Hello everyone. Just doing a voice check on audio. Can everyone hear me? Okay. >> What are you doing? >> I am on vacation. This is what I do for fun. >> Really? No.
>> Really? You're not gonna be here today? >> We got Crockett. He just showed up. >> Okay. So, you can hear me all right? >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you. Ed sporting a straw hat. Very uh very
Kentucky Derby there. eating. >> I'm having a school party with Margarita after >> cutting the audio. Jane, >> I'll be back next. Can you hear us now?
>> I can hear and see you now. >> Quite often. Did you mute Did you mute us on purpose or >> say that again? >> Did you mute us on purpose or >> No, I'm
I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing. Um Ed, can you make sure that your microphone is >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes, that is so much. >> Okay. Well, I didn't have my mic on. I thought I thought they had like a area mic going on here that you could hear
me. Not that you want to hear me. >> No, no, you're all good. Coming in loud and clear. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And if everyone could please just make sure to speak into the mics and have the podium mic on when there's a speaker there as well.
>> Turn your mic on, Earl. >> She said no. He said no. >> Right. That's how I know it's Earl. >> You said I told her you said no and she said right. That's how I know it's Earl.
>> Okay. Ed, you want to do the pledge? Okay. Oh, open person. >> That's my Oh, Pastor Malberry. Look at him. It's good to see you, sir.
Better than being viewed, isn't it? Yeah. >> Thank you, Mary. >> Yeah, it's 4:00. >> It is not. Oh, okay. Well, I'm going by that clock back there. I guess I can't. Okay. with Jenny, please. Because I don't
know. Now we're good. It is 4:00. I'm going to call this June 2nd meeting of the Paka Planning Board to order. We will start with an invocation by Pastor
Malberry. Malberry and um the pledge of allegiance by Miss Edy. If you would please stand. Let's pray. Father, again, we thank you for how good you've been. Thank you for bringing us together once again. We
praise you for all your many benefits and all your many blessings. We pray God that you will look on this board and that you will crown their heads with wisdom. Give them God to do and what to do in every situation. We ask for your
guidance, for your wisdom, your understanding and your courage to make decisions God that affect the furtherance of this community. And we thank you in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen.
I 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 and justice for all. >> Please have a seat.
>> Alex, if you would call roll, please. Yes, sir. Edibru >> here. >> Chase Barnes >> here. >> Wallace >> here. >> Andrew Bernett >> here. >> Edy Wilson >> here.
>> Tom Dolan absent for the record. >> We have Corum. >> Thank you. The appeal and procedures exparte and exparte communication. Has anybody on this board had any expar communication
with anything about this? Okay. None. Thank you. The appeal procedure. Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the planning board with respect to any matter considered at such meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Which record includes the testimony and evidence upon the appeal which the appeal is based upon? Florida statute 286
0105. I need an approval of the minutes from the May 5th meeting. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes from May 5th. Mr. Barnes approves or made the motion. Do I hear a second?
>> I'll second. Need the seconds. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, motion passes unanimously. >> We'll move on to the public comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes and do not expect any action to be taken
on items that anybody wants to bring forward right now. Seeing none, we'll move on past that to regular business. Okay. We're going to item a appeal of the sta appeal of staff decision to planning board request for
zoning verification to allow replacement of existing single family structure at 1509 St. John's Avenue in the C2 zoning district. Who's who's got Dorenzo? You have that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Good afternoon, commissioners. Before I start with the the appeal um and give a little bit of the background, I think we need to explain to you why you hear an appeal as the planning board. Uh and the reason is because we don't have we
do have a zoning appeal board. However, hasn't met in years and we don't have enough members even to complete a quorum. So, in consultation with the city attorney, uh we place this item for your consideration. is an appeal of the
staff termination. So, uh I don't know um Jen, you want to add anything else to that? >> So, we are going to have to swear in all witnesses um that will be testifying. So, uh Lorenzo, that would include you
if you plan on submitting testimony and the appellant. So, if everyone could please stand. If you plan on presenting any testimony to this board, raise your right hand. And do you swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth in this
proceeding? >> I do. >> Okay. And can we for the record clarify who was sworn in? >> We have U Lorenzo GMO, planning director. Sarah Meyer
Justin >> calling ahead >> Mildred Suite. >> Okay. So what we're going to do uh there's a template in your staff package that um we're going to be following. You
already went through your exparte disclosures. Um and so now we are going to have a staff presentation basically on the the background and the chronology of the staff decision in this matter and then the appellant uh Sarah will have an
opportunity to basically present the basis of their appeal of that staff determination. Um and and then you know this is kind of a formal template so you know bear with us but there is an opportunity to cross-examine
um if desired and then we go into public comment um after the the city presents any sort of rebuttal testimony to to Sarah's case and chief and then it goes back to the planning board after public
comment um for your deliberation in terms of how you want to move forward. Just so you understand your voting options here, you have two choices. After listening to all the sworn testimony and reviewing all the relevant
material, you can affirm the administrative decision of the planning director regarding the zoning verification. And basically, this is denying the appeal and the property is going to remain commercial zoning. Or your second
option is you can overturn the administrative decision of the planning director regarding the zoning and basically that means that the appellants appeal is upheld and the property will be permitted to remain residential use.
So if there are no questions we can go ahead and proceed with the staff presentation on the background. If I may real quick, one question. So, um, how does this a A and B are related
cases? Um, if if A is affirming the administrative decision, does that mean B is is stricken from the uh minutes? Is am I understanding that correctly? >> That maybe I can address that answer that question. Uh, yes. they the
applicant did submit an appeal and in the case the appeal is denied they also have a reasonzoning as another means you know to get to where they want to get okay however you know I would recommend that even if you grant the appeal that
you still clear the zoning request because you know uh your decision can be appealed by staff to the city commission okay I misunderstood Okay. So, it's two separate cases, same property.
>> Yeah, same property. >> Very good. Thank you. >> So, so if I just going to give you a a brief um background to this item that is in front of you, it all started with the zoning verification
request by by the appellant in this case. Um it was regarding an existing property. Uh the question was whether the property can be demolished and replaced with a new unit. Uh, I responded with a with a letter dated
April 20th, 2026 and basically stating that that the residential new residential construction is prohibited in the zoning district where they are located, which is the commercial Z2 zoning district and
with a flu with a future land use uh designation of commercial. After that uh I send a letter to to the applicant and then at a later date based on conversation that I have uh
with peace me I confirm with another letter confirm you know the interpretation of the code and so that she can have the the option or the ability to appeal this decision in this case to the planning board.
Like I said it before, the parcel has a future line use designation of commercial and is on commercial high C2. The parcel is developed with an existing single family home which is not a permitted use in the C2 zoning district.
