PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PDC) SUMMARY MINUTES December 7, 2017

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PDC) SUMMARY MINUTES Members Present: David Bramblett, Chair; Cheryl Phillips, 1 st Vice Chair; William Garvin, 2 nd Vice Chair; William J. Grant; Sondra Moylan; and Chuck Dixon, School Board Representative Staff Present: Joanna Coutu, Director, Land Development Division (LDD); Laura A. Marley, Principal Planner, (LDD); Cynthia L. Jones, Senior Planner, (LDD); Joe Hochadel, Planner, (LDD); Susan Wright, Coordinator (LDD); and Charlene Wolf, Sr. Secretary (LDD) Also Present: Denise Lyn, County Attorney; and Mark Green, Department of Growth Management Director Absent: Joel Brender and James Brooks A. CALL TO ORDER David Bramblett, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. B. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Cheryl Phillips, 1st Vice Chair. C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Cheryl Phillips, 1st Vice Chair. D. ROLL CALL Recording Secretary proceeded with roll call. E. CHAIRMAN TO READ THE APPEAL PROCESS AND MEETING PROCEDURES F. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC None G. APPROVE MINUTES MOTION: Approve minutes of October 19, VOTE: 5 0, Minutes approved 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Mr. Garvin

2 H. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS: None I. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: County Attorney Denise Lyn polled the PDC members on whether they had any ex parte communications concerning the applications to be heard. All PDC members said they had no ex parte communications. Mr. Garvin had a site visit. J. APPLICATIONS 1. LAND USE APPLICATION a. V Stuart Walling for Kevin and Debra Roggen REQUEST: This request is for a Variance from the Citrus County Land Development Code (LDC) to allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling having less than the required 50-foot minimum building setback from the mean high water line (35-foot with berm and swale), pursuant to Section 3501, Surface Water Protection Standards, as specified in the LDC. LOCATION: Section 36, Township 19, Range 16; more specifically, Lot 28, Block 2, of Riverhaven Village, Plat Book 9, Page 31, which address is known as W. Tarpon Ct., Homosassa, FL STAFF CONTACT: Joe Hochadel, Planner, Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area. The applicant is requesting a single-family dwelling having a 20-foot setback to the mean high water line. APPLICANT: Bennett Walling spoke on behalf of the applicant. His presentation included an aerial view of the subject property, the current survey, and the proposed site plan. The north property line on the previous survey, which was provided by the property owner, was mirrored. Per the plat and the new survey, instead of directing in a northeasterly direction, it is actually a southeasterly direction. This resulted in the house being approximately seven feet closer to the water. It was further discovered that the deed restrictions require a 25- foot front setback. The site plan has been revised and the square footage has been reduced to 1,950 square feet. He said the house would look like a single-wide mobile home if it was built any narrower. Stormwater ponds are being proposed to capture runoff from this site. PDC members had no questions for the applicant. 2

3 STAFF: Mr. Hochadel s presentation included an aerial view of the subject property, the previous site plan for V-17-16, the current site plan, and the available building envelope. The applicant is requesting a 20-foot setback from the mean high water line to the single-family dwelling. The setbacks were reviewed from the previous request and the proposed setbacks being requested. The previous waterfront setback was 21 feet to the inside edge of the riprap seawall. Due to the angle of the front property line, the dwelling has been shifted slightly to the east. He noted that Finding of Fact Number Five had not been found to be a positive finding. Mr. Grant asked why Finding of Fact Number Five was not found to be positive. Mr. Hochadel said it was because the house could be made smaller or otherwise revised to fit into the available building envelope, so it was not a minimal variance. Mr. Walling had no questions for staff. Mr. Grant asked for a comparison of the two requests regarding the waterfront setback. Mr. Hochadel said the original request was for 13 feet to a patio and this request is 20 feet. Mr. Grant confirmed that the applicant has given up seven feet in width for the house and is asking for one more foot for the waterfront setback. Mr. Hochadel affirmed and said the previous footprint was 2,636 square feet and the proposed footprint is 2,465 square feet. Mr. Bramblett asked about the application s inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan stated on Page Two of the staff report and then being found to be consistent in Finding of Fact Number Eight. Mr. Hochadel said Page Two should read that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has removed the patio from the 15-foot setback required in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Coutu noted the applicant previously had two driveways and a 43 percent Impervious Surface Ration (ISR). The applicant now has one driveway and meets the 40 percent ISR standard. Ms. Phillips asked about conditions. Mr. Hochadel read the following: Suggested Conditions: 1. The single-family dwelling and paver area shall maintain a minimum 20- foot setback to the mean high water line, as delineated on the site plan date-stamped October 4, 2017 by the Land Development Division. 2. The site cannot exceed the maximum allowable ISR of 40 percent. 3

