the December 18th, 2025 hearing for the planning and Land Development Regulation Commission is now called to order. And if I could have you please silence any audible devices that you may have. And if you would please join me for the pledge of >> allegiance.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible. >> Good morning. I would like to thank everyone for joining us this morning. And Miss Grinnon, could I please have a
roll call? >> Member Erison, >> present. >> Member Craig. >> Member Shelley >> here. >> Member Costa >> here. >> Member Bush >> here. >> Member Sixma >> here. >> Chair Mills >> here. Thank you, Miss Grenon. Okay, we
do have minutes from our November 20th, 2025 meeting. Any discussion of those minutes? If not, I'll take a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. >> I'll second them. Okay, I got a motion to approve the minutes from November
20th, 2025 from Miss Shelley and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? >> Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. 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 Grenet to my immediate left and uh we will be limiting you to a threeminut time limit. And after the commit 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. Sora for legal comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for uh members of the public and for applicants
that decisions by this body on uh cases which reszone real property from one classification to another pursuant 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
and special exceptions 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 agreved party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made
before this body. Hearings by this body on reasonzonings, 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 competent
substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept support a conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sorium. And while on legal comments, I'd like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any exparte communications that you may 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 to my immediate right with Mr. Ersen. >> None. I have none. None. >> None. >> None. >> None.
>> And I have none. Okay. Mr. Shams, do we have any uh items that need to be continued or withdrawn? >> No, sir. >> Thank you, sir. All right. We do have uh some old unfinished old business. We got
three cases here. Uh Miss Shelley, could I get the first case read into the record, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-25-060, variances to the accessory structure requirements on resource corridor RC
zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. Miss Tucker, this one's yours. >> Good morning, commission members. Um, so today we bring before you a variance. Um, the applicant is seeking five after the fact variances for a 917 square f
foot elevated accessory structure with attached staircase to resolve an ongoing code violation since 2020 in the resource corridor zoned property. Uh, the property currently contains a 3,421 ft single family home that was built in 2004 and the current owners purchased
the property in April 2015. The accessory structure uh that we are talking about today started construction September of 2020. The parcel is approximately 12.5 acres and it does not meet the minimum 25 acre of the resource corridor zoning but is a legal
non-conforming lot that was vested through a 2001 lot line adjustment. The lot has unique dimensions as it widens to the north, narrowing to the southern waterfront and is subject to a front yard, sideyard, and waterfront yard requirements.
Today, the five uh variances that we're requesting is for um variance one is to reduce the western sideyard from 50 ft to 3 ft for an after the-act accessory structure in the RC zoning classification. Variance two is to reduce the eastern
sideyard from 50 feet to 12 feet for an after the-act accessory structure in the RC zoning classification. Variance three is to reduce the eastern sideyard from 50 ft to 11 ft for an after the-act accessory structure in the RC zoning classification. Variance four is to reduce the eastern
sideyard from 50 ft to 7 1/2 ft for the after the-act accessory structure stairwell in the RC zoning classification. And variance five is to reduce the southern front yard stair, excuse me, the southern waterfront yard set back from 75 ft to zero feet for an
after the fact accessory structure staircase in the RC zoning classification. Uh this site does lie in our Norma natural resource management area and includes wetlands which do require a 50-ft upland buffer. A site visit was
conducted on September 11th with zoning, building and code enforcement and environmental. Um we went out talked to the applicant about what needed to be done to bring the structure into compliance as far as the building and code side and then the variances that they were going to be requesting today.
Um on that site visit, I did not observe any other um parcels along the waterfront that had structures this large or this close to the waterfront yard line. Staff does recommend denial for variances 1 through five as the variances failed to meet four of the five criteria for granting a variance.
Should the PLDRC find that the applicant has submitted additional substantial evidence for approval, staff has recommended three conditions that can be found on page five of your report package. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Tucker. Mr. Costa, you had a question? >> I do. Good morning. >> Good morning, sir.
>> Uh I just want to confirm something here. on page uh two of the report uh first paragraph said construction accessory structure was around September of 2020 and then when I look at the application they submitted they're saying that the structure the existing structure has been there since 1960 and
>> so there was an original non-conforming structure um that we found on aerial photos dating back prior to 2005 >> um it looked like it had been destroyed um you know the the aerial photos weren't that great of quality but it did look like a dilapitated structure. Once
the applicants purchased the property in 2015 and 2020, they then started to do construction to rebuild and expand on that existing non-extructure. >> So, they expanded on the existing structure. >> Correct. Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you, >> Miss Bush. >> So, then I take it there was never a
permit originally pulled for the structure? >> No, ma'am. We couldn't find one. >> Any other questions for staff? All right. Hearing none is the applicant president. >> Could I get your name and address for the record, sir? >> Uh, my name is Mark Jones. Uh, my office
is located in Lake Mary, Florida. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> Yeah, very much so. I just want to put it into a little bit more context and I appreciate you asking the question because you're spot on. Um, this is a saga that's been going on for several
years now. Uh this is the first time I've been front of this board because I've spent a lot of time in front of the code enforcement board. Uh this property was cited by code enforcement. Um and it's very important for you folks to consider this. Uh we've been in front of
the code enforcement board. Scott's not here eight, nine, maybe 10 times. No fine has been imposed to date because we have consistently moved the ball forward in getting this property into compliance. This is the last piece
of the puzzle to get into compliance. Uh we have uh building plans uh in that we can get a permit approved if we get the variance. And some of this report says, well, you can't get the variance because you didn't get the permit. Well, I'm like a cat chasing its tail. So, we're
here to get the variance. And I think staff is on board with this. That's why we're seeing the three conditions that are in this report. To put it in proper context, this building was constructed. We don't know. Um D did a report um he
was previously cited by D uh in 2020. I have here the compliance letter with D. So as far as D is concerned, the structure that's there is compliant under their um codes. Um that structure was built, we believe in the 1960s. Uh,
I think it was just an old fishing shack that was built there that guys went in uh would stay there on the weekends and go fishing on the river. It was a functioning usable structure when Mr. Negri purchased the property in 2015.
Uh, I have photo evidence of that. Uh, I believe it's in the code enforcement file. It may not be in this file, but I can submit these into the record that shows his family utilizing the structure on the river back in 2015 2016. If you
folks remember 2017, Hurricane Irma came through. The structure was damaged in Hurricane Irma. Got some photographs of that, too, where the where the roof caved in on the structure. Took Mr. Negri a little bit of time to get
together the um money and and plans to repair and refurbish the existing non-conforming use. And he went forward based on bad advice and a misunderstanding of hurricane repairs and the needs for permits. And when D
came down on him and when code enforcement came down on him, he sought about correcting the problem. And we have worked pretty darn hard over the last three or four years now to get to the point where we are today. Um I think we've submitted I wish Scott was here because Scott's been very helpful. He
was at the last uh site inspection with us and uh the head guy over there and he um we've I think we've submitted three sets of building plans. Did Mr. Negridge expand the footprint? Yes. Acknowledged
it's in the reports. He has since paid significant amounts of money to have crews come out there and reduce the size of the structure back to the original footprint. The plans that have been submitted and are pending approval are within the original footprint of the
pre-existing non-conforming use. A property right that this gentleman had that that structure was never abandoned. He cons consistently used it and he's got an existing property right in that structure in that location. Are we trying to get it under code? Are we trying to get the variance so that
going forward on record if he goes to sell it to somebody else, it's completely legitimate parcel? That's what we're trying to do. So, I understand why staff has denied this thing. We don't want to set a precedent for anybody else coming in here and doing this. But I believe there's Scott.
We have an agreement here that we should get these variances that we are going to get this thing properly permitted and the structure should maintain. It's a very nice structure compared to was up there previously. None of his neighbors, we sent the notices out to none of the neighbors. Nobody has complained. In fact, a couple were going to try to be
here today, but they couldn't make it. Um, so I just want to address a couple of things to to get this in the record in case this doesn't go the way I want to, and we have to appeal this thing. Um, the five criteria that, um, staff is supposed to look at for approval. Pardon me, I'm blind as a bat. Let me get my
glasses on here. Um the first one uh is with special conditions. Um in this report, staff continues to say that he built an unpermitted accessory structure. Well, it is our position again, this was a pre-existing
non-conforming use and you a property owner has the right to repair and and and refurbish a a pre-existing non-conforming use. They cannot expand it, which he did, and he's cut back back to the original place. But he has a right to maintain a structure like that.
And and is there special conditions? Well, yeah. There is nothing else like that. He he they purchased this property in 2015. This was their dream parcel. They searched all over um Valuchia County to find something that they could access and fully utilize the river. That
structure was there on the property. It was one of the factors that they bought that place. And and they they use that thing. His children are homeschooled. So their recess every single day is to go on down to the river and splash around in the water. So is a very um it's very
uh it's a benefit to their lives. Uh the next uh um condition was are there any special conditions or cir circumstances that do not result from the actions of the applicant? Well, Mr. Negri did not pick the location of that
structure. had been there for many years and um this was strictly a repair of the existing structure. Um the next one was would this would denial create an unnecessary undue hardship on the applicant? Well, staff says no. Well, I
mean absolutely it would. Um the cost of that building to have him tear it down would be a pretty big hardship. Um almost three years of time that I have worked on this thing. He has paid me to work on this thing. He has worked on this thing. three sets of building plan. He's got a lot of money into getting
this thing into full compliance. So, it would be an absolute uh hardship upon him for you folks to deny us right here at the goal line. Um it even if staff has suggested that he could have gone on a permit to do this stuff, we still
would need the variance. So, I'd still be back in front of you folks. So, u we we've done everything we need to to get to this point. It's time to punch it past the goal line. Uh the the last two ones, sections four and uh uh condition four and five
uh is this the minimum variance required? Staff acknowledges it first sentence. The requested variances are the minimum variances. However, you could reduce the structure to make it a less of an impact. It can't be any less. It's been there for over 60 years. It's
there's no change in circumstances. And the last one, and I think the most important one, staff agrees on. Staff says the variances are unlikely to be injurious to the area. We're not asking for anything different than has always been there. The structure has always
been there. So, um, respectfully, I would ask this board to go ahead and uh approve this variances. Let us get this saga over with, get the property completely in compliance, and everybody moves on. Thank you. Okay, Miss um Mr.
Mark, Mr. Jones, >> um we do have a question for you. Mr. Costa had a question. >> I do. I want to see nothing better than to move you guys forward, but I have some questions. >> Sure. >> So, let's start with the first one. You said that this is a you keep calling it
a repair to the existing structure. So, what percentage of the original building has is still in place? >> I can't answer that question. I all >> the repair indicates to me that it's you're repairing something that's there and so at least 50% if not 70% of it is still viable and you're repairing what's
there. That's what I'm trying to get to. Is it a totally repair? Was it a tear down and a rebuild from the ground up? That's that makes a big difference to us. >> I I I our position is it was a repair of the existing structure. The the the photographs that I have show the walls
uh the walls were still up and again it was an old structure. So he he he he repaired the hurricane damage and renovated the existing in the process of in the process of the repair he also expanded the size of the unit of the >> so so thank you an explanation of that
the building that has an interior was actually reduced in size from its original the decking that surrounds it is what he expanded to make use of around the structure that's what went outside the footprint and that's what has been reduced to bring it back inside
the footprint. He he literally took almost 2 feet off of the >> west side of the structure >> and the plans that have been submitted take almost 6 to 8 feet off of the back of the structure that he put on. Um, and we haven't done anything yet because we
wanted to we're waiting to get the the measurements for the variances, get approvals for the variance, and do one final work on the property and be done. So, that's what we're waiting for is approval. >> Mr. Um those those pictures that you have, if you could provide them to the
clerk so we can put them in the record. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Miss Bush, you had a question. >> Yeah. I just wanted to know if you had any pictures of the ex building before you made modifications. >> I asked Mr. Negrich to search. I have every picture that that we have
available from his cell phone >> cuz I hopped on Google Earth just to look at some historical aerials just to see. Right. I don't know if you have any of those to provide but I'm I'm looking at it. I'm looking at 2019 January 2019 and it looks like the roof is off the
structure. Does that seem about a right time? >> Hurricane Irma was in 2017. So yes, that sounds accurate, >> right? So, it's hard to tell what the footprint is obviously without the roof. And again, I'm looking at an older aerial. Then when I get to 2021, it shows a structure with the roof. Yeah.