However, the the the single family home, the existing single family home uh has a vested non-conforming use and is legal uh to remain in place. The issue arises when the request is to demolish that
unit and replace it with a new one. that that action uh basically remove the vesting provision and they loosen conformity status. That means they have to conform to the existing code and the
code does not allow residential use of a single family home. It does allow commercial like a mixeduse commercial with a apartment on top that is residential. So you will have like a retail on the first floor with an
apartment on top. That is permitted. That is the only type of residential use that is permitted in the C2. So based on that in the confirmation letter that I sent to Miss Meyer then they appealed this decision and that's what is in front of you.
Basically, it staff interpretation is exactly what the code says, but Jesus is not permitted to use. It's legally non-conforming. It can remain in place. However, when they demolish that unit and they build a new one, then they lose the non-conformity provision.
>> You lose what? >> The nonconformity provision that they have the vesting. And I might just add, you know, that the intent of the the intent of the code and the and the comprehensive plan always
was that that corridor of St. John's remain a commercial corridor. And I understand that there are existing other single family home existing on that corridor. However, you know, the intent is to remove them. they can continue to to be there but when they want to make
changes like this one demolish it and put a new one then then they have to go >> I think that's all I have in my presentation uh I don't know whether Jane u is it open for questioning now or
>> well actually if you could just explain why um that we have a provision that prohibits residential in a commercial because I I'm not sure that that's exactly correct. >> Yeah, I just I think I just went over
that that is the intent is to create to have a commercial corridor along St. John's and therefore they not single family homes and are allowed. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, why proposed zoning is it
>> we're not in that case. Okay. Well, that's still kind of relevant >> because it says multifamily residential and we're talking about singing. >> No, no, no. There's no reference to multif family here. I didn't say anything about that. >> You didn't. But on the staff report on
page one of 11, it says multiple. That's what the proposed is is multiple family residential. Okay. >> That's in the next case. >> That That's not the appeal. Yeah, that's that's >> trying to get it straight in my head.
We're talking about single >> and then I looked at that looking at the picture and it said multiple. So that's what I was questioning. >> Okay. Yeah, >> we're talking single, but I'm reading this on the next case and I thought they were the same property.
>> They are the same property. >> It is the same property, >> but it's not the same case. >> I know that. I know. Okay, scratch it. Chase J Chase told you you were head of knew that. >> Okay, Mr. Bernett has a question.
>> How did it become to be nonconforming zoning? There's some history behind that. >> But usually it's because by the time of the adoption of the ordinance that created that zoning district and that future line use designation, the house was already existing. It was already
there. Then they acknowledge the compound acknowledge you know that is existing and they vest a nonconforming status the legal non-conforming status and therefore they can continue to exist until but in this case you know being
demolished loses the nonconformity. >> Thank you. In a couple years, if I mean I may be speaking out of tone turn here too, but couple few years ago um a group came to us in the next block to the west
and was trying to put homes there on St. John's in the corner of St. John's in 18th Street >> and we denied that because that just what you're saying that was non-conforming that we were trying to make a commercial corridor. >> Thank you. That makes sense. We should
Okay. >> So, I guess the we need to go to who do we go need to go to next? Miss West. >> Now, you'll go over to Sarah for basically her case and chief, which is an allotted time frame of 15 minutes.
>> Okay. Please state your name and address. Is a mic on? >> There's a light. >> Okay. >> Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Sarah Meyer. I'm with Dubberry Engineers. I'm working with the Rebuild Florida program and I'm here on behalf of the homeowner
Eldridge suite for 1509 St. John's Avenue. Uh I do have a presentation that I was um hoping we could get up to talk through some points. So, I'm here before you today to seek approval to rebuild the existing use on
the property. Do I have control or do you have that, Alex? >> Um, you I I have control of it. So, I'll try to keep up with you. >> Okay. >> Before you go on this, >> are you able to see it from here? Are
you able to see the presentation, Jane? >> Yes. >> Now you've got her mute. >> She's good. >> No, I'm I'm good. I can see it. Thank you. >> So, on the next slide is an aerial of the um neighborhood, which I'm sure you guys are all familiar with. The orange outline property is the subject property
of 1509 St. John's Avenue. St. John's is on the north side, and the property is situated between 16th and 15th Street. And the next slide is um I'm working with Rebuild Florida. The full name is Rebuild Florida Housing Repair and
Replacement Program. And this is a state program with federal funding through grant money um that assists applicable or um qualified homeowners to repair or replace their home if they've received storm damage from hurricanes. And the
program prioritizes low to moderate households, moderate income households, households with seniors, individuals with disabilities, and also households with children. And as part of the program's protocol, uh when an applicant is accepted into the program, they
perform a structural assessment on the existing structure. The assessment that was done at 1509 St. John's Avenue, uh had several findings, which I've listed a few here on there. I'll read aloud to you. The foundation and the flooring system was found to be unstable. There
are visible signs of termite damage. There's cracking and broken pieces of exterior walls. There's cracking of interior walls and ceilings and even separation of walltose ceiling joints in the attic area. The rafters are not compliant with current Florida building
code or with the Rebuild Florida program standards. So based on these findings, the structure was deemed not suitable for rehabilitation. Meaning it was not feasible to leave any portion of the existing structure and rehabilitate it.
As such, we are asking to replace or reconstruct the uh the existing unit. And I use the word reconstruction intentionally um because this should not be considered new construction. It's an existing use. It's a legal
non-conforming existing use that's been in use as a residential property and a residential single family structure for quite some time. And I'll get into the legal non-conforming standards of the city's municipal code shortly. But it's a replacement of an existing
house. It's in an area that is a neighborhood with wellestablished mixes of residential and non-residential uses that actually work together quite well. And there's no adverse impact to the surrounding property as is witnessed by the fact that so many different uses
exist and are compatible and you know the market works quite well in that neighborhood. New construction typically um applies to vacant plots of land that have never been developed before. So that is not really applicable to this situation.
This is redevelopment. It's a replacement. It's reconstruction of the existing house. So, the city's code does have um some language that talks about non-conforming uses. Section 94-114 talks about non-conforming uses, lots,
and structures. And the reason this is non-conforming, um, as Lorenzo already mentioned, is it it is zoned C2 commercial. It has a commercial land use designation, um, but it's been used for residential for well over a hundred years. It is at no fault
of the homeowner that there is a commercial designation on her property. It was platted in 1913, I believe, and when the original structure was um erected in 1925. Um the use and house existed prior to the municipal co municipal code being
adopted and prior to any zoning map or atlas map being adopted by the city. Those are at no fault of the applicants. The existing house is also not being removed by choice. I think it's important to note that the non-conforming language in the code says
that the existence of these uses are recognized and acceptable and permits them to exist until removed. But this removal is not really by choice of the homeowner. Her property has been damaged by an act of God or an act of
mother nature and has been deemed unsuitable for rehabilitation. So this is not something that's being voluntarily done. her house needs to get reconstructed. The language in the code also speaks to not expanding or enlarging any
nonexisting non-conforming uses. We're looking to replace the existing house with a very similar house. It will not be larger. Um the land is not we're not asking the land to be expanded or um add any additional non-conforming structures
to the existing use. And I believe the code also allows that if any non-conforming use is removed, it must be replaced within six months. We can meet that time frame. We will demolish the existing structure and reconstruct within 6 months as soon as our permits
are approved. This is something that I thought was just interesting to show to everyone. This is um a zoning map. The red is the C2 commercial overlay. Below that, it's kind of hard to see. It's a yellowish tint. That's the R3 residential zoning.
