##VIDEO ID:i-jIPL3AMG0## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e right mics are on mics are on oo that's working all right i' like to uh call to order meeting it is 7 o'clock Thursday October the 3 uh roll call all is here except for Mr odonnell do we to say I mean sorry anyway see I've already messed up and it's not even December I don't have to December but anyway move moving on um can we get an approval yeah I've got it it's okay no minutes n huh no minutes I know that's uh so let's move on to a new business uh we have NP np-1 All Saints Cemetery rezoning my favorite word quas uh this is being represented by Cree land use and Zoning on be um on behalf of All Saints Cemetery and with this being said we would like to have anybody acknowledge any exper I have no exper Communications to divulge I do not I have none I have none okay without further Ado um any interveners at leise no interveners I have no interveners okay uh those who will be testifying this evening may you please stand uh do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do I do okay without further Ado we would uh introduce um is it Mr John okay we will um introduce staff to go ahead and make his presentation all right thank you madam chair good evening members of the board I'm John Senate senior planner with growth management a copy of my work history has been filed with the clerk already I'm presenting the All Saints Cemetery resoning application there are requests by Cree land use and Zoning on behalf of All Saints Cemetery Inc for proposed amendment to the County zoning Atlas to change the zoning District classification for an approximately 9 Acres Cemetery from A2 agricultural District to PS2 Public Service District the subject site is adjacent to the All Saints Episcopal Church at 2303 Northeast C viw drive in jenssen Beach included as a request for a certificate of public facilities exemption this application is being processed as a mandat rezoning the site's located in Jensen Beach it's bounded to the west by the FEC railroad bounded to the east by Northeast Dixie Highway the future land use designation of the property is General institutional the surrounding properties mostly have the low density commercial limited and Commercial Waterfront future land use designations the property is currently zoned A2 agricultural District while the surrounding properties generally have the R1 R2 r3a and WRC zoning designations because the existing A2 zoning district is a category C zoning District this application is being processed as a mandatory rezoning to a category a zoning District there's one standard category a zoning District which implements the general institutional future land use designation and allows the current use use of the property as a cemetery that is the PS2 Public Service District new PUD zoning is also an additional option for applicants however the applicant is requesting the PS2 District these are the development standards for the PS2 District setbacks for one story structures are 25 ft in the front 20 ft in the rear 10 ft on the sides 40% minimum open space these are the conditions supporting the requested PS2 zoning District the PS2 zoning district is consistent with the existing future land use designation of General institutional for the property the existing use of the property as a cemetery is compatible with the PS2 zoning District the PS2 zoning District provides development standards which are compatible with the residential and Commercial character of the surrounding area development review staff have found that all saint Cemetery resoning application to comply with all applicable regulations and the comprehensive growth management plan is detailed in staff report staff recommends approving the request to rezone from A2 agricultural District to PS2 Public Service District I'm here for any questions Chine um yeah what's changing on the property um just the zoning at this point we may get a application in soon to build a couple new mazums but there's no uh plans to my knowledge to redevelop we're not digging up the graves in other words no no well I guess the other question I had is that there is a there's a cemetery parcel and then there's another parcel on uh A1A good afternoon my name is in the on one second let me finish question are they both included in the uh in the resoning so it's this um this red outline boundary this is the parcel or it's two Parcels technically the 9 acre that's what's the subject of the application okay I apologize good afternoon my name is audre cre I'm uh the attorney with cre land use and Zoning PA on behalf of All Saints uh there are indeed two Parcels this particular parcel uh or these two Parcels were brought together basically under two deeds in approximately 1911 to 1926 um the parcel that is has the Covenant number 181 ps35 it actually has a restriction on it that says we cannot bury people other than indigents on the property um so while we have uh currently no intention of building anything at this time we do realize that if we have to do a mausoleum or create any level of new ability to allow the cemetery to function and it is a historical Cemetery it's over 100 years old we would need to create some level of ability to hold those remains and vertical is the only way we can go so while we're not contemplating it at this time this is a step we would have to take to get it ready if indeed the cemetery decided to increase its capacity thank you any questions gentlemen do you have your notice for the yes I have the Affidavit of notices sent out right here and I'm going to uh give it to Mr Senate oh thank you and put it in for the record P pending public comment I moved we recommend acceptance of this result com I don't have any is there any public comment there is I mean not the next item we got to take a vote yeah I understand I'm just asking questions up here all right uh any other further comments discussion right uh let's go ahead and call for a vote all in favor I I I okay it pass thank you thank you Mr Mr Senate okay motion passes and we're going to move on to our next item of business fantastic there's another QJ up in the house all right np-2 the grace place rezoning quaz desal this request is Mardi Summers on the behalf of Grace Place uh do we have any expar on the board I have no expar communication I have no expart okay we have none uh do we have any interveners no interveners okay um those who will be um speaking on behalf of the project please stand to be sworn in do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I okay have a seat and we have a new be in front of us this evening Mr Lewis um Martin County staff please the floor is yours thank you madam sure a copy of my work history has been filed with the clerk good afternoon members of the board uh my name is Louis agilar and the principal planner for the growth Management Department I'm presenting a resoning application for a property owned by the grace place Inc the grace place is requesting a sunning change from A1A agricultural District to re e2a AR um rural estate District the proper is located in the Southeast corner of soueast Salerno Road and Southeast old Avenue the property is built out and its current use is place of worship the future line use uh for the site is rural density and the soning district as I mentioned before is A1A agricultural District because the existing A1A soning is a category C District this application is being processed as a mandatory resoning to a category a district which implements the policies for the rural density future land use designation the a18 agriculture district is a category C District that is not consistent with the rural density future land use assigned to the area and the side is subject to a covenant agreement there is one standard zoning District that implements the policies for Rural density future land use land use designation which is r2a new PUD sunning is an additional option for applicants however uh the applicant is requesting to be changed to r2a the S development standards uh for the r e2a zoning District the minimum load area is 2 Acres the maximum height is 30 ft minimum open space is 50% and the setbacks um for this district is 30 ft for front rear and side these are the conditions supporting the r2a district the prop post are2 a zoning district and the rural density future land use destination align well with the character of the