I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. Before we hear the first case, I have some guidelines to read. This is a public hearing and we are the zoning board of adjustment for Putham County, Florida. We operate under the authority of articles 11 and 12 of the
land development code as amended. The primary responsibility of the board is to hear and decide appeals challenging final determinations made by the planning and development services under the land development code and to hear and act upon requests for variances, special use permits, non-conforming use
determinations, and preliminary development plans under the land development code. Today we have a variance. So I will read that section. A variance is a relaxation of the requirements of the zoning code in a particular case where because of unusual circumstances, a little enforcement of
our zoning code would result in undue or unnecessary hardship. The zoning code permits us to authorize variances only for height, size of structure, size of yards, and open spaces. If we grant a variance, we may impose reasonable conditions on the use of the
property, which must be satisfied if the variance is to remain valid. The standards we use in deciding whether or not to grant a variance are listed in section 45-833 of the land development code. 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 and statements to the board and not to other
people in the audience. Before speaking, we will ask each person to be recognized, come forward to the lectern, and identify his or herself by name and address. After all persons wishing to speak have been heard, we will entertain a motion from the board. This motion will be mot voted on by the board
members and become our final order. Any decision made by this board can be appealed to the circuit court. However, any appeal must be filed within 30 days after the board of adjustments has rendered the final order which is being appealed. Are there any questions? Before the first case is heard today,
all of those wishing to to speak will need to be sworn in. So, will the notary please administer the oath? >> Yes. Okay. Before we hear the first case, we need to do a roll call for a exparte communication or conflict of interest
and this variance 25-00008. [Music] Mark Fischer, >> no. >> Ron West, >> no. >> Linda Osborne, >> no. >> Willie McGee, >> no. >> Hunter Wkelman, >> no. >> Dan Dodge, >> no. >> Cole Wilkinson,
>> no. >> Okay, >> we're ready. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Uh, we shall begin with variance 25008. [Music] Uh, for the record, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. Uh the applicants are Thomas and Lauri
J. Leonard. Uh the location is 126 Lake Koma Point Road in Pomona Park on a property that is approximately 6.74 acres in size, though only 1.4 acres of that is actual land. Uh the property is zoned residential one with a future land
use of rural residential. The variance is to allow for a reduction in the front setback from 25 ft to three feet. A total of a 22 foot uh reduction of the front setback for a residential one property for to build a single family
residence. Uh the applicants are requesting the setback reduction to build a new larger home on the property and replace the existing home. Uh the lot is of a unique uh nature and shape uh being a peninsula which there are not very many of in
Putnham County. Uh it is not part of any recorded or unrecorded subdivision and it was reszoned as of last year to establish uniform R1 zoning on the property uh for reduced setbacks as before it was partially in the agriculture estate zoning district had
higher setbacks. Uh here you can see the aerial uh the property itself has an odd configuration and the land has an even otter configuration within the property. As you can see here you can see the old zoning map
where we had the agriculture estate and the R1 the green area in this property is now as yellow as the rest meaning it is now residential one. Uh the future land use, as you can see, it is rural residential.
Uh the FEMA flood zone. You'll note that the entire property is in a special flood hazard area, meaning any development will have to apply with FEMA regulations. And the wetlands, uh staff do not believe this is indicative of actual wetlands on the property. Rather, the
GIS map tends to say that any body of water is jurisdictional wetlands. Uh there are criteria for variances that need to be met for the granting or denial. Uh criteria number one is that special cons uh conditions and
circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved. Uh the unique peninsula shape as well as the limited above water land being 1.4 acres uh renders special circumstances onto this land that is not commonly seen throughout Putinham
County. Uh number two is that the special conditions and circumstances described in the previous condition uh do not result from a failure of the applicant's part. Uh the applicants have attempted to remedy this the issues with the land. Uh as mentioned before with their
reszone from last year, there is technically enough buildable land without the need for a variance. However, the amount of land available is greatly diminished from the theoretical maximum uh for an equally sized property. The loss of buildable land is not the fault of the applicants.
Uh granting the variance will not confer special privilege to the applicants. Uh granting of this uh uh that is criteria three. Granting of the variance might be considered special privilege due to the LDC wording about a 10-ft setback from the lot line.
However, there would still be general compliance with the LBC despite the significant amount of reduction as the 22- foot reduction is from the end of a 10- foot wide uh easement on the property. So, they will still be 2 uh sorry, they will still be 12 feet from
the actual property line itself. Uh literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance uh would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. This is criteria four. Uh literal interpretation is unlikely to
place undue hardship on the applicants. Uh property lights are protected in Putnham County. Denial would require the alteration or reduction of the home that is not supported by the compl comprehensive plan or the land development code. However, a home could still potentially be built on this
property. Uh granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance and the land development code. uh the granting of the variance will be mostly in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the land development code. It is unlikely
that the reduction of the front setback shall cause danger to the applicants or the area. Uh the fire marshall has made comment that that the development should not cause any undue risk to the area. Uh the variance granted is the minimum
necessary to make reasonable use of the land. This is criteria six. The requested variance is not necessarily the minimum possible to make reasonable use of the land. Variance would however provide relief from construction restrictions due to the unique characters of this property that would
otherwise be u hardship more or less. Uh it is because of all this that staff finds that the requested variance meets the majority of the criteria for the issuance of a variance in the land development code section 45-833. Staff gives the recommendation of
approval of the requested variance to allow reduction from the front setback from 25 feet to to three feet. A total of a 22 foot uh reduction on a 6.74 acre residential one zone property with the
following conditions. Condition number one is that the variance shall apply only to the main residents of the property. All other structures shall comply with the setbacks of this property for the zoning district. Condition two uh was requested
for a small amendment by the applicants. Uh initially staff had said a new easement depicting a 40 foot radius culde-sac shall be recorded and dedicated Putinham County within 80 ft of the intersection of the eastmost property line and the front property
line uh subject to the current easement. The applicants have requested that be changed from radius to diameter uh 40 foot radius to 40 foot diameter. Uh condition number three is that in accordance with land development code section 45-43
uh 3A uh the on-site sewage system be it septic tank or otherwise shall be relocated a minimum of 100 ft from the mean or ordinary high water line if it is not already located as such. Uh the applicants have also made comment with staff that they wish to uh discuss this
uh condition in particular with you. So I will turn you over to them in just a moment. Uh and condition number four is to is to ensure further protection of the lake this property is located on. The applicants owners of the property
shall comply with all regulations in land development code section 4543 including subsections six and 7 which further limit development in the waterfront buffer and require all such developments be designed, constructed and maintained in a way so so as to
minimize the adverse effect on the shoreline protection zone. Any questions? >> Questions for staff? Okay, thank you. Okay, before we proceed with the case, let's do a site visit
roll call, please. >> Mark Fischer, >> yes. >> Ron West, >> yes. >> Linda Osborne, >> yes. >> Willie McGee, >> yes. >> Hunter Wkelman, >> no. >> Dan Dodge, >> yes. >> Cole Wilkinson, >> no. Okay. The first case today is variance
25-0000008. And we have an agent, Jennifer Wilson. Would you like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. >> Good afternoon. Jennifer Wilson, 420. >> Probably need to lift that up.
