• Discussion: Clustered Subdivision Ordinance

• Discussion: Sensitive Areas Ordinance

Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:05 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator R.J. Moore introduced members of the Clustered Subdivision/Sensitive Areas Ordinance Committee: Chairperson Bill Young, Amy Bouska, Tom Anthony, Judy Krieg, Ed Williams, Sandy Rhodes and Joe Holland. Thompson said the Board knew this project took many meetings at odd hours of the day and night and thanked the Committee for their work.

Moore said that during the Land Use Plan process the Board heard from numerous people that there were concerns about protecting the environment of the County as it develops. As part of that the Board appointed an 11 member committee, the Sensitive Areas and Clustered Subdivision Ordinance Committee, to draft proposed ordinances for sensitive areas and clustered subdivisions. The clustered subdivision ordinance would be an expansion on what the County currently has in the subdivision regulations. The Committee met over 2 years and presented final drafts to the County Attorneys Office for review. Moore said the purpose of today’s meetings is to hear the County Attorney’s critique of these 2 documents and what the Board needs to do to make the County Attorney’s Office comfortable with having those in place.

County Attorney J. Patrick White said he would start off with what will probably be many disagreements. White said he thought the purpose of the meeting was for the Board to give direction. White said in the current ordinance, in the subdivision regulations, there is a cluster subdivision clause, which is intended to permit the development of clustered subdivisions in which buildings and dwellings are grouped together. He said it talks about open space common ground recreational space being provided. White said there are 3 drafts of the proposed Clustered Subdivision Design Ordinance. The draft from the Committee is 5 pages long dated April 6th of 2000. There are 2 drafts from the County Attorney’s Office: the 4 page County Attorney revision A; and the 2 page County Attorney revision B. Thompson asked if the Committee had a chance to see the revision. Tom Anthony said it was the first time the Committee had seen the revisions. He also pointed out that the Committee did not write the Clustered Subdivision Ordinance. White said the April 6th draft was the product of the Committee with modest staff organizing. White invited Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell to walk the Board through his 2 rewrites, which would give everyone an opportunity to read along.

Chappell said the 2 County Attorney drafts are his attempt to tweak or adjust the Committee draft, to put it into a form that would be more workable. This way they could immediately put it into the Zoning ordinance to start applying it immediately with fairly minimal extra effort by the Zoning staff. Chappell said if somebody reads his drafts and thinks there is an extreme departure, this was not his intent, but he did not have the benefit of being present for the Committee conversations. Chappell said he had to rely on what he believed to be the intent of the ordinance, based on the Committee draft. Chappell said there are some changes in the definitions. He included additional things that were put later in the Committee draft, trying to make the draft work as smoothly as possible to be put into ordinance form. Chappell said there weren’t any major differences other then appearance.

Chappell said one difference is what the Committee was calling conservation easements. The Committee draft refers to conservation easement limited use agriculture and conservation easement open space. He said the Committee language was cumbersome. In Chappell’s draft, both are called conservation easements, one’s a limited use agriculture conservation easement, which retains the original intent of the Committee, that at some point if limited use agriculture is ceased, that will have to become by operation of law, an open space conservation easement. He said he made the changes accordingly, so he could just refer to a conservation easement later on in the draft.

One change Chappell made that he was told that may be perceived as substantive, is the idea of a management plan. The Committee draft only requires a management plan for open space. Chappell said he feels that what the Committee was trying to say was that the management plan is for the easement itself. Chappell said if that’s correct, there should be a management plan for an open space conservation easement or for a limited use agriculture conservation easement. He was told that it may engender some discussion from the Committee based on the fact that farmers aren’t going to want to be told how they can run their farm. Chappell said the fact is, if a farmer is going to be using the farm as a limited use agriculture pursuant to a clustered subdivision, the farmer is already submitting to significant limitations to how they’re going to operate the farm. He said this is set out in the definition of limited use agriculture, which hasn’t changed. Chappell thought it appropriate as notice for those individuals buying those subdivision lots, they would want to know how the open space was to be used, how exactly the limited use agriculture is. Chappell said from the idea of protecting the residents, the County would want to have some sort of notice or management plan in place, which is why he assumed that provision would apply to both limited use agriculture and open space. Chappell said that may actually be a change. Chappell said he is open to any further suggestions or criticisms.

Chappell said the shorter version, County Attorney revision B, is a version, which the intent was to retain the original intent and purposes of the Committee draft, but to scale it down to make it easier for a citizen to follow without getting tied up in definitions. He said what is missing in the shorter draft are the very detailed definitions. Another thing missing, Chappell said, is a lot of the discussion of the methodology of preserving the open space or the limited use agriculture. Chappell believes the shorter version still requires that open space be permanently designated as such, and that limited use agriculture should be designated as such until it becomes open space. Chappell said it doesn’t spell out in as much detail how that is going to take place. Chappell said it is his belief that the County is going to have to approve how that is done. He said they could create some sort of easement, whether it’s called a conservation easement or not. Chappell repeated that it was his intent to keep the substance of the ordinance the same, but to scale it back. Chappell said the shorter version would be open to more interpretation as far as what is open space, because all of the detailed definitions aren’t included. He said they could actually expand Revision A to be 8-10 pages if they wanted to. He said it’s just a matter of how the Board wants the ordinance to look.

White said he thought it would be helpful to the Board for the Committee to talk about what their goal was, what they think the weaknesses are in the existing ordinances, and in what ways they were trying to suggest a policy change. Neuzil agreed. Chappell said in his opinion, the clustered subdivision ordinance attempts to preserve open space in the County, preserve some agricultural use, while at the same time allowing development, but focusing that development on a smaller area, which would require less impact to the environment, getting smaller lot sizes. He said the carrot for doing so is the idea of a density bonus; in exchange for the developer permanently designating open space or the limited use agriculture, they’re able to develop at much higher densities than they would other wise be able to. He said the developer would be able to recognize the same or better economic gain than they would have otherwise. Chappell said it’s good for the developer and good for the County, because the County gets to preserve open space.

Thompson asked Moore to address the same question. Moore said its not that staff thinks there is something wrong with the clustered subdivision part of the current ordinance; it’s just that they feel there is not a carrot to get developers, especially on pre-zoned ground, to do clustered subdivisions. He said the Committee sees a lot of advantages of doing clustered subdivisions, which Chappell has hit on. Moore said those benefits accrue to everyone because of the style of development; less land is consumed and there is an ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Moore said clustered developments require less infrastructure because development is concentrated. This makes developer’s costs less to do a clustered subdivision, as opposed to large lot subdivisions, which in turn holds costs down for home owners that are going to eventually be the consumers of that development. Moore said they’re looking at the Land Use Plan and how they can achieve some of the environmental goals that the Board has adopted. One way is this style of development, Moore said. The clustered subdivision is a tool for the County to achieve those policies the Board has adopted in the Land Use Plan. He said they are really concerned about how the preexisting land develops around Iowa City, the metro area and in the North Corridor. Moore said the Health Department has one, 3 and 5 acre minimums and he doesn’t think the majority of the Board wants to see large lot subdivisions as the standard anymore in Johnson County. Moore said the Committee saw Planning and Zoning’s frustration on this issue and how to do it. He said they then worked on the density bonus, how to write it without making it mandatory, but getting people to volunteer. Moore said they stuck out a carrot: if contractors do the Clustered Subdivision Design, it will increase their densities. Moore said this style of development is better for the County. He said previous studies have shown that in general, rural residential development doesn’t pay for itself in tax monies received, for what it costs the County to provide services. Moore said if they concentrate development in an area, instead of spreading it out, it’s easier for ambulance services, law enforcement and fire departments to serve those communities. Moore said this is where Planning and Zoning staff was coming from 4 years ago when this process began.

