COMMISSIONERS:

EUGENE LAMB, JR.

District 1

DOUGLAS M.CROLEY

Dis trict 2

GENE MORGAN

District 3

BRENDA A. I-IOLT

District 4

SHERRIE TAYLOR

District 5

GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EDWARD ]. BUTLER

GADSDEN COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL C01v1PLEX

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

2006 USDA Rural Development Community of the Year

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

Thursday, September 15, 2011

6:00p.m.

Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room

7 East Jefferson Street

Quincy, Florida

Art h ur Lawson, Sr.

Interim County

Administrator

Debora h S. Mi nnis

County Attorney

t nthony Mat heny

Director

1. Pledge of Allegiance

2. Introduction of Members/Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes- June 16, 2011 - Rowan/Arnold

4. Disclosures and Declarations of Conflict

GENERAL BUSINESS

5. PUBLIC HEARING- BOSTIC ROAD ADMINISTRATIVE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT (LARGE SCALE) (CPA-2011-02) - To hear a proposed amendment and recommend transmittal to the Division of Community Planning, a change to the Future Land Use Map from Commercial (COMM) to Rural Residential (RR) for the following parcels located in the area of and off of Bostick Rd.: Parcel #'s 2-27-3N-

2W-0000-00123-0100, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0100, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0300,

2-27-3N-2W0000-00210-0500, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0600, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-

00210-0400, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0200 by Proposed Ordinance. (Planning and Community Development/Applicant) (Board of County Commissioners 10-04-11, tentative!; .

Catherine Robinson

Sheffield

Ed Allen

Simmons

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Molley C. Wilson

Marian Lasiter

VanLandingham/Tranchand- Motion

*Other Business – David Tranchand

Lake Yvette Homeowner Assoc Memorial – Sunday, October 16@3:00pm

Tree in his memory – Redbud(John Yerkes)

*Bike Ped Grant – Identify bike and ped trail throughout count

7. ADJOURNMENT

Vanlandingham/Bridges-Bright

:J.-B East Jefferson Street oP.O. Box :t.79!>oQuincy,Florida 32353-1799 (850)875-8663 FAl< (8.50)375-7280 www.gaclsdencountyfl.gov

Gadsden County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 15, 2011

Respectfully submitted

Anthony Mat ny, Director

Planning & Community Development

Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the County hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, agency, or meeting or hearing, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, affected persons may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the County for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing special accommodations to participate in this meeting should call the Planning & Community Development Department at 875-8663, no later than 5:00 p.m. at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

PC Agenda 091511\\Gadsdcnl\planning & zoning\Pianning Commission (P&Z)\Pianning Commission\PC 20 II \20 II PC Agendas & Reports\PC091511\PC Agenda 0915ll .docx

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY. JUNE 16. 2011

6:00PM

Roll Call:

Present:

Vice-Chair Larry Ganus Commissioner Ed Allen Commissioner Gail Bridges-Bright Commissioner David Tranchand Commissioner Frank Rowan Commissioner Anthony Arnold

Commissioner Isaac Simmons, School Bd. Rep

Absent:

Commissioner Alonzo McBride Commissioner Catherine Robinson Commissioner Willard Rudd

Chair Diane Sheffield EXCUSED Commissioner Mari Vanlandingham EXCUSED

Staff:

County Attorney Deborah Minnis

Planning & Com. Dev. Dir. Anthony Matheny

Deputy Clerk Jean Chesser

CALL TO ORDER:

1. Vice-Chair Ganus called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM with a quorum present and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. Flag.

2. Introduction of Members/Roll Call - Each member present stated his/her name and district for the record.

3. Approval of Minutes --- May 12, 2011 - Vice-Chair Ganus requested corrections be made to the 5/12/11 P&Z Minutes as follows: (Pg 4- Item 6 Public Hearing, Bennett's Shady Rest Adult Daycare (Shady Rest Senior Day Stay)) Last sentence incorrectly stated in staff's agenda report for Shady Rest Senior Day Care Center under Location - Staff stated SR 267 (Fia-GA Hwy). Correction to be made in Official Record as follows: Strike SR 267 (Fia-Ga Hwy) and insert HWY US 27. Additional corrections - (Pg 13, Second paragraph) strike "Vic-Chair and insert Vice-Chair. Page 13 last sentence of second paragraph strike pervious and insert impervious.

UPON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TRANCHAND AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 2011, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WITH NOTED CORRECTIONS, THE COMMISSION VOTED 7-0, BY VOICE VOTE, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

4. Disclosures & Declarations of Conflict- None Stated

Vice-Chair Ganus asked for any amendments to the agenda.

Mr. Matheny requested Item #6 be removed from tonight's agenda for public hearing. He stated staff had initially felt some additional changes may be necessary, but after speaking with the Vice-Chair they decided it would be best to bring Item #6 the Neighborhood Commercial Uses back up this Fall or this Winter when the Lake Talquin Area Plan is completed and they will then have the boundaries they set forth when the Plan is approved/adopted.

!; PblllbiG I-IIOARINGi Neighborhooa COITlffiereial bl5es aAa 9evelotJITleAt StaRaaras

AaffiiAi5trative Laml 9evelotJffieAt Coae AffieAEIITleRt ChatJter 4, S o l3seetioA5 4104,

4202.( aAa Cl'laj3ter 5, S l35e£tioA 5204 L9R 2011 01, PFOfl05ea 0raiAan£e

Tl'li5 flFOfl05ea Orainanee l'la5 13een bro gl'lt bad( for P bli£ Hearing 5fle£ifieally to dis£ 55 tl'le j3rOfl05eEl bot mlaries for Neigl'lllorl1ooa COITlffiCF£ial St: e£ial 'NaterfroAt aej3enaent ot5e5 as relates to t11e Lake TaiEt iA Area PlaA ana refereneed iR St;bseetioA U02.C.S of tFie GaEI5aeA Cot;Aty LaRa 9evelofl1Tlent Goae.

