e e e e e e e e e e well it is 4 o' and I'll call this
meeting of the putam County Planning Commission to order before we do our preliminary introduction I need to ask members of the commission is there anyone who had any expart communication with either of
our applicants today okay none and um did anyone have a does anyone have a conflict of interest with either of the cases up to date anything else I need to ask Mr
Perry okay with that being said we will get started my pen wants to roll away from me the authority of Articles 11 and 12 of the putam County Land Development code the primary responsibility of the commission is to serve as an advisory
body to hear and make recommendations to the board of County Commissioners on the matters related to provision of and proposed amendment to the putam county comprehensive plan and the putham County Land Development code the members of this board will review each
application and make a recommendation to the board of County Commissioners at their at at the regularly scheduled meeting on April 22nd 20125 procedurally we will call each Case by name and number a member of Staff will then briefly explain to us
the nature of each request we will then take any comments from the applicant or their representative followed by any public comments concerning the request please direct all comments or statements to the board and not to other people in the audience before speaking we will ask
each person to be recognized come forward to the lectron and identify his or herself by name after all persons wishing to speak have been heard we will entertain a motion from from the board this motion will be voted on by the board members and will become our
recommendation to the board of County Commissioners the board of County Commissioners will make the final determination regarding the application all applicants have the right to withdraw their request at any time during the application process we don't have any cases that have requested
to have withdrawal the first case to be heard is rezoning 25- 000000 001 Mr glaze thank you madam chair uh for the record Michael Graves planning and
development services uh this is rezone 2501 uh Miss Kathleen Kelch uh requested a zoning map Amendment from Agriculture state plan unit development and residential one to agriculture estate on an 18.4 acre property located at 205 St John's
Drive in Paka to establish consistent zoning and allow for actual development to occur on the property uh the surrounding zoning is a mixture of Agriculture estate and residential one uh with some residential estate across the street uh the subject site has a
future land use designation of rural residential and according to the NWI Wetlands Lair and the FEMA flood zone map uh there are appear to be no Wetlands on this property with most of the uh FEMA flood zones being X and X500 with a small portion of approximately 1
acre of AE uh special flood Hazard area uh should the applicant's request be approved the parcel will be eligible for building permits to construct a single family residence adhering to the regulations of the agriculture estate zoning District as well as any other
development Allowed by W in the Agriculture state zoning District here you can see an aerial of the property the future land use and the split zoning between the three different zoning
districts uh staff recommends approval to of their request to amend the zoning map from agriculture estate plan unit development and residential one to agriculture estate staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the
locational requirements of the Agriculture state zoning District provided in the Land Development code and the con comprehensive plan any questions thank you Michael any questions of Staff I've got one do uh do you know what the original PUD was put in place for uh it was a PUD known as
little Carter Acres if memory serves right which was a proposed multifamily and educational facility uh that was to be established in I believe 2006 2007 uh but unfortunately it was never developed
during due to the 2008 financial crash and that doesn't extend beyond what we're not seeing on this map uh no sir uh originally it was just that uh Square there that you can see in the top left corner uh that property at some point was actually uh split by deed into two
separate Parcels uh but miss Kathleen Kelch has actually purchased both of them and recombine them in an effort to uh help remedy some of the disconformities okay thank you no problem sir any other question questions you
may uh if you're referring to the uh plan unit development uh there was never a plat or anything along those Natures recorded as it would have remained one parcel most plan unit developments have to remain one parcel unless they are specifically designed to be a
residential suburb uh style plan unit development such as the upcoming DR Horton uh suburb uh however this one was designed to be a single unit uh single parcel and it just was never developed and has since expired uh due to no
development within the I believe 2year time frame that they were given uh as such they could not develop it now even if they wished without having a new PUD established for that portion of the property any further
questions thank you is the applicant present or the applicant's agent you don't have anything to add okay do we have any questions we'd like to ask the applicant okay I'll be honest with you I I like to see the stuff go back towards the
agricultural leaning away from the rural residential he might not have a problem with it i' move that we approve we got we we've got a few still discussing well um Carry On I'm sorry I'm sorry are there any public
comments are there any public comments either for or against this application hearing none I will close the public hearing portion of the meeting and bring it back to the board for discussion Justin I uh move we approve Rez
25001 that it is consistent with goals and objectives that was Stanley yes it was okay now is there any discussion hearing none I'll call for the vote all those in favor please signify by saying I I shair votes I I'll
oppos like sign thank you very much much for being here ma'am looks like we're good yes sir uh the the language of the Pud specifies the term that they have to build it
out own the the Pud owner can request a certain time limit we don't go extravagantly beyond what seems reasonable but yeah sometimes it's five it can be up to 10 sometimes I've seen but it it's set by the indiv idual owner
and us and staff okay then we'll move forward to rezoning case 2500000000 002 thank you madam chair uh once again for the record Michael Graves planning
and development services this is rezone 252 uh MD Distribution LLC through their agent Crystal Kinton Shaw are requesting a zoning map Amendment from commercial retail C2 to Industrial light ilil on a 2.83 acre parcel located at 186 State
Road 207 in East Paca to establish zoning consistent with their existing business uh the surrounding zoning districts are commercial 4 intens uh commercial intensive C4 commercial retail C2 and residential 2 R2 uh the subject site it has a future
land designation of commercial and and the property already contains a business wherein they machine and manufacture S soft metal into roof Parts according to the NW Wetlands layer and FEMA flood zone layer there are no Wetlands on this property and the property is entirely in
FEMA flood zone X which is not a special flood Hazard area uh should the applicant's request be approved the applicants will then be uh will then obtain the approval of their site plan from the development Review Committee DRC as well as obtain
any and all uh es so requested for their development to become compliant with the public the putam County Land Development code LDC uh from there they shall pre be permitted to develop the property as approved by the development Review
Committee uh here you can see an aerial view of the property here you can see the future land use the zoning as you can see here uh staff recommends approval to of the request to amend the zoning map from
commercial retail C2 to the industrial Light ilil staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the locational and uh requirements of the industrial Light zoning District provided in the putham County Land
Development code and cons comprehensive plan any questions yes sir what's go ahead nope I saw you first so go ahead so one of the St analis
IND just wondering how that works how you can transfer requ so we aren't uh requiring the buffer to be placed on as a burden on other properties uh what it is is uh the development Review Committee will review
whatever new development occurs on this property regardless of the zoning District anything that's non-residential has to go through development Review Committee at that point they will determine uh what level of buffer is required and uh give access for the
applicant to uh apply to the zoning Board of adjustment for a variance to reduce remove or otherwise alter the buffer requirement from what is written in the Land Development code uh there are reasons that this may happen on many
different properties uh not just this one uh if the if the DRC says that they can get a variance and the zoning Board of approval does not approve of the variance then they will be required to meet uh the standard uh regulations in
the Land Development code for the buffer 80% of the buffer is the responsibility of the develop uh the property that is being developed and by extension the developers of that property 20% of the buffer is technically the requirement in Our Land Development code of adjoining
Pro properties but we are not in no way saying that the majority or even the totality of the buffer is going to be the requirement of say the foret area on the residential 2 property um I'm new at this so what's the buffer
and the or C2 as it currently is z what's the buffer requirement uh going from commercial 2 to residential 2 uh that would be a 10A buffer which means 10 ft wide Class A generally speaking
that is a 6ot high solid fence with about 9 to 10t of uh grass on either side of the fence as long as we have 10t uh width we don't necessarily matter too much uh what it is when it goes from
industrial to commercial to that becomes a 20b buffer uh which is the same buffer requirement uh only it requires a uh row of trees U and it has to be 20t wide as well uh I believe if it was going to
Industrial heavy which is the next step up from this it would become a 30C buffer which is uh frankly more than they would need for the development of this scale just one one more what are the the
setbacks actually what are the setbacks difference on between I'm going to get to something here in a sec by all means I understand uh so the main setback difference between the commercial 2 and the industrial
uh light zoning districts uh the main one is the front setback which is the side that the road is on uh it is a greater setback from uh commercial 2 to industrial Light uh mind you the only area that they have the road Frontage is in the front where their parking lot is
and they naturally meet those already there is an additional I believe 5 foot setback reduct uh requirement from commercial to going into industrial Light for their rear setback which they would more than likely need to apply for
some kind of uh setback variants for given the nature of their already existing buildings I'll wrap it up after this one already existing buildings so I met with staff and I asked about building permits um code violations it seems
like it's a little vague as to what has been permitted and constructed um on this do you have any knowledge of any code violations or recent building permits since
2015 uh to our knowledge and uh based off of our records we do not see any uh code violations having been filed for this property uh since then uh all records indicate that all previous development has been permitted uh in
particular there has been a canopy over one part that was permitted by the currently existing Administration uh because it was impervious over impervious and was designed solely for the purpose of giving a shaded work environment to the employees uh which allowed it to uh be
considered to Minimus enough not to require a development Review Committee process uh before that there was another development which was a I want to believe it was another storage building if memory serves right uh in which case that was done by the previous
administration who unfortunately no longer work here so we aren't able to ask them uh how that was able to be skirted around DRC as well uh it could be that they at the time thought that was also di Minimus due to the nature of it being just storage as opposed to like
actual Workshop uh it could also be a matter of there was something else in the code at the time which has since changed I don't I didn't want to go back in history anything like that I was just trying to figure out where we are right now I appreciate that thank you not a
problem sir is is the operation that running out there now currently um okay within the current zoning or is it not compatible uh to our knowledge they are Machining uh soft Metals into roof Parts which would cons
which would uh constitute a industrial use as it is technically manufacturing uh unfortunately the commercial 2 zoning District does not allow for manufacturing to take place of any caliber uh the industrial Light would be of course the ideal
circumstance for this uh the only commercial zoning District that does allow for manufacturing would be commercial for and even then they would need a special use permit in order to get that to happen um I think I'm kind of piggy backing off of his question but were any
of those manufacturing buildings put in the back as manufacturing facilities or they were they built under the guise of storage and then revamped after the county was out of
there I guess to accommodate Machinery or do we do we do we have any idea of how those buildings were actually intended to be I'm afraid I can't answer that unfortunately I would have to defer you to either Mr Zachary Baker who looks
like he's willing to speak or the applicants themselves uh as to our knowledge it seems like they were just permitted naturally and for whatever reason it passed our code at the time Madam chair may I elaborate thank
you um to our knowledge with the permit history that we have on file within our current uh permit portal the scope of works for all of those recent permits indicated some storage fixture some accessory to the manufacturing use
that's going on on site um the manufacturing would appear to be located on the western side of the property and the larger buildings um but again as Mr Graves put we can also defer to the applicant to find out the use of each of
the buildings on site thank you are there any further questions to staff hearing none I will ask if the applicant could come forward and talk to us about the
answer these questions possibly that have been posed today please state your name and address for the record business address or personal business would be fine I think yeah please speak directly into the microphone yep okay my name is Crystal
kensaw it's 186 State Road 207 East Paca Florida 32131 okay you're going to have to kind of eat that mic for the for the system to pick you up okay redo it or that's better okay so Crystal khaw I'm at 186 State Road 207 East Paca Florida
32131 thank you and talk to us about the current use and how it came to be yes ma'am um a big majority of the buildings that are currently in use were actually I know this term is not correct but it was grandfathered and they were there when the building and the property was
purchased so that was already there the additional building that we actually manufactur the metal in was put in I do believe in back in 2009 and it was solely intended for manufacturing at that time no other additional buildings
on the property manufacture so all of the other buildings that had you know is on there were pre-existing um there's one in the middle that's solely storage there's like a little shed it's
also just storage the manufacturing is m in that grandfathered building and then the additional is in the back okay any questions of Miss kensaw I what is that material that's
currently in the back are where you're parking and where all your basically the back two Parcels there the back two parcels are still open they are genuinely just used for parking there's the the back building
the only one that's back there is for manufacturing um so those back two Parcels are for parking so I'm trying to make sure not sure if we have a map maybe you could point that out that you're spe you know specifically referencing so I could see it but the
back portion of our property is storage for metal panels when customers make mistakes they're damaged we put them in the back in case we can resell them if not we scrap them otherwise it's parking and there's dumpsters that come and go
for the scrap of the material yeah what I was really trying to get to is it looks like around 20 quite a bit of grow to place and it appears at least from Ari l impious area
expanded to allow for parking to allow for storage I'm I'm saying impervious I'm not sure that's reason I was asking what kind of material but it looks like a lot more area in the recent past has been added that
