Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/26/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 7:00 P.M. COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Margaret C. Bowman Don C.. Scurlock, Jr.. Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGE 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comma Carolyn K. Eggert 3. I a ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. �Uor 81 SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, September 26, 1990 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 Wednesday, September 26, 1990, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROPOSED IRC/DCA COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT The hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy ProofClerk read the following Notice with • attached, to P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER �cs JQUI't11x� STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida that a display advertisement, measuring 33 column inches at $9.45 per column inch billedto. Indian River County was published in said newspaper in the Issue(s) o, September 14, 1990 (Friday) on page 3A Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D Business Manager 14 (SEAL) Nowey Public, awls of "atd• My commiWen 6 1 Fan 19.1093 SEP 2 1990 Roar 81 P,, F P BOOKFADE ;j NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN -CHANGE OF LAND USE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY s • The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County proposes to hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 26, 1990 in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida for the purpose of considering entering into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Florida State Department of Community Affairs. The proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement would set forth a course of action to resolve issues raised by the Department of Community Affairs in its Statement of Intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan "Not in Compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. If the Stipulated Settlement Agreement is approved by the Indian River County - Board of County Commissioners after public hearing and by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, subsequent public hearings will be held within 60 days to consider any comprehensive plan amendments necessary to accomplish the remedial actions set out in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Any such plan amendments shall be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for review and comment and there will be a second public hearing prior to the adoption of the plan amendments set out in the proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement. , The Stipulated Settlement Agreement and the subsequent public hearings on plan amendment, may involve the change of the use. of land throughout . the unincorporated area of -Indian River County. Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing will need a record of the proceeding, and - . for such purpose, will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to • be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Carolyn Eggert, Chairman 2 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/19/90: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPfi%NtK Community Development Director DATE: September 19, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners give formal consideration to the data herein presented at their special meeting of September 26, 1990. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13, 1990. Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, a copy of the adopted plan was then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for its compliance review. After review, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance. The principal reasons for the noncompliance finding were DCA's contention that the plan promoted urban sprawl, allocated too much land for residential use, and failed to protect upland communities. Despite the noncompliance finding, the adopted plan was and still is the county's official plan. Not only has the staff been implementing the plan since its adoption, but the staff prepared and the board of county commissioners just recently adopted a set of land development regulations consistent with the plan. During this period since the noncompliance finding, the DCA has been proceeding toward an administrative hearing on the plan. That hearing is scheduled to begin on October 9, 1990. If the hearing occurs, the DCA finding will be contested before an administrative hearing officer. Once rendered, the hearing officer's decision will be presented to the governor and cabinet, sitting as the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The decision of the governor and,cabinet may be -appealable to court. In an effort to avoid the administrative hearing process and potential financial sanctions, the county and the DCA have been negotiating an agreement to find the plan in compliance. Throughout this negotiation process, county officials have twice traveled to Tallahassee, while DCA staff have come to the county once. As a result of this process, the county staff and the DCA staff have reached agreement on measures to be taken by the county to have its plan found in compliance.' These changes involve future land. use map amendments, including density reductions in agricultural areas and reduction in the extent of the urban service area; future land use plan policy changes to promote clustering of residential development in agricultural areas; conservation element changes to reflect more upland preservation; capital improvement element changes to reflect upland acquisition; and various data and analysis amendments. A copy of the proposed compliance agreement is attached to this agenda item. Exhibit B of that agreement identifies all of the 3 �oo� P�;c SEP 2 6 1990 0 SEP changes proposed for the county's plan to bring it into compliance. Specifically, exhibit B contains a revised future land use plan map as well as revised objectives and policies for several elements. Proposed text or policy changes are, indicated by strike-throughs and underlines. As proposed, the plan changes. incorporated in the draft compliance agreement are not that substantial. Of these changes, probably the proposed revisions to the future land use plan map have the most impact. Specifically, the changes to the map are as follows: • Reduction in density for agricultural land west of the St. Johns Marsh from 1 unit/5 acres to 1 unit/20 acres • Reduction in density for agricultural land between I-95 and the St. Johns Marsh (except for areas around Fellsmere and the I-95/CR512 area that will remain 1 unit/5 acres) from 1 unit/5 acres to 1 unit/10 acres. • Revision of the urban service area boundary in theC central portion of the county between CR510 and 33rd St. from 74th Avenue to generally 1/2 mile east of 66th Avenue. This reduces densities in these areas from 1 unit/acrl�a,d 3 units/acre to 1 unit/5 acres. • Revision o the urban service area boundary in the south county from 16th Street -to the south county line, generally from 82nd Avenue to 58th Avenue. Mostly, this is a density reduction from 1 unit/acre to 1 unit/5 acres; however, it also includes some areas which are reduced from 3 units/acre and 6 units/acre to 1 unit/5 acres. Revision of two areas within the revised urban service area. These are: • reduction in density of the area south of Sebastian and north of CR510 from 3 units/acre to 1 unit/acre. • reduction in density of the area from 66th Avenue to 1/2 mile east of 66th Avenue from 49th Street to 33rd Street from 6 units/acre to 3 units/acre. Non -map changes reflected in the proposed compliance agreement include a clustering requirement for residential development in areas designated agriculture on the future land use map, acquisition policies for native upland areas, and capital improvement element changes to reflect the upland acquisition. These are specifically identified by the struck -through and underlined portions of exhibit B. Besides those changes, there will be revisions to the data and analysis sections of the future land use element, the conservation element and the capital improvements element. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Throughout the negotiation process, county staff defended the adopted Indian River County Comprehensive Plan and resisted DCA's effort to require changes. When negotiations started, DCA's main concern focused upon the county's over -allocation of residential land. With enough land programmed for residential development to accommodate 11.6 times the additional land expected to be needed by 2010, the county's plan was inconsistent with DCA's residential acreage allocation factor. By convincing DCA to consider only land within the urban service area in measuring residential land allocation, by more specifically delineating available land by removing commercial and institutional uses, by removing land needed for infrastructure use, and by reducing the size of the urban service area, the staff succeeded in reducing the ratio from 11.6 to 4.5. Even at that amount, however, Indian River County's residential allocation factor is higher than many other areas. Several counties have ratios under two. Besides the density issue, the DCA was concerned with agricultural preservation in agricultural areas even with the reduced densities. To address- that issue, required clustering provisions have been included in the proposed compliance agreement. The effect of these requirements will be to ensure that development in agricultural areas is limited to lots of one acre or less, with most of the remainder of the site left in agricultural use or as native vegetation. Finally, the proposed compliance agreement addresses upland preservation. It does so by requiring that the county preserve 25% of the amount of native uplands that will be developed over the life of the plan -- 20 years. To achieve the 25%, the compliance agreement commits the county to acquisition of 450 acres of uplands to supplement the land that will be preserved through the county's 15% set-aside requirement. Attached to this item is the proposed compliance agreement. This document is a legal agreement between the county and DCA committing the county to amend its plan within 60 days by adopting the map changes and policy revisions specified in exhibit B. The agreement specifies that this action will serve to make the plan be found in compliance. DCA staff and Secretary Pelham have already approved the actions reflected in exhibit B. The Board's alternatives are to approve the compliance agreement and thereby postponing the administrative hearing until the plan can be formally amended or proceeding with the administrative hearing on October 9, 1990. It is staff's position that the better alternative is to execute the compliance agreement. Doing so would not only postpone the administrative hearing; it would also preclude imposition of sanctions -- a loss of $10 million in revenue. If the board so desires, legislative action to address these issues could be pursued concurrently in conjunction with other counties. In this manner, the county can achieve its desires at less cost and with less risk. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the board of county commissioners adopt the proposed compliance agreement. Attachment: 1. Proposed Compliance Agreement IS 1990 5 BOOK 81 S E P 2 6 BOOK C�� F'A.uE b'-6 Chairman Eggert turned the meeting over to Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, who explained that the proposed compliance agreement that staff has negotiated with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) basically calls for one home per 20 acres in the western portion of the county; the agricultural land just west of 1-95 will be one unit per 10 acres; the agricultural land east of 1-95 will be one home per 5 acres; and the central St. Johns marsh area will be in conservation at zero units an acre. EXHIBIT B The following remedial actions will be taken by Indian River County to bring its comprehensive plan into compliance • FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP The future land use plan map will be revised to correspond with the map incorporated as a part of this exhibit B. The changes to be made to the adopted Indian River County future land use plan map are generally as follows: • Reduction in density for agricultural land west of the St. Johns Marsh from 1 unit/5 acres to 1 unit/20 acres • Reduction in density for agricultural land between I-95 and the St. Johns Marsh (except for areas around Fellsmere and the I-95/CR512 area that will remain 1 unit/5 acres) from 1 unit/5 acres to 1 unit/10 acres. - • Revision of the urban service area boundary in the central portion of the county between CR510 and 33rd St. from 74th Avenue to generally 1/2 mile east of 66th Avenue. This reduces densities in these areas from 1 unit/acre and 3 units/acre to 1 unit/5 acres. • Revision of the urban service area boundary in the south county from 16th Street to the south county line, generally from 82nd Avenue to 58th Avenue. Mostly, this is a density reduction from 1 unit/acre to 1 unit/5 acres; however, it also includes some areas which are reduced from 3 units/acre and 6 units/acre to 1 unit/5 acres. • Revision of two areas within the -revised urban service area. These are: • reduction in density of area south of Sebastian and north of CR510 from 3 units/acre to 1-.unit/acre. • reduction in density of area from 66th Avenue to 1/2 mile east from 49th Street to 33rd Street from 6 units/acre to 3 units/acre. 6 _1 - M M • FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The future land use element goals, objectives and policies will be revised as indicated below. POLICY 1.8: Development of agriculturally designated lands shall be limited to the following: Agricultural uses such as Farming, Groves, Range and Livestock Activities and Forestry Excavation Activities Residential Uses 1 unit/5 acres AG -1 1 unit/10 acres AG -2 1 unit/20 acres AG -3 Agricultural Research Agriculturally Related Business Recreational Uses Public Facilities and Institutions *No residential development in agriculturally designated areas shall occur unless such development is approved as a planned development and meets the requirements of Policy 5.8; the following activities shall be exempt from this requirement: •Construction of a single-familv dwelling unit on a tract or parcel existing on October 1, 1990 *Division of a tract or parcel into two lots, each meeting or exceeding the minimum lot size of the agricultural zoning district; any subsequent split of such property shall require approval as a planned development project. *Division of a tract into parcels of at least 40 acres in size. POLICY 1.32: The county will maintain a concurrency database which identifies areas with facility surpluses and deficiencies Development shall be directed to areas with adequate facility capacity through publication of this information and through implementation of the county's concurrency management system N POLICY 2.5: Indian River County shall encourage and direct growth into Urban Service Areas through zoning,. subdivision and land development regulations. Such regulations shall promote efficient development by requiring connection to the existing street system, extension of public facilities where necessary, and incentives for mixed use projects. 