There I go. Before I read the introductory statement, I want to ask, has anyone had any expporte communication concerning um our second and third case? No. Okay. Does anyone have any conflicts of
interest concerning our second and third case? No, ma'am. Very good. This is a public hearing and we're the Putinham County Planning Commission. We're the designated local planning agency for the county as prescribed in chapter 163 of Florida
statutes and we function under the authority of articles 11 and 12 of the Putnham County Land Development Code. The primary responsibility of this commission is to serve as an advisory body 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 the Putham County Land Development Code. The members of this board will review each application
and make a recommendation to the board at their meeting on August 26 225 or 2025. We don't know what time. That'd be the morning meeting probably. Uh if it's a BOCC it'll be a 9:00 a.m. Yes, ma'am.
Okay. 9 9:00 a.m. time certain. Procedurally today we will call each case by name and number. A member of staff will then briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take any comments from the applicant or their representative followed by any
public comments concerning their request. Please direct all comments or statements to the board and not to other members in the audience. Before speaking, we will ask that you come forward to be recognized as electron and identify yourself by name and address.
After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the board. The motion will be voted on by the board 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. I don't think we have any cases that have asked to be withdrawn, do we?
Not at this moment. Okay. If the applicant chooses to have these cases heard at a later date, the case will be readvertised in accordance with the Putham County Land Development Code and the Florida Statutes. Our first case today is Land Development Code
Amendment 25-0000003. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair. for the record, Zachary Baker, Planning and Development Services. And before I get started in the presentation, um I was zoned out a little bit when you were announcing what BOCC meetings these items would be going
to. And for the record, LTC 25003 would be at July 22nd at 9:00 a.m. Good. The other two map amendments will be the 4th Tuesday of August at 9:00 a.m. Good. I'm glad of it. Thank you.
Getting underway. Uh this is a county initiated text amendment. Um you all are probably familiar. It was a um kind of a conflict I guess if you will that was brought up at the last planning commission meeting. Um it is uh proposed
amendment to articles uh 4 and 11 uh of the Putham County Land Development Code uh to achieve consistency in the development review procedure for new planned unit developments. And then of course this is for um the county commission as well, but
essentially because it is a text amendment changing allowed uses and the way that uses are governed in the county, it has to go to two public hearings by the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners at their July 22nd public meeting will determine the second meeting date.
Are we supposed to be having something coming through on our screens? I have a PowerPoint coming up, but I know there was some technical difficulties yesterday. Okay. Um, something happened. I'm watching the screens up here as well to see.
I want I want to ask a question before we get into all this if I can. U, Mr. Hancock. First of all, I want to say I'm kind of embarrassed that I that we I didn't know that we weren't doing the development review committee prior to it coming to
this board. And if it hadn't been for Mr. Williams, we still wouldn't have known it. But I'm also pretty upset with staff because they blatantly knew that this was happening and did not bring it to our attention. And that's part of your
job. And I think that by us trying to change this is not the right answer. I think the right answer is to leave it the way it is and let's do it the right way. It may not be staff's preference, but it gives us all the information we
need as a body to recommend to the county commissioners what is the appropriate way to do business. And for us to change that, I don't think it's the right thing to do. So, I'm going to tell you right now, we can go
through all this, but my my position is I am not going to vote for it because I don't agree with it. I respect your position. I think that the county commissioners deserve it and so does this board. Well, okay. All right. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome, sir. With that being said, um a summary of the proposed amendments are as follows. So in article 4, division 2 under plan unit developments, we are changing the text so that the DRC review uh occurs after
if the PUD is adopted by the board of county commissioners. Um, and then further down in article 11, division 2, um, it's simply a a DRC review of approved PUDS rather than proposed PUDS.
Staff is recommending approval of the text amendments to comply or uh, of the Putham County Land Development Code as the request is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. And I can take any questions or discussions. Zack, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Can I have
a second? Yes, your mic. Yeah, Jason. So, Zach, I've looked at this and I'm going to follow Mr. Hancock's lead here. I I've looked at this. I've gone through this process before with the county and I feel like the structure that we currently have in place is the best
structure. I know we were doing things over a period of time to where we kind of jumped around, but I think the structure in place is good, but I would ask you to enlighten me. Why would it not be beneficial for DRC to look at these prior to coming to us? Because on
a PUD, obviously, there's a developers agreement that's constructed and if DRC has input into that developers agreement, I would think that would be beneficial to all parties. get that worked out before it gets to us. So when it gets to us, we get something that has
been reviewed by them. We can look at it and we can keep passing it forward. Because if we take DRC out of the equation now and we have it go to DRC after it's approved by our board and the board of county commissioners, what ability does DRC have to change
something that's already been adopted in the developers agreement? Just some of my concerns on changing the structure. Sure. So I mean I guess procedurally the development review committee it's different in every jurisdiction across
the state whether it's a county or a municipality. Some DRC's are made up of just the planning manager. Some are made up of, you know, multiple departments within the county or cities um perview. And then some DRC's kind of like
Putinham counties are all-encompassing of local, state, and federal agencies. And the general idea of the DRC is so that we can collectively as a as the committee look at a development plan and
make an assertation as to whether or not that plan would comply with a litany of of development requirements, many of which are outside of the scope of county employees regulatory authority. if it's
DOT roads or if it's storm water management or what have you, those agencies are the ones that are are more or less commenting or providing feedback for the whatever that development may
be. So when we go into a DRC, we're comparing their development plan with the legislation that's in place. And the the thing with uh PUDS when they're proposed that legislation doesn't exist.
So for me in planning and zoning, it's very easy to look at someone's PUD development plan and say it doesn't comply. And why would I acknowledge that this is an attempt to do some sort of development if it doesn't comply with
any of the standards that we have? Because you have to remember PUDS were identified or designed, if you will, as a way to um incorporate multiple a variety of different uses
that don't all fit in one specific zoning district. Well, now they've kind of evolved and they've become a method in which a development or a developer will try to circumvent certain zoning requirements like lot size setbacks,
things like that. Um, and so if we don't have provisions in the land development code to allow for, as an example, a five- foot setback, if we look at a site plan and it shows a bunch of dwellings at 5 foot setback, how are we to say
whether it is appropriate or not? Um, on top of that, you have this concept of equitable estoppel and that's when the county makes an act or omission to some developer that what they want to do is is allowed and they move forward and
they spend more money and they put themselves in a place where they're advancing their project in attempt to get their approval only to find out after spending thousands of dollars on engineering that what you wanted to do you can't do. or maybe they bought the property and they can't do it. So, it's
it was also being utilized as a safeguard to prevent the county from being in a position whereby the DRC said, "Yeah, what you want to do, you know, if approved, sure, go for it." Well, they get to the BOC and for whatever reason, the BOCC denies that
request. Now, they're out however much time and money it took them to get there. So, that's I mean, that is a a great concern. Um, ultimately the DRC in in Putnham County functions by doing a preliminary review
and a final review. And so if the entitlements are granted and we look at a preliminary review, we're be we're able to say, okay, you know, this project is feasible. It meets the zoning. It meets the setbacks. It meets so on and so forth. Now you provide your
final plans. a full set of engineered, you know, drainage calculations, um, life safety measures, the whole works is provided to us. And at that point, the DRC can say, not only do you comply with your zoning, but you comply with rightaway standards, parking
requirements, ADA accessibility, you know, again, long list, fire marshall regulations, department of health, department of transportation, and we can say, yeah, you've achieved all of these requirements. You may now proceed to technical review which is your permit review.
