1 / 14

FDA Encroachment Working Group Results Overview October 14, 2008 final

FDA Encroachment Working Group Results Overview October 14, 2008 final. Priority Issues of Concern. Compatible Use. Enforcement and Compliance. Real Estate Disclosure. I. Compatible Use. Confusing and non-uniform verbiage for competing needs Vagueness of the term ‘Compatible Use’.

duaa
Download Presentation

FDA Encroachment Working Group Results Overview October 14, 2008 final

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FDA Encroachment Working Group Results OverviewOctober 14, 2008final

  2. Priority Issues of Concern • Compatible Use. • Enforcement and Compliance. • Real Estate Disclosure.

  3. I. Compatible Use • Confusing and non-uniform verbiage for competing needs • Vagueness of the term ‘Compatible Use’.

  4. Develop and Strengthen a well defined term ‘Compatible Use’ to include: • Frequency Spectrum • Urban Growth • Air Pollution/ Quality • Noise Pollution • Maritime Competition • Competition for Airspace • Endangered Species/Critical Habitat • Wetlands • Water Quality/Supply • Cultural Resources

  5. Compatible Use Recommendation • Adopt term ‘compatible use’ in place of encroachment or military enhancement. • Strengthen Compatible Use laws to include all of the previous list.

  6. II. Enforcement and Compliance • Existing FS do not provide proper direction, guidance, or regulatory authority to sustain ever expanding military missions in Florida. • FS should address: • Florida growth and compatible use challenges • Military presence, mission expansions • Other state compatible use statutes • Business and stakeholder needs across Florida.

  7. Enforcement and Compliance topics • Notification • Outreach • Incentives • Enforcement

  8. Notification • Current FS 163.3175 (2) includes notice and ex-officio language. • There is no enforcement mechanism for communities or jurisdictions which chose to ignore/circumvent FS. • Florida needs proper enforcement mechanisms to ensure consideration of military needs in compatible use issues.

  9. Outreach • There is no comprehensive outreach program to educate citizens, government, and the development community on the requirements and benefits of military bases in Florida. • Federal grants may exist to fund development of outreach materials. • California has a superior outreach program to model. • http://www.opr.ca.gov/military/handbook/AdvisoryHandbookSec4Planning%20Tools.pdf

  10. Incentives • Provide mechanisms to identify and reward incentives for developer cooperation/compliance. • Potential incentives could include: • Defense grant eligibility priority • Impact Fee waivers • Other state program eligibility priority • Florida Forever/REPI funding priority • Density transfers/bonuses • Tax Credits

  11. Enforcement • Ensure local entities which avoid compatible uses requirements are unable to adopt Comprehensive Plan amendments until military compatible use requirements are addressed.

  12. Recommendations Summary for enforcement and compliance • Amend FS to provide proper enforcement mechanisms for lack of compliance/consideration of military requirements. • Implement a comprehensive Outreach Program. • Provide incentives for compatible use cooperation/compliance. • Provide/enforce penalties for non-compliance – no Comp Plan Amendments w/out Military compatible use statue compliance.

  13. III. Real Estate Disclosure • Many states require realtors to disclose to buyers that a parcel is impacted by military missions. • Notification can be required at the time of listing or at the time of sale. • FS does not have provision which allows local ordinances to codify this requirement. • FS 475.278 requires notification of ‘all known facts materially affecting value’. • Amend FS 475.278 to require disclosure of any impact on a parcel by any military mission.

More Related