is highly maneuverable for large vehicles and I was wondering what that material that's been placed is it is it a concrete is concrete no it's not concrete we the only concrete we have out there is on that production pad which was back
in 2007 2009 area when it was poured the back portion is not concreted we wish but unfortunately it is not and we have already had St John's Water Management come out and we have a letter of
approval and they've already inspected all of our grounds with what we currently have there was that related to the permit that was applied for in 2020 it is yes sir and that ins in 2020 yes sir and we haven't made any
additional changes back there there's no concrete concrete Vine stabiliz it's not natural grass correct it's not natural um there are millings that were out there but St John's Water Management fully are aware and most of those
millings are dissipated at this point and we have not replaced them right now we just drag it and once they're gone they're gone so you were saying that they were aware that was in yes
sir I would also like to comment that we've also made all of the special retention areas and have gone above and beyond to make sure we also have all of the engineering to make sure that we were more than compliant for our impervious
areas was the the paving of the parking lot the expansion in front of your building management count I honestly don't recall I was not um in this part of the business at the time when the the pavement was placed but I will say that
the pavement was there at the time of the St John's Water Management letter and approval and permitting you're welcome do you know when that Paving was added I don't I'm sorry okay are there any other questions of the applicant please stick around if we have
any more yes thank you thank you is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this application hearing none I will bring it back to the board for consideration close the public hearing portion of this meeting um discussion among the board
are my my apprehension on this is If This Were coming as a change to C4 say I don't think we have an issue with it because there's already C4 established along that Corridor the the my my apprehension is uh is the direction of the board and
the direction of the county want to open that up to be an industrialized Corridor and if so this seems the right path but if not if we're concerned about the residential portion of the community that is adjacent to and along
this corridor um the step to the industrial portion doesn't seem to job with me okay so like and it's right there on the I mean it's right there on the verge and again I say it's the it's what path we choose to
take and it may end up being the Commissioners that make this call obviously um I may or may not understand how they want to direct the county but as this sets just at face value here it seems to
me that the U the the industrial classification is Maybe Just Step Beyond what we need to be doing on that particular piece that's just my opinion thank you um this future land use is commercial in that area it's not urban service it's
Urban Reserve to the east but it's commercial the rest of the way um talk to us about Z or Michael if you could the thought behind going to industrial Light versus C4 once again for the record Michael
Graves and development services uh it is a commercial future land use as you mentioned with uh urban service adjacent to it uh the reason that we chose industrial as opposed to uh commercial four with a special use permit or the
like or even potentially a planned unit development which frankly that would be Overkill it would be a plan unit development uh is mainly because of the for lack of a better term uh it's more guaranteed to go through one plan
uh one one alteration rather than trying to do two three or four uh we could come to you and ask for industrial which would match what is currently on this property commercial 4 wouldn't match what's already on this property and that would still be a non-conformity
ultimately uh they would then need to get that special use permit and there's no guarantee that they would get that special use permit uh there's no guarantee of course that you'll pass this but it is more likely to get one uh alteration passed than trying to get
five alterations passed in order to make something compliant uh but a but a non-compliance issue on in an existing thing doesn't warrant us having to pass uh a
rezoning correct I'm questioning are we rezoning to bring a nonconforming use into compliance because that's the way we're going to go um I have
other concerns about the current site is that what we're trying to do uh ultimately what we're trying to do is we're trying to allow this business that has existed on this property for the past 20 years and has uh been
Machining soft metal into roof parts to be in a zoning District that is compatible with their desired business uh it is a existing business as I mentioned and
that they are not by earlier the applicant used the term grandfathered which is an inaccurate term we do not use that term of course uh but there is uh there is code language indicating that existing uh non-conformities
have a have a interest in attempting to comply with the Land Development code and through rezoning to appropriate zoning districts we can help assist them in complying with the uh Land Development code uh commercial Ford does
not by itself uh result in a compliance industrial Light does uh our options to create a zoning that would immediately comply would be either industrial Light or plan unit development and as I mentioned plan unit development is
frankly a bit of overkill for this property there is a if you'll take a look at the zoning map you'll notice that there is a plan unit development located directly south of this property that plan unit development was a roof truss uh manufacturing development
and I say was because that plan unit development has since shuttered and because it's shuttered it would need to go through a complete rezoning process for any new development to take place on that property uh no offense to the First Coast Roofing people of course but if
for whatever reason their business was to shutter manufacturing costs became too high uh importing uh metal became too expensive for them then a plan unit development on this property would mean that nobody would be able to develop on this property or redevelop it until
another rezone happened of any caliber right if I may I want to ask a question please yes sir if trying to think back I don't know when it was but 2016 somewhere in there
the codes were changed we used to have C1 C2 C3 now we have C1 C2 C3 C4 and because we changed it people were out of compliance flat out because I had
to go come back and put in for my own property to get in compliance I was in compliance prior but in order to sell the property and do it right I got it back into compliance and I think that if you look at the codes back when they
started that they were probably in compliance and it because we changed the codes the county now we now they're out of compliance that's what I think happen but they didn't start manufacturing 20 years ago they started manufacturing
what somewhere between 09 and 2015 is that 7 2007 but they were still in compliance Chang the difference was the difference was between retail they selling roofing material that they were
importing M reselling versus is bringing in raw materials and producing through industrial process that's right I think so so that's the the instead of lumping it all into one piece like we're saying it's been there for 20 years you have to
you have to look at when the industrial portion of what they're doing there started which is not at its Inception it is somewhere further along the way and at that point were we in compliance with land use at the time but our job is
not to determine whether they're in compliance or not our job is to determine whether or not this property meets what we're saying they want to do I I I agree with you and that it meets current so from that standpoint but I
don't care whether they're in compliance or not that's another comp that's that's putam county has to address that not not this board if I may though um so if I took the
drive cross the bridge C4 C3 C2 everything with an exception of about about two Parcels one being the P that's just to the south of that all complies with current zoning or the
future land use where I'm a little questioning a few things is if we recommend bumping this all the way to Industrial it seems It's very rare in at least in my experience that you actually
see zoning work and future land uses working and and this is one of those corridors that's like coming into town it's coming into our County it's it's actually working and it has a chance to work with the exception of a few
residential that will use the best highest use of their property of course and that PUD which you the staff also mentioned would have to be accounted for if it ever came back to to me the C4 with a special
use would keep that future land use would keep keep everything in what someone's Vision was I'm day one here okay I don't know what the vision was but again it seems to be working with a special use
permit they could still do their light industrial but it wouldn't automatically allow all the other stuff that is associated with light industrial is that I mean I think I'm reading it correctly
because once you get to light industrial then it only takes a special use permit to go bulk storage to toxic chemicals basically that right will be forever hung on that property and it seems
counterintuitive to go against current zoning future land use if there's an option available to help we all want industry we all want development we all jobs and still comply
with with the greater plan so to speak and I I I I just question why the C4 with a special use permit which would allow what they're doing bring them into compliance Z where does this lie in
relation to the urban Services Corridor that we changed to with the I know you weren't here when we did the the comp plan revision but we we switched a lot of land along the 20 207 Corridor to Urban service where does that lie in
relationship to this property Well ma'am I I'm not sure that I have the answer to the question which land switched to Urban service at the last comp plan Amendment but I would like to to provide some additional clarification right now what we have on
site is a non-conforming use and the use is seeking an expand mention albe it a small one but it would result in in higher manufacturing capabilities so as of right now they're stagnant they cannot expand in any way shape or form
and there's been a lot of discussion here today about um C4 with a special use permit well staff are are obligated to provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the board of County Commissioners um if we were to if
the applicant was to come before you as commercial 4 we would not be able to recommend approval for that because the existing use does not comply with that zoning District as a use by right it requires a special use
permit conversely we couldn't even try to attempt a path where we'd issue a special use permit first contingent upon An approved rezone because as part of our review of the special use permit it has to comply with with the allowed use
in that zoning and then C2 we do not have a manufacturing and to go back a little further Mr Hancock brought up you know our zoning ordinance at its Inception C2 was the highest zoning that we ever had in 1976 when established and
I don't I'm not familiar with what the use was prior to this manufacturing uh the metal roof manufacturing business and I I never like using this term in a public format but I would assume that the prior use was a pretty
significant you know heavy intense use more than likely what we've what what we're encountering now is um you know the checks were unbalanced through history and it was allowed to grow a
little bit grow a little bit di Minimus impact you know so on and so forth until you get to the point where now we we really do want to intensify this use both on paper and with labor and
production where do we go from here and so as Michael put it a PUD is an option for sure um but we all know that puds are timely and and frankly the business is ready to expand yesterday so having
met with the property owner at a pre application meeting we said you know this is your your clearcut quickest path to compliance and then even further back to Mr Williams yeah I mean a portion of this rezone is to bring a non-conforming
use into compliance and at the end of the day I think you know that's kind of the the main objective of this department is to ensure compliance with land use so you know it
industrial Light is the zoning District that planning staff would have to recommend for approval for this specific use but as we all know at the end of the day if the BCC approves this nothing is keeping MD
Distribution on that property and to bounce back to Mr Williams Nothing is Stopping that next owner to apply for a special use permit to do bulk storage at xic chemicals if the property were left with its current zoning and it gets you know
goes through the the rest of the process and it ends up in a denial they would be able to maintain their use you know repair their use and keep their use but they would not be able to intensify their use in a manner that would allow
them to stay current with other roofing companies around them when uh when they were they comp or were they within their use of the zoning when they started Manufacturing in ' 07 I don't have the answer to that question
unfortunately we'd have to go back and look at the 07 code and see what it said um could you and and the reason I asked that is because there's there's there's two distinct trains of thought here if the
code changed out from under them they were compliant at that time and the code changed out from under them then certainly that has one Avenue to try to correct that there's more understanding that
that's something we need to correct through no fault of the property owner and the the business owner did they affect the change whatsoever but if you are providing let's say a C1 service
and without any planning or preparation other than build a storage building and put some equipment in it and start manufacturing that use then becomes something that was not compliant at the time that it was started and the Avenue
for correction needs to involve input from from the owner as well like I that's so that's the kind of the two the two things that I'm seeing here is yes they've been in business for a long time but they're the what they do
and what they produce has changed there was a dramatic change 12 15 20 whatever it was years ago when it went from being a retail store to an industrial process now where that comes back together and
how that gets rectified I'm not I'm not 100% sure but there has to be some there has to be some thought given to what made that was it compliant at the time of that change was it compliant when we said all right we're long going to be retail we're going to be an
industrial process do we care that our property is in compliance and that's so that that's kind of kind of where I'm on the fence about all this stuff is did is it through their actions that caused the
non-compliance or was it the code being changed underneath them um well I would think that what normally happens in what I've seen is as your business grows you just grow your business and you don't
really think about your zoning that's the least of your worries oh I agree that but if I'm if I'm a corner store selling dog food and I go from selling cans of dog food then now I've got a factory in the back that's C canning dog food and selling it that's two completely different processes which is
what we have here I understand I understand what you're saying but I'm saying that they're here today trying to get in compliance So to that same point if commercial 2 at some point was the most intense commercial there
was then C4 is the most intens commercial that is now and then a special use permit would allow them
to comply and keep keep moving forward so again I just go back to once you rezone a property to a more intensive and I'm going call it intens I don't
know the ter this but the next step is industrial heavy and Min this is not a little jump here this is not from residential to whatever to this is from the most intense commercial
you can do to it's it's pretty intense and to the nonconformist at the time legal non nonconformance means under or due to no action or fault
of the person or the applicant houses are built Too Close side setbacks they bought them that way that's a a legal nonconforming lot may not allow and we make those things if this use
became non-conforming that shouldn't really be something in my opinion it's considered I mean as justification for a full Next Level reason say I I I personally feel more
comfortable with a C4 and a special use and and assistance to them given the fact that they are there doing work I appr thank you any other questions of Staff any other