But you just justified what Mr. Hancock and Mr. Sheffield said because you said the preliminary plans provide the opportunity to give a first look at things and the final review by DRC is
the finetuning for working documents. Right. But if we recall, what is the advantage to not doing the preliminary review? Sure. And getting things lined up so they're at least in
good shape. So, real quick, if we recount on Mr. Miner's PUB application, the one that we heard last last month, his proposal is with a PUD would be nine single family homes on one parcel. There
is one bit of code section in our LDC which is 45-484 that says notwithstanding anything in this land development code if it's a single family zone district you can only have one home per parcel period. That bit of code right there is enough for
the DRC to say this doesn't work. Why would we issue any sort of preliminary approval or anything of the matter indicating that what he wanted to do is feasible for him to go, you know, work on his drawings and put his
application in front of the board and all of the stuff? I mean, how would staff recommend an approval on something that's just that is a blatant violation of the code? Well, why would staff recommend an approval on something like that? Well,
with the PUD, the intent is if the commission is willing to allow that use to occur and we adopt it, then staff will take the development agreement that the commission approved and true it up with whatever that plan is and the other regulations in the code and comp plan.
Madam Chairman, yes, sir. So since you brought up the last PUD, um after I raised the question about process, I was then informed by staff
and this goes to the point made earlier that staff had already reviewed it and actually helped them rewrite the development agreement prior to us seeing it. So,
um, we can do this really drawn out and I can bring up multiple points where it violates not only our land development code, but state statute and I am prepared to do that. I have spent hours, by the way, I've got another job
and spending hours reviewing the stuff that's coming before us is not, I'm going to say fair. Um, I was asked to be on this commission. Oh, it's not a big deal. It's turned into a really big deal. So, um,
welcome to our world. So, um, I hear what you're saying. So, if I could just real quickly, I'm going to give everybody the a bridged version, but I'm prepared to beat this horse till it's dead and then beat it some more.
So, I will not be voting for this. Okay? I will be voting to deny this. So what I've done is I prepared a couple different approaches sta and I'm going to just go point by point. As I read that I found
uh seven staff points and then I prepared a response. The first point made by staff the current language does not establish the intent of DRC review. It's unclear whether the DRC should propose
modifications or issue approvals and staff cannot assess standards like setbacks because those don't exist until the PUD is adopted. Okay. My response, the lack of clarity in DRC's role is an argument for
clarification, not elimination. We can explicitly define the DRC's role as advisory at the pre-entitlement stage. It's common practice in other counties for DRC's to offer conditional feedback and highlighting highlighting concerns,
missing elements, and likely compliance issues even when precise standards are still under negotiation. This input helps shape the final development agreement and avoids blind approval. Staff point two, early DRC review may
create equitable estoppel risk if a developer relies on comments and later is denied by the board. For everybody's knowledge, I have not heard equitable estoppel so many times until I joined this commission and I've been in this for 20 years.
But my response, this is a solvable administrative concern, not a reason to undermine public process. The risk of a stoppple can be minimized with disclaimers in writing and in DRC meetings stating that
all feedback is non-binding and subject to the final approval of the BOCC. Many Florida counties, I can attest to this, including Elatchua and St. John's, do this successfully. If we're afraid to allow professional staff to provide
input for fear of lawsuits, we're effectively saying we don't trust our own processes. Three, DRC should only review projects after entitlement are granted to ensure compliance and detailed regulation before building permits are issued.
My response, that's true for standard projects, but a PED is not a standard project. It's a custom zoning district. The development agreement becomes the regulatory framework. If we wait until after entitlement to do technical review, we've lost the opportunity to
influence design in a mean meaningful way. The cart comes before the horse. The planning commission and the BOCC are left approving entitlements with only a conceptual understanding of the impacts. Staff point four. In many instances, the
DRC can't offer meaningful review because the applicant regulations, the applicable regulations don't exist yet, such as custom setbacks. That's exactly why the DRC review is needed early. The DRC isn't checking the
plan against existing code. They're advising on whether what's proposed makes sense and what should go into the custom standards. For example, a DRC member might say, "Given the ad adjacent land uses, you'll need a greater buffer
here." Or, "Your storm water design, we'll need more capacity." These are vital considerations before the agreement is finalized. I'm going to skip five because that's the one that irks me the most. Six,
the comprehensive plan does not mandate DRC review in the PUD process. That's true, but the comp plan does require that the development protect infrastructure, maintain levels of service, and be consistent with long range planning
goals. DRC review is a tool to achieve those goals. Just because the comp plan doesn't exist doesn't list the DRC by name doesn't mean we should remove it from the early stages of the process. It exists to
uphold the principles of the plan. Seven. The amendment provides consistency between code language and staff implementation. Yep. If consistency comes at the expense of good planning and public trust, it's not worth achieving. We should instead
bring practice back into alignment with planning best practices. Consistency should not be used as a justification for bypassing critical review. And I'll go back to five. The proposed change brings the code in
line with current planning practice. Well, we're a little late for that because I heard in the last meeting seven or eight went through and we talk about equitable equitable estoppel.
I think we've I think it's opened up many opportunities for that to become an issue because if someone chose to argue some of the projects that went through that process, I believe that opens it up
to some some litigation from both sides. But my response is if our current practice excludes early stage technical reviews of PDUDs then the problem is with the practice not the code. We should not codify a workaround that
undermines transparency and decision making integrity. This is our opportunity to improve code, not weaken it by explicitly requiring. Yep. Early DRC review with non-binding
advisory input. I will just wrap up with this and I hope I don't have to go into the rest. through my review it v in my opinion which if it gets to that point I have prepared a letter for legal counsel the
county's legal counsel to weigh in. I believe that we are violating not only our code but state statute in multiple instances. Um so again
I will not be voting for this. I think it's a a workaround and um it kind of enlightens me where I've heard for years that people say we don't have any input. We can't we don't have
any say until it's already decided. That's exactly what this is what this proposal will do. It basically negates an opportunity for people to weigh in on the very conceptual advisory
non-binding part of it. And then it forces it through where entitlements are established and gives little to no chance for the public, our neighbors,
anyone, the FDOT, whoever to be heard because the entitlement has already been established. And with that, I'll take a break. And as I said, I am prepared to discuss it. more in depth if we need to.
