Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County to resubmit comprehensive-plan amendments after state review
Summary
County staff and private consultants revised several comprehensive-plan policies at the board’s direction to address Florida Commerce comments; commissioners unanimously approved resubmission with scrivener corrections.
Marion County commissioners voted unanimously April 7 to resubmit a large‑scale comprehensive‑plan text amendment after Florida Commerce returned an earlier submittal as "null and void" due to several policy wording concerns.
Staff and consultants outlined limited, targeted edits: restoring the word "substantial" in a buffering policy so only large redevelopments trigger new buffers, retaining "lot" (not "dwelling unit") language in an open‑space requirement to avoid an unintended increase in burden on multifamily projects, clarifying transportation policy language to allow corridor‑specific studies when a generalized service volume approaches adopted level‑of‑service standards, and removing a proposed transfer of sanitary sewer level‑of‑service requirements out of the plan into the land‑development code.
"We received a null and void letter and these changes are intended to address the state's concerns while keeping our policy intent," consultant Blair Knighting said. Amber Gartner of Kimley‑Horn described a revised transportation clause that would allow more precise corridor studies, not blanket exemptions.
County attorney and planning staff confirmed the edits return the text to material consistent with the current code and state chapter 163 requirements. Commissioner Stone moved approval of the staff recommended revisions and scrivener corrections; Commissioner Curry seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The board’s action authorizes transmittal of the corrected package back to Florida Commerce; staff said the changes are narrow and intended to preserve local flexibility within state limits. The county will monitor review timelines and return to the board if additional edits are requested.
Background: earlier submittal was returned for three policy changes and one chapter‑163 technical concern; staff and outside consultants said the edits are modest and aimed at aligning local language with state interpretation.
