Dec. 18: Monroe County development ordinance (CDO) teed up for final vote by commissioners
On Monday night, at a meeting that lasted just a half hour, Monroe County’s plan commission voted 6–1 to forward the most recent draft of the county development ordinance (CDO) to the Monroe County board of commissioners for a final vote.
The CDO includes all the zoning regulations for the unincorporated part of the county.
Commissioners are now scheduled to meet on Wednesday (Dec. 18) at 5:30 p.m. to vote on the proposed CDO. It’s expected that it will be adopted by the three-member board of commissioners—Julie Thomas, Penny Githens, and Lee Jones.
Voting in favor of the positive recommendation at Monday’s plan commission meeting were: Dee Owens (who participated through a remote video conference link), Geoff Morris, Scott Faris, Margaret Clements, Julie Thomas, and Edward Oehlman. Casting the sole vote of dissent was Trohn Enright-Randolph. Jerry Pittsford was absent.
Immediately after Morris called Monday’s meeting to order, he reflected on county councilor Cheryl Munson’s contribution to the group, before her death last week. Morris said: “All of us in the county will benefit from Cheryl’s hard work and dedication for years to come, and I’d like to offer my condolences to her family, friends and all of those impacted by her passing.”
A common sentiment expressed by commissioners on Monday was that the CDO document as it stood was not without its flaws. Those supporting Monday’s draft were content that, even if not “perfect”, it was a solid effort, based on a long public process with input from the public and hard work from planning staff and other departments, which had earned their support.
In her remarks introducing the ordinance, Monroe County planning director Jackie Jelen traced the public engagement process back at least to 2020, with standing-room-only public hearings this year on Sept. 24 and then Oct. 1. Even if there are still issues to be addressed, Jelen put it like this: “At some point, with any large document, we have to get to a good stopping point.”
Jelen added, “Just a reminder, we’ve had our current ordinance since Jan. 8, 1997.”
Jelen summarized some of the basic differences between the more than 500-page new document and the 28-year-old version. The new CDO consolidates the number of zones, reducing the number of different zones from 40, down to just 16. Permitted uses are also getting consolidated, reducing the number of uses from 372 to 174.
Two new chapters are getting added—on lighting regulations and the Lake Lemon overlay, Jelen said. But the chapter on grading has been moved to the stormwater ordinance.
Enright-Randolph was mostly positively inclined towards the CDO, leading off his remarks by saying, “There’s a lot of good stuff in this document that’s pretty awesome.” But he drew an analogy to a petition that a developer might bring for approval that was just 90 percent done. The plan commission would not say to that petitioner: This is pretty awesome—we’ll get to those other issues nailed down just a bit later down the road.
The plan commission should expect every concern to be addressed, Enright-Randolph said. The fact that so many issues had been put aside for future consideration felt to him like “us not holding ourselves accountable,” Enright-Randolph said.
At its meeting last month, on Nov. 19, the plan commission struggled to reach the required five-vote majority on a motion to move the CDO forward with any kind of a recommendation. That was due in part to the presence of just six commissioners.
The list of items that are supposed to be tackled starting early next year was presented on Monday night as follows:
Topics for Potential Future Amendments
1. Sliding Scale requirement for 25-year reservation of the parent parcel
2. Review impervious cover maximums proposed in the AGR zoning district.
3. Review the new 50 foot front setback from the Lake Lemon normal pool elevation
4. Review the new landscaping requirements under the CDO and see where changes need to be made.
5. Amend the lighting chapter for applicability to residential development
6. Review the PUD open space requirement of 25% and related PUD standards
7. Delegation of variances to a hearing officer
8. Review a potential new subdivision type for allowing “Cluster” development in return for preserved open space
9. Review requirement for sewer vs packaging plants for subdivisions
10. Review standards for “Collection Container Facilities” specifically the setback from residential properties
11. Re-assess the combination or separation of: RV storage, boat storage, and convenience storage
12. Review the proposed 50-foot Karst Conservancy Area (KCA) delineation
13. Track changes identified by Planning Staff and the Legal Department
Number (12) on the list, related to Karst Conservancy Areas, was one that Enright-Randolph had previously advocated for addressing before adopting the CDO.
Here’s how the section on Karst Conservancy Areas reads in the draft considered on Monday night:
826-3. Karst Feature Delineation and Development Requirements
(A) Karst Conservancy Areas (KCA) shall be delineated as follows:
(1) For swallow holes, cave entrances, sinking streams, springs, or other karst feature that are not located in a sinkhole/depression sufficient to be established by the closed contour method, the KCA will be the area within 50 feet of the karst feature; and
(2) For all sinkholes and compound sinkholes, the KCA shall, at a minimum, encompass the entire sinkhole and all of the area within fifty (50) feet of the largest adjoining closed contour to the sinkhole utilizing the best available data.
Enright-Randolph advocated for leaving the distance at 25 feet, pointing to the fact that the 50-foot figure for KCAs is already incorporated into the recently adopted county stormwater ordinance.
Enright-Randolph thinks the KCA buffers in the CDO, which is a planning document, and the stormwater ordinance, which regulates the management, collection, and discharge of stormwater, should complement each other, but not necessarily match.
If a petitioner proposes a structure that is within the 50-foot buffer, then the proposal already has to be reviewed by the drainage board, Enright-Randolph points out. By making the 50-foot buffer also a part of the CDO, it means also seeking a variance, from the county board of zoning appeals, Enright-Randolph notes.
After the Nov. 19 plan commission meeting, it appeared somewhat uncertain if the commissioners would be able to vote on the CDO by the end of the year.
That would have meant handling the issue in early 2025, when commissioner-elect Jody Madeira would be sitting in the District 3 commissioner seat, instead of Penny Githens. Julie Thomas and Lee Jones will be returning as county commissioners in 2025.
But the only step between Monday’s vote by the plan commissioners and the 5:30 p.m. Wednesday (Dec. 18) meeting of the county commissioners is for the planning staff to certify the plan commission’s positive recommendation to the commissioners.
To complete the certification, there’s a deadline of 10-days under state law. But according to county attorney Jeff Cockerill, completing the task within two days would not require a special effort.
