Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. April 11, 2017

Transcription

1 Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS April 11, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a special session in Commission Chambers at 2:03 p.m. on Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. INTRODUC"RON OF PUBLIC HEARING BY CHAIRMAN CARL ZALAK, III Chairman Zalak advised that the public hearing was scheduled this morning in regard to Land Development Code Amendments. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country. ROLLCALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Chairman Carl Zalak, District 4; Vice Chairman Kathy Bryant, District 2; Commissioner David Moore, District 1; Commissioner Jeff Gold, District 3; and Commissioner Michelle Stone, District 5. Also present were County Attorney Matthew G. Minter and County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes. PRESENT PROOF OF PUBLICATION Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication of a display ad entitled, "Notice of Public Hearing" published in the Star Banner newspaper on March 28, The Notice states the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider an Ordinance amending the Marion County Land Development Code (LDC). The Deputy Clerk was provided with a 1 page Agenda and a medium size tabbed binder containing a 4 page draft Ordinance; Flood Plain Ordinance Revision tab containing 24 pages; Executive Summary tab containing 10 pages; Div 1 Admin & Enforcement markup tab consisting of 10 pages; Div 1 Admin & Enforcement clean tab containing 10 pages; Div 2 Zoning Classifications markup tab containing 69 pages; Div 2 Zoning Classifications clean tab consisting of 66 pages; Div 3 Special Requirements markup tab containing 38 pages; Div 3 Special Requirements clean tab consisting of 36 pages; Div 4 Signs markup tab containing 2 pages; Div 4 Signs clean tab containing 2 pages; Div 7.5 Tree Trimming markup tab containing 1 page; and Div 7.5 Tree Trimming clean tab consisting of 1 page. STAFF PRESENTATION - Sam Martsolf, Growth Services Director Growth Services Director Sam Martsolf noted that today is the second and final hearing on the proposed LDC Amendment. He advised that in the packet that was presented, under the Executive Summary tab, is a list of changes that were addressed at the last public hearing. REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS I. Article 5. Overlay and Special Area A. Flood Plain Ordinance Revision Book W, Page 351

2 Apri/11,2017 Mr. Martsolf noted the floodplain is the same as presented on March 22, 2017, and no changes have been proposed. Chairman Zalak inquired as to any questions from the BCC in-reqard to the floodplain. There being none, he directed staff to address Division 1. II. Article 4, Zoning Classifications A. Format revision (Table of Uses versus "One Sheet") B. Division 1: Administration and Enforcement Mr. Martsolf advised that in Division 1 changes were made as requested in the R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) as far as changing the setbacks and lot sizes. C. Division 2: Zoning Classifications Chairman Zalak questioned how that will read from now on, noting different ways were addressed. He asked if it will be a condensed indexing or if everything will be repeated in each division moving forward (e.g., R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4). Mr. Martsolf advised that there are some repeating, which mainly happens in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Dwelling) and R-4 (Mixed Residential), as far as uses go; however, the uses are specific to the particular residential zoning classifications, not like in the commercial where it grows as it goes through. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated the commercial side will not repeat, noting they are now clean. He clarified that all those shown in B-1 (Neighborhood Business) are not shown in B-2 (Community Business). Mr. Martsolf stated the R-3 is the first place where the caveat was added (both in R-3 and R-4) in regard to the smaller lot sizes that can be approved administratively through the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommendation and approval process. Also, the language was fixed in the R-4 on the site built homes rebuild. Uses were reduced once moved to commercial that were not liked in R-O (Residential Office), as far as schools. The B-1 was fixed and cleaned up, removing a couple of things that were talked about (auto detailing and bowling alley) and has that complete list. Then in B-2, B-4 (Regional Business) and B-5 (Heavy Business) those uses were cumulative as they went through so they do not repeat themselves throughout the Code. He advised that staff will add a website page that has everything cleaned up and organized for those wanting to look at what is allowed in the higher zoning classifications that will include those lower uses. Mr. Martsolf noted everything was fixed in the Rural Commercial (i.e., RC-1 and RAC) and the PLID stayed the same as it was as of March 22, (Ed. Note: Zoning Classifications for: R-2 is 1 & 2 Family Dwelling; RC-1 is Rural Commercial; and RAC is Rural Activity Center.) D. Division 3: Special Requirements Mr. Martsolf commented on special requirements of Division 3, noting the Administrative portion was fixed to allow for semi-truck parking to include having a Special Use Permit if on a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) road. Chairman Zalak inquired as to how that will affect the process. Mr. Martsolf advised that they would not be eligible for the Administrative Permit. E. Division 4: Signs Page 352, Book V

