planning board to order. If you would please stand for the invocation and pledge allegiance by Mr. Chase Barnes. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, Lord, we
thank you for this day, Lord God. We thank you for the rain that we most need and we just ask for more. God, at this time we Father, we ask that you just u fill us with wisdom, knowledge so that we know what we're doing and how to run move forward with the things that we're
being asked to uh work with. God, we uh again, I just I thank you for those that serve on this board and u just ask that you bless it. It's in Jesus name that I pray. >> Amen. I pledge allegiance 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. >> Thank you. Have a seat. >> Alex, would you please call the role?
>> Yes, sir. Ed Kilber here. Chase Barnes >> here. >> George Loach absent for the record. Earl Wallace >> here. >> Andrew Bernett >> here. >> Wilson >> here. >> Tom Dolan
>> present. >> Well Corum. >> Thank you sir. Now I read the appeals procedures and exparte communication. Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the planning board with respect to any matter considered at such meeting will
will need to hold or need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes may need to ensure the verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based upon Florida statutes
286.0105 0105. Can I have an approval of the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from November 4th, 2025. >> I hear a second. >> Second.
>> Have a motion in a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> All opposed. Seeing none. Passes by unanimous decision. I'll now open the board up to public comments. Anybody has anything to say to the board? Um,
you you speaking is limited to three minutes. No action can be expected to be taken on these items today. Seeing none, I'll move on past that into regular business. Who's going to Yes, sir.
>> Before you go into the regular business, the items, um, there's a change in the agenda. Item 4 D. >> Item 4 D has requested a withdrawal. >> So that should be deleted from the
agenda. >> All right. So 4D D we'll move into PB case 2527 request for variance to the R1A single family
residential district minimum living area located at 14 Franklin v Oliver Way. >> Are you in charge of that sir? >> Yes sir. Good afternoon Chairman Kilibru and planning board members. My name is Ryan Mkels planning department. This is
a request for a variance regarding the minimum living area for a new single family residence located at 14 Frank v. Oliver Way, lot five of the Veterans Village of Palaca subdivision. The future land use for this property is
residential low and the zoning is R1A single family. Veterans Village of Palaka subdivision is located between Twig Street and Cecil. Just a minute, Alex. That TV not working.
>> They made a change into the system. >> That's fine. Earl just can't see it. So, I'm sorry. Okay. That wasn't I'm trying to help you. I really am. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry for the comic relief
in the audience. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. >> That's fine. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Great. >> Uh, the final plat for the subdivision was approved by the Palaca City Commission on November 8, 2018.
The approved subdivision plaque consisted of approximately 2 acres and five individual lots for new single family dwellings. Lot sizes ranged between 7,300 square feet and 9,200 square feet. Frank V. Oliver Way and Veterans Way
were new streets constructed to provide access. Figure one of the staff report shows the approved final plat for Veterans Village of Palaca. Figure two shows the immediate surrounding area and the subject lot for the variance request.
In the summer of 2022, the city planning board and the city commission discussed the creation of a minimum living area for residential units. Prior to that time, there was no minimum living area requirement in the city zoning ordinance. After public hearings were
held, the city commission adopted the minimum living area requirement, which for the R1A zoning district was 850 square ft. Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, the single family residential units on lots one and two had already been constructed, and construction of the
residential unit on lot three was about to commence. Table one of the staff report is a summary of the construction timeline for Veterans Village. Section 94-71 of the city of Palaka Municipal Code outlines the criteria for variance.
Variances shall be considered for development standards only unless otherwise authorized in this chapter and other chapters of the municipal code. The seven criteria uh utilized in evaluating the requested variance
are outlined in your staff report. Uh with regards to criteria one staff comment, there are no special conditions and circumstances that exist uh such as size, shape, topography, or
other unique features that are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same vicinity or zoning district. Staff comment regarding criteria two.