existing land uses in the adjacent and surrounding area the current use for the subject property is place of worship the grace place is a local church that has served the Martin County Community for over four decades and owned the property for about 43 years development review staff have found the grace place in resoning application to comply with all applicable regulations and the comprehensive growth management plan as detailed in the staff report staff recommends approving the request to reson from A1A agricultural District to re e2a rural state district I take any questions if you have any all right gentleman break them in the same question I had for the previous applicant what's changing there is one um application uh to add a car port and that's the only one that's what triggered this carport would be allowed under the old zoning that's not Mr Moore Paul Schilling growth management director so as uh Mr agar indicated in the staff report the current zoning is not consistent with the land use that's the purpose of us being here this evening is to rezone the property there could be in the future an application that would trigger a site plan and therefore necessitate the rezoning so this would be the first step and then the second step would be in the future if there's other development to uh facilitate that by way of a final site plan is this a mandatory result yes sir any other questions all right you're you're free to go applicant well the applicant I'm sorry applicant please present you could yeah oh sorry I'm Kristen sake good evening um mcarthy Summers is representing the applicant joins today by Senior Pastor Steven Bray and Scott mcgomery the Engineer for the project I have my affidavit attest to notice thank you and thanks to Mr agular and his team for your work for the thorough presentation and for the recommendation of approval um to answer your question Mr Moyer they they being the Grace Place want to improve um some parking right now they have a site plan approval that lets them have stabilized gravel and grass parking but they want to pave it and stripe it and um put a carport type thing so that there can be covered um drop off in inclement weather they serve about 600 parishioners every Sunday they've been at it for over 40 years so they're just making it a little nicer for the people who come to worship on Sundays and as it was explained that triggered a mandatory reone so we're here because we have to be thank you my pleasure any questions for the applicant no pending public comment I'll make a motion to accept we have a public comment call pending public comment I'll make accept that's okay well miss uh Miss Gloria I couldn't I apologize I could thank you I couldn't read it I I already have trouble with the English language so thank you I'm a land owner within 500 ft of Grace Church and I received a letter about the resoning request in my discussion with the principal planner Louis Aila he started he stated that the resoning was required for Grace's Church on Cerna road to build a carport I'm not against a carport but I am against the resoning from A1A to re2 a according to my information this will allow Grace Church to sell the property to a developer building a carport for a church does not require rezoning also the map sent with the letter on resoning to the homeowners within 500 fet is incorrect and out of date increased development in Steward is not unexpected but there is a lack of planning for the communities impacted salero Road runs parallel to Cove Road with a small Road alt that has no shoulder or and it's just ditches on either side for most of it so on Cove Road 1.2 miles of that Cove Road three new communities are being built and to and they're being added to three older communities which will lead and I can show you the calculations to over 3,000 people on this stretch of 1.2 miles this is not including a public middle middle school and a new charter school that will be expanding to build a high school our community was promised right widening of code Road from two lanes to four lanes this has now been put off again until 2030 Salona road is also a two-lane road and it has an additional problem of flooding this a past year a new community Edgewater Point with with 114 tow houses was built diagonally From Grace Church solerno Road needs to be widened and the FL flooding problem solved before any communities are built take care of the infr structure of Cove and Salerno before you add more houses people and schools the people in my community have had to call the police numerous times to deal with all the parking on our private Lawns and communities and also the excessive traffic for the charter school on a two-lane Highway the communities on Salerno and Cove Road need to be better planned roads widen before any more new development please deny the change in Zoning for Grace Church but allow the car which you can do thank you Miss Gloria for your comments at this time that was the only public comment I have I I have a question now for the for the applicant have you put in a site plan yet Scot just no no just it's a yes if I may um Elise Elder Deputy County attorney this is a resoning and a site plan is not an appropriate evaluation for whether or not we reson this property that no I know I'm just reminding the board that that is something that shouldn't be considered here you can ask what kind of uses would be allowed with this new zoning and things of that nature but to find out exactly what they're doing to base it on wouldn't be it appropriate I don't think we're you know trying to sight Zone here but what we are trying to do is find out why the applicant has to rezone for a carport there I think it was mentioned that it was a mandatory rezoning no a carport would be permitted under the current zoning may may I again U just for clarity there is a um there is a plan that has been submitted for and we we reference a carport but it's an in essence a porta coare uh that that is attached to the the the actual building so so that and as well as actually uh formalizing and Paving parking so there's no residential proposed here this is this is not part of the equation we are here tonight to rezone the property which is mandatory because it has a 1967 zoning of A1 or is it A1A A1A A1A which is an agricultural district and clearly this is not agricultural thank you that was my question there's I's you you have a microphone still showed off I think property owners who are seing master final s and we need to amend our site in order to p andr z AV that's missel do you have a microphone still shut off it's on no it's not on we have a very old yeah but the TV can't pick you up don't have another microphone ju is he's a Chatty Cathy over there so we just have a very old zoning and the comp plan says we have to come here we're they're they've been here 40 years they're very happy here they want to stay here you know who Untold future years they just have to rezone because the comp plan says they have to if they want to PVE their parking lot they they have to rezone and and we're all pretty familiar with that but I am really concerned about the flooding on selera road and more impervious property is going to exacerbate that problem okay I appreciate that point and I'm glad Scott's here to hear that and I know that staff is certainly going to be making him dot his eyes and cross his te's when he uh submits the application and gets it approved I have a motion Madam chair and your motion repeated please my motion was to accept to uh accept this okay approval all right uh any further discuss discussion any other questions okay gentlemen all right uh take a vote hi hi hi hi uh it has all passed thank you very much thank you very much now you're free to go now I'm fre we'll see you again Mr Louise all right oh fantastic fantastic another one all right n-3 manufacturer Community Management resoning quaz deal this is a request by gunster yley and Stewart on behalf of KSA equities Holdings and I would like to go ahead and ask the um board if a hading expar I have no expar Communications I've spoken to the applicant okay duly noted all right do we have any interveners no interveners okay uh those who will be testifying please stand to be sworn in do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give sorry do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay without further Ado uh Mr Brian with the