Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/17/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 5:01 P.M. - COMMISSION CHAMBERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VER.O BEACH, FLORIDA . COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman ( Dist. 2 ) Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Don C. Scurlock, Jr. (Dist. 3) John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 5:01 P.M. FIRST HEARING: PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) AMENDMENTS ( memorandum dated September 10, 1992 ) 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. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING L_ SFP 17 199? m m m SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, September 17, 1992 The Board of County" Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday, September 17, 1992, at 5:01 o'clock P. M. Present were Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and John W. Tippin. Absent was Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert who was in the hospital. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order. FIRST HEARING: PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR) AMENDMENTS The hour of 5:01 o'clock P. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Journal 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 billed t ? %[LM was published In said newspaper in the issue(s) 4 Sworn tto�and subscribed before me this Business Manager (SEAL) SEP 17 loq? � as Bm .87 ' rsEP 17 1992 mu 87 vA-1166 -7 F� NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OFA.;; AIAND- DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) :-. AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND CHANGE IN ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED HEARING DATES ,1z, The Indian - River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or change a regulation(s) affecting the use of land for the area shown in map in this advertisement. At the advertised,' originbi public hearing of September 3, 1992,,the Board of County Commissioners voted to delay the two public hearings on:, thesod regulation(s) affecting the use of land. The public hearings will proposed on Thursday, ursday, September 17, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. and one on", Tuesday, September 29, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. in the County Commission Cham-. bers in the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th. Street,, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) effective in the unincorporated area of the county include changes, the following LDR­``.` chapters: • Chapter 901, Definitions • Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System • Chapter 911, Zoning • Chapter 912, Single -Family Development • Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats • Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures • Chapter 918, Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Regulations • Chapter 1925, Open Burning/Air Curtain Incinerator Regulations. Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations • Chapter 927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing 9 Chapter 930, Stormwater Management and Floodpigin Protection 0 Chapter 952, Traffic • Chapter apter 953, Fairshare Roadway Improvements Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking • Chapter 956,. Sign Regulations • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria Chapter 972, Temporary Uses A copy of the proposed ordinance will be available at the Planning Divi- sion Office on the'second floor of the Copinty Administration Building begin -r. n.ing September 11, 1992. 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 whicifthoeceae appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- CAROLYN K. EGGERT, CHAIRMAN, ....... . . . . . . . . . . . 1. ........ . . . ...... ­.-§��' Iiiji 1 0 4 ........................................ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA 2 � � r _ ® M The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling dated September 9, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: z2z 0.'--1-'" OF Robert M. Ke t g, A Community Developmen Director FROM: Stan Boling ICP Planning Director DATE: September 9, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of September 17, 1992. BACKGROUND: On September 3, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners convened an advertised and scheduled special public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance amending the county's LDRs. The September 3rd meeting was to be the first of two required public hearings (the second hearing had been scheduled for September 17, 1992). At the meeting, the Board voted 3-0 to delay the first hearing until September 17, 1992 to allow for participation of a full Board. Subsequently, at its September 7, 1992 regular meeting, the Board directed staff to schedule the required second hearing for September 29, 1992. Therefore, based upon the Board's direction, staff has readvertised the public hearings as follows: 1st Public Hearing: Thursday, September 17, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. 2nd Public Hearing: Tuesday, September 29, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. The Board is now to conduct the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #1). At this first hearing, the Board is to consider the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make any necessary changes to the ordinance'. Final action is to be undertaken at the second public hearing on September 29, 1992. ANALYSIS: Staff's original report and recommendation to the Board for the September 3rd hearing (memo from Stan Boling to James Chandler dated August 27, 1992) are still relevant to the proposed ordinance and the Board's deliberations. However, staff has included with this memo an updated version of the proposed ordinance (see Attachment #1). This updated "9/10/92" version of the proposed ordinance differs from the previously distributed 118/27/92" version of the proposed ordinance in the following two respects: 3 SEP 17 1992 H9 coax 87 .��,,69 7 1. Several minor wording or format changes and corrections have been made. The places within the ordinance where these changes have been made are highlighted as indicated in Attachment 1. 2. Ordinance sections or portions of sections which have been changed since the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) or Planning and Zoning Commission review, or which have been changed based upon direction given by the PSAC or Planning and Zoning Commission, have been highlighted as indicated in Attachment 1. The PSAC is scheduled to consider a new LDR concurrency proposal at its September 10, 1992 meeting. A copy of the proposal to be considered by the PSAC is attached (see Attachment 2). Staff will present the PSAC's recommendation to the Board at the Board's September 17, 1992 LDR hearing. RECOMMENDATION: As recommended in its previous report, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction(s) for any changes to the proposed ordinance; and 2. Announce its intention to take final action on the;:proposed ordinance at the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling dated August 27, 1992: 4 - M M M M TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Obert M. Kea ng, AXCP Community DevelopmiWt Director FROM: Stan Boline,r5ICP Planning Director DATE: August 27, 1992 SUBJECT: First Hearing: Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDR) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at :its special meeting of September 3, 1992. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: In the past several months, various LDR amendment.proposals have been initiated by staff, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), and the Board of County Commissioners. Draft proposed amendments have been reviewed by county staff and by the PSAC. At its June 18th and July 9th meetings, the PSAC considered draft proposals and made various recommendations for changes or modifications. Planning staff incorporated the PSAC recommendations into the current proposals. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered draft proposals at its July 23, 1992 meeting. Planning staff has incorporated changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has drafted a single ordinance which addresses all of the previously referenced initiatives. The Board is now to conduct the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance. [The second public hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. on Thursday, September 17, 1992.] The Board is to now consider the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make any changes to the ordinance which the Board feels should -be made prior to final action. ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance contains 40 sections (see attachment #1). Sections 1'- 36 contain actual proposed LDR amendments. Sections 37 - 40 contain standard legal requirements included in all county ordinances. A brief description of each section follows. SECTION 1: relates to Sections 13, 14, and 35 and establishes a definition for "accessory single family dwelling unit". Such accessory units, which are intended to function like "mother-in-law units" or garage apartments or attached "efficiency" units, would be accessory to single family homes and would be subject to the regulations in Section 35 of the proposed ordinance. SECTION 2: relates to Sections 4, 7, 20, and 34 of the proposed ordinance by establishing a definition for "Private land clearing debris burning facility". This definition is intended to apply to a site where land clearing debris from various development sites W SEP t 7 inn? wof Fa.,z SEP 17 19,2 BOOK 8, 7 2 and land clearing contractors is consolidated and burned as part of a permanent operation. This definition is not intended to apply to the temporary burning'of land clearing debris allowed by LDR Chapter 925 regulations. SECTION 3: relates to Section 20, and establishes a definition of "rural land clearing". The proposed definition along with changes proposed in ordinance Section 20 would specifically allow open burning (no incinerator required) in agricultural areas west of I- 95, subject to applicable state requirements. SECTION 4: relates to Sections 2, 20, and 34, and *establishes a definition for "habitable structure". This definition is necessary in applying regulations relating to temporary and permanent debris burning sites because special setbacks are required between habitable structures and burn areas. "Habitable structures" are defined to be buildings where persons live, work, or shop. SECTION 5: provides specific legal authority for the county's past and present procedure of allowing violators of the county's environmental regulations (eg. tree protection, land clearing) the option to appear before the Hoard of County Commissioners for a determination of violation and fine and/or restitution. SECTION 6: provides an option to a developer to delay payment of traffic and utility impact fees (owed in relation to a project's initial concurrency certificate) for up to 90 days after site plan approval. Under current requirements, traffic and utility impact fees must be paid prior to site plan approval since such impact fee payments are required to "reserve" traffic and utilities capacity and obtain an initial concurrency certificate. This 90 day grace period should allow developers sufficient time to close land purchases and finalize financing arrangements prior to paying -out funds for impact fees. At the same time, the 90 day period does not appear to be too long of a time period to allow a developer to reserve and "lock-up" potentially scarce roadway and utilities capacity free of charge. SECTION 7: relates to Sections 2, 41 20, and 34, amending the zoning code use table to allow "Private land clearing debris burning facilities" as special exception uses in all three of the county's agricultural zoning districts (A-1, A-2, and A-3). As proposed, such a use would be allowed only in the agricultural land use districts. Issues related to the burning of land clearing debris are analyzed in more detail in Sections 20 and 34 of this report. SECTION 8: would allow places of worship within the OCR (Office Commercial Residential) and PRO (Professional Office) districts as a permitted use. Places of worship 'are currently allowed as permitted uses in all other commercial districts, except the MED (Medical) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial) districts, and would be compatible within the OCR and PRO districts. A recent, informal proposal for a place of worship in an OCR district has made staff aware that there is interest in establishing places of worship in these districts. r � � r SECTION 9: provides for two changes, and would: 1. Waive the S.R. 60 75' building setback for lots along S.R. 60 having a depth of 150' or less. Such a provision would alleviate the potential problem of restricting development of some Paradise Park Subdivision lots along S.R. 60 to a zero (0) buildable area. Instead of the 75' setback, the normal frontyard setbacks applicable to the zoning district in which the lot is located would apply to such lots. 2. Establish a buffer requirement along I-95. Currently, most of I-95 through Indian River County has a rural or "natural buffer" appearance. However, some developments have occurred which expose the "backyards" of warehousing and industrial establishments to I-95 traffic. The proposed opaque feature and canopy tree requirement, which allows for preservation of existing vegetation to meet the tree requirement, would provide some visual buffer along I-95 and ensure a good appearance that provides an aesthetic entrance to Vero Beach and Sebastian and could help promote the image of "clean industrial" development around the county's I-95 commercial/industrial nodes. The costs associated with this regulation for a cleared site would generally'be the cost of'installing opaque slats in a chain link fence (most developments along I-95 already construct a 6' security fence along the I-95 frontage) and the installation of one canopy tree every ±30 feet. Drought tolerant, native canopy trees which meet county landscape requirements and which do not require automatic irrigation cost about $200 a piece, installed. Costs should be less on sites containing trees and vegetation which could be preserved. SECTIONS 10 - 14: relate to two affordable housing initiatives. a. One proposal is to change the zoning district use table to allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" in relation to single-family homes in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 districts as an administrative permit use. The specific land use criteria accompanying this proposal are found in section 32 of this proposed ordinance. b. Another proposal is to change the zoning district use table to allow "Small Lot Single-family Subdivisions in the RS -6, RT -6, RM -61 RM -8, and RM -10 districts as an administrative permit use. The special land use criteria accompanying this proposal are found in section 33 of this proposed ordinance. More detailed analyses of these proposed uses are provided later in this report under sections 32 and 33. SECTION 15: relates to Section 23, and incorporates into the single-family development chapter a proposed change to Chapter 927 which will affect single-family development. A more detailed analysis of this and the Chapter 927 change is contained later in this report under Section 23. SECTION 16 & 17: relate to Section 33, and would require that easement and special setback information be depicted or noted on plats of either "special sideyard" (zero lot line) subdivisions or small lot subdivisions. 