The applicant has acted in good faith to propose a new single family residential unit that otherwise complies with other development standards of the city zoning ordinance. Staff comment regarding criteria three. staff is not aware of any other
residential subdivision development project that commenced before the minimum living area ordinance was adopted in August 2022 and has continued to present day such as Veterans Village of Palaca. Staff comment regarding criteria 4,
literal interpretation and enforcement of the minimum living area requirement would not deprive or cause an undue hardship on the applicant. Staff comment regarding criteria five. The proposed single family residential use is allowed in the R1A zoning
district. Staff comment regarding criteria six. Pum Habitat for Humanity is requesting a variance to construct a 5200 foot single family residential unit on lot 5, which is about 338 square foot
less than what is required by ordinance. Staff comment regarding criteria seven. No detriment to public health, welfare, and safety will occur as a result of this variance. Staff response and findings of fact. Number one, new single family
residential units were built on lots one and two before the minimum living area was codified into the city of Palaka zoning ordinance. Number two, a building permit for the construction of a new single family
residential unit on lot 3 commenced in March 2022, a few months prior to the August 2022 adoption of the minimum living area ordinance. The square footage of the lot 3 single family residential unit is 900 square ft according to the Putham County
Appraisers office. Number three, a new single family residential unit was built on lot four after the city commission adopted the ordinance in August 2022. According to the Putnham County Property Appraisers Office, the residential unit
on lot 4 is 1,000 square ft, which is about 154 square ft more than the minimum living area required by ordinance. And number four, this variance request
for lot 5 is to construct a new 512 ft single family residential unit which is 338 ft less than the minimum living area required ordinance. Um I have Miss Reah Johnson, executive director of Putinham Habitat for
Humanity. She's available if you all have any questions. you have a question? >> I I do when it's time. Yes, >> that concludes my effort. >> Okay, very good. Um, so I do have a a question for the applicant if I can. Um,
step to the podium and give your name and address please for the record. Raikica Johnson, Palaca, Florida 32177. >> I appreciate it. Um I was just curious, um what what factors are preventing you from be able to meet the minimum requirements currently? I understand the
subdivisions. >> Okay. So, this was approved by this committee and the city commission back in 2018, long before this ordinance came about. And I was at that meeting. I was present at that um commission meeting.
Terrell Hill was the chair at that time, the mayor. The discussion was that it would not pertain to the Veterans Village and that um it was an approved subdivision. And what they were saying, the conversation in that meeting was
that they didn't want a tiny house here, there, and somewhere else, which this is tech technically doesn't meet the tiny house definition. It is larger than the definition for tiny house. So, I was under the impression that we would not have any problem moving forward based on
the discussion of that meeting. Um, but staff says that they can't find the minutes of that meeting and put the onus on me to have the minutes of that meeting, which I do not. That was also video recorded. This is we've done one
and twobedroom homes in the Veterans Village. This is the fifth and final home. Um, it's the plan that we've used since day one. Um, I've already paid for engineering and all of that. So, it
would be quite an expense to go back to the drawing board, number one. Number two, it's going to be more of an expense to the homeowner for this additional square footage. He's a single veteran. He technically was homeless several years ago. um he's been on the waiting
list now for at least 3 years to get this house. So, not only would it cost me more money, it would cost him more money in the long run. We don't give these houses away. It's a mortgage. So, um it would be a financial burden not only on the organization but also on the
individual moving into the home. >> Okay. Very good. Um so, what you said the the plans and everything drafted many years ago. >> Yes. Okay. Mhm. and I just paid um our engineer to update them to current building codes. So,
>> very good. Thank you >> for that background. >> Yeah, I remember I remember the um the meetings and all that we had about the tiny homes. I mean, that was a big thing about >> Yeah. And they could find the article with me on the front page of the paper
talking about it, but for some reason they can't seem to find the minutes of the meeting or the video of the meeting. Just a point of clarification, I did provide that >> step to the microphone, please. >> Yeah, just for a point of clarification, I did reply supply Miss Johnson with an
with the minutes from the city commission meeting and I did notify her that I did review the city commission meeting um where they talked about the minimum square foot ordinance. It was my understanding that at that time the plat
was approved back in November of 2018, but the plat obviously did not show any uh sizes for homes. So, it showed the areas for the lots, but there were no uh footprints for the homes that would be
built on that plat. >> So, I've got a question. Um, is this is the next to the last home? This >> This is the last home. I'm trying to finish it up. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, so,
>> and also the lots are not quite a quarter acre because of all the infrastructure we had to put in. They're not full quarter acre lot. So, if I were to go with a bigger house footprint, I'm not sure that we could meet all the
setbacks. I also had to go to the state department of health to get a variance to put a septic on these lots because they're not a full quarter acre. So, I'm not sure a larger house is going to fit on this little lot.