discussion Michael you had a question U actually this is more of a comment on an earlier uh statement uh and I mean no disrespect when I say this of course uh but earlier you had mentioned uh what's stopping them if they go from uh go to industrial Light and then they want a
special use permit for bulk storage of hazardous materials for example and the answer is actually the special use permit itself would stop the uh I handle all the special use permits that come through our department and I know the process fairly well uh one of the requirements to obtain a special use
permit is that you can't have hazardous materials as a factor for a special use permit uh there are obvious exam uh exceptions of course such as intensive agriculture uh and even then that would be majorly determined by the locational
uh of the location of the development this is on a major highway this is the main our artery going through that end of the county frankly uh we would not allow the hazardous materials and bulk storage to be on such a majorly traversed Highway uh with so much
residential and Commercial development at right next door to it for something like that uh that just would not be compatible with the surrounding area or the Land Development code uh our special use permit process has Securities in
place that would prevent a lot of the uh a lot of the headaches that you're uh anticipating I suppose the proper term would be uh from becoming a possibility if they were to get industrial Light uh would they still
have access to a lot of industrial Light capabilities absolutely that would be their right but stuff that would be considered industrial heavy and would require a special use permit industrial Light or would be again solely for industrial heavy that just would not be
allowed just because of how incompatible the surrounding zoning is and surrounding uses well I think to the point the special use permit gives another level of control it keeps that whole area from becoming one gigantic industrial zoning because because as
soon as you Zone that one industrial the neighbors immediately say I want mine to be I want mind to be industrial Light well if that's true then that whole Corridor has the potential to become industrial Light there I think with and I know it's a
complication from a staff perspective but the C4 zoning with the special use gives one another layer of control to kind of allow that expansion on that particular property without giving the free rain up and down the corridor there
to become industrialized overnight so I think think that's think we're seeing ey eye on that as far as the the process it's not we're not we're not saying no the the the what's going on on that property can't go on we're
not trying to argue that into a code case I think the I think the overall event here is trying to get that to a thing that's consistent with the stuff around us while still finding a path for them to do what they've been doing there for years so I don't think that I don't
think we're looking for Denial in the in the aspect that we don't want them to be able to work there I think we're wanting to deny not I mean however it lays out I think we're looking for a course of action that Al some although somewhat tedious on staff's part and we apologize
for that but it it provides an Avenue that kind of keeps that Corridor in Check le that's other comments or questions or concerns at this point I'll entertain a motion Madam chair I'll make a motion
Rez 25- 00002 recommend approval as it meets the goals and objectives but uh Land Development Cod I have a proper motion do I have a proper second so Madam chair alter to deny to
deny and then it's up to the applicant to come back we're not allowed to make motions to the now I was just kidding that was a big story so they will return to what will happen if we deny it they
will have to go back to planning and development and SE of the other path no no ma'am if if the Planning Commission today recommends denial it goes to the board with a recommendation to deny and then ultimately would be the board's
decision right excuse decision it's well the trick is so if you recommend denial for this application and recommended that they go back for C4 with a special use permit it's going to put staff in a position where when it comes back for C4 because
the special use permit is is not heard concurrent we can't re staff won't be able to recommend approval right CA we'd go no no no we would come to Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial for C4 because
we cannot guarantee that special use permit and then it would be basically taking them for their word that they will apply for that special use permit but we could we could we could make a conditional recommendation to the board of County Commissioners right like we could recommend based on the
approval of the supplementary use permit that the C4 change be approved correct the issue is you can't do conditional zoning and that's what that would be we we approve it to be C4 if they get a special use permit we can't do that by by Florida
statute that's that's where you would do a PUD let me remind you we have a motion on the floor we do not have a second what is the board's do I hear a
second then the motion dies for a lack of a second do I hear a motion for denial can we make one of those yeah motion off the FL well there was a big philosophical discussion about four months ago about not making a m to deny
right that's not something we usually do we do we remember that discussion oh yeah we remember that discussion all well in that case I I'll make a motion uh for Rez to to deny Rez 2500000000
Z2 uh as it is not in our in my opinion consistent with goals and objectives and surrounding Parcels did I hear a second down there okayy Mr Williams Madam chair can we please uh clarify
what the motion to deny and all that and Mr Perry if you'd like to assist that'd be great yes as a matter of fact uh Mr Morris if you want to make another motion um I'd suggest you use the uh
example in front of you and leave out what your opinion is okay all right so let's see motion example it's also would be spot zoning of industrial in that area can that be included in the motion say again ma'am it would be industrial
is no is not in that area right now it would be bringing industrial into an area of that's commercial how about this I move that we recommend to the board of County Commissioners deny resoning Rez 25002 as it is not consistent with the
goals objectives and policies of the putam county comprehensive plan that okay that okay that's what's written there that is that section yep how is it not consistent yeah where does it deviate from consistency with the
comp plan all right no we don't we don't need why it's not consistent okay correct I mean just need a yes or no
so we got a sidebar over here you have to tell us what's not consistent apparently uh it does require some sort of uh explanation as to why um it isn't consistent with the
uh goals objectives and policies of Pam County comprehensive plan I'll also look up a few things right quick if you certainly is not is the fact that it's not light industrial is allowed in the commercial future here's my position
staff said it's in compliance so you have to show me where it's not staff did all their research and they came back and said it's it's it meets the goals and objectives that's what it said sorry so Mr Graves you mentioned
that light industrial is part of the commercial for future land use yes sir that is part of uh section a.1. n.4 Point uh A5 point I want to say d I'm impressed
thank you yes it is part of commercial if it was Heavy manufacturing then it would not be allowed in commercial it would need an industrial future land use but light industrial can exist in the commercial future land use u in addition spot zoning was mentioned
earlier uh whenever you go from one zoning uh type to another it's always going to be technically spot zoning because like if you're having commercial appear and residential it's going to be spot zoning uh but but at the same time it is considered seeding almost to have
uh the highest level intensity of one lead into the lowest intensity of the next so in a sense uh in residential two would lead into commercial one almost and likewise the commercial four that's already there would technically be a seed for industrial Light so technically
you could say it's spot zoning technically you could also say it's not because of the commercial four and the Pud for that matter which is also light Industrial thank you all right Mr Perry yes ma'am um Madam chair after
speaking with uh um County staff we're not exactly sure when um these motion examples were updated particularly we're asking for uh
uh reasons why something's being denied and looking over uh uh chapter 45 and particularly with the board that's convene today I don't see anything in there about that having to make a uh uh
an explanation of why it's denied and after conferring with staff uh it's up to the applicant to basically uh approach the matter again in whatever way they seem see fit to try and get what they're
looking for in the first place so that make any sense so you're recommending that we don't require a reason for denial no I can't see anything to uh say that you have to that's what I was trying to determine but it keeps showing
up on the bottom of our our uh motion Pages let me ask this question of staff can you point to the code sections that specifically guided you to
recommend approval other than what you just said Zach is there something else or Mike is there something else they would be the sections that are listed out in the uh staff report uh the future land use uh
policy that allows for industrial Light in the commercial future land use category is one of them of course uh the others would be the uh zoning regulations based off of the development type that's already there in a rezone you're not supposed to look at the development that is proposed
or in the or the development that is technically existing already you're not supposed to look too much at that but when it comes to the actual zoning uh in this case especially where there is development there we kind of have to almost uh even if that shouldn't be the
Crux of our argument uh but ultimately the future land use categories states that this is allowed uh we the comprehensive plan is very clear that there is nothing against this type of zoning existing within this future land use
category uh same with this uh development that has existed and will hopefully continue to exist for many years later uh in this uh property uh the zoning allows for it uh the maps of femma the infrastructure everything else
say that it's allowed the staff report uh as I point out throughout several points of it there's nothing explicitly in our code that says it can't and a lot of points that say that it can uh it would need to be ultimately there's nothing that I
could find when I was doing research for this that said that this isn't allowed other than as you mentioned potentially the case of spot zoning or even potentially urban sprawl but as mentioned in the staff report we don't believe this to constitute urban sprawl because it is technically
an already existing development that is uh essentially infilling what is already there and already designated to be more commercial in the future uh and as I mentioned before you could classify this as spot zoning but between the Pud which is already industrial Light and the
commercial four there really isn't a better place that you could find a newly created industrial Zone uh without having an entire block dedicated to Industrial indal future land use and then uh slaying everything in that block becomes industrial Light or industrial
heavy like I believe they tried in uh the Crescent City area a few uh about a decade ago I remember that one um I think one of the things too a principle that's not a written principle but it's something that I have
seen and I think you've probably seen Chris is that when we have a situation where we have split zoning and or a non-compliance Zing we have done everything we can to bring that property in compliance with
the existing use of that property so that's a just a guiding principle I think that we've had should would be conf first is going to go check them out and I think that if you need over the years I've seen the
commission do the same kinds of things but um we've had a lot of properties come before us that had non-compliance zoning whether they had a codes enforcement case against them or not we've had some that had codes enforcement problems and
they've come before us for a change in zoning to make to shoehorn that property into compliance with the use that was already on it so um we have a motion a proper motion and
a second on the floor or a motion and a second on the floor um to deny this particular zoning are we ready to vote Madam chair I would say that the information that Mr Graves just
mentioned that light industrial is part of the future land use for commercial MH that's more that's good information for me to to know and it may have been discussed earlier but I I missed it I mean I'm hearing a lot of good information on both sides but I think that's important information to have
thank you Mr Hodge down there you got a question or comment you want to make to us you're being quiet fix I'll make a comment I it can be fix it can be fixed right if we didy today it can be fixed well it could be fixed
with the board of County Commissioners or it would have to go back and be a different different application so Madam chair um before we vote though I'd like to just mention something though that uh although we
can't find any Authority for having to State why uh we're why if this is denied uh why it's being denied uh but it also it's it's probably it's an interesting thing to think about that if the if our
County Commissioners are faced with what's on the record here today it's going to be an awful tough job to try and figure out what's going on that's why they get pay the big bucks well but what I'm trying to say is is it would be nice if if and I'm not telling you you
have to do it but uh if there is a reason why you know it's not being uh approved or why it needs to be denied it'd be nice to have it on the record so that our commissioners could at least look at it and try and make some sense out of what's going on with this
particular um I I'll say that U and I appreciate all the work that staff puts into this um however everything that staff reads is an interpretation is their their their opinion of how they read that code not that most of it's not pretty black and
white but in the grand scheme of things it's their opinion of of what the code says and as a board member I feel like part of part of our interpretation of that is what the general direction of the county is going you know we the the
the keeping things consistent in these areas when these anomalies pop up um so whether or not is a specific line in the code that we're saying no to or a general this is what we feel like the intent of the code
is I feel like that's that's the that's that's the direction for the approval of denial there there may be a lot of things that come through here that we don't really know that for 100% they should be approved but because the direction that that is taking whatever the case may be whether it's a rezoning
or a change in E whatever it may be that the the overall view the big picture view of the item that comes through is each individual board members interpretation of what they feel the code is directing so that I mean that's
if if I had to put one thing on it I would probably have to spend a little time in the Land Development code but as a overall General board memb view of what I feel like the code intends and that it's intended whether through urban sprawl or
uh you know consolidation of like zonings I I feel like the direction of this is don't allow something that can that can adversely affect that entire area in a matter of short term and so you know I that's not a code section
that is just kind of how I interpret not only the Land Development code but my job as a as a board member and I can respect that totally and I respect you're saying that I think the one thing that I hang up on is you're saying in your motion that this
application and this resoning is not consistent with the goals objectives and policies I I can adjust the motion to say the goals and objectives as I understand you got to use the verbiage that we're supposed to use so I can understand why you would have to State
why um if you're going to say they're not in compliance well what are they not in compliance with and I think that's the that's where I'm hung up on it question absolutely So when you say Industrials allowed in this zoning is
that by right or by special use permit by uh in accordance with uh putham County comprehensive plan a.1. n. no whatever it is for the uh commercial future land use category when it comes to Industrial use uh light manufactured
is allowed by right in that future land use category uh it is heavy manufacturing is not allowed in the commercial future land use category at that point you would need to have a future land use map amendment to Industrial in order to do any kind of
heavy industrial uh zoning or development of that kind that is actually something we would also look for on special use permits to make sure that you're compliant with not only the zoning but also the future land use category I'm looking through the list on
