Loading...
99-R-13 '-w' ...., RESOLUTION NO. 99-R-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE AMENDED EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ("EAR" REPORT) OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida has made the following determinations: 1. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the Local Planning Agency is responsible for the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan (EAR) at least once every five years. The EAR shall be submitted to the City Council, who upon adoption or upon adoption with changes, shall submit the EAR to the Department of Community Affairs. 2. The Department of Planning and Development prepared the Amended EAR in accordance with the Department of Community Affairs Sufficiency Review and the requirements of Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.0053 of the Florida Administrative Code. 3. On March 31, 1999, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing to consider transmittal of the Amended EAR to the City Council and voted 6-0 to transmit the Amended EAR to City Council. 4. On AprilS, 1999, City Council considered approval for transmittal and adoption of the Amended EAR. 99-R-13 1 .. '-' .....",~ 5. On July 19, 1999, City Council held a public hearing to consider adoption and approve the transmittal of the Amended EAR. Notice of such hearing was published in the News and Observer on July 14, 1999 and said notice is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "B". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida: Section 1. The Amended Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City of Edgewater Comprehensive Plan which is incorporated by reference is hereby adopted. Section 2. The Director of Planning and Development is hereby directed to transmit the Amended EAR to the Department of Community Affairs which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" (titled: DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document). Section 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. This resolution shall take effect upon approval. After Motion by Councilman Gornto and Second by Councilwoman Lichter, the vote on this resolution was as follows: Mayor Randy G. Allman Councilman Jim Gornto Councilman Myron F. Hammond Councilman Gary W. Roberts Councilwoman Judy Lichter AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE 99-R-13 2 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 10 day of July, 1999. ATTEST: 99-R-13 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF E AZx1YmwA-- Ra*ORIDA B G. AIman M or APPROVED FOR FORM AND CORRECTNESS: u U. &; C� sec 1 Nikki Clayton City Attorney ~ ...... DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document 1. Efficient Land Use Patterns A. The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) does not evaluate the effect on the comprehensive plan of changes to Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A. C), which sets forth the indicators of urban sprawl Data and Analysis: Plan amendments are reviewed individually for their impact on the remainder of the plan, including but not limited to: density, intensity, compatibility, availability and level of services, topography and natural resources. 9J-5 identifies thirteen (13) primary indicators relating to urban sprawl. This is especially important in the City's western area adjacent to the Florida Shores Subdivision. The City annexed land parallel to S.R. 442 and west of 1-95 interchange. However, the City has not completed an analysis of the annexed lands' soil, environmental characteristics or potential developmental impacts to the surrounding area. The majority of the land is vacant/undeveloped and no substantial areas have been designated for low-intensity, low-density or single use development. Because the County FLUM designations remain on these lands, the City FLUM does not exhibit characteristics of urban sprawl. Although the annexed land will be a new gateway to the City of Edgewater the City has not analyzed the amount of land it will need in each land use category through its revised long- range planning period to accommodate its projected population. The City has not evaluated which, if any, FLUM categories to place on these annexed parcels and presently is not in a position to make recommendations for changes in density, intensity, or use. The City is in the process of establishing a joint planning area agreement with the County to assure future land uses are compatible with their FLUM and meet the intent of 9J-5. Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be forthcoming. Conclusion: F.A.C. rule changes, regarding urban sprawl, will effect the procedural evaluation process. Concurrency management and protection of natural resources will be crucial areas to be addressed. Recommendation: EAR-based amendments will be necessary to address specific and measurable goals and policies and criteria set out in Rule 9J-5.006(5), to discourage urban sprawl; Create new FLUM categories for the protection of significant environmentally sensitive lands and interstate related uses. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 1 ....... ....-' An analysis of the developed acreage and vacant acreage within each land use category has not been undertaken. Data and Analysis: A detailed, Existing Land Use Map was developed depicting the land use patterns in the City of Edgewater as of 1997. The map was prepared by examining aerial photographs, building permits, and county property appraiser tax roles. In addition a field survey was conducted by City staff for those properties needing verification. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM), is essentially a mirror image of the Existing Land Use Map in relationship to land use designations. The majority of vacant land, reflects the approved, surrounding, or compatible land use classifications in density and intensity. The developed acreage and vacant acreage (including the western annexation) within each land use category is shown as table LU-2A. B. Future Land Use (FLUE) Objective 4 of the city's comprehensive plan, requires adoption of Land Development Regulations (LDR's) which will limit development outside of the defined service areas and which will subsequently reduce limits to infill and redevelopment However, the conclusion that FLUE Objective 4 has been partially accomplished is not supported by data indicating adoption of those LDR's and analyzing the effectiveness of FLUE policies 4.1 through 4.3, in accomplishing the intent of the objective and,. Thefinding that FLUE Policy 4.1 (which requires that intense development beyond the established service area be prohibited) has been achieved based on the statement that "projects are reviewed" is not consistent with other EAR data indicating the extension of urban service area into the county to serve commercial uses on US 1. Thefinding that FLUE Policy 4.2 (which requires infill to be encouraged) has been achieved because efforts are ongoing is also inconsistent with the same urban service area extension data, especially in light of the City's conclusion of not having successfully established a revitalization plan along US 1. Inside the City limits. Data and Analysis: Objective 4; relating to adoption of Land Development Regulations which limit development outside of our service area, has not been accomplished. The effectiveness of FLUE policies 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 have been analyzed. Policy 4.1 is unenforceable as written. The service area reaches beyond the corporate limits. In most instances, the County forwards certain proposals for development to the City for review and comment. However, the City may object to, but not prohibit development outside it's established service areas. The City has an interlocal agreement with the County allowing potable and wastewater extensions south of the adopted service area. A portion of this area is served with potable DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 2 '-'" ...., water containing an existing single family subdivision and two small businesses. The remainder of the area comprises two developed mobile home parks, two developed single family subdivisions and vacant land. The County has acquired permits to install its own wastewater plant and will be serving the remaining southern area. Conclusion: After careful examination it has been determined that Objective 4 and Policy 4.1 will require rewriting as these are unattainable in, of, and by themselves. A new objective relating to a County/City land development agreement will be proposed along with measurable policies. Recommendation: Revise Table LU-3 to show a new objective, and measurable policies that discourage urban sprawl, as defined in 9J-5.006(5). An EAR based amendment will also be required. Data and Analysis: Policy 4.2 Since plan adoption, and the completion of major capital improvements, infill development has transpired in all areas of the City. Infill activity consists primarily of single family residential development occurring on a regular bases within the Florida Shores Subdivision and Edgewater Landings (manufactured home subdivision). Infill commercial development and redevelopment has been experienced along U.S. 1, Hibiscus and Guava Drives, Eaton