HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-16-2007
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 May 16, 2007 Regular Meeting
5 7:00 P.M.
6
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
9
10
CALL TO ORDER
11
12 Chairman Hearn called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.
13
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
14
15
ROLL CALL
16
17
18 William Hearn ....................................Chairman
19 Susan Caron .......................................Vice Chairman
20 Brad Culverhouse...............................Board Member
21 (Mr. Culverhouse arrived at approximately 7:23 p.m.)
22 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member
23 BarrySchrader ...................................Board Member
24 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member
25 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio
26
27 Members Absent:
28 John Knapp ........................................Board Member
29 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member
30
OTHERS PRESENT
31
32
33 Robert Nix ..........................................Growth Management Department Director
34 Gilbert Backenstoss ...........................Assist. Growth Management Depart. Director
35 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney II
36 Linda Pendarvis .................................Planner
37
ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 None.
40
DISCLOSURES
41
42 she has talked
43
44
45
46 Mr. Hearn read briefly read from the preamble nsive
47 Plan.
1
1
2 Ms. Hammer expressed her thanks to Board members, staff and members of the
3 community for all the support shown to her family during the past year.
4
5 Ms. Hammer also expressed her thanks to Mr. Nix and commented on her desire to send
6 a vote of confidence in Mr. Nix to the Board of County Commissioners.
7
8 For the record, Ms. Hammer motioned to send that vote of confidence in Mr. Nix to the
9 Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Schrader seconded. Board members were in
10 agreement.
11
PZ-05-07 1: Minutes
12
13 Review the minutes from the April 19, 2007 regular meeting for approval.
14
15 Mr. Hearn mentioned that on page 6, with the reference to the letter read into the record
16 by Ms. Young from Mr. and Mrs. Bittle, he would like it mentioned whether they were in
17 favor or opposed to the proposed development.
18
19 Ms. Hammer questioned page 2 of said minutes. With reference to the ordinance
20 requiring a bond for moving a structure, she would like it clarified as to when the
21 structure needs to be brought up to code.
22
23 Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes.
24
25 Mr. Mundt seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
26
PZ-05-07 2: Top Branch, LLC (RZ 320071067)
27
28 Petition of Top Branch, LLC for a change in zoning from the AG-1 (Agricultural 1
29 du/ac) zoning district to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family 4 du/ac) zoning district
30 for 19.44 acres located on the east side of Emerson Avenue, approximately 1.75 miles
31 north of Indrio Road, on the southeast corner of the intersection of Emerson Avenue and
32 Deland Avenue.
33
34 Ms. Pendarvis presented this item and explained that the purpose of the rezoning is to
35 develop the property for a residential community possibly consisting of 61 detached
36 single-family dwelling units. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the
37 Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
38
39 Deficiencies and
40 Discrepancies
41 Top Branch, LLC will be requesting a variance thru the Board of Adjustment to allow the
42 development of single-family lots. Ms. Pendarvis explained that the applicant
43 understands this and also understands that the variances may not be automatically
44 approved.
45
2
1 Mr. Mundt questioned how many lots out of the 61 proposed would require a variance.
2 Ms. Pendarvis explained that approximately 50 lots would require a variance.
3
4 Julian Bryan, representing the applicant, spoke briefly and explained that variances
5 would be sought from the width of the lot. Mr. Bryan explained that the applicant was
6 asked to donate right of way from all four property lines for all four perimeter streets;
7 they were also asked to line-up Bayard thus resulting in lot sizes being more narrow.
8
9 Mr. Bryan displayed a map of the subject area.
10
11 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion. No one from the public spoke and the
12 public comment portion was closed.
13
14 Ms. Caron expressed her disagreement with adding density to this area at this time. She
15 mentioned that the Emerald Estates development is in dire straits with the developer
16 having pulled out because of the economy.
17
18 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., with the law firm of Ruden, McCloskey, on behalf of the
19 applicant, addressed the Board and explained that under the Comprehensive Plan, this
20 area has a Future Land Use of RU which allows up to five units per acre.