4 3. An as-built survey demonstrating the maintenance of the required minimum 20-foot setback for the single-family dwelling and the paver area to the mean high water line must be submitted to and approved by the Land Development Division within 21 calendar days of establishing the lowest habitable floor level. 4. A berm/swale system consistent with the requirements of the LDC is required to be installed at time of permitting. PROPONENT: None OPPONENT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: MOTION: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Ms. Phillips MOTION: The finds application number V CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Land Development Code and IS in keeping with the intent of the Policies of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and that this Board APPROVES WITH CONDITIONS of the application based upon the evidence and testimony presented and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition with the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The single-family dwelling and paver area shall maintain a minimum 20- foot setback to the mean high water line, as delineated on the site plan date-stamped October 4, 2017 by the Land Development Division. 2. The site cannot exceed the maximum allowable ISR of 40 percent. 3. An as-built survey demonstrating the maintenance of the required minimum 20-foot setback for the single-family dwelling and the paver area to the mean high water line must be submitted to and approved by the Land Development Division within 21 calendar days of establishing the lowest habitable floor level. 4. A berm/swale system consistent with the requirements of the LDC is required to be installed at time of permitting. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried 4

5 2) PLAT VACATE APPLICATION a. PV Clark A. Stillwell for the Estate of Patricia DeHart REQUEST & LOCATION: This request is to vacate a 10-foot drainage and utility easement lying on the west side of platted Lot 17, Block 165, Sugarmill Woods, Oak Village, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Pages , Plat Book 10, Pages 1-150, and Plat Book 11, Pages 1-16, of the public records of Citrus County, FL; as amended in Plat Book 9, Page 87-A of the public records of Citrus County, FL, (Section 20, Township 20 South, Range 18 East). A complete legal description is described in Exhibit A of this application. STAFF CONTACT: Laura A. Marley, Principal Planner; Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and the applicant s site plan. This application is to vacate a 10-foot drainage and utility easement on the west side of platted Lot 17, Block 165, Sugarmill Woods, Oak Village. APPLICANT: Clark Stillwell gave a brief history of the development on this property. At a closing for the sale of this property, the bank and the buyer objected to the title commitment because an encroachment of the pool into the utility easement is a title defect. A plat vacate is needed to cure the title defect. All of the utility providers were contacted and all agreed to the plat vacate, with the exception of CenturyLink. The estate, bank, and title company have agreed to grant CenturyLink an easement. An easement agreement has been prepared by CenturyLink and it has been sent to the estate, bank, and title company for approval. If the PDC approves this request, then the resolution vacating the easement will be granted. The document that immediately follows will be a grant by the estate back to CenturyLink. Ms. Coutu confirmed there is not a line for CenturyLink under the pool. Mr. Stillwell said that was correct. Ms. Coutu asked how soon the easement agreement is expected to be executed. Mr. Stillwell explained that the estate has to go to the probate court to ask permission of the judge to sign the easement agreement and he expects to have the agreement back prior to the BCC hearing. He added that the verbiage in the easement agreement was drafted by a CenturyLink lawyer and is pretty straightforward. Mr. Bramblett verified that the applicant agreed to the easement agreement prepared by the CenturyLink lawyer and Mr. Stillwell affirmed. 5