>> So, these homes are not I don't remember. They're not attached to city water and sewer. >> Only water. Y'all didn't have city sewer there. And it was the proposal was like half a million dollars to get city sewer there.
>> Did you have a question, Mr. G? >> I do. And Earl does. Okay. Let me >> Wilson. Go ahead. >> Okay. Little clarification. So, in these houses 448 ft, 476. How many people live in? >> It's one person and it's actually the
one bedroom is 512 square foot. Um, Yeah. >> And how many are in the 900 ft and the thousand foot house? >> There is no thousand square foot house. Um not sure where that came from. The um
onebedroom is 512 square ft under roof. It's 448 without the porch. So that's heating and cooled. Those have one person in them. Um the twobedroom is 952 square ft with the
porch. It's 840 heated and cooled living. So, what the two bedrooms technically could have two people living in them. Okay. >> Um I have one that's a a great grandmother and a child living in a two-bedroom. The other one is a single man living in a two-bedroom.
>> Okay. So, what's needed is one single man. He just needs this one bedroom. >> Yes, ma'am. And like I said, he's was technically homeless. Um has been on the waiting list for three years. He had a lot of health problems. He was in the hospital for a long time. We really
didn't think he was going to make it. And one day he walked in my office and said, "Can I still get that house?" Um, which was really kind of a miracle. But right now, he is living with his son. Prior to that, he was paying $400 a month to sleep on somebody's couch. And
that was after he had been homeless for a long time and literally living in the woods. I'm sorry, Tom. I'll get you next. >> I'm going be kind of sketchy. Um,
what's our minimum spirit footage on the house? >> I thought it was 850 according to the new ordinance. I'm not >> That's right. is 850 square ft >> and less >> 1200 square ft
>> or if it's in an approved subdivision question to the chair or believe but the 850 applies throughout the city, >> right? >> But the plaque was approved before the commission. So, does the plaque approval preose
approval for final plants? >> It does predate it. However, plat specify the square footage of the structures that go on them. They merely deal with the dirt.
If I may add, uh, an argument could be made that because these are legal lot of records, they're entitled to the the standards that were applied at that time. >> Say that again, please, sir.
If because these are lots legal out of record then argue could be made that because they are legal out of records then the standard that were applied at that time could be applied to this last lot in this subdivision
>> in in other words that because they were the legal lot of record they were vested with that entitlement at that time. That's correct. and any subsequent restriction on their ability to build what was in effect at 2018 would almost
be a taking of their private property rights. >> That's right. >> Say that again, please. >> I'm Paul. An argument could be made that they were vested with their entitlements at the time the plat was adopted in 2018
and any subsequent more restrictive regulation which the ordinance that was passed under the Hill administration basically banning tiny homes would be such a restriction in this particular case basically could be viewed as a
private property taking because they cannot build under the previous parameters. Most people would view it the other way because they think a bigger house is better, but the opposite is the case here. They're trying to go smaller and that restriction precluded them from the
full beneficial use of the property the way they intended. >> Okay. >> When this came before us way back then, uh did we have a minimum square footage on a house? No.
