County Planning Commission to order. And Mr. Williams is going to read our guidelines for today. If I can read it with my glasses. This is a public hearing and we are the Putnham County Planning Commission. We are the designated local planning agency for the county as prescribed in chapter
163 of the Florida statutes and we function under the authority of article 11 and 12 of the Putnham County Land Development Code. The primary responsibility of the commission is to serve as an advisory board to hear and make recommendations to the board of
county commissioners on matter matters related to provision of and proposed amendment to the Putham County comprehensive plan and Putnham County Land Development Code. The members of this board will re will
review each application and make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners at their next regularly scheduled meeting on January 27th, 2026. Procedurally, we will call each case by name and
number. A member of the staff will then briefly explain to us the nature of each request. We will then take any comments from the applicant or their 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 forth to the lectern and identify his or herself by name and address. After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we will entertain a motion
from the board. This motion will be voted on by the board members and become our recommendation to the board of county commissioners. The board of county commissioners will make the final determination regarding the application. All applicants have the right to withdraw the request at any time during
the application process. The following cases were advertised as being considered at today's meeting, but will not be heard at the request of the applicant. >> There are none. 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 Florida statutes. >> Before we go into our first case, I need to pull the board. Has have there been
any expporte communications with anyone? >> Have there been any are there any conflicts of interest with anyone? >> No. Okay. Was going uh your microphone, please. >> I have I have a working relationship with Michael Smith. Uh we work together
on projects. Nothing will affect my decision-m, but just put it out there that we I do have a a working relationship with him. >> Okay. It won't affect how you vote. >> It won't affect my vote. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Uh, first up will be case number
250000000015 and Mr. Graves. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. And once again, this is case re 250015. Uh, the applicant, James Craig, uh, James Rex Craig through his agent, uh,
Burle A. Uh, Havland is requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial retail C2 to commercial general C3 on a 1.77 acres of land uh, located at 147 Philips Derry Road in Palaca to allow
for the development of a trade worker office and outdoor storage facility. Surrounding zonings include intensive and retail commercial C2 and C4. Uh, the subject site has a future land use designation of commercial. The property has approximately 350 ft total of access
from Philips Derry Road. And according to the National Wetlands uh layer and the FEMA flood zone layer of the GIS map, the lands do not contain any wetlands and is located in FEMA flood zone X, which is not a special flood hazard area. Uh should the applicant's request be
approved, the applicant will then be subject to review by the development review committee before obtaining any permits for development on the property compatible with the C3 zoning district. Here you can see an aerial overview of the property. And here you can see a much
larger aerial overview of the property as requested by the planning commission. Here you can see the future land use. And once again a much larger future land use overview. Here you can see the zoning
and once again a much larger area showing the zoning surrounding the property. Uh staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial retail C2 to commercial 3 C uh to commercial general C3. Uh staff finds that the proposed resoning
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the locational requirement of the commercial general C3 zoning district provided in the land development code and the comprehensive plan. >> Are there any questions? Can you back up
to that zoning around uh Yeah, right there. >> I don't see the C4 zoning in that. >> Uh the C4 was earlier this year approved by the planning commission and the board of county commissioners, but has not been updated on the GIS map yet. It is
the property immediately to the left. Okay, >> that's up in operational, >> correct? >> Yes. What about the the case we did last month? >> Uh, that one has not yet been approved by the board of county commissioners. >> Okay.
All right. Any other questions of staff? Okay. At that point, then I will ask the owner or the owner's agent to come forward. if you'd like to speak, come up and give us your name and your address and tell us about your project. >> Hello there and thank you very much uh
for your time today. Uh my name is Dell Haverland um 19 Silver Glenn Drive, Palm Coast, Florida 32137. Um I am the land owner and uh going to be um working to build some uh storage
warehouses with u either a little office space or showroom for in support of small business especially tradesmen and uh that's the intent of the project. I have done been involved in similar projects in the past and I think Putnham County is kind of an upand cominging
county and I think it's a good opportunity for both me and for uh the tradesmen in the area and uh thank you again for everything and if anybody has any questions I'd be happy to address them. >> Are there any questions for Mr. >> Okay, thank you so much. My pleasure.
>> Appreciate you coming forward. >> All right, at this point I will open the the meeting up for public comment. Um, do I have any people wishing to speak either for or against this particular project? The card I have, I think, is for another
project. All right. Hearing no one coming forward to speak on this project, I'll close the public portion meeting of of this hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion and decision. I'm for it. I like I think uh I like the
fact that all of our commercial stuff is moving up right there in the >> you know the one the one area there. We've had two or three things come through here lately that seems like we're going to have an influx of commercial business there which makes me feel good. So I'm all for it. >> Anyone else?
>> Uh I went at the last meeting. Where was the other property and >> straight across the street? >> And then what did it get res? Um, it was going to >> it was going from R2 to uh C4. It's the property directly to the north, the rather large one.
>> No, I I think this is a good transition there, too. So, I think it fits. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else anyone would like to add? >> I will entertain a motion. >> I recommend we approve 250015.
is consistent with goals and objectives of put county comprehensive plan. >> Do I hear heard a second there from um Mr. Hafner? Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I.
>> I. >> All those opposed like sign chair votes I. We have a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. This will now go before the Porter County Commissioners on January 27th. I believe it's not their next meeting, but it's it's the next
meeting they'll hear these. So, thank you all very much for being here and we will move on to case number 25006. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh once again for the record, Michael Graves, Planning
and Development Services. This is again, of course, Rez25-00000016. Uh 7S Ventures LLC and DLE Consulting, Inc. are requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial retail and residential estate C2 and RE to commercial retail C2 on a 1.85 acre
parcel located at 147 South Highway 17 East Palaca to allow the development of an indoor storage facility uh surrounding zoning. >> Excuse me, Mr. Graves. Jenna, were you planning to speak on that case before us?
>> Okay, thank you. I'm sorry. >> No, you're fine, madam. >> Go right ahead. >> Uh surrounding zonings include intensive and retail, commercial, and residential estate. Uh that is uh C4, C2, and RE. The subject site has a future land use
designation of commercial and urban service. The parcel has approximately 150 uh feet of access along south highway 17. And according to the National Wetlands Index, wetlands layer, and FEMA flood zone uh layer on the GIS reference map, lands do not appear to
contain wetlands and is located in FEMA flood zone X, which is not a special flood hazard area. Uh should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will then be subject to review by the development review committee before obtaining any permits for the development on this property compatible with the C2 zoning
district. Here you can see an aerial overview of the property. And here it is zoomed out so you can better see the surrounding area. Here is the feature land use. And once again, here it is zoomed out so you can see the surrounding urban service and
commercial feature land use better. Here you can see the zoning which is the core of this case where they're just wanting to establish consistent zoning across the entire property as opposed to having the split there you can see in the back. And here you can see that the surrounding zoning of the area is very
consistent with what they're asking for. It is for that reason that staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial retail and residential estate to commercial retail. Two staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the commercial retail zoning district uh provided in the land development code and comprehensive plan. Are there any questions? >> Any questions for Mr. Graves? >> Michael, when I did the uh driveby this
morning to check out the project site, I noticed one of our signs to the east of this of the subject site and it was over closer to Was it Walton Road? >> Uh, yes sir. The property to the east of it is currently undergoing a reszone of
its own to commercial 3 C3 for that entire property. And it's that rather large L-shaped configuration that it takes up the entire eastern side of this property. >> Okay. >> All the way to Walton Road. >> Anybody else have any questions for Mr.