The subject property 1509 is in the center of this map in the red and it has a yellow dot on there. And there's about 15 yellow dots all within the commercial zoning district of C2. And according to property appraiser information, these
are properties in the C2 zoning district that have a single family structure on them and are being used as a residence. So, um, this just demonstrates that non-conforming uses do not necessarily mean that it's rare or that it should mean incompatible.
We have an area of the city that um has a blend of non-residential uses with residential uses and it's working quite well and how that transitions over time should really um be dictated by the market and not by a hurricane or a
natural disaster. Additionally, there are other single family structures in the commercial area that have converted to non-residential uses, and I think that's important to note. Um, by allowing the non-conforming use to continue and allowing us to rebuild and
put a single family structure there, there is a time where the market could demand that it become something else. Missuite wants to move out, sell her property, take advantage of the market. It's possible. It could become a professional office. It could become a tea shop. Um, there's a number of of
ways that a residential single family struct structure could be converted for something other than residential uses. The C2 zoning district has development standards in the code as well, uh, section 94-149,
and it does specifically say that no new residential construction is permitted. But as I've already mentioned and that I hope you agree, my interpretation of this is that we are not a new residential construction. We're existing. We're legally non-conforming
and we're looking to rebuild. Paragraph D mentions new residential uses are prohibited. This has been a residential use for well over a hundred years. It's not new. any impacts to public facilities such as water and
sewer, police and schools, parks and libraries, those impacts have already been mitigated. This is not a vacant undeveloped plot of land. Um we're just looking to continue to allow Miss Suite to use her property. And then if you go beyond the code, we
do have letters of support from people in her community, um both residents and business owners. And I actually can submit those for the record. I have copies um if someone would I can hand those off to someone. So I think that shows even you know just outside of
interpreting the code her neighbors want her to continue to live there and I think that's really important. That says a lot about this community and the reconstructed house will meet current C2 zoning standards. Right now the house encroaches into the front stepback of
the commercial zoning district. when it's replaced, we will meet those standards and any use, you know, following Miss Suite's use of the property as her homestead would then be in compliance with the zoning standards. The replacement structure, as I've mentioned, could be used for non-residential in the future. And by
allowing the non-conforming use to continue and allowing us to rebuild, the city's goals and objectives for that corridor, as have already been stated, you know, to transition towards commercial, those goals and objectives could stay in place. There would be no map amendment. There would be no
reasonzoning. It could stay commercial and it would also be a win for my client, which would be allow her to rebuild her house. And to wrap up, I would just like to reemphasize that we are legal non-conforming use. We've been damaged, the house has been damaged uh for
reasons beyond our control. It will be replaced in the time frame required as outlined in the non-conforming language of the code and is not should not be considered new construction or a new use. We are ent um we have vested entitlements as a residential use. And lastly, I think we all know that our
homes are sacred. Um this is Missu's home. It's uh where she's lived for quite some time and we would greatly appreciate your approval to allow her to rebuild. Thank you. >> Thank you. Has anybody got any questions?
>> Actually, I just have some questions to clean up the record. Um, you indicated that Miss Sweet has resided and has owned this home for quite a few years and I'm just if you could clarify when
she took title to the property. I said she'd owned it for quite a few time. I don't have the specific time frame. Okay. And she is the record owner because, and here's why I'm asking. Um, I pulled this up on the Putnham County
Property Appraisers um records and it shows that the owner is a Mildred Cole. >> That's her ma name. There there should be records in there for the um change in name. >> Yeah. And we all we have is a a a death
certificate dated 2021. Do you believe she's owned it since 2021 or did it precede that? >> You and your husband? >> Yes. >> She and her husband bought it in August of 2012. >> 2012. Okay. I I just needed to clear
that up so people understood this wasn't a a recent acquisition. Um, and when they took title in in 2012, what was the zoning designation at that time? >> I I was going to defer to planning staff since they uh maintain the zoning.
>> Whoever whoever has the answer can answer. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, the zoning was already the the one that is today in 2012. Uh comp plan was adopted 2008 and the zoning was I think earlier than that. So
you already had when she bought the property you already had C2 zoning and commercial future land use. >> Understood. Yep. >> Okay. So, as as part of any um property acquisition, part of that due diligence
would be to determine the zoning designation for the property. Would you agree? >> I think she's asking you that question. >> I mean, I'm I don't know if they knew what the zoning designation was when they purchased it, but if it was a legal non-conforming use at the time, it would
be permitted to continue existing. Correct. that would have shown up. >> I'm sorry, Ed, could you repeat that question? >> Turn on your micro. >> That would have shown up on the title policy of the zoning.
