HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 05_07/22/1999V
.-~--
MEMORANDUM
To: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager
From: Scott D. Ladd, Director ommunity Development ~ ~~
Kara L. Irwin, Planner
Date: July 15, 1999
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Adopting E.A.R. Based Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and new state requirements for School Siting and Co-Location and
Intergovernmental Coordination Element Amendments.
Tom, attached are nineteen (19) sets of packets, including an original, for the above referenced
subject. Each set contains the following items:
• Cover memo from me
• Notice of meeting
• Village of Tequesta ORC Report Response (this report includes all comments from the
Florida Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report and additional amendments addressing new state requirements for School
Siting and Co-Location and Intergovernmental Coordination Element)
• Copy of Ordinance to Adopt Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Palm Beach Post has been sent a copy of the Public Hearing Notice and the Public Hearing
Notice, along with ten (10) copies of the packets have been placed in the lobby of the Village
hall at 357 Tequesta Drive. Copies for public inspection are also available in the Department
of Community Development.
Please place this item on the July 22, 1999 agenda for the Village Council Meeting. Staff
recommends approval. This is not aQuasi-Judicial Hearing.
JLH/kli
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
1999
VIGLAGE~'EOUPlSTA ,
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Village Coencil ~ the Village of Tegoesb, Florida, w~71 mna;dv an adioaais, amending its 1989 adopted
Compreheatdve Plan to indude new, revised aodMr updated dab. ta~4, tables. maps, $~0. aodysis, as wdl as
goals, objectives and poliaa in the Inhodoaiom, Fffime Land Use 6lemeot, Traaaportffiim Element, llo®ag
Element, I~octom Elemera, Coastal Mansgeroeffi > Conaavatim Element, Reaeatim and Opm
Space Elemeaf. Iffisgavanmesbl Coadinatim Hemeffi, Capita improvement Ekmmt, Plan Mmitering and
Evaloatim Section reWing m oaaudsteray wBh the. Sbte Oamprehendw Plan am Pabli'e Partiapatim Pmgram
regoiremeob and other te~bl amendtoenb and mod~atioas; all in m items ideatitied in the village's
1996 Evaluation and Appraiad Report (EAR) .sod additieml ameodmeota ibr policies addteasing. ante
rcgoitements for ScLool-ailing s~ Co-I.o~tion and ImagovacnmmW Caord'matioa Elements; pmvidiog for
savaaluliry; providing for the repeal of adinanaa io ~icK providing for oodon;.pmviding floc ao etiecttve
date
The Village Cenral of the Village of Tegnests, siping.as the [sal Flaming Agenry, conducted a public hearigg
m Thnnday, Fdirmry 4, 1999 ffi 5:01 P.M. ffi the Village Hall, 357 Tequesb Drive, Tegoesla, Florida. The
subject of the ptrhlic hearing was the ooosidaation d propoxd reeponeea to the State of Flarids Depar~eid d
Commonily Atlhirs Objoctioas, Recrommendffiions, and Cammeab Repot (ORC Report) fa the Yilbge sad the
preparation of rncommendabons to the Village Comcil pabiniag to the Re~mse Report and ib trammiibi tb the
Stab afFlotida Deperinre$d of Community Affairs.
The Village.Camcil omdacted a pg6lic hearing m March 4, 1999 ffi 7:00 P.M ffi the Ydlage Hall, 357 Tei}iteAa
Drive, Tegnasb, Ftaida. The soliJect of the public hearing was the oooridaatim d the reommeadatbm of the
I.cal lilamsimg Ageniy ooaaniog.the Village's paopcaed tespaoaes to the Objections, Reoommendaticrts, sad
Cmmeab Report and its trarwitbl m the State of Plaids Department dCommaoity Affair.
The Vidsge Camital ooadocted a public hearing m Jane !0, 1999 ffi 7:00 P.M ffi the Village Hall, 337 Tapiesb
Drive, Tequesta, Florida to consider the Department of Cary Affairs new Imprgovexnmemal Coadiaffiim
Element (ICE) and Scbool Siting sad Oodoadon retpuiremeob fa the Cc~eoaive Plan.
The Village Caaao7 wilt oendoa a public hearing m July 22, 1999 ffi 7:00 P_M ffi the Village Hall, 357 Taloesb
Drive, Tecpreafa, Florida to ooosider the second reading, of fhe oedinanoe to adopt the 1996 EAR baacd
Campriehemive Plan Amendment and Sctwol-siting and Co-Iacatlm anti Intergovanmmht Coadiaadco
Ekmast Amaidmenb.