>> Can y'all hear me now? >> Yeah, it's better. >> Jennifer Wilson, 4201 Bay Meadows Road, Sweet 3, Jacksonville, Florida, 32217. Okay. >> So, I am here on behalf of the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Leonard, and
they are again to reiterate, thank you very much, Michael, for your staff report, reiterate that they are requesting a variance for the front setback in order to build their new home. And I'm sure many of you are already asking why such a big home. Well, they have a family of almost 20.
The Leonards have been visiting this property since the late 70s, and it's always been his desire to have a home where the entire family, grandkids, and everybody can run around, enjoy the lake, and have a good time. So, to fit that many people, as any of you have
ever vacationed with family, y'all understand what it's like to have that many people under one roof. Um, as Michael mentioned, we do have some discussion regarding the conditions and I have an example. We are perfectly fine with the conditions as they stand
independently. However, there is a little bit of a conflict with number two and number three as they are written. Number two, we completely understand the need for an easement to give EMS, waste management, and everyone access to be able to turn around in case there was an
an emergency or get out on the road. Not a problem with that one. However, the setback at 100 ft from the main water line of this property because it is a peninsula in such an unusual configuration, 100 feet from the property line for the
septic system is almost impossible unless it is situated directly in the middle of where they are proposing the home. By state law, Florida um FAC 62E, the state allows for a 75 ft setback from a mean water line. That is also
listed in chapter 381 065 where it's allowed for 75 ft setback. If you guys will allow me, our team drew up an approximated site plan. >> Okay, don't talk other than the mic. So,
whenever you pass those out. Thank you. Whoops. As you can see, we're showing the restrictions on this property. You've got wetlands, you've got wetland buffers, you've got mean high water lines, you've got a front lot setback that which we're are trying to avoid
whatsoever by means of this variance. That's another reason we're asking for such a large reduction so we don't encroach on the water line. The only place to put that septic tank is where that little or red triangle is to kind of the southwest property of the
house. And that's at 75 ft. The only way we could meet 100 is to show exactly where that little easement is going to the very east end of the property to the right. So, unfortunately, we're at a little bit of a conundrum right now to
make both of those conditions work together. as have you guys discussed this with staff prior to now? >> Uh we discussed it with Michael yesterday and today I just got the agenda yesterday. >> There was only a brief email discussion.
Uh as far as staff is concerned, this is part of the land development code still where the land development code says that it has to be 100 feet from the mean high water line. staff doesn't necessarily have any leeway themselves as the boards would uh to make
alterations to land development code or in other words grant variances. Uh when it comes to health regulations which the septic and well is definitely more health than it is zoning. Uh that is generally handled more by the state
agency rather than the local agencies. Uh quite frankly speaking, if this was any other property, we may not even have noticed something like this just because the chance of a peninsular property which has this very odd configuration
would go mostly unnoticed for these uh more obscure parts of the land development code which all people are still bound by. We staff doesn't really have any consideration for this one way or the
other unfortunately. >> Madam Chair, >> um Mr. Graves, can you pull up on the screen so we can all look at it together? I just had one concern on the site plan she just handed us versus what we saw in the application. Similar, but the site plan map showing topography
survey of a portion. It was a DRMP at the bottom right. Uh you'll have to give me a second to >> take your time. It was in the uh it was in the agenda packet that we got. >> It was a site plan drawn by um I'm
guessing a um contractor they hired to do a site plan. Is that is that correct? >> Do you see that, Michael? >> Uh so I don't actually have access to the site plan for >> Oh, you don't have access to the site plan? Okay, sir. I'll ask um you're on behalf of the applicant, ma'am. Is that correct? >> Yes. And >> so the site plan you just gave us a
concern I have is on the location of first off where's the location at for potential future potable well or is there on one there on there currently already a potable well on the property? >> Yes, there's already a portable well >> and where's it located at in relation to that 17. >> I've got a copy of the survey here but
honestly I don't know that I could on an 8 and 1 half by 11. >> Um if you in our packet we as board members received a site plan um and you definitely have it. You submitted it. DRMP drew it at 123 Lake Ko Point Road. They reflected that there was a a well
within 5 ft of the property line. It looks like you're going to be really close on that setback on putting your septic where you want it because you have to be 75 ft not only obviously from your own well, but also from any neighboring wells. So, um it was drawn
by DRMP. Um I'll see if I can find your page number. It's in it's in the application you submitted. this one. >> Uh, yes, I believe so. Yeah, if you look in the bottom, >> that's a copy of the survey. >> That's a copy of the survey. Okay. If you look in the bottom right hand corner on that said property at 123 neighboring, you'll see there's a well
located within 5t of said property line. Do we have enough setback off of that as well? Off any neighboring wells as well. >> I honestly cannot answer that. Like I said, we just got the agenda yesterday and were informed of these conditions. >> I'm sorry. You you go ahead, ma'am. So,
we were kind of scrambling to put something together. Understood. >> There is a possibility again to relocate the septic tank a little bit northeast or a little bit north of the proposed easement again if we can go to the state regulated 75 ft restriction. >> And I'm in agreeance with you. 75 ft um
100%. But that includes obviously any neighboring wells also, >> right? Yes, sir. We are the engineering firm. >> I got you. Okay. Cool. >> The civil engineering firm. So, we are >> you can measure you can make measurements off all that. Okay. well septic. The owner is also proposing to do one of the new AWTS systems.
