##VIDEO ID:5Nt95xuKv7g## [Music] [Music] e [Music] for [Music] h [Music] e [Music] for [Music] [Music] I got shoes shoes Grand [Music] e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e the August 15 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I could please have you silence any audible devices that you may have and if you could please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all good morning everyone I would like to thank everyone for joining us this morning and um Miss Tucker could I please have a roll call good morning members member Craig present member Shelly here member Costa here member Patterson here member sixma here chair mils here and our County chair representative is currently vacant okay thank you Miss Tucker uh we do have a minutes from the June 2024 meeting and the July 18th 2024 meeting is there any discussion on those minutes hearing none I'll entertain a motion um just I'll make a motion uh I can enter both at the same time correct okay yes you can uh I'll make approval for amendments uh on minute that's June 20th and July 16th to be approved that's July 18th July 18th yeah yeah July 18th okay amended okay I got a motion on the floor to approve the minutes for June 20th 2024 and July 18th 2024 from Mr sixma and second from Mr Costa any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay if anyone would like to speak for against any of the cases being heard today if you could please fill out a form at the back of the dis and hand it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left here and uh we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit and after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the Commissioners may have and at this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair and this is for members of the audience that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone Real Property from one classification to another puring to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and do not constitute a final hearing new evidence may be introduced at the County Council public hearing decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action subject to an appeal to the County Council and what this means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the County Council public hearing on the appeal an agreed party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body hearings by this body on rezonings special exceptions and variances are Quasi judicial in nature meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral written or demonstrative evidence presented their decisions on these cases must be based on compet substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion thank you Mr chair thank you Mr Sor and while on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any expart Communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quasi judicial matter and I'll start with my immediate right with Miss Craig I have none none none none none and I have none okay we do have a request to for a continuance on ordinance 0244 from staff U Miss Miss Smith would you like to comment on that yes sir we'll this ordinance needs a little bit more work and it will be um scheduled next month we'd like to continue it till September 19th okay somebody like to make a motion for me please I'll make a motion that we continue uh ordinance 0 02 24-4 till the what was it September September 19 September 19th meeting second okay I got a motion on the floor to continue 0244 to for our next meeting of September the 19th for Mr CA and a second for Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay we're going to move right into our new business so Miss Shell if we can get it started please yes sir case number v- 2455 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property okay thank you Miss shelle Miss mcer I mean Miss Ray this one's yours good morning the applicant is seeking variances to complete a lot split and resolve code violations uh variances 1 through three are for an existing single family residence variance one is to reduce the East front yard from 25 ft to 19.7 Ft variance two is to reduce the north front yard from 25 ft to 19.9 Ft variance three is to reduce the South Side yard from 8 ft to 5.9 ft excuse me um variances four and five are for an existing carport variance four for the East front yard from 25 ft to 9.7 ft variance five is to reduce the north front yard from 25 ft to 6.7 ft variant six is to reduce reduce the north side yard from from 8 ft to 4.1 ft for an existing wood deck and variant seven is to reduce the South Side yard from 5 ft to 1.5 ft for an existing metal shed the applicants purchased the property in March of 2022 in December of 2022 a code complaint was filed and code violations were issued um currently the pro um the property is developed with two single family residences two accessory structures and two metal sheds a subdivision exemption to split the lot and to create two legal Parcels was proposed as a resolution to the violations applicants applied for the subdivision exemption in May of 2023 and a notice of intent was issued pending the Varian requests to the existing buildings staff's recommendation for variances 1 2 3 and six for approval as it met five of the five criteria and variances four five and S recommendation for denial as it failed one of the five criteria should the PC find that the applicant has provided competent stantial evidence to support approval of the variances there are six conditions provided for consideration I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present good morning if you come forward and state your name and address for the record please good morning my name is Jennifer I'm from eer law my address is 508 North Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne Florida 32835 okay you've heard the staff report is there anything you like to add to that yes I would like to add to that please um just to give you some background information on this property um this property lot is very unique it has it's a weird it's a angled corner lot property um there isn't a lot of uh Records or history on every single structure that was uh built in this on this property my client received it from a beneficiary from a trust the trustee who initially owned all this property owned it since I want to say hold on I have that here they own they owned it since 1989 so before that I'm not sure what structures were there before the original owner had it she put in a trust it was transferred to her daughter her dad only owned it for about 2 years and then she sold it now my client now owns it um when she purchased it she wasn't aware of these code violations she just thought you know there's really nice lot has really nice buildings on it um and of course there was some uh code violations so we were um we H we were hired to represent her um majority of the variances are part of a lot split that we have submitted an application for because there's too many um uh dwelling units on the lot right so we have to split the Lots in two so there's only one dwelling unit on um each lot so obviously it's going to occur some issues with setbacks and so what this is why we need the multiple variances I did sit down and have a meeting with the county so we can discuss this lot because of the various issues and moving forward the best plan was to split the lot and apply for these variances according to my client um based on the history of um the carport cuz I know the carport is one of the variances that um they the county believes this is not in the um didn't meet the criteria it is it is our understanding that at some point there was no paved Road and part of the paved Road was part of the property of the owner the previous owner and when the that road was paved is when they took some of her yard which caused the carport to be so close to the pave Road there's no record of it you know like like the county said there's um there's a lot of structures here majority of the um permits we found were for fencing I was able to locate the permit for the second structure which is the two floor and on the permit it does show that the carport and the little um on variant 7 the little shed was there and to give you some background information on the shed the shed is not really a shed it's more of a cover there uh inside that um shed is a the water well and there's also a sprinkler system and there is a generator that's all that covers um that's that's covering there's no there's no shed there's no actual storage in there pretty much like a cover um there's no record that it was constructed in 1995 or 1997 so it's really hard to say whether it could have been in compliance with the ordinance at that time um again all these structures have been on this property for over 20 years and not once has there been any violations or you know complaints when looking at all the conditions whether one if the property has a special condition I believe um all of the structures all the variances here meet that requirement this is a unique lot as I mentioned before it's it's been um on like in this condition for 20 plus years the shape of it we don't know what ordinance it passed um ordinance were in place when any of these uh structures were actually put on the property due to all the issues with um the record keeping I I believe um I think when I initially spoke to County some permitting were processed through the city some through the county at some time and that's why there was missing records I did have to make a public records request just to find the one permit um when it comes to special condition and circumstances that do not result in action of the applicant again my my client purchased this property as is she has not added to the property she has not taken away this is how she received it and again everything has been on here for 20 plus years right um when it comes to uh let's see here uh the element of we um the minimum requirement we're not asking for anything more anything less the uh we were able to get a survey and in the survey we were able to measure the exact amount of feet and inches needed to um comply with the variants the minimum requirements she's not asking for anything more nothing less this is what this is the only thing we're asking for and this would not deprive anyone else from um enjoying their property you know there's similar Lots in the area that have structures and my client would have to suffer an undue burden to bring down the carport bring down the shed make any changes to the land because these structures have been there for 20 plus years um again you know these were these structures were here permits were submitted to the county and they were the county was aware that there was a shed that there was a carport that there was um this little apartment on the side that is no longer an apartment um and so the county was aware they never ever brought a red flag to our client or to any of the prior owners again I don't know what was going on at that time it's really hard to say because the record isn't clear um so my client's just asking for the variance approval for these seven um seven variances in order for us to um pull the pull the uh get approval the lot split and pull permits for and all the structures that do not have permitting and validate everything that's on the property standing today okay any questions for the applicant Mr cost uh good morning uh before I before I have a question for her I'll have a quick question for staff uh I don't see it on here typically it is the setbacks on this is what front front yard backyard side yards please so it is um zoned Urban single residential R4 um so the front yard setback is 25 ft and the side yard setb is um 20t combined with a minimum of 8 feet on any one side minimum of what 8T 8T yes sir on one side thank you um this is a corner lot you have two front yards technically yeah heard the code right so my question is have you have you looked at the package that they put together here yes I have and have you looked at the staff recommended conditions on the on page uh six and you're in agreement with all of those page six of the of the report oh sorry I'm looking at the wrong time yeah page six of 19 yes sorry it's 19 Pages yes I'm aware of the recommendations and you're okay with all those um yes if this was a um except for the denial of variant for five and seven well this is in in the event that they're all approved that you're you're okay with all those conditions absolutely all right that's what I need to know thank you thank you okay any other questions for the applicant okay we do have a public participation on this case so after they spoke I will give you an opportunity for rebuttal okay thank you okay Mr Richard uh MOSI good morning sir if I could get your name and address for the record yes sir uh Richard mski 369 Ralph Avenue okay sir you would like to comment on this case yes um well the question is is where will they put a septic system when they subdivide this property because they're all on septic right and the challenge we have in this neighborhood is you probably heard in Ian we all got pretty flooded out right so by subdividing this property you're actually increasing the density of of the houses in the area right so that's kind of a challenge for us as well and I understand where the problems are probably with the permits because the city was handling them for a while and then the county took them back and probably our permits with the city for what was built there uh cuz that's the same way with my property too when city was handling and permitting it one time um so that's that's the concern we have is is the density of the of the of the because all the hous Lots there are a third of an acre bigger so you realize this is just for what is existing correct sir and this yes sir so to it wouldn't increase it any further than what is already there well right now it's a single family residence when you subdivide the lot it's going to be two single family residences that would increase the density of of of the of residences on that property okay and where do you do you live across the street I see it's on Ru Avenue there yes if you look out my front door you'll see that the compound okay and how long have you owned the property I've been there since 2016 okay so that all that was there when you purchased your property correct that is correct okay all right we knew the lady that was there the it was a doctor that actually built the compound and he had his family different family members would come and stay with him and they stayed in in the big house okay any questions for the speaker all right sir thank you thank you do we have any other public participation forms okay but get the applicant to come back forward please any more comments you would like to to make um only other than as you mentioned earlier um these are structures been existent um for quite some time I I still don't believe that it'll affect any of the neighboring properties that hasn't in 20 plus years and I don't believe it will any further um after this again we're trying to get the property in compliance this is unique in its nature I've I've never really seen this many Lots I mean the structure and this property you know um but here we are we're just trying get in compliance thank you okay all right we're going to oh miss Craig um you mentioned that there were no uh complaints and yet I see here the code complaint was emailed in from a previous tenant do we have any any background on that uh yeah so that was a tenant but what I what I was referring to there was no complaints from neighboring um from the neighbors um over the years there was never any issues I think there was a disgruntled tenant with the landlord and they made the complaint I believe that's as far as it went there are no more tenants the all the the properties are vacant um my client had intend intended potentially maybe to move into the two-story structure but isn't at this time due to um everything that's been going on with the property okay thank you thank you uh if we don't have any other public participation we're going to close the floor and open up for commission discussion or motion no discussion I'll make a motion all right uh case v-24 d005 make a motion that we approve all seven variances with the six staff recommended conditions second okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve variance V2 24055 variances 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7even with the six condition from staff and a second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Mell could have the next case please yes sir case number v-24 dc56 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Rural agricultural R A zoned property thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one is yours good morning again the applicant is seeking variances for an existing Adu accessory dwelling unit to resolve a code violation uh variance one is to reduce the north side yard from 25 ft to 15.1 ft variance two is to reduce the West rear yard from 45 ft to 44.4 Ft in 2022 a building permit was applied for to construct the Adu um final inspections were never completed resulting in the permit being closed by the county uh code complaint was filed in February of 2024 and upon review it was discovered that the Adu was built within the setbacks staff's recommendation for the two variances is for denial however should the pdrc find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence to support the approval of the variances two conditions were provided for consideration um I will also add that there was a uh letter one letter of opposition included with your uh staff report packet I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff is the applicant present good morning Mr Watts good morning members of the board uh Mark Watts with the law firm of cob Co 231 North Woodland Boulevard band I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning um although I will say this is one that my clients wish they weren't here for Paul and Andrew Schaefer are here with me they're the beneficiaries of the trust that owns the property um this is um I've got one one slight correction I wanted to make in the staff report and then wanted to stipulate that we are certainly okay with the staff conditions um I do have one tweak I'd asked to make to that I'll get into that in just a second um the correction that I'd like to to just make is in the staff report it states that there were no final inspections conducted and so I brought this morning the print out from connect live just to go through the inspections that were done with regard to the property and I'll put this up on the on the overhead here in just a second um but there was an inspection done for the slab that the Adu is rting on which is kind of where part of this issue uh came from um in August of 2022 there was a final structural uh framing um inspection that passed in September of 2023 and then the building final inspection in December M of 2023 so essentially um you know as as the staff report otherwise indicates this is a a permit that was submitted in 2022 for an accessory dwelling unit the accessory dwelling unit was located in the corner of the property um compliant with all of the required setbacks um during construction the contractor that had been hired to do the work um poured the initial slab was determined that they had poured the slab the wrong size that was 10 feet short basically for the area that was needed for the stairs to land when they came back to pour that additional slab for that ex extra distance they poured it on the north side of the slab of the slab they had previously poured versus the south side of of the slab and so that's what resulted in the ultimate the ultimate encroachment into the setback and I've got some pictures that'll show that as well so based on that and a number of other issues our clients took over the the permit um as owner builders get back to the timeline so the permit was initially again applied for late 2022 around June of 2023 our clients took over um the permit at that point in time the structure had already been substantially erected hadn't had the final on the on the framing yet but the final on the framing came about two months after they took over uh the overall building permit they completed uh the building in in December 2023 had that final inspection for the building by the county it was it passed and was signed off on you can see that on the screen above you um and then about 2 months later was when it was determined that the setback issue uh was existing and there was two setback issues there's one on the western property line that's about 6 in and then the 10ft setback issue on the North so just to let you know or to give you an idea of what we're talking about these are the pictures of the the structure in question so the the setback issue relates to the stairs and the deck that are required to access the accessory unit this is a second story accessory unit um there's not another means of access to the