PZ_Minutes_8-14-08

Document Sample
PZ_Minutes_8-14-08 Powered By Docstoc
					                          AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
                          & ZONING COMMISSION HELD IN AND FOR
                          GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON AUGUST 14,
                          2008, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
                          HAD, VIZ


PRESENT:                                   ABSENT:

John Yerkes, Chairman                      Dr. Tony Arnold
Ms. Diane Sheffield                        Ms. Arrie Battles
Alonzo McBride                             Dick Hollahan
Frank Rowan                                Eric Hinson, School Board
Willard Rudd
Dr. Gail Bridges-Bright
Mari VanLandingham
Larry Ganus
Jill Jegli, Interim Dir/Growth Mgt.
Jean Chesser, Deputy Clerk


CALL TO ORDER:

Chair Yerkes called the meeting to order stating a quorum was
present and then led in the pledge of allegiance to the U.S.
flag.

There were no declarations of conflict declared by any of the
members present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

UPON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GANUS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
MCBRIDE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED OF THE JULY 10, 2008,
P&Z MEETING, THE BOARD VOTED 8-0, BY VOICE VOTE, IN FAVOR OF THE
MOTION.

CONTINUED BUSINESS:

LaRue Planning & Management Services, Inc., -- Progress Update on
Land Development Code Revisions.

Ms. Jegli advised the Commission that a workshop previously
scheduled for August 21, 2008 has been cancelled and rescheduled
for September 29, 2008. There was no conflict with this change
from any of the Commissioners present except Commissioner
Sheffield who stated she will be out of town; and Ms. Jegli will

                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 1 of 7
contact the absent members in reference to same. She also said a
complete package will be sent out to all Commissioners at least
two weeks prior to the September 29th workshop. The meeting will
be held at 6:00 PM, Monday, September 29. Ms. Jegli said she
would be willing to schedule time and take any comments from
Commissioner Sheffield prior to the workshop and Commissioner
Sheffield said that would be very helpful.

Ms. Jegli then introduced Mr. Jim LaRue and Mr. Bill Bryson of
the LaRue Group.

Mr. LaRue gave a brief update on some of the issues which they
will be considering for the County Land Development Code. Some of
the items already addressed – factors for Class One, Type II,
roman numerals, placement of uses in one place within the Code,
lack of number of definitions in current Code, etc; all of which
are very confusing as used in the present Code. He said there
will be a site development chapter, some environmental review –
environmental chapter, overlay area of zones (will probably
include an overlay area for an airport zone) on Comp Plan
policies; as well as a proportional share ordinance which will be
included. Mr. LaRue said they can place something in the index
that will be a “cross index” and it will be on-line and will be a
searchable file. He said the current document is very wordy and
hard to understand and said special exceptions, for instance,
should have standards and those standards will be included. Both
Mr. LaRue and Mr. Bryson said they look forward to working with
the Commission at the September 29th workshop.

NEW BUSINESS:

Ms. Jegli advised the Commission there are four public hearings
scheduled for this meeting, all of which are part of the Isaac
Immediate Family Exception Variance issue. She said all of the
requests are similar in nature with the only difference being the
names and different size of each request. In an effort to save
time, she said she could present the staff report at one time for
consideration of the four requests, but reminded the Commission
each request could be voted on separately. It was the consensus
of the Commission to proceed as recommended by Ms. Jegli.

Ms. Jegli was sworn by Deputy Clerk Chesser and then presented
information on each of the variances as stated below:

(6) PUBLIC HEARING – Carolyn Isaac Smith, Variance V-2008-03, for
a variance request from the Isaac Immediate Family Exception


                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 2 of 7
requirements for one of the lots within the Isaac Immediate
Family Subdivision and consisting of 2.65+ acres.

(7) PUBLIC HEARING - Johnny Isaac, Variance V-2008-04, for a
variance request from the Isaac Immediate Family Exception and
consisting of 2.65+ acres.

(8) PUBLIC HEARING – Darlene L. Isaac Pearson, Variance V-2008-
05, for a variance request from the Isaac Immediate Family
Exception and consisting of 1.15+ acres.

