Okay. Like to call this meeting to order of the December 4th, 2025 LPA. We don't have an appro We have no minutes, so we don't have to approve those. We have our first is NPH1
comprehensive plan amendment CPA 254 accessory dwelling units text amendment. Amy, you're up. Hello, my name is Amy Offenbach, planner with the Martin County Growth Management Department. This is comprehensive plan
amendment 25-04, proposed text amendments for accessory dwelling units, otherwise known as ADUs. This was initiated by the board of county commissioners and the affidavit of public notice has been turned into
the clerk. So the request is to change chapter 2 and chapter four of the comprehensive growth management plan. And this is just a brief overview of the uh text amendments and staff can go into greater
detail and show you the actual strike and underline in the draft ordinance if needed at the end of the presentation. So in chapter two, the definition section of the comprehensive plan, the term accessory dwelling units will be
updated and this represents living quarters on single family lots and a new term called employee dwelling units will be added to describe living quarters on non-residential properties.
Now, I should add here that staff felt it necessary to create this term because um certain future land use designations have permitted night watchman's quarters for many years
and this new term will describe that use. In chapter 4, under goal 4.9, a new policy will be added for accessory dwelling units to contain criteria for ADUs on residential
properties. And this will replace multiple instances of ADU criteria elsewhere in the plan. And then another policy will be added for employee dwelling units on non-residential properties. Under goal 4.13,
a line of text will be added to permit ADUs in future land use designations that permit single family dwellings except for the mobile home future land use. So each future land use that permits
single families will have a line of text that permits ADUs. Also under goal 4.13, edus will be permitted in future land use designations that permit living
quarters on non-residential properties. And this is a legislative process requiring three public hearings. The first is tonight, December 4th, 2025 at the local planning agency. And the second will be December 9th, 2025 at the
board of county commissioners for transmitt to the state and local agencies. And the third will be sometime in January 2026 at the BCC for approval. And so staff recommends approval of CPA 25-04
on the basis that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and state statutes and more restrictive or burdensome requirements are not imposed prior to October 1st, 2027. And the affordable housing advisory committee has
supported staff's recommendation. And this concludes the presentation. >> Thank you. >> Questions? Questions? >> I have I think two >> unless you want to >> No, go ahead. >> Um
first is is there a um capacity allocation for accessory dwelling units in our sewage and water supply? And also
does the um residential housing capacity take into consideration the capacity for increasing the residential units by accessory dwelling units. >> So typically the health department of Martin County um
reviews the permits for septic tanks and they would have to follow state statutes for that. There is uh text in the comprehensive plan limiting 2,000 gallons per day for a single property >> subject tanks >> and that would be handled at the permitting
process with the building department. >> And I guess my concern is that there are a lot of neighborhoods that are not yet supplied with sewer systems and its potential for increasing those dwelling units by considerable amount and I don't know if the capacity exists for that
increase. So, if they wouldn't if they didn't have the capacity in their septic tanks, um they wouldn't be able to have one. >> If I may, um Mr. Moyer, I think you're referring to the the county's sewer system capacity to serve and u the
typically the the ERC's that that they are they're factoring in are going to handle a variety of sizes and and capacity. They uh the the ERC's are not trying do not
currently size out an average house size. They are they're not really you could have redevelopment and you do have redevelopment in many places right now where you have smaller houses that are being replaced with bigger houses >> and and the capacity is there to serve
um regardless the they they they build in a certain amount of cushion into their systems and uh they are working with you know constantly monitoring their septic to sewer as well as their constant they're constantly monitoring their existing capacity. So, we don't
really foresee that being an issue. Also, it's not something that's going to be uh utilized by every property owner. It's it's only going to be in some cases uh that they would exercise the option of doing the the um accessory dwelling
unit. The accessory dwelling unit wouldn't be limited to just properties inside the urban service district that would be availing water and sewer. It would be, as Amy was referring to, >> it was TDS's as well. >> Yeah. And you could have a a ranch at rural areas where if you have the
sufficient capacity in your septic system then you would be able to utilize this. And I think also it something that we were going to get into perhaps in the next presentation was the the emphasis on this being part of the prim the the
single family dwelling and not seen as or counted as a different or increasing density. It's >> so so by sort of trailing on that on that observation, do you not anticipate this being included in the residential
capacity? >> Correct. We do not cons we would this would not be considered as part of the residential capacity analysis because each one of these accessories is part of the single family dwelling. >> Okay. >> Anything else?
