HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/9/2000BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY■ FLORIDA
AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2000 -10:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNy rnMMlSSieNERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman District 1
District 5 James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman
Kenneth R Macht District 3 Stanbridge District 2 Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Ruth Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
John W. Tippin District 4
10:00 a.m. DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY'S URBAN SERVICE AREA/
CLONTZ PROPERTY
(memorandum dated October 3, 2000)
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.
dation for this meeting may contact the County's
Anyone who needs a special accommo
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: httpJ/bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13
Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until
5:00 P.M.
BK 1 15 PG 355
October 9, 2000
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Monday, October 9, 2000. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn, Vice
Chairman; Kenneth R Macht; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were
James E. Chandler, CountyAdministrator; William G. Collins, H, Deputy County Attorney;
and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. Additional staff members in attendance included
Community Development DirectorRobert M. Keating, Planning Director StanBoling, Long -
Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani, and Long -Range Senior Planner John Wachtel.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. advising that this was a public
hearing and "workshop meeting" to consider options regarding the County's urban service
area and Gerald Clontz's request to rezone his property located on the southwest comer of
the intersection of the Main Canal and 58' Avenue (Kings Highway). (CLERK'S NOTE:
SEE 9.A.7., JULY 11, 2000, FOR PRIOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS)
DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY'S URBAN SERVICE AREA/CLONTZ
PROPERTY
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TEE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
October 3, 2000, with the aid of a Power Point® presentation displayed on the ELMO.
October 9, 2000
1
BK 1 15PG 356
(CLERK'S NOTE: A copy of the presentation has been filed with the backup for the
meeting.)
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
DXfZ4rMENT HEAD CON NCE
o ert M. Keating,C ; ommuevelopment Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning /�'
FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range PlanninX ` Af,
DATE October 3, 2000
RE: Discussion of the County's Urban Service Area/Clontz Property
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its workshop meeting of October 9, 2000.
On July 11, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners considered Gerald Clontz's request to
redesignate his property from AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre); and to expand the urban service area to include his property.
Although the Board denied the request by a 5 to 0 vote, the Board indicated a desire to "find some
relief for Mr. Clontz." They also acknowledged that, because the circumstances affecting the Clontz
property were similar to the circumstances affecting many other properties in the county, action
taken on the Clontz property would have countywide implications. For those reasons, the Board
instructed staff to continue to study the issue and present alternatives to the Board. The purpose of
this workshop is to discuss those alternatives.
THE CLONTZ PROPERTY
Depicted in Figure 1, Mr. Clontz's property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
the Main Canal and 58' Avenue (Kings Highway). At 30.8 acres in size, the site contains a citrus
grove and a residence. Because both the Main Canal and 58`h Avenue are urban service area
boundaries in that area of the county, the site abuts the urban service area on two sides.
October 9, 2000
BK 115 PG 357
Figure 1: Clontz Property Location Map
According to Mr. Clontz, a combination of many factors has made it difficult to profitably operate
a citrus grove on the site. Included among those factors is the recent commercial and residential
growth in the area of the SR 60/58` Avenue intersection. Because of the site's proximity to urban
development, Mr. Clontz has not been able to aerial spray his grove. In fact, Mr. Clontz's
representative, at the July 11, 2000, public hearing, stated that recently a Sheriff s deputy stopped
Mr. Clontz from using a tractor to pull a pesticide sprayer through his grove. For those reasons, Mr.
Clontz contends that he cannot maintain his grove operation and therefore should be given a land
use designation that would allow him to develop his property.
Since the July 11 a' meeting, staff has coordinated with Mr Clontz's representative to determine when
that incident occurred, and who the officer was. Because the incident occurred several years ago,
however, that information could not be obtained. Without that information, the Sheriffs staff
indicated that the incident could not be confirmed Since this incident could not be confirmed, staff
asked the Sheriffs office how agricultural activity complaints are handled in general. According
to the head of the Sheriff's Ranch and Grove Unit, officers within that unit often cite Section 823.14
of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Right to Farm Act (see Attachment 2), when dealing with
complaints about agricultural activities. In general, that law allows farm operations to continue as
long as they conform to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. The head of the
Sheriffs Ranch and Grove Unit indicated that no law enforcement action would be taken on
property, such as the Clontz property, subject to the Right to Farm Act.
October 9, 2000
3
BK 115 PG35E
PAST ACTIONS
Besides the Clontz Amendment request, the Board of County Commissioners has considered
residential development projects on agriculturally designated land near the urban service area several
other times. Depicted in Figure 2, the urban service area is the portion of the countyl urban
development is directed and where public services are provided at a level sufficient to support urban
development.
Figure 2
When the Comprehensive Plan was found in compliance in 1991, the county added a policy calling
for the study and mapping of all existing and planned utility lines located in road rights-of-way that
served as urban service area boundaries. The recommendations of that study called for expansion
of the urban service area and redesignation of land from AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres),
to R, Rural Residential (up to 1 unit/acre), in many areas of the county, including the west side of
58 Avenue. The 1993 county initiated land use amendment to implement those recommendations
was rejected by the Board of County Commissioners at the Transmittal Public Hearing.
livalnation and Appm& t RqHor
In late 1995, the county began a major evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan. As a
result of that process, the county adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on December
17, 1996. That report determined that no changes to the urban service area boundaries were needed
at that time. On March 17, 1998, the county adopted plan amendments based on the EAR
recommendations (including retaining the existing urban service area boundaries).
October 9, 2000
4
•
More recently, the Board of County Commissioners addressed the issue of clustered residential
development in agriculturally designated areas and Agricultural Planned Developments (PDs), nearly
all of which occur within one mile of the urban service area At the Board's direction, staff has
recently processed a county initiated text amendment to make clustering and Agricultural PDs
optional, rather than mandatory, for residential development projects outside the urban service area.
That amendment wifl be presented to the Board at its meeting of November 7, 2000.
THE 58'�" AVENUE CORRIDOR
Since the Clontz property is within the 58`" Avenue corridor, it is helpful to consider the physical
characteristics of that area. The circumstances affecting land between the Main Canal and 13t'
Street, SW (Kelly Road) along the west side of 58" Avenue are described below.
