Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putnam County adopts amendment to family‑subdivision rules at second reading
Summary
At its June 9 meeting the Putnam County Commission adopted a second‑reading amendment (LDC26‑0001) to the county Land Development Code changing the requirements for Type‑3 family subdivisions; staff said agricultural zoning and minimum lot standards remain in place.
Putnam County commissioners voted June 9 to adopt a text amendment to the county Land Development Code affecting Type‑3 family subdivisions, after staff described the change as a second reading required by statute.
Ethan Thompson, planning staff, told the board the applicant sought to remove a requirement that parcels subject to Type‑3 family subdivision applications carry an agricultural future‑land‑use designation while keeping the agricultural zoning and minimum size/density standards intact. "This is the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance," Thompson said, summarizing the ordinance language and noting staff's recommendation that the request is consistent with Florida statutes and the county comprehensive plan.
During the hearing, Zachary Baker rose to "be transparent" about a later, material modification another commissioner had requested; planning staff said any post‑adoption textual changes would follow the normal public‑hearing process and could be subject to state review. "If a commissioner wants to make an amendment, generally speaking, from a staff perspective, we want to make sure that it's the will and direction of the entire board," planning staff told the commission.
Following limited discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt the ordinance (case LDC26Dash0001DashFord; Putnam County ordinance 2026‑009) and the board approved the motion by voice vote. Chair announced the motion carried.
The amendment as adopted strikes the comprehensive‑plan future‑land‑use phrase in the Type‑3 standard while maintaining the zoning requirement and other standards commissioners and staff said are intended to preserve the family‑subdivision safeguards. Staff noted the planning commission had recommended approval at its April 8 meeting (4–1) and that the board had previously struck recommended planning‑commission edits at first reading.
Next steps: staff said procedural changes or any subsequent material amendments would return to the board for public hearings before transmission to the state for plan amendment review, if required.