Mr. Hodgej, do you have anything you'd like to add? Mr. Mars, Zack, we appreciate everything you do, buddy. We know you're working hard for us. Um, having dealt with other jurisdictions, I I'll say that like just St. John's County, for example, you
know, they have a whole clearance sheet process before you can even submit a building uh permit application. That's in residential and the commercial. and they have a pretty extensive review that goes out beyond just planning and zoning
that has to occur uh prior to that permit process. Um we're not as that dramat we're not that dramatic um on the residential side, but but this DRC I think that review at the initial stage I think is consistent with
what some of these other jurisdictions are doing. And um uh I I agree with pretty much what everybody said up here. I'm not as uh not as against the idea of you guys having that DRC at the other end of it
because I think the staff that's that that we have in house now uh has the vision of helping uh the the public out and helping them through their problems. But there have been staff here in years past
that that was not necessarily their primary driving factor. And that DRC review at the end could be wielded as quite the weapon. Uh, as far as the equitable stopple goes, I feel like there's more of a case for that
equitable stopple with BOCC approval and then DRC turning something down uh more so than the other way around. So, like I said, we appreciate everything you're doing, but it sounds like we might be on the wrong side of this one. But, uh, thanks for
all the hard work. I think we discovered last month that we had a flaw in the process and I understand staff shortage. How many vacancies are existing right now in
planning and development? Well, for planning and zoning specifically, there are zero vacancies. Okay. Um but in terms of planning and development as a whole, I believe there's a number of plans examiners. Uh there's a number of permit specialists
and I believe there's a number of uh inspectors as well. It should go on the record though that permit specialists and inspectors do not comprise DRC. No, but they do the the leg work afterwards.
Correct. Um, and I realized that over the past several years and possibly during the time when this practice was implemented, we could have been dealing with staff
shortages. But I'm a firm believer that if the law doesn't say you can do something, you can't do it. And I really had a lot of heartburn with this last month. And I I really chewed on it a lot.
And I see no reason to bypass a critical opportunity to prevent a lot of nashing of teeth during our
process or the process that will happen with BOCC. A lot of these things could be ironed out by DRC recommendations. They're non-binding. That's okay. But DRCC final
implement final review is binding, isn't it? Well, yes, ma'am. If if we issue a final development order on something, that means that the DRC collectively has agreed that that development can move
forward for permitting. Now, once it goes to permitting, there's still certain shortfalls that may occur. But aren't there opportunities with DRC both before and after to look at regulatory issues,
health and safety, DOT, um, fire and rescue, all of those things, concurrency, those things can be looked at and recommendations can be made to help strengthen the opportunity for a PUD to
go through. And then when it gets to our stage, these things are in place because I've had questions of previous PUDs where I felt like we were missing something. And I think this may be what it was.
Now, I did I've had conversation with a couple of commissioners who have had conversation with county attorney that the BOCC approved previous PUDs that bypass this process and there should be
no liability there. That was one of the things that really concerned me. since BOCC approved it, it relinquished that liability. Now, I don't know how that sits with what Mr. Perry thinks, but
I really cannot agree to this. I think it's it's a scapegoat. Amen. I think it's it's a oh well, we're not going to do that.
And whoever made that decision, I am glad I didn't know him because I would have disagreed with them at that point. It's not against staff, but it's the perpetuation of a wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.
And I'm very grateful to Mr. Williams. And I too am embarrassed. I've been on the board a long time and I didn't catch this. I don't want to ever be put in that position again.
You all need to go through this stuff with a fine tooth comb and give us the right documentation based on the right review so that we can then do our review of the
project in confidence. And Zach, this is not against you, but I am concerned that we're trying to take a shortcut that could be very detrimental to the
future of this county. Any other questions of staff? Question. What's the currently what's the uh appeal process of DRC if the applicant disagrees with a DRC proposes.
Well, I wouldn't say that there is a an appeal pro process that we've ever encountered because usually um DRC's goal is to get to an approval and and uh there's never been an instance since I've been here where DRC's denied
something. Um it's it's always and this was in my very infancy of this position. It was like, you know, you'd be seven or eight submitts in at DRC. And it's not a PUD. It's just a straight zoned, you know, retail store or
something, but you'd be seven or eight submittals in on DRC, and uh the management at that time wanted every single detail provided on the plans before a development order would be issued.
Right? Whereas um throughout the years, we've identified that, you know, if they're not showing, you know, a specific tree in their landscape plan, that's not necessarily cause for preventing them to go to permitting, that's they they should still be able to
go to permitting, but we just don't approve the zoning, right, until the landscape is right. My my thought process there was more along the lines of when you put it at the end and the applicant can't get to a point where they agree with staff. Let's let's call
it a setback. Initially the setback should be 10 feet. They want to do five. Y'all say they can do seven and a half, but there's there's that difference between five and seven and a half that they can't live without. And you guys don't feel like you should budge at that point. There has to be some sort of
appellet process which in my view only ends up back at the BOCC and in front of everybody or does it come before us to make a recommendation? Either way, anyway, there has to be some sort of appellet process if you come to a stalemate, you know, if you come to a
place where that that that there's a disagreement between ST and it could be staff doesn't like the applicant and they don't get along and so everybody kind of digs their heels in. And I'm not saying that would happen. I'm just saying there I can see possibilities that would
require additional appeal procedures and ultimately more board appearances and longer drawn out in in that situation and I'm not I'm not sure that we've even really looked at that. But on the DRC being on the front
end of it seems like that stuff kind of works itself out before it ever gets to the final. Well, yeah. Yeah. And I mean, just another thought. I just I'm not I wasn't sure about the uh appeal process with DRC decision. So, yeah. And and there's like I said, there there really isn't an appeal
process because it's not a board or it's not a committee that's geared towards a denial. We're we're only looking to for compliance with regulations. But to to draw back on your setback um example, there's been times where we've looked at
as a DRC a site plan and they're not adhering to setbacks and we you know go through the communication of okay, you could move the building or change the layout or so on and so forth. And if it if it just can't work other than the way that they have it proposed with that
setback encroachment, then their next step is to either ADC or ZBOA depending on how egregious that setback encroachment is. So as a variance, yeah, we set up, you know, other pathways whether it's to the zoning board or the ADC to try and achieve.