staff will be presenting uh so the floor is yours thank you chair uh members of the LPA for the record Brian elim principal planner with the growth Management Department copy of my work history uh is on file with the clerk this is a request by gunster yley and Stewart PA on behalf of KSA equities Holdings for a proposed amendment to the County zoning Atlas to change the existing zoning District classification for an approximately 3.83 acre undeveloped site from B1 business district to G GC General commercial District the GC zoning district is consistent with the site's current future land use designation of commercial General and included with this application as a request for certificate of public facilities exemption the site is located east of Southeast Federal Highway and North of Southeast hydrangea Street approximately .17 miles south of Southeast Sero Road in Stewart to the east is the Sno Cove multif family development and Cove Place Apartments established in the 1980s to the north is General commercial developments that have been present in aerial photos since the mid 1970s um to the east and south the property borders Southeast Federal Highway and Southeast hydrangea Street respectively as previously mentioned the existing zoning District on the property is B1 business district a category C zoning District cons consist with the commercial General future land use designation future land use on the property is commercial General a review of historical Aerials and a comparison of the original future land use map to the current parcel configurations and development of the area indicate the conditions have not substantially changed in this area since the adoption of the County's future land use map in 1982 GC General commercial district is the only standard category a zoning District available to implement the commercial General land use policies of the comprehensive growth management plan and is consistent with the current uses permitted in the B1 business district zoning in addition to the standard zoning District the Pud or planned unit development district is also an option um the customer has uh requested the GC General commercial District here's a u a view of the development standards for General commercial of which this lot meets all of those development review staff have found the KSA equities Holdings Incorporated resoning application to comply with all applicable regulations of the comprehensive growth management plan is detailed in the staff report and having satisfied all the required standards for amendments to the zoning Atlas and having no unresolved issues associated with this appli a staff recommends approval of this resoning request for KSA equities Holdings Incorporated from B1 business district to GC General commercial District that concludes the presentation thank you take any questions gentlemen is this uh within the Salerno CRA no do you know where the CRA boundary is uh yes it's uh I'll show you so this particular area right here has been this way for as I said since the since the comp plan was instituted this boundary right here really borders um where the CRA took over so everything west of essentially of this line the First Street was incorporated into the CRA and this block is just remain this way for for a very long time yeah C is this way I'm sorry what the CRA there's other that's Co road though never mind yeah okay um applicant would you like to present please Mr Reigns oh no you were not Mr Reigns okay we're on on um my name's Tom Sawyer I'm with gunster law for the record and uh if I could I'd like to submit our Affidavit of notification Mr Sheriff will take that a very thorough review and staff report that um we are very um uh happy with and uh have no real comments to as far as um anything we believe that it should go from category C to C B1 to a uh General commercial um but yeah I would like to compliment Brian very good job um so for for me nothing personal to add but I would like to bring up our expert Mr Brian Nolan to uh give his uh opinion on some things so Brian I'll ask you first have you been sworn yeah he was he's dead uh for the record Brian Olan with Leo Associates yes I've been sworn I'm going to hand you a document if you will tell me if you recognize that yes and Brian what is it please uh this is my resume okay thank you sir could you for the record give us you got to speak to speak into the microphone um if you could give us a brief back uh uh summary of your background and educational experience sir sure uh I have a bachelor in landscape architecture from University of Florida uh gogators um a professional uh AIC can't hold that against him a C planner for a number of years and I've been witho and Associates uh practicing in landscape architecture and land planning for um almost 20 years now sir is this an accurate and upto-date resumee yes although it doesn't include many Martin County projects but I would like to submit this as exhibit number one for the applicant interesting so Brian you have had a chance to uh you've had a chance to see the uh presentation by Mr elim and the staff report do you uh agree with those do you agree with them please yes I've reviewed the staff report and would agree with staff's uh staff's findings and recommendation and uh to thank uh staff for the diligence and Brian for his uh very nice presentation sir um you are familiar with the marttin county comprehensive plan and the Land Development regulations of the county yes sir um so in your professional opinion do you agree that the staff's recommendation to go from C category C B1 to category a General commercial would be consistent with the comprehensive plan I do you have anything you would like to add not at this time okay and I think with that we conclude our sub Mr soya I want you to do the same presentation when you go before the every time I felt like I was in court but you're an attorney so I get well and I don't like being in court so I don't far as quasi judicial but that's it okay nothing further tough crowd all right gentlemen any questions yeah um you're asking for the most intense General commercial uh zoning category or there is for this property is it necessary to have General commercial or could Community commercial do with what you want to do I'm concerned frankly about another gas station well we believe this is consistent with what the comprehensive plan seeks and um as far as the most intense use the other option I believe was PUD which is not really appropriate or Community commercial Community Comm commercial does not have the same um permitted uses as B1 so we have a feel feeling that that would be a down zoning and so we do believe that commercial General commercial is the appropriate zoning I don't think Tom has any questions um brick do you have any questions I'll wait till we vote can I make a comment after we vote on this after the hearing is over we can do it a discussion before we vote he just wants to say go Gators have a volunteer doesn't help we spent a half an hour doing mandatory resoning and I brought this up before we don't have a choice Paul Elise how do we stop this because this is silly we're spending a lot of time the applicants are spending a lot of money we're wasting a lot of time on stuff we don't have a choice with how do we change how do we stop that how do we change that most counties don't do this I mean I've been in other counties and you don't have to have a public hearing when it's a mandatory reone you do you under the law you do have to have a public hearing for mandatory resoning we can't rezone the property without the property owner's consent so we have to have a public hearing um for the mandatory ones um usually they're quick but sometimes there are questions I'm not sure that this is a mandatory resoning though but well your planning staff says it is no no is not a mandatory resoning they didn't say that not this one in this particular Paul Schilling breth management director for the record so in this particular case we have a B1 zoning a 1967 zoning and we have a commercial General land use the two are in fact consistent uh however the GC zoning district is the newer district and that provides for the the uh permitted uses very very similar to the B1 although a little bit different but the intensities arguably are quite similar um going the opposite way to CC would be less consistent with the not only the existing