Okaloosa County BOCC — January 19, 2016 — OC-6 Addendum — reading text

STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON,P.A. ADDENDUM SUPPORTING PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BLUEWATER BAY DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION/CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION WITH OKALOOSA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PREPARED BY KENNETH METCALF, AICP PLANNING DIRECTOR JULY 10. 2015 1 Kenneth Metcalf, AI Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Addendum - Compatibility/Consistency Determination This Addendum was prepared in response to a request for additional analysis as set forth in the letter, dated June 6, 2015 from Elliot Kampert, Okaloosa County Growth Management Director, to Jesse Rigby, Esq. Mr. Kampert's letter states that "the Analysis should explain how the proposed addition of 21 units furthers the established, orderly pattern of development in the DRI." The Comprehensive Plan does not require that DRI amendments or other development orders "further the established, orderly pattern of development." In fact, none of the objectives or policies includes such language. Rather, Goal 1 states that it is the goal of Okaloosa County to "promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development." This general goal is implemented by more specific objectives and policies. The purpose of goals, objective and policies is important in determining the review standard for development applications. Section 163.3164, F.S., defines goals, objectives and policies as follows: (19) "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. (33) "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. (36) "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Thus, goals set forth desired long term ends or outcomes, while objectives set forth intermediate ends or milestones marking progress toward achieving the goal. Policies describe programs and activities that will be implemented to ultimately achieve a goal. The Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes this hierarchy and makes clear that development orders must be evaluated for consistency with only these objectives and policies that include specific development standards as opposed to generalized goal statements. Section 1.7 of the Administration Element specifically addresses how development orders will be evaluated for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. It recognizes the distinction between goals, objectives and policies, and specifically requires the following consistency review: A development order shall be considered consistent with this Plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies, land uses, densities or intensities, prescribed in this Plan.(emphasis added) The analysis previously submitted follows this requirement and demonstrates consistency with the objectives and policies that address compatibility. Section 1.7.4 further specifies that only those objectives or policies that include a regulation or development limitation (i.e., a Page 1 of2 Bluewater Bay DRI Proposed Development Order Amendment Addendum - Compatibility/Consistency Determination development review standard) that is relevant and germane to the proposed development would be considered in determining consistency. Goal 1 calls for the County to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. This goal is implemented by Objectives 3 and 4 and related implementation polices. The initial analysis evaluated those objectives and policies in detail and demonstrated that the Proposed Amendment is consistent with all standards as set forth in those and other relevant objectives and policies. The goal of promoting orderly development patterns has been implemented by policy standards related to compatibility of uses. The initial analysis demonstrates that the Proposed Amendment is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. As specifically mandated by Section 1.7, no further evaluation is required or necessary. However, even if the applicable development standard were "orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development," the initial analysis clearly demonstrates that the County has considered adjacent subdivisions to be compatible, even where multifamily is located adjacent to single family and where lot sizes differences between adjacent subdivisions were substantially greater as compared to the differences between the Proposed Amendment and surrounding neighborhoods. Thus, the County has concluded that such differences do not create incompatible land uses and thus do not result in disorderly development patterns. The Proposed Amendment warrants the same conclusion. Page 2 of 2