All right, let's see. Call it to order. This is a public hearing. We are the Putnham County Planning Commission. We are designated local planning agency for the county as prescribed in chapter 163 of Florida statutes and we function under the authority of article 11 and 12 of the Putham County Land Development Code. The
primary responsibility of the commission is to serve as an advisory board 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 Putham County Land Development Code. The members of this board will reach will
review each application and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners at their next regularly scheduled meeting May 26, 2026. Procedurally, we will call each case by name and number. member of the staff will give a brief explanation or briefly
explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take any comments from the applicant or the 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 lectern and identify his or herself by name and address. After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we are entertaining a motion from the board. The 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 their request at any time during the application process. Uh I see none being withdrawn. So
there we go. Um, all right. Thanks for the note card. Uh, let's see. Today, are have there in regards to any of the cases today? Has there been any exparte communications? Anybody?
Nope. How about any conflicts of interest? >> None. Okay. All right. Well, we will get right to the first case. Case number LDC 26000000001. >> All right. Good afternoon, planning commission. For the record, Ethan
Thompson presenting LDC26-000000001. This is an application by Zachary Ford requesting an amendment to the text of the Putnham County Land Development Code, Chapter 45, Article 12, Division 8, Section 45-1036. requirements for type three subdivisions. Uh these are family
subdivisions. Uh some background, there are five classifications of subdivisions or alterations uh of land in Putham County. We've got the type one, type two, uh the subject type three family subdivisions, boundary line adjustments, and lot
splits. Uh land development code section 45-1036 provides standards for the type three family subdivision. Currently, an agricultural future land use designation and agricultural zoning designation are required uh for a parcel to be eligible
to apply for a type three uh and type three family subdivisions must meet density or provide a qualifying residential density exception for immediately immediate family members. The applicant is is requesting that the requirement for par parcels subject to
type three subdivisions to have an agriculture future land use designation be removed from section 45-1036. Currently section 451036 requires as I said parcels to have a a designations. Uh they are the applicant is requesting
that the a future land use be removed. The a zoning requirement will remain as will the rest of the requirements and regulations that pertain to a type three family subdivision. Uh staff believes that the requested amendment will not substantially increase residential development such
that it would cause urban sprawl. Uh type three subdivisions are often accompanied accompanied by family density exceptions uh which allow parcels to exceed the future land use uh density requirement and be subdivided down based on the minimum lot size
requirement. in this case of the a zoning district. Uh and parcels will still be required to have agricultural zoning to qualify for a type three. Uh so that 1acre lot size minimum will still apply if the amendment is adopted.
Uh aside from agriculture and uh rural residential under certain conditions, there are no future land designations that have more restrictive density than that 1acre a zoning uh minimum lot size. Uh therefore, if this amendment is adopted, the type three subdivision
would not be able to create residential developments that are more dense than what is already allowed uh regardless of future land use designation. Also worth mentioning, uh the family density exception can be applied to parcels in the agriculture, conservation, and rural residential future land use categories
uh that allow residential development to exceed uh the agriculture future land use density requirement. uh sorry that would allow residential development to exceed the sub the applicable future land use categories. Um while the type three subdivision is
only accessible for partial parcels in the a future land use category. Uh the ex objective of the family density exception is to provide a home site to immediate family members of property owners and staff believes that removing the agriculture future land use requirement is in line with the goals of
that family density exception. uh and further the comprehensive plan. And then uh aside from Zach Ford's application, staff is also proposing an amendment to land development code section 4510365
uh adding a line that would allow applicants to apply for an administrative variance to reduce the required minimum easement width of 66 feet. uh staff has included two versions of the proposed amendments. If uh either this uh commission or the board of
county commissioners don't want to stray from uh aren't interested in adopting staff's proposed changes, uh they just want to stick to what Zachary Ford is applying for. Uh staff's additions also include some grammatical corrections to section 453 1036 and section f section
45-1033. Um the first supplied version of the underlying striketh through documents is both of the amendments and then the second supplied is the applicant submitt um I believe it might be the other way
around. Uh and then I can go through this. You guys have that copy um highlighted. So some of the grammatical corrections are probably things that got skipped when we uploaded
it to citizen serve. um can't verify that, don't know that for sure. I just some corrections that we added on top of this application. Uh and then the inclusion of that minimum uh the administrative variance process to the minimum easement width.