Graves? Thank you. Um, this point we'll open it up for public comment. Um, oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry. I'm backwards here. Is the owner or the owner's agent here? Would you like to speak, sir? Please come forward and give us your name and
address and tell us about your project. >> I made a summary. Would you like a copy? >> No. Okay. >> You can give a copy to to Ashley for the record. >> Okay. Uh good evening. Thank you for hearing our requests. Um our property currently is split zoning condition uh
where the back section remains zoned residential while the front portion is zoned commercial. Split zoning creates uncertainty and setbacks uh permitting and enforcement. Our goal is to bring the entire parcel under one clean consistent commercial zoning
classification so that the site can be managed uh appropriately under a single standard. Uh we do have a small accessory storage building in the per permitting process. Um this structure is strictly internal use and does not
increase uh customer activity, traffic or size intensity. Uh the zoning ensures that it is placed on the uh the zoning ensures it is placed on properly zoned land and maintains compliance and county
requirements. This request is consistent with the Putnham County Comprehensive Plan, follows the development pattern in the area, uh, and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses. Um, we are not changing operations, hours, or
nature of our business, only correcting our outdated zone line. Um, >> could you give us your name and address again, please? >> I actually skipped it. Um, sorry. My name is Luke Ulesules. Um, I live in Greenco, 3610 Ogal Bay Drive. Um, I'm an owner. I'm I'm the owner of Big A
Roofing along along with Austin Strickland. I don't know if you guys know who that is. Um, Neil Strickland's son. >> Um, yes. >> Okay. Any questions of Mr. Ules? >> Well, thank you very much for coming
forward. >> Thank you. >> I do have one question. >> Yes, sir. >> Entry, are you going to be able to enter on that property? Are you going to can you because you're going to own the whole property, right? >> Yes, sir.
>> So, you could actually have enter east of there and come back into >> uh potentially um that would be that would be um with permission of the property next door, Christy, who owns that now. Um
she's been very very great um and letting us use that. Um potentially. I I don't I don't I wouldn't plan on it unless >> she's not in the same ownership. >> No. >> Yeah. Oh, it did. Okay. >> The property is currently developed with
a with big A roofing uh facility there already and already has access off of uh the highway. >> Yes. >> Okay. You already have a resin. Correct. >> Farm Bureau where >> correct. It's the curb cut between Ace Hardware and the uh property next door.
Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Please stay around. We may have others. Okay. Before the meeting is over with, >> do I have anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this particular project? >> Hearing none, I will bring it back to
the board and uh for discussion, recommendation, and decision. >> Got the same comment as I last one. We're growing in the right spots. So, >> okay. Do I hear a motion for approval or
denial? >> I'll make a motion. We approve. >> Okay. >> RZ2500000016 as it is consistent with goals and objectives. >> Do I have a second or plan? >> Second. >> Thank you.
>> I have a proper motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the question. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Chair votes I. We have a unanimous decision. So, this will move on to the
board of county commissioners for their meeting on January 27th. Okay. We'll move on now to the next case, which is ReZ2500 17. Ethan, thank you.
>> Yes, ma'am. Uh for the record, Ethan Thompson, Planning and Development Services, presenting uh case Ree25-000017. Uh Michael Smith is requesting a zoning map amendment from commercial uh professional office to residential 1A on
a 1.13 acre uh parcel located at 216 Davis Lake Road in Palaca. Uh this would allow the renovation of a single family residence. Surrounding zonings include CPO and R1A. Uh the future land use designation is uh
urban reserve. The parcel has approximately 286 feet of access on Davis Lake Road. According to the NWI wetlands and FEMA flood zone layers on the GIS reference map, the parcel does not appear to contain any jurisdictional wetlands and is located within FEMA
flood zone X, which is not special hazard special flood hazard. Should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will be eligible to obtain any applicable permits for residential development that is allowed within the R18 district.
I've got a zoomed out aerial here. We've got the zoning, future land use, and I threw the flood zone on there. Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from commercial
professional office to residential 1A. Staff finds that the proposed reszone is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted adopted comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the R1A zoning district provided in the land land development code and the comprehensive
plan. >> Thank you. >> Are there any questions? >> Questions of of Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Hafner. >> Looking at the aerial, is there an access off of 19 to this property? >> Um, used
>> there is. So, he owns both properties. Um, and he does access off both sides. Uh, but he does. It's not represented in the aerial, but he has a driveway on Davis Lake. >> So, the main access is Davis Lake. But he can enter off a 19.
>> Uh at some point he is going to need um an agreement with himself. He owns that property that fronts on 19. Um so theoretically he could um but if he is going to continue it will need an agreement.
>> Okay. >> Is this an existing parcel to itself or is this all part of one larger parcel and we're reszoning. >> So, it is it it's a parcel unto itself, but it is subject to a lot split or
result a result of a lot split. So, it was at one time one large CPO parcel. He split it out because that house has been there since I think 56. Um, split it out with the intent to develop it and now needs to reszone to to be able to get permits for it. um because it's it's
non-conforming and the code allows for some flexibility with non-conforming um uh redevelopment, but only if it's been damaged and this is not that case. So, he can't there's actually no flexibility here for him.
>> Any other questions of staff >> hearing? None. Is the owner of the owner's agent present today? Would you like to speak? >> You're welcome to if you want to. Okay. >> Smartest move ever.
>> You don't have to, sir. It's just up to you. It's purely personal preference. Uh you Yes. You trust Ethan with your your project. That's great. All right. Um is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this particular project?
Okay. Since there's none, I'll bring it back to the board for board action and discussion and decision. >> All right. >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay. >> I move we recommend that the board of county commissioners approve reszoning
017 as it is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Putham County comprehensive plan. Okay, I have a proper motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, I have a proper motion and a second. Anything else anyone wants to
say about this project? >> All right, hearing none. We'll call for the question. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All oppose like sign. The chair vote sign. We have a unanimous decision. Thank you very much for coming forward
and trusting us with your project. Your next step is the county commission at January 27th. Thank you. All right, Michael, you're back up. We have ReZ2500000018. And now the moment you've all been
waiting for. Uh once again, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services, and as the Madam Chair said, this is ReZ25-000018. uh CR28 Real Estate Holdings LLC are requesting a zoning map amendment from a plan unit development to agriculture
estates on 356 more or less acres of property located at 960 CR2A in Hawthorne to allow for the development of agriculture purposes. Surrounding zonings include agriculture. Uh the subject site has a future land
use designation of rural residential and the property has approximately 3,100 ft of access from CR2A. Uh according to the NWI wetlands layer and FEMA flood zone layer on the GIS reference map, the lands do appear to contain some jurisdictional wetlands and is located
within FEMA flood zone X and zone A. Uh FEMA flood zone A is a special flood hazard area. Uh should the applicant's request be approved, the applicant will then be eligible for any development rights in the agriculture estate AE zoning district as outlined in land development
code section 45-73. Intensive agriculture will not be permitted on this property. Uh here you can see an aerial overview of the property. Uh considering the size, I felt it would be superolous to do a zoom out on this one.
Uh here you can see the future land use. Uh please note that the rural residential which is across the street is nowhere near it on the southern side of the road. Uh it only exists because of the pre-planned unit development. And here you can see what I mentioned
earlier that it is surrounded on all sides by agriculture zoning with this plan unit development sticking out in the middle of it all. Here you can see the wetlands. They are mostly found on the southern end of the property there in that sort of greenish blob.
And the FEMA flood hazard zone also appears to uh follow a similar shape with the purple on the bottom being the special flood hazard area. Staff recommends approval to the request to amend the zoning map from plan unit development PUD to agriculture state AE.
staff finds that the proposed resoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan and meets the location requirements of the agriculture state zoning district provided in the land development code and the comprehensive plan. Are there any questions?
>> Uh the astate uh is the density one per five acres or one per 20? >> Uh the density is determined by the future land use which is rural residential. So it would be one unit per two and a half no sorry one unit per five acres uh going to one unit per acre
with a paved road. Uh of note is the reason that we do agriculture estate here as opposed to agriculture just by itself is because the rule residential future land use policy does not allow for agriculture by itself whereas it does allow for agriculture estate.
>> Mr. after. >> When was this PUD originally approved? >> If memory serves right, it was 2005 or 2007. It should say in the staff report. >> And there was no sunset clause in the PUD. >> Uh there was no reversion clause.
However, it did have a time limit and that time limit has exceed has expired. As such, no development can currently occur on this property without a reszone. >> Okay. Other questions? How many residential lots were going to be in that PUD? >> Uh couple hundred.
>> Okay. if they were to go to a agriculture state zoning district right now uh and maintain the future land use policy of rural residential, even if they were to try and do a uh type one subdivision at
this time, they would be highly limited to because of the uh FEMA flood hazard zone, they would be limited to less than 100 uh total lots possible. Okay, >> I like that direction.