UPON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRIDGES-BRIGHT AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD TO REMOVE ITEM #6 AS SHOWN ABOVE FROM TONIGHT'S AGENDA AS REQUESTED BY MR. MATHENY,THE COMMISSION VOTED 7-0 BY VOICE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

5. UPDATE: - EAR Based Amendments & Area Plans -County Attorney & Growth Mgt.

Director

Mr. Matheny explained the update on the Ear Based Amendment process and the Area Plans process- back in December, 2010, the Planning Commission approved changes to the eight (8) Comprehensive Plan Elements- Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that is where it stopped and the previous County Administrator (Mr. Williams) decided to no longer go with the sub-contractor that Preble Rish had hired (Ms. Marina Pennington) and to then look at possibly hiring another sub under Preble Rish or opening up the process again by a whole new round of RFPs. He said the Board of County Commissioners not long ago decided that is exactly what they wanted to do; send out a new RFP for services to finish this process with the County Commission and do the first two area plans, one of which is the Wetumpka- Lake Talquin Area Plan, and the other being the Midway (US 90 Corridor) Area Plan. Mr. Matheny said they sent out an RFP and tomorrow the three proposals which the County received will be ranked by a small staff committee on June 17. The proposals were received from (1) GPI, Southeast (2) Kimley Horn & Associates and (3) Wendy Grey Land Use Planning. A recommendation will be prepared in the form of an agenda item and possibly presented to the Board of County

h

Commissioners at their July 191 meeting. He said they hope the Board will approve one of the

proposals and select a consultant at that time to finish the EAR Based Amendment process.

In response to questions from Vice-Chair Ganus, Mr. Matheny said the criteria as to what has to be done by the consultants in finishing this process was included in the RFP; the criteria was very detailed, i.e. they will have to have at least one or two meetings with the public. He believes it is a minimum of one workshop with the BOCC, and then the public hearings, and if they find something they feel needs to come back before the Planning Commission for additional consideration (even though they have already approved it) or if they possibly have a suggested change it may very well be brought back to the Planning Commission. He said they will be able to use materials that have already been produced but there is no guarantee that the Board of County Commissioners will not radically change it when it goes before them. He said he is not anticipating that, but also said he would not speak for them (BOCC) and that they have the option of going with the Planning Commission's recommendations making little or no changes or possibly even making some substantive changes. He said one of the major roles of the consultant will be to give guidance to the Board of County Commissioners - such as recommending changes based on what the Planning Commission did and that the BOCC go with what the Planning Commission has done, or simply whatever. That's part of their role; in working with staff and they won't come in and radically suggest anything unless they come in and do workshops and find out something different than was known before. Mr. Matheny said it should be a pretty quick process. He said there are six area plans and they will need to do the Wetumpka-Lake Talquin and the Highway 90 Corridor plans first as these two are a couple of years behind and the others aren't even on the "radar" yet.

Commissioner Allen inquired as to whether or not there was any other criteria included in the RFP, other than the area plans; possibly mining or something of that nature and Mr. Matheny said he didn't believe they got into that specifically; it was basically just 'look at what has already been done' but of course when they take over and look at all of the discussions and the minutes then that will obviously be at the forefront of what they are thinking and looking at in

moving forward.

Mr. Matheny reminded Commissioner Allen that "Back in November/December we talked about possibly addressing that as an entirely separate exercise and initiative instead of--"

Commissioner Allen "I know we did, but we also discussed bringing up the area plans the first part of the year, too,in the first quarter and this is the end of the second quarter."

Mr. Matheny "We did, but you know, the County Administrator at the time, Mr. Williams, decided that was what we wanted to do and we weren't sure what all -- what tonight is about is we've been in this flux where we had no idea what was going to happen with DCA- now we all know what has happened to DCA, they've pretty much been eliminated and our County Attorney David Weiss is going to talk about that in just a minute in more detail and he will go through a power point presentation, but we've been waiting to see what was going to happen. If nothing was going to be required then the County needed to look at spending those funds to move this forward, and of course even if nothing was required they may have wanted to continue. I don't know, that is their choice but it had been put on the back burner and now it's back on the front burner and I guess from this next month forward it will be hot and heavy again. That's my guess but I have no idea what they will actually do when it comes before them as an agenda item but I think they will go ahead with planning services."

Mr. Matheny turned the meeting over to Assistant County Attorney David Weiss at this time. Mr. Weiss made a power point presentation covering the 2011changes to the Florida Growth

Management and Land Planning Law; more specifically SB 2156 and HB 7207 which has

significantly changed the landscape of growth management and land planning, at least at the State level. He reviewed SB 2156 pertaining to governmental reorganization; Chapter 2011-142 pertaining to the land planning agency. He said this bill eliminates the Department of Community Affairs and creates the Department of Economic Opportunity which is a very large department housing many old agencies. DEO is now the state planning agency and all of the state land planning functions which DCA use to perform but now are included in the Division of Community Development , a division with the DEO. There will be a transition period from the time the bill went into law 7-1-11 through 10-1-11 for the transfer of all the functions/funds/positions formerly handled by DCA. Mr. Weiss also explained this bill will significantly reduce the size and function of the state land planning agency.

Mr. Weiss reviewed HB 7207, Chapter 2011-139 in more depth explaining it covers the substantive changes to the Law and changes at the State level. He stated this new law is a comprehensive revision to the Florida Growth Management and Land Planning Law, that it provides local governments more flexibility and discretion as a result of less state oversight and review responsibility and fewer State mandated compliance requirements. He said Florida has gone from a more top-down approach where the State Planning Agency was at the top down to a much more discretionary and localized approach with the current Community Planning Act. He also explained that despite less stringent regulations and fewer mandatory requirements, the Local Governments are still required to comply with their own adopted Comp Plan and Land Development Regulations until they are amended in accordance with proper procedures and even though the Statutes have been amended does not mean that County law has changed. He said the County may have fewer requirements but more options and in order to implement those things the County will have to go through the amendment process for the County's own Com Plan.

An example given by Mr. Weiss as to one of the things HB 7207 has done is to make the concurrency for transportation, school parks and recreation which is no longer State mandated, but if those things are in the County's Comp Plan in order to get rid of them the county will have to amend their Comp Plan. The scope of his presentation focused on the timely and relevant changes in Growth Management and Land Planning Law pertaining to the County's obligations in completing the EAR-Based Comp Plan Amendments and Urban Service Areas. Major issues covered in the presentation were the Camp Plan Amendment Process, EAR Process, Urban Service Areas, Private Property Rights, Local Initiatives and Referenda, Permitting Programs, etc. Some of the points discussed concerning the Camp Plan Amendments are that Rule 9-JS of the Florida Administrative Code is repealed; but most critical provisions, including requirements regarding supporting data/analysis and predictable guidelines have been incorporated into Florida Statute. Even though not adopted as a Rule (such as Rule 9J-5) DEO may provide guidance on its website regarding submittal and adoption of Camp Plan/Amendments. No longer subject to consistency with State Comp Plan but must still be consistent with the Local Government Comp Plan and governing statutes; must be logical, rational, reasonable and based on adequate data, analysis and meaningful, predictable guidelines. He cautioned the Commissioners to remember that while this may allow more flexibility and discretion, it is not a license to simply make changes that are not supported by reason and aren't based on data and analysis.