All ipardes.may appear atthx 8 ~-PmP~-$~
and its traa®titbl to the Stffie ibr review aad omuneat. Copies afffie proposed Regionae Report are available fa
inspeetioa at.tM ..H:,,. ~il-eV+ 'nr ~.~ Tti°--~ "w' n.'-' +Sume300.T++~prMarF1~-
Parties are hadry advised thffi # a perm decides to appeal say decis;oa made bJ the Vllage Couatal with respect
t0.aay ~QOffibL000gdE~d-Bt-~-- ~ snv Q-hpdpgr~yp~nOCd_L6Cat1 Of tI14.pm0e0dmgiand.f0~ Wlrb
purpose a party may need to emcee that a verbffiiu record of the prooeedinga is made, which retad includes the
Disabled perems who need m aooommodffiim in artier to participate is tills Village Coorsal Meeting an regoatod
to.rnmad.the_lrllsge_Manager's.Office-at(561).SZS,6~D0 at_~ r~ p} vwr)ong_dayabesrethis_Mgeting.
Hearing impaired peramr please note that wireka Haim Aeaabnoe System Receivem are available by
n~~~;ros tM arms firm iLC ReCOdia6$eQW[y, .
Jaw Manganidla '
ViW®t.f7e~
Publish: Jniy 18, Iff9
I.f'GtND
weorvsw
~. wrv.-~...~..~.~
wwrwsa
rewrsww .,n ra •w,s
max .w carol
O -~
~ ... ....,e ...~,.~..
..+.w .~~..m .-.
=~ INr.'rw
3-1!
The Village of
TF~QUF7ti3TA
ru,a soar csualr, rtoam-
EXISTING LAND USE MAp
rlellaa a-a
..~~r
~Ma
}
~ L
sv..yy ~ ~WPra
`;i i'
Village o~ Tequesta
Responses to
Department
Of
Comn~nnitg ~~a.-ixs
Objections, Recommendations and Comments
Fpr
Tequesta
February 1999
Tequesta Local Planning Agency
Consultant:. JLH.Assosiates
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
VILLAGE OP TEQ-UESTA
EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
L AMENDMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS
A~ FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Ohjection
Policy 1.4.5 does not give clear; meaningful, and paredictable standard for the reservation 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 an3t 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
whattype-of Efforts will_be`talcer4 the~olicy is vague andineff {ctive.
Section: 163.3177(1), F.S.
Role: 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.006(3)(b~; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3; 9J-5.006(3)(c~, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.5 to specify the standards-that.are-to be implementedfor the_pa:eservation ofthe native
plant species in the Ecosites. Policies should provide meaningful and predictable- standards for the use and
development of land and provibe 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 14 5 The Village supports the U S Department of Interior Bureau of
LandManagement /Palm Beach County Environmental Resource
Management Intedocal Agreement to co-fund and co-manage the
preservation of native plant and animal species on Eco-Site #61 as part
of the_"Iupiter InletNaturaL.AreaManageme~ntPlan".
Anew Policy 1.4.8 will be added to address Ecosite Number 63:
Policies: L4.8 The_Village_su~nrts-the_preservatiorLOf.nlantand_animal
species on Ecosite Number 63 (which occupies a portion of St. Jude°s
Church). in_ac~ordance with the "St< Jude's_ Church MitiPation Plan" as
required by the U S Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service and-the Florida-~me and-Fresh Water Fish Cemnrission.
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: 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
Village. Specifically, identify how the mangroves
Regulations.
Response
Policy 1.4.6 shall be re-written as follows:
applied in the protection of mangroves within the
will be protected through the Land Development
Policy 1 4 6 The Village shall Cnotect mangroves within Teauesta by
deferring the review of mangroves in lxoposed development and re-
development areas to the County for enforcement and protection under
the Palm Beach Countywide Mangnrove Protection Ordinance. This
shall be made a Hart of the Village Site Plan Review Process.
3. Objection
Policy 1.4.7 does not give protection to potable water wellfield protection areas because the policy does not
designate the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed The policy simply states that the Village
will designate appropriate activities and land uses. Without specifying what those activities and uses will
be, the policy does not give clear, meaningful and predictable standards for development and does not meet
minimum requirements.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(96); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.006(3)(c~, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.4.7 to provide immediate protection of potable water wellfield protection areas by
indicating the appropriate activities and land uses to be allowed Policies should provide meaningful and
predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful .guidelines for the
content of more detailed LDRs.
Response
Policy 1.4.7 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1 4 7 The Vi11a~Lshall 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)®3, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.5.2 to provide that facilities and services will meet locally established level of service
standards, and will be concurrent with the impacts of development within the plan. The provision should
be a clear, meaningfixl and predictable guideline for more detailed land development.
Response
Policy 1.5.2 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 1 5 2 The Village shall ensure that the availability of public facilities
3
and services meet accerrtable levels of service be concurrent with
development impacts and that ns'ovide 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 anry measures to the
LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Role: 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 provrsnons of utility
service.
5. 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.
Rale: 9J-5.005(6), F.AC.
