HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-15-2007
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 January 18, 2007 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6 As Corrected 02/15/07
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these minutes as part of the record.
8
AGENDA
9
10
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
11
12
CALL TO ORDER
13
14 Chairman Hearn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
15
ROLL CALL
16
17
18 William Hearn ....................................Chairman
19 Susan Caron .......................................Board Member
20 Brad Culverhouse...............................Board Member
21 (Mr. Culverhouse arrived at approximately 6:15pm)
22 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member
23 John Knapp ........................................Board Member
24 BarrySchrader ...................................Board Member
25 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member
26 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member
27
28 Members Absent:
29 Ramon Trias .......................................Vice Chairman
30 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio
31
OTHERS PRESENT
32
33
34 Robert Nix ..........................................Growth Management Department Director
35 Gilbert Backenstoss ...........................Assist. Growth Management Depart. Director
36 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney II
37 Hank Flores ........................................Planning Manager
38 Linda Pendarvis .................................Senior Planner
39
40
ANNOUNCEMENTS
41
42 None.
43
DISCLOSURES
44
45 None.
46
47 Before moving onto the agenda, Mr. Hearn welcomed Mr. Schrader as one of the new members
48 of the Planning and Zoning Commission (Mr. Culverhouse had not yet arrived).
49
1
AGENDA ITEM 1: Election of Officials
1
2 Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman.
3
4 Ms. Hammer nominated Bill Hearn as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
5 Commission; Ms. Caron seconded.
6
7 The motion carried unanimously
8
9 Ms. Hammer nominated Ms. Caron as Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
10 Commission; Mr. Mundt seconded.
11
12 The motion carried unanimously.
13
AGENDA ITEM 2: Minutes
14
15 Minutes from the October 19, 2006 regular meeting.
16
17 Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes; Mr. Mundt seconded.
18
19 The motion carried unanimously.
20
AGENDA ITEM 3: Minutes
21
22 Minutes from the November 16, 2006 regular meeting.
23
24 Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes; Ms. Morgan seconded.
25
26 The motion carried unanimously.
27
AgendaItem 6 (St. Lucie Properties, LTD.
28 Ms. Hammer mentioned, with regards to
and Evans Properties, Inc.)
29 , that a site plan was not included as part of the packet she
30
31 proposed planned unit development when she has not seen it.
32
33 The other board members stated that they did not receive site plans in their packets either.
34
35 Ms. Hammer also stated that she did not receive a site plan for the application noted as
Agenda Item 7 (St. Lucie Oaks Commercial, LLC)
36 .
37
38 Ms. Hammer also stated that she does not want to have the applicant, the appli
39 representatives, attorneys, members of the public, etc. waiting hours for their item to be
40 heard for it then to be continued because the site plans could not be reviewed. She
41 requested the advice of counsel. Can the board motion to continue these items to another
42 date?
43
44 Ms. Young confirmed that the board can motion to continue these items to a date certain.
45
Agenda Item 6, St. Lucie Properties Ltd. and
46 Ms. Hammer motioned to continue
Evans Properties, Inc.
47 to the February 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission
48 meeting.
2
1
2 Mr. Schrader seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
3
Agenda Item 7, St. Lucie Oaks Commercial, LLC
4 Ms. Hammer motioned to continue
5 to the February 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
6
7 Mr. Mundt seconded.
8
9 Mr. Knapp questioned why the site plans were not included in their packet. Has there
10 been a procedural change? Were they not provided by the applicant?
11
12 Mr. Nix confirmed that they were given to the administrative staff to include in the
13 packets, but he is not sure why they were omitted.
14
15 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., with the law firm of Ruden, McClosky, et. al, representing the
16 applicant on agenda item 6, questioned whether or not this was the first opportunity for
17 the board to have notified staff of not having the site plan. He feels it is inconsiderate
18 and an inconvenience to the applicant to delay action on the applicant for a month
19 especially in light of the fact that site plans were submitted with their application as
20 required.
