Hey, hey, hey. Check. Check. One, two. Test. One, two. Heat. Heat. Thank you. There you go. The October 16th, 2025 hearing for the
Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission is now called to order. And if I could please have you silence any audible devices that you may have. And if you could please join me for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Good morning everyone. I would like to thank everyone for joining us this morning. Um, Miss Tucker, could I please have a roll call? >> Good morning members.
Member Erison >> present. >> Member Craig >> present. >> Member Shelley >> here. >> Member Costa >> here. >> Sorry blank. Member Bush >> here. >> Member Sigma >> here. >> And Chair Mills >> here. Thank you, Miss Tucker.
>> Okay, we do have minutes from our September 18th, 2025 meeting. Any discussion on those minutes? >> I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as presented. >> I have a a comment. Um there is a typo or a discrepancy. I know I wasn't here,
but I did read them thoroughly. Um on page 10, um under the mo the recommend the motion and the recommendation, it says that there were two staff recommendations, but there are three listed. So I think it's just a minor correction.
>> Okay. for item 25-057. I'll amend my motion to include that correction. >> I'll second. >> Okay. I got a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from September 18th,
2025 with the correction on page 10 of 15. Yeah. And from Miss Shelley and a second from Mr. Sixma. >> Mhm. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. Okay. All right. If anyone would like to speak for or against any of the cases being heard today, if you could please fill out a form at the back of the dis and
hand it to Miss Tucker on my extreme left. We will be limiting you to a threeminut time limit. After the comments have been heard, I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the commissioners
may have. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sora for legal comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is for members of the public that decisions by this body on 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 presented 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 agrieved 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 to support a conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sora. And while on legal comments, I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any experte communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which the vote is to be taken on any quasi judicial matter. And I'll
start with my immediate right with Mr. person. None here, Mr. Chair. >> I have none. >> None. >> None. >> None. >> I had a conversation with Alex Ford on case uh Z25012. >> Okay.
>> And I also had a conversation with Mr. Ford on that same uh variance. Oh, no, it's a zoning. I'm sorry. All right. We do have um an item to be continued
and let me see who is that B uh 2564. >> Yes. Uh staff is requesting continuance for V25064 until November 20th PLDRC as
staff has identified more information and needs time to consider it. >> Okay. Anyone make a motion? >> Yeah, I'll make a motion that uh we continue case V-25-064 to the November 20th PLDRC meeting.
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. I got a motion on the floor to continue V25064 to our November 20th, 2025 meeting for Mr. Cross and a second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? All those
in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we do have some uh unfinished old business. So, Miss Shelley, could I get you to read in case V25 032?
>> Yes, sir. Case V25-032. Variances to increase the maximum fence height and reduce the minimum driveway requirements on urban single family residential R9 zoned property. >> Okay, Mr. Harris, this one's yours.
>> Yes. Good morning. The excuse me, the applicant is seeking after the fact variances to increase the maximum fence height and reduce the required driveway setbacks on urban single family residential zone property. The variances are variance one is to
increase the southern front yard fence height from 4T to 7'2 in. Variance two is to increase the western front yard fence height from 4 feet to 6'4 in. Variance three is to increase the western sideyard rear yard fence height
from 6 feet to 6' 8 in. Variance four is to increase the eastern front yard fence height from 4t to 6' 3 in. Variance five is to increase the eastern sideyard and rear yard fence height from 6 feet to 10t 3 in. Varant six is to increase the
northern rear yard fence height from 6 feet to 9 ft 3 in. Variance seven is to reduce the eastern driveway setback from 5 feet to 2 feet 2 in and variance eight is to reduce the western driveway set
back from 5t to 3t 11 in. The subject properties are located at 881 875 and 885 Catfish Avenue in New Smyrna Beach. The parcels are substandard in size and width with 8 881
catfish measuring approximately 25 ft wide and 2,496 ft in area. All our zone urban single family residential and designated urban low intensity on the future land use map. The residence at 881 Catfish was built
in 1991 as an elevated two-story town family dwelling. In 2022, the property was purchased by Mr. Dur. Following the sale, the county received complaints regarding unpermitted improvements, including a PA driveway and closure of
the ground floor and installation of perimeter fencing exceeding the maximum height limits. The existing fencing consists of composite wood and vinyl panels attached to a concrete masonry stem wall. Heights range from 7 feet
along the front to over 10 feet along the east and 9 ft at the rear. Section 72 282 of the code limits fence and retaining wall heights to 4T in front yards and six feet inside I mean side and rear yards.