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 Conshuction Control pmgram
Response
Objective 1.7.0 shall be revised as follows:
Obiective 1 7 0 Development within the storm flood zones shall be subiect to
restrictions implemented through the Villa eg of Tequesta on -aoirra
,participation in the National Flood Insurance Pro~arn /Community
Rating System (CRS) and more restrictive requirements established in
the Village Zoning Ordinance Section X Supplemental Regulatnons,
(A) General Provisions (8) floor elevation above sea level.
A new Policy 1.7.4 is added to further clarify the objective as written below:
Policies 1.7.4 A minimum finish first floor elevation above mean sea level
(I~~SL) for all new construction, additions and substantial
improvements to existing structures shall be 8.5 ft. MSL; however
finished first floor elevations that are between the minimum finished
first floor elevation as established by the National Flood Insurance
Pro~*n (NFIP) and the more restrictive requirements established by
the Vitt ¢~obtain a variance which meet the minimum NFIP
requirements of 6 0 ft for zone A6 areas and & 7.0 ft. for zone A7
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.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.12.2 to be consistent with the land use designation as shown on the FLUM, by eliminating
residential uses from the uses allowed within the Village Center. If the intention of the Village is to create
a mixed-use category, revise Policy 1.12.2 to delineate the percentage distribution of the typed of uses
allowed, and to establish density and intensity standards for each use. Additionally, revise the PLUM to
show the addition of the new land use category.
Response
The PLUM will be revised to reflect the Mixed-Use land use category..
Policy 1.12.2 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 1 12 2 Mixed Use land use areas shall provide for a variety of
residential and non-residential land uses however commercial uses
shall be limited to small-scale retail sales and services, business
services and mofessional services primatily desiaiied to serve
residential neiehborhoods Mixed use areas shall provide for a range of
residential uses from lower density single family uses to higher dens-ty
multiple family uses Maximum density for residential uses shall be
limited to 18 dwe link units tier acre with the exception of Assisted
Livine Facilities (ALF's) which can have a maximum density of 24
dwelling units per acre Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 62%
in residential areas while non-residential areas with smile lots of 32~
sg ft minimum ir1aX have 60% lot covera~,e while non-residential uses
with two or more lots in excess of 3200 sq ft may have a 70% lot
coveraee A maximum six (6) stories shall be the maximum height for
all uses in the mixed-use area and a minimum 25% of the lot shall be
recLuired for landsca~in~ on all residential and non-residential uses.
7. 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-5.005(a); 9J-5.005(b), F.A.C.
5
Recommendation
If the Village chooses to adopt the amendment, include a Future Armexation 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 inadvertentty missed Folicy
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 standazds 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 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:
Polio 1.1.5 The Village shall coordinate transportation demand strategies
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.
Rnle: 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 reducing tier
capita Vehicle miles traveled and discourage smale occupant
vehicle trip~gnizing_that these proerams assist in reducing the
overall air quality emissions This can be accomplished throueh
municiQal re~esentation on the I\~IPO and providing for Tri--Rail.
alternative fuels ride sharing, alternative work hour oro~rams, public
transit, par ' m_?~g~ent and other transportation control measures
that are being continually developed as part of a Countywide effort.
12. Objection
Objection 1.2.0 does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map or map series,
and ensure that population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with
the transportation modes and services. The objective can not give a .specific, measurable, and ineermediate
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.
Rale: 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 enwurage
future land uses which promote public transportation. Without this specification, the policies are
ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(6)(j), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.019(4)(c)9, F.A.C.
Recommendation
Revise policies to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land, and
that describes the way in which the Village is to encourage future land uses which promote public
transportation in public transportation corridors, and the way in which the LDRs are to be revised for this
purpose, so as to be consistent with 9J-5.019(4)(c)9.
Response
Policy 1.2.5 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 Z 5 Encourage future land uses which promote public
transportation is public transportation comdors m new development
areas and in re-ckvelopment areas.
Policy 1.2.6 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 12 6 ,ire land uses. building and site design guidelines that
assure accessibility to public transit.
14. Objective
Objective 1.5.0 and accompanying Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6, 1.5.7, 1.5.8, and 1.5.9, which
address the provision and ~amiing 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)'1, F.AC.
Response
Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows:
Objgctive 1 5 0 Encourage the use and provision of mass tcaiisit.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 combiner) into one Policy as Policy 1.5.1 re-written as follows:
Policies 1 5 1 The Village shall work witl- the County and support the
Metropolitan Planning Org<wization's (11~IP0) efforts through municipal
representation on the Mt'O to increase th~sence and use of mass
transit services in the County through modification of the existing route
system• increasing service in areas with hi~,~pmuensity for transit use.
and through increased services in the coastal communities, including
Tequesta.