accessory unit other than you know the the stairs that you see here so if you look at the the face of the building there itself that complies with the setback it's the stair structure to access the accessory unit that extends in into the setback um if you look at the next picture that's just another view of it in the vegetation to to the right here about 15 ft from where those existing stairs are there is a fence that that is the the property line for the property um go to the next picture here this just gives you an idea looking up um on the you know the deck itself this is the only access point into the accessory unit um it's an access that goes into the combined living dining you know area of the accessory unit the back portion of the the accessory dwelling unit has a bedroom and a closet and a bathroom so there's not another point at which We Could reconstruct access into um the accessory unit and I think the last one last couple pictures there are just additional views that show again that's the additional slab that was added um for the stairs and everything to be constructed on and I think that's the last one you've got okay oh and that's just showing the on that um where that extra slab was added um after the initial slab was was poured so again this is one where we really wish we weren't here um you know they they had to take over this um construction from a contractor that you know had created some other issues as well um they tried to you know do everything they could to comply with you know the the code and follow the requirements to to complete the construction but found themselves in a situation where after construction they realized it had been put in the wrong location and so that brings us here today now I said in the beginning that um we're good with the staff you know recommended conditions if you choose to Grant the variant my one request would be um the staff on condition number two that the applicant shall apply for and obtain after the fact permits within 30 days um of the approval of the of the variants we have absolutely no problem making that application we don't control the what happens from there with regard to the um you know inspections being done and everything else so that would be my only concern is perhaps having 60 days instead of 30 days to make sure we get all the inspections completed the other thing I we did review the the letter that came in from the neighboring property owner absolutely agree they're the ones that are most affected um by that setback and so we would we would suggest adding an additional condition that screening vegetation um be planted along the property line adjacent to where that deck is located and that access is located sufficient to make sure that they have veget you know vegetated screening um from where the deck is located and where the um structure is so we'd be happy to stipulate that as an additional condition we our clients have looked at something like clumping bamboo or something that would grow fast and provide a solid Screen through there from a visual standpoint so with that happy to answer any questions you might have and uh if there's anybody else here to speak to it happy to come up and and respond to any of their comments so you're actually requesting an additional condition to what is already there actually requesting that you know again we we read the letter uh that from the neighboring property owner to the north their concern about privacy and screening we think that's a completely appropriate concern to have we would be happy to add that stipulation of additional you vegetation that has to be planted and maintained by the owner okay Mr C you had a question I do actually two things can you put that uh that connect live back up there on the screen please the reason I'm asking her to put that up there is because I I saw something and I just want to point it out I think you pointed it out but I want to make certain and I also asked staff I need clarification here I'm getting twisted two ways so they at the very top second line that you have highlighted so the building final passed in December of 23 that's correct so on your staff recommendations one of them is to to apply for an after theact permit why would you do that if you've already passed the final because the permit was subsequently canceled um uh after it was Final after it was Final um there was never a final Co issued so the building final inspection was passed in December of 23 they didn't issue a CO they didn't issue a CO there was a well uh per a well inspection that never was completed uh and there was a blower inspection I think that was outstanding there was a septic inspection that was actually listed as not completed but we confirmed with the health department that so that's why I find it interesting that if those were not completed how did the building final get passed I'm I'm not sure but the the inspection was done and and it passed that that inspection and so then back to staff then when you're putting on here that think you do have notes that the health department still had a couple of those outstanding issues with sub right which hence the final should never have passed should never have been granted and then resend it right the recision was based on occupancy our clients felt that you know because they had passed their final um inspection um they actually moved one of their employees that works for them into the the property uh Paul ster or who's weer with me is moving into the property to be own owner occupied in the main house but since that hadn't occurred uh the building department canceled the permit based on the fact that it wasn't owner occupied and they had somebody that was in leasing the Adu I and I get that and you know but the the thing is that once you get that building final you're you're expecting that the CEO should be coming that was our understanding Mr chair we do have the building official in the room if you have any questions for him yeah okay Miss Smith thank you so yeah that was my my point of contention is if it was Final what happened here yeah and looks like it was withdrawn so it it was ultimately withdrawn that that permit was revoked we need to reapply for it with a contractor based on the request from the uh okay and there's no no no longer anybody living in the Adu currently there is nobody renting the Adu they're not paying rent okay all right thank you any other questions for the applicant I have one question M sh yes um in the the third paragraph in the letter they were talking about an additional Adu if you look at um the attachments to the letter there is actually on page 21 of 29 of your staff report there's a you can see the buildings that are on the property so if you look at that blue um rectangle the top left corner is the Adu that we're talking about correct the main house is just kind of below that yes uh there's a sh a shed and garage structures that are on the left side below that and there's two structures that are off kind of to the right side one of those one of those is a workshop the other one is going to be used as a craft room they did initially start to build that one as an Adu back in 2020 they' never applied to use it as an Adu it'll actually be used as a craf or shop room perfect thank you any other questions for the applicant okay Mr Watts we do have a public participation for I'll give you a chance for rebuttal after we he spoken okay Mr oral Brandon well good morning good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record okay my name is Orville Brandon I live at 2260 East Dale Circle and uh at 81 years of age this is the last place I want to be I tell you that we have lived at this address for 43 years we have a great neighborhood has been fantastic over the years everybody has done everything complied with uh regulations issued by the county done everything the problem that we have had with this is that uh and I know we're just addressing one issue here today believe me I understand that there are numerous numerous zoning violations with this property uh the county has issued all kinds of I shall use the words cease and desist orders nothing has been paid attention to everything is going ahead just as if there's no laws no regulations no nothing with this whole property we're discussing a setback issue here today but there are numerous violations on this that are I uh Miss hanners Mrs hanners who lives next door to this property is here and uh she has done a lot of research on this but I don't think I would be too far out of line to say there are in excess of 10 or more violations zoning violations currently going on with this property and yet nothing is being done they're being issued certif you know completion certificates all kinds of things but there there's no way that it can possibly be but it's happening just as was brought up here how could this have been signed off we don't know but it has been there's things like that going on with this since the onset now I don't have any idea what's happening I'm certainly not an attorney but I can just tell you that this does not fit with our neighborhood there are structures built all over this property and again perception our perception as neighbors that are all here today supporting you know our perception is that this is going to be a rental property is what this is being built to do for example uh some Z zoning clearly states that on a property like this there can only be two electric meters well there are three on this there are three now what do you need that for you obviously have other plans for this besides just living there the auxiliary dwelling that we're referencing here has been occupied since January and Zoning requires I think since January maybe December that says that for anybody to occup an auxiliary dwelling it has to the main dwelling has to be occupied before the auxiliary can be nothing like that's been done and there's been people living there right on even after orders were issued for them to remove and not have anyone living there they've gone right ahead they haven't slowed down anything nothing has changed nothing has been done we don't know what the deal is how this can happen somebody's dropped the ball along the way that's all I can say okay Mr Bron that's it that's my thing okay do we have any questions for the for the speaker okay we do thank you sir yes sir we do have another uh request here from Miss hanners good morning could I get your name and address for the record please good morning my name is chassid heners and uh I reside with my family my husband and children at 2150 Westdale Circle which is the property that is um AB buding where the Adu setback is um there's a lot of like like our other neighbor said there is a lot of questions with this property on how things were permitted how they were allowed interpretation of definitions and you know if you looked at the original picture in this property there was a house and a struct that when the original owners had it it was a one-bedroom house W Which F fit the definition now of an Adu the craft room which they're claiming it to be a craft room in supporting documentation with the permit it does have the electrical for one I think it's a power electrical one has that it's a two uh it's a dwelling with a kitchen with two occupants the original floor plan listed with that craft room room shows the layout of a bedroom a living room a you know bathroom and it was updated but all the supporting document with that with that permit was not updated um you have two accessory structures that are larger in square footage than the main property the main house that the 3500t metal building the 65x 65 carport the the house with the addition that was was built on it is only like 3200 and change um all five of these structures that they've built on that property are under owner Builder permit how are I there is so many questions I have been asking this County to do an investigation into this property on how the permits were issued to come back with clarification and every person I contact I hit a roadblock and nobody has done anything and now they're starting to have these violations the setback issue and this one particular the deck is the issue how this was approved to have the entrance to that property face the neighboring lot and not the interior I've questioned that I can't get an answer now they have that deck there the deck is what's in the setback and the county did give them an option to put a 3 and 1/2t staircase which even by the pictures could have been done by putting the door opening interior instead of exterior and they would have remained in the ordin cuz I think that's a criteria you can have a 3 and a2t staircase that goes over the ordinance I I just I'm not trying to be a pain but this property has exploded into like a compound which doesn't even look like any other property in our neighborhood and I the fear is what is the intention of all these structures that could be livable spaces even the addition they put on the main house could be an additional rental so there's a bedroom a living area a bathroom I I don't know I just could keep going on and on I'm sorry okay any questions for the speaker thank you ma'am thank you okay do we have anybody else that like to speak to this case okay Mr Watts if you could come back forward sir yes sir thank you um we are aware there's two code enforcement complaints or code enforcement uh items that are actually scheduled for the code board next week um they both relate to the Adu that's of at issue this morning um I'm not aware of any other um open code violations or anything el else with respect to the rest of the structures on the property all of which were properly permitted um you do have a a shed structure that has um actually pickle ball courts on it there's two courts that are underneath the kind of one of the um Pavilion type structure that's there behind the main house and there is a garage those other two sheds and structures that were that down to the bottom right of the main house um are again accessory units our clients are very well aware that they are only entitled to have one that's used as an accessory dwelling unit and that's the one that is at issue again this morning um again we're we're you know we can't do anything other than be here this morning to try and resolve the code enforcement issues with regard to the to the setbacks and the and the permitting issues um I think our clients certainly you know don't have any intent to be anything other than good neighbors they are using their property in a manner that's consistent with what they're allowed to do from the zoning standpoint um we just have an error that we are trying to correct okay this craft house that is being brought up this morning uh that is someone is this occupied at the moment it's not it's not um that again I think the original intent was that they were going to build that as an accessory dwelling unit um they recognized that they didn't have the opportunity to have multiple accessory dwelling units on the property um so the um Mr schaer Paul schaer here with me this morning they will be residing in the main house and his wife is will be using that as a craft room and kind a you know kind of a hobby Studio okay Mr cost you had a question yeah before we dismiss the um the applicant here um I have two questions one for staff and one for the building official uh for Staff first off um looking at the page 19 to 29 if we can put that up there please where it's got the pictures before and after 2022 and 2024 who submitted those is that from that's an internal those are internal pictures or was that submitted with the with a complaint letter that was with the letter of opposition letter of opposition all right so looking at this at the two pictures side by side my first question is have they exceeded the maximum square footage allowed of total dwellings on this property maximum coverage no I don't believe so let let me let me double yeah that's what I'm saying as I'm looking at the amount of St I don't know how many square feet we're talking about here that was my first question and then once while you're looking at that and the reason I'm asking since the building official never comes down here for anything but he's here today for some reason so I'd like to hear what he has to say on on this particular case so if you've got a couple minutes I'd like to hear his opinion on this good morning good morning Carrie losinger Chief Building official uh really don't have anything to say I'm an interested Observer of this case but I'm available for questions all right well I got a question for you then how on that one particular shot that was on the screen that they got a final in December but then with multiple open items how was that just an oversight how did that occur no we require the the well and septic stuff to be approved by the health department before we issue C it does not keep us from doing the final building inspection we approved the final building inspection actually in July just recently okay excuse me July of uh of this year so so then we've complete so they they do have a final then final building was approved just a few weeks ago okay I'm not sure what Mr watt had but there was not I just had staff double check on that for me and and it was approved July 24th 2024 for the final but and they got their CEO just recently was not been has not been issued excuse me as Mr Watts indicated uh the that permit was revoked by me right um it had been applied for by a contractor and then the owners took over the permit okay as owner Builder what you're allowed to do if it's a property on a building on your property MH and you do not rent or release that property or sell that property within 12 months after completion of construction gotcha they violated that exemption of the statute and the property had been been rented and that's why that was revoked that's why the permit was revoked and now they are required to hire a another contractor to complete the permit got it we'll issue the co and then they can then to continue to rent it out at that point point they could yes I got you all right now we see now we're talking to technicalities here and that's the whole that's the issue at at case all right okay I have a question here the um the craft house that they keep on referring to doesn't do they not have to have an affidavit if that was possibly an Adu prior to the AG you permitting I I don't know about that I'd have to defer to either zoning or or other staff as far as affidavit requirement uh what I can tell you about that is I was in that in that home or in that building uh there is no kitchen in there it is a uh uh an open living area there is a bedroom there is a bathroom but it does not appear to me that it will be used as an Adu in its current configuration okay but it can't be used as living quarters either correct that's that that is my understanding would could be used as a as a craft room and okay if it was living quarters that'd be another Adu which they're not allowed right even with with or without a kitchen yeah there there are no kitchen facilities in that building okay every got everything but K okay so I I get it okay all right any other questions for the building inspector okay thank you sir sir Mr whats yeah and just to follow up on on Mr losinger's uh comments we we we fully understand what we need to do to go through and finalize the permitting um going back to the connect live the um you know the um we did have the building final the septic and the well inspections were a couple of the open items there was actually a septic inspection that was done in September of 2023 and it passed it just the wires were crossed and it didn't get fully entered into the system that way we have confirmed that since then um the other two inspections I think have now been resolved I think the only thing waiting for is the well uh final water testing right okay but aside from that um again um we certainly wish we weren't here um we're you know it's it's an unfortunate unfortunate set of circumstances um we recognize that Miss hanners in particular as the neighbor to the north has you know um you know that setback is the thing that affects her property the most and that's why we'd suggest adding that requirement that landscape screening be planted along that North property line to to make sure that that access you know staircase and deck doesn't intrude on her privacy okay my question is for staff obviously we're not here to address any code violations and we're not here we're just specifically for the staircase and um but these concerns that the the neighborhood has brought up the speakers have brought up is there any way that that can be uh actually taking made sure that they stay within compliance I believe Mr Watts indicated this is actually going before the code board next week so those will be addressed at that time right with with regard to the Adu I think with regards to the other structures if there's anything I know the question of an affidavit with regard to the other