It’s not over yet for the rules passed yesterday at the BCC hearing in favor of big developers, commercial development and the smallest landowners wanting to sell in the Ag Reserve.
There is a limited window of about 90 days for Ag Reserve supporters to stem the process to final adoption votes in October.
The proposal detaching small preservation areas from having to share a common boundary with another preservation parcel of at least 150 acres is such a fundamental change that it alters Palm Beach County’s comprehensive plan. Therefore, state officials must review it for comment.
Then, a final vote by the BCC is scheduled for October 26.
Language Changes in the ULDC Questioned for Legal Implications
The commissioners also approved (4 to 1 because Melissa McKinlay and Hal Valeche had left earlier) the changes for the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) that would enable the preservation contiguity changes. The ULDC changes in language that strike out the term, “Unified Whole” and switch “Preservation” areas for the more development-oriented term, “Preserve Areas” was called out by one of the last speakers of the day.
The citizen advocate noted for the record the potential for the text changes to play a role in covering retroactively any illegal maneuverings of preservation parcels made in the past.
BCC Dismissed Staff’s Strongly Recommended Three-Year Moratorium on Commercial Applications, 4 to 1.
PBC staff of professional planners strongly recommended a three-year moratorium on commercial applications in the Ag Reserve. However the commissioners shredded that notion and directed staff to help them word a motion to fast track commercialization for landowners, starting with those who owned land before the Ag Reserve was created.
The changes enabling further commercialization of the Ag Reserve passed at the hearing is also scheduled for a final vote on Oct. 26. Those new changes will have to be addressed at another public meeting and a vote, and then also go through a state review for comment.
BCC Dismissed Local Planning Agency’s Unanimous Denial for “Contiguity” Change
Not surprisingly, the BCC passed the changed “contiguity” rule 6 to 1, with Commissioner Paulette Burdick the only voice calling for further study of the impact and unintended consequences before rushing to vote. Her serious reservations were in line with the county’s own Local Planning Agency. In a very rare confluence, the planning agency voted unanimously 12 to 0 on June 12 to deny recommendation of the Preservation change and urge commissioners not to rush to a vote.
If adopted, the rules weakening the requirements for minimum preservation parcels create a windfall for the small landowners of largely five to ten acres, enabling them to sell their property to luxury home builders like G.L. Homes for the exponentially higher prices that the bigger landowners in the Ag Reserve have enjoyed.
The benefits dovetail with benefits sought by G.L. Homes for more liberties to develop in the Ag Reserve.
Later in the hearing, one of the speakers representing a non-profit operating outside the Ag Reserve asked if his organization, too, could become part of the Ag Reserve. Commissioners nipped that idea.