Policies 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 shall be deleted
Policies 1.5.5 shall be revised to read as follows:
Policies 1 5 5 The Village supports the County's effort, through municipal
representation on the MPO to declare guidelines by the near 2000 to
improve design and functionalit~of transit station /stops. Attention
should be given to how their location relates to surrounding areas and
how they promote a pedestrian enviromnent and usage. Design should
relate to transit user amenities sidewalks and bicycle paths that link to
other nodes in awell-developed system.
Policies 1.5.7 and 1.5.8 shall be re-written as follows:
Policies 1 5 7 The Village shall not obiect to the County's efforts to
encourage the future location of Palm Trap bus routes with new
developments.
Policies 1 5 8 The Village shall not obiect to the Metropolitan Planning
Organization's efforts to encourage the use of rail modes of
transportation as Teauesta can be favorably impacted by these efforts.
Per discussion with DCA staff, Policy 1.5.9 shall not be revised and shall remain as wntten.
1S. 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.AC.
Recommendation
Revise the above Objective and accompanying Policies to specify the strategies that are to be implement in
the promoting the use of bicycles and walling. 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 18 0 The Village shall promote the increased use of bicycle and
walldng as viable alternative means of transportation through
imQlemeritation of the Policies below.
Policies k: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 given full consideration in the plamliilg and
development of the Village roadway and transportation facihties and
prograiit a~ *+prt of the Site Plan Review Process.
Policy 18 2 The Village shall work toward providing pedestrian and bicycle
linkages between existmgresidential andnon-residential laird uses,
especially for commercial and open space as part of its capital
improvements and budget?*~ review process each year.
Policy 18 3 The Vikla~e shall provide for the design of mixed use and multi-
use developments and planned developments to be of a pedestrian stake
and design by incorporating transit stops bicycle and sidewalk
connections.
policy 1 8 5 The Village shall review the recommendations of the MPO's
Long Mange Bicycle Facilities Conce~ Plan and implement appropriate
recommendations of the Plan as an alternative means of transportaton
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 measwed, 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
--' community bvpmvi 'ng for increased amounts of bicycle oaths and
sidewalks in new development and re-development areas.
Comment
The phrase "continue to" should be deleted from Objective 1.4.0.
Response
The comment is acknowledged
C. HOUSING ELEMENT
18. Objection
Policy 1.2.1, which provides for affordable housing by supporting 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)(fja, F.S.
Rnle: 9J-5.005(6); and 9J-5.013(3)(c)2, F.AC.
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 1.2.1 will remain the same.
19. Objection
Policy 1.2.2, addresses the confirmation of the current agreemem 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 ari agreement with
the County.
Rule: 9J-5.010(3)(c)10, F.AC.
10
Recommendation
Revise Policy 1.2.2 to generally describe the responsibility of the Village in the lxovision 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 Enooura~e nrom'arns throuehout Palm Beach County which
attemntto alleviate housme yroblems mcludma contuiued mterlocal
partici»ation at the current level in the Community Block Grant
program and associated activities by entering into Interlocal
A:,~m~ts with Palm Beach County Housing and Community
L~velopment 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 ~ovision 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 m the
text and that 21.7% should actually be 30.1%, and 13.4°/® should actually be 18.5°/a The Village is
understating the number of households in the community. with a housing cost burden.
li. The Village states that the cost burden is over represerrted 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)(bxl); 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 Filel indicate that 7'7% of the rental households in the Village that
~ay 35% or more of their income for gross housing costs are headed by a household aged 65 years and
older This further justifies a nolicv to focus upon the txov~sion of elderly affordable rental amts.
Policy 1.2.5 shall be re-written as follows:
Policy 1 2 5 Low income housing efforts shall be oriented towards the
11
provision of affordable elderly rental units by_permitting development
of independent supportive congregate living facilities within the
Mixed-Use areas up 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 Village should consult
with the wastewater service provider. Without clear and meaningful standards of implementation, these
policies are ineffective.
Section: 163.3177(5), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(95); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.1 to include specific standards of implementation to achieve Goal 1.0.0.
Replace language that is vague with more detailed guidelines for the establishment of the most effective
wastewater system and the minimization of point and non-point discharge into surface waters. .
Response
As a resuh 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 13 1 The Village shall incorporate into local Bans, codes and
ordinances various land use and wastewater system design and
construction criteria that will minimize point and non-ooirnt discharges
into surface waters.
22. Objection
Policy 1.1.7 eliminates the Village's commitment to cease the use of septic tanks if water quality standards
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 aril 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~; 9J-5.013(3xb)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 tegional wastewater collection facilities in areas where the potential for ground
or surface water contamination is high.
Response
Per discussion with DCA Staff, Policy 1.1.7 should read as follows:
Policy 1 17 The use of existing properly constructed and functioning
septic tank systems within the Villagee is acceptable: however, when
analysis indicates that septic tank systems are adversely impacting the
errvironment according to State Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302,
12
FAC for surface water Ch. 62-520 FAC for f=toundwater and Ch. 100-
6 FAC for bathing places) and that public health standards are
endangered septic tank systems causing_the situation will be repaired
or replaced.
