Good evening and welcome to the um uh Thursday, July 24th, 2025 meeting of the Indian River County um um planning and zoning commission. Uh we'll call this meeting to order and begin with the pledge of allegiance. If you please
stand. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. Um, any additions or deletions to the agenda? >> No, sir. >> All right. Uh, first order of business is the approval of the June 12th, 2020 five. I'm assuming that. >> Oh, yes. Sorry. 2025
um minutes. >> Motion to approve. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> U. Any opposed? Um, minutes are approved. Uh, we have one agenda item tonight. Um, and that is the river
preserve. And this is a request for a major site plan approval for a multifamily residential development to be known as the river preserve. Indian River Preserve LLC is the owner and applicant. Carter and Associates Incorporated is the agent. The zoning
designations are RM6 residential multif family up to six units per acre and RS1 residential single single family up to one unit per acre. Land use designation is L2 low density residential two up to
six units per acre and C2 conservation 2 up to one unit. um per uh 40 acres. Uh the density is 5.4 94 units per acre. Um any declaration of expartite
communications with this? >> Um seeing none, um anyone who would like to speak on this, please stand and uh be sworn in. >> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Uh excellent. and we're ready for staff presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. For the record, Ryan Sweeney, assistant planning and development services director. I'll be presenting tonight on behalf of Michael Hill. Uh tonight's request is for the RI
River Preserve major site plan. A brief project summary. The overall project site is 31.28 acres, proposing a total of 176 units at a density of 5.94 units per acre. And as noted in the introduction of the staff report, there have been multiple variations of
projects previously approved on this project site stemming all the way back to 2001. Um hopefully the fourth or fifth time is a charm. The project location is east of US1, west of the river, southeast of the intersection of
US1 and 99th Street, and is primarily zone RM6. Here's an aerial depicting the existing conditions of the site. You can see that some of the project site infrastructure was constructed through previous approvals and some vertical construction. Primarily these uh
structures were were started um but have since been abandoned and will be demolished um in order to make way for the new development. Here's a site plan depicting the you layout of the project. So essentially there is a sort of east half and west
half an east bank of buildings and a west a bank of buildings and each half has its own clubhouse and tennis court and amenity center. Um the traffic circulation plan includes a proposed traffic signal at US1 and 99th Street as well as the internal
roadway system, two-way driveway system with parking, a 90 degree parking on either side in some in most places or driveways, you know, single family driveway or single unit driveways. Storm water plan proposes a total of four uh wet detention systems. So
there's one, two, three, and four as well as an existing and enhanced uh marsh and wetland system. The environmental landscape plan includes perimeter buffers uh along US1, the north and south 50ft shoreline
buffer and the again the existing wetlandhanced marsh wetland system dedications, improvements and other conditions. There is a conservation easement requirement over certain uh wetland areas that were previously
designated through previous approvals. Uh the off-site traffic improvement again which is the signalization of US1 and 99th street. the internal sidewalk/pedestrian system and internal street lighting or you know parking area lighting and staff's recommend recommendation is that planning zoning
commission grant major site plan approval for the river reserve with conditions state and staff report related to the to record the required conservation easement install all the required off-site traffic improvement uh install landscape buffers and common area parking landscape uh required
sidewalks and pedestrian system required street lighting and any site lighting adjustments after installation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ryan. Uh any uh commissioner questions on my right? Seeing none, any on my left?
