uh let me go through uh this right here. Miss Roberts is out today, so I'll try to not crash this ship. So, we'll we'll see. Uh this is a public hearing and we are the Putnham County Planning Commission. We are designated
local planning agency for the county as prescribed chapter 163 of Florida statutes and we function under the authority of article 11 and 12 of the put county land development code. The primary responsibility of the commission is to serve as an advisory board to hear make recommendations to the board of
county commissioners on matters related to provisions of and proposed amendments to the Putham County Comprehensive Plan and Putnham Land Development Code. The members of this board will review each application and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners at their next regularly scheduled meeting
on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026. Procedurally, we will call each case number, name, and number. A member of the staff will briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take comments from the applicant or the representative, followed by the public comments concerning the request. Please
direct all comments or statements to the board and not other people in the audience. Before speaking, we will ask each person to be recognized, come forward to the lectern and identify his or herself by name and address. After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we will entertain a motion from
the board. The motion will be voted on by the board members and become 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.
Uh I don't believe we've had any withdrawals. Applicants choose to have their case heard at a later date. The case will be readvertised in accordance with Putham County Land Development Code. All right. Um let's see. So we've got a
couple items on the agenda. I'm going to rearrange this thing a little bit where we going to go ahead and get to the case 250020. We're going to do that first and then we'll handle the election stuff after after that item.
>> Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. This is case REZ25000020. Uh Albert Miles Jr. through his agent, Veronica Miles, is requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial retail C2 to Commercial General C3 on a 0.57 acre
parcel located at 147 Philips Derry Road in Palaca to allow the development of outdoor storage. Uh surrounding zonings include intensive and retail commercial C4 and C2. Uh the subject site has a feature land use designation of commercial. The property has
approximately 320 ft of access from Philips Derry Road and according to the National Wetlands layer and the FEMA flood zone layer on the GIS reference map, lands do not appear to contain wetlands and is located in FEMA flood zone X, not a special flood hazard area.
Should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will then be subject to a second review by the development review committee, DRC, before obtaining any permits for the development of the property compatible with the C3 zoning district. Here you can see an aerial view of the
property. Here you can see the future land use. The zoning staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial retail C2 to commercial general C3. Staff finds that the proposed reszoning
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the commercial general C3 zoning district provided in the land development code and comprehensive plan. Are there any questions?
>> Do we have a zoomed out map of that where we can see maybe the is there some additional C3 zoning that's along that Philips area? The additional C3 zoning has not yet taken into effect on our GIS map. It was approved by the uh board of county
commissioners last year and it would be the property on most furthest on the left of this map. >> Okay. I knew there was a couple of couple changes we had there. >> Yes, sir. >> You're saying it's not showing up on the >> It hasn't been updated in the GIS map at the time that these maps were made.
>> Okay. Now, is the church there still active? I thought I saw a church right next or very close to it. I am unfamiliar if there's a church active there or not. >> Okay. There is a small church. I don't know if it's active or not. Yeah. I mean, it's like visit today and that church is still there.
>> Michael, I do have a few questions for you. Under the staff analysis, it talks about um on the two sides of the property, north side and west side, a 10A buffer shall be required and enforced by DRC. Um this could be a six foot tall privacy privacy fence or wall
or six foot tall shrubs. So that's west side, north side. >> Yes, correct. Now going on down, it says, "As heavy equipment storage is considered open storage, a class C buffer shall be required in accordance with the LDC." Um, shall be comprised of
fence or wall, but 8 ft tall. And looks like the spacing is more lenient. Where does that fall into this category? Which which side? Uh so that would be on the uh northeastern side where it faces the residential development across the street. Okay. As we most mostly care
that it isn't going to be seen from the residences. >> Nothing along Reed Street. >> Uh technically speaking, they are allowed to have one. It's not a requirement for the most part aside from the vehicle use area buffering which is a even less intensive buffering requirement. >> Okay.
>> And primary access to the project site is off of Philips Dairy. >> That is my understanding. Yes, sir. Okay. Right. Uh do we have is the applicant or applicant representative here? You guys wish to speak? Nope. All good. Just seeing how it goes. All right. Fair
enough. Uh anybody else from the public wish to speak? No. Packed house. All right. Um I guess that we close uh public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. We've had a lot of change in that area
over the last couple of months. >> Yep. >> Yep. No, I I think it's great. I think since it's all happening right there together, it's >> Absolutely. >> I like seeing that development be kind of consolidated into that area instead of trying to get a bunch of requests in here for being expanded all over the place.
Chairman, I move we recommend approval of the reszone rec25-000020 as it is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Putnham County Comprehensive Plan. >> Got a motion.
>> Motion in a second. Call for question. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Any opposed? No. Motion carries. Good luck with it, guys. >> Yeah, better. >> Sure. >> How's that?
>> We didn't need you. Just wait in the car. She want to talk. Good. All right. Oops. All right. That was the easy one. Uh let's see. The next We don't have any other cases. So, the next item will be
election of officials. Apparently, our rules require that on the first meeting of the year, we reestablish board positions. M. Robert's not here. We got a couple members absent. Well, I think we should elect um the
ones absent president and vice president or chairman and vice chair. >> That's certainly well. So, according to the rules, what I was informed before this was anybody that's not here, those those elections would not be sufficient
until they have officially accepted the position. So, >> that's correct. Um, we can vote for those of us that are here or if the board chooses to move that to another meeting to wait for more attendees.