Nearly all land on the west side of 58'" Avenue, south of the Main Canal, is outside the urban service
area and designated AG -1, Agricultural -1, on the county's future land use map. The AG -1
designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres.
There are only two areas on the west side of 58'" Avenue not designated AG -1. One area consists
of L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, designated land between 8`" Street and 4'" Street, while the other
area consists of 40 acres of R, Rural Residential, designated land just south of 4`" Street. The L-2
and R designations permit residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre and 1unit/acre
respectively. The east side of 58'" ,
Avenue is within the urban service area and designated L-1, Low,
Density Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential
uses with densities up to 3 units/acre.
Nearly all land on the west side of 58`h Avenue is zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5
acres). The exceptions are two approximately 40 acre tracts. One of those tracts is located just south
of 8" Street, and the other is located just south of 4' Street. Land uses along the west side of 58'"
Avenue include groves and pastures and several institutional uses, such as churches and schools, that
are allowed in the A -I district as Special Exception uses.
Utility lines for both potable water and sanitary sewer exist within the 58`" Avenue right-of-way.
The 110 foot wide right-of-way for the Lateral 'B" Canal runs along the east side of 58'" Avenue.
EwimnmeW
The dominant environmental characteristic in the south part of the county, west of 58'" Avenue, is
a large floodplain that runs, generally, from 10" Street to the St. Lucie County Line.
From SR 60 to 9" Street, SW (Oslo Road), 58`" Avenue is classified as an urban minor arterial
roadway on the comprehensive plan's Future Roadway Functional Classification Map. The segment
eet south of 16`" Street was recently expanded to four lanes
from 26`" Street to approximately 200 f
and 120 feet of public road right-of-way. The segment from that point to approximately 300 feet
October 9, 2000
5
BK 115 PG 360
•
J
south of 90' Street, SW is currently a two lane road with 50 to 100 feet of public road right-of-way.
That segment is programmed to be expanded to four lanes and 120 feet of public road right-of-way
by 2003.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
State law requires that every local government develop and implement a comprehensive plan
containing goals, objectives and policies. Comprehensive plans must be based on the best available
information regarding existing and projected conditions and needs, including population projections.
All plans must contain a Future Land Use Map depicting land use designations and indicating the
desired location of future commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, conservation, and public
uses. The plan must show a clear separation of urban and mural areas. That is an important function
of Indian River County's urban service area.
Land within the urban service area is intended for more intense land uses, and as such a greater level
of urban services is available in that area. In contrast, the opportunity to connect to public facilities
and services is significantly less on the agriculturally designated land outside the urban service area
There are two parts to this analysis. The first part is a general discussion of the location of the urban
service area boundary. That discussion focuses on the following issues.
• urban service area expansion issues;
• impacts on land within the urban service area; and
• the similarity between the Clontz site other sites.
The second part of the analysis specifically addresses development of the Clontz site.
URBAN SERVICE AREA EXPANSION ISSUES
As indicated earlier in this staff report, the Board of County Commissioners has previously
considered expanding the urban service area to include the Clontz site. The staff report from that
meeting, which is attached to this staff report, examines in detail Urban Service Area Expansion
Issues. That examination focuses on the following three issues:
Timing - is there a need to exnand the urban Service are2 at this timd The analysis indicates that
there is approximately a 70 year supply of land within the urban service area. For that reason, the
urban service area does not warrant expansion at this time.
Location - When the urban Qeryice sre warrants °mansion- where should that occur? The analysis
indicates that there are many areas of the county which have circumstances similar to Clontz's.
Urban service area expansion should occur only after an analysis to determine the best location for
the expansion.
Development Pattem _ When the urban � p��� in what toren should the
e�nancion area be allowed o d v lou? The analysis identifies two options. The first option involves
single -use, unconnected sprawl; while the second option involves pedestrian friendly, mixed use,
low impact, traditional neighborhood development.
October 9, 2000
9K 115 PG 3G 1
0
0
IMPACTS ON LAND WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
Generally, agriculturally designated land is less expensive than urban land. Also, agriculturally
designated land is often taxed at a lower rate. For those reasons, it is significantly less expensive to
buy agriculturally designated land and convert it to an urban designation than it is to buy urban land.
To the extent that agricultural land is converted to residential land, this will discourage the
development of vacant land within the urban service area and produce sprawl.
While agriculturally designated land is generally less expensive to buy and therefore more profitable
to develop after redesignation for higher density, the cost of providing public services to
development on that land is generally more expensive for the public. In contrast to infill
development which more efficiently uses existing services, development on newly designated urban
land requires urban services (such as paramedics, emergency services, police patrols, fire protection,
school bus service, and other services) to cover a larger area at a higher cost.
CLONTZ AND SIMILAR PARCELS
At the July 11, 2000, public hearing, Mr. Clontz's representative indicated that because of
surrounding development Mr. Clontz could no longer spray his grove and, therefore, could no longer
maintain the grove. Largely for that reason, the Board directed staff to provide relief for Mr. Clontz.
Staff research, however, indicates that State Law (the Florida Right to Farm Act) and County Sheriff
Policy allows Mr. Clontz to spray and maintain his grove. For that reason, Mr. Clontz's need for
relief is questionable.
Another important issue is the similarity between the Clontz site and other sites along the west side
of 58'h Avenue, between the Main Canal and 13`h Street, SW. Except for one significantly larger
tract, the Clontz site is not substantially different, in terms of size and location, from any of the
properties on the west side of 58th Avenue in that area of the county. This is demonstrated in Figure
3, where the significantly larger parcel is shaded. The Clontz property is also similar in terms of
zoning, land use designation, infrastructure, and existing land use pattern. Because the Clontz site
is not unique, zoning and land use designation actions affecting the Clontz site affect the entire 58'
Avenue Corridor in the south county. Because the county must treat similar parcels similarly,
providing "relief' for Clontz could create a domino effect, leading to `relief' for all owners of
property on the west side of 58th Avenue.
