Steph's here. >> Uh, good evening and welcome to the um Thursday, June 25th, 2026 uh meeting of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission. Call this meeting to order and uh begin with a pledge of
allegiance, please. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Um,
any additions or deletions? >> We have none. >> Uh, very good. Uh, first order of business is approval of the minutes for the June 11th, 2026 meeting. >> So, move. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I >> oppose. Good enough. M minutes are
approved. We have one um agenda item, one additional agenda item tonight. Um uh and it is a public hearing and it's the Balfy reszoning and Valerie Balfy and William Wagner's request to reszone
approximately 10.4 4 acres from RS3 single family residential district up to three units per acre to RM3 multiple family residential district up to three units per acre. Um uh there uh any
declarations of expartate communications on this and can you u evaluate this with an open mind on the right? >> No. >> No. And yes. >> All right. Left. >> No. Yes. >> All right. Very good. Um uh and uh anyone who would like to speak
on this, please be sworn in now. >> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> And we have staff presentation. >> Good evening board. My name is Lawrence
Andrews, a planner of long range planning, and I'm here presenting Valerie Bals and William Ragnar's resoning request from RS3 single family residential to RM3 multifamily residential.
I have my director John Stole here today. The development pattern and zoning history of these parcels, the subject properties comprising approximately of 10.4 4 acres are located on the east side of US Highway 1, south of and
adjacent to 61st Street. Uh 61st Street is an unpaved um road. The properties are split zoned with RM3 multifamily residential district fronting US1 on the west side of the parcels and RS3 single family residential district
on the east side of the parcels. The applicant proposes to reszone the property to RM3 multifamily residential to eliminate the split zoning. The surrounding area is largely undeveloped. Therefore, the existing land use pattern is best understood through the zonings,
the area zoning history and the current zoning configuration. In the original 1975 to 1985 zoning atlas, it placed commercial zoning along US1 and RS3 on the eastern portals portions of the parcels. So it
originally split zoned them with um what was called C1A frontage. Uh then in 1985, the former C1A frontage got converted to RM3 while the eastern portions remained RS3. To the east, Boonville Preserve PD, which reszoneed
uh approximately 413.67 67 acres from RS3 and CON 2 to a plan development leaving as you can see in the zoning map to the right um the subjects properties RS3 is a remnant of the zoning pattern
similar RM 3 and RS3 split zoning remains north and south of the site properties to the south with existing homes were not included due to uh the lack of owner authorization for the resoning the proposed resoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning pattern inconsistent with the future
land use policy of 1.43 as the properties already contain RM 3 along the US Highway 1 front and major artiller corridor and are located east uh of a commercial industrial node which would eliminate the split zoning and would not create RM3 zoning surrounded
by single family zoning on all sides. So, existing versus proposed zoning. The current RS3 uh zoning allows up to three dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning RM3 allows uh three units per acre as well. That's a typo. I apologize
for that. Um so, in this case, uh there's no density increase. It is simply just going from RS3 to RM3, which is a housing um change zoning and flu consistency per table 2.14 of the county's comprehensive plan. The above
zoning districts are permitted under the property's L1 future land use designation. Therefore, the proposed reszoning to RM3 is consistent with the future land use designation. And to the right, you can see the RS3 and RM3 zoning district standards table. Um,
there's really no difference between them beyond setbacks and building coverage analysis per chapter 902.1.1.2. two three items A through K. Item A, staff found no conflicts with the
applicable land development regulations for the requested RM3 zoning. RM3 is an appropriate zoning district for the parcels L1 flu designation. The proposed reszoning is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan
aligning with policies 4.1, 2.2, 1.11, 1.12, and 1.43. The proposed resoning is consistent with the existing and planned land uses in the area. The subject property has a future land use designation of L1 which allows residential development up to
three units per acre. The RM3 is an implementing zoning district under this designation. The request does not change the residential use or density of the property, but allows for a different housing type. Items D through K. Staff identified no inconsistencies with these
standards of review specifically as it relates to the county's thoroughfare plan, roadway LOS, environmental conditions, public services, natural resources compatibility and/or compliance with county plans. All resoning review criteria A through K have been satisfied.
Conclusion and recommendation. The requested RM3 zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county's adopted comprehensive plan, consistent with the county's land development regulations, deemed suitable for the subject
property, and supported by staff. Staff recommends that the planning and zoning commission approve this request to reszone the subject property from RS3 to RM3. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lawrence. Any uh commissioner questions on the right?
