HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Local Planning Agency_06/11/2009MINUTES
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
June 11, 2009
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pat Watkins at 7:16 p.m. A roll call was taken by
Village Clerk Lori McWilliams. Present were: Mayor Pat Watkins, Vice Mayor Tom Paterno,
Council Member Vince Arena, Council Member Humpage and Council Member .Calvin
Turnquest. Also in attendance were: Village Manager Michael R. Couzzo, Jr., Village Attorney
Trela White, Village Clerk Lori McWilliams, and bepartment Heads.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Council Member Humpage moved approval of the agenda; seconded by Council
Member Turnquest; motion carried unanimously 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Mayor Watkins noted this was a Public Hearing to consider and make recommendations to the
Village Council with regard to the following:
1. Ordinance 11-09, Amending the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances at Chapter 78
Zoning for R-2 Multiple-Family Dwelling District; to provide for the Inclusion of a New
Special Exception Use in this Zoning District to be Entitled "Adult Living Facility"
Mayor Watkins opened the hearing and asked for comments; there being no comments the
hearing was closed.
MOTION: Council Member Humpage moved approval of Ordinance 11-09; seconded by
Council Member Turnquest.
Council Member Humpage summarized the numerous times the item was discussed and
believed this was the best use for the land and suggested moving forward.
Vice-Mayor Paterno asked the Village Attorney if this would be a commercial use; the Village
Attorney stated no the smaller ones were considered residential and larger ones could be in
commercial or residential zones. She noted this would be limited to 12 units an acre and
commercial was limited to 24 units per acre. Vice-Mayor Paterno clarified this was considered
a business and Attorney White replied it was a facility that was run by a company, however
was a residential use. Vice-Mayor Paterno remarked personal care under state statute.
Attorney White affirmed the company had to be licensed by the State.
Vice-Mayor Paterno referred to Table FLU 1 and suggested the current proposal would be in
conflict with the Comp Plan since residential R2 was recommended and did not include
business or commercial use.
Village Attorney White explained the applicant applied for a Comp Plan Amendment on the
recently annexed property; and he applied for the Residential Medium Density. She stated it
Local Planning Agency
July 9, 2009
Page 2 of 3
would be returned from the State on June 16. Vice-Mayor Paterno countered that the current
Comp Plan stated it was residential. Attorney White acknowledged that this was considered
residential use; Vice-Mayor Paterno disagreed and believed it was a commercial business and
referred to state statute and being in conflict with the Village Comp Plan. He felt a business
could not be located in a residential neighborhood; and pointed out Section 1.30 prohibited a
land use inconsistent with community character and future land use; and observed that
commercial developments should be developed in a manner compatible and serve community
needs by restricting the location of those areas indicated on the Future Land Use Map 1.37 -
meaning a commercial use could not be placed in a residential area. Additionally, he believed
Section 1.135 as proposed for amendment stated was to maintain a residential density in
accordance with the standards prescribed in Table FLU 1 and the Land Development
Regulations making the proposal in conflict with the Comp Pian. He indicated Policy 1.32
required the Village to maintain the quality of existing single-family neighborhoods by
prohibiting commercial and high density residential development in these areas. He referred
to Code 78.31 and that any changes to Code needed to be in accordance with the Comp Plan,
and, therefore commercial businesses were not allowed in residential areas.
Village Attorney White confirmed this was a residential use, owned and operator by an
individual, a partnership or facility. She revealed that group homes, marina facilities, foster
care facilities, nurseries, private kindergartens, and day care centers were currently allowed in
the R2 Zoning District, and all were considered businesses. She clarified this was a residential
use and noted that some of the larger living facilities could be allowed in C2 as well; and
concluded that she did not believe it was in conflict with the Comp Plan; however, it was
certainly discretionary if Council wished to allow this as a special exception use in the zoning
district, but not prohibited by the Comp Plan.
Council Member Turnquest believed the Village Attorney was qualified to interpret Ordinances
and Code and did not believe the assisted living facility (ALF) would be in conflict with the R2
zoning. He stated his conflict was with the application -for the text amendment when the
business with the State had not been concluded. Attorney White noted they were two
separate issues and summarized the processes. Council Member Turnquest believed it would
have been prudent for the applicant to have applied after receiving the Comp Plan approval
from the State, to which Attorney White stated it did not make a difference as long the
applicant understood no final decision would be made until July. Vice-Mayor Paterno agreed
with Council Member Turnquest.
Mayor Watkins clarified that adult living facilities and ACLF's were different as one was
medical in nature. She commented that Council had been discussing this issue and has had
ample time to visit the property, to meet with the residents and hold workshops. She believed
the residents were comfortable with the ALF and felt the appropriate steps had been taken to
notify, inform, research and reach individual conclusions.
Vice-Mayor Paterno reiterated that he believed this was in conflict with the Comp Plan.
Local Planning Agency
July 9, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Council Member Humpage understood Council Member Turnquest's comments, however
Council was not committing to a special exception, which would occur at second reading and
believed the Village had completed ample research.
Detailed discussion took place on state law.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Mr. John Bourassa stated he did not want to waste another month and was trying to go
through the HUD program-, which takes several months. He noted this was the first reading of
a text amendment that applied to all R2 not for this single property and that second reading
would only have to do with text amendment to that zoning regulation and not his property;
however, that is where it initially initiated.
Council Member Turnquest believed this would set precedence for future applicants to submit
their applications early, to which Mr. Bourassa interjected that any applicant could request a
text amendment and could be denied - it was not permitting him to do anything on the property.
(Continuation of motion)
The motion carried 3-2 with Vice-Mayor Paterno and Council Member Turnquest in dissent.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Council Member Turnquest moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Council
Member Humpage The motion to adjourn carried unanimously 5-0; therefore the meeting was
adjourned at 7.41 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
`~, ~ mcu~cnc.~~
Lori McWilliams, CMC
Village Clerk