Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/07/2002 RCollier County Planning Commission County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES June 7, 2002 Chairmen Kenneth Abernathy called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. Mr. Abernathy stated this was the continuation of the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2002. II. ATTENDANCE Commission Members: Kenneth Abernathy, Russell A. Budd, Mark Strain, Paul Midney, David Wolfley, Frank Fry, Lora Jean Young, Lindy Adelstein (9:15 A.M.) Collier County: Joe Schmitt, Stan Litsinger, Marjorie Student Others: Robert Mulhere, Bill Lorenz, David Weeks, Norman Feeder, A1 Zichella, Rich Yuvanovich, Reed Jarvi, Dwight Nadeau RURAL FRINGE ADOPTION AMENDMENT Mark Strain had a series o£ questions to be answered by Bob Mulhere. Mr. Strain noticed that in a letter £rom the SW Regional Planning Council, they referred that population density can be increased in the Rural Fringe by 15,000 more units. He questioned i£ this was accurate. Mr. Mulhere stated there was a potential population density increase, but not by that number. Mr. Strain noted that they are increasing the development, not by width, but by intensity. Mr. Mulhere agreed, but added there would be a decrease in transportation. Mr. Strain questioned about the intensification o£ agricultural use in Sending lands. Mr. Mulhere stated that they are not allowed t° intensify and they would be subject to the Best Management Practices and the Right to Farm Act. Mr. Strain questioned about increasing density blending in the NRPA lands. Mr. Mulhere noted that there was a limitation and he displayed these areas on the map. Mr. Strain noted that portions o£the area Mr. Hancock was concerned with were going to be opened to density blending. Mr. Strain's concern was that there would be an increase in intensity, which would damage the area in becoming valuable wetlands. He stated that they may need to preserve wetlands in the first one mile. Mr. Mulhere agreed and added that their data indicates that is the case. It was clarified that there were hundreds of workshops and meetings. Mr. Strain noted that on page 37 of the FLUE, they encouraged TDRs in the residential infiI1. He questioned if they could link this to affordable housing. Mr. Mulhere stated they did not want to require someone building affordable housing to purchase TDRs. He suggested there could be a unit bonus if they build workforce housing or they could get a unit bonus if they purchase a TDR. He added they needed to define workforce-housing language and make some market incentives. Mr. Strain felt this was an important step. Mr. Schmitt discussed the difference between low-income housing and workforce housing. On page 38, Mr. Strain questioned what was the maximum density that could be achieved with TDRs. David Weeks stated that this current TDR language is only applicable to the Urban area and it is a certain % of the underlying density that can be transferred. On page 39, Mr. Strain noted there was a provision in density blending, that if you're in the commercial node, you can convert the commercial to 16 units of residential per acre. He asked if this would occur in the Rural Fringe areas, especially in the Mirasol area. Mr. Mulhere stated they could through the rezoning process and he didn't see it as a problem because the only places where this could happen are in fully excavated properties within the proposed Heritage Bay. Mr. Strain asked if the density blending could be limited to conditions in PUDs so they would be assured they would get a review of it.. Mr. Mulhere agreed and said they would be required to come in through a PUD amendment or rezone. Mr. Strain was concerned that since the lands in question were in a Neutral area, and on page 53, it states that density blending can be transferred from Sending lands to Receiving lands, wouldn't they be preventing the use of TDRs. Mr. Mulhere answered that this was a different situation, it was not density blending, and they couldn't transfer without any Receiving lands. On page 49, Mr. Strain asked what was the intent of the NRPAs, was it to preserve valuable habitat and wetlands. Mr. Lorenz agreed. Mr. Strain noted that a lot of the NRPA uses that are allowed wouldn't preserve the habitat as intended. Mr. Lorenz stated that the uses for the NRPA lands are set forth by the Conservation designation and he added that the uses on page 49 are the interim uses. Mr. Mulhere added that on page 5 in the Errata #3, it stated that permitted and conditional uses for publicly owned lands with an NRPA overlay shall be those as set forth under the Conservation designation. Mr. Strain questioned why group-housing uses is located under Ag/Mixed-Use district. Ms. Student answered that under the federal Fair Use Housing Act, anywhere they permit single families, then you must permit a similar facility for the handicapped, and it is analogous for multi-family facilities. Mr. Mulhere clarified that there were these amendments because the ORC raised questions about the lack of definition for intensity and density, which have since been corrected. He noted that the LDC allowed for these uses in Ag. 2 On page 