7 f�UOK .. F'A�EP IS P 6 1990 SEP 2 6 990 POLICY 5.4: A special planned development (PD) district may shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility from the land development regulations in order to maximize open space and conserve natural features, incorporate recreational facilities, and mixed use projects. POLICY 5.5: Commercial uses shall be limited to less than 10% of a planned development, unless the planned development project is located within a commercial or industrial node. POLICY 5.6: PD's shall be permitted -the- Urban -Service Area; -throughout the county, without amendment of the future land use map, provided the proposed development is shown to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. PD's shall be consistent with the maximum density permitted by the Future Land Use Map unless density bonuses are permitted by Policy 5.7. POLICY 5.7: The land development regulations shall be structured to encourage the use of Planned Developments (PD's) by allowing for density bonuses fort. for projects within the urban service area for: a) The inclusion of low and moderate income housing units in the project in accordance with the housing element. b) Development rights transferred from Conservation Districts. c) Development rights transferred from AG, Agriculture, areas. Density bonuses for PD's shall not increase the project's density by more than 20% of the underlying land use designation. POLICY 5.8: All planned development (PD) Droiects approved in an area designated as AG, Agriculture, on the future land use ma shall meet the following criteria: • The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the AG land use designation; no density transfers from off-site lands and no density bonuses shall be permitted within PD projects in AG designated lands; • Lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one acre in size, with the remainder of the area designated as open space; 8 W • Oven space areas shall be retained as natural areas or used for agricultural uses; however, up to thirty percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -1 areas; up to twenty-five percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -2 areas and up to twenty percent of the open space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -3 areas. POLICY 7.3: Any development activity in areas designated as environmentally sensitive or important as defined in policies 5.4 and 6.11 of the Conservation Element shall require an environmental survey as part of the approval of a development order. Based upon the results of the environmental survey, development projects shall be required to provide a site design which minimizes impacts upon endangered and threatened plants and animals. The data and analysis section of be revised to reflect changes updating of acreage amounts by population and other factors. • INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT the future land use element will on the map. This will include land use designation, potential Sanitary Sewer Subelement & Potable Water Subelement The connection matrix (table 3.A.16 in the Sanitary Sewer Subelement and table 3.8.19 in the Potable Water Subelement) will be revised by indicating that subdivisions less than 25 units within 1/4 mile of the regional system and outside of the existing service area.but within the 2010 service area must connect to the regional system. •CONSERVATION ELEMENT The conservation element goals, objectives and policies will be revised as indicated below. OBJECTIVE 6 Upland Vegetative Communities Sufficient upland vegetative communities to maintain viable populations of all native plant and animal species, and representative stands of each habitat type in Indian River County, will be preserved. By 2010, Indian River County shall preserve a minimum of 750 acres of upland native plant communities through the establishment of conservation easements or fee simple purchase, or combination thereof. W, 5e4C !' ) e moC .. c a 51 9 POLICY 6.1: The county shall establish and/or assist state, federal, and regional agencies in'the establishment of preserves for sand pine/xeric scrub, tropical/coastal hammock, coastal strand, and pine flatwood/dry prairie vegetative communities, of a sufficient size to maintain viable populations of endemic plant and/or animal species. The county shall coordinate with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) to contribute to the establishment of such preserves, in conjunction with a regional "wilderness corridor", as identified by the TCRPC. POLICY 6.3: By 1992, the county shall acquire and/or assist state and federal agencies in the acquisition of a minimum of 100 acres of coastal/tropical hammocks and complementary habitats for the protection of the vegetative community. The following sites shall be considered: a. coastal/tropical hammocks and other complementary native plant communities adjacent to the (IFAS) Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, north of Oslo Road, east of U.S. #1. b. coastal/tropical hammocks adjacent to northern Jungle Trail, in coordination with the proposed Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge expansion; c. coastal/tropical hammocks on Orchid Island north of Wabasso Beach and east of S.R. AIA, in conjunction with the proposed CARL Wabasso Beach/Sea Turtle National Wildlife Refuge project; and d. coastal/tropical hammocks and other complementary native plant communities along the western bank of the St. Sebastian River, in conjunction with ongoing state and federal land acquisition proposals. POLICY 6.14: By 1993, the countv shall acres (not including those areas nrotec t policy 6.12) of pine flatwoods/d establishment of conservation easements combination thereof. The following communities shall be givenspecial consid policy: protect a minimum of 300 ed through application of ryprairie through the or fee simple purchase, or pine flatwood/dry prairie eration in satisfvina this a. Flatwood/dry prairie communities in southwest Indian River County, identified by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission-(GFC) and Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) as potentially contributing to a regional "wilderness corridor"; and 10 _I M M b. Flatwood/dry prairie to riverine wetlands which contribute to diversity. ties complementary �r natural systems, wildlife species W POLICY 6.15: The county shall establish an ongoing acquisition program to extend beyond 1993 and to 2010 for the protection of flatwoods/dry prairie areas. Such program will be developed by 1994 and shall include amounts of land to be protected, land area to be acquired, and revenue sources to be used for acquisition. The data and analysis section of the conservation element will be revised to provide. adequate justification of the policy changes referenced above. •HOUSING ELEMENT Policy 2.2 will be revised to reflect changes in the acreage amount of each residential land use designation identified on the future land use plan map. The data and analysis section of the housing element will be revised to reflect changes made in the land use plan map. In addition, table 7.21 will be modified to address inaccuracies in the unit numbers and acreage amounts. The proposed modifications are indicated in revised table 7.21 attached to and made a part of this exhibit B. •CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT Various capital improvements element tables will be revised to reflect the additional revenue and expenses associated with the additional upland acquisition proposed in the conservation element revisions. This will include modifications to Table 13.23 (5 year schedule of improvements) and table 13.18 (summary of revenues and expenses by element category). Additional revenue will be derived from general obligation bonds. The