21
22 Bob Burson, representing the applicant on agenda item 7, also confirmed that numerous
23 site plans were provided to staff as part of their application. Mr. Burson explained that
24 there are people who have traveled from Brazil and from New York to be here tonight.
25 He also stated that pushing these applications back a month would delay their getting to
26 the Board of County Commissioners.
27
28 Mr. Knapp explained that he feels these applications should be heard tonight and if a
29 because the board could not review the site plans, then they can
30 be continued.
31
32 Ms. Hammer explained that is what she was trying to avoid. She does not want to hear
33 hours of testimony to then turn around and continue the item.
34
35 Ms. Caron suggested having a special meeting some time in February prior to the regular
36 meeting. Mr. Nix did mention, though, that he was going to discuss with the board the
37 possibility of having a special workshop meeting on February 2.
38
39 After discussions between board members and staff, it was determined that there may not
40 be a quorum to have a public hearing on February 2.
41
42 Ms. Caron suggested having a special meeting on February 8 to hear these two items.
43
44 After lengthy discussions between board members and staff, in an effort to have these
45 items heard some time prior to the February 15, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning &
46 Zoning Commission, it was determined that the motion would stay as stated to continue
47 this item to the February 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
48
3
1 Roll Call
2 Mr. Mundt yes
3 Ms. Morgan no
4 Mr. Culverhouse no
5 Mr. Knapp no
6 Mr. Schrader no
7 Ms. Hammer yes
8 Vice Chairman Caron no
9 Chairman Hearn no
10
11 The motion failed 2-6.
12
Agenda Item 7 (St. Lucie Oaks Commercial,
13 Mr. Culverhouse motioned to continue
LLC)
14 to a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 8, 2007.
15
16 Ms. Caron seconded.
17
18 Roll Call
19 Mr. Mundt yes
20 Ms. Morgan yes
21 Mr. Knapp- no
22 Ms. Hammer no
23 Mr. Schrader no
24 Vice Chairman Caron yes
25 Mr. Culverhouse yes
26 Chairman Hearn yes
27
28 The motion carried 5-3.
29
Agenda Item 6 (St. Lucie Properties, Ltd.
30 Ms. Hammer stated that in all fairness to
and Evans Properties, Inc.)
31 , that motion should be withdrawn and a new motion to
32 continue to February 8, 2007 should be made.
33
St. Lucie Properties, Ltd. and Evans
34 Ms. Hammer motioned to continue the
Properties, Inc.
35 application to the February 8, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission
36 meeting.
37
38 Mr. Schrader seconded.
39
40 Roll Call
41 Mr. Mundt yes
42 Ms. Morgan yes
43 Mr. Knapp no
44 Ms. Hammer no; only because she does not have her calendar and cannot commit to be
45 here. But if she is able to be here, she will.
46 Mr. Schrader yes
47 Vice Chairman Caron yes
48 Chairman Hearn yes
4
1 Mr. Culverhouse yes
2
3 Motion carried 6-2.
4
5 Chairman Hearn requested that staff get the site plans for those two applications to the
6
7
AGENDA ITEM 4: 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan
8
9 Every year the County is required to update the Capital Improvement Element including
10 the Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (Schedule). The purpose of the Capital
11 Improvement Element and the Schedule is to identify the capital improvements that are
12 needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan and insure the adopted Level of Service.
13
14 Mr. Nix presented this item and explained that the purpose of this is to test the
15 distribution of land uses, the intensity of those uses and that the county will have the
16 revenue sources to support those uses. The County will need to ensure they have a
17 financially feasible five-year Capital Improvement Element based on the growth
18 projected over the five year period. The County will need to show that there is adequate
19 facilities and programs and committed funding sources to accommodate that growth.
20
21 Mr. Nix explained that the spreadsheets presented tonight (reflecting the Capital
22 Improvement Plan) budget translated into a format that meets
23 state law requirements. It reflects what is already in the approved budget. Mr. Nix
24 explained that this program covers the facilities subject to level of service standard
25 requirements by state law.