Yeah. You have a question? >> Yeah. So, could you walk me through this? I've read this several times. I just want to be clear. Um, it it says while the reasoning of this property to agriculture agricultural state does not first appear consistent.
So, the PUD is gone. >> Correct. >> Correct. So walk me through where this if you would just for my education where this future land use or rural residential
becomes an issue. >> So the exact wording between the land development code and the comprehensive plan is never fully consistent. That's one of the big issues that staff has always had with the different policies is we've been trying for years to make
them more consistent between the two and last year we had some impressive growth on the land development code side to make it more consistent with the comprehensive plan. U one of the things that has been regularly overlooked is that policy
a.1.4.8 A point 5 A if memory serves right of the comprehensive plan basically says that in rural residential agriculture is considered a holding zone and you cannot
reszone to agriculture. Uh because it doesn't specify agriculture versus agriculture estate in the comprehensive plan. It does initially appear that agriculture estate would also be considered not applicable. However, if we look into land development code, there is a table that is referenced in
that uh staff report. I believe it's table 2.1 or something like that. Uh where the agriculture estate has been historically approved by the planning commission and board of county commissioners to uh in the rural residential future land use category
including this very year uh re 251 uh which was a very similar case where an expired PUD in rural residential future land use was going to agriculture estate for the purpose of agriculture development. Thank you. No problem.
>> Any other questions of staff? >> So, why are we not seeing aation also for uh changing of future land use? >> They are not required to change the future land use. If they're wanting to do agriculture development, they can technically do that in agriculture
estate zoning district uh as allowed by the comprehensive plan. as while it is considered a holding zoning, we can't take any property rights away from agriculture or agriculture estate zoning districts just because it's in the rural residential future use. U so if they wanted to do any kind of like growing of
crops or raising of non-intensive livestock, they would be allowed by in the agriculture state zoning district and rural residential future land use category. >> But if they wanted to go to an intensive agricultural use, then they would have to change the future land use. >> Correct? If anything, this just
indicates that they have no intent of doing intensive agriculture in the near future. >> Good. >> All righty. Any other questions? >> Is the owner or the owner's agent present today? Would you like to come forward and talk to us? Please give us your name and address.
>> Madam Chair and board members, I'm Clay Swagger. I'm a land planner. I work with EDA Consultants. Uh property owners asked me to help them put this resoning application together uh that you have today. It's a relatively new property owner um for this land. It's about 356
acres. Um his intent is to use it for agricultural purposes, pasture land, livestock, the limited agricultural uses that your staff had indicated. um when he approached um Zach and and the staff here at the county um he learned of the
um PUD zoning that was on the property. I have some records back from 2011 and I think it was about 236 units like it was a pretty large residential plan development and those timelines have lapsed. So, um, it's, uh, sort of an
invalid zoning, if you will, but it's still zone PUD on the property. And so, county planning staff indicate if you want to use the land for these limited a purposes, um, you need to reszone the property. And so, we, um, are proposing the A the AE zoning. Uh benefit to that
is that it um does not allow the intensive agricultural uses which are identified in your plan as um those that can have adverse impacts of noise and sound odor to neighbors. It's only limited to the more um the limited
agricultural uses. So um that's the intent for the property owner. They want to improve the property and have it be homestead for them and a ranch um and sort of bring it back to more of the rural character of the area as far as the zoning goes. and the use for that matter. Um, so I I appreciate working
with planning staff on this. As you saw, they were recommending approval of it and um, appreciate your consideration on this today. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for the agent? >> So, this means >> that I can have a house and a couple of
horses. This doesn't mean I can raise 300 cows. What does that mean when non The land development code specifies what it classifies as intensive agriculture and what is not classified as intensive
agriculture. Uh things like slaughter houses, uh pigs, exotic species, those would not be allowed. Uh you could have horses, you could have significant number of cows because uh cows are not technically considered intensive by
right. uh at at a certain point, of course, if if they do raise enough livestock and sell the product, they become uh green belted as the colloquial term is, at which point a even less regulation applies to them. They would still be prevented from doing things
such as slaughter houses and uh pigs and other very intensive agriculture. >> Was this property at one time going to be a processing beef pro processing? >> Not to my knowledge. eight or 10 years ago. >> This for about six months, but
>> I don't Does the board remember there was a guy come came in and he cut all the trees down? I didn't go look at the property today, so I'm not sure >> and had the had the residents in uproar. Everybody was wondering what it was going to be and I always heard it was a
meat processing beef, but anyway. Okay. >> Uh staff has no record of any kind of intensive agriculture development in the past. Uh the previous PUD was a as mentioned 200 and uh 260 or so home uh residential development with a golf
course. And I agree with with what staff indicated that in the comp plan in intensive agricultural uses mean those that are likely to have adverse impacts of noise, odor, dust, other adverse sensory impacts adjacent to residential
areas including but not limited to slaughtering and processing of farm animals, sawmills, borrow pits, feed lots, hog farms, poultry farms, and dairies. None of those are allowed in this land use district. >> Okay, >> thank you all. >> Thank you so much. Please stick around
in case we have any other questions. All right, at this point, I will open the the meeting up for public comment. I do have one speaker card, Jenna. >> Yes, please give us your name and address, please. I'm Jenna Dellet and uh rural route
Melrose, Florida. Basically, um I am kind of new to all of this and still needing to get caught up with like the comprehensive land use and all these different things. Um I'm just coming from South Florida and I love this
county. I love how rural it is. Um the peace and quiet that I can see the stars at night. Um and I want to use my voice to say that I want to preserve that. So, when I saw that uh the signs along the road, um my my mother actually lives back in the area
where 18's going to be um you know, where the the proposal for that is, I was a little worried that maybe there was going to be a big um housing development going in there, which I would not be a fan of. Um, what I just heard Clay, I think his name was, um,
express about, uh, the desire to preserve the nature and character of that area sounds great to me. So, I don't have any opposition to it. I would have an opposition or an objection if it was going to be, you know, creating a lot of noise and traffic and pollution
and things like that. So, >> well, that's being taken away with this action. >> It sounds great. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Purdue. >> Yes. I I live just across the street from this property. >> Could you give us your name? >> Randy Parard.
And I live right across the street from that property and they have cut down some trees, but they've kept it relatively nice, I would say. Uh it's not intrusive. It's
from what I understood he was going to make trails for his horses for his wife to ride and some areas for for uh cattle. Uh, I don't know how many pumps he's planning on digging, how many
wells, or how many animals he has there, but there is a lot of wetlands surrounding his area. >> Our lake is across the street. If he he taps into our aquifer, he could lake
McMeakin could go down and that's what I'm concerned about. and little lake McMeakin and there's a third Lake McMeakin which is really like a swamp further down on the area and then then it all leads into Red Lake. So if you
put all that together, my concern is what will it in what way will it damage these wetlands and these waters? Uh, I I got no problems with what he's done
so far, except he's put barb wire fence right up almost to the road. Uh, we on our side of the road put a every one of us to put a 10 foot easement.
So, because everybody owns a boat, everybody wants to get in and out. And with that bob wire fence, it makes it a lot difficult to get in and out of your property with your boat. Um, but you know, we can deal with that. But I am
concerned about how many houses are going in and how many wells >> because you know, all you got to do is tap into one of our aquifers and our lake's going to go down. I think that will be all
looked at very carefully when this project meets the development review committee stage and that will won't go to DRC. >> No ma'am this is entirely a residential project on three lots at maximum right now. They could have three homes, one on each of these 100 plus acre lots with
one well each. uh if he wants to have auxiliary wells for the watering of his cattle, it's still going to be significantly less than the 260 plus uh that the old PUD would have had. Uh furthermore, any development has to
occur with uh at least a minimum of 25 ft of vegetated space away from wetlands. Uh the wetlands are not allowed to be impacted without a mitigation plan approved by both St. John's River Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection, at which point he would have
to contract out the United States Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate at a at a cost of about 20,000 to $80,000 per acre of land. >> Yeah. because there is a section on our side of the road that's was built back
in the Civil War days and that se that that trough was meant to go into little third Lake McMin into Red Lake in case the water got high. And that goes, I
believe, if not in his property, very close to his property. And if that somehow is blocked, then we're gonna have a problem. We're gonna have a flood problem. So, but I mean, I'm happy with the way it is.