Uh but the primary uh application is there at the top where we are striking through designated agriculture in the Putham County comprehensive plan and then some more grammatical corrections to section 45 1033.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the land development code as the request is uh consistent with the Florida statutes and consistent with the intent of the Putham County Comprehensive Plan and the goals, objectives, and policies there in and of the land development code. Are there any
questions for staff? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a few questions. Ethan, on one of your first slides, you talked about there were five different types of subdivisions, five classifications of divisions and alterations of land. And this may be a
little bit different, but on page one of two under section 45-103, it showing six kinds of subdivisions. Not that it changes anything. I'm just trying to make sure I have a good grasp on what I'm looking at. I think what's happening on your slide
here, you're missing a type four subdivision. >> Uh I think so. >> Okay. So that would take it to six. So okay, that that reconciles that reconciles with me. Few few more questions real quick. Um >> once again, under section 45-1036
under item four, it says an individual is eligible to receive a parcel through the type three family subdivision one time. Okay, jump down to article seven or section seven. It says the type three subdivision may utilize
no more than twice by any property owner on property that meets the above criteria there. There may be two different things, but I wanted to make sure because one section says only one time, the other section says two times. >> Mr. Chair, if I may address that
question, please. Go ahead. >> So, yes, sir. To answer that question, the intent was that um you can only give one parcel to a specific family member and then if um for larger families, if let's say granddad wants to do a
subdivision for all of his grandchildren and he names all of them John, Jake, Jack, they all get their lot. Well then, you know, Brody is born and Sarah are born 10 years later. Then they can do the type three family subdivision again
the second time to give Brody and Sarah their lots as well. But they cannot give John, Jake or Jack a second lot in that family subdivision. So, you can only receive one lot, but the property owner,
the the parent parcel owner can process a type three family subdivision twice in the lifetime of that property to give land to multiple different family members. >> Okay. All right. Few few more questions.
Um, out of curiosity, section 8 that says the sale of any parcel created by a type three uh subdivision is prohibited for 5 years from the date the parcel was created if the parcel remains vacant. So, the family can't sell it to
another family member within that 5-year period or is it someone outside the family? >> It would be outside of the family. Um so that was a safeguard to prevent you know um like large companies from buying up splitting the lands and then selling
them independently. Um but section 8 B allows for conveyance within other family members prior to that five-year law. >> Okay. All right. Which leads me to the the final question I think I have here
under under that section. If a so the type three subdivision gets approved, they start doing things, partials are divvied up, and they build a single family dwelling, they can immediately sell that dwelling within the 5-year period.
>> That's correct. If the parcel has been developed with a single family home, then the the family could sell it outside of the the family members to any other normal constituent. >> Okay.
I was just thinking that maybe a little more clarity should be added if you're going through this to spell that out because it wasn't that clear to me. Having the conversation, it's very clear, but reading this it was a little ambiguous. So just didn't know if you wanted to add some clarity to some of
this language so it was uh easier to understand. For example, under the under eight that you mentioned earl conditions could permit the sale of the parcel if so parcel. Okay. Is that a developed parcel
or an undeveloped parcel? The developed parcel would be constructed the single family dwelling versus it being vacant. So just further def defining the parcel. Is it a developed parcel, which would mean it includes a single family dwelling, or is it an undeveloped parcel that you would have criteria A through E
to meet an address? >> So, um, at this point, that's where it would kind of become, I guess, at the request of the the board here, would you guys like to see like an item F that stated something along the lines of, you know, the parcel can be conveyed outside
of the family if it's developed with a single family home? I mean, that's where we're looking for y'all's kind of feedback on exactly what you'd want to see us present to the BOCC. >> But you're saying if a single family dwelling is built on year one, it could
be sold year two if it's chosen. >> Okay. >> That seems counterproductive to what we're trying to do with that >> because it's a family subdivision. >> So, if I Yeah, go ahead. If if I do this and I and I tell this board that I theor
the planning or reviewers I theoretically have 10 kids. I build 10 houses. I sell them. I've just created a 10 lot subdivision. Did I build any roads? >> It depends on the scope.
>> I didn't have to. Right. >> I'm seeing a loophole is what you're saying. You're seeing the loophole. >> I can So I can buy a I can buy a minimum 10acre lot. call it mine. Split it up. 10 acres. We had a PD like this that I still don't
agree with. But I could buy the 10 acres. I could build 10 homes and then the next year I could sell them >> and I'd have a 10 unit subdivision >> with no infrastructure, no connections, no anything.