>> Right. And then when I get to 2023, it shows that roof expanded significantly and it shows the decking. So that's why I wanted to see the before and after pictures just to see did, you know, you say you didn't tear it down, you didn't, you know, you you have the original footprint in place, but to me, just a
quick Google Earth search, it looks like that got expanded. So that's why I really want evidence to show that it didn't get expanded. What you really are asking is for a variance for an existing structure. >> And and all I can tell you is this because I I've I've gotten into protracted litigation regarding
pictometry and what you view from Google Earth and property lines and the property appraisers websites. Those those uh property lines that you see on the websites, they're not accurate. What we do have with building is surveys. >> I'm not looking at property lines. I'm
looking at the roof. I'm looking at the outline of the structure. >> I understand. I All I can tell you is what's been submitted with building it shows that the structure is in the footprint. That that's I don't Scott, do we agree on that? That the current plans that we've submitted are in the
footprint. >> I don't have that full knowledge that that's Well, for the record, Scott Ashley, zoning manager. I think what what's being proposed in the new building permit is approximately similar to what the original draw uh outline of the building based on the historic
photos from our tetometry and from the DP that we received as part of the environmental review. Uh the addition has been substantially the front deck and the side walkways and the rear deck area according to the building plans
that were submitted but are waiting this variance to be implemented. The uh applicant is proposing to cut it down as close as possible from again we're looking at the measurements from aerials. We don't have actual plans but it it's similar once the additions have
been removed. >> Okay. So I so I think to answer your question, did he go outside? We don't deny that he did. The what we're what we have in building brings it back, but we have to get the variance to finish it off.
>> Okay. >> Um may I approach? >> Okay. Miss Shel, you had a question? >> Um yeah, I just um you said you've been working on this, I believe, three years, >> I believe. So I think I got on board in 20.
>> Yeah, I think 2021 21 I believe it is. >> Okay. Um I guess kind of my question is that well I guess it's not a question. I guess it's a statement. Um I I see so many times that people buy a piece of
property and I don't know what can be done about this but there are existing buildings on the property and so and I would probably do the same thing back in the day. Um but they start doing things with those existing buildings without
realizing that those existing buildings were never permitted had never gone through the process itself. Um, so that always catches I I don't know. I'm not saying that that's all on your side, but there has to be something because we see
similar cases like this quite a bit because well, the building was already there. Um, and then in my question I guess is then why in three years ago did you not in working in this why didn't it just
start coming to this board to begin with? >> Yeah. So some of it was advice from staff to get the final building so we knew what we were doing before we went forward with the variance. Another variable is >> hurricanes. Uh hurricane Ian you
everybody has to remember what St. John's River looked like after Hurricane Ian. We couldn't ex access the structure for months. I mean it was months that that he wasn't able to use it either. We we just couldn't get to it. So no work could be done, no survey could be done,
no remediation work could be done. The environmental this frankly this wasn't the only violation on the property. This was the one that brought it out. Code enforcement came out and they're like ding ding ding ding. So we were working on a lot of things and and we I think
we're pretty much in compliance on a on most of the other issues. This is the last piece to the puzzle. So the conditions on site itself prevented us. It dragged this thing out a lot. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Any more questions for the
applicant? All right. I do have a question here. Number one is the setbacks that you're requesting, that's to the original building footprint. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. The other thing is back when this
building was originally built, was there a permit even required to build that kind of structure then? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. Um, this the existing non-conforming use predates just about every zoning code there there is.
>> Okay. All right. Uh, this question also is for Scott or Mr. Sora. The um permitting I do know that back I I think it was Irma that a lot of the permitting was waved to get structures back in
>> the per >> because we got hit so hard. I think we we we waved permitting fees. Um we did that for Ian and Nicole and Milton. Um so anyone who wants to come in and
repair and reconstruct, we wave those building permit and application fees. You still need a building permit um to do construction because that's a state requirement. We control the fees that we charge. >> So it is feasible that Mr. could have possibly got that information
and felt that he didn't need the permit to put the roof and stuff back on the building. >> Not a mind readader. I don't know. >> Okay. Well, I'm just saying that it's not far-fetched to think that there wasn't a a lenience during then that you
didn't require permit. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay, that was my point. Okay. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, folks. >> We're going to be closing them for for public participation and open up for
commission discussion. Normally, going back to your line of questioning, Mr. Costa, when you were talking about the if it was damaged beyond a certain amount, normally that's put in place when they originally applied for variance. And if there was
more damage than I think it's 50 or 75% then they would have to come back and ask for a new variance. This is a non-conforming building that's been back there since the 60s and we don't even know if it was required to have a permit when the structure was built. So I just
want you to keep that in mind. And the other thing too is it's not far-fetched to think that that Mr. Negri uh assumed that he didn't have to have a permit after the hurricane to put the roof or stuff back on the structure. Yes, he probably helped it along a little bit,
but um just keep that in mind also when you're making your decisions on this. >> If I may. >> Yes, sir. >> Um so I I don't disagree with you. My question is though, this is a variance now. We pass this variance granted variance. Hurricane Herbert comes
through next year and wipes it out. It's held to the same standard with the 75% rebuild before they have to come back. Is it 75 or 50%? >> It's it depends upon whether or not this is in the coastal high hazard area. If it is, it's 50%. If it's not, it's 75%. >> So, if they have to repair more than
that, it has to come back for to get the the variance reinstated. >> Uh depends on if you put that as a condition. So, if you put it as a condition that if the structure is demolished for more than 75% then they have to meet the code, you can do that. Otherwise, um the
variance applies to this structure and it allows them to reconstruct the structure in the exact same location with the exact same setbacks unless this commission puts in a condition that says if you reach that I think it's 75%. >> I I don't need to make it more
restrictive than we need to. Uh I mean if that's if that's the way it's written right now >> what you're not okay. So if you grant this variance you are making it a a you are removing the non-conforming structure designation from this >> off that building. It's just the building. >> Just the building. So they can
reconstruct within the approved setbacks that you grant unless you put in a condition. >> Got it. All right. Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. Any one else for the discussion part? Miss Craig?
I'm thinking about the fact that they were looking for a piece of property for a long time and this was the only one they found where they could do what they wanted to do, which makes me think that there might have been an awareness of
the permits that would be required. And in a location like this, I'm very concerned with precedent. and the fact that it was an existing building goes to their favor definitely, but it had been basically abandoned for quite some time.
So, that's a concern for me. Um, because so much is after the fact, it's sort of hard to separate one concern from the other. And so, it's something to consider.
>> Okay, Miss Bush. Thank you, chairman. Um, you did a fabulous job with the remake of the structure. From the photos, it looks beautiful, and as a kid, I would love to have that in my backyard to be able to play and jump off and just be able to enjoy the St. John's River. I think it's
it's a beautiful structure. Um, my issue with it and with and I don't have issue with what you did. I think that you did with what the information that you had at the time, right? and now you're in this predicament and you're asking for forgiveness for an a structure that you thought you had the ability to use and
to modify and to improve to uh to for your family's use. However, my struggle is with structures that really shouldn't have been in that place in the first place. Right? We're in a time where we see a lot of unprecedented flooding. Right? You just examined or
explained to us how you didn't have access to the property or to that structure for what seemed like months, right? because of the hurricanes. We're finding, right, as a county, uh, as cities, I'm a I'm a land planner by trade. We're finding that we're building in areas that we really shouldn't be
building in anymore because of flooding, because of natural disasters, and because we're having to rebuild them over and over and over again. And we're having to find that those consequences are on all of us, right? Insurance property or, you know, our insurance raises go up, our prices go up and the like. So, I know that this is not a
structure that you live in, but I am concerned about what the future destruction of the structure looks like, what that literally happens downstream, no pun intended. Um, and that's part of the reason why I'm going to have issues voting in favor for this, even as how beautiful the structure is and you
brought the whole property up and in compliance and you're doing everything per the law. Now, I just don't think that we should have ever allowed that structure to be there in the first place. And I, like I said, appreciate what you've done, but I still think that your family can enjoy the property and enjoy the the river um from the land and
not necessarily needing a structure uh to support their uh the use of that property. So, those are my comments. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any other comments? I'll go back to what I originally said. That structure's been there for a
structure now. Maybe not that particular one. It's within the same footprint for six 65 years that we know of and um the impact that it has had in the last 65 years is not going to I wouldn't think change
for the for the future. So um I just want you to keep that in mind. It's not as if it was a totally new structure bought the property and want to try to utilize it. Miss >> Shel to that
and I'm not trying to labor the point. It's just a thought but sorry um is that even though it was there for how x amount of years one of the things and I'm not this is not just about this
particular case but it's just a general once again a general comment because I can understand I would probably have done the same thing but people need to realize when just because there's a structure on your property that you buy no matter how long it's in there and it needs repair and you start doing
something to it, you have to have permits for anything moving forward. So that's just a word of warning to anyone out there so that you don't have to come before us. Thank you. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> Prepared to make a motion, chair. >> Go ahead, Mr. Costa.
>> Case B-25-060. Make a motion that we approve variances 1, 2, 3, four, and five with the three staff recommended conditions. >> Second. Got a motion on the floor to approve variance V25060.
Varianc is one variances one variance 2 3 4 and five with the three staff conditions from Mr. Costa and a second from Miss Shel. Any discussion on the motion? >> My my comment on top of that is that yes, we the mo the variance is basically
to legitimize the original building footprint from the 60s, not the the new structure which has now been paired back to the 60s level. Okay. Any other comments? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?
>> I. >> Miss Craig. >> She was said I. >> Okay. So, motion carries. Uh, >> yeah. >> I couldn't hear your eye. >> Five to one. Correct. >> If you're confused, you should do a roll.
>> Somebody's missing. You want to do a roll call >> just to clarify. >> Okay. >> Miss Green, could I get a roll call on that? >> Member Erien >> in favor. >> Member Craig? >> No. >> Member Shelley?
>> Yes. >> Member Costa? >> Yes. >> Member Bush? >> No. >> Member Sixma? >> Yes. >> Chair Mills? >> Yes. >> 52. >> Okay. Motion carries 5 to two. Okay. Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please?
>> Yes, sir. >> Case number V-25-067, variances to the minimum yard requirements on urban single family residential R4 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. Miss Tucker, this one's yours. Good morning members.