(9) PUBLIC HEARING – Vicky V. Isaac, Variance V-2008-06, for a
variance request from the Isaac Immediate Family Exception and
consisting of 2.15+ acres.

Ms. Jegli gave a very thorough staff report indicating all four
of these parcels were created from property originally in the
Frank Isaac Family Estate which was divided into five parcels,
plus a remaining 30.96 acre parcel. She said the parcels created
by the Isaac Family heirs does not meet the AG-2 parcel size, and
either these parcels were created improperly, or it is to be
assumed these parcels were created through the immediate family
exemption process. Ms. Jegli said no formal application approval
has been found or provided indicating a subdivision of any kind
was approved. She said there has been no basis provided by the
Isaac Family or their attorney as to why the Isaacs would have
been allowed to create parcels inconsistent with the Comp Plan
and the family ownership, and the fact that there is no evidence
that a minor subdivision was approved indicates to staff that the
immediate family exemption was used to create these parcels. She
said that on another parcel (within the Isaac Immediate Family
Variance) the Board of County Commissioners had previously
approved a variance for Mack and Angelina Isaac (Isaac Immediate
Family Variance – V-2008-01) due to hardship of possible
foreclosure faced by Mack & Angelina Isaac. Since that time, Mr.
William Walker, as representative of four of the Isaac family
property owners approached the Board to request the remaining
Isaac parcels be allowed to be sold outside of the Isaac
Immediate family. The Isaacs were informed they would have to
apply and receive variance approval and on June 27th, Growth
Management received these four variance applications from the
Isaac family parcel owners. Ms. Jegli said allowing these lots
to be created outside of the Immediate Family Exemption would be
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.5-C(2) and Policy
1.1.6 as shown in the attached agenda packet. She said the Isaac
family heir property should be considered as a single “family”
ownership and a variance would grant rights to the Isaac Family

                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 3 of 7
property owners not enjoyed by others and has resulted in small
size properties created that will be non-compliant with the Comp
Plan and the Land Development Code. She also said the applicants
have the ability to acquire other family property adjacent to the
subject property, in the vicinity of the property which could be
used to create a Plan and Code compliant parcel that would allow
for the proposed use of the property in a conforming manner.

After further explanation and Ms. Jegli’s request that the record
include all (1-7) attachments as shown in her staff report, it
was the recommendation of Growth Management for Option 2 of the
attached report for each of the four requests (Deny the request
for the variance based on the findings presented in the planning
Commission Staff Report findings and specifically that granting
the variance would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan and Land
Development Code).

Chair Yerkes called for questions from the Board and Mr. Ganus
asked how much effort has been placed on reconfiguring this plot
to make it compliant with the subdivision (4 acre minimum with
conservation easement, etc.) and Ms. Jegli said the only
discussion she is aware of was before the Mack and Angelina Isaac
variance with Mr. Bill McCord (former Growth Management
Director), and that none of the Isaacs nor Mr. Walker has had any
such discussions with her on reconfiguring. She said they did go
to the Board of County Commissioners wherein Mr. Walker requested
relief for the Isaacs and was instructed to file an application
and pay the appropriate fees.

In response to questions from Mr. Ganus, Ms. Jegli said in the
event a variance is granted she would recommend as a condition of
that variance, that the 30.96 acres be placed in a conservation
easement for use as open space and recreation.

Chair Yerkes asked the applicant to come forward.

Mr. William Walker, Representative for all four applicants, was
sworn by Deputy Clerk Chesser and he addressed the Commission
requesting approval of each of the four variances.

In response to comments/questions from Mr. Walker Ms. Sheffield
said the Comp Plan went into effect in 1991; nothing has changed
in land use since then and it has remained a 1/10 standard since
that time. She said her opinion is that Mr. Ballister divided
this property as a single family exemption because it did not
qualify for any other kind of subdivision.


                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 4 of 7
Ms. VanLandingham said she is having trouble with (from knowing
Mr. Skipper and Mr. Lines personally) and because she knows they
both understand the County zoning and the Comp Plan, and she
cannot understand how they could sit down and divide heir
property like this illegally, unless they were given the Okay
from Planning & Zoning.