Mr. Weiss also reviewed the Comp Plan Amendments requirement to maintain a Camp Plan that is in compliance and to implement such plan in a consistent manner; all mandatory Camp Plan Elements must be retained; Plan amendments are no longer limited to twice per year. Local governments are not required to adopt amendments implementing new statutory requirements until their next scheduled EAR; and he said he believes with the County being "kind of" in the middle of the EAR process that what this means is the County needs to be certain all statutory requirements are in their EAR based amendments -said there may not be

any and that will be the responsibility of the consultant to look at and indentify anything, any State requirements that have changed and that will require Camp Plan Amendments. He said an amendment must be adopted within a period of 180 days of agency comments (transmittal of the amendments to the time of adoption) or the amendment will automatically be withdrawn - unless extended by agreement with agency. There are three different processes of a Camp Plan Amendment which are based on the size and type of amendment - the processes being Expedited Review- Small Scale Amendments- State Coordinated Review. He briefly discussed the reviewing agencies of the Camp Plan Amendment Process.

Commissioner Tranchand raised questions concerning the appropriate water management district and asked if it was not correct that the Legislature de-funded the taxes that were going to the water management districts and Mr. Weiss responded he is not real familiar with that situation, and stated even if the Legislature did, that he didn't think they did away with the Water Management District and Commissioner Tranchand explained the Legislature did not do away with the Water Management District; they only did away with the property taxes from them. Detailed discussion continued on the different review processes as included in Mr. Weiss' presentation and as included in information presented to the Commission.

Commissioner Arnold asked about the comment "reviewing agencies may provide comments within 30 days" under Expedited Review and said it sounds like if they don't have comments, they don't have to provide them; but what if they do have comments and they don't provide them - if this is basically intended to force the reviewing agencies to get their job done in 30 days and if they don't then is it assumed they are not going to do it and Mr. Weiss responded that is the idea -to not hold up the process of the local government adopting their Camp Plan Amendments.

In reference to small scale amendments only one public hearing (adoption hearing) is required which is much less review and very quick process - affected person may challenge within 30 days of adoption and the State Land Planning Agency cannot intervene. If no administrative challenge is filed the amendment is effective 31 days after adoption - if administrative challenge is filed the amendment is effective upon entry of a final order finding the amendment to be in compliance.

Vice-Chair Ganus asked in the way the small scale amendments stand at this time if they have to go to DCA for review and Mr. Matheny responded they do not have to go to for review but the County has to notify them of what the County is doing.

Vice-Chair Ganus asked if the acreage is accumulated so the County knows when they have reached the limit on small scale amendments and Mr. Weiss responded that was correct and it is 120 acres maximum limit per calendar year.

Commissioner Allen said the Citizens Bill of Rights requires two (not one) hearing on any deviation from land uses and he asked if the Citizens Bill of Rights would take precedence over the one hearing requirement and Mr. Weiss responded that was affirmative as the one hearing

requirement is one of the State requirements.

Discussion continued on the State Coordinated Review which Mr. Weiss described as being similar to the former State-wide process that most Comp Plan Amendments previously went through; a much more involved process that has since been scaled down to apply to only a few areas.

On the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Process, Mr. Weiss explained the local governments must evaluate their Comp Plan every seven years to determine whether amendments are necessary to reflect changes in State requirements and notify the State Land Planning Agency of its determination -If the Local government determines that amendments are necessary, it must prepare and transmit such amendments within one (1) year pursuant to Comp Plan Amendment Process (State Coordinated Review - If the Local Government fails to submit letter notifying SLPA of their determination or fails to adopt necessary amendments (if they have any) within one year, Local Government is prohibited from amending its Comp Plan until it complies -- Local Government is encouraged to evaluate and update its Comp Plan to reflect changes in local conditions, but there is no requirement to do so. - New EAR Process applies to all local governments; even those which have failed to timely adopt EAR or EAR Based Amendments by previously established due dates which Mr. Weiss said he believes is where the County currently is and just because this isn't a requirement that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a bad idea to stop what the County is doing because a lot of work, time and money has been spent in the process to this point and a lot of changes have been made which would possibly make it desirable to keep going forward and implementing all of those changes by adopting the Comp Plan Amendments- both those that they have already agreed to as well as those which they have 'kind of committed to. He briefly reviewed Urban Service Areas, Private Property Rights, Local Initiatives and Referenda as well as the Permitting Programs. He said the local governments are still encouraged by Florida Statute to designate Urban Service Areas in their Comp Plan.

He also explained the Statutory revisions don't mean the Agreement reached between the County and DCA is automatically revoked by any means - that basically isn't as relevant because it has been adopted in the County's Comp Plan that they will make the Area Plans by specific dates, that those dates have been exceeded and changed over time, but that is in the County's Comp Plan and they still "Must Comply With Their Comp Plan". He further stated it may give the County an opportunity (if they want) to amend their Comp Plan to remove the Area Plans- for instance say "Maybe we don't want to do these Area Plans anymore; maybe we'll talk to DEO about whether or not they still want us to do them and they may say 'we don't care' and you can amend your Comp Plan accordingly."

Vice-Chair Ganus "I'm somewhat confused. Are you (Mr. Weiss) equating the Area Plans - Wetumpka-Lake Talquin and Hwy 90 Corridor with Urban Service Areas? Are they going to be one in the same?"

Mr. Weiss "The way I understand it, and the way I think your Comp Plan reads is these Area

Plans that you are planning to establish are Urban Service Areas".

Vice-Chair Ganus "Our current USAs in our Comp Plan have far different requirements to what the Area Plans are going to have as far as density, intensity, requirements for infrastructure that sort of thing."