7 r° SEP 17 � 92 'B'XX mE 31 SECTION 18: would expand the use and advantages of conceptual site plan applications. Currently, conceptual site plans may be used only in conjunction with requests for special exception uses or planned developments. The proposed amendment would allow developers to apply for conceptual plan approval for any type of ,use or project proposal (permitted, administrative permit, or special exception uses). Furthermore, the proposal would allow a developer to obtain a review and approval to "lock -in" and vest various, detailed aspects of a proposed project in terms of county LDR requirements. Staff anticipates that this provision will also provide an incentive for "master planning" an entire project and will offer developers the ability to resolve various, detailed project aspects without requiring a full site plan that addresses all project characteristics. Under the proposed section, no building permit could be issued based upon an approved conceptual plan; approval of a subsequent "final" site plan would be required prior to development of all or a portion of a project. As is now the case, a conditional concurrency certificate would be required for a conceptual plan; therefore, no impact fees are required to be paid in relation to conceptual plan approval. SECTION 19: amends LDR chapter 918, Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Regulations, to bring it into conformity with the recently adopted comprehensive plan amendments which changed the utilities connection matrix requirements. The intent of the proposed change is to bring the Chapter 918 narrative sections into conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan matrix and to include;a copy of the new matrix into Chapter 918. SECTION 20: relates to Sections'3, 4, 7, and 34 and would: 1. Transfer air curtain incinerator burn permitting authority and responsibility from the Indian River County Public Health Department to the Department of Emergency Services (Fire Division). 2. Authorize adoption (by separate resolution) of fees for Fire Division permitting functions. 3. Specifically permit the operation of temporary (less than 6 months) debris burning sites by a land clearing contractor for the burning of debris generated by the land clearing contractor. Such operations would require the issuance of a burn permit and compliance with the Chapter 925 regulations which requires special setbacks and use of an air curtain incinerator. 4. Specifically allow on-site open burning of debris in agricultural areas west of I-951 located outside of the urban service area. Such open burning would be subject to specific state requirements. It should be noted that all debris burning operations will be required to meet state requirements. Also, it should be noted that Section 20 of the proposed ordinance addresses only sites upon which debris burning occurs for a short period of time (less than 6 months). Section 34, described later in this report, addresses sites set-up for permanent operation of debris burning. Please refer to attachment #2 regarding debris burning regulations. 8 - M M SECTION 21: would amend the landscape chapter to require use of rain sensors in automatic irrigation systems. This is now required by state law, and is already in effect in the county. SECTION 22: would specify the minimum size requirements for "understory trees" Understory trees are included in the current buffer requirements; yet no written standards exist. The proposed standards correspond to the unwritten, policy standard that staff and developers have agreed upon in past development plans. SECTION 23: is directly related to Section 15. Both sections would require owners of single-family lots containing the habitat of federally threatened or endangered species to obtain a tree •removal and/or land clearing permit prior to tree removal or land clearing activities on the lot. Presently, county regulations exempt owners of single-family lots of less than an acre in size from obtaining a tree removal or land clearing permit. However, under current federal law and regulatory interpretation, it is illegal for these presently "exempted" property owners to destroy threatened or endangered species or their vital habitat. Furthermore, the county is liable under federal law and regulatory interpretation, if it permits development which destroys such species or habitat. Therefore, these changes are needed to implement federal law and fulfill the county's responsibility (and relieve its liability). As proposed, this amendment would allow county staff the opportunity to review habitat sites and ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the proposed clearing or tree removal would not violate the Endangered Species Act. Through the land clearing and/or tree removal permit process, county staff would coordinate with state and federal agencies to ensure that no agencies would object to proposals to develop single family lots in relation to the Endangered Species Act. Staff anticipates that owners whose lots serve as habitat for endangered or threatened species will need to preserve some trees or habitat area on their lots. However, lot development in most cases will be accommodated. It must be noted that this amendment will not require owners of all single family lots to conduct an environmental survey to determine if they are or are not exempt frgm permitting requirements. County staff, with the help and expertise of state and federal agencies, will determine which single-family lots in the county now contain habitat of federally threatened or endangered species. County staff intends to individually notify these property owners, before the owner applies for a building permit. Thus, only those lot owners (or their successors in title) who are contacted will be required to. obtain permits prior to tree removal or land clearing activity.. Staff agrees with the PSAC recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners should specifically direct staff to contact any and all property owners affected by this proposed amendment. Finally, ordinance Section 23 deletes the last sentence of section 927.06(2). The sentence should be deleted since the issue of dune vegetation maintenance is now addressed in another section of Chapter 927. SECTION 24: would requirements. The bring the county's current St. Johns regulations. SEP 17 ➢992 expand an exemption from certain stormwater proposal, made by the County Engineer, would stormwater permit exemption into line with the River Water Management District (SJRWMD) E r- SEP w 1992 BOOK 87 PAGE 6'33 SECTION 25: would allow a developer credit for satisfying all county stormwater quality standards if a St. Johns, River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit is obtained. The proposal, made by the County Engineer, would still require a developer to obtain a county stormwater permit to meet county stormwater quantity standards. SECTION 26: would add new, locally -derived categories and trip rates to the county's trip rate data table. The proposals are being made by the County Traffic Engineer, based upon recently completed local trip rate traffic surveys. The new categories "fill in" some gaps in the current rate table (which is based predominantly on national rates), and provide a specific category for contractors trades uses which are a common type of use in the county. The new categories and rates are considered to be more accurate for Indian River County and are more specific and useful in review of small strip centers and stores, and contractors trades buildings projects. SECTION 27: would establish a formula for equating large truck traf f is volume with passenger vehicle traf f is volume in relation to project turn lane requirements. The formula, proposed by the traffic engineer, would affect only warehousing/manufacturing projects and would require a developer to take into account the impact of large truck maneuvers in relation to maneuvers of passenger vehicles. SECTION 28: would change some traffic impact fee credit requirements and procedures. These requirements and procedures will apply to developments within all participating municipalities as well as the unincorporated area of the county. The intent of the proposed changes is to: 1. Require up -front agreements on credit for constructed improvements before the improvements are designed and constructed. Such a requirement would eliminate post - construction credit claims which can present various problems. 2. Substitute a precise date for a current requirement tied to "...the effective date of this chapter...". 3. Better specify what types of improvements constitute non - creditable, site -related improvements. 