HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2006MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMMISSION AGENDA
FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2006 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3365
WWW.IRCGOV.COM
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Arthur R. Neuberger, Chairman District 2 Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman District 3 William G. Collins II, County Attorney
Sandra L. Bowden District 5 Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Wesley S. Davis District 1 Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
Thomas S. Lowther District 4
1. CALL TO ORDER 9:00 A.M.
2. INVOCATION Stan Boling - Planning Director
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Proportionate Share Ordinance. Ordinance allowing developers to enter into
agreements to improve roads and/or contribute toward road improvements and obtain
concurrency (memorandum dated February 23, 2006)
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken
by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the
Indian River County General Services Director at (772) 226-1223 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.
March 3, 2006 Page 1 of 1
INDEX TO MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 3, 2006
PROPOSED PROPORTIONATE SHARE ORDINANCE
SENATE BILL 360
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CALLTO ORDER.......................................................................................1
INVOCATION.............................................................................................. 2
PLEDGEOF ALLEGIANCE..................................................................... 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.............................................................2
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS .......... 2
PUBLICCOMMENTS................................................................................ 4
ADJOURNMENT......................................................................................... 8
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proportionate Share Ordinance
BR 130 PG 290
March 3, 2006
PUBLIC WORKSHOP OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED PROPORTIONATE SHARE ORDINANCE TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in
Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, March 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss a proposed
Proportionate Share Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan allowing developers to enter
into agreements to improve roads and/or contribute toward road improvements and obtain
concurrency. Present were Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger, Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler,
and Commissioners Sandra L. Bowden, Wesley Davis and Thomas S. Lowther. Also present
were County Administrator Joseph Baird, County Attorney William G. Collins II, Executive
Aide to the Board Kimberly Massung, and Deputy Clerk Maria I. Suesz.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Neuberger called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop 6I( i 3 0 PG 2 9 1
Proportionate Share Ordinance
2. INVOCATION
Planning Director Stan Boling delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director Bob Keating, through a PowerPoint
presentation (copy on file), discussed Senate Bill 360, the 2005 Growth Management Act, which
modifies Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. It mandates school concurrency, changes
concurrency requirements, and specifically mandates that all local governments in the State have
to adopt a proportionate fair share concurrency ordinance by December 1, 2006. The intent of
the Legislature is to provide a method by which the impact of development on transportation
facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors. To
incorporate the proportionate fair share mitigation program into the County's concurrency
management system, section 910.09(4)(a) of the LDRs must be amended, and a new section
910.12 must be added. Section 910.09(4)(a) of the County LDRs must be changed to make this
section consistent with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvement Element
(CIE). He discussed the proportionate share concept, the draft proportionate share ordinance and
its provisions and procedures. He presented a proportionate share example and illustrated
formulas. Mr. Keating concluded his presentation by asking the Board to review the
proposed/draft proportionate share ordinance to amend Chapter 910 of the LDRs, identify
needed changes, and provide direction and comments to staff.
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Commissioner Davis felt Senate Bill 360 was going to make the County's current
situation worse, and he saw it defeating the purpose of the County's pending ordinance.
March 3, 2006 2
Public Workshop L.
Proportionate Share Ordinance
W,
AM
Director Keating agreed with Commissioner Davis, but only in certain projects.
Commissioner Davis would like to see a "build -as -you -go," rather than "pay-as-
you-go," format to alleviate a lot of concerns regarding inflation. He would like to see the
County join the developer, let the developer build the road, and have the developer pay back the
County with interest.
George Hamner, Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, posed
several questions to staff regarding the cost inflation factor, the policy on limiting projects to the
Capitol Improvement Plan (CIP), and concurrency.
Discussion continued regarding decisions the Board would be allowed to make
under Senate Bill 360. The Board learned that the Department of Transportation would be
involved in decisions regarding Stategic Intermodal System (SIS) roadways (I-95 and SR -60).
Discussion ensued and several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
asked for additional detailed information from staff regarding the procedures and requirements
that would be mandated by Senate Bill 360 and the proportionate share ordinance.
Administrator Baird noticed the Impact Fee's 15% discount was not factored into
the formula used by staff and requested staff to rework the formula.
Commissioner Lowther commented that the Proportionate Share agreement would
apply only to the developers with insufficient links, and the Board would have the opportunity to
decide whether the 15% discount should be applied.
George Christopher, P&Z Commission member, wanted to see the Board wait
until they heard from the Consultant before taking action because he was troubled with only one
public hearing requirement and the 3 -year period.