data and analysis section of the capital improvements element will be revised to reflect the changes referenced above. P 2 6 199 S E P 2 6- 1990 �K 541 Director Keating advised that staff is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed compliance agreement and fight the system politically through the Legislature. If the compliance agreement is approved tonight, it will -not be the end of the process. Actually, it will be the beginning of a process. If the compliance agreement is approved tonight, the County will be agreeing to take actions to amend its Comp Plan consistent with what is shown in Exhibit B which is part of the compliance agreement that establishes the remedial actions necessary to bring the plan into compliance. If the proposed compliance plan is not approved tonight, we will go into the 120 administrative hearing process, which is a trial -like situation, before the hearing officer. Then, after both sides present their case, the hearing officer will make a decision and send the recommended order to the DCA. If the hearing officer finds that we are in compliance, there will be a final order and we will be in compliance. If the hearing officer finds that we are not in compliance, the issue goes to the Governor and Cabinet, who can impose sanctions. He advised that Attorney Collins will explain the implications of that a little later on in this meeting. There will be 4 more public hearings: one before the Planning & Zoning Commission, one before the BCC for approval to transmit the amendments to the DCA, one before the DCA, and a final action before the BCC. If the process continues to meet with DCA approval, the County will be able to avoid an administrative hearing and keep its State tax money. Assistant County Attorney Will Collins admitted that personally he would like to tell the State to keep their money and that we would do our own planning, but as an attorney for the County, he would have to recommend that the Board approve the proposed compliance agreement so that the County doesn't lose state revenues. Making up the loss of $10 million would mean a 25 percent property tax increase, and that would put a significant burden on the taxpayers of this county. 12 Commi.ssioner Scurlock understood that there are interveners in this matter, both for and against our Comp Plan, and Attorney Collins explained that right now, Attorney Bruce Barkett's clients have intervened on the County's behalf saying that the plan should be found in compliance. It is entirely possible that the interveners may feel differently about these remedial amend- ments, and they should have the opportunity to propose some compliance amendment that would be acceptable to all parties. Commissioner Bird asked at what point in the process if the Board asked whether we agree or disagree with the interveners' positions, and Attorney Collins explained that the Board can make their comments at the transmittal process when you send it up to the DCA. He felt it is meaningful to hear what they say, but it wouldn't do us a lot of good to say that we agree with an intervener now and then have the DCA reject it,.because we would be right back at the same point. If the DCA supports the interveners' positions, we will have another opportunity at the adoption hearing to consider them ourselves either favorably or unfavorably, and we would have the opportunity to argue for it. Chairman Eggert understood that if we approve this compliance agreement tonight, we are not completely out of the administrative hearing process -- it simply puts it off. If for some reason the DCA decides that the County was proceeding in.bad faith in our process, they could demand an administrative hearing to start anytime on everything that is in here, not just one or two things. Until we get through the last adopted amendment, we still will have an administrative hearing hanging over us. Attorney Collins advised that the interveners have an opportunity to be heard through the administrative hearing process. We did a deposition on Monday and most of the interveners were represented. We all had a conference with the - hearing officer, and one of the issues was whether the entire hearing would be continued or whether the interveners would go X00 F,4f sem, P 1990 13 �ErA SEP 2 6 1990 BOOK 81 PAGE 543 forward. Basically, it is the interveners' position that they have an independent right to a hearing regardless of a 2 -party settlement between the County and the State. Attorney Collins felt that if they are given the opportunity to participate in the settlement by making their own proposals, they probably would be willing to work through the amendment process. There have been cases where counties have gone into settlement agreements with the State, and the recommended order of the intervener went to the Governor and Cabinet, who kicked it back saying that they couldn't consider it*in isolation. He felt, in all fairness, that it is easier to let the interveners participate in the settlement process. The only thing we want to be careful about is not to add or delete anything from the negotiated compliance agreement because we don't want to jeopardize our ability to settle it from our standpoint. We could certainly send along their proposals at the transmittal hearing and get the DCA's reaction independently of the compliance agreement. Commissioner Scurlock understood from 'the conference call with the DCA earlier today that if the Board doesn't approve the compliance agreement as it is proposed tonight, we definitely would be going ahead with an administrative hearing. Director Keating confirmed that would be the case, and Chairman Eggert felt they made it very clear that if we don't approve this tonight, we could go back to square one and argue the points we have already won. Attorney Collins emphasized that there is nothing wrong with going into an administrative hearing and arguing our case, but there are drawbacks. Charlotte County, which is very similar to our county with respect to many of the same issues, particularly urban sprawl, made many of the same arguments and they lost that hearing. The recommended order pretty much rejected all of the county's arguments, and they had some excellent outside attorneys intervening in that case as well. There is a lot of downside if 14 _ M - M we go through an administrative hearing and lose. So what we may feel awful about agreeing to tonight could be considerably worse. Attorney Collins noted that the administrative hearing officer works for the Division of Administrative Hearings, which is another executive branch under the Governor. Commissioner Wheeler asked'if there was one single case where a hearing officer has ruled for anybody other than the DCA, and Attorney Collins stated that he wasn't aware of one. He felt the remedy should be a political one where we would go to Tallahassee and have a little more local authority given back to the county. The Holmes Act is so complex, even the Legislature hardly understands what they are passing. Attorney Collins believed we should work towards putting enough pressure on the Legislature to get this act repealed or modified. Attorney Vitunac asked if there was a representative from the DCA here tonight. No one responded. Director Keating proceeded to go through the changes proposed in this compliance agreement, showing maps, exhibits, etc. After approximately 45 minutes of discussion on the proposed changes in the compliance agreement, the Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. George Powers, a resident of the Fellsmere area, was opposed to the reduced densities. He moved from Miami 20 years ago and bought 15 acres, 5 for himself and 5 for each of his two children. He just built his house last year and it split that 15 acres down the