>> Oh, that was Earl speaking. Yes. >> Yes. Earl, can can I ask a question? >> I think at this point you can. >> Is is there any to Jane? Is there uh any
avenue in our code that we could make an exception because it's by the code it's prohibited. >> Right. Well, that's why it's up on appeal now because that is exactly um
the conclusion that the planning director arrived at um Earl was was that it it was prohibited and so that's why he had denied the request and that's that is precisely the point of this
appeal that um as as you just heard Sarah present some arguments in favor of of reversing that. But is there any basis for granting the appeal? Because it's down the list. It's
no basis. You know, that's what I'm that's what I've been saying. That's >> through that corridor. We've in in my time on this board, we've been denying um that that you know, I mean, we have
somebody in the audience today that we denied they're they're trying to get put uh residential right there. And so I I don't know how we don't cross ourselves up by not denying it. >> But that was that was vacant land and it
was going to be multiple. I understand that. But I'm just saying that >> this is a re and and and not that not not that my heart don't go out to you, Miss Sweet. That's not what I'm doing here. Okay? I want you to understand that. But it to me that corridor through
there is is what we've been trying to do is make that commercial all the way down up and down through that corridor. And so I think when you tear the building down and maybe I'm maybe I'm jumping too far ahead of this, I don't know, but I think in my opinion when you tear that
building down and it has to go back to the zoning that's there um you know I mean that zoning is in place then you know like like Earl said you know that should go back to the um I mean it the
way I was hearing this was that had been there longer than 2012. 12 and and in that case I would have said okay well she was there before things happened but just being there since 2012 um I mean that the zoning was in place
everything was in place intact and things like that so I I mean I don't know how to go any further than what I'm saying >> well and I think that's why I tried to point out that this is not new it's not a new use right it's a use that's been
there for quite some time before even Missuite lived there, right, for over a hundred years. And she's been there for over 10 years, >> right? >> About 14 16 years. Um, and I think if there maybe had been an opportunity to reszone it to residential
to correct any non-conforming, it sounds like it wouldn't have been permitted at that time either if the city has always viewed this as a commercial corridor, which is why I think the the middle ground, and there is room to interpret the code this way, which is what I was trying to um, you know, attempt to point
out, is that allowing the non-conforming use to continue and let the market dictate when it converts over to commercial and there seems to be, you know, a wellestablished pattern of that in that area of residential uses coexisting with non-residential uses in
a small neighborhood scale um environment and one block to the south is all residential, you know, so it's not like a single family home there is is very far removed from >> I was brought up in that neighborhood. I understand my grandmother lived my
grandmother lived one block to the south. >> Did Okay. Well, I'm I'm I'm fully aware of that, but and I think everybody on this board, maybe Chase is the only one young enough not to remember all that, but I think everybody on this board knows that. Um, so I guess we need to
>> Can I ask Miss Shane? Can I ask a question just to maybe draw some clarity? The only question at hand right now, as I understand it, is did staff interpret the code correctly? Right. We're we're not looking for a way around it or a way to reszone. is did staff properly interpret the code as it's
written? That's the only question being asked at the moment. Correct. >> Correct. And did they apply it correctly to this particular situation? Um that is the question. >> Okay. And your argument is that
reconstruction is not new construction. Correct. That's your primary argument. >> Yes. >> So those are the only that's the situation at hand. Is reconstruction the same as new construction? uh staff understands it as uh reconstruction is
new construction. Uh and the applicant is saying that reconstruction should not be considered new construction. Um so that that is that's the that's the essence of this debate and the only thing that matters in this conversation as I understand it. Um, piggybacking on
that, it's it's it's been my long-term understanding that new construction, reconstruction were equivalent, one and the same. Um, I'm obviously a younger member of the board, so my understanding may be incorrect, but that's been my understanding the whole time I've been a
member. Um, so that's my position is that reconstruction and new construction as defined and intended in the code are one and the same. Anybody got um
>> so at this point we we will let um Lorenzo come back up if he has any additional points. It does not appear that there are any uh other witnesses that are going to be presented by either side. So this would be essentially
>> Mr. Wallace has a has a question, Miss West, or a statement. I gonna make I was going to make a statement. I mean, we always can't be the heroes. I mean, it's a bad call we got to make, >> but it's
against code all the way and code doesn't have an allowance to make an exception. So, >> I mean, we're going to have to agree with staff, I mean. >> All right. So, I'm again I'm going to request that the planning director come
back on to present any additional points that they have and please recall that you do have to open this up for public comment before you take it back for final deliberation. >> I I don't really have anything else to
add just to reiterate two things. One is that the code which is a C1 uh prohibit new construction. it it clearly says new construction. It's not just the use. And the second thing is
that in making the determination that I made uh I consider the intent of the city commission which is is to create a corridor a commercial corridor along St. John's Avenue. And that's it. That's all I have to add.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> May I add to that? >> Go ahead. Um, our request does take into consideration the city's attempt to make that corridor commercial by, you know, our we we're not immediately asking for a future land use amendment and a
resoning. It is something we might have to do very soon after this case. Um, but our intent was to take that into consideration and to find the alternative, which there's no new construction here because when new construction comes in, if you have a new
structure, uh, a residential structure or new non-residential structure, you have to pay impact fees to connect to public facilities. And because the facilities are already there, um, because the units are already vested, there's no impact new impact to school.
And that's what I'm trying to distinguish between replacing the existing use versus brand new construction that's never been developed before on this land. That is what I'm trying to distinguish the difference between redevelopment and new development. Uh there's no new impacts
to public facilities, things that would cost money um you know to put a meter on the property to connect you to do a a tap off the existing water line, those types of things. It's already there. Um, and so that so we took that into consideration knowing full well Lorenzo
had told me this the city views this as a commercial corridor. We're trying to respect that, but we're also trying to get someone um a a suitable structure to live in that was damaged uh by a storm beyond their beyond their control. And so that was that's why we're here today
is to ask you to see um the situation in a way that could work for everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'm going to ask from any public comment on this. Is
anybody else like to speak to this? Missu, if you would just state your name and your address, please. Ma'am. >> Good evening. My name is Milredu. Um, I'm the owner of 1509 St. John Avenue.
I've been there six years. Uh when me and my husband purchased the house, it was just a hub. No floors. He did the walls. He put in new bathrooms. And um but I didn't I didn't know that the
house was the way you all are talking about it today. I thought it was a residential because that's what it's always been. It's older than the build than the businesses around me. And um I come just committed to ask them to um
to understand where I stand at right now. I lost my husband about five years ago from co and it's just me staying there now and um I have nowhere else to go but I'll still stay there till um God moved me because um I can't go
anywhere else right now. So I'm asking everybody consider what um Sarah said Sarah consider what she said what she's saying and um grant me because what it would do just improve
the city and the and the businesses around me and everything they want me to stay they can't even understand they said what I said I don't know they said something about business res so um I ask y'all just consider
you right now, please. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this or again? Okay, seeing none, I will bring it back
up to the board. Um, was pleasure the board. Any discussion? What I'm waiting on, bro? Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, um, considering only the case at hand, uh, the the appeal stating that, um, the applicant believes that
staff, um, misinterpreted the code, I feel that this board should affirm and I will move that this board affirm the administrative decision of the planning director. >> Okay. Have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second, Mr. Bernett. Second.
Discussions. Okay, seeing none, have a mo a motion by Mr. Barnes, a second by Mr. Bernett. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> I
>> Okay, motion passes 41. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the next item, which is the resorting application, I'd like to offer and I I think I did discuss this with Sarah before uh one option would be I mean the whole issue here is that they're going
to demolish the whole house and therefore the non-confirmity goes away. Uh, I also heard whether they could consider do the renovation of the house in a way that they don't demolish everything
and I I think Sarah you told me that that was not possible because I guess the you the engineer report stated that uh it has to be demol the whole thing but that is an avenue that I'm willing to go to consider you know if there if
there reconsider the engineers report. I don't know. But that is one option is that uh that you leave something of the structure in place while you're doing the renovation and put in a new house.
