The Santa Rosa County Citizens Land Development Code Task Force on May 2 agreed to add an exception allowing clearing beyond platted rights-of-way when justified by an engineered grading plan for infrastructure or to ensure drainage feasibility, and agreed to rename the draft "alternative subdivision" provision as a "conservation community."

The change to the land development code language — made by unanimous voice agreement during discussion rather than a formal roll-call vote — directs staff to append the phrase "or otherwise justified by an engineered grading plan for other infrastructure improvements or drainage feasibility" to a draft subsection governing clearing adjacent to high groundwater elevations. Task force members said the amendment aims to balance limiting unnecessary clear‑cutting with the practical engineering needs of roads, ponds and utilities in areas with high seasonal groundwater.

The group also reached consensus to reframe and refine the clustering rule previously known as the alternative subdivision. Under the redrafted approach the provision will be called a conservation community and will require a minimum of 25% of a project parcel be set aside as conservation/open space. The task force clarified that stormwater ponds may count toward that 25% only when designed and improved as a recreational amenity — for example, when walking trails or other public-facing improvements surround the water feature — and that final plat language must record conservation areas in perpetuity.

Staff and developers discussed complementary details: the task force removed a prior requirement that all roads and infrastructure in such projects must remain private, instead aligning with standard subdivisions that permit either private maintenance or dedication to the county for maintenance (subject to meeting county specifications and BOCC acceptance). Task force members asked staff to make the conservation/open-space requirement adaptable by geography — for example, rural protection zones (RPZs) could have different thresholds — and to draft explicit plat language that records conservation easements in perpetuity.

Quotes from the meeting reflect the compromise. Task force member Kelvin Enfinger said the grading‑plan exception was intended to avoid road failures: "If you don't have 2 feet between your roadbed and the water table, your road will fail." Home builder Mike Patterson, who spoke for builders on the task force, supported conservation communities with clearer rules: "With a few tweaks, the alternative subdivision could achieve what we're all trying to do—save trees and not increase density."

Next steps: staff will produce revised ordinance text that (1) inserts the engineered-grading-plan language into the relevant subsection, (2) renames and refactors the alternative subdivision provisions into a "conservation community" article, and (3) adds plat and recording language to lock conservation areas in perpetuity. The task force scheduled additional meetings to review minor subdivisions, tree‑clearing language and wetland buffer proposals before forwarding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

Votes at a glance: The only formal motion recorded in the transcript during this session was approval of the March 7 minutes. The motion was made by James Hendricks and seconded by Kelvin Enfinger; the chair announced the minutes were approved (no roll‑call tally included in the record). The code changes described above were agreed by consensus during the discussion and referred to staff for drafting, not recorded as a formal statute or ordinance vote.

Ending: Staff will circulate a redline showing the engineered‑grading wording and the conservation community language for review at the next meeting. The task force also asked staff to show how the draft would interact with the county's rural protection zone and existing PUD/PBD procedures.