middle, so if they approve this plan, he would have 5 acres on one side of him and.5acres on the other side of him that would be totally useless because his children would not be allowed to build their homes on that land. He emphasized that this is going against what he tried to do for 19.years, and that is to provide a legacy for his children. ,SEP 2 6 1990 15 EP 2 6-1990 BOOK 1 JA,UE 545 Director Keating advised that Mr. Powers could be grand- fathered in if he has done a proper split, and invited Mr. Powers to come to the Planning Department tomorrow or the next day to check out that possibility. -Owen Wyman, trustee of Grove Realty Trust, which owns 58 acres in the 6500 block of 33rd Street, felt that what the DCA has done is say, "Give us your lunch money and we'll let you live." Their parcel almost would be surrounded by 6 upa, but he would be only allowed to put up 3 upa. He urged the Board to reject the DCA compliance agreement and go with the excellent original Comp Plan prepared by the County's Planning Department. He felt that the DCA has made a patchwork quilt of the original plan. He urged the Board to stand up and be counted by going to an administrative hearing on this. Helen Glenn, 6550 33rd Street (Cherry Lane) between 58th and 66th Avenues, explained that she is one mile directly north of the new mall. With the compromise plan, half of her property would be downgraded to 3 upa and the other half would remain at 6 upa. The entire south side of their little dirt road would remain at 6 upa and one half of the north side would remain at 6 upa. The result of this is that 750 of the property owners on their little road will have a density of 6 upa, and 25% will have a density of 3 upa. She lives on the north side and will be greatly affected, and felt it is an unjustifiable hardship for her to have to come and seek a change in the Comp Plan in order to have a zoning designation in compliance with her neighborhood. She urged the Board not to change their little dirt road and to leave all of the zoning density at the same designation. Stanley Kirby, 6375 37th Street, representing family-owned property located between 58th and 66th Avenues, pointed out that the old Comp Plan had them at 6 upa, and now with the new Comp Plan they are on the boundary line and are being knocked back to 3 upa. They are within one half mile of new water and sewer 16 r � � lines and their road is designated for paving in the future. He urged the Board to reject the compliance agreement, because it is going to hurt his family considerably to be put in this position of paying impact fees for utilities and a paving assessment. When the new mall is built, there will be a great need for affordable housing, and the the boundary line between 6 upa and 3 upa just isn't logical. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the Utilities Dept. actually sized the lift stations off of SR -60 to carry the flow to provide service to those areas lying back in there. Harold Putnam, local attorney, hated to see this Commission take the position that the State of Florida is our enemy. He felt that by working with the State, the County will be able to help control the exploding growth in Florida. He suggested that the County zone the wetlands along the river for residential purposes and act in good faith on the State's suggestion of buying land and holding land for the purpose of preservation. W. B. Brown, part owner in Grove Realty Trust, advised that they have been approached to donate right-of-way along 33rd Street (Cherry Lane). Apparently, all the right-of-way will be on the north side of the road because of drainage problems, and they probably will be asked to pay an assessment for paving the road when it happens. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, they still will have only 3 upa where right across the.street, they have 6 upa. Referring to the third item on page 1 of Exhibit B, Mr. Brown pointed out that the wording is rather vague with regard to the boundary line separating the 3 upa from the 6 upa. Commissioner Bird believed Mr. Brown's property was in the 3 upa area, and Director Keating agreed. Chairman Eggert requested staff to make that third item clearer. Darrell McQueen, local engineer, noted that when the Comp Plan was adopted at the February 13th Commission meeting, they SEP 2 6 1990 17 mor � RAGE 546 SEP 2 6 1990 80oK 81 F,AGE 54 d came before the Board and asked that a nodal concept be adopted at the interchanges of 1-95 at SR -60 and CR -512. They asked that the Board take a radius of some 3 -miles at SR -60 and establish a node for 1 upa residential golf course type development, and a radius of 2 -miles at'l-95 and CR -512 for the same type of development. He remembered that the Board directed staff to look into the nodal concept for these interchanges on 1-95, but they don't seem to be included in the compliance agreement. He represents clients in both of these areas who wish to build golf course residential with 1800 acres at CR -512 and 500+ acres at SR -60. Back in July they submitted an amendment to the Comp Plan for the property on SR -60 that would bring the urban service area into compliance with the utility -service area. The utilities service area in the Comp Plan included about 120 acres of agricultural which was left out of the urban service area. The Planned Development that was developed came very close to satisfying the nodal concept that they were looking for at SR -60 except for the agricultural requirement. He was afraid it will leave the agricultural set aside in that 120 acres of the 500+ acre parcel at SR -60. Mr. McQueen asked if the Board still has the option of passing this agreement tonight and including that amendment since they had voted to have those nodes in_,the first place. He recalled that at a Commission meeting some 4 or 5 weeks ago, the Commission reaffirmed their direction to staff to negotiate with the DCA to keep these nodes in there as best they could. Chairman Eggert stressed that staff did take them up to Tallahassee and they did fight for them. Mr. McQueen felt that the County still may have the option of passing this agreement with an addendum to it to let the DCA consider the node without jeopardizing its position, because if they do not consider the node, they conceivably could strike that node out and say that they would just accept the other and will not accept it. 18 W M M Attorney Collins agreed that option is and should be there. However, when this concept was talked about at the February 13th meeting, we didn't have the time to work out the capital improvement implications, and it didn't get transmitted. We were required by the DCA to transmit the plan within 5 days after the Board's adoption of the Comp Plan, and in the course of negotiating with them during the summer and getting the land development regulations in place, that ball was dropped a little bit. Attorney Bruce Barkett is representing clients who are intervening on our behalf and we have discussed with him the possibility that the remedial amendments that we are talking about now may adversely affect his clients. He was going to _ discuss resolving his intervention position with them in terms of a mixed use concept around those two interchange nodes. In some of their technical memos, the DCA has said that a mixed use concept in certain areas combining industrial, residential and commercial in close proximity is something they can address. Attorney Collins felt that in order to allow a present intervener to put forward that type of an argument to avoid having to intervene again against any remedial actions, we should allow this proposal to be sent up to the State. He didn't think we could make it a part of our settlement agreement, however, because the DCA has said