>> Sure. Yeah. Um, no, I definitely understand the concerns from the planning commission. Um, if I may too, the um the application requires a notorized affidavit for the property owner to identify who is receiving the
property and what their familial relation is. Um, so that does go on record. Um, but you're right. I mean, if if the family is all in agreement and says, you know, yeah, go ahead and put my name on it and I'll build the house
and I'll convey it. you know, it's then becomes a familial, you know, y'all have to trust each other in order to work that loophole out. Um, the to be completely transparent, when uh it was in 2024, the prior code
required families to have owned the property for 10 years before they would be eligible for the family subdivision. Um, but we were receiving a lot of requests from people in the community that, you know, they moved here, they bought their 20 acres, you know, maybe
two or three years ago. They've invested in the community, um, and they wanted to do the family subdivision, but they were roadblocked. So, it was the request of our BOCC at that time figure out a way to make it to where, you know, the new land owners can also be eligible for the
family subdivision. And the five-year sunset after the approval of the subdivision is where we landed. >> Yeah. I don't I don't have a problem with the five-year plan. I my issue would arise from exactly that that we
have say five kids and you split up five pieces, but the understanding is we're just going to put it in five kids' names and build houses on it and sell it. I think there needs to be something that doesn't allow that path because that's that's counterproductive to what I feel
like the intent of this type subdivision is. I mean, this type subdivision is meant to give families priority and and ease of use in family property, not to have a workaround to a subdivision. So, if there's if there's some language
we could put in there, >> Mr. Would you like the five years? >> I like the I like the five years regard I mean there's the few exceptions they've got outlined here are acceptable reasons to to for that five years to be voided but those those are extreme circumstances. What we're talking about
for putting it in the kids' names and building a house and then selling it is not an extreme circumstance in my opinion. So, um it'd be my recommendation then that the this commission um perhaps decide tells us what what
language they would like to see struck. So, I I'm guessing based off of this conversation you would want to get rid of if the parcel remains vacant. Um and then any other language which is reflective of you know that that current
rule which is if the home is built then it can be conveyed outside of the family. Um and then we would just present that to the BOCC as essentially a third option. We would then have the applicant's request staff's suggested suggested edits and then planning
commission edits. Um and we would give them the option of which which of these three do you want to move forward with? >> Yeah. On page two of two, the very top line, it says, "If the parcel is developed with a single family dwelling and certificate occupancy been issued to the individual, name of the type three
subdivision application, no pro prohibition for its sale would be require like that. That whole line needs to be struck in my opinion. >> Okay. So, um >> I guess at this point we just want to get some uh um agreeance by the the
commission um with the specific language that you would like to see struck from the current code. So, if you could just let me know into the record what you want to see struck. >> Okay. >> I'll make notes and then we can make sure that the planning commission is on
board with that. >> So, so for me on this will be on on it's on page 202. So it'll be 45 1036 number 8 in the paragraph before section A it
says if the parcel is developed with single family dwelling and certificate of occupancy has been issued to the individual named on the type three subdivision application no prohibition for its sale would be required. I would like that
that entire sentence struck. >> Okay. And then keeping consistent with this discussion on 451036 parenthesy 8, it states the sale of any parcel created by a type 3 subdivision is prohibited for 5 years from the date
the parcel was created if the parcel remains vacant. Do you want to strike if the parcel remains vacant? >> Yes, strike if the parcel remains vacant. >> Okay. Um I've got the notes on that. I'll make sure Ethan gets it. So,
we're kind of going a little out of order. Do you guys have a preference on the applicants uh application versus staff's recommendation? >> The one question I had on uh the applicants uh application was do we have
any history on why it was originally written to have an agricultural future land use? Why what what was the reasoning behind that or the intent behind that section? >> There is not um the planning commission recording. Uh so in 2015 is when the
type three was adopted. Um I do I don't have anything from the planning commission meeting. The board meeting is on YouTube. Um the first first board meeting they don't talk about the why for a um they spent most most of their concern was sprawl connected to infra
infrastructure. um putting in small lots with no road access, inadequate road access, and then the county has to take that in later. Um but as far as why it was a AG that never came up. >> Okay. Yeah. I don't I don't have a problem with any of the like the
disregarding the future land use for that for the family, I don't have a problem with that. So, as far as the the applicants thing, I I don't see an issue with that. >> So, I have a question. So, what I'm trying to do is keep in
compliance with the future land use. >> I think your mic might be off, Mr. Williams. >> I think your mic is off, Mr. Williams. >> So, I'm I'm just looking at the comp plan and I think we're really veering off of that and I think we're kind of
going about this a little bit backwards. So, if I'm correct, we could reszone or revise the future land use map to an A or a conservation or a rural resident.