Now, if if you go to one of those boards and you get denied, then there's an appeal process established. So, it but it it would essentially either go to ZBA for an appeal of an administrative decision or the circuit
court for an appeal of a ZBA decision. I I guess one of my and that this again is no commentary on current staff or prior staff, but it bothers me that DRC
is chaired by you. Your position who chairs ADC. So both of which are the director of planning and development services or their design which fall the same person
who is sitting in the leadership position of DRC and if an an applicant comes forward and says there's absolutely no way because of the terrain or whatever that I can do
what I want to do without encroaching on a setback or without doing XYZ or W. It goes to ADC and here again it's the same person chairing the committee. You got to have separation of duties
there and I know we've got a small staff but it it's difficult to wrap my head around as an in an advisory position to go along with that process. So, I'm
going to stop there. Are there any other questions of staff? How long does this review take? Usually, on average, two weeks for DRC. Yes. Um, so traditionally, if it's um like a final development order, it would be
submittal followed by a 3-week review and then one week before the meeting, we issue the comments. So about about a month um for the DRC to go from application to sitting at the table with the DRC
with this last um after the events of last planning commission. There were three PUDs that we had in the works. One of which came here and was stopped. The other two we sent those to um we sent
all three of them to DRC for an expedited review. I believe it was a two-week review and then we compiled comments and sent them back to the applicants. Is that process codified? What process? The process you just described of a week
here, two weeks here, send comments back. It's not codified. No, ma'am. There's no required timeline for DRC review. Are those steps codified that say we have to do this, this, and this
or is it just done by the seat of your pants? Well, it's it's not by the seat of our pants. I mean, we do have a um a calendar. We've got an application deadline and we've got a meeting date. We've got it spread out, you know,
across the year. But is that process delineated in the land development code? I do not believe so. No, ma'am. But the the thing is is if you look further into the DR um yeah the DRC legislation in
the code, it says, you know, the director has the ability to wave DRC or call a meeting or just send it out to reviewers that they deem necessary and
compile comments. So it really is very ambiguous as to how DRC chooses to operate. Sounds like it needs to be really reworked. There's a statute that requires 30 days of review and then you have to provide some comment back. So
during that 30 days, how many days are actively being worked on? Um or is that just a period when you put it out for comment? Well, so for planning and zoning, we may spend two or three days reviewing the plans and compiling our comments and
being done with it. We give the additional time for those folks at public works or department of transportation or water management district. We don't know what their schedules are. So ideally they get to it within that 30 days. Okay. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Can I ask one question? for a DRC meeting such as what you're describing. Isn't there some code requirements for uh posting signage notification? How did
how does that work when you call a quick two week turnaround? Am I am I missing something there? So the notification requirements of the DRC is to post in our bulletin board on front of the
building 3 days prior to the DRC meeting date. Is that county policy or is that state law? That is county policy. I don't know if there is state law for development review committee. DRC is a public body.
Correct. It's it's a body of of different agencies. So, you've got some people that are voting members, some that are non- voting members. Um, and it is it is considered an open meeting. I mean, people can come, we
take minutes, all that kind of stuff. Um, it is an official meeting. Yeah. I mean, convened by planning and zoning. So, it seems to me it would require notification similar to what we do with other things
because I know the fishing board has to have public notice. Uh, you know, parks and wreck has public notice. All of the public committees that are standing committees are required to have public notice.
Is DRC outside of that bound? I believe they are because if you get down to it, DRC doesn't have the ability to change your entitlements. We don't have the ability to grant a setback reduction or but you have the ability to make a
recommendation or change your zoning. We have the ability to make recommendations and essentially approve plans. Well, that's what we do. We also make recommendations and review plans. So, we have to have public notice, proper
notice. So, I'm wondering this is opening up a huge amount of questions and I think we're going to have to really dig into this
before I feel comfortable with it. But um as far as what's before us today, the amendment of the application requirements for a PD reszoning to a PUD. Um I think we've we've heard staff,
we've had interaction with the board and staff. Anything else from the board? At this time, I need to open this up for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against, please come to the podium and state your name and address.
I don't know how that mic is working today, Mr. Woodward. I don't know. It looks like someone shorter than I was here previously. Michael Woodward, 517 South Francis Street, Interlockan. Wow. Pretty much everything I came here
to tell you, you've already figured out for yourselves and then some. Uh when we're asked to do away with a mandatory requirement of something in the land development code, which is what
we're being what's being asked here today, and it is mandatory. It says shall, and there's nothing too ambiguous about it. The current language of uh section 45-223 uh reads in part, prior to any public
hearings, the PUA PUB application including the development plan shall be reviewed by the development review committee. So when we're when we're asked to do away with this mandate, the first question you have to ask
yourselves is what was the reason for having it in the first place? Because maybe it was a good reason. And it was and it is because what's different about PUDS as as you all have figured out is that in the PUD process
the applicant proposes a set of development and design standards that are different from the generally applicable ones in the land development code. And what the development review committee
can do with an expertise, the collective expertise that goes beyond that of the planning staff alone is to look at to review those proposed alternative
development and design standards and see if they are in fact adequate and appropriate substitutes. for the requirements that would otherwise be applicable. And if you don't get that ahead of time,
then it's there's no point in having the DRC look at it after the board of county commissioners has approved it. the board of county commissioners having not had the benefit of the DRC review,
perhaps not being aware of some of the deficiencies in the proposed design and development standards in the PUD. So having the PUD reviewed by the DRC before it goes to hearing is the only
way that we can be sure or reasonably sure that the proposed development standards and design standards of the PUD are good enough that they will work. And that information should inform not only the
staff report that goes to the BOCC but also the BOCC itself in its decision makingaking. As for the matter of collateral estoppel, Commissioner Williams over here in his point number two
gave you the remedy for that. I mean, you and I know, we know, staff knows that there is no entitlement to an expectation of a PUD being granted until the board of county commissioners holds a public hearing, takes testimony, and
on the basis of that testimony and all the other information available to it, makes a decision. You know it, I know it, staff knows it, and so do all reasonably informed applicants. And if they're not reasonably informed, then it's on staff to make sure they are reasonably informed and to be able to
show that they are. And as Commissioner Williams pointed out, there's an easy way to do that. You get it in writing. You have them sign off. I understand that anything that's said here is doesn't change the fact that that I can't count on this PUD unless the board of county commissioners approves it.
They might not. Something a little more legal ease than that, but that's that's the drift. There are ways of dealing with there are ways of eliminating any any likelihood of a collateral estoppel issue without doing away with
an essential important part of the process of vetting PUDs. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against this particular case?
I'll bring it back to the board. The one thing I would say about the DRC is the members who sit on the DRC from these other regulatory agencies are looking at that plan
through the filter of their expertise. They have very specific, very highly educated knowledge that we might not have as a group of nine of us allegedly.
