four o'clock. >> All right, guys. Uh, this is a public hearing. We are the Putnham County Planning Commission. We are the designated local planning agency for the county as prescribed in chapter 163 of the Florida statutes and we function under the authority of article 11 and 12 of the Putnham County Land Development
Code. The 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 Putnham County Comprehensive Plan and Putnham 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 next regularly scheduled meeting on June the 23rd, 26. Procedurally, we will call each case by name and number. A member of the staff will then briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then
take any comments from the applicant or the representative followed by public comments concerning the request. Please direct all comments or statements to the board, not to 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 a recommendation to the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners will make the final determination regarding the application.
All applicants have a right to withdraw their request at any time during the application process. Oh, let's see. If applicants choose to have their cases heard at a later date, the case will be readvertised in accordance with Putham County Land Development Code and Florida statutes.
All right. Um, anybody had any exparte communications? >> No. Uh, do we have any conflicts? >> No. >> I would just like to say that I am friends with Mr. Matthews and I have
worked with him in the past, but I have not spoken with him about this case and it will not cause any conflicts >> in for I would probably say I'm in the same boat. All right. So our first case will be
re 260000004. >> Thank you chairman. >> Take it away Mike. >> Thank you. Uh for the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. Uh can you see the presentation on your screens? All right. >> Fantastic. Uh this is case re
26000000004. Uh the Julian C. Wood Revocable Living Trust is requesting a zoning map amendment from plan unit development to residential estate on 22 and a half acres located at 229 East River Road uh 131 Oak Haven Lane and an un and an
adjoining unassigned location in East Palaca to allow the development of a single family residence. Surrounding zonings include plan unit development and residential estate. The subject site has a feature land use designation of urban reserve UR. Uh the land has
approximately 1,079 feet of frontage on East River Road and according to the National Wetlands layer and FEMA flood zone layer of the GIS reference map, the lands do not do appear to contain wetlands and is located within FEMA flood zone X500 and
AE. FEMA flood zone AE is a special flood hazard area. Uh should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will then be eligible for obtaining all building and site work permits compatible with the residential estate zoning district. Here you can see the properties. Uh
please be aware that the kind of central one, the uh one with the tail as I will refer to it is a single property with the one to the north and the south of it also being a single property that's just divided by that central property. And then the one on the far western side is
a the third property. Here you can see the future land use categories. Here you can see the zoning. Uh staff recommends approval of their request to amend the zoning map from plan unit development to residential
estate. 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 estate zoning district provided in land development code and comprehensive plan.
Are there any questions? >> Uh, I had there was one I was reading through the PUD that I guess is expired and it looked like it was in regards to 420 something acres. >> Uh, yes sir. If I uh bring up the uh map
uh the zoning map here, you can see that the PUD extend extends both northward and across East River Road into uh a large a area of currently farmland. Uh at the time of issuance of the original development agreement, it would have
been 1580 homes across these uh uh acreage as you previously mentioned. >> Okay. So that PUD in the adjacent lands won't be affected with this decision. >> No sir. Uh because the PUD is expired, any new uh development in that area will
require either a reszone similar to this or a new plan unit development to go over the old one, including a new development agreement. >> Okay. And none of the parcels that we are taking out of that PUD or I mean they're consistent with
size, dimensional requirements and stuff uh density requirements and all. >> Uh yes, sir. >> As they sit. >> Yes, sir. The uh smallest one, the one on the northwest side right about the river is one acre in size uh which is the oh sorry, two acres in size uh which
is uh over the minimum requirement for the residential estate zoning district. >> Okay. It also looks like there's agriculture in and around there. >> That's correct. I saw some cabbage that was harvested and Mr. Vic Vic Victor over there was going to get me ahead,
but I guess he didn't. >> Uh, the majority of the lands that the PUD were going to be developed on are currently used as crop land. >> So, Michael, can you go back to the aerial? >> Sure thing. >> So, it looks like there's one single
family existing on the parcel. >> Uh, yes, sir. on the southern side of the uh kind of bisected parcel >> and if the the and I I support the resoning. I like what we're doing here, but they have the ability to create 22 additional or 21 additional single
family residents on this reszone if desired. Did I read that correctly? >> If they were to uh reconfigure and resubdivide, yes, sir, that would be allowed. Uh as of right now though, because the residential estate zoning district, they would only be allowed one unit per parcel regardless of size.