County Attorney Collins shared the same reservations as Mr. Christopher. He saw
similarities to the way utilities' extensions currently operated and suggested that the Board set up
an analogous program, to add a link not on the CIP now, and structure an agreement where the
developer pays for it and the cost recovery comes from other people entering into similar
proportionate share agreements. Those costs go to repay the developer. If development stops,
March 3, 2006 3
Public B%Ki
1 '3 0 PG 2 9 3
Workshop
Proportionate Share Ordinance
and there is a recession, then those funds may be at risk. All of those costs will go through
negotiation, but he said a method similar to what utilities use may be something to explore.
Commissioner Davis liked this idea a lot.
Administrator Baird said staff felt the developer should be on the line if the
economy slows down.
Commissioner Wheeler felt to be fair the developer should build the road with no
time limit to recoup his cost, and the County should not interfere.
Chairman Neuberger felt there has to be an end -point at some time.
Discussion ensued regarding why the County always used the 5 -year end -point,
which has nothing to do with the proportionate share agreement.
George Gross, Planning & Zoning member, wanted to know the rationale behind
changing the definition of concurrency because of Senate Bill 360, and if staff used that
definition to approve or reject projects. He learned this ordinance changes the current procedure
from 3 -years from Certificate of Occupancy to 3 years from obtaining a building permit.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Developer Mark Bracket liked Attorney Collin's idea. He wanted to see
additional language in the ordinance discussing a private sector percentage threshold that would
mean automatic placement in the 5 -year plan. He thought the formula used was fair, and he
wanted to see consistency regarding public hearings.
(Clerk's note: The Chairman called for a recess at 10:29 a.m., and he reconvened
the meeting at 10:34 a.m., with all members present.)
March 3, 2006 4
Public Workshop BK 13 0 PG 29 4
Proportionate Share Ordinance
V
John Higgs, resident on Myrtle Way, wanted the Board to make sure that the
public and the people are not saddled with a development they do not want. He agreed with Mr.
Bracket who suggested they enter into a discretionary agreement and follow the process used to
amend the 5 -year plan. He felt it would eliminate a lot of dissension and any legal problem. Mr.
Higgs expressed concerned that the Board may find themselves in a position to pre -approve a
developer that has not gone through any process, but staff advised him it has to be financially
feasible to go on the CIP, and the Board has complete discretion when a project is not in the 5 -
year plan. Mr. Higgs agreed with Mr. Christopher regarding waiting for the consultant's report
and then consider the two ordinances.
Chairman Neuberger announced that they would not be taking action today.
Joseph Paladin, Chairman of the Growth Awareness Committee, a private sector
group, felt our County would be less affected by Senate Bill 360 because we have taken on a
management plan. He thought staff took a conservative approach to Senate Bill 360 in wording
the ordinance, and he sees the proportionate share as another tool to getting roads built where
normally they could not. He felt it was important to point out that part of the model ordinance
was not included in the draft ordinance. He read "...under this process development may
proceed despite a lack of adequate capacity or impact of the transportation system." Mr.
Paladin concluded stating that the developer can always pay more than his impact fee
allowance, but he can never pay less.
Director Keating explained that there is a provision in Senate Bill 360 that actually
allows local government to approve a development project where the applicant is entering into a
proportionate share agreement, even if he does not fix all the existing deficiencies. It has some
qualifying wording that the proportionate share improvements have to supply some significant
benefit to the impact of the transportation system. Staff did not feel it needed to be in the
ordinance and felt it was not consistent with the County's philosophy.
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proportionate Share Ordinance
5 BK 130 PG 295
Attorney Ernie Cox's stated his Firm has been engaged with staff to suggest some
improvements to the ordinance, as follows:
1. define any of the terms that do not have a natural meaning;
2. include a long term concurrency management system;
3. hold a workshop or meeting regarding projects that have capacity and do
not need the proportionate share, modifying the ordinance to "at the stage
of PD" to pay the impact fees from "at the stage of the building permit."
Discussion ensued by the Commissioners regarding item 3, listed above.
Director Keating explained that the County has not adopted a long-term
concurrency management system and that is why it was not included in the ordinance.
Bob Swift, 2145 14th Avenue, a local developer, liked Mr. Cox's suggestions. He
was hoping the proportionate share ordinance and the pending ordinance could be linked,
because there is a lot of contradiction between the two. He saw the proportionate share
ordinance as a very effective tool to give the County a way to solve some of the existing issues
and he urged the Board to stay on track and move forward.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding linking the two ordinances.