B1 but also The General commercial um as far as resoning property in other municipalities uh throughout the the the actual State of Florida when comprehensive plans were implemented there were actually rezonings done as part of that uh that covered very very large areas of land that was not done in Martin County so as we from time to time bring rezonings to you those are in fact uh in in particular pieces of property and that is the way that the the process works is the owner applies for the rezoning and we process that application and we we get your feedback and then ultimately the board of County Commissioners will be the decision maker and just to add to that if there is an old category C zoning District an older zoning district and someone comes in we are encouraging people who aren't mandatory to update their zoning so we can get our zoning appas updated so I think that's one of the circumstances here where we're encouraging it so we're up to date with a category a as opposed to a category C so we have noot does count for anything but if it goes to the County Commission and and and they turn these first two that we had down if they turn them down they it would be problematic really problematic to that point I mean I I guess I'm just jousting at windmills cuz I feel like it's I apologize so can I make a motion to AC accept staff's recommendation please yes we just need to call for public comment yeah I was going to say do we have any public comment I don't have any we need that's okay when if you can wait till you come up yeah good call Tom my name is Shar Gregory and I come on come up to to the microphone don't be scared oh sorry there you go my name is shice Gregory I am the new property owner like literally just bought this property in April so I got a letter stating that I needed to be here tonight my question was the question that you asked in terms of was the resoning mandatory and one of the other question was exactly what is being built is it a gas station or a car wash we don't discuss that this evening you don't discuss that yeah I can't be part of the zoning conversation okay all right un but your property is in on hydrangea or is it in the it's 500 ft across from where they're building so on the other side of us one yeah right on hyr Andra yeah okay yep that's that's me right there you're South kobia yep I'm on Southeast kobia okay okay so you're in the apartment complex on the North not the apartment complex the houses the okay yeah the houses that are literally right yep right across from it and the green gotcha thank you very much all right thank you thank you so make a motion to accept staff's recommendation to reone a second okay can we take a vote you want start I I I all right I I'll pass this thank you thank you applicants and staff oh the next one's easy no it's not I'm just kidding I don't have to say anything on I'm gonna have to copyright that all right n ph-4 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-4 future land use element a proposed text amendment to chapter 4 future land use element of comprehensive growth management plan Martin County Code based on 2024 evaluation and Appraisal of a report which is called the ear e a r this is going to be presented by oh Mr Clyde is back up welcome gentlemen your floor is yours thanks thank you members of the LPA my name is Clyde Duan for the record see if I can get the agenda item up uh as you know we've been processing uh amendments to the comprehensive growth management plan to each of the chapters as part of the evaluation and appraisal report uh this is the final night that we have items to bring to the local planning Agency for uh year-based plan amendments in the chapters uh chapter 4 future land use element has been called the uh heart of the comprehensive plan because it deals with all of the future land use designations and uh it's connected to all the other plan elements many of the changes are not substantial uh you've seen some of them before the uh change in planning periods from 15 to 20 years uh there are uh three items that are substantial in nature and they are discussed in the staff report and I'll get to that in a second maybe I better sit back from that so let me get to the 10 items in the staff report and I'll try to expedite through the first few um tabular data in tables 41 42 43 and 44 is updated uh we do this every seven years with the ear to just update data as far as future land use designations existing land use designations uh figure 4-1 is revised and shown as an attachment the existing one from 2010 is being proposed for for deletion and a replacement for 2024 is proposed um item number two is a partial control numbers proposed for addition to policy 4.78 14 that discusses allowable development outside the primary urban service District this parcel is uh associated with a 9.5 acre parcel that Martin County Acquired and it's located adjacent to the solid waste Transfer Station it would allow Water and Sewer to this parcel just as water and sewer is currently allowed to the transfer station this would effectively incorporate the 9.5 acre parcel into the larger County transfer station on uh Bush Street but can we we ask should we ask you questions as we go or wait it's it's your it's your preference I'll be happy to answer your any questions so okay are there any other I'm sorry we didn't hear an answer no no no no I think it's I was going to ask the same question okay um this parcel control number is specific to that parcel of property are there other parcel control numbers that you're proposing that would have the same increase in urban Service District No the um partial control numbers associated with the landfill transfer station have already been listed and are already permitted to have water and sewer okay but that does not include the sjs which has already been granted sjs is included in the U list of exceptions to the water and sewer already been approved in the right and so not in the E it was already it's already effectively in the plan prior to all of these amendments I guess that's what I meant to say yeah um but the you know we we reviewed something last week which was going to be an extension of that uh freestanding urban service boundary right that was further to the uh the east on 714 this parcel control number has nothing to do with that correct that's correct I'll go to the map so that everybody can see what we're talking about yeah that piece of property was different so there's a text amendment that was adopted a few years ago by the the border of County Commissioners allows the extension of Water and Sewer Service out Martin Highway it goes to the Sheriff's shooting range here it's one of the partials listed it goes to the 7js uh Industrial Development here which is a freestanding industrial uh urban service District he goes to the existing Martin County landfill transfer station and this is the 9.7 acre parcel which we are talking about adding to the list right here and uh that is the only proposed change that I'm discussing here in this section of chapter 4 it's already been listed in chapters 10 and 11 which you've already seen and we're doing this to be internally consistent with those changes in chapters 10 and 11 okay now if I remember correctly commissioner heard had a problem with including this did she not at the commission meeting I don't remember the specific circumstances to which you refer well because there was no nothing assigned for this plot of as partiel except you wanted to bring out the the number the name oh I you're referring to the presentation on chapters 10 and 11 on September 24 yes uh she did raise a question question as to uh the need to provide service there and there was no vote taken correct no the vote was to hear the chapters 10 and 11 and continue them to October 22 okay that's all thank you so um on to number three and the list in the staff report this is a proposed change to section 4.1b uh discussing the composite Wetland map uh we are proposing this change for consistency With The Changes proposed to chapter 9 and discussed with the LPA and the board of County Commissioners previously as we discussed the composite Wetlands map is a 20-year-old map that um has dated uh static information and we have the same data or more upto-date data on our website now and um it supersedes to some extent this this Wetland data this data was as I noted as noted here