Mr. Weiss "Yeah and I think the way- did you want to jump in (directed to Mr. Matheny)?" Mr. Matheny "No, go ahead. I'm fine listening."

Mr. Weiss "Why don't I take another look at that as it's kind of a- they don't all have to be the same. I mean you can have different Urban Service Areas with different requirements so what you're doing right now is creating an Urban Service Area for the Lake Talquin-Wetumpka area so it can have different requirements than other Urban Service Areas."

Mr. Matheny "I agree with that totally and I think when we get the consultants in here they are going to take a look at that whole issue in the area and advise us accordingly; you know do we need to do away with some of that, do we need to go back to the now DEO and discuss that further or do we need to continue. I think there's a lot of discussion that we're going to need a little advice from our consultant when they're hired."

Vice-Chair Ganus "So what we're saying here is the new requirements for USAs are not going to be as stringent as the old requirements were?"

Mr. Weiss "I don't know that- Yes- I don't know how to answer this. There were specifics in terms of USAs; you probably have a little more flexibility with regard to what goes into them. Now they've never been a requirement under Statute. I mean these have always been optional elements to your Comp Plan. Now I think DCA tended to push these a little bit more and that's how it ended up that you had a Compliance Agreement with them to create these. Given the thrust of this Legislature that has kind of been to deregulate some- or a lot at the State level, they may not be as concerned with you establishing these USAs. That's what I'm saying and I think Anthony is right. I mean I think that's something that if ya'll decide you may not be as interested in doing, it's probably something you should talk to the consultant about. The consultant probably goes to DEO- well, still DCA until October 1; and talk to them about it and kind of see; but I think it does give you some, maybe -well, at least the opportunity to have a conversation in the event that's what you want to do. Now again,it's in your Comp Plan right

now so you still have to comply with your Comp Plan. If you want to continue pressing forward with it, it's in your Comp Plan to do it."

Commissioner Allen "I believe in that stipulated Settlement Agreement you're referring to in the Areas Plans, I believe it pretty much spells out what can be done and what can't be done in the Area Plans."

Mr. Weiss "Within the Area Plan itself? Okay, well, I mean I think you still - ! think that it being a dopted into your current Comp Plan - and I assume it was probably adopted into your Comp Plan in-"

Commissioner Allen "It was adopted in 2009, right. Obviously that's a little bit worn out"

Vice-Chair Ganus "I think this is an area that we need to keep our eyes on though,because if we start deleting down Urban Service Areas, you know a lot of things could happen that would be detrimental to the environment and a whole lot of things, I think."

Commissioner Allen "Yeah, that's true."

Mr. Weiss " I'm not advising that you do any of this, I'm just telling you that you may have some more options now and that's the only thing I wanted to mention on this."

In response to Vice-Chair Ganus, Mr. Weiss said he would make the same presentation to the Board of County Commissioners- said he will tell them all of the legal requirements -will tell them the same thing he has told the Planning Commission that just because the legal requirements have changed doesn't necessarily mean "you have to ditch what you've done,"

and he said he thinks that is the point to make.

Mr. Weiss gave two websites the Commissioners could go to for more in depth comprehensive analysis/review of the two bills discussed in his power point presentation.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/7201 http://www.lOOOfof.org/reform/7207Bii1Summaries.asp

There was brief discussion concerning size of staff at the DEO to handle all inquires, etc., and Mr. Weiss said based on anticipation, he feels the staff is going to be significantly reduced, but doesn't believe there is an answer as to how many positions there will actually be in the new Division of Community Development. He also said it is his understanding with the new

procedures and less State over sight,they won't need as many people.

Commissioner Tranchand stated several residents in his district have expressed an interest in the annexation issue and inquired of Mr. Weiss if the new Statutes address annexation or any

PlANNING COMMISS I O N

changes and Mr. Weiss said not that he is aware of, but added he had not reviewed all of HB

7202 with a fine tooth comb but that he doesn't believe it addresses annexation.

Vice-Chair Ganus called for any additional questions from the Commission and none were stated. He then thanked Mr. Weiss for his help and tonight's presentation.

Mr. Matheny said he had nothing further for tonight and added that he believes there will be several items coming before the Commission next month -couple of applications requesting Land Use Amendments - waiting on applicants to complete applications and pay fee; another one which is similar to the Murray Seay situation where the applicant has stated an original error was made on their land use designation and they want the Planning Commission to take a

look at it.

Vice-Chair Ganus asked Mr. Matheny if he had had a chance to consider his suggestion for a project list for the Planning Commission so they would be able to keep up with where everything is and Mr. Matheny said he had- that he and Mr. Brown have started talking about it; said they are still in the infancy stage of figuring out how to do it. He said they want to put a "huge" one on their wall so the staff can track everything and then possibly give a smaller version to the Commissioners indicating where the projects are; whether they have received approval (DCA if required) or BOCC approval or denial. He said he could not give a real timeline as to when it would be available but suggested possibly within the next meeting or two.

Vice-Chair Ganus announced the up-coming retirement of the Deputy Clerk and expressed thanks to her for all of the work she had done and he asked that the Commission give the Deputy Clerk a hand of appreciation. The Deputy Clerk was very appreciative of his comments.

There was discussion concerning absence, excused and unexcused of the Planning Commissioners and the request for the Deputy Clerk to put together information she has obtained from various counties covering this issue. The Deputy Clerk explained there is no "written" definition for excused absence for any of the Commissions, she explained the general practice of the BOCC in handling absences and she will e-mail the information to the Commissioners as well as to Mr. Matheny so they can move forward in developing a written policy for the Planning Commission on absenteeism. Vice-Chair Ganus requested the Deputy Clerk also cover in this information, the need for staff to keep phone calls going from the Department to the Commissioners to find out who will and will not be able to attend any given meeting. He said that helps serve as a reminder for everyone of the meeting and also helps in knowing whether or not there will be a quorum for such meeting. Commissioner Bridges-Bright also suggested a text message alert could be used for reminding Commissioners of meeting.

********************************************

ADJOURNMENT:

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE PlANNING COMMISSION AT THIS

TIME,THE MEETING WAS DEClARED ADJOURNED AT 7:40PM.

