Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-15-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING August 15, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hearn stated that he has heard that there was quite a bit of discussion in the community with regards to Rose Car Wash. He continued that he has answered some questions from the public about this issue. Chairman Matthes stated that his employer was involved with the project in Agenda Item # 2 and would recuse himself from that item. Chairman Matthes advised that Agenda Item # 4, Timothy and Debra Rose Car Wash has been requested to be continued to the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that if there were any public present tonight that wished to speak they could do so when they open the public hearing on that item or they could just return in September for full deliberations. He also stated that the petitioner made this request at the last minute and that Staff did their best to notify everyone. Mr. Kelly stated that we had notified the church of the continuance and asked them to try to notify everyone possible. He also stated that both hearings on the issue are public hearings and that everyone would be allowed to speak with regards to the petition. meeting. For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Item # 8, Ordinance 02-020 would also be continued tonight to the August 29, 2002 Special Meeting at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: JUNE 20, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: ordinance. Mr. Trias asked that his name be added as being present on the first page. Chairman Matthes questioned if the word POD at the end of page 6 is correct. Mr. Kelly stated he did believe it does read correctly but should not be capitalized and would be corrected for the record. Mr. Grande moved for approval as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: FILE NO. RZ-02-013 GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC.: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Glassman Holdings, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 25.99 acres of property located on the Northwest corner of the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Road. He continued that the petitioner is proposing to develop the property for commercial uses. He also stated that the surrounding zoning was RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) to the south and west. He continued that there was AG-1 (Agricultural 1du/care) Zoning to the north, south, east, and west, IX (Industrial, Extraction) to the east and I (Institutional) Zoning to the east and north. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lindsay Walter stated that he was from West Palm Beach and was representing Glassman Holdings Inc. He continued that this application was for a straight rezoning and that they had no development plans at this time, but are just trying to bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial. Mr. Lounds questioned if there were any preliminary plans for future use of the property. Mr. Walter stated that Glassman has preliminarily done some sketches that would include a possible shopping center with an out-parcel or two. He also stated that there is nothing definite at this point in time. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Glassman Holdings, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District, because it complies with the land use element of the code. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 3: FILE NO. RZ-02-014 - CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY: Mr. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 8.47 acres of property located on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Edwards Road and Selvitz Road. He stated that the purpose of the rezoning is for the possible expansion of church facilities. Mr. Flores continued that the proposed zoning district designation I (Institutional) is consistent with the zoning district designation for to the east of the subject property. He also stated that approval of this petition would create an 18.80-acre parcel under common ownership at the intersection of Edwards and Selvitz Roads. He advised that a review of the Institutional Zoning District and its permitted and conditional uses shows the scope of the impact that an Institutional parcel of this size could have on the area. He continued that the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District was created specifically for the designation of church facilities and the types of uses that would generally be located within a church establishment. He stated that Staff believes that the RF Zoning District designation is more appropriate at this location for the additional property. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it generally conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staffs recommended they forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial for the Institutional Zoning District and instead recommend they forward a recommendation of approval to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District. Mr. Grande questioned why the application was filed requesting I (Institutional) Zoning instead of RF (Religious Facilities). Mr. Flores stated that was how the applicant has filed the application and was compatible with the existing I (Institutional) Zoning. He continued that once the full application was reviewed Staff concluded that RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning would be a more appropriate zoning. Chairman Matthes asked if this was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Flores stated that he discussed it with Mr. David Sowerby, who is working with the petition and stated that he believed that they were in agreement. He continued that churches are allowed under both zoning districts and that the conditional uses allowed under RF (Religious Facilities) are also allowed under I (Institutional) Zoning. Chairman Matthes questioned if this would have to go through the site plan review process if approved. Mr. Flores stated that if a proposed site plan is submitted that meets the 6,000 square foot or greater threshold that would be correct. Mr. Merritt stated that there are some ancient historical issues on this property and questioned if they were being protected. Mr. Flores stated that in this point in time they are not reviewing the development of the property only a change in zoning and therefore would not be impacted right now. Mr. Hearn stated that he too is concerned about the historical issues of the property and wants to make sure it is not destroyed. Mr. Clyde Heffelfinger stated that he resides 1008 Echo Street in Fort Pierce and he is on the Board of Directors of the Church of the Redeemer. Chairman Matthes questioned if he the I (Institutional) Zoning. Mr. Heffelfinger stated that he discussed the issue with Mr. David P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 6 aware of anything historical on that lot and would like to know what it is that he is speaking of. Mr. Merritt stated that there is an ancient Indian burial ground on that location. Mr. Heffelfinger questioned if they knew where on the property this burial ground was located. Mr. Merritt stated that he believed it was to the rear of the property and was a significant Indian burial site. Chairman Matthes stated the Commission, as a whole would probably suggest that he seek professional guidance in review of that information. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District, because the more appropriate zoning for the property would be the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn, with discussion. Mr. Hearn questioned if Mr. Grande would include something in his motion with regards to the Indian burial ground. Mr. Grande stated that he felt it would more relevant to the approval motion rather than the denial. Chairman Matthes stated that he did not believe that they could condition a zoning application. Ms. Young confirmed that was correct. Chairman Matthes stated that he is sure it has been duly noted in the minutes and their concerns will be expressed to the Board, but they could not condition a zoning application. Mr. Merritt stated that if the applicant o change his request. Chairman Matthes explained that Staff recommended RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning instead of I (Institutional) and the applicant did agree with the new zoning recommendation. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. were meant to be a condition of the rezoning, but just to be sure that it was a comment with the motion to point it out to the County Commission as they read the motion. Mr. Akins stated that he too was concerned with how they would be able to signal their intentions to the Board. Chairman Matthes stated that the minutes of the meetings are read by each of the County Commissioners and it was made abundantly clear in the record that they had concerns about motion would be appropriate because it may come across as a condition and they cannot do that. Staff include those concerns in their memo to the Board. She also stated that the only other option would be to include that as one of the reasons for approving the RF (Religious Facilities) designation and they cannot condition a zoning application. Chairman Matthes stated that he was concerned about doing something that might risk the future of the petition. Mr. Merritt stated that P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 7 he did not raise the issue to put the petition in jeopardy and just wanted to be sure that the petitioner and Staff were aware of the potential problems in the future. Chairman Matthes asked Mr. Hearn if adding it to the Staff report to the Board would be sufficient and ease any concerns. Mr. Hearn stated that would be fine. Mr. Grande stated after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Church of the Redeemer of St. Lucie County, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be good for the community and it causes no potential dangers. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 4: FILE NO. CU-02-001 TIMOTHY & DEBRA ROSE CAR WASH: Timothy and Debra Rose Chairman Matthes stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the application of Car Wash and that the petitioner has requested a continuation until the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. th Mr. McCurdy made a motion to continue until the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to be continued to th the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM 5: FILE NO. CU-02-007 FLORIDA CENTER FOR RECOVERY, INC.: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the Application of Florida Center for Recovery, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Social Services and Health Services (specifically an inpatient drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation center) in the I (Institutional) Zoning District for 12.17 acres of property located at 3451 West Midway Road. Mr. Flores stated that Florida Center for Recovery, Inc., has applied for the requested conditional use in order to provide an establishment for the inpatient alcohol and substance abuse treatment facility similar to the operation at New Horizons of the Treasure Coast. He also stated that the operation is proposed to be a 24-hours a day with a maximum of 35 staff and 40 patients in the short term. He continued that in the long term, the applicant has stated that a maximum of 72 patients were expected to be treated. He explained that Social Services and Health Services are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the proposed treatment center is to be housed in the now vacant Twins Oaks Alzheimer Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: The number of patients shall be limited to a maximum of 72. Mr. Lounds reconfirmed that the original condition was to be a maximum of 40 but as per the applicants request the condition was amended to 72. Mr. Flores confirmed that was correct. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the staff memo should read that the general existing use surrounding the property is residential and some institutional instead of the way it was originally printed. Mr. Lounds questioned where CASTLE was located on the maps. Mr. Flores stated that it was to the west of the property. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Jack Fitzharris, the petitioner, stated that he resides in Vero Beach and also maintains a residence in New York. He continued that this facility would be an upscale substance abuse treatment facility and would not be like New Horizons. He stated that New Horizons deals mostly with mental illness and their facility would not include mental health. He also stated that they would cater to the upscale population and would be similar to that of the Betty Ford Clinic and Hazelton treatment centers. Mr. Lounds questioned if the patients would be court appointed and if not, where would they come from. Mr. Fitzharris stated that their patients would be voluntary, self-paid patients and that they would not accept any court appointed or Medicaid patients. He continued that their fee is approximately $15,000 a month. Mr. Lounds confirmed that their facility would consist primarily of voluntary patients only. Mr. Fitzharris stated that their facility markets for only voluntary patients. Mr. Lounds stated that they have some feedback from concerned citizens regarding staffing at night and their safety. Mr. Fitzharris stated that the amount of staff at night would depend on the number of patients being treated. He also stated that this facility would generally be run the same as their other facility in Long Island. Mr. Lounds questioned how the facility would be staffed if running at the full capacity of 72 patients. Mr. Fitzharris stated that there would be therapeutic aides at night as well as a nursing staff who will monitor where the patients are during the evening. Mr. Lounds stated that the community also has concerns with P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 10 their idea of what is involved with rehabilitative services. Mr. Fitzharris stated that since the individuals are all voluntary, they are more motivated for treatment and less likely to try to leave than those who are court appointed and need to be locked down. Mr. Lounds questioned if it would be a locked down facility with gates and guards. Mr. Fitzharris stated that it would not be like that and that anyone who is asked to leave the facility for any reason would be transported back to wherever they came from and not just dropped outside of the front door of the facility. Mr. Merritt questioned why Mr. Fitzharris chose Fort Pierce to locate his facility when he lives in Vero Beach. Mr. Fitzharris stated that the property and buildings they needed were already available in St. Lucie County. He also stated that he only handles marketing of the facility and already available somewhere else, it would have been located there. Mr. Merritt stated that he is concerned about St. Lucie County becoming a dumping ground for Martin and Indian River nt center on Midway Road, which is funded by the state and takes in patients from the other counties and their Section 8 housing is large enough to handle those counties as well. Mr. Fitzharris stated that Martin, Vero and Okeechobee only have 139 substance abuse beds to accommodate 4 counties and that was one of the reasons they chose this area. He continued that l they were dumping on the County and that their facility would bring employment and taxes into the County. Chairman Matthes questioned if this is an existing facility. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that was correct. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he believed the previous owners only operated for about six months and that the buildings are relatively new. Mr. Akins questioned which four counties Mr. Fitzharris was talking about when he referenced the 139 beds. Mr. Fitzharris stated those were Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River County. Mr. Akins questioned his statement that they would not accept any Medicaid, court appointed or court ordered patients. Mr. Fitzharris stated that was correct. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Fitzharris if he was aware that St. abuse and of those 90% about 98% of those are indigent. Mr. Fitzharris stated he was not aware of those figures. Mr. Akins confirmed that his facility would not benefit the existing substance abuse problems in St. Lucie County and Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that it would not. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he believed New Horizons was opening a facility in Vero Beach that will accept the St. Lucie County indigent. Mr. Akins stated that he was concerned about having a small amount of space in the existing facilities for the indigent and that there should be more space available to benefit the problems in St. Lucie County. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he presumed that at least 50% of their business would come from Florida, but not necessarily from St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds stated that he appreciated Mr. Merritt and Mr. Akins comments but that he believes Chairman Matthes stated that he agreed since a state run facility would not pay taxes and this type of facility would help the tax base. He continued that there is an existing facility sitting there that County. Mr. Lounds questioned if the stated that he had an affidavit from the Long Island Center for Recovery stating who their clients are and what type of facility they run. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 11 Mr. McCurdy questioned if the applicant would consider adding a restriction that they would not accept court appointed or Medicaid patients if he were granted approval. Mr. Fitzharris stated that he would not have any objection with that type of restriction at all. Mr. Hearn stated that the issues addressed by Mr. Lounds and Mr. McCurdy were valid but that he is worried about condemning nearby property owners who are concerned about what is going into their neighborhood. He also stated that he felt it was very important for people to have protection in their neighborhoods to ensure their quality of life. He continued that he felt if the petitioner was willing to accept the conditions suggested by Mr. McCurdy then we would be more comfortable voting for the project. He stated that he did want to make sure that these restrictions be part of the motion so that it is legally correct and binding. Mr. Rodney Schuckhardt stated that he lives at 4588 Shoewater Lane in Naples Florida. He advised that he is the president of a subsidiary of TIB Bank of the Keys, which originally are selling the property and hope to be the future lender to the Florida Center for Recovery. He continued that when they reviewed the applicants contract and proposal they were introduced to the quality and fiscal soundness of their other existing programs. He also stated that the program they planned to operate in St. Lucie County was an upscale program designed for primarily self- pay patients and found the plan to be sound. He stated that they are also bringing substantial financial resources to the area to get the program off the ground and they are very comfortable with their plans. He continued that with regards to security, this facility of residential and administration buildings are equipped with a security system that locks the doors when it is set and also limits the movement of patients between rooms and various areas of residences. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Rhona Perry stated that she resides to the east of the facility at 5080 West Virginia Drive. She advised that there are not just a few houses in her area; there are fifteen homes there. She stated that when she first received notification she was very reluctant but after doing some research and speaking with the applicant she felt better. She continued that she still has some concerns about the project and likes the idea of adding the conditions to the request. She also stated that there are many children in that area who like to play in the woods and when the front of her that she is aware that this facility is going to be upscale and they would be more likely to leave out the front door than to sneak out but there could be one bad apple. She continued that they would like to know that there was going to be some very good security at the facility because some of the area is not completely fenced in. She also stated that they were also concerned about the facility turning into a court appointed type facility if they are not able to make it financially as an upscale self-pay facility. She stated that she was unsure about what exactly falls under the classification of Social Services in the regulations for conditional uses. Mr. Flores stated that under Social Services as in the Land Development Code, there is a number behind (3) behind it that references the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. He continued that under Social Services in the SIC Manual they allow Individual and Family Social Services, which include Counseling Centers, Family Counseling Services, Temporary Relief Services and a variety more on the lists. He continued that one of the ones listed is for Alcoholism Counseling and also for residential care and also for social services that are not elsewhere classified. He stated that under Health Services it lists Offices and Clinics of Doctors P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 12 of Medicine and Hospitals. Ms. Perry stated that they are concerned because Welfare does fall under that as well and want to be sure that there is a condition that they cannot accept those types of patients to protect them. Chairman Matthes stated that he would believe that to be correct if they can condition the conditional use permit that way. Ms. Perry stated that she would be comfortable with the facility if all of the conditions are listed as part of the approval and legally applied. Chairman Matthes Ms. Y issues as part of the conditions. She continued that with regard to the nature of the client base she would not be uncomfortable adding that as part of the motion since the applicant has consented to it. Ms. Kelly Carter stated that she owns lots 112 and 119 behind the facility and is concerned about lot 107. She continued that there are 79 acres between all of those lots and lot 107 is woods, which used to be entirely landlocked until she put a culvert in. She stated that she is concerned about what the applicant is planning on doing with lot 107 because it is directly in front of her front yard. She also stated that the County has contacted her about preserving the areas that she owns as well as lot 107 because they were just granted the funds to purchase those 79 acres. She continued that if the County were able to purchase all of that property they would like to turn it into a preserve with nature walks. She stated that they have even asked her not to clear her lots because they are very interested in preserving the area within the next three or four months because it is the largest piece of Florida Pines left in St. Lucie County. She also stated that if a patient decides to leave the facility they would be hidden within 79 acres of woods and her home is the first house they would come to. She continued that she has children and her property is zoned for agricultural use and they have horses, dogs, donkey, and deer and they intend to build an area for team roping. She stated that she has no problem keeping her 16 acres