Uh, we that's a possible avenue too. But at this point, what is the board's pleasure? Well, I guess is it complicate life if we were to slip it a month? That's first question. And then the second question would be is it going to change the outcome of who was seeking election as a
chairman vice chairman? >> That's a good question. I don't >> I don't I don't know that the uh the procedural portion of it is difficult. I think it's just whoever we decide to appoint then if they're present then we act upon it and
if they're not present then we have to wait till the next meeting for the acceptance. Whereas if we move the people that are in attendance, then we can go ahead and clear up the date. So I'm I'm going to hypothetically are we do we have a
thought of who might want to do that? I mean, is a current chairman up for reelection if she so chose? I I don't know. >> I'm I'm not sure. I'm not sure about that. >> Sitting chair, may I? >> You may. >> Okay. Um so we we do have um our our
chair um elect is is not present today and typically the way that the it works is and Mike help me out if I'm incorrect but Mike essentially says is there anybody that doesn't want to do it and then he calls for those appointments and
then he there's a request for those appointees to accept or deny that appointment and then there's a call for a vote. Um, in the interest of history, we I think we all are aware that Madame
Roberts is has sat as chair for quite some time. Madame Roberts uh has expressed a desire to remain chair if the planning commission decides to have their vote today. In the event that you
all agreed that she should remain chair, um it wouldn't be effective until she confirmed that appointment and it acknowledged your vote. So, it there's I guess a couple ways that it could be addressed. you guys could decide, you
know, collectively to wait until um Madam Roberts can be in in attendance or you can um go on about the business and determine who may be the best appointee. And if it is Miss Roberts, then um the
vote would would be contingent upon her acceptance. and whomever the vice chair was, it'd be a similar situation unless of course it was one of you all. Uh you would you would be the chair until um
Miss Roberts were to return. So it's kind of convoluted. Um our code requires that the commission elect officials or officers today uh because it is the first meeting of this year.
Um, so staff left it on the agenda for this commission to discuss and ultimately decide. >> Mr. Chair, can >> get it over with. >> First of all, I don't want anything other than I'll be sitting here. I've
got a lot of things planned this year and I won't be here a lot. So, uh, but with that said, I'll, uh, if anyone else doesn't want, does anyone want to be the chair? >> Who would want to be chair?
>> I nominate the current chairperson, uh, Madam Roberts, to be the chairman for the next year. >> I'll second. >> I think now we kick into >> Is that the consensus? Quick question because I'm new to this. Who's our vice chair?
>> Justin. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We're going to get around to that in just a moment. That's why I'm here tonight. >> Yeah. It hasn't mattered until tonight. Um, gentlemen, I think that Zach was about
to ask is is uh Ms. Robert's nomination a consensus of the board. >> I think we're still in this discussion stage of that, but I mean I'm I'm good with it. >> Well, is there any other nominations? Well, hearing no other nominations, the
only nominee we have is um Ms. Roberts, and I'm sure Ms. Roberts is watching today, so we'll wish her a speedy recovery, but uh we'll close the nominations. We have one. Um
Chairman, you can you can go ahead and take a vote, though, just for the record, if you'd like. All right, we've got a motion and a second to uh have Miss Roberts be the continuing chair. All those in favor? >> I I
>> All right. Passes unanimously. So >> that's there's your uh chairman, Miss Roberts. And now we must elect our vice chair. >> That's right. >> And the floor is open for nominations for our vice chair. >> Justin, you willing to take it again? >> I think I think I'll do it. He's doing a
fine job today. stepped up to the plate. >> A fine job. You mean you don't have to sit here and do all this talking? >> It comes with pay raise this time. >> Do we have a nomination? >> I nominate Justin. >> All right. >> Any other nominations
here? None. Nominations are closed. Uh and we can take a vote for the record here. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I I >> Can I be opposed? No, just kidding. I'll say I as well. >> All right. Well, in that case, we have
our we have our chair and vice chair. Thank you. >> Easy enough. All right, that gets us out of that. Um, any more additional Let's see. Old business. Do we have any old business? Uh, Mr. Chair, I do have something I'd
like to bring up from the last meeting. Um, so there was some discussion and it says new business uh regarding a request for a workshop. Um, I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I believe this went out to all the
planning commission. Uh, that was denied. The workshop was denied because, uh, I when I brought the talking points in
and kind of a an idea to start the workshop, it was denied by staff to have the workshop. because I didn't prepare it in the proper format
for a amendment. U I believe I made it very clear that that was just me trying to take a a whack at basically coming into compliance with the changes in state statute.
Um because my understanding is we are on a time clock and if we don't as a county comply with that within that time there's some pretty
there's some possibilities for some legal action that could basically freeze and then And that would come from the state. Um specifically specific penalties under
state um SB70 referred to the big stick. Um including formal letters citing a specific statute in the $50,000 fee,
which is a penalty. Um, so all that being said, my intention was never to bring a fullthroated, fully vetted text amendment to that workshop.