If it stays that way, but if I turn around and see 50 houses being built, I'm going to start crying like a baby. >> That's not possible, is it? >> He has the potential to do a type one subdivision, as any property owner of large amount of land has the potential
to do so. However, he has not indicated any desire to do so at this time. Uh, frankly speaking, it would also still be less intense than what the PUB would have allowed uh 10 years ago. >> Sounds like me playing poker. It's like,
you know, I'm not going to do that, but I do it anyways. Is that what you're saying? That he could still do it? >> No. What he's saying what he's saying is there was could be if he stick with the way it is right now this PUD he could put 230 something houses in there.
>> I understand that problem if we make that adjust if we make if we approve this tonight he can only put one house per five acres or 20 acres be significantly less >> availability to build homes on this property if it gets approved if what
he's asking for gets approved than the way it currently sits. >> So one every five acres. Yeah, >> at maximum if he goes through a type one subdivision, which would also still need to be approved by the county, which could take years as well as a lot of fees to get to that point.
>> Okay, I want to live with my neighbor. I want to get along and I'd be fine if if he if he kept it to a reasonable amount and doesn't destroy our happiness >> because we've been 29 years there and
it's a beautiful lake. Everybody knows that lake and I hate to see it be destroyed by somebody making a few bucks. >> Well, I think this is this is going to be far better than what could have happened there. >> Oh, yeah. No, I agree. I told I just
want to make sure I mean I' I've been I've been told all kinds of things in my life. >> Well, you know, there's no nothing saying that somebody else is not going to buy that property and subdivide it, which they could do. But at this present time with this present owner saying he
has no intention of doing that and three residences would be the maximum. That's as far as we can go to saying for sure. But um it looks like a lot of efforts been put into this. A lot of planning has been put into it and I think you're going to have a good neighbor.
>> I believe so so far. >> So >> keep my fingers crossed. I am a poker player. So, >> well, thank you for your time. >> Thank you, sir. Apprec appreciate you coming forward. Nancy Pard.
And please state your name and your address. I'm Nancy Pard and I live at 190 Indian Lakes Road in Hawthorne. And I'm far away from the property as far as receiving notice of changes. and listening to all of this, I can see that
it's early in the stages and I'm just curious to know how is the what what's the process for us to stay informed because I know online I had a really hard time finding information and you know and I don't get the pilata newspaper to be able to keep on on top
of that sort of thing. So if you can explain the process and where we can >> the next step if this is approved today our recommendation would go to the board of county commissioners on at their meeting on January 27th and those meetings usually convene at 9:00 a.m. Uh
there's an agenda that's always published ahead of time. you can always call the planning and zoning office and speak to um Kristen, our our secretary, or any of our planners and um get an update on what's going on with the
project. But the best way would be to watch or attend that county commission meeting, board of county commissioners meeting >> on January 27th. >> Yeah, we were planning to go >> when this is presented and that way you would know what what's happening with that. From that point on, once the
county commission approves it, they're eligible for permitting. And >> so, because of the size of this property, there will be two board of county commissioner meetings. Uh, the first one will be, of course, on January 27th where they will motion, they will decide when the second one will be uh
and they'll inform everyone at that time. At that time, staff will also send out a second letter to all property owners within 300 ft of the property as required by Florida Sunshine Law. Uh we will also update the signs that are currently on the road there uh to inform everyone of when that second meeting
will be. Uh there will also be a second ad in the Pala Daily News. I know you say you didn't get it, but we are required to post that anyway. >> Yeah, I was hoping for the signs that that was how I >> signs the signs are a good indication. Now this will this be a large scale map
amendment? >> Uh it's not a map amendment. It's still a zone, >> but ultimately because it is so large, it does need two meetings. >> Okay, that's right. >> Madam Chair, if I may real quick to >> Yes, sir. >> One item that wasn't covered by both of
you is that the agenda for the BOCC meeting is posted on the county website. one. >> So, but basically that's the next step and the two meetings by the county commission and then after the second
meeting if it's all approved then this project's pretty much go. >> Correct. After the second meeting by the board of county commissioners due to its nature as agriculture estate which is a residential zoning district unless they have any intent to subdivide which they
have indicated they do not. They can obtain building permits for their one to three houses on these one on these three separate properties. Uh, and as long as they maintain that 25 foot buffer from the wetlands and all of their setbacks, they're good to start uh getting their
home there, getting their accessory barn or carport or shed or garage or what have you there, and then getting their livestock on the property. So, anybody else wishing to speak before the board this afternoon on case?
Okay. Hearing none, then I will bring it back to the board and close the public hearing portion of this meeting. >> Board members, what's your pleasure? >> We're we're growing where we're growing and I like it when we're backing up when we need to back up. So, >> this is a reversion to the agricultural
side of what we're doing there. So, I'm I'm actually excited for that to be going the opposite way of development, which is what this is doing. So, yeah, we we we look forward to seeing that. >> Yeah, it's it's it's kind of rare when we get that opportunity to to back down the density of a piece of land rather
than pushing it forward. So you're going from 236 homes on a piece of land three and you're keeping the same number of acres and it's going to be mostly open and wild and natural. So
>> always a joy when we're able to fix the mistakes of our past. >> Yes, it is a joy to fix our mistakes of the past. So um >> um I like the way it's going. I just have a procedural question. So when the
PUD came in, I assume the zoning and future land use had to be changed at that time. >> Uh to my knowledge, yes, sir. >> Yes. >> So if they had to go together and were married at that time, >> they uh
>> why are they severed at this point? And that's p purely a procedural question for me. >> So they weren't technically quote unquote married at the time. Uh what it was is the amount of density that they wanted. They wanted 260 units. They have 360 acres of land. Even if we take in
wetland density transfers and FEMA flood hazard density transfers uh to get with uh 360 acres of land. At the time we did have agriculture one and I believe agriculture 2 was at uh in play at that time. uh even if they were in
agriculture 1, that would be one unit per 10 acres, which with 360 acres of land, that's only 36 units. Because they wanted 260 plus units, uh they had to change it to rule residential so they could get that density that they desired. Uh and the golf course of
allowed in rural residential, they don't necessarily need to change the future land use policy. Uh the only reason that they would have to change it to agriculture like the surrounding uh z uh future land use would be if they wanted to do anything that's intensive
agriculture, your uh slaughter houses, your uh pig farms, your exotic livestock. Uh alternatively, if they wanted to do anything that's more dense than rural residential, they would have to uh first off prey. Uh second off,
they would have to provide us with some kind of utilities to get to say uh a rural center or something like that, which they have no intent of doing, >> right? Okay. No, I was just >> I I forgot this was some time ago and we didn't have all the zoning allowances,
right? >> I appreciate that. Thank you. And I'm >> with everybody else, I'm glad to see us getting a second crack at this in the future if we need it. Thank you. Now, if only we could do something about like uh the Interlock and Lake Estates
uh 0.1 acre lots out there. >> You don't want to see the overlay of all the all the different lots that are out there. They're they're pretty uh pretty crazy, but u Putnham County is growing, but we don't need to grow that way and
we don't need to grow in that area. We are trying to manage our growth in a reasonable fashion and I think staff is doing an excellent job of of ushering through and shephering these projects. So, um,
any other questions or concerns? I'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to uh move to approve RAZ25-00000018 um due to it being consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. >> I have a proper motion. Do I have a
second? Second coming from Mr. Morris. Thank you, sir. All right. I've got proper motion and second on the floor. Is there any further discussion? >> Hearing none. I'm going to call for the question. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I'll oppose like sign. Chair votes
eye. We have a unanimous decision. Um please convey to your client that this is an exciting project. We don't get to use that word on a lot of things, but this is exciting to revert that land back to being natural. That will be great. So, thank you all for being here
this afternoon. We only have a few matters of business to tend to. You're welcome to stay, but we won't be offended if you want to go. So, but we do appreciate you being here and taking exercising that civic duty, which not everybody does.