3 April 11, 2017 Mr. Martsolf noted no changes were made to the sign change made to the single sign and off-site signs. III. Article 6, Technical Standards and Requirements A. Division 7.5 Tree Trimming and Removal in Public Right of Way Mr. Martsolf advised that there were no changes made in Article 6 in relation to the tree standards. Chairman Zalak noted that was on the Agricultural to match the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Mr. Martsolf concurred. Chairman Zalak asked if any Commissioner has any questions. There being no response he inquired if staff has any other items that need to be covered in regard to the changes. Mr. Martsolf stated there are none. County Attorney Matthew G. Minter commented on the floodplain Ordinance, which needs to have the county's regular signature block on page 24 added. He noted there are two Section 3's (one on page 16 and another on page 22). It appears that the one on page 16 should actually be Section 2. In response to Mr. Martsolf, Mr. Minter stated page 1 starts off (at the top of the page) with Section 1 and page 16 says Section 3. Mr. Martsolf advised that 3 separate Ordinances were sent to Mr. Minter; one was the single floodplain; another was single development code and the 3 rd was a combined Ordinance since staff did not know for sure if they would be fully approved altogether and they wanted to be able to separate the Floodplain Ordinance. Senior Planner Chris Rison, AICP, Growth Services, advised that staff can fix the typographical error (typo). In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Minter noted page 24 currently has signature lines for the Governing body, Manager/Clerk, etc. Mr. Minter noted there are several places in the Ordinance; for instance on page 6, Item D. Application for a permit or approval, which states in part, "on a form furnished by the community." Paragraph E. Validity of permit or approval, says in part, "any other section of this community."; and Section 6, on page 7, says in part, "regulation or requirement of this community". He suggested changing community to Code or County, as the context indicates. Mr. Minter stated those are his comments. Mr. Martsolf advised that staff can make those changes. Chairman Zalak asked if community will be changed to county. Mr. Martsolf concurred. County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes questioned whether community is defined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Rules. Mr. Martsolf concurred and opined that it will be okay. Mr. Minter stated the problem he has is that FEMA Rules are not this Ordinance. If the Ordinance does not say it is adopting FEMA Rules it is set out as a standalone Ordinance. He noted community is not a defined term in the definition section (starting on page 16). Mr. Minter clarified that being a county Ordinance it is more understandable to the public and makes more sense to say, "If you want to get a form go to the county to get the form" rather than going to the community. Chairman Zalak concurred and directed staff to make those changes. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Zalak opened the floor for public comment. Brandy Hall, PO Box 345, Lowell, expressed her concern with the changing of the R-4 in regard to mobile homes. Chairman Zalak advised that the change is due to issues in regard to overall development. He clarified that a variance process is in place for a site Book V, Page 353

4 April 11, 2017 built home where there are multiple mobile homes around it; however, if there is less than 50 percent (%) mobile homes around it then it will have to go back to a site built home. Ms. Hall commented on customers buying property that allows mobile homes who will now have to spend more money to get a Variance. Chairman Zalak advised that if the R 4 property is vacant then either a mobile home or site built home can be placed on that parcel. This only applies to those with an existing site built home; if that home is torn down and other site built homes are around it then it needs to be replaced with another site built home and not a mobile home. In response to Ms. Hall, Chairman Zalak stated unless there are 50% mobile homes around the property then the property owner can request a Variance. Ms. Hall inquired as to how someone with an R-4 property that has a structure/house on it can install a mobile home as a guest home? Commissioner Bryant advised that cannot be done in R-4, noting it can only occur in A-1 (General Agriculture). She noted no changes were made in A-1. Tom Trexler, South Magnolia Avenue, advised that as he understands what was just explained very well is the removal of a site built home will prohibit putting a manufactured home on the site. He noted this has been occurring for a long time and inquired as to what has changed. Chairman Zalak stated it works both ways, as multiple people that have had a site built home that was next to another site built home only to have someone tear down the other site built home and put in a mobile home, because it has an R-4 zoning classification. R-4 properties are scattered throughout the county with no consistency and the county is trying to provide consistency. Chairman Zalak noted good comments from the community was provided and advised that the Board added that language to try and make it in like form. If you have a site built house amongst a bunch of mobile homes it makes sense that you can put a mobile home back up; however, if you have a house with a bunch of site built homes it makes more sense to put a site built home back up in order to keep consistency and property values. Mr. Trexler opined that the measurement is not a bunch ofsite built homes. He stated the measurement is whether there is a site built or manufactured home on the property, which has nothing to do with the neighborhood. Mr. Trexler questioned what the problems are and what has changed? He stated if someone is removing a site built home then it is presumed that either the condition, quality or value would not be very high. Chairman Zalak stated structure fires occur all the time and there are plenty of reasons as to why homes are destroyed, remodeled or redone where people may decide to go to a different style. In response to Mr. Trexler, Chairman Zalak stated the county is not discriminating against manufactured housing. Commissioner Moore commented on neighborhoods with an expensive home on one side of the road and a house that literally needs to be torn down on the other side of the road. He noted other areas exist where the homes are in bad condition and a new mobile home is in better condition than any of the site built homes. Commissioner Moore questioned whether the county should rezone certain portions, as each area is different. General discussion ensued. Joe C. Brown, SE 95 th Street, opined that this change does not sound reasonable, but noted he may not have the correct information. He requested the Board to forgive him for the redundancy. If you have a site built home in an R-4 zone that is removed or destroyed in that mixed use zone then it has to be replaced with a site built home unless a Variance is obtained. Chairman Zalak concurred. Commissioner Bryant advised of the variable with the way the proposed Ordinance is currently written, in regard to having site built homes Page 354, Book V

