Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-15-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING May 15, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Hearn, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Matthes, Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Trias and Ms. Hilson (all with Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Merritt called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Merritt gave a meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters. These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold tonight. The meeting will progress in the following manner: The Chair will call each item. Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request. The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Board. Members of the public will be allowed to present information regarding the request. The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Board will discuss the request. Further public comment will not be accepted unless the Board has specific questions. The Board will vote on its recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions both for and against are provided to the Board members. The recommendation is then forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually within the next month. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency acts only in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners and actions taken are recommendations only. Interested parties will also have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners who will ultimately have the final decision. Mr. Lounds arrived after Agenda Item # 1 was heard. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2003: Mr. Hearn stated that the first paragraph on page 8 should have the referenc Mr. Matthes made a motion to approve, as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 5-0). P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: CHOICE PEST MANAGEMENT File No. CU-03-006: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Choice Pest Management Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a disinfecting and pest control service in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District. He continued that disinfecting and pest control services are allowed as conditional uses in this zoning district subject to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Flores stated that Choice Pest Management, Inc. is licensed through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) - Division of Certification and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He continued that HRS monitors the business operation and licensing requirements and that these requirements include training and testing of personnel in the proper use and correct handling of various pesticides. He also stated that DEP monitors the disposal of any hazardous waste materials and ensures that it is disposed of properly. Staff finds that this petition meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant or their representative was present. Ms. Brenda Hefty stated that she and her husband Eric Mageissen live at 232 NW Broken Oak Trail in Jensen Beach and own the building in question. She continued that Mr. Dale Mauro owns and is the head of Choice Pest Management. She stated that they met Dale when they were looking for a tenant and feel that he runs his business well. She also stated that they thought he business. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Joseph G. Miller stated he lives at 5500 Orange Avenue and owns two parcels of property on Mr. Owen Conner stated that he is a resident of Oleander Pines at 6731 Dickinson Terrace and is concerned because the building backs up the drainage ditch. He continued that he feels there should be more consideration given since there could be a chemical leak especially since the property backs up to a drainage ditch. Mr. Dale Mauro, owner of Choice Pest Management stated that everything done on premises would be in containers. He also stated that there would not be any mixing done on site and anything that is brought back to the office is in containers. He continued that there is no spraying going to be done on the property and really no concern about a leakage problem. He also stated that they do have spill control measures in place, just in case. He advised that he has been in business for twelve years and has never had an incident or any complaints. Ms. Barbara Highley stated she lives at 6723 Dickinson Terrace in Oleander Pines and would like to find out what the procedure would be if a 50-gallon drum should spill while being loaded or unloaded from a truck. Mr. Mauro stated that the largest container of concentrate they have is 2 1/2 gall P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 4 -site, so it is never opened and the chances of spilling it would be minimal. Ms. Highley questioned how many 2 1/2 gallon containers are shipped on a palette. Mr. Mauro stated that they are shipped with two 2 1/2 gallon containers per case and that is the largest order he has. He continued that they order in very small quantities because they do general p questioned what kind of inventory would be held on the property. Mr. Mauro stated that his present inventory is one 2 1/2 gallon container of liquid concentrate contained in the back office building. He continued that any other inventory is kept locked up on the individual employees truck. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Mauro was inspected by the Florida Department of Agricultural. Mr. Mauro confirmed that he was just inspected about two months ago and they usually inspect him once a year. Mr. Lounds questioned what happens if he fails an inspection. Mr. Mauro explained that they could revoke his license and fine him. He also stated that the EPA regulates the products they use and DAG regulates the use of the products. Mr. Lounds stated that he wanted the public to have some peace of mind and be aware that these types of companies are thoroughly regulated and monitored and that they have place to turn to if there are any problems. Mr. Hearn questioned why staff did not apply any conditions to this conditional use application. He continued that he feels uncomfortable with this type of operation not having any. Mr. Kelly stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the right to recommend any reasonable conditions they feel are necessary but Staff did not see any issues for them. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about on-site mixing and large containers possibly spilling. Mr. Kelly stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make a recommendation to add conditions to address these issues if they felt it necessary. Mr. Hearn questioned if the petitioner would have any problem with adding conditions regarding on-site mixing and size of the containers. Mr. Mauro advised that would not be a problem with him. Mr. Milton Hahn stated that he lives at 771 Sandburg Lane in Oleander Pines. He questioned -site and where unused materials are stored or disposed of. Mr. Mauro stated that there are tanks on the back of a truck and the unused material would go into that tank and used at a residence. He also stated that there are designated areas for unused materials to be disposed of. Mr. Hahn questioned if the chemicals that are on-site are already mixed chemicals. Mr. Mauro stated that the mixed chemicals would be on-site but would be used at night. Mr. Mauro stated that none of the trucks are kept on the premises and are taken by the technicians to their homes. Mr. Hahn questioned if there was access (an opening rear door) to the warehouse from the canal. Ms. Hefty stated that the building has front doors that go to office space, roll-up garage doors on the back, sixty-foot of parking lot, twelve feet of lawn and then the canal. Mr. Hahn stated that he has one other concern about the technicians taking the trucks home to residential areas while holding chemicals. Mr. Kelly stated that he was not aware of there being any problem with them doing that. Mr. Charles Gilson stated he lives at lot 10, 6724 Dickinson Terrace in Oleander Pines and questioned how the concentrate is mixed and used. Mr. Mauro stated that the technicians take the concentrate with them on their trucks and mix it with water on the job site that they are treating. Mr. Gilson questioned if all of the containers that are stored at his facility are sealed. Mr. Mauro confirmed that they were and stated they are also locked up. Mr. Michael Reese, 6727 Dickinson Terrace stated that he has done his own research on the health problems that result from pesticide usage. He stated that he is concerned about Mr. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 5 chemicals. He also questioned the security of the buildings to avoid people breaking in and any possible fire hazards. He advised that pesticide and other chemicals could cause repertory problems in children and older people by being transferred through the air. He questioned what the response time is if there is a leak. He stated that they are relatively close to the subject property and is concerned about the effects on his children. Mr. Mauro stated that nothing is mixed on site and is contained in containers. He also stated that they do have a security system in the building. He continued that accidents do happen, but he has not had any incidents and he feels the risk factor is very low. Mr. Jones questioned if the containers that are stored on site have ever been opened. Mr. Mauro stated that some of them might have been opened by a technician and then taken off the truck to store. He continued that the amount of chemicals he stores he is very low because most of it is kept on the trucks. Mr. Jones stated questioned if the potential for a spill would be more at the site where the technician is working rather than the subject property. Mr. Mauro confirmed that was correct and stated that most spills occur when there is an accident with a truck rolling over. his business usually uses a lot of baited products within the house and the spraying is usually done on the outside perimeter of the structure. Mr. Lounds questioned if his products are similar to those that can be bought at Home Depot or Lowes. Mr. Mauro confirmed that is correct and that a lot of the products that are sold at Home Depot are actually stronger than the products his company uses. Mr someone spraying a can of Raid in their home. Mr. Mauro stated that his products were not at all worse than that. tial problems that he sees. He also stated that this is a conditional use request for a reason and this should be located in more of an industrial area. Ms. Hefty stated that as owners of the building they are scrutinized by their insurance company and would not allow things to remain that would be perceived as a hazard. Mr. Paul Frishkorn, 1651 Benny Drive, stated that anyone who has a swimming pool could make mustard gas because of the acids that they buy in Publix and other stores. Ms. Joanne Russell stated that she lives in Oleander Pines and that accidents do happen and that it could end up in their water system or airborne. She also stated that once this business grows there will be more containers and possibly drums on the property. is near any residences. Mr. Mauro stated that he is very close to the residents in that area and has never had any complaints in the two years he has been there. Mr. Matthes questioned if that property also backs up to a canal. Mr. Mauro confirmed that it does. Mr. Matthes questioned where the site drainage is directed. Ms. Hefty stated that it goes across the parking lot to the east toward US Highway 1. She also stated that there are three spillways across the lawn to keep erosion down and spill into the canal but the parking bumpers direct the water mainly to the east. Mr. Owen Conner spoke again. He stated that it is their back yard and understands that he has a business and needs to make a living but is very concerned about the spillway, drainage and the transfer of the open containers from truck to truck. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Charles Gilson spoke again and questioned if Canal 28 empties into the St. Lucie River. Mr. Matthes confirmed that it does. Mr. Hearn asked staff what the zoning is where chemicals like this are sold. Mr. Kelly stated that it is usually CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Mike Florio stated that he currently resides at 111 SE Camino Street but soon will be a resident of Oleander Pines. He questioned why the CG (Commercial, General) zoning district requires a conditional use permit for pest control services. Mr. Kelly stated that he thought it revolved around concerns with large pest control businesses and the volumes of chemicals. He also stated that having a conditional use permit request allows the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to decide how large of a business they would allow for specific areas. Mr. Florio stated that he feels that they wrote it that way because these large types of businesses are not appropriate in the CG (Commercial, General) zoning district. Mr. Kelly stated that the conditional use states that those businesses are generally appropriate in the CG (Commercial, General) zoning area but that they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Florio stated this is a business plaza that does not have use of a centralized sewer system, no chemical retention areas on this property, and a minimal setback from the canal area. Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Jones stated that the permitted uses in this zoning includes automotive rental, repair, and service, cleaning services, building material, hardware, and garden supplies, gasoline stations. He continued that all of these have a much more significant potential source of pollutants and problems than he believes this business would be. He also stated that the site is fairly small and the site would limit how large his operation could become in that location. Mr. Lounds stated that Mr. Hearn and the community seemed to have a concern with the container size and may want to consider adding that as a condition for the Board of County Commissioners consideration. Mr. Hearn stated that he would also like to see no mixing of chemicals on-site and no outside storage of containers on premises as conditions. Mr. Lounds stated that he did not feel that no mixing on site would be appropriate because Mr. Mauro may need to do that at one point in time. Mr. Jones stated he agreed that no mixing on-site might not be appropriate. Mr. McCurdy 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 Choice Pest Management, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a pest control service in the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because it is a conditional use and is a much lower intensity than the other permitted and allowed uses within the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. Limit the size to 2 1/2 to 5 gallons per containers of liquid concentrate. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 7 2. No outside storage of containers on premises. Motion seconded by Mr. Matthes. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 3: GARV PROPERTIES (Richard M. McClure, Agent) File No. RZ-03- 011: Mr. Hank Flores, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Garv Properties (Richard M. McClure, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for 4.81 acres of property located at 2541 Peters Road. He continued that the surrounding zoning is RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family 2 du/acre) to the north and northeast; RM-9 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 9 du/acre) to the southwest, C-3 (Commercial -3l) Zoning to the east, and south is in the city limits of Fort Pierce. Mr. Flores also stated that the petitioner has requested this change in zoning in order to establish a Recreational Vehicle sales operation on the subject property. 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. Chairman Merritt questioned if the applicant was present. Mr. Richard M. McClure stated that he was the applicant. Mr. Lounds questioned what type of recreational vehicles they would be selling. Mr. McClure explained that they would be high-end motor homes. Mr. Hearn questioned how long they had owned the property. Mr. McClure explained that they are currently in the process of closing on the property. Mr. Hearn questioned if the applicant was advised of any other options for the rezoning of this property. Mr. McClure stated that he was not aware of any other options. Mr. Hearn stated that there would be other ways for him to have this request met; one of them being a request for a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development). He continued that he was concerned about approving a blanket CG (Commercial, General) zoning change because he feels that some of the permitted uses might not be appropriate for the area since there is a residential area near the subject property. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Terry Torres stated that he was the engineer representing the purchaser of the property and would be available to answer questions if needed. Mr. Merritt stated that since the area is very c feel there would be any problem with the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Mr. Lounds stated that the maps show that the City of Fort Pierce has annexed several of the pieces surrounding the property and questioned why this piece had not been annexed. Mr. Torres explained that the duplexes behind the property also were not annexed and that the City had not approached them with regards to annexation. He also stated CG (Commercial, General) would require it either. Mr. Kelly explained that the City usually requires annexation when there is a need for water and septic. He continued that the duplexes are most likely old enough to have well and on-site septic. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Hearn questioned staff as to why they had not offered the petitioner the option of requesting a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) instead of a straight rezoning. Mr. Kelly explained that the only difference between the two requests is that the PNRD would limit and control future uses of the property. He also stated that it is still a rezoning request either way and that with an MXD future land use staff felt that the CG (Commercial, General) request was consistent. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt until the residential area becomes commercial they should have some assurance that the property will only be used for RV sales and nothing else and that with a flat CG (Commercial, General) zoning they are open to other options. Mr. Matthes questioned what kind of utilities would be needed for the property if their rezoning request were successful. Mr. Torres stated that eventually they may have a need for water and sewer and then would be annexed into the City. Mr. Lounds questioned the issue of run-off. Mr. Torres stated that there was less than 4,000 square feet of impervious and not a lot of drainage would be needed. He also stated that the want to leave the property as natural as possible. Torres stated that they would bring in a special company located off Selvitz Road that handles spill control but that a spill was highly unlikely. Mr. Matthes stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn that a PNRD would have been a better request because it would have given the surrounding neighbors some assurances about what would be done with the property. Mr. Hearn stated that he thinks the plan is great and perfect for the area and was just concerned about what would happen to the property if the business failed. Mr. Jones stated that he disagreed and that he felt any of the permitted uses within CG (Commercial, General) zoning would be appropriate for that area. He also stated that he did not feel a PNRD request would be appropriate for the area and what they want to do. Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed that this project does fit the neighborhood but that he firmly believes that a PNRD request would have been more appropriate. Mr. Jones questioned Mr. Hearn about what permitted uses under the CG (Commercial, General) zoning he would not be comfortable with on this property. Mr. Hearn stated that anything regarding gas and automotive services would not be appropriate because of the nearby residential properties. Mr. Matthes questioned the petitioner if they would consider changing their request to a PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) rather than to CG (Commercial, General). Mr. Torres stated that they would rather have the CG (Commercial, General) zoning. Mr. Merritt stated that he feels a PUD or PNRD was designed to control more specific items and that making it a mandatory request would not be appropriate. Mr. Hearn stated that he was not offering it to the petitioners as an alternative. Mr. Matthes stated that after considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including Staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set forth in Section P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 10 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 Garv Properties (Richard M. McClure, Agent) for a Change in Zoning from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District because the other three surrounding properties are CG (Commercial, General) and I feel that it is a good use. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 11 AGENDA ITEM 4: JERRY JAMES REPORT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was a presentation of some recommendations provided by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding changes to the agricultural sub- division regulations. He also stated that these issues were currently on the Board of County Commissioners Agenda to be heard on June 10, 2003. Mr. Jerry James stated that when the Board of County Commissioners heard the two draft ordinances they suggested that an Ad Hoc Committee by any agricultural property owners and members of the public who were interested be formed. He continued that the Committee would like to make their recommendations regarding Draft Ordinances 03-005 and 03-006 to the Local Planning Agency. He advised that the Committee was made up of the following members: Joey Miller, Jim Russakis, Mike or Bud Adams for Adams Ranch, Ovide Vachon, Matthew Wynne, Jeffrey Furst, Craig Linton, Toby Long and himself. He stated that there were some previous lands. He continued that they would recommend denial of the proposed draft ordinances. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to delete Policy 1.1.2.2. regarding the 4-unit PUD threshold. He stated that in lieu of the deletion, the existing land use categories found in Chapter 1, Pages 23-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain in place and control PUD excess of 10 units must be approved through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as provided for in the Land Developmen about these proposed changes since the wording was their choice originally to bring the County into compliance. Mr. Kelly stated that a meeting would need to be scheduled with DCA since there is a conflict in the plan. Mr. James continued that existing Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for Agricultural 2.5 contained on page 1-25 of the Comprehensive Plan should remain unchanged. He also stated that the Comprehensive Plan 1.1.2.3 sub section (c) should be deleted because it conflicts with their recommendations. He continued that common open space as presently defined under county codes, building codes, and Comprehensive Plan s be exempt and deleted from those areas of the County with a future land use of AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He stated that they parcel clustering under Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan PUD requirements should be exempt as a mandatory development requirement for those areas of the county designated AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He continued that supplemental to the committees recommendation to substituting the 10-unit threshold in lieu of the 4-unit threshold the committee would like to direct Staffs attention to curb cuts with a recommendation that excessive curb cuts adjacent to high traffic streets be addressed with parallel roads. Mr. James also stated that the Committee would like to have the possibility of Family Farms explored more by Staff. He stated that family farm exceptions to platting and other code requirements in the present AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 land use categories should be considered. He continued that the committee had not developed any specific recommendations at this point and would welcome staff input. He also stated that the committee does have a desire to see development of parcels upon agricultural lands in order to permit homestead development of family members related by blood, marriage or adoption for use solely as a homestead. He advised that placing this procedure under Board of Adjustment with specific criteria would be suggested or alternatively allowing Family Farm homestead to come under specific flag-lot criteria exceptions. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan density limits would remain in place. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Kelly stated that Staff was also concerned about the Family Farm issue, but was not sure at this time how to deal with it and that it should be discussed further at a later time. Mr. James finished by stating that the Committee would like to remain involved in the process, which includes actively working with staff to furnish property owners input at all levels. Mr. Merritt stated that he personally would like these issues to be resolved and would like to see it done by using common sense instead of bureaucracy. He also stated that clustering was not his idea of owning land. Mr. Hearn questioned if this was an urgent issue and if there would be any ramifications of a 30-day delay. Mr. James explained that the Committee was asked to have their final recommendations regarding the two ordinances to the Board of County Commissioners by the June 10, 2003, meeting. Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he has had quite a few foreclosures on agricultural land and that time is an issue with regards to these matters. He advised that all of the uncertainty is causing a problem with investors and making agricultural development more difficult. He also stated that these recommendations were the most expeditious way to help resolve some, but not all, of the issues. He continued that they should be reviewing these issues on a regular basis and need to come up with some long-term resolutions for the problems. Mr. James advised that Comprehensive Plan changes could only be done in July and December and if the Board of County Commissioners makes a recommendation to act upon these recommendations, they could make the July submission deadline. Mr. Furst continued that he felt the Committee should continue to be involved in the process and work with Staff to tackle many of the other issues and possibly come up with some long-term answers. He also stated that he felt there was three items that were crucial at the moment were common open space, clustering, and the 4 to 10 threshold. Mr. Kelly stated that he felt that their recommendations should be sent to the Board with the exception of the issue regarding Family Farms because of the complexity of the issue. Mr. Merritt questioned if the Committee would have any problem with deferring comment on the Family Farm issue for now. Mr. James stated that he and the Committee did not see a problem with forwarding the rest of their recommendations without Family Farms. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt the issue regarding Family Farms should definitely have further discussions because it is a very important issue. Mr. James stated that the Committee would definitely work further with Staff to bring some recommendations forward regarding the Family Farm issue in the future. Mr. Lounds questioned where the term open space was defined. Mr. James stated that the term open space is defined as required to be 80% in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5 and is to be agricultural utilization of the land. Mr. Lounds questioned Mr. Furst that if a agricultural but there is nothing being done agriculturally on the property it is assessed at a higher rate than those using the property agriculturally. Mr. Lounds questioned if the County or the State could buy the development rights on a large piece of acreage so that it remains in agricultural, on the tax roll, and cannot be developed for 20 questioned if it was a viable issue to request that the Committee review. Mr. James stated that fu be given a limitation of time. He also stated that this is going on all over the country and has been a vehicle to allow agricultural owners to transfer their development rights from their parcels and keep them in agricultural use with their exemptions. Mr. Lounds stated that he is concerned about the development out west and owners being able to retain the value of their land so that P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 13 they can survive. He advised that he does not have a problem with the Committees recommendations because he feels they really took their time going through it to help find a way to resolve these issues. He stated that he has an issue with people saying that agriculture in St. would be a tool to help them survive agriculturally. Mr. Jones questioned if the immediate need was to help stop the foreclosures on agricultural land. Mr. Furst explained that is part of the problem but the most significant issue. He continued that the urban service boundary issues and some of the PUD and clustering issues seem to be quite an important issue at this time. Mr. James stated that there are really three major concerns. He continued they are common open space, permissive instead of mandatory clustering in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5, and moving the thre -term fix and that it should continue to be worked on to permanently resolve these issues in the future. Mr. Kelly stated that with regards to some long-term changes to fix these issues there was a consensus-building workshop regarding the Urban Service Boundary. He continued that the consultants, Tindale-Oliver & Associates would be making a presentation to the Board of County Mr. Hearn stated that he is hesitant to adopt a recommendation on all of the Committees language f it. Mr. Kelly stated that the first item relates to the ordinances that were previously before the LPA that they already recommended denial of. He continued that Policy 1.1.2.2 is the Comprehensive Plan policy that requires clustering and ss of four units and their recommendation was to delete that because it is dealt with in another policy. He continued that they had even made a recommendation in lieu of deleting the entire Policy 1.1.2.2. He also stated that common open space be changed to open space and remove the word common in AG - 2.5 and AG - 5. He advised that they also requested the deletion of clustering. He continued that the Family Farm issue would be removed for now and the Committee wants to remain involved. Mr. Jones stated that they would like to urge the County Commission to approve the Committees recommendations (with the exception of number 8 Family Farms) with the understanding that this is a work in progress and not a permanent long-term fix. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 5-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the Committees recommendations. P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 14 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Mr. Matthes stated that he was respectfully resigning from the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency. He continued that Commissioner Lewis has found a replacement for him so his resignation would be effective tonight. He advised that he would need to leave the meeting prior to the final item on the agenda being heard. Next scheduled meeting will be June 19, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z Meeting May 15, 2003 Page 15