4. Better specify existing procedures. It should be noted that prior to PSAC consideration of this proposal, a draft of the proposal and an invitation for comments and attendance at the PSAC were sent to every municipality in the county. No comments were received from the municipalities. SECTION 29: would correct a discrepancy between the parking ordinance (954) and the landscape ordinance (926). The change would allow a developer to use less paving at the end of a parking space by permitting a design that allows vehicles to overhang up to 3' beyond a bumper stop, over grassed areas. This provision is an incentive to design less paving area and more open space. SECTION 30: would prohibit signs (over four square feet) attached to parked vehicles where the signs are used to attract the attention of adjacent right-of-way travelers, unless the vehicle is parked in a designated parking area and is used in day-to-day operations. The intent of this LDR revision is to "close a loop- hole" and prohibit strategically parked vehicles to be used as on - premise or off -premise signs. 10 SECTION 31: would continue to prohibit fluorescent signs and roof line lighting but would allow the use of neon, regardless of whether or not the neon lighting is exposed. Currently, only unexposed neon lighting (with protective covering) is allowed in the county. SECTION 32: relates to Sections it and 12, and comprises the substantive part of an initiative put forward by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to allow small, accessory dwelling units as accessory uses to single family residences. The proposal is not limited to producing small, affordable, presumably rental, dwelling units; it would also allow homeowners the opportunity to create legal "mother-in-law" units or units occupied by care -givers. Allowing such units, especially in existing neighborhoods, raises several concerns, including: possible increase in density in single family neighborhoods - a multi -family type of use in a single-family zoned area - "crowding" of single-family sites To address these concerns, staff has drafted specific land use criteria, which restrict accessory units as follows: 1. Density: - The overall size of accessory dwelling units is limited and, therefore, should not result in a significant increase in people living on a residential site. In essence, accessory dwelling units are not "full-sized" dwelling units. No accessory dwelling unit would be allowed on under- sized lots. Current lot size standards provide a density "cushion", whereby maximum allowable densities cannot be attained in a standard subdivision layout containing standard sized lots. 2. Multi -family type use: The accessory unit is tied to the single-family unit by common ownership. The exterior facade of an accessory unit (except a garage unit) must be similar to the single-family residence. Only one doorway entrance is allowed to be visible from the street. These criteria should help ensure that the development on the lot will appear to be one single family residence. 3. Crowding of the site Normal maximum lot coverage (by building area) and minimum open space requirements will apply. Therefore, the quantity of site development (building area and impervious area) cannot exceed what is already allowed for a single family residence. It should be noted that ordinances from other jurisdictions (municipalities in California; Gainesville and Orlando, Florida) were reviewed and used as a basis for developing accessory dwelling unit criteria. The county has the option to attach to the proposal more restrictive criteria, including: 11 SEPBOOK 87 PAU634 17 199 . $ ' � �oo� 7 c� x'35 SEP increasing the minimum lot size requirements requiring owner occupancy of either the principal or accessory unit restricting zoning districts in which the use is allowed requiring special exception approval (receive public input on each application) limiting the number of persons allowed to occupy the accessory dwelling unit In the opinion of staff and the AHAC, the county should be careful not to make the criteria too restrictive. Restricting the opportunity to create such units could essentially make the initiative unusable. Staff has concerns about the proposal; however, the criteria proposed should address these concerns. The county could "try out" the single-family accessory dwelling unit approach and evaluate its effectiveness and impact and adjust regulations or totally revisit the issue at a later date. In staff's opinion, this proposal is a worthwhile experiment. The Planning and Zoning Commission was deadlocked (2-2) on a motion to recommend denial of this ordinance section. Those voting against the provision concluded that the concerns and potential abuses of the proposal outweigh the potential benefits. SECTION 33: is another initiative of the AHAC which would allow a special, streamlined process for developing new small lot, single- family subdivisions. The proposal would restrict such special subdivisions to the RS -6, RT -6, RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 zoning districts, and is intended to allow development of a subdivision that approaches the actual maximum allowable density. Although not specifically tied to affordable housing, the proposal would allow developers an easier procedure to maximize project density and ,lower development costs per lot. Although the county's current P.D. (Planned Development) process already allows approval of such projects, PD's require special exception use approval. The AHAC believes that the special exception process takes too long (note: the last PD project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners 90 days after application submittal) and is too risky due to the public hearing and surrounding property owner notice requirements, and the "discretionary nature" of special exception decisions. The proposal would allow small lot subdivision projects as an administrative permit use. Thus, the approval process would be shorter than the P.D. process and would not involve public hearings or surrounding property owner notice. Staff has drafted specific land use criteria which focus on compatibility between the small lot subdivision and adjacent residential areas. The criteria have the following features: the development must be serviced by water and sewer utilities (this prevents problems with extreme lot to lot grade differences caused by septic tank fill requirements) perimeter lots (abutting the boundaries of the project) must either meet the normal single family lot size or have a buffer and increased minimum rear yard setback a minimum lot size (5,000 sq. ft.) and minimum lot width (50 feet) are established perimeter setbacks vary with the proposed lot width; the narrower the lot, the greater the rear yard setback. The proposed ordinance should result in the opportunity to realize increased, allowable densities. However, due to stormwater requirements, especially the Indian River Farms discharge rate requirement, lot area may be lost to centralized stormwater tracts. Even so, in staff's opinion the proposal would allow for developable densities closer to the maximum allowed densities, while providing some buffering for adjacent properties. 12 - M - M SECTION 34: relates to Sections 2, 41 7, and 20, and establishes specific land use criteria for permanent debris burning sites open to receive land clearing debris from any site or land clearing operation in the county. Such a use would be allowed under the new category of "private land clearing debris burning facility" (see Section 2 for the definition). The intent of this section is to afford private property owners and land clearing operators greater access to legitimate debris burning disposal sites, with appropriate regulations to minimize negative impacts to surrounding properties and public roadways. Proposed "special exception" specific land use criteria include: 1. use limitation to property with an AG land use plan designation, to minimize potential use conflicts with the future land uses of surrounding properties; 2. separation distance requirements between burn areas and habitable structures (500 feet) and between stockpiles or burn areas and any property line (300 feet); 3. direct access to a thoroughfare plan road, or direct access to a non -thoroughfare road provided the road has little or no residential access use; 4. required approval by the Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) Board and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (pertaining to air emissions permitting); 5. stockpile volume control; and 6. public road maintenance requirements for associated debris hauling