page four of nine of the allowable uses in the C2 District I see retail sales retail sales food and general Services office commercial recreation entertainment cultural Civic relig facility child and
adult daycare Nursing Home Hospital Assisted Living passenger vehicle service limited to Tire Battery and oil change lodging Emergency Services Car Wash and drive-through facilities and a club uh special use permit would be
required for education and essential public services and others would be nightclub portable building sales of mini warehouse where is light industrial come to that uh light industrial start at commercial 4 not commercial 2 uh light
industrial is allowed with a special permit in commercial so we're switching from light from C2 to I industrial Light yes ma'am well I think they're making the distinction between the future land use versus the current zoning they're saying they're not they're not saying the current zoning allows for industrial
they're saying right that the future land use of commercial allowed for right the the development into industrial but regardless of that there's no path that that doesn't come before this board and the opinions of this board say that
seems consistent with what needs to happen in that area or it doesn't see need you know it's not like just because it's allowed by right in the future my my comment was just because it is allowed just because indust industrial use is allowed in commercial
future land use there's no Avenue that just because by right it's allowed in that future land use that the the zoning is automatic there's there's there's no path that that changing from commercial to Industrial use doesn't come before
this board with the intent of having it addressed as whether or not it's viable or right for the area am I correct in saying that I don't know if you are or not is that something that comes through the county is that yes yes you're you're correct
with that okay yes so so in regardless of by right or not future land use we we're we're not talking about future land use we're talking about current zoning and in current zoning you want to do something that steps up Beyond it it has to come before this board in which the opinions of this board the opinions
of the interpretation of the code and the opinions of the direction of the county have to be administered to whatever the current problem is and that's where we're at correct so the
land that is there currently does not meet the qualifications to do what they they want to do so they had we have to change it to get them to be compliant that is the whole goal of what we're doing tonight today um and so change the you or change what they're doing on the property go back to a retail I mean one
simple solution would go back to being retail not being industrial that's not what they want to do and we're not trying to say that's what you should do our goal there are more solutions than just we need to rubber stamp it with an industrial zoning and let it carry on that's yes sir so our goal as staff is
to get them in compliance so what they're doing is how we get them in compliance we can have come people come to us and have a site that is C2 and they don't tell us what's going there so they can move it to Industrial whatever they like to do and they don't necessarily have to tell us what they're doing there so this is not the case with
this because this has been done for some time our goal is to get them compliant if you guys want to go in a different direction and you deny it that the board decides to do something we will be back with the applicant if they want to do something different with that um but yes to change the current zoning even the Su wouldn't come before us it would go from
zboa but it would have to go before a board to change the the use of that piece of property yes sir okay but so if we if if this board recommends resoning that's the use
right what about the current site that's not comp either a C2 C4 industrial it's probably pushing mining I I don't know because at C2 there's so much impervious there's setbacks there's
none of that we're going to the what's being proposed is to fix it so they can use what they have and what they want to where is the where is the assurance that this
whole property will ever come into compliance if we do a special use permit that allows them to keep working keep growing but wouldn't that also be another trigger to bring the C current
C2 into C for imperious uh let's see buffer zones um because right now I mean I can't it's basically cleared property the property
line and you know at C2 it's only 75% per I think C4 also your setbacks get bigger so right now you know a setback for a side setback for C2 is 10
we go to industrial Light it's 35 ft aren't we resoning and creating more issues because legal non-conformance is something that they didn't do since 2015 there's been a lot of
additional at least B based on Aerials stuff are we trying to fix the nonconform just for the job or the industry or the Manu are we trying to assure and what what gives I
mean what makes sure they come into compliance when they go to that DRC would would make sure they're coming in compliance once if it was zoned um light industrial does it trigger a code enforcement review does Code Enforcement go out there is there
anything in the function I think that I think that's the the J of the question is if if we were to get ready to approve Z is does does Code Enforcement go out there and say this is about to be industrial let's pull open the industrial section of the book and make
sure that everything's in compliance or is the rezoning to fix the zoning issue creating a bunch of non-compliance issues from a Cod or uh you know on site
standpoint you know yes we're fixing if if if we were to say yes let's let's let's approve the the industrial uh zoning we were to say that we were to approve approve that and all the things that are on that property are that were
compliant in the existing zoning are now non-compliant because they're setep back are we just going to say well that's grandfathered in because they were there it's a non-conforming part of it we're just code enforcement doesn't care about that because correct because it certainly seems that that's not the we so to say all that I don't if I
had a cone plate we're going to investigate no matter what is there um would this trigger that that would depend on I can't tell what the future's going to do right so if you guys said no bccc says no then we would have to figure out how to get into compliance right so we'd have to adjust if there was a code complaint then we would
investigate and we would want them to come into compliance this would be a part of them if they had an open codes case this would be a part of them coming into compliance to have the codes case dropped right so that's it's a mix so it's hard to say like you're saying what what's the stick or the carrot right
that's kind of what you're asking and so really depend on the situation this situation right here I don't have a stick I have no code complaints there's been nothing brought to us so right now we're trying to the applicant came to us we're bringing you guys what would bring them in compliance and that's where we are so um I do understand both sides of
what you're saying and what youall decide then we'll push it to the bccc and then we'll go from there I have a question for staff when you did the review um how out of compliance will they be on the light industrial setbacks and buffers
they will with their current development be pretty significantly out of compliance however it is the DRC process where they would come into compliance uh the DRC would review their site plans for any new expansion and at that point we would tell them hey you need to meet
these setbacks you need to meet these buffers and we would also as is the right of any property owner give them the option to apply to the zoning Board of adjustment for variances to reduce those uh it would be highly possible for them to to request from the Zoning Board
of adjustment a setback reduction for the currently existing uh buildings that would allow them to keep the current C2 zoning uh setbacks for their currently existing buildings any new buildings would have to meet the setback requirements uh for the industrial Light
zoning District however uh the the benefit of uh variances and special use permits is that we can put conditions like that on there that would ensure that uh say they sold off the property to somebody else else uh that new industrial Light zoning wouldn't be able
to take the quote unquote grandfathered buildings and say yeah we're going to put a uh generator in here or something where just they would need to make a new for that and it would need to meet setback requirements thank you all right are you
ready to vote I'll ask that question again yes fa okay we have a motion on the floor to deny because it's not consistent with the goals and obje and policies of the putham county comprehensive
plan I'm going to do a roll call vote Stanley yes deny Matt yes Justin I'm sorry
Jason yes Chris nay now Justin and the chair votes name so this will now go move to the board of County Commissioners for April 22nd and
um staff if you could delineate those reasonings for approval and if there are any possible routes for denial if we can get those to the board of County Commissioners take five thank yes we
will take five thank you for coming miss grenshaw your next appointment here in this building will be April 22nd for e e
e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e it's 5:33 I'll call this meeting back to
order Mr Baker we're doing a text Amendment to the Land Development code yes ma'am that is correct okay take it away all right for the record Zachary Baker planning and development services case number is LDC
25- 00001 this application is County initiated this is a text Amendment to the putham County Land Development code proposing amendments to articles 2 Three
6 7 9 11 12 and 13 of the putam County Land Development code which was amended uh in July through ordinance 202 24-12 um so this slide isn't super applicable to the Planning Commission because all
it says is whenever a an amendment to the allowed uses in a zoning category change uh the board of County Commissioners must consider the item two times at two different public hearings so this is this is for their information
this will go to the County Commission on April 8th that is correct yes ma'am and then the second uh bard of County Commission meeting will be determined at April 8 8's meeting um it's worth noting too because
it's not anywhere in this PowerPoint uh more or less and it is documented within the staff report the intent with this uh the county initiated text Amendment here was um was about 90% to clean up some of the uh the errors whether it's scrier
errors or um you know congested language or whatever the case may be from our last Amendment uh that we were not able to identify before it got adopted that said there are some
modifications to the code uh which staff feels is kind of in line with the the intent of the Land Development code AS is um so my PowerPoint presentation is more or less just a summary of the proposed amendments uh if at the end we
have questions about you know which amendments are being suggested uh I just request that we we specify the section number uh so that I can flip to it and my my packet up here next to me but within Article 2 division three that would be uses allowed within zoning
districts we've got a clarification on permit requirements for artificial ponds and the A and residential estate zoning District clarification on permit requirements for borrow areas in the a zoning District an inclusion of
emergency service Services as Allowed by W and all residental Agricultural and Commercial zoning districts the inclusion of accessory dwelling units with an approved special use permit for existing commercial uses
and Commercial zoning districts within Article 2 Division 4 accessory uses and structures there's an inclusion of non-residential farm buildings for Bonafide farms in that section identifying what accessory uses are permitted prior to a primary use there
are modifications to table 2.04 a relating to accessory dwelling units and Commercial zoning districts there are setback exemptions for wellous not exceeding certain square footage and height thresholds and there's a clarification
added whichever is easier for that might be better for us if you don't mind okay so we don't get too bogged down in things do SE I can do that too it really is at the discretion of the board at how we look at these these text amendments I realize that it's probably a little
little small on on the print yeah um I don't know what section this is can can we stop with article two and just do article two the first time article two y s all right so if it's easiest I can run
through my packet that I have here and more or less read out what the strike through and the underlines are all right so for section 455-7288 being in accordance with local state and federal permitting requirements uh we are also adding that
emergency services be an allowed use by W in the a zoning district with that we struck Emergency Services as a use requiring a special use permit and then for uh still requiring a special use
permit would be borrow areas greater than 1/8 of an acre and the change being in accordance with local state and federal permitting requirements okay any questions about the items in article one article two
make we'll do it all together at the end just want to go through and see if there are any questions or comments or concerns one article at a time all right and and just please bear with me because a lot of the changes in this first article are very similar SAR so with
aate it's pretty much identical to agriculture so we are adding Emergency Services as a use by right striking it as a use with a special use permit and then for artificial ponds one acre or less in size we are adding in accordance
with local state and federal permitting requirements uh and then for uses with a special use permit artificial ponds that are greater than an acre in size would be done in accordance with local state and federal permitting requirements
okay Mr Woodward are you wanting to speak on any of these yes ma'am would you like to speak on the items in article one article two yes ma'am please come forward and state your name and address let's just go through each article at a time and then we're still
in article two though ma'am just be your aw Michael Woodward 517 South Francis Street interlock we should all be grateful to Mr Baker for his initiative his expertise and his hard work in creating the LCD Amendment package that we have before us
today it is overall an excellent document and I hope at the end of the day you will recommend approval of most of it of concern however is the proposed change to the status of Emergency Services uses a category that includes
Fire Department Department stations Sheriff substations EMS stations and Emergency Operations centers the only zones in which Emergency Services uses are not currently allowed at all are mining
light public use and conservation the Land Development code currently allows Emergency Services uses by right in commercial zones C2 C3 and C4 as well as in light industrial heavy
industrial and heavy public use Emergency Services uses are currently Allowed by special use permit in all Agricultural and residential zones and in professional office CPO and
neighborhood commercial C1 zoning the Land Development code's current requirement for a special use permit in those zones is not an over oversight or a glitch it was included in the Land Development code in
acknowledgement of the fact that not every type and size of emergency services facility is going to be compatible with every particular location in those zones and so caseby casee determinations need to be made by
the zboa or the administrated deviation committee those caseby casee determinations involve public hearings where residents and business owners who know their local neighborhoods and Roads better than anyone else are given notice
and opportunity to provide relevant evidence to the decision-making body but what is being proposed today is to do away with the special use permit requirement for emergency services uses in all residential Agricultural and low
intensity commercial zones that would mean that any type of emergency service facility of any size would be automatically allowed anywhere in those zones with no notice to the
public and no opportunity for nearby residents and business owners to have any input there is no need to make such a change I share with Mr Baker and I'm sure with all of you a desire to see Emergency Services facilities widely
dispersed throughout the county but requiring special use permits in certain zones is not stopping and is not going to stop that from happening experience tells us that most Su applications will get approved some
of them made more compatible with the addition of conditions that go above and beyond the normal development standards once in a while though the evidence presented at an Su hearing may prove to the satisfaction of the zboa or