Add a new Policy 1.1.8:
Policy 1 18 When a central sanitary sewer system becomes available to
currently unsewered areas and the current septic tank systems fail to
meet State Water Quality Standards (Ch. 62-302 FAC for surface
water Ch. 62-520 FAC for groundwater and Ch. 100-6, FAC for
bathing places) and endan>;er the public health. hook-up to the central
s,~stem shall be required
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 are not cleaz, meaningful, and predictable and defer: protection measures to the LDRs. Policy ,1.2.1
pertains to maintaining on-site stormwater retention/detentiogcriteria of the South Florida Water
Management District and Palm Beach County. This policy does not give a description of the
implementation criteria, but defers this specification to the LDRs.
Policy 1.3.1 pertains to restricting development on Ecosites. #61 and #63, which are identified on the .
Coastal Management/Conservation Map. 'This policy does not specify what controls are to be used in the
restriction of development on this site. _
Policy 1.4.1 pertains to the protection of mangroves through preservation or mitigation. The wording of
this policy is unclear, as it only states, "The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation (i.e.
replanting)." The Pillage 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 hers adjacent to the Loxahatchee
River and Indian River Lagoon estuaries. The protection measures aze 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 1.2.0 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.
13
Objective 1.4.0 pertains to the preservation of mangroves, exceprt when the proposed use is water-
dependent or awater-related land use. This policy defers im~ementation criteria to the LDRs.
t7bjective1.5.0 pertains to the restriction of public works projects from disturbing mangroves, except in
case of public health, safety, and welfare. This policy defers the implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.6.0 pertains to the protection of natural wild life area and environmentally sensitive lands. The
protection measures are deferred to the LDRs.
Objective 1.8.0 pertains to requiring the use of native vegetation for dune stabilization. This policy defers
implementation criteria to the LDRs.
Objective 1.9.0 pertains to the provision of public access easements for new developments in the coastal
area. The policy defers implementation measures to the LDRs.
Section: 163.3177(5); and 163.3177(6)(d), F.S.
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(2xc)3;
9J5.013(2)(c)5; 9J-5.013(2)(c)7; 9J-5.013(2)(c)9, F.AC.
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 clear langaage in Policy 1.4.1 to clearly state the commitipent 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 12 1 The Village shall maintain on-site stormwater
retention/detentioncriteriaestablished by Chanter 62-302, F.AC. and as
administered by South Florida Water Management District and Palm
Beach Coumy 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 141 The Village shall require preservation or mangrove mitigation
(i a re-nlantingJ through implementation of its adopted mangrove
regulations.
Policy 1.6.3 shall be revised as follows:
Policies 16 3 The Village shall restrict development activities that may
adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife
ies and Qrovide for the mitigation of development impacts on their
habitats and food source Uy 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:
14
Objective 1.2.0 Require future development to restrict off-site runoff of
stonmwater pollutants in accordance with drainage criteria established
by the South Florida Water Manageement District and the Urban Best
Management Practices established by area wide plans.
Objective 1.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Obiective 1.3.0 The Village shall rnaintain landscape re~,ulations that »rovide
for the preservation of a minimum 60•~o native vegetation that is
indigenous to the South Florida area on all new development and re-
development areas.
Objective 1.4.0 and 1.8.0 shall remain as written due to discussion with DCA staff.
Objective 1.5.0 shall be re-written as follows:
Obiective 1.5.0 Notwithstandine the intent of Policy 1.4.0 of this element, the
Village shall continue to restrictpublic works proiects from disturbing
existing mangroves except where such work is essential to the
continued health, safety and welfare of the public.
Objective 1.6.0 shall be revised as written below:
Objective 1.6.0 The Village shall protect natural wildlife areas and
environmentally sensitive lands b~plementinp_ the following
policies.
Objective 1.9.0 will be re-written as follows: -
Obiective 1.9.0 The Village shall require the dedication of public access
easements for new development in the coastal area.
24. Objection
Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 address the requirement to protect and conserve wetlands. However, the
policies do not contain implementation strategies or criteria. Policy 2.11.14 simply states that wetlands will
be protected through a comprehensive planning process with supporting data and analysis without
specifying the strategies or measures that will be taken to ensure the protection of wetlands.
Policy 2.11.15 states that incompatible uses will be directed away from wetlands or development will
undergo a mitigation process. However, the 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.
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.
Recommendation
Revise Policies 2.11.14 and 2.11.15 to include a general description of the measures and activities foe the
protection and conservation of wetlands. Additionally, resolve the inconsistency in Policy 2.11.15 by
correcting the reference to Policy 2.13.4.