activities, similar to requirements presently in effect for mining operations. It should be noted that prior to the June 18th PSAC meeting at which the private burn site issue was first addressed, staff contacted all land clearing businesses in the county and sent a draft ordinance and meeting notice and invitation to the June 18th PSAC meeting. Representatives from the Reliable Services land clearing business and other interested parties attended and participated in the PSAC meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Also, it should be noted that approval of permanent debris burning sites receiving debris from any contractor and from the general public could allow direct competition with a portion of the county's landfill operation. Such competition could conflict with solid waste bond covenant requirements (see attachment #3, memo from the County Attorney). Thus, the requirement that the SWDD Board approve permanent debris burning operations will allow the SWDD Board to determine on a case by case basis whether or not a proposed -operation is allowable under SWDD bond covenants. SECTION 35.: is recommended by the county public health unit to specifically reference existing environmental health requirements that apply to food service/handling operations at temporary special events. SECTION 36: would essentially add three provisions to the Temporary Uses chapter, as follows: 1. better define allowable fruits and vegetable sales; 2. require an increased clean-up/restoration bond amount for temporary uses that make alterations (eg. temporary driveways, culverts) within county rights-of-way; and 3. allow transient merchant, roadside seafood sales. 13 L_ SEP 171992 Bm 87 wa Fr- -17 qq,� -)"� 7 Both staff and PSAC recommend that the county approve the proposed changes described in items 1 and 2, above. However, staff and the PSAC (by a 4-2 vote) recommend that the county reject the proposed changes that would allow transient merchant seafood sales. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposal to allow transient merchant seafood sales. In April, the Board of County Commissioners heard a request by seafood sales owner/operator Jim Anthony to allow satellite seafood sales operations, such as the sales operation he runs from a specially modified truck, as transient merchant uses in Indian River County. Upon hearing Mr. Anthony's request; the Board directed staff to propose an ordinance that would allow satellite seafood sales operations such as Mr. Anthony's. Staff has coordinated with Mr. Anthony and has drafted criteria intended to limit allowable seafood sales operations to operations that are similar to Mr. Anthony's operation. These criteria include the following: - seafood sales transient merchant operations must be owned and operated by a permanent seafood sales establishment in Indian River County; - the operation must be conducted from a state approved vehicle, self-contained in regards to power, refrigeration and other aspects; operations may occur only during daylight hours; the site must be abandoned at night; and operations must be inspected and approved by the county public health authority. All other existing transient merchant criteria would also apply. .It should be noted that, prior to the June 18th PSAC meeting, Mr. Anthony and all seafood sales operators in the county were contacted and sent a draft ordinance and meeting notice and invitation to the June 18th PSAC meeting. No seafood sales operators attended the meeting, and no comments were received by staff. However, Mr. Anthony participated at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The PSAC and staff both recommend against the seafood sales provisions of the proposed ordinance for the following reasons: 1. Increasing the types of items that can be sold along roadsides increases the likelihood that sales will eventually be opened - up to other types of retail items. Allowing such a proliferation of sales would put established and future permanent sales facilities at a disadvantage and would expand the number of operations allowed to operate below normal site development standards. 2. The proliferation of roadside sales could have negative aesthetic and traffic impacts. 3. It may not be feasible to enforce the criterion to limit operations to those tied to (satellites of) established, permanent sales operations in Indian River County. 14 - M � r r SUMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff, the PSAC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission all have recommended approval of various sections of the proposed ordinance but differ on the following sections: A. Sections 11, 12, (in part) and 32 (accessory single family dwelling units). Staff and the PSAC recommend approval of the accessory dwelling unit provisions. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission was dead -locked in a 2-2 vote on a motion to recommend denial of the accessory dwelling unit provisions. The general reason given2'-for the votes against these provisions was that the potential abuse of the provisions (overcrowding, multi -family type development in single-family neighborhoods) would outweigh the potential affordable housing benefits and that the proposals would not actually result in the production of a significant amount of affordable housing. B. Section 36 (transient merchant seafood sales). Staff and the PSAC recommend denial of the proposal to allow roadside satellite seafood sales. However; the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of these provisions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance with the exception of changes proposed to section 972.08(4) of the LDRs which would allow satellite seafood sales transient merchant operations (see ordinance Section 36). Such transient merchant operations should not be allowed. Furthermore, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction(s) for any changes to the proposed ordinance; and 2. Announce its intention to take final action on the proposed ordinance at the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 1992 at 5:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. Director Boling directed the Board's attention to the list of topics and the order in which they will be addressed. He further noted that the changes indicated in the proposed ordinance were addressed by the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) as well as the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) 15 L_ SEP 17- M2 aea 87 f�, 9,3 r- SFP J 7 �q 1. BURNING OF LAND CLEARING DEBRIS Permanent Sites Temporary Sites Ordinance Sections 2, 4, 78 34 3, 41 20 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT i SINGLE FAMILY LOTS Ordinance Sections 15, 23 3. SULL LOT SUBDIVISIONS,. - Ordinance Sections 11, 13, 16, 17,, 33- 4• ACCESSORY SINGLE FAMILY DUgLLIM =ITS Ordinance Sections 1, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 32 5. TRANSIENT MERCHANT SEAFOOD SALES Ordinance Section 36 6• CONCURRENCY - 90 DAY GRACE PERIOD Ordinance Section 6 7. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Ordinance Section 18 8. RESTRICTIONS ON PARKED VEHICLE SIGNS Ordinance Section 30 9. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE CREDIT REVISIONS it'41P Ordinance Section 28 All remaining ordinance sections to be taken in sequential, numerical order as follows: 5, 8, 9, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 35 NOTE: Sections 37-40 are standard, legal, ordinance sections. Vice Chairman Bowman advised that she would open the Public Hearing at this time so that the public can raise questions as each item is reviewed. 