55, Mr. Strain asked about the uses of Receiving lands and its relation to golf courses. He then asked to build a golf course in Receiving with 110 acres, how many TDRs would be needed. Mr. Mulhere stated it was 1 per 5, but it was equivalent to the base density. Mr. Strain clarified that for 110 acres, you have 22 base density, so you would need to purchase 22 more. Mr. Mulhere agreed. Mr. Strain noted that if you were building residential in a Receiving area, it was 1 to 1. He was concerned that this was putting a burden of cost on a residential person that was greater than the burden placed on the golf course. Mr. Mulhere disagreed and stated that this was completely voluntary in residential, but the golf courses are required to purchase 1 TDR for every residential unit as a base density. Mr. Strain believed this could penalize smaller houses and seemed like a means to build more golf courses. Mr. Mulhere disagreed. (Lindy Adelstein arrived at 9:15 A.M.) On page 62, Mr. Strain mentioned that there has been a lot of discussion about the county landfill and he felt that this seemed to indicate it's providing expansion capabilities for the county landfill. Mr. Mulhere said technically no, somewhat yes. Mr. Strain stated that the objective was to utilize the landfill as best they could, but look for other locations to get it moved. He asked how they could justify this if they are now giving provisions to expand it. Mr. Weeks stated that the recovery facility is the intent, and it is not intended to allow for an expansion of the landfill. Mr. Strain stated his concern was over the language "including solid waste". On page 66, Mr. Strain noted there was an affordable housing density bonus in the Urban area, and asked if this applied at all in the Rural Fringe area. Mr. Mulhere stated it did not. On page 67, Mr. Strain asked what period in time is it supposed to attain fiscal neutrality. Mr. Mulhere stated a report would be done that demonstrates that the project will not result in impacts to county taxpayers as a result of public facilities and services. On page 68, Mr. Strain asked if the Board of County Commissioners or the school board was involved when a school is provided a credit for any applicable school impact fees. Mr. Mulhere believed the school board needed to be involved. Ms. Student suggested adding a provision. On page 77, Mr. Strain noted the language that said, "...contains locally scarce department of transportation grade rock for road construction". Mr. Strain stated that this language should be removed without scientific data and wasn't necessary. Mr. Adelstein questioned the 12 units per acre reference on page 81. Mr. Weeks stated that this was an amendment dealing with the reallocation of dwelling units. Mr. Adelstein asked if affordable housing could be added in, and Mr. Weeks agreed and added that 16 units was the cap. Mr. Adelstein found this difficult to accept. Mr. Mulhere stated that this would be dangerous to try to change at this time. Mr. Adelstein stated he had no problem with the 12 units, but was concerned about the affordable housing add-on. Mr. Strain noted that they couldn't deal with this issue today because they would have to readvertise. Mr. Weeks stated he would have staff take a look at this and give more information. Mr. Strain noted on page 24 of the CCME, it stated that native vegetation clearing allowance shall be allowed at a minimum of 20%, he suggested it be maximum. There was some discussion about the wording, and it was decided that they should add in "guaranteed not to exceed". On page 28, policy 6.2.3, Mr. Strain asked if the rural and estates aren't part of the Rural Fringe, why was there language referencing areas outside the Rural Fringe. Mr. Mulhere explained that the amendments don't just apply to the Rural Fringe. Mr. Lorenz stated that the proposal is to defer to the federal and state agencies in their issuance of a permit for single-family residences. Mr. Strain suggested that they have someone keeping track of the preserve or wetland areas so they can show some contiguous connections as properties come in for permit. Mr. Mulhere stated this was a good point and the county could create a database of where the wetlands are located and the agencies can concur with it. Mr. Strain said this was a good theory, but nothing was on paper. Mr. Lorenz added that on page 35 there was a section where they could add in a commitment to follow through with this suggestion. Mr. Strain thought that would cause fewer problems. On page 31, policy 6.2.5, Mr. Strain suggested they add language discussing changes in hydro periods as an impact to the wetlands. Mr. Lorenz stated this would require greater expertise to determine. He suggested that they could add a policy which utilizes the language that draw-downs and impacts to water levels shall be consistent with the Water Management Districts procedures. On page 38, Mr. Lorenz showed where it referenced the SW Florida Water Management District's procedure for determining hydrological impacts and suggested adding this language to the wetland policies. Mr. Strain suggested they use the word "shall" and he would be comfortable. Mr. Adelstein agreed. On page 42//3, Mr. Strain