Response
The Village of Tequesta is part of the Countywide Wetlands Protection Ordinance, as the Village has not
adopted it's own wetland regulations. Therefore, the Village is subject to the countywide regulations.
Policies 2.11.13 and 2.11.14 should be deleted and replaced by a new Policy 2.11.13, which incorporates
15
the phrase and terms of the Palm Beach County Wetlands Ordinance. New Policy 2.11.13 shall read as
follows:
Policies 2 11 13 The Village shall continue to implemem the Wetlands
Protection Section of the Unified Land Development Code and shall
continue to review and comment on wetland alteration aoulications
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 txorwsed activities that may
result in wetlands im_Iract' 1 Avoidance of wetland impacts. 2.
Minimization of unavoidable wetlands impacts and 3 Compensation
for wetland impacts through mitigation: Require for airy wetland that is
degraded or destroyed, that miti UgYa on be~rovided 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 desi ~~ constructed, and maintained in a manner which will
reflect the habitat being altered, degraded or destroyed; Designate
appropriate and inapaxopriate uses for wetlands. including the use of
wetlands for wastewater treatment. to ensure that the functions and
values of existing wetland ~ryctemc are maintained or enhanced: Do not
allow activities that. would diminish the functions and values of
wetlands by altering the quantity or timing if water availabilitYto
existing_wetlands or altering their water regimes: Rectuire. when
reviewing development activities adjacent to or within wetland areas.
that a buffer zone of native vegetation. which may include canopy.
understorv and ground cover as appropriate. be provided and
maintained around all wetlands. The area requirements for the buffer
zone shall be consistent with the Treasure Coast Strategic Regional
Policy Plan; and support wetland creation. restoration, enhancement,
and preservation and shall encourage public and private sector
initiatives for these efforts.
F. 1NTERtGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
25. Objection
Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6, which pertain to establishing amulti-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 beingtime-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 to participate in a formalized effort to establish a countywide
intergovernmental coordination program for reviewing proposed
16
changes to comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments and the
plans of other units of local governmem providing services but not
having re story authority over the use of land
Policy 1 16 The Village shall enter into the "Multi-Jurisdictional Issues
Coordination Forum Irrterlocal Agreement" with its fellow cities.
County School Board. South Florida Water Management District and
various special districts that opt to Lrarticipate in a formalized effort to
create a multi jurisdictional issues forum which will facilitate the
identification and Qossible resolution of countywide issues by
providing a vehicle for consensus buildiru~ through the ioint research of
issues and debate on same.
G. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
26. Objection
Objectives 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0,2:1.2, 3.1.0, 3.3.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0, 5.1.0, 5.2.0,.5.3.0, 5.4.0, and 6.1.0 are not
clear, meaningfiil, 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 LD12s.
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 LDlts.
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.
17
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 prceservation 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(6xg), F.S.
Rule: 9J-5.003(86); 9J-5.005(6); 9J-5.012(3)(b)1; 9J-5.012(3xb)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b~; 5; 6; 7; and 11, F.AC.
Recommendation
Revise the objectives to include a general description of the programs, measures, and activities for coastal
protection and management, to provide clear, meaningful, and predictable standards for development.
Additionally, reword Objectives3.1.0 and 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
c~asttal resources whileprovidin~ for future water-dependent and
water- related land uses by implementing the Policies below.
Policy 2.1.2 (identified as Objective 2.1.2, which was wrong) will be deleted from. the text:
It is recommended that Objective 3:1.0' be deleted from the Coastal Management Element because a revised
Policy 1.4.6 in the Future Land Use Element is developed regarding protection and preservation of
mangroves. Also, Objective 1.6.0 and Policy 1:6. T 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 wverage under Objective 1.4.0 and Policyl.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 Village shall limit development and re-development in the
construction of infrastructtve 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 S 10 The Village shall limit public expenditures that subsidizes
development permitted in coastal hig~t-hazard areas except for
restoration or enhancement of natural resources.
Objective 5.2.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
18
Objective 5.3.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 5.3.0 The Village shall~ovide forpost-disaster re-development
plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public
and private~roperty to natural hazards.
Objective 5.4.0 shall be revised to read as follows:
Objective 5.4.0 Protect and preserve historic resources by establishing an
archaeological and historic review procedures in the site elan review
process.
Per discussion with DCA sta$ there are no changes proposed to Objective 6.1.0.
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 inch~ded 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, mitigalioq or replacement
within the coastal high-hazard area. The policy does not specify exactly wlyat 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 distinctioq 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 as described above.
Response
It is recommended that Policy 3.1.1 be deleted because of the newly proposed Policy l .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.