ADC that a particular emergency services facility would simply not be compatible with a particular location but that doesn't mean it wouldn't get built it just means it would get built somewhere else somewhere
better it means an appropriate decision was made by means of an appropriate process a process that should not be discarded do the Commissioners have any questions for me appreciate you're bringing it forward
thank you okay any questions of Staff of of commission to staff then Z Zack please continue why was that language changed uh simply based on the fact that emergency services are benit to the
health safety and Welfare of the community make them more widely available make them to where it's easier to be located in any property I mean uh Mr Woodward brings up a good point that you know giving the public uh the opportunity to weigh in on the location of these service facilities is you know
it's ideal if I don't know all of y'all's opinion but someone may not want emergency sirens and lights going off at 3:00 a.m. out across the street from their Road um but ultimately just to make it more attainable throughout the
county with the approval being possible by the administrative deviation committee what's the likelihood of a placement of a special use permit to place a an Emergency obviously a public facility in
a going to be that it would come before the ADC or go to the U cbaa I mean so anecdotally there there was a um a new fire station that is currently under construction in the West End of the county it went through the
administrative deviation committee for a special use permit um I think there was one uh citizen that showed up and simply asked you know what what's going to be going on with lights and Sirens um to which one of the members of our uh
deviation committee highlighted that there would be a buffer requirement and that they realized that it is an agrarian residential area and that they would establish some form or protocol as to not sound the the five
alarms at you know certain hours of the night uh with that said though the special use permit was approved uh unanimously by the ADC with no conditions which would ensure that however through the development review
process it was ensured that a buffer which was consistent with our Land Development code was placed on the properties surrounding edges so okay thank
you moving on so I think we're still in the residential estate zoning District um similar to AA State we would allow for artificial ponds less than one acre in size in accordance with local state and federal permitting requirements we
would add Emergency Services we would add artificial ponds greater than one acre in size in accordance with local state and federal requirements if approved by a special use permit striking from that section Emergency Services as a required special use
permit approval residential one this is where it gets a little bit easier we're adding Emergency Services by right removing it as a special use permit requirement residential 2 zoning District same thing adding Emergency
Services by right striking Emergency Services uh with a special use permit sorry my fingers are dry and I'm trying to flip pages as quickly as I can for the residential 3 which is a multif family low intensity zoning District we would be adding Emergency Services by
right striking it with a special use permit residential four which is a higher intensity multif family adding Emergency Services by right striking with a special use permit uh residential manufactured home
park also known as mobile home parks um same adding Emergency Services by right striking emergency services with a special use permit and the commercial professional offices zoning District which is CPO adding
Emergency Services by right striking emergency services with a special use permit and then adding with a special use permit accessory dwelling units occupied by owner or tenant of existing commercial use and for the record it's
not owner or its owner slash tenant um moving on Commercial neighborhood C1 adding Emergency Services by right striking emergency services with a special use permit and then again adding
accessory dwelling unit occupied by owner tenant of existing commercial use with a special use permit and then for commercial retail C2 we're simply adding accessory dwelling unit occupied by owner tenant
of existing commercial use with an approved special use permit C3 there is a strike of major and minor arterial roadways within the uh purpose um and we will get to major and minor arterial roadways a little further on in
this um text Amendment proposal as will Mr Woodward um but nonetheless uh the addition to the C3 zoning District would be uh allowing accessory dwelling units occupied by owner tenant of existing commercial use
with an approved special use permit and within the C4 zoning District same as C3 striking major and minor from the purpose and adding accessory dwelling unit occupied by owner tenant of existing commercial use as an allowed
use by special use permit approval um that that is the completion of Article 2 division three would you like me to do Article 2 Division 4 now or how we add we'll bring them up as as when we
get to them um the accessory dwelling units there is a I think a bill pending in the legislature addressing those and making them used by wri in many of the zoning districts of Florida is that correct
yeah I mean as I as I've read it um the statute that it currently exists uh and encourages municipalities and jurisdictions to allow uh accessory dwelling units and single family zoning
districts um it also encourages communities to allow rental of those accessory dwelling units um I believe what's being proposed now is um um making it to where we cannot prohibit
rental of of an accessory dwelling unit but it can't be for just shortterm one night at a time kind of thing it's got to be a a longer term I'd have to read through that bill again I've only read it that's I read um and I do know though it is
specific to uh residential zoning districts right uh and further to elaborate we have a weird situation where our comprehensive plan allows residential uses in the commercial future land use map but
there's no there's no um platform or method for which a a property owner can apply for an accessory dwelling unit in their C2 zoning district and as I understand it these are going to be could these be tiny
homes or so they would have to conform to the accessory dwelling unit regulations that are currently in place which requires either Flor to building code compliant conventional construction or Flor to building code compliant modular
construction so if somebody had the the ability to acquire a um a cargo container and convert that into a a residential unit then they would be able to do that they would not be allowed to do a mobile home or an RV or a tiny home
that's on Wheels yes sir so the the size requirements right now is the minimum square footage of 375 Square ft a maximum square footage of 2,000 square ft or 75% the square
footage of the primary use whichever is believe it's whichever is greater mhm big yeah that's theare dict locre I'm sorry one more time sir the
square footage for the accessory dwell that's established again my first day established yes sir it it would be in section 45 110 parentheses 6 Mr Woodward do you have have anything to comment on those on Accessory
dwelling units Noam thank you thank you all right let's move forward use of structures all right yep now we are in Article 2 Division 4 um and we are proposing to add non-residential farm
buildings for Bonafide farms uh this would be in residential zoning districts um prior to the establishment of a single family home and it's an interesting one Florida Statutes is already going to give this
preemption whereby if you have a Bonafide agricultural use regardless of what the zoning is you are entitled to a non-residential exempt Farm building without any permitting requirements all we can ask for is a site plan to show where it's at on the property we can't
and I hope not too many people are watching but we can't enforce setbacks we can't enforce lot coverage we can't enforce anything except for FEMA flood hazard that's it moving on um within the same section 45-106 uh
D4 uh section was abbreviated even though all throughout the land development code it is spelled out so we just change that to be consistent table 2.04 a um we've added for accessory dwelling uses this is units this is um use es that are allowed
per zoning District so we just made it align with the proposed amendment of inclusion of adus with the SC and Commercial same thing Su with conforming uh commercial use um and
45 uh 110 supplemental regulations for accessory uses and structures and subsection one for accessory equipment we are proposing an addition of well or pump houses which are less than 60 Square ft and less than 8 ft in height
are permitted in any setback um so you know if you need me to elaborate on anything let me know I don't want to bogus down too much um in 45110 parentheses 2 I this is in
reference to multiple um boat houses we are adding commas so that it would read unless a special use permit comma or development agreement approved by the board of County Commissioners comma allows for more than one boat
house for the home occupation um which is 45107 B1 we removed uh we changed the font color for whatever reason it got adopted as being blue when everything else was black um Within in that same section
to subsection 2 um we added a period that was missing and we struck the word premises which was duplicated for uh subsection 3 for standard conditions in subsection
4 we struck use which was a leftover uh and we also removed a period between lot I'm sorry we removed a space between the word lot and a period and because this was already
adopted we couldn't make these scribers errors so um moving on we are in 45-31 which is the code section regulating recreational vehicles as a temporary shelter we
added uh under permit not required and residential zoning districts we added uh item F which would be under no circumstance is an RV to be stored left or abandoned on a vacant property vacant is defined as having no dwelling unit on
the property RVs in violation of this provision will be subject to removal I don't agree with that can I voice my displeasure with that one as well I don't agree with that you're trying to overstep your bounds man paying his taxes he ought to be able to part what he wants on his prop I agree with that I
also agree that we have a uh large portion of our County um people that enjoy it enjoy it because of the recreational activities that we have here we have people from out of County out of state out of country practically that come here to
enjoy our natural resources and if they're put in a position where they can own a vacant piece of property and park a camper even if they're only staying in it for two weeks a year and they are from out of town they should not be required to have to remove
that from the lot while they are not present so I agree express my displeasure with that section of changes okay matter of fact I would even go so far as on the next page where they're limiting the days um that those RVs are allowed to be
on the lot to be extended well beyond the 60 days and 40 14 days consecutive I think that's a a a gross misuse of our resources here I agree be that as it may so when the motion comes you're with whatever you
approve or deny you're it would be with exception the exception of okay these two items all right is it possible to change verbage in other sections or we're just going based off of what you guys have presented for
change while we're at it so it's I mean our our uh one of the things we've been been tasked with is beating This Land Development code up over the course of however many years now when constant we want to talk about them or
do we just let you come back with it at another time how how we beat it up all the time so well my and where I'm going with that number four on the next page uh let's see this would be section 45
164 can we section four line d d extent of the state RV does not exceed 14 consecutive days and 60 non-consecutive days in a given calendar year let's scratch that or do something else with it uh and that that verbiage
shows up in some of those other places some of those other sectors too um well I know down where I live um and and this some of it's been going on commercially for a long time and others of it cropped up during the covid period
people are resorting to living in RVs because they can't afford traditional housing and um economically our community is is not the best in the world and I think we've got to be a
little bit more lenient on people in RVs in this day and age because um they just can't afford anything else I do know people that literally have to live in a camper and I've also seen campers down our way that have nice
little shelters built over them so they won't be subject to the beating rain um some of them are on property that has been rented out for RV use for
years nobody said anything about it so um I had a cas where a young where a gentleman was disabled living in an RV the county went out made him move his RV he lived in a
tent for about four months and then he finally could saved up enough money he could put a a utility shed on it and he built a bed in that now you tell me what's right about that nothing we run him out of an RV
disable man and put him in a tent he lived there for 4 months in a tent cuz I had a toilet for him I think code enforcement's got enough teeth to uh you know as long long as something's not maintained it you know it's maintained in a disorderly fashion there's plenty
of avenues to address stuff without giving them more leverage to beat up on the uh income folks they go out there and work on that 207 deal yeah yeah I'm I I
also wonder if we don't need to have some provision for an RV that's going to be a dwelling place to be permitted making sure that I don't think we need to go as far as as condoning that I think there needs to be if you're
going to live in an RV I think there needs to be an ER of I need to keep it in order so that I don't bring bring bring the heat down I think there needs to be that little bit of hanging over your head there just to keep people in compliance and not the let the stuff get run down and not let unpermitted
additions and stuff get built on as soon as we condone living in a camper that's going to open up a whole can of worms in my opinion um but I do think we need to be relaxed in how we view those that can only afford to exist in those kind of
situations so totally on board but I also see a little bit different side because with code it's very black and white what can be removed would D all this so I've seen
other areas and I'm just throwing this out there for whatever if it's an RV it's got a maybe something it functions as an RV it can be moved it's tagged it's whatever to your point about 14 or
60 days who in the world we don't have there's not enough staff in the world to go around to me that's kind of silly but it's not on necessarily the agenda right now but I'm just throwing out for conversation could a happy medium be
something that if you're going to live in an RV or whatever it still is an RV it's not grown into the ground well it needs to be tagged like a mobile home you know a mobile home if you're going to if it's going to remain a mobile home and not become a permanent Pier then it's required to have a registration
sticker every year and and likewise anything you pull behind the truck or drive has to to have upto-date lure so it it seems the the no-brainer direction for that is as long as it's actively has a tag and then it it you
know it is function I mean I've seen a bunch of mobile homes that I wouldn't live in but they maintain the sticker on them and some people don't mind living in them but at the same time as long as they go through the the Motions of of maintaining that registration whether it be for a mobile home or RV or or a pool
behind camper or that that shows the that shows the intent of of keeping it up in my opinion maybe that's a and I think the section c they're lawfully connected to
appropriate electrical weth Sewer Septic um I knew of a situation out in hudal Ridge where they were running power cords and Sewer lines to a central person who was willing to let them dump into their pull their power
and dump off their into their s septic tanks so um well again that falls back to codes enforcement codes enforcement's got teeth to solve that regardless of what the RV ordinance says you know what I mean so but I you can call an electrical
non-compliance issue out without having to say it's because of the RV you can call you can call a a health department issue a septic septic tank issue out through via the health department without saying it's the fault of the RvB park there I I personally would like to
see section D struck can you be more specific the extend of the state for an RV does not exceed 14 consecutive days or 69 consecutive days I would rather see that whole section struck um I don't know which one we're
we're on um four permit it shows up in a couple of sections it shows up in yeah wherever it shows up I would 4518 5 for Delta yep it's uh 41 or 45-1