21
22
23 to the park. She feels that future residents will find nuisances due to park activities, lights
24 and noise.
25
26 Board members expressed their concern with increasing density without substantial
27 public benefit.
28
29 Mr. Ferguson again explained of the right-of-way being donated which would provide
30 connectivity and alternate routes which would be a public benefit.
31
32 Ms. Pendarvis explained that the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area, the
33 developer would be continuing the street network; therefore, staff feels it would be
34 reasonable to recommend approval.
35
36 Ms. Hammer motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County
37 Commissioners deny the application of Top Branch, LLC for a change in zoning because
38 in making that change approximately 50 of the 61 units would require a variance; there is
39 no public benefit for the increased density; and the current water restrictions throughout
40 the State is a real cause for concern.
41
42 Ms. Caron seconded.
43
44
3
1 Roll Call
2
3 Mr. Schrader yes to deny
4 Mr. Mundt yes to deny
5 Mr. Culverhouse no to deny
6 Ms. Hammer yes to deny
7 Ms. Caron yes to deny
8 Chairman Hearn yes to deny
9
10 Motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Culverhouse dissenting.
11
12
13 three amendments requested to be removed from the agenda.
14
15 Mr. Schrader
16 Lakes, South St. Lucie Co. Special District, and Tuscany).
17
18 Mr. Culverhouse seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
19
PZ-05-07 3-D: Ordinance No. 07-025 Loop Road
20
21 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
22 amending the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Future Lane Use
23 Element Text for a 91-acre (M.O.L) parcel of land from Residential Urban (RU) 5
24 dwelling units per acre, to Mixed Use (MXD) Low Intensity on north 34.25 acres and
25 Mixed Use (MXD) Medium Intensity on the south 54.74 acres; and amending the text of
26 the Future Land Use Element to provide for special district policies applicable to the new
27 MXD and adding the map of the new MXD to the maps in Figure 1-7; providing
28 findings; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the Florida Department of
29 State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs; providing for
30 conflicts; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.
31
32 Presented by Bob Nix, who displayed a zoning map, Mr. Nix explained that this
33 amendment is one that is intended to implement the Jenkins Road Special District. Mr.
34 Nix gave a brief review of this plan amendment. Staff is recommending that this
35 application be forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners with a
36 recommendation of approval.
37
38 Steve Ball, Land Planning Systems, Inc., representing the applicant, introduced himself to
39 the Board and ack
40 recommendation.
41
42 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion. Joe Miller, an owner of a portion of the
43 land which is part of this plan amendment, introduced himself to the Board. There were
44 brief discussions between Board members and Mr. Miller. Board members expressed
45 their pleasure with the low intensity use.
46
4
1 Before a motion was made, Ms. Young and Mr. Nix addressed the Board and advised that
2 the public hearing needs to be opened and must remain open during the entirety of the
3 plan amendment hearings.
4
5 Ms. Hammer motioned to open the public hearing on the 2007 amendment cycle 2.
6
7 Mr. Schrader seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
8
9 Mr. Culverhouse motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County
10 Commissioners approve and transmit to the Department of Community Affairs,
11 Ordinance No., 07-025, Loop Road.
12
13 Mr. Mundt seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
14
PZ-05-07 3-E: Ordinance No. 07-024 Bayberry Properties
15
16 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
17 amending the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use
18 Element Text for a 56.53-acre (M.O.L) parcel of land from Residential Urban (RU) 5
19 dwelling units per acre, to Mixed Use (MXD) Medium Intensity; and amending the text
20 of the Future Land Use Element to provide for special district policies applicable to the
21 new MXD; and adding the map of the new MXD to the maps in Figure 1-7; providing
22 findings; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the Florida Department of
23 State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs; providing for
24 conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.