Road and Indian River Blvd. (S.R 442). Industrial infill development and redevelopment growth has ensued along Park Ave., Old County Road, West Marion and Flagler Ave. Conclusion: Infill development and redevelopment is occurring on a regular basis. Data and Analysis: Policy 4.3 relates to the US #1 corridor revitalization. Development and redevelopment activities are occurring in this area. Currently the City has developed a beautification plan for US #1 and the Economic Development and the Planning and Zoning Boards are discussing possibilities of creating a Community Redevelopment Area district for the corridor. Recommendation: Strengthen policy to encourage additional and measurable Infill and revitalization efforts. An EAR based amendment shall be provided. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 3 ....... ...., 2. Natural Resource Protection A. The EAR does not include data and analysis concerning the current condition, quality and extent of its wetlands, but concludes that there has been no change except for annexation of additional wetlands, This conclusion is not based on analysis of data, especially given the revised Rule 9J-5.003 (149), F.A.C, definition of wetlands which will now affect more intensive areas of the City. Data and Analysis: The most current information available regarding wetlands within the City had been prepared and shown on the Natural Resource Map ( LU-4), included in the EAR. The information was based on the County's Vegetative Map, the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey for Volusia County and St. Johns Water Management District's Water Resource Atlas. The City does not have the resources available to do a site by site qualitative analysis, however, the LDRs require an environmental assessment at the time of any proposed development. It appears that Rule 9J-5.003 (149) as defined, would affect those areas annexed (as stated in the EAR), and portions of the undeveloped, large tract ofland north of Park Ave., slated for a Florida Inland Navigational Spoil Site. An environmental survey and assessment is underway for this site. There remain very small pockets of wetland type soils and plant species in and around the Florida Shores Subdivision. Another area affected is an older (1950s-60s), section of the City, which is essentially "built out" that has soil suitability and drainage problems associated with previous development. The later two identified have long been disturbed and are limited in their ability to perform any natural functions. The quality of wetlands associated with the western annexation area is unknown at this time. However, there have been no net loss of functioning wetlands since the plan adoption as there has been no development of the western annexed areas with the exception of the city water plant, permitted by the state. Conclusion: Based on data and analysis, the EAR mapped information provided, is consistent with the rule as the plan was adopted prior to the revised rule change. The data and analysis in item l.B, regarding natural resources, soil suitability and wetland information for the areas impacted by the Rule change, provides the best available data. However, new maps and policies should be included to ensure wetland protection as outlined in the new Rule change. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 4 ...... ,.., Recommendation: The Plan policies reflect the goal to establish Land Development Regulations that are consistent with meeting the wetlands protection guidelines. However, to ensure effectiveness, additional language requiring consistency with the natural vegetative map and the' Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (for development review), will be included in the LDRs. Update maps to determine condition, quality and quantity of wetlands, and apply conservation designations to those areas per SJRWMD and Corp of Engineers jurisdictional boundaries. An EAR based plan amendment shall be provided to require LDR's to be consistent with the new Rule change and its definitions. B. The Plan's wetland references address saltwater marsh vegetation and do not include other types of hydric soils or freshwater wetlands. The EAR does not include an evaluation of the effect on the comprehensive plan of changes to Rule 9J-5. 