VICE-CHAIR lARRY GANUS

Jean Chesser,Deputy Cieri<

Gadsden County Board of Planning Commissioners

Agenda Request

Date of Meeting: September 15, 20 II

Date Submitted: August 25, 2011

To: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission

Fmm: Anthony Matheny, Planning & Community Development Director

Subject: Bostick Road Future Land Use Map Amendment (CPA-2011-02)

for Parcel #'s 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0IOO, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-

00210-0100, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0300, 2-27-3N-2W0000-

00210-0500, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-0021 0-0600, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-

00210-0400, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0200

Statement oflssue:

Pla1111ing & Community Development (P&CD) is requesting an administrative amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the land use category on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75± acres from Commercial (COMM) to Rural Residential (RR) to reflect the actual land use of the properties and to establish a land use designation consistent with the existing use of the property on the FLUM (Attachment #I &2). This amendment does not qualify as a small scale amendment per Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes.

At this public hearing, the Planning Commission is requested to make recommendation for transmittal of a FLUM amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), Division of Community Planning (DCP).

Bacl<ground:

The subject properties are located north and adjacent to the Havana Golf and Country Club, west of the CSX Railroad tracks and U.S. 27 (Florida-Georgia Highway) These properties are part of a COMM designated area located in Township 3N, Range 2W, Section 27 (Attachment #I). Access for the majority of the parcels is Bostick Road, a private residential roadway, and Red Fox Lane. Neither was constructed for commercial development. Access from S.R. 27 (FLA-GA Highway) is via Country Club Drive.

In 2010, Molly Coleman Wilson inquired about selling her 3.03± acre parcel and discovered her property, her mother's, her brother's, as well as and four (4) other adjacent propetties were designated COMM as of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (November 26, 1991). The COMM designation made five (5)

of these seven (7) properties legal nonconforming uses for residential development (Subsection 5003.B of the Land Development Code (LDC)). Ms. Wilson discussed the issue with the other six (6) affected property owners. P&CD met with these property owners and discussed their options. The property owners signed a petition requesting that the Future Land Use Map Designation on their property be changed from COMM to RR (one resident unit per acre) (Attachment #2). At the August 2, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed P&CD to process an amendment for this area.

Five (5) of the seven (7) properties contain a residential dwelling unit. The property owners agree their parcels are "unsuitable for commercial development". They believe that the decision to designate their property as COMM was in error and would like the County to amend the FLUM from COMM.

Land Usc:

While designated COMM, the area is developed with single family residential uses and vacant properties. Of the seven parcels, five are homesteaded with single family homes:

Parcel Identification Number Property Owner Acreage Use

2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0100	S & N Cunningham	2.7	SF
2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0100	S & S Boddery	13.44	Vacant
2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0300	S & S Boddery	2.00	SF
2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0500	Charles Coleman	3.59	Vacant
2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0600	Mollie Wilson	3.03	SF
2 -27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0400	Sara Coleman	8.97	SF

2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0200 David O'Brien 1.02 SF

Total 34.75 5 SF Units

The amendment parcels are bounded by the following Future Land Use Categories and uses (attachment #2):

on the FLUM (attachments 2 & 5). However they remain vacant or have developed with single family residential uses.

Development for RR is based on one unit per acre (1:I) of net developable area (Gross area less environmentally sensitive lands such as wetlands). If an amendment is approved to RR, the development potential increases to up to 22 units based on net density (34.75 acres less seven (7±) acres of environmentally sensitive areas equals 27.75 acres. 27.75 acres/!unit per acre less five existing residences equals 22.75 ). Since the properties contain five (5) existing dwelling units, the maximum additional units would be 22 dwelling units. However, it is unlikely the maximum density will be achieved based on the existing development/ownership pattern of the parcels.

Bostick Rd. is a sub-standard private roadway. The right-of-way is not wide enough to meet County requirements nor is it constructed for commercial use or expanded residential use.

Utilities and Transportation:

Electric and water utilities are provided to the amendment parcels by the City of Havana. The City has been contacted to confirm that there is adequate capacity to support the land use change (Attachment #8). Any additional capacity requirements would be required to be provided by the developer.

Per the Institute of Transportations Engineers, Trip Generation Eight Edition, a detached dwelling unit generates 1.02 trips per unit during the Weekday P.M. Peak Hour. No new development is proposed. However, should the maximum 22 additional units be reached, it would result in 22.44 additional peak hour trips (64% entering, 36% exiting.).

Public School lmnact:

The School Board has been notified of the proposed amendment and has been requested to provide a capacity determination (Attachment #8). The impact of up to a maximum of

22 residential units is not anticipated to negatively impact school capacity.

Fiscal Impact:

There is not an anticipated immediate fiscal impact.

Public Input:

This application is subject to the provisions of Section 7001.1, the Citizens Growth Management & Planning Bill of Rights. A Citizen's Planning Meeting was advertised and held on August 25, 2011 to discuss the amendments with area residents. Those in attendance were in support of the amendment and no issues were raised.

Findings:

Upon review of the land use amendment the following findings are presented:

1. The land use amendment is internally consistent with the Gadsden County

Comprehensive Plan and specifically with the Future Land Use Map, The Future

Land Use Element Objective 1.1, Policies 1.1.5(B) Rural Residential and the

Concurrency Management plan requirements.

2. Available supporting documentation indicates that the proposed land use

amendment is compatible with and will not adversely affect area properties, or properties in the County as a whole;

3. The amendment will not significantly increase the amount of land in the Rural Residential (Im.) future land use category or significantly decrease the amount of land with Commercial (COMM) future land use category and will more closely

reflect the existing development pattern (Policy 1.1.2);

4. The amendment is requested to correctly reflect the development pattern of the area as it relates to the existing infrastructure and roadway system. The

amendment reflects the existing residential development pattern of the property. Approval of the amendment will decrease the existing nonconformities in compliance with Policy 1.15.4.

5. The amendment will not negatively impact or increase the demand for infrastructure including schools, transportation, water and sewer (Objective 4.1, Infrastructure Element, Policy 2.2.4 Traffic Circulation Element, Policy 10.1.1

Public Schools Facility Element);

6. Rural Residential density is based on net density (gross density less

environmentally sensitive lands). All future development would be required to maintain natural buffers and setbacks from environmentally sensitive lands located on the northwest corner of the property (Policy 5.2.7 Conservation Element).

7. The existing parcels are one (1) acre or greater and are served by City of Havana

electric and water. Sewer service is not available.