Moore said he has a couple of concerns with the County Attorney’s drafts. Moore continued that staff was concerned with the designation of an outlot that is permanent open space. He said it would be fine in the rural areas, or villages, but they are concerned about the land in the city fringe areas where it is highly likely that land will eventually be annexed for use by a city. Moore said if land is designated as a permanent outlot for open space, that may not be the highest and best use for a city. He said that cities base the provision of park space and recreational areas on a formula, X amount of acres per thousand population. Moore said if they already have their open space allotted they might want an outlot developed at a higher density. He said they are concerned with how they are going to deal with those in fringe areas, especially land that is going to be annexed. He said they doesn’t want to hinder cities. He said Planning and Zoning has been fighting sprawl with the cities working on their fringe area agreements. Moore said the County is trying to get them to develop at more urban densities, to quit developing at less than traditional densities. Moore continued that Planning and Zoning doesn’t want to hinder them by creating documents or agreements that would then tie that land up and not allow them to use that for the best use that they have. Moore said another concern is that the zoning ordinance as is, is weak. Planning and Zoning feels that it is not up to today’s needs and requirements for definitions of particular uses. Moore said that Planning & Zoning staff think they will need to amend at least the definition section to include more up to date definitions. He said he knew in litigation definitions are often used.

Thompson asked if cities can rezone land after it is annexed. Chappell said the way the proposed ordinance is set up is that the open space is permanently designated. Chappell said the mechanism for doing that is through an easement, which is a legal document completely outside of City Zoning. Chappell continued that it’s a legal document whereby the owner is restricting what the future use of that land is going to be. He said the City can zone the open space to what ever it wants, but the fact is there is a legal document outside that, which says that nothing is ever going to be done with that open space, barring litigation about the legal document. White asked Chappell to talk about permanency, because it is widely misperceived and overrated. White asked how something could be made permanent. He asked if the creators of the restrictions and/or later Boards have the right to change them. White said it is a legal discussion because a goal of the Committee seems to be permanency of open space. Chappell said an owner of property can permanently restrict the use of that property, and that restriction can stay with that land whenever someone else buys that. White asked if they could change their mind. Chappell said the easement is intended to give rights of enforcement to the subdividers. White asked if they all agree to change it, why can’t it be changed. Chappell said there are always ways to unwrite things. Holland said there are two types of restrictions on land use. One is an easement, he said, which can be a permanent restriction that goes on to perpetuity until such time that a court might determine that the land use has changed. Holland said that typically the easement means that in legal parlance there is dominant estate and a subservient estate; it’s not something where it’s a unilateral agreement. He said typically somebody benefits from it, in this case the owners of homes in a clustered subdivision. Holland continued that then there is a property that is burdened by that, which is the open space. That easement effectively cannot be changed by the owner of the open space, it would have to be changed by cooperation of all of the owners of homes in the clustered subdivision and the owner of the open space or by a court order. Holland said it depends who the easement runs in favor of, but also there has to be both those parties, the benefited and burdened parties. Holland said he thought there was some discussion during Committee proceedings about another method, the use of restrictive covenants, which expire after 21 years unless renewed, which is a less long-term way of accomplishing the same goal. He said that was thought that to be unsatisfactory, because homeowners associations or bodies that have the right to renew those covenants forget to do so after 21 years, so they expire and then there is no restriction on that use of property.

White said his question still is when one uses the word permanent, it really isn’t permanent if in Holland’s analysis the dominant and subservient estates agree to change it. Holland said if the benefited and burdened parties get together to agree to extinguish the easement they can; it’s only permanent in the sense that it can’t be altered without cooperation of all parties that are benefited or burdened by the easement. White said that was the essence of his question. He said everyone has a tendency to talk about permanency, which is a bit misleading. White said that as the Board knows, they have all sorts of agreements with subdividers that propose to re-subdivide. He said a later Board can add to the density. White asked if it was an oversimplification to say the real substantive addition is the density bonus and isn’t it a policy question that the Board should focus on to decide whether they want to let people increase densities by setting aside open space. Rhodes said no, that the Committee felt strongly that bonuses were appropriate, and obviously it is up to the Board to decide whether or not the Committee’s foundations were warranted. White asked isn’t that the main thing that this proposal does? Moore said he believe the biggest difference between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance is the density bonuses; the carrot to get people to do it, because right now there isn’t anything in the current ordinance that encourages or enforces this.

White said the debate in the past was between permitting versus requiring clustering. He said this is a middle ground that proposes to deliver a fairly significant incentive, because the market isn’t doing much clustering. Rhodes said the clustering is obviously important here but he thinks they’re doing things backwards. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance was one of the most important aspects of this matter to him personally. He said the clustered subdivision was characterized to encourage people to set aside the maximum amount of sensitive agricultural and/or open space. That is the most important thing, not the density carrot provided, but what it was trying to encourage, Rhodes said. Holland said he would like to add that the difference between the short and long versions is pretty significant. He said there was a lot of discussion through the consideration of both ordinances of the idea of preserving agriculture uses in the County. Holland said that one of the things people worked on the hardest were the definitions of things like limited use agriculture, what it does and doesn’t include, and what a limited use agricultural conservation easement is. Holland said that County Attorney revision B strips all that out effectively. He said he thinks that is why they went to that level of detail. Holland said the Board must understand that Planning and Zoning Staff drafted the ordinance and the County Attorney’s office had no input at the initiation of this. He continued that the proposed ordinance was drafted by staff and modeled on other ordinances in effect in other places. Holland said the short version strips out virtually all of the Committee’s work, which was based on very careful considerations. Holland said several people were very interested in protecting the agricultural uses that go along with clustered subdivisions. He said he thought that was a significant focus of the Committee’s efforts in both ordinances.