in in this paragraph This was created at a time when this kind of wetland data was only really accessible by GIS technicians who were using very high power GIS software now it's been made available to everybody who goes to the South Flor Water Management District website or the County website so um we don't feel this static map is any any longer necessary moving on to number four on the in the staff report uh there are minor text changes proposed for 4.2 2 A1 uh again this for internal consistency with chapter 8 uh I believe it deals with parall of flood and and resiliency um number five objective 4.5c and policy 4.5 C1 uh we're proposing to add the United States Department of Agriculture natural resources conservation soil data uh to be uh recognized in our comprehensive plan in addition to the 1981 soil survey which has been used by in the comprehensive plan since 1982 um but we're not proposing proposing to remove the 1981 soil survey just add to the additional data source uh number let's see number six uh again is a proposed change for consistency with the coastal management element um it deals with flood risk and tile uh inundation and see level rise number seven uh chapter 163 Florida Statutes requires at least two planning periods of 10 and 20 years we've discussed this on a number of the plan amendments that you've seen uh come before you um so we have numerous changes throughout chapter four that changed from 15 to 20 to be consistent with that also on um the future land use map Series has a time period it used to be from 1990 to 2005 then it was changed from 2005 out to 2025 and so it's appropriate since 2025 is around the corner that we update that period as well to go from 2025 out to 2045 with the 20year distance uh 20 years that's required by Statute um and that's a quote from Florida statute there about that number eight permitting of shared infrastructure between different future land uses uh this is an issue that U staff has dealt with on a number of occasions going back to the um late 90s you have circumstances where you have one property owner with two future luse designations I'll give you an example of General commercial and medium density residential and they're proposing to do a commercial use on The General commercial and a residential use on the a residential but then there becomes the issue of well do they each have to have their own standal alone storm water their own Standalone driveway access their own Standalone preserve area management plan staff it that has been required of them to make sure that there's no possibility for inconsistency uh however that's not a common practice in many communities and uh we are proposing to add two policies to chapter 4 to allow these uh shared infrastructure to be uh between the two land use designations uh as the language here in the staff report discusses a lot of times Wetlands don't don't respect future land use designations they just occur where they naturally occur and it's often better to have you know the preserv management plan deal with the whole thing in total often times you have habitat in a location which is you you don't want to fragment you want to keep it condensed and in one place and meet your preservatory requirements on the total property where the habitat is best and it's often times more efficient to try and deal with storm water because again topography doesn't respect future land use designations and the way the water runs downhill is often better dealt with to deal with the where where the water runs downhill as opposed to where the future land use designation is CL this could be dealt with with a PUD though no actually a PUD doesn't get around the future land use designations but we're talking about site planning and how planning is handled in the future land use and so I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it's a single ownership then the land use planning is what what we're really talking about the future land use uh doesn't really apply because that's that's what the future land use is um a Unity of title you need to do this no it's not an issue of unity of title so if it's not I mean I'm just C I'm concerned that you've got two different intensities that requ have different requirements and you're trying to lump them into one no I wouldn't go that far I would I let me I put a graphic on the screen and maybe I can point to it and that'll help illustrate instead of just using words to to illustrate um here's a property the outline in in teal is the total ownership the front part here is General commercial the back part is medium density residential this is a major highway out front I haven't identified this particular property purposefully so as to not impinge anyone's property rights um you um it's it's the access is most easily taken from this major highway Through The General commercial to the medium density I can tell you in this particular case the habitat is all in the back and so it makes sense to do your 25% native Upland habitat where the habitat is best and is clustered um this is an example of the kind of situation that that we are encountering and we would recommend uh the consideration of these two policies if if I might just add to that Elise Elder Deputy County attorney s sorry Clyde but so if one person is developing this whole property and they have commercial in the front residential in the back and they're going to do something commercial in the front and obviously residential in the back they cannot use the road that goes through the commercial to access that residential they're going to have to go behind and go to the street behind because under our comprehensive plan and based on an a county attorney opinion from the 1990s you can't share infrastructure between future land uses even if it's in the same site plan so that is problematic for people like this person who now has to have two separate accesses because they can't share that road which is infrastructure if that makes sense there's got to be some examples of puds that have General commercial up front and residential in the back there might have been a few that slip through the cracks but the general if you go to growth management the general rule is you cannot share infrastructure roads you can't share preserve um and things like that and it is problematic for some applicants so this provision that Clyde is talking about is only allowed to share the infrastructure if you're in one unified or one single Pro un one project you can't you can't share it among projects it's just limited to one project does that language I mean I don't see that clearly described in the language he's going to bring it up I mean I I I'm I'm going for memory no no I understand it's a okay I think that's the right one um I'm going to go to page 57 so we proposed two policies one in the residential portion of uh that describes the suitable location of residential development and it would say shared infrastructure residential and Commercial development may share infrastructure roads utilities storm water and preserve areas within a single development project we did not extend this to share to have residential and Industrial just residential and Commercial uh likewise to be uh internally consistent in 410 which deals with the appropriate placement of uh commercial I'm scrolling down to it uh we proposed a concurrent text change which is has the same language sh about shared infrastructure sharing roads utilities storm water and preserve areas within a single development project so let me ask you this happens project is developed 10 years from now the owner wants to come in and divide it how what happens that's easy uh you've got lots of um site plans out there with shared ownership um they establish um Ingress egress easements um for shared and for responsibility for shared infrastructure through perhaps through a Unity of title and definitely through a POA and such like that so that um they take care of their their responsibilities and for un this project if if a project is developed there is a Unity of title and if they want to release that Unity of title they have to come to the board for the release so the board will have the opportunity to weigh in on it so that was my question before there has there should be a Unity there will be yeah every project has a Unity of now it makes sense to me all right I'm sorry I was thinking you were referring to the UN