>> Uh seeing none, um we will uh open the floor for public comment if there's anybody that would like to comment on this. >> Good evening. Uh my name is John Blum. engineer with Carter Associates representing the applicant who's actually on vacation tonight, so I'm I'm
handling it myself. Um, kind of hit me there with how long I've been doing an engineering in this county with uh all of those previous approvals. I've been involved with all of them, but uh like Ryan said, hopefully this one's
a done deal, but uh just here to answer any questions. Any questions on the left? >> I've I've got one. Okay. And John, I don't know if you can answer it. Ryan, >> maybe and and this is Dr. Day, this is coming >> from probably more your background than
mine, but being on the mosquito control. Do we ever contact them and say, "Hey, can you help if there's I'm looking at this thing, okay, I think we're going to have some mosquito control issues." I might be wrong. >> Yeah. Do we ever get in touch with the
mosquito control to say, "Hey, >> yes, they receive the >> Apologize my mic was off." Yeah, they they they uh receive our our submitts and rarely rarely chime in, but on occasion uh not in this particular project, but some of the ones you've
collectively the P&Z have reviewed and approved recently. Um there's a lot of time there's access through projects to various mosquito control. But so yeah, they're they're aware. >> Excellent. And and that's the case with this one. We've been in touch with them, not necessarily with this particular application, but in previous ones, and I
think we even have something of record that allows them access to those impelments. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Good. >> I'm just curious the uh and I see this as another public benefit, the demolition or removal of the existing structures. Is that I imagine that's going to be done very early in the uh in the scope of project.
>> Yes. Yes. In fact, if they could do it now, they'd want to do it now. Those are abandoned right now. >> Yes. Yes. >> Pretty rough shape. >> Yeah. A long time. >> Yeah. >> Um just for my own edification. Bing on Tommy's question. Do the storm water um
areas do they get um ariation as a standard thing or what? So that they're not stagnant. >> Uh no, but this would be title because it's connected to the river. Uh our outfall goes uh from that wetland marsh area. we drain into to the retention
ponds which overflows into that marsh area which is interconnected to the lagoon. So that's rankish water that is overflowing. >> Uh yes, just within that, not into the storm water system, but
>> right, but into the overflow, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, that makes your mosquito question even more pertinent. >> Well, I think they get involved. >> Is it the I don't know the name of the fish. >> Gambosia. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think they've gotten involved in
the past and have put it up to the if it's authorized by the association, right? I think they'll come in with >> John, I just have another question. Sorry. Um the retention ponds are designed for
what kind of a an event? A 100redy year, a 50-year, 20 year, you know. Well, just current like all retention ponds, we have to with the county, we have to meet the 25-year storm event, but we have certain criteria for the 100red-year storm for finish floor elevations and
different road elevations. So, it meets the current ERP. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Are the existing or are the planned roads or the roads showed on this uh shown on this uh display,
are they there and are they in good shape? uh they're there. They're not in great shape. Uh in fact, we'll have to demolish a lot of it. We're keeping the same footprint, but uh utilities have been stagnant for many years. Uh there's
been rule changes with lead u contain fittings that we have to replace. Uh so the footprint will stay the same, but we'll we'll end up repaving the roads. >> I asked because you said it could be demolished. The existing build could be
demolished now, but you need some way to access those and get get the stuff out of there >> and to build new. >> Yeah, that'll be the first thing we do. >> Build all the roads. >> I'm sorry.
>> You'll build all the roads. >> Yes. >> Anything else? Anyone else like to speak on this? Thank you, John. >> Thank you. Um, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and if there are no additional questions or statements, I'll
call for a motion. >> I'll move staff recommendation. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Um, all in favor? >> I oppose. >> Passes uh unanimously. Um, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Matters.
Any Commissioner Matters? >> I've got one and I >> Y'all don't know this. What I want to discuss, and Susan, you might be able to help us on this one, and Ryan, you and I have talked about this. This is pertaining to the hearing that came
before us that we denied. They took it before the board of county commission and appeal. And I, believe it or not, I went and sat for about an hour and a half, two hours to listen to that. And truthfully, you all that was a
totally different presentation than we got. And and I don't mean it from the staff. Staff gave the same presentation. But what happened is they realized we've got to give more. And Susan, my question to you, and I had
to bite my tongue. I didn't want to talk in a public hearing. A commissioner asked, "Was there any reason for denial?" And it went silent. I know it was in backup. I know it was in the minutes,
but the attorney didn't state it and I understand she couldn't because it has to be a whole different slate because it's quasi judicial. If that's the case, why do they have to have a reason?
