PLACEMENT: Public Hearings
TITLE:
title
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 6, SECTION 3.261, JENSEN BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICTS, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
end
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
executive summary
The proposed amendments to the Jensen Beach Code eliminate conflict and inconsistency while minimizing substantive changes. The Community Redevelopment Agency received a presentation and members had their questions answered about the CRA “Glitch Bills” at its meeting on June 26, 2017. At their meetings on May 3, 2018 and June 7, 2018, respectively, the Jensen Beach Neighborhood Advisory Committee and the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Jensen Beach code, Section 3.261, LDR.
body
DEPARTMENT: Growth Management
PREPARED BY: Name: Irene A. Szedlmayer, AICP
Title: Senior Planner
REQUESTED BY: Board of County Commissioners
PRESET:
PROCEDURES: None
BACKGROUND/RELATED STRATEGIC GOAL:
Update of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) as they apply within Martin County’s seven Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) was identified as a strategic objective of the Board of County Commissioners in 2015. Towards that objective, in April 2017, amendments were adopted to Article 4, Division 14, Parking and Loading, to allow certain on-street parking where posted speed limits are 30 mph or less, and to Article 4, Division 19, Roadway Design, to refine the standards for traditional neighborhood streets. Amendments have also been adopted to Article 3, Division 6, Redevelopment Overlay Districts, applicable within the Port Salerno CRA, the Hobe Sound CRA and the Old Palm City CRA.
ISSUES:
1. The proposed changes to Martin County, FLA, LDR, §3.263 (2018), are identified and described in the staff report. Despite the extensive amount of text struck-through for deletion or underlined for insertion, the substantive changes are limited and enumerated and explained in the staff report. Most of the changes involve re-organization to make the code easier to use and incorporation of the uncodified Design Regulations and several Comprehensive Growth Management Plan policies into the text of the LDRs.
2. Between the first reading and the second reading of this ordinance, staff expects to propose to eliminate the requirement that signs in Jensen Beach be reviewed and approved by the Jensen Beach Sign Committee. In staff’s experience this requirement causes unnecessary and unreasonable delay. Staff will discuss this issue with the Jensen Beach NAC at the NAC’s meeting on July 11, 2018. If the NAC agrees with this change, the amendment will be proposed for the second reading.
3. Pursuant to Section 125.66 (4)(b), F.S. the Board must consider the proposed changes to the zoning code at two public hearings. Staff recommends the Board set the date for a second public hearing at least 10 days from this public hearing and hold the public hearing before 5 p.m. Section 125.66 (4)(b), F.S. is set forth below:
“In cases in which the proposed ordinance or resolution changes the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or changes the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land involving 10 contiguous acres or more, the board of county commissioners shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows:
1. The board of county commissioners shall hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance or resolution. At least one hearing shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday, unless the board of county commissioners, by a majority plus one vote, elects to conduct that hearing at another time of day. The first public hearing shall be held at least 7 days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held at least 10 days after the first hearing and shall be advertised at least 5 days prior to the public hearing.”
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW:
This is a legislative matter. Legislative decisions are those in which the local government formulates policy rather than applying specific rules to a particular situation. A local government’s approval or denial of an issue in its legislative capacity is typically subject to a fairly debatable standard of review. Fairly debatable means that the government’s action must be upheld if reasonable minds could differ as to the propriety of the decision reached. Decisions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review need only be rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, such as the health, safety, and welfare of the public, to be valid. Given this broad discretion, only decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or illegal are subject to serious legal challenge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION
Move that the Board, pursuant to Section 125.66(4)(b)1, by a majority plus one vote, set August 14, 2017 as the date for a second public hearing prior to 5:00 PM.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
Move that the Board direct staff to complete further work on the proposed amendments and to return to the Board at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Time.
|
Funding Source |
County Funds |
Non-County Funds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
|
Project Total |
|
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff Time.
DOCUMENT(S) REQUIRING ACTION:
☐Budget Transfer / Amendment ☐ Chair Letter ☐Contract / Agreement
☐Grant / Application ☐Notice ☐Ordinance ☐Resolution
☐Other: