2.4.2.2. Airport Development and Incompatible Land
Use
A major
fallacy of the DEIS analysis is that it has evaluated the current airport site
as it if was a new location, applying illogical standards, biased in favor of
the sponsor’s preferred site in West Bay.
The DEIS has backed in to justifying relocation by picking out specific
enabling standards and comprehensive planning considerations that will
support relocation vice improving the current site. Analysis of the current site should be done in context of comparison
of total impacts, environmentally and economically, between expanding as
necessary at the current site and building an entirely new airport in a
environmentally sensitive, undeveloped location.
2.4.2.2.1
Surrounding Incompatible Land Use
The
description of supposedly incompatible residential uses is severely
exaggerated. In retrospect, the local
governments have realized available land around the airport should have been
purchased with the intent of ensuring only compatible uses were developed. However, the fact this did not happen can be
remedied if the case is proven that incompatible land use is, in deed, a
problem. There is no documentation to
prove any such problem exists that would warrant the expenditure of potentially
half a billion dollars to relocate the airport.
The proximity of subdivisions identified in this paragraph
have not resulted in any public safety or health issues, and noise abatement
techniques have resolved most complaints.
Impacts to these subdivisions have been minimal, if at all. There are no traffic impacts to these
residential areas, and no aircraft accidents impacting areas beyond the airport
property. In fact, there is no history
of any conflicts of aircraft operations with surrounding development.
If at some point in the future, justification is provided
to expand the current site, adjacent properties can be purchased at
signficantally lower costs than relocating the airport.
The DEIS implies incompatible land uses will continue to
increase adjacent to the current airport.
That is not the case. Table 5-13
indicates both Panama City and Bay County have included provisions in their
comprehensive plans that will preclude any further encroachment at the current
site.
The DEIS implies residential properties can be built out
to as much as 25 units per acre. Again,
an exaggeration. Claims of this
excessive density are represented to be supported by Figure 2-5. This map inaccurately portrays
jurisdictional lines, and is therefore, a biased document that cannot be
properly evaluated. Further, most of
the area within a 2-mile radius of the airport property is built out, and at
much lower density than 25 units per acre (see below comments).
The DEIS further claims that growth in Bay County is
projected to concentrate in western Bay County. This contention is disputable.
The land in the western portion of unincorporated Bay County is in the
“Beaches Special Treatment Zone,” and, due to exposure to tropical storms, a
has density limitation. But again, much
of this land is built out. The
undeveloped land in western Bay County contains considerable amounts of
wetlands and floodplains and is unsuitable for extensive development. Development that is occurring is geared
toward tourists who drive from surrounding areas and not industry that is the
primary basis for relocation. .
The St Joe Company, being the primary landowner in the
western end of the County, would also be the benefactor from relocating the
airport to the proximate center of its land holdings. The development pattern of this company in this area has been
geared toward of seasonal dwellings and buyers who would be only occasional air
travelers. It is more realistic to
conclude future growth, especially commercial/industrial, will occur to the
northeast area of the County via US Hwy 231 that provides a direct link to
Interstate 10. Growth patterns for
industrial facilities would indicate a more suitable site for relocating the
airport, if the need should ever arise, would be to the northeast, vice to the
wetlands of West Bay.
2.4.4
Develop for Consistency with Local Planning Objectives.
The DEIS states that Bay County’s long- range planning
would be compatible with the airport relocation. The County’s long-range planning does not lock in an airport in
the West Bay area but would also be compatible with maintaining the airport at
its current site or anywhere else in Bay County or, for example, in a more
regionalized site to the northeast in the quad-county area of Bay, Washington,
Calhoun and Jackson. Such a location
serving a much larger, year-round constituency, with more direct automobile
access, was not even considered in the DEIS, but it offers a much less
environmentally damaging alternative to the preferred West Bay location.
The FAA has relied heavily on Bay County’s sector planning
process to justify relocating the airport to land belonging to the St Joe
Company within the sector plan area.
Contrary to the sway of this paragraph, the County did not initiate
studies for the West Bay Sector Plan that happen to accommodate relocation of
the airport. The sponsor’s desire to
relocate the airport to the St Joe Company property drove the need for
long-range planning in the West Bay area, ostensibly to protect the
ecologically sensitive area. Had the
sponsor and the St Joe Company not chosen this West Bay site for relocation, it
is most probable, the County would not have contemplated the proposed
accompanying massive industrial complex in the West Bay area, which is the
heart of the St Andrew Bay watershed and the County’s rural community.
It is feasible the sector plan area could accommodate an
airport when the need arises, but not in the preferred site and not for the
foreseeable future. In deed, the
sponsors’ relocation plans are inconsistent with the optional sector plan
statute, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, ss 163.3245. Primary goals of sector planning as indicated in 163.3245(3)
(a)4, are to restore key ecosystems, achieve a more clean, healthy environment,
limit urban sprawl, and protect wildlife and natural areas. Relocating the airport into the
undeveloped, unserviced, ecologically sensitive West Bay area, with the intent
of destroying in excess of 4,000 acres of wetlands, habitat, and wildlife,
seriously conflicts with the intent of the sector planning law. Additional conflicts with the sector plan
element of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan are addressed below.
The DEIS indicates the Airport Detailed Specific Area Plan
(DSAP) is based on a 20-year planning period for the relocated airport. This period is considerably insufficient to
analyze the feasibility and total cumulative impacts of the West Bay site.
The DEIS implies the airport will be supported by growth
in the West Bay DSAP, however, the DEIS indicates only a small portion of the
DSAP, Phase I, is planned for development within the sponsor’s identified
time-frame of 20 years.
“Phase I addresses development over a 20-6ear period
that would occur within the West Bay DSAP.
Phase II of the West Bay DSAP addresses developments that would occur
beyond the 2023 timeframe.”
Phase I development consists of a 650-unit “river-camp”
development (implying part-time occupancy), a hotel, and supporting commercial
facilities, hardly enough to warrant the half billion dollar relocation of the
airport. Furthermore, the growth
projections are based on the marketing decisions of one landowner – the St Joe
Company, who cannot be required to develop any of its property in the West
Bay DSAP.
The DEIS is replete with superfluous verbiage aimed at
supporting relocating the airport to the St Joe Company property. “Through the sector planning process, goals
for land use, environment, and transportation have been established for PFN and
future development within a 75,000-acre region. The wide range of goals are indicative of the long-term
opportunity that is available should the existing PFM be relocated to West Bay
Area.” There is no such planning
assessment for other alternatives.
It should be noted for investigation, these references to
the sponsor’s expenditure of time and effort on the West Bay site, and
particularly that goals have already been established for PFN within the sector
planning area, bringing into question both the sponsor’s and FAA’s objectivity
in preparing the EIS, as well as potential waste of public funds based on a
premature assumption the EIS would find relocation to the site on the St Joe
Company land would be the least environmentally damaging, all other factors
considered.
4.3 Compatible Land Uses
Whereas
the DEIS emphasizes potential compatibility issues with the current site and
surrounding land uses, it does not address the incompatibility of building an
airport/industrial complex in the West Bay site with the surrounding
ecologically sensitive areas, including the County-identified Ecosystem
Management Area. and location of listed species.
See comments
at 5.3.2
4.3.3.2
West Bay Site
This
paragraph misidentifies this area as “Urban.”
The correct identification is “Rural” service area as described in the
comprehensive plan and indicating limited density and limited public
services. This misidentification would
give a reviewer who is unfamiliar with the area the impression public services
are available, and would preclude disclosure that there are no central
wastewater or water treatment facilities in the area, no other public
facilities or services, and that the only access road is woefully inadequate
and in need of multi-million dollar improvements. These are all economic impacts previously documented by the
sponsor and the same consultants who participated in this DEIS and that should
be fairly considered in this document.
4.3.5
Local Plans
“Local
plans provide the framework for future land uses and development within Panama
City and Bay County. An overview of
those plans will provide a basis for assessing their compatibility with the
proposed alternatives.”
See
comments at 5.3.2.
4.3.5.1
Existing site
The
statement, “The Bay County Future Land Use Map indicates that the
unincorporated area to the south and west of the airport is designated as Urban
Residential, allowing residential densities of up to 25 dwelling units per
acre” is patently false. The
implication that extensively more residential dwellings will be added to
encroach on the existing airport is blatantly misleading. This land, which is mostly built out, is
zoned R-1 with a density limit of up to
EIGHT (8) units per acre (Exhibits 1 and 2). The zoning/density limitations combined with
the airport–related comprehensive plan restrictions on adjacent land use,
eliminate the concerns of any further encroachment on the current airport site.
The DEIS repeatedly claims there is a shortage of land
designated for industrial/commercial use.
The following chart taken from ‘Florida’s Great Northwest’ website shows
over 340 acres are available for development in close proximity to various
transportation modes and, for the most part, away from environmentally
sensitive lands.
SOURCE: www.floridasgreatnorthwest.com
4.3.5.2
West Bay Site
The DEIS inaccurately states Bay County prepared the West
Bay Areas Vision Sector Plan is incorrect.
The document was prepared by the St Joe Company and its consultants who
accomplished the supporting studies and analyses, hardly an unbiased analysis
of the location of the airport that best suits the public interests.
4.8.3.2 There
does not appear to be any analysis in the DEIS of seasonal distribution of
surface
water, which if
altered by building the airport on top of headwaters of Crooked and Burnt Mill
Creeks, could adversely impact the creeks and St Andrew Bay.
4.10.3.4 States detailed vegetative surveys (and
wildlife habitat?) have not been conducted on the wetland mitigation
parcels. If the FAA doesn’t know what
is there, how can they evaluate its benefit as mitigation land in conjunction
with the overall assessment of the impacts of relocating into West Bay?
4.12 Endangered and
Threatened Species
Field
Reconnaissance Methodology
Field surveys were incomplete. No surveys were conducted for the entire season from May through
much of August that would provide vital information.
4.12.1.2 West Bay
Site [Endangered and Threatened Species Study Area]
FAA rules require the DEIS to consider cumulative
impacts. As described in this
paragraph, cumulative impacts were not considered or included in the DEIS which
conflicts with FAA’s own rules. Species
surveys should be conducted for the entire airport area at build out and
include the 10,000 perimeter that must be cleared of wildlife attractors, plus
immediately adjacent land (Ecosystem management Area) that could be impacted by
build-out.
Table 4-15
The Eastern Indigo Snake is listed as Threatened by both
Federal and State governments. For the
West Bay site, this table shows this species as having “Low” likelihood of
occurrence and there is no notation on habitat. Information in the
Airport DSAP (February 2003) shows results from a March-April 2001 survey
stating occurrence likelihood is “Very High” and there is “Ample suitable
habitat.”
Table 4-17
Identifies 10 federal and/or state listed species but
5.12.1.3 states no federally listed
flora or fauna was documented in the West Bay study area and no critical
habitat for listed species has been identified within the study area. .
5.3.2 Compatibility
with Existing Plans
The DEIS
gives an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of compatibility of various
alternatives with existing local government comprehensive plans in a manner
that portrays the preferred site in the best light.
Table 5-13 considers a limited number of comprehensive
plan goals, objectives, and policies, while overlooking numerous other
provisions that directly impact the decision to relocate the airport to West
Bay. For comparison between
alternatives, provisions have been selectively chosen rather than considering
the plan in entirety as they reflect the overall growth policies of the
County.
There appear to be a number of objectives and policies of
the Bay County Comprehensive Plan that are not consistent with relocating the
airport to the sponsor’s preferred site, and that favor making improvements at
the current site. The following goals,
policies and objectives are taken from the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. Comments are in Italics. Narratives underscored for emphasis.
CHAPTER 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
General Strategy
The general strategy for this element is for the Board to
focus upon those programs and activities that are under their jurisdiction and
control. These include: * Promoting
commercial and industrial growth in existing or underutilized industrial or
commercial parks;
Policy 2.1.2: General criteria for the
designation of industrial land uses on the FLUM include:
1. Existing industrial or commerce parks;
2.
Availability of public or private utilities;
3. Proximity to major highway access and/or
rail access;
6. Minimal impact on locally significant environmental
resources.
COMMENT: These
criteria are inconsistent with relocating the airport to the West Bay site to
facilitate conversion of additional land to industrial us. There are existing industrial and commerce
areas to be developed (see below data); the West Bay site does not have major
highway access or rail access; development of the airport and accompanying
industrial development will significantly impact thousands of acres of natural
resources.
Policy 2.1.3: General criteria for the
designation of commercial land uses on the FLUM include:
3. Location in areas that are used primarily for
commercial purposes;
5. Minimal impact upon locally significant
environmental resources.
COMMENT: See above
comments.
Policy 2.1.4:
Industrial or commerce parks may be located in urban, suburban, or rural
service areas when level of service standards are met.
COMMENT: There are
no public services at the sponsor’s preferred site: No water or wastewater treatment facilities; the road is
inadequate, the worst in the county; there is no fire fighting services for
airport structural fires; offsite emergency medical facilities are none
existent; inadequate coverage by police.
All these claims are supported by documentation submitted to the County
Planning Commission by the Airport Authority.
Objective 2.4:
Promote the growth and development of existing industrial or commerce
parks.
Policy 2.4.1: New industrial growth shall be
encouraged to use existing or underutilized industrial or commerce parks unless
circumstances exist that would preclude such location.
Policy 2.4.2:
Where possible, new industrial growth should occur in publicly funded
industrial or commerce parks in order to recapture public investment.
COMMENT: There is no
publicly owned land in the West Bay area.
Economic development under relocation to West Bay is totally dependent
on the marketing plans of a single landowner.
Policy 2.4.3:
The Board shall not approve amendments to the FLUM that will create
industrial land uses outside of existing industrial or commerce parks unless it
can be demonstrated that a bona fide need
exists for such industrial land use.
Public Policy:
Fully utilize existing facilities and resources, and promote return on
public investment (s.125.045, F.S.)
COMMENT: With 340
acres currently unutilized in Panama City and Bay County (see data below),
there is no bona fide need to designate additional land in West Bay.
Objective 2.7:
Maintain and improve the County’s tourism and “eco-tourism” industry.
Policy 2.7.1:
The Board shall use policies set forth in the Coastal Management and
Conservation Elements of this Plan to conserve and protect those natural
resources that form the basis of the tourist
industry.
Performance Measure: Maintenance of
high-quality natural resources.
COMMENT: Relocating
the airport into West Bay and the accompanying development will have severe
direct and cumulative impacts to the St Andrew Bay watershed and major
ecosystems.
Objective 2.8: Retain and increase Department
of Defense presence in Bay County
Objective 2.9: Maintain the paper
products and timber-related components of the Bay County economy.
Policy 2.9.1: The Board shall maintain an
adequate amount of land designated on the FLUM for silviculture purposes.
COMMENT: Relocation
to West Bay will require destruction of 4,000 acres of land currently used for
silivicuture.
CHAPTER 3
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
COMMENT: The
proposed site is literally in the middle of hundreds of acres of undeveloped
land, mostly wetlands. There are no
public facilities or services in the area.
The single “minor arterial” road serving the site is a narrow paved road
that County staff has said is the worst in the county and will cost millions to
widen and resurface, including widening two bridges. Relocating the airport will create sprawl, burden the taxpayers
with massive costs for infrastructure, and degrade and destroy large amounts of
natural resources and wildlife—all inconsistent with specific goals, objectives
of policies.
Goal Statement
The goals of the Board relative to land development and
future land use include: to promote an
orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development; to promote the
efficient and effective delivery of public facilities and services; to promote
compatibility between land uses….to protect valuable natural resources, and; to
generally promote, protect and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good
order, appearance and general welfare of the community.
Vision
.
We will develop efficient and effective infrastructure that
promotes economic development and enhances the environment, quality of life,
and aesthetics.
Goal Statement
* Establish and use best development practices to
promote quality development projects.
Policy 3.2.1: ….The FLUM and any subsequent
FLUM amendments shall be created and maintained based on the following criteria
to the greatest extent possible:
3. Appropriate site conditions;
4. Compatibility between land
uses;
5. Consistency with this
Comprehensive Plan;
6. Availability of infrastructure facilities and
services;
7. Protection
of natural and historic resources.
Policy 3.2.3: For growth management and
service delivery purposes the County shall be divided into “Service Areas”
which will include:
1. Urban Service Area;
2. Suburban Service Area, and;
3. Rural Service Area.
These service areas will be designated on the Official
Future Land Use Map Series to promote “Wide Open Spaces.”
Policy 3.2.5: In addition to the land use
categories identified in Policy 3.2.4 the following “Special Treatment Zones”
shall be designated as overlays on the Official Future Land Use Map Series, and
are shown on the Special Treatment Zone Map found in this Element:
4. Rural Communities;
5. Ecosystem Management Areas.
COMMENT: The
proposed airport site is surrounded on the east, west, and south by an
Ecosystem Management Area. There is no
guarantee the planned destruction of wetlands and the hydrological impacts will
not severely damage the EMA.
Policy 3.4.4:
Rural Communities Special Treatment Zones. The County shall
discourage urban sprawl and promote compact development and conservation of
working landscapes through techniques
such as the designation of appropriate agricultural areas
with suitable densities to preserve agricultural activities, including timber
production, and the rural character of these areas….
Policy 3.6.1. …Land development regulations
shall contain specific and detailed provisions necessary or desirable to
implement this plan….
5. Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive
lands designated in the comprehensive plan;
7. Provide that public facilities and services meet
or exceed the standards established in the capital improvements element
required by s.163.3177 and are available when needed for the development, or
that development orders and permits are conditioned on the availability of
these
public facilities and services necessary to serve the
proposed development.
Policy 3.7.1: The County will adopt and
administer a zoning code that will identify and delineate zoning districts.
2. The [zoning] district must be in conformity
with surrounding land uses and the general
character of the area and may require less density,
intensity, height or other standard found in this Plan when considered
necessary to preserve the integrity of the district.
7. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize
the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses.
COMMENT: Underlying
land uses in the West Bay area are “Conservation.” Creeks are “Preservation.”
An airport and industrial use are not compatible with conservation and
preservation uses as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Objective 3.9: All proposed land uses shall be compatible with adjacent
conforming land uses.
Policy 3.9.1:
For purposes of this Plan, “compatibility” means a condition in which
land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a
stable fashion over time such that no use or
condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or
indirectly by another use or condition (Rule 9J-5.003(23), FAC).
COMMENT: An airport
and related industrial uses is incompatibly with existing
conservation/preservation uses as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Objective 3.11.: Use established “Best
Management Practices” in the formulation of land development regulations, for
development review purposes, and for promoting quality development projects in
Bay County.
Policy 3.11.1: The County will use the concepts
and recommendations found in Best Development Practices-Doing the Right Thing
and Making Money at the Same Time, DCA, 1995 to promote quality
development projects.
Policy
3.11.4
1.
Keep vehicle miles of travel (VMT) below the area average.
COMMENT: Relocation
of the airport will add approximately 25 miles one way for the average airport
user.
2. Channel development into areas that are already
disturbed.
3. Preserve patches of high-quality habitat, as large
and circular as possible, feathered at the edges, and connected by wildlife
corridors.
4. Design around significant wetlands.
5. Establish upland buffers around all retained wetlands and
natural water bodies.
6. Preserve significant uplands, too.
7. Restore and enhance ecological functions damaged by prior
site activities.
COMMENT: Relocating
the airport to West Bay is inconsistent with each of above provisions.
Best Housing Practices
6. Supply affordable multifamily and accessory
housing for low-income households.
COMMENT: The Airport Authority has no plans to study
the need for affordable housing for many years into the development, requiring
workers to commute from areas of affordable housing.
Chapter 4 Transportation Element
Objective 4.13: Eliminate incompatible land uses
and prohibit airport hazards in the vicinity of airports and landing fields.
Objective 4.14: Control and restrict the siting
of airports and landing fields so as to minimize potential aircraft hazards.
Public Purpose: To ensure that airports are
sited so as to minimize land use conflicts and promote safe aviation operations
(s.330.30,F.S.).
COMMENT: Relocating
the airport to West Bay is inconsistent with these objectives and public
purpose. Airport and industrial uses
are not compatible with the fragile ecosystems in the West Bay area, including
Burnt Mill and Crooked Creeks. The
proposed site contains critical habitat of listed species. Location in this site will require
destruction of large areas (10,000 foot perimeter) of wildlife and their
habitat considered “attractant.”
SECTION 5B -
WASEWATER SUB-ELEMENT
Objective 5B.7:
Use the land use categories and attendant densities/intensities of use
found
in the Future Land Use Element to control development in
rural areas that are not targeted for sewer service during the planning
timeframe.
COMMENT: The land in the West Bay area has underlying
uses with very low density.
Conservation/Rural 1
dwelling unit per 10 acres
Agriculture/Timberland 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres
CHAPTER 6
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
COMMENT: Destruction of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and natural
resources is not consistent with provisions of this chapter.