structure you know we'd be happy to provide the affidavit and make sure that we cooperate with staff on any of the other structures with regard to the zoning but they all have been been properly it okay the other thing for staff is there a condition that we need to add on this craft house the craft house is not part of the variance that's what I thought okay so it is not does not need any variance approval it's within setbacks if it is being used as an Adu that is a separate code enforcement violation which they will have to address either stop the use or do something got it that's what I thought and if if you if it made the board comfortable we would stipulate to a condition that there shall not be any other Adu on the property other than the one that the variance relates to um I think well it can't by law it can't by law anyway but but we're happy to provide an affidavit or a stipulation to that no no usually when you have another dwelling on the property either e be vacated as a dwelling or removed before they allow a building permit that's the only reason I asked this okay all right any other questions for the applicant Miss CR um I'm curious about this thing with the three electric um meters as I understand it I can bring Mr schaer up to address it more specifically if if I can't answer it to your satisfaction there was insufficient power to provide power to the they're already two meters they had to get another um service coming into the Large Garage building which is the 3500t shop structure that's kind of on the bottom of that aerial picture that you saw um so they brought in additional service for that night yeah I being I got the head nod that that was the the third service that was it permitted everything with those was was permitted yeah okay all right any other questions for the app just want to confirm a few things that you said so the it will be own occupied will be under occupied Paul Schaefer who's in the gray shirt here will be moving into the primary building they've been waiting for a final CER the the intent of the Adu is to actually become a a rental unit if you per se they do have an employee that that is in it now they moved in in January the only reason they haven't moved out out was because um they don't have any other place to go essentially and then the completion and the after that the fact permits those are being done with a licensed contractor not but owner Builder is that correctly with what what the uh building official has a request and we're talking strictly about the staircase that's correct in this particular case the well the the variance for the West Wall of the building the building actually comes down 6 in too close to that 20 that rear yard setback so we've got those two that that 6 inch basically a survey issue when they put the form boards in for the SL I I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know how this vote's going to go but all I can tell you this is if they come back here with asking for variances on any of these other structures that are out there I don't think they're going to get a very favorable response from this panel well understood all right that's all I got okay okay we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I I would like to say that what's before us today for those of you in the audience here is we're looking specifically at the setback issue as far as the staircase the code violations obviously is our not our department fortunately for us unfortunately for you okay uh I'm assuming that the public can attend the code enforcement board meeting yeah and that's what I would do yeah you know if you do have an issue with that um but what we're looking at specifically today is a staircase on the side of the building and for us to put an undue burden on anyone for for what we're looking at and I'm assuming that like Mr Costa said um unfortunately we're we're not looking at everything that you are okay and we can't we we don't take that oh I don't take that in consideration okay okay I'm just speaking for myself so um I'll open up for any motion or any more discussion Miss Craig you had something um I understand what you're saying about the the code violations being something that's not on our table but I do have a problem with the fact that there have been these ongoing issues and um they seem to have just been um not t to in any fashion and I really dislike the the fact that we're caught in a corner of only being able to address one unit or one part of this whole thing um and it's just my opinion is that that it's it's a shame that um these issues haven't been uh addressed sooner as Mr CA stated I think we agree upon that um you know but do you hold them at Bay for what we're looking at here today we're looking at specifically the variances to the staircase for pretty much four staircase and six Ines on the building so I I mean you know unfortunately it's not our I mean that's your decision whichever way you want to vote on this you know I mean I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other I'm just trying to tell you how I'm looking at it I'm prepared to make a motion okay ready yes I make a motion case v-24 056 that we approve variances one and two with the two staff recommended conditions do we want to we want to include the other condition for which was the the vegetation we need to have that stay Mr Paulo do you want to take that for the other condition I believe Trish has the provision we would ask that on uh condition number two that the words and obtain be removed so that they would apply for the building permit and do you want to go well if he applies for and we remove those words we don't need to go 60 days could apply for and obtain well no we want to strike the words and obtain because um Mr Watts is correct our system may take longer than that got it 30 days or even 60 I'll amend the motion that on uh staff recommending addition two it to read applicant shall apply for and after the fact building permit within 30 days okay what about the vegetation thing is that get included okay that's what I'm asking is the vegetation it didn't come up to the to the uh they've agreed to do it then for the basic proper they agreed to do it if the if the uh neighbor was asking for it but she didn't ask for that and I'm looking at the Aerials I look like it looks like there's pretty good size tree line all inside of that okay inside of those staircases I mean no right okay be as is MHM okay okay so we're just changing condition two to say four four a for and should say for and after the fact to apply for and after the fact and after the fact rather than and obtain we're striking and obtain correct okay unfortunately I've closed the floor sir no sir unfortunately not um SO waiting for a second we going to get a second on that got a motion sitting I'll second it just floating out there you second it yeah I second thank you I got a motion on the floor to approve variances one and two with the two staff recommended conditions with item two striking and obtain they just need to apply for the after the fact building permit within 30 days okay and are we leaving that open m Mr Sor because if they apply for it they still have their variance they they at some point they have to obtain it well they would have to obtain the building permit so what you are doing is basically they would have the variant um variances are good for a year if they don't act on it if you know within that time frame the variance expires and they have to come back before you so this just basically makes it so that it gives a leeway for the building permit application um to last more than 30 days which it potentially could yes um so if they don't get that building permit application within a year or start to use the variance the variance will expire I think that a second pass would but the way it's way it's word is it says they just shall apply for it and it could be an open application for a period of time the building permit will has 180 days to once you make application if you don't you know go through the process I believe the building permit application will expire in 180 days okay I'd like to have in there at least obtain the permit within 180 days not just apply for it because I can see a loophole here where if they applied for it even if it didn't go through through they've applied for it so now they have their variance for it's just for the year that's sure that's that's a condition that is that's uh seems reasonable if the board wants to Mr Watson said he would go with the 60 days on obtaining that we'll give him 180 days that that should be more sufficient to to get it right more over and above just applying for it all right so let me let me reread this again then on the motion Amendment to the motion U on the staff recommendation number two so the applicant shall apply for or and after the fact building permit within 30 days of issuance of the variance and obtain those permits within 180 days got it second got it okay yes that works okay and we had a second for Mr six on the amendment yes okay we got a motion on the floor to approve variances one and two with the St two staff conditions and to and with the exception on condition two to strike the word um and obtained and add the obtained at the end of the sentence to say 180 days within 180 days y 180 days okay okay any other discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed no okay motion carries uh 5 to one to miss Craig and an opposition thank you for your time this morning thank you good luck okay next case Miss Shelly yes sir case number v- 24- 058 variance to increase maximum dock area requirements on Urban single family residential R9 zoned property okay and this is Miss this is Mr Shams hi good morning uh the applicant is requesting one variance to our dock ordinance to increase the maximum dock area requirement from 750 square ft to 1168 ft the variance is for an existing dock with two boat slips and unpermitted at additions that expanded its area the dock was originally permitted in 2006 with two boat slips and it was 740 Square ft which was consistent with our requirement the applicant purchased the home in 2021 and then constructed roofs over the boat slips in 2022 which resulted in its expansion uh the applicant also installed two temporary flirting docks for additional water craft which were which further increases square footage one has been removed and one is being used until the proposed Boat Lift is complete in the north slip the South boat slip has a boat lift and the north does not yet have one uh construction was completed without applying for permit to the county and the applicant was reported to code enforcement in April 2024 uh code enforcement issued a violation for an oversized Dock and he came to planning for an after Thea variance he must get the variants to apply for the after defa building permit to come to compliance otherwise he will need to remove a portion of the dock to reduce the size to 750 ft the applicant was also subject to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection fdp and received a permit from them on August 1st 2024 fdp will require the applicant to remove a portion of the doc's terminal platform to equal 160 sare ft uh the applicant originally requested a variance of the county for 1173 but the request was revised by staff to be consistent with the permit that was given uh the County's environmental permitting team reviewed the application will require an environmental impact assessment during the permitting phase because the site is located within the natural resource management area he is working directly with the environmental pering team uh the applicant contacted his neighbors throughout the process and did receive eight letters of support for the variance however staff recommends denial as the variances failed to meet three of the five criteria um should uh should PE DRC find evidence to approve staff does recommend five conditions for approval and they are included in your packet I'm available for comment or question any questions for the staff Mr shames was there there a previous uh variance request on this property uh no sir okay and were the permits pulled on this um so he has he did permits with FD and now he has to have after the fact permits of the variance comes first he had it after the fact permit no he needs to apply for one okay doing the variance first so in other words there was never a permit pulled on this not for the additions so for the original do construction there was one in 2006 but that did not include the coverings okay all right is the applicant present good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record Dan Bellow 813 Gran Avenue New sna Beach okay you've heard the staff report is anything you'd like to add to that uh um so thank you for for getting here it's been a long long haul what is uh on the screen there is what was I purchased the house just a couple years ago so back in 2005 what's on the screen was permitted through the county and there was a a d permit so in my way of going online and Googling and d uh D allows roofs and there's a whole exemption criteria to where um you can do some work to your docs so what is showing there and and I I think it might be in your packet I I have a a photo of back in 2006 um should I should I hand that um so um so what on the what was on the screen is what was permitted what was there and that picture right there from 2006 is exactly what it looked like when I bought it just a couple years ago I went out there and I put roofs over my boats like everybody else has you know on both sides of me all the way down to JB's fish camp and all the way up the other way so what I've come to learn you know I didn't know all this stuff a couple months ago but I know now unbelievably D does not care about roofs or how big they are they they can be as big as they want as long as they're the size of your wet slip and your boat but they care about the area you walk on they only want it to be 160 Square fet the county uh does not count the the dock uh going uh the walkway out to the dock but they do care about how big the roofs are so there's there's two completely different codes but the bottom line is um I guess there's five criteria two I've met the third those piles that you see to the left I put a roof on the the wet slip to to the north I put a roof on so I used the existing permitted structure and my eyes and he was Mr sh's done a great job everything's fine but you we um I do not believe I expanded the dock you know if you have boats sitting in your slip that's an area and I put the roof over the two boats and I used the existing structure and I did not add any area to walk on and I didn't you know blow it out I have removed you know I got four grandkids and three adult kids and you know one wants a jet ski and one wants a pontoon boat for the grandkids and you know so I was trying to accommodate you know if if I don't make it nice my kids don't come visit me so uh so um I you know if you were to approve it I have no problems at all with the conditions that U the county is asking for um but you know I my my neighbors I got I went I got eight I I went to eight I think I'm only needed five or something but I talked to everybody around me and and uh it was kind of funny I mean it's um they all go we we can see it we know what we're getting into I mean the roofs are on there right basically you just put a roof over the boat slip that was currently there permitted already for the boat slip the boat slips were both permitted what what was on what's on the screen right there was permitted by the county and D back in 2005 and finaled in 2006 somewhere along the way so the county is still happy with that but somewhere along the way D no longer likes all that walking area they want it reduced to 160 Square fet because I'm in an aquatic preserve okay if I wasn't an aquatic Reserve if I was just a little bit further in either direction I could be a th000 square ft by De p and be exempt so in my permit that I now have just got it you a couple weeks ago D has no problems with the roof and everything but they want me to pull up some of the boards that you walk on which I'm I'm having to do okay so it's a trade-off got it trying to keep the sun off my boat okay Mr Shams when that you did the original permitting for the dock was those pilings took into consideration because they do extend out of the water yes the pilings were part of the original permit so he so all he needs is a permit for the roof yes so if they were part of the original permit why are we asking for a variance because the County's uh dock ordinance looks at anything under roof counts for the square footage so because he's adding roof over both of them it's expanding the area of the dock so in other words were the dock what were those pilings were when it was originally permitted was not considered as part of the square footage of his dock even though the pilings were there uh yes how does that work okay never mind okay I I'm I'm confused here so yeah me too you're saying it's anate the statement request there an United Dock on your mic's not on on page one just showing that you have an unper unper permanent dock that's on the state on the summary request but yet the applicant's telling me he does have permits that have the doc is permitted but the additions are not let make that clarification it says unpermitted dock so it should say unpermitted yeah addition roofs okay yeah all right now now we're now we're cooking all right all right um any other questions for the applicant or staff I do uh on your staff recommended conditions uh first off with the applicant you're okay with these five conditions that are on here the way they're written yes sir um and my question come to the mic please you're okay with these four with five recommended conditions yes sir including number four which is removal of the temporary docks floating docks and so my question for staff is why is that a why is that a request or requirement because uh we only permit two boat slips for a doc ordinance so with the temporary docks he had technically had four so we're just trying to make it compliant and right now he has even though they're temporary yes because it increases the capacity for uh storage of boats H okay and you're okay with that yes sir you're bringing up an interesting point so so um I do not have a lift a hoist that can take my boat out of the water in the north slip so there's a a float there that I drive the boat up on so I think technically this County probably doesn't care about that one but the point is making and interestingly the state actually agrees on this one they count my jet ski as or my kids jet ski as a vessel the Pontoon as a vessel and then my other son has a 17t key West anyways you can't have four vessels so the floating docks they're saying are providing additional get rid of a few toys got to get which I've already done okay so yes I agree with okay all right I would have fought for that one would love to have another one is very anyways if you're if you're within compliance in this D's requirement of no more than four vessels you said correct no no um D it there is an interesting they only want me to have two vessels at this point though and that's where I think the county is two vessels got it so I have two slips two boats I've hauled the other I took the jet ski out and I took the other Key West out so I only have two boats but you can have that float up floating duck underneath the roof correct is what he's talking about that is temporary until he constructs the boat lift so once he does that he'll remove until constructs a boat then I will remove that one it's just there to hold his vessel at the moment got it okay and then on number five since I've got you up here um that is the that is the meat and potatoes there where you still have to work work with County Environmental permitting you're aware of that situation yes it does make me a little nervous I I will say but I I was to understand that they needed a biological company to do an eia report and I have done that it has been submitted and then the environmental Department sent it an updated letter that says they have no objection okay I'm hoping that's the uh okay gotcha that's the that's the attachment we got this morning okay isn't it part of the D no that's that's going to be part of our Wetland alteration permit they need uh the eai for the permitting process um which I have done right so isn't that required through the D permit also I'm not sure what what's required from the d uh I'm assuming he's got his D permit you know uh squared away but we're working within the county process so if if it's one and the same sure you can use the same report well that's what I'm saying is kind of redundant they require him to do both if he's already required to do it in the D permitting I'm not sure if they're the same or not so did not require it and I they have issued my permit which I have with me only the county asked for it which I have gotten and there was no environmental impact