1. Burning of Land Clearing Debris - Section 34 Community Development Director Bob Keating addressed this topic first for the following reason: (1) It is complicated and has generated much controversy and many citizen complaints. (2) It involves rules and regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) which are unclear and subject to conflicting interpretations. (3) Our ordinance as structured does not address certain burning circumstances. (4) Code Enforcement has raised some enforcement issues related to this topic. Director Keating noted that staff's proposed changes may be more restrictive or possibly prohibited by the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD). Director Keating directed the Board's attention to a chart showing that there are 6 different types of burning that are subject to three sets of regulations; DER's regulations, the County's current rules in the Land Development Regulations (LDR), 16 - M and the rules in the proposed LDR. These 6 types of burning include: (1) On-site burning, which relates to a development project where there is clearing and they burn the debris on site; (2) Burning by a person who owns another piece of property and he burns debris that he generated from that property on a second piece of property that he owns. This generally happens when a development project includes several sites and the debris is consolidated on one site and burned; (3) Burning of debris on a site that is owned or leased by a commercial land clearer from a site or sites that he does not own but has contracted to clear; (4) A commercial activity where a given site receives debris from people clearing any property anywhere and burns that debris. (5) Agriculture burning which is related to clearing a grove or replanting a grove; and (6) Rural burning which is burning that is not associated with agricultural activity but occurs in a rural area. An example of this would be if someone were building a home on 5 acres and did some land clearing and they. would burn that debris on-site. Director Keating next addressed the. regulating agencies. DER requires permits for burning, exempts certain types of burning, and places requirements on a separation distance. There are circumstances in which DER specifically requires a stationary permit for burning debris and an example of that is the County landfill. DER also regulates the types of burning that require an air curtain incinerator to be used; the County also regulates this type of burning. DER sets the separation distances depending on the type of air curtain that is used, a trench burner or one with vertical refractory walls. Director Keating advised that the first two types of burning listed above require an air curtain incinerator. we currently have no provisions in the zoning code to allow a commercial activity as discussed in burning types 3 and 4, so those two uses are not allowed in the County. Agriculture burning activity is exempt from our rules as it is with DER, and rural burning is subject to our air curtain incinerator requirements. _ Commissioner Bird led discussion regarding separation criteria for commercial burning activities. Mr. DeBlois noted that the DER's regulations leave room for interpretation regarding separation requirements for a stationary permit for burning debris. with a trench burning air curtain incinerator, there is a minimum 300 -feet separation distance; however, off-site, that distance is increased to 1000 feet. If they use vertical refractory lined walls, that distance is reduced to 300 feet. Additionally, there is a 6 -month limit, which defines 17 L_ AFP t 7 1992 BON 87 iF-�TH640 F um, 87 fxA4,1 it as temporary and not stationary. Any longer than 6 months requires a DER permit. Director Keating pointed out changes in Section 925. There are two additional. exemptions, and the implementing agency would be changed from the Environmental Health Department to the Fire Division of the Emergency Services Department. Mr. DeBlois clarified that when we say "exempt," in reality there is an agreement with the Division of Forestry that they would be implementing the state regulations and that we have minimum requirements related to both agriculture and rural burning. * (6) Except for transportation to sanitary landfills which are * * permitted and approved in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Cpde,,or debris transported to other disposal or recycling facilities approved by the county as burn, recycling, or disposal sites, it is unlawful to transport land clearing debris from one parcel to another parcel. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, landclearing debris generated from a parcel(s) may be transported to a parcel(s) under the same ownership as the debris -generating parcel(s), or to a parcel owned or leased by the land clearing contractor who conducted the land clearing, and incinerated under the provisions of this ordinance (Chaoter 925). Director Keating explained that a burning use that is non - allowed is recognized as being allowed in here subject to air curtain incinerator provisions, and this is an important distinction. This means that a land clearer can get control of a piece of property, either by purchase or lease. He would be exempt from DER rules by having a temporary facility with an air curtain incinerator permit from the County. This would allow him to clear various sites for clients and bring all the debris to one site and burn it. In this way he would meet the air curtain incinerator requirements in our ordinance as well as the DER requirement. Commissioner Bird asked for clarification, because the first paragraph of (6) prohibits transporting debris to other sites. Director Keating. explained that it- is important to have the prohibition on illegal dumping in the first paragraph, with the narrow exception as described in the second paragraph, beginning "notwithstanding." County Attorney Charles Vitunac suggested clarifying the exception in the second paragraph by inserting a phrase, such as, "except as noted in paragraph 2," and Director Keating agreed to confer with legal staff and include the specific wording. 18 _ M M ® M Director Keating stated that the next change is the separation distance requirement from 1000 to 500 feet from any habitable structure. That is in conjunction with DER's requirements, which means to get the 500 -foot distance they would have to use an air curtain with vertical refractory walls. If they use a trench burner the distance requirement would be 1000 feet. Commissioner Scurlock felt that there should be flexibility in the separation distances and the type of burners because of possible new technology which may give a cleaner burn and not impact on neighboring properties. Commissioner Bird thought there should be a provision where if a residence falls within the separation distance,the party doing the burning could get permission for the adjacent property owner. Director Keating stated that we do not have that provision. Joe Spataro, Forest Area Supervisor, stated that there is a provision in state law which allows for a variance for the encroachment. DER requires an affidavit to do that. Commissioner Scurlock suggested; and Director Keating agreed to research that possibility for future changes in this section. Director Keating addressed another big change in Section 924 regarding separation distances from the pit to a habitable structure. The proposed ordinance reduces that distance from 1000 to 500 feet. Director Keating demonstrated with the aid of a graph the number of parcels east of I-95 which would meet the 1000 -foot and the 500 -foot separation requirement. He noted there are 40 parcels which meet the 1000 -foot requirement and 60 which meet the 500 -foot requirement. He pointed out that staff analyzed the DER rules which come into effect with their exemptions and decided that people would be as well protected with a 500 -foot separation distance as with the 1000 -foot separation distance we have now. We would require the air curtain with vertical refractory walls for the 500 -foot distance, whereas DER allows a 300 -foot distance under the same circumstances. When they use a trench burner, these requirements require them to be consistent with DER's rules which means they must meet a 1000 -foot separation. These are details that the Fire Division will be implementing in conjunction with the Forestry Division. Commissioner Scurlock asked about wind direction. Mr. DeBlois explained that burning permits must be coordinated with the Division of Forestry and will be overseen by our Fire Division. The Division of Forestry makes recommendations on a day by day basis and the County calls them every day before issuing permits. The County will not issue permits for air incinerators. That will be handled by the Fire Division and Division of Forestry. 19 SEP 17 I r� Fr - Director Keating recapped that the Board is requesting two amendments: the "notwithstanding" section, and the addition of a variance provision for separation distance. 