The the other alternative, I'll just throw it out there, is what uh Lorenzo had mentioned in his initial remarks, is to have commercial on the bottom floor, a retail component, and residential on
top. That would be fully permissible under commercial uh designation. Um, and that certainly would be the intent of what was initially contemplated for this corridor being a commercial corridor
while allowing residential use. >> That that is true and that is something we also discussed that I discussed we we share about. Uh that would be the ideal. uh it would probably generate more income, you know, to to the property owner having a a commercial in the first
floor than an apartment on the second floor, but I don't think the program that Sarah is working with uh would allow that. And I don't know, it's a question to Sarah probably would not allow. >> Sir, sir, would you step to the podium, please? Give your name and your address,
please. Hi, I'm Justin Collie, Pensacola, Florida. Um, I work with Sarah with Rebuild Florida as a construction manager. Um, but that that is correct. Uh, with our program requirements, we are required uh to meet certain
standards and with repairs, we would not be able to achieve the requirements by the program. >> So, I got I got a question. Restoration's my business. Okay. But I'm
just not sure about the and um Miss West, you may be able to answer this question. The or you guys can answer. I don't know how. But the home I'm very familiar with the home if I if I'm correct. It sits on pillars, does it not? I mean, it's on, you know. Yes.
Okay. So, I mean, would that be considered part of leaving the structure? If they if you could leave pillars, that would be part of that reconstruction. I would definitely consider that. You know, I cannot tell you. But is is it is it feasible
engineering >> issues that we that were discovered through the site assessment? Um that would have to be addressed as part of the uh reconstruction process. >> I'm not understanding what you're saying. >> So the foundation's no good. >> Well, I know the foundation's not, but
I'm saying you have it sits on concrete pillars, does it not? Is your >> I believe it is. Is it? Yes. Do I need to speak up? >> All right. >> But I'm asking those concrete pillars couldn't be used in the reconstruction
of the of the of the new project. >> That would have to be something that would be considered by the engineers. >> Okay. Uh because I'm I'm just trying to figure out I mean like I said, Miss Sween I goes out to you. You know that's I'm not trying to be but I mean you know we we all
whether we are what what's the judge always say Miss West the ignorance of the law is not you know and so you know that's uh that's that's where we're at you know I mean none of none of us up here are you
know we all feel for you but we we all have the the the city the the zoning laws and everything else that we have to go by in in making our decisions. So, I'm just throwing something out there. I mean, I've seen that done before, you know. Um, they you you take a building
and I mean, six poles of it are left and it's still considered a historical building, you know. So, I mean, that's just something that I thought I'd throw out there. >> All right. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. And that is something that we briefly
touched on, Lorenzo and I when we were um going back and forth and um I think one of my questions was and there maybe there wasn't an answer is what is the minimum um what's the number that can be left? Typically, it's a 50/50 rule. Like, if
you remove 50% of the structure, more than 50%, then you are now >> past um like whatever the vested structure was previously. And so, I just don't I'm not an engineer, but based on the condition of the existing house, I don't know how we could leave 50%. And I
mean, those whatever was left would still have to be like new wood to you know, the the the pillars are they're shimmyed things. They're unstable. The land is sinking a little bit. I think just settling, not sinking, settling um over time. Um so I just
don't know how any of that could be left. But again, I mean I am willing to have our engineers take a second look at it. I I have asked that multiple times before. I had to show up here tonight and the answer was no. Um but is the does the city have a number that what's
the minimum that can be left? Because I think that was something I couldn't get a clear answer on. >> No, we don't have a number. I at least I don't. So then does it >> I will have to check with probably with the building. Yeah. >> Get definitive answers. >> Yeah. I will probably have to check with the building official. >> Okay.
>> For the county. >> I'm not hopeful on that avenue, but I'm certainly willing to explore it. >> It's been I understand. I mean, I totally get what you're saying. I just, you know, we like I said, we just have certain things that we have to our hands are tied that we have to go by. So, you
know, it's just that's where we're at. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So PB case 26-11 is that we still need to go through that. >> Yes, I recommend that we do.
>> Okay. All right. >> Well, we definitely have to because since the appeal was uh not granted, then they the only option now is the >> change the zoning. >> The reasoning. Yeah. or is it is it pertaining to the what we just went through or what we're going to
go to >> just >> okay >> huh >> does this go before the uh city council >> that that's up to the applicant uh that there is an option for them to appeal your decision to the city commission I
don't know where that is in their uh in their plans or not but He could. Okay. You good? Okay. All right. Let's you
Let's move on to PBK's 26-11. Request to amend the future land use designation of acres from city of palaca commercial to city of palaca residential high and reszone 17 acres from city of paka intents of
commercial district C2 to city of paca multif family multif family residential district or three. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. My name is Michael Hill. I'm the senior planner of the planning department. I'm here today to basically give a staff presentation on PB case 2611.
So, as you can as you know from the appeal, this property was um the appear according to the county records, the building was built in 1925. It is part of the Merwin Glenn subdivision, which looks like according to the plat on that was March 15th, 1913 is when the subdivision was created. So, as we know
from the record, the house is considered a legal non-conforming use in the property. Okay. As you can see here on the second page, we have the subject parcel right there on St. John's Avenue within the 1500 block. And as you see, the red is the subject property.
Here we have a picture from the street view of the actual subject property just so we can lay eyes on it and see what we're dealing with. We have a second one from another angle. My apologies. Here's the existing future land use. So, if you look, as you guys can see from the existing future land use that the um
the all the parcels that front St. John's Avenue all have a commercial or city of Palaka comm future land use cuz as you know that the intention of the city is to keep that as a commercial corridor. Now the proposed future land use from the applicant was going to go to residential high. As you can see the
southern par the southern boundary of the parcel abuts residential high zoning and future land use. Now let's jump into the consistencies with the compos with the comprehensive plan. Specifically in policy 8.1.32, issues of compatibility shall include considerations for noise, sight and
level, and traffic generation. The primary tool for ensuring compatibility between land uses shall be the future land use map and the elimination of non-conforming land uses. Other techniques shall include noise and site incompatibility screening by either a 6ft solid foot wall or landscape plantings to reach within 18 months a
height of at least 5 ft or an opacity of 85%. Um by our analysis we found that the parcel is illegal non-conforming land use pursuant to the existing future land use map. Therefore the elimination of the non-conforming use by this policy should be encouraged.
On policy 8.1.93A1 states residential use is intended to be used primarily for housing and shall be protected by the intrusion of land uses that are incompatible with residential density. Residential land uses provide a variety of land use densities and
housing types. The St. St. John's Avenue corridors dominated primarily with commercial future land use. Allowing residential land use in this area would cause issues of compatibility both with the existing commercial and the new residential that could come. Therefore, it is inconsistent to our opinion of 8.193A1
of the comprehensive plan. Move on to zoning. Oh, yeah. Oh, hold on. Am I missing a page? Oh, I am. Hold on. And as you guys can see, the existing zoning is C2, which per our zoning code is uh intensive. It's a heavy intensive commercial.
