Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-21-2003 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2003 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Akins, Mr. Grande, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Lounds, Ms. Morgan, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Trias, and Chairman Merritt. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. Randy Stevenson, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Development Review Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 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 / DISCLOSURES: Mr. Lounds stated that he had conversations with the agency representing Glassman Realty, which is Agenda Item #6. Mr. Hearn, Mr. Akins, Mr. McCurdy, and Mr. Grande each stated that they too had conversations with the representatives for Glassman Realty, Agenda Item #6. Ms. Hammer, Ms. Morgan, and Chairman Merritt each stated that they were approached by the representative for Glassman Realty to meet, but declined to meet with them and had no conversations regarding Agenda Item #6. Ms. Hammer stated that she did have several conversations with community residents regarding Chairman Merritt g 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. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 2 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. No other announcements or discussion. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: MEETING MINUTES JULY 17, 2003: Ms. Hammer made a motion to approve. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Mr. Grande stated that he believed on page 11, in the second paragraph, the next to the last line; he stated underlying future land use, not zoning. After review of the tapes, the minutes were not changed. Upon a vote, the motion was approved unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2: TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. (Lawrence Vickers, Agent) File No. CU-03-011: Ms. Cyndi Snay, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Treasure Coast Tractor Services, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for property located on the south side of Orange Avenue approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed road. She continued that on June 6, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning on a 9.9-acre tract of land, from AG-1 to U for property jointly owned by Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service. She also stated that at the same meeting the Board approved a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a single air curtain incinerator. Ms. Snay stated that on March 10, 2003, the petitioners submitted an application for a lot split of the subject parcel that would take the approximate 40 acres under joint ownership of Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service and split it into two separate 20-acre tracts. She advised that the resultant split would leave just less than 5 acres each of utility-zoned property for each owner and that Secti establishes a minimum lot size for the operation of Land Clearing and Yard Trash recycling operation. She continued that the smallest parcel of which such an activity may be considered is 5 acres and the maximum parcel size for any such facility is 15 acres and that the splitting of the property would, in effect, make both the existing and proposed air curtain incinerator sites non- conforming. She stated that without rezoning additional property, the the expansion of this conditional use. Ms. Snay also stated that based upon the local performance record of the current operators and complaints filed with the County, the proposed expansion of this conditional use permit is expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties. She advised that within the last few times due to excessive smoke and continuous smoke conditions occurring from the burning operation. She continued that the current facility has not met the assurances represented to the Board of County Commissioners to ensure that the facility would not have an undue negative effect on the surrounding properties. She advised that the apparent improper use of this facility, the State Division of Forestry and that area residents have also complained directly to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Snay stated that the State Division of Forestry has issued a number of stop work orders in order for the operation to redesign/rebuild the trenches to meet regulatory standards. On October 1, 2002, the FDEP issued a stop work order due to the operation not having appropriate permits. spark from the pit. Staff previously requested that the applicant provide written verification from the County Code Enforcement Division, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Division of Forestry that all code violations had been solved. Today we received a letter from the County Code Enforcement Division that stated that no active code violations were in effect; staff also Forestry has been submitted to date. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Snay advised that the proposed conditional use expansion is anticipated to create additional adverse impacts on the natural environment. She stated that the surrounding environment has been impacted by smoke and odors from the existing operation on the subject property. She also stated that in order to ensure that no additional air pollution would result from the second air curtain incinerator being operated on the subject parcel, staff requested that the applicant submit an air quality report using as a baseline the conditions existing in the area prior to the firing-up of the first air curtain incinerator, conditions after the start of the facility and then the project cumulative effects on the operation of the second incinerator at the location. The applicant failed to submit this data, and therefore staff was unable to completely analyze the petition. Staff also request information on the type of burner being proposed, a site layout indicating where the burner would be placed and details on how the burner would be operated including certifications. The applicant failed to submit the requested information, and therefore staff was unable to complete the analysis on this petition. Staff finds that the requested expansion to an existing approved Conditional Use Permit does not meet the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and that it is in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the reasons outlined tonight, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that he was the attorney representing the applicant, Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He stated that back in June 2000, the property was rezoned and granted a conditional use permit on this site. He advised that at the time it was anticipated that based on the volume of land clearing debris in St. Lucie County that single air curtain burner would be sufficient. He continued that since then the rate and amount of growth in St. Lucie County has increased significantly and as a result a lot more debris to dispose of. He stated that using the air burner is much more aesthetic, burns material more completely and quickly with a minimal amount of smoke and odor, and more environmentally friendly. He also stated that they believe using an air curtain incinerator is the best of all of the alternatives that exist. He continued that the other alternative would be to mulch it, but in his experience, it is not a profitable venture. He advised that this would not be a viable alternative for his client, even though Treasure Coast Land Clearing is attempting to do some on the site. He stated that it would have some impact on the people in the community, but the best option of those available. Mr. Farrell stated that his client did originally file an application for a lot split with the county based on advice received by his client from the employees of the County. He advised that it is necessary to have a second air curtain incinerator on the property to handle the volume of material. He stated that counsel did not represent his client at the time she originally applied for the lot split and conditional use permit. He also stated that if the property is split, then both sides become non-conforming, and neither side could engage in the business that they do. He advised that they did not want to proceed with a lot split and understand the ramifications of that. He continued that since the property will remain under common ownership, the only thing needed would be to modify the existing conditional use permit to allow for a second air curtain incinerator with the necessary additional equipment. He stated that there have been problems on the site, but that the problems were because it was a start up operation and new type of business. He also stated that the complaints could not be specifically attributed to Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He continued that originally they utilized a trench burner, which is why they had so many issues with excessive smoke. He