My intent was to have a workshop so that our subject matter experts could inform us and the commission with in the view of everyone here in the county, all of our
our neighbors and constituents. That's a word that gets thrown around a lot. and start this conversation because time is clicking because that was all put in to state statutes October 1st. Well, it was actually in July, I think, but they gave
you till October. Um, I feel I felt strong enough that I put quite a bit of effort into that to start that. Um, I just want that cleared up for the record that I was not proposing the
final draft. It was talking points. And then under our planning commission, the part that I'm I'm struggling with, again, it's all about process. Section 45-923. Basically, the planning commission shall
meet each month, conduct public hearings on requested actions or other matters as may be brought before the commission. meetings, including workshops, may be held at the call of the chair or the board of county commissioners.
Our chair did request that. So, I'm kind of struggling with how we found that, how we got to that nuance to not schedule that workshop. So, it's twofold. I'd like to clear up.
I was not proposing a full fully vetted amendment to the land development code, but at the same time, our chair did request a workshop. >> Right. So, you're saying we need a we need a workshop with a topic, not so
much a specific amendment. >> Zach, you guys have what was the official? >> Yes, sir. Thank Mr. Chair. So, um when when uh the workshop was requested at the last meeting, um I did approach um
my direct report and then had some discussions with the county attorney and and um the deputy county administrator and at the time I was under the impression that the the goal of the workshop was to establish new language.
Um, so I might have been misguided in in what the goal of the workshop was. And I recall that the primary focus uh being that to address the requirements of Senate Bill 1080, which
established a whole new parameters of uh timelines for administrative approvals and if we, you know, have everything we need, we have to approve. And if we don't, we have to, you know, approve with conditions or deny. um and and
reviewing of the legislation that was proposed with Senate Bill 1080 which would amend uh chapter 122 of the Florida statutes. It didn't indicate that a ordinance or resolution was required to adopt. It just said the
county must provide and make producible uh a sheet that says, you know, if you're doing this application, it's this timeline and this cost and so on and so forth. Um, so we did have staff prepare that and we do have it as a producible
document that we can share in the event that someone comes and requests uh that information from us. Um but I was more or less told well if we don't have any if we don't have a document that has our
current language and our proposed language then the workshop was seen as um a workshop just for well this is what you know this is what the language could be but it wasn't our existing code. Um
and then there was the concern about do we bring the commissioners the BOCC and um planning commission together and do the big joint workshop and so on and so forth. Long story short um it was me
that requested that we uh hold off on the workshop or or advised that we were holding off on the workshop until we had specific language in hand. Um and that was after discussion with the county attorney and and my direct report.
>> Okay. So it sounds like the topics that want to we wanted to discuss were not necessarily need a resolution or anything. you guys are kind of handling. Is there any have you guys put together any sort of document or or report or um after review of the things that were
required in that new uh bill to say these were our existing requirements, these are the ones that the the bill requires us to do now. Here's the discrepancies we had and here's how do we have anything like I I think I think that's really where we're going with this. Right. This is this is kind of
what you're looking for is where we were before and where we're going. It sounds like you guys have put together the where we're going. Is there something to show the difference between uh where we were previously and where I guess I guess it would be the procedures
that you guys use to review that to make sure that we're in compliance. Is there do we have that some sort of documented format? >> Um I don't know if the document has what we were and what we are. Um what we did was we we just put together a a sheet
that provides you know project type and uh timeline to be expected and we ensured that um we abided by the timelines required by legislation and we're actually pretty pretty well quicker on all of those application
types than what the minimums are for um for the state legislation. So we we have something but I don't think it includes what our previous timelines in the the current >> have have we contrasted those around existing land development code to make
sure that we're not we don't have any discrepion we don't have any things that contradict each other >> uh like land development code saying you've got 20 days but then you guys have produced something that the state bill says you have to >> Mr. it. We keep glossing over this as
the timeline for approval, right? It changed definitions, requirements, platting. There's a lot more to this than the timelines for approval. And what I'm trying to get away from is these unknown
policies because state statute requires that it lays out everything that is required. Well, so I'll ask staff right now, what's the current definition of a subdivision? And
then I'm going to get into private subdivisions and then I'm going to get into a couple other things and I'm going to show that we do not comply with state statute right now. So under our code, what is an exempt? We'll start with that
one. What is a exempt subdivision? >> Well, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty certain that the exempt subdivision was the definition for that was removed and it's now a boundary line adjustment. Um but formerly that exempt subdivision
process was what we used to move a boundary line between two or more adjoining parcel >> and and code reflects that. >> Yes sir. And it and with the addition that it would not create any new parcels. So you start with two, you end with two, you start with four, you end
with four. >> Okay. Private subdivision you said no longer requires review. you're in the last meeting you stated that you talked to our attorney and if pro if it's a
private subdivision that it's not going to be reviewed. >> Well, we have uh we don't have any definition for a private subdivision, but we do have your administrative subdivisions which would be types two,
three, and four. And then we have our plat subdivision which would be a type one. >> Okay. So, I'm bringing this up because state statute clearly defines it. No other way because I work for a municipality and we had to change we had
different levels of subdivisions as three or more lots. Period. It also says as the local planning agency, which this board is, all subdivisions come before it. So I think with ours we have um a subdivision is
defined as the creation of two or more lots and then we separate lot split as just that. If you're taking one parcel and cutting it in half to create two new parcels that would go through the lot split process which is an administrative subdivision. And then we have the type
uh two subdivision is large lot and I think it's limited to six the creation of six parcels. Type three and type four are limited to the creation of up to 10 parcels. But again,
does that comply because we're again all we talk about is the timelines just just that piece because I can go on with a bunch of other stuff. Does that comply with state statute and the definitions? Are we viewing it the same? >> Uh can you clarify your question please?
