Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 06B_03/04/1999village o~ Tequesta Responses to Department Of Community A~~airs Objections, Recommendations and Comments For Tequesta February 1999 Tequesta Local Planning Agency Consultant: JLH Associates OBJECTIONS, RECOIVIlVIENDATIONS 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 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)4; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.AC. Recommendation Revise Policy 1.4.5 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 Villaf;e supports the U S Department of Interior Bureau of LandManagement /Palm Beach County Environmental Resource 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". Anew Policy 1.4.8 will be added to address Ecosite Number 63: Policies- 1 4 8 The Village supports the preservation of plant and animal species on Ecosite Number 63 (which occupies a portion of St. Jude's Church) in accordance with the "St. Jude's Church Miti~tion Plan" as required by the U S Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and (he Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 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: 163.31'77(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 mangroves 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 mangroves within Tequesta 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 Mangrove Protection Ordinance. This shall be made a part of the Ville 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)6, 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 allowing only the land uses encompassed within the wellfield drawdown zones of influence shown on the Future Land Use Man. 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: 163.3177(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 concurren 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 uublic facilities 3 and services meet acceptable levels of service be concurrent with development impacts and that provide for utility services to be authorized at the same time land uses are authorized 4. 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)(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 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 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 subject to restrictions im,~lemented throu the Village of Tefluesta 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. Anew 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 fmished first floor elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the more restrictive requirements established by 4 the Villa a can obtain a variance which meet the minimum 1`iFIP requirements of 6 0 ft for zone A6 areas and & 7.0 ft. for zone Al areas. 6. 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 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;S;and 7, F.A.C. Recommendation Revise Policy 1. I2.2 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 irrtention ofthe-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-residenfiaI land uses• however commercial uses shall be limited to small-scale retail sales and services, business services andprofessional servicesprimarily_designedto serve residential neighborhoods Mixed-use areas shall provide for a range of residential uses from lower densi single family uses to hi er 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 (ALF's) which can have a maximum density of 24 dwellinguni~s per acre Maximumlot coverage shall not exceed 62% in residential areas while non-residential areas with single lots of 3200 sic ft minimlun may have 60% lot coverage while non-residential uses with two or more lots in excess of 3200 sq. ft. may have a 70% lot coverage. maximum six (6) stories shall be the maximum hei t 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. 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 hurricane surge map. Section: 163.3177(2), F.S. Rule: 9J-5.(105(a); 9J-5.005(b), F.A.C. 5 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 1.15.2 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 maybe 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 acknowledged. 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(7)(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 strafe igies 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 (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.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 MPO toward reducine uer capita Vehicle miles traveled (VMTI and dtscouraae smile occupant vehicle trips recognizing that these ~ro~rams assist in reducing the overall air quality emissions This can be accomplished through municipal r~resentation on the MPO and providing for Tri-Rail, alternative fuels ride sharing, alternative work hour programs, t7ublic transit parking gement and other transportation control measures that are being continually developed as hart 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. 7 Response Policy 1.2.5 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1 2 5 Encoura~~future land uses which promote public transportation is 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 RecLuire land uses building and site desig,~c- 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, 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 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); 163.3177(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 BeachCounty by supporting_P.B.C.'s efforts established in the Transportation Element of their Comprehensive Plan by implementing the following Policies. Policies 1.5.1 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 Organization's (MPO) efforts througl- municipal representation on the MPO to increase the presence and use of mass transit services in the Count 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 i.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, throu i 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 the~prymote a pedestrian environment and usage. Design should relate to transit user amenities, sidewalks and bicycle paths that link to other nodes in awell-developed s stem. 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 with new developments. P_ olicies 1 5 8 The Village shall not object to the Metropolitan Planning Org?nl7ation's efforts to encoura~~the use of rail modes of transportation as Tequesta can be favorably impacted by these efforts. Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.5.9 shall not be revised and shall remain as written. 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, 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); 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 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 shall promote the increased use of bicycle 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: Policy 1 8 1 Bikeways shall be liven full consideration in the planning 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 providing pedestrian and bicycle links eg s between existing residential and non-residential land uses, especially for commercial and open space. as part of its capital improvemegts and budgetary review process each year. Policy 1 8 3 The Village shall provide for the design of mixed use and multi- use developments andplanned developments to be of a pedestrian scale and design by incorporating transit stops bicycle and sidewalk connections. Polio 1 8 5 The Village shall review the recommendations of the MPO's Long Range Bicycle Facilities Concept 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: 163.3177(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. 