Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC Minutes 06-16-2009 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA REGULAR MEETING Date: June 16, 2009 Convened: 6:05 p.m. Adjourned: 11:20 p.m. Commissioners Present: Paula Lewis,Chairman; Doug Coward, Charles Grande, Chris Craft, Chris Dzadovsky Others Present: Faye Outlaw, County Administrator; Leeann Lowery, Assistant County Administrator; Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, Katherine McKenzie Smith, Assistant County Attorney; Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney, Heather Leuke, Assistant County Attorney; Don West, Public Works Director; Laurie Case, Utilities Director; Beth Ryder, Community Services Director; Jack Southard, Public Safety Director; Marie Gouin, Management & Budget Director; Mike Powley, County Engineer; Diana Lewis, Airport Director; Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director; Ron Harris, County Surveyor; Amy Mott, Environmental Resources Manager; Lauri Heistermann, Deputy Clerk I. INVOCATION II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Craft and seconded by Commissioner Dzadovsky to approve the minutes from the June 9, 2009 meeting and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. IV. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A.Legislative Update by Representative Fetterman He stated that the State budget is the only constitutional requirement that they must come out of the legislative session with. This years State budget turned out to be 66.5 billion dollars. This is a billion and a half more than last year budget. He stated that they had received funds from the Federal Government. Over the last two fiscal years the State budget had been cut eight and half billion dollars. He informed the Commission that he opposed the budget this past year. On the State level they were only permitted to look at the expense side of the budget. He stated that they did not have an open and honest conversation about revenue in the State of Florida in this legislative session. He stated that the State received five and a half billion dollars in economic recovery funds. Education suffered cuts this year. The education funding formula in the State of Florida is one of the most complex mathematical creatures ever designed. He stated that the money that is paid in local school taxes doesn’t go directly to local schools. He stated that the money goes to Tallahassee and the State decides how the money should be spent. He stated that the legislature put to use nearly 2 billion dollars in economic recovery funds from the Obama Administration. Because Florida has failed to adequately fund public education in the past they need to ask for a waiver from the Federal Government of the qualifications necessary to draw down federal funds. Insurance is another issue. There is a State run property insurance program which is called Citizens. He stated that the mess that is Citizens was not fixed this year. He stated that they had passed a bill which is awaiting the Governors signature that will enable more competition into the market. He stated that the My Safe Florida Home Program is a very successful program which helps to protect homes against hurricanes to reduce insurance premiums. The legislature decided not to fund this program again. He informed the Commission that the State passed the Dori Slosberg Act, which will make failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense. He stated that the legislation put an end to and will prosecute human smuggling in the State of Florida. He outlined HB 73 which requires the Department of Environmental Protection to work with the Water Management District to adopt programs for expedited permitting for those businesses that a municipality or County has targeted as a target industry business. He outlined HB 701 which involves TRIM notice revisions. He stated that at one legislative session they addressed the largest tax cut in Florida History. As a result property taxes should have dropped but they did not, but at the same time increased school taxes. He stated that he had a bill that would have required that the Tax Collector print at the bottom of the bill if school taxes are increased as a result of the act of the legislature. He informed the Commission that the bill was not heard, but he will bring it back. He stated that he supported SB 252 applying specific provisions of the Code of Ethics to various local government contract employees. 1 He also supported SB 216 which prohibited local government or any person acting on their behalf from expending public funds in support or against a referendum or other amendment that the public will vote on in an election. He stated that the was a massive Growth Management Bill, SB 360 which he had heard from many people to oppose the bill. He stated that he was proud to do so. Unfortunately the Governor signed it into law and this bill will be devastating to much of the work that the Commission has tried to do and other local governments in terms of managing growth. He stated that growth is inevitable. Growth unchecked is not a good thing. Sustainable smart growth is. This bill removed transportation concurrency, weakened the Department of Community Affairs and took power away from the Commission in knowing what is best for a local government and a local community. Commissioner Dzadovsky thanked Representative Fetterman for the time he gave him while in Tallahassee. He addressed insurance companies coming in and cherry picking. He stated if a company is in Florida providing auto insurance they should also be required to provide the other insurances. He addressed SB 216. He stated that they sit as a Commission on a daily basis and here from constituents and when there is an issue that is coming in front of the State and the Commission knows from the information received from the constituents that it is bad for St. Lucie County the Commission expresses that whether it is on SLC TV or via phone calls or e-mail. He stated that he is concerned that they may be viewed as using tax payer dollars to provide information on what they believe to be a bad bill. Representative Fetterman stated that this bill has nothing to do with the issues that come before the Legislature. This bill speaks solely to issues that come before the voters and are placed on the ballot. What it prevents is a municipality from expending dollars on television ads, billboards and signs on the sides of buses to oppose a ballet initiative. This has nothing to do with advocacy by the Commission, FACC or Florida League of cities to the Legislature regarding specific bills. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked if there had been a dollar limit placed on this. Representative Fetterman stated that there was nothing in the bill that prevents the Commission from disseminating information. It has a specific exception for that. Commissioner Coward thanked Representative Fetterman and his leadership on education, growth management and a variety of other important issues. He stated that he was particularly pleased with Representative Fetterman’s vote against SB 316, which is the worst growth management legislation that he has ever seen in the two decades that he has been a professional planner working in the State of Florida. He stated that in order for the State to be eligible to receive the billions of dollars of monies from the Federal Stimulus packet, the State of Florida because of its dismal record on funding education, had to get a waiver. Commissioner Coward requested the status of the waiver process. Representative Fetterman stated that he does not know the answer to the question. He stated that he did not believe that they had received the waiver yet. As of last week in Tallahassee, his understanding was that the application was still sitting on the Governor’s desk. The communication received from the Governor’s office was that they were still waiting on information on how to apply for the waiver from the US Department of Education. The US Department of Education said that they just needed the application for a waiver. He stated that in speaking with the Congressional Delegation is that we will likely receive the waiver because funding was held steady to the 08/09 level and depending on how you look at it they may have increased funding by about $50.00 per student. Commissioner Coward stated that the County, State of Florida and particularly this Board and the community is very interested in trying to promote clean energy alternatives. He stated having gone through the process having one of the largest coal plants proposed in our back yard, which the Board denied and having gone through the review of several proposals within the community most of the Board has come to the conclusion that roof top solar makes the most sense in the sunshine state. The State Energy Policy essentially creates energy monopolies and they only do centralized solutions. They don’t build solar on individual roof tops. He stated that the State ranks nearly last in the country in terms of incentives that are available for individual homeowners to make it cost effective. The Public Service Commission commissioned a report by navigant consulting that looked at all the clean energy alternatives and determined roof top solar is the most technologically viable alternative for the State. Right now we can not achieve that based on State Energy Policy or the lack of incentives. He stated that this needed to be addressed. He stated that we needed to get the State to change the Energy Policy. Representative Fetterman agreed with Commissioner Coward. He stated that people will be hurt as a result of the decisions that were made in Tallahassee this year. There will be a reduction in the Government services. He stated that he did not see things like that happening next year. He stated that the State budget will continue to be very difficult and challenging for the next legislative session. He stated that he foresees this to happen over a 5 year time horizon. 