advised that the trench burner was eliminated and an air P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 6 curtain incinerator was put in its place by Treasure Coast Land Clearing to reduce the amount of emissions. He stated that in the last four months of operation he has no knowledge of any complaint about the air curtain box that is being utilized. He also stated that his client would be utilizing an even more technologically advanced air curtain box that is run with an electric motor rather than a diesel motor, operates at a higher temperature, and costs a lot more money. He continued that his client is willing to do this to make sure this is a minimal impact on the neighbors. He advised that this location is in a relatively unpopulated area of the county in the western area. He stated that in addition to the one burner being operated on the site, there is another one also being operated to the west on the Wynne Ranch, which has not received any complaints. He advised that some of the complaint calls had validity but on at least seven occasions there were complaints that were found by the Department of Forestry to be coming from open fires burning on the ranches and groves in the area, not his clients site. He stated that there was a fire in April, which was a result of learning how to do business. He advised that they have learned that it is necessary to separate the piles by a greater distance. He also stated that Treasure Coast Land Clearing has placed two fire hydrants on site, Treasure Coast Tractor Service has one fire hydrant on site, and if this request is approved, they intend to install a second fire hydrant. He continued that there is also a twelve-inch well that is run by a three-phase pump to provide fire protection to the site and is also a benefit to the Fire Departments in the area. Mr. Farrell stated that there are not any current code violations and anytime there has been a complaint the operators have immediately addressed and resolved it. He also stated that the problems that occurred previously were from learning how to do this business and now that they have learned the complaints have stopped. He advised that there was a representation made by correspondence from the public indicating that the Forestry Department has issued Stop Work orders, which is not true to his knowledge. He continued that there was a situation in 2002 where DEP claimed a permit was necessary, which in a clear reading of the law, shows it is not required. He stated that after several meetings with DEP Treasure Coast Land Clearing did receive a permit. He advised that with respect to Treasure Coast Tractor Service, two employees of the corporation have gone through several weeks of training, are certified in the operation of an air curtain incinerator, and have spent in excess of $116,000 buying the incinerator. He stated they would prefer to operate the second incinerator instead of piling up the debris and burning it openly at different locations throughout the county. He also stated that the staff report states that they are asking for a six-month temporary change to the conditional use permit and is not accurate. He advised that their request is to have a permanent modification of the existing conditional use permit, which is also a permanent conditional use permit. Mr. Farrell stated Treasure Coast Tractor Service originally submitted this application without the assistance of counsel. He continued that if there were any deficiencies in what staff is looking for, they would be willing to provide it. He advised that there is not an air quality report for the operation of the existing air curtain incinerator because Treasure Coast Land Clearning operates it and was not provided to them. He stated that he believes they provided the County with a drawing showing where this air curtain would be located on the site. He also stated that the certifications of training completion and the DEP permit were also provided to the County. He ain incinerators on site because they feel the site is appropriate. He stated that the only entity concerned with the number of incinerators on the site would be the County as a result of this conditional use permit. Chairman McCurdy questioned how the ash is disposed of on the site. Mr. Farrell stated that there is ash on site, which is removed from the box by a backhoe daily. He continued that he is not sure what Treasure Coast Land Clearing does with their ash. He advised that another client of P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 7 his spreads their ash on agricultural property because it has significant beneficial impacts. He also stated that in the literature that came from the manufacturer of one of the incinerators it comments on the desirability of the ash as a soil amendment for agricultural purposes. Chairman McCurdy questioned if the ash is currently being stored on site or removed. Mr. Ed Becht stated that the ash is not being stored on site. Chairman McCurdy stated in the original proposed split would have made both lots non-conforming and wondered if changing the line of the split would have resolved that issue. Mr. Farrell stated that they have 9.9 acres of Utilities zoned property and if they split it in two, one of them would not have the required minimum of five acres. He continued that doing that would mean that one of the two would therefore be put out of business. Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing. Ms. Cyndi Adams stated that she lives two miles west of the site and has written several letters. She stated that BP Technologies mulches and removes all of the land debris everyday, so none of it ends up in the St. Lucie County land fill. She also stated that both applicants signed a petition for a rezoning in April of 2000, in which they stated they would obtain DEP permits. She advised that the Conditional Use Permit also stated they would obtain DEP permits, which they never did. She continued these applicants were notified by the County many times that there were complaints, which only helped for a couple of days, sometimes 24 hours a day. She stated -acre utility site that is encompassed within 4000 acres and only has one company utilizing his site. She also stated that on Sunday, June 1, 2003 at 8:15 p.m. there was smoke coming from their pit. She advised that there was also smoke coming from the pit tonight, but both gates were locked. She continued that the new machine has made a world of difference but it is not perfect. She stated that there are many people who have driven by the site through very thick smoke, not during the initial start-up period of three minutes. She advised that there is a smell from this burning on this site. She stated that Leo Codero, the Solid Waste use air curtain incinerators because of too many complications. She also stated that there are too many variables that affect the performance of the machine; weather conditions, wet vegetation, dirt on the vegetation, operator handling. She continued that these variables would generate more smoke, which would affect them. She advised that Ken Burg and Mark Ewington, from West Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority, stated that when they had them in Palm Beach County, the Health Department, Fire Department, DEP, as well as the them anymore because of all of the variables. She stated that Patrick Graham from Martin County landfill stated that the operational requirements are too strict and not efficient enough of an operation to work properly. She also stated that there are no air curtain incinerators in Martin County and that St. Lucie County is the only county in the entire southeast district that has permanent air curtain incinerator sites. She advised that she received an email on August 13 from Locks Monotawum, the air program engineer for DEP in Palm Beach that gave her the name of a facility that was operating an air curtain incinerator. She stated that it was Indian Trail Improvement District Facility, but when she called and spoke w/ AJ from DEP, she was told it was used by the SFWMD when they need to dispose of vegetation. She also stated that they advised it is only used on an as needed basis, which could be several months in between. She circumstance with very strict conditions and that they would oppose any other requests for incinerators on Orange Avenue. She stated that she was told that Mr. and Mrs. Vickers spoke with Ray Wazny and one of the Commissioners about buying the second incinerator. She was continued that their family has always tried to be good neighbors but air pollution is something -one companies listed in the P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 8 yellow pages under land clearing and if half of them come forward with a request for air curtain incinerators, would they grant all of these utility-zoning changes all over the county. She stated that all of this can be properly done out at the landfill. She also stated that it may be more expensive than what these applicants want to pay, but everyone else pays their fair share. She advised that Mr. Vickers