And then the applicant is wanting to do a proposal of R3 which per our zoning code to what um Commissioner Wilson was mentioning in the appeal that the R3 zoning district is our multif family zoning district and that is due to the fact that multif family zoning district is to the south. So in the zoning
analysis that we conducted um let's go to section A whether the proposed change is in conformity with the comprehensive plan. Judging by our conduct by judging by the analysis of the comprehensive plan, we have determined that the proposed change use is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and ind and as indicated in the future land use
analysis. Number letter B, the existing land use pattern. The area has a predominance of existing commercial and residential uses to the south. Letter C, possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to the adjacent nearby districts. The amendments could create an isolated
district along the commercial corridor. As you've seen from the future map from the previous maps that yet it is commercial on both sides of the property to the east and west the prop letter D the population density pattern is possible increase or overt taxing the load on public facilities and schools.
We believe that the reasonzoning and the future land use change for this application will not have any negative or positive impact on public facilities at this time. Letter E. whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions to the property and the proposed change.
The existing district boundaries are not illogically drawn in relation to the existing conditions per our findings. Letter F whether changed or change conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. I we believe this is not applicable. Letter G, whether the proposed change
will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. We believe that the proposed change, the prozzoning change to residential will cause a negative impact in the adjacent parcels. Letter H. Whether the proposed change will create an excessively increase in traffic congestion or otherwise affect
public safety. We believe that this would actually be addressed if they came in for site plan review. So therefore, we don't have an opinion on this one. Letter I, whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Again, this this is something that can be addressed at site plan review. We don't have an opinion of this of this one.
Letter J, whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light or air adjacent to the areas. This will again will be will be addressed during site plan review. We don't have an opinion of this one. Letter K. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The proposed change
could adversely affect property values in the area by the creation of an incompatible land use. Letter L. whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to improvement or development of adjacent properties in accord with the existing conditions. We concluded that the proposed change will
not be a deterrent to the improvements or development of adjacent properties. Letter M. The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with public welfare. The proposed change could be constituted as special privilege to the individual property
owner. Letter N. whether a whether there are substantial reasons as to why the property can't be used in accord with the existing with the existing zoning. No substantial reasons at this time the existing single family home is vested as a legal non-conforming use. Letter O
where the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city. The allowance of more housing will make a more positive impact to affordability overall through the city. Letter P. whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use in districts already permitted in the use. There are
other adequate sites in the city for the proposed use and letter Q which is the recommendation of the historical review board of any changes the boundaries to the HC district or any change to the underlying HD that is not applicable because this is not in the historic district. Let's go over the executive summary one more time. The proposed
amendments to the future land use and zoning districts are not consistent with the comprehensive plan stated policies of the elimination of non-conforming uses and will have a negative impact on the existing commercial corridor along St. John's Avenue. The applicant has other options for residential uses on the subject parcel that are more conforming with the regulations.
Therefore, for our recommendation, staff recommends denial of the request to the future land use map from the city of Palaca commercial to the city of Palaca residential high density. We also recommend a denial of the request to amend the official zoning map from the city of Palaca intense commercial C2 to city of Palaca multif family residential
R3. You have any questions for me? I'll be here for available. But thank you for your time. Any questions staff? Okay. All right. Is there anybody here wishing to speak
to this or against it? Come on, state your name and your address again for me, please. >> Good afternoon. Sarah Meyer with Dubberry Engineers, 800 North Magnolia Avenue, Orlando, Florida. Um
I I wish there was um an exhibit of the land use and the zoning proposed that was a little more zoomed out so that you could see um you know it was touched upon that there is residential high future land use category immediately adjacent to our property out of the
south. There's existing residential um three which is what we're requesting for the zoning um on our southern border of the property. So I would not consider this to be spot zoning or leapfrog pattern zoning. Uh we are adjacent to what we are asking for um in this
application request. Um I might argue that there's um you know the statement of there's a predominance of existing commercial and only residential uses to the south. I think I've already demonstrated that there is quite a bit of residential uses uh existing in this commercial corridor.
While they are non-conforming, they are there uh existing coexisting together. um in that corridor. Uh let's see. I don't I don't think that this would cause a negative impact
um to the adjacent parcels seeing there's already an existing single family home there and allowing the land use and the resoning would certainly rectify the existing non-conforming situation that we find ourselves in. Um, and since it's at existing use, I don't know how there could potentially be any
more new negative impacts to these surrounding properties. As far as trans transportation or traffic congestion might go, it's an existing use. Uh, those so any impacts net there's no net new trips. There's an existing driveway to the street. I don't anticipate any impacts that would come
up as part of a site plan review process. Uh, let's see. There are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used um in accordance with the existing zoning and that is is that we have someone that lives there and this is their homestead. They have
no other property to go to. Uh they have assistance from the state to rebuild and we're trying to help her facilitate that process. I do agree that it would be a positive impact to the affordability of the neighborhood uh over time. uh the new home that could be, you know,
reconstructed there. With this resoning would decrease any sort of increase in blight conditions that could develop by the property uh by the structure being considered um not suitable for rehabilitation and allowing to continue to exist in the condition that it is.
I'm not sure what other options for residential uses there are on the subject property, which was mentioned in the executive summary. So, I that would be helpful to know um if staff would like to elaborate on that. But I do think that allowing this land use change and the resoning um is not outside of
the confines of what the regulations and the zoning code would allow uh the planning board and city council to approve. We are adjacent to those same land use categories and zoning districts. And this would correct an existing non-conforming use um in the
city. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions I can answer. >> Any questions from the board? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else that would like to speak to or against this?
>> Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring this back to the board and discussion. >> Mr. Chair, if I may, >> Mr. Barnes. Um, of course I want to reiterate what you stated already. This is not a comfortable position to be in. Um, but
it's my understanding, interpretations, and feelings that the the the future land use and the intention of the future land use is is pretty defined, pretty well defined. Um, to me, I I feel like
it would be inconsistent to go against it. And additionally, it would open us up to many cans of worms down the road um to go against it. U valiant effort though. You did a marvelous job um pointing out everything you could, but
um I I would have to recommend that this board deny the request uh to amend the future land use map um request. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Barnes. Anybody else got any Anything
miss? Okay. >> I apologize. That was a motion. I I move that this board deny deny the request to amend the future land use map change. >> Mr. Barnes made a motion. Do I hear a second?