2. Endangered Species Act and Single Family Lots Section 15 * 2. No land clearing or protected tree removal shall be * * allowed without a valid county land clearing and/or tree removal permit on parcels identified by county, state, or federal officials or staff as providing habitat for federally endangered or threatened species, as listed in the most current edition of "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida" Published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Such permit(s) will not be issued unless and until. the a licant rovides to environmental nlanninn Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois addressed Section 15 of the proposed amendments. He stated that this section relates to the Endangered Species Act. This amendment would improve the ordinance mechanism so that the County can work with individual lot owners to facilitate notification to lessen liability. This proposed provision only relates to single family lots, because we review land clearing projects where a County land clearing permit is required. Mr. DeBlois reported that staff is working with the wildlife agencies to map out properties in the County which would be affected. In this way we would be in a position to notify a property owner that there is a possibility of an endangered species habitat and therefore we will not exempt that property owner from the land clearing permit. They must prove to us that they have coordinated with the wildlife agencies before we allow that clearing. Commissioner Scurlock questioned what they could coordinate if it is a small lot and they cannot establish a new habitat or conservation area or do anything meaningful. Mr. DeBlois responded that the federal government has to review that small lot and the owner must take the responsibility. Director Keating further explained that staff is working with the jurisdictional agencies in the City of Sebastian to prepare a management plan to address this issue because there are small lots that could not develop without eliminating habitat. With this provision certain other parcels would be preserved. Mr. DeBlois noted this is where the land acquisition program would conserve habitat on a county -wide basis. Commissioner Bird inquired whether this amendment is to close a loophole, or would this effectively make some lots unbuildable because they are part of a habitat. 20 M M M M M M Director Keating responded that this is not an additional requirement to restrict building. These requirements are in place because of the Endangered Species Act. He stated that staff has mapped the area and this requirement may affect 10 or 12 parcels in the County. However, the City of Sebastian has many more parcels that are being affected. Commissioner Bird did not want to require property owners to have to deal with federal agencies. Director Keating felt this would protect the individual property owner by causing them to deal with the County before clearing his property possibly in violation of the Act. Nancy Offutt, speaking for the Board of Realtors, was concerned about this proposed amendment to the ordinance because it affects single family lots. She felt this change would put the single family home owner in a contest or match of wits with a federal agency and could affect the time element involved, because these agencies have their own agenda. She was also concerned about the liability of a real estate agent who would be representing these properties. Notice of this requirement could not appear in the deed to the property, and a letter sent to the owner is not sufficient notice to protect a subsequent purchaser, so she saw a potential problem with liability. Commissioner Scurlock saw this amendment as transferring the liability from government to the property owner by putting the property owner on notice. He saw a lot of questions involved in whether a single family lot could preserve habitat. Mr. DeBlois agreed that 1/4 acre is not scrub jay habitat, but when there are many 1/4 -acre lots in one clump which comes to 25 acres, that is when the concern relates to single family lots. Director Keating further explained that an on-site examination is required to determine whether there is habitat. Nancy Offutt thought the problem is evident. She noted that this does not refer to the original clearing of a parcel but rather to what happens later when they want to add on or install a swimming pool; what are the implications of this amendment. Regarding 912.07 on tree protection, she urged that the exemption as it currently exists should not be removed. Mr. DeBlois would not advise that because scrub jays' habitat is largely scrub oaks and removal of one could adversely affect the habitat. If someone wants to remove individual trees on a lot, it probably would not affect the habitat and would-be allowed anyway. This proposed amendment is a jumping-off point for the County to do a county -wide habitat conservation plan where lands could be acquired which allow single family lot owners to do tree removal. 21 ON 87 fWCU644 SEp 17 1997 wax .8 ' 7 i�AH Discussion ensued regarding exactly what would be required of property owners, and the Board agreed this needed further study and should be discussed again. 3. Small Lot Subdivisions - Section 33 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this proposed amendment would allow for smaller than normal size lots to be established. The main features are that it would not go through the special exception process; it would go through Planning & Zoning where these criteria would be reviewed. This procedure will make it a lot quicker in terms of approval. These smaller lots would be allowed only in areas where we have both water and sewer and where we have special setbacks where this type of development would abut a normal lot -size type of development. 4. Accessory Single Family Dwelling Units - Section 32 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this amendment would allow accessory dwelling everywhere that a residential home is allowed and would be an administrative permit use. That means it is not a special exception, does not go through public hearing but does go to Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. Director Keating reported that Professional Services Advisory Committee recommended approval. Planning & Zoning Commission was deadlocked on this because of concerns expressed that this use may not result in a lot of affordable housing, and allowing a second unit on a lot could cause a- crowding effect in a neighborhood. Director Keating stated that all the criteria are laid out to narrow down and address the concerns. Staff recommends approval. 5. Transient Merchant Seafood Sales - Section 35 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this proposed amendment to the ordinance is in consideration of a request by Mr. Anthony for a satellite seafood sales operation as a roadside operation, which would fall under a transient merchant category. Right now the County allows two types of transient merchant operations: historical and resource, which include fruit and vegetables, and seasonal, which include Christmas trees and fireworks. Seafood sales would be another category of retail sales which could occur as a roadside operation. Commissioner Scurlock asked about opening the door to other types of roadside sales operations, such as beef, because Florida is a major producer of beef cattle. Director Boling stated that staff is also concerned about other types being allowed. Planning & Zoning urged approval of 22 _ M M this amendment. The Professional Services and Advisory Committee voted 4-1 against it, and staff recommends that this section be deleted and not be allowed. J. Anthony, 628 High Street, Sebastian, responded that beef is not a natural resource. He stated that his seafood sales business is following in the tradition of his grandparents and great grandparents. He could understand the Board's concern about having a bunch of trucks along the highways, but he felt that the way staff has written this amendment eliminated that possibility. The fact that it is a satellite operation would control it. Commissioner Bird felt the fact that it must be a satellite of an approved retail outlet was a good requirement. Vice Chairman Bowman agreed. 