003 (149), F.A.C which defines wetlands based on hydric soil conditions as well as vegetation, or the need to include a concise wetlands definition in the plan, consistent with the revised Rule. Data and Analysis: The best available data to the City and used in the Plan was Volusia County Soils Map and V olusia County Vegetation Maps. Both of these sources were accepted and found sufficient by DCA for the County's EAR. Per DCA staff suggestions Saint Johns River Water Management District was contacted several times for assistance with wetland, soil and/or vegetative communities mapping information. Although promised on more than one occasion over the last few months, the City has not received any information or assistance from them. Conclusion: The new Rule change now provides for a more expansive and inclusive wetland definition, which may encompass more lands in the City. The Plans wetland definition will need to be revised to incorporate the Rule change. Recommendation: Include concise wetland definitions in the Plan, consistent with the revised Rule change. Revise the plan policies to include protection of all wetlands consistent with the new definitions. Include updated wetlands maps based on SJRWMD/Corps of Engineers jurisdictional boundaries. An Ear based amendment will be required. C While the EAR evaluates the need to revise the plan to be consistent with the changes to Rule 9J-5.013(3), F.A. C, the conclusion that the plan is currently consistent with the revised rule is not based on a sufficient analysis of the plan policies relative to the revised breadth and depth of protection now required to be in the policies themselves. While the LDR's must implement plan policies, it is not consistent with the revised rule for plan policies to defer to the LDR's or to allow management or other unspecified means of protecting wetlands and their functional value. Thus, the EAR's conclusion is not supported by the data. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 5 ....... ~ Data and Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan established policies do not reflect all of the definitions as now established in the Rule change. The Coastal Management and Conservation Element address the protection and conservation of the natural functions of wetlands and ecological communities associated with wetlands. Mangrove swamps, freshwater marsh, and estuarine marsh have been identified on the Natural Resource Map, but not hydric soils. Wetland and native upland habitats that exhibit resource values are evaluated for inclusion as conservation or passive recreation within future development plans. The City has adopted Plan policies that protect endangered and rare species and preserve environmentally sensitive lands and native vegetative communities. Conclusion: Although existing Plan policies meet the intent of the rule change, additional or revised Plan policies inclusive of all the protection regulations shall be included into the Plan for consistency with the new rule change. This shall also include policies that direct future land uses that are incompatible away from wetlands. Recommendation: Update the Plan's policies to be consistent with the definition changes to Rule 9J-5.013(3), and amend the Future Land Use Map to create new categories of land use patterns in warranted areas identified as having been impacted by the Rule change. D. The EAR concludes that it has not accomplished Conservation Policy 3.1, which requires the City to designate the most environmentally sensitive and ecologically unique vegetative communities as Conservation on the FLUM. The EAR discusses the need to designate the City's natural resources as Conservation in the EAR-based amendments; however, these amendments are not included on the list of needed EAR-based amendments. Data and Analysis: The designation of natural resources within the City to Conservation were listed in the EAR-based amendments (#3.), for the Conservation Element, but did not specify it be included on the FLUM. This shall include the western annexation area. Conclusion: same Recommendation: Designate the most environmentally sensitive and ecologically unique vegetative communities in the City as Conservation, or other new category "specifically" on the FLUM. An EAR based amendment will be required. E. The EAR concludes that the City has achieved Conservation Objective 4, to protect the natural functions and values of its flood plains, because it has adopted an ordinance which is consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program Policies. However, the National Flood Insurance Program establishes standards for construction within the flood plains, not for protection of flood plains natural functions and values. Thus, the data does not support this conclusion and; DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 6 ....... ...." Also the EAR concludes the City has achieved Conservation policy 4.2, which requires 1 OO-year flood plains to be given the highest priority for designation as conservation areas or for acquisition; however, this conclusion is inconsistent with the data on the FLUM showing all but seven acres of flood plains being designated for urban or industrial development Data and Analysis: Policy 4.