and living in the middle of a 79-acre preserve. Mr. Fitzharris stated that they have no plans to do anything with that property at the moment except to maybe put in a serenity walk for the patients. He also stated that he did receive a call from the County today about the property and stated that nothing is going to happen until next year and he will discuss those options with them at that time. Chairman Matthes questioned if the existing facility had the capacity to house their maximum of 72 patients. Mr. Fitzharris confirmed that was correct. Ms. Carter stated that she was concerned about their patients being able to walk free and what will happen to the property if the County does buy the 55 acres in the next 4 months or so. Mr. Lounds questioned if there was any crossing on the canal separating the division of lot 107 and if the patients would be able to go from the north side to the south side without getting wet. Mr. Flores stated he did not believe so. Mr. Lounds asked if they would have to go out onto Christensen Road to get to that property. Ms. Carter stated that there is a brick wall on Christensen Road and there is a crossing that is part of lot 107 and is located on the County right- of-way and the County would not let her put a gate with a lock there. Mr. John Ferrick stated that he visited the location yesterday and was concerned about not having any fences, especially wh people he talked to about this project stated their biggest concern is with people wandering off onto their properties. He continued that the facility should also be concerned about people wandering into their facility especially when these are well-financed patients with a substance abuse problem because there are people in the Fort Pierce area who would want to sell them P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 13 some. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not have a problem with this project because he felt it would bring better money and facilities than were there in the past instead of having a vacant building still sitting there. He also stated that he is pleased that it is proposed to be a high-end facility but does feel that there should be conditions regarding fencing and the types of patients they will accept. Ms. Young stated that she believed that applicant has stated that their facility would be self-pay or insurance paid patients only and not Medicaid or court appointed. Mr. Akins stated that he did not feel that the applicant could state definitely that they would not accept court appointed patients because there are high-end individuals (G daughter) who are court appointed and could afford to self-pay the applicants fees. He continued there are high-end individuals who could be court ordered but still in a financial position to pay. He also stated that he felt if the Commission wanted to add a condition on this they could do so petitioner would be able to guarantee not taking court ordered high-end individuals. He continued that presuming that someone who is court ordered needs to be in a facility that is highly Mr. Lounds stated that he does agree with what Mr. Akins is saying and would not want to restrict the owners to that level. He continued that he believes they all understand that they really M continued that the assumption that because there is an existing failed Al facility really needs to be in the County. He advised that he feels what was presented to them was conditions to protect the surrounding residents. He stated that he would not be able to vote for this conditional use permit no matter what conditions are added to it. Mr. Merritt stated that no matter how you say it, it is still a substance abuse center. He also stated that the woman who owned property next to New Horizons ended up selling her property to them because of the harassment from the patients in their facility. He continued that Midway Road is going to be the gateway to St. Lucie County and he cannot vote in favor of putting this type of facility on Midway Road. He also stated that he d this project. Mr. Hearn stated that he understood the concerns of Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt and would like to see some additional time spent by Staff and the petitioner to come up with some more detailed conditions and bringing it back before them at that time. He continued that he felt they needed the additional information and condition to make a truly informed position on the issue. He also stated that upscale facilities in St. Lucie County generally are good for the County and would not want to condemn the facility if it would fit in with the neighborhood. He advised that he personally felt the property needed to be securely fenced and landscaped so that the surrounding P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 14 property owners are protected. He also stated that if they decide to recommend approval he would like to see this conditional use not be able to be transferred to another owner at a later date without having to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. lications that they have approved in the past without any types of drawings or ideas. He continued that the applicant does have the money behind them and that if you have 72 beds at $15,000 each it would mean about $1,000,080 in that facility that would be turned over many times. He also stated that he felt the Staff that would be at this institute would bring money to St. Lucie County and would offer some prestige to the medical professions in the County as well. He advised that the concerns regarding anyone being able to walk away or walk into the facility are genuine and that the fencing issue should handle that. He stated that other than that, he has no problem with it and feels it would be good for the community and good for the County. Mr. Akins stated that he would not be able to support this petition for vastly different reasons and as he stated previously St. Lucie County has a finite tolerance for these types of facilities. He continued that this type of facility does not benefit the existing problems in St. Lucie County, except for tax revenue. He advised that if it does not benefit the people who are already in St. Lucie County who need this type of treatment and cause the problems we have been facing for t it. Mr. Merritt stated that his family has a long history in White City and they have a considerable real estate investment in that area and would ask each member to consider if they would want this type of facility next to their home. Mr. Hearn stated that he personally would not mind having this type of facility next to his house if it was done right. He continued that is why he would like to see this go back to Staff and the petitioner for some further review and presentation. He advised that he would not be able to support it based on what they were presented tonight but does think that further review may change that. th Mr. Hearn made a motion to continue to the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-3 (with Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins and th Mr. Merritt voting against) to continue to the September 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 15 AGENDA ITEM 6: FILE NO. RZ-02-015 WYNNE RANCH: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments stated thatAgenda Items # 6 and # 7 were the Wynne Ranch applications of for a rezoning of 9.9 acres of land from AG-5 to U (Utilities) and a conditional use permit to operate an air curtain incinerator on the 9.9 acre parcel. She continued that the subject property is located on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately 3/4 mile west of Minute Maid Road and north one mile from the entrance to the Wynne Ranch property and is a portion of a 671 acre parcel of land. She also stated that the applicant has indicated a desire to operate an air curtain incinerator on the property for the purpose of