131 paragraph 4 d I think that's about right and it also shows up in 2C on uh whatever this one is let's see here also um board just so you're referencing
this was actually given to us by our magistrate that he wanted this more concrete so he asked uh to have this more concrete because good for him they can bring the hammer down yeah so they didn't because they did not feel what we're able to do right now would justify um good for him and so that's what he's
asked uh and that's what we're bringing to you so that's what that was asked from our magistrate during um our code's um magistrate meetings thank you appreciate that yeah no we we we we appreciate y'all's work on it we understand that y'all aren't sitting back there ringing your hands making
these rules up Madam chair but when stuff jumps out at it um there's one thing I'd like to just mention following up with what Mr Helms had to say uh I think that what we're seeing on these proposed amendments is because our code
enforcement officers are finding uh there are more and more uh I don't know how you say it dilapidated they're not tagged or they're not capable of habitation sitting on vacant lots and well I think
part of it was like the vehicle that the Sheriff's Office found on the side of Ohio Old sitea Road uh didn't have an engine it it have been towed there and dumped right well that's one of their problems and there's also some things in our code that uh and I think we may come
across them where you may have numerous um you may have numerous RVs on your property but even if they're all all uh you they can't be used for anything and they're not used I mean they're just sitting there they're dilapidated and
abandoned whatever you can't even take them all off the property because we have a code saying you can only take so many and so what they that's one of the things they're trying to cover here is have something in our code where they can get these um you know yeah just like
it says uh you can't store the but it doesn't really specify that they're the these dilapidated ones but but that's that's the thought behind it trying to get rid of the ones that aren't inhabited can't beab inhabited so why
can't we say that it if it's registered current registration I mean can we go that route that would require cost on the part of the owner so well well that that's part of ownership that's same same difference as owning a car and driving it back and forth to work I mean that's I I don't see that as an issue
obviously it would require a revamping of a couple of these code sections to include that that thing but there's but my I understand code enforcement wanting to have the leverage to clean up but at the same time I don't know that we
should penalize those that are keeping their stuff up because for the negligence of those that don't we've abandoned and tore down two RVs this week off of vacant property so I mean it's not it's not that it's not unheard of and there is there is a piece
of the public that does not mind doing that because there there's it's like scrap money it's like scrap metal there there's there's small bits and pieces of money that for people that don't mind putting little elbow grease into remodeling those but I do understand that they're a lot of
dilapidated most people that let one run into the ground don't think about cleaning their property up and buying a new one they just parked the new one next to the old one right and let it fall apart so understand that portion of it but at the same time I I I tend to think we should air on the side of not
penalizing those that are doing it right for the sake of those that aren't sure I I I think U hopefully the board will recall or see that we're talking about section 45 131 which is recreational vehicle as temporary
shelter say that again judge this I didn't hear you section 45-31 recreational vehicle as temporary shelter well again we can't we can't condone people living in it permanently but we
could for the same reason the Sheriff's Office doesn't enforce doesn't sit out there and run radar all the time like we so if code enforcement does Selective enforcement of what they do with the provide some relief and you know not not beat down on those
that are lesser under that section to where the permit's not required and my two book ends here um talk about the under no circumstances an RV to be
stored left or abandoned can we take out stored and left and just say abandoned on vacant property so subjective I mean what's abandoned well you further Define it not having well not having anyone
living in it uninhabitable I mean I the other issue the whole thing and call it unregistered I mean the other the other issue or point that I'd like to make is if you're storing a recreational vehicle on a piece of property that would be considered open storage of a
recreational vehicle which would be permitted in the C3 zoning District so the whole whole intent with this this section of the code was to provide a method by which somebody could reside in a mobile home or a recreational vehicle while they were making improvements to
their property or while they were working on a property to get it into compliance or they're having their house Builder they're clearing the trees so that they can build a house on there and it's been so misconstrued and interpreted vastly over the time that
it's been in its exception that it's kind of become this free-for all all if it were me I'd get rid of it all together and say you can't live in an RV whenever you're building your house rent somewhere but I mean I know that our community would go nuts over that all your examples just just ended with as
you're trying to build a house clearing property to build a house to build a house there's a lot of people that don't have any intention of building a house and you know and again I'm going to refer back to my my recreational you my you know the the the recreational side of what putam county has here to offer
there's a lot of people that that aren't interested in building a house on their one acre piece or their half acre piece they're interested in coming down here during the cold months and enjoying the alwaha enjoying the St John's river and enjoying these the these outdoor activities that we have and are are
blessed to have uh but they have zero intention of building a house and that's you know there there there should be accommodations for that and them not be penalized for you know H having that the ability to to come and enjoy our our resources and bring bring their tax
dollars and you know shop shop at our local our local places and BR eat out at our local restaurants and bring that bring that outside money in even though even though yeah they're still paying you know they're still paying property taxes until hopefully our governor gets
rid of property taxes but y um as of right now that that one acre piece of vacant property that just has the RV that gets used a couple of months out of the year is still paying taxes they're still coming down you know what I mean so I
think with with all the with all the focus on being how do we clean this bad part up and how do we do this and how do we get leverage to to make these people be compliant I think I think a lot of what we're missing is it's it's the whole try to taking
guns away from from from law-abiding citizens you know what I mean because bad people have guns it's kind of the same thing with with some of the rules that we're trying to put in place in that the people that are doing it right are the ultimately the ones going to be getting punished and and and nine times out of 10 they're the ones that will
come down to code enforcement when they get a letter and try to clarify hey I'm look I'm doing this or hey I'm doing that I I had no intention of being non-compliant but I didn't know because you passed a rule that said I can only stay here 14 days and I'm down for three months being a snowbird like like those
people are the ones that care about compliance the one in the delapidated trailer they don't care that you send them a notice every 6 months and until the county has enough money to come get it they're just going to keep living there so I I think we're adversely affecting the people that we shouldn't
be adversely affecting and the ones that we want to penalize kind of penalize don't care that we're penalizing them anyway well and and to one of your points that you made in terms of you know they're coming down here and spending their tax dollars here that's
another part of it I mean if there's a mobile home on one piece of property being assessed as a real piece of property at $2,600 a year here and right next door is a RV with six children and two family members that are not paying
any property taxes negligible 75 bucks a year but because it's vacant those kids are in our school system they're using our trash services they're calling paramedics we're not going to do that we're not going to we're not going to put that into the language of the code
ever in my opinion I don't see I don't see Avenue will that will ever occur where they can say you can live year round in RV not not that people won't do it because those will but I I would imagine that that the people that you the six kid family that you described right
there are not the norm they are the anomaly whereas the people that want to enjoy well I can see that I'm not interested in having an argument we're only about you know 25% of the way through this this whole shindig it
sounds as though kind of the consensus of this board is to not include this language although it was brought to us by our code enforcement officers that are burdened by this situation want Hammer but if we if we do end up moving forward and ideally get that approval on
everything else it would be except for the addition to 45- 131 Madam chair is is that an appropriate way to request that approval I think so and my concern is the got it written up the time you
know the time constraints in item c um 14 days and 60 days consecutive or non-consecutive I think we do have situations we've got to be got to deal with some compassion here well keep in mind this section is for temporary
occupancy so got to be some way to define temporary but that's a permits not required that would be permit not required that is I got a piece of property with a house on it and my family wants to come down they drive their RV they're staying on their way to
Disney they can be there for no more than 14 right how how come how come that's not consistent with the with the RV Park section you know the RV Park section allows for 90 days consecutive or up to 120 days non-consecutive throughout the year how come how come
that how come that Liberty doesn't extend to people that own their RVs that don't have them parked in a park which seems like I understand the RV park like limitation um but it seems to me that there there
should be an alignment there between what we're trying to make average John Q citizen do versus what we Mak in tourist in an RV park it seems like worst case scenario it should be the same best case scenario you know local people should get a
little more lency relaxation on that than so at minimum I would say we should change it to the RV park standard 90 and 120 and that's a fair point that you bring up for the RV parks but RV parks are are are regulated further by Florida
Department of Health and that's actually a statutory requirement that those 90day and 120 day terms of stay are imposed Goa so I mean if if that's the direction that this commission wants to recommend to the board of County
Commissioners I don't have an RV right I don't have a dog in that fight I do but we but we we we we came from that um I I can't remember but when we amended the the Land Development code back in 2024
it was longer durations of temporary stay and our Direction at that point in time was we need to rain it in a little bit and make it a shorter temporary stay we did this in 2024 yes ma'am
England Tims and Miller was our contractor right and they did the entire Land Development code and that's when we got the ADC and we changed up accessory dwelling I don't remember this being an amendment during that I thought the only amendment during that particular time
was the ADC oh no that I mean it was it was 36 68 pages of changes that was you go right back in the a section there in section three and it goes back to 90 consecutive days and 180 non-consecutive
days permit not required that was that was what it used to say and I that's what it still say that's what it says right there um so yes yes with in the a zoning District in the a zoning District yeah correct I believe it was uh for the
uh for the residential districts it was 14 consecutive and 90 non-consecutive and with that I'll add with this amendment in 20124 we added item six which is the the last restriction in that code that section
which says no permanent use allowed under no circumstance will an RV be permitted to serve as a permanent shelter or housing solution within any zoning District an RV shall not be attached in any way to a permanent foundation or other structure and shall not have any permanent connections to
utilities I'm absolutely cool with that like I said I'm I'm absolutely cool with the provisions of not allowing permanent residential use cool with that but for temporary use or vacational use
or seasonal use there needs to be an allowance more than two weeks and I can tell you there's a lot of of violation of that code um yeah there is so I understand as we've discussed we
don't we be in the board collectively we don't want this addition of the stored left or abandoned on a vacant piece of property in either Zone say abandoned would stay in so you we would I would just take out stored and left abandon a
whole different kind of worms you abandon something you let it go to trash you never revisit it you can store something like if Justin wanted to store his bus on a lot that he owns and he's
keeping that bus up and he's using it regularly that's a different can of worms yeah but there there they're back to how you define that they're coming at it from a code enforcement stand standpoint going how do I Define that so that I can write somebody a ticket from a from a legal stand yeah you got to
have that yeah like I said I I think the I think the verbage should include registered I think that I think that I think that's a clear line of delineation and it it it it sets forth that you either intend to keep it as a RV or you don't and at that point when a code enforcement goes on on site and it's
unregistered vehicle that's just a der thing that they can haul off if they so choose would a better language be under no circumstances is an unregistered RV there you go I have a question though can I get a registration for an RV if the tires are flat and the windows are
busted and HVAC system doesn't work well I mean now you're talking about a condition but if if the windows are busted and and you you spend the money to get the registration then yeah so be it but that's that's the line of delineation not not not the codes official that goes out there and is making a subjective determination on it
and which can very well depend on their relationship to the owner you know that's what happens is you get two neighbors arguing out there the the the code enforcement there should shouldn't be out there to be the judge and jury they should be able to go out there with a line of text going well that RV is
registered they're within their rights or it's not registered we will administer station maybe ultimately have it removed but there's a there's a clear there's a clear line from a code enforcement stand for a law enforcement stand or how you want to look at it there's a clear line
that determines you're instead of having these vague determinations about vacant or unused or two weeks because then you're going you say you say it can't be there for two weeks well now what you're doing is you're getting the neighbor over there with their camera phone taking pictures on July 3rd and then two weeks later they're taking well that
thing may have gone and come back nobody knows but they're going to present the evidence of Code Enforcement look it was parked there on the 3 and it was parked there on the 3D of the next month it's been there longer we need to do something about it regardless of whether it moved or not so I think and you know this is this I'm
not obviously y'all this is hit hit somewhere for me but and so I'm not trying to I'm not trying to cast dispersions on anybody but I think the I think in the grand scheme of things here the fact that we we can pres push forward a clear a clear line of a clear
delineation between what is and it allowed by source of registration an upto-date registration makes it easier on everybody because most people that have the windows busted out and tires flat are not going to go spend the money and have they're not going to spend the 75 bucks or whatever it is every year to
get the sticker read it dude so if it has a current tag so so I hear you guys can I can I get a can I get an exact of what you'd like or can we press forward and circle back at the end of the meeting the the the exact verbiage would
be adding unregistered in front of in front of your your nomenclature you got there for abandoned vehicles by by by putting the word unregistered in front of it under no circumstance you allow registered