For the record, Kelly Tucker, Planner One. The applicant is seeking two variances for a single family residential structure on urban single family residential R4 zone property. Um, there is a slight correction to the staff report. On page two, there is the
zoning classification requirements. It states A4. Um, the title is the only thing that is different. It should be R4. The measurements for front, side, rear, and waterfront are correct. Uh, the property does currently contain a 1,252 ft single family home that was built in
2003, which is currently non-conforming due to a 5-ft westward shift of the home from the originally approved site plan that was approved by county staff in 2003. The applicants did purchase a property in 2017. This is a corner lot
with primary access from 13th Street and a secondary front yard from Dand Avenue. So, this lot would be subject to two front yards and two sideyards. There was a lot combination in 20 uh 2002 uh that combined platted lots 18
through 21 on block 53 of the West Highland subdivision, which did create the current property in its current standing and it is eligible for for building permits. Um the applicant does seek two variances. The first one is to reduce the westward front yard setback from 25
ft to 12 ft, excuse me, 19 ft for the urban single family residential home as it stands. This variance would solidify that if something were to happen to the home, it could be rebuilt in its current footprint. And the last variance is for a 70 square
ft um garbage enclosure that which would reduce the front yard setback on the west side from 25 ft to 12 ft. Uh environmental permitting did review this project and had no objections but did state that they would have to meet the land development regulations. Uh staff's
recommendation is to deny uh variance 1 for the 25 ft to 12 ft reduction for the attached accessory structure and staff does recommend approval for variance 2 which is to approve the reduction of the
25 ft set back to 19 ft. Uh there are also three staff recommendations of approval if the PLLDRC does find the applicant provides competent evidence for support of approval on page six. I'm available if you have any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Tucker. Any questions
for staff? >> Mr. Costa. >> Yeah, this is Am I reading this correctly? This is just a trash enclosure. >> Yes, sir. >> 70 square feet. >> Yes, sir. They have a wildlife in the area. So, they wanted to build an enclosure to keep the wildlife out of the trash cans.
>> And so, we're going through permits variance to for a trash enclosure. >> Yes, sir. >> And so, if they went to Home Depot and bought a similar plastic, stick them up there, would they have to go through the same process again? >> If it were detached from the house and under the 480 square ft and would meet
the side or rear yard requirements, they would not have to go through these requirements. >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. And the reason for the continuous was just for advertising. Correct. >> Correct. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. All right. We don't have any other questions for staff hearing. None. Is the applicant present? >> Come on. >> Applicants not present. Okay. I' I'd make a motion that we uh delay
this one to the last just to give them a chance to show up if they're not here. >> I'll second that. >> Hold on. Hold on. Um Mr. De Parades, you can go up. >> Oh, he is here. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. My name is Mo Hood. I'm the builder. Um, >> if I can get your name and address for
the record. >> Yes. Maurice Hood. H O U D E. Uh, address is 1028 South Barisford Road. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Um, and I'm representing the Deper family. Um, and while we realize that
there's no um, u permit required for the actual shed under 480 ft, um, they didn't want to use a temporary structure that would be unattached from the house. They wanted something that was going to blend in with the house. There's really no other areas um, within the home footprint because there's windows. It's
not exactly sightly. And then the convenience for bringing the trash to and from um, is lessened by virtue of its distance. And um while we realized we don't need a permit, we wanted to uh told by county officials to go through the variance process as to as opposed to
the vacation process. So that's why we're here trying to present this to you today. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hood. >> Welcome, >> Mr. Costa. >> I got a question for you, sir. Come on back. >> Come back, Mr. Costa. Go ahead. >> So this is a 70 foot square foot trash
enclosure. >> How long have you been going through this process to get to this point today? Quite a while. >> Approximately 3 weeks, 3 months, three years. >> Probably three months. >> Three months. >> Yeah. >> For a trash enclosure. >> Yeah. >> I presented this to the owner and they still wanted to go forward. So,
>> understood. No, no, no. I'm trying to get the timeline and the what it takes to get a to make. >> This is really they they do some parking there with their vehicles. Um, and it's really the only spot they can do it and they really don't want something that looks plastic in the yard. That's kind of >> So, is this going to have It's not going to be living quarters of any seller. It's just
>> Of course not. >> Okay. Got it. >> Double doors with just everything locked up. So they don't have to keep cleaning up the mess. >> Good. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Miss Green, do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close close the
floor for public participation or open up for commission discussion or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Miss Shel. >> That we approve case number V-25-067 uh subject to the three staff conditions. >> I'll second that. >> And that's one and two. Correct. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. I got a motion on the floor to approve variance V25067 variance one and two for Miss Shelley with the staff condition. Is there conditions on this? >> Yes, there's three. >> Three. >> Three staff conditions
>> and a um second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Hopefully you have it built by Christmas. Hey Shirley, can I get the next case?
>> Yes, sir. Case number V-26- 0001, a variance to the accessory structure requirements on Stone Island planned unit development PUD zoned property. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Shams, I believe this is you. >> All right. Good morning. Steve Shams
with Bush County Planning. >> So this application was previously heard at the November PLLDRC hearing. It was continued for 30 days. In the interim, the applicant has revised the request to remove one variance. The variance to the sideyard is now gone and the proposed structure
will meet the 10-ft setback. The applicant also revised the variance of the rear yard from 3 ft to 7.2 ft. The rear yard requirement is 30 ft. A letter of support from the most affected property owner to the north has been provided. Uh the size of the structure
has not changed and is still 984 square ft for the storage of his boats. The structure has been shifted closer to the home to better meet the requirements of the Stone Island PUD. Based on comments made by the adjacent property owner and since the flight the site is in a flood
zone, the project was reviewed by development engineering. A drainage affidavit will need to be signed by the applicant at permitting. We've included this as a condition. This is a typical requirement for sites within a flood zone. Environmental permitting also reviewed the project and
had no objection as long as they meet the land development code. And the applicant provided additional documentation yesterday afternoon to provide additional details at the site. This has been provided to you on a new uh plan. According to the documents, there is a well pump structure on the
western area of the site that prevents him from locating the structure in that location. Uh however um there is no special condition to the site and the structure can be reduced in size to meet the yard requirements. So therefore staff uh
recommends denial of the variances as five of five criteria are not met if PLDRC finds evidence to approve. Staff recommends four conditions. Now available for comment or question. >> Thank you Mr. Shams. Any questions for staff? Mr. Costa. >> Yep. This is more of a housekeeping uh
comment than a question. Um the three handouts that we got today, other than the one where it has the case number, can we get the case numbers at least handwritten on these so we know what they go to? Sure. So we're not fiddling through please for the future. >> Uh short of that, he did uh from the last meeting that we had, this was we
heard this last month. >> So the changes that uh we discussed have been made. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Is the applicant present? Good morning, sir. Can I get your name and address for the record? >> Zachary Huffman, 524 Providence
Boulevard, Deltona. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Um besides just just the the um hardships, we just this we've tried
we've gone everywhere on the property and this is the only place where the building would actually fit on the property and still look aesthetic cosmetically good. My brother's here also. He'd like to say a couple words. >> Yeah. And the other >> Can I get your name and address for the record?
>> Dane Huffman. Sorry. Dane Huffman. Uh my my address or this address? >> Your address, too. Yeah. Your address. Uh 1425 Kettle Drum Road, Stone Island. >> Okay. Well, after you're done here, if you just fill out a public participation
form and hand it to Miss Grenon to my left. Okay. >> After you're done. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> After Go ahead. >> Um Well, there's an existing driveway there also that's currently there which we're trying to utilize that. And um
>> um I guess that's kind of it. And if we pull if we push the building any forward, she can't use it. We won't be able to access the garage because of the access point of the garage. >> All right, sir. And do we have any public participation forms for this case?
>> Yes, sir. >> Do you have a question? >> Mhm. >> A comment? >> Yeah. >> Ready? >> Go ahead. >> I'm just looking at my notes from the last meeting. So, um, confirming that you removed the sideyard setback, limited two variants, and that's going to satisfy your neighbor's concerns. So, we have a letter of appro a
recommendation of approval from one of your neighbors. >> From the the neighbor behind behind. >> Okay. And so, the neighbor that was in opposition is not here today. >> Yeah, he's here. >> He's here. >> Is he? Okay. So, he's speaking. Okay. All right. I'll wait for that then. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh we'll give you a chance
for rebuttal if we do have a public participation form and uh otherwise we'll close the floor. But I did tell Mr. Moran he didn't have to do it again. We We got it. If he would if he's not satisfied with removing that one
variance, you might want to speak. >> You want to speak? >> Yes. >> All right. >> If I could get you to come forward. Go ahead and have a seat, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And if you would fill out a public participation form again. I did. Give to Miss Grin.
>> I already did that. Yeah. Robert Moran, 1450 Shaman Road. >> Okay. Um, after reviewing Steven's report, um, they did not meet the five criteria. The the issue I have with the back is taking 23 feet of the back is going to expose 20 more feet 23 feet for
me to view. I'm not trying to be a bad neighbor would be difficult. Um, I just want to stay with the PUD rules. Um, if you can just imagine a average school bus is about it's like putting three school buses side by side and I'm going
to be looking at that from now on. There's other places on the property um or they can make it smaller. And again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to stay within the rules of the setback. When I purchased my home there, that's one of the reasons I did that is because to keep it more private. Um
there's other structures out there of that size that are within the setbacks and they don't encroach at all on the setbacks. If you drive around out there, you'll see large large structures like that also. So, um and after not meeting any of the criteria, I I can't see how
he should be able to take any of that 30 feet. So, again, I'm not trying to be difficult or be a bad neighbor. I just don't want to have that visual that I'm going to have to have all the time. That's it. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Mr. Cost.
>> Okay. Got it. Okay. Do we have any other public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the for public participation. Open it up for commission discussion. Uh I will say this. Um Mr. Sora, correct
me if I'm wrong from a visual aspect. Are we supposed to consider that? it's you can consider um its impact to the the neighbors as part of the variance request. I mean there's
the there is a um you know setbacks for uh structures of a certain size um that kind of implies there's a massing consideration. you know, if if this was a smaller structure, less than 480 square feet, be 5t from the property
line, um, according to your rules, but it's it's, you know, it is a larger structure, um, and it it's, you know, it should be further back unless they can demonstrate the need for a variance. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Miss
Bush, >> uh, this is a question for staff. I'm not sure if I asked this the last time, so I apologize, but um have any other variances been granted for structures, accessory structures like this within the rear yard setback >> in this area or in general? Oh, no.
>> No, no, >> because I'm looking at the aerial and I don't really see anything in the aerial that's within that 30 foot the rear yard setback of any of the properties. >> I did investigate and I didn't find anything in that in that regard. >> Okay. Thank you. You're >> welcome. Okay.
All right. Uh, Mr. Costa, you had a question. >> Yeah. Well, I'm looking at our looking at the notes from the last meeting and um I thought this would put it to bed and I'm reading I'm reading from the minutes here. It said that um Hoffman indicated he would be willing to modify his request to comply with the 10-ft
sideard setback and only seek a variance for the rear yard setback. And one of the questions that I asked is how could we get to a resolution here? and the 10T was the issue, not the 30 foot. And now that the 10 foot has been resolved, he's removed that, the 30 foot becomes the
issue. So basically, nothing that he's got planned here is um would be uh acceptable to the neighbor. If I'm reading this correctly and listening to the testimony correctly, >> I think you're correct in assuming that.
>> Okay. All right. Well, >> okay. Um, all right. Any other comments or I'll accept the motion? >> Yeah, let's make a motion. Get this thing rolling. Uh, KSP-26-00001.