and I'm not touching the water and I'm not moving the piles so got it going back to staff so number five since we have this letter of uh I no objection from EP can we strike five as a condition we would prefer that you leave five in uh we did work with our environmental team they did Issue a different memo initially they wanted to see an eia on the front end we asked them if they could handle that in the building permit phase so that we can bring our variants forward because we do have shot clock requirements okay to move these through all right but I did Pro so I got the report I provided the eia and then I have a letter from the envir environmental Department accepting it and no longer having any objection which is in your you should have it's in our packet yeah okay so so could that be removed well staff is require as requesting now there that leaves the door open for them to have other questions for I know that's okay Mr chair just one final thing um staff is recommending that condition number three be from 30 days to 60 days you know to go in line with to make sure that we're not going to uh put the applicant in a position to viol the the variance well I was going to make a change to the motion anyways I I was wanted to keep it consistent with the previous one and basically say I'll apply within 30 days and obtain within 180 at the end of the sentence that stays in consistency with the the previous case that we just addressed that's fine okay all right I guess we have 160 180 180 got it okay okay we're gonna okay we're going to see if we got any public participation for this case okay so we don't so we're going to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion or so I'm looking at multiple pages of um I have no objection to this you know uh letters of of approval or I guess of support for this variance uh from the neighbors and knowing the area and seeing what's down there he's not out of the ordinary out of the norm um personally I would have fought to keep my floating Docks but he's okay with removing them so with that being said I'm prepared to make a motion okay Mr C case v-24 058 I make a motion that we approve the variance with um the five staff recommended conditions and condition number three change to read as follows the applicant shall apply uh for All County required permits within 30 days of the variance approval and and obtain them within 180 days didn't didn't you say 30 to 60 no apply apply within 30 good apply for 30 apply within 30 and then uh obtain within 180 got it second okay I've got a motion on the floor for variance V2 24058 to approve variance uh and with the staff recommended conditions one through five with the uh change in condition three to say the applicant shall uh apply for All County permits within 30 days and a and a variance approval and receive the permit within 180 days correct okay any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Shelley could I get the next case please yes sir okay case number v-24 059 variance to reduce the minimum yard requirements on single family residential R3 zoned property can we read uh 59 60 together s tide no sir they're different different things all right Miss Smith this is yours this is a variance to replace an inground swimming pool it's an existing pool the home is on John Anderson Avenue Jason to the Halifax River a fiberglass pool was installed in 2000 when the Waterfront setback was 10 ft um that setback was subsequently changed to 25 ft by the county the applicant wants to replace the old pool with a concrete pool in the same location so variance one will allow the new pool to be 13.9 ft from the seaw wall instead of the required 25 ft and just note this variance would not have been needed if we had the 10t set back in place Place uh variance 2 will address the north side yard setback of 4T um instead of the existing curved pool on the North side they're going to straighten it out and are now asking to be 4 feet from the property line the minimum requirement for a pool is 8T from the water's edge to the property line we do recommend approval of both variances and we're happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Miss Smith any questions for staff okay is the applicant present can I get your name and address for the record Sir Eric hin 1112 Feather Drive Delona Florida okay you've heard the uh staff report anything you'd like to add to that uh I agree with the staff's recommendations and move for approval okay any questions for the applicant all right do we have any public participation for okay sir we're going to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay that we approve case number v- 24059 variance to reduce the minimum yard requirements on single family residential zoned property subject to two staff conditions yep variances one and two correct correct okay second I got a motion on the floor floor to approve variance V 24059 variances one and two with the two staff conditions any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss shelle could I get the next case please yes case number v-24 d060 a variance to the maximum fence height on Urban single family residential R3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Miss Ray this one's yours the applicant is Seeking a variance to increase the maximum fence height from 3 feet to 6 feet in the South waterf front yard uh the property is an atypical lot um which is a lot that AB buts a street at one end and at the opposite end um and in this case AB buts a water body according to our code fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height when erected on an atypical lot rear rear word of the rear most point of the principal structure as defined by the required yard area uh staff's recommendation is for denial um there was a letter of support that was submitted from the adjacent neighbor to the South that would be most affected and it was included in your staff report package um should the pdrc find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence uh to support the approval of the variants there are two conditions provided for consideration I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff applicant present can I get your name and address again sir yes Eric hin 1112 Feather Drive deloner Florida you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that I I do and I have other things but my design team uh did not show up today so I would ask for the continuance if possible or I mean we can go through okay um I mean you're you might as well go through the hearing everyone's here so uh my recommendation is for the commission to discuss it um if you think there are any unanswered questions you can continue it um otherwise you can vote on it okay we're going to go ahead and listen to the the your sure part and then what we'll do once we made our discussion if we feel there's need that we need more information we'll we'll uh probably approve we'll listen to your request for a continuance okay sir okay the um owner of the property um would like to have more privacy because of the park uh dock that's um two houses down and they can see directly into his house in his backyard was going to have pictures and everything else for you today to show the you know how they can see directly into it and what kind of a fence is it going to be uh it's a CMU block with stucco okay and a deckor top it will look really nice and it won't be all all right sir Mr C yeah so you've got a letter of support from the neighbor who actually says hey I I really would like to have that fence between the two of us so yes and he would be the one who'd be most affected from A View standpoint so uh that being said I don't have an issue um is there an existing fence now and that you're just extending one or this it's an entirely new fence uh there is an existing uh uh chain link fence and you're replacing it with the the wall all the way down from end of the property from one end of the property to the other or just in that one section just 20 or just to the uh house just that 25t section right there okay all right that's all I got yeah and Mr chair on page 11 you can see the uh the public dock that uh the applicant was uh referencing so it's two houses down so that's the one in the center there by itself that doesn't stick out as far into the water yes yeah that's what I figured okay all right well we're going to go ahead and move forward with this um and then we'll I'll give you an opportunity well no I'm going to close the floor yeah no we're going to go ahead and move forward we're going to move forward all right sir do we have any public participation for okay we're going to close the floor for public participation I'm going open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay that we approve case number v-24 60 variance for six foot privacy wall in the Waterfront yard subject to two staff conditions on page four six is it four or six it doesn't okay back up sorry okay I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to approve variance v2460 with the two two staff recommended conditions and a second for Mr 6man any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously all right okay Michelle can I get the next case please yes case number s-24 nine a special exception for communication Tower exceeding 70 ft in height on Prime agriculture A1 zoned property this one also yeah can we we can do this special exception in the very and go ahead and read the variance in also please yes sir case number v-24 057 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Prime agriculture A1 zoned property and Miss Ray this one's yours yes sir the applicant is Seeking a spe special exception for a 180 foot communication tower on an approximate 1 acre parcel the parcel is surrounded by the lake George State Forest it is owned by Clay Electric Cooperative and they are intended to be the only user there is an existing utility compound with a communication poll that has been in place since 1976 uh the proposed Tower is to replace um the existing uh Clay Electric has recently upgraded their voice communication system and the tower will provide expanded and improved coverage it will also ensure that reliabil reliability and resiliency of critical infrastructure systems are met um the proposed Tower is approximately 085 miles away from any residential dwellings um it's proposed to have a galvanized steel color to help reduce Vis visual ual obtrusiveness there is an existing Gravel drive from South County Road 3 excuse me U due to the size of the parcel a variance to the north property line setback is being requested um the tower is unlikely to be a hazard as we have received an engineered letter stating that if the tower were to collapse it would um essentially fold over onto itself for the special exception staff's recommendation is to forward to County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval subject to four staff conditions for the variance um it is like I previously stated it variance to the uh North property line from 90 ft to 20 ft uh for a special exception for communication Towers um the setback must meet the distance equal to 1/2 of the height of the communication Tower with the proposed tower being 180 ft the uh setback would be 90 ft uh the applicant did state in their rent petition that the proposed location of the tower is limited by the existing overhead transmission lines this is the minimum variance to allow the applicant to construct the proposed Communications Tower and staff's recommendation for the variance is also for approval I'm a very I'm available for questions I I have a question on 24- 057 the variance um um I believe you said four but there's I only have two staff recommendations for there's four staff conditions for the um special exception yeah the next one for the um variant there is only I believe there's two two yeah on 50 okay okay just clarifying that okay any other questions for staff Mr C we're just replacing an existing Tower is that correct correct yes sir same height it's not the same height the existing Tower is a little bit shorter is shorter than this one correct okay and this is for private Communications or public Communications uh the applicant is present they'll be able to speak more on all right thank you any other questions for staff I'm sorry you said you said a little bit shorter didn't I see 100 to 180 feet correct it is sorry okay good morning serve get your name and address for the record I'm Joe Johnson with Clay Electric Cooperative um the address of the property is 2111 Southwest County Road 3 okay and you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to it um I think there was question clarification there was a question yes question all I can say is that this is for this this communication is for uh scada which is supervisory control so it's control and data acquisition to the sites in the area on the east side of the southeast side of Clay Electric service area so to provide coverage into that area the current pole does not provide uh clear coverage it's spotty because of the height and the the pine trees the attenuation all those kind of things so we're trying to get higher to um U provide resilient uh communication to that area okay and it also is a relay point to a further place even Easter in the spring guard Spring Garden area in East fuia County as well and to clarify this is to collect data within the area of the clay uh utility is to collect information from that site and get that back to our control center right okay so it's purely private communication just interc company it's inter communication for cl electric that's correct to no public benefit really no all right and we're increasing the tower height by how much well I would take exception to the the public benefit yes Clay Electric is there for the public benefit yes sir what how far how much higher is this Tower this Tower the existing uh Tower that's on the site is and this is a monopole so it's not a tower a big tower it's a monopole it's a single pole structure uh the existing Tower is 100 fot and this would be 180 fot okay and I don't know it's on County Road Three we don't have an airport the Pearson Airport within that area didn't no but it's in the bombing range overlay yeah the bombing range over we we we have filed with the FAA we have our consultant here as well that filed we file with the FAA and we have we have clearance from the FAA for that for that site okay I guess this question would be more for staff than it would be for you we have we notified our folks up at the U bombing range on this yes sir I did reach out to the N our Navy representative and he had no objection to the proposed Tower got it okay that's all I needed to know there okay all right any other questions for they said have not they just blow it up so yeah I just don't want one of their Jets running into it after they leave Lake George okay all right uh any other questions for the applicant okay do we have any public particip forms all right we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion does anybody want to discuss the variance on this no this is a public service item okay all right um I'll prepare to make a motion Mr chair okay all right let's do uh this separately here case s-24 d009 uh make a motion that we forward the special exemption case number s-24 z9 to the County Council for a final action with a recommendation of approval subject to the staff for staff recommended conditions second okay I got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to forward the special exception case number s249 to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval subject to the staff recommended conditions of there are four of those and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Mr chair I pror to make a motion on the next case Okay case number v-24 d57 make a motion to approve the variance request um with the two staff recomend conditions second got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve variance V2 24057 with the two staff recommended conditions and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay missell could I get the next case please yes sir case number z- 24-11 resoning from Prime agriculture A1 Zone classification to rural agriculture A2 zoning classification Miss Ray this was yours so the applicant is requesting um to rezone 10.51 acre parcel from Prime agriculture to rural agriculture uh the intent is to uh subdivide the property uh the subject property is currently developed with a mobile home on the Northern portion of the property and on the southern portion is used for pasture uh the property is divided by dck Drive separating the northern and the southern portions uh the surrounding area is primarily A1 the properties are used for um agricultural single family residents and mobile homes um surrounding lot sizes do vary from 5 acres to 20 acres um multiple properties properties to the South along Ranch Road have recently been res zoned from A1 to A2 the existing future land use is rural the A2 is assumed compatible based on our comprehensive plan future land use Matrix um rural was located for this area suggesting that the land could be developed at a maximum density of dwell one dwelling unit per 5 acres and provide a transition between agricultural uses and urban uses uh the applicant has received four letters of support from the adjacent neighbors and it is included in your staff report package staff's recommendation is to forward the rezoning to County Council for final action with the recommendation of approval I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff um maximum allowable de U Separation on a A2 is what five acres yes sir okay and that's what our future land use is in okay yes sir got it okay any other questions for staff okay is the applicant present good morning could I get your name and address for the record Fiona Ash 840 Pita Lake Helen okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that um no the only thing I would add is if you look at the property to the South I own that as well um we own all of it it's a combined total of 25 A2 um my sister and I own the 10 acres we're speaking of the county forced us in 2016 we bought the property um to subdivide in order for my sister to have a home which is on the North top Corner um the South that we're separating is already my pasture and it has been fenced in by the previous owner for 41 years so my sister in the top right corner has been fenced in her 5 acres for 41 years and mine all combined has been fenced in for 41 years so the only thing we're doing is just making it so my five is attached to my 15 and her five is her five so this won't change any future land use it's already a pasture it's been a pasture for 41 years I use it as a pasture and that's how it's going to stay okay okay any questions for the applicant you have okay all right we do have one par participation form and I'll get let you have a chance for rebuttal after they have spoken okay Mr Montgomery good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record Randy Montgomery 1480 D Rock Drive okay you've heard the you'd like to speak to this case this morning yes I've owned uh five acres directly across from it uh for 40 41 years and um by my understanding is it letter they were supposed they're going to put another home in there uh if it's going to be intended and stay a uh pasture I have no issues with it but if it does become um A2 and it allows a 750t trailer then it pretty much an eyesore uh this property is also all the roads are um maintained by property owners it is not a county maintained Road and there are only approximately four people that even do anything to the road far as upkeep or improvements for materials uh we have this place has been subdivided quite a few times and we have overd doubled the amount of people that are living out there um and there's very inconsiderable ation of the dirt roads from U some of the residents that just fly up and down the dirt roads through the mud puddles slinging dirt and water 40 ft out from the road and nobody seems to care about the roads or help maintain or even if they don't help they contribute to okay this this uh reone puts it more in consistency with what you have there of your five acres yes so it shouldn't be of any different than what you currently have there and as far as the development uh obviously I understand where you are on the development side but we're looking at just the zoning of it right now correct but that's also my when I purchased this property M it was sub already pre- subdivided and there was no the property available so I was limited to the 5 Acres right um since then 19 I believe it was 85 it was designated that it would be 10 acres or more to be buildable and I even went through a cost when I just um built my new house on said property that um I had to show that I did not own any adjacent property at any given time or I couldn't build my new house mhm okay any questions for the speaker okay thank you sir thank you do we have any other public participation forms for this case okay