Can't say that word. And we've demonstrated that we don't mind going that way in some other things that we've done. Or they can do a PED. So there's there's future land use amendments and there's PUDs that are available right
now to get the same thing. Correct. I mean they could change their future land use to an A. >> That's correct. I mean they could they could any applicant in theory can make an application to amend the future land use designation andor the zoning. Um,
more often than not, what the trouble that we're presented with is that the property may be zoned agriculture, but it's located in a rural residential. Well, that's a not a terrible example. A rural residential future land use designation, and then everything around
it is future land rural residential future land use. So staff acknowledges that if we were to try to present a an application to the planning commission and the board of county commissioners to lower the intensity from rural residential to agg, we would then be
spot zoning a parcel in the center of a rural residential node in the county. And I think in the grand scheme of things, all we're really doing is saying instead of just egg, everything else that has the ability to have residential
inside as far as future land use designation. We're not saying because we are getting rid of the requirement of future land use as a that doesn't mean we are authorizing this to go in say a future land use commercial or industrial section. They have that's going to get
cut out because of the requirements of the use, >> right? And I understand that. But for this >> all all we're doing is relaxing the rule from a future land use to a and the other future land uses that allow residential use. >> I understand but for this board I just I
just want to clarify this would become an administrative approval. Correct. So anything de facto then that I'm not saying the applicant here today. I'm just saying someone comes in. I've got 10 acres. I want 10 lots. I call it a
family subdivision. de facto. I slide around and I get to basically build a subdivision even under lesser uh where I where I may have had to reszone
or I may have had to have come for a future land use amendment or I may have to do something. I I can just take the flag of family type three subdivision. and I've got 10 lots with again my concern no infrastructure.
>> Yeah, I mean yes. The short answer to that question is yes. The the type three family subdivision is already administrative. So we're already seeing increased density in a areas um that does not go through a board
>> review process. >> I I understand that. But by the way, I'm all for this because this first thing I'm going to do as soon as it's No, but I'm all for having places and and having more property
rights. I I I am. What I'm struggling with is seeing what's happening in other places. And >> where's the language about the future land use requirement? >> It's in the comp plan. Yeah, the comprehensive plan establishes the
residential density. >> I don't believe so. Either >> what are we what are we looking for? >> The the designation requirement in 1036 or in the comp plan. >> So there's the
>> and for what? >> So I'm really more struggling with leaving the comp plan so badly right now. Again, I'm big on the process and I'm big on that kind of thing. And one of our jobs is the local planning agency, planning
commission, is to try to make sure that all the code stays in compliance with the comp plan. I think I would have felt a little bit better if there would have been a comp plan amendment proposed with this as well, maybe. But I'd still have some
reservations. So, but it is it not difficult though to presuppose what an individual is going to do if they're going to do a f family plot? I mean, every family's different. Every situation is different and things
change. So, being restrictive in one way is probably good, but another way I think the average I'm just guessing, you know, the average family kind of thing wouldn't end up in a development. Hope hopefully. Well, we just won't know. I mean, like you said,
>> no, you won't. >> Yeah, we don't know. Um, I did want to take a moment to just address um Commissioner Williams concern with the comprehensive plan. Parenthesy 2 of the the code that we're discussing does provide that the subdivision shall
conform to the minimum size, lot dimension requirements, and density restrictions as set forth in the comprehensive plan. Um, so we would not be allowing uh for a like a cart blanch, you know, increased density beyond what
the comprehensive plan would allow for, right? But it I guess my biggest reservation is the comp plan only only calls out three future land use areas and then we're going to say we're going to make a recommendation kind of counterintuitive to what we're
supposed to do to the commission to do a land development code that is in not in compliance with the comp plan as written and it's part of our duty to say to try to keep those in line so to speak. So
again, my point, I might have been a little bit less reluctant. I'm not saying I'm against it, but if there was also a comprehensive plan amendment, >> well, I'm I'm falling on board with you now because I'm I'm trying like the the
background in the uh staff report there and this is this was in my reading before when you guys sent it out a week ago. Says the text amendment application proposes the removal of agricultural future land use designation requirement of type three subdivisions blah blah in
in LDC section 451036. But then when we go to the red line, there's no there's no there's nothing regarding 45 1036 that says anything about future land use. That's where that's that's my hangup here. Like I'm I see what you're asking in the background section there,
but then when you look at the supporting documentation, and it may just be me. I don't I'm not seeing it, but I don't see anything about future land use being addressed in what was submitted as >> it's the strikethrough for designated agriculture in the Putnham County Comprehensive Plan. Um that's where we
get our we call them they're called future land use. It's the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Um that's why we're it's but it's one and the same. We get them from the same place. >> Yeah. But in that first line it says agricultural zoning. It doesn't say anything about future land. It it it it
references the zoning and then >> right and that's that's the where the relaxation comes in is currently you have to be zoned a and located in the agriculture future land use category. We still I understand what what you're saying about that, but what I'm saying
is what's been presented here doesn't have doesn't define any of that. Doesn't show any of that. Doesn't change the language that's getting changed in here doesn't say it doesn't say that anywhere in in the support documents that came in
here. Does that make sense out there? Am I >> not making any sense with that? >> I don't know that I'm tracking. Um because all the applicant is intending to do is allow for a family subdivision in the urban reserve future land use category. >> And I'm all for that. That's that's not
my that's not my point of contention at all. Like I I don't I don't care about it. I'm all for that. >> But what I'm saying is how do these text amendment changes address anything about future land use? Um, it's in parenthesy 2 of the the text that is to remain that
is current now which states the subdivision shall conform to the minimum size lot dimension requirements and density restrictions at as set forth in the Putham County comprehensive plan including family density exception if applicable and the land development code.