suggested that it state, "The county shall consider and utilize recommendations that are consistent with the LDC policies in letters of technical assistance from the USFWC". Mr. Lorenz clarified a previous discussion and stated that they needed to add for NRPA overlays in Sending lands, privately-owned lands within these NRPA overlays would be subject to the Sending lands permitted and conditional uses. Mr. Strain had a question on the sanitary sewer and sub-element. On page 2, the Standard Level of Services were not consistent, and Mr. Litsinger noted that they are going to make changes. Mr. Abernathy noted that they will take up the LDC item on Monday, June 10th. Mr. Mulhere added three letters to the record that have been received. A letter from Neil Montgomery on behalf of Paul p. Wiseman gave his support for density blending. A letter from David A. Harnett expressed his belief that all property owners should not be treated equal. Mr. Litsinger noted that he spoke with Mr. Harnett and he requested in their conversation that the board considers something 4 other than the 1 to 1 transfer rate for TDRs. A letter from Crew Land & Water Trust expressed concern over a potential increase of density in the Receiving area. Mr. Strain handed out a sheet for discussion from the 6-6-02 meeting. Topic 1 was the EAC recommendations. Mr. Mulhere stated that they would limit the allowance of golf courses in greenbelts by adding language that said no cleared or turfed areas may extend into the required greenbelt more than 100 feet. Mr. Strain added that they also asked to strike the word "first" from the language. Mr. Abernathy asked if all were agreed (nodding of heads). Next, the EAC recommended that agricultural uses be more restrictive after a property owner uses the TDR program. The board had felt it would be appropriate to allow continued use of the existing operations, not to be intensified. Mr. Budd noted that they are required to maintain the habitat as it is currently written, so he did not agree with the EAC's recommendation. Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Strain agreed with Mr. Budd. Lastly, the EAC recommended the deletion of the uses of sewer lines and lift stations from Conservation lands, Sending lands, and NRPAs. Mr. Strain suggested making it conditional use when there wasn't a right-of-way. Mr. Mulhere restated that they may traverse these identified lands by utilizing existing right-of-ways or easements that have been cleared for that purpose, otherwise it would be conditional use. Topic 2, Mr. Mulhere restated that the commission's recommendation was to include revisions of the infill TDR provisions to include incentives for workforce housing. Topic 3 concerned section 24. Mr. Abernathy suggested discussing sections 24, 25, 36, 31, and 30 all at Once, but Mr. Adelstein disagreed. Mr. Mulhere stated that they were not all the same condition. He noted the staff's recommendation was for section 24 to go to Neutral, but not the others in question. Mr. Adelstein recommended they designate it Neutral, but they couldn't use the lands until the study comes back. Mr. Strain believed they could have a problem if they designated it Neutral and then tried to change it later. He suggested they make it Neutral lands with Sending preservation requirements. Mr. Adelstein added that they couldn't use the land until after the study had been concluded. Mr. Mulhere was concerned about raising an issue of non-compliance, but he believed that by maintaining the high preservation requirements, that might be a way around that. Mr. Fry asked how staff responds to people stating that the land on the other side of theirs is a different designation even though it has similar habitat. Mr. Lorenz explained that the lands were designated Sending due to the amount of natural resource cover, and the Receiving lands had the least concentration of habitat. Also, people on the boundary were able to present their data and there designation would be changed if qualified. He noted that other agencies reviewed this data, but it could always be changed in the future if new data was presented. Mr. Fry asked what would Mr. Cowan's options be if the study shows that it was a habitat area for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. Mr. Mulhere stated there would be a public heating with the commission and the board where data from both sides would be presented. If it was decided that the area remain Sending, then Mr. Cowan would have the optiOn to challenge the amendment. Mr. Abernathy questioned what the study was trying to find. Mr. Mulhere stated it was existing or potential habitat. Mr. Abemathy questioned why this would take a year to complete. Mr. Lorenz stated that they didn't have all the resources to complete this study, plus there may only be certain times of the year when nesting and foraging can be documented. Mr. Wolfley stated they would be judging the quality of habitat and the quality of the findings of the consultant. Mr. Budd stated that they weren't at the point to discuss this, so the best they could do would be to forward it as Neutral with Sending preservation standards. Mr. Fry expressed his belief that the burden of