25
26 Mr. Nix presented this item and explained that the overall density for the entire site is
27 approximately 8.36 dwelling units per acre. Commercial use is planned for the 9.79 acres
28 adjacent to Orange Avenue. Right-of-way donation for the extension of Selena Avenue
29 and Road A is required with this amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning
30 and Zoning Commission recommend approval to the St. Lucie County Board of County
31 Commissioners since the amendment is consistent with the objectives and requirements
32 of the Jenkins Road Special District.
33
34 Brad Currie, Land Design South, representing the applicant, spoke briefly and displayed
35 a site plan showing the right-of-ways that will be donated; it will provide a transition of
36 densities that the Jenkins Road Special District requires.
37
38 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion. No one from the public spoke and the
39 public comment portion was closed.
40
41 Ms. Hammer spoke of the concern of increasing density with no public benefit. Ms.
42 Hammer commented that she cannot support this application with medium intensity
43 being proposed.
44
5
1 Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., representing the applicant, responded by stating that they are
2 complying with the Jenkins Road Overlay Zone. For mixed use to work, higher densities
3 are needed.
4
5 Ms. Hensley commented of the great public benefit. It does follow the unanimous
6 decision of the Board of County Commissioners with regards to the Jenkins Road
7 Overlay Plan, it will be providing a second access from the school site which is long
8 overdue and the connectivity it will provide is a benefit to the public.
9
10 Mr. Mundt motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County
11 Commissioners approve and transmit to the Department of Consumer Affairs, the plan
12 amendment of Bayberry Properties.
13
14 Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
15
16 Ms. Caron expressed her displeasure with the increase in density.
17
18 Roll Call
19
20 Mr. Schrader yes
21 Ms. Hammer no
22 Vice Chairman Caron no
23 Mr. Mundt yes
24 Mr. Culverhouse yes
25 Mr. Hearn no
26
27 Motion was tied at 3-3.
28
29 The Board took a break at 9:14 pm and reconvened at 9:24 pm.
30
PZ-05-07 3-F: Ordinance No. 07-031 Policies
31
32 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida,
33 amending the text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan to delete those provisions that are
34 not consistent with the state law requirements for uniform mitigation assessment
35 methodology, and to amend those remaining policies as required to be consistent with
36 state law, amending the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.4.4 to define the term
37 mending policy 1.1.1.1 to provide that Gross Density on wetlands shall
38 not exceed 1 dwelling unit per ten acres, amending policy 1.1.4.3 to allow a density credit
39 of up to half of the adjacent upland density for avoiding wetlands impacts and exceeding
40 minimum wetland protection and mitigation requirements, adding a new policy 1.1.4.5
41 that prohibits transferring density to a parcel of land from which density has been
42 previously transferred, amending policies 1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 to prohibit yards on
43 development sites from being included as part of the required 80% or 50% total open
44 space, and allowing the Board of County Commissioners to develop land development
45 regulations that permit the reduction of the 80% or 50% total open space requirement in
46 return for the provision of preservation, conservation, or other agricultural, environmental
6
1 or passive recreational benefits; amending the Coastal Management Element Policy
2 7.1.5.1 to prohibit the County from providing local approval to applications for
3 construction seaward of the coastal construction control line except under specific
4 conditions; providing findings; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the
5 Florida Department of State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community
6 Affairs; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing an effective
7 date.
8
9 Mr. Nix presented this item by displaying the proposed ordinance and going over, in
10 detail, the changes. Mr. Nix explained that this is a category of amendments that is
11 intended to implement or clarify policies of the Board of County Commissioners or to
12 change the plan to comply with changes in state law that occurred after the plan was
13 adopted. They do not support any one particular development application.