6 Mr. Garvin asked if the pool was permitted. Mr. Stillwell said the pool was permitted. Ms. Coutu noted that the County was not that cognizant of easements in Mr. Grant noted that the easement agreement would be signed before the Board of County Commissioners approves a recommendation. Mr. Stillwell said that the easement agreement will be signed and delivered to Ms. Coutu, who will send the document to the County Attorney s office. The recording of the easement agreement will be post the approval of the BCC. STAFF: Ms. Marley s presentation included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the subject property and the surrounding area, and a site plan depicting the encroachment of the swimming pool in the drainage and utility easement. It does not appear there are any additional structures in the easement. This request is to vacate a 10-foot drainage and utility easement. The application was reviewed by the Plat Review Team and the Survey Section had a concern with the legal description. The legal description has since been corrected, but due to the timing, it is not in the PDC packets. The application was also reviewed by Fire Rescue, Emergency Operations Center/911, and Land Section and there were no objections. All of the utility companies, except CenturyLink, had no objection. There was a letter from an attorney (copied on blue paper for the PDC) stating that the Sugarmill Woods Oak Village Association, Inc. does not oppose the application request. Since the Survey Section has signed off on the first proposed condition, there is just one condition remaining: An executed easement agreement as requested by CenturyLink, shall be provided prior to placement of this application on the agenda of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Stillwell had no questions for staff. Ms. Coutu noted that the standard is to receive the agreement before the application is placed on the BCC agenda. She suggested the condition be modified to state the agreement shall be received before the BCC hearing. Mr. Stillwell said they would prefer being heard by the BCC as soon as possible. Ms. Coutu said the recommended condition would then need to state, An executed easement agreement, as requested by CenturyLink, shall be provided prior to hearing of this application by the Board of County Commissioners. This would mean the application could be put on the BCC agenda, while Mr. Stillwell and his client work to get the agreement signed before the hearing. PROPONENT: None OPPONENT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 6

7 MOTION: 1 st Ms. Phillips 2 nd Ms. Moylan MOTION: The finds application number PV CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and Citrus County Land Development Code and that this Board recommends APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION of the application to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition. Mr. Bramblett noted that it would be the amended condition. CONDITION: 1. An executed easement agreement, as requested by CenturyLink, shall be provided prior to hearing of this application by the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried 3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ATLAS AMENDMENT a. CPA/AA Clark A. Stillwell for Solar Building 4, LLC REQUEST: This is a request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan from GNC, General Commercial District, to IND, Industrial District; and to amend the Land Use Atlas Map of the Land Development Code from GNC, General Commercial District, to LIND, Light Industrial District. LOCATION: Sections 33 and 34, Township 16 South, Range 18 East, more specifically, Lot 16, Block 2A000, Rancheros Lomas, an unrecorded subdivision, which address is known as North Gopher Point, Dunnellon, Florida STAFF CONTACT: Cynthia L. Jones, Senior Planner, Land Development Division INTRODUCTION: Ms. Wright s overview included an aerial view of the subject property, and photos of the subject property and the surrounding area. The applicant is requesting to redesignate 2.4 acres from General Commercial District (GNC) to Industrial District (IND) on the Future Land Use Map and from GNC to Light Industrial District (LIND) on the Land Use Atlas Map. The site is currently developed with a building, which was permitted for a showroom and warehouse use. 7

8 APPLICANT: Clark Stillwell said that the original applicant, Solar Building 4 LLC, has transferred this property. The subject property is facing an arterial road and located in an area designated as commercial. To the east is Industrial, which includes Nichols Lumber Company and the client s existing business. Light Industrial was added to the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC for small scale projects like this one. The client will assemble and make roof vents. The number of employees will range from five to 10. The exterior of the building will not change. There is a 900-gallon septic tank on the property and a permitted water supply system. Four of the five residents abutting the property have provided written consents regarding the proposed use. He said the parcel size limits the potential uses and it cannot be expanded. The staff report stated this property is located in the Coastal, Lakes, and Rivers Region, and the Comprehensive Plan has guidelines to protect environmentally sensitive lands in this region. Mr. Stillwell said the definition for environmentally sensitive lands is essentially those areas designated by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to be environmentally sensitive. The BCC has not separately designated this parcel or any surrounding parcels as environmentally sensitive. He noted this parcel is not located in a wetland area or Coastal High Hazard area. Regarding compatibility, Nichols Lumber Company is a high intensity industrial use, and the subject property is surrounded by GNC and IND. The residential area has existed and appreciated in value. There has not been a detriment to any of these uses over the long term. Referencing a memo to staff regarding Policy and the utility issue, he said the Policy was adopted prior to the creation of LIND. The proposed LIND utility demands for this application are significantly less than GNC for both water and wastewater. Central utilities for wastewater are defined as regional, package plant, or FDEP septic greater than 10,000 gallons. He also noted that this proposed use will not create industrial waste. Solid waste will be disposed of in a commercial bin and hauled to the Citrus County Central Landfill. Mr. Stillwell referred to F.S (c) which states, Prohibited exaction means any condition imposed by a governmental entity on a property owner s proposed use of real property that lacks an essential nexus to a legitimate public purpose and is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of the proposed use that the governmental entity seeks to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. He said there is not a nexus in this situation as the client would be decreasing the consumption of water and wastewater. Policy needs to be qualified per that statute. Mr. Stillwell noted the Buick dealership north of Homosassa that was changed from commercial to industrial and light industrial. That application was approved and it did not have central wastewater. In the PORT District, the Subarea Text allows for use of septic tanks under Department of Health (DOH) regulations up to 10,000 gallons until central utilities are available. Policy was discussed in the Duke Energy application, but was not found to be 8