proof should be on the county, not the property owner. Mr. Mulhere stated that in this case, the burden is on the county to do the study. Mr. Fry was concerned that the property owners are being hurt by the designation. Mr. Strain noted that with the compromise to go to Neutral with Sending land preservation requirements, then Mr. Cowan would be able to achieve what he had wanted. Mr. Mulhere commented that it was impossible to address the requirements of the Final Order and state law by protecting natural resources without impacting private property rights. Mr. Wolfley stated that he did not feel any of the land north ofi-75 should be designated Sending. He questioned why the school had received a Neutral designation. Mr. Mulhere stated that the data analysis showed it to be Neutral. Mr. Wolfley felt the lands should be Neutral instead of Sending and he could not support this unless that happens. Topic 4 dealt with increasing the ratio of TDRs. Mr. Litsinger noted that the problem is that the Receiving lands may not be able to absorb TDRs at a fair market demand rate. The question is if they adopt at a ratio greater than 1 to 1, they do not know whether it will be a financially feasible incentive program at the market rates. Mr. Abernathy was concerned that if they flood the market with TDRs, this could result in urban sprawl. Mr. Mulhere stated that it would take some time before they would know, then they would reevaluate if necessary. Mr. Litsinger noted that Rural Villages could not happen without TDRs. Mr. Abernathy noted that they were agreed to not increase the value of TDRs. For topic 5, Mr. Mulhere stated that they had agreed to a preservation ratio of 50% of the native vegetation, but not to exceed 25% of the site. There were no objections. Topic 6 addressed density blending. Mr. Mulhere stated the intent was to reduce the likelihood of anybody else qualifying under unified control or the minimum acreage requirements subsequent. There were no objections. Topic 7, Mr. Mulhere stated that this was partly taken care of in topic 6. Mr. Abernathy added the issue was with owned or under contract. Mr. Mulhere made a note and said that was no problem. 6 Topic 8 dealt with oil extraction in Conservation and Sending lands, and Mr. Mulhere noted that as proposed, it is a conditional use. Mr. Adelstein added that the term conditional has to stay otherwise the owners don't have a deal. Mr. Strain suggested they could split this up and put in a provision that says those lands don't effect the extraction ofoil from below the surface. He added they leave Big Cypress alone. Mr. Budd suggested they say that oil extraction will be at angle drilling to the maximum abilities of angle drilling so as to minimize impacts. Mr. Stain said that Mr. Budd had a good solution to leave as conditional use in the Conservation areas with a right to extract the oil, and in the Sending areas, if they can't extract it by means other than going in the Sending area, they can only access the ones that were previously disturbed. Mr. Mulhere said they could construct language to convey this. Topic 9 dealt with wetland impacts versus distance to control structures. Mr. Lorenz stated that they would pull in the language from policy 6.8.2(4) and apply it to the hydrologic alterations to the wetland policies. Mr. Strain stated this was placing control structures, not uses. Mr. Lorenz agreed. Mr. Strain asked about the 3000-foot setback distance. Mr. Lorenz said the language would address that but they wouldn't know the exact number until they did the calculations. Mr. Budd clarified that the setback distance wotild be performance-based rather than a fixed number. Mr. Lorenz agreed. (There was a ten-minute break at 10:45 A.M.) Mr. Litsinger requested that the commission continue the public hearing on the concurrency amendments transmittal until the meeting on June 20, 2002. Staff would like to incorporate the information from the debate and discussion on the Growth Management Concurrency Moratorium into the amendments. They will still meet the board's transmittal date of June 25th. Mr. Budd stated this was an excellent idea to have the document in front of them before they discuss it. Mr. Budd motioned to continue the Concurrency Resolution Transmittal until June 20, 2002, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously to amend the agenda. Mr. Mulhere clarified that Rural Industrial was also to revise the list of permitted uses to make it consistent with the Urban Industrial list of permitted uses. Topic 10 involved Mr. Hancock's request to increase the size of Rural Villages in area D. Mr. Mulhere stated that staff feels the 2,500 acre size limitation is sufficient. Mr. Abernathy mentioned Mr. Hancock's recommendations of fee waivers and a six-month period, and he asked if they were inclined towards that. It was agreed they were not. Mr. Hancock also suggested a 2.5 unit per acre rate in the 0-1 mile corridor, but the commission had agreed to leave the rate as it was. Topic 11 had been already addressed. Topic 12 discussed the need for adequate staff for the implementation of wildlife policies. Mr. Schmitt stated they understand this concern and it is something they