Unity of title the solution it's it's just part of re development okay now this makes perfect sense yes okay can we continue with presentation C certainly so that's number eight on in the staff report and number nine is the discussion of disconnecting planning periods from residential Capacity Analysis so that it's a guideline instead of a directive um there is policy Lang and it's quoted here at the bottom of five and the top of six that describes uh when undeveloped residential acreage within within either the primary or the secondary no longer provides uh projected population growth for the 15-year planning period planning for expansion of residential capacity shall commence and when the undeveloped acreage in neither the primary or the secondary provides for no more than 10 years of projected population growth the county is required to expand capacity that would appear to do just what it says however it does not take into consideration another plan policy uh that has eight criteria for determining when and where and if to expand capacity um we are proposing to modify this text so that all plan policies have to be taken into consideration before an expansion is proposed okay I that's a hard no for me I mean this is this is a trigger that is measurable it's a trigger that is not subjective it's a trigger that is important and one that has withstood Court challenges getting rid of this as a criteria for expanding the urban service boundary would be another assault on the urban service boundary I think it would be a giant mistake question otherwise and understand that was a statement par now Clyde yes you're still going to have to do the planning yes and we're still going to have to meet the analysis that we don't have enough land to meet the people that are coming you still have to do the residential Capacity Analysis so you do that so when you re reach that point you you we we as a county have to to start exploring where we're going to put the people that are moving here right y I mean that's that's what you're saying in this y so I'll show you the the I'll skip over the language that I was referring to that has the eight criteria that must be considered whenever an expansion is done um and move on to the language that staff proposes for in uh to modify that last paragraph that you just saw and the additional language doesn't take away the 10 and 20 well it would become a 20- year the 10 and 20 year planning period doesn't take away the requirement to do the Capacity Analysis before expansion uh it would simply say that the Capacity Analysis is not the sole determining factor for amending the urban service districts you still have to comply with all other plan policies okay so that's number nine um and moving on to number 10 the last item in the staff report is eliminating the dependence on the desial census data in the residential Capacity Analysis methodology and along with that removing the excess vacant units that is part of the supply side of the residential Capacity Analysis uh the deenal Census Data is only available every 10 years and the farther away we get from that period like we are now in 2024 almost 2025 the more stale that data becomes um this was something that was brought up in 2018 when staff presented the 2018 residential Capacity Analysis we brought up an analysis of what it would be like if you didn't have the excess uh vacant units and um no dis no further discussion was taken on that however um we are suggesting recommending that um the data change so that we are counting total housing units instead of the multiple slices of of housing units that are described in the census data and uh there were with the excess vacant housing would be removed the excess vacant housing made a lot of sense to put into the Capacity Analysis back in 2013 is as this text right here is a quote from ordinance the that adopted that residential Capacity Analysis um it made clear that the uh there were a lot of excess vacant units people walked away from houses in in 20 8 n 2008 10 12 Etc they left the overgrown lots and pools turning green and there we had thousands of units that you could occupy and it was reasonable to consider that as part of our residential Capacity Analysis but 2024 and 2013 are far far apart in terms of demand uh you can no longer say that the excess vacant units uh are at a historic high and they do not serve to depress the housing economy anymore uh it's highly doubtful that there are even very many excess uh vacant units or vacant units that are not seasonal out there right now but Clyde if there were it would make a difference just as it did in 2013 if if we have another economic bust which isn't impossible because each bubble ends up bursting this this data would be useful this data would be helpful I don't understand why getting rid of the data makes it a lot easier or straightforward or easier to understand it just makes it harder to put in if it's necessary the only way to generate this this the excess vacant units data is to use decennial census data right and it's stale after a few years it's no longer as valid I mean you can have excess vacant units increase and decrease from month to month and the difference between 2000 20 and 2024 it can be but the survey data is I mean I guess this point is is connected to the survey data if you're not using the decal survey data what are you using I mean that is the most that is the most accurate survey data we have able to you know anywhere why wouldn't you use it because after a few years it be it's no longer as accurate but in as soon as it becomes available it is the most accurate survey data available so why would you say you don't want to use it I I doesn't make sense to me that you would throw out data even if it's old we can't get this kind of data anywhere but the desial sensors so why throw it out because between 200 20 and 2030 things can change substantially yes but and it's no longer as valid so what would you use instead uh we would not use we would because the the the data to do excess is I understand completely we would use total housing units available through the Property Appraiser's office and we would use uh either Bieber or Economic Development data provided by Tallahassee to for our projected population and our our existing population and where is that in here it's not shown in the in the proposed in the staff report um but I can go to um I just I I I can't I can't approve of stuff that I don't well let Clyde answer my question first okay you can say well I think he's making a statement versus a question so answer the question and we'll move on from there whoops no that's not I want that's not what I want this is kind of the thing though so this is data apologies for scrolling that's provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business research Florida that's great where is it that's the daily you're going to use where is that in the uh how does that replace you're talking about in the plan policy okay I I understand now so here's the proposed changes to the plan policy at least some of them um right here total housing units that we would get this from the property praiser uh housing units estimated and uh percentage increases we would use that Bieber data that I was just showing you to do our projection uh for demand and we would not use the excess vacant units in my mind that would be fine but I would like to see that I don't think that's where it needs Illustrated well if you're going to use the bber data you instead of the the Census Data then it should be in as part of the policy data as soon as it's valid and and verifiable should be the The Guiding again that's an argument we can have in a minute but if you're going to substitute data what you're going to substitute should be part of the plan just for the record I don't think we're substituting data I think we're just removing the vacant everything else stays the same so the dat we were to use that data right now correct Clyde yes um allow me to go to policy 4.1 D2 it references the office of Economic and demographic research which is in Tallahassee and they get their data from Bieber so we do reference we do have a reference already here to my understanding that policy that you presenting earlier was really defining what excess housing is is that correct yes not necessarily what data you're using at that time well it does describe what excess H vacant