I'll give the applicant an opportunity to have a rebuttal if you'd like um as for the road he is correct um except myself and my husband are and and and him are the only ones that maintain the road um so we actually take care of the neighborhood um as for him having the 5 Acres he is correct and we attempted to keep my property from being subdivided in 2016 and the county forc this to so in reality I mean it's still same family same thing and the five acres that he can see already has my cows in it and none of that is ever going to change so that's it okay all right all right we're going to close the for for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion so so I want to make sure I'm clear on this um we're we're subdividing this partiel into and this actually we haven't closed the floor or is this still open we've closed it oh have we okay oh do you want to I'd have I'd like to ask her a question open it back up if you have a question for so the intent here is to basically take this property and split it into so that you can attach half of it to your sister's property and half of it to your property property is that correct no um if you look at the L shape the top right is my sister and it's completely fenced in and you see dur Rock comes through and Loops down in between what we're trying to separate that loop on the right is her gate the loop on the left is my gate okay and so we are not subdividing my sisters we're separating right where that Loop is directly in half and I will have it reattach to my property that I own to the South do you see what I mean so derck splits the two it's just adding on taking her 5 acres and attaching it to her existing property yes the five acres that we're splitting off of this one so there yeah so five so this is 10 acre parcel has a house on it that your sister lives in in and so by cutting off cutting it in half it's remains hers at five and then the extra five is going to your side which yes got that is all fenced in to my South are you planning on doing a lot combination at that point or you going to leave it as two separate Lots we'll probably leave it as two separate the only reason and not for you know anything to build um the county forced us to do this and we've already spent thousands of dollars multiple times to get to where I am today to redo the whole process all over again so for me to reattach it I would have to go all through zoning again put it back to A1 have to see all of you guys again and get again pay $3,000 we're really friendly Bunch by the way you guys are amazing no you guys are awesome it's not been you guys you guys have been awesome um so I I would love to reattach it however this process that I started in 2016 that I have already paid upwards of $122,000 to get to where I am today I would have to pay an additional $3,000 see you guys again I'd love to see you again but that's kind of where I stand I'm sorry that it's cost you that much to get this far it's just okay left and right hand all right I'm clear now I'm clear on what's going on here thank you okay okay any other discussion on this case I'm I'm ready to make a motion go ahead kc24 4011 uh I'm going to make a motion a motion a motion for approval to be uh forwarded to County Council second okay I got a motion from Mr 6ith to forward the rezoning application case number Z2 24011 to the County Council for final actual recommendation of approval and a second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay michell can I get the next case please case number CPA d243 smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment from the urban low intensity Uli future land use designation to the urban medium intensity Umi future land use designation okay let's go ahead and read in the Pud also so we can address both of them yes case number p- 24-3 a rezoning from the urban single family residential R3 zoning classification to a planned unit development with residential subclassification okay thank you m shell Mr Shams this one's yours all good morning so I'll go through the CPA first and then the Pud okay so the applicant is proposing a future land use change from Uli to umumi to develop the site with 48 multif family residential units this will be accomplished with the accompany PUD the site is currently undeveloped and vegetated as was it was previously utilized as a commercial fery uh remnants of the irrigation system piping and shade cloth remain on site that the surrounding lands are primarily residential as the areas west southwest and south of the site are developed with single family residential uses uh the lands East and North are developed with commercial uses on lots that range between 2 to 3 acres these uses include a medical clinic a house of worship and a commercial strip mall with the current designations the site could be de developed with 24 units as Uli permits density up to four units an acre uh the request of 48 exceeds this allocation so if the future lus change was approved the maximum yield is 48 units the site is within the city of D utility service area and the city has indicated they have capacity for Central utility both Water and Sewer uh in addition it is the site is subject to their 2050 Vision plan and according to the plan the site is within the urban core and the city has targeted it for higher intensity growth uh we did send this application to the city and they reviewed both packages the city requested a sidewalk from the site uh to Spring Garden Avenue along West barisford Road and connectivity between the internal sidewalk Network and the potential sidewalk extension uh this will be determined during the Land Development phase after this uh plan phase overall staff found it consistent with the comprehensive plan policies relate to a discouraging urban sprawl and meeting concurrency requirements uh the applicant did submit a traffic analysis and the site's existing designations could yield 271 daily trips and the proposed change would yield 54 uh Bush County Traffic engineering did review this application and did not express concern the additional trips will not change the level of service on West barisford Road so overall staff recommends forward to the County council with a recommendation of approval uh now I'll go through the Pud itself so they are rezoning from R3 to PUD for 48 multif family units um the applicant previous ly requested to develop the site with 24 multif family units and five single family units however they held a neighborhood meeting in May of this year and changed the application to multif family only that was due to Citizen concern uh the site acts as a transition uh because it's surrounded by more intense commercial uses along the northern eastern boundaries and less intense single family uses along the western and southern boundaries and you can see the site is very close to State Road a which is a county thoroughfare um it's approximately 225 ft west of this road thoroughfare roads are typically developed as commercial corridors and is sensible to locate multif family residential uses in close proximity uh the Pud itself will be developed in two phases each phase will include two multif family buildings with a maximum of 12 units in each building so each phase would be 24 units maximum the first phase estimated to commence in 2027 and the second phase in 2029 there will be a 20ft landscape buffer along the southern western boundaries and a 25- foot landscape buffer along the northern eastern boundaries this is consistent with our zoning code requirements uh the maximum Building height is 45 ft which is consistent with the R7 zoning class so we did try to mimic our existing standards in the da wherever possible um the project does meet our P requirements and will dedicate 20% or approximately 1.2 Acres as common open space the applicant has um said that they will utilize amenity areas walking trails and open grass areas as common open space and this is visible on the site plan on the screen so the current zoning uh in regards to traffic could generate 271 daily trips but the applicant did a specific analysis based on on multif family uses and the proposed PUD could generate 383 daily trips so if approved the rezoning would result in an increase of 112 daily trips and again traffic engineering reviewed this and did not express concern so overall staff recommends forwarding through the County council with a recommendation of approval and I'm available for comment or question okay any questions for staff on the R3 zoning that they're coming from that was strictly single family yes sir how many acres or units per acre on that I mean how many acres minimum for R3 um R3 I believe is 10,000 square foot for lot per lot yes all right thank you okay my question is more for Mr Sor on this city the land 2050 plan did the county have any input on this no well it's it's a it's a vision statement for still land uh we I believe we we did make some comments or at least uh growth management staff did I was not involved because there say it's legally it means nothing to me uh so I I I don't know if uh Trish you were involved when discussing with the land about their uh 2050 Vision we were and um we were um it was suggested that every time we review projects near the Dand area that will likely go into Dand that we um address this plan so that we all planning similarly I understand that but here's what I have an issue with is that we have no representation in the rural I mean in the unincorporated area and the city decisions on their plans and they so we're having to look at our zoning and our future land use in relationship to their Vision 2050 and I'm I'm not saying we have to but we're having to Tak that in consideration and so I don't know why we're even considering that when we look at these is it in the unincorporated area overall you don't have to this is a legislative decision by this body so you're you are making a determination of you know how and when in the future this particular parcel should look like um you can take into account all to types of information and one of the more pertinent informations is is you know uh the city of the land their proposed growth boundaries and also you know their vision of the future because you right now you're you have two competing like policy decisions of what this particular parcel in the surrounding area should look like both in the near future and the far future but ultimately it's a legislative decision by County Council okay the other thing is this traffic review when they do when they did the view uh what do they take into consideration because that outlet right there on be beersford Road and 15a is almost impossible to make a left-hand turn during the mornings or afternoons when the traffic is heavy on 15a and they're going to add additional Outlet there for uh higher in density if we were to approve this how do they make that determination whether it's benefit with it's okay or not I know we don't have any body here from traffic but obviously that I mean I'd like to know how they consider this so I would obviously defer to them but I can briefly touch on it they look at the level of service of the road because the roads and the a radius of this site have capacities and based on the trips generated by the proposed development they don't um exceed what's allowable and go into a lower level of service but they look just specifically at the road itself not necessarily where it comes out right there I mean they do look at turning movements as well but I would defer to traffic engineering right along that line um do they assume one vehicle per residents or um do they take into consideration that most people have two or two vehicles nowadays um as far as how the analysis performed we do have the applicant available and they can go into their traffic study a little bit more okay and Miss Tucker can you put back up the future land use the proposed and what is there now and on this future land use we're looking at the um proposing that the is this what I'm wanting okay oh right here on the proposed that U we have right there across the street are we not creating an enclave with that future land use but doing this with the UL are we not creating an Uli onclave there's uh there's not really a thing called spot planning um it's if if there is a thing on you know you shouldn't create spot zoning scenarios where you have a widly incompatible use completely surrounded by other incompatible uses here your your determination is is based off of density and intensity and adjacent C to 15a um in that kind of commercial Corridor so it's really it's it's it's not pro you're not prohibited from doing this um all of this is within the county so you're not really creating an enclave it's just making a determination of the appropriate densities within the surrounding area adjacency to you know the state road and adjacent to this commercial Corridor so I that's that's that's a lot of discretion uh provided to this Commission on whether or not they want to increase the propo the potential residential density on this parcel whether it makes sense right now and whether it makes sense in the future well one of the things that you know what we're looking at and there's some discussion on is creating some of these let's say the city were to Annex in this development here and let's say with they Annex they Annex in that south portion there of the Umi there there's some discussion of the people in the unincorporated area on these small enclaves as I call them of of the of unincorporated unincorporated area is to turn them over and more or less go into the city even if they don't want to be there's now this is a discussion going on and I just don't want to create something where people in the unincorporated that are being when we create enclaves as we're doing here with the Uli them having to be forced into becoming into the city of the land most annexations are voluntary uh when I say that in quotes because uh is this within most likely this isn't this is within the the land service area so you know I don't know if the land does it but most of the uh Municipal Water and Sewer providers basically have it you know if you are adjacent to you know the city limits you know that water because they're providing water water and sewer you know they'll they'll basically ask you to Annex in you know to have that continuity of service but we do not allow the annexation of a random piece of parcel that's not contiguous or uh adjacent or compact to the city limits absolutely that's not that's not allowed by law unless you know the county and the City of Dand enters into an interlocal service boundary agreement in which case you know we can plan for future annexations but we do not have that with the city in this particular area but there is some discussion on these smaller enclaves the smaller acreages that not not well it's it's it's not there yet but there is some discussion I've heard it if there's an enclave as in you have an unincorporated area completely surrounded by one city the policy our policy and the state policy is to eliminate the enclave and to put that parcel into a municipality that's right and that's why my concern is is creating an enclave here on that piece of UL there the we wouldn't be because that's you know you can see the city at the land that's um you know a few Parcels up so you know they would have to encroach pretty far um and we do an analysis of how is the city expanding you know are they doing so in a compact or contiguous manner they can't you know create a finger of Incorporated municipality to kind of like tentacle or or tendril their way to a larger piece of land you know we object to that type of thing so you know when we review those City an ations we you know we review them for is this the natural growth of a city or are they forcing something unnatural to try to get to an area by you know creating a corridor so you know in the event that does get annexed um we would look at you know what is is a surrounding area also being annexed such that you're creating a compact and contiguous Municipal area not just you know a long Corridor of Incorporated to land that suddenly balloons out into a large developed parcel okay I'll leave my rest of the comments for after they've had their presentation here this morning so okay thank you any other questions for staff okay is the applicant present good morning could I get your name and address for the record of course good morning Jessica G cobco Law Firm one day to BU in Daytona Beach Florida and we have a PowerPoint here that Kelly's going to help me with and then the famous last words of a lawyer it will be a brief one and then we will go through the any questions or comments um so this is the site like step said it is located right off of State Road 15a um this started with NI in our office and I am just bringing it through here to the Finish Line um it is come a long way I think from the initial submitt and so that's part of what we want to go through and so the first slide here just goes over the proposed land use and Zoning you went over this um with staff it in the staff report I think the key item here and the planning behind this project is that you've got a commercial Corridor along State Road 15a we talked about that house of worship in the medical office here in the strip center but kind of along this road our favorite you know storage centers are popping up all over the place um and in terms of planning we're looking at creating a transitional boundary between heavy commercial to those existing single family and so the transition housing types multif family town home putting in that transitional buffer between the commercial uses and the proposed residential is what you'll see here so this was the original lot layout that Steven referenced you can see there are four buildings here for 24 units that were proposed and then five single family homes along the rear portion of the site to kind of create again that step down transition there were two voluntary neighborhood meetings on April 2nd and May 16th and so April 2nd we brought forward on this plan and the resident feedback was really they wanted to preserve the Natural Area and open space on the rear of the site where it AB buts those single family homes and asked if we could shift the plan to accommodate that and the open space and the retention areas were kind of their key concerns we brought back the Revis concept on the May 16th meeting um and talked that through with the residents and pending any speaker forms I think we really went through a lot of their questions and concerns during those meetings this is the current layout and we'll show you a color version of essentially but you can see there are four buildings clustered on the front um what we want to point out and we'll get into more detail later is that we've swapped the retention areas to the rear of the site to create that buffering between the residents along the perimeter you have the perimeter buffer but anywhere you see a crosshatch is natural Preserve areas and so those will be areas that will remain untouched we worked uh with the residents to discuss those and all throughout here we have some really cool low impact development principles that we'll touch on a little bit further and by further I mean right now so as you guys know the county has gone through um how we incentivize low impact development within projects the good news is that this developer um has always committed to low impact design principles they have a development called The Oaks and the land um that has the similar principles pulled in on this site and we'll go back to the plan so you can see them again there are five key low impact development standards that we've pulled in they are on the plan and so they're binding in terms of the concept like out um it's the use of perious parking through the pavers to reduce the impervious footprint allow additional drainage there's subsurface retention and infiltration below the driveways within the area to reduce the clearing of land to meet retention needs the natural vegetation in the landscape buffers um allows for treatment and nutrient uptake bio retention and Rain garden planting techniques are going to be utilized where those buffers are planted as we go through site design and then a lot of the tree preservation Within open space that we can point out um we did have a question on the Delan 2050 Vision plan this is the snippet of the vision plan that applies to this site we in the blue circle just the general area and so the urban core category is the orange and the Planned commercial node is shown in that little red Aster which um talks about the higher density of housing as was in the staff report I think D Lance and put into this area ties into them being the service provider for utilities and so they have planned their facilities to accommodate a certain level of growth in these areas whether they're incorporated or not because they will be responsible for the water and sewer demands and that capacity in their plants and like staff said they did review