county as prescribed in chapter 163 of Florida statutes and we function under the authority of article 11 and 12 of the county land development code. Primary responsibility of this commission is to serve as an advisory board to hear and 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 County Land Development Code. The members of this board will review each application to make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners at their next regularly scheduled meeting on April the
28th, 2026. Procedurally, we will call each case by number and name. member of the staff will give a brief ex will briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take any comments from the applicant or the representatives followed by 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 lecture 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. This motion will be voted on by the board members and 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 the request at any time during
the application process. Uh the following applications were advised to be considered at meet today will not be heard. Doesn't apply. All right. First case O. Has anyone engaged any expporte
communications? Anybody? Anybody? Anybody? >> Does anybody have a conflict of interest? >> All right. All right. Proceeding to the first case that we will consider is re 26
0000001. >> Thank you, sir. Uh for the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. This is case rez 260000001. Uh the applicants Gary L. and Marissa D. Karns are requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial neighborhood
C1 to residential 1HAR R1HA on 3 acres located at 1151 State Road 100 in Melrose to allow the development of a single family residence. Surrounding zoning districts include agriculture and residential 1HA.
Uh the subject site has a future land use designation of rural residential. Approximately 450 ft of access from state road 100 and according to the national wetlands layer and the FEMA flood zone layer on the GIS reference map. The lands do not appear to contain wetlands and is located in FEMA flood
zone X which is not a special flood hazard area. Should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will then be eligible for obtaining all building and site work permits compatible with the R1HA zoning district. Here you can see an aerial overview of
the property. Here you can see the future land use. You'll noted that it's at the intersection of rural residential agriculture and mining as it's located right next to the Vulcan Sand Mine. Here you can see the zoning where you can see again intersection of agriculture and uh
residential 1HA. Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial neighborhoods C1 to residential 1HA R1HA. staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted
comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the residential 1HA zoning district provided in the land development code and the comprehensive plan. Are there any questions? >> Do we know why that was originally uh designated a C1 zoning?
>> We do not. >> Just looks out of place right there. >> It very much is. Uh the C1 zoning district is not allowed to occur normally in the rural residential future land use category. Uh specifically the only commercial development allowed in rural residential is through a plan unit
development. Uh that's one of the reasons that they have come to us for this reszone uh so that they can actually build something on their property. Anybody else? I don't see anybody from the public wishing to speak.
>> Guess we can entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I make a motion. >> Sorry. >> Mr. Chair, I make a motion we approve case number 2626-00001 as it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the land development code and the future land use.
motion a second. All in favor? >> I All right, that's that one. Looks like that is it for >> we got to do the >> business. Oh, no. That's okay. Let's see.
Old business. How about that? Let's do that. >> We can do that. >> Um, old business. It looks like this came up from the last week's back and forth. appreciate staff putting this together. Um,
looks like we were pretty close to where we wanted to be. I did have one question on it in that on the uh second section there. >> Yes, sir. >> Where it talks about SB 784 amending 17.071.
It said subdivision subdivisions must be administratively approved and no further action approved by the governing body, etc., etc. Do we know what that approval is based on? What criteria that's based on? >> That is simply whether or not the
instrument for the subdivision, the plat is compliant with Florida statutes and that the proposed subdivision adheres to the land development code regulations for whatever that development should look like. So, is it consistent with the
residential density of the comp plan? Is it consistent with the zoning requirements? Is it consistent with rightaway widths? So on and so forth. >> I got you. And that that um I guess that is that in alignment with the county policy there.
>> Which part, sir? >> So I I guess the thing that was throwing me off on it says it must be administratively approved. But what you guys are that that falls to planning and zoning staff or how what is that? who gives that approval that they're
referring to in that. >> So, um, under the county policy, uh, column, resolution 25-078, um, named the county administrator as the land development regulations
administrator. So, Mr. >> have the the right to approve or deny. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Suggs is the one that actually signs the plat saying that everything has been achieved. Now, Mr. Suggs does rely upon
my department, myself, the DRC to have thoroughly reviewed that project before he makes the decision to sign. >> Does this include PUDS? >> I'm sorry, sir. >> Does it include PUDS?