All right. Um, under old business, do we have any action coming up under old business? >> All right. There's no action under old business. Under new business, Mr. Williams, I think you wanted to
bring up some things. Yeah, I just have a couple of questions and a couple of uh handouts for everybody for the commission to consider. Um, one of the questions I have reading through the process of the planning commission. Um,
and I'd like to work with staff on this for better understanding. Um, I understand and one of my questions has always been why is DRC after we basically recommend approval of PUDS and major
subdivisions. Um, so when I was reading through the land development code and I looked at the roles of the DRC and I looked at the roles
of the planning commission, um, I still have those questions. So, and I have handouts if everybody would like to kind of see. I don't know if that's how we normally do this or whatever, but >> talk us through it first.
>> Okay. So, basically what I did is I reviewed the development review committee's role and in that there's basically two shall they shall meet as needed to conduct development plan review and shall be
open to the public. When I read the planning commission in division four, there are eight or nine shells.
Um, so my question stems from the planning commission is a citizen board and under the authority granted, I'm just paraphrasing all this, the planning commission is hereby designated as the local planning agency for the county.
um pursuant to the count uh community planning act. The planning commission is hereby designated to be the land development regulation commission and shall perform the functions and duties prescribed in that act. Um it goes on to say it shall monitor and oversee the
operation effectiveness and status of the code. Much more there. Shall conduct public hearings. Check. shall review and make recommendations regarding redevelopment plans prepared under Florida statute
chapter 163 part three. The planning commission shall recommend land use policies to the board and respond to requests. Planning commission shall review all requests for reszoning.
Check. We do that. And then H here, and this is where I'm I'm kind of struggling, so I'd like clarification. The planning commission shall review subdivision plans as described in article 7. So
I'm not a smart fellow, but chat GPT and AI and everything else is. So I kind of went through and put all the MUN code and everything in that and asked it to
develop the workflow per our code because it says DRC um make recommendations to the reviewing board kind of ambiguous in our land development code. I'll give you that
what that term means regarding any such development plans, vesting application, subdivision plans or site plans. So when I read this, it's like DRC in my mind should be
on the front end and then the planning commission once all that's agreed to should hear more of the final product. That's what I thought. Well, what I was feeling at the time. So, I've kind of gone through and I've vetted a little
bit. Basically, it says the subdivision approval workflow is one pre-application. Okay. Two, application submitt and suffic sufficiency review. Okay. Three, development review committee review.
Number four, preliminary development plan review. Number five, planning commission hearing and action. Number six, final development plan review. And then number seven, final
approval. And it said for some purposes, the planning commission president planning commission may endorse the final plat once all conditions are met.
I have found that that was the end or the end function at one time, but we don't do it that any do it that way anymore. So, I'm kind of wondering what changed or
why we're not because when you really dig deep into H subdivision plans, that is pretty much the that is the preliminary plat stage. So, I'm wondering why it's kind of roles
are reversed at this point. >> Zach, >> you want to address that? Um I will definitely give it a try to to answer that to provide some clarity on the matter. Um so I'll start by saying um
the DRC is functioning in the pre-review for the PUB application. Um as required by the code ever since Mr. miners project back in July, >> you changed it. >> Um when when there was uh yeah, when we
went through that and went through the text amendment that did not get adopted, uh the DRC is, for lack of better words, intercepting uh PUD applications. We're doing a review. We're providing comments, possibly getting a revised set
of plans and development agreement before it moves on to the public hearing process. Um, in terms of subdivisions, we don't get a lot of plats. Um, I think in my time here, if you count Dr.
Horton, um, we've had, I want to say, four plats come through unincorporated Putham County. Um and prior to the adoption of Senate Bill 783 or 4, um that is exactly what was
happening when we got an application for a plat review. um not so eloquently is laid out by AI, but it was pre-application meeting uh preliminary site plan review uh preliminary plat
review went to the county surveyor to make sure the plat instrument itself was sufficient. Um and then we requested the final plat review. Um somewhere in there, the the language was written to
allow for once the preliminary plat was approved, the um the applicant could obtain site work permits to put in infrastructure and then concurrently the final plat was prepared and reviewed again. Um there was language in the the
land development code that allowed the preliminary and final plat approvals to occur concurrently. Um which we only ever saw that happen uh with one subdivision which was Kicking It Ranch. Uh it was three lots out on
Price Road in Hawthorne. Um so that's how that's how it was going. Right now we've got Dr. Horton, which was a PUB, and that started last year. They're still working through the plat process. They do have their preliminary
order to do the um site work improvements of the property and grade everything. Um they are working on getting their final plat for the final review. But with all that said, um, Senate Bill 780,
whatever, three or four, um, being adopted and and effective July 1 of 25 has kind of hindered county staff and how we're we're moving forward with plats. Um the direction that we've received from the county attorney is uh
essentially if the developer is going to maintain the infrastructure, water and roads and any other uh infrastructure that would typically be maintained by the jurisdiction. If they're going to maintain it, then there's no justifi
just justification for a board review. However, um again of his opinion, if the intent is to convey either the water, the storm water or the roads or both to the county at that point, then the
county can weigh in and review. County being the commission can weigh in and review the plat uh for approval. Um, but I think the short way to answer your question is we've not had enough plats in here to really for you guys to see
those plats come through. I mean, quite literally, Kicking It Ranch, Dr. Horton, the Replat for Mount Royal. I really truly believe >> there were a couple signed. >> I can't remember what they were, but
>> um, Aelia on the St. John's was a replat for >> last year. We had uh three type one subdivisions that come to mind that were actually new plats. Uh one of them was withdrawn before it even got to you guys because they ran out of money to do it.
One of them was MD Smith and Suns, which you guys did see and you guys approved. And the final one, uh I think that one was actually the replat for Mount Royal on the St. John's. >> Even Aelia on the St. John's was sorryh
I got them mixed up. uh Ailia on the St. John's was the year before even this year we have three type one subdivisions total and we're in December of course one of them being Dr. Horton another the other two are both replats uh one of
them is a replat for a single lot just so that they don't have to pay taxes on it because it is for the homeowners association and before this year they didn't have to pay taxes on it because it was HOA property. Uh it's not that we don't uh want to send stuff to you guys,
it's just we don't get it. Uh we don't have anything to show you guys. >> Well, yeah. So, I'm just asking a couple of these questions because of what's coming development and also related to Senate Bill 1080.
So, I'm not sure that if y'all if staff has considered those implications of as far as building permits and preliminary plat and the time frames that have been laid out with that. Um, so one of the other roles of this
commission is to suggest comp more land development code changes. And I've got some stuff here. It's it's multiple copies for everybody. And what
I would like to do is take this opportunity to because Senate Bill 1080 basically says the preliminary plat they can start pulling permits up to 75% of their permits and all this. So part of my concern was I want public involvement. I
want it to go through the process correctly and I want it to be ready to build and we don't because our code may may not have fully addressed it. And the other part of it of it is Senate Bill 1080
gives a definite timeline on when you have to make these changes. And I know Senate Bill 180 says you can't change anything for three years, whatever, but it's it's kind of conflict conflicting. But um I would like to
not today. I'd just like to put this on the record and give it to staff and the other members here so we can kind of start looking at how this could flow. Um several jurisdictions and municipalities that I work with have all
one has it has codifi fully codified it and the other the county just recently passed it in its relative form, right? because we all kind of work together on this and that will comply and better clarify the process because that's one
of the mandates and set the time frames and everything else and when that clock starts to start issuing building permits because the last thing we want to do in my opinion and why I took this role is development running us over and not being able to address it right because
if the Senate bill s well now it's state statute says if we don'tse timelines, it's basically approved and they can go. And so I would just like to if if this is even how we do this, just hand this out. Um I would like to ask for a
workshop. I know the commission has talked about it previously. >> Joint workshop. Yeah, >> a joint workshop. And give staff the opportunity to kind of digest this. This is not this is my very rough draft of trying to combine and make it look like
Putinham County Municode and then see where we can go to start moving this this process forward to make sure that we are in compliance so that when the major track home guys come in they just don't
run us right over with state statute. So >> would would it be possible since we're not having a hearing in January to schedule a planning commission workshop the day we normally would meet and just sit down and let staff
and attorneys enlighten us on these these new laws and statutes that have come in. >> You want to meet with county commissioners also? >> I'm not I'm not sure how how it needs work. It may be that we need to get our act together first and then in if we
feel like we need to ask for a joint meeting with the board of commissioners, >> but would it be possible for us to take that time next month and just sit down and say we're going to allow ourselves two and a half hours or whatever to go
through this and study it? because all of these new things, you know, if something new comes up, we we accept it when it comes, but we don't really study it and understand it in depth. Would that be something possible, Zach? >> I believe yes, ma'am, that would be
possible. So, um I think the the best way to do that is to probably advertise it as if anything, I mean, a public meeting, right? I mean that's all it is the consideration of a text amendment that is um >> u initiated by the planning commission
>> study and review of potential text amendments. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Um and then from there you know we would probably want to be creative with how we do it because you know of course it'll need recommendation to the board.