Rhodes commented that he strenuously objected throughout the Committee process to the absence of any representative of the County Attorney’s Office, because he predicted on record that this would happen; that there would be substantive changes and the Committee wouldn’t recognize the ordinances when they came back. Rhodes said he strongly resents that fact. He said he couldn’t tell the Board how wonderful it was working with the Planning & Zoning staff, but he got grumpy with them about the absence of a representative of the County Attorney’s Office. Thompson said this was a first effort at implementing the County’s new zoning ordinance and she said it shows. She said the Board would probably do it differently if they were starting now. Moore said on behalf of the County, which is the Board and the County Attorney’s Office, the Committee started this and finished this before the Board gave White money in his budget for Chappell. If the County was doing this today, Chappell would be working with the Committee and the staff on this as he has done since he began. Moore continued saying that Rhodes wasn’t the only Committee member frustrated by the absence of the County Attorney’s Office, but Planning & Zoning didn’t have anybody dedicated to them at that point.

Anthony agreed with Holland’s concern over the lack of definitions. He there was an extreme amount of effort put into creating the descriptions and definitions of the ordinances. Anthony explained that if the opposite of what would happen without those definitions is considered, the burden will switch to the County, the Planning and Zoning staff, and consultants trying to explain the ordinance to people calling or stopping by. Anthony said that if there is no way to define something, besides each individual’s idea of what some of the subject matter is, he doesn’t think they’ve accomplished what the Committee’s intent was or even the whole ordinance itself. Anthony recommended including definitions in Count Attorney revision A.

Thompson said she thought she understood what the County was trying to do, but then when she read revision A and the Committee’s version, she still had questions. Thompson asked where in the County are the clustered subdivisions intended to be? She asked if this is a way to force people that have already zoned land to use it more effectively or is the County planning to rezone agricultural areas to allow subdivisions. Moore said this would probably be a carrot to get people with prezoned ground to develop it in a style that everyone prefers. Moore said that as far as new zonings go, following the Land Use Plan, if a rezoning request comes in for an area the County has identified as appropriate for non-Ag use, then Planning & Zoning would prefer this style of development also. Thompson asked if this means that any farmer anywhere in the County can set aside a portion of his land for a subdivision. Moore answered no. Thompson said she doesn’t see in the ordinance that they are talking about areas already defined as growth areas. Moore said ordinances are made in compliance with the Land Use Plan, which is still the dominant document. Moore said that any rezoning requests regardless of the style of development have to be in compliance with the Land Use Plan. White said he has a slightly different answer to Carol’s question. He said it comes into play when somebody is in front of the Board with a plat application, because it’s an additional platting concept. Lehman said they weren’t talking about farmstead splits, but wondered if they were talking about an addition for 3 lots. Moore said 4 or more.

Thompson said she sees nothing in the ordinance that requires people to use something other than individual septic systems. Krieg said that would be up to the Health Department; if they’re one-acre lots and that meets the Health Department’s regulations, then they could have individual septic systems. She said the ordinance doesn’t say anything about what size the lots should be. Krieg said if the lots are less than one acre the subdivision would have to go with a shared system, according to the County Health Department. Moore disagreed because the Board’s policies for Planning & Zoning hold more weight then the Health Department. He said that the Land Use Plan and the North Corridor Plan speaks to shared wells and waste water systems, also for villages. He said with developments coming through, they are trying to get more shared systems in place. Thompson said the ordinance doesn’t require them. Krieg said no. Moore said it goes back to the Land Use Plan. Krieg said technologies may come out for onsite or offsite systems or shared systems or centralized systems, and it would be up to the Health Department to approve whatever kind of system they want. She said the ordinance doesn’t address the wastewater and one would have to get approval for that from the Health Department. Thompson said she lives in a subdivision that has small lots with individual septic systems which are now failing. She said 20 years ago the Health Department was happy to approve these. She asked what is going to prevent the same thing from happening in 20 years to another development. Chappell said the ordinance addresses the septic system, to the extent that everything that applies now to other subdivisions, applies to this ordinance in respect to the septic systems. He said everything not specifically covered that is in the current ordinance, still applies. Chappell said if it is the Board’s pleasure for something to be written into the ordinance to further promote shared wells etc, then that can be done. He said this ordinance doesn’t address it because they were relying on the current provisions for wastewater systems. Thompson said as one Board member, she thinks the provisions are inadequate. Harney said a septic system is only as good as the owner who takes care of it. Lehman said some subdivisions have covenants that require their citizens to clean their septic tanks every 3 years, which the homeowner’s agreement has done. Thompson said those expire and then there is no enforcement. White said the County required this with Rohret's 6th subdivision, and ironically the Health Department talked about how difficult it was going to be for them to monitor and worried if they would have enough money to do it. White said anytime densities are increased these are valid questions. Krieg said she thinks the place to address it is in the Health Department roles. She said she works with the Health Department about having each subdivision have a wastewater management plan that requires a manager that manages the onsite systems. She said she thought that would relieve a lot of problems. Krieg said that in the City of Iowa City’s Fringe Area Agreement, North of Interstate 80, for some developments they require that the septic systems be brought into City specifications. She said the City doesn’t have specs for onsite septic systems, so what they really want is pipes, so if the City ever has their sewer go underneath Interstate 80 they can hook up to it.

Lehman asked who is going to regulate and set the standards for the open space and conservation easements; having hay rather then row crops, or no livestock. He asked if that was something the developer was going to propose or if the County was going to set the standards. He asked who would enforce that 10 years from now. Chappell said those are things that should be laid out in the conservation easement management plan. Chappell said the Committee came up with specific definitions of what is and what is not limited use agriculture. Thompson asked if they allow livestock, would the homeowners not be allowed to have dogs. Young said they are getting bogged down in trying to micromanage the issue. He said the issue is land use and there is not consensus. He said they had a hard time in Committee pulling these concepts together. Young said the main goal is a land use issue and a zoning issue targeted towards the North Corridor where they expect growth, where they already have residentially zoned land. Young said they are talking about people who have fears and positions about how land is used in the North Corridor. Bouska said one of the things they were trying to do in Committee was to sit down to say what the purpose of what they were trying to do is. They set purpose statements of what they wanted the plan to accomplish. She said she noticed on revision B, the purpose statements were taken out. She said she thinks that is another component that should be brought back in to the drafts, because conveyed what the Committee wanted to accomplish. She said they spent a lot of time getting consensus on that.

Moore said he has always felt that once the County rezones from agricultural to RS districts, in the permitted uses in the ordinance, no where does it say agricultural. So for him, ag is not a permitted use on residentially zoned land. He said he had a problem when they were talking about doing clustered subdivisions and saying they will use agricultural outlots. He asked how they could do that, when it’s not a permitted use. Moore said they proposed an amendment a few years ago about limited agricultural use in the RS district, but the Board didn’t want to move forward with that. Thompson said the County keeps telling people that they think the uses are incompatible between agricultural and residential. White said one of the advantages of the Committee’s recommendation is it creates a mechanism to allow those uses to exist without opening a Pandora’s box. White said he hasn’t weighed in because they would need 2 or 3 staff people to monitor this, which is one of the things the Board needs to keep in mind when they debate both of the ordinances. He said it goes back to the question of who enforces it? White said over and over the Board has enacted regulations, and the County’s historic approach has been to impose requirements and then say to the homeowners, they’re on their own to enforce it. He said this doesn’t work, He said that time after time residents show up where their homeowners association isn’t paying any attention, isn’t monitoring cleaning the septic systems, isn’t unplugging the culverts, and isn’t adequately rocking the roads. White said one of the issues that he thinks has been out there for years, is whether the County ought to do a better job and accept some responsibility for monitoring and enforcing regulations that it continues to create. He said the problem gets worse every time the County creates a new requirement for a developer or a homeowners association, but then doesn’t back it up. Thompson said she noticed Washington County just hired a staff person as subdivision coordinator. White said he thought they still had no zoning. Stutsman said this is their first step towards moving in that direction. White said the County needs somebody on the Zoning staff whose job is enforcement of all the things the County has already required, let alone any new things. He said that isn’t an argument for the merit, or lack thereof, of any proposal, its just reality. He said the Board can’t keep adopting regulations and assume someone else will enforce compliance, because they don’t.