that if we change a letter of the negotiated compliance agreement, all bets are off. But, when we hold our transmittal hearing within 60 days; we do have the possibility for the interveners and the parties that are involved to submit proposals for DCA consideration. Whether they will accept them or not, we will have to see. Chairman Eggert emphasized that she and staff had talked endlessly about the nodal concept when they were in Tallahassee. Director Keating explained that 6 weeks after the Board gave staff direction to consider nodal concepts, we received word that the DCA had found our Comp Plan in non-compliance, and one of the 19 S EP 24,1990 BOCK 81 PA[JE 549 reasons was that we had way too many dwelling units. It would have been counter productive to start talking about densities with 2 and 3 mile radii increasing all those units. That is why we put it off. Commissioner Scurlock understood that what staff is recom- mending tonight is to go ahead and convey the compliance plan without changing a letter, so to speak, but concurrent with that, try to reach a settlement with the interveners by conveying their proposed amendments concurrent with this, and Director Keating responded affirmatively. Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that they are supportive of sending up the compliance agre.ement as it stands now, and in the meantime try to work out another additional agreement with the DCA and staff and have that sent up at transmittal time. Mr. McQueen stated that at this time his client is not an intervener, and advised that Mr. Barkett was not the attorney for the SR -60 property, but is the attorney on the 1800 acre parcel on CR -512. Attorney Barkett advised that he represents J. B. Cain on the SR -60 property. Mr. McQueen explained that the 500+ acre parcel on SR -60 is industrial, commercial, residential on the south side of SR -60 and immediately on the west side of 1-95. Most of it is in the urban service area and all of it is in the utilities service area. The nodal concept would have taken care of this in that it would have allowed them to use some density out of there. This development is presently zoned at 8 upa. If this plan goes through, it will be developed at 500 units on 525 acres, or less than 1 upa. He urged the Board to include the nodal concept for these interchanges if there was any way of doing it. He repeated that, at the present time, his client is not an intervener. Attorney Collins stated that it is too late to intervene, and Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is any way that Mr. McQueen's nodal concept could be considered by the DCA. 20 Director Keating explained that we are only dealing with the compliance agreement issues that are here now. However, when we come back and amend the plan to incorporate those, that is when we would consider these other amendments, along with the amendments that were submitted in July. He needed to have Mr. McQueen and Mr. Barkett get their applications in real soon, but Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Mr. Barkett doesn't need to because they have intervened. Director Keating felt that both Mr. Barkett's project and Mr. McQueen's project have a good possibility of having their submittal considered and worked out by the DCA just like they consider any other Comp Plan amendment. Director Keating asked if Mr. McQueen was to be charged Comp Plan amendment fees the same as the others who submitted in July, but the Board indicated that he wouldn't be charged since Commis- sioner Scurlock had suggested that the County initiate the nodal concept amendment back at the February 13th meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed staff to initiate a Comp Plan amendment for the nodal concept for the 1-95 interchanges of SR -60 and CR -512 and work with Mr. McQueen and Mr. Barkett during the 60 -day period before the public hearing .for transmittal to the DCA along with the County's amendments. Peter Robinson, local builder, understood.that any property lying outside the urban land use area and the urban service district could not be serviced, and Director Keating explained that it is a 1/4 of a mile outside the existing line within the 2010 urban service area. Commissioner Scurlock asked if you can extend outside the urban service area with utilities, and Director Keating confirmed that you cannot extend service outside. SEP 2 6 1990 21 L_ S E P 2 6 1990 PO POOK Mr. Robinson felt it is totally baffling why the DCA is doing this to the County after all the planning by county staff, and Commissioner Scurlock cautioned•everyone again about the concurrency issue and a possible moratorium on building. Sam Owens, attorney from Daytona Beach representing the Coraci lands located on the northern boundary of Indian River County, agreed that we need to put pressure on the Legislature to get the Holmes Act changed to get the planning back on a local level. With regard to the Coraci property, it is a high upland area and should not be at 1 unit per 40 acres. The bluff over the river rises to 20 feet and the wetland zone is a very small area, and in some instances non-existent. When we discussed this with Tom Pelham, Secretary of the DCA, and his staff, it was Mr. Pelham's suggestion that if this is the case and he wants some proof, we need to come up with some sort of a special designation. Go ahead and call it conservation, which they have done, and which they have no objection, but come up with a separate category that differentiates it from the rest of the conservation areas because it is different. It is high and dry and is an upland. This is what they brought back from Tallahassee in the form of depositions to ask all of the experts to try to get established in the court record the fact that this was a completely different system, and Attorney Owens felt that has been established. He noted that he has worked for Mr. Coraci for 8 years and Mr. Coraci has been sympathetic to the environment with respect to setting aside cluster areas, and transferring development over to other areas when finding an endangered species. Attorney Owens advised that they also have until October 9th for this administrative hearing. He spoke with Mr. Pelham yesterday, and also with Mr. Russ, who attended the depositions, 22 and when they discussed being next door to a 1 unit per 2-1/2 acres designation in Brevard County, they began to come a little closer, especially after they had digested the depositions. He received authority this morning for the first time to offer to all parties a 1 unit per 2-1/2 acres, but Mr. Coraci asked him to make it very clear that he could live with a cluster system with the transfer of development rights as originally suggested by county staff, but if it was to exceed that, he would insist it go to an administrative hearing. What they are seeking tonight is to ask the Board to direct county staff to come up with this special category very similar to what you started off with that also would be acceptable to the DCA. He felt they can come up with some very creative language concerning clustering and setbacks that would be considerably more liberal than the initial things that were included in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Bird understood that Attorney Owens is asking for some kind of special designation on the upland property adjoining the Sebastian River, but he would like to know about the remainder of the several thousand acres that Mr. Coraci has there. Attorney Owens believed they could live with the 1 unit per 5 acres on the remainder. Attorney Collins introduced for the record a FAX letter he received from C. Allen Watts of the law firm representing the Coraci property: P 2 6 1990 23 SEP 2 6 1990 BOOK ��.. FAGc5 5'3 -A0 15:46 FROM 9042387003 THOMAS T. COSI W. WARREN COLE, JR. SAMUEL P. SELL 111 JAY D. BOND. JR, JONATHAN O. KANEY JR. J. LESYER KANEY JOHN J. UPCHURCH JAMES M. BARCLAY WILLIAM C. ROWNSON, in. C. ALLEN WATTS LARRY O. MARSH KEVIN X. CROWLEY THOMAS S. HART TCPACNCE M. WHITE THEODORE E. MACH JANET r. MARTINEZ KENNETH R. ART1N DAVID M. PR68NICK GREGORY O. SNKLL SCOTT W. CION N JAY A. OG --ATO III - ROBERT A. MERRELL 111 NORMA STANLEY KELLY THOMAS RYAN 09NEE K. r4HR TO LAW Orriess COBB COLE a BELL ISO MAQNOUA AVENUE POET Or►ICC cox 0401 AA7 TTNA 31AC11, FORWA 32118-2491 TELEPHONE (904) E55-8171 DELAND (904) 736-7700 TELECOPIER (904) 258-8068 September 26, 1990 William G. Collins, 11, Esquire Assistant County Attorney County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL .2960 14075679323 P.02 TALLAHASSEE OKrICC SUITE 500 31S S. CALMOUN STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA SES01 (90�.) 