5 April 11,2017 around that site built home on adjoining properties. Mr. Brown commented on some of those R-4 areas that might have nicer homes around the lake. He inquired as to how many R-4 home sites (not lots, as some areas have 20 foot and 25 foot lots that have to be grouped together to create a buildable home site) are currently in Marion County, roughly. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Brown stated the definition of home site would have to be a minimum of 75 foot, noting if you are in Hog Valley with 20 foot lots, you would have to have minimum of 4 lots, which could really be skewed by saying there are 100 lots when there are really only 20 home sites. He opined that there are somewhere around 6,000 to 8,000 home sites versus R-1, which is around 150,000. Mr. Brown stated he did not want to say there is a shortage of mobile home lots, as there are plenty of lots in Marion County. He opined that this change seems to be the epitome of spot zoning and stated there may be a better way for the Board to accomplish what they are trying to do, as he does not believe it will be fair to the average person. Mr. Brown advised that he owns hundreds and hundreds of homes throughout the county; many of which are in an R-4 area. He noted that site built homes in R-4 zones are predominately built at least 40 to 50 years ago. Mr. Brown stated he did not want to call them hunting shacks, cabins, or campsites that were developed, but are site built homes that are 300 square feet (sf) to 400 sf in size. He opined that it would be ludicrous to take that right away from those people, as well as any liability for Realtors who represented the property as being R-4. Mr. Brown commented on choices made by people who built a home in an R-4 zone knowing what they were doing and what was around them. He questioned whether it was right to go back and punish the person who might be in a little cracker shack that burns down. If the shack did burn down what would that square footage fall under? Mr. Martsolf advised that they are not under the R-1 minimum requirements. Mr. Brown stated this seems like a bad idea, noting a lot of people cannot economically afford site built homes. He requested the Board to rethink this change. Commissioner Gold commented on campsites, noting he has the same concerns with some of those that are over 40 years old and sometimes manufactured homes are an upgrade. General discussion resumed. Mr. Brown commented on costs to relocate a 1970 mobile home, based on wind zonelloading, if you are allowed to permit it here, moving a double-wide in Marion County and reset it, it will cost you $10,000. He questioned whether someone would relocate an old clunker. More than likely it will be a nice home. A single-wide is $7,500, which will also not likely be a clunker, because you have that moving, blocking, anchoring, reconnecting, etc. Mr. Brown commented on the price of mobile homes, which is without the land and other costs. Rick Bolling, 2022 SE 25 th Loop, advised that he owns Uncle Roy's Mobile Homes, Circle B Mobile Homes and a 78 unit R-4 zoned subdivision known as Lexington Estates, which has 50 available spots. He voiced his opposition to the change, as it is language that is not needed. Mr. Bolling stated reference to DCA (Department of Community Affairs) is archaic, noting the new initials are DBPR (Department of Business and Professional Regulation), which is a different certification and regulatory body over manufacture buildings. He advised that he would like to see anytime manufactured home is used, if the intent is to use it as a manufactured home, that the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) be referenced, as that is the body that regulates their industry. Mr. Bolling Book V, Page 355