>> Okay. >> Uh which reduces influent, reduces footprint, has a smaller drain field, doesn't have the huge mounds or anything like that. It also adheres to DP's uh nutrient removal rules that was introduced last year. >> So I just looked environmentally less
impact with the new systems. >> I didn't mean to inter. I apologize. um on that survey copy if you look in the um it would be the directly east portion. So it's on the it's on the um po point into the house um on the lawn
side of the lake. You'll see it says pump house with well >> so that's directly opposite of the septic. The problem is again like I said the hangup that I really want to get answered is what is our setback going to be at 123. there was a well constructed there in 2017
and uh if it is that well that is their potable well according to records of um intention. So, um I think we're going to get that answered before we approve this of any type because we're ultimately giving the applicant the ability to place a potential septic tank within uh
boundary lines that would potentially conflict with a neighboring a neighboring well >> which we would make the application through the state through the health department to make sure that all of those conformed. >> Perfect. >> Madam chair. >> Yes, Mr. Dodge.
>> Thank you. Where is the current uh septic system located on the site? >> Again, please forgive me. My eyesight is not what it used to be. >> It is actually roughly about here.
>> Uh you're far away. Could you come closer, please? >> Thank you very much. which does not conform to the 100. >> Sure. Does it the 75 >> immediately? >> Okay. Uh we need to have this discussion
to where everybody is privy to what is being said. Um can you can you show the others the location please? U miss >> the location of the well as it exists now is roughly right here.
>> Uh miss my question was the septic not the >> I I'm sorry I mean the septic. >> Okay. All right. Um >> which is non-conforming to the 100 foot now that it's been there for some time. Does it does the current site septic site um
conform to a 75 foot back? >> No sir, it does not. >> And um the current home was built, I believe, in the mid70s. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. >> I assume that's the age of the existing septic.
>> Oh, yes. >> Okay. I was trying to say don't ask people in the audience. Sorry, it was the homeowner. >> That >> how many how many um bedrooms does the current home have? >> Can I ask the owner that question?
>> Okay, ask how many bedrooms does the h current house have? >> Three. >> Okay, thank you. >> And the how many bedrooms the proposed home? >> Five. >> Thank you. >> Yes, madam chair. I believe you're correct.
>> I got the signal from that. Okay. Uh Mr. Baker, Zack, would you like to chime in here? Because if they're having an issue with the 100 ft setback and
would we have to have a new um condition or does that not correspond to the the comprehensive land development plan? So, it's my um understanding and perspective that if a
state agency is the regulating and permitting authority for a specific attribute such as septic location, um if their restrictions are or if their regulations are less restrictive than
ours, uh I don't see how we would really have a defensible um argument if it were to ever be appealed. are challenged because it's ultimately the state that establishes the regulations for septic requirements.
So, we can have something locally that is more restrictive, but at the end of the day, if DO is willing to approve that septic system, um I have a feeling that a 75 foot from
the ordinary high water line would be sufficient. Anecdotally, uh, I attempted to challenge this when I was a young planner and I was told to leave it to the state agency. >> Okay. So, it would just have to be a
revision of a of a condition then that's on this as far as 100 versus 75. >> Uh, yes, ma'am. I would I mean so ultimately because DOH is separate from Putnham County uh when a building permit
comes in we just look that they've gotten their approvals from the department of health. So there's no telling how many septic systems are spread across Putham County that are within 100 foot of the ordinary high water line. Uh, and I I think that it
would be disadvantageous for us to impose it on this property um for the simple sake that they are going through this variance process when knowingly we haven't imposed it on any other waterfront property to my
knowledge. >> Okay. Well, so it can be um revised then as far as should it be revised as far as the statement since it's one of the conditions in our uh packet as far as approval? >> Um I mean so ultimately I think it would
be up to this commission as to whether or not they wanted to keep that condition or omit that condition. um if you all agree with the 100 foot requirement and I'm not so it does say shall I presume
that this language is taken directly from the code so it does say shall >> um which you know and legal ease means you will do that >> um >> but again given that this is really
truly a state's um legislation I I don't really see how we could make them do something that the state is not going to make them do. >> I understand that too, but uh I'm just curious because in the condition it says 100 ft. So as uh when we make a motion,
do we need to change that to say 75 or can we leave it like it is at 100? >> It'd be up to the board, >> okay, >> for for you guys to determine when you discuss. I believe you'll probably also be discussing condition two which staff
has recommended a 40 foot radius and the applicants and agent are recommending or requesting a 40ft diameter. >> Madame chair, uh couldn't we also state subject to the Florida Department of
Health regulations >> instead of being specific? >> You could do that as well. that satisfied? >> That would just have to be part of the motion. >> If I if I may, uh, condition 4 does also come into effect here since condition 4 is saying that they'll comply with all
parts of 453 and condition 3 is a subsection of 454 uh 403. So it just to make sure that there isn't any legal headaches or anguish later, it may be best to say 75
ft or the uh Florida Department of Health regulation uh as an amendment to condition three as opposed to just removing condition three. >> Okay? >> That way we don't uh get caught on condition four saying the same thing again. Essentially,
>> we are perfectly okay with that. >> Okay, Miss Wilson, you can continue. Are you done? I think >> you have some more. >> I think that's it. I think I've talked enough. >> Any other questions? >> Any other questions for Miss Wilson? Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. We have some speaker cards today. Mr. Tom Leonard, I think, is the property owner. So, would you like to come forward and address the board for uh give us your name and address for the record? >> Hi, Tom Leonard. Um, putting an address
is 126. >> Okay. You're going to have to raise your mic because I can't hear you. >> Tom Leonard, 126 Lake Koma Point Drive here in Putham County and then Jacksonville 1295 Bay Plantation Drive. >> Um I think you know I appreciate you guys considering all this today. I would comment for the group here. I've
actually been coming to Putnham County and this lake specifically for 49 years. I've been was invited by a high school buddy of mine back in 1976 to come, you know, vacation at his family's property on on Lake Ko and uh did that for a long
time. Then got married and brought my kids down here for four years, my four kids down here. Uh my buddy's uh family had bought property on the lake and we've just as a big family, extended family, have been enjoying the lake for a long time. Um, as my Jennifer said
earlier, I've my my children have um I now have grandchildren. Um, six, two on the way in the next few weeks and I'm sure a few more after that. So, we've got 18 people to have a family gathering and thus the desire to build a bigger home that can accommodate all of us.