>> Where are you reading that from? That's parenthesy 2 of section 451036. Mr. Chair, can I ask another question? >> Yeah, go ahead. Um, so when I'm reading the comprehensive plan, okay, I can do this family density
exception in agriculture conservation or rural res, I can't say it, residential land use classifications, but section 45-1036, even with the striketh through only talked about a a now we're doing away
with the a future land use to relax it throughout other zoning districts, but this the code never allowed it never said conservation or >> well and that'sual >> that's part of the the striketh through is the code is actually more restrictive
for type threes than the family density exception and I think we're having two it's two different points the first is that the code is more restrictive you can only do it if it's a a um whether family density would apply or not um the other thing is that the family density
exception and would only apply to those three zoning or uh future land use element categories because those are the only three that are more have a higher density or lower density than the minimum lot sizes of the zoning districts. Uh so for example, urban
reserve allows more units per acre than the a minimum. So you wouldn't need the family. It it doesn't need to be called out outside of a conservation RR because those are like two uh uh one per two and
a half, one per five, one per one dwelling unit per 10 acre. Um so they would need a density exception to go down be below those numbers. Um but uh urban reserve I think is is four an acre. Um for it more than one dwelling
unit per acre. So now you don't need it because you're not going to go below the one acre of the a zoning district. I don't hopefully that addresses the >> I'm not sure. >> You're saying you're saying
>> type the type of subdivisions are not in the comp plan. So, I'm going to ask a question kind of following what Justin was asking earlier. On on page one of your staff report, first paragraph, second sentence, it says, "The LDC currently requires a parcel to have both
a zoning and an agricultural a flume designation to be eligible for a type three family subdivision." Okay. So, two requirements. There's a zoning requirement and a flume requirement. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Going over to the text amendment
uh 45-1036, where do you take away the flume requirement? I know I know you've stricken the designated agriculture in the uh comp plan. I I can reword the staff report, but those are one and the same. The future the agriculture future
land use element that I reference is the agricultural designation in the comprehensive plan. it it is the designate agricultural designated future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Um I can I'll reward that in the next staff report to
be a little bit more clear. Um >> what's what's the what's the reference for in that in that part of the uh comp plan? What's the reference where for that the the part that he just quoted uh applicant is seeking let's see where it says uh a flume designation requirement
so that that partial zone a let's see the line that says the LDC currently requires a paral to have both the a zoning and a flume designation to be eligible type three sub the the where it says the LDC currently requires what section ction
is that does that requirement come out of >> that is that is 45-1036 that is the the the type three subdivisions may be approved in areas designated agriculture in the Putham County comprehensive plan the future land use uh and uh and have agricultural
zoning when the following conditions are met. >> Okay. >> I look at it that way because as a kind of interdep departmentally um >> we just kind of They're the same thing. So, we just reference them. We'll say one or the
other. Um, I could have been a little more clear in the staff report. >> I I think that for clarification, the verbiage in the original LDC wasn't very clear delineating uh the flume with the comprehensive plan
versus the the current zoning zoning. That I think that's that's how I'm looking at it now. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> So, >> so in in so the first line, let's let's we'll just talk about the first line
that you guys have red line there section 451036 requirements for type three subdivision. Type three subdivision may be approved in areas and then you guys have struck stricken designated agriculture in the Putnham County comprehensive plan and having an
agricultural zoning Are are you saying that designated agriculture in the Putnham County comprehensive plan is the Flume requirement? That's what you're saying. You're saying that >> designated as designated agriculture has
only to do with Flume and not any other >> that Yep. Just the just the comprehensive plan designation. So, Commissioner Williams, to your point, you said there was a couple of ways we could go about doing this, but you're not certain the way that's being proposed right now is the best method.