housing is but it also is only available through census I understand I'm just going back to giving the chance to move on and understand as you can see much of the the methodology Remains the Same and the things that are stricken are all directly related to census data and uh for instance another change that's part of this is we had recommended using American Community survey data available through the United States census but but we no longer feel that that's an appropriate way of going because we looked at it we've we've tested it it's a sample instead of a total count and it's even less accurate uh in in my opinion so we would not recommend including that in the text any longer much of the same the same features of this methodology remain the same as as already here here's an example of a change that looks like a lot of change but it's actually no change at all um There's no distinction between the way it's worded here vacant subdivided single family lots and d and duplex Lots the distinction between pre 82 and post 82 is irrelevant so we're just in this in this case we're just cleaning up the language to focus on subdivided single family and duplex Lots this is the language that would be stricken and we're kind of adding in something that's that's an obvious oversight is that when language was modified through after the challenge we went through the challenge in 2013 and we had three or four amendments to the initial language in 2013 in order to get to a settlement in 2016 we cut out the language that actually referred to approved master and final site plans so we kind of want to put that back in because we do in fact count master and final site plans allow me to to also make an to try and describe something when we're doing supply side counting up the available Supply in the primary and secondary urban service District we count the vacant land and look at the max density on that vacant land no no entitlements no site plan approvals on it then we count up the site plans and how many units are associated with those approved site plans we deduct units from those site plans as soon as they get a certificate of occupancy because they're no longer available for future capacity then we add up these single family and duplex platted lots and that's the way capacity was done for decades the only other thing that's in that's a part of the the the supply calculation is the are these excess vacant units these units that are that were constructed years ago people lived in them and they're no longer being lived in and it was never a part of the methodology through the 90s and up through 2010 through 20 2000 to 2013 and as I said before it was put in because you had this excess number of units which we don't have anymore I have a problem with one it says the maximum allow density density it it nothing nothing in the county gets built to the maximum allowable is there a way to to tweak that where it's on an average I mean if we've got five units per in Martin County I think it's more like three and A2 three is what a guy usually ends up with is there a way to tweak that to make it more accurate it's very problematic to try and come up with a methodology that that does that but which never leaves which never leaves out those circumstances where somebody actually does get to their Max density through a PUD um and so in the in an effort to make minimal changes and not make more changes than we felt was absolutely necessary we opted to leave that alone how does live local alter your calculation we don't Factor live local into the calculation at all uh could dramatically change that it could but we have no way of knowing where or when uh again that's it's it's another unknown so but do all of your commercial and Industrial sighted properties reflect a maximum density we do not count well we count commercial office residential and we count uh commercial Waterfront but we break down to like I think a third of that being residential use uh when we do the residential Capacity Analysis we don't count The General commercial limited commercial or industrial as part of the residential Capacity Analysis but live local would say that you should that's a tough call I mean and I don't know how you would well I guess what I'm saying is that these numbers you know are really challenging because there's a lot a lot of moving Parts there is and live local is definitely a moving part I don't see how you would accurately establish that and assume that every commercial property would be available for that well I don't okay let's can we do a favor it's already well past 8 o' can we move back to your presentation and finish that up please that essentially concludes St presentation okay all right any other I mean I have a problem because I'm probably stupid but if you're going to do something and you explained it very well where you're going to get the information from I would like to see the information in there so that anyone can get the same information right now it's what you and I'm not saying you're cheating or you're doing something but anybody in this County should be able to look up the same information that you would use when you did it and that and that and that's I I think it's very important that we not leave out anything like that so you'd like them to reference this I would like the reference of where what they're using for for this if you're not going to use a census then you're going to use whatever data and if you're going to use that that means all of us can look at and as soon as the census is available the very best data that's available will be used well I'll let the experts write it up but I just just want to see it so I can look at it myself if I wanted to uh may I you may uh the Bureau of Economic and Business research uh adjusts their data every 10 years to be synchronized with census data so they give us the data in between the 10 in the 10year periods but they they adjust to match with census so they're pretty they track pretty close with each other so when the census comes out what you're using they just syn up with them in terms of projected population estimated population yes exactly okay so I'm with Tom I mean if if if it was referenced this is where we're going to get our information from and you may already have it in there and if you do that's great I just didn't see there you go policy that's what he brought up earlier yes yeah but it doesn't no I'm just going it doesn't say where it's coming from understood I'm not following you is that what you're looking for right there's EDR section one um Samantha is asking me to uh to reference something in the staff report and I will go to it I think I know what she's referring to okay three I'm not sure Sam I think it was in eight this is a quote from uh chapter one of the comprehensive growth management plan we're required to to consider the analysis and determine accurate of the methodology and this is part of our basis for making these recommendations and doing this analysis additionally uh as you may have heard me say before Florida statute requires that we consider local issues when we do the ear-based Amendments and this is a local issue so that's the justification I guess you could say the basis for staff bringing this to you for consider ation any other questions comments D I'm not going to support this I am not either okay is there a reference for where you're getting information from where like Tom says you can go look and see is that what the EDR would did you showed yes I was I was reference I showed you a reference to EDR that's in our in the residential capacity portion of the of the text okay so it's in the text it is then I can't support it yes that was in what he showed earlier in chapter 4 yeah okay um do we have any further questions um we have any public comment sorry you don't okay um without further do if we can get a motion I'll move I'll Mo I'll move that we take accept this I second okay can we get a vote all in favor strongly opposed okay I all right 3 to one all right motion passes thank you Clyde thank you I'm going close this down all right we are moving on to our next item on the agenda n ph-5 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-1 Preamble and we have Miss Jenna here with us this evening to present good evening members of the local planning agency Jen and Obi senior planner with the growth Management Department the changes in