9 inconsistent in that situation. He said it was not practical to force a small business to pay out 80 percent of the value of their property for central utilities, which was the purpose of the aforementioned statute. The vacant industrial properties in the area cannot be developed because they don t have access to central utilities. Ms. Lyn asked if Mr. Stillwell represented the applicants in the three examples he gave which did not require central water and sewer facilities. Mr. Stillwell said he represented the Buick application in The PORT application was in 2008 and Ms. Lyn asked Mr. Stillwell if the BCC had seen fit to change this policy since those applications were approved. Mr. Stillwell said the policy was discussed in the Buick dealership application and the BCC approved it notwithstanding the policy. Ms. Lyn said the BCC has not changed the policy and it is still part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stillwell concurred. Ms. Coutu said Policy says, All new industrial development shall be required to be served by central water and sewer facilities. So it does not apply to existing industrial development. Central sewer does not require regional sewer (County Utilities), but this requirement could be met by a package plant with two or more users. She asked about the opposition to a package plant since a septic tank is prohibited by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stillwell said the setback from the well for a package plant cannot be met on two and one-half acres. The cost would be $25,000 - $30,000 to install a package plant and they would have to find another user. In order to have central utilities for potable water, FDEP requires 15 tie-ins. He said that if the County wants utilities in this area, they should do a special assessment district. Ms. Coutu asked whether the applicant would be willing to install a package plant with two users on this site. Mr. Stillwell said he would have to find another user, and there is not enough space for it. Mr. Grant asked what kind of utilities the Nichols Lumber Company is utilizing. Mr. Stillwell said they have an onsite water system and onsite septic system which have been in existence since they opened. Regarding the five abutting residential properties, Mr. Grant asked if the resident who did not provide consent had any objections. Mr. Stillwell said that person did not respond. Mr. Grant asked about setbacks for the package plant. Mr. Stillwell said it would require setbacks from the property lines and the potable water supply system. Mr. Grant inquired further regarding the setbacks. Mr. Stillwell said they could not be met due to the location of the building and the well. Mr. Grant confirmed that the BCC approved the Buick dealership application in spite of this policy, and Mr. Stillwell said that was correct. Mr. Grant asked whether the PORT application went to the BCC. Mr. Stillwell said industrial areas in the PORT district were allowed to develop using onsite septic if they were within a certain square footage. The application in the PORT District went from the BCC to the Department of Community Affairs and then back to 9

10 the BCC. Ms. Coutu said she did not recall that application being new industrial. She thought it was Industrial and Extractive with some isolated pieces of Low Intensity Coastal and Lakes District (CL). In that case, the Policy would not have been in play for that application and therefore, not applicable to this application. Mr. Stillwell expounded that the employees will be cutting and shaping metal materials and putting them together (assembly from raw products). The metal waste will then be sold to third parties. Mr. Garvin asked if the client will be using powdered paint. Mr. Stillwell said his client could answer that question when he comes to the stand. Ms. Coutu reminded the PDC that this is not a Planned Unit Development (PUD) request. The PDC could review the allowable uses in the LIND matrix provided in their packet. Mr. Bramblett asked about the difference between the designations of IND for the Future Land Use Map and LIND for the Land Use Atlas Map. Mr. Stillwell explained that the Comprehensive Plan districts include the IND designation, but not the LIND designation. The controlling map would be the Land Use Atlas Map along with the LIND criteria in the LDC. Mr. Bramblett asked whether the LIND designation would stay with the land rather than the property owner. Mr. Stillwell said it would stay with the land. Mr. Bramblett confirmed that meant any of the uses under the LIND District could be allowed if the owner sold the property. Mr. Stillwell said it would be subject to the qualification that if the new owner were to create industrial waste, then they would lose their right to use the septic tank. Bob Ellis explained that the manufacturing process would be cutting, slitting, bending, and assembling 26-gauge sheet metal into roof vents. There will be no painting, soldering, or welding. It is all mechanical joints. Waste will be put into a dumpster and hauled away. Mr. Garvin confirmed there will be no powdered paint or anything like that involved. Mr. Ellis said it is just aluminum and galvanized. STAFF: Ms. Jones presentation included an aerial view of the subject property, photos of the existing commercial building and the surrounding area, the Future Land Use Map, and the Land Use Atlas Map. The subject property is designated GNC and abuts residential uses to the north; general commercial to the west, south, and east; and industrial to the east. The primary use outside of the highway corridor is for residential uses. The subject property is less than one-half mile from the Withlacoochee River and located within the Coastal, Lakes, and River Region of the Comprehensive Plan. The property was developed for use as a tool rental business and is approximately 4,500 square feet. This application is not a PUD; so any of the uses identified in the LIND matrix could be allowed. Concurrency for central 10