So if we uh if we really you know plan this pun intended accordingly um that public hearing in January could be the recommending action to the board. Um, I know for
personally I it's not a um for the the text amendment, it's not something that I've been pursuing just because it's so much energy. Like the last few text amendments that I tried to spark up.
>> For good cause, they were I mean it took months to go through the process. So, um, and with with Senate Bill 180, you know, there's a pretty large action lawsuit that multiple jurisdictions have filed against the state. The county,
Putnham County is not involved, but we do anticipate that to be walked back a little bit and hopefully give municipalities more uh more of that home run rule that we're so used to. Um but yeah, I mean if if that's the direction
of this planning commission, though we have no uh constituent initiated cases, we could still plan to have a um you know, >> training enlightenment >> or or just at the very least um a public
hearing for the proposed text amendments that Commissioner Williams put together. Would it be an amendment to the code or the comp plan or both? Okay. So, uh I guess it would be the land development code. Yes, it would be
the land development code. I don't think it it what it all it really did is Senate Bill 1 1080 says you've got to lay out clearly define the the path forward because once preliminary plat is
approved they can pull 75% of building permits, >> right? And that language is pretty similar to what was passed and I don't remember the Senate bill number five six years ago where developers were able to get 50% of their permits out of the gate. >> It it it tightened up the timelines,
>> right? >> And it put uh it puts uh financial repercussion on the planning on the planning departments. Basically, if you don't approve it in this time, >> it's 50% of the permit. If you don't
approve it in this time, it's 10%. If you don't approve it in this time, it's approved. >> And I think also, if nothing else, if we feel that if we're we learn that the workload is going to be factored upward,
then we lobby for additional staff positions. We lobby for, you know, additional help in the department because we know what's coming or we have an good anticipation of what's coming development wise in Putnham County. We want to be prepared to meet it and we
don't want you all to be caught behind the eightball. when you're overwhelmed with something and you're sliding backwards and all of a sudden we're losing application fees or all of a sudden we're >> so far behind we can't put forward new
stuff and the the good projects the little projects get lost in the the title wave so to speak and um >> can can I come back to a question? Yeah, >> Zach, you said you said a little bit ago
when about plats coming to this board, not coming to the board because the attorneys, the county attorney said utilities are going to be maintained by the developer. Why is why is that the consider why is utilities the only consideration why it doesn't come here?
So, I don't know his his legal thought process, but what I as I understand it is if the developer is going to maintain all of the utilities and all the roads, then the county's really the county's
only interest is providing the water sewer there and making sure that the local roads can can handle the project. But the county is not actually taking on any more assets to maintain roads and storm water within the park or the development
>> until the HOA goes defunct and then the county has to step in. And I >> Senate Bill 180 has a lot of different opinions floating around out there right now. And I think these if you ask three two attorneys an answer, they're going
to give you six different opinions. and justifiably so, you know, but maybe he's anyway. Um, but this but what I would like to just hand out if we can and just start for digestion purposes we can talk
about later is actually one thing in the Senate Bill 1080. It's ironic that they're so close is you only get three opportunities to ask for additional information as a board or as a review committee, right? So, if you
don't if it comes in totally messed up or lacking, you ask for questions, you ask for questions, that puts you kind of in a quagmire. But this what I'm trying to suggest is that we look at this it lays out everything that's required all
the timelines all the stuff everything that has to happen and the whole process that way and so far it's been compliant with state statute been accepted although our code might say it this I believe is a starting point to actually
put the process on paper because like I say once that preliminary plat is approved D Katie bar the doors it's gone you know so anyway >> so if I may >> quick question for you Matt so the jurisdictions you said one codified it
one just recently passed something were they able to do it from the staff perspective and still be in compliance with Senate Bill 180 because wasn't there some restrictions about how we couldn't do something from our perspective that would be more stringent but it could be citizen initiated
>> so this was staff driven because it's not more restrictive. It actually is streamlining the process to comply with state statute. Again, I guess it's how which way you view it, but it is to my knowledge
it basically follows state statute that says you will do this this this this is just a bunch of explanation on how you get to that point and expectations. So, it's not more restrictive. It's not adding anything. It's just clarifying
and most jurisdictions have had to do this because land development code gets cobbled together over years and this conflicts with that and all this other stuff. So, it might be a good time for us to reset, put our process in order so it doesn't
cause problems for planning, building our commissioners and everybody as a whole. That's just my view. Well, thank you one for taking the time to kind of bring this to light um and to maybe try to move this thing forward. And from my perspective, time is of the essence. So
the sooner we can meet, the sooner to get this thing moving, the better we may be. >> Um >> so my only question at this point would be the direction. Would you prefer it to be a workshop on that next Wednesday or would you prefer it to be considered an
actual public hearing? I I believe our land development code says it has to be a workshop. >> I think a workshop is more appropriate at this point. We can have a public hearing later. This could come before us. This could come before us as a case at the February meeting or the March meeting whenever it's ready to be
presented to the board. But let's start with just doing a workshop where there no nothing binding is done. Um, and I've, you know, it's been my experience throughout my career that when you have well-defined
processes and procedures that you can tie back to statute, you have a solid foundation on which to defend anything. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, I wanted to take a moment here to thank the planning commission. Actually, uh, Mr. Sheffield, thank you for
bringing up the uh mention of we can't make anything more restrictive. Uh and while I don't think Mr. Williams uh idea will be more restrictive, it is good to keep that in mind as we move forward to that workshop. Uh what I really wanted to thank the planning commission as a
whole on however is something that was probably an unintentional side effect of the minor case from earlier this year where you kind of caught staff with our pants down so to speak on policy and rules of operation. Uh this year of course we have been dealing with the Dr.
Horton case. Uh because of the way that the Senate bills are worded uh they do qualify as being affected by that. Uh because of the planning commission specifically catching staff by policy, uh staff had to go back and make sure
that we're following everything to the letter. Uh we've redoubled our efforts on every aspect from making sure that building permits for non-conforming structures are following the proper procedure uh to making sure that every plan unit development goes to DRC before
coming to you. of course. Uh and part of that is really hammering home on the DRC policies for the uh subdivisions and uh other plate developments and other policies. In fact, uh even commercial
development, we are hammering home this is what the code says that DRC needs. we are being more stringent and less uh wavering on some of those policies that in the past we have kind of overlooked just because they are somewhat redundant
in a lot of cases. Uh going on to the Dr. Horton case in particular uh the way that subdivision policy is laid out right now is that a lot of the timeline burden is placed specifically on the shoulders of the applicants. We cannot
move forward with a second DRC review until the applicant themselves gives us an updated policy. Uh we do make it clear at the very beginning that they have this specific timeline that they'll meet and if they give us the updated the
updated policy after that the updated plat after that they will go to this time. If it takes them too long they'll go to this time. we do make sure that they are getting the information that they seek uh that is required of statute to be given to them of this is your
definitive timeline. Uh it is we always however put in a clause of it is subject to change depending on your turnaround time. Uh and that I think is what is essentially keeping Dr. Horton from essentially developing because they've gone through DR uh DRC three times at
this stage. Uh one of them in particular uh they missed the RC for a total of four months just because we were unaware that they had updated their plans. Uh there was a computer error there and because of that it was technically on
their burden not informing us sooner that they had updated their plans and got it back to us. Uh strictly speaking, because of this and because you guys have uh kind of caught us and made us redouble our efforts to make sure that every policy in our land development
code is being followed to the letter and spirit of the law. We have a bit of buffer that may not have been intended originally by the code because we could never have foreseen these sweeping changes by the state statute that basically prevent us from doing our job
properly. Uh but because of your efforts, we do have a bit of so to speak defense in this case. So again, thank you. >> No, and >> we're all learning together. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not trying to
blindside, but here here's the one warning that Senate Bill 1080. And this is I even printed off this is one of the articles that we used as like a guide. It it's written. It's there. I'm not trying to say it's mine, but it really lays it out well, although the font is
very small. It says, "Perhaps most impactful reform in the new mandatory timeline for application review, counties and municipalities are now bound to act within specified periods or else face financial consequences.