Also significant is the compatibility issue. Past experience indicates that compatibility problems are
more likely to occur in locations where rural and agricultural uses abut residential uses. Experience
also indicates that by increasing separation distances, incompatibilities can often be mitigated and/or
reduced. For that reason, using major roads such as 58`h Avenue as urban service area boundaries
works to reduce incompatibilities. Thus, in terms of compatibility, the existing urban service area
boundary is logical and rational.
The separation issue is particularly relevant for the Clontz site. Currently, the Main Canal's 300 foot
wide right-of-way and the 58tb Avenue/Lateral `B" Canal's 230 feet wide right-of-way separate the
urban and agriculturally designated areas. Expanding the urban service area to include the Clontz
site would replace that separation with an area where urban designated land abuts agriculturally
designated land containing citrus groves and residences on 10 acre lots.
October 9, 2000
7
on 115 PG 362
r
Figure 3
Clontz Property Comparsion
N
Main Relief Canal
12th Street C'On�
Aff:;'j
7
Property
8th Street
C
4th Street
s
In
Clontz Property
1st Street S.W. ur6arr service Area Boundary
Aeerepe 40 Acres or More
Parcels of Lend
Sth Street S.W.
9th Street S.W.
13th Street S.W.
EXISTING ALTERNATIVES
At the July 11, 2000, meeting staff indicated that, besides retaining the agricultural use of his
property, Mr. Clontz currently has the following site development alternatives:
1) He can create a subdivision of 6 five -acre lots.
2) He can create a subdivision of 6 one -acre or smaller lots clustered together on a portion of
the site. The remainder of the site can be used for agriculture, open space, or recreational
amenities. If, in the future, the land use designation of the undeveloped area is changed to
allow higher density, the undeveloped area could be developed at the higher density.
Finally, several other institutional and recreational land use options, such as schools, places of
worship, and equestrian centers, are available to his and other land on the west side of 58' Avenue.
October 9, 2000
BK 1 IS PG 363
8
•
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Since the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to develop alternatives that provide relief
for Mr. Clontz, staff has identified several alternatives. Other than county purchase -of the property,
the only alternatives that accomplish that task involve expanding the urban service area to include
the site. Unless the Board decides to eliminate the urban service area boundary, the Board must
decide which areas of the county are to be inside the urban service area and which areas are to be
outside of the urban service area.
The following table identifies six alternatives that the Board has with respect to expanding the urban
service area In this table, parcels less than 40 acres in size are referred to as small parcels, and urban
land use designations refer to residential land use designations with densities of three to eight
units/acre.
Because Alternatives 1 to 5 are similar in that they propose urban service area expansion, they are
discussed together. Each of those alternatives provides relief for Mr. Clontz. Whether or not Mr.
Clontz needs relief, however, is in doubt since both The Florida Right to Farm Act and Sheriff
Department policy indicate that he can maintain his grove.
Regardless of Mr. Clontz's need for relief, there are several problems associated with expanding the
urban service area Those problems, which have been discussed previously, are as follows:
• The urban service area already contains more than enough land to accommodate growth into
the foreseeable future;
• Expanding the urban service area encourages additional requests for urban service area
expansion to include similar parcels. Because similar parcels must be treated similarly, it
is difficult to deny those requests; and
• Expanding the urban service area is likely to increase incompatibilities between agricultural
activities and urban development.
October 9, 2000
G]
BK 115PG34
•
•
V41
O
C" G'
� fD
� O
� O
G-7)
Cm
Un
O
0
Alternative
Acres Involved
Advantages
Disadvantages
I. Expand the urban service area to
:30.8
• gives Mr. Clontz more
• the Clontz site is not substantially different from other parcels
include only the Clontz site;
development potential
• encourages additional expansion and redesignation requests
redesignate to urban land use
• increases the value of his land
• discourages infill
designation.
• initially affects smallest area
• likely increase in agricultumYresidential incompatibilities
2. Expand the urban service area to
:600
• gives Mr. Clontz more
• encourages additional expansion and redesignation requests
include all small parcels abutting
development potential
• discourages infill
urban service area boundary
• increases the value of his land
• likely increase in agricultureVresidential incompatibilities
roads; redesignate to urban land
• leaves out small parcels near, but not abutting urban service area
use designation.
boundary roads
• affects large area
3. Expand the urban service area to
:330
• gives Mr. Clontz more
• encourages additional expansion and redesignation requests
include all small parcels abutting
development potential
• discourages infill
the west side of 5gei Avenue,
• increases the value of his land
• likely increase in agriculturaVresidential incompatibilities
between the Main Canal & 13m
• leaves out small parcels near, but not abutting urban service area
Street, SW; redesignate to urban
boundary roads
land use designation.
• affects large area
4. Expand the urban service area to
:3,000
is gives Mr. Clontz more
• encourages additional expansion and redesignation requests
include all land within a quarter
development potential
• discourages infill
mile of urban service area
• increases the value of his land
• likely increase in agricultural/residential incompatibilities
boundary roads; redesignate to
• affects large area
urban land use designation.
5. Expand the urban service area to
:440
• gives Mr. Clontz more
• encourages additional expansion and redesignation requests
include all land within a quarter
development potential
• discourages infill
mile of the west side of 58'
• increases the value of his land
• likely increase in agricultumVresidential incompatibilities
Avenue, between the Main Canal
• affects large area
& 131h Street, SW; redesignate to
urban land use designation.
6. No urban service area
0
• discourages additional
• no relief for Clontz
expansion.
redesignation requests
• encourages infill development
• , maintains best possible
separation of agricultural and
residential uses
•
Alternative 1
This alternative expands the urban service area by 30.8 acres to initially add only the Clontz site.
Of the alternatives involving urban service area expansion, Alternative 1 proposes the smallest
expansion. Therefore, this request, at least initially, will have the least impact on the surrounding
areas and on the county's overall development pattern.
Alternative 2
This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 600 acres to initially add only
parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut a road that serves as an urban service
area boundary.