11 water and central sewer has not been demonstrated as required in the Comprehensive Plan for new industrial uses. Mr. Stillwell had no questions for staff. Ms. Lyn asked about the land use to the east of the subject property. Ms. Jones said the area Ms. Lyn was referring to is designated Industrial. Ms. Lyn asked whether those Industrial properties would have to comply with Policy if they are developed. Ms. Coutu said no. Those properties are not considered new development as they are existing Industrial. Ms. Lyn asked if all of the Industrial properties have established uses on them. Ms. Jones said no. Mr. Bramblett asked about water and sewer for the client s existing business. Ms. Jones said there is a letter from Citrus County Utilities in the packet that states there is no regional water and sewer service in the area. Mr. Grant asked if staff agreed with Mr. Stillwell s comments on the setbacks for a package plant. Staff was not aware of the Department of Health s requirements for a package plant. Mr. Bramblett asked whether a change of use which would create industrial waste would be required to come through the County. Ms. Jones said a building permit would be needed to establish a new use. That generally includes the Department of Health, but she does not know their process. Ms. Coutu said that is under the State s jurisdiction, not the County s. She did not think a change of use like that would trigger an automatic review. Mr. Grant asked if the reason behind the County s position is because there is no central water and central sewer. Ms. Coutu said the Policy is trying to discourage new industrial development in areas where there are no central utilities. Mr. Grant confirmed there is no central water and central sewer in that area. Ms. Coutu said there are no existing regional utilities. There may be package plants, but she had no idea where they might be located. Mr. Grant said he is trying to balance a property rights issue and what is best for the County. There is no regional utility available. The County policy is to try to discourage wells and septic for new industrial. Staff asked the applicant about a package plant, and the response was that it cannot be done. While a package plant is under State jurisdiction, if staff could say whether a package plant could be installed, then that would influence his decision. Mr. Bramblett asked if the applicant could connect to a package plant owned by Nichols Lumber, if it was found that their septic was handled by a package plant. Mr. Green said there was a discussion with Ken Cheek, Water Resources Director, regarding this application. His understanding was that the County does not have central service that runs to the area in question. 11

12 Sprawl is taken into consideration when contemplating the expansion of central sewer service. Since neither a septic system nor a package plant is part of the County s jurisdiction, it seems unreasonable to require staff to bring information regarding the State s requirements to the PDC. If the PDC so desires, staff can ask what the sewer service options are, but it is the Department of Health that would work with the applicant on these items. Regarding the question about a change of use which creates waste, if a building permit is needed for the new use, it is possible the sanitary service would be reviewed by the Department of Health. Regarding Mr. Stillwell s argument that a package plant could not be placed on the subject property because of the existing well, Ms. Lyn asked Mr. Green if it was possible to move the well and therefore not have setback issues. Mr. Green said there is a separation distance between a potable well and a septic system or a package plant, but he did not want to testify on behalf of the applicant. He asked the PDC to consider having a discussion about package plants, septic systems, and central sewer at a later time. There are challenges due to the many package plants around the county. Mr. Green said he would rely on the Department of Health to look at the least invasive system that satisfies the sanitary sewer service needs for that particular use. Mr. Grant asked if Mr. Green knew of any plans to expand regional utilities to the area in question. Mr. Green said he and Mr. Cheek looked at some rough cost estimates and he did not think there are plans to expand services. Mr. Grant asked about additional setbacks for a package plant besides the well. Mr. Green said he was not familiar with the lot setbacks for a package plant. Any type of sewer service has a separation distance from a potable water source. Ms. Phillips asked how moving the well would affect the surrounding areas that are on septic. Mr. Green said he hoped the residents in the area were having their water tested to ensure a safe drinking source. Mr. Dixon commented that the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) may impact the County s policy on coastal development. Mr. Green said he thought the subject property may be in or close to the King s Bay BMAP area. He noted the Withlacoochee River is an impaired water body. Citrus County does not have enough projects to off-load the septic systems to meet the nitrogen reduction. His understanding from FDEP and DOH is that the County will not have a lot restriction on advanced systems for septic. It will more than likely be a septic system incorporating a nitrogen reducing technology. PROPONENT: Don Taylor, Board Chair for the Economic Development Authority for Citrus County (EDACC), said the EDACC is supportive of this application. He felt that the request should be viewed as low impact LIND. Approving this 12