8. Daily Peak Hour Trips are not anticipated to increase without significant infrastructure improvements and may be less than if the property was developed as a commercial use. Existing access to these parcels is from a private local

roadway (Country Club Road) and a substandard private roadway (Bostick Road).

9. There are no historically significant features on the propetty.

10. The proposed amendment complies with the general criteria applied when considering land use amendments as described by specific compliance with the above mentioned Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies including being substantially adjacent to existing RR land use to the west (Policy 1.1.5(B) and provides for compatible and consistent land uses since most of the propetties in the area are developed with single family homes or agriculture.

11. The proposed land use amendment will promote the public health, safety, welfare, economic order, aesthetics and quality of life in the community and region by providing for uses permitted in the Comprehensive Plan including reducing the

amount of nonconforming properties.

Code required standards:

A change in land use category designation on the FLUM is to be reviewed under the

Type IV Procedures per Subsection 7403 and 7204 of the LDC.

Planning Commission Requested Action:

The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall make findings as to whether the applicant has demonstrated the proposed development is consistent with the Gadsden County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC). Amendments must be justified by adequate data and analysis prepared prior to the transmittal stage (Subsection 7403). Pursuant to Subsection 7406, in preparing its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall:

A. IdentifY the Comprehensive Plan policies that govem the decision and prepare findings describing whether the proposal complies or fails to comply with these policies or intent of the plan.

B. State reasons for and make recommendations to the Board of County

Commissioners, which may include policy advice of the Planning Commission in addition to the findings described

Options:

1. Approve a 'draft' Ordinance for the Bostick Road Administrative Future Land Use Map Amendment (CPA-2011-02) to amend the adopted Future Land Use Map by changing the land use category on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75± acres from Commercial (COMM) to Rural Residential (RR) (1:1) based on the above listed findings and a determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.

2. Deny the Bostick Road Administrative Future Land Use Map Amendment (CPA-

2011-02) to amend the adopted Future Land Use Map by changing the land use category on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75± acres from Commercial (COMM) to Rural Residential (RR) (1:1) and identify specific policies and reasons/findings why the amendment should not be approved and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

3. Discretion of the Board.

Recommendation:

Option #1

Attachments:

1. Public Hearing Notices & Location

2. Property Owner Petition

3. Future Land Use Map & Aerial (with existing land uses and proposed land uses)

4. Ordinance 2011-XX, 'Draft'

5. November 26, 1991 FLUM

6. December 28, 2000 PLUM

7. Board Minutes, August 2, 2011 (If Available)

8. Capacity Determination Requests (School Board, Havana Utilities)

9. Expedited State Review Process- Flow Chart

10. CBR Attendance Sheet, August 25,2011

\\Gadsdenl\planning & zoning\Comp Plans\Amendments (by Year)\CPA-2011\CPA 2011-02 Bostick Rd\Bostick CPA-2011-02 PC

Agenda Request 0915ll.doc

COMMISSIONERS:

EU GENt: lAMB, JR.

District 1

DOUGLAS 1\tl, CHOI.E'/ District 2

GENE MORGAI\l

Distrlct 3

BREN DA A. liOl.T

District 4

Sl-lf:RRY I"AYLOR

District 5

GADSDEf\COUNT'f

BOARD Of COl»NlV «:OfN Mij§§ ONt §

EDWARD}.HUTLBR

GADSDEN COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL COMPLEX DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & CO lliillNlTY DEVELOPMENT

Arthul' lawson, Sr.

Interim County

Administrator

Deborah S. Minnis

County Attorney

Anthony Matheny

DIRECTOR

H.Clvde Collins

Building Official

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with the Gadsden County.Citizen's Planning & Growth Management Bill of Rights, the Gadsden County Platming & Community Development Department is holding a public citizens pa1iicipation meeting at 31() Bostick Rd, Havana, FL on Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 6:00· p.m. This public participation meeting is scheduled to consider a proposal to amend the Gadsden County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map by changing the adopted land use district from the Commercial (COMM) land use category to the Rural Residential (RR) (1:1) land use category on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75± acres, located north of the Havana Country Club, on Bostick Road and the north side of Red Fox Lane, west of the CSX Railroad tracks and SR 27 (FLA-GA Highway) as indicated on the attached location inap .(on the back of this notice). This notice is bei11g provided to all property owners within 0.50 of a mile of the subject amendment site as required by Subsection 7001.1 of the Gadsden County Land Development Code.

After consideration at a public participation meeting and the identification and discussion of any issues, the amendment will be scheduled for a public hearing at a later date. Copies of the proposed amendment will be available at the Planning & Community Development Depattment, lB East Jefferson Street, Quincy or on the Gadsden County website at gadsden gov.net. If a person decides to appeal a decision by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such public hearing, he/she will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose he/she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes testimony and evidence to which the appeal is to be heard.

J.-B F.ast JeHerso11 Street'- P.O. f3o;< .l799"Q.tlinr.y, Fol r icfa 37.:!>53-.l799o(SSO)f3'/!-i lJGG3 or (350)JJ75-8664)

d:i-5)

BO§'lrJICK ROAJt:» 1LO<CA1r[ON MAJP> JFU'lrliJRJE 1LAND l!J§E MAJP> AMJENDMIEN1'

A Citizen,s Participation Meeti ng has been scheduled at the amendment site. The public is encouraged to please attend this meeting to discuss the proposed amendment and to identify any issues.

LAND USE MAP CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RESIDENTIAL UP TO l UNIT PER ACRE)

\\Gadsden1\planning & zoning\Comp Plans\Amendmenls (by Year)\CPA-2011\CPA 2011-02 Bostick Rd\CBR PHN Bostick Rd .docx

Bostic< RdProposed Land Use

-.o:•u " ..