19
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 directly impacted the
use of state funding shall be for replacement of infrastrucdrre; 2. When
the General health. safety and welfare is not directly im_pactec
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 5.32 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 safetYand long
term repair aml re-development activities by abidin~~bv the following
criteria and procedures: 1. Mobilize Village crews, contractors: and
appropriate entities to assess and re-activate essernial services fe.g: ` `
power, water, sewer. roads, cable, telephone,. etc.Lpart of the.
immediate repair and clean-up activities: 2. Issue press release to
establish a hotline for impacted residerrts and businesses to assess post-
disaster damages and send out "Disaster Relief Information Forms"
directly to residerrts and businesses to help assess same: 3. Cooperate
and coordinate with FEMA DCA and the PBC Department of Public
Safety Division of Emergency Management to perform on-site
inspection of damages: 4. Based on the previous activities perform the
final n pair 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 concurtency 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
20
The Village shall add to the Capital hmprovements Element an Objective 1.7.0 and Policies under the
Objective to meet the recommendation.
Obiective 1.7,0 The Village shall maintain a concurrency management system
to ensure that public facilities and services to support development are
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 Vil1aGe shall meet the following standards
to satisfy the concurrency requirements:
1.A development order orpemrit is issued subject to the condition that,
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
eauivalent, the necessary facilities and services are in place and
available to serve the new development; or
2.At the time the development order or permit is issued the n
facilities and services are Guaranteed in an enforceable development
aGreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an
meat or. development order issuedpursuant to Chapter 38D went
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of oocu~aucy or its functional
equivalent. f Section 163.3180(2)(a), Florida Statutes}
Policy 1.7.2 For parks and recreation facilities, at a minimum, the Village
shall meet the following standards to satisfy the cnncurrency
requirement:
1.At the time the development order or permit is issued. the necessary
facilities and services are in place or under actual construction: or
2.A development order or permit is issued subiect to the condition
at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
eauivalent, 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 develocer's fair share are committed; and
a. A development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions that
the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new
development are scheduled to be in place or under actual construction
not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or
its functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government 5-
vear 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
equivalent; or
c. At the time the development order or pernrit 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
21
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(2ub)
Florida Statutes)
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 concurrency
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
2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions
that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new
development are scheduled to be in~lace 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~roiects
included in the first three years of the applicable, adopted Florida
Department of Transportation five-year work program The Capital
Improvements Element must include the following_policies:
a The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the
estimated date of project completion.
b A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate defer or
delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which
is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is
listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements; or
3. At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary
facilities and services are the subject to a binding executed agreement
which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new
development W be in place or under actual construction no more than
throe years after the issuance of a certificate of occup,~ncv 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. (Section 163.3180(2)(c), Florida Statutes)
II. OTHER AMENDMENTS
22
A. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
i. School Siting and Co-Location Requirements
In order to meet the deadline for the new School Siting and Co-Location
requirements by October 1, 1999, the following amendments and support
documentation will be included with the EAR based comprehensive plan
amendments, to avoid having to go through other amendment processes at a
later date.
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VILLAGE OF TEOUESTA SUPPORT
DOCUMENTATION
ITEM I.
Revise the definition of Other Public Buildines to read as follows:
Other Public Facilities
Land uses and activities within land areas concerned with other public or private facilities
and institutions such as schools, churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, homes for the aged
and infirm, and other similar uses.
ITEM II.
Add a final paragraph to: Other Public Facilities Land Use" (p.3-18 of support
documentation):
There are no public schools located within the Village of Te,~uesta The Village has reached
aUpr~ ely 96 % build-out, with less than fort- (40) acres of vacant land of which no
individual parcels are of adequate size or location for school sites Therefore, the_ Village
does not anticipate, nor does the Palm Beach County School Board anticipate building any
school sites within Tec~uesta during.the short term planning~eriod The Village has received
a letter from the School Board attesting to this situation, and it is attached as an
ATTACHMENT at the end of the FLU Element
SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS
23
The following policy will be added to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet the
School Siting and Co-Location Requirements of the Florida Department of Community Affairs;
Policy 2 12 In the event of a future annexation that has sufficient land area
to site schools or co-locate schools with public facilities such as;
,parks libraries and community centers prior to the amendment
to incorporate the area into the Village Comprehensive Plan,. the
Village shall coordinate with the Palm Beach County School
Board to determine the need to site a school in the annexed area.
This_plan amendment will allow for_public school if there is a
need.
B. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
1. In an effort to meet the new Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE)
requirements, that are required to be adopted by local governments in the
comprehensive plans by December 31, 1999, the following policies are proposed
for inclusion in the Responses to the ORC Report. Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 in the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element will help meet the new ICE Joint
Planning Areas requirements of Ch. 163.3171, F.S. Additionally, Policies 1.2.6
and 1.2.7, as proposed, will supplement Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 to meet this
requirement, as well as, the new requirements regarding Collaborative Planning
for Multi Jurisdictional Issues. Policy 1.1.7 is also proposed to meet the new
ICE requirements regarding Campus Master Plans. New ICE requirements
regarding Voluntary Dispute Resolution Processes are already addressed in the
Village Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Policy
1.2.5.