14
15 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion and the following members of the public
16 spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance: Lee Dobbins, Esq., representing Avalon
17 on the Beach, LLC; Reggie Bouthillier, representing the Ginn Company (distributed
18 letter of opposition to Board members); Jim McKenzie, representing the Chamber of
19 Commerce; Mr. Michael Houston; Mr. Al Malefatto, representing Acorn Real Estate
20 Development Corp.; Steve Tierney, Esq., representing Frank Messina, etc.; Mr. Tom
21 Babcock; Jonathan Ferguson, Esq., representing Evans Properties; Robert Klein, Esq.;
22 Mark Walters; Anthony Gettler and Steve Vitello, representing Acorn Development.
23
24 The following members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Debrah
25 Agnello.
26
27 There was a lengthy discussion between Board members, staff and public speakers with
28
29 speakers expressed their frustration with the lack of time afforded to review the proposed
30 document. It was decided that a workshop meeting will be scheduled in order to get
31 more feedback from members of the public.
32
33 The meeting was brought to an end at 11:27 p.m. and will be continued on Thursday,
34 May 17, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
7
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 May 17, 2007 Meeting Continued from May 16, 2007 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
CALL TO ORDER
8
9 Chairman Hearn called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
10
11 Mr.
12
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
13
14
ROLL CALL
15
16
17 William Hearn ....................................Chairman
18 Susan Caron .......................................Vice Chairman
19 Pamela Hammer .................................Board Member
20 John Knapp ........................................Board Member
21 BarrySchrader ...................................Board Member
22 Craig Mundt .......................................Board Member
23 Kathryn Hensley ................................Ex-Officio
24
25 Members Absent:
26 Brad Culverhouse...............................Board Member
27 Stephanie Morgan ..............................Board Member
28
OTHERS PRESENT
29
30
31 Robert Nix ..........................................Growth Management Department Director
32 Gilbert Backenstoss ...........................Assist. Growth Management Depart. Director
33 Heather Young ...................................Assistant County Attorney II
34
DISCLOSURES
35
36 Ms. Hammer disclosed that she had discussions with the applicant of Stark Ranch.
37
PZ-05-07 3-G: Ordinance No. 07-018 Capital Improvements Plan
38
39 A review of the 2007/2012 Capital Improvements Plan via Ordinance No. 07-018 an Ordinance
40 amending the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan by adopting the five-year Capital
41 Improvements Plan and the Capital Improvements Element, a large scale amendment and
42 adopting a text amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, deleting the existing 5-
43 year Capital Improvements Plan and replacing it with a new 5-year plan and providing a new
44 Policy 11.1.1.29 a definition for a capital improvement.
45
8
1 Presented by Bob Nix, there was a brief review and discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan
2 between Board members and staff.
3
4 This ordinance updates the five year schedule of capital improvements and the supporting data
5 and analysis. Staff is recommending approval with any changes suggested by the Planning and
6 Zoning Commission.
7
8 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion. No one from the public spoke and the public
9 comment portion was closed.
10
11 , with a recommendation of
12 approval to transmit, to the Board of County Commissioners Ordinance 07-018.