vehicles to be not addressed by that line there you go I think that's to put unre ised in there under no circumstances is an RV an unreg unregistered RV to be stored unregistered before
RV yeah that solves a whole host of problems and we can move forward Zach okay all right so just to clarify because I'm going to amend my report to the BCC it would say under no circumstances is an unregistered RV to
be stored left or abandoned M that is correct and then the the rest of the text as is yep are we going to do anything about the extent of stay and everything else would stay are we going to do anything about the extent of stay I'm asking you all and so is everybody on board with
making the extent of stay to be 90 and 120 for both residential and agricultural districts which is consistent with the RV I'm good okay cool job guys Mr Woodward do you have
any comment on this no thank you we are painfully drudging forward yeah we're moving forward a little now I do want to clarify because the a zoning District where permits are not required is 90 consecutive and 180
non-consecutive so in residential we want it to be 90 and 120 well I just 90 and 120 is I believe isn't that consistent with RV park o i it 90 and 180 I'd like to see it I'd like to see it consisted across the board but
yeah however I mean I I don't have the RV Park section in in this packet all right well let's call it all 90 and 180 to make match up with the EG suits me board happy there 180 or 189 it's 180
180 so it'd be 90 and 180 for any temporary term of stay not Perman not required yeah then you don't have to argue over what Z what uh zoning it's in too and so just to be clear we are going
to amend 140 I'm sorry 45 1312 C yes and we would also amend One 451314 D yes no and 2
e or two yeah 2 f two F and 35 right two F yeah I'm P that he's already passed we got that talk about the day adjustment okay okay all right so so it's just those two 2 C and 4 d
yes you good Ashley all right moving right along Ashley this is a great introduction to this board isn't it we're sorry moving along with great speed and here I thought I was going to make it to a 5:30 soccer game yeah
you're an hour light all right and then um just for consistency here 45131 3 B6 will say under no circumstances as an unregistered RV to be stored left or abandoned as present
yes unregistered being a key word all right for artificial ponds uh we are proposing to strike out language requiring an approval by The putam Soil and Water Conservation District for ponds established for Bonafide agricultural purposes in the a a estate
and Mining districts uh being exempt from the design standards of the pond under C4 of the same uh section we are including existing and proposed residential structures and accessory structures shall conform to Waterfront principal
building setbacks of the applicable zoning District as measured from the top of Bank of the artificial Pond and we are setting a maximum depth of up to 25 ft how how are they going to determine
top of the bank and not water level I mean is there when they when they would provide us a site plan they would show what's the highest elevation around that pond that's your top of Bank all right what is the goal of of that I can
understand Wetland protection I can understand all the other things what what's what's the driver saying I can't dig a pond next to my cabin or whatever I mean what's what was the basis of this 25 ft
requirement well well the the setback would be whatever the principal building setback is per zoning district and in many cases it's 50 feet right so but I guess if I build an auxiliary accessory unit I build a
little cabin which I'm in my rights to do I'm just I'm just wondering why I couldn't have my little cabin over my little Pond sure so I mean in puam County I mean we've got we've got 10 12 acre ponds
that are artificial those are those are lakes you know where I'm from uh and there's been a waterfront setback from all of the waters I think with the exception of man-made ponds right like any Creek or river or body of water we already have an an aquatic setback this
is so a man-made Pond would be the only thing that so far that doesn't have it that's correct correct and ultimately I mean we don't want somebody to build you know or put a mobile home next to their Pond and that pond something happened Calamity once in a lifetime that mobile
home drops down in the pond I was really looking for the basis okay app uh moving on in subsection D of that section we are specifying that a site work permit application is required for an artificial Pond site work meaning
through to county through Public Works it's applied through by the building and building department and approv by Public Works y um continuing on uh 45886 mobile home
park um most of the revisions within this section are just making it consistent the capitalization of Mo manufactured home park um MHP some were lowercase some were uppercase um but we've also included
striking uh requirement that says uh striking must be submitted to the public works department approval of the design and implementation of the plan must be obtained from public works this is in reference to a drainage plan mobile home parks manufactured home parks go through
DRC at that point in time St John's River Water Management District has to weigh in on the the storm water retention public excuse me Public Works has to approve the design standards of the the storm water ponds and then a site work permit has to be issued for
the the construction of the site um just below that we're striking item 10 Al together which would be emergency storm shelters shall be provided as required by article 10 of this code with
that previous items 11 12 13 14 15 become 10 11 12 13 14 doing away with 10 as we flip through the Pages we find ourselves in table 7.2a dimensional requirements per zoning
District um in the residential 2 zoning district for whatever reason the impervious surface was approved at 70% we just want to ring that back into 50 to be aligned with all of the other single family zoning districts next we will find ourselves at section 45-
611 and this is where Mr Woodward's going to want to come back up um we are striking a sentence that stated they are further categorized into major collectors and minor collectors within our Land Development code we had no threshold for what a major or minor
collector was not Vehicles traveled Lane width Road type County Road Road none there was no identifi parameter to by which staff could say that's a major or minor um the only place major minor
Collector shows up in any of our 500 pages of legislation is a map Series 3 in the comprehensive plan which was provided to us by kimley horn from fdot data um the following amendments to section 45-
616 were requested specifically by the County engineer from the public works department um these changes as I understand it more or less align with current uh material types for
CTS so in B2 for cross drains it would read if approved all cross drain pipes shall be constructed or reinforced concrete or high performance polypropylene unless otherwise approved by the public works
director want to back up just a minute Michael did you want to come and talk about the collector roads let's let's not get too far ahead of ourselves yes ma'am uh mostly I just don't want to disappoint Mr Baker who's been eagerly
anticipating my having something to say on this and I'm not going to say much um this this was a technical discussion that Mr Baker and I had uh given that there's a map that's uh part of the comprehensive plan that does distinguish between maor major and minor collectors
it you know it just struck me as a little odd that we're doing away with that distinction in the Land Development code but uh you know that's a technical issue we don't need to get wrapped up around that axle as far as I'm concerned uh this this is nowhere near the level of concern that I have about the idea of
doing away with the requirement for special use permits for uh uh Emergency Services facilities okay thank you is this the place where we need to go back and amend that comp plan that map on the comp plan can our
GIS system do that for us it would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan which is that has to go to count State coordinated review there is an expedited but it is a it's it's process we can amend map does the
LDC have to go to the state no ma'am the Land Development code does not go to the state okay just so we have a note somewhere in the master copy that this is uh discrepancy between the two so if somebody comes up and wants to know what's a minor
collector we don't just well and stutter and so for what it's worth the map in the comprehensive plan is correct it's just we don't Define any parameters
by which What a minor or major collector are so by referencing and it's it's worth noting too that that section simply says these are referred to as major or minor collectors so it's not even really
providing I'm sorry further categorized into major or minor collectors So it's talking about roadway classification this is where we would anticipate seeing what that distinction is it just simply says collector roads are roadways providing service for relatively moderate traffic volumes moderate trip
links and moderate operating speeds collector roads collect and distribute traffic between local roads and arterial roads they are further categorized into major collectors and minor collectors which is proposed to be struck examples in putam County include and I'm sure
this is but not limited to County Road 21 County Road 28 County Road 209 County Road 216 County Road 219 County Road 308 County Road 309 County Road 310 and County Road 315 sounds pretty complete well in reading that I mean it saying examples
in putam County include examples of yeah major collectors and minor collectors are example of collector roads I mean that's you know how how are we reading that it would be it would because that the prior sentence that is struck was a a complete sentence it would be examples of collector roads in putam County R I
got you okay okay all right as we continue along uh still in six section uh 45618 the amendment to table 710k approved pipe material uh we've got
galvanized corrugated steel pipe or Arch and we are striking bit and stick with me bituminous Co corrugated SK steel um and then further down to corrugated high density polypropolene
pipe we are adding side drain only and then in addition to that we are adding corrugated high performance polypropylene can I make a suggestion for the next rewrite this one bigger
print why not just for roadway drainage pipe materials and all the other say per the fdot drainage manual and approved products list you you you wipe out three pages here and not keep doing this the reason I bring that up his for there's
two State Bills going through that's going to require all drainage to be constructed to fot standards anyway if they go through it's a bunch of but in the future I think you could really tighten this up I'll pass that
information along to um our public works department everybody's life a lot easier espe yeah no doubt um as we move on uh for Section 45636 the section is use of easements
for driveway access um we are adding the word shared in the following sentence a recorder a recorded easement may be used for shared driveway access serving up to two residential dwelling units provided the driveway meets the following
standards so on and so forth um and then at the end of this section we are adding a restriction which is as follows restriction and any event when three or more residential units are accessed by easement the access shall conform to design standards for private roads as
stipulated by article 7 Division 10 uh next up in section 45 797 previously approved developments um we are are making a switch from 35 to 30 and for the entire context it would
be the director of Public Works May after a field inspection of the applicable rights of way adjust any of the dimensional requirements shown in illustration 9.1 in accordance with the best possible engineering under the conditions of a given roadway but in no
case will the director of Public Works be able to approve a ride of way that is less than 30 ft in width unless the development served by that ride of way is specifically vested by the border of County Commissioners under Section 45- 801 of this
code sounds good to bring it into compliance with other code uh no sir the issue is is we've got a lot of uh Antiquated subdivisions with 30 foot rideways and people want to
obtain a RightWay use permit to clear grade stabilize so on and so forth the road and the only thing stopping them is a petition to the board of County Commissioners to come in and ask for a 5ot reduction moving on in
45836 this is uh an amendment to uh some of the requirements from the ADC inclusion that we went through so uh we are proposing to strike the the applicant shall provide to the department the name and contact
information I.E address and phone number for all abing property owners that will be impacted by the deviation we're proposing to get rid of that because as part of our the staff's notification process we do that on their
behalf in subsection 13 nothing's changing in terms of the amount of setback reductions that are possible we're just trying to clean up the language so that is easier to understand so it would read uh front yard
reductions up to 20 ft so long as 10t of separation is maintained between the structure and the property line side yard reductions up to 15 ft so long as 3T of separation is maintained between structure and property line rear yard reductions up to 15 ft so long as 3ft of
separation is maintained between the structure and the property line and there is no water body um and then the the the section um I'm sorry the appendix nine that is referenced at the bottom of that page it does call back to that uh section 45 797
with the the switch from 35 to 30 um in this case um we are simply said adding uh for Ingress and egress access that is less than 30t in width unless approved unless the development served by that right of way is specifically vested by
the board of County Commissioners under 45801 of this code and then we are also adding in all cases in which a new right of way access is proposed such right of way shall conform to article 10 I'm sorry article
7 Division 10 so we're we're making it easier for someone to utilize an Antiquated ploted right of way but in the event that they are creating their a new right of way they have to conform to our current design standards um and
45886 this is referencing membership of the development Review Committee um we are striking entirely what was added uh back in July and we are replacing it with what was in place at the time of the amendment uh which which elaborates
specifically who's a voting member of the DRC who's a non-voting member of the DRC and 45 961 we're striking this code which was a leftover um and 45 10001 we are getting rid of I think it
was a period that was an overhang and and um further down 45101 so 1 D between D and E we removed the period for H we had to change the formatting of the document so that it
would align correctly we also struck out this coddle out of uh that last section uh for Section 45132 scope of section this is referencing subdivisions uh any type of
subdivision from a lot split up to a plat um we just further defined what a lot of record is and then we added language indicating um legally conforming Parcels that existed prior to July 1
2024 um and 45133 subsection 5 we're proposing to change the name of the exempt subdivision to boundary line adjustments just so it's easier for folks to grasp
what exactly an exempt subdivision is and 45147 uh we made a a change uh to subsection A1 it had 45144 and we are making it 4510 64 to
align with uh that section which discusses vacations of subdivisions um also in that section in the event that a vesting determination is the only path to success um rather than it
being a vesting determination by the board of County Commissioners we would allow the administrative deviation committee to hear that vesting determination initially is that a meeting that's open to the public sir would that be a meeting open to the public yes sir it is we send notices to the surrounding
Property Owners do you meet regularly or just as needed um so we meet regularly um it was intended to be as needed uh but we identified the the first and the third Tuesday of every month so we're never
conflicting with the uh Board of County Commissioners and we're always meeting right after the development Review Committee who would make the determination where it goes to the board County Commission or administrative
Review Committee good question so um during my tenure here we had a pretty contentious vesting determination that when the previous code was in place it went straight to the board Planning Commission didn't hear it and at that point in time the
board requested that we set a density limitation of if it's more than four units per acre being vested then it would go to Planning Commission and to the board so in the event that we had to make the decision uh we would we would Leverage
