Alachua County Commission considers simplifying review process for small development requests and asks Sheriff to stop posting mugshots on social media

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – At the January 6 Alachua County Commission Special Meeting, the board considered simplifying the review process for certain small development requests and voted 4-1 to send a Chair letter to Alachua County Sheriff Chad Scott, asking the agency to stop posting mugshots of non-convicted defendants on social media.

Changes for review of development applications

Growth Management Director Jeff Hays said the agenda item on development review was requested by staff because as they review development applications, they “see things in the code that don’t seem like they really quite fit or probably don’t get to [the County Commission’s] intent.”

Development Review Manager Christine Berish said that staff recommends changes for regulations governing applications that increase the impervious area by 1,500 square feet or more and that limit applicants to one modification per site of less than 1,500 square feet. She said, “I’m not really sure all of our rules were intended for some smaller things to be considered ‘development’… Maybe we need better distinctions between greenfield development and small changes and small improvements.” She pointed out that when a small change to a site exceeds the thresholds, the applicant has to hire a consultant and “pay for surveys and landscape plans and all of these other things.”

Berish said one example would be “trail head parking — it’s not even mentioned [in the code], but it still falls under the category… of development.” She said there have been a lot of recent applications for sheds, and staff thought that those could be handled administratively instead of having to go before the Development Review Commission (DRC). Other examples were additional pickleball courts on a site that already has playing courts and a cover for an outdoor exercise area at Gainesville Health and Fitness at Tioga. Berish pointed out that applications similar to these examples would still be reviewed by staff to make sure that they didn’t impact stormwater management, but staff wanted more flexibility in deciding which applications needed to go to the DRC for an approval hearing. She said a lot of things could be handled during the pre-screening process, which is free for applicants. 

Berish gave another example of a church adding a preschool within its existing buildings and asked the board to consider whether the church should be required to get a tree survey, designate 20% canopy retention, add enough landscaping to meet the 30% shade requirement, and comply with other rules that apply to new development. She said in 2018, a small church renovated its lobby and updated its bathrooms, and they were required to show 20% canopy retention and 30% shade coverage in 20 years, just for a renovation project. 

Commissioner Mary Alford: “Going through a full development review for something like this is a reason why people hate government, quite frankly.”

Commissioner Mary Alford said, “Going through a full development review for something like this is a reason why people hate government, quite frankly.” She said it made sense to revise the code to allow for smaller changes without needing DRC review, and she specifically favored looking at a percentage increase of impact on the site from the requested change, as opposed to specific limits.

Commissioner Anna Prizzia agreed, “I’m with you that what we want to do is make things simpler, easier, and less expensive for people, where that makes sense… My only concern is that we don’t reduce the level of expectation around our protection of natural resources… and that we don’t create a situation where someone could… build a building, and then they could do an addition, and then they could build out the back, and then they could put on their patio, and they would never have to go through… a full site plan, because they built it in sections.”

Chair Ken Cornell said, “I think you’re hearing a consensus to simplify [the code].”

Regulations for redevelopment

Moving on to regulations for redevelopment, Berish said staff wanted to update the code because it currently defines “redevelopment” as “any construction or improvement performed on sites where the existing site’s area exceeds forty (40) percent.” 

Commissioner Anna Prizzia: “We want redevelopment. We want people to use sites that have already been developed, rather than clearing new sites. We want infill. We want creative re-use.”

Cornell said, “I think we should be thanking folks that want to do this, and encouraging it.” Prizzia added, “We want redevelopment. We want people to use sites that have already been developed, rather than clearing new sites. We want infill. We want creative re-use.” She wanted the code to encourage “maximizing the density, maximizing the zoning.”

Staff and the board agreed that if a redevelopment applicant wants to deviate from the code, they would need to demonstrate that the deviations are necessary because they’re limited by the site or by neighboring uses; if the deviations exceed some threshold, they would come before the County Commission. 

Missing types of development

The third topic concerned types of development that aren’t currently addressed in the code, like trail head parking lots on conservation lands, ADA upgrades, and EV charging stations in existing parking lots. Berish said she thought “maybe some ADA improvements should be exempt from other requirements of the code, especially if it’s an old site and they’re updating it. That’s a good thing — do they need to now update the site to the new landscape code?”

Prizzia said, “I think the key thing is that we don’t lower our standards with requiring stormwater… I want to make sure those things are still accomplished; they just don’t have to go through all the rigmarole for the rest of the site.” Berish clarified again that staff will review all the applications.

Berish said staff didn’t think EV stations in existing parking lots should require development plan review because “they tend to not really impact anything, other than perhaps some tree barricades need to go up. Maybe they mitigate for a tree that they remove.” She said that could be handled during pre-screening: “We’re still going to look at it. We’re just not going to charge them $1,200 and take two weeks and go back and forth over it.” She said in any case where the applicant wants to deviate from the code, that would need to go to the DRC.