You mean why does sorry why does who have to have a reason why >> do we have to have a reason for denial >> on something that's not even going to be prevalent? >> Well, if if you think about it, it's and I'm sorry, I'm going to try to do a
little bit of comparison in my mind to make it make sense when I'm explaining this. If you go to a trial court, right, the judge just can't make a rule based on anything. they have to have whatever tier level of evidence whether it be preponderance of the evidence or you know >> right >> for a for a civil case we'll just go
with that route here you guys have to have substantial competent evidence so you all have to give your reasonings with substantial competent evidence even in a trial court if it gets appealed they have two different kinds of appeals in that world one of them is denovo it's the same thing as this so this is appeal
denovo even though it's appeal denovo they would you still have to demonstrate all the evidence and you would still want to know the reason why or the basis for the denial basically in the underlying court. So that's kind of what that's what that's going for. They could
not the board could not rely on that denial. they still have to consider all the facts and evidence a new but they could still hear I mean um I suppose it could have been well it shouldn't have been a fac a factor they should still
hear it a new >> correct >> um but they they can more they are very welcome to ask why and that's normal >> and I and I think what got me is it was in their backup material >> and I didn't as vice chairman of the
planning zoning didn't want to step up and go commissioner it's right here in your backup because I didn't want to throw any shade over this being quasi judicial. It just surprised me that and and granted when they came in with a
sea buffer and they started adding things to this to make it more appealing. I think I mentioned Orion after all this. I said, 'You know what? And it's I'm only one of seven. I think
these engineers need to come to this meeting with their agame and not get to and again, I'm speaking as a former county commissioner sitting up here as a county commissioner. they have, correct me if I'm wrong, the authority if it's going
for a PD to have any benefit to Indian River County, which I think some of the commissioners didn't understand that. So, and I'm kind of being a little upset because we had a commissioner say that our commission was a little
inexperienced. I'm going So, I called him on that after the meeting as well. So, I I just want to put everything out there transparent because I'm going to do the best job I can do up here
and try not to attend any more board of county commission meetings. >> So, um just just with that in mind, I think like you said, Mr. Lawler, you doing your best job as a planning and zoning commissioner is for each of you to take, you know, the evidence that
you're given at each individual hearing, right? and take that as, you know, it's it's a new slate every time it kind of comes through, if you will, for each new project and make sure that we just apply the facts that we're given, the evidence that we're given to the rules that we have. Um, the PD process, I think, um,
and Ryan probably was going to touch on this. So, Ryan, I'm sorry. >> Next item, so good se >> was the, um, the fact that the board did vote for a consensus, I think, was at their last meeting to go ahead and move forward with workshops with y'all sometime in the fall. um to discuss the
PD process which I think will be uh it'll be very valuable. I think it'll be a good opportunity for the two boards to be able to have that discuss that and see what it is that because reading something I can read something and read it one way Ryan can read it and
interpret it another way. Um it it happens. It's you know the interpretation of each mind and how we see the world. So it might be a good idea for everybody to kind of hear what the interpretations are. um from each board, what each board's kind of looking at, what we think we are, how we can
change it to make it more clear, >> right? >> Um and you know, just kind of clean it up and make it a little better because I think that's kind of what we're looking at. But um I think as far as the board meeting, you know, they they voted on whatever evidence they had.