2 Commissioner Coward stated that St. Lucie County could be pulled out as a pilot project. He stated that right now the ill fated industrial wind turbine project has a 5 million dollar subsidy allocated for it. The Public Service Commission report determined that land based wind is not commercially viable and there is no future in Florida. He suggested taking the 5 million dollars away from a project that is ill fated and shift it into trying to do wide spread roof top solar. Representative Fetterman stated that he would be happy to look at a bill for the next legislative session. Commissioner Coward stated that this would create thousands of jobs locally. Commissioner Grande commended Representative Fetterman on his fight against SB 360. He stated that he would hope that if a solar bill is created it would be a distributed solar bill to get it to individual roof tops. He addressed his concerns with SB 360. Commissioner Craft thanked Representative Fetterman. Commissioner Lewis thanked Representative Fetterman. V GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT John Arena – Ft. Pierce addressed the Board and voiced his concerns with issues in Ft. Pierce Roger Hudspeth – Chair for the Green Collar Tax force thanked the Commission and gave his gratitude to County Staff and commended Commissioner Coward. Commissioner Grande thanked the task force members. Commissioner Coward also thanked specific members of the task force. VI. CONSENT AGENDA A.WARRANTS Approve warrant list No. 37 B.COUNTY ATTORNEY 1. Second Amendment to Agreement with Ranger Construction – Calmoso Project The Board approved staff recommendation to approve and give Chair permission to sign Second Amendment to Agreement with Ranger Construction. 2. Revocable License Agreement – Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute/Florida Atlantic University – Old Dixie Highway The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the Revocable License Agreement, authorized the Chair to sign the Revocable License Agreement and direct Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute/Florida Atlantic University to record the document in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. 3. Pepper Park - Lease Renewal - Sovereignty Submerged Lands - BOT Lease No. 561411748 The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease Renewal, BOT Lease No. 561411748, extending the effective date to June 13, 2014, authorized the Chair to execute the Lease Renewal, directed staff to forward the Lease Renewal to the Department of Environmental Protection for signature and record the Lease Renewal in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. 4. “After the Fact” Revocable License Agreement – Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Florida City Gas – Lucero Drive The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the “After the Fact” Revocable License Agreement with Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Florida City Gas, authorized the Chair to execute the Agreement and directed Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Florida City Gas to record the Agreement in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. 3 5. St. Lucie County Airport - Florida Power & Light Company - 50' Utility Easement The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the 50' Utility Easement in favor of Florida Power & Light Company, authorized the Chair to execute the Easement and directed staff to record the Easement in the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. – This item was pulled for separate vote. Commissioner Dzadovsky stated that this issue had to do with the utility easement and where to place the power lines. He stated that he was disappointed that the Commissioners were presented with this situation. He pointed out that given what they did with the power lines they take a look at the Airport Master Plan and all the property around it and how to move forward. He stated that he would have liked to have seen the power lines across Kings Highway over by the canal and out of the way. He stated that he was not in support of where they were going to move the lines. Commissioner Craft concurred with Commissioner Dzadovsky and stated that there were time constraints to receive the maximum funding from the Federal and State sources. Commissioner Grande stated that there was exceptional participation from the public. Commissioner Dzadovsky stated that they needed to advise anyone that was going to lease hold properties that there is a possibility of change and that this is a working airport and there are expansion opportunities. It was moved by Commissioner Craft and seconded by Commissioner Coward to approve St. Lucie County Airport - Florida Power & Light Company - 50' Utility Easement and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. 6. Green Collar Consortium – Memorandum of Agreement to Create Green Collar Consortium with Workforce Solutions and Building Trades Unions The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the proposed Memorandum of Agreement to create the Green Collar Consortium, and authorized the Chair to sign the Memorandum of Agreement. C.PUBLIC WORKS 1.New Horizons of the Treasure Coast The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the agreement to pay a fee-in-lieu-of for constructing a concrete sidewalk for New Horizons of the Treasure Coast in the amount of $7,909.00 and authorized the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney. 2.Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Grant The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Amendment No. 1 to the original Grant Application, Budget Resolution No. 09-180 and Budget Amendment BA09-025. 3. Unsafe structure, 1903 Edwards Road, Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 The Board approved staff recommendation to advertise a public hearing to be scheduled for the next available night meeting following four consecutive weeks of advertising. 4. Contract with Everglades Farm Equipment. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to enter into a contract with Everglades Farm Equipment in the amount not to exceed $49,999.99 and authorized the Chair to sign the contract as approved by the County attorney. 5. Verada Ditch Improvements South of Calmoso Drive The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $379, 972.42. 4 D. PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Application for Local Historic Designation of “Old Fort Park” by the City of Fort Pierce The Board approved staff recommendation to approve of the City of Fort Pierce Historic Preservation Board’s application to designate “Old Fort Park” a historic site on the local register, and authorized the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney. 2. Equipment Request No. 09-035 to purchase a 6’x10’x6.5’ Utility Trailer and BA09-024 The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Equipment Request No. 09-035 and BA09-024 for the purchase of a 6’x10’x6.5’ utility trailer for use for various events. E. SHERIFF’S OFFICE 1.Permission to Apply for the 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office submission of the electronic application for the Recovery Act: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Formula Program in the amount of $116,436.00. 2.Permission to Apply for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office submission of the electronic application for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in the amount of $878,816.00. F. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Agreement for FY09-10 The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the agreement with the Florida Department of Community Affairs for FY09/10 CSBG in the amount of $287,204; approval of Budget Resolution 09-181 and authorized the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney. 2. Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Grant Application FY09/10 The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Grant Program for an amount not to exceed $300,000; and authorized the Chair to sign documents as approved by the County Attorney. G. GRANTS 1.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Coastal Counties Restoration Initiative Grant, St. Lucie – 3 Spoil Island The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Coastal Counties Restoration Program for $50,000 for the St. Lucie – 3 Spoil Island Wetland Reconnection and Native Planting Project. 2.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Grant – South Florida Coastal Program, St. Lucie – 3 Spoil Island The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit grant application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife South Florida Coastal Program for $50,000 for the St. Lucie – 3 Spoil Island Wetland Reconnection and Native Planting Project. 3.Florida Department of Transportation – Transportation Enhancement Program, St. James Drive Pedestrian /Bicycle Pathway – Phase II 5 The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit a grant application for $362,314 to the Florida Department of Transportation – Transportation Enhancement Program for the St. James Drive Pedestrian /Bicycle Pathway – Phase II Project. 4.Florida Department of Transportation – Safe Routes to School Grant Program, St. James Drive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway – Phase II The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit a grant application for $362,314 to the Florida Department of Transportation – Safe Routes to School Grant Program for the St. James Drive Pedestrian/Bicycle Pathway – Phase II Project. 