But those reviews up front through those filters can stop a lot of problem. And so I'm going to leave it at that. I will entertain further discussion. I will
entertain a motion. I will not tap dance on the table. Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to deny the amendment of the land development code LDC25-0000003
as it is not consistent with the goals and objectives and policies of the Putnham County Comprehensive Plan. I have a proper motion. Do I have a second? Thank you, Mr. Williams. All right. I've got a proper motion and
second on the on the table. Um, is there any further discussion? Mr. Perry, do you have anything you'd like to add to the conversation? Madame Chair, I'd just like to mention that uh
what the staff has brought to the commission today uh in my opinion is certainly not a effort to obstruct transparency or misguide the members of this board in any way. I think that after looking at
the shared experience of our staff that what they were trying to impress upon the commission is that what we have in the code at this time is not the most efficient way
uh or the efficient method for making sure that all the eyes are dotted and the T's crossed. Um, as as uh Zachary has told the commission, we uh or we not
we but that the DRC in fact this whole process that an applicant goes through is designed to help the citizens of Putin County understand what they have to do and how to do it and how to do it
correctly. Um, and it's also to try and and just simply uh have them in compliance with whatever they have to do so that they can get on with their project, whatever it might be. Um,
I think also that in what was proposed or has been proposed, the DRC still has a very important role and whatever it does go before the DRC. But what we have here, I believe, is just a um
not a misunderstanding, but just a conflict in in what uh the staff might think is efficient as opposed to what the board or what our commission may think is uh
uh efficient. But other than that, ma'am, I just like to say I know that our staff works very very hard to try and keep this uh to try and do their job in the most efficient manner. And I don't mind telling this commission that uh I was
not aware until it was brought to our attention by Mr. Williams last meeting that there was such a provision. But well, like we've we've all said, this is not an attack on staff.
This is an attack on a process that we need to improve. Um, but I appreciate what you've said and I I certainly appreciate what everyone's done. Um, Mr. Perry, one question. Were
you involved in drafting this amendment? No, ma'am. I was not. Okay. Um, are we ready for a vote? Roll call. Mr. Williams. Okay. The vote is to deny it. So a yes
vote would be denial. Yes. Mr. Morris. Yes. Mr. Mr. Hancock. Yay. Yes. Sheffield. Yay. Chair votes yay. At this point, this will go to the
county commission as a recommendation to not approve. Um, I want to thank everybody for your due diligence on this. I know some of us lost some sleep over it and I'm afraid
some of us may lose some sleep tonight over it. But I do feel that in the interest of doing things right, my grandmother always said there's no way that you can
do something wrong and get it right. And um here we stand. Um moving on, we have case now we have a yolked pair here. We have a zoning and a
uh land code change, right? We'll hear them together and vote separately. So they're they've been prepared as two separate applications. Um, so we'll hear the map amendment, future land use map amendment first and then the zoning second and then at the board's
discretion, we can kind of go through both presentations at once. And are the presentations kind of identical? Uh, they're pretty close. I I tell you what, I can start on the map amendment and then if you guys want to hear the reszone, we can do that or we can vote on the map amendment and move forward.
Okay. Well, uh, then the case of before us is CPA 25-00004. Mr. Baker, is this your baby, too? No, I am helping a colleague who is recovering from a surgery. Well, it is yours then.
So, this is a smallcale future land use map amendment from commercial to urban service. Uh, the property owner is Retha Adams. Agent is Sarah Meyer of Deubberry. Miss Meyer was unable to attend, so her her colleague um I can't
remember his last name, but Benjamin, if I'm not mistaken, is is here if we need to hear from them. Um, this is a 22 acre parcel located at 205 North Highway 17 in Palaca, just north of the municipal
boundary. the request or the applicant is requesting a future land use map amendment to allow for the redevelopment of a single family residence through Rebuild Florida. Would you explain what Rebuild Florida is? Um, Rebuild Florida is a I don't know if
they're nonprofit or not, but it's an organization that uh comes in and they assist families who may be economically challenged in rebuilding their their homes uh after natural disasters. There's a residence there now.
There's currently a residence there now. Yes, that is correct. Um, so the subject site is zone C2, has a future land use of commercial. Uh, the applicant is requesting a reszone to from C2 to residential 2. Um, in conjunction with
this future land use map amendment from commercial to urban service, um, the parcel has approximately 70 ft of frontage on North Highway 17. Uh, is developed with a single dilapidated home uh, that was greatly damaged by
Hurricane Ian. The applicant proposes to replace the existing residence with the assistance of Rebuild Florida. Uh, should this map amendment be approved, the applicant shall still require approval of the concurrent reszone application to replace and or
redevelop the single family residence on this property. Elsewise, they shall be permitted to apply for commercial development allowed by ride in the C2 zoning district if the reszone is denied. So, everything around this is urban service right now.
Um, we'll get to the maps in just a second. Okay. Um this is the aerial. It's showing uh vacant development around the property. Mhm. Um so here we have your future land use. So the subject property and the small
parcel to the south is commercial. Everything um north and west is urban service. And here we have the zoning. Again, the subject parcel um a strip of land to the north and the parcel to the south are
zone commercial 2, which is a retail zoning district. Everything to the west is, uh residential, too. Here we can see the FEMA special flood hazard areas, which there are none, and apparent jurisdictional wetlands,
also nil. Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the future land use map from commercial to urban service as the proposed amendment is is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Putham County Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing development
or potentially lack thereof in the area. Any questions of staff? There is no develop There is no development north of that. Correct. South. Not immediately north. No sir. There's um I think a block or two to the north.
There was they're currently being re reviewed by the DRC as a landscape nursery. Yes. That came before us re recently. Well, my only concern would be is I know that
if we change this, then setbacks change for your your commercial uh guiding lines. They have to they their setbacks are more stringent if it makes up to residential property than it would be if it made it up to
another commercial piece of property. So the setbacks um not necessarily setbacks but buffer. Buffers. Yes, sir. Yes, it's the buffer. And because it's residential going adjacent to commercial, um they can put up a buffer
if they want to, but they're not required to by replacing the single family home. Um, in the event that commercial development were to occur north of them, then that new commercial development would be required to install uh incompatibility buffers.
Right. Madam Chair, can I ask? Yes, sir. So, I know FEMA has the FEMA 50 rule and all that. What what currently in our code or building code or whatever because there's nothing in that I can
find in state statute for it. What is precluding them from the opportunity as is to rebuild or replace this home? Yes, sir. So, this would be a non-conforming use and non-conforming
structure. Um and it would be any repairs, renovation, maintenance uh exceeding 50% of the appraised value of the structure uh would not be permitted. It would have to comply with the zoning district. So is is that 50%
a county requirement or where does where does that come? I honestly I tried to find I've heard that all my life and I tried to find it. So, so I do think it's a piggyback off of FEMA because of course that's the 50
rule that you referenced. Um, it's in our uh like 45817 813 somewhere in that neighborhood for non-conforming uses. Um, as far as I know, that's that's just probably just a piggyback off FEMA or whatever seemed
fair at the time that that legislation was enacted. And this home was built in 1950. I don't have the pack. So I'm kind of going 1950. It predates zoning and uh comprehensive plan. So the zoning changed underneath it
basically. And yes, at some point in time. Yep. Yeah. So a similar situation happened to me too. And um all of a sudden one day we wake up and we're in conservation. So um I definitely feel for it. So, I'm just
trying to think of to be clear, I want this to happen definitely. I'm just trying to figure out a way that we're not setting a preference or a precedent or impacting other properties
negatively. Even if it's just a buffer, it's still a compatibility buffer. And sometime that's a big deal. So, I'm interested in hearing everybody's questions because I'm still trying to I'm actually trying to think of a workaround without going full boore. I don't have a problem so
much with the future land use. It's more the the reszoning which is spot zoning and we kind of made a stand last meeting about that. Um, yeah. So, I'll be quiet and listen.
