summed it up pretty-well; he thinks that PUD is an underutilized zoning classification for this
County; Mr. Usherson just talked about things that he felt were necessary; PUD could be a
mechanism for applicants to look at that; he thinks that one of the few ones that the County has
had is, in essence, folks coming in and doing variances to some of the development standards
where if a PUD was established, one could look at those holistically and get a better idea of
what the development was going to look like built out; one of his concerns with the Board is
making sure that staff is doing an adequate job of giving it an idea of what it is going to be like
when it builds; and he thinks this is a helpful application for that.
Commissioner Tobia reiterated that he would ask the Board members to get involved; he
knows this sounds a little out there, but this would have a great impact near their districts, as
they understand their districts better than his; and whether it comes to minimum size of a PUD,
or what should or should not be allowed, he encouraged them to get with staff and the Board
can come with a product that will have benefits, not for just one, but for all the districts.
Chair Pritchett mentioned she has learned if she gets with the wonderful staff and starts talking
about her district, they will help with ideas of how to frame this for the district so that it will
cause no harm and help greatly; and she appreciates staff’s brains, as they are wonderful.
The Board granted legislative intent and permission to advertise amendments to Article VI,
Subdivision V, Zoning Regulations regarding PUD zoning.
Result: APPROVED
Mover: John Tobia
Seconder: Rob Feltner
Ayes: Pritchett, Goodson, Tobia, and Feltner
K.6. Rita Pritchett, Commissioner District 1, Chair, Re: Board Report
Chair Pritchett stated in her district, there are almost 90 percent of the dirt roads and it is a real
problem because most of the residents want them paved; when moving into a neighborhood, all
the houses have already paid for their dirt roads so the County cannot really put it on every
taxpayer to have to pave people’s roads if they have not paid for them; what she is hoping to do
is to put together an Municipal Service Taxation Unit (MSTU) to put on the ballot that will be
specifically just for those areas; and if they want them paved, they can vote for it and the funds
will go towards paying for their own roads. She added she wanted the Board to get their heads
wrapped around this, as she is probably going to look at what to do for the Canaveral Groves
taxpayers, and the Mims/Scottsmoor area; it will be up to them if they vote for it, then the
County can work with them to do this; and if they do not, they will just have to remain dirt roads.
She mentioned another item she wanted to bring up again is whether there has been a way
found to obtain funds for lifeguards; she knows the Board is not allowed to directly use Tourist
Development Council (TDC) funds, but if there is a way to pick-up some of that to open-up
funds left for the lifeguards; because it is definitely a TDC project that should be there, but the
County just cannot do it; she asked the Board for any ideas on how to fund the lifeguards; and
if some of those funds are moved over, then it frees up General Funds to do that.
Morris Richardson, County Attorney, mentioned, for the record, he believes there might be a
way to use Tourist Development Tax (TDT) for lifeguards, potentially, bases on some changes
in legislation since some older Attorney General opinions that are out there; and it is not set in
stone, but he does not want to have the position out there that, definitively, it cannot be done,
because he thinks there is a potential vehicle to do that under statute now.
Commissioner Goodson commented that as a Board, they should look at what cities are paying
for lifeguards; his staff has been working on that for him; and some of them might partially