Thompson said the easement solves the problem between the homeowners and the people they buy the land from. She asked about the other farmer that backs up to that land. Chappell said there is no way control what other neighbors do. Thompson asked if the clustered subdivision would have to have a barrier between themselves and a neighboring farm. Chappell said the clustered subdivision requires a buffer zone between the limited use agriculture, but there is no requirement to buffer around neighboring property. Thompson asked what if someone wants a hog lot. Stutsman said they’d have a hog lot. Holland said it isn’t any different than the existing ordinance. Thompson said that’s why the Board usually denies them. Chappell said he thinks this is different, because this open space or agricultural use has to literally touch every single lot. Holland asked where the ordinance says that. Chappell said that’s the way it is with the current ordinance. Krieg agreed, but said it didn’t say that in the ordinance. Chappell said traditionally there is a pocket of properties and wrapped around it is the open space. Chappell said that currently the open space touches every lot, the idea being that every single resident has access to the open space. If all lots don’t touch the open space there needs to be access to it. Rhodes said the grantee that accepts the easement is the entity that’s generally responsible for seeing that the provisions of the easements are enforced; whether it be a homeowner’s association or the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Rhodes said that within a city there are a lot of ordinances that are enforced on a complaint basis. Rhodes suggested that if there is a leaking septic system, people should file a complaint with the Health Department.

Lehman said he thought they are getting ahead of themselves with enforcement and who is setting criteria, instead of looking at the overall picture. Lehman asked what is the criteria necessary for enforcement, and who is to say that when people move that criteria is going to be adhered to. Chappell said that is the intent of the easement; to have it run with the land and give rights to the residents so that if the farmer were to sell what’s being used as limited use agriculture couldn’t change. Chappell said the easement gives power to the residents. Lehman said if the farmer should retire from farming and rent out his land, that renter needs to know what the restrictions are. Chappell said they could require that the County be involved and that the County be given a right to enforce. Lehman asked which department that would be under. Holland said enforcement is always an issue whenever there is any regulation or land use development. He said Rhodes made a good point that Iowa City has a noise ordinance and a nuclear weapons free zone. He said nobody is out there enforcing those; its done on a complaint basis. He said homeowners associations can be very effective or very ineffective. Holland said the message the Board needs to hear is that if the County is going to assume responsibility for enforcement, when people complain, put somebody in the Zoning staff that handles enforcement. He said if the Board is not going to do that, then put the burden back on the homeowners associations and tell them that they bought the property, they knew it was their job to enforce it, and hold their feet to the fire to do it. Holland said they work very effectively when they have a reason to. Holland said he knows there can be enforcement through homeowners associations even though there are others that can’t even get a quorum together to hold a meeting.

Lehman said he wanted to heed White’s advice. He said when the waste haulers were in, the waste haulers said the Board was the one that allowed the developments, so now for health reasons, the trash needs to be picked up; but the Board isn’t going to allow them to because of the embargoed roads. Lehman said the dilemma the Board has is that they did create it and the residents do expect service. Holland said that is a separate issue when dealing with enforcement of embargoes verses issues internal in a subdivision. He said it’s just like the County disclaiming responsibility to maintain roads within the subdivision. Holland said waste haulers aren’t asking the County to improve roads inside the subdivisions, they are talking about County roads. Lehman said the Board has to deal with it. White said he has said for years that the County needs an inspector. He said he keeps grumbling about the absence of staff to do enforcement. White said that when the Committee was organized and the Attorney’s Office wasn’t involved, White said that the County was taking on too much, that they don’t have the staff to keep up with what already exists, let alone to start down a road with a whole new set of regulations. White said the County still doesn’t have the staff. White said if the County enters into a subdividers agreement that sets standards that are not followed, he thinks it is appropriate for the County to monitor that and initiate enforcement. Lehman said the Board has to be aware of the results of the actions they take. Stutsman asked if in regards to enforcement, White was talking about somebody that was proactive or somebody that’s reacting to complaints. White said he’d settle for somebody that’s reacting to complaints, because the County doesn’t even have the capacity to do that. Planning and Zoning Administrator Rick Dvorak said they do some. White said if a homeowners association isn’t cleaning a culvert, nothing happens. White said there is one homeowner that has no power to make the homeowners association do anything, unless they decide to sue their neighbors, which is a horrible situation. Dvorak agreed. Harney said the Health Department has authority over septic systems. White agreed, but for other things, people are on their own.

Stutsman asked what it would take; would it another staff person. Thompson said it would take 2 or 3. Dvorak said if the Board wants Planning and Zoning to follow up on homeowners associations efficiencies, then they would have to hire somebody. He asked the Board if they wanted to do that. Holland said the Board would have to hire 5 people if the County starts responding to every homeowners association complaint. Dvorak said the Board would then have to hire another Chappell also, because then the County is going to have to enforce subdivision agreements. He said Planning and Zoning does investigate every complaint of violations of County ordinances. Dvorak said fence agreements are the biggest thing Planning and Zoning doesn’t get involved in, by choice. He said they get calls constantly about fence agreements, but their response has always been that its not the County’s problem. White said that when the Attorney’s Office gets concern from a farmer about a subdivision, they tell them the ordinance requires them to get an agreement, which is true, but then it lays there and the County doesn’t do anything to make sure they keep their word. Harney suggested that they make sure the agreement is in place before it is approved. White said they do, which is his overriding point, that the County should not keep enacting regulations unless the County has some idea of how they’re going to make them stick. Holland said that’s why the Committee specifically put the homeowners association in the ordinance, because they recognize the County does not have the staff to do that. White said the homeowners association is a mixed blessing, because sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Holland said on the other hand, if the County sent a consistent clear message saying this is the homeowners associations’ problem and they must deal with it, then they would become more effective. Holland said that was the decision that the Committee made when they drafted the ordinance. He said they included others, like the Johnson County Heritage Trust, where they become the enforcement mechanism. He said the Committee did look into that enforcement mechanism, but said the County wasn’t the appropriate body to enforce it. Thompson said the County can’t afford enough staff to do dogs. White said dogs are a different question. He said he was just talking about things that the County requires in subdividers agreements or in conservation easement management plans. Holland said subdividers agreements are a different issue than covenants in a homeowners association. White said he’s not proposing that the County get involved with covenants. Holland said he hasn’t seen a subdividers agreement that says the subdivision will maintain the road, it says the County won’t. Moore said they have been working many years with access easements and roads, not only showing it on a plat or an easement, but requiring written maintenance agreements. He said they’ve had so many neighbors that share an access, feuding over when they plow it and who shares the rock.