Now, while there is some time in there or whatever that the applicant can mess up a little bit or whatever, It's it dillydally. That's okay. And but it's really incumbent to have this process laid out like you've got to acknowledge
receipt within so many days. Determinative determination of completeness within so many days. You got to deem it incomplete and send it back. Now that'll give you a little time there if that's the way it is. A final decision in so many days. Both parties
have to agree on time extensions. Then it gets into refunds for delays, exceptions, timeline restarts. It puts a limit on additional information and how many times you can actually review it. And that's why, you
know, like 10% refund, 20%, 50% or 100% deemed effective. So while I understand that our current code and you and everybody's made major strides, I've tried to learn it, everybody's making great improvement. I think this is
something we really need to dig into and that's the reason I was bringing it to everybody with this little thing I copied and and just the bare bones >> kind of guy guide that of other drafts
of ordinances that I know have been going through because it with the changes that went through the Senate it changed let's see uh chap chapters 125, 163, 177, 380, 472, and
there's another one in here somewhere. So, it changed a lot of Florida. It's changed a lot of statutes. And all I'm saying is other people, and I was on the outside of it, have done a lot of hard digging and everything else. And not saying it's by any means the final
product, but I think it's a great start to get us going there because this went in effect in July >> and Dr. Orton comes back, they could possibly use this. >> You are absolutely correct. >> Sufficient to say to staff that, you know, you guys need to be compliant with
such and such statute. >> I'm just really trying to help protect because I I stole I stole the code. >> I guess I'm really just asking where do you see the shortcoming at from a procedural standpoint? I mean, I
understand the part about the plat's not coming here. Like I I got I got >> Yeah. Well, that was that was just a question. So, we we've through that. So, yeah, this is a whole this is my second part to this and >> I really because to to change code from this commission the
way I read it, it takes community involvement, it takes a workshop, it takes and it's going to take staff because there is no way in the world that Matt Williams found every nuance >> mor morsel of information in the land development code. Tried my best.
Well, I I think it's an opportunity for us to learn more as a a commission. It's an opportunity for us to take greater ownership in a process and it's
an opportunity to give us a an a way that we can stand behind staff and be their advocates when they get overwhelmed.
When people are coming at them from four directions and wanting 14 different things on the same date, it's our opportunity to know what's going on and be able to say, "Hey, Commissioner, we
really need to to back up our staff a little better. We're running slow. We're running out of room." And I know you convey this to to your supervisors, but coming from a citizen board, it gives it a little different emphasis. And um
>> I think the first step in this is is defining the problem. I mean, if we're going to >> Yeah. to learn it. >> First the first thing you do in solving a problem is define the problem. if if we define whatever the shortcoming is or where we're our code doesn't agree with
like that's show me that and let's address that. You know what I mean? Like >> when it comes to subdivisions in particular, uh those new state statute policies, they essentially broke staff's arm. Uh you guys have already unintentionally given us a cast that is
holding us over. But you are right in that we need to actually fix the broken arm. We can't just keep it in the cast forever >> and this is the first step that >> the only problem the problem that I picked out of this whole conversation was there was a problem with the plat like that's only >> No, I'm like I'm trying to put my finger
on what the problem is and it sounds like the problem is the plat didn't come here for review. >> No, I think it seems like an easy problem to solve >> and it and that that part of it probably is. The other part of it though is when the DR well okay the track home builders come in
we've got to be ready or they're run us over and they know this because the new >> so the the question then would be how do how do we define where we're not ready like if if we had a track home people come in here what what what shortcomings would and I'm I'm not saying I'm not trying to diminish your research or
anything and I think it's great that you're looking into it I just if I'm going to solve a problem I want to know what the problem is. So, if the problem is we're going to be short, if another developer comes in here and ask questions and help me define where we're going to be short and let's address that. You know what I mean? Like I
>> well uh so like the requirements for survey and mapping and comes in and the requirements for what they have to bring initially may not be well defined and the timelines and then the process of when
they can actually get that permit because for them they're going to push everything they can to get to the permit stage. >> This allows them to do it faster. What I'm saying is I I don't know that our code as it's written currently
covers all of this and especially time frames and processes and all the other things because out of every jur everybody I know that's working on this they found that everybody had their own kind of process. This could help staff codify that,
put it in the proper pro procedure because here's the other thing. It no subdivisions no longer go to the commission. It's an it's an it's an administrative approval at the end. The commission technically,
unless they're reszoning or something major, if it's allowed by right, are never going to see this. So, >> am I correct in >> You're correct there. Uh, going back to that kind of analogy I had of the uh we got a cast on the broken arm here kind
of deal. Uh, we've got essentially two things that save it from being chaos. Uh, as of right now, and they're not very strong. I will admit they're not very strong, but they are there. Uh, number one being that most of the big developers, Dr. Horton in particular, another one we have coming called East
River Ranches, which may or may not fall through. Uh they basically need a planned unit development in order to have the subdivision that they're wanting because they want 40 foot wide lots and none of our zoning districts allow that. And those planned unit
developments, they go through DRC once, they go to you guys, then they go back to DRC. Uh which in that case, it gives us some extra time. It gives us stuff before we even get to the subdivision stage where we can call them out on stuff that just ain't going to fly around here. Uh the other thing that we
have is uh again going back to the uh DRC and Dr. Horton in particular, they went through DRC three times and they never got preliminary approval until this most recent third one uh specifically because their plans were
just absolutely not compatible with our land development code and the plan unit development development agreement that they agreed to. uh because of that and because we put the operating onus on them to essentially they had to update
their plans before we could move forward with a second DRC and then every time that they did we would acknowledge that we received it. We would acknowledge when their date was. We would get them there as soon and quick as possible. One time we even gave them an expedited review just to ensure that uh every time
it became a matter of we are following what the state statue is to the best of our ability but it comes down to how fast can Dr. Horton operate. We can't uh say your meeting will be uh March and then they don't have their plans ready until April and then expect to go
forward there kind of deal. Uh ultimately subdivisions have those two things working for them. Now that Dr. Horton has been approved for preliminary approval, of course, they have the ability to get their infrastructure in place, which I hear they're working on
now, or at least working on getting the permits for. They do have to make some final alterations. I believe they needed to give us a phototric plan at the DRC meeting, which they hadn't had until then because they are required to have street lights on every street kind of
deal. Uh, but aside from that, they have their preliminary approval for their subdivision and now they're going to the lot split committee which includes the county surveyor to make sure that the legal language is all present there. After that then they would be after that they have been told hey when you submit
here's the time the turnaround timeline for that after that they would then go to the uh land land development administrator or whatever the new title is for the person that actually approves of the plat and that would we would tell them here's the turnaround time we would
tell them here's when it's done and we would follow the state statute to the best of our current abilities uh finding a way to codify that into the land development code where we do place the onus of time on the uh applicant so to
speak to give staff a as flexible a timeline as possible is probably our best method forward and I do agree with Mr. Williams on uh trying to get that sorted. >> Yeah. So to those timelines the county has 10 days to issue a completeness
letter. the county has 10 days to move forward with approval or denial. I mean, these are that's why I'm I'm just bringing it. So, and this Senate Bill 1080 not only applies to subdivisions. We I I shouldn't have led off with that, but
it's it's for the minimum information that an applicant must provide. It's telling them this is the minimum and you and laying it out. seeking zoning approval, reszoning, subdivision, special exception, variance or certification. So, this this thing puts
timelines on almost all we do. And that's >> we do all that already, though. Uh for the variances, the uh special use permits, special exceptions, reszones, uh we confirm receipt upon receipt. We just immediately tell them, hey, we've got it. uh the second that it's been
approved, they're either here or the day after we send them a email saying, "Congratulations, your ordinance has been approved. It's now in effect, even if you don't have the physical copy yet." Uh when it comes to the special use permits and variances, uh we have to
wait 30 days for the appeal period as outlined by land development code, which I believe is backed by state statute. I have to look into that, of course. Uh, and then as soon as that 30-day appeal period's over, that day they get an email saying, "Hey, congratulations. It's now in effect." Uh, they get a copy
of their signed final order, even in their email. Uh, we make sure that everything other than the subdivisions so far have been 100% you got 10, we got 10 days, we have it done in a single day kind of deal. Uh, we keep on top of all
that. The subdivisions are a bit funkier because it is so much work and so much of that work is honestly the applicants. Frankly speaking, having worked on the Dr. Horton project in DRC, I can tell you that while I did spend like a good day or two actually just combing through
every part of the land development code to make sure that everything was appropriate, most of the work was done by DRC uh Dr. Horton before it even showed up on my desk and it was done again by them uh before their second meeting.