Not a question, but uh if you go back one slide from the end just I saw that uh there you go. Item A uh you said one thing and it reads a different >> Yeah. So that was a typo so I apologize on my part. That was supposed to be RM3
as I verbally said and L1 for the future land use. >> Just verifying that so I understood that correctly. >> Um too small on the first thing when you were showing the subject property there was a red line and then there's a tail. Is that tail already RM3 or is that just
>> um are you referencing? >> Yep. >> This little corner right here. >> Yeah. So, those property owners um are single family residences and the applicant um inquired about also including them within the resoning and they did not give permission. >> Okay.
>> It would just leave that small little bit of RS3 there as the property owners didn't uh allow permission in this request. >> So, wait a minute. So, that is that's RS3. It's just not in the red box. Yeah. Everything in the red box is what would be going to RM3.
>> Okay. All right. And then what is the PD to the >> That's Spoon Bill preserve. >> That's Spoon Bill. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Good. Any on the left? >> Mark. Um
I just was curious as to whether there's any difference um under the RM3 between a regular multif family like a townhouse or condo or whatever apartment building
uh as opposed to the proposed use. Maybe we're not supposed to consider the proposed use, but um is it the same I mean, how do you determine a unit in a
memory or nursing home icon? >> Um, I guess in this case, it would just be theoretical. So, you know, this would allow them to have that multifamily zoning, but in this case, um, you know, it would be for the applicant's use of a
nursing home. And the applicant here has P Sweeney to represent them who can also come up and speak on what their proposed use would involve. >> Okay. But I was just wondering about the uh um our rules
whether you're talking about uh the number of units being the number of bedrooms or how that works. >> Yeah. So it would be based off of uh beds in this case. Okay. So there's no difference.
>> No density of >> correct. Yes. It would be the same density overall. >> Thank you. >> Robert. >> Yep. >> I'm not good. >> Yep. Tommy. >> The only question I have, Lawrence, is the property that's commercial general
down on the very tip there. >> Yes, sir. >> And the property that's commercial general up on the very tip of it. Why would what what what is and I know that's RM3 >> between all that is it you don't see
your future need for commercial general there although I like the RM three better uh I I just see it being nestled amongst two pieces of commercial general so I'm just surprised that that little sliver
there along US1 never became commercial reason we don't uh that doesn't go to commercial is mostly due to our policy I believe it's 1.1.7 in which uh for our commercial nodes they need to be at least I believe 70% built out. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And so um until it reached that 70% mark the node can't be expanded. >> Yeah. >> Great. Appreciate it. Okay. >> Where is it in that threshold of the 70%. >> That node specifically. I would not be able to tell you unless I had our
software pulled up. >> Yeah, we can run that report again. It's been a while since it's been run. You all would like to see it? >> No. >> Well, because if I mean there could be a change if there if it is. So, you're basing it saying it isn't at this point, but you've got to base that off of
something. So, >> well, I I think did I hear something about a nursing home and I read >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh, I guess zonings for nursing home are allowed in RM6. >> RM6. >> I think for zonings for anything would
be allowed in commercial G almost anything. Uh, I'm I'm just trying to figure out if this is going to come in the like Chip said or John said, in the future. Man, we sure wish I was commercial general, but maybe you all
looking at it at RM6 is the better way to go with it. >> It's utilized. >> Okay. >> Okay. This is a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and if the applicant has anything to say. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, board. Pete
Sweeneying with the FMA MTC Law. On behalf of the applicant, first of all, thank you all and especially thank you to staff. Uh this process started about three years ago. >> Wow. >> Um and when it started, we had several prior planning directors and one of the
prior planning directors indicated to me that the initial parcel uh where you see the RS3 yellow mixed um that's the main parcel. I was told we don't really want to do standalone resonings. This was directly
from a totally independent and prior planning director. I want to be crystal clear about that. But that was the directive and I was told if you can figure out how to clean up all of this then I would support it. So after approximately two years of tracking down
other property owners that take that tail, uh I was able to secure permission on behalf of most of them. Um, as you see, there's the smaller part that will be the tail that will be outside of it. However, um, I'm hopeful that this may
spur them to realize, as staff perfectly pointed out, you can do everything in RS3 that you can do in RM3, but not the other way around. >> And the biggest problem was that this was an invisible line. And until very
recently, and I again thank staff, nobody knew exactly how this happens. Uh it's it's it's inconceivable legally that you have split zoning on parcels because everything's based on the parcel size and therefore density and most
importantly setbacks. So where do you measure an invisible line for RS3 zoning versus RM3 zoning, which we could do right now? we could come in with a plan and do that, but of course that's inefficient and it makes no sense and is not good planning. Again, staff did an
excellent job creating this. I will also say if you look and if we were to zoom back out and and I think staff could talk about this the commercial given the nodes and where you are, you have it north and you certainly have it south, but that area with Spoonville with the
golf course just on the west side of US1. Uh Cleveland Clinic, as you may be aware, owns that parcel just on the north side of that uh unimproved ditch road. Um so again, uh we thank staff. Uh
we are very hopeful that this is going to kind of create that in between zone um with sort of like you said, um things that would be supportive of this project potentially. I would say though uh to the point about whether or not an ALF or
nursing home again based on beds and importantly if you see in the staff report backed up by our traffic consultant it actually potentially results in about several hundred decrease in traffic trips a day. Um not to mention that area of US1 will
absolutely be expanded to three lanes I'm sorry six lanes >> soon. Um and by soon of course we all know that could be 10 years or 20 years but again having a very high speed with very short setbacks on US trying to get somebody into a fully commercialized
area um may be dangerous difficult versus something like this. So uh we thank staff um and respectfully request approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. And I guess Susan this would probably be directed to you as well.