Moore said the Committee hasn’t had much time to look at revisions A and B, which Chappell produced. He feels revision A is in the spirit and intent that the Committee and staff was moving towards. He thinks it is early for the Committee to be asked to respond now, but staff does feel that way. He said White earlier had a question about what he thinks the purpose of the meeting is. Moore said at this point, with the discussion of clustered subdivisions, they need to find out if there is enough Supervisors to let them move forward with the project. If they are going to move forward with the project, Moore would like to bring the Committee back together with Chappell’s drafts and Chappell to move forward with that. Dvorak said that the County currently has a clustered subdivision ordinance. He said they look at this as an improvement and expansion of that. Dvorak said they made the second point that this is a voluntary process, they’re not going to mandate everyone in Johnson County to do a clustered subdivision. Dvorak said staff feels that they can move forward with this topic easily if more then 3 Supervisors agree to do that. He said the study committee could look at it a little longer or they could just go to the hearing process to get input. Harney asked if this is an effort to eliminate other types of subdivisions or growth out in the County. He said if he is understanding this correctly this is trying to encourage clustered growth. Dvorak said that he has been working in Johnson County for 12 years and his biggest headache has been to trying to convince the old subdividers that think bigger is better. He said he fights that every time somebody comes in on pre-existing zoned land. He said one of his closest friend’s father, who is one of the biggest developers in Cedar Rapids, made millions of dollars on bigger is better. He said every time he sees his friend they argue about it. He commented that Westcott Heights, one of the best subdivisions in this area, is a clustered subdivision. He said Westcott Heights has half acre lots and shared wastewater and that developer is making $60,000 a lot. He said this is another tool they can use to help educate people.

Stutsman said she is supportive of going ahead with this. She said they need the incentive, which is included in this that is not in the current ordinance. Lehman said he hates to ask the Committee to do more work, but he thinks they would like to look at what’s been proposed. Dvorak said they are inclined to recommend the Board move forward with revision A. Stutsman said they might as well finish it to have a product that can go to a public hearing. Dvorak said that the Board would get a lot of public input, not only from the Committee. He said they could spend another 2 or 3 months working in Committee if the Board thinks it’s necessary or they can send it to the Zoning Commission to do the same thing. He said it ends up in the Zoning Commission’s hands anyway. Stutsman asked if the Committee was willing to put in more time on this. Anthony said he would rather spend the time, then pass something that’s not compatible. Holland said as long as the Board doesn’t ask the Committee to spend another 2 years on this, they probably wouldn’t mind. He said for 2 years the Committee was meeting once or twice a week. Holland said this was a Herculean effort and they would not only be willing, but grateful, to have the opportunity if they really thought this was going to go to the public hearing stage. Stutsman said she thought they were all looking for success at this point. Lehman said at this point he would like to see the definitions in there, but he would like to see the Committee sit down with Chappell to work through any questionable areas they have. Stutsman asked Chappell if he had the time. White said Chappell does. White said he doesn’t think a lot of time will be required. White said revision A is almost right on to what the Committee had drafted. He said if the sense of the Board is they are ready to move forward, he thought they could do it in one meeting and then send it to the Zoning Commission. Thompson said probably between Chappell and the Committee, they would be able to work out any differences there might be. White said he didn’t think there would be very many. White said they don’t need to spend a lot of time between revisions A and B, because B was just humoring his preference for brevity. Chappell said he was an at will employee. Stutsman asked to clarify process. She said the Committee would review it and then it will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thompson said after it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission will go to the Board for a public hearing.

Recessed at 10:12 a.m.; reconvened at 10:25 a.m.

Thompson asked Moore to introduce the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Moore said this came out of the adoption of the Board’s Land Use Plan in ’98. He said it was felt by a large portion of the people participating in the process that the County needed to do something to protect environmentally sensitive areas and historic properties. He said the clustered subdivision ordinance and the sensitive areas ordinance go together, which is why the Committee worked on both. He said when the Committee started the ordinance, they modeled a majority of the ordinance after Iowa City’s Sensitive Areas ordinance. He said the Committee has a number of people with professional backgrounds in environmental planning, including Wayne Peterson, Amy Bouska, and Judy Krieg, plus farmers who have to be very aware of the environments on their farms. Moore said that what is before the Board is the end product of 2 years of work on this ordinance. Thompson noted that there was no draft submitted from Chappell. Moore said that White was the person that reviewed this ordinance. White said the Board doesn’t have a document from him. White reminded the Board and Committee that what he was going to say was not opposition to the Sensitive Areas ordinance, but opposition to this approach. White said when the County first started discussing this issue, he authored a couple of proposals that he didn’t persuade the Board to act on. He said he too was an advocate of doing something more then the existing ordinance. White said the County’s Zoning ordinance after 40 years of adoption and amendments runs 90 or 95 pages and this proposal runs 19 pages. Just it’s length is an indicator of the magnitude of the proposal, White said. He continued that by counting pages this would add 20% to the existing land use regulation. In implementation, it might add even more then 20%, he said. White said with this ordinance too, he was asking for guidance from the Board as to what approach to take.

White said he’d try to identify larger questions before he gets to specific ones. He said this is a different type of ordinance than the County has ever looked at in terms of it’s complexity and cost of administrative requirements. White said the ordinance was patterned on Iowa City’s, but the County almost never patterns anything it does on Iowa City for a variety of reasons. White said he wasn’t aware of any other Sensitive Areas ordinances in Iowa, although there may be some since he looked. One of White’s concerns is the point of applicability. Back when he made a recommendation to the Board for modification to the ordinances, he was recommending that it be added into the Zoning ordinance, the platting ordinance, or both. White said this proposal, as he reads it, would be an additional step in the process, not part of the zoning decision, not part of the platting decision, but an independent regulation required when someone wants to get a building permit or do something. White said one of his reservations based on the County’s historic approach to land use is somebody would get property rezoned, then platted, then they would have to go through the sensitive areas work that is proposed. Holland said he didn’t think that was accurate. Holland said the ordinance was intended to apply when there is a subdivision application submitted with 4 or more lots where there is a preliminary and final plat. He said it was intended to be part of the preliminary platting process. Holland said section 8:3.5 says all residential subdivisions of 4 or more lots shall comply with this. He said he thought the intent was to be at the time of application, not applied retroactively. Holland said maybe that wasn’t clear from the wording of the ordinance. White said if that was the Committee’s intent, then that would resolve one of his major reservations, which could be dealt with in some revision. Moore said that was also staff’s intent. He said one would have to design the plat according to this information, so they thought it would be tied into the platting process. Moore said the design of the subdivision would be contingent on having identified any of the environmentally sensitive areas to make sure they are protected. White said that was his feeling, so a recommendation is that instead of a separate chapter 8:3, it should be rewritten to become a part of the existing subdivision ordinance. He said that is readily done.

