CAPTIONING OCTOBER 22, 2009 BOCC PUBLIC HEARING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - ROUND 2 2009 ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF 2009. AT THIS TIME I'LL PASS THINGS OVER TO MS. HARVEY FOR A VERY BRIEF INTRODUCTION. >>PAULA HARVEY: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M PAULA HARVEY WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS THE FINAL HEARING WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING ACTION TONIGHT ON AMENDMENTS THAT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD PREVIOUSLY AS ROUND 2 AMENDMENTS FOR 2009. I DO NEED TO SAY THAT FOR A WHILE WE ACTUALLY HAD AT THE DAIS AND AT THE TABLE OUT IN THE FOYER A PAGE THAT SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR CONTINUATION OF ONE OF OUR ITEMS. WE THINK WE HAVE RETRIEVED ALL OF THEM. WE RIGHT NOW ARE INTENDING ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ITEMS THAT ARE ALL PRINTED ON THE AGENDA, SO WE APOLOGIZE FOR -- FOR THAT. AT THIS TIME, THEN, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE JOE MOREDA, EXECUTIVE PLANNER WITH OUR STAFF, TO GO OVER EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD AS A MATTER OF YOUR HISTORICAL PRACTICE TO TAKE A STRAW VOTE ON EACH ITEM, AND THEN AT THE END OF THE AGENDA WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FINAL VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>JOE MOREDA: GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. JOE MOREDA, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE RECORD. WE HAVE 17 AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH TONIGHT. AS PAULA SAID, TONIGHT IS THE ACTUAL VOTE AND ADOPTION FOR THESE AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST ITEM IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT. THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REGULATION IN OUR LDC, AND THIS PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE GREATER INCENTIVES IN EXCHANGE FOR A DENSITY BONUS. PAULA HARVEY AND TOM HIZNAY ARE GOING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PAULA. >>PAULA HARVEY: VERY QUICKLY, COMMISSIONERS. THE ONLY REASON I WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM IS THAT IN THE PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS THIS EVENING, THIS IS THE ONE AMENDMENT THAT THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF. I JUST BRIEFLY WANTED TO STATE WHY. MR. HIZNAY HAS SOME DETAILS THAT HE WANTS TO GO OVER WITH THE BOARD IN ANTICIPATION THAT YOU MAY APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT IN FASHIONING SOME STANDARDS THAT COULD GO INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO IT'S NOT OUR INTENT TO HOLD UP THE PROCESS, BUT I DID NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE TOOK THE POSITION THAT WE DID. IT'S REALLY QUITE SIMPLE. PART OF THE REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN APPLICANT TO COME IN TO OUR OFFICES ADMINISTRATIVELY AND ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THE RURAL AREA IN THE FORM OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES IN THE NAME OF A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. I FOUND IT PROBLEMATIC THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE FOR ANY KIND OF PROVISION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE FOR MORE DENSITY IN THE RURAL AREA THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED BY OR ALLOWED BY THE ZONING CURRENTLY IN PLACE OR THE PLAN CLASSIFICATION CURRENTLY IN PLACE, AND THE REAL ISSUE FOR ME IS THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE DOING IT ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH NO NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OR ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. SO THAT -- IT WAS ON THAT PROCEDURAL BASIS THAT WE TOOK THE POSITION THAT WE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. AND SO WITH THAT, I NEED MR. HIZNAY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TONIGHT AS PROVISIONS WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT WE HAD SAID THAT WE WOULD CARRY FORWARD TO THE BOARD IN THE EVENT THAT YOU ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT. >>TOM HIZNAY: TOM HIZNAY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRE THE PROVISION OF EXTRA OPEN SPACE IN ADDITION TO THOSE AREAS SUCH AS WETLANDS WHICH MUST BE CONSERVED IN ANY SUBDIVISION. IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AT LEAST 30% OF THE BUILDABLE AREA IN A PROJECT MUST BE CONSERVED AS EXTRA OPEN SPACE AND -- WHILE IN THE RURAL AREA AT LEAST 50% OF THE BUILDING AREA MUST BE CONSERVED. IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AND TO ENCOURAGE USE OF THE REGULATIONS, THE DEVELOPER IS ALLOWED TO PLAT SMALLER LOT SIZES THAN NORMALLY REQUIRED BY THE PROPERTY'S ZONING, AND IN MANY CASES THE LOT SIZES ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE PROPERTY'S ZONING. NOW, THIS PROVIDES SEVERAL INCENTIVES TO THE DEVELOPER, INCLUDING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY, LOWER INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED BY THE PROPERTY'S ZONING RATHER THAN THE 60% TO 75% LOT YIELD THAT