You would rather see a comprehensive plan amendment versus what we're doing now. Based on my understanding what this commission is supposed to do being the local agency and planning commission, we
are supposed to try to keep text amendments and all this in line with the comp plan. One of my big concerns is and has been and it's not just with this because this is an amendment. If you actually read this, I don't know how it complies with
the comp plan, but changing it even more and reducing that even seems to me taking it further away from the stated comp plan that we have. Also, you know, when you get into agriculture and the
res, you know, that some of the Well, yes, we'll leave it right there. I need to get my other piece together. I'm just worried that we're we're we're kind of doing code to address a problem or address something and we're leaving the comp plan behind
which is our main stated responsibility in state statute. >> Well, it's my understanding comp plan doesn't necessarily call out a type three subdivision, right? >> That's correct. >> Like it just refers to the land development code. in the land development code >> is what identifies the subdivision
process and there's policies within our comprehensive plan. I mean the entire future land use element there's I believe 10 different future land use categories and all of them have their own unique residential density and intensity regulations within them and
then in a separate policy there's you know different density exceptions that could apply one of which being the family member density exception >> right and but the comp again the comp plan and two different things because the staff
Staff is also recommending redoing the easement size. Policy A.1.4.5. The county shall require paved roads in new residential subdivisions. So if we really want to get comp plan,
that's that's another question I've got. So again, I go back to I buy a piece of property, I put 10 lots on it, and I think the intent was here's my grandson. He's of age and he needs a place to live. I'll give him a parcel. This is starting to get reworked to I'm a I'm a
real estate investor. I'm gonna have to hold this for five years. I can get 10 lots and not build anything. Big win for me if you don't do it correctly. The intent was I want my child to live on my property. It's a single split here. I
can split it again. Whatever. But then it goes even deeper now to it just says an easement not roads but our comp plan clearly states the county shall require paved roads in new residential subdivisions.
So that's another thing that I think this is trying to carve out. And again I'm just if we're going to do these things I think the comp plan is the place to start not code then go yeah we don't really follow the comp plan.
That's not fair. >> I'm sure it was mentioned, but what is the current flume for his area? >> Urban service. >> Urban reserve. >> Urban reserve. Correction. >> Urban reserve.
>> That's so what's the density for urban reserve? 12 units an acre with water and sewer or one one unit two units per acre with private uh well and septic. >> In the in the event of a family of a type three subdivision, do the do the
density requirements are they defined by the type three subdivision or are they defined by the future land use or current zoning? How? So because we are leaving the a zoning requirement, they would be limited to one unit per acre because of the dimensional requirements of the a zoning district.
>> So if they >> because it's required to be in a and we we're not concerned with the future land use, it it it is concerned about the density requirement then becomes defined by the agricultural zoning. >> Correct. >> That's what you're saying. Okay. So by right, we could put 12 units per
acre >> if he has water or sewer, >> right? >> Through a plat, but no, because the the this gentleman's zoning is agg. So he'd be limited to one unit per acre because
of his a zoning designation, >> which all type three family subdivisions must have. >> Have to have a zoning. >> They have to have a zoning. What we're trying we're we're concerned about the plume in this but they will still require to have the a zoning >> correct
>> one one improvement per acre >> one unit per acre >> one unit per acre >> a fiveyear hole >> I'm sorry >> and a five and a fivey old >> and a 5year >> can you But a 10acre subdivision, how
many I mean up to 10 or 10 unit subdivision that if I used his current zoning or his current future land use, I'd have to have water, sewer, and a road. If this goes through, I can build houses
>> no roads. >> Can we see a flume map of this area? >> Can you pull that up? Yeah, I think Ethan can get that pulled up. Mr. Ford, what's the address for this part for your parcel? The type three is Yes, sir.
>> Yes. Yeah, that's correct. And um Mr. Sheffield with your acknowledgement uh I do just want to remind the entire planning commission that this would change the regulations for the entire county. So while the applicant is located in a sea of urban
reserve, this would you know be beneficial to those in urban service, rural center, rural residential land use categories as well. >> Anything that the future land use allows for some sort of residential use. >> Yes, sir.
>> Yeah. Oh, I've got the map up. >> Can you screen? >> Uh, close the PowerPoint. be this person. This is it. The subject parcel is outlined. Um, urban reserve is all this
orange here. >> So, all that's urban. >> Everything. I'm sorry. I thought it was loading and populating. >> No, sorry. This is all urban. Apologies. You're good. >> And then I'll pull up the zoning as well. All the light green is a we've got some R1HA, some residential stuff over
there. Personally, I don't have an issue with what the applicant's trying to do. Um, but it goes back to the process. And I'm kind of going back to what Matt's saying. If if our process is driving us through the the comprehensive plan, if we should make a change in in that, why
aren't we going in that direction? I know we can go option two. We can go option two. >> Well, they're saying it's not defined in the comprehensive plan. comprehensive plan refers everything to the LDC to define these rules for these subdivisions. That's that that's what I'm understanding, right? That's correct.