I make a motion to approve variance one with the four condition. Four conditions, I believe. Yep. One, two, three, four. Staff recommended conditions. >> Second. I've got a motion on the floor to approve variance V260001
with the four staff recommended conditions for Mr. Cost and a second for Miss Shel. Any discussion on the motion? All those Miss Bush. >> I'm just concerned about setting a precedent in an area that has very
strict setback design standards. Well, maybe not strict to today's standards, but they were designed themselves. Um, and I for the record had concern over both setbacks the last time we discussed this, not just those sideyards. So, um, just wanted to make that a point for,
um, for the record. Thank you. >> Okay, Miss Craig. >> Thank you. Um, my concern is that the neighbor has such an issue with it. I think that um neighbors rights are as much as I would
love for everybody to be able to develop their property however they want. If it uh is a problem for the neighbors and they've been there for a while, uh I I really feel that that speaks very loudly. Thank you, >> Miss Shel.
>> Yes. And I am really uncomfortable uh voting for something that fails to meet any of the criteria that we use. um for discussion and and recommendations. >> Okay, Mr. Ersen,
>> I understand this is a put. Is this a homeowners association as well? There is no HOA. Okay. So, I do concur with my colleagues. I'm also uncomfortable. >> Okay.
No, sir. >> We're closing >> We've closed the floor for public participation. >> Okay. All right. We don't We've got any more discussion on the motion? We have a motion on the floor. Do we Did we get a second on it?
>> Yes, >> Miss Shel. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um I have a qu a procedural question. Uh this gets shot down here. Can they appeal to the county to council? >> Yes.
>> U within 10 days of the rendition. Um they're confined to the record made today and for the from the previous hearing. They'll combine it all into you know uh take both minutes and both evidence presented. >> They can so they can appeal it to the council and then council has the final
say on it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Or or they can withdraw and come back. >> Uh sure if you allow them to. uh make that withdrawal uh because they are here before you. >> Sure. >> The this commission has the authority to accept the uh request for withdrawal.
>> Okay. All right. Um so before we make uh before we take a vote, I just want to make that comment to the applicants that you have that option to uh withdraw the withdraw our application right now and come back, regroup and come back. Or if you read the room and this goes doesn't go your way, it goes to council, then
you can appeal it to council and that they would have the final say. So it's your call. Let me clarify that he's got the option to request the withdrawal. >> To request a withdrawal, rather. Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. Uh Okay. Are you finished? >> Yeah, I'm done. >> Okay. >> The only other thing that I could see
here would be to maybe appease the neighbor would be informed to meet the 30-foot setback is to put it that the opposite way behind the structure of the home. Um, >> that'd be the other thing. I I know
there's a What was that? A well inspection. >> Was it a well or is it actual? I think it >> No, there's a >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay.
Okay. In in our discussion, I would like to ask our colleagues here if you were to do anything other than what is presented today at any point would it would change your opinion on your decision. If so, by anyone, let me uh know.
>> Yes, I think I would be willing to vote for it if it if it met the setbacks. >> If it met the setback, then they wouldn't need a revarian. >> Good point. Um, but I I just have a problem with 7.2 feet. That just seems extremely close to
the uh to the property line. So, yes, if it were if it were further in, I think I I might be more inclined to vote for it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Unfortunately, sir, we've we've closed the for public participation.
Okay. Um, >> chairman, to answer your question, I'll agree with member Craig. I I if it's not a little bit more than seven and a half feet, I'm just worried about the precedent that we're setting about such a large accessory structure in such a small setback um or with a reduced
setback. So, I think if we can maybe match the sideyard or at least provide double digits there, at least showing intent to provide that distance between that rear neighbor and to provide that buffer um and clarity for um view for the potential side neighbor. Um I would
be in favor of that. It's just it's really the precedent and how large the structure is that I'm I'm uncomfortable with. >> Okay. Does that change anything for anyone? Okay. All right. We do have a motion on the floor for Mr. Cos and a second from
Miss Shel. Uh, any more discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? I >> I >> What do we have? >> I I was the one only yes that I heard. So I I was a lone yes apparently.
>> And the reason I'm saying this because he can uh appeal it to the council. >> Yeah, we've heard it twice. We need a roll call. >> Do we need a roll call? >> So So that was a uh the question failed. Um we like doing things here in the affirmative. So if you would if uh I
would request the motion to deny the variance from um any of the members so we can have an affirmative vote um for them to appeal to council. >> Okay. >> So moved. I'll do that.
>> Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Hers. Make your motion. >> You have to make it. Yeah, >> I think you made a motion to deny. >> Motion to deny. Yes, >> I'll second. >> I got a motion to deny from Mr. Ersen and a second from Miss Bush. Any
discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> Motion carries. >> Six to one. >> Six to one. >> Oh, motion. Yeah. Fails, carries, however you want.
>> Yeah. Will that motion? >> 61 to deny. >> Okay, that takes care of our unfinished old business. So, we'll move right into our new business. Miss Shelly, could I get our first case, please? >> Yes. Case number V-26-004,
variance to the accessory structure setback requirements on urban single family residential R4 zoned property. Thank you, Miss Shelley. Uh, this is Mr. Jascula. There you are. >> Yeah. Um, Joseph Jascula, planner 2 for
the record. Uh, good morning. Before I start, there have been two letters of opposition that got submitted recently. So, I'm making that uh first. Um, the applicant is seeking two variances. Variance one is a setback from 5T to 1.8
8 ft for a 383 ft accessory structure dog kennel. The second variance is a setback uh from 8 ft to 3.35 ft for a 763 foot accessory structure barn. The subject property is located on on the
northeast corner of Reynold Street and Central Avenue in daily uh Deleon Springs. This is an after-fact variance for a roughly 22,000 square ft parcel with a 1500 ft² single family residence with two accessory structures to the
east of the principal structure. The barn was built prior to the applicant's occupancy with an expired permit um in 1995 with unpermitted additions later on. Um
however the dog kennel was built in 2024 um by the applicant. Um there's an active code uh enforcement case that prompted these variances that is related to the breeding and selling of dogs. Um the kennel itself is not permitted which
triggered the variances. Environmental permitting reviewed the variance request and stated that they have no objection um as long as they uh comply with the environmental regulations land development code. Um there was a letter of support but they did not list what
variances they were in support of and the signatures were listed multiple times. Um and uh staff recommends denial for uh variance number one as it does as the applicant fails to meet criteria 1 2 3
and four. Um and staff recommends denial for variance 2 as the application uh application fails to meet criteria 1 3 and four. Should PLDRC find the applicant has provided the compet uh uh substantial evidence for approval the
conditions are provided. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Mr. Costa. Question >> my question is regarding the um the kennel itself. Is that allowed by right on that property?
>> I think a special exception. >> It can be special exception or hobby breeder >> up up until five dogs. >> Yes. >> Anything less than five dogs. >> That's correct. As a single family resident, you can have up to five animals on your own property
>> without any kind of ex exception or anything other otherwise. Correct. >> Because we don't have the variances here aren't for the kennel itself. It's for the location of the structure. Correct. Right. >> Not about the breeding of the dogs or the kennel itself. >> Yeah. And the structure itself is a kennel for the personal dogs. My
understanding the business part >> that's a whole Yeah. But that's not part of this that's not part of what we're looking at today. Today is just the structure location. >> I was just stating the code enforcement as the president's for the variance. >> Okay. Is that the the reason I asked that is the two letters of uh uh disapproval I guess that you gave us
this morning are both disapproving the kennel itself. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the staff? Chair >> Mills, may I add that um the applicant supplied five letters of support this morning?
>> Five letters of support. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> I will make a note. I I reached out and told her about the letters of support not being valid enough. So, she went and reached back out and got those letters
of support. So, >> okay. All right. Miss Bush, you had a question for staff. >> Yeah. I'm just curious because I know that this all stem from a code enforcement issue, right? And the code enforcement issue obviously is, you know, irrespective of what we're discussing here, but that brought up the
the issue of the wood barn not being permitted. Correct. >> Correct. We've had other cases brought before us, not through code enforcement, but through other accessory structures wanting to be constructed um that also had unpermitted structures that were not
that likely need a variance, right? I think it was like last month we saw a case like that. So why are we now looking at a case today that is seeking two variances? One for a structure that obviously she constructed, but one that she didn't that's historical. when we're
not set, we're not following those same rules and procedures to other cases that have come before us. So, can you tell me why this one's different? >> It was a part of the request whenever it came in. We discussed it with the applicant at that time. And I believe
that there is there's just been a change of how these reports have been written over the years. We used to identify every um non-conforming structure and unpermitted structure on the property and let the applicants know and just automatically add them to the report and then it has switched in the the past few
years to where we only looked at their request. Um we are trying to be more customer serviceoriented um with the the way that we write these reports um and identify the structures that they do wish to maintain on the site and include them if that's what they want to do. >> Okay. So, this was a this was the
applicant's requesting to bring this. Okay. >> Thank you. And for the record, that would be really great to be added into the staff report because I was like to me reading this and looking at how we've historically looked at non-conforming structures that aren't necessarily a
part of what we need to be reviewing. We haven't that hasn't been a part of the case, right? So, I definitely want to see that moving forward, especially if that's going to be a change approve, which I appreciate, right? Thank you. Um, but just make sure that that's in the record in staff report. Correct. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Any other questions for staff? >> Is the applicant present? Thank you, Mr. Cusa. >> Can I get your name and address for the record, please? >> Yes. I'm Marilyn Rose and my address is 150 Shady Branch Trail. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report.
Anything you'd like to add to it? Well, just that um none of this was intended in in Malice. The barn, which is um you just spoke of was uh built in um 20 years ago. And we
had no idea that it was not in compliance. So, when we built the um the dog kennel, uh she has five German shepherds, which we didn't want running the yard. They were running the fence, chasing kids on bikes. And so, you know, we didn't want to put them in small
cages. We didn't think that would be humane. And so, she built the kennel and we built it in line with the barn, not knowing that the barn was out of compliance. Trying to keep it aesthetically nice. We have taken the property from an old ran down, you know,
replaced all the wood in the home, wood on the barn, repainted it, you know, really tried to bring the property up. And my thing was whenever we wanted to build the kennel that it was going to be a good thing for the neighborhood. It was going to be a good thing for the property. And I said just make sure it
is well built, looks nice, aesthetically in line, and and keep everything good. Um, I had no idea that the barn was out of compliance. So now we're looking at taking down a beautiful well-built barn, a nice kennel that, you know, provides
safety for the neighbors. you know, the dogs aren't vicious, but they're big dogs and they're chasing kids on bicycles, which, you know, has got to be scary. So, uh, for the neighborhood, we thought that it would be a very good thing to keep them restrained. She does
let them out, uh, one or two at a time when she is outside with them or either on the front porch watching them, you know, so they get a little bit of exercise. It's almost an acre there and they can kind of run it. Um, there was something else I was going to say and I
can't Oh, and it's all over 3.2 feet. We're 3.2 feet too close to the property line. And so to take down a barn and to remove the kennel for 3.2 feet, it would be a big expense. It would leave an eyes sore. It wouldn't look good. And we were
trying to do something good. >> Okay. Can you uh >> are you a hobby breeder? >> My daughter is a hobby breeder. >> She's a licensed hobby hobby breeder. >> No, she has not gotten her her license as yet. In fact, she ceased into she she
stopped breeding. She's has stopped breeding for a little over a year, year and a half, I'm not sure. But um because um she was working with the SPCA and they gave her this whole line of stuff to do and she done it all and then they said, "Hm,
>> uh ma'am, I we we're not going to have a conversation back and forth. You you're more than welcome to come up and speak at the podium if you'd like, but uh we'll give you a public participation form for that." Go ahead. But um I didn't think it was it was over the the
breeding but over the kennel itself to keep the dogs >> okay >> in in in safe. >> Okay. How many dogs do you have there? Five. Okay. >> There's five kennels and five dogs. >> Okay. >> Five five separate kennels are or they're they're together but five
enclosures. >> Okay. So let me make this clear. This is a variance for the buildings, not the dogs because >> the she's allowed five dogs. Mr. >> Costa, >> that's my next That's my next question. So, you got five personal dogs? >> Yes.