>> Okay. >> What else? And I think you know the variance we're asking the existing home that's there. Um the proximity of that home to the property lines is no different than what we're asking for in the variance. There's just new rules obviously over time. Uh the safety tank
as you asked earlier today is in a place that's not within those limits. Uh so we're willing to you know use the newest latest technology put it within the new limits of the 75 ft and create the easement for the public and EMS services etc.
>> Okay. Any questions for Mr. Le? Thank you, sir. >> You bet. >> We have another speaker in favor today. Brian, is it Baldwin? >> Please state your name and address for the record. >> Brian Baldwin. Uh, Lake Ko address is
120 Lake Como Point Road, Lake Ko. Uh, I also live in Jacksonville, so I have a home that's two lots over from his and I've known Tom since early 80s. I've had the house in uh, Putham County, Lake
Como, since ' 89. I'm in the same boat as he is, not quite to his extent of having kids and grandkids all raised down here. And that's why we have homes down here. So, I'd like to be in the position where I have to build a bigger home, which my house is minuscule compared to his, and probably have to go
and cheat off his house at some point in time. But uh uh I don't think the variance is an issue con considering what he's trying to do with the house. I want to see the house. I think it's going to be beautiful. Uh my kids will play with his kids. Well, my grandkids
will play with the kids. So, it benefits us and and that's why I think it's a great idea. So, >> okay. >> Any other questions? >> Questions? >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, I only have two speaker cards in favor. So, um, anyone else
wishing to come forward and speak in favor? Okay, I have one card in uh for opposition. John McKenzie, please come forward. >> John McKenzie, 123 Lake Point Road. The address. >> Okay.
>> I He's my neighbor. >> Okay. We need to speak up so we can hear. Okay. 123 Lake Ko Point Road. John McKenzie is my name. >> I got you. Okay. >> And what is my objection? >> Yes. >> I bought my house about a year before he
did and we had it surveyed and the survey showed that my property went two feet into his house. A year later, he bought the house. He had a survey done the same results that the property line was two feet into his
house. Recently he had it reserveyed and the survey uh brought it about 10 feet closer to my house and I don't know and I asked did the uh surveyors how could that happen and they said they started from the other side of the
property or something uh and then it moved the property line to the left of his house. Um, so that uh and I said that's okay, but I I he's going to build like a 6,000 square foot house um on the point and uh he wants it wants it to be
three feet from like I I don't understand how you like I don't think he's recorded the uh survey. I have the surveys here if you want to take a look at them. We're not surveyed
>> and uh so like so he had it reserveyed so I don't know if that's correct or not. I don't know. It's It hasn't been recorded here in the in the county. And so there's a discrepancy between the property line, my my owner property line and his. Um I and for the 20 years that
we've had the houses, it's I said it's okay, you know, I can live with that. And um but now he wants to build this big house and he wants to build it. Uh here's my you know, his house is here. There is a there is a survey marker um
in the driveway that that he now contends is his property line and he wants to build the house three feet from that and that's just really close to my house. You know, he's offered to buy pieces of property from me, but my wife doesn't want to sell it and I don't really want to sell it. So, I object to
that. And I also didn't know about uh the septic system, but he he I think he designed the house before he looked at the land. And he should have looked at the land first and then designed the house. Um, and uh, one of the solutions
I'm I'm thinking is that if if he builds posts like has concrete pillars put into the flood zone area, he can still build his house and have it further away and put the septic possibly under the house because it'll be up off the ground.
So anyway, I object because it's just too close to, you know, and then uh, his septic system is pretty close to my to my well. I had my first well ran out of water. So I had another well put in and it's probably 75 feet from his septic system. Um but if he does what he wants
to do, it's going to be even closer. His septic will be closer to the way you were talking about that earlier. I didn't have that as a concern before, but um now I do. So I object to the the three feet uh of uh variance. It's too close to my house.
>> Any questions for Mr. Um, I have one question. Um, you had, uh, in the reference to your whole survey issue, there was a boundary line agreement that you signed in 2006. Was that on the same piece of property that we're in reference to? >> When I bought the house from the the the
house that he owns now, I bought it from the original owner. Uh, her husband developed that point there. um when we had it surveyed, she signed a paper stating that, you know, she's accepting that the property line is in her house and that
uh we wouldn't make her move their house or do anything like that. So, and I was okay with that. And and then he bought the house a year later and they had it reserveyed and it was the same situation. And uh I'm okay with that. you know that like uh it's probably from
the from where his current where he he just where he said he had it reserveyed there's a you know a marker a metal marker there and uh his house is probably 10 feet away from that marker and uh and I don't want it to be three
feet away from the marker even like I'm okay with that I don't really understand it you know tell you the truth about the the survey part so he said he had it res-erveyed but it's not filed So, he's who knows, you know.