>> So, it includes the subdivision for the PUD. does not include the actual zoning for the new plan unit development. So if this legislation was in place when Dr. Horton came through a little over a year
ago now, the PUD still goes to planning commission. You guys get your opportunity to review it and scrutinize and then it goes to the board. They get their opportunity to review it and scrutinize. But once that board drops the gavl and says 5,000 square foot lots
are okay, then it come the plat the subdivision itself comes back through planning and we are making sure that the subdivision presented meets the development agreement adopted with the PUD zoning. So, we still get an opportunity to
review and scrutinize PUDS, but we're only allowed to look, the board, I should say, is only allowed to look at the actual zoning map amendment, not the subdivision that comes after. >> Yeah, >> that would fall to the county administrator.
>> Well, it falls to planning and zoning and then we put it through DRC and we have the preliminary site plan approval and then the the preliminary plat, the final plat. It goes through all those steps, but it just never comes in front of the public board. The subdivision in
>> the subdivision portion of it, not okay. >> So, Zach, just let me recap this real quick for so I can understand it. So, we have four types of subdivisions. Is that right? >> We have more than that. >> Okay. So if if we if a if a type one, type two, type three, type four gets
submitted to your department and the zoning is properly classified, we will never see it. You guys get to process it through. We being the planning commission or the board, we won't see it. >> That's correct. Traditionally, typically
there's the speculation is currently if the if that developer wants the county to take over the infrastructure, then we can put it in front of the board and make sure, hey, are we good with the the rightaway widths and the design? If it's curbon gutter or if it's swailes, um
does the storm water retention pond adhere to our requirements? Do we want something different for that? that type of a plat we could have the board review because there there is a capital uh investment if you will that the county
has to agree to with that plat. But if if the infrastructure is going to be covered under a CDD or an HOA or some other private agreement maintenance agreement then we would not be bringing that in front of the planning commission or the boards.
>> I get it. So this is where it's important to make sure that the criteria in the LDC is what we want because it's it I'm going say circumvent it just bypasses us because the the land development code prescribes all these things and if they meet it no reason to come back to us because they met that it
just administratively gets pushed through on your side assuming everything else works. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Yeah, I think you guys were a lot a lot closer to compliance than it it may have appeared last meeting. You know what I mean? A lot of discussion about being
far off of what the state wanted, but I think we got it. >> Zack, I I do have one more question, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. So, Senate Bill 180, going back a few months ago, we talked about having a joint session between this board and the and the BOCC
to talk about land use, LDC, and all that good stuff. and we decided to punt that meeting because we couldn't make any type of more restrictive changes for what I thought was a period of three years from a hurricane. But looking at Senate Bill 180, it stipulates one year.
So with me, if I'm understanding that correctly, our timeline has passed and we would have the ability to go back and make more restrictive, if we chose to changes to the LDC um without the state statute prohibiting us from doing that.
Is that correct? So, I know Ethan was reviewing Senate Bill 180 earlier today. Him and I both looked at it. Ethan, do you still have the paperwork with you? >> Uh, yeah. Um, the Florida statute that got amended is one year uh after
landfall of a hurricane, but the Senate bill itself stipulated uh that no further restrictive amendments could be made until October 1st, 2027, and it was retroactive to October 2024. I looked through this section 18 on it.
>> So section 18 is the section that got adopted into the Florida statute. Section 28 is the one that was the three kind of the three-year period and it was every uh every county listed in the federal disaster declaration for hurricanes Debbie, Helen, and Milton. Um
and we are in one of those. So we the county are restricted until October 1st, 2027. >> Okay. >> And that's is contained within SP 180 but kind of unrelated to Florida statutes at the moment. >> Okay. >> All right.
So, as I understand the Senate bill, as long as we do not experience another hurricane in which Putinham County is declared part of the state emergency, then October 1st, 2027, we can move
forward with amending our language to make make more restrictive. But if we get, heaven forbid, if we don't get a or if we do get a hurricane this season, then it'll push back another three years beyond that
declared order. There's just real quick back into that same section 18, it talks about if the comprehensive plan is amended by the the county and it's accepted by the state, it's good.