TYPICALLY CAN BE ACHIEVED. BY WAY OF A SIMPLE EXAMPLE, IF YOU A 100-ACRE SITE AND YOU HAVE A ZONING THAT REQUIRES ONE-ACRE LOTS, WELL, THEN, SIMPLE MATH SAYS, WELL, YOU CAN GET A HUNDRED LOTS, BUT IN FACT, BY THE TIME YOU PUT IN ROADS, DRAINAGE PONDS, THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU CAN ONLY ACHIEVE 60, 75 LOTS, SO BY ALLOWING YOU TO GO TO A SMALLER LOT SIZE IN A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE SETTING ASIDE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BUILDABLE AREA FOR ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE, YOU ACTUALLY CAN ACHIEVE AT LEAST AS MANY LOTS IF NOT MORE, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR SITE CHARACTERISTICS, SO NOW THE SUBJECT AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO PROVIDE FURTHER INCENTIVE BY PERMITTING A DENSITY BONUS IF ENHANCED DESIGN FEATURES ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. AS PROPOSED, A DENSITY BONUS OF 25% -- AND THIS IS 25% ABOVE AND BEYOND THE DENSITY PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING NOW -- WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND A BONUS OF 40% WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A BONUS AS PROPOSED, THE PROJECT MUST INCORPORATE AT LEAST FIVE OUT OF SEVEN ENHANCED DESIGN CRITERIA IN ADDITION TO MEETING ALL THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION. NOW, STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, DIRECT THE COUNTY TO DEVELOP INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AND PROJECTS. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT SUCH INCENTIVES MAY INCLUDE DENSITY BONUSES AND THAT DENSITY BONUSES WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE UTILIZATION OF THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, OUR STAFF ALSO FINDS THAT CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS ALREADY PROVIDE FOR THE -- THE SET-ASIDE OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AND OFFER SEVERAL MEANINGFUL INCENTIVES FOR THEIR UTILIZATION, INCLUDING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ACTUALLY CAN BE ACHIEVED IN A PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF FINDS THAT DENSITY BONUSES SHOULD BE APPLIED IN A MANNER THAT SUPPORTS THE GENERAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, WHICH IS TO CONTAIN INCREASED DENSITIES IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. THE STRATEGIES EXPRESSED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTS WHICH STATES, QUOTE, THE CONCENTRATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITH ADEQUATE LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES WILL CREATE A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF MAN-MADE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENCOURAGE THE FULL USE AND IMMEDIATE EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES WHILE PROTECTING LARGE AREAS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FROM ENCROACHMENT. THE URBAN SERVICE AREA CONCEPT DIRECTS GROWTH INTO AREAS WHERE FACILITIES ARE EXISTING OR PROGRAMMED TO OCCUR, THUS REDUCING THE SPRAWLING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE PAST. SO FOR THESE REASONS, AS EXPLAINED BY PAULA, STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO A DENSITY BONUS FOR CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA; HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS FOR PROJECTS IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA IS CONTRARY TO THE COUNTY'S OVERALL GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. FURTHERMORE, STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ENHANCED CRITERIA, IF YOU WERE TO GRANT A DENSITY BONUS, IS UNNECESSARY FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE, THE CURRENT CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CAPABLY PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE, AND TWO, THE IMPOSITION OF EXTRA DESIGN CRITERIA WE FEEL CONFLICTS WITH THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE DENSITY BONUS, WHICH IS TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE EXTRA CRITERIA PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT MAY ACCOMMODATE THEIR PARTICULAR CLIENT'S PROJECT, BUT STAFF BELIEVES THAT IN GENERAL APPLICATION, THE EXTRA CRITERIA WILL LIKELY DISCOURAGE UTILIZATION OF THE REGULATIONS RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE IT, WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE DENSITY BONUS. I MEAN, ON THE ONE HAND WE'RE SAYING WE WANT TO GIVE YOU A DENSITY BONUS TO USE THE CONSERVATION SUB REGS, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE SAYING IN ORDER TO GET THAT BONUS, WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ON -- ON YOU FOR THAT, AND WE FEEL THAT THOSE REALLY ARE KIND OF AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. AS NOTED BY PAULA, THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ARE ADMINISTERED BY STAFF THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SORT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OR INVOLVEMENT. THEREFORE, PROPERTIES WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP WITH HIGHER DENSITIES THAN USUALLY ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC INPUT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE PROPOSED CRITERIA, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN, WE FEEL THAT NO CRITERIA -- ADDITIONAL CRITERIA IS NECESSARY AND MAY ACTUALLY BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS SIMPLY A QUESTION OF WHERE ARE EXTRA DENSITY BONUS APPROPRIATE TO ENCOURAGE USE OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS. NOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AS A BACKUP MEASURE TO ENSURE THAT THE CRITERIA CAN BE IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF IN WHICH -- IN CASE THE BOARD WISHES TO ADOPT THEM, SO AGAIN, THE FACT THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM ON THE -- ON THE CRITERIA -- BECAUSE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THE CRITERIA WERE QUITE COMPLEX, IT HAD A RATHER INVOLVED POINT SYSTEM, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY GET ADOPTED THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN IMPLEMENT, THAT THEY'RE SIMPLE, DIRECT, CLEAR TO UNDERSTAND, AND ACTUALLY DO PRESENT AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE CURRENT REGULATION. SO NOW THE CRITERIA THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN YOUR PACKET HAS SEVEN ENHANCED CRITERIA, AND THEY HAVE TO PICK FIVE OF THEM IN ORDER TO GET THE DENSITY BONUS. WE'VE REVIEWED THE CRITERIA, AND THEY'RE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE TO US; HOWEVER, WE MUST SAY THAT PROPOSED CRITERIA 5.09.09-F, WHICH TALKS ABOUT PROVISION OF A NETWORK OF TRAILS, SHOULD BE DELETED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT'S VAGUE AND WIDE OPEN TO INTERPRETATION AND DEBATE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, OUR REVIEW STAFF, WHO WOULD REVIEW THESE IN THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, FIND THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT. AND SO -- AND OUR RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADOPT THE CRITERIA, WOULD BE TO DELETE CRITERIA "F," AND THEREFORE, THAT WOULD TAKE IT DOWN TO SIX CRITERIA, AND THEN WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT OBVIOUSLY INSTEAD OF FIVE OUT OF SEVEN THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE FOUR OUT OF SIX IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR CRITERIA, BUT AGAIN, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE CRITERIA BE ADOPTED BECAUSE WE THINK THE EXISTING CRITERIA IS FINE AND THAT THIS SIMPLY COMES DOWN TO A QUESTION OF WHERE A DENSITY BONUS IS APPROPRIATE. WE BELIEVE THAT IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. HIZNAY. APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? USUALLY WE ALLOW FIVE MINUTES. STAFF WENT A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN THAT. IF YOU NEED A COUPLE EXTRA MINUTES, THAT'S FINE. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >> I'LL BE BRIEF. MY NAME IS ETHEL HAMMER, ENGELHARDT HAMMER & ASSOCIATES. I AM HERE THIS EVENING WITH MICHAEL BROOKS FROM BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER & BOLVES, AND WE ARE THE APPLICANTS FOR THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. EARLIER THIS YEAR WE MET WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS WITH THEM WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION BECAUSE WHAT WE WERE FINDING WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR SEVEN YEARS, ONLY ONE SUBDIVISION HAS REALLY APPLIED AND BEEN APPROVED AS A FINAL PLAT. NOW, EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE IDEA OF A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION IS AN EXCELLENT ONE BECAUSE OF THE GOALS THAT IT ACHIEVES, BUT THE REAL QUESTION BECOMES HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE OR, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACTUALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROCESS. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY POINTED OUT POLICY 14.9 IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND MR. HIZNAY REFERRED TO THAT, AND THAT IS A POLICY THAT SAYS BY THE YEAR 2011 THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST ADOPT INCENTIVES FOR THE PROVISION OF GREATER OPEN SPACE THROUGH INCENTIVES SUCH AS DENSITY BONUSES. THE INTENT OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT IS TO PROVIDE THOSE INCENTIVES FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF MORE OF THESE PROJECTS BY GIVING THE DEVELOPER A DENSITY BONUS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CREATION OF A PROJECT THAT MEETS EVEN HIGHER STANDARDS THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED THROUGH THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION PROCESS. THIS WOULD BE OPTIONAL. IT WOULD NOT BE MANDATORY. SO FIRST YOU WOULD HAVE THE CURRENT STANDARDS FOR A CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION, BUT IN ORDER TO GET A DENSITY BONUS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO AN EVEN BETTER PROJECT. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD RESULT IN A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PROJECT, MORE MEANINGFUL OPEN SPACE, AND A PROJECT THAT PROVIDES GREATER COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING FORM OF DEVELOPMENT. WE PROPOSE TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL THROUGH OPTIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WHEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT WOULD ENTITLE THAT DENSITY BONUS. NOW, EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT COULD GET YOU A DENSITY BONUS WOULD BE PROVISION OF MORE OPEN SPACE THAN IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED, THE PROVISION OF GREATER SETBACKS FROM CONSERVATION OR PRESERVATION AREAS, ENHANCED HABITAT CONNECTIVITY FOR WILDLIFE AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES, INCREASED SETBACKS FROM PROJECT BOUNDARIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, OR VOLUNTARY HABITAT ENHANCEMENT. IN CONCLUSION, POLICY 14.9 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALREADY REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO COME UP WITH SOME OF THESE DENSITY BONUS IDEAS. THIS AMENDMENT ACHIEVES THAT GOAL IN PART AND WOULD RESULT IN PROJECTS THAT ARE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF OUR APPLICATION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITSELF VOTED UNANIMOUSLY A LITTLE OVER A WEEK AGO TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT THAT'S -- THIS APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. SO WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU VOTE APPROVAL ON THIS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M GOING TO MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>MARK SHARPE: I APPRECIATE THE -- YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY STAFF. I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU DID YOUR JOB, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, WHICH I STRONGLY SUPPORT, AND DISCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, EXCESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE, BUT WHAT THIS DOES DO -- AND I -- AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS TRIED TO DO -- IS ENCOURAGE THE USE OF CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS, AND THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, SO EVIDENTLY THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN -- HAS BEEN UTILIZED EXCESSIVELY BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, AND IT APPEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY'S WILLING TO - - TO EVEN UTILIZE STRICTER CRITERIA, THEY MIGHT -- THERE HAS TO BE SOME FORM OF INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO USE IT, AND SO I THINK IT PROVIDES WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE -- OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD IMAGINE, ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS TO USE THIS, SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND I'LL SUPPORT IT. >>JIM NORMAN: YOU'RE MOVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION? >>MARK SHARPE: YES, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS -- >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO MOVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN -- OR COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, ITEMS "B" AND "C," WILL BE PRESENTED BY MR. ALUOTTO. ITEM "B" IS RELATED TO ACCESS STANDARDS, AND ITEM "C" IS RELATED TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. >>PETER ALUOTTO: PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH. YOU MAY RECALL DURING THE WORKSHOPS WE BROUGHT TO YOU AN ISSUE REGARDING CONNECTIVITY OF VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS IN SUBDIVISIONS. YOU MAY ALSO RECALL THE HERITAGE HARBOR PROJECT WHERE THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS BUILT, AND WHEN IT CAME TIME TO BUILD THE LAST PART OF THE COLLECTOR ROAD TO MAKE IT CONNECT, THE RESIDENTS SHOWED UP AND SAID WE DON'T WANT THAT ROAD, AND SO WE CLOSED IT OFF. THIS CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY BECAUSE IT DETERIORATES THE NETWORK. THIS -- THIS LAND USE REGULATION SPECIFIES THAT WHEN PROJECTS ACCUMULATE SO MANY TRIPS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE MULTIPLE ENTRANCES AND THEY HAVE TO CONNECT. WE -- WE ALSO MADE PROVISION IN THERE, THE CONDITIONS OF WHICH -- UNDER WHICH THIS WOULD APPLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO CALL OUT FOR YOUR ATTENTION ONE ADDITIONAL -- THERE WAS A DEFECT IN OUR ORIGINAL -- IN OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSITION IN THAT IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT COLLECTOR ROADS. SOME -- SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WERE CONCERNED THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LOCAL SUBDIVISION ROADS, AND SO WE INTRODUCED A -- ON THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR -- OF YOUR AMENDMENT 17-C. 17-C WAS NOT HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO INTRODUCE IT, BUT SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE IT IN FAR ENOUGH ADVANCE, BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT IF YOU'RE DOING A PROJECT IN MULTIPLE PHASES, THAT BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE FINAL PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT WILL -- WILL BE WITHHELD UNTIL THE COLLECTOR ROADWAY CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. WHAT THIS ALLOWS, IT ALLOWS A DEVELOPER IF HE HAS A MULTIPHASE PROJECT, TO DO MOST OF IT, AND THEN WHEN HE GETS TO THAT LAST SEGMENT, YOU KNOW, HE HAS TO BUILD A ROAD BEFORE HE BUILDS OUT HIS FINAL PHASE. THIS IS A WAY OF ENSURING THAT THE ROAD GETS COMPLETED AND THAT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, TO BAIL OUT AND LEAVE A GIANT DEAD END. SO THAT'S MY PRESENTATION ON THAT ONE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING? GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DEWAYNE "HERB" HURLBURT FROM 1009 NORTH FORBES ROAD IN PLANT CITY. I'M KIND OF HERE TO REPRESENT THE RURAL COMMUNITY OUT THERE SINCE I'M RURAL. IN ESSENCE, THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE OBJECTION TO -- AND WE SPOKE ON THIS BACK ON THE 8th, AND I WAS ASKED BY MR. HIGGINBOTHAM IS STAFF WORKING WITH US, AND YES, THEY HAVE BEEN, TO A FACT THAT WE'RE ALMOST IN FULL AGREEMENT. WE'VE GOT THE LANGUAGE IN THE DEDICATION, WE'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE IN THE NOTES TO THE PLATTING. THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS THE ISSUE OF THE PARAGRAPH IN THE TEXT AMENDMENT UNDER THE -- PARAGRAPH -- EXCUSE ME -- PARAGRAPH 10.01.05-3 AND "J," WHICH SPEAKS TO THE ISSUE OF WHEN, AND AS I SAY, REALLY WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. WE BOTH AGREE THAT WE NEED THE ROADS. WE NEED A STANDARD OF SOME KIND, SO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION ROAD HAS BEEN DESIGNED, AND IT DOES GIVE SOME -- YES. >>PETER ALUOTTO: THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM. >> I'M SORRY? >>PETER ALUOTTO: YOU'RE ON THE WRONG ITEM. >> HE JUST SAID MINOR SUBDIVISION. IT TOOK ME OFF. EXCUSE ME. I WILL BACK OFF. BUT YOU GOT -- YOUR HEARING. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'LL BE THERE IN ONE MOMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>ROSE FERLITA: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: MR. ALUOTTO. >>PETER ALUOTTO: OKAY. NOW WE'RE ON THE ITEM THAT MR. HURLBURT IS HERE FOR. THIS HAS TO DO WITH SUBDIVISIONS WITH NO IMPROVEMENTS. YOU MAY RECALL DURING THE WORKSHOPS WE EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT OVER THE YEARS WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE PEOPLE OUT IN THE RURAL AREAS WITH LARGE TRACTS OF LAND WERE SUBDIVIDING THEM BY MEANS OF CREATING AN EASEMENT WITH THREE LOTS, AND THEY WOULD DO THIS MULTIPLE TIMES, RESULTING IN A SUBDIVISION OF 20, 30 LOTS ALL OFF OF EASEMENTS THAT DON'T CONNECT, THAT DON'T CONNECT TO ANY ROAD, THAT ARE NOT PAVED, THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, NO UTILITIES, AND THIS HAS BECOME A PROBLEM FOR US BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE A DIRT ROAD, YOU KNOW, PAVING PROGRAM IN THE COUNTY. AND LIKE THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, THE ROADS DON'T COLLECT AND THEY END UP IN DEAD ENDS, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE CREATED AN AMENDMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY REPEALS THE NO IMPROVEMENT SUBDIVISION AND REPLACES IT WITH SOMETHING CALLED A MINOR SUBDIVISION. IN EXCHANGE FOR THESE THREE LOTS ON AN EASEMENT, WE'VE SAID WE'LL ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE UP TO TEN LOTS, AND INSTEAD OF HAVING MULTIPLE EASEMENTS, WE'LL GO WITH A SINGLE LOW-VOLUME ROAD. A LOW-VOLUME ROAD, AS WE'VE DEFINED IT, IS A PRIVATE ROAD WHICH IS BUILT TO A LESSER STANDARD THAN ORDINARILY THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE. INSTEAD OF A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, WE WOULD GO TO A -- I BELIEVE A 28-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH -- WITH 18 FEET OF PAVEMENT, AND THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR ONLY -- FOR ONLY TEN LOTS, AND THAT WILL APPLY FOR -- ALLOW FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES, IT ALLOWS A PLACE FOR STORMWATER AND -- AND DRAINAGE, AND THEN IT RESULTS IN A MORE EFFICIENT -- MORE EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. AS MR. HURLBURT WAS ABOUT TO SAY, WE HAD A COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF SURVEYORS AND -- AND FOLKS INVOLVED IN THIS INDUSTRY, AND WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON JUST ABOUT EVERY ISSUE SAVE FOR ONE, AND WE'VE MET WITH MR. HURLBURT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, AND I'LL ALLOW HIM TO EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT HIS -- WHAT HIS OBJECTION IS. >>KEN HAGAN: YES, SIR. >> YOU GOTTA BE SURE TO BE -- GET ME STARTED ON MINOR SUBS AND I'M OFF. AGAIN, DEWAYNE "HERB" HURLBURT, 1009 NORTH FORBES ROAD, PLANT CITY, FLORIDA, REPRESENTING THE RURAL COMMUNITY, AND AS I SPOKE TO YOU ON THE 8th, BASICALLY WAS ASKED WERE THE STAFF WAS WORKING WITH US, AND AS WE'VE ALLUDED, YES, IN THE DIALOGUE TO THE PLATTING AS TO THE NOTES OF THE MINOR ROAD, THE -- THE TYPE OF ROAD AND ALL OF THE ISSUES WITH ONE, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT I WAS SPEAKING TO WHICH IS ADDRESSING THE 10.01.05-3-J, WHICH IS AS