0:00The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning agreement for a 29.25-acre property between Southeast Cove Road and Southeast Sera Road. The project aimed to create 43 single-family lots with a gross density of 1.47 units per acre, falling below the estate density future land use designation’s limit of 2 units per acre. The plan included dedicating 2.2 acres for roadway and preserving 76% of the space as open areas, including freshwater marsh wetlands and wetland buffers.

Concerns arose regarding the project’s environmental impact, especially on Fern Creek’s headwaters and the area’s existing flooding issues. The applicant proposed measures such as a perimeter berm and dry retention ponds to manage water flow and drainage. Despite these assurances, board members expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of these measures, given the area’s persistent flooding problems. One member noted the importance of understanding the natural services provided by existing ecosystems, emphasizing that invasive species should not justify development that could harm the environment further.

Traffic and pedestrian safety were also points of discussion. A multimodal sidewalk was planned to enhance connectivity and safety for residents, particularly students of Anderson Middle School. However, questions were raised about the practicality of the proposed path’s connectivity to Salerno and Cove Road. The staff clarified that while the applicant would not construct the path all the way to Salerno, the proposal would enable safer access for residents of northern neighborhoods to Cove Road. Additionally, the project included a $6,000 traffic preemption device for the fire department, intended to improve traffic control.

Legal counsel reiterated that local government cannot deny an application solely based on road conditions, as Florida law allows for proportionate shares without demanding infrastructure improvements. This point was met with frustration from a member who criticized the county’s planning in relation to road development, particularly on Cove Road, which is already strained due to the nearby school expansion.

21:37Public comment was limited, with no members present to voice their opinions. There was acknowledgment of a prior public comment that mentioned a potential conflict of interest involving a board member’s son, which some described as inappropriate. A motion was made to deny the project, citing concerns that the development would not sufficiently serve public interests and could potentially cause substantial damage to Fern Creek. The reasoning included a belief that the development would worsen existing issues on Cove Road, which had already been problematic due to previous developments.

The applicant, represented by Donald Barnes, a professional engineer, defended the project, asserting that it would improve conditions rather than worsen them. Barnes claimed the development would reduce discharge rates from the site and involve significant work to clean up existing wetlands. He also noted that the traffic generated by the development would be minimal, arguing that Cove Road was not currently overburdened by the additional units proposed. Despite the applicant’s assurances, the board voted three to one in favor of denying the proposal, with one member abstaining.

37:56Following the denial of the Pepperwood project, the meeting transitioned to updates on Land Development Regulation Article 6 and impact fees. Clyde Duan, the comprehensive planning administrator, alongside Samantha Lovelady, the principal planner, presented changes to align with Florida Statutes. The impact fee study revealed that the county had been under-collecting fees, with proposed increases of up to 50% over the next four years. Concerns were raised about the financial burden on new homeowners, particularly young couples, and the cumulative effect of these fees on mortgage costs.

1:13:27The meeting also included discussions on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 24-2, focusing on resiliency planning and coastal management. Proposed changes aimed to incorporate new policies addressing stormwater design and shoreline protection, reflecting broader resiliency initiatives. A new objective was introduced to reference resiliency language in Chapter 8, extending the planning period from 15 to 20 years, consistent with Florida statutes.

1:31:25The conversation emphasized the importance of integrating climate change considerations into planning documents, particularly the role of mangroves as carbon sinks and wave attenuators. The board acknowledged the need for regulations to address the wider implications of sea level rise on various infrastructures, including drainage and underground storage tanks.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the conservation and open space element of the comprehensive plan, focusing on updating the outdated wetlands composite map with modern data sources. The goal was to replace misleading information with accurate data.