Okay. Anybody else? >> Uh, is the applicant or applicant representative here? Reed Matthews, 115 North Second Street. So, I'm buying the twoacre parcel to the north. I was reszoning it and they said, "Well, hey, while you're doing that,
just add ours on to it." So, there's no sense in their property being staying in the pugs that the puds expired. So that's why we're reszoning all and not just the two acre piece >> our you know single family house on the north piece for me and my family
>> and the the current owners they plan on I think eventually building another house on their piece or on their two pieces. that I'll use. So, I'll turn between the two farm fields and that's that that's there's an ement that goes through there then hangs a left and that's that's
where I'll access my house from. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Oak Haven. There's currently Miss Hedstrom's old house. Well, Steuart M Stewart's house Ronnie Hedum lives in now. They built a new construction house beside it and then Willie McKinnon rents from Julian or Andrew Wood.
Um, in the third house off Oak Haven Lane, he would build between where Willie lives and where I'm going to build. That's where they would potentially build in the future, but they already have a house on the river on 207A where they currently live, but eventually they might end up building on the other parcel.
>> Anybody else questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public wish to speak? All right, seeing none, I'll close that. Bring it back to the board for discussion and entertain a motion. I like what they're doing here. I mean,
I feel like we've been doing this a lot lately is going going backwards. Uh getting back to the residential stuff, so I'm I'm all for it. >> I had a few different concerned citizens reach out to me, not just because they had no idea anything to do with the property, but they were I said, "No, no,
this is the opposite of you know, they thought they were, you know, reszoning it to build more houses." No, no, no. reszone it to build way less houses than >> what's currently zoned for. So >> anyway, opposite of development. >> Yeah. >> Anybody?
>> So So one more question real quick, Michael. The the PUD basically stipulates up to 1,580 residential dwellings on that overall 428 acres or whatever it was. Taking this 22 acres out and reszoning it residential estate
doesn't change that density. Did I read that correctly? >> That is correct. Uh the exact wording of the original plan unit development and also the section of the comprehensive plan that it is also currently under uh would would allow the 1580 in the area
that was originally outlined by the PUD. So even if we are to remove this 22 acres and put it into residential estate and doesn't have the same uh developable rights I guess as a plan unit development, the rest of the area in
total would be able to have 1580 minus the theoretically 22 that this area would have. So it would be 15 uh 58 uh provided a new plan unit development was established of course. >> Okay.
But to be clear, the PUD is done. >> It's expired and it has been for a significant amount of time. >> This will further >> Yeah. >> Any further development, anything that they would want to do there, they would need to do either a reszone or a new plan unit development with a new development agreement.
>> Yeah, I think I think in effect we're looking at this like a blank slate that's moved to a residential zone. the 1,500 units are still there, but the PUD is that for >> so the comprehensive plan in uh sight specific uh uh density aotment section,
I forget the uh number off the top of my head. I believe it's referenced in the staff report uh does make reference to this specific area as part of the Riverbend Estates uh plan unit development where it specifies that despite whatever future land use
category it has it will have a maximum density of 1580 units as uh determined by the plan unit development. So in theory, a new plan unit development could establish across the street there and it would only be able to have a
maximum density that would allow the 1580 units even if uh there was water or sewer, other utilities that would in the urban service future land use category enable it to have theoretically more. It is limited at that 1580 because of the
comprehensive plan. I >> think so. Right. The clubhouse was planned to go here on this on the piece I'm buying or the piece where >> Okay. So, yes, on part of this parcel, not where I'm going to build, but
where on part of this parcel that Yes. Exactly. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's issue. the rest of the PUD's exempt. I don't see how uh doing anything on this property is going to affect the other. I would think that the um the density, the number of houses that you could build on
the other piece if it were reviewed would be at least prorated for the stuff that they're losing out of it now. But that's a you know, like you said, that's a bridge to burn when we get to it. Um I'm not I'm not seeing a problem with this one.
>> Anybody want to make make a motion? >> Do it. The board commission approved as it is. >> I second that. >> All right, we got a motion and a second. Call for the question. All in favor?
>> I. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Approve. There we go. We'll pass that on to the uh board of county commissioners at their next meeting and let them take a swing at it. All right, that's the only one we had for the day. Next thing on the agenda is
old business. Do we have any old business we need to address? All right, we have any new business we need to address? I'm liking this. 414. Uh, how about um approval of the minutes
from the April 8th, 2026 meeting? >> Got a motion in a second? All those in favor? >> I All right. I think that's it. Anybody else got anything to say? Nope.
>> That's what I'm talking about. There we go. We're going to call this meeting close at 4:15. All right.