Alternative 3
This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 330 acres to initially add only
parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut 58s' Avenue, between the Main Canal
and 13" Street, SW. Of all the alternatives that expand the urban service area beyond the Clontz site,
this one limits urban area expansion to the parcels most similar to the Clontz site.,
Alternative 4
This alterative expands the urban service area by approximately 3,000 acres to initially add only
parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and are located near a road that serves as an
urban service area boundary.
Alternative 5
This alternative expands the urban service area by approximately 440 acres to initially add only
parcels that, like Clontz, are less than 40 acres in size and abut 58' Avenue, between the Main Canal
and 1P Street, SW.
Alternative 6
This alternative is no urban service area expansion. Although it does not provide relief to Mr.
Clontz, it is based on, as was the Board's July 11, 2000, denial of Mr. Clontz's original request, the
fact that urban service area expansion is not wan -anted at this time. This alternative is also based on
the reasonable belief that agricultural uses are feasible on the site. Staff supports this alternative.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Although there is no one alternative which will further all of the county's goals of a compact land
use pattern, efficient service delivery, compatible development, agriculture preservation, and relief
for Mr. Clontz, the Board must chose an alternative. In doing so, two factors should be considered.
The first of those factors is whether or not Mr. Clontz can spray and maintain his grove. The
analysis indicates that both state law and Sheriffs policy allow Mr. Clontz to spray. Because Mr.
Clontz can spray his grove, his need for relief is questionable.
The second factor that should be considered is the county's present need for additional urban land.
The analysis indicates that existing vacant land in the urban service area can accommodate growth
well beyond 2020. For that reason, expanding the urban service area is not necessary to
accommodate growth.
October 9, 2000
11
r
•
Another factor that should be considered involves land use compatibility. Land outside the urban
service area is often described as rural or rustic in character. Land uses in that area usually consist
of agricultural activities or residences on large (5 acres or more) lots. In contrast, most land inside
the urban service area consists of residential areas with a density of three to eightunits/acre. It is
clear that urban/residential and ruraUagricultural uses often generate complaints and conflict when
they abut or are located in close proximity.
Generally, the use of road and canal rights-of-way as urban service area boundaries effectively
separates urban and rural areas, thus reducing potential incompatibilities and maintaining the rural
character of land outside the urban service area. Alternatives 1 through 5, however} propose that the
county allow urban uses to cross those physical boundaries. If the county enacts one of those
alternatives, uses that were previously separated by a right-of-way will share a property line. As a
result, several changes will likely occur.
First, there will be a loss of the rural character of areas outside of; but near, the urban service area.
Expanding the urban service area would allow subdivisions of three or more units/acre to abut farms,
ranches, and previously secluded five and 10 acre homesites.
Another change that would likely occur is that the previously separated rural and urban uses that
share a property line would begin to interact. Such urban/mrai interaction often results in conflict.
This type of incompatibility and loss of rural character of land adjacent to urban areas often causes
owners of agriculturally designated land to request that their land be redesignated to an urban
designation. Because that agriculturally designated land is not substantially different from the
abutting urban designated land, it is difficult to deny those requests.
Another change associated with Alternatives 1 through 5, involves the land use designation of land
added to the urban service area. Because similar uses are most compatible, the land use designation
of the land on the side of the road already inside the urban service area is usually appropriate. With
that guide, Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 would result in additional L-1 designated land.
Because growth projections and other analysis indicate that there is sufficient land within the urban
service area to accommodate growth beyond 2020, Alternative 6, no urban service area expansion,
is a viable alternative. Alternative 6, however, does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz. Of the
alternatives that provide relief to Mr. Clontz, Altemative 1 will have the least impact on the county's
overall land use pattern.
The analysis indicates that Mr. Clontz's need for relief and the county's need for additional urban
land has not been demonstrated Because the Clontz parcel is not unique, it may be difficult to
Justify adding only that parcel to the urban service area. Besides discouraging infill development
within the urban service area, expanding the urban service area will likely result in loss of rural
character and increased incompatibilities along the new boundary.
Of the six alternatives identified, staff supports Alternative 6, no urban service area expansion.
While this alternative does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz, the other five alternatives do provide
that relief. Of those alternatives, Alternative 1, at least in the short-term, will have the least impact
on the county's overall land use pattern.
Staff recommends Alternative 6, no expansion of the urban service area at this time.
ATTACHM M
1. Staff Report for the July 11, 2000, Clontz Public Hearing
2. The Florida Right to Farm Act
October 9, 2000
12
•
At the conclusion of Director Keating's presentation, he advised that staff's
recommendation was to make no expansion of the urban service area at this time since it
could cause a domino effect. He asked if there were any questions.
In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry, Director Keating advised that the addition
of the Feldman property to the urban service area was done when the Comprehensive Plan
was being prepared in 1989-90 because Mr. Feldman was an intervener in the Plan and his
property was included when the plan was adopted.. He believed that staffhad recommended
against that inclusion at the time.
Chairman Adams understood there is no protection against civil liability attached to
the Right to Farm Act for spraying and wanted that mentioned in the consideration of this
matter. She also wanted to know how staff arrived at 40 acre parcels in their alternatives.
Director Keating stated that was based on the Clontz property, which is a little over
30 acres. He believed there was one other tract that was larger than Mr. Clontz' parcel.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, Gerald Clontz, advised that
his client and family had owned the subject property at least 50 years. He was disappointed
in staff's report on this matter and he knew that would be the case when a Planning staff
member called to inquire the name of the deputy who told Mr. Clontz to stop spraying; they
do not know the name of the deputy. Aerial spraying is not viable due to the civil liability
and responsibility. He questioned the 70 -year prediction for the build -out of the urban
service area, and pointed out that Mr. Clontz would be 130 years old before he could look
forward to some relief. Making an urban village out of his property was out of the question
for Mr. Clontz. There are others in the same situation. He suggested a "transitional method"
October 9, 2000
13
21W�Wffi
•
I
for treating property that is trapped in an agricultural situation where agriculture is no longer
viable. He distributed a handout to the Commissioners. (COPY OF THE HANDOUT IS
ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR THE MEETING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD.)