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 communit~bvprovtdtngfor mcreased amounts of bicycle paths 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. I, 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-5.013(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 Codes. Response Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 12.1 will remain the same. 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 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 Program. Response Policy 1.2.2 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1 2 2 Encourage programs throughout Palm Beach County which attemptto alleviate housingproblems includmg contmued mterlocal 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 Devel~ment 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 21.7% 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), F.AC. Recommendation Provide data and analysis that accurately describe 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 Supplemental Census data (STF 3A File) indicate that 77% of the rental households in the Village that vav 35% or more of their income for gross housing_costs are headedbv a household aged 65 years and older This further justifies a~olicy to focus upon the provision of elderly affordable rental amts. Policy 1.2.5 shall be re-written as follows: Policy 12 5 Low income housing efforts shall be oriented towards the 11 provision o~ordable elderlyrental units by permitting development of independent supportive congregate living facilities within the Mixed-Use areas ~ to a maximum 24 dwellings units per acre. D. UTILITIES 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 1.3.1 also defers implementation guidelines to the LDRs, while Policy 1.1.3 simply states that the V llage 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 ordinances various land use and wastewater system design and construction criteria that will minimize~oint and non-poir-t discharges into surface waters. 22. Objection Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the V'illage'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 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-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. 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: Policies 1 17 The current utilization of septic tanks within the Village is deemed to be an acceptable alternative in the event that State water g_ualit~ standards are being met In the event that State water quality standards are not being met due to septic tank degradation as determined by official State Department of Environmental Protection 12 findings, a central sanitary sewer system must be provided in those areas subject to the findings. 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 Objective1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.8.0, and 1.9.0 aze not cleaz, meaningful, and predictable and defer protection measures to the LDRs. Policy 1.2.1 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 aze 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 are deferred 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 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 1.x.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. 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. 13 Objective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new developments in the coastal azea. 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; 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 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. Response Policy 1.2.1 shall be revised to read as follows: Policies 1.2.1 The Village shall maintain on-site stormwater retention/detentioncriteria established by Chapter 62-302, F.AC. and as administered by South Florida Water Management District 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 ti.e, re-planting) through implementation of its adopted mangrove regulations. Policy 1.6.3 shall be revised as follows: Policies 1.6.3 The Village shall restrict development activities that may adverselYaff~ct the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife species and provide for the mitigation of development impacts on their habitats and )'ood source by requiring an environmental assessment at the time of a development 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: Obiective 1.2.0 Require future development to restrict off site runoff of stormwater pollutants in accordance with drainage criteria established by the South Florida Water Management District and the Urban Best Mana eg mend Practices established by area wide plans. Objective 1.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Obiective 1 3 0 The Village shall maintain landscape regulations that provide for the preservation of a minimum 60% native vegetation that is indigenous to the South Florida area on all new development and re- development azeas. 14 Objective 1.4.0 and 1.8.0 shall remain as written due to discussion with DCA staff. 24. Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows: Objective 1.5.0 Notwithstanding the intent of Policy 1.4.0 of this element, the Village shall continue to restrict public works projects-from disturbing existing m~anp~oves 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: Obiective 1.6.0 The Village protect natural wildlife areas and environtnentallv sensitive lands by implementing the following lpo icies. Objective 1.9.0 will be re-written as follows: Obiective 1.9.0 The Village shall require the dedication of public access easements fqr new development in the coastal area. 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. 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.AC. 