>> No. And this is when we figured out we had to clean up the >> 850. >> We did do the 850 women. That was part of it. I don't think it it was this particular thing that was going
>> somebody over on the north side that was trying to build really really tiny homes. >> They were I'll forget super duper small like maybe a 10 by 10. I think they were 100 square foot or something. Yeah, they were they it was very small. That's what we were trying to get away from.
>> The recommendation of 850 ft from this planning board to the commission. How they come up with >> I don't remember exactly how we came up with it. It was um I think >> were you legal counsel then? You were not. That's right. >> I didn't think you were.
>> No, but we cashed it out and talked about it. >> Yeah. I just can't remember exactly where we set the numbers. >> I never saw the minutes, but I was at that meeting and I do recall the discussion being and Terrell Hill saying
because I was there, you know, debating it. >> He was the one that was against it. >> He said the 850 only applied to homes here, there, and somewhere else. if they were in an approved subdivision that
that minimum square foot did not apply. Now, whether that got into the ordinance, I don't know. I haven't read through the entire ordinance. >> You going to step back up and speak to that, please, sir? Huh? >> Yes. So, included in your packet is that
ordinance. Uh it's my interpretation that uh the subdivision was built with the R1A uh zoning regulations. The subdivision meets the lot size for R1A.
Um I know there was a question about whether or not a 850 foot home could be built on this lot. It could. Uh but uh from my viewing of the minutes or that meeting, that commission meeting,
um I apologize. I did not hear any conversation about Veterans Village or subdivisions being excluded from this ordinance. Uh >> were you through with your whole presentation? >> I am. And also just want to uh point out
that the square footages that were noted uh in table one uh the 448 476 900 104 those were all from the Putinham County Appraisers office records. >> Okay. And what is what is y's recommendation
on this? >> G >> Mr. Chair, we don't do recommendations. >> That's right. I'm sorry. You did. You did it one time and we don't >> y'all messed me up with that. Okay. >> Oh, me too. >> I'm ready.
>> Okay. Well, is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak to Mr. Kitchens? >> Allegra Kitchens, Palaca, Florida. Tiny homes are 220 ft or less and that's what the city commission was against. 850 comes nowhere close to the tiny uh the
tiny home ordinance. The fact that a this subdivision is an old subdivision that predates the time that the uh minimum size for houses was approved by the commission and the major thing is variances are allowed. So you should allow this variance as to the meeting is how it got to 850 ft. I remembered
exactly I was at the meeting if memory serves correctly and it does in most cases. You all recommended 1,200 square f feet. I got up and spoke in favor of that. Commissioner Jones wanted 850 square ft and I quote, "So everybody has a right to build a house anywhere, historic district or anywhere. That's
why it went down to 850." Uh 1,200 I thought was very good. But that's not the question here. But I just want to give you some background information on it. Uh but again, you need to pass this. Go ahead and let them have the var. The variance is allowed. If it's allowed, do it. And the fact that it might be a restriction on their private property rights, that's a big red flag. So I
would say go ahead and pass it. Last house in the subdivision. You want to deal with it again in this subdivision? Thank you. Thank you, Miss Kiss. >> All righty. If nobody else has got anything to say to this, I will bring this back to the board.
>> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Yes, sir. Um because the the proposed building is consistent with the subdivision and it would be the last construction in the subdivision. I move that this board approve the variance. I >> have a motion to have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Do I have any motion in a second? Do I
have any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor by saying I >> I. >> All those opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to
case PB25-24 annex. Amend future land use map and reszone parcel. Um, not number 11-10-26-0000-574-000012. Address 902 South Highway 19. Take it away, ma'am.
>> Good afternoon, everybody. >> Good afternoon. >> This is a request to annex a parcel measuring approximately 1.09 acres into the city of Palaca. The purpose of connecting to the city's utilities. The request includes amending the future
land use map from Putnham County commercial CR to city of Aelka commercial COOM and reszone from Putham County commercial retail C2 to city of ALA intensive commercial C2. The parcel
is located at 902 South State Road 19. The property is a developed commercial plaza with several stores in it already. The applicant wishes to connect to the city's water and sewer facilities nearby. This would reduce the existing county enclave.