has other options because he could mulch the debris, have Mr. Talley burn it for him, or they can go before a mediation judge. Mr. Grande questioned how far Ms. Adams was from the Wynne site. Ms. Adams stated that their property is approximately 4 miles down the road. Mr. Grande questioned if her opinion was that the two operations were run very differently. Ms. Adams confirmed that there have never been any problems with the Wynne site, so yes, their operations were like night and day. Mr. Mike Adams stated that he resides at 25501 Orange Avenue and had sent his letter in previously to indicate his opposition to a second air curtain incinerator. He also stated that they already have a second incinerator on the site, but are only permitted through the County for one. He advised that the second incinerator might also be in operation. He continued that there seems to be some internal problems between the two owners since they established the one site together. He advised that they are now trying to run two separate businesses out of the one site. He stated that he is concerned about who is going to regulate these incinerators and try to determine which of the two, which are on the same site, are the violators. He also stated that there were already issues in the beginning about who was supposed to be the governing authority over these issues and is very concerned about a second incinerator. He advised that DEP does not have the staff to regulate these sites and the County has not been providing over site for them either. He continued that the difference with this site is that they burn 5 days a week, but with other agricultural permits, you have to get the permit from the Forestry Department. He stated that they are very strict with issuing the permits and take into account many other factors before issuing them. He also stated that with this site, they are allowed to burn at any time, regardless of the weather conditions. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Adams burned his pastures in the springtime. Mr. Adams confirmed that they do some burning, but must call to get a burn permit. He also stated the Forestry Department checks the weather to be sure everything is conducive and they must also do fire control suppression. Mr. Rick Farrell stated that he would like to address some of the issues raised during the public comment. He advised that Ms. Adams attributed a fire that was burning over the weekend to their pit, which is exactly what he was trying to point out earlier. He continued that the fire that was burning all night long over the weekend was open burning at the corner of Sneed Road and Orange Avenue, not their site. He stated that Ms. Adams stated that BP Technologies mulches all debris that the county generates. He also stated that when they met with the County they discussed that issue and if all of the land clearing companies showed up at the landfill, they would not be able to handle it. He continued that this is one of the oldest, largest, and most responsible companies in the land clearing business in St. Lucie County. He advised that the statement that all of the debris can be taken to the landfill and be mulched is not accurate. He also stated that he is offended that those with a certain name can come in and get consent and approval for what they want, but those without that name are denied. He advised that this should how long you have been here, or who you know. He continued that it should be based upon what is right, appropriate, and what the law provides for. He stated that it is appropriate for this debris P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 9 to be burned and the only issue to decide is where to burn it appropriately. He also stated that St. Lucie County would not operate an air curtain incinerator at the landfill. He continued that they are asking for an opportunity to do this the right way. Ms. Hammer stated that the staff report consistently states that information was requested from the applicant but never provided. She questioned Mr. Farrell as to why his client did not provide the information that was requested. Mr. Farrell stated that he believes that everything that was requested has been submitted, but was not all submitted at the time of application. He stated that Staff had also received some additional information yesterday or today to supplement what had been requested. He also stated that an attorney, land planner, did not provide the original application or professional, it was submitted by the Vickers their selves. He again stated that he believed all of the items requested had been provided and the staff report was prepared prior to receiving the requested information. integrity with regard to certain families was inappropriate. Mr. Farrell apologized stating that he was not trying to impugn the integrity of this board. He also stated that his comment was not directed to this board, it was directed more towards the statement of Ms. Adams. He continued that what he meant was that if you are Matthew Wynne and want to do it, it is okay, but if you the previous requests the same as this one. He stated that he would not imply they were not doing their job to the best of their ability and was only addressing the inference created by Ms. Adams. Ms. Hilson questioned what Mr. Wynne has done on his property more appropriately to be done. Mr. Farrell stated that a mile from the road or the nearest property line, so it is a bit more isolated. He continued that in terms of operation, it is operated the same way. Mr. Akins questioned staff if there is any requested information that has still not been provided by the applicant as of this date. Ms. Snay confirmed that they still had not received an air quality report, the site plan showing specifically where the burner was going to be placed, and information regarding the specific burner. She also stated that they had not received an issued DEP permit, only a copy of the application for the permit and the training certificates for the two employees. Mr. Farrell stated that there are no air quality reports, none exist, and none are several months ago. Ms. Doris Vickers of Treasure Coast Tractor Service, 1210 Pulitzer Road, realize they were missing anything else until they were faxed a copy of the staff report on Monday. She continued that she thought that the eleven sheets she faxed over today were everything that was requested. activities of others in their neighborhood. He questioned if there was a way that one of the conditions could be that if the conditional use permit is granted the business could be shut down for being a continuous nuisance. Mr. Murphy stated that there is already an area in the conditional use provisions of the Land Development Code regarding monitoring and also giving the Board the ability to revoke the permit. He advised that there is also the ability to add any reasonable limiting condition within the application if they feel it is necessary, but the enforcement provisions are already there within the Code. Mr. Hearn questioned if there could be P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 10 for violations. Ms. Young stated that the County would not be able to permanently shut it down immediately, but there may be possibilities of temporary injunctions while they go through the process. Mr. Ed Becht stated that DEP has the authority to shut them down on the spot for violations. He also stated that many people have made complaints, but they believe that not all of the complaints were valid from their particular site. He advised that there is a testing program that Treasure Coast Land Clearing employees have gone through to get certification for testing the smoke to verify the air curtain incinerator is operating within the specified limits. Mr. Akins questioned again if the applicant had satisfied all of the requests made by Staff of them. Ms. Snay stated they have still not provided were the air quality report, a site plan depicting the location, the specs on what type of burner they would be using, and details on how the site would be operated. Mr. Murphy advised that if an air quality report is not available the Board of County Commissioners could still reserve the right, if there is a compelling enough reason to do so, to require one to be done. He stated that it might not be required by DEP, but the Board of County Commissioners could require one be done. He advised that the applicants have indicated that none exists because none has been required by an outside agency. Mr. Grande stated that he could not understand why the applicant chose not to provide the specs on a piece of equipment that has already been purchased and is on the site. Ms. Cyndi Adams stated that one of the conditions of the original conditional use permit were that the gates on the property be locked. She provided pictures for the Board to review from several occasions this year where she took photographs of the property not being locked. Ms. Morgan questioned if the idea of the incinerator was to increase the burn and lessen the smoke. Chairman McCurdy stated