The PA driveway encroaches into both 5 foot sideyard setbacks approximately 2'2 in from the east line and 3' 11 in from the west. The applicant proposes to replace the pavers with a stabilized purious surface within the same
footprint. Any apron work within the rightway will require a separate use permit for DRC review. A site loss within the class 2 and environmental core overlays. A notice of violation was issued in April 2025 for
non-compliance with the wetland buffer. Native vegetation and storm water retention requirements. Environmental permitting review a revised plan submitted by the applicant and now recommends approval of the variance request provided the applicant obtains a
wetland alteration permit and class 2 permit to bring the site into compliance. Since the publication of this staff report, it was confirmed that the eastern stem wall was built without a concrete footer or foundation. Because
of this, it does not require a building permit. However, if approved, condition number two in the staff report remains in effect to ensure that if any footer or foundation is later found to extend beyond the property line, that portions that portion must be removed before
issuing a permit. Staff recommendation is to deny variances 1 through six and approve variances seven and eight subject to the conditions in the staff report. I'm available for any questions you may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any questions for staff?
Is the applicant present? >> Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Uh, my name is Kevin Schwitzer. I live at 880 Catfish Avenue and I'm an architect and actually Dur is my neighbor, so it made sense for him to
hire me to help him out here. >> Okay. Uh, you've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> Um, I think we had a couple other um a couple other u photos that I'd like to >> He had a presentation.
>> Did they get in there? Just I would like to say so um it's kind of been going along for a while and I said let me let me try and deal with the neighbors and everything. So, what we did do is we did get um
uh uh an an approval from all the neighbors and it's in it's in writing for the fence height and everything else. It actually creates a lot of um privacy for both the neighbors and for and for Dur. And he he went through all
the class 2 uh requirements already. Took out a shed that was part of it that was encroaching. Took out a lot of deck space. put in native plant and native uh ground cover. And uh we did get the um the approval um for the class two in
terms of the um uh the um um someone I'm sorry I don't know who came out. Maybe Todd came out, but someone came out and approved the the class two. So we've got that um taken care of. This is the signature sheet here with all the
neighbors. And then, interesting enough, to on the right is an old survey that Stan, who uh Stan and Sherry live to the to the uh east of Dur and they gave him this survey. And so when he um built the fence, they based it on this survey that
Stan provided. And according to this survey, the fence actually is on Durham's property cuz that's what they laid it out from. So, and then the new survey, there was some some differences of that. But in any event, um I think that the there's a a great improvement
with the uh with the property with the fence and uh the privacy. And it's actually nicely done. Um it's very strong fence and built well and has an aesthetic value. It's got some bamboo on it and really looks pretty good. So, I
don't think the fence is an issue at all with the uh with the neighbors and they uh actually the old uh retaining wall was falling over onto Stan and Sherry's property. So, this new uh block uh stem wall was very helpful
in keeping the wall from falling over. >> Any questions? >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Can um so this last picture that's up there now >> Mhm. >> that white PBC fence. Is that what you took down or is that what you're putting
back up? >> No, that's uh Stan and Sherry's fence. >> That's the the neighbor's fence. Can we scroll down or curl back up rather? Sorry. One more time. All right. Right there. Which of these is the front the very first variants? The one that comes off the front yard, which is actually looks like you're just
blocking the entrance to the to the house. It's not out by the street. Yeah, it looks like uh this first one on the left and right. Um >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's the the driveway. The the black area is the like the apron of the driveway. >> Okay. And the fence is going where?