White said his second major concern, related to his first, is that he has reservations about not identifying sensitive area issues before a plat is approved. He said in Iowa, final plat approval is pretty much guaranteed after preliminary plat approval, then additional regulations imposed after final plat approval tend to be problematic in terms of public entity liability or ability to enforce. He said if the goal is to make it part of the platting process, the Attorney’s office could make that work. Anthony said it is specifically part of the preliminary plat process so that it was already taken care of when it comes to a final plat. Dvorak said residential subdivisions with 4 lots or more are self-explanatory, but when you get to the commercial, industrial, and RMH it gets tricky. He said RMH is typically a very large lot. He said he wasn’t sure what the template is on those. Dvorak asked about a 100-acre mobile home park, would the issue be resolved at time of zoning or would it still qualify as the 4 lots. White agreed. White said the language regarding 4 lots is found in 8:3.5. He read that all residential subdivisions with 4 or more lots and all commercial and industrial and RMH zoning shall comply. He said the scope is literally everything except residential subdivisions of 3 or fewer lots. Moore said the Committee had worked hard on that because Planning and Zoning had mentioned they don’t always subdivide commercial or industrial properties. Moore said that White or Chappell could word that better, because they intended to have them comply with it as well without platting. White said that goes back to the initial question, which is what is the ordinance going to apply to. He said that the language seems to differentiate residential subdivisions from commercial, industrial and RMH zoning parcels. He said it seems to apply to both. Holland said it does, and there was discussion about that specifically. Holland said that residential subdivisions are in the preliminary platting stage, but because there are other large tracts that could be developed that include sensitive areas without going through a subdivision, there was an intent to try to bring them into the scope of the ordinance. Holland said that would have to be handled at the rezoning. He said he didn’t think it could comply to something already previously zoned.

White asked if it was the Committee’s goal to apply the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to any existing zoning? Krieg asked if any of the developments have to submit a site plan. Dvorak said they are working on an ordinance amendment currently that may resolve the issue. White said it would broaden the ordinance. Dvorak said that it wasn’t another intent before, but it would resolve the issue in the future if the amendment was changed. He said if the language in this ordinance was tweaked, it could qualify under site plan review. Moore said that may be something that if the Board decides to move forward with, Chappell can help guide Planning and Zoning into tying the new ordinance in to achieve those goals. Rhodes said at the time they drafted the ordinance they would have liked to have included already zoned tracts, because they could include sensitive areas. During the Committee discussions, Rhodes said, they felt it would be impossible to do, which is why it came out as ambiguous language. White said to broaden the question, the implementation section also read as though it was covering existing zoning because it says prior to any grading or other ground disturbance, which is a different stage of development then plat approval or zoning. He said it then makes reference to a site plan. White said the literal language to the proposal says that before anybody with 4 or more lots in a subdivision or any commercial or industrial zoning does any grading, they go through the steps set out in the ordinance. Holland said he didn’t think that was the intent. Holland said this language is a compromise. Holland said he thought some redrafting was needed and the Committee should re-discuss that because the intent was to apply it prospectively to new developments and not at a building permit level. He said when this was drafted the County didn’t have a building inspector, there was only a building permit. He said he didn’t think there was any intention that this would apply to the building permit on land already properly zoned for its intended use. Anthony said times have changed enough in the 2 years since the Committee met, that there is now a different perspective. He said they’re still on the right track.

White said that every development covered, whether the zoning ordinance requires a site plan or not, would be required to present a site plan before they do any grading, which would contain a list of things. This includes the location and type of sensitive areas as expressed in 8:3.3. He said regarding coverage, there are 10 categories of sensitive areas, which is the substantive part of what the Committee was recommending. He said they might be able to sort out when it would be applicable, what would be covered. He said the first category is critical wildlife habitat, which is described as areas identified as containing endangered species as defined in the ordinance. White said the endangered species definition is any species found in Johnson County protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species list or the Iowa Threatened and Endangered Species list published by the Department of Natural Resources. White said that the title Critical Wildlife Habitat gives the impression that it’s literally life, or creatures, but endangered species includes plants. He asked if wildlife means plants as well. Anthony said it’s on the list.

Thompson asked how White felt about the use of the documents. She asked if the Board would have to amend the ordinance every time a new and better document was entered. White said if public sector lawyers were polled, there would be differing opinions. He said the County has adopted a building code ordinance that incorporates documents by reference. He said when the Uniform Building Codes change, the County doesn’t have to amend the ordinance. He said he thinks it’s possible to do that with other documents. Thompson said at least one of these documents looks like it’s a book. White said there are several books. White said this gets to his major reservation, which is more policy then legal; this is a massive proposed regulation. Harney asked White if they were duplicating some of the State regulations that are already in force. Bouska said the Committee tried hard find tools that would help people use the ordinance. Bouska said there are procedures already in place for some of these, it’s just a matter of giving people an example of how to follow it. Holland said there was a lot of concern from the Zoning staff that when someone comes in to ask what a Critical Wildlife Habitat was, that they would be able to show them. Holland said the ordinance lists sources of literature people can go to that say this is an objective standard rather then an interpretation by the Zoning office. Lehman asked if someone would have to go to a private consultant, bring a form in similar to the Board of Health, saying that they have met the criteria. Lehman wanted to make sure this wouldn’t be regulated by a staff member.

Krieg said that before a zoning or a plat is done in Iowa City, they require that the developer hire someone to identify critical slopes and wetlands, or prairie remnants, and then identify those areas on a plat. Moore said that was Planning and Zonings intent. Moore said it is in the ordinance that it must be an expert in the field. He said Planning and Zoning’s intent is to put the onus on the developer to present this to the County at their expense. Young said one of the landmines that was in this was what happens when there are two opposite opinions? White said he had some of those questions too. He went back to the Critical Wildlife Habitat, which is one of the 10 areas. White said later in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance it says that the intent of the ordinance is to help ensure that applicants adhere to Federal, State and other County regulations. He said he defers to the Committee as to what the other Federal and State regulations are. White asked who is supposed to contact the Iowa DNR Environmental Review Coordinator and/or a local naturalist to determine if a Critical Habitat exists. White said there is nothing in the ordinance about how you would document whether it exists or not. He said it does say, if it is found, then the area must be preserved or a mitigation plan must be developed in consultation with the DNR prior to any disturbance. He said he again questioned when this would happen. White said prior to any disturbance reads as though that is a building permit development stage rather than a plat stage. White recommended that whatever the Board chooses to do, the County doesn’t have staff or time to do it outside when the zoning application or the plat application are in front of the Board.

Thompson asked if she was a determined developer and she had land that was zoned ag and she knew about the ordinance, why wouldn’t she go out and plow up the prairie before she started talking about developing it. White said that she might. Krieg said she could do it. Holland said they talked about that in the Committee. Thompson said she lives in an area that has been a subdivision for 22 years and there are probably 20 or 30 plants on her ground that are endangered, but they are only around during the spring and summer seasons. She asked if the Board would make applicants wait a full year to observe the appropriate wildlife. Rhodes said absolutely, what’s the matter with that? He said the land is being permanently altered and there is nothing wrong, in his opinion, with finding out what is there that is going to be torn up before it is done. Krieg said if an expert goes out to an area to look at prairies, if the soils had obviously been disturbed and photos show had it had been farmed every year, then it’s probably not a prairie remnant. Holland said they have to look at the whole thing and first of all there has to be native forest trees. Secondly, it has to be 2 acres. Third it has to have atypical underscored wildflowers. He said if it’s less than 2 acres the ordinance doesn’t apply. If it doesn’t have an association of native forest trees, it doesn’t apply. Holland said the committee tried not to be overly restrictive, therefore a number of criteria falls into the ordinance. Holland said that is true for almost all of the identified sensitive areas.

White said woodlands is the 10th of the sensitive areas listed. He said it makes reference to 2 different books. White said in the implementation section of the ordinance it says determine whether large native trees are present. He said he was having trouble understanding who does that. He said if the existence of a woodland cannot be ruled out then a consultant must be hired to evaluated presence, quality, and diversity of native species. White said if the existence of a woodland cannot be ruled out then the owner has to hire a consultant. Thompson asked if the administrative officer wasn’t Dvorak. Holland said that is what they thought. White asked who makes that decision. Krieg said the developer would present this issue in a site plan. She said it would show if there are large trees greater than 12 inches that are native. Anthony said if the developer says there aren’t any, but Dvorak says there are than a conflict exists. White asked if Dvorak is going to go out and check. Rhodes said Dvorak could look on the County’s set of Arial photos to see whether an areas is timber or not. Rhodes said he was under the impression that Planning and Zoning drives by every tract that’s under consideration. He said its easy to see if there are big trees on land or not. White asked how many trees it takes. Thompson replied that the ordinance says an association of trees. White said the implementation language says somebody is determining whether large native trees are present. He asked how many trees it takes, who decides if they’re native. Rhodes said it goes back to the woodland definition. He said that was why they had definitions. Thompson asked how many trees are in an association. White said the definition doesn’t answer the question. Thompson asked if it had to be more then one kind of tree or could it be 25 oak trees. Rhodes said it could be 25 oak trees; that’s called Oak Savanna. White said he can’t get from the definition through the implementation understanding when the determination is made and by who. He said he understands hiring a consultant, although he doesn’t understand how to decide who goes on the consultant’s list.

Holland said White is illustrating part of the problem. Holland said it wasn’t easy for the Committee to draft this ordinance; it took 18 months and 40 some meetings. Holland said White is talking about implementation issues to deal with who does what, when, and how those determinations are made. Holland said those issues are more appropriately discussed with White or Chappell, and how the ordinance is drafted. Holland said the Board needs to consider the big picture: are these the sensitive areas the Board’s interested in protecting; is the Board interested in protecting sensitive areas at all? Holland said the Committee could work with the County Attorney’s Office to iron out other issues. Anthony agreed and suggested White highlight issues for Chappell and the Committee to iron out. White said he has a different recommendation. Moore said one of the things White feels he is here for is to find out whether or not the Board wants to proceed. Moore said Holland just hit the nail on the head. Moore said if the Board wants to proceed with this, the Planning and Zoning staff feels that the Attorney’s office can do anything the Board wants.

Moore said they should stop now and see if the Board is interested in moving forward; if so they can give White some kind of direction so he can supply the support staff they need to make it a legal document that White is comfortable with. Stutsman said that moving on means going through the public hearing process, going through Planning and Zoning. Dvorak said he thought it meant sending it back to the study committee. Moore it needs to go back to the committee level, but eventually to the Planning and Zoning Commission, then to the Board. Dvorak asked if White was done sharing his major concerns. White said no, but he’s illustrated them. Dvorak said he hopes the Board is aware that if they do this, they might have to hire additional staff. He said right now they’re comfortable, because they’re not getting a lot of applications. Dvorak said be prepared for him to come in sometime to ask for staff or to hire consultants to facilitate. Dvorak said he by no means knows the difference between an oak and an elm; his staff might, or they might not. White said this version or anything close to this version is going to require staff. He said it won’t work without at least one more person in the Zoning department, because it’s too much and too complex. Thompson asked if they could set out guidelines that said anyone presenting a preliminary plat has to have a statement from a conservationist that they meet this ordinance. Dvorak said they would still need a review process. White said somebody needs to make the decision. Krieg said from working with Iowa City, they’ve struggled with whether or not to hire a naturalist to answer some of these issues. She said during the Committee, they talked about it being a good idea to have a staff that would handle it. She said they might be able to work out something with the City of Iowa City and Johnson County to have a shared naturalist. She said Iowa City felt that they couldn’t employee one full time. Thompson asked if the County would charge people a fee to use their naturalist. White said it would be part of the County’s review of the application. Moore said they would have to raise the fees.

Moore asked White if it was possible with his help if something could be produced that would achieve what they want. White said he thinks there are other types of ordinances or ordinance amendments, including the one he recommended years ago. He said he didn’t hold that as a terrific approach, the concept when he proposed it would get the County started. White said it would create a requirement for the developers to identify and make proposals for how they are going to deal with sensitive areas. He said it had all the same problems of enforcement or screening or decision making. Thompson asked if the Committee had a copy of his version. White said he didn’t think so. Moore agreed. Thompson said it might be good to give them a copy. White said they won’t like it. Rhodes asked why the Committee hadn’t seen to proposed ordinance. He also asked what good it would be to have them if they didn’t have any teeth or regulate anything. White said that is a good question. He said he the Committee didn’t see it because Planning and Zoning either forgot about it or thought it was too superficial, which is correct. He said when he recommended it to the Board 4 or 5 years ago, they evidenced no interest in regulating sensitive or natural areas. Moore said Dvorak put him in charge of the Committee as staff for the Committee. He said he missed the boat and he apologized. White said there was no reason for him to apologize. White said this was such a superficial proposal that it wouldn’t have cut it. Stutsman said that the Board has changed too. Moore said when they started this, there were only two Board members that were willing to go forward, Stutsman and Bolkcom. White said the Board eventually adopted, on a 3 to 2 vote, a comprehensive plan that included sensitive areas as a work project.