>> So state statute says three or more period. >> There is no different layers anymore. What's the review differences in your type one, type two, type three, type four? >> So the type one would go through it
assuming that the zoning and future land use allow for the the division in terms of density and lot size. The type ones are reviewed by the development review committee after the application is received. And then if everything is good
and approved by the DRC, a preliminary development order is issued. And then a final plat is received and reviewed by our county surveyor, property appraiser, public works department, um, Florida Department of Health if it's outside of our utility area, and then our zoning
department. >> So that takes me to another thing. It's done administratively, correct? basically on that one. >> When that code was changed at the commission four or five months ago to comply the the ultimate signer
because it used to be our chair at one point then in one of the commission meetings it was kind of run through. Now it's the state or the uh county administrator or designate
that's not codified anywhere. It was adopted through a resolution. >> So we took one piece, moved to comply with Senate Bill 1080. We took one piece, the ultimate signer,
put it over here, but we didn't do the rest. I agree the end is the same, but the process and and all the stuff that's required and all the code change has not been addressed. Well, um the
>> and by the way, a code amendment has to come through this board. >> So, two things. Um the resolution to determine the land development review coordinator was to address Senate Bill
784, which amended chapter 177, Florida statutes, which is what regulates subdivisions and plats and vacations of plats. >> Right. Uh, Senate Bill 1080 amended chapter 122 of the Florida statute,
which is the legislation that establishes that the uh, planning and development services department, whatever it is colloquially called throughout the state. um has like 30 days to review um a variance and grant an answer or 30
days to review a lot or some other administrative application that's not inclusive of plats. >> Okay. Okay. So, we've got Senate Bill 177, we got seven Senate Bill 1080. They both changed a lot of things. Okay.
We're we're arguing semantics here and Okay. And I think there's two more bills that ought to be contemplated when we're talking about this. Do we comply with all the changes that went down at in October? And what is the timeline before
somebody's going to have to answer for it? Because at a certain timeline, as I said, I can file what is called a notice of statutory inconsistency and conflict, and this county is in a crack.
And they're not, Folks, I'm not going to die on this hill. I put a lot of time into it. I've got a full-time job and a lot of the other stuff. And I'm here trying to be look out for Putnham County and look out for
everyone involved and be transparent to our neighbors so that everybody understands. And I'm just asking how we how we're picking and choosing and not making code change. We're making policy
change. And if it's policy change and we didn't know about it, how are the other folks supposed to know about it? How is everybody else supposed to know about it? It's a hidden policy somewhere. And and with that,
I'm I'm I rest. Would it be beneficial? Uh because I'm to be honest with you, I don't want to say I got lost a little bit in there, but I'm not as knowledgeable. Would it be beneficial perhaps at the next meeting to have a separate topic or or
discussion about all the stuff that the gentleman to my right brought up? It sounds like specifics like it sounds like we need specifics because I feel like it's kind of there's a bunch of stuff to unpack there.
I feel like these guys deal with the problems as they arise. It may be to the position where uh Matt, you need to like outline which specific ones you're wanting them to to address and then they can have a response of
>> I I attempted that sir. I no disrespect but I attempted that. Um, I think we're completely glossing over the whole platting, the whole subdivision process, the whole review process, the whole mandate of of the statute that says you
shall do this. I >> Well, I mean, if >> all other municipalities have already scrambled that I'm familiar with have already scrambled to come into compliance, but as
We heard the at the last meeting when staff admitted we don't really have a subdivision code. We have a broken arm and because we don't have a code, it's a cast. That was that was stated right there at the podium.
And there and I feel like we're banking on the fact that no one understands the process enough that we can't really get caught. But state statute says you will lay out the process. You will publish it. You will change your land development code. You will do this. And
either we can do it forward thinking and make the make the subdivision and the platting and all that work to something we want in the best interest of Putnham County or it's coming and we will have no choice.