5.Approval to accept a grant from the Indian River Lagoon - License Plate Program FY 2009. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to accept grant contract and funding of $35,185 from the Indian River Lagoon - License Plate Program for the St. Lucie -3 Spoil Island and Queens Island Preserve Project. 6.National Library of Medicine – AIDS Community Outreach Contract Program for In the Image of Christ, Inc. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit a grant application for $60,000 to the National Library of Medicine – AIDS Community Outreach Contract Program for In the Image of Christ, Inc. 7. Florida Division of Cultural Affairs Culture Builds Florida Program Grant Application The Board approved staff recommendation to approve to submit a grant application for $25,000 to the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs Culture Builds Florida Program for a public art symposium. 8. Project Vision – Letter of Intent and Resolution 09-183 The Board approved staff recommendation to have the County Administrator draft a Letter of Intent to offer Project Vision a Job Growth Incentive Grant of $510,000 phased over three years and, subject to Board approval at a public hearing, an Ad Valorem Tax Abatement of $40,500 phased over nine years. Also, Board approval of Resolution 09-183 recommending that Project Vision be approved as a qualified target industry business pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes; providing an appropriation of $160,000 as local participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program; and providing an effective date. It was moved by Commissioner Grande and seconded by Commissioner Coward to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 6B5 and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. END OF CONSENT AGENDA VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.COUNTY ATTORNEY Special Magistrate’s Recommendation concerning St. Lucie County Board of Adjustment’s Resolution No. 08-010 regarding St. Lucie Citrus Consulting. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve the Special magistrate’s second recommendation, which is as follows: 1. All excavated materials must be kept on site. 2. The lake would be limited to a depth of 8 to 10 feet 3. All excavation work on the lake must be completed and started within a 12 month period. 4. The applicant would be complying with all South Florida Water Management District permits 5. There must be an appropriate application for a PUD by the applicant 6. The County Attorney recommended deleting number 6 6 Additional Conditions 1. Monitor noise at the property line 2. Monitor impact on the wells and issue a stop work order with the project pending the South Florida Water Management District review if a violation of any condition of South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource permit number 56-01836-P is found 3.No building permit shall be issued until any required North St. Lucie Water Control District permit has been obtain and to be considered in good standings 4. Commissioner Coward suggested adding language that they would have to meet all the requirements of the Plan and the Code. 5. Commissioner Coward suggested that all outstanding fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit and that all the fees should be paid before staff spends any more time processing a PUD application at all. Katherine McKenzie Smith stated that this is from Florida Statute 70.51 and it is an alternative to a land issue. She outlined the history of the property. She stated that after reviewing the history of the property the Growth Management Director made a determination that the proposed extraction and removal of material to create the 32 acre lake was from mining and required the applicant to submit a mining application and conditional use. The applicant filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment on the Growth Management Director’s decision. The Board of Adjustment denied the appeal and a request for relief was filed pursuant to Florida Statute 70.51. A hearing was held on March 12, 2009 and the Special Magistrate filed a recommendation on May 8, 2009. She stated that the Special Magistrate had made two recommendations. One was that the Growth Management Director approve the St. Lucie Citrus Minor Site Plan application with the four additional conditions as outlined. She stated that after the recommendation was made the Statute requires that the Board of County Commissioners either accept the recommendation, accept it with modifications or reject it. She suggested modifications based on issues that had been recently raised. One of them was concern with boat noise. She stated that boat noise is exempted from the noise ordinance. The recommendation is that the noise at the property line are not to exceed the sound limits set forth in section 113.8 of the St. Lucie County Code. The other is concern over the wells even though they have the South Florida Water Management District permit. She stated that they were suggesting a modification that put in that the impact on the wells be monitored and issue a stop work order for the project pending South Florida Water Management review if a violation of any condition of South Florida Water Management District permit is found. The third issue was raised by the North St. Lucie Water control district and they are stating that their permit is not in good standing. No building permit will be issued until it has been obtained and considered to be in good standing. She stated that the Board will issue a decision tonight and the applicant can agree to accept or deny it. If they choose to deny it the Growth Management Director will have to issue a written decision as to what uses are available for this land within 30 days. Mark Satterlee stated that despite the fact that the Special Magistrate disagreed with his finding that this required a mining permit he still feels justified in the action that he took. This application was before the Board in 2004 as a mining permit. It is substantially the same lake and configuration of lake as it was then. He stated that when he asked the applicant for specific information about the amount of material to be removed off site the information was never provided. They never could get an accurate handle on how much traffic and activity would actually be occurring on Ideal Holding Road. Commissioner Grande asked the Growth Management Director that with the Special Magistrate’s conditions about the drastically reduced depth of the lake and the requirement that no material be removed off site did he feel that he took his points into consideration. Mark Satterlee stated that he felt he took them into consideration. He is comfortable with the recommendation that was made by the Special Magistrate. Commissioner Grande stated that he was in agreement with the Growth Management Director’s position. Commissioner Coward stated that he agreed with staff comments and the Board had already recommended going against the mining application in the past. He stated that there had been no objections to it being laid out as a site plan but it was the misrepresentation of it being a site plan as opposed to a mining operation which is what he had viewed much of this project to be. He stated that on a procedural standpoint he is troubled by the fact this applicant has not even paid the application fee. This means that the costs are being passed onto the tax payers of St. Lucie County. 7 He stated that he did not believe from a procedural standpoint that this project should even be before the Board. It should be a prerequisite that the fees that are required to process the application are paid in order for the Board to consider this in such a hearing. Commissioner Craft concurred. Commissioner Coward stated that there was an outstanding fee in the amount of $5,500 due to the North St. Lucie Water Control District. Katherine McKenzie Smith stated that the initial application fees were paid and the District incurred more costs. Commissioner Grande concurred. He stated that if full fees are not paid up front there is a great possibility that if the permit is not issued for good cause the fees may never get paid. PUBLIC COMMENT Tracey Powers – Owner of St. Lucie Citrus stated that the application fees have been paid. She informed the Board that she had an approved North St. Lucie Water Management District signed permit. Commissioner Coward asked if had been submitted in writing that it had been paid. Tracey Powers stated that she had an actual permit approved with signature. Commissioner Coward stated that there was not a concern with the permit it was the fact that there are outstanding fees. He asked how recently the correspondence had been given to the County. Katherine McKenzie Smith stated June 11, 2009. Tracey Powers stated that St. Lucie Citrus requested relief under Florida Statute 70.51 which had to do with the Burt Harris act. She stated that they had a Special Magistrate proceeding and during the proceeding they provided an abundance of evidence to show that the County errored. For many legal reasons they operated against the Land Development Code. She stated that the Growth Management Director had five days to either approve, deny or approve with conditions. She stated that instead of approving, denying or approving with conditions he required a mining permit. This was for the temporary construction activities associated with the creation of the lake on the site plan. The lake was to be used for storm water management, recreational water use, aquaculture and irrigation. The proposed use of the property was located in an ag 5 zoning district. She stated that under this zoning you would be allowed approximately 30 units. This was a minor site plan and part of the site plan known to the County from day 1. She stated