The proposed annexation meets Florida statute 171 which governs annexation in the state. The annexation meets the contiguity requirement as it borders city limits to the north and to the east. There is water capacity to serve
this property. The parcel is within an existing commercial area. The subject property currently has Putnham County commercial CR. The request is to designate city palaca commercial COM in the future land use map of the city
land use map is consistent with the comprehensive plan criteria for the land use designation change as indicated in the staff analysis report. The reasonzoning also meets the standards required in the code chapter 94.
The analysis of the annexation, future land use comprehensive plan amendment, and resoning is in the staff rep report that's included in your packet. Staff recommends the following. We recommend the approval of the request
to annex the approximately 1.09 09 acre property into the city. And we recommend approval to amend the future land use map from Putnham County Commercial CR to City of Palaca commercial COOM. And lastly, we recommend approval to reszone
the parcel from Putham County Commercial Retail C2 to City of Palaca Intensive Commercial C2 be approved. Uh the applicants are here. If you have any questions or questions for me, >> does anybody on the board have any
questions? Would the applicant like to care care to speak up step up to the I can't talk step up to the podium and speak tonight this afternoon? No. >> One or two places
supposed to connect to the city the Are you supposed to connect to the existing city parcel on one or two sides of the property? >> I think it's one side. >> Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's one side, too. >> Okay.
>> Yes, sir. Any other questions? I'm messed up when we got back to staff recommendations and we can't have a staff recommendation on stuff. I'm just >> that's on variances. >> I'm just
all righty. Chase, do we have a Uh, Mr. Chair, I move that um pertaining to these partial number 11-1026 0000574 0012 that this board approved the
request to annex into the city. >> I have a motion to have a second. I have a motion second by Mr. Wallace. There any questions? Anybody want to speak to this from the public? No, I'm kind of lost. I kind of got backtracked
on that one. Um, bring it back up to the board. Any discussion from the board. Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed. Seeing none, it's
unanimous. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, um, >> Mr. Barnes. >> With regards to the same parcel, um I recommend that this board approve the request to amend the future land use map from Putnham County Commercial to City of Palaka Commercial.
>> I'll second. >> Motion by Mr. Barnes, second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Seeing
none, motion passes unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, >> Mr. Barnes, >> with regards to the same parcel, I recommend that this board approved the request to reszone from Putnham County commercial retail C2 to City of Placa Intensive Commercial C2.
>> I have a motion to have a second. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Mr. Barner, second by Miss Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify. signify by saying I >> I >> I all those opposed seeing none motion
passes unanimously. >> Congratulations. Moving along to PBK 25-25 annex amend future land use map and reszone parcel number 37-09-26-0000-230-000010
address 106 comfort Road. Applicants are Whitley Automotive Restoration LLC. Huh? >> Me again. >> Jack in the box. >> This is a request to annex a parcel measuring approximately 3.66 acres into
the city of Palaca for the purpose of connecting to the city utilities. The request includes amitting the future land use map from Putnham County Industrial IN to City of Palaca Industrial IN and to reszone from
Putnham County Industrial Heavy IH to City of Palaca Light Industrial M1. The parcel is located at 106 Comfort Road. The property has been cleared and currently has a concrete driveway. The goal of the applicant is to construct
two metal buildings for industrial use as stated in the staff report. The proposed annexation meets Florida statute 171 which governs annexation in the statement. The annexation meets the contiguity requirement as it borders
limits to the east. There is water capacity to serve the property. The parcel is within a mix of industrial and commercial. The subject property currently has Putnham County industrial in. It will be designated city of Palacta industrial in
the future land use map of the city. The proposed amendment for the future land use map is consistent with the comprehensive plan criteria for the land use designation change as indicated in the staff analysis report. The reasonzoning also meets the
standards required in the code chapter 94. The analysis of the annexation future land use comprehensive plan amendment and resoning is in the staff report included in your agenda packet. Staff recommends the following. We
recommend approval of the request to annex the approximately 3.66 acre property into the city. We recommend the approval to amend the future land use map from Putham County Industrial IN to City of Palaca
Industrial IN. And lastly, we appro recommend approval to reszone the parcel from Putnham County Industrial Heavy IH to City of Palaca Light Industrial M1. The applicant is here as well if you
have any questions or questions for me. >> Any questions? Would the applicant like to step forward and speak? >> Step forward and put give us your name and address, please. For the record. >> Home address. >> Home address.