disposal of yard waste material from various properties owned by the Wynne Corporation. Ms. Snay stated that based upon the St. Lucie County Land Use Compatibility Matrix the Utilities Zoning is considered an appropriate zoning district within the AG-5 (Agricultural 5) Land Use designation. She explained that the existing area is agricultural in nature. She also stated that additional Wynne Ranch property is located to the north, south and west of the subject property and that there were citrus groves located to the east of the subject property. Ms. Snay advised that the proposed use is considered to be consistent with existing and proposed future land use designations in the area. She continued that the surrounding properties are being used as either citrus groves or cattle ranches and that the permitted uses in the Utilities zoning district are not expected to unduly impact the surrounding area or areas. She also stated that there were no residential structures adjacent to the subject property. She advised that the rezoning of this property was not expected to create demands on any public facilities in this area and that public utilities have not been installed this far west within the county. She also stated that St. oad construction on the shoulders along Orange Avenue, thereby, significantly reducing the roadway deficiencies within this area. Ms. Snay stated that the reclassification of this property to a limited use-zoning district such as Utilities would not result in the introduction of incompatible land uses or activities with the surrounding low-density agricultural activities. She also stated that the proposed amendment was not in conflict with the public interest and was in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Development Code. Staff has reviewed both petitions and recommend the rezoning be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. She also stated that with regards to the Conditional Use Permit staff has reviewed the petition and recommends that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the 9 limiting conditions found on page 5 of the staff report and would like the following condition to be included in the recommendation: P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 16 The use of the air curtain incinerator will only be permitted for use on this site for a maximum of five years. At the end of the 5-year period, the petitioner may request from the Board of County Commissioners a 1-year extension. No additional extensions may be permitted for this use. If the petitioners wish to continue operation of the air curtain incinerator beyond the 5 years + 1 year extension they will be required to submit an application for a new Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Grande stated that he believed that they had heard another petition for an air curtain incinerator on the same property. Ms. Snay explained it is the same location and the same property as previously applied for. Mr. Grande stated he would like Staff to explain why this is different from the last application submitted. Ms. Snay stated that it does not differ from the original request except for the modified conditions of approval in the Staff report and that the applicant is different. Mr. McCurdy questioned when the shoulder work would be done and completed on Orange Avenue. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not have any specific dates but from what he has heard it was in the process right now. Mr. Hearn asked what the distance was from the site to the nearest habitable structure. Ms. Snay stated that it was approximately a mile or two away. Mr. Hearn questioned if the previous application was withdrawn and what the reason was that it could be resubmitted. Mr. Kelly stated that the previous application was withdrawn and that the limitation in the Land Development Code only applied to a rezoning that was denied, but there was no time limit for conditional use permits. Chairman Matthes questioned if the U (Utilities) Zoning was the only option for the petitioner in order to be able to operate an air curtain incinerator. Mr. Kelly confirmed that was correct. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like to see if there were any other options because he has a problem with rezoning a piece of property permanently just for a five year conditional use. Mr. Kelly stated that the only other option would be to amend the Land Development Code to allow for this type of use as a conditional use in the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District. Chairman Matthes questioned how long that type of request would take to be reviewed. Mr. Kelly stated that those types of requests are usually grouped together but with the direction of the Commission could be done sooner and possibly brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October meeting. Mr. Akins questioned if it would be possible to approve the change in zoning with a type of for the conditional use. Mr. Kelly stated that a change in zoning cannot be conditioned and Ms. Young agreed. Mr. Lounds questioned how far the subject property was from Orange Avenue and Ms. Snay stated it was approximately 1 mile north of it. Mr. Grande stated that previously the most significant testimony he heard with regards to the air curtain incinerator that was passed prior to this request was that it was not able to function properly and had many problems. He then questioned if there were any updates on the current conditions of that offending facility. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not in that department but believed they were still in violation. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Matthew Wynne stated that he was the petitioner and that he did have a representative from the Division of Forestry as well as an air P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 17 curtain incinerator business representative present to answer any of the Commissions technical questions. He also stated that he had signed petitions from those who have homes surrounding the subject property who all have stated that they have never had any problems with their operations all these years. He advised that the change in zoning and conditional use permit would allow them to install and operate the incinerator, which would do an even better job. He continued that he was aware of the complaints and problems with the other facility that is currently operating and submitted a letter from the St. Lucie County Code Enforcement Department that states that there have not been any complaints with regards to their property in the past ten years. Mr. Wynne stated that they have been burning on his property for several years and that many of stated that he has heard some concerns about spot zoning and he does not consider this spot zoning because there are no pre-determined areas for U (Utilities) Zoning and must be requested to be changed to that zoning. He continued that the conditional and permitted uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning are compatible with the agricultural area operations. He also stated that most of the uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning would not make any economical sense to place out in the area of the subject property, with the exception of the air curtain incinerator. Mr. Wynne advised that some of the previous concerns were the increase in truck traffic. He any increase in the traffic since they have already been there. He also stated that their main reason for doing this is because they have over 2,000 acres of old grove on their ranch and would like to burn that grove material as well so they can convert it into pasture land. He continued that if they chose to keep the grove instead of making it into pasture they would be generating much more truck traffic than by operating an air curtain incinerator. He stated that another issue of concern was the bad road conditions on Orange Avenue and that issue is being addressed by the current reconstruction of that area by Dickerson. He advised that the travel lanes are being widened by two feet and then will be resurfaced (the entire road) with two inches of asphalt and striped with reflective striping and also center bumpers may be added. Mr. Wynne stated that he did not feel condition number three of the original Staff report was accurate because their site would not just be for materials from Wynne Ranch. He advised that information was not correct because Wynne Ranch is the landowner but Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, which is operated by Mr. Revels, would be the only company using the site. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that it was not just Wynne material that would be disposed of in the incinerator, but just that the only company using the site would be Port St. Lucie Tractor. He continued that this incinerator would not be open to the public and would not allow anyone else in the land clearing business to use the site. He also stated that they have no problems with having restrictions placed on the operations. He advised that after some discussions with several of the opposing parties they came up with some restrictions of their own. 1. The Conditional Use Perm the end of 5 years. 2. The incinerator will be used only for vegetative material from St. Lucie County, delivered to the site by trucks owned and operated by Port St. Lucie Tractor. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 18 3. The Conditional Use Pe incinerator approved by DEP. Mr. Wynne stated that they have been open burning on the subject property for three years without one complaint. He advised that his residence is actually the second closest residence to the site. He asked that if the Commission recommends approval of their request, that they include the three agreed upon conditions previously listed. He continued that he has had discussions with Ms. Adams, Judge Alderman and his wife Jean and have come to the compromise of these conditions and are now agreeable. Mr. Akins asked Staff if they could condition the conditional use permit for a reapplication for a change in zoning after the five-year period. Mr. Kelly stated that would most likely be considered conditioning the rezoning and that they could ask the petitioner to reapply at that time Wynne stated that he would not have a problem with doing that after the conditional use permit expires. He submitted copies of all of the surrounding property owner letters as well as a copy of the conditions and the letter from Code Enforcement to be kept for the record. Mr. Merritt stated that his previous objection was the width of Orange Avenue and questioned what the time frame of the widening would be. Mr. Wynne stated that the work has already begun on Orange Avenue and that Dickerson has advised him that the entire project was supposed to be completed by Thanksgiving. Mr. Hearn questioned if Mr. Wynne was planning on having any material brought into the site from outside of St. Lucie County. Mr. Wynne stated that they would not be dealing with anything outside of the County as stated in condition two of his list. Mr. Lounds confirmed that Mr. Wynne has been open burning for three years now. Mr. Wynne stated that they are planning on taking out the orange groves, but over the past three years they have actually been open burning the material from job sites within St. Lucie County. Mr. Lounds questioned if condition number six of the original staff report was also a condition of the offending facility that was previously approved. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not sure that it was one of their conditions, but that if it was, it was clearly being violated, with regards to stockpiling. Mr. Lounds stated that he is concerned because they need to be able to pile this at could be done within 48 hours. Mr. Wynne stated that he was not aware of that 48-hour time limit and that would be a problem because the material needs time to dry completely before burning so it tions in the Staff report applied to the whole property or just to the 9.9 acres. Ms. Snay confirmed it only applied to the 9.9 acres that deal with the actual operation of the air curtain incinerator. Mr. Wynne stated that he would like to change the time limit from 48 hours to a different amount of time. Mr. Kelly stated that the intent of the condition was to avoid having a very large pile of material building up, unburned. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Revels, of Port St. operation is done for six months on any parcel of land and then off for six months. He continued that the County code is the one that states that a conditional use permit and rezoning to U (Utilities) is required, not DEP. He stated that when they started these operations three years ago and used open burning because it was less expensive than chipping it. He also stated that the P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 19 Division of Forestry must issue the burn permits and that if it is raining or foggy they will not issue any permits. He advised that he employs thirty people and that burning the material rather than chipping it, helps to keep the cost of land clearing down for homeowners. He continued that he agreed that 48 hours would not be enough time to allow the materials to dry and burn properly and that he thinks that it would need to sit for 60 to 90 days to dry completely. th Mr. James Alderman stated that he resides at 13510 NE 224 Street in Okeechobee and that his this petition was presented and raised several objections to the project, which is why Mr. Revels withdrew his petition. He continued that they have had an opportunity to sit down with Mr. Wynne and discuss their objections and see if they could reach a compromise in order to allow him to do what he needs to do but give them comfort at the same time. He stated that the three conditions he presented did come as a result of the meeting. He also stated that they still have some concerns, one of which is establishing a precedent on Orange Avenue for incinerators. He advised that they are aware that these types of incinerators can be operated correctly and that Mr. Wynne usually does his work right. because Mr. Wynne gets a conditional use with restrictions that someone else would be able to come into the same general area and use that as a precedent. He also stated that this is a unique situation that cannot be duplicated and that the time limitation is also unique because the total amount of time that Mr. Wynne wants to operate this type of site. He continued that the reason that Mr. Wynne agreed to the condition of the specific above ground type of incinerator is that the road improvements and these conditions are what they were looking for and that the additional one-year extension that is mentioned in the Staff report was not part of their agreement and therefore should not be included as part of the conditions. He stated that they have requested that the conditional use sunset after five years and that any further requests to do anything other than the permitted agricultural uses they would object to. He again stated that is a unique situation that he did not feel could be duplicated by anyone else between the County line and the offending incinerator that already exists. He finished by stating that he and his wife do not object to the petition with their added conditions. Mr. Merritt questioned if Judge Alderman had any information about how the Commission might handle any other requests that may come in for another incinerator that may cite this petition, if used a precedent for someone else because they would not be able to duplicate the unique facts of this particular situation. He continued that this application is several thousands of acres with this ten acres embedded within the area and that the only other ranch in the area that might have a similar situation would be the operation there. He stated that if they received a request, it would probably be from someone who operates this type of business all the time and that would not be the same. Mr. Lounds haze and the heat plume and questioned if he was satisfied now that this type of incinerator would have a quality burn. Judge Alderman stated that he is satisfied based on the information he was given by Lee and Cindy Adams, who went to Martin County to actually inspect and view the proper operation of an above ground incinerator. He continued that since Mr. Wynne is going to personally responsible for this operation and they respect his reputation and his word that it will be done correctly. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Hearn stated that he has heard enough testimony from those in favor of the project to convince him that they should move this forward, but would like to see if there was anyone in the public who has objections to the project. but had a question as to approximately how many trucks would be entering and leaving the facility daily. She also questioned if the applicant would not be allowed to burn on Saturday or Sunday. Ms. Snay stated that one of the conditions listed in the Staff report was that they would not be allowed to operate on either Saturday or Sunday. Ms. Wymen stated that she too would like to have the wording concerning the extra year removed from the conditions since that was not agreed upon. Ms. Snay stated that since Mr. Wynne is requesting only the five years, they would go by his request. Ms. Wymen questioned where the nearest fire station was in regards to the subject property. Ms. Snay advised the nearest one was Station No. 11, which is on Shinn Road and is approximately 8 miles to the southeast. Mr. Lounds confirmed that she resides west of Judge Alderman and Ms. Wymen confirmed that was correct but stated she travels down that road daily to other property that she owns on Orange Avenue. Mr. Lounds questioned if she burns her pastures on her ranch and Ms. Wymen stated they do occasionally do controlled burns. Ms. Wymen also stated that they burn in conjunction with their neighbor and have tractors standing by and many people monitoring the burns at all times. Ms. Cynthia Adams, 25305 Orange Avenue, Adams Ranch stated that the problems with the offending incinerator to the east of their property do continue to this day. She advised that the owner has been cited again and that she has been in constant contact with Mr. Spitero at the Division of Forestry, who advised her that the situation has been turned over to DEP for review. She continued that for the past year they have been in the down draft of the smoke from this facility, it has been a public nuisance and that St. Lucie County had not been willing to step in to remedy the situation, until now. She advised that her major concern with approving another one of these types of operations is that the County will take measures to remedy any problems that may arise with these operations. She continued that she did visit Airburners LLC in Palm City, who manufacture the incinerators and the principle is wonderful if it is applied and used properly. debris they are bringing in and that she feels it has become a commercial operation. She advised that she wants to be sure that it is on record that the problems with the previously approved facility have gone on for far longer than they should have. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like to strongly suggest that she present that information to the Board of County Commissioners when it is heard before them because they have the ability to act upon these issues and this Commission is only an advisory board. Mr. Akins questioned if Ms. Adams was in support of Mr. Wy conditions that he presented. Ms. Adams stated she was in support, they want to be good any other circumstance. Mr. Joe Spitero stated that he was the Forest Area Supervisor from the Division of Forestry for St. Lucie and Indian River Counties. He advised that 48 hours, under their requirements, would not be sufficient because under Florida Law you cannot burn green or wet materials. He stated that he thought a waiting period of 3 months might too excessive and that they recommend 30 45 days. He continued that generally after that amount of time it is dry enough, but if it has been raining a lot then there would be a problem and would need a longer waiting period. He stated P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 21 that the amount of time really depends on the time of the year. He also stated that trench burners do work properly when used the way they should be. He advised that DEP should be the permitting agency for the proposed incinerator on Wynne Ranch and that they are supposed to be handling the existing offending facility as well. He continued that he has requested a meeting between their agency, the DEP and St. Lucie County so that they can have this all transitioned -end loaders are used with trench burners and track hoes are used for box burners and both can suppress a fire if it escapes. Mr. Grande questioned why the existing offending air burner has not been able to brought under control and if it is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Forestry. Mr. Spitero stated that there was some misunderstanding in the beginning because they thought it was part of a County ordinance and under their rules, they can only ask the offender to get the incinerator back into compliance. He confirmed that Ms. Adams has contacted them on numerous occasions and they have gone out and talked to Mr. Vickers and Mr. Tally and they brought themselves back into compliance for a while. He advised that the pits of a trench burner deteriorate because of the soil and once the problems are developed they have to continue to burn down and then make them redo a new pit. He also stated that unfortunately under their statutes there are no provisions for numerous violations and if they continue to bring it back into compliance, they must issue the authorization until another offense occurs. He advised that they deal with three different sets of burning laws and there are no restrictions or provisions for constant offenses in any of them. He also stated that he feels if Mr. Wynne goes with the above ground box burner instead of a trench burner they will not have those types of problems. Mr. Lounds questioned if the Forestry department had a preference one way or the other with regards to trench burning, box burning or open burning. Mr. Spitero stated that under Florida law they are allowed to do any of those as long as they meet the setbacks but he would prefer, under -45 days to allow enough time to dry before burning. Mr. Spitero stated that is a general time frame and it really depends on the time of the year and the weather conditions as well as the types of material. Mr. Hearn questioned if they were conditioning the applicant to have a box burner. Chairman Matthes stated that Mr. Wynne has requested an above ground air curtain incinerator as one of his conditions. Mr. Spitero stated that he believes that summary would be considered to be a box burner. Mr. Kelly questioned if they should be adding that DEP should issue the permits as part of the conditions of this application as well. Mr. Spitero stated that DEP should be the regulating facility since this would operate for more than six months and was listed as a condition that way Mr. Gary Ford stated that he was the Vice President of Airburners LLC of Palm City and stated that there is not much more he can add to what has previously been said. He advised that he would just like to reinforce a couple points. He passed out a brochure of the different types of incinerators for the record. He stated that there is no guarantee that Mr. Wynne will use their equipment specifically but they make both trench burners and the above ground fire box burners. He advised that both systems do work provided they are operated correctly but the difference is that the trench burners are much more operator dependant than the box burners. He stated that box burners in most instances burn much hotter and cleaner than trench burners do. He continued th that open burning smoke levels are generally in the 60% range and a properly operated air curtain P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 22 incinerator would be within the 5% range. He also stated that there is a much higher risk of a burn becoming out of control with an open burn as opposed to an incinerator. He advised that the above ground boxes contain the fire and that the air being forced over the box actually will contain the fire within the box. He continued that their manuals do give all the specifics necessary and even include setback distances from where the air curtain should be with regards to the nearest combustible pile. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the public hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Wynne Ranch for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District because of the need to do so to complete the petitioners need to install and operate a proper above ground burner. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 23 AGENDA ITEM 7: FILE NO. CU-02-008 WYNNE RANCH: This item was presented at the same time as Agenda Item # 6. Chairman Matthes opened the public hearing. Judge Alderman questioned if the three conditions that they had discussed with Mr. Wynne and that he presented would be incorporated into the motion with regards to the conditional use permit. Chairman Matthes stated they would be read into and incorporated as part of motion as requested. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the public hearing. Mr. Grande stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Wynne Ranch, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator in the U (Utilities) Zoning District because the presentation has addressed all of the prior concerns, this appears to be beneficial because it is such a unique situation and is not intended to set a precedent and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The business operation authorized under this conditional use permit shall be limited to the short term storage, processing and burning of land clearing debris generated from land clearing operations as defined below: a. means uprooted or cleared vegetation resulting Land Clearing Debris from a land clearing operation. b. means the uprooting or clearing of Land Clearing Operation vegetation in connection with construction for buildings and right- of-ways, residential or industrial development, mineral operations, or the clearing of vegetation to enhance property value and aesthetics. The removal and destruction of shade trees due to storm or insect damage is included as a land clearing operation. The business operation authorized under this conditional use permit is specifically prohibited from engaging in the business of land clearing and yard trash recycling unless and until a new conditional use permit is granted and the site is determined to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 7.10.12(C) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. The use of the air curtain incinerator will only be permitted for use on this 3. The air curtain incinerator will be used only for vegetative material from St. Lucie County, delivered to the site by trucks owned and operated by Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 24 4. be allowed on this site at any one time and must be approved and permitted by DEP. 5. The total site area devoted to the processing, storage and combustion of the collected land debris shall be limited to 9.9 acres. 6. The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday Friday. The ignition of the combustion fires may not occur before 9:00 a.m. and must be extinguished one hour before sunset. Absolutely no operation of the air curtain incinerator may be conducted on either Saturday or Sunday. 7. The petitioner shall, prior to the issuance of any final zoning compliance, which is required for this conditional use permit to be fully executed, shall submit a copy of a Fire Prevention Plan for the combustion operation that has been approved by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. 8. The petitioner, including any assigns, shall submit to an annual fire prevention inspection to be conducted, upon reasonable notice, by the St. Lucie County Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau. 9. In the event that St. Lucie County is declared a federal disaster area following or as a result of either hurricane or freeze damage, the County Commission may suspend any or all of the standards above, with or without restrictions, for the duration of the declared emergency in order to facilitate the removal of vegetative debris. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds, with discussion. Mr. Lounds stated that one of the conditions is requesting that Mr. Wynne must now go to DEP this because Mr. Wynne must now go back and get their approval because he was aware previously that they must be the agency to permit this. Chairman Matthes stated that the incinerator must be approved by DEP. Mr. Lounds stated that he read the condition to mean that the incinerator be approved for use by DEP but that Spitero that this operation would be under the control of DEP, as the permitting agency and any complaints would be made to DEP and not the Forestry Service. Mr. Lounds stated that was okay then. Mr. Hearn questioned if this took all of the enforcement out of the hands of our County Code Enforcement. Chairman Matthes stated that was not correct and that any citizen has the right to complain to Code Enforcement and they can enforce those concerns. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 02-020 CLARIFICATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Kelly stated that this item would be re-advertised and heard at the August 29, 2002 Special Meeting. P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 26 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Mr. Lounds questioned what would need to be done in order to considering allowing U (Utilities) conditional uses in the Agricultural Zoning Districts. Chairman Matthes stated that he too would like to have that considered. He stated this would avoid having to do a total zoning change and then have to have it rezoned back to agricultural later. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to get a little more information about what Agenda Item # 8 was th because he would not be able to attend the special meeting on the 29. Ms. Young stated that currently the Environmental Control Hearing Board is enforcing that ordinance and this would change that to the Code Enforcement Board instead. She continued that the Environmental Control Hearing Board meets on a very infrequent basis and it was thought that it would be more appropriate to bring this under Code Enforcement. She stated this would deal with anything related to land clearing and recycling issues. Mr. Grande questioned the information they received with regards to the conference in Key West. Mr. Kelly stated that the information was provided for their information and they are not required to go. He advised that some of the members might feel it could be useful to them and that the County would be able to cover the cost of the registration fee but that the travel would be their own responsibility if they wish to go. Next special meeting will be August 29, 2002. Next scheduled meeting will be September 19, 2002. th Mr. McCurdy stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting on the 19 of September. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting August 15, 2002 Page 27