Thank you. So, I do want to address uh Commissioner Williams comments about the buffer. Um, within our buffer legislation, it does say it's based off of the zoning or the use. So, if a new commercial development were to come in
today and this house was perfectly operable and there was no issues, there was no rebuild Florida, they would still have to put the buffer even though the property is commercialzoned because it's a single family home. The commercial owner would have to put the buffer. That's correct. Right.
In other words, we're not imposing them to put additional stuff. They they would have to do that at any rate. Correct. The way it currently stands. I agree. But the homeowner would not have any additional requirement for buffering. That's correct. Okay. That's right.
Okay. Um, any other questions? Good point, Zach. Yeah. Okay. Is the owner present? Would you like to speak? Or the agent for the owner, would you like to come up and give us your
perspective? Really to answer any questions y'all may have. I printed some maps and I also have a printed out layout of the site. It'll need to be made part of public record. So, you'll need to give a copy of it to Ashley.
Yeah. We did get a a a site plan. It's small, but we got it. Yes, sir. Okay. Wait a minute. We We haven't gotten to that point. Haven't gotten to the public hearing part yet. Sorry about that. Um, is there anything you would
like to say to help us understand this this request? We're still talking about the land use. We're not talking about zoning yet. You're talking about land use going to urban service. Yes. So, whatever we initially discuss, come up and give us your name and
address, please. It's okay. My name is Benjamin Siggoia. Address is 2316 8th Avenue, Dan, Florida. Um, so when we originally noticed the issue with it being zoned commercial, um, and
we wanted to go to R2, the site plan, you see, let's back up to land use. We're doing that one first. Okay. The way the site plan is set up now, the home sits at the commercial zoning setback requirements.
That was able to still work. Mh. So, it's set at the road frontage and everything that it would have if it stayed commercial, but unfortunately, we weren't able to do a residential home in that. So, but the measurements from the road frontage, you're not going to have that one house sitting way closer to the road than you would everything else on that.
You're going to have a larger setback. Yes, ma'am. Are your your lateral setbacks are this are standard? Yes. Yes. It complies with commercial. The site plan you have shows the R2. Okay. So that's why you will see the house is set off the setback line.
Okay. That's what I'm talking about. Any other questions? Thank you. Please stick around. All right. Now, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this particular application?
Please come forward and give us your name and address. Good afternoon. My name is Gary McGriff. I live at 500 Magnolia Street, Palaca, Florida. Um, I live in the area of the concerned property for that's being
considered for zoning change. Uh, I know Miss Adams. She's an elderly lady and u she's been living on this property for years ever since I've been a little boy. I understand there's technicalities associated with this zoning change and
um there but there's personal fairness is also associated with the use of her property. I understand the surrounding property has a different land use or long-term land use characteristic. However, with community development,
there's a general consensus that the characteristics of the general area shouldn't be uh just taken over without the approval or without the surrendering of the present use of the property. Uh the property has been used for
commercial. The only change that happened that changed that property to from commercial, I mean from residential to commercial with was without her approval or knowledge. She didn't know that her property was being changed. Somewhere along the line, that property
got changed without her knowledge. And uh she's an elderly lady. She's uh not what you would call educated. And um so she's subjected to this happening without her knowledge. I understand that the general land use
of the area has to be accomplished because that's what you do with land use maps. She tried to be contiguous with what's been planned for the use. However, what's right is uh for her to
be allowed to have the home that she's been approved to have by the agency of Rebuild Florida, but they can't do it without the zoning being residential, which is appropriate. I think that it should remain
residential so that she can receive the home that she truly deserves in her elderly years. Has she lived there since 1957? Yes. Yes. Home has been there. That's been her home. Yes. Since I was born. I was born in 55.
And um don't meant to tell my age, but uh yes, I I I think that there's a a sense of what's right in this situation. However, I wouldn't want to conflict or get in the way of accomplishing what's
been deemed the use and they've voted on use of this property long term. But, you know, we don't live forever and uh she's elderly. I just think it's right that she should have the home that she's been approved for. She wouldn't be able to
get it any other way. Thank you. She lives there now. She lives there now. Yeah. Uh well, she's displaced because they were getting ready to rebuild a house, but they found out that the zoning wasn't appropriate.
Zach, do we have the history on that resoning? Uh, no, ma'am. It's I mean, I can speculate if you'd like, but My my take on it from looking at it is this is a commercial corridor
and not that I can say this happened for certain, but I know in previous amendments to the comprehensive plan and the land use maps and the zoning maps,
there have been changes made to land unbeknownsted to the property owner And what it looks like looking at it is that may be what happened here.
I would imagine if we could research when that zoning was changed. Now, I'm kind of flip-flopping around between cases here, but my guess is it would correspond with a map amendment or a zoning map
amendment. and that's been done throughout the county. This would not be an isolated incident. So, um I know when we did the comp plan review last time and we looked at land
use, we made some changes, especially going out the 207 quarter and um we have to sometimes go back and make corrections. I'm not saying that's the case, but I'm saying that's a probability.
I don't believe that you'll find her acknowledgement on the zoning change anywhere. Those were done administratively. They didn't go through any kind of public hearing. They were just done administratively.
Madam Chair, if I may, I don't know if you have something you'd like to add first. Commissioner Williams. I I was just going to ask if a if this was to be proposed today, a zoning change, land use change, what recourse
would an individual have to argue that and protect their rights? Um, or has that not happened? Because I know I know the major one happened quite a few years ago and everybody was kind
of shocked when it went through, right? Yeah. So, the county as a whole, we do not want to change people's zoning. If if if it works for you, it works for us, right? Like, we're not looking for trouble. Um, Mr. Graves just surprised me that he did do some research into the
the zoning during his com completion of the staff report. Um, and he couldn't find any record of any ordinance that would have changed the zoning to commercial. So, it is believed that 1976 is when we adopted our first zoning
ordinance. Um, and given that US Highway 17 was there, it's likely that the county said that should be commercial because it was right there at the confluence of two state roads. And if you talk to anybody who was present back then,
they gave them crayons and said, "Go color." So that literally I you know we had to color a map somehow and it had to be a it was not an a computerized map. So I know that there were there were some you know things
done that way. Um so we're still on the land development use. I really appreciate you coming forward and giving us that history. Um let's see how we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. I need to leave.