that she had documentation from the County stating that they did not need a mining permit. When they went into a pre-initiation meeting before the application was ever turned in the County knew what the applicants were doing. She stated that they had discussed approximately 300 to 350 yards of dirt being dug out of the lake. She informed the Commissioners that the Department of Transportation is extending highway 70 and they would like to trade, dig the lake and take the dirt to use as fill for highway 70. Instead the Department of Transportation had to purchase the fill. Now with the situation before the Commission and the modification of the site plan which is against the Land Development Code restricting them from any removal of dirt. This will create an extraordinary expense to create the lakes. In addition the excess dirt would have to be spread around the property costing more money and destroying the agricultural nutrition and it would kill the grass and the citrus trees that currently exist on the land. She stated that the Growth Management Director had two main areas for his argument with why a mining permit was needed. She stated that the Growth Management Director had stated that the lakes were to large and therefore the Land Development Code did not apply. She stated that he had also said that this lake was substantially the same as the one proposed in 2004 which was a mining permit that had been denied at that time. She stated that if the County is not requiring a mining permit under Statute 70.51, when the Commission makes a recommendation, they would not be able to accept the recommendation that the County is proposing. She stated that they had approached the residents and came to another option that they would accept if they did not take any dirt off the property. She stated they had looked at the Special Magistrate recommendation and it holds mustard. She stated that the residents were for the 30 unit proposal. She stated that Florida Statute 70.51 allows the Commission to make an exception to increase the density under a minor site plan. 8 In the State Statutes it also states under a Special Magistrate proceeding that is outside the realm of the requirements with the Comprehensive Plan it would not require an amendment or a special approval. She stated that it makes more sense to go with the second option from the Special Magistrate. She stated that the excess dirt could be used for pads on 30 units. She stated that their modification is that either they remove the amount of dirt that the Growth Management Director agreed to during mediation with the Special Magistrate which was 350 thousand yards or they would go with the 30 unit exception and increase the density. This option was also given by a member of the Board of Adjustment. She stated that regardless of what happens here tonight they are opposed to the current approval of the 4 lot site plan. There had to be something to offset the cost of the lake. She stated that even in the City of Pt. St. Lucie any site plan allowes to removal of dirt. She stated that the fact that there ever was a mining permit application put in was a mistake. She stated that the depths of the lakes is a problem. Apparently the Special Magistrate received some article from a magazine stating that 8 to 10 feet was the optimal depth for a water ski lake. 8 feet deep is the minimum allowed by the South Florida Management District do to bacteria and drought. She stated that they felt that it needed to be 12 feet minimum. The reason why they never gave a definitive depth is because it would depend on what type of material was at that depth. Engineering stated that there were no offsite impacts to construct this lake under the criteria. Commissioner Craft asked if they had a land use attorney involved. Tracey Powers stated that they had an attorney involved after it was to late. Commissioner Craft stated that he felt it would be beneficial to them. He stated that he had some concerns. He stated that there are things that can be done to help mitigate these things. He stated that one of the conditions that he would have liked to have seen was a berm that goes around the property to prevent the noise. Tracey Powers stated that this was already part of the site plan. Commissioner Craft stated that they were not considering the site plan. He recommended that they bring the site plan and this back before the Board together and have a professional do that. Tracey Powers stated that the site plan would not need to be approved. The only thing that the Board would be approving is the modification from the Special Magistrate proceedings which would be to allow them to have a modification to a minor site plan and all of the other conditions. The Commissioners would need to make a decision whether or not they would make the modification to allow 30 units. Commissioner Coward stated that this was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Grande stated that the Special Magistrate had given a couple of alternatives that should be considered and he had given a list of conditions that would go with each of the alternatives. He stated that both of the alternatives that were laid out by the Special Magistrate was there should be a condition that says the lake will not exceed 8 to 10 feet in depth. He stated that the Special Magistrate made a ruling in both of the alternatives that he had laid out specifically stating that the excavated material from the SLC lake must be kept on site. Tracey Powers stated that the County is able to modify the recommendation. She stated that the Special Magistrate determined that the mining permit is not warranted here. Commissioner Grande stated that the Special Magistrate determined that a mining permit is not necessary because it is not necessary to go to the 25 foot depths and to have the kind of removals that this would entail. Tracey Powers stated that what the Special Magistrate is saying is that based on the land development code there are specific provisions per section 11.05.11A2 of the Land Development Code where it states that no mining permit shall be required under this section for the following activities. One of the activities is under any development with a site plan. She stated that the Special Magistrate was also discussing section 6.06.02A of the Land Development Code which exempts the mining permit for temporary mining activity in conjunction with a development through the site plan process. She stated that the definition of mining is the excavation and removal of dirt using a county road. She stated that if they do not remove any dirt then they are not mining. She stated that the County’s Land Development Code says that a site plan is able to remove dirt. She stated that under section 70.51 the County can increase the density and maintain the site plan. 9 Commissioner Dzadovsky asked for clarification on the total number of yards of dirt that will be removed. Tracey Powers clarified that there would be 300 to 350 thousand yards to be removed and half would be used for the berm. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked if they had done core samples. Tracey Powers stated that they had core samples done and that there was no coquina. Commissioner Coward stated that one of the things that was disputed was the status of the permit. He stated that he had a document dated June 11, 2009 and it came from Christine Beckham. The Growth Management Director stated that Christine Beckham is an employee or a representative of the North St. Lucie Water Management District. Commissioner Coward stated that in anticipation of this hearing the County questioned the status and what was written back was that an easement needed to be recorded that had not and the project is in arrears with the North St. Lucie River Water Control District and there are outstanding invoices for the project review that total $5,022.81. The owners have requested relief from their Board on two occasions. On both occasions the Board heard the complaint but upheld the charges as they felt the amount due was not unreasonable given the volume of work the project review required. He stated that there was also discussion about a security deposit. In conclusion because the easement had not been finalized and the monies due have not been paid the permit for the project is not currently valid. Phil Bradford Carlton Ranch Estates addressed the Board. He stated that they have owned this property for about a year and one half. During this period of time he became aware through a letter from Mr. Satterlee about this project. He stated that he had no knowledge about it before receiving notification from this department. He stated that he then spoke to Mr. Powers and was led to believe that this project would be comparable to projects found in states such as California or Texas. Some of his concerns are access by the general public. He stated that he had concerns about water pollution to the water table as well as noise pollution. With usage of 2 and 4 cylinders he would be concerned about the hours of operation. He stated that air and site pollution are also concerns. He stated that he felt the property would be less than similar to other surrounding properties. He stated that there had been no confirmation about the exact depth. He stated that he was against the site plan. Ken Canard of Hidden Acres Estates which is an adjoining property. He stated that the original application was named the St. Lucie Citrus Mine. This property is in the middle of 3 residential communities. When they bought the property it was zoned for one house per 5 acres. He stated that they should be able to accept the zoning as it was. He stated that they continue to change the plan to get by some of the rulings. Dave Lagates of Aero Acres addressed the Board. He stated that the Magistrate made adjustments, agreements and compromises as well as the compromises that the residents made. He stated that Mr. Powers had made a comment in the past to not remove the dirt. He stated that they paid to pave the road through an MSBU. Commissioner Coward explained what an MSBU was. Dave Lagates stated that they had no problem with 30 lots. He stated that they had not been told the truth in the past. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked which road was involved with the MSBU Dave Lagates stated Ideal Holding Road. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked when other home owners participate in an MSBU and they pay to pave a road if a new homeowner comes in after the fact are they obligated to participate in the MSBU. The County Engineer stated that regarding the MSBU and home owners that show up after the road had been paved the re-payment period for MSBU is funded for 10 years to 20 years and Ideal Holding Road was at least 10 years. During the re-payment period if new homeowners show up then they are brought into the MSBU and contribute their fare share which then lowers the assessment for the homeowners that have already contributed to fund the construction. Once the MSBU is paid off if new homeowners show up they are not charged. 10 Commissioner Lewis asked if the property owners paid into the MSBU even if they did not have development on their property. The County Engineer stated that it is a 10 year old MSBU and it was based on trips. Ken Canard stated that there was no agricultural activity going on, on the property. Jean Andrews – Aero Acres addressed her concerns with the Lake. She stated that she is concerned with the water levels and how it would affect their wells. Patricia Close – Aero Acres stated that she is tired of this project. She stated that this project is not compatible. Andrew Stemple stated that he was opposed to the project do to the possibility that it may be open to the public. Tracey Powers stated that this would be a private residential development with no public access. She stated that there is no zoning change. The intended use of the property had not changed. She informed the Commission that they contributed to the road. Anne Norvell – Carlton Ranch stated that when the Powers first bought the property it was a producing orange grove. She stated that the property is not being maintained. She stated that she was opposed to the lake. Joseph Miller – Ideal Holding Road stated that they had went through two sessions with a Special Magistrate. He stated that the Magistrate came up with guidelines and recommendations. He stated that the neighbors have agreed to most of the recommendations by the Magistrate. He requested the Commission consider the recommendations from the Magistrate. Mike Hudson President, Carlton Country Estates stated that he is 1000 feet off the northern perimeter of the property. He stated that they welcome residential development. He stated that removal of the dirt would be a substantial use of the road. He stated that he felt that with the Magistrates recommendations they had reached some common ground. Commissioner Grande stated that the Special Magistrate had two recommendations. The first was the 4 unit proposal, which would be a minor site plan approval. The second was a 30 unit site plan. He asked if the second option was chosen by the applicant would they have to come in for a zoning change for a PUD because the lots would be smaller than those allowed under the current zoning. The Growth Management Director stated that it would have to come in as a PUD. Commissioner Grande stated they have a very current letter from the North St. Lucie River Water Control District indicating that the permit is not in effect. The County Engineer stated that the process that the North St. Lucie River Water Control District follows is that the applicant pays a retainer fee when they drop the permit off. During the review process they are given monthly invoices and they expect that at the conclusion of the review period that the invoices would be paid and the retainer would be returned. He stated that what he understood is that the monthly invoices had not been paid. Commissioner Lewis stated that there were two sets of recommendations. She stated that they had heard from the applicant that option one would not work for them. Commissioner Craft requested a picture of the site plan. He asked why so much water was needed to ski. Tracey Powers stated that this would be for competition water skiing. She stated that with the South Florida Water Management District it is not that easy to amend. The lake was amended back in 2003. Commissioner Craft asked if they had a permit from South Florida Water Management District to build a water body would they not be able to make an amendment to the size. The County Engineer stated that a reduction would be handled through a permit modification process. He stated that it is relatively straight forward. 11 Commissioner Craft stated that if they were to propose a lake with the excavation of dirt being 1/3 of rd what is currently being proposed the problem would be solved. Tracey Powers stated that changing the design of the lakes is not an option. Commissioner Craft stated that he felt they could get what they want on the property and keep the neighbors happy. Tracey Powers stated that they agree that no dirt is being removed and it should not matter what size the lakes are. Commissioner Craft stated that at the beginning of her presentation she stated that this would not work because of the strong interest of agricultural production on the property. Tracey Powers stated that she would propose the second option that the Special Magistrate recommended and under Florida Statute 70.51 to offer a modification to increase the density and the Comprehensive Plan does not need to be amended for that. Commissioner Craft asked if the modification to increase density would come back before the Board as a PUD and the Board would consider this at that time. The County Attorney stated that the Special Magistrate recommended going through the Ag PUD process and all the Ag PUD requirements would be in place. Commissioner Grande stated that under the first option something under a minor site plan that is available. The second option which is the 30 unit option would not be available to the Board under the current zoning, because under the current zoning each of the lots would need to be a minimum of 5 acres. He stated that the Board does not get to make the change on the application as it has come before the Board tonight. It is one of the things that Commissioner Craft had suggested which was utilizing a land use attorney because there is a process. Tracey Powers stated that there is a way to subdivide the current site plan into 5 acre parcels and maintain it as a minor site plan with a modification. Commissioner Coward requested clarification. He stated that it would go through an Ag PUD process and all the requirements would be required. He stated that he did not have a problem with them coming back with a proposal for the allowable zoning of one unit per five acres. There is no reason for a special exemption for this. It should go through the process and meet both the Land Development and Comprehensive Plan. Tracey Powers stated that they had gone through the process. Commissioner Coward stated that he would be willing to entertain them coming back to the County for the 30 units that are allowed in this zoning if they meet the codes. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked how they intended to maintain the lake level. 30 acres of lake would put a lot of people out of water. He asked if they would be permitted to maintain an artificial level. He stated that the water levels would drop during drought. Tracey Power stated that this is why South Florida Water Management District has an 8 feet minimum depth. She stated that there have been numerous site plans with lakes larger than the one they are proposing approved by the Board. Commissioner Coward asked if the projects mentioned were for 3 and 4 lot subdivisions. He stated that there may be properties that are bigger in size. Tracey Powers stated that there was no criteria that says that you are limited to certain size lake for a site plan. Commissioner Coward stated that it is difficult when information is provided at this point without it being provided in advance. He stated that there can not be a rule written for every possibility. Some professional common sense must be applied. He stated that they are using common sense and professional judgment in this process. 12 Tracey Powers stated that the Growth Management Director, within the Land Development Code, always had the ability to place conditions upon the approval, which is what the Code requires. Five days to approve, deny or approve with conditions. Commissioner Grande asked that based on the status today, as of the result of the Special Magistrate action if the Board’s outcome tonight was to ask the applicant to go back and present a plan based on an Ag PUD would the Board be consistent with the time frame outlined by the Special Magistrate. The County Attorney stated yes. He stated that this is alternate to, which would require an appropriate application for a PUD by the applicant. If the Board is inclined to do that the Board may want to look the six conditions. He stated that the Board may want to delete condition number 6 and add conditions about the noise for purposes of being clear about the noise. He stated that there were two options, one was the 4 lots with the 4 conditions which they had suggested modifying. The other alternative recommendation was the 30 unit development as a PUD with six caveats as follows: 1. All excavated materials must be kept on site. 2. The lake would be limited to a depth of 8 to 10 feet 3. All excavation work on the lake must be completed and started within a 12 month period. 