Mr. O'Haire's handout of three pages consisted of copies of pages 911/2 and 911/9
of the Indian River County Zoning Code and suggestions for a "transition zone" for the
Board to consider. He pointed out that staff's recommendations only addressed the water
and sewer elements of infrastructure on 58' Avenue (presently a 4 -lane roadway in front of
Mr. Clontz's parcel). Water and sewer are available at the edge of Mr. Clontz's property.
The only missing elements of infrastructure are police, fire, and emergency protection. He
doubted staff s contention that inclusion of this property in the urban service area would
overtax those services supplied by the taxpayers. He was certain that if police, fire, and
emergency services could cover the east side of 58' Avenue, they could do it just as readily
on the west side.
Mr. O'Haire commented that the initial application for 8 units per acre for this
property was to give himself plenty of room to negotiate with staff. He then discussed his
suggestions for a "transition zone" as follows, all of which apply to Mr. Clontz's property
and a few others which are similar.
RS -1 or RFD (existing districts, rural single family, rural fringe development) 1 unit per acre w/
PD bonus of 3 units.
• Property must abut Urban Service Area
• Property must abut Commercial/Industrial Node
• Property must front on arterial road
• Utilities - water and sewer - must be available at the property boundary
• Minimum acreage - 20
October 9, 2000
MEEMEMMIN
14
•
Mr. O'Haire concluded by saying that leaving someone in an untenable situation not
of his making is truly confiscatory. He offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Macht questioned the PD bonus of 3 units on Mr. O'Haire's proposal,
and Mr. O'Haire explained that the other side of 58' Avenue, across from the subject
property, it is designated L-1, which allows 3 units per acre. He added that if there is
clustering, presumably there would be buffers and landscaped areas that will isolate the
clusters from passing traffic.
Toni Robinson, 1111 Indian Mound Trail, pointed out there are few policies in place
to protect agriculture. She believed the loss of thousands of acres of agricultural land each
day is a serious problem. She maintained that a plan is needed for the area outside the urban
service area in our county. She also asserted that the downtown area needed to be vitalized
to attract people there. The county is already feeling the results of urban sprawl and it is
necessary to look to the future. Today's changes will affect the future of the county and our
rural character will erode and our sense of place and quality of life will decline. She felt that
many of our residents would leave if we over -develop. She respectfully requested that the
Commissioners look carefully into the future and determine how the policies and the
precedents set today will affect the future of this county.
Sgt. Charlie Fink of the Sherifrs Ranch and Grove Department advised that only 3
deputies are assigned to Ranch and Grove. Over the years, there have been complaints about
agricultural spraying, but since the Right to Farm Act, his department has not stopped
spraying activities. He agreed there could be civil liability for the farmer, but pesticides
carry a warning that misuse of them is a violation of Federal law. He did not know what
deputy might have made such a call as mentioned it in the newspaper, but a regular road
deputy, unfamiliar with the Right to Farm Act could have taken the call and told someone
October 9, 2000
15
BK 1 15 PG 370
•
to quit spraying. Spraying with a criminal intent is entirely different. Generally spraying is
done when the wind has died down. He agreed Mr. Clontz was in a difficult spot.
Lucia Bravo, of Hobart Landing, has noticed during the past 30 years that Vero
Beach is growing fast. She urged the Commissioners to develop a long-range green space
plan to insure that the quality of life remains in Vero Beach.
Gene Winne, 2096 Windward Way, supported staff s recommendation as one of the
most outstanding that he had ever seen and felt it was the only answer. He thought any other
alternatives would be a major decline in the value and respect for our Comprehensive Plan.
He believed that changes of growth monitors should be addressed in four years when future
needs are again analyzed.
Julie Young, 5865 34' Lane, Vero Beach, thought several points ought to be
considered. She suggested the Board look at the pre -1990 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
to note how many of the options of the agricultural producers have been removed. She
thought that infill caused an even greater impact on infrastructure than fringe area
development. She believed that buildable property inside the urban service area has
diminished greatly and owners of the undeveloped land remaining are unwilling to sell. She
favored one acre lots and thought that 58' Avenue was becoming "church row." She was of
the opinion that the urban service area should be expanded.
Robert Grace has owned 10 acres fronting on 66' Avenue, 12' Street, and Atlantic
Boulevard since 1971 and has lived there until 1991. He provided some history about the
general area advising that it was originally R 1 under the 1957 Zoning. He had participated
in changing it to agricultural zoning which he believed was appropriate then because a lot
of citrus was being produced. The people were told at that time not to be concerned because
the agricultural zoning was a "holding zone." He specified that citrus -producing land has
a life span beyond which it is no longer effective. Although there are still nice groves in the
October 9, 2000
16
BK 1 15 PG 37 1
I
area, many are in decline and not being replanted. While he was opposed to rezoning viable
agricultural land to residential, he did not consider the area in question to be viable. Those
who do have viable groves near residential areas are subject to civil suit. He had previously
met with County Planning and Legal staff concerning his property and changing the
Comprehensive Plan and he was told there was "no way" it would happen. He mentioned
he will lose a row of 20 -year old oak trees he had planted to provide right-of-way for
widening 66' Avenue. He believed a pocket of agricultural zoning has been created which
is surrounded by development of greater density and thought it was time to look at rezoning
the area. He favored one -acre lots or something in that range.
Commissioner Stanbridge inquired if there are plans to extend 1611 Street to the west
and Director Keating advised that College Lane serves that purpose and is much safer.
Leat Kromhout, 4150 S.W. 11' Place, spoke of his concerns about the traffic impact
of the new church on 12�k Street at 58t` Avenue and he recalled the predictions from a year
and a half ago. He believed we are not ready for even more changes in that area. First,
something needs to be done at each of the intersections because of the problem turning onto
58' Avenue. He believed 4 -lanes on 58' Avenue is not the solution, perhaps it is necessary
to put traffic lights at each intersection. He predicted that approval of the request before
them would further exacerbate the traffic problem. He agreed that agricultural zoning in this
area was a "holding zone". It is a transitional area which is going to change and we cannot
stop it. The issue is how and how fast the Board is going to allow it to change and what will
be done to prepare for the change. He thought transportation planning has been seriously
lacking. Everyone agrees that the area will develop; but consideration must be given to
efforts to slow it down and help agriculture hold on a little longer. He recalled attending a
Palm Beach County Commission meeting in 1985 on the Ag Reserve Area. Their Ag area
was very similar to the general area in question. He stated that Palm Beach County funded
October 9, 2000
17
BK 115 PG 372
r
an Agricultural Economic Enhancement Council to help preserve and maintain agriculture.