and provide design comments and then this slide I think Kelly if we can swap to the other one um we have taken this and just colorized it to show Green Space um and the different layout there which I think will be more helpful and when I converted it to a PDF to sent to Kelly my highlights went away so we brought it back this morning no problem perfect I went a little crazy with the PowerPoint uh highlight options and so what I did was just highlight the retention areas they are blue that doesn't necessarily mean they're wet retention um the green there are three different greens although it's hard to tell the core open space is just in that bright vibrant green natural vegetation areas and that cross hatches in another and the planted landscape buffers are in that lighter green so you can see the open space with this configuration is pretty substantial and so as we go through just kind of as a county and how we plan and how we want to grow I think this project highlights putting residential density where it makes sense in terms of where utilities are available it's not urban sprawl you have the buffers from the residents um you're using low impact development techniques which the county is working now on drafts to implement and incentivize low impact development techniques and development which would include density bonuses similar to what we're asking for here to Cluster that development allow for that open space and storm water retention and treatment on site and allow the projects to move forward and so with that we do have our engineer here and we're here to answer any questions any questions for the ADV yeah I do um Building height you said was what it's 45 the same as the ex 45 how many stories would that be three stories three stories okay all right and you referred to it as single family is is actually a rental property is it not this property these apartments these would be rental apartments the single family was on that first concept where we had five single family homes in the okay but these are actually Apartments am I correct correct 12 units per building okay and you say you went to the lid for to get the density bonus no those standards have been drafted by staff they will go to the environmental natural resources advisory committee and then we'll come before you you guys in the County Council before they're formally adopted so we're following the intent behind the design and standards but those aren't in the county code yet okay there's no current density bonus for right lid they're doing this voluntarily right well I think the lid actually and given density bonuses kind of counteracts what the lid supposed to do in the first place when we start giv density bonuses because now we're putting more of an impact on the property but that's my opinion what it's worth um I have a question go ahead Miss Craig um I'm curious about the the square footage of these proposed Apartments sure it seems desperately small to me I've lived in New York City before in a 625 square foot apartment that was one bedroom and it was small and you're talking about 700 Square fet for three bedrooms I do believe that just the county standard we didn't modify those from the zoning um they may be larger on the floor plan but I don't think there was any modification yeah those are just minimums but it's consistent with our standards y okay is that it anyone else have any question Miss F now these properties to the South and to the west of this property here are currently developed in a u kind of large Parcels are they not uh the A3 is one acre size Lots I believe yeah yeah and so we're coming in with a PUD with a pretty good in density there do you have a calculation on what the density actually is it's eight units an acre eight units an acre okay okay and we did have a very good turnout from all of the adjacent residents in those meetings to discuss okay all right if we don't have any other questions we can um see if we have any public participation to this we don't okay thank you I'm surprised there's no public participation neighborh yeah okay I want to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion I'm GNA tell you my problems with this it goes back to what I was discussing with staff originally you got it you're going to end up having an enclave right there you've got the developing to the West and the South that are currently developed to this property and it's larger parcels and we're going to come in across the street from them and put in a three-story apartment building now to me if I was living there I don't think I'd be too happy with that and I know they say the city of the land's 2050 Vision but I feel that we don't we didn't have those of us that live in the the unincorporate area which this is did not have any representation with the city of the land when they come up with this plan so to take that in consideration yeah I I get it it's going to expand but there and to develop areas that already developed that people live in unincorporate area that don't want to live in this city that's one of the reasons we live there um I just I just don't feel comfortable with approving this um comprehensive plan Amendment much less the Pud that's my opinion I agree with you on both counts I mean they're putting it the three-story apartment buildings across from a kind of a rural setting in the unincorporated area of the land um and no matter what you say there's an enclave there and I do know there's discussion of that the city en compasses a small area of the unincorporated area whether you want to go to the city or not there's talk that going ahead and putting these properties within the city limits and that there again that's why and we sit here and we talk about due diligence and we talk about um property rights I'm looking at the due diligence of the people that bought property around this and realizing that they if they looked at the future land use the density is not near as much as what is we're trying to turn it into and also they they buy in these areas so they don't have to have the smaller Lots adjacent to them so I I just I have a big problem with it I think those adjacent Property Owners if they did their due diligence and now we're creating this and I don't think it's favorable to their property or to their or to them in general I just have a quick question um all all the the this goes to staff all the property owners they were notified about this correct that's correct yes I'm just wonder proper owners why why nobody's objecting to this the adjacent Property Owners the only thing that was notified to the community there was an orange sign in the front of that property yeah that's the applicant stated they did have community meeting so yeah they had Community speak more on who attended if you need to I don't know what was attendance there or how many were in attendance there again I can only tell you that I can't imagine if I was one of these property owners here you know it may be in something that they they feel like are being forced upon them too I see that happening a lot and so they're just trying to get the Lesser or two evils when they agree to something and so I can't imagine someone if I live lived in one of these properties here in unincorporated valua County that I'd want a a three-story apartment building going in across from where I lived in that rule setting it's a it's a rule setting if you drive out there you can see how large these Parcels are and most of them are developed so that's just where I'm at but I'm one vote indeed every vote counts um prepare to make a motion and move this forward okay ready yes sir if there's no other discussion yep anybody else all right so let's start with the first one the cpa-2 24003 uh make a motion that we find the future land use Amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case number cpa-2 4-3 to the County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the volution growth management commission for certification second okay I've got a motion on the floor to find the future land use Amendment Comm consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA 24-3 to the County council with the recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for exhibited expedited State review and to the vuch county growth and management commission for certification from Mr cost and a second for Miss Shell any more discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed I roll call roll call roll call please miss member Craig no member Shelly yes chair Mills no member Costa yes member Patterson no and uh member six yes is 33 okay we have a 3 three so how does that go forward so you can uh you have the option to continue it um the rules do provide for Conference of plan amendments and this only applies to the pdrc you need a minimum four for recommendation of approval so um the issue is we currently don't have a a chair appointment and I'm not sure when that is going to occur um so you can continue it but I'm not sure if the votes would change or you can ask for any additional votes if anyone wants to change their vote um absent that it goes on to County Council uh on a technical denial for failure to obtain a majority vote that's fine recommendation so it's a technical and that's up the county to council to either reverse it or go from there got it I'm I'm okay with that I'm too everybody's okay with that okay we're going to move forward with a technical denial because it's 3 three tag all right all right um okay then we have to consider the Pud yep case case number PUD d243 uh make a a a motion that we forward the resoning application case number p-2400 3 to the County Council for a final action with a recommendation of approval second okay I've got a motion on the floor to forward the res zoning application case number PUD 24003 to County Council for a final action with recommendation of approval from Mr C and second from Miss Shelly I suggest a roll call vote discussion on the motion we're going to talk about discussion on it first and I I strongly disagree on the Pud now even if the minor land use amendment was approved um put a three-story apartment building in front of a r setting I just can't imagine living there and having to deal with that but that's me so I'll anybody else for discussion and I'll I'll you know I'll talk with you on that um and I typically you know where I stand with these kind of things but when you have multiple uh Community meetings more than one and they basically retooled what they originally going to put up there and retooled to this one with it sounds like no opposition because there's no one here so it's whether the sign was there posted on the property and the adjacent owners were notified everyone in that community meeting I'm sure was aware of where this was going and how it was happening and there is not a single person here neither a letter of opposition nor a person here opposing so I know that's where I stand with you on kind of where I stand with that one I mean had we had five or 10 people in the gallery that said hey yeah we we attended it and yes x amount approved it because we had no other choice then I might be in a different position swayed but um in this particular case and I and I understand where you're coming from I really do um that's my discussion well I haven't discussed it with the people that live there but I can assure you that I know of at least two that would not would not want it and that where they're going to be living one of them is directly in front of this project here um so I mean that's just where I'm coming from I don't know what happened the meetings I don't know what the discussion was we don't have minutes of the meeting we don't know what was said uh I can only tell you from knowing someone that would buy this kind of acreage in this area and develop it to have a rule setting put yourself in their sheets that's all I say absolutely well they have the option to go to council now thatan you've got a technical Denial on the first one m and I'm I'm going to assume it's going to be similar on this one I I would have to agree with chairman Mills on this one that by the time I feel like by the time it gets this far in the procedure most people feel like they have no say and what's the point in going to speak so I I have a real problem with this increased usage okay all right any other discussion on the motion okay we'll go have a roll call on the motion Miss Tucker could I get a roll call absolutely uh member no member Shelly yes chair Mills no member Costa yes member Patterson no and member sixma yes there's a three three okay we go with a technic can we that's that takes four to uh that one only requires a majority but it's still uh a split vote so there is no majority um if there are no other motions uh taken to amend some of the conditions and it will also move forward on a technical denial okay is everybody in agreeance with that to move forward with technical denial yes I think that's what the general consensus is okay all right we'll move on M Shelly could I get the next case please I got yes case number zero oh oh excuse me -25 d005 wait a minute we got another PUD P okay well that's what I was looking at 248 and then it confused me okay 8 all righty um case number P ud- 24-8 or 008 a rezoning from the transitional agriculture A3 zoning classification to a plan unit development with a business subclassification thank you Miss Shell and Mr Shams this one is yours all right good morning the applicant is requesting a resoning for two contiguous Parcels that are approximately 11.42 acres in the land area from A3 to PUD the resoning will legitimize existing uses on site which include a contractor shop for the pool company and material storage and sales for the stone company the opin is not requesting an expansion of existing uses uh currently the two uses are not permitted within the A3 zoning class and a code violation for the uses was filed against the applicant in December 2021 the applicant is proposing the Pud to resolve the nonconformity and continue the uses uh the site is located on the north side of State Road 44 or New York Avenue approximately uh A4 Mile West of the city of Dand property itself is developed with a 1768 ft structure with an inground pool that was originally a single family residence built 1940 it's now used for the pool company with uh point of loss systems there is also in the uh west east side of the site as you can see on the diagram a 4200 foot accessory structure three sheds a 1536 ft accessory structure and a rock yard with three material storage areas these structures are used by the Material Company vua Mion Stone the materials sold are not excavated on site and are brought into the site to be sold there these uses have been active on site for over 18 years the site is nearly surrounded on all sides by other A3 Zone Parcels the parcel north and west is a 5.8 Acre Site develop with a single family residence and the parcel north and east is a 20 acre Timberland parcel the area along the southern boundary is a large undeveloped set of parcels approximately 126 Acres zoned as the village of pelum Park PUD this is part of the sunro activity center and will be developed with 648 residential units in addition the S the site is within the city of D land's emerging Gateway Corridor on State Road 44 and is subject to their buffer requirements on the southern boundary there is currently a material storage area within the 40ft landscape buffer that's required by the city the city reviewed the project and requested to standards are met as much as possible the Pud development agreement reflects this request uh the landscape buffers include the following uh 25 ft along the northern eastern and western boundaries and on the southern boundary with the city requirement the buffer shall be 40 ft wide from the East property line to the m material storage wall uh 32 ft wide along the material storage wall and then 40 ft wide again from the West Property boundary to the material St storage wall so they're they're going to meet that as much as they can and it's about 32 feet as to summarize the applicant is not proposing to expand the site's current operation and existing uses will continue if the Pud is approved therefore there is no change in trip generation for the site Belia County Traffic engineering reviewed the proposed P did not express concern as there's no change in trip generation overall staff recommend forwarding to the County council with a recommendation of approval and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr shames any questions for stff yeah what brought this forward just uh the code violation code violation yes sir okay Mr Shams this has been a business for quite a while though has it not yes sir and also um what was the reasoning to do a PUD instead of a resoning to B5 so everything around this site is a three and we didn't want to introduce spot zoning so the Pud allows them to uh incorporate their permitted uses the ones that they have on site already and not open the door for anything else to come in the future and what is the future land use on this uh the future land use is rural okay okay is the applicant present good morning I can still say as the last item before lunch other than your your uh administrative items I'll I'll speak quickly uh for the record Mark Watts with the law firm of cob Co 231 North Woodland Boulevard Del land and I appreciate the staff report and recommendation um we've spent a lot of time working with staff on this incidentally um this is not the first time this particular site has been before this body um 1988 uh my dad actually represented uh Michael uh LJ Michael uh bringing this forward to get a special exception approved for processing packaging storing retail and wholesale sales of agricultural products not raised on the premises uh it started out as a mulard um landscaping materials mulard things of that nature and really what's happened is it's evolved over um the Michael family uh sold it several years back to our current client um they've continued to expand it it still operates as I mean it's it's where I go to get my you know gravel rock and things of that nature for for our house you know our business um but it has grown beyond the scope of the special exception that was approved back in 1988 uh at present there's um both the the landscape material operation that's that's on the site um the um there's a a office that is basically a pool contractor that um sells pool installations from the site um where're we've been working with staff really just to kind of take a snapshot of the things that have evolved over the past almost 40 years or about 40 years I guess right a little bit less um and allow that to to remain um Mr Mills to to your you question on the land use I think our initial conversations were to come in and and actually apply to go to a commercial land use here staff had concerns about opening the door that wide up um and so since puds are conditionally you know um consistent with the rural land use classification and this type of use really kind of fits well in this area along a main Corridor like State Road 44 we worked with them to kind of encapsulate everything with the current rural land use into the p that's in front of you today uh so moving forward we would have to come back in for as as mentioned this kind of started with a you know notification from um code enforcement that hey I think you've gotten a little bit beyond your original approvals from 1988 uh you should probably do something about that we've been working with them to move this forward ever since so um what we'll have to do from here is move into site plan um there are some additional buffers and everything will have to be established and and maintained we'll probably be shifting some things away from the edges of the property um to allow those buffers to be installed and maintained but um this is kind of that first step so have to answer any questions you might have um other than that I got nothing okay any questions for the applicant except anytime they change the ownership we'll be back in front here changing to the Pud if there's any the way that we set this up was intentional because you know they're they're you know um there could be future growth or expansion here but the way that we've set this up we'd have to come back and amend the puds account yeah just takes a snapshot of what's there now to legitimize everything right that's why I just couldn't understand why I didn't go to B5 yeah understood of this but anyway that opens the door a little bit wider and particularly with the A3 around us we thought this was an appropriate step okay okay any questions for Mr wat okay we do we have any public participation for him no okay we'll close the four for public participation open up commission discussion or motion and I will tell you that I'm familiar with the property and it's been it doesn't look a whole lot different than it did 20 years ago I'll be glad to make a motion okay I move that we forward case number PUD 24-8 to the County council