6 April 11, 2017 commented on people having issues with what is a manufactured home and modular home. Mr. Minter referred to the lead-in Ordinance (at the front of the binder), under Section 2. Adoption, found on page 3, which talks about adopting the LDC changes regarding Articles 1,4 and 6 and Article 5, New Floodplain Regulations, but it does not say Building Code Amendments. He inquired if adoption of the Building Code should be included in Section 2. Mr. Rison stated the Building Code is in the Floodplain Ordinance and is part of the advertisement. Mr. Minter stated it will be added to that Section to read: SECTION 2. ADOPTION. The Board hereby adopts the Land Development Code changes regarding Articles, 1, 4, and 6, and Article 5, New Floodplain Regulations, as well as the amendments to Marion County Code Ch. 5.5, Building and Building Regulations, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference. He noted this shows up on the attachment on pages 22 and 23, under Section 3, where it says, "This ordinance specifically amends the Marion County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 5.5 Building and Building Regulations, Article II Building Code:" David Sachse, NW 10 th Street, Southern Comfort Mobile Home Center, questioned what the Board is trying to accomplish. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Sachse noted he understood what they are doing, but asked what purpose it serves. Chairman Zalak stated the purpose is to replace a site built home with another site built home. Mr. Sasche advised that he is opposed to taking somebody's property rights away, noting R-4 certainly allows more rights than does R-1, which is more restrictive. He stated he is opposed to the change, as there are not enough R-4 sites available that are desirable. Dustin Crews, SE 22 nd Avenue, owner of Florida Mobile Masters, which sets up mobile homes, expressed his opposition to the change because it will take jobs away from his employees. He requested the Board to delay voting on the issue. Chairman Zalak commented on publicly noticed meetings, noting the Land Development Regulation Commission (LDRC) has met for over 120 days and the BCC has had multiple public hearings. Chris Clemans, South Pine Avenue, General Manager of Clayton Homes, advised that he too just found out about this change. He opined that everybody around the R-4 zoning gets to dictate to the R-4 owner in a way. Mr. Clemans stated it does not make sense to keep putting borders around this instead of trying to take the use of the property for what it really is. He noted that R-4 is a special zoning and the people who already own R-4 properties to decide what happens. Ed Shomer, South Pine Avenue, Ocala Custom Homes & Design Center, voiced his concerns with changes to R-4 properties. He advised that manufactured housing is not what it was in yesteryear, noting these homes are finely built and some cost more than site built homes. Mr. Shomer implored the BCC to reconsider this matter and noted it smacks of a discriminatory action in his opinion. He questioned the legal precedent over something like this and again asked the Board to reconsider. BOARD DISCUSSION Commissioner Bryant noted she had some consternation when this was originally discussed and advised that she asked Mr. Minter about the legal ramifications. Since talking about this at the last public hearings she has had time to think about it and while she understands the concern and what they are trying to do; however, some very good Page 356, Book V

7 April 11,2017 points were brought up today. Commissioner Bryant stated she is having a hard time with this amendment. Commissioner Gold opined that this was brought forth in good faith and one of the good points brought up today is in regard to replacing an older site built home that could be an old campsite or something that is just falling apart. In response to Chairman Zalak, Commissioner Gold stated they should not restrict the rights of others. Commissioner Bryant noted the amendment is limiting what someone can do with their property and depending on their budget this may take away any ability for them to actually improve a piece of property that otherwise would not get improved. She commented on available affordable housing, which needs to be considered, although she understands what was trying to be accomplished, but believes they will have to figure out a different way to get there. Commissioner Moore commented on various zoning classifications in a particular area and opined that the Board might look at rezoning certain areas to make them compatible with one another. He stated he does not agree with the mobile home amendment. Commissioner Stone expressed her appreciation to the comments today, noting she listened intently and understands what they are trying to do on behalf of homeowners in areas where there is a site built home. She suggested possible rewording of the language proposed. General discussion ensued. Commissioner Bryant suggested the amendment be scratched and go back to the drawing board rather than try to fix it on the fly without knowing all of the unintended consequences. Chairman Zalak directed staff to remove the R-4 change. Chairman Zalak advised that public comment is closed. Mr. Martsolf stated he only needs to know if the Board will adopt one Ordinance or two. In response to Chairman Zalak, Mr. Martsolf stated one version of the Ordinance includes the Floodplain as one Ordinance, noting he does not know which version the County Attorney is comfortable with. Mr. Rison clarified that 3 separate Ordinances were provided because they were not sure what the Board would adopt. He noted one Ordinance is just the floodplain; another is only the LOC, excluding the floodplain; and the third is both combined, as the advertisement covers everything together, including the amendments to the Florida Building Code related to the floodplain changes, as those have to be referenced. This is the County's Code of Ordinances and some items are coming out because they are now in the Florida Building Code; however, staff is adding one provision in, which is not addressed by the Building Code, but it is desired for the community rating system so we can improve our rating for the citizens of Marion County. Mr. Minter inquired if the 3 rd Ordinance also references the Building Code. Mr. Rison stated it should. Mr. Minter advised that it is fine with him if the Board adopts one Ordinance that covers everything. A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Moore, to adopt Ordinance in its entirety to include floodplain revisions, as well as all other changes made today and striking language on the R-4. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0). CLOSING COMMENTS Chairman Zalak expressed his appreciation to those present today. Book V, Page 357

8 April 11, 2017 There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereupon adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Attest: Carl Zalak, III, Chairman Page 358, Book V