26
27 Mr. Nix displayed the spreadsheets and reviewed the documents with the board members.
28
29 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
30
31 Tom Babcock, representing Edgar A. Brown, Barbara L. Brown, Josephine Brown, As
32 Trustee, Brown Ranch, Inc., Florida Resources, LLC, Bernard A. Egan Groves, Inc.,
33 Richard M. Carnell, Jr., As Trustee, Shamrock Groves, LLP, Horizon Tree Farm, Vernon
34 Smith and Chris Smith, spoke in objection of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan as
35 (1) no right-of-way
36 acquisition has been included; (2) no funding source for the 2011 improvements has been
37 included; (3) a two-year old traffic count was used; and (4) the lack of a financially
38 feasible long-range transportation plan.
39
40 Mr. Hearn requested that Mr. Babcock forward his notes to staff. Mr. Babcock agreed
41 that he would.
42
43 Mr. Culverhouse disclosed that Edgar A. Brown is his second cousin and Josephine
44 Brown is his great aunt.
45
46 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
47
5
1 Ms. Hammer requested that Ms. Young guide the board on what type of motion is
2 needed.
3
4 Ms. Young stated, that assuming the board wants to recommend approval, the motion
5 would be worded that this board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
6 adopt the St. Lucie County Five Year Capital Improvement Plan of the Capital
7 Improvement Element of the lan as presented tonight,
8 including staff comments with the removal of the unfunded portions.
9
10 Ms. Hammer stated that she would make that motion with the caveat that the Planning
11 and Zoning Commission ; they did the very best they could
12 and are recommending approval.
13
14 Ms. Caron seconded.
15
16 Roll Call
17 Mr. Mundt yes
18 Ms. Morgan yes
19 Mr. Culverhouse yes
20 Mr. Knapp yes
21 Mr. Schrader yes
22 Vice Chairman Caron yes
23 Ms. Hammer - yes
24 Chairman Hearn yes
25
26 The motion carried unanimously.
27
AGENDA ITEM 5: North St. Lucie Water Control District RZ 06-042
28
29 Petition of North St. Lucie Water Control District for a change in zoning from the AG-1
30 (Agricultural, 1 unit per acre) Zoning District to the CO (Commercial, Office) Zoning
31 District.
32
33 This item was present by Hank Flores, who explained that the subject parcel is located at
34 14666 Orange Avenue, on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately ¼ mile west
35 of the intersection of Shinn Road and Orange Avenue; it is approximately 1.92 acres in
36 size. The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to relocate the offices of the water
37 control district from S. Jenkins Road to the subject property.
38
39 Staff is recommending that this board forward a recommendation of approval of this item
40 to the Board of County Commissioners.
41
42 Ms. Hammer asked for clarification that this item was advertised properly. The copy of
43 the ad in her packet is for a different application. Mr. Flores confirmed that the
44 advertisement has been done and a copy is in the file.
45
46 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
47
6
1 Mr. Steve Cassens, President of the North St. Lucie Water Control District, introduced
2 himself to the board.
3
4 Mr. Culverhouse motioned to forward a recommendation of approval to the St. Lucie
5 County Board of County Commissioners of this application because the application is
6 well taken and it should be granted.
7
8 Mr. Knapp seconded.
9
10 The motion carried unanimously.
11
12 Mr. Hearn reiterated that agenda items 6 and 7 were continued to a special meeting of the
13 Planning and Zoning Commission scheduled for February 8, 2006.
14
AGENDA ITEM 8: Mission Properties PUD 05-006
15
16 Petition of Mission Properties for a change in zoning from AR-1 (Agricultural,
17 Residential 1 du/ac) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Mission
18 Oaks) Zoning District.
19
20 This item was presented by Hank Flores, who explained that the subject property is
21 approximately 8.59 acres and is located on the east side of Johnston Road, approximately
22 0.9 of a mile north of Angle Road.
23
24 The applicant is proposing a 17-unit single-family subdivision. The subject parcel is
25 located in the southern boundary area encompassing the Towns, Villages and Country
26 Sides Comprehensive Plan Element. Said TVC Element has been adopted by the Board
27 of County Commissioners, but is waiting approval by the DCA.