with final action with the recommendation of approval second okay I got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to forward the resoning application case number PUD 24008 to the County Council for the final action with recommendation of approval and in second from Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously I note with a unanimous decision so there you go okay Michelle could I get the next case read into the record okay case number -4- 005 ordinance number number 202 24-16 amending chapter 72 of the code of ordinances to allow the shipping for shipping containers as an acccessory structure in certain zoning classifications and establish regulation for use of said structures okay thank you michell Mr Ashley it's good to see you again sir good morning how's everybody uh Scott Ashley zoning manager for bluch County um what we have for you today is an ordinance that is to amend chapter 72 to allow for shipping containers as an accessory structure and certain zoning classifications and to establish regulations for said use um County Council directed staff to look into the issue of allowing shipping containers one of the issues that started this was uh agricultural areas um for use as an option for storage on agricultural properties also a question about Industrial and Commercial properties so staff had uh took the information from Council their directive we came back in October of last year with the agenda item for discussion on uh the current status of the code and Analysis of what should could be done some options for them and address certain things like location uh security and or screening of these type of uh these shipping containers on these properties and also look at some of the areas where they would like to see these uh where where would be the appropriate zoning so we took that information uh and directed from them to create the ordinance which you have before you today and again um what we're looking at is changing uh to chapter 72 article one definition and article two of the zoning ordinance we'd add a definition for shipping containers we admin the definition of accessory structure also add a new code section which would be 72310 to establish specific regulations and requirements for the placement and use of shipping containers in the unincorporated area of Lucia County and right now shipping containers are not permitted and that's based on our definition accessory use and structures which does not allow any conversion of any type of uh rail car semi-trailer and things that are similar structures which we deem the shipping container to be cannot be converted or made or altered in any way to make it an accessory structure so we have go through and look at amending that definition which we propos in the ordinance to address that issue where you can't have shipping containers unless expressly permitted by code because we are limiting where the location of shipping containers could go by zoning classification and so basically like I said we're amending the code to add section 72310 which has highlighted on uh starts on page four and really gets into the meat of it if you will on page six of the agenda item goes through Page seven where we establish certain standards and Zoning classifications where they be permitted uh address things such as setbacks um compliance with building code getting a permit uh also location on the lot making sure it's um to excuse me sure that it's an accessory item that it be back behind the front faad or plane of the home as well as make sure it's screened um we do want to make sure it's on place on the property that has existing structure we're proposing limitations on the number of ship containers that would be allowed also they cannot be stacked or installed underground um this would be for storage purposes only we're not proposing or the code would not allow it to be converted to be used as a living quarters or workspace unless they go through the full Florida building code provision to convert it to a dwelling uh ship contain as a storage structure would not have any type of uh utilities attached to it also U location wise make sure it's not located in any parking lot uh drive while Drive aisles or pedestrian areas specifically that would apply more to commercial industrial areas and with the first part and if you see below and uh on the screen these are the zoning classc we're looking at based on discussion with the County Council um it is the agricultural areas and the ones that are listed there your commercial egg as well as your rural agricultural uh or rural zoning classification that permit a type uses on a personal nature are commercial which are B3 B4 B5 B6 and B7 those are variations of either General commercial heavy commercial highway or Marina and then they would also be allowed in all industrial zoning classifications i1 through I4 and also any non-residential planit development subclassification which you would do allow for business or industrial puds um I do want to let you know this has been an onw workking document for a while so uh unfortunately bringing it today and looking at it again there are some grammatical and some staff changes that need to be uh Corrections need to be made and uh there are simple things we do reference the code one way and we uh we say 72310 that is the intended code section but if you look at page uh five of the document we reference section 311 unfortunately that was the original section we were thinking it would be placed in so it it does need to be corrected there uh also the zoning that's listed for the mobile home is not it should be mobile home mh3 not five and also in the document itself uh it should say i1 to I4 unfortunately it just says I so we're clearing that up also on line 32 of page six um under subsection three or II that should be building permit shall be include a sketch plan and um the other Corrections are like I said grammatical there's a period here there's an extra word it's not necessary also I did want to point out we did receive um some comments from an interested party uh the gentleman's here today to probably uh as public participation but I would uh he's there are several aspects of the ordinance I believe you got a copy of he's made comment on some of the things that staff would be agreeable and uh would address is on page six under the definition um when line four he's suggesting it be the term shipping container is Anon synonymous with cargo container conx box and so forth the code has a mixture it says the term and it specifies the term like shipping container or it just says the term is synonymous or it is Staff has no um preference we we'd be IM meable to say the term is synonymous or the shipping the term shipping container is synonymous if whatever your pleasure may be on that issue uh also on page seven uh it would be line four um the public is suggesting a change where the line Senate says they shall not be visible from a public RightWay uh the suggestion is to change it to word Street which staff would also be agreeable to because under our code definition Street covers all type of Road whether it's public or private and more and then just not limiting it to a private I mean excuse me to a public RightWay as stated in code a street would cover all those issues and we would prefer probably that term as well um beyond that I'd be happy taping comments or questions at this time okay Mr Ashley thank you uh we do have some questions Mr CR let you get going he's got a bunch of them for you all right let me start by saying that um there's no way that I can even remotely approve what you what we presented here today so and let's go down the list of why um I'm going to go through your analysis because it's easier to uh basically touch on that than the um like you said you had some typo errors in the uh actual ordinance itself yeah so um ra and RR are actually included in the ordinance correct R yes sir ra and RR correct and but it should you should also have mh3 and opposed to mh5 correct that's a correction as well yeah uh what about RC RC um is not a princip that's something we can looked that that's primary a residential it's not an agricultural classification uh other than for pasture all other agricultural uses are a special exception under RC under RC okay what about mh8 mh8 um that is also a rule that we could add that because that is a rule mobile home zoning and and what I'm looking at I think we should include all the rural and agricultural zonings that are greater than a that that are an acre or greater I think should qualify for these was the purpose from Council that okay um then the next one that I have a real issue with is that the they must have a building permit and comply to the Florida building code now you have put an exception in here except for a Bonafide agricultural lands So when you say Bonafide agricultural lands are you talking about a exempt lands or just lands that are quote under the a umbrella what would be the a exempt lands a exemp lands only all right so that's there inlines the issue so we've got probably I don't know hundreds maybe thousands of these units these containers all over the county a lot of them are in um some of your 2 and a half acre Parcels that are not a exempt but yet are still being used in an agricultural environment and that is my that's where I have the problem here is that you're basically forcing these units that have been in peaceful existence all this time into complying with Florida building code and fire code for something that's there that's actually being used for an a uh purpose even though it's not a for-profit it's still a not for-profit it's a hobby Farm or it's a it's a Fruit Stand whatever the case may be but it's not an actual for-profit it's a inhome type of issue and we're forcing them now to go through this permit application I have an issue with that um let's talk about um let's see if I can keep Focus here so yeah as far as the the structure goes especially you have uh you're calling out that they have to be in conjunction with a principal uh principal use which knocks out any kind of open pasture um scenario uh potentially feed stores I guess that's under the business classification but let's say open pastures where some of these are actually stored and they're usually they're using them for storage of cultivated hay potentially feed for the cattle and so under this provision they would not be allowed on those open pastures that don't have a primary structure unless they are exempt under the a umbrella once again yeah that's correct because this is uh will be an accessory structure in use and by definition they are clearly incidental and subordinate to a principal use so what is the principal use of the property all right and let's go down to the maximum of two containers per lot or parcel um I think that's too vague I would like to see that to be revised to say a maximum of one unit per 2.5 acres and under and if you're larger than uh uh than 2.5 acres then you should you should be allowed to have one container per 2.5 acres so if you got a 20 acre parcel you can have up to a maximum of eight containers and I think You' still fall within the overall guidelines of Maximum coverage uh with 20 acres you've got cattle scattered here there and and everywhere so I think that that sets a limit as opposed to just two per okay across the board and is this strictly for the a or for all the zonings well I think that for well it depends I mean that's there's a there's a fine line between Bonafide a and um and uh non a exempt properties that are still being used in a in a in an egg environment and and I'm not sure how we can address that here oh no well because we have we're proposing in commercial and Industrial so that's one of well commercial industrial that's a whole that's another different animal right okay so break it up so I'm talking about yeah I think that this I'm talking here strictly about from the ad Community not So Much from the business Community standpoint um as far as located behind the front plane um on the commercial industrial I have no issue but it doesn't necessarily comply when you're talking on the a property so as long as it doesn't apply to the A Properties I have no issue with that comment [Music] um with the and I'm going to go but with the way it's written so there's no permit required for for a exempt uh but down below you ask it says it has to be screened from the public right away are you also exempting a exemption there or is a exempt required to put a a screening system up they would also be exempt because they falls under non-res F building on a farm would be ex perfect CU that that was if not that would be another way of basically forcing now agricultur to get go in and get uh permits um the one of the last ones are actually no not quite the last ones but the other one I got here is that the location of the unit itself and the placing of the unit why are we requiring it to be placed on a concrete pad or an asphalt pad and not just dropped right on grade like most of these shipping containers are being done currently what is the purpose there well the purpose there is to provide a found for it and one of part of the building permit is to have it make sure it's secur to the ground just like any type of structure we're not going to get a building permit so much for the structure itself because the container is already built it's more for the fact that you're going to Anchor It To The Ground what is it how are you securing it to the ground so it it doesn't move around or in cor of a storm because we are in a coastal County we have to meet wind load standards and so that that's the purpose for that those containers aren't going very they're not going very far anyways but uh the question then is is this also appli to the a exempt or just the non-ag the a exempt is excluded from all of this yes sir okay that's State Statute so that takes care of all of those issues then and then um so the provision about it for storage purposes only and you I think you touched on it earlier um if these are these units I've seen these units used as affordable um housing dwellings or or Andor uh business offices if you will in other states in general so if if someone wanted to convert this unit into a living quarters then they would have to go through the full Florida building code in other words we're not eliminating that possibility here are we well the goal is that this would be if your purpose of the ordinance per Council was allow for storage use and so we didn't want them to convert it okay if you're going to be storage for living comp unless you went through that full process so don't convert it into something and without that process okay basically and then the comment about running uh either water or water or electricity to the unit now when you say when you use the word connected or run to the container container that's what threw the flag up on on my end because uh I would like to see that provision as long as not inside the unit that you're not putting power and water in the unit uh I don't see any reason that you cannot run power to the external side of the unit for either a a nighttime safety light so you can actually still operate and load and unload and the same with water again if it's being used in an a situation um water becomes you know an issue where if you've got tractors to wash and or equipment to handle I'd like to get that that particular line strick in there that if it's not if it's not if it's not fully attached or internal to the unit um I don't see an issue with that um with being able to run water and uh power to it okay and our concern is there you know just like any structure that starts as an accessory start adding Electric and Plumbing next thing you know you got a home then you got well once once it's on the inside it's a different it's a whole different animal I I I completely agree with you I agree with that that so the language is good as long as it's referenced not inside the yes exactly we're talking about strictly the interior of the unit gotcha um the all street parking I don't have a problem with uh not to be Stacks I really don't have an opinion at this time even though I think that they have the potential to be of being stacked especially if you're turning them into a dwelling of per sorts but that would be a building code issue uh so I'll leave that one alone on the prohibited in the rights away public sidewalks and the easements um um a lot of these are being used for temporary storage uh for instance the building of a house or the building of a barn I don't see an issue of it being if it's in a temporary position being placed in the easement itself especially if it's a power line easement I don't see the harm there uh public rideway and public sidewalks I definitely agree but in a say a power line easement if it's if it's there for 365 days or less why why would that be an issue these are just these are questions and statements at the same time okay um and then the prohibited on vacant or unproved land that goes back to my original question about it we got pasture field it's it's vacant I mean it's not vacant it's got cattle on it it is unimproved and the fact that there is no other structures this kind of I I want to make sure that that doesn't eliminate the possibility of being able to have those units on those types of lands um they can't be used as sign I agree uh can't be rented or leased out I agree um and then the other thing that's missing here is once this is completed and passed if it was passed in its current form you basically put hundreds if not thousands of users of these in a direct crosshairs of Code Compliance right off the bat there is no provision here for either grandfathering them in as is where is and or allowing for an existence of time for an appeal or a waiver without code enforcement coming down and basically slamming the hammer because now we've got an ordinance H how can we address that situation well right now they're not permitted but as far as the ordinance I referred to well they're not permitted because they don't exist well in your code of ordinance right and therefore they're not right so all these shipping containers that are not you know part of a a storage yard or something like that technically not allowed to be there um so I think we've received some complaints and we've dealt with you know if someone puts a very obvious shipping container in front of their yard that's a you know automatic violation um but it falls back to you know where a reactive code enforcement type uh uh uh community and no one complains when it's kind of out in you know a lot of large agricultural lands um this was primarily designed to accommodate for your more obvious uh zoning districts and uh Industrial and Commercial establishments but we didn't want to tailor something for those non-residential uses without also addressing you know the obvious agricultural component of it so technically they're not allowed um this just kind of gives a way for for us to formally approve them well it definitely gives you a way to formally to formally basically start charging for permits and and quite a few other things in here and we're talking about I'm not we're not we're not talking about five or 10 units we're talking hundreds if not thousands and I'm sure you guys are aware of that we've got to have some kind of provision here to give these people an opportunity to what you're asking for will not happen overnight cannot happen overnight and I the majority of them are in agricultural positions and but not the majority but I wouldn't say that all of them are in a a exempt classifications there are some that are in nonexempt classifications only because they are not for profit a operation and that's where that's the nuts and bolts of what I have a problem with with this not so much I mean I don't see they're we're not they're not going into residential units into residentials because if we limit this to uh a minimum of I'd say an acre but I'm I'd be comfortable with 2.5 nothing less than under under two and a half acres can have a storage unit on an acre a storage unit takes up you're GNA see it but on a two and a half acre parcel that's still basically a hobby Farm if you will I think that that would that would be permissible and on and on as we go on up so those are my those are my comments and my suggestions uh on this one um I think that needs a little bit more tweaking uh and how to address that a exemp versus a non-ag exemp but still being agricultural how do we address that and and Define that and I don't have that answer today okay that's it okay along that line with Mr cost Scott you and I have discussed this many a Time previously about the Bonafide a the bonified egg definition doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have an EG exemption classification Bonafide egg means anything that's related to agriculture because the agriculture exemption is tied to a commercial use you can't get an that exemption without a commercial use so if someone is Raising C on a piece