>> Two things I want to say. Number one, since that meeting the minor meeting, you guys have given us stellar work and as chair I can't appreciate anything more than that. you have really pushed
and I know you've pushed yourselves but you have given us work that there hasn't been a lot of room for question on and that's very appreciative. The second thing I want to say is we need to know the the bird's eye view. We
need to know the overview as your your commission and that's what we are. We're like your board of directors or whatever you want to call us. We don't need to get down in the weeds with you and roll around on 10 days here and two days here. That we trust you for. But I think
if we were to really understand the the big picture on the land development code because we've not got into that part of the code yet and we've not really dug through the land development code like we did the comp plan. We spent days and hours doing the comp plan review and
this board went through every page line by line and made changes where they were appropriate and where they were needed. That's not something we can do with the land development code because you all have to initiate a lot of that. But we need to understand where we
stand, what's going on, what we need to be doing. We need to see these things that Matt's brought forth, I think, strongly because of the the state legislation and the statutes that are coming forward. We don't know what's going to happen with that statutory um
lawsuit. They may revoke part of it. They may revoke all of it. They may go back and rewrite it and make it even worse. You know, sometimes the second verse is a little bit louder and a little bit worse. And um we don't know what they're going to do. It's the legislature. And of course, this not may
not be the only thing they're going to, you know, approach this year that's going to impact planning and development or or development in general because we're one of those frontier counties now that's beginning to see organized development.
And we have fewer staff working now than we did during recession periods when we saw no development. And we realize that and I think the commissioners realize that. But once we understand thoroughly what's lying on
your shoulders, we can advocate for you and that's our job is to be your advocate, your safety net, but we have to understand what's going on before we can. So, Matt, do you think that we could get
together, you and Zach could get together sometime between now and January? And compare your notes and um Zach, are you willing to do or do you have time to do this since you have no cases coming up in
January? You've got all the time in the world, right? I I think I can probably find some time. >> And let's let's put together a >> Yeah, we're going to be floating in your
cereal bowl on New Year's Day. Um, I have I've had that happen in state government where you wake up on New Year's morning and oh, by the way, you're in some other division or you've been moved to another department entirely and uh the leader of that
department finds us in your cereal bowl. But, um, anyhow, I think that would be good use of the time in January. >> Um, and we can really learn more and that's what we're all about is learning. We don't want to do this to nitpick because we've already
nitpicked and you already responded to that really well, >> right? >> And uh we're proud of you for it, but we need to know what's going on. We need to understand what you're facing so we can, you know, be your advocate. Next time we run it, next time u
commissioner comes and sits in the back of the room, we can be your advocate. We can follow up and be your advocate. So, um, >> you got good magnifying glass. >> I I apologize for the font, but if you you can use that to Google it and
actually look at it. Yeah. When I printed it, I'm like, I can't afford to print any. >> You got a copy for me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, but I I really do appreciate you all in this >> very much. And man, I appreciate you're taking the time. Um, as a as a new member of this commission, you have
certainly spent time and done your homework and that's been good. >> I get paid to do this on the other side, my other jobs. So, I was just trying I was trying to uh help maybe >> show it off. >> No, no, a lot of people.
>> Hey, you have to borrow and share >> staff too and help this county. That's what I'm trying. That's my goal. So, >> thank you >> on policies and procedures and stuff like this. If you don't plagiarize, you're not doing it right. >> So, um, I do have a question under old
business about a couple of our projects. The one that came before us today on Davis Lake Road is already under construction and we just approved to recommend to the board of county commissioners today. >> Yeah. So, the problem with the one on Davis Lake Road is
I've made a a pretty good number of changes since becoming the director of development services, but one of the things that was happening was when um when renovation permits were coming in, level one, two, three alterations.
>> When they were coming in, they weren't getting a zoning review. They were going based off of the scope of work and saying, "Oh, it's just a new roof and some windows. You know, we're not changing the footprint, no impervious surface." And they were just issuing it. Well, Mr. Smith had a building permit
that was issued. And he had to submit for a revision at one point in time. And when he submitted the revision, it was after I enacted everything goes through zoning. Michael caught the the mishap. um and
tried to kill the permit, which I understand. Um but I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. We've already issued this permit. We cannot kill this permit." >> Um we put put together a plan. The property owner applied for a reszone. Um
and if for whatever reason the board of county commissioners denies his reszone, we're going to then vest the single family home that's on the commercial property. Uh I don't foresee that happening. Okay. And the other one was the project we approved on the corner of
17 and Walton Road last month that Mr. Sug spoke about. It's got a nice brand new building sitting on it and it hadn't gone before board of county commissioners, has it? >> So again, with that one, the the property where the building is sitting is already zoned was is already zoned
commercial. We were cleaning up the tail end the south side of that property where there was some residential estate zoning. >> Okay, good. Hilariously, both of these cases are something that I mentioned her with the thank you uh speech about uh because of you guys. We doubled down on
reviewing this stuff and making sure that it was compliant. So, uh thank you again. >> Well, we don't want to play traffic cop too much more, but we like I say, we're your safety net and that's that's our role and what we want to be for you all. >> It was rather interesting when I drove by today to do a site visit at Davis
Lake that construction was well underway. >> Oh, yeah. And in my notes, I have highlighted that no construction permit would be issued until this thing is done. >> So I pondered that for a few minutes, but nonetheless, you know, >> yeah, that permit was actually issued, I want to say like June or July,
>> and the revision came in probably around October, >> something like that. Hilariously, the person that issued the permit no longer works here, not for that, but for other reasons. But, you know, it's one of those cases of, oh, we uh made a mistake, we're trying to fix it. We're
going to prevent mistakes from happening in the future. >> Yeah. When you make those mistakes, then you got to be fair to both sides. So, things happen, you move forward, you do better, become aware. >> You've done well. >> You've done well. We appreciate you. Um,
is there any other old business that we need to discuss? >> Just something super brief. um the site visit log that circulated before >> we missed uh it looks like three of you. So, I just ask that everybody stop by on
their way out, make sure that their site visits are updated. I don't want to put anybody on record, but there's three of you that need to take a look at this. I'll be glad to put them on notice. >> If you didn't visit, you still have to circle no.
But that's okay. Any new business to come before the board other than what Mr. Williams has brought up. We now have come to the approval minutes. Um, do I hear any There was one change that I mentioned to Ashley. Uh, she had Mr. Morris and I kind of combined there.
Listed me as Susan Morris, but uh, ask her to change that. But anything else that needs to be changed in the minutes? >> Yeah, if you don't mind, remove my last name under the uh, the first paragraph. I was not present last meeting. Please bear with Ashley. It was the
different Ashley last meeting. >> I understand. We're flip. We're switching every time, aren't we? >> I don't know what they're doing, honestly. She'd be better off explaining how they're doing it. >> That's okay. And I'll go ahead and sign the back page and you can just replace
that front page. So, once they're approved, I can do that. Do I hear a motion for approval? >> I approve. >> Okay. I'm going to take Mr. Sheffield is is making the motion and Mr. Hodgej for um >> second.
>> Yeah. All right. Um all in favor please signify by saying I >> I >> oppose like sign. >> Chair votes I unanimous. Um any other business to come before this board?
Let me say that I hope that our staff has a happy, healthy, safe holiday full of peace, joy, love, and hope. >> And and that our board does, too. This is a season of of hope, peace, and love,
and and joy. And and let's look at that. And um see how many people we can help during that time. Anything else? >> It's 5:44. This meeting is adjourned.