Jerry Swanson, 2300 Ocean Drive, a commercial developer, felt the proportionate
share ordinance would eliminate the problem that he had, of a developer not being able to build
because of a deficient link. He said staff misleads the public when they state most roads are
taken care of in the CIP when US 1 is not in the program. He was concerned that the Board is
loosing the common sense aspect, because a commercial developer needs to pay the impact fees
now, not later.
March 3, 2006 6
Public Workshop BK 1 3 0 PG 2 9 6
Proportionate Share Ordinance
In response to Commissioner Neuberger's question, Director Keating said to put
insufficient links on the CIP now they would have to show a written commitment and agreement
in place and this would be discussed in detail later.
Bob Johnson, Coral Wind subdivision, thought the state is imposing a situation
that does not exist in our County. He recommended that the County ask the State to be exempt
from Senate Bill 360. He would like to see staff take examples existing in the County, such as
27th Avenue, and show exactly what the impact would be.
Nancy Offutt, representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association, made some
observations regarding the proportionate share ordinance. The Builders Association encouraged
the Board to go forward with collecting impact fees in advance of the project going on the road
and they want them to continue in a vicious fashion. She commended Commissioner Wheeler
for recognizing initial infrastructure costs and for suggesting a longer period, provided initial
infrastructure can be paid back. She liked Mr. Cox's suggestion that when you have a project
and you can get support to get it approved, that is when you should vest.
Joseph Paladin commented that he supports the pending ordinance admitting that
it was a reaction to what was happening in the County at that time. With the adoption of Senate
Bill 360 he thinks it does not keep anyone from going forward, it just keeps one from vesting. It
protects a vast amount of people in the County. He just did not want the Board to feel that they
went in the wrong direction.
David Etter, Castaway Cove, said it was impossible for him to justify the expense
of hiring a consultant, negotiating with the County, hiring a lawyer, and paying the impact fees
as a single developer, and he thought it would be great if there could be diminimus provisions.
Director Keating said one the components that the traffic consultant is looking at is
a project's overall impact and how far out it will go. It will be discussed when the traffic
consultant reviews his report. He has advertised and scheduled this to go to the P&Z
Commission on March 9, 2006, and he was looking at mid -April to bringing back his report to
March 3, 2006 7 130 PG 2 9
Public Workshop
Proportionate Share Ordinance
the Board. He encouraged comments and recommendations to be submitted until then through
email or by contacting him or Stan Boling.
Discussion continued regarding Mr. Etter's concurrency problem.
(Clerk's Note: Commissioner Wheeler exited the meeting at 11:50 am.)
Richard Vialoski questioned if the proportionate share agreement gave the
developer the right to move forward before dealing with the impact fees.
Director Keating responded that he would be dealing with impact fees first,
especially if he has a deficient link.
Ray Fletcher, P&Z member, wanted to know what triggers a deficient link, and
felt the most important factor was to have a fixed math formula.
Commissioner Davis disagreed.
(Clerk's note: Commissioner Lowther and Commissioner Bowden exited the
meeting at 11:55 am.)
Traffic Engineer Chris Mora added that the traffic consultant was looking at other
counties' models throughout the State, and he will have recommendations by April 17th , which
is the end of his contract.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
March 3, 2006 8
Public Workshop BR 13 0 PG 298
Proportionate Share Ordinance
ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES
ATTEST:
Jeffre on, Clerk
Minutes Approved:
BCC/MIS/2006Minutes
APR 112006
Arthur R euberger, CT1an
March 3, 2006 9 C `>
Public Workshop
Proportionate Share Ordinance
Minutes Attached
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMMISSION AGENDA
FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2006 - 2:00 P.M.
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3365
WWW.IRCGOV.COM
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Arthur R. Neuberger, Chairman
District 2
Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
District 3
William G. Collins II, County Attorney
Sandra L. Bowden
District 5
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Wesley S. Davis
District 1
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
Thomas S. Lowther
District 4
1. CALL TO ORDER
2:00 P.M.
2. INVOCATION
Stan Boling - Planning Director
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Thomas S. Lowther
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Proposed New Town Policies. Proposed revisions to existing comprehensive plan New Town
policies that allow development of "new towns" outside of the Urban Service Area under
certain conditions.
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken
by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing
will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying
during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the
Indian River County General Services Director at (772) 226-1223 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.