Looking at this sliver that we have and we're now cutting it in half, does the county have the authority to say, you know what, instead of cutting this thing and chopping it up, why don't we do the whole sliver? >> So,
>> RM6, we >> I mean RM3, >> we could, however, that there's a different requirement because we aren't the property owner. Okay. >> And the burden is is different. them as a property owner, they're allowed to come forward and ask for that. Not only that, but there were some new changes in
the last couple uh years in the law that if we're the ones that to bring it forward, um we may also be facing a smack on the hand. So, we just are deferring to property owners that are wanting to do zoning changes at this time. >> Okay. >> But if I can follow that up, I I really
do believe and I've been in contact with all of these property owners. Some of them are older and have been in and it's hard to see here, but there are very small single family residences and they're just afraid. >> Not not necessarily of what zoning is. It's just we've been there. We know it.
>> I do believe that sooner than later, Mr. La, you're going to see them kind of go, "Oh, okay." >> So, and Miss Pra is correct. >> The county absolutely can do all of this on its own, but there are procedural steps where they would have to notify the property owners, tell you we're going to be doing this. Yeah. So, I
would love to see it be straightened up because there are parcels like this up and down US1 and it's it's a problem for you. It's a problem for staff. It's a problem for my clients. Good planning fixes these things. >> And I have another procedural question.
You mentioned that it's been two years or longer for you to to deal with this process. Obviously, you've been through a couple different planning directors. I guess my question as a former county commissioner because I've had this
happened to me before. >> Sure. >> You should have reached out to one of your commissioners and going, "Listen, this is a problem. We're trying to get this done." And and I think in the future something like that happens. It still will put a little bit more and
John I'm not putting pressure on you but put a little bit more emphasis on time is money. >> It is >> and trying to get something done shouldn't be at the direction of one person. >> I I I appreciate that and I want to be
on the record crystal clear. This staff had nothing to do with that. That was a a planning director who is very far gone >> y from we've got one that's got some history. So, I'm not worried about that. >> But I also want to mention to you um the a long hang up was the parcel that's
immediately south >> um is a very nice lady who lives worldwide. Uh when I was able to finally get her signature, she was in Morocco. >> Oh, wow. >> So, you know, again, a lot of this was not necessarily staff. Uh it's just
>> the process. But thank you for that advice. And again, um planning is in very good hands. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Cool. >> Yep. >> Mark, >> we I didn't see anything about the number of parcels we're talking about or
the ownership. >> Are we talking about these parcel being joined and yeah, purchased? >> Uh how uh how many of these parcels do you foresee becoming the u
uh I go back to nursing home but that use >> sure um so the top parcel that is my client I represent I'm working through however procedurally you are allowed to reszone multiple
parcels as long as you have executed authority on behalf of those parcel owners I don't represent them going forward as their council I just received and provided notorized on county form authorization from those parcel owners.
So, I have no idea what any of those other three, four parcels may do, but at least they will all be zoned the same. >> That I can say with confidence. >> So, >> yeah. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Seems to me that this is just
cleaning up a mess that was done back in ' 85 when the zoning got changed and all a sudden RS3 got in the middle of this and um I think it's pretty cut and dry to be be honest, Pete. >> Yes, sir. Yeah, it's kind of ironic. The line runs from center line to US1.