of property that's zoned Agriculture and they're within their rights to do so because of the zoning that would be would that not be considered Bonafide egg well what the code right now as you just point out if they have the agricultural exemption that's that's a tax thing from the property pra it's built in the statute allows it they're automatic just because you have agricultural property doesn't mean you get to do a building without a permit automatically that's where the bonified egg because we do have the non-residential Farm building buing on a farm uh affidavit process where the property owner would show in detail to us they have a current use because that's what the statute gets into do you have a non-residential Farm building on a farm is there an activity occurring currently to justify you to have an Exempted structure on the property that's being used for agricultural purposes so that's what we have right we have that process now we handle that if you don't have the agricultural exemption that's your other process show that you have an agricultural use occurring and with that you spend an AFF davit it's not a permit it's just a placard for tracking to show that in case there are issues in the future that building is there because they had an agricultural use in accordance with the code Provisions that we have okay along that line you said you this is where I think that when you buy a piece of agricultural property you're you would assume that you can use it for agricultural purposes anyone bu purchasing a property adjacent to it or around it would assume that they can be used as an agricultural property I don't know why we have to go through the Bonafide agricultural use on agricultural property when it it's got a designated zoning as agricultural property and saying that and the reason I say this is because let's say we go out and we want and I want to put on a u uh I got an A1 Zone morning and I want to put raise 300 chickens just to say I wanted to do that cuz I wanted to raise these chickens and I wanted to sell the eggs and so but I'm not going to sell the eggs there so it's not a commercial use so I go down the road and I sell my eggs to my neighbors but I got to build a building to put my chickens in first I can't get that agricultural exemption in other words I've got to go through the building permit to build a chicken coup okay so my point is all along and like I said we've discussed this many times before and I and I every time I have an opportunity I'll bring this up if you got an agricultural zoning and everybody assumes you can have an agricultural thing why do we penalize agricultural zone property we do it on our setbacks if it's an agriculture if you got an agriculture exemption you don't have the setbacks if you if you don't have it then you've got to meet a 40 foot or whatever setback it is to the to the property line but the minute I make it an agricultural use and go through the definition of the Bonafide agricultural use I I don't have these setbacks I don't know why we're penalizing our agricultural Zone properties in this manner if it's Zone Agriculture and the adjacent Property Owners know that it's Agriculture and know what to expect if they were to purchase it by agriculture why are we applying these restrictions to these agricultural zonings maybe you can answer that I don't know but that's why I believe the Bonafide part of it needs to be totally out of the code at all if it's an agricultureal and it's in well maybe one of the Agricultural zonings whether it's a one acre uh but like Mr Costa said two and a half acres and up if you've got that zoning then then why are we defining because you do it a Bonafide agriculture or Zone that whether either or you should suspect that if you were buying an agricultural property and years ago that's the way it was I know where this come about somebody had a piece of agricultural property and build a bunch of Barns and stored cars in it I know where it come from and that's where this ordin that's where the restrictions come in but One Bad Apple shouldn't spoil the whole basket you know I mean if there's a way to manipulate it without going from one extreme to the other cuz he was on Extreme I remember when it happened and that goes back a lot of years and where it is now way before I was on this board but that's where this ordinance I mean the requirement come in for the Bonafide a and the a exemp come into the agricultural uses otherwise if you had an A1 zoning A2 zoning I don't know about the A3 uh but if you had that type of zoning you didn't have to do anything above and beyond what the Bonafide agriculture would allow you to do so I I I I hopefully did open the door in this ordinance to for discussion on this because uh I've seen it many times like I said you and I have had this discussion many times what is B what's the def definition of bonafide a I get uh it has to have an A exemption but that's not the case for a definition of bonafide it's the use and when you look at the ordinance is intended to allow an agricultural because of the acreage and sometime the use we are not regulating how it is used unless you tell us it's going to be used for agriculture and that's where possibly the exemption or the non-residential Farm building comes in if you want it as an accessory just to store more stuff on your property you have too much furniture and you need something to store it you put on a property you could do it that doesn't automatically make that an EG structure and that's where the whole issue are you using it for an actual agricultural purpose that's where the state statute comes into all about is it intended to be used for that then that's where the exemption language comes forward so right now I could use it for personal storage I can put cars in it it doesn't matter it as long as you can have a shipping container on your property that's what we're going to allow you to do we're not regulating how it is used unless you tell us in the gag part and that's where that exemption issue comes in well you're already limiting to how many you can have so if I've got a piece of A1 Property and I live on 20 20 acres and I want to put furniture or a car in one of these why should I have to why why would that not be allowed well you can do it I mean right now the number is there from the draft uh because we looked at in this County only South Daytona and Holly Hill have regulations for shipping containers new smarty Beach specifically prohibits them none of the other municipalities say anything about them so in our research some places it's two maybe a little bit more they haven't done it by the acreage situation so we're flexible you know certainly with your information we forwarded an agenda item to council make their decision they didn't really talk they did not get into the number per se they just wanted to address some of the primary location on the property where they could go what type of zoning what size of property uh they did agree to some screening and uh how they secured but as far as the number they did not get into that we gling that from our research with a lot of the different counties Pope County for instance is uh about a year old ordinance where they dealt with uh cargo shipping containers so that's where our research came from getting the numbers well I I get that and and I understand where you're coming from on this and I understand where the council's coming from but what but what I don't understand is if it's got an add classification what difference does it make if it's bonified or not as long as the acreage meets the minimum requirement we can put a minimum requirement of two and a half acres on it why do we why do it necessarily have to be a Bonafide agriculture to get the exemption why can't it all be the same if it's an agriculture zoning well that kind of gets into a bigger discussion because then we'd have to open it up to other accessory structures exactly and right now the code only permits well if you have a home you have an accessory structure uh section 72280 deals with multiple more than one principal structure if you have agricultural property you don't have to have a home to be a principal structure but it does have to be an agricultural building and defines what what those are barn your your silo or some other agricultural use building is permitted and without a principal residential dwelling but it gets back to okay is there an AG use now no you need a building permit or you or you do have an AG use or you have an exemption then you don't have to do a building permit well the thing of it is if it's on agriculture what difference does it make well we we'd have to address that obviously separately because then we are affecting um beyond the scope of what we're proposing now but sound like this is a discussion this is this is the reason I'm bringing it up because this is one of the instances where this applies my point you know whether my Point's valid or not that's for somebody else to decide I don't make ordinances and I'm not the final decision on the ordinance but my point has always been why are these agricultural zone right there in itself gives a the classification of what you can do there why is is more penalize the some of these agricultural well they are agricultural zoning is more restrictive than residential why but if I got a but if I got a an a exemption it's not it's not at all and I just clarify that doesn't make sense yeah your FR A1 A2 A3 and A4 and mh3 are your only commercial a zonings that this is going into your mh8 mh4 your a RR and R R A are personal use only so that so we have to it's almost like a breakdown is different distinction agricultural properties per se rural properties and then commercial industrial somewhat or just have a blanket uh exception type languages excuse me properties though that's that was my point I'm not saying move it into the mh5 or or whatever but the the point of it is is that what I'm saying is on your agricultural Zone properties okay and not then not just this ordinance here I'm looking at the broad view sure of the because I bring it up every time when I sit up here and you know that you you've seen me here many years and and I always bring it up and I don't miss a an opportunity to to do that because I think there needs to be some discussion on that okay we're just looking for feedback because this we you're decision today whether or not you feel it's not ready you continue it or if we go forward with Council feedback for us to present to council these are your findings well we do have a public participation for I'd like to hear what he has to say on this and then uh what we'll do is make a decision I'm I'm I think the way if I've got the temperament of the the board here is to continue it and let you go back and work on it okay okay all right I do have a public participation form from um Mr Nagel I gotta say this is like old school seeing you guys here with Pat and I up here go back many years good morning sir name and address for the record please sir my name is uh Christian Nagel I live at 350 stillbrook Trail in a wonderful community of Enterprise all right sir I've lived in unincorporated BL County for 18 years in blch County itself uh about 30 years I'm here before you uh to speak about the ordinance I think the I just learned today from Mr Ashley all the effort that's went into even creating this document and I commend that effort I didn't you know especially since the County Council has given their views about what they'd like to see in ordance so this particular ordinance I I'm here to speak about uh I think the a lot of efforts been went into it I but I do think there needs to be some further refinements to it um I was I'm sorry I didn't get it to you uh to the staff yesterday but I've always knew about the ordinance for the about four days uh the proposed ordinance so I gave to the secretary the other day uh some pretty extensive comments and I'm not trying to be proud or brag but uh um I was for I've been fortunate enough in my I'm now retired but I've got over 40 years of experience as professional uh planner and and and I've been um a certified man for many years also so it's not like I'm not familiar with how ordinances are created and structured and wrote I was even I've been even fortunate to be involved in U creating ordinance amendments for this very County so but I'm here today to talk about the the things that I'm most interested in this in this prois order I think that there's some amendments that need to be made uh the the main thing is I got four main things and all the and I appreciate the feedback we got today that you're still basically still working on a proposed ordinance for the regulation of these containers because yes reasonable regulations are necessary for to regulate those containers but the things I'm most interested in of all despite all my comments that I submitted to you the things I'm most interested is making sure that they're not allowed in the RR rural residential zoning classification uh the proposed ordinance it's got conflicts between which which St classifications are are they are going to be allowed it but I'm sure Mr Ashley would would and the rest of the staff would address that um the second thing I like to see like to be considered is that there be a size limit a size and height limit on these containers the staff report talks about shipping containers what they typically are but there's no requirement in this proposed ordinance or no Provisions for how big they can be or how tall they can be um the third thing Mr Ashley already mentioned uh is that uh you're going to the the the ordinance needs to be modified so that you clearly list which classifications are going to allow the use of excuse me you you can shut that off he's giv pertinent information and I think we're we're warning to hear what he's got to say thank you I appreciate it I don't mean to be longwind you're good but you clearly list which zoning classs are going to allow the reasonable use of these shipping containers if you look in the where ass section of this proposed ordinance there's conflicts between where conflicts between that section of the ordinance and the actual meat and potatoes part of the ordinance um for instance since uh the uh in the ordinance is written would uh allows shipping containers in zoning excuse give me a minute here please I'm sorry would allow shipping containers in um the mh5 classification which is the urban mobile home Dom classification uh they will allow them in the RR zoning classification which is clearly a single family residential classification and I and uh so that part of the orders just needs to be cleaned up if you look at the where ass section the listed permissible zoning classifications those are good but if you go in the actual ordinance there there's some conflict there that needs to be addressed uh the third thing I'd ask for you to consider is that these that you not allow the placement of the shipping containers in the Enterprise Community overlay Zone area as established by the county code uh that is a special and unique part of the county there are special regulations in the county code already uh talks about how the the Enterprise Community overlay Zone area should be used and protected as a unique place and I'm I'm asking for that consideration to be given the county spent some law has actually got a special part of their uh conference plan and their county code trying to protect the Enterprise area as a unique and special place so that's the other thing I would consider ask you to consider if you need a map of where that area is I've got a overhead to give you if you want to know which area that we're speaking of and if you can at least do that that at least do not allow these shipping painters in the designated uh uh historic district Enterprise historic district that's already established and I've got a map of that one also for your use if you want to see it so those are the those are the major things that need to be done but I commend the staff for uh recognizing some of the comments that I unfortunately only gave to them yesterday because always knew about this proposed ordinance for like the last four days or so well it's going but I sure appreciate your ability to come here and speak I got you get me fired up if you get me talking about rural residential zoning and and especially the Enterprise area Enterprise community area here I've got maps for you you can submit it to Miss Tucker and it become part of the record Mr n as you well know uh the pretty much the consensus is is this is going to go back to staff for further review and and some tweaks and things like that so you'll have an opportunity to see the cleaned up version of it I'm sure um I'm sure he can get that who can he get that from Miss Smith can he get that from you or Mr speaking of the map or the revised ordinance well when he cleans it up Mr Ashley would he go to Mr Ashley get that or we'll work with scottt to get that to Chris okay is that okay Scot provide him a cof that would be wonderful because okay even though it's published online U usually about a week beforehand I'd like to see it I'd like to see it before then okay well that's see it you can request that from Mr Ashley I can't guarantee it but uh you can definitely request it I just it's I've got the if you need if need be I gave the uh Kelly there the uh okay the official map where Enterprise Community overlay Zone area is and where the Enterprise historic district is okay we'll we'll submit that and give that to Mr Ashley so he can take that in consideration consideration and then your comments in consideration yeah and I'm uh thank you so much helpful because this is a work in progress and uh I mean we're not going to make a definite decision today anyway okay okay thank you much all right I didn't mean talk your ear off but it's got me going okay in a good way I commend all the efforts that Mr Ashley and the rest of the staff make they're very hardworking they certainly do care about the and your comments on the ordinance have of this County submitted this part as a record so Mr Ashley I have an opportunity to look at that also thank you so much okay all right okay do we have any other public participation for this case no okay all right we're going to close the floor and uh open up for commission discussion and I think a general consensus is to send it back with Mr Ashley and let him clean it up a little bit and bring it back um much time you how much time do you need Mr Ashley uh I don't know where deadline dates um 60 days 90 days that would be i' say 60 days yes 60 60 which would put us at what meeting is that that be October October meeting what does that fall on the third Thursday it would be the October 7 PDC meeting 15 all right so I'd like to make a motion okay uh case -24 d005 that we continue it to the October 17 meeting uh with the comments we've submitted to staff for review and change second okay I got a motion for Mr Costa to forward to continue this to our October 17th meeting um from Mr Costa and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay that'll be it okay any other public items no sir any staff comments no sir any commission comments I love the way staff works I really do I mean you guys do a good job MH um sometimes we're we're remiss in not um acknowledging that but uh you guys do a kick-ass job and it's a thankless job too I can tell you that cuz that's all I hear on the outside staff this and staff that it's like you really should just go in and talk to them they're really friendly people some of [Laughter] them say some of yeah yeah well they don't they don't have to agree with you 100% of the time but yes at least they'll listen any other commission comments and Chris thanks for all your years of service at blua County too good job yep thanks you and Scott both and Trish and all of you we commend you guys okay the other comment I had is on one of the the the one that we had today on the CPA um I know they had a community meeting but we don't know who was there um and when we the only thing that the neighborhood has is a orange sign sitting out and they know it's going to be develop but they I guarantee 90% of them or 99% of them didn't know they were getting three story apartment buildings put in there they think they're getting this going to be another residential Community there and uh so hopefully that the were to get out what has actually proposed to go there and um and they'll show up at the County council meeting that's all I can say you know I mean they have that opportunity yeah to the county yeah I thought the same thing as I was driving around looking at all the the SES on the here and when I saw that one it just kind of took me back really you know I mean I'd been more probably more favorable if it had been yeah I don't know about the densities but I don't want to go there as far as that but I I'll just leave it at that okay press and citizen comments this meeting's a journ for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for