So, I I I'm not the subject matter expert, but I'm I'm arounded enough to know that a lot of other municipalities took this very seriously and and went through their full land development code and their comprehensive plans and are
scrambling to be in compliance. So, well, at this point, I think it's where you show where we're in non where we're not in compliance, the specifics of it, and then address it from each one of those line. Like, I don't know. It feels like there's a P Countyy's got a
way of doing things. There's some verbiage in the in the bills that say we're supposed to go one direction and until we find where the discrepancies are between the two and can put your finger. I mean, you can't solve a problem till you clearly define a problem. So at this point um
I think as the problem arises we we should address it through not just policy but >> through and I I thought that the workshop would be the best way to do it because then we could explain and talk through each instance because if I'm going to sit here today I'm going to say our pladding doesn't meet the
requirements the platting the DRC doing parts of it doesn't meet it uh that we We addressed one little piece of how a plat gets approved, but not the body of it. We
I'm not sure that we're we're the subdivision and how it's reviewed is in compliance. It it's just on and there's it's a laundry list. And like I say, I've tried to do my level best and at this point, we'll we'll let it go where
it goes. Mr. Chair, I got a question for Zach and maybe even Mr. Perry. The stuff that Matt's laying out, obviously, there's some disconnect between what you're saying or what you're doing and what Matt is saying. And to me, I have enough
concern now based on what Matt is laying out that where we should be, we're not. And I would ask, why aren't we? Matt, if it feels like Matt's trying to be proactive, you guys may be in the position to where you're always having to be um uh you know, reactive to to a
problem. I like the proactive stance as much as we can go. So, Mr. Perry, maybe this one's for you. Is there is there a disconnect between what we have in place compared to what Matt says we or Matt says we should be? And if there is, what
can we do? Is it going to take a workshop or is it going to take staff to be uh given a directive to get it put to a point to where it does then get codified to where we are where we need to be? >> Well, let me just simply say this or I appreciate the question. However, it's
it's a little bit out of my um expertise quite frankly. Um I think that what Zach is and I'm I don't Zach's right here. he speaks for himself. But what I think what he's tried to tried to
say is that there are things that that have been undertaken by staff to try and uh to uh uh correct this perceived problem or real problem. But uh and I he has something I guess he can show you. Now,
as far as me telling you how everything fits together, I'm not the man. That's not my job. I mean, I hate to say that. I mean, I would certainly look into it, try to become uh more up to-date with this, but quite frankly, it's not
something anybody's ask me to do, so I don't know. >> And I mean, Mr. Sheffield, if I may too, um, y'all's request did not fall on deaf ears. I mean, I I relayed the
information and in part was u had a conversation with the county attorney and out of an abundance of caution to not find ourselves in hot water with Senate Bill 180, which was passed as, you know, hurricane reconstruction
relief. That legislation also made it to where any person inside or outside this county could challenge any legislation adopted which made redevelopment or new development any more difficult than it
previously was. And so out of an abundance of caution anytime I've had a conversation with our attorney about hey you know this was brought to the attention we see the relevance. We see the importance. We see the value. you know, we want to proceed. It was well,
you know, what exactly are we changing from from previous to, you know, what's proposed or what would be current and is this going to get us in a predicament where Senate Bill 180 could overpower
and then the county be liable for making development or redevelopment more difficult. And that's that's where I'm at. And every time I've uh had the conversation, it's well, let's see what the language is proposed to be. And
then, you know, but we really want to be careful and not open up a a text amendment to the comp plan or the land development code because if anyone feels that our changed legislation is more
restrictive than previously, then we may find ourselves in a suit. And it's all ifs and mays and coulds and stuff like that, right? We don't we just don't know until it happens. >> But if I heard Matt correctly, I don't necessarily think we were becoming more stringent. We were just trying to become
compliant, >> right? But if some of our legislation, which may not be compliant with statute now, is also considered less restrictive than what's current of the the recent
legislative changes, then we would find ourselves between a rock and a very hard place. >> You're saying you're saying becoming compliant is becomes more stringent. So that puts us in violation of that portion of the statute.
Yes, sir. I mean, it it's it's all be it really it all boils down to Senate Bill 180, which was adopted uh last legislative session and was effective July 1, 2025. And it has a
essentially a um an extension period of three years from the most recent natural disaster in which Putinham County was identified as a a community of concern. which was uh the last hurricane of 2024
storm season, Milton. So until about October of 2027, if the legislation stays the same and if Putnham County is not declared under a natural emergency or what have you, the governor's emergency, uh if we change
our text, then we would fall into Senate Bill 180 and could be liable for making somebody's development more difficult. >> So So two questions. one ar isn't the state getting sued right now regarding Senate Bill 180 >> I don't
>> and the limits that it's created on the municipalities and the counties and the other jurisdictions >> I know that this year's legislative session there was a lot of effort to um correct Senate Bill 180. I don't know if the state's being sued, but I know that
there are a lot of counties and municipalities across the state that are, excuse me, actively trying to fight back and um revamp 180. >> Yes. And and I agree with that. In fact, in that handout, I know the font was
small. I printed it fast. It kind of explained that. and even the author of Senate Bill 180 because it was a last second amendment that put that in there. They're gonna they're they're looking at according to the lobbyist and the what
I've heard of softening that up, but it's still that's Senate Bill 180 where they say you can't change anything, make it more restrictive. That's still going to leave Senate Bill 177 about subdivisions and all the
other. So what other municipalities, this is my take, I'm not that smart of a guy, they've they've elected to go ahead and either codify to get in compliance with Senate Bill 177 and Senate Bill
I'm getting them all mixed up in my head now. in case Senate Bill 180 or 1080 does get changed. But the feeling is either way you've got two conflicting state statutes. How can you be wrong? But if
Senate Bill 1080 does get changed, then why didn't you take the time and opportunity to fix your land development code and comp plan? And there is timelines on that. So that's I was trying to be proactive. If it didn't
come off that way, I apologize. If staff has all this, but again, then I'm going to say that if staff's making policy and we didn't know about it, how can we sit here and do our job as a planning commission and make
recommendations to the commission or whoever if we don't know this exists? Uh, >> Zack, if we were to task staff with provide us something that says we're in compliance, you know, review and make
sure we're in compliance with 177 and 1080. Who who would that fall to? Who would that we don't have a designated person on our staff that is only focusing on legislation? So, I mean, we don't have
that. Um, I know Ethan and Michael both have taken interest in the Florida the Senate tracker and the bill tracker and all that stuff and they keep up with what's coming and they bring stuff to my office, you know, and and let me know
and then from there I take it to my report and have conversations with the attorney and I mean I'm I'm only listening to my my employee my employers, right? Um, and I I can't very
well circumvent, you know, the county attorney. I'm not an attorney. I I can't argue with him and his interpretation of the law. And he's the one >> Well, I I'll tell you this. I watch a lot of SVU and all law and order, and when two attorneys walk into a
courtroom, one comes out wrong. I will also question why this is running through so much because normally the county attorney is supposed to be for form and legality. Legality meaning it it complies with
code. But all that being said, we asked for a workshop. Is it the county attorney's opinion that this workshop so that people could understand this? Maybe everybody leaves that workshop saying, "Matt was barking
up a tree. He's crazy as a loon." Why don't we have that opportunity to really dig in and and proactively look at these codes and make sure that we're protecting the commission, the county as a whole,
and we're being transparent with our with our neighbors. Us that's I am prepared if we had a workshop but everybody left their Matt's crazy. We want him off this board. I am prepared for that. But don't think I am.