March 3, 2006 Page 1 of 1
r"9
INDEX TO MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 3, 2006
PROPOSED NEW TOWN POLICIES
1. CALL TO ORDER.......................................................................................1
2. INVOCATION..............................................................................................1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE..................................................................... 2
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT............................................................. 2
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS .......... 3
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS................................................................................ 3
7. ADJOURNMENT......................................................................................... 7
BK 130 PG 3 0 I
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
March 3, 2006
PUBLIC WORKSHOP OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED NEW TOWN POLICIES
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in
Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, March 3, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss proposed New Town Policies. Present were
Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger, Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, and Commissioners Sandra L.
Bowden, Wesley S. Davis and Thomas S. Lowther. Also present were County Administrator
Joseph Baird, County Attorney William G. Collins II, Executive Aide to the Board Kimberly
Massung, and Deputy Clerk Maria I. Suesz.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Planning Director Stan Boling delivered the Invocation.
March 3, 2006 1 BK 13 0 PG 3 0 2
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Director Stan Boling was looking for direction whether the Board wants
to move forward with the Comprehensive Plan amendments submitted to the Department of
Community Affairs in staff's 2006 January submission, or whether the Board wants to delay the
process. The Comprehensive Plan amendments are needed to change the New Town Policies
allowing development of "new towns" outside the urban service area only' under certain
conditions. He reviewed the possibilities of how a "new town" can occur in the urban service
area and the benefits, and pointed out how a "new town" can create a small town atmosphere.
Mr. Boling referred to page 5 of the backup and reviewed the summary of changes
submitted to DCA as follows:
1. Minimum project sizes are increased to reflect currently accepted planning
standards for minimum "new town" sizes (must accommodate about 5,000
dwelling units and commercial, recreation, and institutional uses.)
2. Potential new locations are related to the size and location of specific AG -1
and AG -2 areas. Current separation distance criteria are eliminated. "New
towns" are eliminated from AG -3 areas.
3. Density bonuses are related to AG -1 and AG -2 land use designations. A
higher bonus is proposed for the higher density AG -1 areas; a lower bonus
is proposed for the AG -2 areas.
4. Maximum acreages for lands used for new towns are established, and are
related to AG -1 and AG -2 areas based on their size and potential for new
town locations.
5. The maximum number of potential units from new towns is significantly
reduced.
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
2
BK 130 PG 303
6. Up to 25% of new town project area is allowed to be non-contiguous
"sending areas". Such sending areas will have zero density and will
become managed green space.
7. Required percentages of various land uses within new towns, and
requirements for affordable and/or workforce housing, are modified to
reflect currently accepted planning standards.
8. Requirements for common open space and greenbelt areas are increased
and provided with more specificity to reflect currently accepted planning
standards.
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Commissioner Bowden said the Board needed to hear the total ramifications of
having a "new town."
Staff responded to Commissioner Wheeler's questions regarding the location for
new towns, benefits of having Agriculture Planned Developments (Ag PDs), and density.
Discussion ensued by the Commissioners regarding the need for flexibility on
policies for Ag PDs.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
George Hamner, member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, spoke in
favor of the "new town" concept. He, too, wanted to hear the overall advantages of a "new
town". He felt terms needed to be defined. He was particularly concerned how much space is
allocated for commercial services. He liked the idea of all development occurring together, but
he thought it needs more review.
Joseph Paladin, as a member of the Conservation and Rural Lands Committee,
handed out a brief statement defining the overall purpose and objectives of his Committee (copy
on file). Also as a member of the Growth Awareness Committee, he mentioned that they want
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
3 6K 130 PG 304
the Board to identify the specific areas for development, green space, etc. so the Committee can
review the specifications before action is taken.
Peter O'Brien, a County resident since 1984, expressed several concerns about
the potential of "new town" concept changing the quality of life in Indian River County. He
strongly opposed increasing density. He proposed that the existing density could be maintained
by eliminating the 25% green space requirement and letting the developer build out units to the
maximum protecting the land from future changes.
Commissioner Davis wanted to see a policy that would keep the homeowners
association fees affordable.
George Christopher, member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, said he
and Jeff Bass want to form a committee composed of 50% percent landowners and fifty percent
of diverse interested parties in the community to develop a master plan to serve the "new town".
This plan would be viable to landowners and projected on population growth. The committee
would hire a national planner to develop the plan. He asked the County to fund the cost for the
consultant and the Board to table this item for consideration and review.
Jeff Bass emphasized his vision of having a land management plan.