Well, bye. Please let the record know that Mr. Hodgej is leaving at 5:13. We'll miss you. 513. Yes, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak either for or against?
All righty. I'll bring this back to the board for discussion and possible motion and vote. Well, I'm all for letting people do what they want with their own property. And as far as the spot zoning thing goes, you've got R2 adjacent to it. I don't see any issue with it. It's backed up to R2.
Yeah. Yes. I mean, if it'd be different if that whole block was commercial, then I would say, yeah, maybe we got an issue with it. But fact that it's touching R2 and it's been a residence for over 50 years. Like I it doesn't make any sense to me for it not.
It seems like it's grandfatherable. Yeah, I think so. I think it makes sense. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? Yep. Let me let me read how I'm supposed to say it. Make a motion that we recommend that the board of county commissioners
approve uh Can I do both of them? Can we do both of them or we just do We got to vote on them separately. All right. So, we're going to do the uh resoning first. Yes. All right. CPA. The map amendment. The future map amendment first. CPA.
Okay. So I move we recommend board of county commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment CPA2-0000004 [Music] as it is consistent with goals objectives and policies Pman County comprehensive plan.
Do I have a second? I'll second it. Okay. I have a proper motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. I'll call for the vote. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I.
Oppose. Like sign. Chair votes. I Well, now this is just the land use. We got to do the zoning next. So, stick with us. We'll go through the whole discussion again. No, we're not going to go through the whole discussion again. Make a motion. Uh, is there any further question of
staff or the agent concerning the reszoning? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion on case REZ25- whatever 8. I move we recommend that the board of county commissioners approve reszoning
re 25-0000008 [Music] as it is consistent with goals, objectives and policies put county comprehensive plan and land development code. Yes. Copy what consistent with. I have a proper motion. Do I have a
second? I'll second it. Justin will give Justin that one. All right, Jason, I have your I get you two mixed up. I'm sorry. There's too many J's up here.
Okay. All right. I hear that. Um, any further discussion? All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Like sign. The chair votes I. Now you can say hallelujah. Thank you so much for coming.
That's going to go in front of the board of county commissioners now. Now, it goes before the board of county commissioners in August. August. Uh, yes. Let's see. August 26th. You be there nine o'clock in the morning. Yes, ma'am. All right.
Have a good day, Mr. McGriff. Thank you for coming, sir. Um, that concludes our scheduled agenda. Zach, do you have any further business? No, ma'am. It's not necessarily new
business, but uh on June 10th of 2025, board of county commissioners unanimously approved the adoption of impact fees. Yeah, there is a 90day wait on those. Um so we are currently working on our um permitting portal to implement those
fees so that they can be calculated. So it's it's coming is there any uh and we've had this Michael had this discussion the other day what so in the past when impact fees have been implemented
the cuto off date is the application date but apparently now we still don't know that answer it's the issuance date right as of right now because of the way that the ordinance reads is that fees are collected at issuance the general
consensus is that if your permit is issued prior to implementation, then you're okay. Right. So, we we've been involved in this before and and I've been involved in it in more than one county and I'm
okay with the fee being assessed and collected at issuance, but the date to prevent let's we'll go right back to the equitable stopple problem. If there's a problem in the back of the house with plans review and it causes the permit
application to come out the day after the fees take effect, then we're going to have an issue on our hands. Your concern does not fall on deaf ears. Okay. That's what my I don't know what mechanism if any we have that can get us
to a position where we change that date to be submission because that's because that is actually consistent with pretty much every other jurisdiction that's done this and I think when you read some of the statutory language also you'll find that
that the acceptance of the permit by the the application not necessarily the issuance is what what constitutes the day for most permanent applications. So, I don't know where that needs to go, but if you guys can figure out a workaround on that, you're gonna make a make it a
lot easier on us and a lot more people happy because right now the the building department and zoning and health department is about to get flooded with applications. And I know because I'm bringing five of them. They already have. It's it's going to
get bad over the next quarter week and then there's going to be a bunch of fingerpointing of well we turned them in in a timely manner and you know I mean obviously for you guys there's statutory requirements for turnaround time but you don't want to be in the customer service
phone line having to explain how you took the whole 30 days to turn something around when they put it in you know in a timely fashion. So I just I would suggest you guys can figure out we'd appreciate it on some written procedures
and follow them and um get the county commission to kind of just make sure they understand them. Um so you can be uniform with everybody. Zack, who makes the final decision as to when the impact fees go into effect on submission or permit issuance? Is it an
administration or is it the board? So the it was the board and the ordinance states that uh impact fee collection occurs at issuance. So in order to change that does the or would the ordinance have to be changed?
Yes. But that would just be for fee collection not this the the question that we're dealing with is if I submit my plans today and they don't get issued until the 10th of September do I have to pay? And that's what I mean we we do
collectively that would be an administrative um determination because it's not it's not in the ordinance as to whether submitt determines your fee. It's only the issuance. So chair
go ahead. Yes sir. So part of our responsibilities or you know is to suggest code changes to the commission. I'm new at this. Is there a way we can do that here officially? because
everywhere I've been associated with is definitely at time of application when you actually submit it because uh yeah it is there so is there a mechanism an official mechanism that this board can say this
is what we suggest for the county commission for implementation to review um Mr. Ferry. Um, quite frankly, uh, Madam Chair, I don't know the answer to that.