I don't know what to tell you. I don't understand it. >> I have a one more question for you. On the survey I'm looking at, your new well is located where in relation to your property shaped like a piece of pizza or like a triangle,
>> right? >> Um, is it closer to his house? Is it closer towards uh Lake Ko Drive itself? In which direction is it located on your property? >> My Well, his house is here. The property line goes down like this and my house is here and it's about probably five feet
from the property line closer to the lake. >> Got it. So, your well is located directly adjacent to his property line, 5t off the new one you had constructed, >> correct? Okay. >> Any other questions? So, I think he should redesign the house to fit the
land and then they can put the septic system probably under the house and it can retain the, you know, so I I'm willing to go 10 or 15 feet from the property line, but not three feet. It's, you know, and plus there's a there's a
who knows actually where the property line is. According to these two surveys, it's two feet into his house and then there's another spot that's unrecorded that's nobody owns. And when he when he bought it, he said, "Well, what do you want to do with it?" I said, "Well, just leave it alone. Just split it, you know,
just so that's how it's been for the last 20 years." >> Okay. >> Mr. Dodge, >> which property line is it that's that may have changed? >> Well, his house is here. His house is
here. I I if I could show you on the piece of paper, it's a lot easier. >> Sure. For you want me to show you? Yeah. Um, >> Madam Chair, I don't know about communication happening without him at the mic. Is there any way you can pull that up? >> I was going to say you can't
>> and can Mr. Dre, can you allow him to have a screen? Mr. Dodge, could you look at your screen and use the same? >> Sure. Thank you. >> Sorry. Screen. >> Yeah. Is it that we can >> Is his screen up or can he use your screen to show the individual what he's referencing? Mr. Dodge,
>> I don't believe there's a way for the staff to grant his screen. uh it is shaking their head no. So I would have to assume the answer is no. >> Although I think the best bet we'll just do >> this survey. This map survey shows what
my house is over here. Here's his house. This is the the correct property line goes two feet into his house. >> Uh if you'll turn your attention to what is on the screen right now. The shared property line is the uh side property line that's on the south southern end.
uh the one that's kind of in the rectangle on east side there. >> So it's the property line on on his property that is makes up the uh left of the triangle. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> That would appear to be the case. Yes,
sir. >> Thank you. >> Staff, I have a question. Do you guys look at the most recent survey to determine the the bound the boundaries and the and the where the property actually
>> whenever we do any variance special use permit development review committee any application by any applicant we use whatever survey is provided by the applicant. Uh we do not use older surveys as most of the time we don't have older surveys. Uh so we only use
whatever documentation is provided to us. >> Okay. So what is the most recent date on that survey? >> Uh I could not tell you off the top of my head. I would have to turn you over to the applicant's agent again as they were the ones to provide us that documentation.
>> Madam chair, if I may. >> If I may. Uh the the survey that Mr. uh Wkelman cited earlier, the map showing topographic survey that was completed by DRMP is dated February 27, 2025.
>> Okay. And that's the survey that you used as far as um to determine the boundary lines and stuff. >> Um well, I would I would turn that back over to that question back over to Michael, but I presume that this is the survey he used. That's correct. We used
that and the boundary survey that they provided which was in the same packet. It should be in your staff report. >> Okay. >> And when was your survey completed? >> One is a mine was done in 2005 2005 and
his was done in 2006. And they they were the same results. >> He just had another survey done and then he said he had one done from the air. Um >> is that right? Uh, turn Miss McKenzie, talk to us. >> Okay. Then he told me that he had one
done from the air. I don't know how he did that, but there's a conflict in the survey. Um, that survey and this survey. So, who like I don't know if it's his is certified. Is it registered? Mine is certified and registered. Um, and the
point is I just don't want him to be three feet away from I'm I'm willing to go to where that uh where the uh where it currently is on that map where on his survey there's a marker that was it was there when I bought the house and that's all well I always thought it was the
real one but these two surveys say no it's not >> correct madam chair >> did you say the survey was done in 2025 >> yes ma'am that is correct the one that's in your packet was done February 27th, 2025. >> Okay. >> And I talked to the surveyors who did
the survey and I said, "Well, how come how could you move that?" And they said, "Well, they started from the other direction." >> Okay. We can't get into what how they the as far as surveys were conducted. That's not what we're here for. So, if there's any issues with the survey,
that's something that we can't have anything we don't have anything to do with. So, >> chairman, may may I make a comment? >> Yes, sir. >> And it's it's Michael, I'd like your opinion on when I look at the uh
proposal and see the existing structure compared to the uh property line in question. Mhm. >> Um and I I look at the new proposed structure. It appears that the new structure
uh building uh outline is further away from the um property line in question. >> Uh that is correct. Uh what it is is the road the lake ko point road it is a
private easement. That means whenever we are dealing with the front setback, we take it from the edge of the easement and it is a 20 foot wide easement with 10 feet both on the applicant's property and on the uh current commoder's property. Uh because of that, the
setback reduction would be from 25 ft from the edge of the easement down to 3 feet from the edge of the easement, which would mean that they would still be 13 feet away from the actual property line. At least according to the survey, >> I'm okay with that.
And in fact, the new structure is further away. >> Correct. Uh the currently existing structure, if memory serves right, is approximately 4 feet from the side property line, which has a normal setback of 10 ft. So they would be
technically uh they would no longer be encroaching on the side setback. They would only be encroaching on the front setback and they would still retain 13 feet of front of uh distance from the actual property line itself. Okay. So, so if you look on on your
survey there, you see the house and then there's a there's a driveway or a concrete slab. >> Yes. >> And the property line the the property line that the new property line from 2025 is right at the edge of that concrete
um slab. >> I see that, sir. So, his house isn't going to be three feet from that. It's going to be 13 feet from that. And basically the house is going to be in the same place it was before, >> more to the north. But that appears to
be correct. >> Okay, I'm okay with that. >> Uh, one other thing that I think is uh pertinent to mention is if Lake Como Point Road had been a public countym as opposed to a private easement, uh, then this variance would be the equivalent of
asking for a 12-oot setback reduction as opposed to a 22 foot setback reduction. uh we quite frankly wouldn't even be here. It would be done administratively. >> Okay. >> So, rest rest assured that from from where the his new property line is,
it'll be 13t that way because I never used I always felt weird, you know, like my property is two feet into the house. I don't want to go in his driveway. I don't park in his driveway and you know, I always left that alone. But, uh, if it's 13 feet away from that, that's I'm okay with that.