If a similar council could be established in Indian River County, it could perhaps help. He
predicted that if the Board deviates from the present Comprehensive Plan the integrity of the
plan will deteriorate. Staff has predicted the urban service area will serve the County for 70
years into the future. If that is true, then there is no present need to look at this change. The
Board is faced with an individual landowner wanting to make a change, but timing and road
conditions do not justify approving such a change. The domino effect is very real; it can and
probably will happen much faster if this request is approved because there will no longer be
the now -present buffer area. He stressed that development of the roads there must be the
priority; if that problem is resolved, it will make the transition much easier for everyone. He
opined that agriculture pays for most of the infrastructure in the county, actually subsidizing
the urban areas of the county, but gets nothing in return. By accelerating the transition,
some of those subsidizing funds will be lost. The problems will be exacerbated and will
have to be addressed sooner or later. He urged the Board to stick to the Comprehensive Plan,
but if they are going to deviate, to address the transportation problem first.
George Beutell, 5000 16t` Street, favored granting Mr. Clontz relief to develop the
property on a one -unit per acre basis. He also wanted to address an 80 -acre piece of property
he owns which borders the industrial -commercial node that runs along Oslo Road at 82'
Avenue with the same type of problems. He is joining with an adjacent property owner of
120 acres to request that their property be included in the urban service area. A traffic study
has been done which states there is enough capacity for the development of that property to
the maximum of 600 units. He expounded on the risks of civil litigation when agricultural
property is properly maintained and objected to the characterization of the "domino effect",
calling it a scare tactic. He asked Deputy County Attorney Collins to explain that a rezoning
October 9, 2000
18
or reclassification on one property does not necessarily result in a domino effect on other
properties.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment does set out policy which is supposed to be applied uniformly. Unless a
property has different factual situations, if accepted, Mr. O'Haire's proposal would have to
be applied to any properties that could meet those criteria.
Mr. Beutell also pointed out that the urban service area is a capricious line which
really makes no sense and pointed it out on the map in the Chambers. He felt it makes no
sense to have a 24 -inch main water line and a 12 -inch sewer line go by property unused for
70 years as they would deteriorate by that time.
Architect John Dean advised that in the last year and a half he had looked at several
similar properties and, while he realized there has to be a global long-range plan, he has seen
transitional zoning work and be effective. He requested the Board take a serious look at Mr.
O'Haire's proposal. He has been on three properties recently where the owners are planning
to just let their trees deteriorate.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, thought most everyone lives on property which
at one time was agricultural. He felt the basic ag issues are the pink grapefruit problem and
the drop in the number of farm workers. Another problem is the Land Use Map has a "U" -
shaped area which was in the urban service area in the 1980's when the plan was sent off to
Tallahassee was objected to after negotiations and the County ended up with the "U" -shaped
area being removed from the service area. Another issue is that when property is developed
by a church, it comes right off the tax roll. Eventually there could be a "church row" on 58'
Avenue with no tax income. As a developer, he receives calls all the time by property
owners to develop their inactive grove properties. He felt the Board needed to start planning
for this transition area and also disputed the 70 -year projection by staff.
October 9, 2000
19
BK 1 15 PG 374
F,
n
U
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, suggested that we really do not have an "urban
service area"; what we have are lines on paper which have been gerrymandered over the
years to respond influential landowners and pressures from Tallahassee. There are large
tracts of land inside the urban service area that have no services. He urged the Board to go
back and look at the development corridors and determine where and how we are going to
develop. He would hate to see 6-1/2 acre lots surrounded by one -acre or V2 -acre or 1/3 -
acre lots.
Chip Landers, 1320 18' Avenue S.W., presented his concerns from a building
contractor's point of view. The pressure is on 58' Avenue now for development and there
are presently only 65 properties of 10 acres or larger on the market within the urban service
area, many are not suitable for residential development. There are only 910+ acre properties
on the market which are located south of SR 60, north of the south county line, and west of
43' Avenue. Expansion of the urban service area will allow more affordable housing to be
built to accommodate the working people in our county. 58' Avenue is a major north -south
arterial road along with US 1 and Indian River Boulevard and the malls were developed to
the west because those developers realized development would be moving west.
ChuckMechling, 5215 Tradewinds, a principal with On Site Management and Pointe
West, was convinced that the domino effect could happen. He thought expansion of the
urban service area at this time would not be beneficial to the county. There is still land
available for development within the urban service area and the urban village concept is a
viable alternative to some of the issues discussed today.
Bob Adair, 7060 33' Street (outside the urban service area), who works at 7055 33'
Street (inside the urban service area), thanked the Board for having this workshop to allow
everyone to come together to express their views on this very controversial subject. It was
a surprise to him (living in a grove) that maintaining citrus is such a problem. He wanted to
October 9, 2000
•
make agriculture more viable. Every time the urban service area is expanded, someone will
be on the fringe with agriculture and residential and there will be conflict. Urban expansion
will continue to be the overriding force for land use unless agricultural and urban interests
work together. He agreed with Lex Kromhout's suggestion for an agricultural enhancement
council and agreed there needs to be a sense of transition at the interface between the two
viable components of our community. He cited concerns of the diaprepies weevil and citrus
producing groves. He thought the urban service area boundary should be re-evaluated so it
can be viable for both agriculture and urban areas.
