on Good evening Um it's a little past 7 and uh it's time for the local planning agency meeting for uh April 17th 2025 Um we don't we have uh three
members so we have a quorum I'd like to uh get a motion to approve the minutes from March 6th So move Anybody like to move that i'll move that Okay We have a motion And do you want to second it Great We have a motion and a second All in favor please
signify by saying I I I Um we have one new piece of business this evening Um it is not a quasi judicial hearing It's a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending article 12 division 1 uniform redevelopment standards in the community redevelopment
code land development regulations and the Martin County code Um this will be presented by Susan Kors and Elise Elder Ladies take it away Yes U members of the LPA we're here
today to um talk to you about an ordinance that's being proposed to change the uh procedures and requirements for alternative compliance in the community redevelopment areas So right now um we have a process for alternate compliance Alternate
compliance is if somebody doesn't want to meet the CRA code they request a deviation from the code So it's very similar to a variance Right now the process is someone can fill out an application and it goes to the growth management department for review and
then the growth management director makes the decision on whether or not to grant the code deviation So we've had some issues with that over the past few years This process was implemented when the CRA was changed Prior to that there was a public hearing at the NAC So since
the new process has been implemented there's been some growing pains So we're going to propose to make some changes to that Um one of the main changes is to really bring it back into the public hearing process because right now a neighbor has no idea if if alternative
compliance is being requested So instead of having the growth management department evaluate it and the director make a change the growth management department is still going to evaluate it But we're proposing that for minor site plans um basically all requests except
for major developments that go to the board would be reviewed and decided by the CRA board because that's a public meeting neighbors will know about it and the neighbors will have an opportunity to voice their you know whether they're for it or against it because without the
public hearing process um it's been problematic and Florida law anticipates a public hearing process The other thing that we are proposing to change is right now um the criteria to ask for alternative compliance which again is a deviation from the code and the code is
there so everybody knows what to build but it's also there so neighbors know what is going to be built in their community So under Florida law to get a deviation from code there's a specific standard the the al the criteria for alternative compliance um doesn't really
conform with that standard So we are proposing um criteria and it's in your packet um that mimics Florida law and it's similar to what we um I don't know if you could bring it up on the screen Susan I don't
have access to that but it mimics what um we require for the board of zoning and adjustment to grant variances outside of the CRA So we're making it very similar um to that So right now the
criteria is it may be approved upon a finding of the growth management director that the alternate plan fulfills the purpose and intent of article 12 um as well or more effectively than adherence to the strict requirements of article 12 So that's not
a very it it doesn't give a lot of um criteria So the decisions aren't as easily made because it could be arbitrary There's just not a good criteria to follow So what we're proposing is um the language that's similar to a variant So it would and
this is what Florida law requires So the first thing would be special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land Special conditions were not caused by the applicant The granting of alternative compliance will not confer a special benefit on the applicant and
then strict adherence to article 12 will deprive a right for the applicant and that the proposed alternative compliance is the minimum necessary to meet the reasonable use of the property So we're really just changing it to this here it
is to this um language so it's more consistent with Florida law Um the next section um talks about and this this alternative compliance process is only going to apply to dimensional and architectural
requests Landscaping request all throughout the county currently go to the growth management director and we're going to keep that for um for the CRA as well So on the next page under uh the next section which is section C you will
see that we have um a lot of criteria for the alternative compliance for landscaping We basically mimicked what was in the code for the the rest of the county So it's consistent And then finally in section D you'll see that um what we're proposing for the approver of
dimensional and architectural requests is the board for major site plans Um under number two it's the CRA for all other requests uh for dimensional and architectural and landscaping goes to the growth management director And in
subsection 4 currently in the rest of the county if it's a very small request like a dimensional request that's less than 12 in it will go to the growth management director because it's very small So we're keeping that process in place for the CRA as well Um and then
the rest of the changes you'll see to charts are really just to uh fix some code provisions that aren't cited correctly So there's nothing really substantative in that But that's the um that's the reasoning behind that's the change we're proposing and the reasoning is just to you know it hasn't worked as
well There's been some upset neighbors and some things that you know it just hasn't worked So we're proposing this new change We actually went to the CRA board We presented this and they voted unanimous unanimously in favor of it So previously it went to the NAC and I know
there's been questions about why it's not going back to the NAC and there's a few reasons The first one is the NAC only meets quarterly and we don't want to bottle up the the requests The other reason is because the NAC is purely an advisory board and technically under Florida law they can't make final
decisions for the board They can't have that authority delegated to them The CRA is an independent board that makes independent decisions So that's how we thought the CRA board was a better fit Um that summarizes the changes and I'm happy to answer any questions that you
might have I can provide a little bit more background if that's helpful Um before 2021 the alternative compliance requests again followed the same it always follows the same process It's an
application procedure the applicant uh does their application sends it to growth management growth management reviews it evaluates it um looks at it does a staff report and then that report used to go to the
NAC Um again Elise enumerated some of the reasons why that was problematic They only meet every couple of months So you're holding up residents you're holding up developers That got to be a problem Um it's hard for neighbors to judge neighbors So that was an issue as
well Uh everybody wanted to abstain That got to be a problem Um the they change very often Those those committees uh are advisory as Elise described and they also change often enough There's usually five to nine members They're constantly
changing There's constantly new folks hard to keep everybody trained especially on code So that was a little bit difficult Um so those were a lot of the reasons why it really wasn't working So when we changed the CRA code and went