Like there's no specific it doesn't talk about type one, type two, type three subdivisions. It says the comp plan says go to the LDC because we we define how the the subdivisions work. In which case, I'm perfectly okay and don't see where it interferes with the comp plan
so much. But so where it in my opinion it goes to where it allows the it's the fact that they can do this as a family subdivision without building the infrastructure is >> and that was done so that your kids and
your grandkids all could live on one piece of property with you. But if we start >> that's the difference is it's basically and somebody correct me this would be a totally different type subdivision in this area.
But if we open it up well I think the advantages are number one it's it's going to it's going to remain at the agricultural de because the all the rules in there say that after you've done this you can't you can't chop it up anymore. you can't use that that split again. So once you've
created this one acre lot for a family member, they're making it to where it's not going to get chopped up even worse down the road without a lot of reszoning and redoing. I think that's the one of the advantage. >> The other the other and this is probably one of my biggest
concerns is uh back when I was inspector they used to say you need to be an inspector not a suspect. Meaning we need to focus on helping the community out more so than restricting the community in the advent of we're preventing some
person with nefarious intent of doing something and working around. So will there be people that try to use this in the future to mess it up? Probably. Yeah, there probably will be. May have already been. Um, but in the
grand scheme of things, I I I don't think we need to handcuff the rest of Putnham County on what may be a few bad apples. So, with the understanding that the the line strike there that you guys are
requesting is the the the only thing that requires the future land use requirement, I'm okay with that. Like, I'm I'm I'm good with that text amendment. Um, Do do we need to move? Do we need to Is there any other discussion about that? I mean, do we need to
>> I I'm just still struggling with we the land use change, the future land use change, the zoning change, or a PUD would do the same thing. Um I'm just I'm not sure why this is the particular route we're going
without changing the verbiage in the comp plan. There's other ways in our code to accomplish this same thing as stated today, but we're going to go away from what the comp plan says we do or we should do.
>> I guess I'm not following on what you're saying. The comp plan says we can't do as far as >> Yeah. Well, the only places that it's allowed in the comp plan are in conservation, RR, and agriculture. We're going to take land development code
and do away with that whole section for this one issue. Right, >> Mr. Chair? May I >> I'm not following that. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Mr. Williams is referencing the rural residential a and the conservation
future land use areas and its listings in the comprehensive plan but those designations are listed as the future land use map designations which are eligible for a family member density exception which is not the same as the
family subdivision. The family density exception can be applied in rural residential a or conservation in order to exceed the residential density that is required in that designation.
>> Okay. So you we're only going to use it for the density then for family, right? So it's a it's a subdivision. It's a subdivision but it's not this uh res uh family density. So, it's a subdivision. All subdivisions require paved roads and
infrastructure. Are we still enforcing that? >> So, those are residential subdivisions that are are uh processed by plat and that language is consistent in our
section 43-103 and then also 1037 through like 1041, which is the requirements for a plat. And it does stipulate that the roads must be paved in the code in the land development code
and within the comprehensive plan. Yeah. And a single lot split which is would be requd. They don't require you paving the road to a lot split. It must be on a public private street. Well, but they've got and they've got that language in there, too. That's in
the and that that's probably the next thing we need to address is that section five where they talk about the minimum requirements of 66 feet wide easement, which is what even in a lot split nowadays they require that, but I think the minimum goes down to 30, right? I mean, that would be
>> So, for a just a standalone lot split, it's a 35 foot wide easement. Um 30, it's a 30 foot easement. Um, but then any creation of three or more lots, you're at the 66 foot wide easement. And
the only thing that staff is recommending here is just the inclusion of the language that offers an administrative variance, even though the administrative variance is already kind of allowed based off of the intent. And that's in a different section of the
code where you've got your regulations for administrative variance. It basically states, I don't have it in front of me, that you can request an administrative variance from any dimensional requirement of this code. So the 66 foot wide easement would be
something that's already a person could apply for a variance for. >> So why why add the language then? >> Just to clarify it. >> I'm just just curious. uh other code sections um outside of the the
administrative variance code section I believe is 45836 and it has a list of 15 different uh allow kind of things that the ADC the administrative deviation committee can grant administrative variances for. But there are other places specific sections in the code
where it says um you need outside of the the the code section for the ADC. So there are like there's a dimensional requirement section that says it's got to be this foot by that foot. Or you can get a variance from the ADC. So this is just kind of in line with the rest of the
code. Um where if someone were to read the applicable code sections for what they were were looking to achieve, looking to develop, it would be right there for them. Uh instead of them having to know that there is a second separate code section to go hunt down. Okay. Um
>> the the article 9 uh division 4 reference that you guys have in that new language there, does that refer to the actual easements or is that the process for variance? >> I believe that is the process for the variance. >> Okay. >> It
>> so we're just saying go to go to article 9 division 4 to see the >> variance the process to establish the variance. That's what the purpose of that language is. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Yeah, I don't have a problem with that either. So, Mr. Chair, hearing hearing all of
this good stuff, trying to digest it, I I'm okay. I I never had a concern with the applicant's request. It's just how do we get there from my perspective? Um, hearing u Commissioner Williams and and hearing the rest of everyone, I'm I'm okay moving forward with this. Um, as I
understand it, what's been presented to us is we have two versions. We have the applicant's version and we have staff's version. And what I'm seeing is the only difference in the two is staff had the language added for the for the 66 foot easement >> variance. Yes, sir. There's a the app
Mr. Ford's uh submitt is just his strike through um and then the staff uh version is the original strike through the easement edition and grammatical corrections. >> Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that um
>> my apologies. We need Yeah. All right. That Yeah, that was question for staff. All right. Would the applicant like to say anything? >> You're welcome to. You don't have to. >> Is this on? >> Yeah. Give us your name and address, please.