>> Okay. >> And that's the case. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss McKenzie. >> Madam Chair, I have a question for staff and for Zach. Zach, what's your take on the comment about um this is a easement
and not a county maintained road and then the requirement of us making them have the culde-sac at the end. I mean, is does that weigh their way if it was a county maintained road versus if it's a culus or if it's a easement? Do you have any feelings about that? >> Um, so I guess the best way to answer
your question is if we were to see a new subdivision, whether it was a recorded subdivision or an administrative subdivision, we would require uh the applicants to provide a cold to sac on that property. Um, and ultimately it's
for uh EMS, fire, rescue vehicles to access the property and perform a turnaround maneuver. Um, but at the end of the day, if there's a fire or an emergency at the end of that road, they're going to go to that emergency. So, the easement is a requirement of the
code, but also our firefighters and EMS folks, they don't know where that easement is located when they get to the property. Any other questions? >> Where did the number come from on we're requesting a 40 foot radius and they
want to do 40 foot diameter. Where did our number come from? Do they come from um EOC? >> So the Yeah, the 40 foot radius is a requirement for um driveways serving two residential
structures. Um if it was a um like a a road then all we require is a 66 foot wide ride ofway and an 80 foot diameter in terms of the ride ofway that is
conveyed not the improved area. >> Any other questions? >> Any other questions for staff? >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie. >> Thank you. I'm going to give the applicant a chance to if they want a rebuttal of any kind
to come back and address the board or are you satisfied with the way things >> Okay. >> Okay. Don't >> just just >> wait wait wait till you get to the mic so we can have your name please again.
>> Tom Leonard again. >> Okay. We need I'll have a difficulty hearing today. I don't know if that or what, but the system. >> All right, I'll speak up. Oh, there we go. Now it's working. >> There we go. That's >> okay. Tom Leonard, the applicant again, and I just wanted to reaffirm what Michael said. The the three-foot setback
is from the 10- foot easement. So, the distance from the property line is 13 feet, >> which he's finding acceptable. Um, and the new home will be actually no closer than the existing structure that's already there.
So, It doesn't sound like we have an objection from my neighbor at this point. So, it is confusing. It took me a long time to figure it out. You know, the distance from a property line versus distance from a private easement. And then um I guess the only other comment
is just, you know, hopefully we all can work together to figure out the u the septic. I mean, I want to put in the most advanced uh most capable system. We just have to find a place to put it. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. L?
>> I have a comment, Madam Chair, I'd like to make to Zach. Um, Zach, where I'm at on this is on the septic issue. I know that we've leaned back on the fact that this is a state uh issue with the 75 ft, but you know, in our um in our mission
statement, it does say that we're to create undue hardship on other individuals. and uh the gentleman directly next door at 123 based on this site plan. Unfortunately, we don't have a measurement showing that. My issue with that is yeah, it all falls back on
the health department, but ultimately if let's say we approve this variance um and then they get down the road and the health department says I mean because according to this site plan that's not even close to 75 feet from the neighboring well. Now we've approved a variance. We've made it conforming. But
now they have to go through a whole another step of process is like uh a potential variance from the state which being in that field I can tell you is very rigorous and it is not fun to do. Um I'd like to see and legal you can tell
me if I'm wrong, Mr. Perry, if um I don't like to overstep our bounds as a board, but that could potentially create an undue hardship on the gentleman next door because now he's being kind of included in this issue because we allowed this variance to occur. We're
pretty much agreeing to this site plan and saying, "Well, yeah, we said they could put it there even though DO says, well, now you can't meet your 75 ft setback off of existing wells," which is what I'm concerned about along with the high water line, too. But existing wells, it's a 75 ft setback minimum. Um,
there's not a lot of vertical separation. So, horizontal separation across the ground, the vertical separation to the aquifer there is only around 70 to 90 ft, give or take, depending on where you're at on that point. So, ultimately, um, you know, our line, you getting real close to a
potential open source of water. Um, I wish that in this we had something that showed reference points to setbacks from septic tanks to neighboring wells also because of how tight these lots are. Um because
according to the survey done that was in our packet. It's tight. I mean I I can't I don't have a measuring or ruler to do a you know scale to uh measure but um I'd be willing to bet that it's less than 50 ft where the proposed septic is because the existing septic is pointing
off the front of the existing house. the new septic is going to be, you know, close to the property line. And the problem is the new well he just had drills only 5 feet off the property line. Um, and that I feel like is an issue not only to him, but the upper Flidian aquifer, which is the type of
well the gentleman has, um, serves, you know, thousands of people. It's all interconnected. I do have a bit of an issue with it, and I don't want to see this thing kind of get jammed up because we approved it here and then later down the line. So, what I'd like to see is um I'd like to see potentially us get a
measurement on that if for some reason we decided to um table this item. What would happen to this case? What would happen to this? Neither approve nor deny. What would happen to their case? U before we do that, I wanted to try and find out what's their timeline going to
be. So, um, we've we've seen some, uh, some applications tabled before and Jack, >> could you get closer to the mic? Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. We've seen some applications tabled before. Uh, and essentially, we
would we would more or less just leave it as an undetermined until we get the documents back from the applicants that the board has requested and then from then we would just schedule it for the next available public hearing. So, if they can get the documents in, you know, six days, then we could come back next
month. Um, but if it's going to take them, you know, a few weeks to get boots on the ground and produce a document, then it may be into December or even January. Um, but that would be completely up to the board on how to proceed.