>> Mhm. >> And it just goes that way and that was it. I I when they first brought this parcel to me, I go, "This can't be right." And uh I I think u Mr. Murphy in your office or maybe it was you, Lawrence. I'm not sure who found it, but found those minutes from the 70s.
>> Wow. >> Stating that's even how it happened. Um, it's inconceivable that could happen now. Could you imagine Oslo right now and you just ah, we'll just say 150 ft west and east and congratulations. It just wouldn't happen. But yes, thank you. We're fixing it. And uh hopefully
if I find any more, I'll fix those too. When we uh need to fix some problem like this, do does the applicant have to pay the normal resoning fee or you give them a break or how does that work?
>> They pay the full fee. >> Okay. >> Not a problem. >> Long as they're willing to do not a problem. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We good. Okay. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And um
>> I move staff's recommendation. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I oppose. Good enough. >> Uh any commissioner matters? >> I have one that believe it or not just came up right here. I had someone text me and John, you could probably answer
this question. It's going to be perfect. This gentleman was asking me, he must know we're having a meeting. He goes, "Uh, what kind of zoning would it need on vacant land to store a crane?" >> I'm going, "Okay, I guess he has there's
a buyer that wants to buy some land to store a crane." >> I I would guess we're talking general, commercial, and up probably. >> I would say so too that or industrial. >> We can definitely get him an accurate answer if >> Keep looking at that. I'll kind of throw that out there at him because I'm going
>> Well, what about a zoning? That could be too. >> I would imagine egg would would allow that as well. >> Well, I guess it depends on where the A is. >> It's possible, but I I will definitely check. I will get >> if you can look into that, get back with me. I'll let him know that. Appreciate >> a heavy commercial,
>> huh? >> Do we have a heavy commercial? >> We do. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, too, >> but I like Jim said, you can pretty much put anything and everything under. It's not a problem. >> Any other commissioner matters? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks, Tommy. Um, any planning
matters? >> We have none. >> Very good. Any attorney matters? >> Um, just briefly, um, and I'm glad that Commissioner Lawler kind of touched on it a little bit. I think he was talking about what timing. Um, there was a new statute that was or a new legislation
that's passed that should be going into effect here shortly. Um, that does deal with timing of planning matters. So, there are several that have gone into effect that will be um, shortening a lot of the planning and the timing um, turnarounds. Um, with that being said,
um, just kind of keeping y'all informed on kind of what's going on out there. Um, and also if you know certain turnarounds and certain deadlines aren't met, also we have to return. I think it's like 25% of the fee, 50% of the fee, different items like that. So,
there has been um a an onus to start pushing um more planning matters, more items through quicker. So on top of I guess like Pete said that John's been helpful, but like on top of that, we also now have other external stuff
that's pushing um pushing that, not just us, but I mean statewide, correct? >> So it's definitely you probably see some stuff coming in a little faster than I think what it historically may have been depending on the applicant because they can still ask for um extensions
themselves. We just the county itself can't ask for it if that makes sense. So that's how they're going to find out as they come in. I guess staff will tell them that, you know, we now have a time frame that on that reasoning done. If they can't meet that time frame, then they ask for an extension,
>> I guess. And that's happening already. It h it changed a um I don't know if it's last year, the year before, I'm sorry, on plat. And it's the same thing. So for plats, we now have a it's a 30-day turnaround. You get seven days initial. I remember it's five or seven.
I'm sorry, off the top of my head, um that you come in and they do a sufficiency check like for completeness. Then as soon as that's done, we have 30 days to review and um we try to line that up with the our TRC comments. So that way from that day it goes out and
either I mean either they get them back to us within that time frame or they'll say, "Hey, we need more time so we can fix it." But um it hasn't been an issue meeting the 30-day as far as I know for getting out the plat. >> I guess with this new homestead law that
might be voted on. John, you probably need to make sure that the county commission doesn't look at your staff and want to whack you because now you're going to be under time constraints of getting things done. So let them know that. >> Susan, you mentioned but this is applicable also to state agencies such
as uh or St. John's water management because I know from >> private property owners that I mean it's it's not local in a lot of cases. It's >> I I don't believe it applies to them. It's just city and local governments.
So, but there is rules, you know, in place that says that if we we can't necessarily hold up stuff based on their approvals. We're not allowed to do that. So, the county still has to move forward with approvals even if these other state agencies haven't given their approval. We usually just say approved subject to
blah and then move it if that makes sense because we can't hold it. >> That's excellent. I think that's excellent. >> That it good enough. We're adjourned. Nice.