>> No, I think that answers the questions. >> Howard? >> No, sir. >> Nothing. I I'll get into my questions because I think you'll do that in the next. So, I I'll just wait. Okay. Rob, do you want to speak to us?
>> No, but he will. Oh, he always wants to speak. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Uh, Rob Reer, CEO for House of Hope. Uh so we have a housing committee and we had the opportunity um over several meetings to
work closely with the county staff and provide some input and suggestions. Um Martin County like many places has an affordable housing crisis. uh this uh uh ADU ordinance will be valuable tool and uh just really hope to add some more
inventory and units for people that truly need um you know a lower rent uh to keep a roof over their heads each month. So uh I want to thank the staff. I think they were really thorough and detailed in their analysis and um creating language that makes sense for
everybody. Um and we're excited to see this move forward. Thank you. Thanks. Is there anybody else? Seeing none, back to the board. Can I get a motion? >> I move for staff's recommendation for approval of the text amendment. >> Can I get a second?
>> A second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Morris, a second by Mr. Brown, Dr. Brown. All in favor? >> I passes 40. And do we want to get into the second
part of the quiz? Okay, we ready? >> Yeah. >> Good evening again. My name is Amy Offenbach for the record, planner with the Martin County Growth Management Department. This is land development regulations
25-03, proposed text amendments for accessory dwelling units. This was initiated by the board of county commissioners and the affidavit of public notice has been turned into the clerk.
So the request is to change article three divisions 1 2 3 4 and seven of the land development regulations. And again, this is a brief overview of the proposed text amendments and staff will be happy
to go into more detail with the strike and underline included in the draft ordinance after the presentation if needed. So in section 3.3 glossery of terms, the term accessory
dwelling units will replace the term guest house and the new term employee dwelling units will be added to the existing definition for living quarters on non-residential properties. In section 3.11,
the permitted use tables will be updated to allow ADUs in all residential um zoning districts that permit single family homes. And it will exclude the mobile home districts.
And the term employee dwelling units will be added to the use tables for non-residential living quarters. In section 3.51, the standards for specific uses will include criteria for
accessory dwelling units on residential properties and the existing criteria will be for edus on non-residential properties. So here the existing criteria only had
the the living quarters on non-residential properties and we're going to add criteria from the comprehensive plan and extra for ADUs on residential properties.
And in section 3.201C 2011 C. The permittence of accessory dwelling units will replace the permittence of guest houses and the guest houses will be able or the accessory dwelling units will be able to
be rented out. In section 3.43, the terms defined for 1967 zoning districts. the term accessory dwelling units will be replaced will replace the term guest house. And I have to add here
that the the draft ordinance did not include employee dwelling units um in your packets tonight, but when it goes to the board of county commissioners, it will be included in division 7.
And then finally, the definition of family will be updated from four to five nonrelated persons to be consistent with section 3.3, the glossery of terms. And so this is a legislative process
requiring three public hearings. And tonight is the first public hearing, December 4th, 2025 at the local planning agency. and the second two will be sometime in 2026 at the BCC for approval.
So staff recommends approval of LDR25-03 accessory dwelling units on the basis that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and Florida state statutes and more restrictive or burdens burdensome requirements are not imposed prior to
October 1st, 2027. And the affordable housing advisory committee supports staff's recommendation. This concludes the presentation. >> Mr. around. >> No, sir.