that the hotter the temperature, the less smoke there is emitted. Ms. Morgan questioned if there are other land clearing companies bringing their debris to this site. Mr. Murphy stated that as far as they are aware there are two separate companies operating on this one site, Treasure Coast Land Clearing and Treasure Coast Tractor Service. He also stated that they are bringing their own material into the site and are not bringing or receiving materials from any other land clearing operators. He continued that the compound has a ridge or dividing line for the two operations, one operates on the east side and the other operates on the west side. Ms. Morgan questioned if the companies would be able to burn at the individual sites they were clearing if they could not burn on their property. Mr. Murphy stated they usually would not be able to burn on the individual sites. Ms. Morgan questioned where all of the land clearing debris would go if this operation were not able to be in business. Mr. Murphy stated that the only other option available would be the County landfill through their recycling and mulching program. Mr. Lounds questioned if the site has a flow-well and if they do is the pressure enough to put a fire out before it gets out of control. Mr. Farrell stated he did not believe it was a flow-well. Mr. John Talley, owner of Treasure Coast Land Clearing, stated that they have a three-phase pump with 400 pounds of pressure. Mr. Lounds questioned where the pump is located on the property and what the white residue is on the property. Mr. Talley stated that it is coquina rock base. Mr. Lounds questioned how long it would ta P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 11 bring any more material in right now. Mr. Becht stated that they are not just burning the debris they are also mulching it. Mr. Lounds asked how long it would take for them to entirely clear the site of all debris, by mulching or burning, or any other means. Mr. Talley stated it would take them approximately 30 days. Mr. Lounds questioned if the air curtain incinerators are run by a diesel engine or by electric with the diesel engine being backup power unit for it. Mr. Talley advised that his one air curtain incinerator is run by a diesel engine. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdyclosed the public hearing. Ms. Morgan questioned if the applicant had stated that they wanted to change their request from a temporary use to a permanent one. Mr. Murphy stated that the purpose of the conditional use application was to modify the original one to allow for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator. He continued that currently their permit only allows for the use of one burner on the property. He advised that previously there was a rotation of burning where one side burned on one day and the other company burned on another day. He continued that if approved this conditional use permit would essentially allow the operations to continue with the operation of a second independent burner so that Treasure Coast Tractor Service would work on one side of the property and Treasure Coast Land Clearing would work on the other. Ms. Morgan stated that they would be operating two separate independent businesses on the one site. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Ms. Morgan stated that the packet stated that it was a temporary request for a maximum of six months. Mr. Murphy stated that was the original request by the applicant, prior to having legal counsel, but believes their counsel had stated this evening that they would like it permanent instead. Mr. Lounds stated that when the original application came before them several years ago he believed this was the appropriate place for this because it was outside of the urban area in western St. Lucie County. He also stated that he believes there have been some wrongdoings in the stewardship of the land for this. He advised that they got started off on the wrong foot and it has never been corrected. He continued that they have not been operating it properly from the He stated that there was other air curtains that have been operated around the county without issues and no one even knew they were there. He also stated that air curtains that are operated properly are a very efficient way to dispose of the land clearing debris. He continued that he would be in favor of having the companies come back for this request after they have cleaned up the mess and operate their one existing burner without complaints. He stated that he believes there could even be some drainage issues on the property that have not been addressed. He also stated that he could not vote favorably upon this request until they clean up the mess they currently have on the property. Mr. Grande stated that when the applicants came for the initial conditional use permit all of these questioned were raised and they were assured that they knew this business, knew the equipment, and there would not be any problems or issues. He continued that virtually every problem that had been reported relating to this operation relates to a topic that came up at that meeting and they were assured would not happen. He stated that this operation has not operated effectively since its inception and the track record of this firm has caused problems for others seeking the same type of operation in the county. He also stated that another company that did finally receive approval proved that these types of operations can be run correctly and a benefit to the county. He advised that they could not support a second burner for this operator until they run for at least a year without a complaint and bring the current operation up to the standard of the other company in the county. He continued that this operator might have an unfair disadvantage because they are further east than the Wynne operation and may be in the wrong place. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicants would be willing to clean up the two sites so that there is no more than two or three days worth of debris piled up on the site at any one time. He stated he would like to see the families clean the site up and show that they are capable of doing what they should be doing. willing to work with staff to provide that information or request more time to obtain the information. She also stated that she is concerned that the attorney now announces that they are not asking for a temporary six-month permit but a permanent one. She continued that the smoke from burning affects anyone with allergy problems and becomes a detriment to your way of life. She advised that if the applicant can get their act together, get it cleaned up, and operate without violation there may be some hope, but currently she would not support this expansion. 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 deny the application of TREASURE COAST TRACTOR SERVICE, INC., for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a second air curtain incinerator on property located on the south side of Orange Avenue, approximately 3,000 feet west of Sneed Road in the U (Utilities) Zoning District because there is a track record based on their first incinerator that does not indicate that a second incinerator would be handled better and their application does not contain the proper supporting documentation as requested by the staff. Motion seconded by Ms. Hammer. Mr. Lounds questioned if the applicants would be able to dispose of the remaining debris on the site if this request is denied. Ms. Young explained that this petition is only for a second incinerator and would not affect the first incinerator that was previously approved. Mr. Farrell stated that Treasure Coast Land Clearing operates the existing incinerator on the site. He continued that this request was for Treasure Coast Tractor Service to be able to operate their own incinerator separately because the capacity of land clearing debris that is generated is more than the one air curtain incinerator and mulching operations of Treasure Coast Land Clearing can accommodate. He stated that the material that is on the Treasure Coast Tractor Service side of debris generated by Treasure Coast Land Clearing, which is why they wanted the second incinerator. He also stated that there is difficulty with having only two to three days worth of debris on the site because there is a requirement that this material must sit and dry for 30 or 35 days before it can legally be burned. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-1 (Ms. Morgan voting against and Mr. Merritt abstaining) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 3: KENNETH F. LOWE, JR. File No. RZ-03-027 / PUD-03-018: This item was requested to be continued to the September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Staff will re-advertise and re-notice the item for that meeting. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 4: DALE T. MOSHER File No. RZ-03-024: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 4 & # 5 were the Dale T. Mosher applications of for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 9.67 acres of property located at 4200 Edwards Road and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services). He stated that several months prior they had reviewed this petition and had recommended that the Board of County Commissioners grants approval. He continued that when it was heard before the Board of County Commissioners there was not a full board present but the three members that were present had voted to not recommend approval. He advised that they instead requested to achieved. He stated that the concern was that if it was simply rezoned to AR-1 without any limiting conditions there could be some problems if the applicant changed their mind and decided to do something else that may be permitted or an accessory use in the new zoning. He also stated that staff reviewed the information and could interpret that the horticultural and landscaping services to address what was addressed at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. He continued that staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval for the Change in Zoning and the Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of operating a commercial plant nursery. Mr. Hearn questioned how this request is different from what they had previously heard. Mr. Murphy explained that the previous item was only a rezoning and any of the uses allowed as an accessory or permitted would be allowed on the property without any future review. He continued that it was represented that there should be a more narrowly focused petition. He stated that the conditional use permit would allow reasonable limiting conditions to be placed on the property and affecting the proposed use of the property. Mr. Hearn stated that if the property were zoned to AR-1 then the accessory uses would not be permitted. Mr. Murphy stated that they could still be permitted on the property but the representations made to them were that the conditional use process would limit that. He also stated that there were some discussions about doing a planned unit designation on this property but staff did not feel this was within the scope of the planned unit designations. He continued that the Board wanted to have some degree of assurance that the representations of the applicant were going to be followed through with some reasonable certainty. Mr. Hearn stated that he has known the applicant since he was a little boy and that it is horrible that he has been held up from doing this project. He also stated that he will probably vote for this petition but still feels very uncomfortable with the fact that the property could be used for things that could be very detrimental to the residential neighborhood surrounding the property. Ms. Hammer stated that she believed that previously the applicant had stated that there would not be greenhouses on the property but the report states that the request is for greenhouses. Mr. Dale Mosher stated that there would be in ground plants, possibly in containers, but no greenhouses. Ms. Hammer questioned if they could make a condition of the approval that there would be no greenhouses. Ms. Young confirmed that could be one of the conditions. Mr. Mosher stated they are just trying to get their nursery going by using the best method possible to accomplish that. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Cabanoff stated that he owns the property directly across Rodgers Road that fronts the 200-foot frontage of the proposed nursery. He advised that he bought his property with the sole P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 15 intent of putting his single-family home on it. He continued that he chose this property to build on because of the zoning that surrounds it. He stated that the area has a rural feel enhanced by the lack of commercial development in the immediate area. He also stated that the reality of a commercial nursery is that along with that comes compost heaps, fertilizer, insecticides, chemicals, heavy equipment, tractor-trailers, and other heavy trucks loading and unloading early in the morning and throughout the day. He advised that there are inevitable smells, noises, and chemical pollution associated with running a commercial nursery. He continued that the entrance of his driveway would be directly across from the 200-foot frontage of the proposed nursery. He stated that this property is within the urban service boundary and the Comprehensive Plan discourages the location of productive agricultural uses in the urban service boundary. He also stated that taking a 9 1/2 acre parcel and making it unavailable for RS-3 zoning removed the possibility of putting a number of homes on the same site or on vacant land nearby. He advised that the loss of future housing within the urban service area forces the future homeowners to seek housing outside of the urban service area therefore encouraging urban sprawl. He continued that thestaff report states that the proposed conditional use is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding properties but he disagreed. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merritt closed the public hearing. this it limits the applicant to having only a commercial nursery on the property. He advised that he is very concerned about some of the items allowed as accessory uses on the property under the requested zoning. He advised that he if they approve the change in zoning they would be able to prevent the present or any future owners from doing something that is an accessory use and could be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Young stated that there are two petitions being reviewed, the first for the change in zoning and the second one, which limits it to a commercial nursery. She continued that the accessory uses are possible but the conditional use permit would limit the actual agricultural operation to a commercial plant nursery. Mr. Grande stated that if they grant the change in zoning and then grant the conditional use permit for the nursery he is afraid that if the owner chooses not to implement the nursery listed in the conditional use his options he could fall back to anything available under the AR-1 zoning. He continued that he believes the conditional use permit does not force him to use it only for that use, but that use can be used if they comply with the conditions. He stated that he believes the applicant would still be able to use it for any other use within the zoning if it is not the use covered by the conditional use. Mr. Murphy stated that there is only three permitted uses in the AR-1 zoning district. Mr. Grande stated that their concern is with the allowed accessory uses under the proposed zoning. Mr. Murphy stated that if they wish to add reasonable limiting conditions that specifically state that the accessory uses listed in the AR-1 zoning could not be done on the property that may ease the concerns. He continued that by doing this it would limit the applicant to anything that is permitted and what the conditional use permit allows, but not any of the accessory uses. Mr. Akins questioned if it is possible to add a reverter clause to this stating that if the property is no longer used for the conditional use purpose it would revert back to the original zoning. Ms. Young stated that once the change in zoning is granted it stays with the property as long as it meets the conditions imposed with it. Mr. Murphy stated that would be the case unless there was a positive action taken by another party or the County to change it back, it cannot be automatic. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 16 Mr. Hearn stated that his understanding of a rezoning is that there cannot be any conditions attached to it. Ms. Young stated that was correct and was why there was a conditional use application too. Mr. Hearn stated that he believed any attorney could successfully argue that once you change the zoning you cannot place a condition on that rezoning that limits the accessory uses on that property. He questioned if there was any way to put a conditional use permit on the RS-3 zoning that would allow Mr. Mosher to operate his commercial nursery. Mr. Murphy stated that was not possible. He also stated that they are not asking to put conditions on the rezoning, only upon the conditional use permit. Chairman Merritt questioned if the conditional use permit followed the rezoned property or only the owner of the property. Mr. Murphy stated that the conditional use permit would be on the land, not the owner exclusively. 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 11.06.03, 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 Dale T. Mosher, for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District, because the planned use for the land to be covered by a subsequent conditional use is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will be a positive impact on the community. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 6-2 (with Mr. Hearn and Mr. McCurdy voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 17 AGENDA ITEM 5: DALE T. MOSHER File No. CU-03-015: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 4 & # 5 were the Dale T. Mosher applications of for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District for 9.67 acres of property located at 4200 Edwards Road and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services). Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Merrittclosed 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 Dale T. Mosher for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of a commercial plant nursery (landscaping & horticultural services) in the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District with three conditions. Because with the inclusion of these four conditions, this should be a benefit to the community. 1. No greenhouses on the property. 2. The property will not be eligible for accessory uses A D as listed in the AR- 1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District definition in the Land Development Code. 3. No commercial access on Rogers Road. 4. A twenty-five foot setback for any commercial activities from Rogers Road frontage. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 6: GLASSMAN REALTY, LTD. File No. RZ-03-035: This item was continued to the September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 03-005 PUD REQUIREMENTS/OPEN SPACE STANDARDS: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was to consider Draft Ordinance 03-005 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending the Open Space Standards for Planned Unit Developments, to provide for Clarification of Standards applicable to areas of the unincorporated county with a future land use designation of Agricultural, Residential and Mixed Use and by creating new Paragraph K, Clustering of Development for Planned Unit Developments. He continued that these proposed revisions were Development Code Regulations and effecting non-agricultural activities in the western areas of the County. Mr. Murphy stated that Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 were originally placed into the Plan as a part of a settlement agreement in 1991 between the State of Florida and St. County Commission first adopted a Unified Land Development Code for the County in 1990, they developed minimum open space standards that were applicable to all Planned Unit Developments. He stated that when these standards were first created, the term common open space spa sometimes subjective, understanding of the term. He also stated that there were recently some being interpreted by the County in regard to Planned Unit Developments in the agricultural areas of the community. Mr. Murphy stated that Draft Ordinance 03-005 provides for a series of variable standards in regard to agricultural open space requirements based upon the size of the parent parcel. He their gross site areas as open space. He continued that 35% of that 50% gross area is to be set aside as common open space. However, at the option of the County Commission, it may be - acreage of 40 acres or less. He stated that the basic requirement of 50% open space in these instances would still apply, but that open space could be held individually as opposed to common interest. paragraph K addresses clustering of development areas in a Planned Unit Development. He advised that after review of several general planning and project design documents it indicated a general theme, that being, clustering is considered to be the concentrating of development units or activities in a manner that provides for the highest utilization of the land area under development but with a minimum of new infrastructure development resulting in lower land development costs. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward a 03-005 be approved. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 20 Mr. McCurdy questioned if the common open space requirement is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Murphy stated it is not. Mr. McCurdy stated that by instituting common open space they are in essence instituting a taking of a portion of the parcels and could cause serious problems. Mr. Grande stated that he feels this is being over complicated. He advised that the owners groups made a logical presentation based on the fact that clustering that is designed for a more urban area might not make sense in the western portion of the county. He continued that clustering was originally designed to give shorter utility runs most of that does not apply to the kind of development that would occur out west. He stated that clustering outside of the urban service boundary should be treated differently and should have its own definition for those areas. He also stated that they should be learning from the mistakes made in development over the past years. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. Mr. Jerry James stated that he is a member of the Ad-Hoc Committee that has been working for close to a year to address these issues. He stated that he believes there is someone at the County Commission level who is directing Staff with a hidden agenda. He also stated that they came up with very simple recommendations with regards to this ordinance and is having no luck getting their recommendations voted upon. He continued that the Local Planning Agency previously voted in favor of their recommendations but the County Commission did not vote and sent it back to them again. He advised 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 development proposals in excess of 10 units must be approved through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as provided for in t Mr. James also stated that the 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. requires someone to basically buy their property twice. He continued that he finds these ordinances offensive and thinks all property owners feel that way. He also stated that he believes the buyout options are illegal as well. He advised they would like to move forward in a very simple direction, which is why their committee drafted their three-point recommendation. He stated that they were unable to get the Commission to vote and is now back before the Local Planning Agency for review again. He advised that they would like to propose their own ordinance, which is as follows: Policy 1.and Policy 1.1.2.3 C are found to be in conflict with other future land use designations and are deleted from the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. County Staff shall immediately undertake and expedite all necessary actions to finalize this amendment with all appropriate Regional and State Jurisdictions. 7.01.03 Standards and P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 21 Requirements A through H have no change. Section 1.A should read: All residential development of lands within future land use designation of agriculture shall be exempt from open space, common open space, and clustering provisions of the code. He continued that clustering is Mr. Grande stated he believes they are asking them not to support Draft Ordinance 03-005, but ight for them to vote on supporting something they had just received tonight. He suggested that they should vote to not support 03-005 but would like to have the Ad-Hoc committee work with Staff to bring forward a new revised ordinance, which addresses their points. of what they had reviewed several months previously. He questioned what triggers the PUD ated that under their proposal any development in excess of ten dwelling units would require a PUD. Mr. Lounds questioned what the problem is with having common open space. Mr. James stated that usually common open space has been utilized for condos, multi-family developments, zero lot line areas, higher density, and low land areas. He advised that property owners associations usually administer the parks and recreation of these types of facilities. Mr. Lounds questioned if the buy-out is an option and not mandatory. Mr. Murphy confirmed that it is a proposed option. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned with the exemption from open space is concerning the percentage of land that can be built on. Mr. James explained that they are not asking for that portion to be changed. He stated that he means they would be exempt from the open space requirements of the PUD. Mr. Jeff Furst stated that he is the property appraiser for St. Lucie County. He stated that he has had quite a few foreclosures on agricultural land and that time is an issue with regards to these matters and his not being able to give the exemptions. He advised that all of the uncertainty is causing a problem with investors and making agricultural development more difficult. He continued that there needs to be answer for those people who want to go out and live on ten, twenty, or more acres in a rural setting. He also stated that the agricultural people were here long before the developments and they need to have answers. He stated that there is nothing wrong with a large development with people owning large tracts because that is what people want to own today. He continued that a PUD on a small tract of land would cost more money to develop than they would get back out of it. He advised that he came here in 1970 because of the rural nature of the area but had some regrets about changing the area originally. He stated that they have an opportunity to reserve some of the west and north by not doing what was done in South Florida. He also stated that the only way to stop this is to allow reasonable rural possibilities. He advised the Ad-Hoc committee spent a lot of time since January and they were projecting to have this resolved by June. He stated that they had a simple recommendation by that time but nothing has been finalized by the County Commission yet. He also stated that they thought their three simple recommendations would be able to help start the process and send it to the State for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He continued that no one understood the ordinance as it was previously written, which is why they decided to try and write their own in the simplest of terms. He advised that if the State were the one saying they needed to modify their suggestions, they could understand that but they cannot get to that point yet. He continued that people who want to buy agricultural land would not buy it if you require that they must give a portion of it to re of the publicly owned lands P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 22 let alone to take care of rural common areas in developments. He also stated that this is the best resolution. Mr. Murphy stated this issue should be resolved as soon as possible. He stated that Staff recommends that they make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with regard to Draft Ordinance 03-005, as amended, revert back to original language, or incorporate Mr. J Chairman Merritt stated that he believes there should be a vote on both proposals. Mr. Hearn ordinance. He continued that he fully agrees with the suggestions regarding common open space and c they concede that there is no problem with open space as it is presently defined in the code. Mr. pen space has to be included in the ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he believed that is conflicting the other statements and Mr. Hearn is concerned about that term could create the potential for a conflict. Mr. James stated he agreed that it should rea would not have an objection to that change. Seeing no one else, Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Hearn made a motion to deny Draft Ordinance 03-005 as it is currently written. Mr. proposed ordinance in its place with the deletion of the wording of open space that is in 1A. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Mr. Grande stated that he would be voting against this motion because he supports the denial of proposed ordinance and send it back to Staff with the instruction that they format a new in a position tonight to understand what the impact of such things, such as two deletions from the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Grande voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 23 AGENDA ITEM 8: ORDINANCE 03-023 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES: Mr. Dennis Murphy, presentingStaff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 8 was Draft Ordinance 03- Schedules, effective March 1, 2004. He continued that education facilities impact fees, a/k/a school impact fees, across the State have been subject of much discussion and many are experiencing or are proposed to be increased, some rather dramatically. He continued that it is important to note that the amount that an impact fee may be raised is directly dependent upon the level of State and local revenues that are earmarked for capital construction. He advised that one reason for the rapid rate of increase in impact fees across the State is that while the State has reduced its funding commitment for new school capital cost, and the basic cost to provide a school and the necessary student work stations, has increased substantially, many local communities have not, or cannot, adjust their local taxing structures to meet the costs of the community. He continued that the projected costs of providing public educational facilities per student are in St. Lucie County estimated to be $16,000 per student station. He also stated that broken down through the formulas provided, the consultants have determined that St. Lucie County will be short approximately $3,192, per single family home, in meeting our facility obligations to address new community growth. Mr. Murphy stated that since the June review of the material by the Local Planning Agency, there have been several refinements to the impact fee calculations brought about as a result of further School District review. He advised that the School District has asked that a revised student station cost; updated land cost, and certain adjustments to the school enrollment credits and discount rates be made. He continued that the land cost adjustment is designed to address an inadvertent omission from previously supplied data; the updated school construction costs uses the more current data than was originally available, and the enrollment credits and discount rates have been refined based on more current rates. He stated that the net effect of all these adjustment is to increase the proposed Education Facilities Impact Fee from the original recommendation (June 2003) of $2,380 to $3192, or an additional $812. He advised that if the fee were approved in full, St. Lucie County would be among the upper 1/4 of fee assessments for educational facilities in the State of Florida. Mr. Murphy stated that on August 12, 2003, the St. Lucie County School Board asked that if the County Commissions consideration of any fee adjustment in reading to the educational impact fee, that the County Commission consider a delayed effective date of March 1, 2004. He continued that the reason for this delay would be to provide an opportunity for pending construction contracts to clear before the fee increases take effect. He stated that the Treasure Coast Builders Association had requested the delay. Staff recommends that the Local Planning Agency forward Draft Ordinance 03-023 to the Board of County Commissioners with a finding of consistency with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan with a recommendation of approval and that the fee be enacted as outlined at $3192 but effective February 1, 2004 as opposed to the previously indicated March 1, 2004. Mr. Grande stated that the ordinance that was attached to their packets, showed an effective date of October 1, 2003. Mr. Murphy stated that was an error, it should read February 1, 2004, and would be corrected throughout the entire document before being finalized. Chairman Merritt opened the public hearing. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 24 Mr. Dan Harrell stated he was the attorney for the School Board. He stated that the impact fees do provide a great source of greatly needed capital funding for the district. He also stated that on the second page of the meeting memorandum it shows that the School Board is asking that the entire amount of $3192 on single-family dwellings be put into place. He continued that they believe there could be some additional review of the numbers, but are fairly confident that those numbers are accurate. He advised that the second part of their recommendation is that the education impact fee increase be put in place February 1, 2004 or such earlier date as area home mortgage lenders substantiate would not cause disqualification of previously approved borrowers. He continued that the reason for the delay is so that those who might be mid- stuck with the additional $2000 having to be paid by them at their closing, which may be more than most first time home buyers could afford. He stated that this large of an increase could cause some individuals to be unable to close and they believe that ninety days or so should allow all of those who are in process to work their way through to the end. He also stated that the fees are calculated when an application for a building permit is submitted and as long as the application is complete then the fee calculation occurs. He advised that is the sole reason that the School Board is suggesting a delay. Mr. Grande stated that his understanding is that the impact fee is not paid by the buyer at the closing, it is paid earlier than that by whomever the developer prior to getting a certificate of occupancy. He continued that it would leave the choice of either the builder paying the fees or the buyer would have the choice of either increasing his down payment by the amount of the fee at closing time or could be capitalized into the loan. He advised that the fee itself actually would have been paid, the only thing left to the homebuyer would be whatever fee or part of the fee the seller chooses to pass onto the buyer and that would not be passed on as an impact fee or separate item, it would be built into the price of the home. Mr. Dennis Murphy stated that a unit of local government at the time a building permit is issued