Good evening everyone. We're here at the city of Opaaka planning and zoning board meeting. Today's date is April 7th, 2026. And we do have quorum. So we'll go ahead
and take attendance. >> Good evening everyone. Board member Audrey Dominguez >> here. >> Board member Aldo Mata >> present. >> Board member Claudine Hibbert Smith >> here. >> Board member Audrey I'm sorry, Don Mangum Zapsel.
>> Okay, we do have quorum. Um, as a part of our operating procedures, we do need to have someone serve as the chair for this particular meeting. I would like to ask it if we will have a volunteer for someone to serve as the chair.
>> Okay, I'll do it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, board member Dominguez for serving as the chair for this meeting. Um the the agenda is presented before you. Um let us have the invocation and the
pledge of allegiance. And may I suggest we have a invocation by our zoning official, Mr. Gerald Lee. you Lord to look on us as we go about the business of the city of Obalaka. Give us strength, give us understanding,
give us courage, but help us in unity do the things that we need to do in Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. Pledge >> algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all. >> Okay, Mr. Dominguez, the agenda is for you. >> Okay. Can we have approval of the minutes for March 3rd, 2026? Can I have
someone to move it? >> Move it. Second. >> You second. >> You moved it. >> I second. >> Madam clerk, roll call.
>> Board member Claudine Hbert Smith. >> Yes. >> Board member Andre Dominguez. >> Yes. >> And board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approve. Three zero. >> Okay. So now we have a item number one.
I'll go ahead and read item one into the record. And just to let you know, board members, um, as we are going through this particular agenda today, this is actually the result of our comprehensive master plan, which was approved about a year ago. One of the things that we did
notice as we went through that particular exercise is that there were some areas within our city that did not have the proper zoning classification. So, this agenda is really more of a cleanup
um as it regards to those particular areas that did not have the proper zoning in place at the time. So with that being said, u the first item is an ordinance of the city of Opaaka, Florida considering the reszoning
request from the current single family R1 zoning district to a moderate density residential R3 zoning district for approximately 12,744
square ft of land located at 2301 1 Atlantic Avenue and identify by folio numbers 082122 01 9 0060 and to amend the the zoning map to make
it consistent with the comprehensive master plan providing for an effective date and that is item one. Mr. Lee will make a quick presentation. Good evening board members. Um
the items on the agenda are all resoning items. Um, we've selected six properties in particular that needed to be brought back into um, compatibility with the zoning code for the uses that are on those
properties. Uh, in my presentation, I did not include individual ordinances for the resonings because they are all uniform. So walk with me through this and we'll we'll vote separately, but I want to make the
presentation for all six properties because it's all the same. Okay, as Mr. Gay stated um since we've updated our comprehensive plan, the next move is to uh make the land development regulations reflect the
changes that were suggested. One of the things that we wanted to address, which is in this presentation, is making making compatible the zoning code for places that have been incorrectly
assigned or uh designated and make those comprehensively congruent to what they should be. Comprehensive plan sets the goals of what the city needs to do. And so the land development regulations which
includes the zoning map identifies what zoning designations are for the properties and the uses that are there. So we are looking at the zoning designation changes uh in the area around Atlantic
Avenue. These are going to be changes from single family residential R1 to moderate density residential R3. The properties that I'm identifying um for this particular type of resoning
is the property at 2301 Atlantic Avenue, 2311 Atlantic Avenue, and 2321 Atlantic Avenue. I'm also uh uh we're we're also recommending uh zoning designation
change from residential townhouse to moderate density residential R3. We we're asking for this designation change for the property at 2330 Opaaka Boulevard, which is a proposed
address. It that property doesn't have an address. um and the property at 2330 Atlantic Avenue which has multiple units. So there's multiple addresses for that site. And the third property is an elderly
development which is at 2300 Northwest 136th Street. These changes are necessary because the uses that are there, if we back up, the previous three um properties at 2301
through 2321 are all multifamily twotory apartment complexes, but they are currently zoned single family. That's in congruent. That that should not be how it how it is. And so we're
trying to bring compatibility with what the uses are in this particular thing for properties that have been out of sync for a long period of time. We're talking 20 years, I believe, at the very least for all three of these properties.