>> So, let's say the kennel goes away. You're still going to have five personal dogs. Yeah. >> In the backyard. They're going to be in the backyard as opposed to kennel. The difference is not So, you're not boarding dogs. These are your own private dogs. >> No, no, not boarding dogs. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'm going to have to ask you
to keep keep the conversation down in the back. Okay. All right. Anything else you'd like to say? >> Uh, no. I don't think so. >> Okay. We do have some public participation forms. I'll give you a chance for rebuttal after they have spoken. >> Okay.
>> And so, uh, if you'll just have a seat nearby, please. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Clayton Bino. Good morning. >> Morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Clayton Beino, 5040 Commerce Avenue, Deon Springs.
>> All right. You've heard the applicant and there was something you'd like to add to it. And could I get your name also in >> I'm Martin Padata. I'm his attorney. 120 East Rich Avenue, Dan, Florida. >> All right, sir. you've heard the uh the comments that have been made and you
would like to make a comment to that? >> Uh yes, I'd like Martin to speak for me because he knows a lot about this case. >> You speak also. Um first and foremost, they are breeding animals on that property and right now selling those
animals off of that property. She does not have a hobby breeders license and she's been doing this for two years contrary to what was just spoken. I want that for the record. Uh, they've also jumped the fence, chased other animals,
bitten two people. Use your imagination. >> Okay. >> I I I do have uh an advertisement to submit to to support the position that she is running a a breeding kennel.
>> Okay. >> Doesn't have a license. >> You can turn it in. you can use it as part of this, but uh for the record, we're we're actually looking at variance for the building structure itself. If
there's any code violations as far as the breeding, that would have to be done through code enforcement. Okay. So, basically what we're looking at today is the setbacks to the property line for the buildings.
>> Okay. Well, then I I'd ask you to support what the recommendation is of uh of the uh >> staff report. >> Staff report and that it should be denied for the reasons that he listed. >> Okay.
>> All right. Any other comments you'd like to make, sir? >> Uh yes. As far as it goes for the barn, uh the original builder of the barn is in the audience right here. Uh the actual designer is sitting right over there, EPI. And yes, there were permits
pulled and they were approved for the barn structure itself. >> Okay. >> Well, that's all right. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other public participation forms for this? Oh, Mr. Cross, did you have a question or
comment? Okay. All right. M. >> Yes, sir. There were three total. There was three total. One was the applicant himself. >> Okay. Then maybe there was one more. >> I have >> both of them.
>> I have um Marilyn Rose, Clayton Vito, and Mr. Pad Pad. >> Okay, then that would be all. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. Miss Rose, would you like to
rebuttal? All right. Okay. We're going to close the four for public participation. Open up for commission discussion. Um yeah, to the comment that was made um about
the barn being permitted. Any or where's the where you at? Uh Joe, there you go. Any research on that at all? >> Yeah. So >> to justify that >> we're looking in our database and they were uh the permits were expired at 1995
and then other additions were made but not recorded. >> So it was a smaller structure and then additions got put in. >> So the 1995 permits were they >> for a smaller structure >> for a smaller structure. So they did they would have needed the variances that we're looking at today for the existing. >> Um I believe the sideyard would still
need >> the sideyard even though they were approved previously and expired. That's my question. Is it is it for is are we in between times here and and and and setbacks? Changes and setbacks. That's my question, I guess. >> I don't think it changed the setbacks.
>> Okay. >> It was more of expansion outward. >> Uh-huh. >> Rather than um >> you you follow what I'm asking, right? Yes. >> If it was permitted and approved, was it approved in the location that it's currently in? >> Was that setback not an issue back then? >> I do not recall.
>> Okay. All right. Good. That's good answer. Yeah. Okay. >> Plausible deniability is always >> okay. Any other discussion what it and and I will I'm going to address the uh
speaker's concerns about the breeding. That is definitely a code enforcement. That's not with this board at all. Uh, and I, you know, you brought it bring it to their attention. If they're in violation, I'm sure it'd be addressed.
It's not something we can consider as far as uh if it's what they're doing with the buildings. It's the buildings themselves. Okay. I just don't want you to get the wrong impression. We're saying, "Yeah, you can do whatever you want to as far as the breeding side
goes," because that's that's not what we're here for. Okay. Mr. Costa. >> Yeah. want to add to that and I'll go ahead and make a motion at the same time is that uh yeah the variance is strictly for the kennel itself to house the dogs and whether the kennel exists or does not exist the five dogs will continue to
exist because they are allowed by right um all the other factors I'll call it white noise because it doesn't belong to this panel it belongs to the code enforcement panel so that's where you need to go next with the regarding the breeding of the dogs themselves with that uh I will make a
motion on case V-26-004 that we approve variances one and two with the four staff recommended conditions. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I got a motion on the floor to approve variance V260004
variants 1 and two with the four staff conditions. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Craig, >> I'd like to see the two variances separated for vote. >> Okay, >> we can do that. Could we do that?
>> Uh, hang on. Let me look at the let me look at the conditions. >> Especially if it's a request from one of the members. >> Sure. I'll I'll amend my motion. Um, same motion. We're just going to break it up into two separate votes. Variance one. U make a motion V260004 the
approved variance number one with the staff recommended conditions and a second motion on the same case uh for variance number two that we approve with the staff recommended conditions. Two votes. >> Okay, we'll take a v a v vote on variance one first.
So um any discussion on that motion? >> Variance one is the accessory structure for the dog. >> Correct. Mhm. Yeah. >> Okay. Any discussion on that motion? Okay. All those in favor signify by
saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? I >> no. >> Or I. >> Count. Count them out. >> All right. Let's do a roll call. >> Member Erison in favor. >> Member Craig. >> Uh, no. >> Member Shelley.
>> No. >> Member Costa. >> Yes. >> Member Bush. >> Yes. Member Sigma. >> Yes. >> Chair Mills. >> No. >> 33. We missing one. >> 43. >> 43. >> 43 in favor. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Now we'll take a vote on any discussion on variance two with the conditions from staff. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously on that one.
>> So that's okay. It was four to three on the pass, but variance one was 43 pass. >> Yes. >> So, they both passed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please?
Case number V-26- 0007, variances to the accessory structure requirements on urban single family residential R3 zoned property. >> Miss Tucker. >> Good morning. Again, for the record, Kelly Tucker, Planner 1. Today, the case
I've brought before you, the applicants are seeking two variances for an after-the-act 387 square foot accessory structure to resolve an ongoing code violation case. The site is currently developed with a 2,622 ft single family residence that was
constructed in 1972 and the applicants purchased the property in August 2014. The site is subject to a front yard along the eastern property boundary, two sideyards along the northern and the southern boundaries and a waterfront yard to the west. Um, and it does meet
the requirements of the R3 zoning classification as far as setbacks. However, the lot size does not um the minimum lot size for R3 is 10,000 square ft with a minimum width of 85 and the parcel has a width of 126 ft and
approximately I apologize these notes are incorrect. The lot does meet the R3 requirements. Uh the vested status is currently undetermined at this time, but staff is currently under review um to deem it a vested lot. Uh the violation came from a
building inspector that was at an adjacent parcel and noticed that there was a solar array in the front yard with no building permits. Um after speaking with the applicants, they stated that they hired a solar company to install the panels uh for a backup generator. They were under the impression that the
solar company went through applied for the permits. Um however, they did not. So now they have a different contractor that they're trying to go through the proper steps. During the zoning review, they found that the uh solar array is in the front yard setback and it's also
apologize. It is also an accessory structure that is located in the front yard setback as well. Uh during a site visit on November 5th, 2025, county staff observed planted landscaping in the front yard that did help to screen the solar array as well
as a black wooden border that follows the perimeter of the footprint that screens the solar array from viewing from the street as well. Development engineering team did review this and found that there were some landscapes that were planted in the 50oot uh
rideway along John Anderson Drive. However, since then, uh it has been confirmed from Nicholas Ellis, who is in our DE department that um has solidified that some of the planting has been removed and they are up to code and the plantings do still provide the proper
screening for the solar array. Um the request today is for two variances. Variance one is to reduce the western front yard from 30 ft to 5 ft for an after the-act accessory structure in the R3 zoning classification. and variance two is to allow the after the-act
accessory structure to be located in the front yard setback. Um staff does recommend approval for variances one and two. However, we did provide two conditions for PLLDRC's consideration that can be found on page four of your staff report. I'm available for any questions.
>> Thank you, Miss Ducker. Miss Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. I have a couple questions. Um >> all right. Okay. So, when reviewing your cr your justification for the five criteria, I found that there was little inconsistencies that I I really wanted to to bring up. First, and this is for
um section four, criteria four. >> Uh you say that there's a financial burden for the reason why the criteria um was met that they could because of the financial burden. And I'll make this statement in other variance applications
for like accessory structures and and um sheds and things that was never um a reason for approving or saying that that criteria was met. That it was always that the applicant could move said structure, right? Financial burden was
never one of those criteria. So I guess my question is why are we saying that financial burden is one of those criteria? Is there a threshold that you all are using to justify whether or not that meets that criteria or not? >> Um, so for my impression, there is not a
financial number for the criteria. With this job scope, there were buried electrical lines. So when speaking to the applicants, the cost of the variance was far more or less significant than the cost of uprooting those electrical lines and trying to find another viable spot on the property.
>> No, understood. Right. But that I'm just saying that was my justification for the criteria for >> but in other re you know in other varianc's past they've already pers done something that it would have made it financially burdensome to move that structure. So I'm just pointing that out
that there's been some inconsistencies when applying this criteria to variance structures um across. So that's number one. Number two, harmony with surrounding properties. How many front yard variances have been issued this
community for solar arrays in the front yard? >> So the solar arrays based on the aerial photos that I viewed and observed, they were either water front yard or they were roof mounted. The applicants didn't have the option to do roof mounted
because the structural integrity of the roof since the house was built in 72, it would not support the weight of the solar array. So that's why they were told that it had to be located on a as a ground mount solar array. >> Okay. >> Uh but based on my review, I didn't see
any uh variances that have been applied for. >> Right. And and I understand the justification, the reason for putting it on the ground. I'm not denying that. My point is is that I do not feel that it meets that criteria of being harmonious with the surrounding properties because if there weren't a fence there or there
weren't some of those things you would be able to see that array and that would not be there are no other solar arrays in the front yards of people's lawns in this community that I can see that you can see that we are all aware of right so I don't really feel like that criteria has been met and I don't feel like criteria four has been met either
meaning that it wouldn't necessarily pass muster and you guys would then recommend denial for this variance. It's not going to change our opinions of whether or not we feel like this should be approved or not, right? Everybody's going to have their own opinion of that. I just feel like the justification for you approving this criteria was much
different than what we've seen in the past on these types of cases. And I just want to make sure there's consistency moving forward. >> Understood. Thank you for the comment. >> You're welcome, >> Mr. Costa. Yeah, I'm actually kind of I'm a little surprised that uh solar panels are
considered an accessory structure, but um that's being said, um the company that installed this, so there was never a permit pull for this whatsoever. >> No, sir. And then the uh number for the company was disconnected a couple weeks after the job was done.