4. The applicant would be complying with all South Florida Water Management District permits 5. There must be an appropriate application for a PUD by the applicant 6. He recommended deleting number 6 He suggested adding some other conditions about the noise pursuant to the ordinance. Commissioner Grande suggested eliminating the specific unit number but not to exceed 30 units. Tracey Powers stated that she appreciated the Board discussing the PUD as an option. She stated that a PUD will not happen. She stated that they had been through the site plan process 3 times already. She suggested calling a continuance on the hearing to be able to meet individually with each Commissioner to see if they can use Florida Statutes. Commissioner Grande stated that the second option that the Magistrate put on the table gave the option to increase the density also calls for a PUD. Commissioner Lewis stated that her understanding under the County Land Development Code this would require a PUD to have this type of development take place. She informed the Board that the Magistrate had suggested that she meet with the Board members prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Coward asked when the Magistrate’s recommendations came out. The Growth Management Director stated May 8, 2009. Commissioner Coward asked the applicant what action she had taken prior to the public hearing to inform the Board. He asked if she had contacted any of the Board or sent them any materials. Tracey Powers stated no. Commissioner Coward stated that the applicant is trying to hinge the Board’s vote on language in the Florida Statutes that came from the Magistrate in a private discussion afterwards and as a part of the conversation the magistrate recommended that the applicant speak to the Board members individually. He stated that he did not understand why the applicant took zero effort to contact the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that he did not care if Florida Statute allowed him to disregard the Land Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that she should come in under the normal process of having an Ag PUD brought forward for full review and meet the codes. Commissioner Lewis stated that the Board is used to particular procedures and because they are not dealing with an attorney in this particular case the procedure is running somewhat differently. She stated that the Board has before them two specific recommendations from the magistrate. She stated that it appeared that they had the majority in agreement with the Ag PUD option. She requested the Attorney outline additional conditions that had been outlined. 13 Dan McIntyre stated that the additional conditions would be as follows Monitor noise at the property line 1. Monitor impact on the wells and issue a stop work order with the project pending the 2. South Florida Water Management District review if a violation of any condition of South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource permit number 56-01836-P is found No building permit shall be issued until any required North St. Lucie Water Control 3. District permit has been obtain and to be considered in good standings Commissioner Coward asked that under 5 where it says appropriate application for a PUD was it safe and accurate to assume they will meet the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The County Attorney stated that they would have to meet all the requirements of the Plan and the Code. Commissioner Coward suggested adding that language. He also suggested that all outstanding fees be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. He stated the fees should be paid before staff spends any more time processing a PUD application at all. It was moved by Commissioner Grande and seconded by Commissioner Coward to adopt the second option of the Special Magistrate’s recommendation with the deletion of the 6 condition and the addition th of the 3 conditions outlined by the County Attorney and that condition 5, which reads appropriate application for a PUD by St. Lucie Citrus be obtained. If the applicant asks for more than 8 units according to the code it must be a PUD and must follow the agricultural PUD requirements. Commissioner Grande amended his motion to add Commissioner Coward’s recommendations as a ninth condition and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Craft stated that he would not support the motion that was on the floor. Commissioner Lewis stated that the option contains the excavated materials. Commissioner Craft stated that if they come back before the Board with an Ag PUD they can make that a condition at that time. Commissioner Lewis stated that they had accepted all the requirements in option one by accepting two. Commissioner Grande stated that the reason the motion is on the floor is to let the public and the applicant know that both option one and option two are acceptable to the Board. The Magistrate gave the Board two options and the applicant is particularly interested in whether or not option two is acceptable. The motion provides that option two is acceptable to the Board and what option two states is that they have to come back with an Ag PUD and the Ag PUD that comes back before the Board should conform to the conditions outlined. Commissioner Craft was in agreement B.COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 09-172 – Cortez Boulevard Project – St. Lucie County Economic Stimulus Project Heather Luke, Assistant County Attorney gave the Board a history of this project. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 09-172 and gave permission for the Chair to sign. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. It was moved by Commissioner Grande and seconded by Commissioner Craft to approve Resolution No. 09-172 – Cortez Boulevard Project – St. Lucie County Economic Stimulus Project and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. 14 C.COUNTY ATTORNEY THIS ITEM WAS PULLED Resolution No. 09-174 – Central Services Projects – St. Lucie County Economic Stimulus Projects The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 09-174. D. COUNTY ATTORNEY THIS ITEM WAS PULLED Resolution No. 09-175 – Central Services Projects – St. Lucie County Economic Stimulus Projects The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 09-175. E. COUNTY ATTORNEY Ordinance No. 09-014 – Amending Animal Registration Ordinance to add Seller Registration Requirement Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney stated that Ordinance No. 09-014 would amend the County’s animal registration ordinance to add a registration requirement for pet sellers. Currently there is currently a requirement for registration for breeders. The proposed definition for pet seller would provide registration requirements for persons other than non profits or registered breeders who are offering for sale one or more animals. The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 09-014 as drafted. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. It was moved by Commissioner Grande and seconded by Commissioner Coward to approve Ordinance No. 09-014 – Amending Animal Registration Ordinance to add Seller Registration Requirement and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. F. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reconsider the petition of Barol LLC for a waiver from the paving requirements of Section 7.05.07 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code for the Minor Site Plan for the access road (North FFA Road) for the project known as “Horseshoe Grove.” Mark Satterlee, Growth Management Director stated that this item was a re-consideration of an action that the Board took back in March, 2009 where the Board denied an external road paving waiver. At the subsequent meeting of March 10, 2009, the Board reconsidered at the advice of the Attorney. Horseshoe Groves is a 7 lot subdivision minor site plan on approximately 40 acres on North FFA Road. The Developer had originally requested that the Board waive the paving requirement and the required fair share contribution for FFA Road. Subsequent to that they have recognized that the Board is interested in having a fair share contribution to FFA Road. They provided some calculations but they were found the calculations to be non-responsive since they did not utilize the correct calculation procedures that the County used. The proposed development is considered a small traffic generator and the Board can grant the paving waiver requests on condition that the developer contribute the fair share amount to pave North FFA Road pursuant to section 70507 and the funds be held in escrow by the County for 10 years and only be used for the design and construction of North FFA Road accessing a development. The estimated cost to pave all of FFA Road to the North side of the subject property is 1.5 million dollars. The Engineering Division analysis for the appropriate fair share contribution for Horseshoe Grove on North FFA Road is approximately $205,638. He provided an areal to the Board showing the location of the site. Commissioner Craft asked if the cost of a yes vote would be minus the $205,638 or in addition to. 15 The County Engineer stated that if the County was to move forward with an MSBU for this project the funds contributed by the Horseshoe Grove would be considered in the calculation and when the methodology the plus or minus calculation would take affect and if they over contributed they would be reimbursed funds. Commissioner Coward asked if the provision for the road to be improved within a 10 year time frame was the language specifically in the codes. The County Attorney stated that it is in the Codes and it states a period not to exceed 10 