13 application will fill a vacant property and create good paying jobs. He noted that Citrus County has one of the highest unemployment rates in Florida. OPPONENT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Grant asked about uses allowed in GNC. Ms. Coutu provided a copy of the GNC matrix for Mr. Grant to review. Ms. Moylan commented that if this application is approved, then there will be employment opportunities and improving the community by utilizing a vacant building. She did not think the PDC should be focusing on the concerns that will be addressed by the Department of Health. Ms. Lyn noted that the BCC passed a law in the Comprehensive Plan that says industrial development has to be on central water and sewer. Ms. Moylan asked about options when central water and sewer are not available. Ms. Lyn said a package plant is an alternative. Mr. Grant asked if the BCC has the capacity to over-rule its own policy, like it did with the other application referenced by Mr. Stillwell. Ms. Lyn said no, the BCC did not have the power then and it does not have the power now. She could not respond to what happened in the past. Neither the PDC nor the BCC have the power or authority to violate the law. The law can be changed, but the current law cannot be ignored. Mr. Grant asked what would happen if three or more Board of County Commissioners approve this application. Ms. Lyn said she would be advising the BCC the same way she is advising the PDC. Ms. Coutu noted the BCC has instructed staff to amend the GNC to allow light industrial uses as a conditional use. The proposed Ordinance Amendment (OA) will be heard by the PDC following this application. Mr. Garvin referred to the proposed GNC matrix in the Ordinance Amendment to be heard next, and said that if the OA is approved, then the applicant could request a conditional use without having to change the land use. Ms. Lyn said that was correct. She noted that this application came in before the BCC made that determination at an LDC workshop. Mr. Grant confirmed that Mr. Garvin s comment was correct. Regarding a conditional use, a change in the use of the property would require a review by the PDC. Ms. Coutu said that was correct as the ordinance is currently drafted. Mr. Bramblett asked about timing if the OA is recommended for approval by the PDC and goes to the BCC. Ms. Lyn said the OA would be effective upon the BCC s approval. Ms. Coutu said she thought the OA was scheduled in January. Mr. Bramblett commented that he was initially leaning in favor of the 13

14 application due to the Industrial designations in that area. But he was concerned about the possibility of a more injurious use replacing the current proposed use. And since there is a proposed change for light manufacturing in GNC, he was leaning more toward voting in opposition of the request. He added that if this request were a conditional use for assembling roof vents, then he would be in favor of that request. Ms. Lyn noted that the application could be continued. The applicant could work with staff to change the request to a conditional use. Mr. Grant said it is his opinion that this is not a question of if, but a question of when. His initial stance was in opposition to this request, and to go with a conditional use. But as he recalled the comments made at the LDC workshop, he would be changing his vote to be in favor of the request. He said the PDC s decision is not dispositive. Rather it is a recommendation to a body that is dispositive. The PDC can make a recommendation they think is appropriate knowing that, if the BCC approves the OA, the BCC could disavow the recommendation. Thus, by approving light manufacturing in GNC, the applicant will be able to do what they are requesting. Ms. Phillips noted that central water and sewer in that area does not appear to be in the foreseeable future. She felt this would make new industrial development unachievable due to Policy Ms. Lyn said that GNC is generally considered a more valuable zoning category. If the BCC changes GNC to include light industrial, the applicant may want to keep the land use as GNC. Mr. Garvin said that he would be voting against this request. He did not want to violate the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant could return with a conditional use request after the OA is approved by the BCC. Mr. Grant asked about the applicant having to come back for a conditional use if the OA is approved. Ms. Lyn explained that the OA is to allow light manufacturing in the GNC District with a conditional use. Mr. Bramblett asked Mr. Stillwell if he preferred to wait for a conditional use or if he wanted the PDC to vote on the current request. Mr. Stillwell said that if light manufacturing will be allowed in the GNC District as a permitted or conditional use, then that would be fine. But adding that to GNC still leaves opportunity for challenge regarding Policy He said if this use is labeled as light manufacturing, then it is industrial. The policy says, All new industrial development, not new industrial land use. He noted that a permit is considered development, and the expressed text cannot be changed. 14