>> The reason I'm going that direction is we went, you know, very indepth on this site plan. And um correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing even though they're right next door, DOH has probably not been in talks about this project. Is that correct? Or have they spoken to our department about that? >> I don't believe we did any outreach to
do on this request. And I know it's a very particular case and in no way am I um trying to bash one individual or another, but I think reaching out to on these tight lots, you know, when we're doing these applications, I know it's maybe not in our standard checklist, but on these tight lots, we run into issues
like this where, you know, here Dun Creek's another issue, which luckily they're going septic to or septic to sewer. Um but ultimately we get issues like this where we're going to approve a variance but then they're going to get down the road and realize oh no we didn't realize that our offset
measurement from septic to well is going to be you know too little. So um what I'd like to see is is um uh that. So with that I'll conclude and see if any board has any other comments. >> Any comments from anybody else?
I I I have an issue from the standpoint of, you know, is it going to uh infringe on Mr. McKenzie's uh well septic tank, you know, it just iffy. So, um I'll I'll let Miss Wilson come back up and and she
can to rebuttal. Mr. Wkelman, that is just a concept of where we we were just showing an illustration. That is not the exact proposed location of the septic tank at this point in time. We have not even
measured that out. We haven't gone to do yet. That was just literally done at the 12th hour yesterday to see if we could possibly even make it conform in a 75 ft setback. So, no by any means is this the final site plan. We still have to do a
drainage plan. We've still got some work to do. This was just kind of like I said a last minute one of my guys said this is what it could be but by any means is this the final site plan that's going to do. >> I understand completely and by no means
am I trying to create additional undue hardship on the applicant by requesting things that you know uh we don't typically see because we don't typically see this type of variance all the time, right? Um >> but ultimately you've went in depth pretty far on the site plan as best you
could. Um, do you see where I'm coming from as a board member, how your site plan and your your where you have your sept currently placed, you could view it as, hey, this is where it's going to go. And also, just looking at the site, number one, even trying to get 75 ft
off. So, let's say you shift it to the front of the house. >> Um, right now it's less than 75 ft according to yourself and the applicant. So, you can't shift it to the front because then you would be less than 75 ft off the high water mark. um if you shifted it to the other side of the house over by the um over by the uh
culde-sac or in that general vicinity, it's your distance from home to um waterfront setback is only 50 feet from the corner of the house. So ultimately the way I'm looking at this is and I know you're saying that's not 100% where it would go. That's the only place you can put it um according to the site plan
and the way that I'm viewing all the setbacks, >> right? So, you run out of room ultimately on your high water mark um your high water line on there setbacks on any point of one house that you get to. And I completely understand the applicant's hardship. They're trying to
build a house. I'm in no way against it, but as a board, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of what best way can we make this work. So, what I'd like to see happen is um again, I want that number. I want to know where that septic tank's going. I wanted to see you talk with DO
um for two reasons. Number one, that way we're unformed as a board to make sure we're not creating undue hardship on the environment or other people because of the vertical separation between the neighboring septic and the gentleman's well at 123. >> And then also to make sure that you've
got a little bit more duck in a row in regards to you've now got to go to do and try and get their approval. >> Correct. >> You got to do that anyway, >> right? >> So my point is I'd like to see you talk with them whether it be an informal or whether it be with staff as well since they're aware of I mean, they are just
right next door, fortunately. Um, have a discussion with them about your issue that you're experiencing and see if we can get a game plan down that better suits this because right now there's too many uncertainties that ultimately could create issues for the community and also for um discharge of sewage into the
aquifer because of the setback issues you're going to have from neighboring wells. >> Okay. Okay. Question. If this is tabled, how soon can you get those documents in order to be able to possibly get on the
agenda for next month? >> Honestly, I can't answer that question. We haven't even gotten into system design yet. We haven't made any contact. Again, this would condition was just placed before us yesterday. So we kind
of scrambled to try to get something the condition changed to the state standard which we obviously knew we would have to meet but to be able to get all these documents we have to go into a full system design to know how big exactly that system is going to be so we can lay out setbacks. >> So you keep saying that you only
received this yesterday. Um I got this a week ago or something. >> I wish we had we would have had a little bit more time but you can ask Michael. >> Madam chair if I may. Uh about two weeks ago when we had finalized the staff report and sent it to the applicant at
the same time our computer system was crashing on us uh our email system was not sending emails properly to the to many different people and we only found out weeks later. Uh in fact I would not have sent them a copy yesterday if they
had not reached out to me because I was under the assumption that they had received it two weeks ago. >> It was entirely a technical error there. And madame chair, if it helps kind of give any sort of enlightening on this
topic, uh if we got the documents by November 3rd, we would still have more than 14 days needed to uh mail out the notice and then is it 10 days for a newspaper ad and they run Thursday?
They run on Thursday. >> You're asking the newspaper, it has to be posted, right? I mean, >> it's got to be Well, the signs are that's a we can do that the day we get the stuff. Um, but if we get it on the 3, we would have at least 14 days for
the mailed notice and then we would have at least 10 days. We'd run an ad on the 8th of November, which is a Saturday. Um, so we would be able to achieve the November 19th be uh zoning board of adjustment meeting. >> Mr. Okay.
>> Yeah, I'm fine with that. Um, other question for Mr. Perry. Mr. Barry, >> um, when tableabling this motion, um, and if you've been hearing my reasons for it, ultimately I, uh, I don't want to create
further undue hardship, do you believe, without influencing my vote in any way, I'm not trying to gain that from you. Do you think that I'm being unreasonable in any legal aspect of making a request of the applicant to provide further information to this board?
Mr. Winkkelman, you know, with all due respect, that's really not a legal question. >> Okay, Mr. Perry, we can't hear you either. >> I said, uh, with all due respect, that's that's really not a legal question. You're a board member. You know what
your responsibilities are. You have to take it upon yourself to make whatever decisions you think are right. And of course you have other board members here that can um discuss it with you but but what you've asked me is not a legal question.