Mr. Hamner also encouraged the Board to table this item.
Attorney Collins advised that the Board couldn't take action at a workshop.
In response to Commissioner Davis's question regarding the significance of the
open window with the Department of Community Affairs, staff stated that they intend to take
other amendments to the DCA on March 15`h and they would have no problem putting this off
until next January.
Commissioner Wheeler was in favor of delaying this item.
March 3, 2006 4
Public Workshop BK 1 3 0 PG 30 5
Proposed New Town Policies
Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Mr. Christopher regarding
funding and who would select the consultant. Mr. Christopher mentioned that the Citrus
League offered to provide the funding.
Doug Bournique, Indian River Citrus League, supported their idea.
John Higgs, 2504 Waxmyrtle Way, thought this to be a worthwhile proposal, but
he saw many problems.
(Clerk's note: The Chairman called for a brief recess at 3:29 p.m. and he
reconvened the meeting at 3:40 p.m. with all members present.)
Dr. Richard Baker, President of the Audubon Society, gave a PowerPoint
presentation (copy on file) asking the Board to table this issue. He wants the Board to approach
new growth in the direction the Committee for Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC)
recommended for planning a new town concept, as listed:
1. Not to hurry unless they do it right,
2. Need a diverse committee to plan with the help of a facilitator,
3. Need an anchor college or industry,
4. Must be big enough to support a Wal-Mart.
Chuck Mechling, President of Pointe West, said they are planning a town center
area and he felt their plan is a component that the Board could use.
Peter Spike, representing the CSTC, said his committee spent two years studying
the "new town" concept and their report will be available in two weeks. He advised that the
items in the report should be incorporated into the process of adopting Comprehensive Plan
amendments. It deals with consequences to the rural land use pattern. The plan has to address
the following three criteria: have a way to transfer development rights, combine future
agriculture revenue, and be greater than the land preservation.
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
5 BK 130 PG 306
There was a question and answer period regarding Mr. Spikes comments.
Anthony Donadio, President of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce,
read Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce Penny Chandler's letter (copy on file)
supporting preserving and refining the new town concept recognizing the public benefits
associated with adequate infrastructure, natural habitat, agriculture, and public assurances of
open space in perpetuity.
Greg Burk represented members of the American Institute of Architects, and he
strongly recommended that they put an architect on the committee in order to consider design as
an important part. He brought with him a book titled "Livability 101" that addresses quality of
life and recommended the Commissioners read it.
Nancy Offutt announced that on March 7th St. Lucie County is having a workshop
on town villages and countryside.
Lex Kromhout, 4150 11th Place SW, a citrus grower, recommended that the Board
work on the problem of clusters in the LDRs. He urged the Board to read the report from the
Sustainable Treasure Coast, and consider Ag PDs as Commissioner Davis suggested.
Bob Swift, 6400 Glendale Road, defined sustainability as looking at three factors:
social equity, economic ability and environmental protection, and all of the issues talked about
would be addressed. In doing some research, he was surprised he was listed in opposition to
"new towns" at a previous meeting and he assured the Board there was nothing farther from the
truth. He thought what Mr. Bass and Mr. Christopher laid out a great idea and he hoped the
Board would embrace it and he certainly would support it.
Bea Gardner felt there was no reason to rush a decision and asked the Board to
take a year or two to review.
The Chairman stated that was exactly what they are doing by holding this public
hearing.
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
6
BK 130 PG 307
Ruth Myers, Director of Resource Development for Sustainability of the
Audubon Society, read sections of the CSTC's report and hoped the Board would take advantage
of every opportunity to support the process of alternative action fully.
Joseph Paladin asked what direction the Board would take if they do not adopt
Mr. Christopher's offer to form a committee.
Discussion continued among the Commissioners and all agreed they wanted to
review this issue further.
The Chairman recommended George Christopher and Jeff Bass form their
committee as a private sector group. He felt the speakers today would be good as representatives.
He stated they are not rushing to take action, and perhaps in three or four years they may get this
issue resolved.
Administrator Joseph Baird asked for a list of names of members on the committee
and suggested Director Keating and Director Boling attend to give the Board guidance.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES
March 3, 2006 7 BK 1 3 0 PG 3 0 0
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
ATTEST:
Jeffre . arton, Clerk Arthur R. Neu er, Chai an
Minutes Approved: o2d2
BCC/MIS/2006Minutes
March 3, 2006
Public Workshop
Proposed New Town Policies
8 BK 130 PG 309
MW