years. Commissioner Coward asked if the $205,638 was and average of three methodologies. The County Engineer stated that this was correct. Commissioner Coward asked if this is typically how a fair share contribution is based by averaging the three methodologies. The County Engineer stated that often times the three methodologies used which would be the trips, driveways and road frontage will gravitate to a single value. In this particular case, largely because the road frontage was deviated. If you look at the property the opposite side of Horseshoe Grove is all turnpike. The full frontage then is attributed to their property and they pay for double. The number came out to be $378,000 which is much higher than the other calculations. He stated that the process used when the numbers are widely ranging they average the three together. Each case is a case by case basis. Commissioner Coward asked if the mile estimate was from the length of road from Orange Avenue to the north end of the property. The County Engineer stated that was correct. Commissioner Coward asked what the length of this property was. Commissioner Craft asked if the 10 year time frame run with the yes vote for the MSBU The County Attorney stated that the yes vote for the MSBU is just a suggested condition. He stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that talks about the time period. Ron Harris, County surveyor stated that the front footage is 2000. Commissioner Coward stated that this would be about 35% of the mile. The County Engineer stated that the initial figure calculated for the road frontage contribution would be $378,000. Commissioner Coward stated that this was the highest estimate so it was averaged out to $205,000. He stated that the applicant is suggesting that their fair share contribution is $10,000. He stated that his concern would be is if they convert agricultural land to a residential development they would have to meet minimum code requirements and have a paved rode. He stated that while he is willing to entertain a fair share contribution on this, which at a minimum needs to be the $205,000, the Board needs to have further discussion about setting clear direction for staff about how to proceed in the future. He stated that his concern is if the MSBU goes forward there is a good chance this road will not get built at all and they will have another subdivision on a rural dirt road that creates all kinds of problems. He stated that the board needs to set a minimum standard and if the developers are wanting to convert this land they should be asked to make the minimum contribution to get the improvements in the ground. He stated that there still needed to be discussion on how to allow for a conversion to take place in agricultural areas. Commissioner Craft concurred with Commissioner Coward. He stated that they need to identify what the threshold would be in order for this to take place whether it is based on a number of trips, number of drive ways before they would actually require the road to be paved completely. He stated that he liked the yes vote for the MSBU. He stated that he had an issue with the upfront contribution. Commissioner Grande stated that they need to get rid of the 10 year requirement. What needs to be kept in mind is if the road is not paved the County will, on a weekly basis, be out there re-grading this road which is a cost to the taxpayers. 16 Commissioner Lewis stated grading of the road would be done on a routine basis whether there is one person on the road or no one on the road. She stated that there are not a whole lot homes out there now. She stated that it will probably never have an MSBU because one side of it is canal. Commissioner Coward stated that if an MSBU never happens the contribution would never be made by the developer. He stated that if the Board waives the requirement that they pave the road then the developer should be required to assemble the MSBU, know that it is viable and it’s moving forward for them to be eligible for the waiver. He stated that the Board needs to give staff policy direction to go back and revisit this and come back with some real solutions Commissioner Craft concurred. Commissioner Dzadovsky concurred. He stated that he had an issue with building developments with dirt roads. He does not want to create a situation where the developer creates 7 lots and then 10 years down the road they are complaining to the Board about unpaved roads. He suggested moving forward with good quality growth management. Commissioner Coward asked staff to go through the Land Development Code and the actual provisions under which the Board should consider a waiver. He stated that he believed it was section 70507 sub- section B. He referenced page number 7-66 from the Board’s packet. Under sub-section 2A, paving requirements and provisions shall be waived by the Board of County Commissioners following a public hearing if the Board determines the following: The Road paving is not essential to provide adequate access to the proposed development, which has not been determined. The road will be paved as a part of the County 5 year road program, which is not happening. The last standard is that the access does not have adequate right of way in which to construct. He stated that it does not meet any of the sub categories to even issue a waiver. He asked how staff determined that they were eligible for a waiver. The County Attorney stated that it is outlined in the small traffic generator section sub section A-1. Commissioner Grande stated that the waiver requires the payment of the fair share. The fair share has been calculated by the County as required. He stated that the only thing that he can see that may want to be considered at a future date is the 10 years. The County Attorney stated that this had been done many years ago. There was a concern that the County not hold the money forever. The impact fees at the time were held for 10 years. Commissioner Grande recommended that the County continue to collect the fair share as the waiver requires but eliminate the 10 year restriction knowing that there may be ongoing maintenance. Commissioner Craft stated that the funds had to be used for the paving of the road and not maintenance. Commissioner Lewis stated that she was not sure if eliminating the 10 year time frame served a purpose. Commissioner Craft stated that the second part of the resolution is the most important part of the staff recommendation, which is the requirement of a yes vote for the MSBU. He suggested establishing a threshold that requires the MSBU to actually move forward. Commissioner Coward referenced subsection 4 which states paving requirements are established to ensure that adequate road improvements are provided to adequately serve the development. He stated that the scenario that had been laid out under the fair share contribution does not achieve the goal. He referenced option 2 which is a paving option which would actually require the developer to actually go in and make the improvements along their property line now. He stated that he is not comfortable with what is being proposed. Commissioner Craft asked if the Board had the ability to put in a condition that outlined that if the County were to change the threshold rules they would then have to participate if an MSBU comes forward and was generated by the County. He asked if they could exempt out. The County Attorney stated that if the County created the MSBU and they benefited from it they would be required to be included in a Special Assessment district. 17 Commissioner Lewis stated that she was not sure that 7 units create a need for a paved road. She stated that she felt there was a great possibility that you would not have an MSBU unless it is initiated by the County. Johnathan Ferguson stated that his understanding is that the Board was to make a determination what was a fair and equitable fair share contribution. The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt Draft Resolution No. 09-094 approving the request to waive the requirement to pave North FFA Road subject to payment of a fair share contribution and required individual lot owners to be a “yes” vote in a MSBU to pave the road should one be established. PUBLIC COMMENT Johnathan Ferguson stated that his understanding is that the Board was to make a determination what was a fair and equitable fair share contribution. He stated that he felt the waiver was a given and that they were arguing dollars and cents and how best to arrive at that number. He outlined the history of the Property with the Board. He stated that he concurred with Commissioner Craft’s observation that agreeing to the MSBU gets you to the same point. They would pay the fair share contribution at the time the road is paved. Commissioner Coward stated if it gets paved. Johnathan Ferguson stated that if it does not get paved they would get the money back. Commissioner Coward stated that he was not suggesting that past practices should be continued. He stated that he has been fighting this battle for many years and the bar needs to be raised. He stated that there was language for a paving option. The guarantee is that the applicant’s fair share contribution gets put in the ground and made. Johnathan Ferguson stated that paving 1000 feet is not cost effective for 7 lots. He stated that if the Board wants to change the rules going forward as to conversion of Ag land and what needs to be paved and what does not need to be paved that is the Board’s prerogative. Commissioner Grande stated that what Commissioner Coward has outlined so far is according to the current rules. He stated that it could be looked at as changing the practice. Commissioner Coward stated that you have to consider the general welfare of the community. He stated that past practices have not benefited the community itself. Johnathan Ferguson stated that what staff is proposing is not fair and equitable. Commissioner Craft asked what the cost was to start the process of an MSBU. The County Engineer stated that it takes a great deal of staff time just to determine the methodology to proceed with. Commissioner Craft asked if $50,000 would cover the cost of setting up and implementing an MSBU. The County Engineer stated that $50,000 would allow staff to do an analysis to determine the methodology to use for the assessment and establish preliminary plans under construction. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked which methodology was problematic to the applicant. Johnathan Ferguson stated that they are all problematic because they assume that the only people who benefit by paving the road are the people who front the road. He stated this is not a dead end road and serves a greater public purpose other than the lots fronting it. Commissioner Coward stated that all this proposal does is allows for the applicant to receive site plan approval but it doesn’t make a contribution that is tangible to build the road. Paving requirements are established to ensure that adequate road improvements are provided. Commissioner Craft asked what the applicant would be willing to pay for a non refundable contribution to the County. 18 Johnathan Ferguson stated they would be willing to contribute $20,000 towards any planning effort. Commissioner Lewis stated that she did not feel that an MSBU in this area would be likely to succeed. Commissioner Coward stated that staff has determined that the appropriate amount is $205,638.00. Commissioner Lewis stated that according to code the funding sits there for 10 years and returns if an MSBU ever arises. Commissioner Grande stated he did not believe that 10 years from now the County will be operating under the same set of rules. Commissioner Craft stated that the intent of the code is to see to it that the road is either paved or the County has the funding to pave the road. He stated that he was not comfortable asking the applicant to make a $200,000 non refundable commitment for that at this time unless they could guarantee that the road would be paved in a certain amount of time. He stated that he would be comfortable moving forward with a $50,000 non refundable contribution with the requirement that each of the property owners are required to participate in an MSBU as it moves forward. Commissioner Lewis asked if Commissioner Craft was looking at restricting the use of the funds. Commissioner Craft stated only towards the seed money for the MSBU. Commissioner Grande stated that if he understands staff correctly none of the $50,000 would actually be there to pave the road. It would cost more than $50,000 to put together the MSBU with the design. Commissioner Coward stated that if we recognize this as an area in transition and try to incorporate this area into the western land area study then let’s get the amount that is recommended by Staff to pay for their fair share. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked for the three methodologies used. Commissioner Coward stated $97,000 per trip, $378,000 and 140,000 The County Engineer stated that the applicant is using the proportionate fair share for concurrency which is not appropriate in this case. He stated that in the event an MSBU is created and a methodology is derived an assessment value would be determined for each benefiting party. If the contribution that is made is greater than the determined assessment value they would recoup the difference of funds and if it is not enough they would pay more. Johnathan Ferguson stated that these parties can not pay more than anyone else that is benefiting. Commissioner Coward stated that he suspects the final cost will be at or higher than the contribution amount. Commissioner Dzadovsky stated that he felt it was reasonable that a fair share contribution based on the methodologies is where the Board should be headed. Currently they are looking at 7 driveways and the $140,809 under option 2 is a fair share contribution. He stated that this would be his recommendation and work out the details with the future western rural lands strategy. He stated that the current rules need to be amended. Commissioner Grande asked if the $140,000 would be money they put up now with no 10 year requirement against what they pay for the MSBU. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked if it would be possible to do a bond up front. The County Attorney stated that if they were going to pave their access the code does allow that to be bonded. He stated that he did not feel that the 10 year requirement could be waived based on how the fair share requirement is drafted. Commissioner Dzadovsky asked if the applicant would be willing to put the $140,000 up front without the 10 year limitation. Johnathan Ferguson stated no. 19 Commissioner Coward stated that the development scenario that Mr. Ferguson laid out that occurred in 2005/2006 with the 1.5 million dollar contribution that this developer was willing to make for 80 units would have worked out to a per lot contribution of $18,750. If this is multiplied by what is being proposed under the 7 lot subdivision it works out to $131,250. It was moved by Commissioner Coward and seconded by Commissioner Grande to approve staff recommendation to adopt Draft Resolution No. 09-094 approving the request to waive the requirement to pave North FFA Road subject to payment of a fair share contribution and required individual lot owners to be a “yes” vote in a MSBU to pave the road should one be established, and upon roll call the was follows: Ayes Coward, Grande and Dzadovsky; Nays Craft and Lewis Motion carried by a vote of 3 to 2. G.GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reconsider the petition of Barol LLC for a waiver from paving the internal road for the Minor Site Plan for the project known as “Horseshoe Grove.” The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt Draft Resolution No. 09-095 denying the requested waiver of paving the internal road. The Growth Management Director stated that this was another reconsideration of an action that the Board took on March 3, 2009. He stated that the code is silent on this waiver and there is no option to waive it. Commissioner Dzadovsky stated that he was not willing to approve any future developments with unpaved roads. PUBLIC COMMENT Johnathan Ferguson stated that this was an internal road that serves 1 lot and is a driveway. Commissioner Craft asked if this was a driveway or a road. Johnathan Ferguson stated that it would serve 1 lot and would essentially be a driveway. On the plat it would be a right of way. The County Engineer stated that the property shown on the site plan has its own property record number and would be identified separately from the adjoining property and would be right of way. It could be extended. Commissioner Coward stated that they need to uphold minimum standards and shift the discussion away from what is most cost effective for the developers and what was most cost effective for St. Lucie County. Commissioner Craft stated that any suggestions that he had made were to make sure that funding was there when and if the road was ever built. He stated that he did not feel that the road would be built in 10 years. It was moved by Commissioner Dzadovsky and seconded by Commissioner Coward to adopt Draft Resolution No. 09-095 denying the requested waiver of paving the internal road and upon roll call motion carried unanimously . H. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Resolution No. 09-038 granting WCA of St. Lucie, LLC for a Major Adjustment to an Approved Conditional Use Permit. The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 09-068 granting WCA of St. Lucie, LLC a Major Adjustment to an Approved Conditional Use Permit. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment 20 It was moved by Commissioner Coward and seconded by Commissioner Craft to approve Resolution No. 09-068 granting WCA of St. Lucie, LLC a Major Adjustment to an Approved Conditional Use Permit and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. REGULAR AGENDA VIII. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Major Adjustment to a Site Plan Project to be known as WCA of St. Lucie Recycling Yard The Board approved staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 09-071 granting a Major Adjustment to a Site Plan project to be known as WCA of St. Lucie Recycling Yard. It was moved by Commissioner Coward and seconded by Commissioner Craft to approve Resolution No. 09-071 granting a Major Adjustment to a Site Plan project to be known as WCA of St. Lucie Recycling Yard. IX. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 09-103 – Amending Animal Registration Fee Schedule This item was heard in conjunction with item VII E The Board approved staff recommendation to adopt proposed Resolution No. 09-103, as drafted. It was moved by Commissioner Grande and seconded by Commissioner Craft to adopt proposed Resolution No. 09-103, as drafted and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. X. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1903 Edwards, Fort Pierce, FL – Unsightly and Unsanitary Conditions The Board approved staff recommendation to authorize a 30 day notice be sent to the property owner ordering him to remove the unsightly and unsanitary conditions on the property or St. Lucie County will have it cleared and place a lien on the property. It was moved by Commissioner Craft and seconded by Commissioner Grande to approve staff recommendation and upon roll call motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. ________________________________ Chairman, Board County Commissioners __________________________________ Clerk Circuit Court 21