the other three properties at 2330 uh Atlantic, 2330 Opalaka Boulevard, and 2300 136 Street. They have been in those wrong designations for at least 20 years also, if not more. And so this is a part
of what we must do with the update of the comp plan and the associated changes that would be reflected in the zoning code. Here's the picture of the location that we're talking about at the the properties at the top of the the
picture. Those are the three properties that are multif family apartment buildings that have been zoned single family and we're changing it to R3 which is congruent with the use that's there. the properties at the south end. The
large one to the right at the bottom is the elderly um um structure which is a fourstory apartment complex but it's zone um um townhouse and the other two are
parallel to each other but they're also zone townhouse but they have multiple units at the top one. The bottom one is a vacant lot. So we want to go ahead and uniformly make the changes that are necessary. So if someone comes in and wants to develop it, they can develop it
based on what is proximal to it and be compatible in the area. To do resonings in the city of Opalaka, the land development regulations require meeting certain criteria to do resonings. The first criteria
is that the proposed change is is contrary to established land use patterns. We meet this criteria because the properties the proposed change is not contrary to the established land use pattern. It's just incorrect and we are
making the correction. The reasoning brings it back into compliance with what it should be instead of being out of sync like it is at present. Another criterion is the proposed change would create spot zoning.
This change will not create spot zoning in that there are multifamily uh zoning districts within this area. And when you look at the area that is north and east and west for the most part they are single family. And what
we're doing is making this area that should be changed be what it needs to be and not be spot zoning. And that's why we're doing it u as we are. It's it's adjacent to residential townhouse zoning districts which permitted higher density
than for single family and that's why we're making that change. The other criteria is the proposed change would alter the population or traffic patterns and thereby negatively impact public facilities such as
schools, utilities or streets. The properties have been there for 20 years and the ones that are developed have been developed for more than 20 years. We are not changing any patterns. We're not adding any traffic. We're not changing any uses. It's just we're
calling a duck a duck in this particular instance, if you will. Um, we're we're making sure that multif family uses are called multif family instead of something else. The next criteria is the proposed zoning
district boundaries would become more illogically drawn. It is not going to be more illogically drawn uh drawn. It's going to be logically drawn. And that's why we're requesting or recommending this change so that it will be
compatible and correct. Another criterion is the proposed change would be in conflict with all or portions of the city's comprehensive plan. This change is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. In fact,
the comprehensive plan has given us our marching orders to do what it is that we're doing so that the multif family use and the land use is going to be congruent as it needs to be.
Another criteria is there is an additional need for uses permitted within the proposed zoning district. There is an additional need for uses permitted within the proposed zoning district to allow for more residential
units through redevelopment or by combining lots for greater massing and increase the number of units and amenities. What I'm saying here is for the property that's not developed when it's reszoned it will have the capacity
or the allowance to to increase the density for developing something that needs to be there. If we didn't make this change for, god forbid there was a fire that destroyed the building, you had a 16 unit building and now you'd only be able to build again a single
family home. That doesn't make any sense. So, we're making the change to do what needs to be done to move forward and be in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The the next criterion is the proposed
change would alter the population or traffic patterns thereby negatively impacting public facilities such as schools, utilities. That sounds familiar. >> Excuse me, Mr. Lee. >> I think it is. Okay. Next one. The
proposed zoning district boundaries. Nope. The proposed change would be a conflict with all or portions of the city's comprehensive plan. There is an additional need for uses permitted within the proposed zoning
district. I did that one. The proposed change will adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood if applicable. The proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood as the property is
located in a residential neighborhood. If you if you looked at the uh original picture that I showed you, everything around it is single family homes and then that area itself is all multifamily uses but never zoned correctly based on
that use. And there are other multif family zoning districts to the west of that on the same street. >> Excuse me, Mr. Lee. Yes. >> Click up to two, sir. I think we're behind one. I think we're behind one on the uh presentation.