So just I mean because you know you got to think that is a long I mean that's what's that 20 months from now before we could do anything. >> October 27. Yes. And that's just hoping and praying that we don't get impacted in the next, you know, two hurricane seasons, which is probably unlikely.
>> Yes, sir. >> So, there's a procedure in place to get it to get it approved to the state, though, right? Like you can send that land development code change language to the state. >> So, we don't we don't send our LDC language to the state for approval. We only send our amendments to our
comprehensive plan for approval. Now, we have to send any ordinance to the state within 10 days of adoption, but they don't tell us whether or not they agree or disagree. Only if we amend the comprehensive plan. But with the process
for amending the text of the comp plan, because it's considered a major amendment, when we when we start having our public hearings, we we present it as proposed language. Well, I'm of the impression that we could be challenged up to and
including the time where it's at the state for review. So, that's a a um I want to say it's 60 days after it goes through our public hearing process. Then it's with the state for 60 days. So you're looking at almost four, six
months worth of time for somebody to put together their legal argument and present it to the circuit court and say this is more challenging or cumbersome than what was previously there. So it's a slippery slope. I mean could we could we
do it and get it through and and approved by the state? Sure. But we've got that six month up to six month time frame between where it's still open for scrutiny from some other member. Well, that might not be a bad thing. >> It might not be a bad thing to let
public for that long. That way we know when Sure. >> if it does get through then probably legitimate change. >> Okay. >> Good information. Um, so I mean with that and I don't I
don't think that this is a a votable item, but I think that our table that we provided today addressed the requests of the commission which was essentially prepare a report demonstrating whether or not we are in accordance with this
this legislation. Um, so I hope that that answers any questions that you guys may have had. I think it does. I think I think it got to got to where we needed to be there. I mean, you guys are obviously
staying in tune with these changes, these governmental changes as they come up. So, it's nice to be able to see it on the page where basically say, "Yeah, we got this." So, we appreciate the work. >> Well, I have to give credit where it's due and Ethan prepared this document. So, Ethan, thank you.
>> Good job, Ethan. >> Thanks, Ethan. >> Thank you. >> All right. All right. Do we have any any other old business? Anybody? >> No. Uh, how about approval of the minutes from the February 11th meeting?
>> So, I don't chair, if I may, I don't know if it's my place, but I didn't see the appointment of chair and vice chair in the minutes. >> Okay. >> Mr. Perry, is that something that I could comment on?
Well, we certainly did it. >> We definitely did. >> You can check the recording. It'll also tell you that we did it. >> Just saying. >> Yeah. I guess uh we could entertain a motion with an amendment showing that we've put the uh
officers in Well, I guess we're still in limbo on the president's slot. >> We're still in limbo on the president's slot. Um we have communicated with Miss Roberts. Um so she knows that she received the appointment and won the
vote. Um we've not actually got a confirmation from her as of yet, which she didn't say no. She just said, "Okay, thank you for letting me know." Um, but yes, I mean, >> correct.
>> Okay. >> Did you get that for the record? >> We can table the minutes on that meeting. >> Yeah. Can we just get it into the mic, please? >> Mr. Chair, I recommend that we table the minutes till the next meeting and then we'll we'll approve them once they're
corrected. That's my motion. >> I'll second. >> All right. Got a motion in a second to table the meeting the minutes from the meeting on February 11th, 2026 till the next board meeting. All in favor? >> I
>> I opposed. All right. Good with that one. So, I I I know we just passed that, but we couldn't correct him on the spot here. We've got to go back through a process. >> I mean, I think we could have corrected
it on the spot here, but there's those those minutes were kind of detailed and cumbersome and there was a lot of discussion. >> Yeah, we we'll let them just put the line item in there saying that, you know, we approved vice chair president was not here to take the recommendation. I just hate for whiskers to get all
jacked up over there because the minutes weren't weren't approved. But that's okay with you. I'm It's okay with me. >> We got to keep them on their toes. >> Okay. >> They look like they didn't have anything to do this week. >> Um, any new business? You have any new business?
No new business. All right. Well, that makes us done. 434. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I like these. I like these sturdier.