Prizzia made a motion for staff to bring back a request to advertise changes to the code, and Alford seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda items for joint meeting with municipalities

The next discussion was about agenda items for upcoming joint meetings with the municipalities in the county. County Manager Michele Lieberman said she thought it was time to “go back to discussion of Joint Planning Agreements with all the municipalities, particularly because of roads.”

Prizzia said a pedestrian plan and the MTPO (Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization) were on her list for all the municipalities, so she supported the idea. Cornell said, “So, like, we lead with transportation,…” and Prizzia continued, “Also economic development.” Cornell added that he wanted to incorporate the County’s Environmental Protection Department “into the whole process, so that we’re on the front end, versus the back end.” 

Commissioner Marihelen Wheeler said she also wanted to discuss impact fees with the municipalities. Cornell said, “The lack of [impact fees], you mean?” and Wheeler said, “Yes.” Prizzia said that could be part of the Joint Planning Agreements. 

Lieberman said that municipalities currently collect any impact fees, but sometimes the impacts are all to County roads.

Cornell said they would need to discuss any changes to property taxes that come out of the legislative session: “I think it needs to be an item that we discuss — and ask them how they’ve thought about the impact of that.” Only one of the joint meetings (Archer on February 9) is scheduled before the end of the legislative session. 

Lieberman told Commissioners that if ballot measures are approved by the legislature and then signed by the Governor, they have to be “very careful what we say and how we say it” because they can no longer legally advocate or educate about ballot measures. Cornell said his goal is to talk to the municipalities about how they’re preparing their budgets in case the ballot measures are approved by the voters. Cornell said the County will be doing “zero-based budgeting, theoretically from the ground up, assuming that whatever is going to pass is going to pass, so we’re prepared for it.” Lieberman also pointed out that the Governor would probably not sign any of the bills before the joint meetings, which are mostly scheduled for April. 

Prizzia wanted to talk about the rail trail with the cities of High Springs and Newberry, and she wanted an update from the City of Hawthorne on their industrial park plan. She wanted updates on Wild Spaces Public Places projects from all the municipalities and a fiscal update from the City of Archer. 

Wheeler said she was concerned about “what’s going on at the Eastside clinic… Evidently, there’s a new tent city out there.” She said an employee at the clinic told her “it’s really uncomfortable to walk around in that area now, because there’s about 30 encampments out there.”

Prizzia suggested referring that to the mobile outreach group to “see if we can get those people some support.”

Spring Break meetings

During Commission Comments, Prizzia proposed taking a break from Commission meetings during Spring Break. This year, a Special Budget Meeting is scheduled for March 17, and Lieberman agreed to reschedule it. Prizzia clarified that her request was to make this a policy. Alford seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.

Posting mugshots on ASO social media pages

Prizzia said that before she was on the Commission, “when Hutch was still on the board, I believe Sadie was Sheriff, we kind of made a pact with the Sheriff’s Office, not to use mugshots… and sort of create what I consider to be a shaming campaign around people and their potential crimes when they haven’t been convicted. And since then, it’s sort of crept back into practice.” She recently brought up the issue when representatives from the Sheriff’s Office were at a Commission meeting, but the practice has continued, “so at this point, I’m asking if we could send a Chair letter to the Sheriff, requesting that they not use mugshots and photographs of non-convicted criminals in their social media.”

Cornell said the last time it came up, the Sheriff said they had reduced the practice, “and they are only putting up mugshots of folks that they believe it’s important for the community to know — and that’s a judgment call.”

Prizzia said, “That’s not how it’s happening, and I generally don’t agree with the practice… I feel like we’re trying to create an ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ and we run Court Services, and we support victim advocacy. I just feel like there’s a lot of problems, and so far, what I’m seeing on their social media is not just [violent crimes], and maybe those people have multiple charges and this is just their latest charge, but I’m seeing a lot of marijuana charges. I’m seeing a lot of non-violent crimes.”

Prizzia added, “It’s like their new social media campaign is to just put up people’s mugshots with their charges.” Alford said, “And some of them obviously have mental health issues, too, like the guy who set the homeless camp on fire.”

Prizzia continued, “I guess I was just hoping that we would ask them to stop doing that.”

Cornell said, “My only issue is, without hearing their side of it, I hate to kind of send a Chair letter with our request, but… I’m just one of five.”

Prizzia made a motion to “send a Chair letter asking them to cease the practice of using mugshots of non-convicted criminals and their potential charges on social media and press releases.” Alford seconded the motion. 

During public discussion on the motion, Kali Blount said, “Just say non-convicted defendants,” and Prizzia said, “Sorry, yes. They’re not criminals… I was putting those two words together– ‘not a convicted criminal.'”

The motion passed 4-1, with Cornell in dissent.