691.3EAa TELEOOPIER (904) BBI -3241 OF COUNSEL OHILIP M. ELLIOTT. JR. CASEY J. CdLUCKMAN J014M P. McCoy PAU16 N. UPCHURCH Re: Potential for Settlement of Claims of Intervenor Coraci, et al. Dear Will Pursuant to the conversations that we had during the depositions on Monday, Sam OwensI later conversations with the Secretary of Community Affairs, and our conversations this morning with David Russ and yourself, we believe that there i.s.a potential solution to the plan challenge of this intervenor, and we would appreciate your informing your commissioners of the proposal at this evening Is hearing. I recognize that the commissioners are not going to have enough information to make any decisions this evening, but it will be helpful to the negotiations if you receive a general expression of interest or disinterest in this proposal. The County will recall that it had originally assigned a density of 1 t 1 to the ridge portion of the property west of the St. Sebastian River, with provisions for transferrable development rights. This property was placed in the land use classification C-21 although it is the only dry scrub area within that classification= the remaining C-2 lands are principally wetlands along or within the Indian River. The Department suggested that the densities should be reduced to 1:40 on lands in the C-2 classification, but we have discovered that the only apparent factual basis for that recommendation is the comment from the Water Management District. That comment was limited to wetlands and deep water habitats, and does not appear relevant to the Coraci lands. S 1\CWATf \309100J 24 M TO .990 15:47 FPOM 9042387003 TO COBB COLE 0 BEI.. William G. Collins, II, Esquire Page 2 September 26, 1990 14075679323 P.02 14075679323 P.03 We suggest that the County consider a plan amendment, establishing a third classification of conservation lands to include the xeric scrub community found principally on the Coraci lands. As noted in the CARL report on these lands, they are physically suitable for development, but appropriate care needs to be taken so that the river is buffered, the banks are kept in a natural condition free from erosion or potential pollution, and such threatened species as the manatee or the eagle near the San Sebastian Springs development are appropriately buffered. Once those public goals and, policies have been achieved, we believe that there is no basis in the data for classifying this land differently from the portion of the riverbank which lies in Brevard County, and that portion at the upper reaches of the river which lie in the San Sebastian Springs development within the City of Sebastian. These adjoining jurisdictions have classified the western bank for development at a density of at least one unit per 2h acres. in order to be consistent with these jurisdictions and at the same time offer the County an option which is more likely to be acceptable to the Department of Community ,Affairs than the transmission draft, we offer to compromise our claims so long as we can reach agreement at the same time as the other plan amendments are being processed for the Compliance Agreement. we accordingly propose a gross density of one unit per 2h acres, which shall be subject to internal or external transfers and clustering so as to achieve the public goals of protecting the river and protecting the threatened species and habitat. This density affords a natural step-down from the adjoining municipality to the east and the Vero Lake Estates area to the south, to the x:5 densities on the agricultural area further west. The density is also flexible enough for creativity in protecting the river and the native scrub community. We are mindful of the desire of the County and of the state agencies to acquire some part of the dwindling amount of xeric scrub community in Indian River County. Our primary concern is that the County, with some pressure from the Department of Community Affairs, has adopted a land use classification which unnaturally suppresses the value. of land as to which public acquisition is desired. The decision in the DOT right of way reservation case, and the more recent decision of the U.S. Court ill90101101 E 25 F,. SEP 2 6 ISO ,�90 15:49 FROM 9042387003 TO 14075679323 F.04 COBB COLE 8 BELL William G. Collins, II, Esquire Page 3 September 26, 1990 of Claims in Florida Mock Industries v. united States (copy enclosed) cast doubt on the use of regulation rather than purchase to preserve native communities, when development is not itself a nuisance. While we are certainly willing to negotiate with the state agencies, we .should be entitled to a fair price which re€-.ects the true development potential of the land. In our discussions with counsel for the Department of Community Affairs, he pointed out that a plan amendment to dispose of this intervenor's challenge should be entirely separate from the package of amendments previously negotiated with the Department as a compliance agreement. Nevertheless, this amendments if it is favorably received by the County, should be transmitted at the same time if the administrative hearing is to be abated. Although we certainly do not expect to conclude a "deal" with Indian River County or with the Department of Community ,Affairs on such short notice and without opportunity for full public notice and hearing, we will consider the County Commissioners' instructions to you to proceed with negotiations in this general direction to be a sign of good faith, based upon which we would withdraw our insistence that the administrative hearing proceed on these intervenors' claims as scheduled on October 9. Please feel free to call either me or Bob Riggin if you have any questions raised by this letter. I am providing a copy via fax to David Russ, and I make the same request of him. Cordially, 0/4%, C. Allen Watts CAW:kp Enclosure cc: David Russ $I\CNATT\3091400) 26 Attorney Collins stated again that this is something we do not need to incorporate into our compliance agreement, but we can certainly send it up at the transmittal hearing and see what DCA's reaction is and allow our own staff the time to review the proposal and see what their position is on it. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this area is outside the urban service area, so the DCA's position is going to be 1 unit per 5 acres. He felt that rather than trying to give an indication about the 1 unit per 2-112 acres, we should go ahead and direct staff to work it out in good faith and come back with a recommendation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized staff to negotiate this matter in good faith and come back with a recommendation. Commissioner Bowman understood that this property is ranked #15 on the CARL list, and Attorney Owens advised that if you have 1 upa on 40 acres, the CARL appraisals will come in at a lower price that the owner would not consider. Warren Dill, local attorney, advised that he has lived up in that.area where it is 1 upa for 40 acres, and while it does restrict a lot of undevelopable land along the Sebastian River, the people up there do not object to that. 