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 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. Recommendation Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 to include a general description of the measures and activities fce the protection and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the inconsistency inPolicy Z.I1.15 by correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4. the phrase and terms of the Palm Beach County Wetlands Ordinance. New Policy 2.11.13 shall read as follows: 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 Policies 2.11.13 The Village shall continue to implement the Wetlands Protection Section of the Unified 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 impact: 1. Avoidance of wetland impacts, 2. Minimization of unavoidable wetlands impacts and 3. Compensation for wetland impacts throu mitigation; Require, for any wetland that is 15 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 habitat Mitigation efforts that include creating new wetland habitat shall be designed constructed, and maintained in a manner which will reflect the habitat being altered, degraded or destroyed• Designate appropriate apd 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 b~altering the quantity or timing if water availability to existing_wetlands or altering their water regimes; Require, when reviewing development activities adjacent to or within wetland areas, that a buffer zone of native vegetation, which may include canopy, understory 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 Strate "c Rg~ egional Policy Plan• and support wetland creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation and shall encourage public and private 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 opt t_participate in a formalized effort to establish a countywide intergovernmental coordination program for reviewing_proposed changes to comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments and the plans of other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over the use of land Policy 1.1.6 The Village shall enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum h~terlocal 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 a multi jurisdictional issues forum which will facilitate the identification and possible resolution of countywide issues by providing a vehicle for consensus building through the joint research of issues and debate on same. 16 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.O,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. This 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 environmentally 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 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 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)l; 9J-5.012(3)(b)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b)4; 5; 6; 7; and 11, F.AC. Recommendation 17 Revise the opectives 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 5.2.0 to clearly state the intentions of the Village. 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 existing coastal resources while providing_for future water-dependent and water- related land uses b~plementing 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 wee due to the new revised Policy 1.4.6 in Future Land Use and it's coverage under Objective 1.4.0 and Policy 1.4.1 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 Vi11aQe shall limit development and re-development in the construction of infrastructure in the coastal high-hazard area as provided for in Policy 4.2.3. 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 in coastal high-hazard areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources. Objective 5.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows: Objective 5.3.0 The Villa eg shall provide for post-disaster re-development plans which reduce or eliminate 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 Frotect and preserve historic resources by establishing an archaeological and historic review procedures in the site plan review rp ocess. Per discussion with DCA staff, there are no changes proposed to Objective 6.1.0. 18 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 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 3.3.1 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 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 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. 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 3.2.3 to clearly state the intentions of the Village, as well as specific guidelines a$ described above. Response It is recommended that Policy 3.1.1 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 2.1.3 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 1.3.2. 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 high hazard area shall be prioritized when State funding is anticipated to be needed as follows: 1. When the general health, safety and welfare of the community is duectlY impacted the 19 use of state funding shall be for replacement of infrastructure: 2. When the enQ eral 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 Village shall distinguish between immediate repair and clean-up action needed to protect the public health and safety and long tenor repair and re-development activities by abiding by the followi criteria and procedures: 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 dress 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 helQassess 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-development 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 to the Capital Improvements Element an Objective 1.7.0 and Policies under the Objective to meet the recommendation. O_ b_ jective 1.7.0 The Village shall maintain a concurrence management _ ssy tem 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 potable water facilities, at a minimum. the Village shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrence requirements: 1.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 aze in place and available to serve the new development; or 20 2 At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement pursuant to Section 163 3220 Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant 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 oceupancv or its functional etc uivalent {Section 163.3180(2)(a), Florida Statutes} Poles 1 7 2 For parks 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 anc} services are in place or under actual construction; or 2 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 e9uivalent, the acreage 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 devel_per's fair share are committed; and a A devel~ment order or permit is issued subject to the conditions that the necessarry facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in~lace or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government 5- ~ear 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 necessary 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 ~uivalent; or c At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessaryfacilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, 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. 1 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 neces~ry facilities and services needed to serve the new development aze scheduled to be in place or under actual construction 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 recognize and include transportation projects included in the fast three years of the applicable, adopted Florida Department of Transportation five-year work pro~~am. The Capital Improvements Element must include the followingpolicies: a The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. b A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of a~ 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 binding executed agreement which recLires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction no more than three ~s 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 agreement 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 three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. f Section 163.3 I80(2)(c), Florida Statutesl 22