>> That's fine. >> I'm Dominic Whitley. I live in St. Augustine, Florida. 32080. >> Full address. >> I'm sorry. >> Full address. >> Full address. Yeah. >> Oh. 9134 June Lane. St. Augustine. Sorry. >> We're not coming to see you.
You can if you want. >> Okay. Board got any questions? >> I've got one. I notice staff recommends uh the changing from heavy industrial to light industrial. Is that going to pose the burden to you? >> I think that's all you really got to work with. Is that what I understand?
>> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. That is the only industrial that we have. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Does anybody from the audience got anything they'd like to say?
>> M kitchens. >> No. Thank you. >> Little late then. >> Yeah, I know. That's okay. >> Yes, sir.
>> Have to go under the railroad tracks. >> I don't think so, but I I cannot guarantee you that. But I I don't think he he has to go under. >> Yes, sir. Give us your name and address. >> Brian Lester. I'm the contractor on this
job. And um address is 3504 Evergreen Avenue, Banell, Florida10. >> Um what we did is I talked to Eli, okay, when this all started, J.R. Grimes kind of told us look into this. And that's
the first kind of I can say that we got in and Eli said to me, "You'll have to go into railroad tracks if you ever dealt with CRX." >> Okay. Oof. >> God bless them, but woof. >> Well, I found out from the
fire marshall about the new structure that's being built right there. And they had, you know, had to have sprinklers. So, I made a phone call to Eli and said, "What's on 17?" So, we're coming from 17. I actually met with him and Bud this morning. We're coming from 17 and going
down 17. That's about 620 ft. And we're going to tie in and put in another fire hydrant. So, we'll have hydrants right there and try to keep it moving. So, it is not going under CSX. >> Yes, sir.
>> I'm sorry. I was just looking at something here. Um, okay. Seeing no further from the audience, bring it back to the board. >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> You may, Mr. Barnes. >> With regards to partial number
37092600230. I move that this board approve the request to annex into the city of Pala. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Motion by Mr. Barnes, second by Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion from the board? Seeing none, all those in favor
signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Mr. Barnes, you may. >> With regards to the same parcel, I move that this board approve the request to amend the future land use map from
Putnham County Industrial to City of Palaska Industrial. I'll second. >> I have a motion by Mr. Barnes and a second by Miss Wilson. Any discussion with the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed? Seeing none. Motion passes unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Mr. Barnes, you may. Um, regarding the same parcel, I move that this board approve the request to reszone from Putnham County Industrial Heavy to City
of Palaca Light Industrial M1. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Mr. Barnes and second by Mrs. Wilson. Any discussion amongst the board? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, same
sign. Seeing none, motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Yes, sir. Next in line. Oh, that's right. It's withdrawn. Do we
have any further business come to port? >> Anybody? >> Did the um staff have anything they'd like to allow? >> Oh, no comments. Miss West coming. Okay. Board
>> Tuesday. >> The first Tuesday of January. >> We have no >> It's fixed. >> Okay. >> All right. Seeing no more business to come to board. Do I hear a motion? And
I'm going to say it this time, Mrs. West. Did I hear the motion to adjourn? I second that motion. >> I asked for a motion. I didn't make motion. >> I just I'm a second. >> We have a motion. >> Thank you. >> And a second. Meeting adjourned. Thank
you very much for your time. Yeah.