White said the Committee is an amazing collection of folks. He said he sounds more critical than he means it to be, but one can tell it is drafted by a Committee, because it doesn’t flow well. He suspected lots of votes, compromises and decisions to get something that would come forward out of the Committee. White said to Rhodes that he wasn’t any happier then he was about the Attorney’s office not staffing it, but he didn’t have time to staff it. He asked the Board if it could wait a year until they got their new attorney, then they would love to staff it, but the decision was made to go without the Attorney’s office. Anthony said in the defense of the Committee, he thought this was an assembly of some of the best qualified people in their fields. Anthony said that for each of these elements in the descriptions they had pseudo experts on the Committee to help make these determinations. He said not only was there a well thought out process to get to the finished product, but the Committee had the people necessary in all aspects of development, agriculture and sensitive areas. Dvorak said it is because of this that it would be his recommendation for the Committee to be the one to review all the plats; it would be cheaper than hiring a staff person. White said it wouldn’t be impossible to write an ordinance as a Sensitive Areas Review Committee.

Bouska said everyone on the Committee has all put a lot of time and expertise into this and asked what is the next step, where does the Committee go from here? Thompson said the next step is to ask the County Attorney to work with the Committee on both of the ordinances. Stutsman said even before that, she thought there had to be at least 3 Board Members that say it’s worth it. Dvorak asked the Board to be serious in their polling, because if they don’t want the Committee to move forward please say so. He said it might hurt some feelings today, but if the Board pushes it back for another year it might hurt more than feelings. White agreed and said he doesn’t want to invest a lot of time on this unless he knows at least 3 Supervisors like the concept. Bouska said as the Board is considering what to do, if they don’t decide to go forward, it would have been nice to have done it before the Committee spent 2 years on this. She said she would ask the Board to think about that. She said they worked hard to listen to each other to come up with something that people could accept. Stutsman said this was just the beginning step. She said it goes to a public hearing, the Board will hear from the community and they may say one way or another whether they want this. Bouska said she understood.

Anthony said there was great debate in the Committee over whether or not the County needs this or wants this. Anthony said there were several people on the Committee that believe the County does a good job already on preserving sensitive areas by creating all the outlots that are in the areas that are not being developed. Anthony said they haven’t had any problems yet with sensitive areas in the County being destroyed, which would normally trigger something like this. Bouska said at the same time there are others that think differently. Stutsman asked if the County was getting to the point where they have developed all the safe areas. Anthony said the Board was going to be in almost the same decision making process about whether to proceed that the Committee was in whether they should start. Moore said per State Code, per the language in the Zoning ordinance and the Land Use Plan, the Board’s prime directive is the protection of agricultural lands and operations. Moore said as the Board protects prime agricultural land, which is the flat higher CSR ground, the County is pushing development onto marginal land that isn’t being farmed. Moore said he agrees with Anthony because as a planner he sees a need for some recognition as the County develops. Moore said the County needs something to help protect sensitive areas. He said under Dvorak’s guidance, they work really hard as they see zonings and plats to review those with all the data available to keep development off areas that are sensitive. Stutsman said even though Planning and Zoning tells developers to keep development off of certain areas, there isn’t anything that prevents it. Moore agreed, especially on prezoned ground.

Young said the Board hasn’t even begun the public hearing process, but they are getting a sense of the deep passions from the Committee. Young said when the Committee started he was unequivocally opposed to the concept, over the period of 2 years, he tried to learn from the concept and compromise. Young said he thought there was some reason to proceed judiciously with some kind of sensitive areas. He said personally what the Committee presented to the Board was far to restrictive, but it’s an effort of 11 people trying to do their best to come up with something where everyone could agree to move to the next step. He said he would ask they move to the next step, with the proviso that before the Board accepts this, they get something from White’s direction that is administerable and is fair to property owners in the North Corridor that for 35 and 40 years have had plans for land that has been zoned residential. He asked the Board not to hand a club to those who don’t want any development in the North Corridor. He said that was one comment he made when he was elected Chairman, that what ever the Committee does, they have to respect the rights of those that have a differing opinion on what’s environmentally sensitive. Bouska said she tried to do that when they worked through each of the definitions to find criteria that would respect everyone. Young said he was willing to continue as long as it takes. He said he tried to draft something that was a compromise, but whether it’s constitutional or going to pass with the citizens of Johnson County is another issue. He suspects the public hearing will be heated.

Thompson suggested the Board do a straw poll. Neuzil said the County’s Land Use Plan is working. He said this ordinance is too restrictive and unnecessary and he would like to see it end. Stutsman suggested that this ordinance be referred back to the Committee for modifications and then to public hearing to see what the community says. Lehman said he would like to see it continue to public hearing. Harney said they are duplicating measures that are already in place by the State and Federal Governments. Harney said he wants to protect sensitive areas, but this ordinance is too complicated. He suggested they put it in a simpler form. Harney said he would like to have it go back to the Committee to work with Chappell or White to come up with a simplified form. Stutsman asked him if he was ready to move ahead with the idea of some sort of sensitive ordinance. Harney said he thought the County needed one. Thompson said she would also like to go ahead, but she had hoped the end product would be something more simple. Harney said he would like to see this go back to Committee and Moore said with the staff and the County Attorney’s help. White said his suggested next step would be that he, Moore, Dvorak, and Chappell try to assess the Board’s sense of this approach or the subject matter. He continued that the 4 of them would sit down independent of the Committee, create a staff revised draft A, which they would then take to the Committee, who would then let them debate, critique, and react to staff created revision. White said then everyone would come back with a Committee report and a staff report to see where everyone is. White said his assumption still is that County policy is to try to enact some sensitive areas ordinance because it’s in the comprehensive plan. He said in the adopted comprehensive plan, the County said they were going to do it. He said he knew that Dvorak and Moore still recommend a Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He thought the sense of the Board members wanting to go forward, was they wanted to see a simplified version. He said that’s a direction to them. He said it was tough to use a Committee for a task like this in the way that was used here. White said when a citizen committee is created to propose an ordinance, it becomes awkward for the staff to say that won’t work. Bouska said they didn’t have any problems saying that. White said at any event, at this point they could produce an alternative for consideration by the Committee. Anthony said the staff needed the Committee to create the elements of the ordinance. He said White can provide the legal way to say it, but the Committee provided the technical way to say it. He said that was the big difference. Stutsman said she appreciated the Committee that had different points of view, with the final compromise that came forth.

Thompson said they just gave direction that the clustered subdivision should go back to the Committee for comparison and then go on for public hearing. She said earlier with a different Board, they decided they should be paired. She remembered the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was done much earlier, but the Board didn’t want to consider it until the Clustered Subdivision was done. She asked if the Board still felt the 2 ordinances need to be tied together. Stutsman said she didn’t think they should be done together. Moore said they were together, but they can stand alone. Moore said White’s idea was wonderful, to have a base to start with. Moore said it was a great experience working with the Committee. Stutsman said it must have been if the Committee was willing to continue on. Dvorak said if the Board doesn’t mind, he doesn’t want to commit to an urgent time frame, because he has many other things on the table. Stutsman said she doesn’t want it go on for another 2 years. Dvorak said he didn’t want to do that to the Committee members either, but he didn’t want to commit to something that he couldn’t produce. Lehman said he would like to see White’s original proposal. Thompson adjourned the meeting.

Adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Casie Parkins, Recording Secretary