4 to include cleaz, meaningfiil, and predictable standards for the use of
land that provide guidelines for more detailed land use development.
2
Village of Tequesta 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 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, 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-S.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 are 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); I63.2177(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 Iand use designation as shown on the
PLUM, by eliminating residential uses firom 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
aad intensity standards for each use. Addirionally, revise the FLUM 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(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 Usc Map Series section to
reflect the addition of the map.
9. Comment
Our review has determined 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.
S. 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(7)(c)3, F.A.C.
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 conuriercial use within the Future Land
Use Element that can be applied in Policy 1.1.5.
4
Pillage 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 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.
lZ. 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.
Rules 9J-5.003(867; and 9J-5.019(4)(6)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. .
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 wiU 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.
5
Villa a of Tequesta 99-I-ER
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.
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, 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
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.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.019(4x6)4, F.A.C.
15. Objection
Objective 1.8.0 and accompanying Folicies 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 of bicycles and walking_ In
the absence of cleaz 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(4x6)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 standazds 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-S.Ol9(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-5.0050; 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 Standard 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
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 3 0 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)(I); 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
8
lrllage of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Zl. 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 standazds of implementation, these policies are
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.01I(2)(c)1, FA.C.
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 rrin~mi~ation 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 standazds 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 regarding septic tanks.
SRPP: Policy 6,3.3.1, and Policy 6.5.1.6 ~ -
Rule: 9J-5.011(Z)(c)1; 9J-5.006(b)1,4; 97-5.012(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 ofseptic-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 clear, meaningful, and predictable and defer
protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.2.1 pertains to maintaiting 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.
9
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites #61 and #63, which aze
identified on the Coastal Management /Conservation Map. This policy does not specify
what controls aze 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 are
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 pazk 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
iswater-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 incase of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the
10
Pillage 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(2xc)1;
9J-5.013(2)(c)3; 9J-5.013(2)(c)5; 9J-5.013(2)(c)7; 9J-5.013(2xc)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. 06jection
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 unclear.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.013(3)(a); 9J-5.013(3xb), F.A.C.
11
Village 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, aze 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-speci5c 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.I.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 uncleaz in the wording. The
12
Vllage 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 standards 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 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 hazard areas, 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 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 aze deferred to
the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S.
Rule: 9]-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.012(3)(b)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b~; 5; 6;
7; and 11, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and
13
of Tequesta 99-1-ER
activities for coastal protection and management, to provide cleaz, meaningful, and
predictable standards for development. Additionally, reword Objectives 3.1.0 and 5.2.0
to clearly 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 clear, 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 aze 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 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 3.3.1 pertains to the protection of mangrove areas. The policy defers protection to
the LDRs.
Policy 4.2.3 pertains to the providing regulations regazding 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 aze 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 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(3xc)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 clear, meaningful, and
predictable standards for development. Additionally, revise policies 4.2.3 and 3.2.3 to
14
Village of Tequesta 99-1-ER
clearly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific guidelines as described
above.
H CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
28. 06jection
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(lxb) 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. OSJECTION•
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~; and (b)9
Goal (10) Natural Systems and Recreational Lands and Policies (b)1; (b)3; (b~; (b)6;
(b)7; (b)8; and (b)9
Goal (16) Land Use and Policies (b)1; (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. RECOMII~NDATION
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