Okaloosa County BOCC — October 4, 2013 — Action Item Printout — reading text

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST DATE: November 19, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board FROM: Elliot Kampert SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Changes to LDC, Section 1.11.08 DEPARTMENT: Growth Management BCC DISTRICT: All PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for changes to the Land Development Code (LDC) submitted by the Department of Growth Management revising Chapter 1 General Provisions, Section 1.11.08 “Development Order Hearing.” STAFF FINDINGS: The LDC was substantially revised in January, 2011 including Section 1.11.08. This section was revised so as to provide due process in the form of a development order hearing for any party that might take exception to or otherwise wish to challenge the issuance of a Development Order (DO) by the Department of Growth Management (“Department”). Since January, 2011 there have been three development order hearings held pursuant to Section 1.11.08 (Coastal Breeze, Gulf Coast Helicopters, and TownPlace Suites Hotel). Section 1.11.08 presently states “Upon completion of the administrative review specified in section 1A.03.03, 4 the Planning Official shall issue a Notice of Intent to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development order. At this time any person, including the Planning Official, may petition for a Development Order Hearing. The petition shall be in writing and submitted to the Planning Official within ten [10] days after the date a Notice of Intent is issued. At a minimum, the petition shall state the name, address, and telephone number of the Petitioner and the reason(s), in as much detail as possible, why the petitioner is objecting to the development order at issue.” Based on experiences with DO hearings thus far, it is staff's opinion that this language is too broad and vague for staff to prepare a defensible response to the Petition, or for the Planning Commission to be fully informed about the objection or challenge at issue. That is to say that any person for virtually any reason can request a DO hearing based on frivolous reasons or to simply create hardship or delay for the development applicant. When reviewing development order applications the County is compelled by law to follow the development regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. These regulations provide the essential requirements that a developer must follow to obtain approval, must be equally applied to all applicants, and when met will result in the issuance of a development order. This system is intended to provide certainty to a development applicant that after considerable time and expense involved in project planning the rules don’t change in the middle of the game, and certainty to nearby property owners that the project will be built in accordance with established regulations that are published for anyone to see and review. When a petition for a DO hearing is filed the Petitioner is essentially asserting that the County did not conduct a proper review of the development application in accordance with adopted development regulations. As a matter of fairness, the Petitioner should be required to identify those LDC requirements or provisions that were allegedly not followed so that the County, and the development applicant when necessary, can adequately respond to the allegations. This will also enable the County to present a more definitive report to the Planning Commission so that an informed decision can be reached. Objections raised in the Petition should be limited only to requirements and provisions of the LDC and not the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The process and procedure for challenging the consistency of a development order with an adopted comprehensive plan is specified by state law at Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2013 to consider changes to the DO hearing process. There was considerable discussion at that hearing which resulted in direction to planning staff to make certain changes in the proposed language. These changes have been incorporated into the language as shown in Attachments A, B and C. PUBLIC COMMENT/OPPOSITION: None to date. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval at a public hearing held October 10, 2013. MILITARY REPRESENTATIVE: No comment. STAFF POSITION: Staff supports the requested changes to the Land Development Code. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board consider the facts presented herein, the Planning Commission recommendation, as well as any other facts that may be presented at the public hearing, and then decide whether or not to adopt the proposed LDC changes by ordinance. RECOMMENDED BY: APPROVED BY: Ernie Padgett, County Administrator