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall maintain its floodplain management ordinance which includes the development standards required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The adopted referenced ordinance 9.5 lists specific criteria for new construction or substantial improvements within the floodplain areas as well as penalties for violations. This in of and by itself does not protect the flood plains from development but assures compliance with strict applications of wetland protection, dredge and fill activities and provides for mitigating circumstances, when constitutional takings issues maybe at hand. Policy 4.2 states the 100 year floodplain shall be given high priority in the selection of conservation areas and public acquisition of lands for conservation and recreation purposes. The code has an exemption for those lands platted and accepted by the governing body. Therefore it is not feasible and no resources are available for land acquisition. The policy states there is no change in the status and that the policy has been achieved. This is incorrect. The policy can not be achieved. Conclusion: The Conservation goal has not been achieved. Recommendation: Revise Table CNS-l to remove policy 4.2. F. The EAR concludes the City has not achieved Conservation Policy 1.5, to adopt regulations limiting type and intensity of uses over recharge areas. The EAR recommends that if undeveloped lands are found in recharge areas, the City will adopt goals, objectives and policies to protect these areas. The recommendation is inadequate because it would only protect undeveloped lands while redevelopment activities would not be evaluated for effect on both the surficial aquifer, which affects the Mosquito Lagoon, and the Floridan aquifer, which supplies the City's drinking water. Also, the EAR states there are no undeveloped recharge areas in the City. However, the existing land use map depicts undeveloped areas in eastern portion of the City (which are within recharge areas as depicted by Conservation Element Recharge Map _ Figure 6). Additionally, annexed lands on the Rima Ridge include recharge areas which are rural, agricultural and environmentally sensitive and do not have urban land uses existing on-site. Thus, the EAR data is inconsistent with other data and does not support the recommendations. Data and Analysis: The map depicted in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (shown asfigure E-1 and referred to in the DCA report as E-6) outlines the city's 180 DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 7 ..... ..".,- reserve area, not the corporate limits. Identified in the EAR was a recharge area known as the Turnbull Hammock and shown on figure E-l. However further research has found this to be a discharge area identified by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) in the reserve area (outside the City). The District is currently pursuing land acquisition and preservation of a portion of this area with the support of the City and Volusia County. There exists one area that the District depicts as having four (4) to eight (8) inches of recharge capacity per year. This area is adjacent to Interstate 95. The 1994 DEP 305(b) report regarding surface water quality assessment resulted in determining that the City of Edgewater's surface water quality rating to be "fair". SJRWMD has contracted with East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to update the District's Future Land Use Maps and to determine potential land use/aquifer recharge area conflicts. Conclusion: The City needs to identify and update its maps based on the new Rule definitions and locate recharge or potential recharge areas within the City service areas. Recommendation: Work closely with the District who will designate high recharge areas and utilize this information as a basis for future land use planning and recharge protection strategies, such as overlay zoning districts for the important aquifer recharge area(s). An EAR based amendment will be required. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 8 .... ...."" 3. Concurrency Management (Transportation) A. The EAR's analysis of the effect of changes to Subsection 163.33180, F.S., and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A. C, upon the plan is inadequate because it does not compare the changes to the current policies. Thus, the EAR's conclusion that the current policies are consistent with the revised rules is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The current plan policies are not consistent with the revised Rule because they do not require the local government to be fiscally responsible for maintaining adopted level of service standards for facilities and services provided by the City, do not require the local government to adopt a financially feasible plan which demonstrates the adopted LOS standards will be maintained, do not provide adequate guidelines for interpreting and applying LOS standards, and do not determine the latest point (consistent with the Rule) in the development process prior to a development order or permit approval for a specific plan of development The 15 "considerations" which the City reviews during its annual Capital Improvements Element review are supportive but, not being mandatory bases for decisions, may be rejected by the decision-makers; not being enforceable, they cannot meet the requirements of the revised rule. Further, CIE Policy 5.6 allows conditional approval when needed road improvements are not in place when the development order is issued This policy is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5. 0055(3) (c)2. , F.A. C, because it does not condition approval upon the road improvement being included in the first three years of the adopted CIS and upon the plan including policies which require a plan amendment in order to eliminate, delete or defer such improvements from the CIS. CIE Policy 5. 7 is inconsistent with the revised rule because it allows for an unspecified concurrency variance, but the rule does not provide for variances other than the exemptions contained therein. Also, the Department notes that a 500-trip minimum threshold for concurrency testing is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A. C, and Section 163.3180, F.S. Data and Analysis: After review of the changes to the Rule and subsection 163.33180 F.S. the current policies are not consistent with revised rules. Capital Improvements Element Policy 5.6 currently allows approval of a development conditioned on the provision that the development will meet adequate infrastructure prior to any occupancy of the development. According to 9J-5.0055(3)(c)2., F.A.C. a development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the development are 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. In addition, 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. Due to scrivener's error Table CIE-3 did not include policy 5.6 although it was adopted per ordinance 90-0-18. This information will be included in a revised table to correct the error. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 9 ...... ...., Conclusion: Some of the policies are not consistent with the new revised rules. One current policy is inconsistent with 9J-5.0055(3)(c)2., F.A.C. by not requiring submittal of a CIS prior to issuance of a development order and by not requiring the infrastructure to be in place or under construction within three years of issuance of certificate of occupancy. Recommendation: Update the Plan to include an objective and supporting policies that indicate that the Transportation Element is consistent with the standards established in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Provide policies that require fiscal and financial responsibility and guidelines for maintaining adopted levels of service standards for facilities and services provided by the City. Revise the plan to incorporate the condition that a CIS is to be submitted by the developer, prior to issuance of a development order, which includes a schedule of infrastructure improvements. Require necessary infrastructure facilities and services needed to serve the development to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of the development order. Also, revise the plan to require a plan amendment 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. Continue to participate in the long- range transportation planning process undertaken by the V olusia County MPO. An EAR-based amendment will be required. Data and Analysis: Capital Improvements Element Policy 5.7 provides for a variance procedure to ensure that denial of any permit under its provisions shall not result in a deprivation of the reasonable beneficial use of the land in question. Such variance procedure shall limit development to the minimum necessary to create a reasonable and beneficial use notwithstanding that a higher or more intense use may be otherwise established under the plan. Due to scrivener's error Table CIE-3 did not include policy 5.7 although it was adopted per ordinance 90-0-18. This information will be included in a revised table to correct the error. Conclusion: The current policy is inconsistent with Subsection 163.3180(5) through (10), F.S., because it does not provide for variances of the concurrency requirement. Recommendation: Revise the plan to allow a variance from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities if the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and is a project that promotes public transportation or is located within an area designated in the comprehensive plan for: 1) Urban infill development; 2) Urban redevelopment. An EAR-based amendment will be required. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 10 ..... ,.",.". Data and Analysis: It is recognized that the 500-trip minimum threshold for concurrency testing is inconsistent with Rule 9J -5.0055, F.A.C., and Subsection 163.3180, F.S. Conclusion: This was addressed in the original EAR report under the Traffic Circulation Element Effect of Changes to Traffic Circulation Element. Recommendation: Revise and recommend that the City grant individual projects exemptions from the traffic Concurrency requirements provided these projects meet the de minimis standards for such exemptions as established in Rule 9J-5 and any other standards the City may establish for such exemptions. An EAR-based amendment will be necessary. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 11 .... ...., 4. Intergovernmental Coordination The EAR does not include an evaluation of the effect of changes to subparagraph 163.3177(6) (h) 2., F. S., which provides that the City shall execute formal agreements establishing the joint processes described in that paragraph, one year after adoption of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). The EAR's data indicated that execution of several interlocal agreements required by the ICE policies has not been accomplished and that these agreements would be redundant and unnecessary. The evaluation of policy achievement is not based on the measurable target - which is the execution of the agreements - but has been modified to evaluate ongoing efforts at intergovernmental coordination. Thus, the EAR's conclusion that the policies have been achieved has been based on analysis of inappropriate data. Further, the EAR does not include recommendations either to assure that the interlocal agreements will be executed in the future or to modify the policies in any other way which will assure accomplish of the policy's intent Data and Analysis: The Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) states the City will develop an interlocal agreement with V olusia County establishing the planning for areas adjacent to and surrounding the City; develop an interlocal agreement with the Volusia County School Board regarding the use of existing school playground facilities and future facilities; develop and interlocal agreement with V olusia County regarding the protection of natural resources, especially the Turnbull Hammock Area in the south western area outside the City; work with V olusia County to develop an interlocal agreement for the planning area which also covers issues related to annexation activities. According to subparagraph 163.3177(6)(h)2., F.S., the City shall execute formal agreements establishing the joint processes described in that paragraph one year after adoption of the ICE. An interlocal agreement with V olusia County School Board for school siting has been approved and formally executed. The City has an interlocal agreement (adopted by resolution) for planning purposes with the City of New Smyrna Beach. Included in the resolution is language regarding the extension of potable water and wastewater sewer lines. This applies to the westerly extension of our north corporate limits and also serves as the north line of our service area boundary. The City also has an agreement with the County regarding service areas but not specifically for planning purposes. This is being pursued. However, V olusia County has a Growth Management Commission which is an agency established to review all comprehensive plans county wide for consistency, Concurrency, and accuracy. This commission is responsible for any dispute resolution(s) which may arise between local government agencies. This commission is unique in that Volusia County is the only known county in Florida to establish such an agency. Conclusion: This policy has not been totally implemented. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 12 ....,. ..., Recommendation: Revise EAR to indicate policy has not been achieved. Revise policy to be consistent with 163.3177(6)(h) 2. and with activities of coordination with the County and other local government agencies. Revise plan to acknowledge the implementation of the Volusia County Growth Management Commission in lieu of developing some interlocal agreements. An EAR-based amendment is necessary. DCA Sufficiency Review Comments and Response Document Page - 13 - ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ t; ~:s. "C ~ c.. Q ~'il = ~ ~ "C C ;;;J "C ~ c.. Q~ - ~ ~ a.. ~ ~ ~:s. c ;;;J "C ~ c.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ "C ~~ Q ~ 'il ~ ~~ ~ ~ bJ)rI.l c;;;J '.c "C .~ C ~ ~ ~...:l ~ 0\ VI 0\ \0 ....... ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ r--- 0\ 0\ 0\ o r--- ('.l ~ ('.l ~ r--- M ~ ....... ;>-. .-:: v.l ~ Q) o ~ o ....:l "@ '.g Q) "1:l .- v.l Q) ~ ~ ~ 0\ 00 M \0 ('.l ~ ('.l ~ M 0\ M VI ~ M \0 0\ 0\ o ....... ;>-. .-:: v.l ~ Q) o a ;:j .- "1:l Q) ::E "@ '.g Q) "1:l .- v.l Q) ~ ...... ~ 00 M 0\ ~ VI ~ ....... 0\ 00 ....... ~ ('.l ~ o M VI ;>-. ...... ';;j ~ o ...c: on ::E "@ '.g Q) "1:l .- v.l ~ "@ .- u .... ~ o U ~ r--- ('.l 00 00 00 ~ ~ ('.l M \0 ~ 00 ....... ....... ~ ....... ....... \0 M o r--- M ~ 00 ....... 00 VI ~ M VI r--- ~ ~ M \0 o "@ 'C ...... v.l .g ~ - ~ ....... ~ ~ 0\ ~ r--- \0 M ('.l ~ ('.l ~ 00 r--- \0 c: o .~ Q) .... u Q) ~ ~ ....... ~ ....... ('.l 0\ 0\ ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ 0\ ('.l 00 r--- 0\ Q) .... .B 8 'c ~ ~ ....... r--- ~ ('.l r--- ~ o o ~ o .~ C Q) v.l ~ o U ~ \0 M ('.l 0\ ....... ~ ~ 00 M 0\ 0\ \0 M ~ 00 ~ ('.l ('.l 00 ('.l .S:! ....... ..0 ;:j ,:l.. I 's Q) V) ~ ::0 ;:j ,:l.. .....". ?!- o o ..... Q) .... cB Q) .... Q) ...c: ...... "1:l ~ ~ o ~ o r--- .~ v.l ~ ..0 Q) ...... ...... . v.l v.l Q) ;>-. . C ..0 0 Q) on . -:: Q) v.l ~ ~ u ~ ;>-. o .-:: v.l c: Q) .5 ~ = o o ..... v.l o .- ~ .... Q) U ut+=: <S .~ ;:j 0... v.l v.l v.l Q) ;:j .... o 0 .- a ~ 0 a.s ...... ~ --g ~ ... 0 ~"1:l C5 ~ ...... Q) ~~ .... 0 ~ ..0.... Q) .... ...... ~ 0 .... ~ o Q) o .... r:+:: ~ ;>-.Q) ..0 6 "1:l ..0 Q) ~ - --< ~ 2 ~ ~ 0 o...c: u v.l ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ .~ Q) ~ ~ .::P v.l Q) "1:l Q) v.l ;:j "1:l ~ .$ I,C ClO o ~ I,C l"') ~ = o o ..... ~ ..... 0\ C'\ l"') l"') ...:l ~ o ~ "@ '.g Q) "1:l .- v.l Q) .... I ~ 83 C+-........ o ~ ;>-'"1:l .~ .00 ~ e Q) I ~ g .- ~ Q) Q) ..c:...c: f-;...... 00- >2: 00 N 0\0 .......'--. M~ ~ > ....... ~ ... --.""I ~ 0 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a 0 .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ........ ........ ...... ........ ...... ........ ...... ...... ........ ........ .fj) Il) '"0 Il) '" ;::l '"0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ce I.r) 00 0 '<t 0\ \D M N t-- 0 0 .~ \D I.r) M N I.r) N M 0\ 00 0 0 ........ ........ Il) :sl '" ~ I a .::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s I.r) N t-- \D ........ "'<t t-- M M "'<t 0\ t-- '<t t-- \D 00 ...... Il) ..... <2 Il) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"0 0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 @ I.r) "'<t t-- t-- M ........ \D I.r) ...... "'<t <-: 0 .... .~ '" ell ..0 0\ 0\ N Il) \D M "'<t M 0\ 0 .~ 00 0\ 00 ""': N 0 l"'"i '" 00 0 \D 0\ ~ "'<t M '<i 00 ........ 0\ 0 t-- 0 :>. \D 00 ........ '<t t-- ..0 ........ N I.r) '<t 0\ '<t t-- N "'<t .~ '" ell .::: 0 ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .9 0 0 0 '<t 0 t<i M ........ M N I.r) M 00 \D ""': 0 \D ........ ..... .... Il) u 't3 ;::l '" '" ;::l 0 0\ M \D 0\ \C> .~ 0\ 0\ 0\ '<t 0\ \D 0\ I.r) ~ 0\ 0\ l"'"i 0\ ~ Il) ~ oci I.r) 0 \D 0. 0 M 0 M \D ........ t-- N t-- I.r) ........ N M M \D N Ir) .s N ........ ...... ~ '"0 @ '" 0 "I:;l '{g rJi <II ..... Q. ~ ell Il) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Il) .;:: ~ t-- I.r) ........ 0 ~ 0 .~ I.r) '<t N M M ........ "'<t 0 t>Il - ..... Il) = 0 t<i 0 u <;::;0 :>. .- ..0 '" '"0 .::: ~ Il) t-- \D "'<t \D "'<t "'<t li'J ~ .s 0\ M N 0\ ""': '0 0 0 v) 00 - M 0\ M t-- N 0 0 - .b u "'<t 0 I.r) t-- t-- \D 00 M 0\ Ir) .::: '+1 ........ M N N 0 .u u Il) Il) ~ ~ Il) '" ..... Il) s ~ <II ..... '" ;::l Il) .. 0 0 ~ '"0 ce 3 s "EJ .s 5 g< 'E 0 .~ ~ ce ce ] t'il U '"0 '"@ :sl .~ ~ B .fj) 0 '" Q "I:;l Il) "0 Il) ~ :sl .~ ..... .::: '"0 <II @ '" ~ .fj) '" :0 ce ~ Il) rW Il) .~ Il) .B ~ .e 0 ~ Il) ~ ;::l I:l .::: 0 ~ '" P-. '" .SfJ ~ ce '- ..... 5 .~ .@ ;::l 0 ~ 0 ..0 .~ ce ce ~ '" +-' '"0 Il) .~ 0 Q '" 'g .~ .::: = ~ g Il) '" .::: ~ .::: 5 ce Il) ........ ]" ~ '" ~ Il) if] g Il) 0- Q .B t<i --- '"0 c' ~ .::: ~ '2' Q ~ .~ Il) Il) 00 :..a ~ '" Il) ~ a '" .!:1 .s 0\ M l:: ;::l ..... :0 Il) 6 ~ Il) --- ~ Il) '"0 u 0 8 0 ;;- M 0 ~ tE .s Il) ;::l p:; u Il) 0 ;::; ....l U ~ P-. '-'-< ....l W-l Eo-< ...c: ..0 ;; f-< <> ell ....