6. Concurrency - 90 -Day Grace Period - Section 6 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this amendment would set up two avenues for developers to follow. The first is a 90 -day grace period which would allow a site plan applicant to actually reserve traffic and utilities capacity without having to pay the impact until the end of the 90 -day period. Later in the meeting County Attorney Charles Vitunac clarified that at the end of the 90 -day period when the applicant pays the impact fee, it would be retroactive for that 90 -day period. Commissioner Bird asked if that is necessary, and Attorney Vitunac responded that it is the law. Director Boling explained that the second avenue would be to allow the developer to delay getting a concurrency certificate until the time of building permit issuance. A site plan or subdivision approval would be conditioned upon concurrency certificates being obtained before each and every building permit in that project. That capacity could be used up by the time they come to get that permit. The developer would have to acknowledge to the County that they are not getting the concurrency certificate now and they do not have capacity now and they are taking the risk. This would actually relieve the developer of the responsibility of having to lock up concurrency or reserve capacity, and that is for everything, including traffic impact. He would pass that responsibility on to the ultimate consumer, the ultimate lot owner. It is allowing the risk to be passed down further along in the process and the developer would not have to pay the costs up front. Commissioner Scurlock foresaw problems when this risk is passed along. The ultimate consumer is going to come before this Board and complain because there is no capacity, and there will be traffic jams. 23 SEP 17 1992 '89OX 87 f aza Director Keating assured them there would be no traffic jam because that is what concurrency prohibits. Conceivably, a lot could be sold in anticipation of building a house on it and if a road got over capacity, they could not build. Vice Chairman Bowman commented that it is a gamble. Bill Mills, contractor, pointed out that this proposed amendment will help to stimulate the economy and help the developer, because paying impact fees up front is just prohibitive. Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about government's physical ability to build the improvements quick enough .to meet the requirements. Mr. Mills understood that Director Keating intended to publish the available capacity on a quarterly basis for developers' information. He realized that there is risk involved, but he foresaw that this would become standard. He also felt that the real estate industry would be aware and take some of the responsibility. Attorney Vitunac advised that we could require the developer to include this warning in bold print. In that way the developer who sells a lot without concurrency and does not put that language in the contract is liable for it. We can say that failure to put that language in a contract keeps the concurrency liability on the developer. Director Keating did not think we could regulate what gets on a deed. We can regulate it by a form signed by the developer and we could anticipate that form -also including a notice on the plat, but we do not get involved with a deed. Peter Robinson, developer, was sure a buyer would go to the County records to determine whether he can use the property. He also was sure that a developer's attorney would not allow sale of a lot without that verbiage in the contract. Attorney Vitunac advised that the wording should be strong and mention that concurrency has not been met and reserved. Mr. Robinson saw this as a developer's responsibility. Under the present regulations the impact fees are paid, sometimes the development is not completed, and there is no impact on the roads, and after seven years .the County must give those fees back. Later, the development is completed and traffic is impacted. Mr. Robinson was sure that the developer and everyone else concerned will pass the word along that you can lose if you don't pay the impact fees. Director Keating was in agreement with Mr. Robinson's points about impact fees being paid and capital improvements programs being scheduled in a closer timeframe. Mr. Boling asked if the Board wanted to include Attachment 2 24 into the proposed ordinance, and the Board members indicated assent., 7. Conceptual Site Plan - Section 18 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this amendment would allow the developer to get conceptual plan approval at any level of detail, past a -certain minimum.' The developer could choose the level of detail of the design to be presented and approved. This will give the developer the level of assurance that he wants in getting conceptual plan approval. 8. Restrictions on Parked Vehicle Signs - Section 30 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that this proposed amendment is intended to close a loophole in the sign ordinance. jpj A sign four square feet or larger in size which is affixed to, attached to, or located on a parked vehicle such that the sign is visible from a public right-of-way, unless said vehicle is parked in a designated parking area and is used in the normal day-to-day operations of the premise business. This prohibition does not apply to signs required by law, ordinance or regulation. The intent of this prohibition is to prohibit vehicles from being utilized as on -premise or off -premise signs except as incidental to bona fide vehicle use. Nancy Offutt, speaking individually, observed that the present language could put a lot of people outside of the law who do not intend using their vehicle for that purpose. She gave the example of somebody being legitimately parked by someone else's business for a legitimate business reason. Mr. DeBlois explained that the intent is for vehicles that are parked long term and not used daily, and parked basically for the purpose of displaying the sign. 'He agreed that Ms. Offutt made a legitimate point, and staff would work to change the wording so it is not necessarily tied to the particular on -premise business. 9. Traffic Impact Fee Credit Revisions - Section 28 Planning Director Stan Boling explained that the intent in this proposed amendment is for all the developers in the unincorporated areas of the County and municipalities to come in and get the traffic impact fee credit done up front, before the designs are finalized and before improvements are made. 0 254 SEP t 7 M97 ma 87 FAu 64 Interstate 95 Buffer Requirement - Section 9 (� Interstate 95 buffer requirement. 'All developments that are adiacent to the I-95 right-of-way and that require major site plan approval shall preserve or provide a buffer along the I-95 frontage of the development site (parcel) that satisfies the canopy tree standards of a * Type "C" buffer and provides a 6' (or higher) opaque feature.- Commissioner eature. Commissioner Bird addressed Section 9.d., regarding Interstate 95 buffer requirements. He was not in favor of an opaque wall from county line to county line because many people develop along the interstate because they want the visibility. When commercial and industrial parks are constructed, the lots closest to the interstate are the first ones to go. He also felt that if this requirement is intended for residential development, it should be their choice to buffer themselves from I-95. He felt this item should be given further study. Director Keating explained that this was not really intended for residential development but rather industrial and commercial and mostly for the storage aspect. Miscellaneous Nancy Offutt requested that a date be placed on the charts and graphs published by the County so that the public has an indication of what is most current. Director Keating thought- that was a good suggestion and agreed to do so. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Bowman announced that the second hearing on the proposed Ordinance will be held at 5:01 p.m. on September 29, 1992. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:30 o'clock P. M. ATTEST: J. Barton, Clerk Margaret C.I)Bowman, Vice Chairman 26