Goal Statement
The goal of this element is to achieve a balanced program of
environmental protection and economic development; ensure that the quality of
environmental resources is maintained or improved during
the planning timeframe; to protect and conserve valuable
natural resources; maintain a healthy economy by ensuring the continuing
viability of natural systems; protect the quality of life County residents and
visitors have come to expect; promote the conservation and pollution abatement
policies of the State as established by general law, and; support the vision
and strategies set forth in the Bay County Vision
Statement.
Vision
We will have a safe, healthy and family oriented community
with self-sufficient, involved people and appropriate infrastructure to enhance
its beauty, natural resources and environment.
General Strategy
The general strategy for conserving important natural
resources in Bay County is to view the environment as an economic asset that is
vital to this area’s economy and quality of life which, if not maintained in
a healthy condition, can cause missed opportunities for new
industry, loss of existing industry and defense-related jobs, loss of natural
resource-based jobs, reduction in property values, increased
costs of providing infrastructure services, and decline of
the community in general. This strategy
is predicated upon implementing reasonable regulations based on identifiable
public purposes that have
been established as state policy by the Legislature. Simply
stated, the strategy set forth herein is intended to provide a balanced program
of regulations to prevent future environmental problems and capital
improvement projects intended to solve existing deficiencies
and problems. This can be accomplished by identifying those resources that
merit special protection and the implementation of regulatory, improvement, or
acquisition programs intended to protect and conserve these resources.
The Board of County Commissioners declares that the
protection and conservation of significant natural
resources promotes a public purpose and supports declared
policies of the State. To this end, the Board does hereby establish the
following objectives. The Board does hereby establish the following policies as
the means for achieving its stated objectives. Each policy corresponds directly
to a stated objective.
The following are public purpose(s) and performance measures
applicable to each objective.
Objective 6.2: Identify and designate locally
significant natural resources.
Policy 6.2.1: Locally significant natural
resources are as follows:
2. All water
of the state and lands lying there under, including seagrass beds;
4. Designated
Ecosystem Management Areas;
5.
Designated Habitat Conservation Areas;
8.
Wetlands;
13. Known
habitat of threatened or endangered species;
Objective 6.5: Maintain or improve estuarine
water quality consistent with state water quality standards.
4. Providing central sewer to those coastal
5. Restricting development in designated Ecosystem
Management Areas.
Policy 6.5.2: The County will protect
seagrass beds in those areas under county
PM: The extent to which coastal resources are
conserved in Ecosystem Management Areas.
PP: Protect and restore long-term productivity of
marine fisheries habitat and aquatic resources [s.373.461, 187.201(9), F.S.].
Policy 6.7.1: The County will use designated
Ecosystem Management Areas as a means for the conservation of natural systems.
Policy 6.7.2: Ecosystem Management Areas are
considered “Special Treatment Zones” in which extraordinary regulatory
standards may be applied to protect natural resources.
Policy 6.7.3: The following areas or resources
will be included in Ecosystem Management Areas: Undeveloped, unplatted land in
the Rural or Suburban Service Areas adjacent to Class II waters and Outstanding
Florida Waters, tributaries and headwaters thereto.
Public Purpose: Provide for the maintenance and
where possible, acquisition, of ecologically intact ecosystems [s.403.021,
403.075, 373.451, 187.201(10), F.S.].
Policy 6.7.5: The County will target critical
habitat areas within Ecosystem Management Areas for land acquisition using
federal, state and or local dollars.
Public Purpose: Preserve habitat areas so as to
maintain their environmental values [s.187.201 (10), F.S.].
Policy 6.7.6: The County will encourage and
support the preservation and acquisition of lands within Ecosystem Management
Areas for mitigation or mitigation banking purposes.
Objective 6.8: Identify and protect strategic
habitat areas using the Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Habitat Conservation
System (1994) publication.
Public Policy: Conserve and protect habitat
areas of rare, threatened or endangered species [s.372.072, 187.201(10),F.S.].
Objective 6.11:
Protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands.
Policy 6.11.3: The County will employ the
following measures to protect and conserve wetlands.
1. Wetlands will be delineated and depicted on all
site plans included in applications for
development approval.
2. Developers will design and construct development
projects so as to avoid activities that would destroy wetlands or the natural
functions of wetlands.
Policy 6.16.3: Developers of land within
Critical Habitat Areas will be required to preserve those vegetative
communities that are critical to continuation of the habitat.