>> Imagine that. Okay. Well, that's it then. I got nothing else to say. Miss Craig, you had a comment or a question? >> Uh yes. I had a an opport this is in my neighborhood so I had the opportunity to drive past it and I have to say from the
road you see absolutely nothing because the structure itself is as you can see on page 13 um it's lower than the top of the fence and because it's painted black the way it is it is not visible from the road basically. So from a uh that
standpoint I have no objection to it at all. I am concerned about this company doing all this work without permits, but I think that needs to come up some other some other. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Tucker. Uh we'll get forward. >> I would also like to add that a letter
of support was submitted to our office on Monday, which was after our publishing date, but you should have received a copy of that this morning as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Is the applicant present? Good morning. Could I get your name and addresses for the record, please?
>> Linda Waist, 2058 John Anderson Drive in Orman Beach. Okay, >> sir. >> Eric Lawberg, 2058 John Anderson Drive, Orman Beach. >> All right. So, you've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? Well, one thing about the location,
um, the location is is important with solar panels. You have to have sun. >> And the issue we ran into when looking at different spots, whereas there's trees and our our neighbor that was building the house, we knew that the house was going in and that also the
more you push the solar panels in away from the highway, we were getting less and less sun, more and more trees that were creating shade. it would do you no good. And our goal here was to have a solar generator for when the power goes out. So that's that's why we put them
where we put them. >> Okay. >> All right. Do we have any Mr. Crossy? You had a question. >> I do. I want to know who installed them. >> We're not going to go there. This was this he never finished it. It was it was a partial >> and it was really a misunderstanding
because we you know we said he'd take care of everything and we just thought everything meant a permit too >> cuz you won't share the name. >> No, that's not really fair. Besides, we can't reach him anyway. So, you can't either. >> All right. Did you want to add
something, sir? >> Um, no, not my I think I think it's all out there now. >> Terrible, terrible experience. We just want to be in compliance with everything. So, >> okay. >> So, we are with G. Henry Solar now, who is who, in fact, we had to go back and
make sure all the plans were where they needed to be. So, he's submitted them and and we've we we're hoping to get this done soon. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Is it functioning now? >> Is Excuse me. >> Is it functioning now?
>> For emergency use, it can function. >> Yeah. But we're waiting on on all this. Yeah, we're waiting for the the inspections now. >> Okay. Do we have Miss Grant, do we have any public participation for us for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation. Open up for
commission discussion or motion. You'll have your answer here shortly. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> One one thing I was going to say about is they did do a good job of the placement of it. Just looking the pictures they did. I mean, it's nice and it looks very
aesthetically where it's at. So, >> yeah. G. Henry helped us with a lot of that. >> Yeah. >> The job was not finished. So G. Henry really sorry you have to go through that part of it. >> Finish properly. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm ready to make a motion here. >> Go ahead, Mr.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Anybody else have any >> Okay, >> we'll discuss >> uh case B26007. Uh make a motion for approval with two staff recommendations conditions. >> One and two. >> Was that one?
>> Yes. One and two. Yeah, >> I'll second it. >> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor for Mr. Sixma to approve variance V260007, variances 1 and two with the two staff recommended conditions and a second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion,
Miss Bush? >> Um, I just want the record to reflect that my comments on the staff report were were for consistency for staff writing purposes, not necessarily for what this this case is. I do feel like it's appropriate for um the request. So, thank you.
>> Any other comments on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Pick better contractors. >> Miss Jelly, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir.
Case number V-26-012, a variance to separate non-conforming lots on prime agriculture A1Z owned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. And Miss Ray, this is you. >> Good morning, Kristen Ray, Planning and
Development Services. The applicant is requesting a variance to separate non-conforming lots, the subject parcel from the adjacent parcel to the east. The owner of this subject property applied for a building permit for a single family residence and upon review
it was identified that the property required a vested rights determination. The subject is the subject property is zoned prime agriculture A1 and there is a minimum lot size uh of the A1 zoning classification of 10 acres. The subject property property is approximately 5
acres in size making it non-conforming to the zoning classification. A non-conforming lot letter was provided and showed previous common ownership to the parcel to the east. According to section 722061, two or more contiguous lots are
considered undivided if common ownership existed on the effective date of the zoning ordinance and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot with or lot area. The exception being if the lands involved were lawfully created created
and is developed with a permanent dwelling unit. The subject property is not yet developed with a permanent dwelling unit. Therefore, a variance to separate is required. The property is within the Samsula local plan and is in harmony with the local
plan's goal of maintaining the existing rural agriculture and natural values. Staff's recommendation is to approve the variance request with no conditions. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Ray. Any questions for staff? Miss Bush. >> So, to confirm, you're so I know what
you you're subdividing the property, but they want to build on the property to the east. Is that correct? >> Can you put that? Thank you. Um the property to the west. What you'll see at the um top that is the their proposed residence that has a um building permit
in house currently. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Costa? >> Yeah. Um, how big is the subject property >> prior to subdivision? >> Five acres. >> Five acres. So, we're going to create two and a half acre parcels. >> No, they're they're both five five acre
parcels. >> 10 acres total >> and we're we're separating the two. Correct. >> No, they're already they're already separated. >> There are two separate lots currently, but because there was previous common ownership, it's classified as undivided.
However, they are currently owned by two separate owners and they're both five acre parcels. >> Got it. All right. All right. They're both five acres, so we're not Yes, sir. All right. We're not creat. >> Okay. Any any other questions for staff? Hearing none. Is the applicant present?
Thank you, Miss Ray. >> Good morning. For the record, >> your name and address. Yes. >> Yep. For the record, Josh Wells, uh, attorney for the applicant or attorney for the owner, I'm sorry. uh 340 North Causeway, New Smyrna Beach. Uh so, as you can see in the staff report here, um
the the reason for the variance application today is uh basically the property as it was originally subdivided into a 5acre piece existed under some prior uh zoning regulations that did allow 5 acre parcels. Uh since the original plat that created the parcel in
question here, which is only to the parcel to the west, that's the only one that we own. Um the modern A1 zoning regulation was put in place that requires 10acre parcels. Uh we did try the non-conforming lot letter route, but there was a common ownership that dated
to about 2006 in this case. Uh so we were not able to use the non-conforming lot letter to get around uh the minimum lot size requirement. So the the only variance is the minimum lot size. Uh, and the reason we're separating it is because, sorry, the uh common owner was
the property to the east back until about 2006. Um, but that's that's it. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Do we have any public participation forms? >> No, sir.
>> All right. We're going to close the fourth for public participation over commission discussion or motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead. I move that we approve case number V-26-012, a variance to separate non-conforming lots on prime agriculture A1 zoned
property. >> I'll second that. >> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor to approve variance V2612 for Miss Shelley and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Bush, >> I just a question for staff. um just how
often um we issue or receive requests for the minimum lot size variances or a variance for the minimum lot size in previously um it used to be common um however I believe it was in 2023
that around there um that we put the exception that it had to be um lawfully created and had a permitted uh single family residence on it. Um, so the only reason why the variance is in front of you today is because it does not yet have that single family. Okay. Yes, ma'am.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Any other comments or questions for on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. >> All right, Miss Shelley. Could I get the
next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number PUD-24-00009, a major amendment to the St. John's River RV storage BPUD. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. And this is Mr. Shams. >> Hi, good morning again. Steve Shams with
Planning Development Services. U just want to highlight one correction that was made to the report after publishing. The address on the very first page was corrected. Um, so the applicant seeks to expand the St. John's River Storage uh
business PUB from 7.25 acres to the full 23.75 acre site. Uh, the site is de divided by a wetland corridor into an eastern and western section. There is an existing RV and boat storage operation on the eastern
half. Uh the application would amend and restate the existing PUB and its two minor amendments into a new PUD. So this agreement would replace the existing agreement. The original BPD was approved in 2018
with a final site plan in 2019 and which was also modified in 2020 to provide phasing. Uh phase 1 was completed in February 2020, but the development order expired in January 2021. In addition, the previous owner made
unauthorized improvements, including 68 uncovered vehicle spaces and a storm water pond, which were identified as violations in January 2023 during a subdivision application. Uh the current proposal aims to bring existing improvements into compliance
and develop the western half with new improvements such as an 80,000 ft²tory mini warehouse, a 14,000 ft storage structure, 36 covered spaces and 88 uncovered spaces. If approved by county
council, the applicant must file for a new final site plan modification within 6 months or face PUD violations. If denied, unauthorized improvements will receive a notice of violation. The applicant plans to subdivide the
property and sell uh one side with a subdivision line coinciding with the existing zoning boundary. The surrounding land uses include a residential community to the west called St. John's Gardens, uh, commercial water crop, commercial watercraft services to
the east, uh, approximately 68 acres of Timberland to the north and utility and undeveloped lands to the south. The site is located along State Road 44, which is a thoroughare overlay zone corridor requiring additional standards for setbacks, landscaping, signage, and lot
coverage. Uh, this proposed project is meeting these requirements. The city of Dand also reviewed the project and recommended adequate storm water management and enhanced landscape buffers. The site receives portable water from the city of Dand utilities
and uses an on-site septic system for wastewater treatment. Uh the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and was also reviewed by traffic engineering. The site is expected to generate 62 daily trips and our
engineering staff expressed no concern. Uh overall staff recommends forwarding to the county council with a rec re recommendation of approval. I'm available for comment or question. >> Thank you Mr. Shams. Any question for staff hearing? None is applicant present.
Good morning Mr. Woods. >> Good morning. Happy holidays to all of you. It's good to see you all. For the record, Michael Woods with the law firm Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Boulevard here in Dan. And I think I've got a PowerPoint presentation. Be very brief. Um very happy to be here before you.
This is uh as as I will show you my first this is what I click with right. Okay. Every time I do it wrong. Wait. Did I turn it off? Sorry guys.
Hey. All right. I'm just becoming my dad in my old age. Um this has been a project that has been in the application process for a little while and I just kind of want to touch base as to why that is. Um, this is the applicant right now. Uh, the my my client is bringing
the current property into compliance as a modern fixing up some of the issues that were were uh kind of created by the previous owner. Nothing really detrimental to anybody, but absolutely kind of I'll only say as a headache to try to clean up how we were going to go about this. And the time frame that we've
taken like in the last 18 months to two years has been how do we go about this efficiently and make sure that we do everything once, right? And so, um, you can see the aerial photo there showing the, uh, vacant property and the the, um, wetland area that kind of bifurcates
the property there. Uh, even that splitting of the property, we will be able to do that and we have designed it so it could be split separately. Um, but part of that is just for financing purposes to go get a loan on one portion without end impacting the existing facility on the eastern side. Um, and if
you've driven by, you've probably seen the the facility as it currently exists. A lot of this was just really being driven by um wanting to have uh additional large vehicle parking, boats and RV storage. Uh just the lack of availability uh lack of you know I I don't know how many times you guys have
had code enforcement issue. Well, you don't have code enforcement but have heard that city land end ups of people parking their vehicles in the front yards not allowed to. So coming through here, but the history of the project, uh, as Steven said, was a BPUD by the Clemens family initially, and that was
for the entirety of the east side of the property. And about midway through the project, it stalled out. So it wasn't initially phased. They worked with staff. Staff worked very hard to kind of get them back into a new compliance when they couldn't build out fully. what you have of the primary structures and I'll
kind of show you what that is now was what was approved but they still had other site improvements including asphalt in the back that people have been parking on. So when you get notified here about having to come back in put in for phasing the stuff that has been done prior to my client coming
forward now was to try to true that up of basically the project stalling out mid-grade and that current that old property owner and the county trying to put everything back together. client now then came in as that was going forward. We were one of the reasons asking for
the subdivision and the possibility for the subdivision and then that's what triggered kind of a review of the site plan and ultimately at staff's request with the PUD and we came in on the west side. Let's bring it all together. Let's do a unified thing and clean it up. So, but that's taken a little bit of time.