collects an impact fee. He also stated that there was a concern about the mid-stream effect on pending contracts for a home to be built. He continued that the contract includes a certain fixed amount of costs and also has a clause that states the buyer is subject to any changes in fee structure that the local government may impose. He advised that is why there is a request for a phase in since there is such a substantial change in the amounts. Mr. Grande questioned what the earliest effective date could be if they chose not to go with the suggested February 1, 2004 date. Mr. Murphy stated that it could be around November 1, 2003. Mr. Harrell developer but they were concerned with those homes that are acquired through a builder, where a purchaser may or may not acquire the lot through the builder at the same time. He stated in that circumstance they have an agreed upon price up front, make an application, get qualified for a loan, and in between the time they sign and close, the contract clause kicks in and they have to come up with the additional monies. Mr. Lounds stated last year the School Board did not increase the impact fees and questioned if that is one of the reasons that the increase is so drastic. Mr. Harrell stated that it had been about three or four years with no increase, they were under a moratorium for a time, and they reviewed other alternative funding sources that did not work out. He also stated that they cannot fund a deficit with impact fees, they can only fund future needs and future capital needs that must be enhancing. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 25 Mr. Kirk Sorensen stated that he was representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA). He advised that their position that a March 1, 2004 implementation date would be appropriate because of the time lag from the mortgage to the building permit process. He stated He also stated that the TCBA objective is to simply represent a fair share amount for the builders, residents, and taxpayers of the county. He advised that over 22% of the existing residents of St. Lucie County occupy the new homes being built in St. Lucie County. He stated that those are the people who have paid their fair share and are now being charged additional fees to pay for additional infrastructure. He also stated that the need for impact fees is there but they feel that given time they will be in a position to discuss a proposed fee schedule that they feel is in the best interest of all parties involved, a fair assessment of the impact fees, and will be verifiable. He continued that an impact fee technical memorandum must be valid, if you cannot reproduce the results; you are setting yourself up for a legal challenge. He advised that any fee that is charged in excess of a fair share, under State and Federal law, is considered an authorized, illegal, and unconstitutional taxation. He stated that at the rate of $800, if you increase the impact fee at C.P.I, in constant dollars, the fee today would be less than $2,000 per unit. He continued that there is a need in the ordinance for an individual builder or developer to use an independent fee calculation if his development is so unique that it requires an individual review of the characteristics of that development. He advised that there should be an alterative if their development is so different than what is represented in the ordinance. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Sorensen for an example of a unique situation that might require a change. Mr. Sorensen stated that there are types of developments that are part of a PUD or are multi- family developments that have a demographic make- system. He continued that the only item addressed in the ordinance is those developments that are fifty-five years old and older are exempt. He advised that there are other types of developments that are not exempt because of the age restriction but have certain demographic characteristics that put them in a different category. Mr. Grande stated that he believes that the types of situations that Mr. Sorensen brought up are already contained within the ordinance. He questioned if they could come up with a situation where it impacts the school system more than the average single-family home and has a developer who would be willing to come in and volunteer to pay higher fees. He advised that in the beginning they stated that they were all right with the amount, but had issue with the phase in period, but the presentation was built around reviewing the amount and contributing to the final amount is accurate or not, but they want a fair amount reflected. Mr. Grande questioned if the equested. Mr. Sorensen stated they have no alternative at this time, so they would ask that it be approved. of January 1, 2004. Mr. Sorensen stated that they are just trying to protect those people who may not have easy access to funds for a new home. Mr. Lounds questioned how possible it would be to petition those in Tallahassee to develop a transfer fee in real estate that would lessen the impact on new con believe that was an optimistic idea. Mr. Grande stated that the buyer or builder would not be paying the impact fee at the date of transfer; it is the fee that is in believe there would be a long stretch of time where someone would end up with a surprise. He P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 26 stated that he believes that if they use the November 1, 2003 date, anyone who has pulled their fee amount. He advised that there is no benefit to delaying enacting the fee and they would be collecting fewer dollars for the school system. Ms. Hammer stated that she is frustrated because this has been discussed for many months and there are no surprises. She also stated that when there are increases in any other household bills e one either. She continued that by phasing this in over three months, there would be over $3,000,192 that the new buyers are will end up coming from the existing residents who have already paid their fair share. She continued that she would like to have a recommendation forwarded to the Board of County Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Ms. Hammer and that the Comprehensive Plan states very clearly that new development should be paying for its impact on the community. Mr. Bill Hammer, 7672 Charleston Way, stated that there were some inconsistencies in the tables where the multi-family numbers were switched with the mobile homes. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was an error that would be corrected prior to finalization. Mr. Hammer also questioned if the multi-family number was per dwelling unit. Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hammer stated that the money needs to be spent for the schools and someone needs to pay. He also stated that he is speaking for those who already live in the county and pay taxes. He advised that people should all be alerting the client that there is a potential increase in the impact fees. He continued that the road systems cannot handle all of the development that is pending or approved. He stated that on behalf of all of the taxpayers he would request that this be put into effect at the earliest practical date so that the burden that is transferred to those taxpayers be limited and minimized. Mr. Kenny Hogan stated that he is Chairman of the Citizens Budge Committee and that on August 15, 2003 they overviewed the proposed ordinance and had a cross section of business people, builders, and construction related industry. He stated that he agreed with Ms. Hammer and they unanimously agreed to approve this ordinance. Seeing no one else Chairman Merrittclosed the public hearing. Mr. Akins questioned why this was brought back to them. Mr. Murphy explained that when the matter was presented to them previously the amount of the fee has increased around $800 and with such an increase the Board of County Commissioners felt they should review it again for Mr. Grande stated that he is a licensed real estate broker, they are required legally to disclose everything they know about the property, and if a realtor knows there is a pending change in this kind of fee they should reveal it. He advised that this would apply ethically to the builders and developers locally too. Ms. Lounds made a motion of approval of Draft Ordinance 03-023, finding it consistent Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 27 Ms. Morgan stated that the School Board and the TCBA both recommended a February 1, 2004 effective date and she thinks this recommendation should be followed. Ms. Hammer stated that the $3 million lag in funding needed. Mr. Hearn stated that he too agreed that the November 1, 2003 effective date is best. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-0 (with Ms. Morgan voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 28 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be September 18, 2003. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: _____________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary P & Z / LPA Meeting August 21, 2003 Page 29