Objective 6.17: Identify and classify areas to
be designated for conservation purposes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
Policy 6.17.1: Conservation designations to be
shown on the FLUM include: Preservation; Conservation, and;
Conservation/Recreation.
Public Purpose: Protect and conserve locally
significant natural resources as well as resources
recognized to be of statewide importance so as to promote
the health, safety, and welfare of the general public [s.187.201(8)(9)(10),F.S.].
Policy 6.17.2: The Preservation designation is
intended to ensure that protected resources are preserved essentially in a
natural condition with very limited alteration. Areas or resources to
designated as Preservation include:
1. Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I and
II waters;
2. Major tributaries that flow into estuarine
waters;
4. Government owned lands used for
preservation purposes
5. Seagrass beds, and;
Policy 6.17.3: The Conservation designation is
intended to provide for conservation with appropriate use through regulations
that will minimize damage to natural resources. Areas or resources to be
designated as Conservation include:
1. Ecosystem Management Area
2. Habitat Conservation Areas;
3. Government-owned or leased lands used for conservation
purposes, and;
Chapter 8, Housing Element
Objective 8.7: Provide for the location of
affordable housing, including manufactured housing, in residential land use
districts while avoiding undue concentrations of affordable housing in any
particular
geographic area.
Policy 8.7.1: Affordable housing (as the term
“affordable” is defined by s.420.9071,F.S. shall be allowed in all residential
land use districts when the type of residential structure complies with the
allowable uses
for that district. These areas will be designated in such a
way as to avoid undue concentrations of affordable housing in any one
geographic area.
Public Policy: Provide an adequate supply of
decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing [s.163.3177(6)(f), 420.6015,F.S.].
CHAPTER 11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Policy 11.4.1: The Board will use the “Wide
Open Spaces” strategy described in the Future
Land Use Element as the means for providing public
facilities and services in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Service Areas.
Policy 11.4.2: The Board will use the Future
Land Use Element of this Plan and attendant land use controls to direct growth
into these areas where services and facilities can be provided in an efficient
and effective manner.
Policy 11.4.3: All applications for development
approval will be evaluated with regard to the availability of facilities and
services required to accommodate the proposed development.
Public Policy: Promote development and
redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in
areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce
[s.187.201(16), F.S.].
CHAPTER
12 SECTOR PLAN ELEMENT
COMMENT: It is
clearly demonstrated that a major goal of the sector planning process is
protection of natural resources.
Relocation of the airport to the sponsor’s preferred site in the sector
planning area is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the
comprehensive plan.
OBJECTIVE 12.4:
Promote the development and use of lands in a manner that is sensitive
to environmental constraints including, but not limited to, poor soil
conditions, flood hazards, bay and tributary buffers, Strategic Habitat Areas,
as described in Section 6 of this Plan, and wildlife habitat suitability.
Policy 12.4 The Sector Planning Process
will identify, which each DSAP, how development may be located in order to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to natural resources.
COMMENT: Because of
the massive destruction of natural resources including wildlife habitat, relocating
the airport into the sector plan area conflicts with the requirements to
protect natural resources.
Objective 12.4.1:
Ensure the protection of the water quality of West Bay and its
tributaries.
Policy 12.4.1 DSAPs within the sector plan shall identify and provide for
protection of existing ecological systems within the sector planning area.
Objective 12.4.4:
To conserve and protect valuable ecosystems and to reduce the potential
threat to life and property resulting from coastal storms.
Policy 12.4.12:
Each DSAP within the planning area shall identify and provide for
protection of existing ecological systems within the planning area.
Policy 12.4.14 Conservation and/or preservation
buffers shall be established, as appropriate, from the boundaries of Pin Log
State Forest in order to eliminate or reduce the possibility of major land
management changes relating to prescribed burning.
COMMENT: The sponsor
intends to provide a one-mile buffer between the airport site and Pine Log
State Forest. This buffer is totally
insufficient to protect public safety during prescribed burning of the forests,
which can create significant hazards for air traffic.
SECTION 12A
AIRPORT SUBELEMENT
12A.2.f. The proposed airport shall be located over five
miles from the Steelfield Landfill, a wildlife attractor, as required by FAA
regulations to ensure safe movement of aircraft while on approach to the
airport and on the ground. (12.9.3.a.1)</