the the decision on that previous finding is that clearly stated or would that be the reason I asked is because there's a big difference between going before County Commission
and staff level yes sir yes sir so um if I can give you an anecdote most of our vesting determinations are because I own 10 acres I split off three acres to give to someone or to sell to someone that
person owns the land and then I own mine I don't want to sell the rest of it so that they can combine it back I don't want I can't go through a ploted subdivision it's three acres on a County Road that's got services and yada yada and you want to build but you can't
build because I sold you 3 acres of the land that is the the vesting determinations that we see but are there any specific criteria that would put a case before zboa or the
planning Comm be zboa rather than the ADC it wouldn't be zboa it would be the board of County Commissioners okay um but but for some things I think ADC was doing um special use permits too aren't you yes ma'am so the ADC does special
use permits variances and vesting determinations so Are there specific criteria that tell you which goes to where um yes ma'am so within the Land
Development code if it says specifically that the zboa has to approve the special use permit which would be communication towers and borrow areas they go straight to zboa um with variances it's that threshold of setback reductions which
which we recently covered um for vesting it would be if it's a density greater than four units per acre and with that being said that would be limited more or less to those Antiquated
subdivisions from 1880 to 1960 but but in all events the the the determination of the deviation committee can be appealed to the County Commissioners correct that is correct so when the ADC that's the the safety net there is if
people don't like your decision then it can come before the board right well and and to be more specific if the ADC chooses to defer it goes to the zboa and if the ADC denies the appeal
goes to the zboa at any point in time if it's at the zboa the BCC can pull it to to them um how about in the event that you guys make an approval but let's say a neighbor disagreed with it that can they appeal that to the they would appeal
that to the zboa and at that point any commissioner can pull it to the BCC so it's taken away the possibility for litigation on a decision sort of not necessarily I mean if the BCC
pulls it for vesting determination it would be done through a resolution um but that resolution could be contested in circuit court for up to 30 days okay all right we're almost there we are almost
there in section 45151 review by planning and development services this is referencing a lot split we're proposing something that's pretty helpful to our constituency and that would be at the
time of middle except for type one subdivision subject to Florida statute chapter 177 any application for any type of subdivision may include a signed document from any professional surveyor and mapper certified in the State of
Florida other than the survey surveyor or surveying firm that prepared the survey depicting the proposed subdivision verifying that the map and legal descriptions are correct and I I battled trying to put this language in
there in a concise manner but if you will if if Mr Morris wants to do a lot split and your surveyor draws everything out your only option right now is to submit to the county and the County Surveyor
review your proposed lot split and that could be a four-week process what we're proposing here is Mr Hancock is also a surveyor and doesn't work with your surveyor doesn't work at the surveying firm as your s surveyor Mr Hancock can look at it and say yeah
Joe's survey is good here's a letter saying I agree with it that way we've got a third party approving that survey and that legal description we don't get tied up with Public Works only surveyor waiting on him to review it it should make a lot of our administrative
subdivisions which are lot splits exempt subdivisions which would be boundary line adjustments type two uh large lot subdivisions type three family subdivisions and type four limited residential subdivisions all of those could be expedited in the sense that you don't have to wait for the County
Surveyor to review it sounds good yeah yeah because he takes a while I just had one didn't mean to pick on you for section 45
1052 um restrictions to a lot split um staff is proposing the addition of a deao lot split which would be a parcel that is separated by any Street Railway body of water or parcel under different
ownership um the those two tracks of land can be broken out without having to go through any formal subdivision process we see it most commonly with a road the the land's been there for longer than State Road 19 has been there
um there's two tracks on either side both are of size to build a home but our Our Land Development code limits one home per parcel because it's one parcel but two tracks they can't sell off or build or whatever they want to on the other
side fact be mandatory in that case here's why because if you start developing you need every square foot for your maximum best use so if it's a def facto split I own a little piece over there but that could help me on my density
here so is that in every case or is that a request it would be if if you own property um that is split by a road and you want to sell it or build a separate house on it independent of your other house then you would be able to Def
facto it out I just want to be clear so that's me as the owner would be you you have that you have that extra um extra opportunity if you will but you're not required to utilize it um would that would that would that extend to say
easements and whatnot you had a easement to access a piece of property in the bank that's so it would be a street um and the way that we look at that is any named street so it could be a private road which is an easement um so I I think that would answer your question
okay cral Avenue is an easement you know it's it's just afforded To Us by the no that's my I was just CU you know um somebody wants to split a lot and then you guys say no then they put a road
through the middle of it and now they get split a lot they would have to put in a road according to article 7 Division 10 okay yeah I mean I'm just curious there's there's a long way to do it for
sure but yeah yeah um submitt of a lot inquiry application and receipt of a lot inquir requiry response letter is required before deao lot split can be processed in order to provide staff an opportunity to review
the proposed division to ensure compliance with the Land Development code and to ensure the split is processed in accordance with this section so it's a $45 application let staff make sure that there's enough acreage to
conform with that zoning district and allow them to proceed all right last last article article 13 definitions there are are a number of um slight changes throughout um the first
being um canals so we identify and Define a canal as a natural or man-made portion of submerged lands which connect to a navigable Waterway provide a habitat for protected species and are permanent and the sense that massive
improvements are required to restore canals to unsubmerged lands de facto lot split this is a copy and paste more or less but uh means a parcel separated by a street Railway body of water or parcel in different ownership
and is exempt from lot split regulations prescribed in sections 45151 and 45152 as long as both Lots meet the minimum lot size for the respective zoning District um the next one would be a change in the
definition of development um a13 we added Andor covert or other drainage structure uh for driveway we added or easement so that it finally reads
driveway means a prepared path for a vehicle giving Ingress and egress from a roadway to an abdy property line or easement and then this is my last sheet um the definition of structure we changed it from means a thing to means
an improvement construct or erected on the ground so on and so forth um and then finally in the definition for water body we included canals and with that I have completed you have Mr Woodward do you have any
final summary remarks you'd like to make good job Z I believe I've said my piece thank you you're very welcome sir all right we have gone through the the proposed amendments that have been brought before us
today um are we ready to entertain a motion to amend the strikeout underlying additions to articles 23 6 7 9 11 12 and
13 we can't say that because they're um consistent with the comp yes sir I'd like to make a motion that we accept are we uh are does that include the Emergency Services provisions of what we were talking about yeah we're
going to strike those and them with special use permit special use permit requirements I think that's what we decided so so the The Proposal is that an AAG estate residential estate R1 R2
R3 R4 RMH CPO and C1 they would be allowed by right and we would strike that they're allowed with a special use permit if there's any of that that you do do not agree with I would just request which one you want to be left alone where it still requires the
special do do they all require special use permit as of right now as of right now they all require a special use permit okay so just as a discussion i' would be inclined to agree with leaving that portion as it is like I
everywhere where it requires a special use permit for emergency services so what's the advantage for staff for anyone to have it to where there's not a special use permit required just easier and quicker to do
it one yeah one let step in bureaucracy but they don't do anything in a hurry so believe it or not the county is my quickest Hustler man they're trying to push it as quick as they can though and and with that it it delays a project for
at minimum 45 days yeah so as a developer does that slow them down as a developer yeah so Emergency Services can be public or private so yes sir if you wanted to put up an emergency service center at the end of your
neighborhood and an a zoning District you would have to go through the special use permit as of right now so if we want to lower Insurance on our new 300 home subdivision needed Emergency Services building built that would help us if we could uh foro the special use permitting
we could do it quicker and the other portion of it is you know let's not forget that it will go through development revieww committee and we will look at the surrounding uses and we will look at impervious surface coverage and setbacks and so on and so forth but
I think what Mr Woodward was trying to address is the fact that the public the public doesn't have access to any I agree I tend to agree that the public needs needs the ability to voice their opinions on that even if it does cost
the developer a few more days absolutely so I have one question so in the future when we're battling these three four 800 unit subdivisions coming in if it's a special use permit requirement is that
going to hinder possibly a require I if it was by right would it give whichever board had the ability to say this is where we want this because no developer is going to give you that land that's the worst
possible return on his money and and just anally um we ran into the same thing recently where we had to go through three commissions to fild an emergency room and it was just a lot of resoning
so that's what I'm asking is if it was right it would that give future reviewers whoever leverage to require that or would the Su like be the reason they could never require it at that point
of I don't know that I'm tracking 100% on your question but I think I can answer it with an example if if Dr Horton came in and we were short on Emergency Services as of right now there would be some additional time before
they could get their certificate of concurrency and go ahead and build that that or start that subdivision but what would require them to do that to to provide development should pay for development development
should in my opinion should benefit the folks that live here all of a sudden I thought heard the other day there's like 200,000 Acres of a land or something like that in Inon County always going to be like that and as our level as development takes place the existing
fire departments and rescue are going to get further and further away what what's if it's a special use permit they're never going to request that if it was by if it was allowed in
with this code change could planning or someone else required that if it wasn't under the special use perit I mean yes sir we could right now the mechanism is in place is um modification
of 9 J5 the old school concurrency whereby we look at Cost proportionate fair share agreement and if your impact is going to result in a 55% um stress on our Emergency Services then you give us 55% of what the new
structure would be and that's that is nothing to do with entitlements of the zoning District or can it be place there special use permit or anything like that that's that would be the requirement I don't know if that answers your question though I no well yes I'm
I'm I'm just trying to figure out so they pay us money but then we still can't land well we yeah that that that's the the next part is is locating that land which is is identified as the best possible place for that emergency
services facility and that kind of goes back to uh the point that Mr Woodward was bringing up whenever the county is in need of a new emergency services facility we're not going to go bu the cheapest smallest piece of property that we can to put that facility on we're
going to do our research and study where is that facility needed in the community and then from there you know you'll drop a pinpoint and then a radi and say okay you know this is our property options
it's a tricky one to to gamble with when you really get down to it right I was looking at the health safety and Welfare of the community and more Emergency Services more opportunities for that lower insurance rates so on and so forth but I had not considered whether or not
it would appease you know the public or if they'd have an interest in saying where it should go or how it would affect you know large scale growth coming into the county I mean that's uncharted waters for putam County but at the same time if they're looking
to build a fire department you're looking at s Acres five seven acres something like that for all the infrastruct I mean you can build smaller but in a county setting you're going to look for EMS police sheriff's department
probably I just well in the grand scheme of those things you know the fire station doesn't pop up overnight they'll spend they'll spend over a year plan that before they you know sourcing the funding and I mean all that will come out and if if obtaining a special use permit is just one step in that thing
they will it will work itself into to the critical path I don't see where how that thing works I don't it's I I see it appears that there's two sides to this one seems to be the general public
getting cut out of having their say in it and the other one being that it's although it is provided Emergency Services also just helping people that are developing more so than the general public so I think we need to ER on the side of the allowing the Public Public
their piece that's what our job is so I think they should have a say so as I understand it then we would want to leave it to where a special use permit is required in all agricultural residential and low intensity commercial
uh zoning districts being CPO and C1 yes sir okay Adam chair need to make a motion for that hit that one Stanley get that one Stanley you got on Stanley you got this
all right let's see we got that we got the let's see let's let's try this let's make a motion to accept the text Amendment changes for LDC 25001 as presented with the exception of
placement of emergency services and the sections for RV uh temporary RV use as annotated with Mr Baker is that close enough can I get us in the ballpark does that
work Mike does that work yeah I think it'll probably work okay what did you say you said you think that'll work yeah good okay second I hear a motion and a second is there any further discussion and Madam
chair if I can yes sir to clarify the motion right now is to recommend approval to the BCC as presented with the exception that emergency services still require a special use permit and a
residential CPO C1 and with the exception of the proposed changes to RVs for temporary occupancy and the restoration of the temporary stay days yes
correct and I should have let you make a motion and the unregistered adding the unregistered the modification to that prohibition that's correct section 45
131 section 2 item F and item 5 item three and five yeah all right so I got Mr Morris and um Mr H okay all in favor please signify by
saying I I chair votes I any opposed unanimously approved we can't leave quite yet we have the minutes from the January meeting I would he I'll second okay Stanley and Justin
hopefully somebody video take soccer game all right any any new business or old business I'm tired Monkey Business he taking a CH challenge coin there I'll give him out all right folks thank you very much
it is 7:13 Ashley thank you for being here this meeting is adjourned M uh Matt thank you please thank Michael for it oh