IT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR MATERIAL, BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL AFTER THE PLAT RECORDATION AND THE LOW-VOLUME ROAD HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND APPROVED. NOW, THIS IS WHERE I HAVE THE ISSUE. IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED A ROAD. YES. THE QUESTION IS WHEN? WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE RURAL AREA OF THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS ABOUT A THIRD OF IT, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL AND BUSINESS, AND -- THE OVERHEAD. THIS IS AN AREA OUT IN THE RURAL AREA OF THE -- OF OUR COUNTY, AND IT'S KIND OF A TYPICAL ONE. IN FACT, AS THAT ARROW IS SHOWING, THE -- THE BOTTOM OF IT IS SHOWING NORTH AND THE BLUE LINES IS THE WHOLE ACREAGE OUT THERE FOR A PARTICULAR FARMER THAT HAD CERTIFIED PARCEL AND CUT OUT ONE LOT. IN ORDER TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, THEY'VE GOT TO PLAT IT, AND BACK IN THE '90s, THAT WAS NECESSARY TO CERTIFY FOR GRANDMOTHER'S LIVING STYLE, WHICH WAS THE NURSING HOME. NOW WE HAVE TO PLAT THE REST OF IT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS ALL CITRUS. THE ONLY NEED AT THIS POINT IS ONE LOT, DIRECT ACCESS ON A NONCOLLECTOR ROAD, WHICH WE'VE GOT AN AGREEMENT ON THAT, AND THEN WE COME DOWN TO THE ISSUE OF THE ROADS THAT WILL BE THE MINOR SUBDIVISION TYPE, AND QUESTION IN MY MIND IS WHEN, NOT IF, IT'S WHEN THEY WILL BE DONE, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHO IS GOING TO DO IT? NOW, THE WHEN IS THE DIALOGUE THAT I'VE SUGGESTED AS A REVISION TO THIS AMENDMENT -- I MEAN AS A REVISION TO THESE -- PARAGRAPH "J," WHICH SAYS, IN READING IT FROM ALOUD, BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL AFTER THE PLAT IS RECORDED. NOW, THAT LOCKS DOWN WHAT'S IN THE RECORDING, WHAT'S IN THE NOTES, AND THE DEDICATION, WHICH WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS WITH NO IMPROVEMENT LOTS, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO RESERVE THOSE PARCELS OF LAND FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS; I.E., THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, TO THEN CONVEY TO WHATEVER ENTITY IS NECESSARY TO GET IT BUILT AND SO FORTH. THE ISSUE THAT IS -- SECONDLY IS THE LOW-VOLUME ROAD WILL BE CONSTRUCTED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS ALLOWS SOME TIME BEFORE YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE WHOLE ROAD. NOW, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT THE INSPECTION OF THE ROAD -- >>KEN HAGAN: QUICKLY, SIR. >> -- MUST BE DONE -- >>KEN HAGAN: THE THREE MINUTES RAN OUT, SO IF YOU COULD CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS IN A MOMENT OR TWO. >> AS QUICKLY AS I CAN. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. >> AND WITH THAT ISSUE -- THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AND DONE, THIS ROAD COULD BE BUILT IN PIECES, NOT TOTAL. I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE OF -- TYPICAL SUBDIVISION OUT THERE IS 330 FEET BETWEEN ACCESSES. TYPICAL SUBDIVISION WITH THIS MINOR ROAD IS GOING TO BE ANYWHERE FROM 300 TO A THOUSAND FEET. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE FULL ENGINEERING THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO SATISFY SWFWMD, ENGINEERING, STORMWATER, EVERYBODY ELSE IN HERE, WE'RE TALKING $120 A LINEAR FOOT, SO YOU'RE THINKING THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD A ROAD TO $120,000 BEFORE WE CAN EVER GET A PERMIT. NOW, THAT -- WE CAN'T DO THE BONDING BECAUSE THAT'S AN ISSUE. IT'S OUT. SO THIS WAS MY ANSWER TO THIS, NOT ONLY DO IT HERE, BUT IN THESE DEEDING COVENANTS, WHICH IS A NECESSITY WITH SWFWMD TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE ISSUE OF ALL OF THE CONTROLS, THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE. IT'S UNDIVIDED INTEREST, WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT. THE OWNER WILL PAY FOR IT IN FRONT, AND IT CANNOT BE BUILT UNLESS THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT, AND IT HAS TO BE DONE CONCURRENT FROM THE INGRESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON BUT NOT THE WHOLE THING. THE EXAMPLE I HAD WITH THE CITRUS GROVE UP HERE IS THAT ONE HOUSE TO BE BUILT ON A ROAD, AND ALL THE REST OF IT'S GOING TO HAVE ROADS RUNNING THROUGH THERE. YOU DON'T ARE ANY IRRIGATION, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CITRUS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FARMING, AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP IS YOU CAN'T -- >>KEN HAGAN: NO, SIR, I'VE GOT TO CUT YOU OFF. YOU CAN ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES AND WE'VE LET YOU GO. >> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ONE THING. >>KEN HAGAN: YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE IT QUICK, SIR. >> IF YOU CAN'T AGREE TO RESERVE THIS, THEN I ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: A COUPLE THINGS I HEARD ABOUT WAS YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD ONE HOUSE OUT ON THE HARD ROAD; IS THAT CORRECT? AND ARE THEY ABLE TO GET THE -- THE PERMIT TO BUILD THE ONE HOUSE OUT ON THE HARD ROAD? >>PETER ALUOTTO: THERE ARE TWO