13
14 Mr. Knapp seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
15
PZ-05-07 3-H: Ordinance No. 07-028 Provences
16
17 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, amending the
18 text of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policies 1.1.17.1, 1.1.17.2 and
19 1.1.17.3 to allow schools to be located outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary, and
20 amending policies that provide for County regulation of wetlands to eliminate the County
21 wetlands classification system and County regulation of wetlands; amending the Coastal
22 Management Element Policy 7.1.2.6 to substitute state and federal requirements for County
23 wetland regulations, and amending policy 7.1.2.8 to prohibit the County from using the site plan
24 and building permitting processes to determine no net loss of wetlands; amending the
25 conservation Element 8.1.4.1 to require the location of wetlands on property to be determined by
26 state or federal agencies, amending policies 8.1.4.2 requiring land development regulations to
27 provide criteria for wetlands protection, amending policy 8.1.4.5 to delete the county wetland
28 classification system and county wetland regulation, maintaining state and federal regulations,
29 amending policy 8.1.4.8 to delete the provision that county support of state and federal wetland
30 migration programs will not be limited to those that do not weaken local authority, amending
31 policy 8.1.4.9 to delete the authority of the county to restrict or prohibit activities to protect and
32 appropriately use environmentally sensitive wetlands, deleting policies 8.1.4.12 and 8.1.4.13 that
33 require avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, amending policy 8.1.7.5 to delete the
34 reference of the category 1 and 2 wetlands under policy 8.1.14.1, amending policy 8.1.8.16 to
35 delete the reference to critical habitats and to weaken the requirements of clustering
36 development, amending policy 8.1.11.2 to require that protection of natural habitat shall be in
37 accordance with the state or federal regulations, no mention of local regulations, amending
38 policy 8.1.11.4 to correct a typographical error, amending policy 8.1.12.2 to delete the
39 requirement that the land development regulations shall include protection of wetland areas,
40 amending policy 8.1.12.7 to correct a typographical error and to provide that fill material can be
41 imported instead of restricted to on-site materials, deleting objective 8.1.14 and all of its policies
42 th present
43 state law; providing findings; providing for applicability; providing for filing with the
44 Department of State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs;
45 providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.
46
9
1 Mr. Nix explained that he received a letter from Bobby Klein, Esq., representing the applicant,
2
3 in an effort to create a more site-specific amendment.
4
5 Mr. Klein briefly addressed the Board and explained that this amendment will run with the DRI.
6
7 Mr. Nix confirmed that this item will be readvertised.
8
9 Ms. Hensley thanked Mr. Klein for his work with Mr. Sanders of the School Board.
10
11 Mr. Knapp motioned to accept that this item is being removed from the agenda and will be
12 advertised for the July 19 meeting as a new exempt DRI-related amendment.
13
14 Ms. Caron seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
15
PZ-05-07 3-I Ordinance No. 07-027 Stark Ranch
16
17 An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, amending the
18 adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Text to create a new Figure 1-7L Stark
19 Ranch Mixed Use, Low Intensity Future Land Use District including sub area policies, and to
20 amend objective 1.1.7 to add transitional land use designations, and add a new policy 1.1.7.6
21 creating a new mixed use District Rural Transition (MXDRT), a new policy 1.1.7.6.A MXDRT
22 location criteria and minimum acreage, a new policy 1.1.7.B MXDRT Density Allocations, a
23 new Policy 1.1.7.C MXDRT Conceptual Overlay, allowable uses, and mixed use standards, a
24 new policy 1.1.7.6.D MXDRT Compatibility, a new policy 1.1.7.E Land Use Needs/Market
25 Evaluation, a new policy 1.1.7.6.F Financial Feasibility/Limited Transitional Services, a new
26 Policy 1.1.7.G.C Environmental Controls/Suitability, and a new Policy 1.1.7.6.H Implementation
27 Mechanisms; amending the Future Land Use Map from AG-5, Agriculture, 1 dwelling unit per 5
28 acres permitting a maximum of 763 dwellings to the proposed Stark Ranch MXD Low Intensity,
29 permitting a maximum of 1,496 single-family dwellings and 496 resort condominiums, 1
30 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with maximum commercial development of 200,000 square feet, for a
31 3,814.74 (M.O.L.) parcel of land located at the NW corner of the intersection of Glades Cutoff
32 Road and Range Line Road; providing findings; providing for applicability; providing for filing
33 with the Florida Department of State; providing for transmittal to the Department of Community
34 Affairs; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing an effective date.
35
36 Mr. Nix presented this item and explained that this amendment would increase density outside
37 the urban service area; the proposed densities are not rural densities, but suburban densities.
38 Staff conducted a needs analysis that came to a different conclusion from that of the applicant.
39 Staff feels t
40 area; therefore, staff is recommending that this item not be approved for transmittal.
41
42 Rick Reikenis, representing the Ginn Company, addressed the Board and displayed a power
43 point presentation. Mr. Reikenis gave an overview of the Ginn Company.