ITEM I. CAMPUS MASTER PLANS
The following Policy 1.1.7 is being added to meet new ICE requirements regarding Campus
Master Plans:
Policy 1 17 The Village shall coordinate with those schools within
its~urisdiction, which are~art of the State University
system regarding the development of campus master
plans or amendments thereto, to be done in
accordance with Section 240.155, F.S.
ITEM II JOINT PLANNING AREAS
In addition to Policies 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 above, Policies 1.2.6 and 1.2.? are proposed to meet new ICE
requirements regarding Joint Plannnig and Collaborative Planning for Multi-Jurisdictional issues.
24
Policy 12 6 Notify by letter and involve all uotentiallv affected entities,
iurisdictions and / or service providers in the initial stages of the
planning and development review process when the action of
one government may create an impact on neighboring
jurisdiction public facilities and services.
Policv 12 7 Secure the cooperation of neighboring entities jurisdictions and/or
service providers throush interlocal agreements and
inte;governmental coordination that addresses how the cost for
impacts to public facilities and services will be borne, and by
whom when the impacts are imposed upon other entities
jurisdictions and/or service providers. Interlocal-Agreements
and the IPARC Process will be used to identify and implement
joint planning areas when deemed to be appropriate
25
/~,t•IOOL D/s~ THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
FLORIDA DR. JOAN P. KOWAL
W , suPewHreHOEHT
_ PLANNING 6 REAL ESTATE OF SCHOOLS
3320 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, C-331
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406-5813
9~ (561)134-8020 FAX (561)434-8187 .
BEACH a
ATTACHMENT
~T~ LAND USE ELEMENT
May 10, 1999 SCHOOL-SITING
REQUIREMENTS
Ms. Kara Irwin
Dept. of Community Development
P.O. Box 3273 / 357 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, FL 33469-0273
RE: School Siting and Planning Coordination
Deaz Ms. Irwin:
The School District in planning for school facilities has determined that it will not be
constructing a school in the Village of Tequesta over the next five years. Presently there
is not a public school in the Village and there are no plans to build one. Based on the
Village being almost built out, there is not sufficient land area. to accommodate a school
at this time.
The County's future annexation map shows that.-.the Village plans to annex properties in
the future. If there is sufficient vacant land in the Village to accommodate a school in the
future, the School District may construct a school in the area over the next 15 to 20 years.
If there are any questions, please call me at 434-8935.
Sincerely,
nda H. Hines, Director
arming and Real Estate
VOT.doc
Angela D. Usher, Palm Beach County School District
An Equal Education Opportunity Provider and Affirmative Action Employer
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VII,LAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
VII..LAGE OF TEQUESTA, ADOPTED IN 1989, IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN
THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO INCORPORATE NEW,
REVISED AND/OR UPDATED TEXT, TABLES, MAPS, FIGURES, ANALYSIS, AS WELL
AS GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE INTRODUCTION, FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE
ELEMENT, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, CONSERVATION ELEMENT,
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION ELEMENT, CAPITAL II~iPROVEMENT ELEMENT, PLAN
MONITORING AND EVALUATION SECTION RELATING TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE
STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS; ALL
IN RELATION TO ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S 1996 EVALUATION AND
APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) AND ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS FOR POLICIES
ADDRESSING SATAE REQUIItEMENTS FOR SCHOOL SITING AND CO-LOCATION
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILTTY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, being the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, the Village of Tequesta may adopt amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency of the Village has held public hearings to make
recommendations to the Village Council and has recommended the adoption of the amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan contained herein; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council at its regular meeting held on July 22, 1999, wishes to approve and adopt
the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF
TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Village Council does hereby amend the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of the Village of
Tequesta in relation to items identified in the Village's 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ,new State School
Siting and Co-Location requirements and Intergovernmental Coordination Element requirements and in
accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, as
amended, so as to incorporate new, revised and/or updated text, tables, maps, figures, analysis, as well as goals,
objectives and policies in the Introduction, Future Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Housing Element,
Infrastructure Element, Coastal Management Element, Conservation Element, Recreation and Open Space
Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Capital Improvements Element, Plan Monitoring and
Evaluation Section relating to consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan and Public Participation Program
Requirements, and other textual amendments and modifications, all as attached hereto which is hereby adopted
and incorporated by this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. If any court or competent jurisdiction holds any word, part, section, paragraph or
provision hereof to be unlawful or unconstitutional, such ruling or finding shall not affect the remaining portions
of this Ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED UPON FIItST READING THE DAY OF .1999.
PASSED AND ADOPTED UPON SECOND READING THE FOLLOWING HEARING THE
DAY OF ,1999.
ATTEST:
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, FLORIDA
Mayor
Vice Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Clerk