Red Fox Ln

1 @h §"imfts_2_For_1

0 ·. Gad de t tions_Edit

_ ,p;. County

.... GIS

I'Jater_llnes20070802

- · <all other values>

Owner

'Chattahoochee

• Gretna

- Havana

- Quincy

-. Talquin

-+- Railroads

Dparcels_20100305

FLU20061129

LAND USE

AG1

I ( AG2

0AG3

D coM

DCONSERVATION Light Industrial RR

D Silviculture

USA

fllslorical

I _ I industrial lake mining

municipal

1 public

nrecreational

" "

Fox Ln

1 h 4 8"iJOOs_2_For_1

o A Godsu ;11tions_Edil

_ g mty

watcr_llnes20070802

-· <all other values> Ownet' Chattahoochee

Gretna

Havana

- Quincy

·- Talquin

-+-- Railroads

D parcels_20100305

FLU20061129

LAND USE

1 AG1

l- j AG2

0AG3

O coM

D CONSERVATION

Light Industrial

CJ Silviculture

USA

Bostick Road Future Land Use & Wetlands

CO ==::::530c5==::::i610========:i1,2},1

Legend

@ Appll}.!ns_2_For_1

_Applications_Edit

=

Owne r

1ncn 593 feel

• v...

f""h..,f t ..,h.....,..,.ha.o

Gadsden county

._ GIS

- Havana

Quincy

- Talquin

-I- Railroads

Dparcels_20100305

DFloodzone_09

Ottbot

- creeks

NWI (Wetlands)

DLake talquni

FLU20061129

LAND USE

AG1

IAG2

0AG3

D coM

D CONSERVATION

Light industrial

D Silviculture

USA historical industrial lake mining municipal

1 public

D recreational

DRAFT

ORDINANCE 2011-0X

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GADSDEN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BY ADOPTING A SINGLE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, KNOWN AS THE BOSTICK ROAD FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF GADSDEN COUNTY BY CHANGING THE LAND USE OF PROPERTY TOTALING 34.75 ACRES, AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 'A', FROM COMMERCIAL (COMM) TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE (CPA-2011-02).

Whereas,·

Whereas; Whereas,·

Whereas; Whereas;

Whereas,·

The Gadsden County Planning Commission, seated as the Local Planning Agency, has individually heard the proposed administrative Future Land Use amendment and made appropriate conunent and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; and,

This hearing has been duly noticed in accordance with the Florida Statutes and the Gadsden County Land Development Code; and,

As required by Section 163.3189, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearings on said ordinance and provided the appropriate legal and public notice, and received public conunent on the proposed land use map amendment; and,

The amendment is known by the name of the "Bostick Road Future Land

Use Map Amendment (CPA-2011-02); and,

Gadsden County has provided sufficient data and analysis necessary for submission and justification for adoption of tllis administrative amendment; and,

This amendment is necessary to correctly reflect the existing and future use of the subject amendment parcels as residential;

Wltereas; This Future Land Use Map amendment changes the Future Land Use Map designation on seven (7) parcels consisting of approximately 34.75 acres from the Commercial (COMM) future land use category to the Rural

Residential (RR) (I: I) future land use category; and,

Whereas; The proposed Future Land Use Map amendment complies with Chapter

163.3187(l)(c) of Florida Statutes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Approval of Amendment

We, the Board of County Commissioners of Gadsdeu County, Florida hereby adopt the Bostick Road Future Land Use Map amendment to the Gadsden County Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, by changing tlze adopted Future land use designation on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75 acres, referred to by Tax Parcel I.D #'s

2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0100, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0100, 2-27-3N-2W-OOOO··

00123-0300, 2-27-3N-2W0000-00210-0500, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00210-0600, 2-27-3N-

2W-0000-00210-0400, 2-27-3N-2W-0000-00123-0200, from the Commercial (COMM)

future land use categ01y to the Rural Residential (RR)(l:1) future land use categ01y on tlze property described in Exhibit "A":

SECTION2: Severability

If any portion of this amendment shall be challenged and/or annulled, no other provision or approval of this amendment shall be affected and no other element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be affected.

SECTION3: Effective Date

Having been herein approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this amendment to the Future Land Use Map will be effective upon adoption of said amendment as provided in Chapter 163.3187 (!)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.015, Florida Administrative Code. Future Land Use Map amendments shall not become effective until 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this amendment shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration C01mnission, respectively, issues a final order determining the adopted small scale development amendment is in compliance.

Signed:

Sherry Taylor, Chairperson Date

Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners

Attest:

Nicholas Thomas, County Clerk Date

Attachment- Exhibit "A"- Bostick Road Futm·e Land Use Map- Amended

Wherefore, Be it iltm:elby Ordainned: That the Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners, hereby adopts the above named amendment to the Gadsden County Future Land Use Map, on this day of , 2011.

Signed:

Sherry Taylor, Chairperson Date

Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners

Attest:

Nicholas Thomas, County Clerk Date

Attachment- Exhibit "A"- Bostick Road Future lLand Use Map- Amended

\\Gadsdenl\planning& zoning\Comp Plans\Amendments (by Year)\CPA-2011\CPA 2011-02 Bostick Rd\BOSTICK RD FLUM Ordinance 2011-xx.doc

Attachment 'A' = Bostic( Road (CPA-2011=02)

Legen

1 @h.{\pPJtWiMs_2_For_1

0 ·. Gadsd i, ltions_Edit

County

- GIS

l'later_llnes20070802

Fox Ln

• Chatlahoochee

Gretna

- Havana

Quincy

_., Talquin

-1- Railroads

Dparcels_20100305

FLU20061129

LAND USE

AG1

[' ] AG2

Q AG3

O coM

D CONSERVATION

Light Industrial

DSilvicullure USA Dhistorical

] industrial lake mining

municipal

1 public

[ l recreational

. AC;R I CUL TUR/\L ?

AGR i CULTURAL 3

CONSERVAT I Of\J

RECRE·AT I ON

COIVIrlr RC I AL

;1 ND.US TR I AL

·H 1 STOR I CA.L

·fViI t\i f NG

I

P'Lns .....GL. i r'v·

' .

.

r -

L' - ... -

-r-:

-

L lc/.... ·" 1·,'N. CrQ.',.,.

G1\J)SDEJ.\T ·o U· ·1·{

DET)A.RTIVlE\11., OF PLAl\f['ril\ l ·

5 J'.i"JL,\1...""1T Jf..!C..:.Jl:lF.-,...t.IP.."·",:"::,'foN

D l/'rban=/Se'rvice 5.· 1

D RtJ/roLl=Residentictl1.· 1

g

D Ag 1 1:5

4g2 1.·10

rl] Ag -3 1.·40

Conservo.Ltion 10.40

D RecreoLtional 1: 40

D Historical

IndustrioLl D 1v!ini'rtg D l0ublic

D Commercial

JJ'EET

\BOARD Of !COUNTY COMM SS ONIEIRS AUGUST 02, 2011

(AS AVAJLAIBLIE)

COMMISSIONERS: EUGENE LAMB,m. District 1

DOUGlAS M. CROLEY

District 2

GENE MORGAN

District 3

BRENDA A, HOLT

District 4

SHERRIE TAYLOR

District 5

GADSDEN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EDWARDJ.BUTLER

GADSDEN COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL COMPLEX

PLANNING & COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT

2006 USDA Rural Development Community of the Year

Arthur tawson1 Sr.