OTHER WAYS THAT THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED. WHAT I EXPLAINED TO MR. HURLBURT IS HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PLAT ALL TEN LOTS AT ONCE. HE CAN PLAT A FEWER NUMBER, HE CAN REPLAT WHAT HE HAS UNDER CURRENT OWNERSHIP, AND -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: [INAUDIBLE] >>PETER ALUOTTO: -- PULL A PERMIT THAT WAY. AND THEN THE OTHER WAY IS WE ALSO HAVE A FAMILY CONVEYANCE PART OF THE CODE WHERE IF THERE ARE RELATED PEOPLE -- AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE -- YOU KNOW, HE CAN CONVEY THE PROPERTY AND PULL A PERMIT UNDER FAMILY CONVEYANCE, SO THERE'S A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT'S -- THAT'S APART FROM THIS CODE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO IT SOUNDS -- IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE CLOSE TO -- WE HAVE SOME SOLUTIONS AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE HERE TO WORK THIS OUT. I'M GOING TO MOVE FOR -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T -- IT REALLY DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THE CODE. I MEAN, WE'VE MET WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE'VE DISCUSSED -- ORDINARILY IF THIS WAS A TYPICAL PROJECT, WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD A ROAD, FINE, GIVE US A BOND. IF IT WAS A PUBLIC ROAD AND WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IT, WE COULD DO THAT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A PRIVATE ROAD, AND UNLESS THAT ROAD IS BUILT, WE CANNOT COMPEL THEM TO BUILD IT, SO IF SOMEONE COMES FROM THE NEXT COUNTY OR THE NEXT STATE AND THEY BUY ONE OF THESE LOTS AND THE ROAD DOESN'T GET BUILT, THEN WE HAVE A CIVIL ACTION BETWEEN TWO OWNERS, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK, THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU, THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO SOMEBODY TO PAVE THIS ROAD, THERE'S NO LEGAL WAY TO COMPEL IT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS AND MY OFFICE HAS DEALT WITH THESE PROBLEMS, AND I KNOW THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT IN LIEU OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT A FAMILY HERE THAT'S TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND UNDER THESE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE CONTINUE THIS TO SEE IF THERE'S STILL A SOLUTION WE CAN FIND BECAUSE THIS FAMILY CAN'T GET A PERMIT RIGHT NOW TO BUILD OUT ON THE HARD ROAD OR THEY CAN? >>PETER ALUOTTO: CAN SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH THIS? I THINK THEY CAN. AS I SAID TO MR. HURLBURT TODAY, THEY CAN REPLAT AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL TEN LOTS AT ONCE. HE CAN TAKE THE PROPERTIES THAT HE ALREADY HAS THERE IN THE CERTIFIED PARCEL AND -- AND JUST PLAT HOWEVER MANY LOTS HE'S GOT THERE OR, AS I SAID, IF IT WAS A FAMILY CONVEYANCE, HE CAN GET IT DONE. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO THWART WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO, BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THIS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM IN ALL OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. WE'VE MET FOR SIX MONTHS. WE'VE MET ALMOST DAILY WITH MR. HURLBURT OVER THE PAST WEEK. I MEAN, WE COULD CONTINUE IT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND A SOLUTION TO IT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WELL, WAS THAT AN I THINK OR WHETHER WE CAN BUILD? WE'VE GOT PARTIES WHO ARE TRYING TO WORK, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS, AND I HOPE I FIND A SECOND HERE WITH THE BOARD, TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE FAMILY TO FIND A SOLUTION SO THEY CAN BUILD AT LEAST OUT ON THE HARD ROAD. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, CAN WE -- CAN WE -- CAN STAFF NOT WORK WITH HIM AND LET'S PASS THIS AND MOVE THIS AMENDMENT ALONG? I MEAN, IS THERE GOING TO BE A DIFFERENCE WHETHER WE CONTINUE OR NOT? >>PETER ALUOTTO: OF COURSE. WE WORK WITH EVERYONE. >>MARK SHARPE: THIS SEEMS TO BE A SINGLE PROBLEM. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT CAN MOVE FORWARD. WE CAN STILL HAVE A -- >>PAULA HARVEY: ACTUALLY -- >>KEN HAGAN: MS. HARVEY. >>PAULA HARVEY: IT'S NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM. THIS HAPPENS ALL OVER THE RURAL AREA, AND IT'S NOT JUST ONE FAMILY THAT PROMPTED THE AMENDMENT. THE AMENDMENT'S BEEN IN PROCESS FOR OVER A YEAR ALREADY THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS. THE PROBLEM THAT WE WERE FACING IS THAT WE WERE HAVING A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COMING FORWARD IN THE RURAL AREA TO BUILD HOMES ON LOTS PLATTED, APPROPRIATELY PLATTED BUT ABSOLUTELY NO IMPROVEMENTS WERE BEING MADE, INCLUDING THE ROADWAY, AND IN FACT, SEVERAL HOUSES WOULD GET BUILT AND THERE STILL WOULD BE NO ROADWAY, AND AFTER THE WEATHER CONDITIONS HAPPENED, THEN WE START GETTING PHONE CALLS OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING THEY CAN'T GET DOWN THEIR ROAD, AND THEY'RE EXPECTING THE COUNTY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WHAT THIS IS -- THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET OVER. THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO ACCOMPLISH -- >>MARK SHARPE: NO, I'M NOT SAYING -- I UNDERSTAND THE NEED. I'M SAYING THERE'S ONE ISSUE HERE THAT HE HAS, BUT SHOULD WE HOLD UP THE WHOLE AMENDMENT FOR THIS ONE ISSUE? CAN WE RESOLVE THIS -- CAN WE RESOLVE HIS ISSUE AND MOVE THE AMENDMENT ALONG, OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AS COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM IS ASKING -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: I BELIEVE MR. HURLBURT JUST WHISPERED TO ME IF WE COULD FIND A WAY TO GET HIM THAT ONE HOUSE, HE WOULD AGREE TO THIS ORDINANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT I SAID IS AT THIS POINT I THINK THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND GETTING THIS ROAD OUT THERE -- I KNOW THE ENTANGLEMENT YOU HAVE IN SOUTH COUNTY AND I KNOW WHERE YOUR PROBLEM IS. CONTINUING IT IS NOT GOING TO HELP BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS THING BACKWARD AND FORWARD, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'VE RUN OUT OF ENERGY. I THINK WE GO AHEAD WITH IT. >>MARK SHARPE: I MOVE APPROVAL. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: NEXT ITEM IS "D" ON THE AGENDA. THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF CLEAN FILL TO INCLUDE MULCH. THE INTENT OF THE REGULATION IS TO EGG REGULATE THE STOCK - - IS TO REGULATE THE STOCKPILING OF MULCH. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "E," THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR INTERPRETATIONS BY PROVIDING CLARIFICATION AND SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO OUR RECREATIONAL USE REGULATIONS IN THE LDC. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "F" WAS PROPOSED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT PROVIDES DEFINITIONS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR HUTS KNOWN AS CHICKEE HUTS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER WHITE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "G" IMPLEMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 14.4 AND 14.5. IT REQUIRES OPEN SPACE IN SUBDIVISIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "H" SETS FORTH THE CRITERIA TO DETERMINE UTILITY SERVICES IN PARCELS WHICH ARE SPLIT BY THE RURAL AND URBAN SERVICE AREAS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "I" IMPLEMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 20-5.5 AND PERMITS PORCHES TO EXTEND TEN FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "J" CREATES STANDARDS FOR REAPPLICATION AFTER A CASE IS DENIED BY A LAND USE HEARING OFFICER WITHIN A YEAR. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEVIN BECKNER: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "K" IMPLEMENTS POLICY 33.10 FOR ON-SITE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS IN PLANNED VILLAGES. THE PREVIOUS POLICY REQUIRED ON-SITE COMMERCIAL. THE PROPOSAL WILL IMPLEMENT THE WAIVER CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE PLAN TO CONSIDER OFF-SITE COMMERCIAL IN REZONINGS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "L" CLARIFIES THE LAND USE TABLE REGARDING CAR WASHES AND ALSO CODIFIES AN INTERPRETATION. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "M" IMPLEMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 21.3 TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS BY FLOOR SPACE RATHER THAN DENSITY. IT ALSO MAKES SOME SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS, PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES AS WELL. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "N" PERMITS MAJOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR EXCLUDING BODY WORK AND PAINTING IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "O" ALLOWS LOTS WHICH WERE MADE NONCONFORMING BY THE MINIMUM LOT UTILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED CONFORMING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ZONING AND BUILDING PERMIT REVIEWS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>JOE MOREDA: DISREGARD THE SLIDE THAT SAYS "CONTINUED." THIS WAS THE CASE THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY CONTINUED BUT IT'S NOT. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "P" IS -- PROVIDES A CLARIFICATION FOR THE BUFFERING STANDARDS FOR THE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REGULATIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER -- OR COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>JOE MOREDA: THE FINAL ITEM ADDRESSES SCRIVENER'S ERRORS RELATED TO NUMBERING AND SECTION NUMBERS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. SECRETARY MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO ADOPT -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: -- THE ORDINANCE. >>KEVIN BECKNER: [INAUDIBLE] >>ADAM GORMLY: THAT'S THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 1st, 2010. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER BECKNER. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >>KEN HAGAN: ANY OTHER ITEMS THIS EVENING? >>JOE MOREDA: THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: ALL RIGHT. THANKS, JOE. WE'RE ADJOURNED. 1