This occurred near the end of a long meeting, just before the Commissioners voted. Earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Chestnut made a motion to approve the mediated settlement agreement. Commissioner Pinkoson seconded. After public comments, Commissioner Byerly read his statement against the mediated "Settlement Agreement" into the record.

The following is a transcription of the next part of the meeting:

• RL = Chair Rodney Long
• PW = Commissioner Penny Wheat
• RD = Rick Drummond, Director of Growth Management
• CC = Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut

RL: The chair recognizes Commissioner Wheat. Commissioner Wheat you are on record.

PW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to thank all of you for spending your evening to come out and share your concerns and your suggestions with us. I've learned a great deal, but Mr. Chair, I'm still trying to understand the proposal that is the subject of the motion on the floor.

Is there someone who could put up the map titled "Preliminary Proposed Expansion of the Urban Services Line? " That's the one that was included in our documentation tonight.

RL: Mr. Drummond ... staff...

PW: Thank you very much. As I understand it, those bright green areas are areas that are being added to the area within what's called our Urban Services Line. Is that correct?

RD: Mr. Chair, that is correct.

WP: Mr.Drummond, how will the owners of that green property that's now included within the Urban Services Line benefit in a way they would not benefit if it were not green?

RD: The benefit would be that in order to develop their property, they would not have to comply with all of the provisions of Policy 7.1.3.b that require them to address certain things like schools in a regional, not a county-wide method; it requires them to address transit which can be locally provided in that part of RTS. There are 7 issues that they would have to show what the future long-range transportation planning would require if they were outside of the Urban Services Line.. The plan as adopted last year would allow for consideration of development outside the Urban Services Line, regardless of whether they are inside or outside they would have to provide central water and sewer and meet all other concurrency requirements, but there are some provisions that the plan contains in that one policy I referred to that would be added requirements for any development proposals outside of the Urban Services Line.

PW: And why was it, do you recall, that the commission included that... at your recommendation?

RD: It was...It had to do with the timing of...a better focus of the timing of development relative to the, uh, availability of services. Like I said before, we used the water and sewer lines as the primary indicator, but the other services are important urban services as well. That was the primary reason.

PW: And the areas in green, do any of them have approval by the Development Review Committee or Master Zoning Approval by the county commission?

RD: Actually, quite a few of the areas in green already have development approval and have developed, principally in large-lot subdivisions with septic tanks and private wells.

PW: And can you, Mr. Drummond, since I have no idea, can you point out, if you have a pointer, please, who the property owners are of all those green parcels that you have listed?

RD: No. Who the property owners are?

PW: Yes

RD: I can't.

PW: Can you provide that in writing to the commission?

RD: Yes.

PW: OK.

RD: Including all the subdivision lots?

PW: I'd just like to know who owns all those green areas you have identified on the map.

Mr. Drummond, are there other property owners who may be similarly situated but whose property is not being included the Urban Services Line? For example, are there other property owners out there who may very well want the same benefits you described earlier, but whose property is not being included within the Urban Services Line?

RD: I wouldn't necessarily call them similarly situated, but I'm sure there are people both inside and outside of the Urban Cluster and Urban Services Line who would like the benefits of being in the Urban Services Line.

PW: So then, the action that is being proposed by the motion on the floor specifically benefits these property owners but not any others. Thank you very much, Mr. Drummond.

RD: {hard to hear. Could be "My pleasure."}

PW: I have another question. Policy 7.1.3 states that, as part of. the periodic update of the comprehensive plan and any proposed amendments to the Urban Cluster, the county commission is to determine a sufficient and non-excessive amount of land within the Urban Cluster to accommodate urban uses for a 10 year and a 20 year time frame. Now the last time we talked about this, Mr. Drummond, you told us that there was a surplus of acreage available. Could you put that map back up, please? You told us there was a surplus of acreage available to accommodate projected population needs for both the year 2010 and the year 2020. It that still the case?

RD: That's correct.

PW: And do you recall if the surplus of acreage needed to accommodate projected population growth for the year 2010 and the year 2020, those percentages as I recall was something like a 148% and 150% and 259%.

RD: I don't recall those numbers, but...

PW: But anyway, there is more than enough vacant land, both within the Urban Services Line and within the Urban Cluster to provide for the expected population to come to Alachua County by the year 2020.

RD: Yes, I've testified to that before.

PW: There's more than enough needed. That would seem to me that it is...excessive. So then, my question is this: Policy 7.1.3 lays out a methodology to determine the amount of land necessary. And Policy 7.1.3.b states that, if the comparison shows that the land available is less than the forecasted need for land for the population periods, the following measures shall be considered:

1. "Revisions to density standards and land development regulation or other measures to accommodate greater population within the existing UC." The proposal that is contained within the motion on the floor tonight adds 400 acres to the Urban Cluster. Mr. Drummond, was Policy 7.1.3.b.1 followed to consider revisions to density standards and land development regulations to accommodate greater population within the existing Urban Cluster without adding 400 acres first?

RD: {No response}

PW: Did you consider changes to the land development regulations, or density standards to accommodate more population within the Urban Cluster without adding the 400 acres?

RD: We are presently considering that.

PW: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

RD: We didn't, we did not do an analysis, um, um, in response to the Board's direction that was provided to us the last time.

PW: OK So in other words, you did not consider what the adopted plan says, which is if the county wants to consider a need for more land, the county should first revise density standards and land development regulations to accommodate a greater population within the existing Urban Cluster?

RD: Mr. Chair, we took into account the comprehensive plan that's currently in effect.

PW: OK. So did you consider coordination with the municipalities regarding possible reallocation of forecasted need for more land to other incorporated areas?

RD: Since this policy isn't in effect, we didn't take the detail into consideration.

PW: This is important, Mr. Chair, because, obviously, the Planning Staff recommended this for a reason and the commission adopted it for a reason. I'm just trying to understand why none of these things will be taken into consideration in this process.

Policy 7.1.3.c states if there is a forecasted need for one type of land use that exceeds the supply of land for that particular use, a revision to the allocation of land uses within the Urban Cluster shall be considered before the Urban Cluster is expanded. That wasn't considered either.

RD: I don't know if the board took that into consideration when they gave us that direction, or not.

PW: OK Policy 7.1.3 C states the Urban Services Line shall be reevaluated prior to 2006 for adequate capacity based on a range of factors. In addition, this evaluation shall take into account the ability to provide infrastructure and services beyond the Urban Services Line. {looking through pages} I apologize, if you'll hang with me for just a minute...

Mr. Drummond, do you have any data and analysis to support the addition of the 400 acres into the Urban Cluster as well as the other 2400 acres into the Urban Services Line?

RD: No, I don't... at this time.

PW: OK Mr. Chair, I just have one final question. I'm not going to spend all the time that would be necessary to go piece by piece through this proposal. But my question is of Commissioner Chestnut.

The motion on the floor, Commissioner Chestnut, as you know since you placed it there, would eliminate protection for public water supply well fields. Why do you want to do that?

{long pause}

CC: "Um... Commissioner Wheat, I don't care to share that with you at this time."

Commissioner Wheat then read her prepared statement into the record and proposed a substitute motion to reaffirm the adopted 2002 growth management plan. Commissioner Byerly promptly seconded.

After all commissioners made statements, Chair Rodney Long, Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut and Commissioner Lee Pinkoson voted YES to adopt the mediated selltment agreement. Commissioner Mike Byerly and Commissioner Penny Wheat voted NO.

Transcribed by Ellie Schwab, November 6, 2003

Vote - March 20, 2003

Other Issues and Votes

Door-Site Map

Top