Interim County

Administrator

Deborah s. Minnis

County Attorney

Anthony Matheny

Director

August 121 2011

Bonnie Wood

Assistant Superintendent of Schools

35 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard

Quincy} Florida 32351 (850)627-9651

Re: Gadsden County Future Land Use Map Amendment- School Capacity Determination

Dear Ms. Wood:

Gadsden County is proposing a Future Land Use Map amendment that will increase the development potential of residential units on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75 acres and accessing on Bostick Road (northwest of the Town of Havana). Over time the amendment would allow the number of residential units to Increase from five (5) existing residences to a maximum development potential of twenty-two (22) residentialunits. However, due to the existing number of parcels and development pattern it is not anticipated that the maximum number of residential units will be reached (See Attachment).

Gadsden County is requesting that your or the appropriate staff member please provide a determination as to whether adequate school capacity exists based on the 'Gadsden County lnterlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Plannlng1 (Polley 10.6.1 & 10.6.3 of the Gadsden County Comprehensive Plan). This amendment is scheduled for a public hearing by the Gadsden Planning Commission at their September 15, 2011meeting.

Thank-you In advance for your timely response. If you have any questions, please contact me at

tz;c:,

(850)875-8663 or amatheny@gadsdencountyfl.gov. Sincerely:

?4( -y'

Anthony Matheny

Planning and Community DEJ.Y&',m?.I/1J'r.I\ Ps 11S.\9 ct•P.o. Box 1199•Qulncy, Florida 37.353-1'/99

{850}875-8GG3 FAX {S-50}375·7?.80 www.gaclsclencountyfl.gov

COMMISSIONERS: EUGENE LAMIJ,JR. District 1

DOUGLAS M. CROLEY

District 2

GENE MORGAN District 3

BRENDA A. HOLT

District 4

SHERRIE TAYI.OH District 5

GADSDEN COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

EDWARD J. BUTLER

GADSDEN COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL COM.PLEX

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

2006.USDA Rural Development Community of the Year

Arthur Lawson,St', Interim County Administrator

Deborah s. Minnis

County Attorney

Anthony Matheny

Director

August 12, 2011

Howard L. McKinnon

Town Manager

P.O. Box 1068

Havana,FL 32333-1068

{850}539-2820

Re: Gadsden County Future Land Use Map Amendment- Electric & Water Capacity

Dear Mr. McKinnon:

Gadsden County is proposing a Future Land .Use Map amendment that will increase the development potential of residential units on seven (7) parcels totaling 34.75 acres and accessing on Bostick Road (northwest of the Town of Havana). Over time the amendment would allow the number of residential units to Increase from five (5) existing residences to a maximum development potential of twenty-two (22) residential units. However,due to the existing number of parcels and development pattern it Is not anticipated that the maximum number of residentialunits will be reached (See Attachment).

Gadsden County Is requesting that your or the appropriate staff member please provide a determination as to whether adequate electric and water utility capacity is adequate and/or would be considered for expansion should development occur. This amendment is scheduled for a public hearing by the Gadsden Planning Commission at their September 15, 2011meeting.

Thank-you in advance for your timely response. If you have any questions, please contact me at

{850)875-8663 or amatheny@gadsdencountyfl.gov. Sincerely:

r:Z

Anthony Mathey

Planning and Community Development Director

l·B E st Jefferson Street•P.O. Box l199•Qulncy,Florida 3?.353·1799 (850)875·8663 FAX (8-50)375·7280 www.gadsdencountyfl.gov

Expedited State Review Amendment Process

Section 163.3184(3) and (5), Florida Statutes

Proposed Phase

Local government transmits three copies' of the plan amendment to the

State land Planning Agency and one copy to review agendas.''

{\'rrth:n 10 d•:;• ollnill•lpubllchio rlng)

local government and agencies are riolified by State Land Planning

Agency of receipt of amendment.

{W:!h'n rra 1\'or\o:t"SS do)> <>f rec 'pt)

Local government

I notified submittal is

I

incomplete

{v. h1n5"or''j'"d•i·s of

I !N: · t)

I I I

Incomplete

local government submits three copies 1of the adopted plan amendment to State land Planning Agency: one copy to agency or local government that provided \ime!y comments.

(W.:h'n 10 da1·s aMr ado; <on)

Complete

State Land Planning Agency

I

I Agency requesh hearing,OOAH

I

(O;,.;,:on cfMm'n!strat\a He••;n9;. O prlrl\H•I<I ~~tli!.". g menl Serk•s~~)

I I

I Administrative

L_ Proceedings

pursuant to s.120.57

end 163.3164(5), FS.

State land Planning Agency or Administrative Commission Final Order (Amendments

become effective if the Final Order

determines the adopted amendment is In compganca.)

June 2011

If challenged or found not in compliance negotiation may lead to a compliance agreement and remedial plan amendment pursuant to s.

163.3184(6), FS.

(Amendment becomes effective

31 days after Slate Land Plann'rng Agency

determines the amendment package is comp ete. No Petition was filed by an affected party).

1 Localgovernment should submit 1 complete paper copy and 2 comp ete electronic copies on CD ROMin PDF formalin order to assist in expecftl\n.g processing and revie-u.

2 Reviewing Agencies include: appropriate RegionalPlanning Council; Water Management D!s!rict; Department of Transportation;Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county {municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservallon Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services {county p!an amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain localgovernments, the

appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmentalagency

that has filed a written request.

3 Comments must be received by local government no later than 30 days from the date on which the agency or local government received amendmenl

4 !f local government fails, within 180 days after receipt of agency comments, to hold second public hearing, the amendments shall be deemed withdravm unless extended by agreement and notice to Stale land Planning Ageocy and any affected party that provided comments on the amendment.