need to address across the county. Mr. Strain clarified that in the LDC amendments, there will be something in there to address the staffing for wildlife policies. Mr. Schmitt agreed. Mr. Mulhere added that for density blending, Mr. Yuvanovich's language needed to be added. Topic 13 had already been discussed. Mr. Strain summarized the decisions made from the morning's discussion; 1) language for landfill expansion be corrected to cover recovery issue, and not solid waste, 2) language on locally scarce rock be deleted, and 3) language for direct impacts in relation to wetlands be addressed more strongly. Mr. Mulhere added that here were a number of clean-up items and language corrections, as well. Mr. Adelstein questioned about where the Hussey's land was located, and Mr. Budd answered section 32, 33, and half of 29. Mr. Budd felt they were in agreement on section 24 to transmit it as Neutral with Sending area preservation standards. He was interested in sending the entire west end of the North Belle Meade as Neutral with Sending lands preservation standards. Mr. Midney stated this decision needed to be driven by what are the natural resource values of the land, rather than what is the impact to property owners. Mr. Mulhere restated that Mr. Budd was suggesting sending the 8 westernmost sections to Neutral with Sending land preservation standards, and also requiring a listed species study to be done. Mr. Midney asked what studies would need to be conducted on these eight sections. Mr. Mulhere added that they couldn't conduct a study on someone's property without their permission. Mr. Strain pointed out that the property rights are still protected in the Sending lands, but if they allowed the rock mining, many of their rights would be impacted. Mr. Mulhere added that he didn't feel this opinion would be supported at the board level or by the DCA. Mr. Abernathy asked who among the commission was in support of this position, and Mr. Fry, Mr. Budd, and Mr. Wolfley raised their hands. Mr. Budd motioned to forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for adoption the Growth Management Plan amendment that is a result of the Rural Fringe agricultural assessment, including the items discussed that the commission came to a consensus on and the miscellaneous clean-up items that during the last day-and-a-half the dialogue acknowledgments were made that corrections would be performed. Mr. Adelstein seconded. The vote carried 7 for and 1 against. Mr. Wolflcy voted against the motion. (There was lunch recess at 11:30 P.M. Ms. Lora Jean Young and Mr. Strain left the meeting.) III. MORATORIUM ORDINANCE Mr. Abernathy stated that there was a member of the audience who wanted to speak regarding the concurrency issue. Al Zichella - CBIA He requested that they recommend to staff to include the building industry in their ongoing work on the concurrency issue. He felt they might be able to bring some assistance on the checkbook issue. Mr. Litsinger stated that they would include their input throughout the process. Mr. Feeder concurred. Ms. Student stated that the revised Ordinance for the moratorium was in the process of being Xeroxed. Mr. Feeder and Ms. Student summarized the changes that were made to the document. (This was reviewed when the board members received their copies.) Mr. Abernathy questioned when they were going to receive their copies, and he asked about continuing until Monday. Mr. Schmitt suggested they recess for 15 minutes. Ms. Student stated that the individuals who were there to speak had already been informed on the changes. Mr. Adelstein stated he would rather try to finish today, Mr. Midney agreed. (There was a 5-minute recess) Mr. Feeder pointed out the changes that they had made to the Ordinance. On page 6 & 7 in 2.2.3.7.1, there was a change to the definitions of the terms "immediately adjacent" and "adjacent/contiguous" to include "any development...through direct connection or use of a non-major public or private roadway". On page 8, (5) the definition of "link or segment" was added to say "the division of a roadway created by the intersection of the county's major roadway network". In 2.2.37.4(2), the language "greater than de minimus impact" was added for adjacent/contiguous. Mr. Abernathy asked if development was defined in the document. Ms. Student answered that it was defined in the code. Mr. Wolfley questioned the addition of"interim development controls" throughout the document. Ms. Student clarified that that is the appropriate terminology to address a moratorium. Ms. Student pointed out a few additional language changes on the first few pages of the document. Ms. Student reviewed the "exemptions" portion of the Ordinance. On page 9, she read (3) and stated it is an exception for all single-family homes on lots. In (5), this referenced any development pursuant to a final site plan or final subdivision plat and she stated this change went to the areas to where those items have been issued. The change in (6) was to clarify the vesting of DRIs because the DCA had issued a series of declaratory statements saying what part of DRIs weren't vested. Ms. Student read through this out-loud. The other change was an addition of a