Wallace second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All opposed. Unanimous. So, thank you very much. Miss West, is there a need to address the second half
of this? >> No, the No, because you already denied that, it doesn't go to the next step. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to PB case 26-07
and 26-08 and X. Amend future land use map and reszone for parcels number 01-10-26-31 50-000080-00009 01-10-26-3150-000080- 010 0 0 1-10-26-3150-000080
dash 01 1 zeros 01-10-26-3150-3150-00009 0 D-004 0 1-10 1 0-26-3150-00009-000050 01-10-26-3150-00009-000060 01-10-26-3150-0080 D- 0080
01-10 26-3150-000080 dash 0 or D0070 who's presenting this to us. Come on. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Good to meet you all again. Again, I do
apologize. Out of these out of these eight parcels, only three of them had addresses. The rest were all parcel ID numbers. So, I do apologize. So, as you know, I am >> Please state your name for the record. >> I am Michael Hill. I am the senior planner for our planning department here at the city of Palaca. I'm here to present the request. Um, Beexloone
Properties, Inc. is requesting to annex eight parcels at approximately 1.52 acres of vacant land into the city of Palaca's corporate municipal limits uh to connect to the city's water system. Currently, the parcels are vacant. They're also looking to amend the future land use from future land use map from
Putham County urban service to city of Palaca residential medium and reszone from Putnham County residential mix which is Putnham County's R2 to city of Pela residential 2 family which is R2. As you can see from the report, they are part of the Glistening Well subdivision.
They were platted in 1911. And from what I can tell in the records, it's this is one of the oldest subdivisions in Putham County. And the intent, as I've mentioned before, is to connect to the city's water water system. Proposed annexation will allow the connection of water to the properties per the city of Paca's utilities department. Sewer is
not available at this at these parcels at this time. If you go here, we have subject parcels. As you can see, um, as you can see, it's eight parcels totaling 1.52 acres. And then if you look at our table here, we basically have an idea of what's going
on all around from the north, the south, the east, and the west. We have residential, vacant, we have rightway, and we have residential and more vacant. So, what the applicant is requesting here is just basically coming into the city, and we're still going to do residential uses.
Annexation analysis. As you all are aware, annexations are guided by Florida statute 171044. This governs specifically invol voluntary annexations in in Florida and it requires properties proposed for annexations to meet two tests. For first, the properties must be contiguous to the annexing municipality and the
second the properties must be reasonably contact. As you can see, I have provided the the definition directly from the Florida state statutes on the definition of contiguous, which means that it must share a substantial part of the boundaries of the territory sought to be annexed by the municipality.
Our analysis is that the parcel to the north across the street meets the state definitions of of contiguous as outlined in the Florida statutes. Compactness. The statute provides a definition for compactness that requires annexation to be prop to be for properties in a single area that precludes any action that would create
or increase enclaves. As you can see there, I've provided a picture of what of what this city has been talking about as the as the big enclave just to the north. So, by allowing these eight parcels to be annexed into the city, we are slowly reducing the size of this enclave as time goes on. And therefore,
we're meeting the state's test of compactness in Florida statute 171. Now, our county codes do require that we have to demonstrate that this amendment does not further urban spraw as determined through the following tests. Low inensity, low density, single-use
development or uses development in rural areas of substantial differences from existing urban services as again as again we are going to R2. R2 is existing in the area. The development is not in a rural area. The area is already is already suburban in nature and there is
existing um services in the area. radial strip isolated ribbon development patterns. Again, none of that here. It's very contiguous, very very um what is it? Square and and size pockets. Development fails to adequately protect or conserve natural resources. Again, no wetlands in the area. No sensitive
habitat whatsoever. Development fails to maximize the existing future land use. Existing and future public facilities and services. Again, only connecting to water. Development patterns and timing will require disproportional time of money and energy providing facility and service. Again, water is available in the area. So therefore,
it's not going to c it's not going to cost the city or the taxpayer any money to extend those services to this area because they're already there. Development that discourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment. So, as you could guys see, this is all vacant land, but it's all surrounded by development by developed property. So,
therefore, this is actually encouraging infill as opposed to discouraging infill. So, the annexation of this parcel would not contribute to urban sprawl and will not and will not create an undue burden on the water system. The property is located within a completely developed residential area with urban services. The future use of this parcel
will stay residential. So let's move on to consistencies with the comp plan. So in the comprehensive plan dealing with um with public facilities element D1.21, the city of Palaca shall establish a coordinating relationship with the Putham County Board of County Commissioners to discuss future development plans adjacent to city
borders and discuss the city supporting development beyond the border with the water and sewer service. Areas served by Palaca by Palaka water and sewer will be annexed into the city. However, the distribution of potable water for areas outside the city limits is conditioned upon annexation only when the property
becomes contiguous. So as as we mentioned before, water is available to the subject parcels. However, sewer is not at this time. The applicant does desire to connect to the city's water system and the system has sufficient capacity by our our staff at the wa at the water authority that if
connection was to happen it's not going to cause an undue um an undue to the infrastructure or the system. Let's go existing land use section 9 baker under development. Vacant undeveloped land is categorizes land use that includes all land or properties that are available for development both cleared and wooded that are not developed at the present time. the
current and as you can see here from my map I showed again reiterate the points that this is all vacant land surrounded by predominantly developed land and then of course we have some pictures of the existing properties as you guys can see very wooded you know has brush not not too many not too much crazy stuff going
on there >> excuse me just a minute >> yes >> I'm trying to determine where these parals are located >> they're located on old Jacksonville Road and I think the one is uh Cedar Avenue down from Jenkins I know where I'm at Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Right down. It's east of um Beck Jeep Truck. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I understand where I'm at now. I just couldn't figure it out by what was presented me here. >> But my apologies, Mr. Chair. Yeah. When I when I attempted when I wanted to use the bigger map to kind of show you guys the area where it was, it was distorting
and it was just like if we put it up here on the display, it just would not look good. So that's why my maps are the way they are right now in this report. All right. So, moving on. Okay. We're page four, page five, six. Okay, let's go to page seven with the city's comprehensive plan specifically in
comprehensive plan policy 8.1.32 with issues of compatibility. As you guys know, the existing the existing Putnham County residential mix R2 allows for mixed residential uses. The proposed the proposed reszoning to city of Palaca residential two or two family residential and future land use to
residential medium would not increase the intensity of development in the area and it would not cause incompatibility as again these are both residential uses just with two different jurisdictions. So therefore therefore with with with regards to policy 8.13 8.1.3.2
we don't see any issues. In policy 8.1.3A1 states that residential uses should be intended for housing as you know protected from the intrusion of land uses that are incompatible. Again the property is completely surrounded by residential uses and the applicant is proposing residential uses on this property. So let's jump into the zoning
analysis. As you can see for letter A it the parcels do meet the the consistency. The existing pattern is mixed residential, commercial and institutional uses. There is no creation of a isolated district.