'With respect to the reference to the high bluff over the Sebastian River, he didn't believe that runs contiguous with the river at that height for any more than 1000 feet in length. It may veer back away from the river or go west if it is 600 acres involved, but he really didn't think it ran more than 1000 feet along the river. It seems unfair to the rest'of the property owners in that area if the County Commission is going to start talking 1 unit per 2-112 acres when everyone else has been going through a year or P 1990 27QC�K F�1�`r. E P 2 BOOK 81 F,q,E J5 7 more of public hearings and the Commission has been pretty steadfast on their position on zoning in that area. It just doesn't seem right that someone can,walk into a public hearing at the last minute and convince you that you should be looking at 1 unit -per 2-1/2 acres that -you have zoned 1 unit per 40 acres. Attorney Dill stressed that there are a lot of people who worked very hard with petitions and letters to the Governor and Cabinet to get that property ranked as high as it is on the CARL listings, and they are not going to be very happy to hear that all.of a sudden this land may be downzoned significantly to a point where it substantially increases the property value. 'in the interests of fairness, he felt the Coraci request should be required to go through all the public hearings the same as every body elses property. Chairman Eggert assured him that it will go through all the public hearings. The only direction that is being given to staff tonight is to work with them and come back with a recommendation. She also pointed out that two weeks ago, the DCA wasn't giving anything on this, and to hear that Secretary Pelham is talking about perhaps putting it at 1 unit per 2-1/2 acres is a big change from what we were being told. Attorney Collins explained that this change is not effective as of tonight; it is simply saying that we will transmit to the State this intervener's proposal. It is really a settlement proposal on their behalf, and if they can convince the DCA that it is reasonable and can convince the County that it is reasonable, we will get the DCA's comments back and we will have a final adoption hearing. However, that is a 6 month's process minimum. Nothing is being approved tonight -- we are only saying that we will both try to resolve this as a settlement. There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter, Chairman Eggert closed the Public Hearing. 28 - M M Chairman Eggert entered into the record the following letter received from Attorney William Caldwell re property fronting on the west right-of-way of Kings Highway, between 49th Street and the North Relief Canal: Collins, Brown & Caldwell CHARTERED ' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 744 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD GEORGE G. COLONS. JR.- VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963 PLEASE REPLY TO: CALVIN B. BROWN 407-231-4343 POST OFFICE BOX 3688 WILLIAM W. CALDWELL . FAX 407-Z34-5213 # VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32984 BRADLEY W. ROSSWAV BRUCE D. BARKETT STEPHEN CONNELLY DAVID A. ZALPH -BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER September 25, 1990 l['hT QN LIS___- T ---- - --- C. Board of County Commission �r �•�;at�rr Carolyn Eggert, Chairman h4;- Dick Bird, Vice Chairman ti . I Maggie Bowman , , ' F-��.'; : �r..� �, c . Doug Scurlock ;t7 I -ed.,---' Gary Wheeler Re: Land Use Plan Settlement Negotiations Maher with the DCA Dear Commissioners: The Indian River Corporation, a corporation in which I have a substantial investment, owns property fronting on the west right-of-way of Kings Highway between 49th Street and the North Relief Canal.: The proposed compromise maps reflect the County agreeing to reduce the potential density on this stretch from LD= 2, six (6) units per acre, to LD -1, three (3) units per acre. I request that you consider leaving this property at LD -2 for the following reasons: 1. Kings Highway is the first major north -south thoroughfare west of U.S. #1. 2. 53rd Street is to be the extension of Indian River Boulevard and the major east/west right-of-way between State Roads 60 and 510. As a consequence, the intersection of Kings Highway and 53rd Street will be a major traffic intersection in the not too distant future. 3. The seven hundred (700) acres that abuts the east side of Kings Highway is LD -2 between 49th Street and the North Relief Canal. 4. 49th Street is a planned major road. 5. Water service is available in the Kings Highway right- of-way on the west side of Kings Highway adjacent to this property. EQOK �, SEP 2 66 1990 29 E6 2 6 1990 nrjK. 81 Board of County Commission September 25, 1990 Page Two 6. The County's central county waste -water treatment plant is within three (3) miles of the property and is an obvious potential source of treatment facilities for that property. 7. Concurrency caused development problems should be minimal in this area. 8. I don't believe it is sound planning to have separate uses facing each other on major thoroughfares, i.e, 6 unit multi- family developments on the east side of Kings Highway versus low density single family on the west side. This philosophy seems to be shared by the Planners because from 49th Street to State Road 60 the densities are LD -2 or higher, and beginning, I believe, at Pecan going north both sides are LD -2 to 65th or 69th Streets. 9. Much of the area between the North Relief Canal and 65th Street is already committed to single family, including two (2) private golf courses (Bent Pine and Hawk's Nest). I am enclosing the proposed map that circles the area that I am discussing'. By copy of this letter I am asking the Planning Department to make special mention of my request and to consider favorably my request. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, C -LIQ � William W. Caldwell, For the firm WWC/ec cc: Robert Keating, Director of Planning James Chandler, County Administrator 30 W M ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the compliance agreement and transmit it to Tallahassee so that it can be submitted to the hearing officer as a Motion to continue the hearing to allow us to go through this remedial exercise with both parties retaining the right to a hearing at any time, and authorized staff to proceed with the advertising necessary to get it in front of the P & Z Commission and back to the BCC for a transmittal hearing so that we can get these transmittals up to the state. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird commented that never during the 16 years he has served as a member of the Planning E Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners had he felt that he had been forced to vote for something that he didn't believe in. He would vote for this reluctantly because he had a feeling that it will not stop here tonight, and that we as a Commission will exhaust every effort to get this turned around at the state level and get this thing changed for the future. Chairman Eggert had the same feelings, but although it is well.and good to fight for your lunch money, in this case it is the taxpayers' lunch money we are fighting with. Commissioners Xheeler, Scurlock and Bowman also expressed their reluctance in voting for this compliance agreement. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. THE Motion was voted on and carried unanimo.usly. S E P 2 b 1990 31 EP 2 6 1990 BOOK F,1Gc.. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:25 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 32 Ch.Wrman