>> I don't I don't think it's crazy. I think I think there's a kind of a miscommunication between the board and Zach about um looking for a text amendment actually to change language. But I think I think it's just a little more broad than that. It's a just a overview of what's going
on and how we comply with those two Senate bills. Sounds like Sounds like you could have a workshop about the discussion of those bills as they relate to our existing code and not be outside the purview of what we're allowed to do. >> Yeah. And I mean I don't again I don't
have a problem trying to move it forward again. Um the with the last uh request I I'd gotten, you know, some documents that was um kind of a a writing about what Senate Bill 1080 and 180 were. And
then we got some stuff that looked like a text amendment but wasn't our code. It was a different code. So it was I I and I didn't understand what our goal was. It it looked like we were trying to
amend code and without the tools needed to amend the code which was our code and strike through underlying proposed provision. >> So I questioned that and according to uh let's find it here.
AI is a great thing. So I went on the citizen portal it's a website it's AI and I pulled up the meeting. I'm going to try to find it right now. Um, I made sure that it was very clear
that it was just a request for a workshop and that I was just offering that up as talking points. AI seemed to agree. I re reviewed the actual video. Never said, in fact, I said, I'm this is
way out of I'm way over my skis, but these are just talking points. I borrowed these from other jurisdictions that have passed this successfully. I don't know how to do the whole find everything in the 400 and some odd pages
of our land development code to make sure it's right. And then our madame chair then says I believe that's a good place to start. And she asked for the the workshop. So, I I'm not so sure that it was that
ambiguous or that veiled or wasn't that well understood. And if it was, >> how about this? >> We should have asked. >> How about moving forward? If we just if we ask staff to prepare a report, um, and the the the topic of that report
being, are we in compliance with Senate Bill 177 and 1080? And if so, where are our deficiencies? Is that is that something that staff is capable of? And I even through conversation with the attorney of being able to put together a report saying we
found some deficiencies in these sections of code that might not align, these don't really matter, but these we might need to address or we're good or we've talked to somebody at the state level that says we're fine. Like is there is that a report that the staff
could put together that kind of clarify? I mean, I think that gets to the point Matt's trying to make there is it seems like the top of conversation, all the things that he's pointing out are in these is are are in these two bills primarily and the discrepancies between
how we operate and the bills that have come out is really the topic of conversation here. So, >> is it a report that staff could prepare? Yes. Is it a report that we could prepare by the next planning commission meeting? I I can't answer that. I mean, I got here today and I was running around doing all sorts of god knows what
until 2:30 p.m. >> I I understand that. Um, >> well, 90 days. Well, I feel I feel like if they if they addressed it before the next meeting, even if it was
incomplete, it at least would bring topics up that may need further clarification or would spur discussion. But, um, at at the same at the same point, if we're going to have a workshop and staff doesn't have the time or manpower to
consolidate, what are we workshopping for? You know what I mean? There's no sense to leave staff unprepared at a workshop just because we want to have a workshop. So, we need to have a topic of and a direction of where we're going for the research that staff needs to do. So, if it takes 30 or 60 days for you guys
to put together something to say, I mean, the time is going to be what the time is going to be regardless of whether we >> but but but I would think >> have a workshop. But I would think though as as a member of the the commission that we lean upon the staff
to validate that whatever is presented is within the state code. I mean that that's an assumption on my my part and when I look at the staff analysis each time I'm looking upon them as a subject matter ex expert in that particular thing. So I I I would think
what you're asking I I I think the staff would want to know know that too. How do we comply with the changes that have taken place? Are we in compliance? If we're not in compliance, what do we need to do in order to to to to fix that? And if we're having this dialogue and discussion, what do you think Billy Bob
and and Mary Beth is thinking out there who's trying to do a subdivision or trying to do something else? >> You know, I think I said at the last meeting, time is of the essence for this. I think it's important being able to compare and contrast what we have from a county perspective to what state
law says I think is is imperative to us. But I also recognize sessions in right now. Correct. >> It lasts for 60 days. >> Is it 60 days? 90 days. >> It's usually like April by the time they get done. Do you know? >> So it goes back to where if some of these things are part of their
discussion, would it be prudent just to kind of delay? Uh and it may not be because time is of the essence, but it would be prudent to delay to see where they end at session to see what they ratify or codify um moving forward to where we could be up on the most recent.