>> One question. Um, could a a u a a lot have an ADU and an edu on the same lot? >> No, >> it cannot. Is there a provision clearly stating that that cannot happen? within the standards for permitted uses. Um it
specifically says that ADUs are permitted one ADU is permitted with a single family dwelling and edus are permitted on non-residential >> but there are permitted ADUs on
non-residential lots already. Does that allow them to do an ADU and an edu on the same lot? >> So that's why we had to come up with the term edu because the existing text
refers to accessory dwelling units only on commercial properties. And so to use the term accessory dwelling unit on residential properties, we had to differentiate between the two. So ADUs will be permitted with single family
lots developed with single family lots one and edus will be permitted on >> one >> non residential >> up to three >> three edus for >> but that's outside of the urban service
district correct >> it depends on how big the lot is and um the development standards of that commercial lot. >> Do you want to add something? >> Let me add just a little bit to that.
the the term accessory dwelling unit that's found in the LDRs right now is inconsistent with the plan policies and it's implementing language in the comp plan that describes
um night watchman's quarters. So it's it needs to be fixed from that perspective. There are two future land use designations in the comp plan that specifically refer to watchman's quarters or night watchman's quarters.
One is a commercial marine waterfront commercial. The other is industrial. So you can't have residential units in industrial typically speaking. And you would only be allowed to have residential units in a commercial
waterfront future land use designation when you have a zoning district that allows residential units. But if you had, say, a working waterfront and you had non-residential uses in a WGC zoning district and you needed a night watchman's quarters for
that non-residential use, then you would want to have and you would we you would be permitted to have an edu as as we were defining here today. If on the other hand you have a WRC zoning district implementing the commercial waterfront future land use and you're
allowed 10 residential units per acre then you don't need the edu. >> You don't that wouldn't be appropriate. What would be appropriate is whatever is allowed by that WRC zoning district and and the allowing the 10 residential
units in that s circumstance. So that's it's we're describing and defining it so that the ADU accessory dwelling unit goes with as an accessory to a single family dwelling which you would not find
in the WGC or in the industrial. Hope that helps. does. I mean, I think that what what I was really sort of concerned about is that there could be, for using old terminology, a carriage house that might be an employees
dwelling and a guest house and and there lies in the problem. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And when it comes to single family dwellings, you're going to be allowed one ADU, whether it's attached or detached, only one. for agriculture. If you've got a, you
know, I just heard you say three units is all. If if you've got a a farm or a ranch and there's 2,000 acres, it's one unit per 20 and you're needing to have housing for your employees. How many will you be able to have?
>> This is unrelated to that subject. >> Okay, >> that's that's agricultural housing. That's limited to the agricultural feature land use designation and there's specific polic specific language in the agricultural feature land use designation that deals with that separate subject.
>> We're not talking about that. >> Anything else, Rick? >> So, we're doing this for a couple reasons, correct? One, we have to comply with state statute. >> Yeah. >> Well, we don't care about state statute.
I know it's Martin County, but and the second reason is because as Rob said, we really only care about a affordable housing if it's on someone else's property and we don't have to build it. Mhm.
>> And so this is a wonderful way to have some affordable housing units and it's a wonderful way for parents to live close to children or children to live close to parents and it
doesn't upset the apple cart. Um, is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And when you say you could have up to three units on a commercial property,
I I I I I you know, give me an example of why you would have three units on a commercial property. >> I honestly can't give you one. Uh but the existing language in the LDRs uh permitted a number of
um I guess you could say units for your non-residential if you have an industrial warehouse and you need to maybe have two night watchmen one on one off or something like that. The existing language permitted that for these non-residential uses and we did not try to take that away so that we do not run
a foul of of state statute that would cause a problem if we tried to be more restrictive and ownorous >> and actually how many do we even have of those now? >> Yeah, you know I can't think of more than one or two.
>> Couple mattresses in the corner but >> Mr. Chairman uh may I >> Yes, sure. Paul Schilling, growth management director for the record. So, a couple examples come to mind. I can't give you exact locations of these, but there's I know of one in particular that's a storage self- storage facility
that has actually a full residence on top of a portion of it, and that's pretty common uh in that industry. So, that's one example. There probably two or three of those that I could think of. Um, I cannot think of an uh an example
of in which there would be more than one and in fact probably uh not aware of any that would be in the industrial land use that are currently constructed. >> And so if you own industrial property, you couldn't just sneak one in because you wanted to have a little rental
income too. >> It would have to be because it is critical to your business to have that. >> Correct. That would be part of the uh development review site planning process. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just because that sparks another question.