chapter 1 this evening you have already seen this proposed amendment we are returning it to you in response to the proposed changes in chapter 4 so for internal consistency between the chapters of the comp plan we are returning this item um in the staff report and in the text for chapter 1 we have highlighted the changes in gray that have changed since you last saw this item and so that would be section 1.7 B housing unit demand projection and section 1.7 C residential capacity calculations that have been tweaked to be consistent with the changes in chapter 4 okay so staff recommends approval of the uh CPA 24-1 and we are available for any questions Gman move approval second did you have a discussion no I'm I'm opposed to it just because I'm opposed to chapter four chapter four and I don't want to update the other ones to be in concurrence okay any further discussion public comment oh public comment no bom rers all right we are going to go ahead and take a vote i i i opposed okay three to one motion passes all right we're moving on to our next agenda item I apologize my leg is bothering me so I'm standing not to be like listen to me all right n ph-6 a comprehensive plan Amendment 24-02 overall goals and definitions I proposed text amendment to chapter 2 overall goals and definitions of comprehensive growth management plan Martin County Code based on 2024 valuation approval report this uh back to you Miss Jenna you have the floor thank you very much uh Jen and Obi senior planner the same proposed changes in Chapter 2 are just as they were with chapter 1 they are made to be consistent with chapter 4 of the comprehensive growth management plan so we have uh proposed to revise or strike some of those definitions that would be um consistent with the changes in uh the residential capacity section of chapter 4 so staff recommends approval of of these uh proposed changes in Chapter 2 and we are available for any questions okay any questions gentlemen I'm opposed for the same reason okay um we'll wait for yeah why don't we wait for Mr Hartman call for public comment even public comment no there's microphone right here now you're consistent all right stop talking I'll move approval of uh 2402 and the reason reason you don't like it is because it goes back to chapter four correct he's being consistent I'll second it all right all in favor I I I okay I'll pass motion passes all right we um moving on to the next item what Mr I opposed yes Oh I thought you no no no no this is I'm I'm opposed and compliance with my vote on said I no okay sorry three to one I'll let you take it okay um we are on NP - 7 comprehensive plan Amendment 24-14 Capital Improvements element proposed text amendment to chapter 14 Capital Improvements element of the comprehensive growth management plan Martin County Code based on 2024 evaluation and appraisal report and we still have Miss Jenna up here you have the floor thank you very much Jenna naby senior planner with the growth Management Department this is the uh ear-based proposed text changes to chapter 14 the Capital Improvements element of the comprehensive growth management plan and on page three of the staff report in front of you there are levels of standard or levels of service standards that are proposed for revision or consolidation and can you bring it up on the screen please yes my rign is over your lean is so this outlines the uh proposed changes in the chapter and in policies 14.1 A2 14.1 A3 14.1 A4 and 14.15 the levels of service standards in those policies are proposed for revision or to be Consolidated and these changes are consistent with chapters 1 5 10 11 and 13 of the comprehensive plan all for the sake of internal consistency then we have uh Throughout the chapter there's an emphasis on the portable water systems that are made to differentiate between portable water versus Storm Water Management Systems just for clarification the levels of service standard uh requirement for public transit is proposed to be removed from policies 14.1 C4 14.1 C6 and section 14.5 D because the county does not have a level of service standard for public transit and Florida Statutes preempts local governments from using public transit as a means of concurrency the uh policy uh 14.1 E17 is being revised to change these specific section references uh from specific policies to Chapters so that the requirements for compliance are broader and then this was missed in the staff report but one want to bring it to your attention that policy 14.1 C5 uh there's two places where the word mandatory is being stricken from describing public facilities and this is because impact fees are collected at the time of building permit and Martin County no longer classifies its public facilities as mandatory versus non-mandatory all the impact fees are collected at the time of building permit and lastly this was not made in time for this agenda packet but it will be reflected at the October 22nd BCC meeting but there is a new requirement with the um housing what's the HUD acronym Department of Housing and Urban Development yes uh so this is a federal requirement and I'm going to go to the page of text so this section here is under uh category a facilities this section B here is about flood protection standards and so right here where it says the lowest floor of a building inside a special flood Hazard area shall be at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevations this change is going to say 2 feet instead and this is in response to the federal HUD requirements so it's not in your staff report and it's not in this reflected textt but I wanted to bring it to your attention this will be at the October 22nd meeting so let me add that our Public Works staff realized this after this agenda item was prepped um the the HUD regulation takes effect January of next year uh it doesn't take it doesn't isn't effective yet but it would if this isn't done this would have a serious impact on flood insurance policies and the ability to get mortgages uh that are federally backed so uh this is a a very important change that we will be making and we've already made for the presentations on October 22 would it make sense to make the 100-year flood um calculations comply with the other 100y storm event calculations use the same language I'm sorry I there was mean several times in the strikethroughs there they used to uh reference numbers of inches and and the current proposal is to go to a 100e storm event which still hasn't been recalculated yet we're still on 30-year metrics but um I think that using the most current language is probably safer from a HUD perspective or if this is the language that HUD provided then go for it yeah I'm pretty sure Lisa wixer um worked on this language both in this chapter and in uh chapter 13 and uh and is taking it into consideration and and work she's pretty diligent about getting her language to match with Federal so so we just wanted to bring this to your attention this change will be reflected when this item moves forward understood so that concludes staff's presentation on the proposed changes in chapter 14 we recommend approval of these changes and if you have any questions we're available all right gentlemen I'll move approval pending public comment okay second right do we have any public comment last chance okay all right any other further discussion no okay take a vote I I we got four unanimous we have four at least what motion passes ending the night well um any other further comments thank you okay thank you st thank you very much thank you staff thank you staff thank you gentlemen thank you thank you public thank you public next time thanks everyone thanks Elise keeping us straight thank you I have a to say I said you only got two more meetings with me yeah so it up with quasi judicial yeah he wanted you to make the rest of the meeting that way I'm just going to start saying I was gonna say QJ we have I'm gonna go home and practice in the mirror we have a few quasi J yeah for the nove I'm sorry for October 17th so I hope we have a quorum that day I will not be here you will not be here yeah he has a concert with Jim yeah we're going into Columbus Day or indigenous people's that's oh you're celebrating that everyone else is good you have a plot to be buried in over in Saint Saints yeah maybe maybe I'm already there and the front part yeah already' been advertised oh I'm sorry adjourned no more