44
10
1 Ken Metcalf, with Greenberg Traurig, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and spoke
2 briefly of the transititional planning used in this plan. Mr. Metcalf displayed a power point
3 presentation.
4
5 Toby Overdorf, with Crossroads Environmental, representing the applicant, displayed a power
6 point presentation and explained that there would be significant wetland preservation and upland
7 preservation on the site of this proposed development. Mr. Overdorf also expressed his
8 frustration with the late date on which he r
9
10 Wharton Berger, with Fishkind & Associates, spoke briefly and displayed a chart that depicted
11 the financial impact of this project. There would be a new positive benefit to the county as a
12 result of this proposed development.
13
14 Ms. Hammer expressed her frustration with the increase in density without a real public benefit.
15 Ms. Hammer also mentioned that she would prefer the applicant go back and work out some
16 issues with staff and this Board.
17
18 There was a lengthy discussion between Board members and staff and the applicant with regards
19 to the increased density being proposed with this plan amendment and the benefits to the County.
20
21 Mr. Schrader questioned the land owners adjacent to this site who are on AG-5 and their reaction
22 to this proposed plan.
23
24 Mr. Reinkenis replied that land owners adjacent to this site who they have spoken to are in
25 support of this proposed plan.
26
27 Mr. Hearn opened the public comment portion.
28
29 Mr. Bill Taylor, land owner adjacent to the proposed site, spoke in opposition to this proposed
30 plan. He stated that he was never contacted and/or notified of this proposal. Mr. Taylor stated
31 that he has agricultural property with hogs, horses, etc. He does not feel that the residents who
32 will be moving i
33 also feels the density is too high for this area.
34
35 Board members expressed their concern that Mr. Taylor was never notified by the applicant. Mr.
36 Hearn suggested that the applicant and his representatives get together with Mr. Taylor and any
37 other adjacent land owners who may not have been notified of this proposal.
38
39 Ms. Caron questioned how many surrounding property owners are truly happy with this proposal
40 as Mr. Reinkenis stated earlier.
41
42 Mr. Reinkenis stated that they would get in touch with Mr. Taylor and the surrounding land
43 owners who may have, unintentionally, been missed and would attempt to come to a resolution
44 of the issues they raise.
45
11
1 Board members expressed their concerns with the compatibility of this proposed plan compared
2 to the surrounding area. They believe the proposed plan is beautiful and high-end, but also feel
3 that it may not be totally compatible with the surrounding area.
4
5 There were discussions among Board members and staff with regards to whether this item should
6
7
8 Mr. Nix displayed an aerial photo depicting the wetlands and upland habitat that will be
9 significantly impacted with this proposed plan. Mr. Nix advised that these areas are of great
10 concern to the Environmental Resources Department.
11
12
13 is recommending that this item not be transmitted because it is not justified on the basis of need.
14
15 Ms. Hammer questioned the 450 time-share and/or resort condominium units being proposed in
16 this plan. Ms. Hammer expressed her concern with the lack of need for time-share units. She
17 also expressed her concern with resort condominium units that are not always controlled by the
18 developer.
19
20 Mr. Reinkenis confirmed that there would not be time share units as part of this proposed plan
21 and that Ginn Company always manages their resort condominiums.
22
23 Mr. Knapp motioned to recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
24 not transmit this plan amendment.
25
26 Ms. Hammer seconded.
27
28 Roll Call
29
30 Mr. Schrader yes to deny (because the residents next to them were not notified)
31 Mr. Mundt yes to deny
32 Vice Chairman Caron yes to deny
33 Ms. Hammer yes to deny (to not transmit)
34 Mr. Knapp yes to deny
35 Chairman Hearn yes to deny
36
37 Motion carried 6-0.
38
39 Ms. Hensley commented her concern with the environmental report not being readily available to
40 the key players in these applications, especially since this is not the first time the Board has heard
41 of this.
42
43 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
44
12