Well, I would think that it could be new business and it could come as a recommendation from the planning commission. If it's voted on and approved by the planning commission, it would be a recommendation to the board of county commissioners. Even though it was not an agenda item, it can
be under new business. Is that not correct? Um, I don't see why not, but you'd have to ask, I guess, planning to be your liaison to take that because we'd have to present the the we have to create the agenda item
for BOCC. Correct. We don't have public notification. We don't have to notify for new business though. There's there's Yeah, for us we don't. Um but if the BOCC was changing that from
at application rather than issuance, that would be a code. That would be but we could simply do a new business and say, you know, planning commission suggests that we collect at application rather than issuance. It's not collect. It's it's it's
assess the determination of whether or not the fee is applicable. So right now I I I think without digging deep into it, it's kind of moot on when or at what stage this impact fee takes
effect. It but we know when we're collecting the fee, but what what applications is this going to apply to? So it's not really a I don't know. Well, The way it sets right now is the applic the the fee applies to everything that's issued after the 10th of
September 9th or whatever it is. So it's the way that I've done the math, it's 90 days from June 10th would be September 8th. So any permit a issued after September 8th would be eligible for right
the the collection of impact fee. But I guess the concern is is whether or not it was applied for be prior to. Right. Right. So, was it applied for prior to the ordinance taking effect? I don't know. They have to give you a date to when the when the fee is
actually going to take effect. But like so when the when the aerobic unit requirements for the health department went in place it as long as the application was in at the date the before the date of implementation
then you were not subjected to that. I don't think that that's reasonable to to turn them in there on July or on September 7th and give a application for to build something and expect them to be able to turn it around. So I would think that you would back
that up. Well, and that's where I was going with the equitable stople argument of what's going to happen is people are going to turn things in the week before, right? And then there's going to be then the building department is obviously going to say, "Well, we've got 30 days to
review." Well, so now our drop dead date real in honesty should be 30 days prior to that. But that's assuming that it goes through without a hitch assuming that everything in application pack is exactly if they ask for something and they return it three weeks into it and it takes you
another week to get you know you're not you're going to miss that thing and it's not going to be of your own fault. It's going to be I think August be additional stuff that I think August and I'm just trying to avoid all that back and forth with it's your fault it's our fault whereas be appropriate it's very simple to
is is that a headache we should assume or is that a headache okay it's a headache we to be part of that headache as part of this commission this commission should assume that headache you can assume that headache yes you definitely can anytime code changes problem that has occurred with all is
every time they ever try to implement something new especially something that costs Mhm. is the the the contracting community in addition to save that money or that headache or whatever the case may be floods the department with application
more applica you know typically they get whatever they get 10 or 20 or 50 a week or whatever it is but in the in the two weeks three weeks prior to that they're going to see a dramatic increase in the number of things request yeah I I hear what you're saying this is a planning commission that's all
associated the building. And listen, I'm on your I'm on your side as well. I think it should be B if you submit a uh a permit application prior to those impact fees going into effect, you should not have to pay those impact fees. Even it takes 30, 60, 90 days to get your building permit. Um you should
not have to pay those impact fees. I that's what we want. I just don't know if it if this board we did not review the impact fees. I don't think the board had nothing to do with I agree that I support your position, all that good stuff. I just don't know if it should come from this board. I don't think that first of all I don't think that we have it hasn't been
publicly we yeah I mean it wasn't it wasn't addressed in a public notice so really we can't recommend anything we can pretty much make a comment um there was sentiment can be in the minutes
concern about the uh judge got something to say judge got something to say maybe he doesn't no I do actually uh I now I'm I'm a little bit more aware of
what you're trying to do. Um but on the implementation question um madame chair if uh uh I I take it what the what the board what the commission would like to do is is discuss it here and then have a
motion or something to take to the to the uh um to the commission to the board of county commissions if unless I'm mistaken that's what you're I think that's what's being discussed that's what you're okay but At the same time, I think our commissioner has a has
an excellent point. Do you have purview over that? Well, that's what I ask. You know, um and I don't believe you do. And uh there's other reasons that that before you do that, obviously there's people in this community would certainly like to have some input and
they certainly wouldn't. So, uh as far as my opinion is is that you should let that go for let the board of county commissioners bear that headache. Yes, ma'am. I think maybe call your commissioner. Call your commissioner. Can we just uh
I don't guess we can you can say that we discuss invite staff to help it help us out with that. I don't know. I I think we can say that there was a discussion and concern about the implement about the date payment would be assessed concerning impact fees. This
I please believe me this is the first question at the top of my legal pad on my desk. I have just not had a chance to go speak to administration about it. So need some time right now.
I think it's too late. They gone. Uh but but seriously, I think if we if it's included in the minutes as a matter of record, the questions were raised about the the date of assessment of the impact fees in regards to
application or issuance of permit. Can we do that, Ashley? Thank you. Um, another thing under new business, um, I, for some reason, and I do this
most often, I I watched LA yesterday's, um, BOCC meeting, and, um, they handled recommendations that came from us from our March meeting, which I had a moment of senior lapse thinking, did we actually see
that? And we really did. Um but the board of county commissioners in approving their consent agenda pulled one item from a group of amendments to the land development code and they pulled it for
further discussion and it's something we have discussed in this board and that is how should RVs recreational vehicles be addressed in code.
And that's a big old hairy ball of fur, but it's not a simple fix. And I spoke with um Chairman Wilkerson this morning and offered us
up to be a part of a joint BOCC planning commission workshop where we could have input into this process as well as BOCC. I know they're scheduling a workshop to deal with the RV code
and um she was very favorable about having our board who could be there participate in the joint meeting. We've done those in the past. Um the last one was pretty unilateral on
the side of the BOCC. I don't believe this one will be that way. Um, I believe we will be welcomed. Our input will be welcomed. This is not going to be a simple oneline code amendment.
Right, Zach? That is correct. This is going to be this is going to be this is going to have impact on a lot of people. And we have RVs in Putnham County. Everything from million-doll class A motor homes
down to junk that falls apart on the side of the road. And there's one sitting on Old US 17 in Lake Ko right now. Um the people are living in and
we've one of our one of the objectives of the county commission is to work on affordable housing. and um this is going to play into that. So, are
you all okay with being um invited to a joint commission meeting? I am. Okay. I think it would be important um and there's a lot of passion in this. There's a lot of passion throughout the county and this is something they're
going to have to have public hearings on. A workshop is only a beginning, but it's public meeting. So, it will be advertised as a workshop specifically for the discussion of how Putnham County looks at recreational
vehicles. And um like I say, it's a whole big old hairy ball of fur, but um hopefully we can knit something nice out of it. Is there any other old or new business
to come before the board? We have the approval of the minutes from the June 11th meeting. They're in your packet. And is does anybody have any additions, corrections, or deletions? I do, Madam Chair. I do. Yeah. Go ahead. You can take
So, so page one under Exparte Communications. Yes. Um, it says Jason Sheff mentioned he knows the applicant but has no association with the project. I knew the agent, agent Robert Morgan, Bob Morgan. So, if you can get that rectified, that
would be great. And on page three, uh, top portion of the page, it says public participation, public comment was not open. Then underneath that, it says motion. I'm not certain that should even be there. That's that's that's what I have highlighted. And Justin's name caught
caught the attention because he wasn't here. He wasn't here. Right. Yeah. I wasn't voting on any of this right here. I wasn't. Yeah. Uh Ashley, are you with us? On page three of eight, uh it's the third item down. It says motion Just Mars move to recommend that
the BOCC approve rec 25001. And I think that was several months ago. You can strike that. Any other additions, corrections, or deletions? No, ma'am. Okay. Uh I need a motion to approve the
amended minutes. I make a motion to approve the uh amended minutes from the June 11th, 2025 meeting. I need a second. Uh Mr. Williams seconded and this is to
approve the amended minutes. Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying I I opposed like sign chair votes I it is 5:36 p.m. Going once
twice meetings adjourned. Thank you all. And I want to say something off the record, or it can be on the record, I don't care. Um, I told Commissioner Wilkinson this morning, and I earnestly meant it. I've
been dealing with planning commission now since 2007 on and off. And this is the finest commission I have ever dealt with. It's the finest group of people with the greatest input, interest,
and integrity coming before this situation. I respect each one of you. I appreciate each one of you, and I shared that vehemently this morning with chairman. So, thank you.