>> Understood. Thank you sir very much. >> Ask a question. >> Okay Mr. Fish >> I'm not sure. I I don't know who to who to uh put it toward but >> talk to Mike. >> Doesn't uh doesn't the state control that? I mean don't they come out and
look at where the other wells are? I don't know. >> So the that is correct. It is uh Department of Health depending on the application. It could be Department of Valor Protection, Department of Environmental Protection if it's for uh public supply. Michael Graves will chime in in just a second on that. But
ultimately right now, we haven't the applicant hasn't had a discussion with Department of Health to determine um if they can even gain the proper setbacks from neighboring wells is my concern. >> Okay. Then uh Mike, a question for you. Is is it
Is that something we should even be looking at because the variance is not has nothing to do with that? Does it >> Mark? What you what you know what you have to look at is what has been asked of you today
and if you can do that um then you can take this. Of course, it's up to the board. The board can table something for a particular reason. But if you're intending to, I mean, what the applicant has done is come in and ask for a
specific remedy to whatever the problem, you know, to whatever he's come to you with the petition. But, uh, as far as I mean, as I sit here today, I don't know if the Department of Health is involved in this at all. I don't know if they've been to the property or not. All I know
is that this board is responsible for what has been given to them. you know, the problem that they've been asked to address. So, I mean, but it doesn't mean you can't table it, but obviously it's going to require some sort of discussion with
the board members amongst themselves. >> If I may, uh, I sorry, uh, I do fear we may be getting a bit into overreach as has been, uh, brought up by several of the board members here. Uh ultimately when it comes down what it comes down to
today is the applicants are asking for a reduction in their setbacks uh more than anything and there have been cases in the past where uh certain developments need to be approved both by the county and by a state agency such as department of health. A very common one we get
administratively is largers sized uh boat houses uh which of course you need to get permission from St. John's Water Management District and Department of Health to build any kind of boat house, especially larger ones. 90% of the time, the applicants will come to the state
first and then to staff later, mainly because they don't realize we have a 600 square foot cap. Uh however, there have been instances in the past where they have come to staff first to get an expansion uh permit while they're either working with the state independently to
get the permission to build that from the state or they do it after us because they for whatever reason have chosen to do that because they know they want a specific design and they know there's no point in bothering the state and going through with all that rigomearroll if
they can't even get the county to allow them to do it. Uh strictly speaking, it's not placing additional hardship on the applicant to say, "Okay, this is still contingent on what the state ultimately will let you do here." Ultimately, it's saying, "Okay, you've
gotten permission from agency 1. Agency 2 still needs to weigh in." It's very similar to how development review committee works for commercial developments where you can get through everything with development review for your zoning, your health, your fire
marshall. uh but you still have to go through the building department after DRC and that they usually don't say anything at the time of development review because there's nothing for them to say there. It's not placing undue hardship. It's just okay, we're sending
you off on to the next step. Uh staff does not have the ability to regulate health and safety and septic tanks uh strictly speaking because it is ultimately a state level condition. The board doesn't necessarily have that
either unfortunately. Uh what we can however do is state is alter condition three there as we had mentioned before to say that it shall be located 75 ft away from the mean high water line or whatever the state allows for. Uh and at
that point it is completely out of the board's hands. it is out of the county's hands and it comes down to the applicants filing the proper paperwork with the state as any other applicant at any other point would have to do. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
>> Okay. At this point, we'll close it to the public and open it up for board motion and discussion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move we approve variance number V25-
0000008 as it meets the criteria for a variance is required by section 45833 of the Putnham County Land Development Code with the conditions recommended by staff. Uh the one condition that I would like to modify in my motion is condition
number three reducing it from a 100 ft to um 75 ft to allow for the um variance to be approved. Authorize the chair to sign the final order. >> Is that 75 ft or what the state will allow for?
>> So the state um so you were referencing earlier I see what you're saying. you were referencing earlier about uh what the state would allow for. So it would kind of delete we need to kind of delete number three um altogether and almost make it where it it's it's left up to the department of
health is what you're recommending. >> Uh relocated to a minimum of 75 ft or state allowanced equivalent. >> So madam chair um I'd like to amend my motion. I move we approve V25-00008
as it meets the criteria for variance as required by section 45833 of Putham County Land Development Code um with the conditions recommended by staff um striking um number three um to state
that the um setback is to be 75 ft or the equivalency allowed by Department of Health uh state officials. Authorize the chair to sign the final order. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and second to
approve variance 25-00008 with the correction on condition number three. So, is there any further discussion? >> Is there going to be any discussion about condition number two as well? >> I'm sorry. >> Was there going to be any discussion
about condition number two as well? The applicants have requested that go from a 40 foot radius to a 40 foot diameter. >> Uh, no. In my motion, there was no >> no. >> And I'm not amending that. So, um, >> very well. >> Yep. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Further discussion? We have a motion to approve. So, all in favor, please indicate by raising your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All oppose. Okay. Motion carries 70. There is a 30-day appeal process. So
with all of this that's been discussed today, please work closely with staff and congratulations and good luck. >> Okay, the next thing on the agenda is old business. Do we have anything to discuss?
>> New business. [Music] >> Well, Madame Chair, I can't remember the last time we got to see you guys. Um, I want to say it was in June if I'm not mistaken. And um, I just, well, I don't like to,
you know, toot my own horn, but Mr. Helms resigned in the beginning of July. >> No. >> Um, well, he's he's still a good buddy. I have lunch with him frequently. Um, he went to the school board to pursue what his passion was and what he loved to do,
and no one can fault him for that. Uh, subsequently I was offered the position of the executive director of development services. So I have fulfilled Mr. Helm's position and I have made it through the ranks here in Putham County. So, but
that's pretty much the only new business that I got, but I wanted to advise you all so you know, I guess the point of contact should you have any issues. >> Okay. And also in new business, uh, well, good luck in your new position,
too. Uh, new business. We have a new board member, uh, Cole Wilkinson. Welcome aboard. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? >> We have another one that wasn't able to attend. Mr. Michael Rburn. >> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah. Just we got two >> two new ones. >> Two new ones. Yes, ma'am. >> Sounds good. Okay. The next thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes for June I think 14th. >> June 18th. Everybody had a chance to read them?
Move they be approved as read. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion second to approve the minutes for June 18th, 2025. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. Motion carries. Anything else to be brought before the board. >> Can we have an
>> motion to adjurnn, Madam Chair? Second. >> We stand adjourned.