28
29 After acceptance of the application by the Growth Management Department, a Stop-Gap
30 Ordinance was adopted and the application could not be processed because the proposed
31 density exceeded what was allowed in the current zoning district.
32
33 Mr. Flores went on to explain that the Regional Planning Council reviewed the
34 application in relation to the approved TVC plan and has recommended that the County
35 find the application inconsistent with the TVC plan. They have submitted a plan that
36 they could support, packet.
37
38 Staff is recommending that this board forward this application to the Board of County
39 Commissioners with a recommendation of denial.
40
41 Mr. Hearn requested Mr. Flores clarify the legal requirements of the applicant to adhere
42 to the TVC plan. Mr. Flores explained that applicants must follow the TVC plan until
43 such time as the TVC plan is either adopted or rejected by the DCA. There is no
44 grandfather clause within the TVC plan. So even though they submitted before the TVC
45 plan was adopted, they still need to follow it.
46
47 Mr. Culverhouse asked for clarification as to when this application was submitted. Mr.
48 Culverhouse explained that his concern is that the applicant was treated fairly. Mr. Flores
7
1 explained that the application was submitted on April 21, 2005. The Board of County
2 Commissioners adopted the TVC plan on May 30, 2006.
3
4 Mr. Culverhouse questioned why the application was held up all that time? Mr. Flores
5 responded that it was held up under the Stop-Gap Ordinance wherein you could proceed
6 with a development if you did not exceed the density allowed under the zoning district
7 designation.
8
9 Mr. Hearn questioned when the Stop-Gap Ordinance was adopted by the Board and when
10 was the applicant advised of the Stop-Gap Ordinance?
11
12 In order to give staff an opportunity to provide the board with an answer to their question,
13 the board took a short break at 8:00pm and reconvened at 8:10pm.
14
15 Mr. Flores clarified that the Stop-Gap Ordinance was adopted on August 16, 2005. The
16 applicant was notified in August 2005 of the TVC plan and the effect on his application
17 with regards to the Stop-Gap Ordinance.
18
19 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
20
21 Jason McCarthur, the applicant, spoke and advised the board that he was not aware of the
22 TVC at the time of contract on this property. Mr. McCarthur advised that he met with
23 Mr. Flores in February 2005 with several hand-drawn plans and discussed the proposed
24 development. The plan Mr. Flores recommended is essentially the one before the board
25 tonight. As part of the due diligence done, Mr. McCarthur requested (and received) a
26 letter from the zoning department confirming the zoning designation on the subject
27 parcel. Mr. McCarthur advised the board that it was never his intention to request
28 additional density. The letter he received from the County informed him that the zoning
29 on this property permitted 2 units per acre, as did the future land use designation. He was
30 not aware that he would be requesting an increase in density until the second round of
31 staff comments. Mr. McCarthur also advised the board that there was never a mention of
32 changing his plan to meet the TVC plan in all of staff comments. Mr. McCarthur also
33 stated that the Regional Planning Council is merely offering an opinion that he could be
34 more consistent with the TVC.
35
36 There were discussions between board members, staff and Mr. McCarthur regarding the
37 numerous discrepancies contained in the letters sent to Mr. McCarthur with regards to
38
39
40 Mr. David Knight, Knight, McGuire & Associates, the engineer representing the
41 applicant, spoke briefly and pointed out some of the negative aspects of the suggested
42 plan that had been provided by the Regional Planning Council. Mr. Knight also pointed
43 out some
44
45 Victor Wyatt spoke in objection to this proposed project. He feels to put 17 houses on
46 this piece of property would simply bring pollution problems, traffic problems, etc.
47
48 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
8
1
2 Ms. Caron motioned to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this
3 application because the site plan is not consistent with the TVC element and it is in direct
4 conflict with the Stop-Gap Ordinance and because the County would be giving away
5 additional density without substantial public benefit.