15 MOTION: 1 st Mr. Grant 2 nd Ms. Phillips MOTION: The finds application number CPA/AA CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and Citrus County Land Development Code and that this Board recommends APPROVAL of the application to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and conclusions regarding this petition. VOTE: 2-3, Motion Failed For: Ms. Phillips, Mr. Grant Against: Mr. Bramblett, Mr. Garvin, and Ms. Moylan Mr. Grant asked about how the recommendation would be presented to the BCC. Ms. Lyn said it would be a recommendation of denial. Mr. Grant asked if there was a date for this application to be heard by the BCC. Ms. Coutu said there was not a date set at this time. Ms. Lyn said it will be after the OA is heard. Mr. Grant confirmed that the applicant could withdraw the application before the BCC hearing. Ms. Coutu said that the applicant could withdraw or he could transfer to a conditional use. 4) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT a. OA Land Development Division Multiple Sections Small Wireless Facilities, etc. REQUEST: This application proposes Land Development Code (LDC) criteria for compliance with current Florida Statutes and regulations relating to Small Wireless Facilities, and other miscellaneous items. STAFF CONTACT: Joanna L. Coutu, AICP, Director, Land Development Division Ms. Coutu s presentation included a slide explaining the preemption, a slide outlining size limitations for small wireless facilities, photos of small wireless facilities, and other items in various sections of the LDC proposed to be updated with this amendment. The Florida Legislature passed House Bill 687 that preempts the County regarding small wireless facilities. She summarized the preemption stating that the County may not prohibit, regulate, or charge for the collocation of small wireless facilities in the public rights-of way (excludes State rights-of-way). A definition of small wireless facility is 15

16 included in the update for Section 1500, Definitions. Poles for new facilities can be no higher than the tallest existing County pole within 500 feet in the right-of-way, or 50 feet if there are no County poles in the area. Legislation states that if the application is not reviewed within 60 days, it is automatically approved. The applicant can turn in one application for up to 30 sites. The color and design should be the same as other County poles within 500 feet. If there are no existing County poles within 500 feet, then the pole was proposed to be of a neutral color or material that will reduce visual obtrusiveness and will blend with the surrounding area. The County may reserve space on a County pole for future public safety uses. A right-of-way expansion or repair may require a small wireless facility to be relocated at the facility operator s expense. Some of the right-of-way utilization verbiage about bonding is included. At the request of one of the County Commissioners, commercial shooting ranges are proposed to be removed from residential land uses that currently permit them with a conditional use. Commercial shooting ranges would now require a PUD in GNC, but not be allowable in residential land use districts. The definition for Light Manufacturing is also included in the update of Section 1500., Definitions. Light Manufacturing and Building Trade Assembly uses are proposed to be added to GNC as a conditional use. The intent regarding roadside produce stands was to require the temporary structure be removed on a daily basis. The language is being updated to clarify that intent. Under Truck Parking, the proposal is to remove the statement that a Conditional Use for truck parking only applies to the current resident and cannot be transferred to a new owner. This is consistent with other conditional uses in the LDC. Mr. Dixon asked if the small wireless facility applicant has to pay anything to be located on the County infrastructure. Ms. Coutu said no, but there is the ability to charge for a permit. Mr. Dixon asked how an applicant could utilize a County facility without impacting the cost of the maintenance of that facility. Ms. Coutu explained that it is like a right-of-way utilization permit and a building permit. The right-of-way utilization permit would cover bonding and insurance. If the County pole cannot handle the small wireless facility, then the applicant would need to upgrade the County pole in order to utilize the pole. Mr. Dixon asked about a maintenance agreement. Ms. Coutu said there is language in the right-of-way utilization that requires the applicant to maintain the facility. Mr. Dixon confirmed it is only County right-of-ways. Ms. Coutu said it was just County, not State or private right-of-ways. 16