>> Um I will tell you I did not say anything about the ruling because I am the sitting attorney for this board. >> Correct. And I'm not again not trying to get into any sort of crossover um in front of another board. Um and I feel Jennifer is kind of the same way. She
has to remain kind of neutral. She has to kind of stay there and just give her legal advice. >> Um so and I think you did uh well with not coming up and and trying to push anything because we still have >> uh as as you said, we still have staff that's presenting their case and then we
have the applicant that's presenting their case. So that way they got there a new like you said and there wasn't any sort of well I didn't get my chance a new. So if if you will I don't know if that helps clear. >> No it it does. I think >> Susan if I could
in in defense of Mr. Lawler >> I think what he's trying to say and I'll simplify it. We had to give a reason for denial when it went to appeal before the board of county
commissioners. The question by a county commissioner was why did PNZ deny this? They were not informed. That's the bottom line. If if if if he was being truthful and they're not told
and that's why we want the workshops. If we're denying something and they're not even being informed as to why we're denying it, >> why are we even doing this? >> She she spelled that out, Cal. No, I I
understand that, but at the same time, you know what's interesting and Ryan to to piggyback on that, they denied it for something that didn't even come before us. If I'm correct, it was all about
traffic studies, traffic, and we didn't even >> Well, that was that was my concern with that. with that >> they had a 2 and a half hour discussion of traffic, cars, this and never >> I watched the I watched the meeting and
I felt the same way. I thought it was very interesting because I I felt like maybe because it was my thinking. I felt like I was more hung on the what is the public benefit as well as the conversation we had briefly about isn't PD's really supposed to have
>> benefit >> you know some other things and you know there's even some things that make it suggest to me that it's maybe really more for a special thing like with these wetlands that we just approved today or
low um um low value housing or affordable housing sorry, something like that. And none of that was there. And I I remember us talking about that a lot at the we didn't actually just agree and say, "Yep, these are the reasons, but we talked about it a lot." And there were
conversations about the traffic. But I did think it was interesting that when the c the commissioners got together, it really focused in on those traffic and they denied it for >> and that's where the workshop I think is going to be. I do too because I feel like that that definition of what is a public benefit I think we are way off of
from what some other people think I you know the fact that they're going to grow a blade of grass is considered a public benefit in some people's mind and I >> well I think came forward and discussed the was it a cype landscape buffer >> type >> that to me I'd have been fine with that
the night they came to us because if they had buffered that whole thing and you didn't even see that subdivision that have been huge Like if Hampton Woods would have done that, we didn't never know those houses are 5 foot apart from each other. I think the workshop is going to be the the biggest. >> So if planning and zoning's reason for
denial was in their packet, whose job was it to say, "Wait a minute, it's on page 12." So let just just to clarify and this is kind of the snafu that occurred all along is that because it was a denovo hearing they we really
couldn't drive home that point. However, had it been a different process, the PD special exception process where you all make a recommendation um that automatically goes to the board, they would have been more informed as to the reason why the recommendation for denial
was made. I I I again try not to blur the lines of the denovo hearing versus the other process. >> Ryan, I guess my question is Mr. Lawler was required to give a reason for denial, >> right? And then that
>> and if that's not shared with the board of county commissioners, why are we even required to give that reason? It's it's a procedural legal requirement because if we don't >> um then then that is a legal problem. We
>> But if they request it, >> is it shared with them? >> I mean it it technically was because it's in their packet >> because it's my understanding they asked why was it denied, >> right? But when you guys denied it, that was the final action. So what they were hearing was an appeal. It was not a recommendation from you all and
therefore the reasoning was not. >> It's an all new >> I understand. It's an all new presentation from them and we had nothing. Our decision had nothing. They were going for a new presentation in front of the board. Um, is my understanding >> the different approach. >> That's right. A little bit. >> That's correct. And like how Ryan said,
please don't feel like what your guys's decisions are aren't important or aren't taken into consideration because they are. That happened to be just one of the instances where stuff is heard denovo. There are other instances in which your guys's recommendation is flatout heard and it's not denovo,
>> right? And then the appeal becomes a procedural appeal, which is a much different process than the donovo. So, and again, that maybe two times in the almost 12 years I've been here has it been the reasoning that that's just a weird clause in our code that when when
the PNZ denies a resoning, it's becomes the final decision. Everything else is a recommendation that ultimately makes its way to the board in that process. So, um, our reason for denial was in the packet. >> The minutes, correct? >> It was in the packet. >> Correct. >> As a comment on that, I noticed that
several of the commissioners said we watched the meetings. So, I know that they heard. So, were we not clear with I mean, was that I mean, we should think about that as how we, you know, speak or wrap up a meeting. Did we not make it? >> I think in in in the um workshops