6
7 Mr. Mundt seconded.
8
9 Ms. Hammer mentioned, for the record, that the staff recommendation was denial and the
10 Regional Planning Council recommended that the County deny this application.
11
12 Roll Call
13 Ms. Morgan no because of the discrepancies contained within the Regional Planning
14
15 Mr. Culverhouse yes
16 Mr. Knapp yes
17 Ms. Hammer yes
18 Mr. Schrader yes
19 Mr. Mundt yes
20 Vice Chairman Caron Yes
21 Chairman Hearn yes. Mr. Hearn commented that when staff sends a letter to someone
22 prior to their purchasing a piece of property stating that the zoning designation allows 2
23 units per acre (and that is indeed wrong), he is very reluctant to deny the application; but
24 he is not in favor of giving away density in this County.
25
26 The motion carried 7-1
27
AGENDA ITEM 9: Robert Rigel PA 06-002 (Small Scale Amendment)
28
29 Petition of Robert Rigel to consider a request to change the Future Land Use
30 Classification from COM (Commercial) to RU (Residential, Urban).
31
32 This item was presented by Hank Flores, who explained that the subject property is 9.1
33 acres of a 10.48-acre parcel and is located at 9751 South Ocean Drive, approximately 1.5
34 miles north of the Martin County line, directly north of the Nettles Island access road.
35 The remaining 1.38 acres of the subject parcel is already designated RU and is within the
36 HIRD Zoning District.
37
38 The subject property is currently being used for a seasonal vegetable market and a year-
39 round storage of motor homes, boats and other large vehicles. The purpose for the
40 requested amendment is to reclassify the property as residential, which will be consistent
41 with the surrounding uses in the area.
42
43 Staff has determined that the proposed future land use amendment is consistent with the
44 Comprehensive Plan; the proposed amendment is consistent with the State
45 Comprehensive Plan and the Treasure Coast Strategic
46 Policy Plan. Staff is recommending that this board forward a recommendation of
47 approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is also recommending that this
9
1 board forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for
2 the change in zoning.
3
4 Mr. Backenstoss distributed a copy of a letter received from R. Stonehouse in favor of the
5 application.
6
7 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing.
8
9 Dennis Murphy, Culpepper & Terpening, representing the applicant, stated he concurs
10 with staff.
11
12 Mr. Raymond Beyrer, President of Princess Condominium Association, spoke in favor of
13 the application, but questioned the easement in favor of the condominium association,
14 which provides access to the river. He wants to be sure that the easement will stay in
15 place.
16
17 Mr. Murph
18 rights as they are.
19
20 Mr. Hearn closed the public hearing.
21
22 Mr. Knapp commented on his opposition to high-density on the island. He expressed his
23 concern of the barrier island and its fragile state.
24
25 Mr. Mundt motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County
26 Commissioners approve this application because it meets the goals, policies and
27 objectives of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and it is consistent and
28 compatible with the surrounding area.
29
30 Ms. Morgan seconded.
31
32 Roll Call
33 Mr. Culverhouse yes
34 Mr. Knapp no
35 Ms. Hammer no (because of insurance problems, evacuation problems; she stated she
36 would be in support of something with less density)
37 Mr. Schrader - yes
38 Vice Chairman Caron yes
39 Ms. Morgan yes
40 Mr. Mundt yes
41 Chairman Hearn yes
42
43 Motion carried 6-2.
44
AGENDA ITEM 10: Robert Rigel RZ 06-021
45
46 Petition of Robert Rigel for a change in zoning from the CG (Commercial, General)
47 Zoning District to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District.
48
10
1 Hank Flores presented this item and stated that staff has reviewed the request in
2 conjunction with land use change. Staff is recommending this board forward a
3 recommendation of approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.
4
5 Mr. Dennis Murphy, Culpepper & Terpening, representing the applicant, stated that he
6 concurs with staff.
7
8 Mr. Hearn opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke. Mr. Hearn closed
9 the public hearing.