to a more form-based code and that happened in 2021 with years before all of those changes came to fruition in 2021 uh in our code we changed it taking it out of the hands of the NAC and putting it uh squarely on Paul
Schilling's shoulders He's such a good sport you know he was like okay with that But um and that's been problematic as well uh for some of the same reasons believe it or not So Paul would on occasion
whenever um there was let's say an issue with it or we wanted to get a little bit more information from the community he would send it to the NAC So the folks in the on the advisory committees they weren't seeing most of these applications and as Elise pointed out
that also kind of interferes with the public process Uh so we realized that that wasn't really working out either So we decided that we needed to look at it especially in light of um not being standardized and following uh the letter
of the law We looked at it again and realized that we had the CRA board who meets once a month So that kind of takes care of that problem They are generally on that board for 4 to eight years at a time They are fairly well trained uh we
are going to provide additional training for them specifically in this um arena moving forward and that they're kind of a level above being somebody's neighbor because they're from all of the different CRA areas So applications can
come in from Golden Gate and it wouldn't make that big of a difference because everybody on the board is not your neighbor or lives down the block that kind of a thing uh they thought that that was a great idea Um we think it'll work better and it kind of checks all of
the boxes that we need to check off You know as you guys know uh better than most code is a process and we keep trying to refine it So this is our latest revision for alternative compliance
Any questions for staff i um have probably just a couple Um are the notice requirements for the CRA um variances the same as for a variance that somebody might be trying to get for some place out of the CRAAS so I know
that um and Elise probably is a better person to answer this We don't notice in terms of put up signs because it's not a code change but we do have a publicly noticed meeting The agenda goes out We do constant contact throughout the county so everybody can see the agenda
you know it's posted in all of the places it needs to be posted for the public So the notice requirements for a variance through BOSA is is stricter than in the CRA And we we did that because of the nature of the CRA and the mission behind the CR CRA We didn't do
it we didn't do it um so it's you know you have to send letters to all the neighbors but we will advertise them in the agenda so people have notice of it that way So they'll be able to see it on the CRA agenda and then they'll be able to come to the CRA meeting and voice
public comment Okay Or send an email They can do it that way as well Which and it would couple of avenues right it would become part of the record just like for these or the board meetings And so contemplating taking it to the Boza board instead Was that considered or not
so we didn't because BOSA has a separate ordinance and they're they're I'm sorry BOS is the board of zoning and adjustment and what they do is they grant variances for setbacks in the county and maybe a few other things but primarily setbacks They have their own
separate um ordinance and their powers are are limited It's not as wide as the CRA board and we felt like this felt in the CRA and because the CRA is a unique area that the CRA members would understand the needs of that community
better So that's why we picked CRA over both If you recall Jim we brought um architectural standards to this uh body as well And that's one of the things that people can ask for alternative compliance in the CRA for And so BOSA really has no background in in the
architectural standards whereas the CRA does that all the time And and the the largest exception is going to be for landscaping and for plant materials Is that correct well that's going to go to growth management the way it has Yeah Right Yes And that's more dynamic like
you can change out landscaping but if you give somebody a setback in building that's not something that can be changed So that's I think the reasoning behind it Okay Y um any more questions for staff there are no members of the uh public here in
the audience So um we can take it for some more discussion or get a motion right away The motion would be for staff's recommendation I'll move Yeah Second I'll move for that motion Yes Okay We have Yeah I did not
make the motion Approve Right Takes staff's recommendation Great Um we have a motion and a second All in favor please signify by saying I I Motion passes unanimously Thank you very much Thank you very much I appreciate you You've got so much more
free time on your hands now You'll probably want to join a CRA Uh yeah No I appreciate u of course Elisa's Susan's efforts in all this because I think ultimately uh it's going
to be uh the community is much more intertwined with what's going on down the street or whatever the case is and it provides for uh a more uniform standard of of those deviations or requests and u I think it it it may add
some time to some things but ultimately I think um it may also um cut down on some of the things that maybe we've seen before with respect to um the just some code change I mean if you're getting some complaints saying
woe is the easiest way to handle the the people that have a problem Yeah I mean just to give you an example it's neither here nor there at this point but uh I do recall an issue with uh and I don't remember the particulars but it was an application as Susan mentioned that I suggested go be brought up at the NAC
and the NAC took it up and then sent it back to me and said nothing No thumb up no thumb down Yeah So so we were kind of like uh it's hard to be Caesar Yeah No there and just for the
benefit of everyone the development in the CRAAS can be challenging as you know a formbbased code implementing that on infill developments is always a challenge and with all the technical issues and and and code requirements just generally with development It it
can be a challenge at times and part of this process is intended to facilitate those peculiar instances those instances where there's something that can't be quite strictly uh complied with but in the end result will be u um development
that the community can be proud of and and understand uh the parameters of Yeah diff more difficult to uh redevelop you know in a when you're trying to do that in an already built environment Of course you're going to have those anomalies that there's just nothing you
can do about it You can't change it So we have to design around it Yeah Yeah Thank you very much When is our next meeting scheduled may 15th We have a couple of items scheduled and advertised or very close to advertising So
uh and I know we've had some instances uh the last time we were here I made an assumption that we weren't having a meeting and lo and behold we were having a meeting And that's my mistake But uh if we could just get those responses to
that email and then we can we can um go about our all our business all of us So I would appreciate Do we have Do do you guys know you'll be here on the 15th i think I will be Thank you Um I think I'll be out of town Okay
Thank you I'm pretty sure I'll be here Thank you very much So at least we have a quorum No we don't Actually you're not going to be here Yeah Much appreciated Thanks Thank you very much Thank you Meeting over Yeah Um shall we
disperse meeting adjourned