But having something to compare and contrast what we have and what they are are are stating right now is going to be important. Do we want to go through the effort immediately and see? Maybe so. If not, wait until session gets done and then compare and contrast based on the new legislation.
And I mean that's that's my concern as well because you know last year it was Senate Bill 180 and this year there's rumblings that they're going to fix it. So, if if staff went through and and tried to compare Senate Bill with 180
with our current code and comp plan and we bring back yet, you know, 40 pages that have been vetted by the attorney of and these are our findings and then two weeks later the new bill passes and it fixes everything. Then then what did we accomplish?
>> Yeah, I think that's the same argument we're going to have every legislative session. Sure. You know what I like that we're going we we're going to have that that same that same argument holds true every year this time. >> Right. >> So I mean I >> now one more >> the only the only thing I can say is
work on it as everything stands right now and if it's subject to at the end of this legislation section everything's fixed and you don't if we're we don't have issues then all that stuff goes away. It may very well be that the things the shortcomings, if any, that you find
after the legislative session closes, you'll be able to say, "Well, there's this thing fixed and this thing fixed, but there's only two or three things we have to fix because we've already done the research on the rest of it." So, it seems to me, and this is just me, but it seems to me like the direction should be figure out where we're non-compliant,
put a report together for that as as time allows. Um, and if if it's incomplete at the next planning commission meeting, then at least we're moving forward with our attempts in compliance and
we'll be able to demonstrate that if if there ever were something that came up that lawsuits or whatever, we can say we are actively working to correct these problems here. Just look at our commission meeting. We're talking about them every time. >> So, um, that's just that's my thoughts on it
is let's let's go ahead and work on. So, we have something to talk about. >> And real quick, procedurally, you said you guys, your department has already created something that lays out the path forward for anybody that brings applications in so they can see exactly what needs to happen. And that kind of
falls back to compliance with what Matt was talking about on one side of his discussion. >> So, we've always had something tangible that that did just that. And with and it's Senate Bill 1080. When Senate Bill
1080 was adopted and became effective October 1, we did prepare a more easily digestible document that says if you're going to apply for this, these are the steps it's going to go through.
This is your timeline and this is your application cost. We do have that now and it's it's producable. I mean, it's on a drive and we can get to it and print it and so on and so forth. But that's that's one piece of the puzzle. Matt saying there's a bunch in the
puzzle that needs to be addressed. You guys are saying >> this is one of the pieces of puzzles that we got in the right place now. >> Right. And and and that's one of the that was the easy one because it did not require a any sort of codification. It was just this this needs to be available to the public. So there was no
resolution and no ordinance that backed it. Um there's three um legis pieces of legislation last year that are really will make your hair stand up if you're a planner and it's Senate Bill 180 uh which there no action
is action essentially don't do anything. There's Senate Bill 784 which is subdivision plats have to be an administrative process and go you know review committees so on and so forth but one person has the ability to adopt or
approve sign the plaque and then there's uh Senate Bill 1080 which is what changed all the timelines and you have to identify what the process is in writing and make it producable and so we've we've done two essentially
We've addressed 180 by not doing anything and not changing our code and not taking a chance on more restrictive language. Um, we've addressed 1080 by creating a producible document. And we've addressed 784 by passing a
resolution that dedicated the county administrator as the plat approval liaison for Putnham County. And so it I mean it it >> but that was done We haven't updated our code.
>> Well, it's a resolution. It's not an ordinance. So, moving forward, I mean, is that some staff can put something together and run it past the county attorney to say, >> "Yeah, I mean, just tell us what you guys want us to address and and give us
a timeline that can be reasonable so that staff can review and put together a report. and um present it to the attorney and get feedback and so on and so forth. I mean, and keep in mind, right, Senate Bill
1080 tells us we got 30 days to determine on a lot split what we can do and we can't let that lot split sit on our desk while we're looking at, you know, are we compliant with Senate Bill 784 or
whatever the case may be. I mean, I I'm not trying to negate what Commissioner Williams is saying. I think it is important, too, that we comply with state law, right? Um, but we all It's rock in a hard place,
>> right? No, I got it. You guys definitely could use more staff. There's always >> Can you say that a little louder into the microphone, please? >> I don't say it too loud because I don't want to be have rocks. I don't want to be stoned in the parking lot. But, no, we appreciate the work you guys do. I know you guys, every time I come in the
office over there, you guys are working on stuff. So, we know that you're not just sitting over there eating eating donuts and drinking coffee. Um, but at the same time, this board has a certain job to do and you know, we need the tools to do it with. So if one of the board members identifies a deficiency,
although all the planning and stuff that you guys do is important >> on a production level, it's also important that we have the tools to steer the ship the way we see fit. So um >> well, we also we also want to be
compliant. >> That's part of what we that's part of what we do. So I mean I'm not trying to cram this in and say have it done by the next commission meeting, but it would be nice if it if we could show some direction between now and then where we are getting something looked at where we can say,