Um minor rem the timing on that. Um again, staff was exceedingly helpful. the the biggest challenges that we've had um one was kind of the timing and structuring but really there I want to point out to two major uh sit uh conditions that we have on the site
power lines and the wetlands and that is really what's dictated everything that we've done thus far. Um as you can kind of see here this is the sketch plan concept plan that's in your staff report. That yellow uh line there is the power line easement. It's an older power
line easement. Uh, and you might as well fight against God and and mankind if you're trying to change the conditions of that. The green area is the delineated wetland area. That exercise had already been done through the first phase, but it was updated. Um, good news, all wetland avoidance. Uh, with
the project, we've got the necessary upland buffers and setbacks provided for. Um, from the timeline standpoint with that power line easement, there's that substation that's the commercial or industrial property directly south of us. then it runs north and then cuts over to Grand Avenue. So, it's it's a
robust power line area. Um, we went through every iteration we could with the power company of well, what is the scope that we can work within that area? Is there a vehicle parking? Is there anything else? I learned a lot about power line easements. Um, even to the fact that there is a really good reason
why they have parallel going through or or perpendicular crossing instead of parallel. We learned about temperature of the power lines. We learned about sag and arcing. All that is to say it was a really good idea to stay out of the power line easement. And so basically that western 100 ft of the property
became a handsoff for us. The only other thing that kind of goes through there is there is a current and will remain a emergency access for the power company to access the property off of Paradise. Other than that, there's a non-vehicular access easement that's required along
with the Paradise Avenue access point. Uh, Paradise Avenue itself is is um I I believe a substandard roadway for the county's designation, but there's no real available additional rightway there because right off of their existing asphalt is the swale system. So, very
early on in the process, we were we leave that alone, leave that be asis, our reliance is solely on state road 44 for our access. Um, and again, we worked with, uh, you know, in addition to just the power line easement, they've got some pretty broad
languages as to what you can do even outside the power line easement and their ability to come in and cut down whatever they want to. Uh, the height is stuff outside. So what you have proposed is something we worked with very hard with the county staff as far as our landscaping buffering outside of the
power line easement. Some hundred and something feet away from the property line and the actual structures because we then just have vehicular parking first and foremost in the site plan. We're very far removed from Paradise Avenue. Wetlands again really just good
news for that is that um we're complying and not not impacting those. Um, so combined, uh, it's kind of narrowed what our project is. This just from a a standpoint cuz it's sometimes hard to see, uh, what's proposed in black and
white. So, I got to take my crayons out, which I really love to do. You can ask my staff. Um, and it is crayons. Power line ements in yellow. Uh, our blue area is in the southwest corner is our proposed storm water pond. Obviously, that's going to meet storm water requirements at construction. in the
northeast corner. That was the existing storm water pond that will be brought into compliance with with the new site plan uh revision. Green is our wetland area. Uh the dark purple off of 44, those are our two access points. We do have two access points for the property
so that we don't have any cross access in between through the wetlands. Again, trying to avoid that at all costs. Um the other purple lines you can kind of see uh on both sides of the property is the uncovered surface parking uh in that northeast corner that is part of what is
being brought into compliance with the existing construction having to be permitted after the fact and cleaned up. There was in one of the iterations of the PD some additional covered storage on that area in the northeast corner but we've clarified that. So what you see there now is what will be coming
forward. Then we have in the orange is canopy parking. Um so some covering for your boats. And then in the pink area on the eastern side are the existing structures that are already in place that are fully enclosed. And then on the western side is the enclosed structures that are are as proposed.
Um we can get into any other details or questions that you may have but this I will tell you that this has gone through a substantial amount of near sight plan level review. like we've already worked through issues with Shane Lenu for fire for the vehicular movement in and around
there sprinklering. Um and really I I would just tell you this cuz I think Mr. Costa was kind of bringing up the timing and permitting and stuff like that. We went full tilt with this. I think the initial thought process would be hey can we just get some surface parking put in? What's the minimum requirement to do
that? And it very quickly becomes well if you have to go through this full process and everything like that which is good. That's why you have a fully developed project coming through here when it really the conversation from the client initially was can we get some additional parking out there because I I have need of that with what's on the
eastern side. Um but it does it's obviously very close to the to the river. So it's a great location for these types of uh vehicles to be stored. And other than that we uh accept staff's recommendation for approval. They've worked very hand inand we've had so many drafts go back and forth on the
approval. I appreciate Steve and uh some patience with me. He's he's caught me on a couple of errors that I had and it was very appreciative. So, um happy to answer any questions you may have and appreciate your time today. >> Thank you, Mr. Woods. Any questions for the applicant, Mr. Costa?
>> Yeah. You So, you called my name out, so I figured I might as well ask a question. >> Sure. >> Not sure what question I was going to ask you, but I mean, give me the answer anyways. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um it's it's it's interesting having a unique use like this. Uh this is my soap box kind of thing and going through the PUD. um
because it is a a more lengthy process than going with straight zoning. Um but there isn't really a really good definition for us to be able to utilize this, but I think you also recognize there's some need and you see other storage facilities kind of popping up and and some of you know I I claim
responsibility for some of that cuz our subdivisions are being built and they don't have as much storage or you know you don't have a backyard. What I don't claim responsibility for is a lot of people have a lot of toys now, you know, and it's that the vehicles and the storage. So, having a nice place for it
to be and safe and easy to access uh is pretty good. >> Those two developments go hand in hand. My my question is that you mentioned the power line easement. Is that FPL or is that Duke? >> Uh it is currently uh is Duke, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, we've we've
gone through dated back to the old Florida Power Corporation. Uh and it initially it was interesting there was some language in there and the reason why we even had conversation with them is it contemplated a boulevarding on the outside of the power line easily >> at this point in time they were just
like no uh it >> so they wouldn't let you they wouldn't allow uncovered parking underneath the power lines >> correct well >> that's that's I I find that unusual that's why >> yes so so the conversation and and they
were reasonable right um vehicular movement. Part of the issue is how do you get them there? So, we couldn't have a vehicle drive north south through there because as it runs par parallel with the power lines, I understand there's some arcing charging kind of building up, >> right? >> We did talk through about okay, let's
assume that the drive aisle is just outside it and you're just pulling in. >> Then they get into a little bit about the height and those power lines are fairly tall. Mhm. >> Then we started getting conversations about, well, we have to worry about the the the voltage load and the and the temperature cuz then that causes a sag.
>> And it just it started that's our biggest stretch of time where we lost time and and ultimately the client was like, could we just get this moving forward >> and not not go pick a pick a fight. So, >> well, I I like to pick fights, but uh that's that's one I have a >> we did our level best to try to
>> Yeah. I mean, my issue is you have the ease they have the easement on your property. >> Yeah. But you're paying the taxes on that easement. >> It it I mean it's it's a functional it's as close to fe simple as you can be. But but you know at the end of the day Mike worked very hard. I mean it gives him
some design challenges for Mr. Watuniac to get get going through. But as a result of all of that we're pretty far along with site plans. >> You got in you got in everything you wanted to get on that site. >> I think so. Yes. >> Okay. All right. That's Thank you. >> Any other questions for the applicant?
>> Okay. We do we have any public participation forums for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right. We're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Oh, go ahead, Miss Shelley.
>> Uh that we approve case number PUD-24-009. um forward the that resoning case number reszoning application case number to the county council for final action with recommendation of approval. >> I'll second that. >> Yeah, >> I got a motion on the floor to forward
the reszoning application case number PUD 24009 to the county council for final action with recommendation of approval from Miss Shelik and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion, Miss Bush? >> Not really discussion on the motion. And
I apologize. I probably should have asked this earlier. This is more of a question for staff. There are some blue dotted lines on your current and proposed zoning classification maps. And I'm just curious what those mean because you do not provide a legend for it.
Um the blue lines that you are seeing the dotted that are going across that identifies the um thorougher overlay zone that is there. >> What >> that's going to be that main one that you're you're seeing. >> So this isn't an overlay.
>> Yes, it's in the threr overlay zone that was identified in the report. >> Oh yeah. >> And in the PED document. >> Okay. >> That would just be really great to identify the maps moving forward. Mhm. >> Yes, we will have the the thorough fair. We'll work with our mapping team.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Very much.
>> All right. Okay. That takes care of all of our new business. Uh do we have any other public items? >> Yes, sir. >> We've got folks in the audience. Is that
what is going on? >> Okay. Are they just here? Okay. >> We could probably have them come up during citizen comments if you like. >> I'll give that in a moment. Sure. >> Okay. Do we have any other public items? >> No, sir.
Uh do we have any staff items? >> Yes, >> we sure do. Okay. Um we sent out a memo to you all regarding the the research you requested for potential increase or or not of the the stipend that you
receive monthly. And I just wanted to kind of open it up for um any comments or questions on that or if you had direction um that you would like staff to to move in for it. Basically, you just shut us down, didn't you, on that memo?
>> Just providing >> you slam You didn't shut us down. You slammed the door. >> I tried to let you know last time. >> Yeah, it wasn't a soft shoe either. It was like a hard kick to that door. But uh No, I get it. I uh >> you know, go ahead. It It doesn't m If
you don't ask, you can't get. It's my That's how I look at it. >> No, it's never hurt me before. Just means I'm not trying hard enough. Well, let me let me crack the door open a little bit. >> When you made your comparisons, we were
looking at the cities and and I I bring you to the fact that the Valuchia County is about 1438 square miles. City of the land, I believe, was
17.8 square miles. So, we're not really comparing apples to apples here because we're not asking to be paid to be put on the PLDRC as much as we're asking to be reimbursed for our expenses that we incur
on the PLDRC. And based in and going back and one of the things that you said here, you said the u the state of Florida and the federal government mileage reimbursement rates are 70 cents per mile. That was research that was done by our
um PDS administrative staff. >> Okay. So if we >> real quick chairman >> if we do any calculation here if if we do if we if we just go to half of the
sites I don't believe our stipen covers that amount. Okay. Um like I said we're not asking for to be paid. I think it is a privilege to be on the board. >> Absolutely.
>> Um, so I'm not asking to be paid. I'll donate my time, but what I'm concerned with is when the cost factor gets in, you start having to spend a considerable amount of money on the expenses you
incur to go to each site. Now, yes, we can do Google Earth. We can ask our other colleagues here that live in the neighborhood what they, you know, what they see. But my experience is getting out there and actually seeing because
there have been times that I look at the staff report, I perceive one thing, then when I get to the site, I see something else. So, it's a very it's a really a benefit to get to these sites. So, when
Mr. Costa asked for an increase. I believe it was, you know, it was very well deserved to be honest with you cuz at this rate of back in 1987 when this when we the the $200 was put into
effect, the rate of that today would be almost three times as much. I think it's $287, the value of a dollar back then to what it is today. So I did my little research also. So but
I just want to make sure we're comparing when we make comparisons to other planning boards. I I don't know how we can consider the cities simply because their square miles is a lot considerably less than Valuchia County.