Pat Brown, 1740 21' Street, showed maps made from Property Appraiser's records
and explained the dominant -use method used in that office to determine the category of the
property. Her first point was that there is still a lot of developable land within the urban
service area. In graduate school she learned that growth management, where demand
exceeds supply, causes prices of land and housing to go up and believed concerns about
affordable housing should be separated from growth management. One of the reasons land
outside the urban service area is so attractive to developers is because it is in larger parcels
and is less expensive per acre. The market price is higher inside the urban service area
because the Board has thus far held the line. Residents often speak of our quality of life and
new residents come from other areas seeking it. She predicted we are at serious risk of
losing that quality of life and that continued expansion to the west will cause development
all the way out to I-95 before long. Planning, by nature, creates and takes away value and
is the job of the Board of County Commissioners. She pointed out that citrus is not the only
agricultural use. She agreed with Mr. Kromhout's suggestion for an advisory board. She felt
that government needs to work as hard for the agricultural people as we do for our other
residents to keep agriculture viable in our county. She hoped the Board would hold the line
October 9, 2000
21
F,
and address the problems of the agricultural community in a much more intense and serious
fashion.
(CLERK'S NOTE: VICE CHAIRMAN GINN ADVISED
THAT C ADAMS HAD STEPPED OUT TO
MAKE A PHONE CALL AND CALLED A SHORT RECESS
AT APPROXIMATELY 12:12 P.M. CHAIRMAN ADAMS
RECONVENED THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY
12:20 P.M.)
Debb Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, Vice President of Laurel Homes, was concerned
about an emotional decision on this issue and preferred a more rational approach, looking
at what is actually existing, where are the needs, and where is the infrastructure. Planners
work in concepts; she works in dirt. Her customers want larger lots and like Vero Beach
because of its low density. She disputed that there are 70 years of developable land in the
urban service area because she is having trouble now finding acceptable parcels. She
disagreed that land outside the urban service area would be less expensive. She believed that
development is driven by two issues: market, where a person wants to live, and whether the
property is developable based on soil percolation. Soils are critical and much of the soil in
our county is inappropriate for development. Providing for stormwater also increases a
developer's costs tremendously. The property that is presently developed is not developed
to the extent allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for many reasons. She urged the Board not
to build further infrastructure where it will not be fully utilized and asked that it be logically
planned. If the Board really wants to protect huge areas of agricultural land, they need to
triple the taxes, buy the land, and put it in some sort of trust.
Rick Stock, 3 Minota Lane, Sea Ranch Lakes, Ft. Lauderdale, owns a citrus grove on
Oslo Road and has developed property in various counties to the south. He thought this was
an opportunity for change. The Board was entrusted to protect many rights and to be pro -
October 9, 2000
22
BK IIspG377
0 0
active in planning for the future. He asked if the health issue of the community of thousands
being surrounded by existing citrus with sprays, chemicals and pesticides has been
considered. He suggested the urban service area be extended to I-95, keeping the citrus on
the west side, and developing a 20 -or 25 -year plan for infrastructure in a logical fashion.
Richard Beutell, 4800 16'h Street, owner of a pest control business, stated that profit
is what drives industry and business. If people cannot make a profit using their land for
citrus, they want to know what it can be used for profitably. He was floored by the 70 -year
plan; a 70 year plan for business would be useless, arrogant, and ridiculous. He thought a
20 year plan might work. He wondered about having an asset with a limited life span that
will not be used; it did not make economic sense. He thought the Commissioners should
determine where they want the growth based on what has happened over the last 10 years
and try to direct what will happen over the next 10 years.
Jerry Johnson, 410 45t` Count, disputed those who suggested the urban service area
be moved to I-95. He realized that Mr. Clontz needed relief; but suggested the decision be
delayed. He thought the overall plan should be considered rather than making a decision
today on one piece of property. He predicted a change would create a domino effect down
58' Avenue and 58' Avenue is not ready for more traffic. He also thought coordination of
infrastructure was important.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Tippin recalled serving on the Planning & Zoning Commission in the
1980's when the late Commissioner Carolyn Eggert worked the commission members very
hard putting together the first Comprehensive Plan. The theme throughout was "low density
and green space." Also a 35' height limit was put in. When the first plan was ready, it had
October 9, 2000
23
to be sent to the Department of Community Affairs which called it the best in the state and
wanted to use it as a model. Years came and went, Mrs. Eggert moved up to the Board of
County Commissioners, and he was chairman of the PZC. When 10 years had passed, the
PZC had to redo the plan. The existing plan was sent to DCA and the same bureaucracy
(different people, different philosophy) said the County had created "urban sprawl" with the
low density/green space idea and the County needed to stack its people on top of the
infrastructure. The new concept was to have sustainable communities where you could walk
to the store, to church, to school, and so forth. He hoped the new neighborhood design does
work, but it impractical to think all our citizens will be happy with that concept. The Board
needs to be practical and protect the environment. Regarding health concerns, he commented
that he and his brothers had sprayed pesticides as youths and they are all still alive and he
is the youngest of the four and they are all pretty healthy. He felt people over -react to
spraying now. He likened the creation of the first Comprehensive Plan to "giving birth to
a porcupine". The second one was not easy because they had to overcome the "urban
sprawl" philosophy.
Chairman Adams pointed out the Board had already overstepped the bounds when
they approved the church on 58' Avenue. They knew there would be traffic problems.
There is a fine line between property rights and those things that we value about our
community. She grew up on a hog and tobacco farm in eastern North Carolina and it is
difficult when your neighbors are not involved in the same things. The urban/Ag interface
will be a problem that will have to be faced for a long time, particularly along the coastal
areas of Florida. She opposed a requirement to build on all the empty lots inside the urban
service area. She liked open spaces without people having to live right next to someone else.
She thought the solution offered by Mr. O'Haire was liveable because it provides a transition
and she would support a transitional zone, particularly on 58' Avenue where the services are
October 9, 2000
24
•
available. She believed this should not be a "blanket" change, but ought to be on a per parcel
use and would support that. Another caveat should be that if the Board is set on keeping all
building within the urban service area where the applicant has another property located
within the urban service area, he would have to develop that one first. She will support a
transitional zone and thought it was appropriate under the circumstances.