The density there's no there's there will not be any uh impact on public facilities. It's not applicable whether the the boundaries are logically drawn. There's no change of conditions occurring at this time. The proposed zoning change will not negatively influence living conditions of the neighborhood. Um and again H, I, and J
um will all be addressed at the time of development. Again, we cannot make that call at this moment. Um again, we believe it will not adversely impact property values in the area for the proposed change. And we also believe that the uh the change will not be a
deterrent to um to any kind of um any kind of improvement to the adjacent properties. One second. Staff report is a little mixed up here. Ah, here we are. Whether the proposed change will constitute grant a grant of special
privilege to an individual owner as contrasted public welfare. This will not. Again, we all have residential uses in the area. Whether there are substantial reasons the property can't be used. There's no substantial reasons. Um again, the existing the existing county zoning is similar in scale to dimensions to the city of Palco two
family residential R2 zoning. It will not be out of it will not be out of scale with the needs of the city. Um whether it is impossible um whether it's possible to find other adequate sites. These parcels are located in uninc incorporated Putham County and proposed to be annexed into the city. So again and then of course it's not in the
historic district. Now with all of that staff recommends that recommends the approval of the request to annex the 1.52 of acre properties into the city and we also recommend the approval to request the future land use map from Putnham County urban service to city of palaca residential medium and we
recommend the approval of the request to reszone the from Putnham County residential mix to paca to city of palaca residential two family. You have any questions for me? I'll be here for some questions. >> Are there any questions from the board? Okay, thank you. Um, is there anybody in
the audience that would like to speak to this? Come forward. State your name and address, please, sir. >> My name is Warren Foster. I'm concerned about 129 1221 Old Jax Highway. Believe
that's the properties I own. And my question is, I understand the reszoning, but the annization, are you actually taking the property or percentage of the property or it's just converted over to the city? >> Just converting to the city. We're not I mean, we're not we're not doing anything taking anybody's property.
>> I understand I understand your concern, but no, sir. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. >> I I can see I mean, from what I see here, I mean, I'm just probably speaking out of turn here, but I can see this doing nothing but helping your properties. Gotcha. All right. Thank you so much. >> Yes, sir.
Anybody else? Miss Kitchens, you got anything to allow? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no more, I'll bring this back to the board. Um, any discussion?
Okay. Well, I'll entertain a motion. Anybody want it? I'll entertain it. >> Mr. Chair. Um, >> I would move that this board approve the request uh to annex all of the parcels mentioned in this case into the city of
Palatka. >> I have a motion to have a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Bar motion, Mr. Bernett. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed? Seeing none, motion
passes unanimously. >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Yes, sir. I would move that this board approve the request to amend the future land use map for all the subject parcels from Putham County Urban Service to City of Palaca Residential Medium.
I have a motion to have a second. >> Second, >> Mr. Barnes motion, Mr. Bernett second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed? Seeing none, motion passes unanimously.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may, >> Mr. Barnes, >> I move that this board approve the request to reszone all the subject parcels from Putnham County residential mix R2 to City of Placa Residential to family R2. >> I have a second. I'm in a motion by Mr. Barnes. Do I have a second?
>> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Barnes, second by Mr. Bernett. Any discussion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> All oppose. Seeing none. Motion passes unanimously.
So we'll move on to and I understand that the next article is going to be ahead. >> Yeah, there's one item I'm reading for your attention and for your social
>> and your consideration. Uh at the last meeting if you remember uh Mr. Barnes uh volunteered to be the alternate member of the planning board. However, that uh because Mr. Barn is the vice chair
cannot be an alternate. So, uh I I think it's up to the board today to designate someone that is not Mr. Barn or Mr. Bro, you know, to be the alternate. >> Darn. Okay. So, we have to go through that
whole thing again. Oh, eeny meeny miny. I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, >> why are we gonna do it? >> Hang on. Hang on. You skipped something. >> I I I skipped something very important. I have a schedule, you know, the
comprehensive plan readdoption again, you know, after it was reviewed by the state and declared null and void. Uh however, you know, we didn't have time enough, you know, to complete the the package for you and the staff report and all of that. So, I prefer to take it to
the July and I'm asking this amendment to be continued to the July meeting. >> Okay. We don't have to do any kind of thing for that, do we, Miss West? >> No, I believe this is just a status update on the
>> Okay. of the comp plan. >> All right. Now, we'll do But can we like Miss Wilson just pointed out, Mr. Dan is not here, so do we need to just wait till the next meeting to do that?
>> That that's within the discretion of the board. Um, also you may want to decide to use potentially a secret ballot where each of you just write your preferred name for the alternate down on a scrap of paper and then the clerk reads that
out. That way you avoid any sort of tension or what have you. But if you want to postpone till all members are present at the next meeting that's fine. >> Okay. I think >> I think that's what >> you're chairman now.
>> She got an opinion. >> She does. She's definitely got an opinion. I think we should do that. Just move to to the uh what would that be? July. Oh, I have a I'm going to have a
problem with that. I will be in California. >> Yes, I will be. >> Oh, no, I won't be. I'm sorry. If I may add, while you're looking at your calendar, I want to clarify um my response to a question that was posed
last time about the alternates, the expectation of the alternate. If if the alternate is uh new to the board's um you know basically their their participation is brand new then it
absolutely is my recommendation that they attend just to get the idea of what the flow is and what the expectations are with the various issues that face you guys on a pretty regular basis like resonings and annexations. However, if
they are an existing board member, which is going to be the case for any of you that are selected as the alternate, I do not see any reason why they would have to sit there as a member of the public watching what you do. I think they can
attend virtually would be completely fine. um or alternatively uh be called in in the case of you know one of your the members not being available and we have a quorum issue. So, I I just wanted to clarify that because all of you have sat on that
board now, so you do have experience. Um, and I I don't know if that changes anybody's mind about serving as the alternate, but I I just wanted to make it clear if it was a new person coming on, I really would like for them to attend in person for at least, you know,
three or four meetings so they understand what they're getting into. >> Okay. Um, thank you, Miss W. Um, has anybody got a problem with continuing this through July? >> I say at least until everybody here. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Because we're gonna Everybody's going to
be kind of in and out. >> Yeah, the summer is going to be kind of weird, but you have something to say, Mr. Barn. >> I was just thinking the likelihood of everyone being here is never good. >> Yeah. Well, I understand that. But I'd like I'd like to at least give it one
chance. Okay. If that's okay with everybody. We'll just continue this till the July 7th meeting. Is that correct? >> Okay. Well, does staff have anything they'd like to say? >> No. >> Okay. Any of the commissioners got any
comments? >> I'm thirsty. >> Yeah. They did not put the special water out and I left mine at home. >> You know, I absolutely saw that. I saw a lot of plastic water bottles up there, but >> I threw mine away
>> and I'm so I'm going home right now. >> Well, I haven't Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I haven't dismissed the meeting yet. I'm asking any anybody that's got any comments? Okay. All right. I see none. I have Do I have a motion for
>> make a motion? >> What's your motion? Okay. Motion's journ. We will. This meeting is adjourned.