Okaloosa County BOCC — January 19, 2016 — OC-1 Staff Analysis — reading text

proposed development will not exceed or degrade level-of-service standards specified 7 in the Capital Improvements Element, or; 3. The developer of the project involved pays a proportionate share fee consistent with applicable laws and ordinances. Staff response: The proposed change will not require additional mitigation above that anticipated by the original DRI DO. Public facilities and services are adequate and available, and proposed level-of-service standards will not be exceeded or degraded. The requested change is consistent with this criterion. 1.7.4 Consistency with objectives and policies: A development or development order shall be deemed consistent with the objectives and policies of this Plan as follows: 1. The objective or policy must first have the effect of being a regulation, restriction, or limitation on the allowable land use or development project, or otherwise imposes a condition as a prerequisite to development (for example, an objective imposing a shoreline setback would be such a restriction where an objective that states the county will pave X miles of roads would not); 2. The objective or policy is relevant and germane to the issue(s) or objection(s) raised relative to a particular development or development order (for example, application of a coastal-related policy to a non- coastal area or an urban –related policy to a rural area), and; 3. No objective or policy shall be applied, used, or taken out of context. Each numbered objective and it’s corresponding numbered policies must be evaluated as a whole to fully determine the intended meaning and context. Staff response: An evaluation of this criterion was provided by the Applicant as part of the compatibility analysis. The requested change is consistent with this criterion. d. The development will be consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency submitted pursuant to Section 380.06(12), F.S. Staff response: The regional planning agency has issued a letter concluding no additional review of regional impact is necessary. STAFF POSITION As the party requesting the change the Applicant has the burden of proving that the application should be approved. Specifically, the applicant must show by competent, substantial evidence that the proposed changes to the DO DRI are consistent with the applicable provisions of the land development code and comprehensive plan, and are not incompatible with the surrounding and overall plan of development. Staff position is as follows. 1. The proposed change to the DRI DO does constitute a change not previously vested under the DO or amendments thereto, but does not constitute a substantial deviation therefrom. 2. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the proposed change is consistent with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed change does not interfere with achievement of the objectives of an applicable state land development plan. 8 4. The proposed change is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. 5. Any approval of the proposed change should be conditioned upon this specific requested change only and should state that said approval does not imply, form a precedent for, or warrant the basis for any future approvals. 9