>> Yeah. And so I had the cities because I had a feeling that y'all would ask about the cities and what they did. But I did at the bottom of that are all the counties as well or surrounding counties. Yeah, I do see the counties >> and um well, you take give you an example. Putnham County is $30 per
visit. Their square mileage is 827 compared to our,438. So, if you look at that and if you and if you do even per visit and if we go to 10 visits, that's $300 right there. And and and traveling more than what we
would if we were in Putham County. Okay. Um, when you put when you had it, the only other county that I saw that was listed that was actually more than what it was Bvard County. Was that no response or they don't have any stipen at all?
>> Oh, they don't have a stipen at all. It's completely voluntary board with no payments. >> Okay. That was the only one that that was um that I could see other than what what you have listed here. Um, but anyway,
I I'll put it out there. I let the board decide what they want to do. I mean, I've lived with it for quite a few years. So, you will do whatever you >> wish to do. Miss Bush. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. I just wanted to point out for the record, I did
respond to the um Miss Weston staff when they submitted this and the um staff said that the mileage rate was state and it is not. the state is still 0445. I did verify that that's the county is.7
and the feds are.7. So again, depending on what rate they want to reimburse us at, it could be we could be losing money, right? Um so just for the record, I just wanted that because I I did bring that up. I was like, well, show me where in the state that the statute that shows
that it's 7 because the state hasn't hasn't come up to that yet. The second thing that I just want to say um and for the record so that you know where I'm at. I'm not obviously in this for the money. I don't think any of us are. Um I don't travel to these locations and if I
were um I would probably then seek reimbursement. I think that might be the best way. I think that was one um suggestion that another board did. Um but that's just me, right? Um I'm I'm one voice on this. I think let a
sleeping dog lie. Okay. Any other comments? >> I'll make a comment. Um, I've served on multiple boards. I was really shocked actually to actually get
a a stipen on this board. I served um and when you say cities, it depends on the person on the board. I was uh on the planning board in Daytona Beach and chaired that board um through some tumultuous years uh for 18 years
actually not chairman all that time. Um but I traveled the county and other areas because of of impacts and different things and just on my own to see what was going on and uh never received a stipend as well. So, um I
understand what people are talking about. Um but at the same time, I would um and and others have served on this board longer and maybe that's something to do with it too. But as I said, I've als I also served on the cultural council for the county. Traveled to sites all around
the county to visit those sites and never got a stipen nor did I expect one. So, when this even came up and when I got my first one, I was like, "Well, that's nice." But I didn't really um I'm just kind of a volunteer at heart in many ways, and I'm not saying others
aren't. I don't get I I understand that. Um but anyway, I'm I'm I'm fairly neutral on it actually. So, that's kind of where I stand, >> Miss Craig. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I also uh was
somewhat surprised and pleased when um I found out that there was a stipen involved, but I have to say that after um the work that I've done on on the board and I feel like I'm more willing to go out and do site visits because there is this there is this coverage and
it sort of it it's an incentive um I don't know if it's guilt or uh just sense of duty or whatever that uh I want the county to get um their money's worth. Um but I'm also somewhat neutral
in that it's it it's been sort of a gift in a way. It was an un unexpected gift. I like it being there, but uh if it doesn't increase um they'll be able to put dinner on the on
the table. So I'm somewhat neutral. >> Okay. Mr. Costa. >> Yeah, it was here when I got here. the stipen. Um remember too that this year uh the council has decided that uh we don't
have enough on our plate and have pushed quite a few items back to us for approval as opposed to the duel and I think that that workload alone and again a lot of these sites yes you could you can go through here and never step foot on any of these locations but there's quite a few of these and I would say the
majority not the minority that benefit from my putting eyes and feet on the dirt to understand what the situation is. You can't always get it gleam it from what from pictures or from the writeups uh uh that people submit. And I think that the the stipen is not
about hey we need a raise. It's about the cost of fuel, the cost of automobile automobile traffic. You're talking about eliminating the packets in in general. So if we're if we're going to required to be printing these and uh you know running the paper in the I mean it there's a cost for a volunteer to have
to come out of pocket that's what changes a thing. If it's just going to a couple meetings and attending some you know suarees yet that's great but I haven't been invited to any lately. So that being said the cost continues to go up and I I'm one of those that I like to gamble just roll a dice and see what
happens. I mean if they take it away from us they take it away from us. worst they can do that they be in the council. That is >> staff would love to have a motion from the board on whether you would like us to proceed with a discussion item at
county council and if the discussion item includes a um specific amount and I know you guys have floated the what whatever the percentage would be today which is around 600 some odd dollars um per board member per meeting. Um so that
would be great. So I know exactly what to do moving forward. >> Scott, you were around when they put this into effect, weren't you? 1987. >> So dates him, year before. The reason I asked this is because I
wanted was wondering what they base it on back then. Well, even with the stipen that they adopted, uh, when I got here, we actually had a, uh, van, which was, as I was told, was to help travel, take
members around to sites if need be, occasionally, uh, passenger van, which come I think mix that. >> So, um, I didn't mind it. the only card I had a radio. So,
>> yeah. >> Well, >> well, uh, >> I'm not ready to move on anything. Budget season's come and gone. They're not going to consider council's not going to consider this till the next budget season anyway. It's just going to be tabled.
>> I think we should just take >> these guys got money in their reserve. Don't let them fool you. >> We don't. and our our planning um and development services budget. We did look to see if we could accommodate anything and we are we are we have no additional movement. >> That's why we're lacking sugar in the
coffee room. Huh. >> Might be. >> They're concerned about your health. >> You know, like I said, I take it as a privilege to be on this board and uh it's not going to make me feel different one way or the
other. I do know that it's been brought up by different people and evidently some of us have changed our minds here. So, so I don't know where where you guys want to go with this. If you want to send it the council for discussion, we
can do that. If it's not going to do it any good at this time, we can do it right before budget season next year. Uh >> our budget season um when we are modifying our budgets begins really in January. Um, and it full-on begins in
March. So, that's when staff has to put in the request for that next budget year. I know that council doesn't see it until around September, but we are working >> pretty much January 1. I have uh draft forms that I've been given last week. Do >> do you foresee any more cuts coming our
way as as far I mean, I know the issue with the mailing and the printing. Is that subsided now? Is that stabilized or is that still a push to go pure paperless? Um the county is always wanting to go paperless. Um however, I have not heard
anything additional. We do have our director of growth and resource management, Ray Tiner, in the audience who if he does have additional information on that um could get up and let us know. >> Okay. >> I'd be more than happy if we took away
the paper. I mean, I really appreciate the paper and going through it in the way I the way I operate. We haven't budgeted for the the printing cost. So, um we have not been anticipating any modifications to our budget and the the planning and development services division
>> um for the printing cost. >> I Mr. Chair, I'd be I'd be okay tableling this till like the March time frame. We said that's in the peak season of them putting the budget together. >> Yep. I support that. >> And put it in, you know, put it in there and see what happens. Well, what I would do is get a I mean, each one of you
should have a relationship with the point the the commissioner that appointed you. >> Maybe have a discussion and see what their point of view is on it >> before we cut our throats. >> Yeah. See if we have any support. >> I'll put it out there. >> When that happens, I' I'd have to
resign. Not going there. So, I think what you would like to do is pretty much table it now and then we can bring it back at a future meeting if we wanted to move forward to council with their feelings on that. And I would highly recommend each one of us reaching
out to our pointers and um and see um see what their feelings are on it. See what they think. >> I think that's a great idea. >> Okay. All right. Well, we'll leave that alone for right now. Okay, >> that's your direction. >> Um, we do have a few more.
>> Are we in consensus on that? >> Okay. All right. We don't need >> All right. I will um float it again to you all um come at the beginning of March. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um another announcement that we have is
that Joseph Jaspoola um he is back in the back. He has accepted the position as our uh CRS coordinator, our community rating system coordinator. um as a planner too, he still stays in our activity, which is great. Um he'll still be coming here uh especially for the
time being as we do a transition, but I just wanted to um let you guys know that. And then we also have another >> Yes. So recently we had a member leave the county um Courtney Harris. He accepted a position with the city of CM um about two weeks ago.
>> So we just wanted to acknowledge him and thank him for his uh hard work and the time he spent with us and wish him well. >> Okay. So, if you know of any planners, we have an ad open. >> I got one right here, >> too. Curious.
>> Well, we'll take it. >> If you do have any time you have any of that, please send it my way because I have obviously connections with UCF being a professor. Um, so I can make sure that especially entry level positions, a lot of my students are looking for those. Graduation is happening both for the master's program
and the undergrad program graduates in May. So any any of those opportunities, please send my way. >> Awesome. We will. And that's all I have. So happy holidays. >> Okay. And I heard you say, are you the gentleman that took the place of Clay uh Urban?
All right. It's a pleasure to meet you. >> And he's going to stay in his seat. >> He's not coming to the microphone. >> All right. All right. Any staff comments? Um, no further comments. Okay.
Commission comments. >> Question. >> Go ahead, Miss Greg. >> I have a question uh that I assume goes to staff regarding um code enforcement violations uh since there were two that were that were brought to our attention.
I'm most concerned with the contractor who um operated stealing money basically from from the customers doing um unpermitted work um and they were cited or a violation of
some sort was was um >> filed and I wonder what kind of um ramifications there are for somebody like that. Sure. So, we have what's called the CLCA. That's the uh contractor licensing and contra it's
it's a contractor licensing board that has jurisdiction over uh the act of contracting for both licensed and unlicensed contractors. So, it works a little bit similar to our code enforcement board, but it is solely
dealing with the um uh uh punishment for uh the act of unlicensed contracting. They also have within their jurisdiction um dilapidated structures. They are the ones who actually condemn and demolish structures. So that's an entirely kind
of separate board. Um they have the ability to fine individuals. They have the ability to recommend them um to for further action by the state. If they're a state licensed contractor, they can pull their licensing permits within
Valuchia County and prohibit that individual if they are found in violation from doing any work in Valuchia County. Um, but for acts like these where it's kind of fly by night, um, it's
it's kind of a local board. So, they would have to refer to refer that particular entity. someone has to make a complaint, they refer them to the state contracting uh board and they can refer them to the um the state attorney um to
press any kind of criminal charges available. But their their jurisdiction is is over the act of unlicensed contracting. They issue fines. If you are a licensed contractor and you misbehave, they have more jurisdiction
over you. They can issue restitutions. they've got because you're you know you are engaged in the business of contracting with the public you've got a fiduciary responsibility to it. So um depending upon what their license status
is um it would go through the contractor C licensing board which is a CLCA. >> Any other commission comments? Okay. Um I would like to wish everybody a merry Christmas. have a safe holiday.
And um so do we have any press and citizen comments? Nobody out there. Okay, this meeting's a journal. >> Just wanted to come for the day. >> Not like it's interesting or anything.
>> Depends on who you are. >> You're right. You're right. I find this stuff interesting, but >> it's just >> that's me. >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> I've been learning a lot. >> So, I appreciate the support. >> You're doing good. You're growing fast. Merry Christmas. >> Merry Christmas. >> Merry Christmas. >> Merry Christmas. >> Happy New Year. Yeah.
I like your sweater. Mhm. I love your sweater, by the way. saw guarantee >> administratively. Yeah. >> Wasn't doing a All right. So, You have a silence.
>> We always do because when you make You know which I do. >> I don't know. That's a good word for it. I actually I'll make sure to do the rendition
letter correct this time. >> Thank you. All right. I'll see who owns it and then I'll find that water. >> It's really simple. Okay, great. Thanks, >> Samantha.
list of people. >> There's too many. >> Yeah. Great guy. I thought it was Tuesday.