17 Ms. Phillips asked about the expense of relocating a small wireless facility due to a right-of-way expansion or repair. Ms. Coutu explained that the County would not want to relocate the small wireless facility s equipment. So the County Engineer proposed that this be done by the applicant. Mr. Green added that is the normal procedure. Ms. Lyn noted that the County has had to pay to relocate utilities along US-19 for the widening project. The Homosassa Special Water District had to take out a large loan to relocate their lines for the bridge going out to Riverhaven. It is very expensive to local government and taxpayers for relocation when FDOT decides to widen a road. Mr. Bramblett commented it is for that reason the applicant should pay rent. Ms. Phillips asked if an applicant ever receives any of the bond money back. Ms. Coutu said the bond would go away if the owner/operator removes their small wireless facility. It is the same for cell towers. If the facility is abandoned, the bond is used to remove it. Mr. Dixon asked if there had been any litigation on this legislation yet. Ms. Coutu said it is very early as it was passed in the last legislation session. Most counties have a moratorium and Citrus County s is until January. Mr. Bramblett asked about the moratorium. Ms. Coutu explained that the County would not accept applications for small wireless facilities until the moratorium is lifted. The moratorium gives the County time to put the code in place. Mr. Bramblett asked about the update regarding conditional use for truck parking and whether it was pertinent to the recent application heard by the PDC. Ms. Coutu said that in that particular case, it was stated that the conditional use was for the property, not the owner. There was no public input. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Bramblett asked about Mr. Stillwell s comment that Light Manufacturing is considered Industrial in a GNC District. Ms. Coutu explained that Industrial is simply a category in the GNC matrix. He asked about Policy , which reads All new industrial development shall be required to be served by central water and sewer facilities. Ms. Coutu and Mr. Green said that this will need to be revisited to clarify and make sure it is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lyn said the BCC has known about this issue for a long time and has not sought to change it. Mr. Grant asked if an applicant requests a Conditional Use under GNC, will they be required to have central water and central sewer. Ms. Coutu said they would not, but Ms. Lyn reminded the Commission that the applicant would have to meet Policy for any new industrial development. Mr. Green gave an example of two different uses in the GNC District and how one would be more demanding on the sewer system, which illustrates his 17

18 challenge with the policy. While he and Ms. Coutu will consider recommendations regarding the policy, the Department of Health will identify the acceptable system for the use. He added that creating centralized small package plants around the county is not an environmentally smart process. It is not the County s job to figure out how to serve every area in the county so people can do whatever they want. The County focuses on those developments with central sewer and water where it makes sense. When there are already subdivided commercial lots and industrial lots in operation in an area, we have to consider those existing rights as well. Mr. Grant said he was planning to attend the Board of County Commissioners meeting and asked that a public notice be published. Ms. Lyn said that when she is advising the PDC and the BCC, she has to be consistent. When the BCC tries to waive an ordinance or a law, she reminds them that it is the law. The PDC and BCC are to be dedicated to the integrity of the code and apply the code as it is written. Regarding Policy , she disagrees in practice with the planners interpretation. In practice, that is what they may do, but her advice is based on the words of the code. Mr. Grant said those that make policies can legally decide not to follow a policy if it is to the benefit of the circumstance, or person, or applicant, or party in litigation. Whereas the law means it stands. There is a distinct legal difference in his mind. Ms. Lyn said that case law says that the Comprehensive Plan is the law of the land as it goes to planning. The BCC has the power to waive administrative regulations. The LDC, which is adopted by ordinance, is law that cannot be waived. Ms. Phillips asked about situations where central water and central sewer are not possible. Ms. Coutu noted that would be regional rather than central utilities. Mr. Grant said that when there is a disagreement, it will potentially cost taxpayers litigation money. He felt the PDC should recommend to the BCC to consider giving themselves the capacity to consider a waiver on a case-bycase basis. He is not in favor of the County abrogating its law. He foresees litigation coming from adverse parties. Mr. Grant noted the plethora of case law that deals with issues like this and ambiguities. Ms. Lyn said the BCC cannot waive the policy, but she thought Mr. Green and Ms. Coutu said they were going to work on this issue. Ms. Coutu said the policy can be changed to look at it in certain situations. Since Industrial uses have changed over the years, it is hard to treat it the way it used to be treated. MOTION: 1 st Mr. Garvin 2 nd Ms. Moylan 18

19 MOTION: The finds application number OA CONSISTENT with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and Citrus County Land Development Code and that this Board recommends APPROVAL of the application to the Board of County Commissioners based upon the evidence and testimony presented, and the staff report and conclusions regarding this petition. VOTE: 5-0, Motion Carried K. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Ms. Coutu noted this was the last meeting in She gave a brief overview of applications to be heard at meetings in January and February. There will not be a PDC meeting on January 18, Mr. Dixon left at 11:15. L. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS None Mr. Grant said he would not be able to attend the April 5, 2018 PDC meeting. M. ADJOURN The adjourned at 11:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Charlene Wolf, Recording Secretary 19