Commissioner Stanbridge recalled that her first day on the Board of County
Commissioners she voted against building a church on 58' Avenue. At that time she
objected to the plan to add the school which has greatly impacted the traffic on 58' Avenue.
Because of that one approval, all this has come about. She favored Mr. O'Haire's plan, but
wanted staff to fine-tune it with more criteria. She thought the urban service area line should
be softened. She would support the Board at least looking again at this under an RFD, the
fringe rule, in the RS -1.
Vice Chairman Ginn understood that the PZC voted unanimously to deny this
rezoning and also noted that there is enough space for growth within the urban service area
out to the year 2020, not 70 years.
In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Director Keating responded that staff
did a vacant land analysis and looked at the unbuilt platted lots (18,000 presently). Current
absorption rate is about 1,200 units per year. Also applied is a ratio which reflects that there
is an existing density allowing for infrastructure as well. The Plan goes to the year 2020, but
there is enough space to accommodate a longer period at the current consumption rate. It
could change if we have continuing build out at much lower densities or if our population
growth increases.
Vice Chairman Ginn thought it would be irresponsible to start changing the zoning
along 58" Avenue until after the 4-laning project is complete. She knew Mr. Clontz owned
a unique parcel, but she understood he could develop it today under certain conditions; that
October 9, 2000
25
� �I
•
I
is, one unit per 5 acres and it could be clustered under the AG -PD option. She wanted to be
very cautious with expanding the urban service area. She wanted to see where the flood
plains are and where the sewer and water pipes are.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out there were 100 year flood plain areas inside the
urban service area that should not be developed.
There was general discussion while everyone looked at the flood plain map and also
other properties which might be affected by Mr. O'Haire's proposal for his client's property.
There were recollections of the special exception use in an agriculturally zoned area
given for the church and school on 58' Street.
Commissioner Macht favored Mr. O'Haire's solution to some degree but many other
things needed to be considered. He felt it important for the Board to look at the land use map
superimposed with the flood plain and determine what lies inside the current area and how
they want the growth to go. The presence of sewer and water lines are a dominating factor;
that is, to install them and not use them does make a lot of sense. He hoped they would not
make a decision at this meeting, but ask the staff to present this in a larger sense and not on
just one parcel. He preferred to reconvene with more information and projections on the
impact.
Commissioner Stanbridge asked Chairman Adams if she thought a motion was in
order or a consensus to give direction to staff.
MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Stanbridge to direct
staff (1) to look at the urban service area boundary and consider
not extending the boundaries, but provide for a transitional area
in certain locations, following the criteria presented by Mr.
O'Haire, with a minimum acreage of at least 30; (2) to very
October 9, 2000
j
26
• 0
carefully consider a planned development bonus of three units;
and (3) to add criteria that staff feels will protect the County
from a major expansion. MOTION WAS SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht for discussion.
Vice Chairman Ginn felt there was a lot in the motion and asked Director Keating if
all the various arguments were presented to the PZC.
Director Keating responded that there was not as wide a discussion as the Board heard
at this meeting.
Chairman Adams restated the motion as a direction to staff as she understood it, as
follows: (1) the Commissioners like Mr. O'Haire's criteria, (2) determine what other areas
would be impacted, (3) see the flood plain superimposed on the Comprehensive Plan map,
and (4) increase the minimum acreage to 30 acres.
Vice Chairman Ginn pointed out that staff had recommended Alternative 6, and
Commissioner Macht responded that was their professional opinion which it was their
responsibility to give, but it was the Board's responsibility to establish policy.
Chairman Adams recognized Pat Brown who asked the Board ton include in their
direction to have staff define "abut".
There was discussion about insurance rates and the flood plain, after which Director
Keating asked when and how staff should plan to bring this back to the Board.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins thought the Board was talking about having a
transitional zoning, which is not presently in our Comprehensive Plan, so he thought the time
to bring it back would be during the January window of Comp Plan amendment submissions
which would give staff time to work out a proposal and get input from the public at an
official public hearing.
October 9, 2000
27
r
Director Keating agreed that January would be the next window. However, because
there was not a consensus, he suggested staff could come back in several weeks with the
additional analysis and proposals in order to firm up a proposal to submit in January.
Mr. O'Haire questioned the November window, and Director Keating responded that
applications for that window had been taken in July. They have gone through the PZC
procedure, and are about ready to bring to the Board.
Director Keating reminded Mr. O'Haire that his appearance before the PZC had been
changed a few times to accommodate Mr. O'Haire's schedule.
There was more discussion and Deputy County Attorney Collins asked about the
timing requirements; Director Keating responded that the July Comp Plan amendments have
gone through the PZC and they will soon be advertised for hearing by the Board of County
Commissioners (within the next 3-4 weeks). Director Keating stated that the Clontz
property came in during the January window, went through PZC and the Board. It was
denied by the Board and staff was directed to go back and give Mr. Clontz some relief.
Director Keating thought the issue was whether it could be put with the other Comp Plan
amendments as it has already been through the PZC.
Deputy County Attorney Collins recalled that the Board denied going to M-1, 8 units
per acre. If the applicant modified the request to RS -1, it may be possible to get Mr. Clontz's
matter to the Board of County Commissioners as an RS -1, but they could not do a county-
wide plan amendment. Staffwould have to comeback with the information the Board wants
on that.
Deputy County Attorney Collins pointed out that Mr. Clontz's application asked for
8 units per acre so a request for RS -1 zoning would have to go back to the PZC. It was
recalled that the PZC decision was appealed to the Board of County Commissioners and also
October 9, 2000
% 115 PG 383 28
•
denied by the Board of County Commissioners. This was a workshop meeting and a new
proposal was considered.
Mr. O'Haire argued that the County Commission kept it alive for a November
submission, and Vice Chairman Ginn responded that you cannot keep alive something the
County Commission has killed.
Deputy County Attorney Collins stated that the decision has been made not to
transmit the RM -8 proposal and directions have been given to staff to find some form of
relief for Mr. Clontz.
THE CHAHZMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1 (Vice Chairman Ginn opposed)
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 1:12 p.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved�� sq'06
October 9, 2000
29
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
r
is