10
11 Mr. Mundt motioned to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County
12 Commissioners.
13
14 Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
15
16 Roll Call
17 Ms. Morgan yes
18 Mr. Knapp no
19 Ms. Hammer no
20 Mr. Schrader yes
21 Vice Chairman Caron yes
22 Mr. Culverhouse yes
23 Mr. Mundt yes
24 Chairman Hearn yes
25
26 Motion carried 6-2.
27
OTHER BUSINESS
28
29
30 Mr. Nix distributed a copy of a memo outlining the meeting schedule for 2007.
31 Mr. Nix also pointed out that Commissioner Coward is in attendance.
32
33 Mr. Nix also distributed copies of a spreadsheet outlining the P&Z actions on each item
34 heard by them which and voting result.
35
36 Mr. Hearn has requested an explanation of the difference between heavy industrial and
37 light industrial. Mr. Nix explained that heavy industrial is traditional manufacturing
38 (steel mills, ethanol plants, coal gasification things associated with heavy nuisances like
39 noise, pollution, etc.) Light industrial produces for end users and has less nuisances (less
40 noise, less air pollution, etc).
41
42 Mr. Hearn requested the explanation be put in writing for the board members.
43
44 Mr. Nix advised the board that there is a conflict with the meeting date scheduled for
45 February 8, 2007. The Planning and Zoning Commission will not be able to hold their
46 meeting on that date. The BCC has a scheduled meeting at 6pm.
47
11
1 There was a lengthy discussion with regards to applications being scheduled for BCC
2 meetings prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and acting on the
3 application. Board members reiterated to staff that they need to try to get across to the
4
5
6 The discussions turned to the workshop planned with the consultants for February 2,
7 2007. Mr. Nix explained that the consultants would like to know tomorrow (January 19,
8 2007) whether or not the workshop will be scheduled. The workshop is to discuss
9 revisions to Chapter 10, 11 and 12 of the Land Development Code.
10
11 Ms. Hammer feels that those items will require more than an hour or two to complete
12 fully and correctly. Board members were in agreement.
13
14 Ms. Hammer also stated that although they motioned earlier to have a special meeting to
15 accommodate agenda items 6 and 7 on February 8, 2007, she feels those items should be
16 heard then scheduled for the BCC
17 as soon thereafter as possible.
18
19 Mr. Mundt motioned to hear the applications of St. Lucie Properties, Ltd./Evans
20 Properties, Inc. (Agenda Item 6) and St. Lucie Oaks Commercial, LLC (Agenda Item 7)
21 on February 15, 2007.
22
23 Ms. Caron seconded.
24
25 The motion carried unanimously.
26
27 Mr. Culverhouse motioned to schedule the workshop meeting on February 2, 2007 at
28 2pm.
29
30 Mr. Mundt seconded.
31
32 The motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Ms. Hammer would like a policy set up that until a project comes before this board and is
35 either voted for or against, it not be scheduled for a BCC meeting.
36
37 Mr. Nix explained that scheduling is important. GMD has an internal calendar for
38 applications which follows the code requirements as to staff review time and applicant
39 response time. The dates are tentatively set and guaranteed BCC date is never given.
40
41 Mr. Hearn requested that staff be ready to give the board some background on the
42 chimpanzee project that is in the area of Shinn Road.
43
44 Mr. Nix distributed copies of the site plans associated with the St. Lucie Properties/Evans
45 Properties and St. Lucie Oaks Commercial applications.
46
47 Ms. Hammer questioned Mr. Nix on the procedures of mailings, posting of signs, etc.
48 She wanted to be sure that those functions are the responsibility of the applicant and not
12
1 County staff. Mr. Nix explained those will be one of the code changes the board will be
2 y.
3
4 Mr. Hearn complimented Mr. Nix on the tremendous changes he has made since joining
5 the County. He feels GMD is functioning much more efficiently.
6
7 staff member who will be handling
8 facilities planning issues and concurrency management.
9
10 Commissioner Coward spoke briefly and explained that Mr. Trias is not able to be here
11 tonight because he was at a conference in Orlando with Mr. Coward.
12
13 Mr. Coward complimented the Planning & Zoning Commission on the effort they put
14 forth for the County and offered his thanks. Mr. Coward also welcomed the two new
15 members to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
16
17 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
18
13