10/23/2025 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners PD Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final October 23, 2025 benefits for inspiration. Mr. Sweeney noted the professional agency also had sample agreements and reiterated it was important to include a County -relevant definition of public benefit in the LDRs. Mr. Day requested Mr. Sweeney put together a draft definition based on his experience that the PZC and BCC could refine. Mr. Sweeney referred back to the idea of tiers, noting the County had language that the benefit must be proportionate to the degree of which was being asked. There was agreement that affordable housing was top tier. Mr. Votaw discussed affordability which he stated was of paramount importance. He noted that increased land values, regulations, and public benefits all affected the final cost of a home. He asked the Board to consider ideas on how to bring home prices down to the $350,000 to $450,000 range to be in reach for working professionals while still maintaining the County's environment. There was agreement that the County did not want to follow other areas which were congested and overdeveloped. Mr. Votaw suggested considering how the County could grow with grace, as expansion was inevitable, and PDs typically made up more than half of residential developments. Commissioner Flescher requested specific guidance for staff, with Administrator Titkanich pointing to the displayed lists of acceptable/not acceptable public benefits. The Boards noted the following acceptable benefits: enhanced stormwater treatment, upsized utilities improvements, right-of-way (ROW) dedication, conservation/ set -asides of natural land, dedication of land for public purposes, acceptance of off-site stormwater, and off-site traffic improvements above requirements. The following items were considered not public benefits: limited access to project improvements, and transit stops with a shelter. Under final discussion of the topic, Mr. Stewart requested feedback from council regarding the need to allow staff flexibility to be innovative versus the exposure to risk by not being consistent. Attorney Prado agreed that public benefits may not need to be codified, but having approved guidance from the Board would establish boundaries and rationale for approvals or denials. Mr. Sweeney provided input on interconnectivity of developments in response to Mr. Votaw's question, noting it was not necessarily a goal but would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Administrator Titkanich advised that the American Planning Association may have guidelines for how to quantify the degreed a benefit could be considered valuable to the public. Commissioner Earman suggested asking developers what they could do for the County when planning PDs rather than putting the onus on staff. Indian River County, Florida Page 4