>> Okay. Okay. I need Yes. Okay. The next criterion is the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It will not change any of the infrastructure in the properties that
we're asking for the resonings because all that infrastructure was already in place based on the use that's there. The only thing that's in congruent here is the zoning designation. The next criteria is the proposed change
will reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this was going to be developed and maybe it was different, maybe that would be a concern. But these structures are already in place. All of the structures
are in place except for the vacant lot. And our hope is that when it's redeveloped, it will include the property to the north for the massing that needs to happen. And it'll be based on multif family zoning. The prop the this other criteria is the
proposed change will adversely affect property values. The properties are already valued. They're already assessed. They're already uh computed based on what is on the property. There's not going to be any changes with
this zoning change. It is making them coherent with and in agreement with the comp plan and zoning principle. The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement uh or development of adjacent property.
This is not going to be a fear or a concern. The property is already developed. It's not going to make any changes. It's not going to do anything to the neighborhood because it's what needs to be changed for it to be in agreement. The proposed change will constitute a
grant of special privilege. It is not a granting of a special privilege when the construction the development has already occurred and it's not anything that the property owner is is requesting. It is the city
making the area coherent and compatible as it needs to be with the comp plan and the zoning um um um designation. Now whether the change suggested is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood, it is not out of scale. It
is in support and in agreement with the uses that are in the area and these properties. the uses that are there are out of sync now and we're putting them in the right position. It is possible to find other sites
already zone permitting the uses requested. There are other sites that have multif family uses but we are not talking about making a special category of uses to have them for this area.
These are properties that are already using what this zoning district designation change uh allows them to do. It's just incorrectly assessed at this time. The proposed resoning would meet all other regulations.
The property does meet all of the other requirements because they were built based on the uses that are on the properties. It's just that the zoning designation was not there for what they did. That's again another picture to show
you. All of the yellow is residential uses and we're making the areas that's highlighted that's going to be for multif family. So you'll see what the neighborhood looks like. Staff recommends approval of these
zoning designation changes for the properties listed pending any conditions that may be imposed by the zoning appeals board. And if I may, um, let me just add a little bit of detailed information. The
first three items are for apartment buildings. I think there are eight units per building. which were built in 1972 and the zoning at that time was single family but yet and still these buildings
came into being in 1972. The senior housing uh which is approximately 100 units was built in 2006. So that was 20 years ago that that particular structure was done. And
ironically, it was done in conjunction with the townhouse townhouse development which is just to the east of it. So I think there may have been at some point in time they wanted to build all town homes in that area and then the
programming changed and they decided to do senior housing on this particular site. So, we're basically coming back and making sure that the zoning is consistent with the structures that are there
or what should be there in relationship to the developments that have occurred more than 20 years ago. It does not change the land use. The land use remains as residential. Um, so we will be still consistent as it
relates to that particular category. Uh, so we're only looking at the change in the zoning for these particular properties. If you have any questions, staff is prepared to address them. >> Does anyone have any questions?
>> No question. >> I have a question. Um, so we're basically trying to be in compliance basically because of what was done. >> Yes, ma'am. >> 1972 and then 2006. Now, um, is it is
there do we potentially have a developer that wants to come in and possibly knock this down and build other >> Well, if if we have that, we haven't been informed. >> Okay. But what we're doing is addressing
the fact that the zoning on the ground is not compatible with what has been there for over 20 years and trying to bring that into compliance based on the fact that the comp plan asked us to make sure that zoning is correct based on
zoning. >> Okay. >> Okay. That was my question. Now I think that the folios needs each property folio needs to be read into record. Am I correct? >> Correct. Okay. >> I was just making the presentation
because it's all uniform. >> Um I believe just to be consistent I think we need to read each one individually and vote on them individually. So we've already read item item one into the record. So all all we require for
item one is for a motion for approval or denial. >> But that the the address but the folio number was not read. Who read it? >> Yes, I read the folio. Yes, I did. >> So do we have a motion to approve?