>> Uh Zachary Ford, 124 Highly Road. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um, basically my hopes for this is just to be able to build with my family so that way, you know, I can take care of them because that's what I'm doing now. Um, and I get the the problem, you know, with the loopholes
and stuff. I'm just hoping that we can uh work out something that doesn't, you know, put more constraints on it, make this harder than it already is because that's why I'm here today. So, I'm just hoping that we can come to a resolution on that that doesn't make it harder. >> Thank you guys for considering my request.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah, you just stepped into a bigger fight than this doesn't have anything to do with you. It's just a zero. We we we we're all for what you want to do there. So, we're just having to sort it out with the the rules there. But
um there's nobody from the public wishes to speak. We'll close that and come back to the board. Any more discussion? entertain a motion. So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that
we um approve staff's version of the um proposed amendment, the staff's version of the proposed amendment with some additional uh amendments to that that we discussed earlier. And those changes, do
I need to call those changes out or are they already previously reflected? for the motion. Would you just reference which changes we discussed earlier, please? >> Okay. So, once again, we're we're we're looking at the staff uh proposed uh amendments and we're going to strike
under section 45-1036 um section 8. We are going to remove uh the tail end of the first sentence where it goes if the parcel remains vacant. We have stricken that. And also the
striking that whole sentence, right? >> We're just striking just the tail end of that. We're going to put a period after created >> and then we're going to the next sentence and we're going to strike remove that entire sentence which basically states this is the section we're going to remove. If the parcel was developed with a single family dwelling
and certificate of occupancy has been issued to the individuals named on the type three subdivision application, no prohibition for its sale would be required. We are removing that completely. So those are the two modifications that I I wrote on my notes
and I'm perfectly fine with those. >> So that section would read >> what then? >> So under under section 8 it would read >> it would read this. It would read the sale of any parcel created by a type
three subdivision is prohibited for five years from the date the parcel was created. Prohibited for five years from the date Yeah. Period. Okay. And if the sale takes place on any parcel within the
type three subdivision prior to five years from the date of the creation, all lots within the type three subdivision will be required to comply with the requirement of the type one subdivision within 90 days of that cell. Special circumstance circumstances could permit
the sale of the parcel if and then labels A through E, which we're leaving those unchanged. Okay. Did you get his >> What's that? >> We're doing him too. >> It includes him. >> That that includes that. So the first
strike at the top is him is is his case and then the additional stuff is provided by staff. So, all right. I've got a motion that says we're going to take the staff adjustments and the adjustments in section 8.
>> Second. >> Motion is second. Call for the question. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. >> Just on process. Opposed. >> What's that? >> Based on the process, I'm opposed. >> You're opposed. Okay. So, we got one
opposed. Um, motion passes. There we go. Congratulations. It'll move on to the uh board of county commissioners meeting. So, it's not final here. It'll be final uh pend. But that's that our recommendation will go recommendation will go in positive for
you. All right. That was the only case. Any old business? Nope. New business. >> How about uh approval of the minutes from the March 11th meeting? >> Make a motion we approve the minutes from the last meeting.
>> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> All right. Looks like it. >> There's the revised minutes from February 11th as well, sir. Oh, there's two things on that one. Okay. All right. How about a motion to approve or
disapprove the minutes from the February 11th meeting as they are revised? >> Second. >> Moved in a second. All in favor? >> There you go. All right, we're all good.
We're ajourned. 529. Sorry, I was late.