knowing the levers that we can pull to further enhance public benefit or you know reasonable steps that we can push back on to get something that's that's more beneficial for the um for any room county. I think that's going to be helpful for us so we can be clear in why we approve something, why we deny or
what we what additional conditions we ask for to be met. >> That's true. And and Jordan, that's where I'm coming from. Unfortunately, I'm sitting at the position I don't want to say I know it all. >> Yeah. >> But I know it. And when this one commissioner wanted to go toe-to-toe with to me, I said, "Come on. You don't even know what you can do with your
PDs." And I'm not meaning that nasty, but it's one of those situations that >> they can ask for the sun. >> Mhm. >> When someone comes forward, wants to do a PD. And that's all I said to Ryan after this meeting. And I said, "Listen, when we have things like this that come
to you all and they're taking it from an RS3, they want a PD, they'd better come loaded for bear, not the minimum." And and and that just it was hard for me to sit there when this commissioner
asked and it would just went silent. And I get it, Susan. I know that. But in this workshop, this question will come up. and make sure that did you look at your backup commissioner because when he calls us inexperienced I
have a problem with that >> with um for our future benefit how denovo is a denovo hearing in other words are they allowed to know that
obviously they can read the minutes but do they need to know other than what our vote was. >> So te technically they're only supposed to take into consideration what's presented to them at that hearing. Correct. >> So even if they watched the meeting,
even if they read the minutes, anything, it's almost like it's going to happen in a vacuum, if you will. So it's just whatever is presented at that hearing because it's no, they're allowed to know that you denied. They I mean, but they can't take that into consideration. It is just something that they can know,
but they're only allowed to do what's in that vacuum. And I just um I want to emphasize again that it is it is good that we are clear like you said is there a reason why we we should be clear when we're making our findings. Um not necessarily
I understand your question your question was if we were clear to them or not. couldn't tell you. I'm not inside their mind, but um I can tell you that as long as we're clear and we can make sure that this is, you know, find this is the reason why we don't find that there's,
you know, this is a no or this is a yes, that's what we need to look for because then we can say, hey, we base this on the substantial competent evidence. So someone can't say you guys are being funky with this guy and you're being mean with me, but you're being happy
with him for whatever arbitrary and capriccious reason. Um you guys have based your findings on your, you know, you have your findings and you have your evidence. So so long as you all do that, you would um you would be fine. So I think regardless of them taking that into consideration,
you guys are doing your job when you're doing that from a legal standpoint. And you know, we can't be brought to task and said, "Hey, they're being arbitrary and capriccious and they're giving favors." You're not. You're doing your job and you're get finding you do you're putting your findings of fact and your evidence forward. So, and
>> that and that was one of my concerns when that particular project came up is I' I've been on this board for a while and I've I could consider many many similar PDs that were approved and and knowing that, you know, we can't just
just on a gut check, you know, or well, just because they say this is the indust while we might not want to be that, >> we've got a come we've kind of have more of a defined reason I think for for denial so that it stands up to your
point of we're treating everyone the same way >> and I think with that scenario Jordan RS3 was already prevalent correct Ryan am I >> so they were trying to go more to a PD
>> and that's why the denial was you know what you have RS3 let's stay with that >> and our county commissioners found a valid reason that probably didn't come before us with traffic studies where I'm sure they they would have said, "Oh, the traffic study is fine." We, you know,
it's under the metric. But, you know, >> and I I don't even know why traffic line came into play because like I said, it's I go back to Ghost Trips that that was famous back in 2002 to 2006.
to to me it was more of what's there what's there in the future and what happened across the street and the benefit of what Indian River County got and I think Commissioner Moss might have been wanting it on that. >> Yeah. I mean on a bigger picture too. I
mean we've got got the comprehensive plan. We know what we know how this county is looking at the future and so that's kind of our framework and guidance of what it's supposed to look like in the long term. If we start approving these things, it sets
precedents, right? So then, you know, every zero lot line thing eventually just becomes so I mean you have to be very careful and a very good reason to do it in my book because that is not what the comprehensive plan is supposed to be for Indian River County. We
clearly want lower density and a little bit more in favor of some environmental stuff. >> That makes clarification of the PD more even more important. Yes. Because um uh so those those meetings will be critical. >> Well, if you saw we had Liberty Park,
Dr. Day when you were gone, which was a huge big PDT TNT and they were doing all kinds of things even offsite. Waso part and granted that's a whole bigger scale but it it's
one of those that just caught me off guard and I didn't mean to talk this long about that but it just caught me off guard having come from here to sitting down here now going there just I'm not right about that but that's me.