>> That's correct, Mr. K. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, madam attorney. Yep. Motion to approve. >> Claudia second. >> Madame clerk. Uh, roll call. >> Board member Claudian Hibbert Smith.
>> Yes. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes. >> Board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approved. 30. >> Okay. So, I'm going to read the rest of the items into the record and after each one, we will have to have a motion and a
vote. >> Okay. The ordinance for the an ordinance for the city of city commission of the city of Opaaka considering the reszoning request from the current single family zoning R1 zoning district to a moderate
density residential R3 zoning district for approximately 12,744 square foot of land located at 7, excuse me, located at 2311 Atlantic Avenue and
identified by Folio 082122 019 080 and providing for an amendment to the zoning map to make it consistent with the comprehensive master plan providing for an effective date. This is item two.
>> Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. Claudia second. >> Madam clerk, roll call. >> Board member Clardudine Hibbert Smith. >> Yes. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes. >> Board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approved 30.
Continuing with item three, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Okalaka considering the reszoning from the current single family R1 zoning district to a moderate density residential R3 zoning district for
approximately 14,364 square ft of land located at 2321 Atlantic Avenue and identified by folio number 08. 8 2122 019 01 0 0 and to amend the zoning map to
make it consistent with the comprehensive master plan and providing for an effective date. That's item three. >> Motion to approve. >> Claudian second roll call. >> Board member Clardudine Hibbert Smith
>> approved. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes. and board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approved. 30. Moving on to item four, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Opalaka considering the
reszoning request for approximately 7,992 ft of land located at 2330 Atlantic Avenue and providing and identified by folia number 082122
011 0640 from the current residential townhouse RTH zoning district to a moderate density residential townhouse.
>> That's it for res moder residential moder moderate density residential zoning R3 zoning district and to amend the zoning map to make it consistent with the comprehensive master plan and the current use providing for an
effective date. That's item four. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Uh, board member Claudine Hibbert Smith. >> Yes. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes.
>> And board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approved three zero. >> Okay. Item five, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Opaaka considering the reszoning of the current residential townhouse RTH zoning
district to a moderate density residential R3 zoning district for approximately 6,156 ft of land located at approximately 2330
Opaaka Boulevard and identified by folio number 08. 8 2122 011 0650 and to amend the zoning map to make it consistent with the comprehensive master plan providing for an effective date.
Item five. >> Motion to approve. >> Claudian second. >> Board member Claudine Hbert Smith. >> Yes. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes. >> And board member Aldo Mata. >> Yes. >> Approved 30.
And item six, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Opaaka considering the reszoning request for the current residential town home RTH zoning district to the moderate density residential R3 zoning district
for approximately 65,000 square ft of land located at 2300 Northwest 136th Street and identified by folio number 082122. 2 032
08 1 0 and to amend the zoning map to make it consistent with the comprehensive master plan and provide for an effective date. That's item six. >> Motion to approve. >> Claudian second.
>> Board member Claudine Hibbert Smith >> approved. >> Board member Audrey Dominguez. >> Yes. >> And board member Aldumata. >> Approve. >> Approved. 30. >> Thank you. And just as a closing, this
is just a few of the many zoning cleanups that we're going to be providing. So, we're going to be providing this information to you. We wanted did we didn't want to overburden you with a lot of things, but over the next couple of months, we're going to
basically try to make sure that our zoning code is getting cleaned up so that we can make sure that it is consistent with our comprehensive master plan. >> Are we no further announcements? >> No further announcements. can adjurnn.
Second. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.