sentence to (26) on page 10, and she stated the intent would be to allow a site development plan if a completed application had been done. Mr. Abernathy questioned if the language should be the "receipt of a completed application". Ms. Student said they could add in "the receipt of a completed application by the County". Mr. Litsinger asked if a waiver and release having previously been issued, an application for a certificate of adequate public facilities could still be filed. Ms. Student stated that it exempts out where there is a waiver and release, but they could clarify this if it was the direction of the board. Rich Yuvanovich - Mr. Yuvanovich understood the corrections, he just wanted to make sure that the exemptions were clear. He questioned if they front or have access to a "red" section, and if the impact is de minimus, are they exempt. Mr. Feeder stated they were exempt if there was an alternate access, but if there was a sole access, then they were not exempt unless they were single-family. Mr. Yuvanovich stated it would be easier to revise (5) to say if you have a certificate, then you are exempt. Ms. Student stated that this would cause (5) to be redundant because of (4). Mr. Yuvanovich added that (26) would also be redundant. Mr. Yuvanovich questioned if replacement structures in (8) also meant redevelopment structures. Mr. Feeder stated that as long as it doesn't increase the number of trips or has a de minimus impact. Mr. Yuvanovich suggested they should add redevelopment or replacement structures which have the same or less impact on the public facilities. He also suggested adding "accessory uses" to (24). Ms. Student stated she had no problem with this. Mr. Yuvanovich requested the commission transmit to the board the language that if you have an approved SDP, or are in the process of the completed application for an SDP or plat on the day the board adopts the Ordinance, then you would have to obtain a certificate by June 30, 2002. He noted that you now are required to pay impact fees on the date of the application. Mr. Abernathy asked who changed this procedure. Mr. Litsinger stated it was changed based on that they were now in a new review process. Mr. Schmitt clarified that he wanted to make this timeframe specific to those who are already in the system to exchange their waiver. He stated that he would recommend this to the commission as long as they were on sound legal ground. Ms. Student stated she didn't see any legal problems. Mr. Yuvanovich added that if they don't file the completed certificate application with money by June 30th, then they would not be exempt. Dwight Nadeatl - RWA Mr. Nadeau also requested to strike exemption (5). He also urged the commission to recommend the time to pay for their COAs. Mr. Budd asked if Ms. Student felt (5) and (26) were now redundant. She stated yes, but she would like to review before removal. Reed Jarvi - Vanesse Daylor Mr. Jarvi questioned exemption (6)e, and Ms. Student stated it may need to be go out there. Mr. Jarvi requested that there be language added to give an applicant an opportunity to provide more detailed analysis on level of service. Mr. Feeder stated that in the overall process they are providing for further analysis. Ms. Student felt this would defeat the purpose of a planning moratorium. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing at 1:25 P.M. 10 Mr. Adelstein stated that he didn't like the word moratorium, but he felt it was necessary to restrict applications until they come up with new rules. Mr. Wolfley restated his concern over having a moratorium when simple measures have not been attempted. He mentioned the timing of stoplights. Mr. Feeder reassured that they have done analysis and have retimed the lights. Mr. Abernathy questioned why these three segments were selected. Mr. Feeder stated that they are unable under the current policies to improve these roads in three years. Mr. Wolfley expressed concern that this moratorium would not be gone by the fall. Mr. Midney stated that they heard from the public and the development community, but they have not heard from those who have been hurt or killed in accidents. He felt the planning moratorium was a reasonable compromise. Mr. Wolfley didn't feel that the moratorium would stop accidents from happening. Mr. Midney stated that it could stop them from getting worse. Mr. Budd motioned for the Planning Commission to forward the Interim Development Control to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval and certain modifications; in (8), add in "redevelopment or replacement structures" and "have the same impact or less on public facilities", in (24), add "minor accessory uses and structures", that (5) and (26) be eliminated or modified if the county attorney's office determines them to be redundant, and that the time of implementation be crafted so that the applicants that are in the process are able to get a certificate of public facilities by June 30th. Mr. Adelstein seconded. The vote carried 5 for and 1 against. Mr. Wolfley voted against the motion. Mr. Abernathy noted that the Concurrency issue had been continued until June 20th. The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 P.M. 11