In response to questions as to what would get the County out of
this problem and why they couldn’t consider making this a minor
subdivision, Ms. Jegli said rezoning would not help them because
they would be going into Rural Residential but she said they
could go into AG-1, rezoning or sub-dividing as a clustered,
minor subdivision and that would be the least expensive.

Ms. Angelina Isaac was sworn and addressed the Commission also
asking for approval of the four requests.

There was further discussion on reconfiguring of the land and
Chair Yerkes said he could not understand, as a property owner
himself, how the Isaac property owners could not be aware of the
single family exemption when this property was divided and he
stated to Mr. Walker that this property had not been re-zoned.

Mr. Ganus said the Isaacs are basically asking for a variance to
the Comp Plan and that cannot be done – cannot have a variance to
the Comp Plan without changing the Comp Plan. He also said the
variance granted to Mack and Angelina Isaac was different that
these requests since their variance was granted because of a
hardship situation. He said they have not heard any arguments
for a hardship from these four variance requests being considered
at this time.

Mr. Rowan said the variance for Mack and Angelina was granted
based on hardship – the owners wanted to sale the house to
someone outside of the family. He then asked if they had sold
the home, if they were still living in the home, if it was still
up for sale, and if there was a “for sale sign on the property.

Ms. Angelina Isaac said they had had the home up for sale, they
are still living in it, it is still for sale, there is no for
sale sign on the property now.

After further discussion on making this a minor subdivision, Mr.
Walker said there are still expenses involved with that and the
property owners don’t have the money to do all of that.



                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 5 of 7
Ms. Jegli said the one parcel for Ms. Darlene Isaac Pearson would
have to be considered separately. She also said the Commission
would have to consider one of two things – either recommending a
variance on the Pearson parcel based on its unique situation of
hardship if the division by Sally Brown Road should be considered
as such, or still consider using property across from Sally Brown
Road. If the minor subdivision is done, there would have to be a
sixty foot right of way with some stabilization of the roadway
(would not have to pave the road), address the storm water and
then the Commission’s recommendation would be to also include the
Frank Isaac 30.49 acre parcel as a conservation easement,
recreational area.   If it is to be a clustered minor subdivision
then the Isaacs would still have to reconfigure the property
lines for each of the four parcels to meet the four-acre
requirement.

UPON A MOTION BY MS. SHEFFIELD AND A SECOND BY DR. BRIDGES-BRIGHT
TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY BECOME A MINOR SUBDIVISION, THAT THE
APPLICANTS APPLY FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION WHICH MEANS THERE WILL
BE A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, THE LOTS WILL BE BROUGHT UP TO THE
PROPER SIZE AND THAT THE REMAINING PROPERTY WILL BE IN
CONSERVATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A VARIANCE TO BE APPLIED TO
THE DARLENE ISAAC PEARSON PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS
DIVIDED BY SALLY BROWN ROAD. ALSO THAT ALL OF THE MONIES THE
ISAACS HAVE PAID FOR THIS APPEAL PROCESS SHOULD BE APPLIED
TOWARDS THEIR APPLICATION EXPENSES FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION,
PROVIDED THE APPLICANTS FILE THE APPLICATION, THE BOARD VOTED 8-
0, BY VOICE VOTE, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

Ms. Jegli informed the Isaacs this recommendation and report will
be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their
consideration.

Chair Yerkes asked how the property owners feel about this
possible solution, and Mr. Walker said their main concern was
where the road would be.

It was explained the road would not have to be paved, but some
widening (15 feet on either side) and some stabilization of the
road would have to be done but it would only affect two pieces of
the property as it does not have to go the entire length of the
back two pieces, it just has to go to the front property line of
the back two parcels.




                            P&Z Regular Meeting
                              August 14, 2008
                                Page 6 of 7
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AT THIS
TIME, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:55 PM.




                                    ________________________
                                     John Yerkes, Chairman




__________________________
Jean Chesser, Deputy Clerk




                             P&Z Regular Meeting
                               August 14, 2008
                                 Page 7 of 7