10/23/2025 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners PD Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2025 would be revisited for in-depth discussion following the slide presentation. Staff provided their recommendations on each item and sought input from the two boards and the public. County Administrator John Titkanich added that it was envisioned this would be an initial meeting, followed by another with various stakeholders to discuss and narrow down issues, and a third follow-up meeting to provide final directions for staff on necessary amendments. The first topic for discussion was the concept of public benefits. The two recommendations from staff were to amend the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with a written definition of "public benefit", and to provide policy direction specifying what types of public benefits were acceptable or preferred. Mr. Sweeney discussed the difficulty in creating a definition that balanced the need for flexibility inherent in PDs and requested feedback on the lists of commonly accepted and rejected public benefits. Commissioner Moss and Mr. Sweeney opened with a discussion of the definition of "public". Mr. Sweeney agreed it was not clear if the term meant the public or people who were geographically close, adding that it depended on the enhancement being proposed. He emphasized public benefits were above what was required by County regulations and were sometimes difficult to monetize. Commissioner Moss also questioned how waiving impact fees was related to public benefit. Deputy County Attorney Susan Prado described the process as a negotiated exchange, and road work done above requirements statutorily required a dollar -for -dollar impact fee credit. Lengthy discussion ensued between the Commissioners and PZC members. Commissioner Earman recalled a development which offered additional sidewalk construction as a desirable public benefit. Mr. Stewart received confirmation that the Planning Department specified in their report which items exceeded requirements. Mr. Lowther noted many developers requested a density bonus and suggested this benefit should be reserved only for affordable housing projects. Mr. Campbell questioned if timing was a factor and discussed roadway improvements such as the widening of 43rd Avenue. Mr. Sweeney noted the benefits were site dependent. Mr. Lowther recalled that many of the approved public benefits were born out of Indian River County, Florida Page 2