>> Okay. Any other commission matters? >> Got one question for Ryan. Go ahead John. um in your list that you send out with the you know with all the projects coming up. >> Yes. >> I see the bridge point is not is no on the high interest and I was just wondering >> which which one was it?
>> That's the one that butts up against San Ridge that's all over the news and social media and stuff. I was just curious why that >> Yeah. So that that metric's sort of arbitrary but I I probably should change it to maybe yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um the is is that it?
>> Yeah. Um, Dr. Dave, if you're ready for planning matters. >> Okay. Yeah, planning matters. >> So, good segue for that. So, yes, the board at their July 15. >> Wait, wait, wait. >> Go ahead. >> Mark wasn't done. >> Okay. I I had two quick commissioner matters and it's only u just to mention
my usual uh commissioner matters which are um as staff of affordable housing was broached in this in your discussions
with the developer and also just the reminder and I'm without primary care doctor right now because they're being they're dropping the insurance. Uh so I'm painfully aware of
how difficult it is to find medical care. I had mentioned before about perhaps medical care being a need to get you close to the microphone so I can hear you. >> Okay. Sorry.
Um I'm trying to think of the the term u just like traffic >> concern no uh so Mr. Chair Mr. level of service was was the discussion we had last time and again we can't
force or obligate private so medical you know medical care is provided through the private sector well I mean there are some public private sort of folks but it's not a service that the county provides you know on the whole so again
we can't really force private sector to meet a level of service I believe that was the discussion we had last that that that's correct because concern concurrency deals with the services that the government gives or the government provides for its citizens. Um and the
government does not provide health care um for its citizens at this time at least from that sense. I mean, would we love I'm sure we would all love and encourage to see more healthcare. Um, but I don't that's not something that that the county can force or make,
>> right? That >> in terms of population, >> right? >> Yeah. We we can't have a minimum number of doctors per thousand >> demand, >> right? Y that's that's exactly it. >> That being said, I we you know, we have
so to your first point about affordable housing. Yeah. We we usually that's the very first topic that we broach with every developer specifically for PD because we've told we basically told them now that affordable housing is is is priority and public benefit number one. If if if they'll agree to work with
us on that then that is usually kind of already meets the bar and we'll probably have that discussion again. Um, but as far as medical care, that's again, it's not something we can force or obligate. But we do we have had conversations with with hospital agencies and healthcare
providers about possibly trying to create a new or second sort of health hub um west of the tracks because we are aware of of the bright line and everything but um so but those are again
private sector it's it's a lot of a lot of expense involved. So but I understand it being u private sector as opposed to government but I'm not as worried about the railroad tracks as I am just not being able to get healthare
once the population grows as it will >> and we keep proving things >> we good uh planning matters >> right so again um at their July 15 meeting the board did vote unanimously to to agree that a workshop for the plan
development process is warranted did um and I I the way I pitched it was fall of 2025 because they're in their summer break right now and we're still very much in summer. Um but the chair did mention that the PNZ since you are are a
essentially a voluntary uh commission that we they would work around your schedule and that typically you know you guys are usually available the second and fourth Thursday of the of the month. So, tentative date not set in stone, but I'm I'm aiming for the October 23rd PNZ,
which is the the 4th Thursday of October. Um, I am going to also work with the board office to make sure we see their availability, but more likely than not, it'll be a nighttime meeting again to accommodate your schedule since some of you all are still, you know, working during the day and the and the
board sounded open to that. So, that's the tenative date, but we'll we'll firm that up as it gets closer. What about August B&Z meetings? >> Uh I Good. Thank you. I forgot to mention that. I do not anticipate having the first meeting in August. Um which I'm trying to look at a calendar here
and of course it's not showing me. I believe uh let's see here. Give me one second. The August 14 meeting I don't anticipate having. However, I am fairly certain we will be having the August 28 meeting. Just FYI, we probably will be having a
public hearing for that night. Do you have any indication? Sorry. Do you have any indication as to what the next step on that denial will be? I I know it'll be circuit court. >> I I have not heard of any Yeah. circuit court filings. So, I it's kind of just
been silent thus far. >> Attorney matters. >> None at this time. Thank you. >> Excellent. We're adjourned. Ah, good.