>> Um we're here. >> The limits on the numbers of people in those units is five for employees >> for the edu. >> Yes. Would you say >> or the definition of family? >> Yeah. So yes.
>> Well the limit is five unrelated persons, >> right? So employ related persons can live there. >> That's another aspect of this amendment that we should probably touch on is you have two definitions of the of the term family in the in the zoning code. Right
now in one division uh in division one actually you have a definition that says it's a family any group of people related by blood or marriage or five unrelated. and in another division referring to the old 67 zoning
regulations that it's four unrelated persons. We thought as a part of this we would go ahead and make just one definition instead of having two different definitions applicable to different zoning districts um so that there's a little more consistency in
answering questions and clarity. >> Any other questions for staff? Do we have anyone from the public that wishes to address us? Seeing none, back to the board. >> Just a second. What? >> I wasn't sure whether Are there any
questions or observations? Okay. >> It looked like he was about to stand up. Sorry. >> Would it be okay if I approach? I just have >> No, questions are not okay, but you can approach and give us three minutes of your expertise. >> Okay. Um,
>> no. You have to come to the microphone. You have to come to You have to come to the microphone. tell us who you are. >> Okay. Uh my name is Nick Berkeley. Um Nick. >> Okay. So, um anyways, I just wanted to come up. I wanted to come in and just see about this because I had heard that there was a lot about the ADUs like from
the state side and as far as making affordable housing and things like that for families, for younger people. I think, you know, for kids that are maybe going to be, you know, needing to live with parents because the cost of living is just astronomical. Um, I think this is, you know, a very good plan and idea.
And, um, I think that one thing I was kind of looking to kind of address and see is, um, the consideration or possibility of any sort of change in the um, in the required size of housing for uh, for single family properties or
residential properties or even agricultural properties. Um, it because I believe that there is a size restriction on how large that a home must be. Um, and we're looking at things such as possibly tiny homes in the future. Um, you know, and and different land use designations um, and
agricultural zones. And I was just kind of looking into that to see. So, >> the only thing that I'm going to say is I think that this sounds like an an excellent idea as far as for the um, allowing of ADUs. I think that it's something that would really benefit our county, for our town, for families um
that are in need of having um you know, affordable places to live. So, uh when we have an aging population and a population that's growing up that does not have the income to you know justify a half million dollar home, um you know, it kind of helps them to be able to get
on their feet before moving out into the real world and then hopefully taking on some of our beautiful uh you know, real estate that we have. So, yeah. Thank you, Nick. >> Thank you. >> Would you give him a form to fill out? >> I've got it right. >> Ah, you do. Thank you. I would suggest, Nick, that if you have any other
questions that you make an appointment with with uh growth management and they can answer them all for you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I also just want to say thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it. So, thank you guys. >> Thank you. Any other questions? And
Okay. Seeing none, can I get a motion? I'd move to approve staff's recommendation. >> Can I get it? >> Um, dwelling units and edus. >> Okay. Can I get a second? >> I second.
>> We have a motion from Mr. Moore, a second from Mr. Brown. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Passes unanimous unanimously for zero. Thank you. >> Thank you, members of the LPA.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Chairman, u So, we do have we do not have any items for the December 18th meeting, I believe it was. >> Well, then happy holidays. >> Happy holidays. >> Awesome. >> We do potentially have some items for
January. >> That's so far in the future. How can you plan 2026? >> 26. >> God knows what he'll do during the holidays to himself. >> I'll probably hurt myself again. Sure, I will. But we would continue to appreciate your um letting us know uh
either in person in the meeting or if we reach out to you regarding quorums that helps us plan accordingly because we have items advertised and future items with the BCC that are dependent on on you gentlemen. So thank you for that.
Continue. >> Appreciate it. >> Is there anything else? >> Would you like to adjourn? >> How do you feel about adus? I think it's me. >> Terrific. >> Fill them with children. >> Fill them with children. >> They will. >> Maybe.
>> Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.