you know, yes, we've been working, we've been able to look at a few of these things. Here's some of the stuff that we know we're in complant with compliance with and you who knows, you guys may run across some stuff that you feel you aren't in compliance with and which would you need to you would need to make
adjustments whether it be policy wise or inner office wise or however you guys do things. Um, so This director may be helping y'all out as much as helping us out. >> Sure. I mean, my request is, you know, what does this commission or any member
of this commission think that we're not in compliance with? What what should we be looking at? >> I think it was uh 177 and 1080 were the two things that were that I've heard >> Matt bring up the most like look for look for compliance between 177 and 1080
to start. I mean, that seems like the the starting point. So, and just to clarify, and I I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to play the semantics game, but >> I I don't believe 177 is is what we want to look at. 177 is the chapter of
statutes that's already effective. I think it's and I'm I'm putting words in mouth, so please correct me, Matt, if I'm wrong, but it's Senate Bill 784. >> Or maybe it's 75. I was I was going off of >> No, I have I didn't have the the the the
handout that I gave everybody as a starting point, but I think if you look in that first paragraph and I can't pull it up. I can't make can't get to the internets right now, but if you look in there, it addressed the change is in 1771 080 and I'm
shooting from the hip 7 something. And it was a good it was an honest effort to assist because I know that you you all are very limited in staff. the municipalities that have already done this have
a lot more I mean exponentially more planners uh liaison all kinds of people so that was just a an effort for me to try to assist I will try to find some time as well
it's not that difficult I don't believe where I can load it in again AI is a great thing try to find some of that. But what I brought was what other folks have done that addressed all of the
pertinent including not necessarily in this group. It kind of put it together so that when because the building permits are also in Senate Bill 1080 I think and the triggers for that. So
conditional plat triggers which are design platal plats whatever you term you use trigger certain other items. What it does is it puts just make sure that we're compliant with four or five
different statutes to the best of other people's knowledge and helps move it forward. And my intent was that you all, the two or three staff members or four, I don't even know, didn't have to do all the heavy lifting.
It was more of a guide. It kind of pointed out some of the stuff that works and some of the text changes and and definitions. So, um, I I will try to find some points. I didn't want this to
be argumentative or combative or whatever. I was honestly trying to hey this is what other people are doing here's a good starting point that was my intent but I will try to also assist where we
might have some issues may need to take smaller bites too because you had a lot of info in that last goround >> but they're all tied together because the platting and that stuff triggers the next piece which triggers the next piece
which then the stick was Senate Bill 1080. You have this long to do this, but you have longer to do it on the front end basically. But once you hit that certain thing, then building permits have to go out, rec I mean approvals have to go out. Basically, if you can
deem it not non-effective as a submitt or plaid or all this, you're the municipality's time doesn't start. But if if you don't comply with all this stuff and don't do it right, once that time starts, then you've got to start throwing stuff out the door. So, >> haven't been on the other side of the
counter. They're good at deeming stuff non-effective yet, >> but I understand where you're coming from. >> Um, yeah, maybe maybe make a little more take smaller bites of this thing, pick out specifics about where we're not
compliant if we can find it and move forward with that. Um, do we have any more old business? >> Nope. Any new business? >> I have one. All right. >> Nancy Brown is now the sen senior
planning coordinator, which is the managerial position for the planning and zoning department. >> What? >> It's been for what, a month? >> Two months now. >> So, we haven't seen you guys since then, but
>> congratulations. >> Congratulations >> to both of you. >> Thanks. Uh, no. No more new business. How about approval of the minutes from December the 10th?
Anybody bother to look at them yet? >> Chair, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the meeting of December 10th, 2025. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I >> Mr. Chair, before you adjourn,
>> I just want to make sure um do we have does staff have any sort of direction on >> a report or anything to prepare to bring back? >> I would I would think we would like you guys to review the compliance with which
one you want? 1080 and 177 and 784 I guess is the three that that have been in the hot topic here. and and >> um see where you guys feel like you stand with that maybe. >> And just to clarify too, it was Senate
Bill 784 amended statute chapter 177. So I don't think >> Okay. That you're saying that's two different. Okay. >> So if if I'm if I'm understanding, it's Senate Bill 784. Are we in compliance with that? And Senate Bill 1080. Are we in compliance with that?
>> Correct. >> Sounds like a starting point. And can we get some gracious timeline on that >> next meeting? >> I mean, >> honestly, I I feel like that's going to be an ongoing thing. You know, I feel like I feel like that should be
something that's happening behind the scenes anyway is verifying compliance with statute. So, I mean, I'm not I'm not saying you guys have to have it prepared before the next statement, but or the next meeting, but it seems like as long as we've got an update. Yeah. At
the next meeting and work towards completion. Yeah. Okay. >> So, I'm not a lawyer or anything like that. But is there a time frame where the state requires us to be in compliance with >> Yes, sir. We've passed those time frames. We have passed the time.
>> Oh, we've already passed the time frame. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh 784 was effective July 1 and 1080 was effective October 1. and we passed our resolution for the Senate to
address Senate bill in August and we had the um the producible chart uh created that'd be a Michael or Ethan question. I want to say it was maybe November, early December, something like
that. But we'll we'll comb back through them and and see if we're missing anything. work for me. Anything else? We're all good. All right. Call it at 508.