>> Uh you see it on the on the left side. It starts see where that kind of that tall piling is there. Okay. >> And from there back. >> Okay. So it's not a side it's on the sidelines of the property line, right? >> No. >> No. >> It's not a it's not in the sight visibility line, right? It's on the sides of the property is my point. It's
not on the frontage. >> No, it's not on the front, right? It's on the sides and the rear. >> Okay. All right. And you're just extending it past the driveway there to block the neighbors, >> right? >> Okay. That's all the questions I had. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I also have a question. this these um foundations that are encroaching the property line, which one of these fences, how are you going to accommodate that to eliminate that? >> Yeah, apparently the the stem wall is fine as long as there's not a concrete
foundation. And we went through all the photos and what's happening there's a just a about a 32-in stem wall about five uh five blocks and it's poured horizontally with reinforcing and then the uh the pressuret treated 4x4s the
vertical ones are are put in about every 12 ft and so the the earth is just compacted around it and that's what's um and you can actually see the some of the block they're using to compact it but that's uh that's the way they eliminate
any foundation at all, any concrete foundation. >> Okay, Miss Bush. >> Yes, thank you, chair. Um, so just for clarification, variance one does show the fence coming from the sides to the
front of the house on the on the site plan. And then in the pictures that you provided, I think there was the house numbers on that section of the fence. So, can you clarify that? >> Okay. I thought it was about in the front. There's no gate or no fence in the front yard.
>> There is. That's what variance one is requesting. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I meant this along the road. There's no fence, but the fences do come into the the front yard of the sides, >> right? >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> So, it Okay. >> Yeah, that's the encroaching where I believe it's supposed to be 4t tall maximum.
>> Mhm. >> And then it's I don't remember exactly, but it's it's taller than that on the front. And then um also what happens is it's measured from the from the uh neighbors side which is actually uh lower than the than Dur side.
>> Okay. >> At least on the on the on the east side. The west side they're pretty much the same level. >> Okay. I'm not as concerned about the height as I am just verifying the location because it indicated when you answered um >> I'm sorry. Yeah. >> That's okay. I do have a second question. Um on variances seven and
eight. You state that you're going to remove the pavers on the extension of the driveway and do a stabilized surface. >> Yeah, there were two uh like from the apron it came down and then flared out at the road and those pieces have been removed. It was primarily requested by
uh Stan next door mostly to keep any uh water running off that direction. >> Okay. Uh, and then my final question, um, okay, so I see a variance seven and eight. And my final question, um, I know that it doesn't necessarily state in
this letter from Todd, but the prior one stated that you would have to provide some kind of storm water compensation on the property. Where is that going to be located? a lot of the uh existing composite deck material was taken out and was replaced with it's called a wash
shell which is a native uh landscape ground cover and it was all provided in there and that's all on that site plan the retention uh >> okay the one that we have in front of us I don't think shows that do we have an updated site plan then that shows that that composite is gone
>> it should be on here >> okay so it's the composite goes around where this little donut hole or U-shaped is correct. >> Pretty much where the yellow is is all of the uh composite not in the backyard the shell. Yeah. >> So then the drainage you're doing
swailes essentially on the side of the house >> inside of those. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> All right. Um my question more for staff the um the environmental study on this. It says
they have to apply for a wetland alteration permit and it's not in the condition in the event that this would be approved. Should we put that in the condition? >> You can if you want to. They would have to do it regardless. Um if they to pull
a you know this is outside the zoning uh category. So the you know they would have to pull the wetland alteration permit just to address some of the the unpermitted structures regardless of your action. >> So it's not needed. You can put it in if
you want to just to make sure but >> okay the other thing is the type of fencing that is being constructed now or is there um we have I what I don't want to do is because once the variances and I see it's uh to the existing perimeter
and fence heights and locations I don't want to create a compound with a big block wall there and uh and can we put in that into the conditions also as the type of fencing? >> Yes. Yes. Put in the the current existing proposed materials with no
change in the in the material. Okay. >> So, it allows them just in case a hurricane comes by and um damages the fence, they can replace material for material, but they can't, you know, convert it into a full masonry concrete wall. That actually would require a
building permit anyway. And we've already had a discussion. We will not issue a building permit that encroaches and trespasses across property lines. >> Correct. Right. >> So they would still have to adhere to that um condition number two.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And then I'm just to clarify, Pablo, that was in terms of the uh the foundation. >> Yes. Yes. So So basically um what the chair was describing was if you if you convert it into a full masonry wall to the same height, right, that will
obviously trigger a building permit. Like there's no way you can have that type of structure there. Um and then we're back into that discussion we had. So your current fence uh composition and materials if this variance gets approved that's fine. Um the the concern is uh to
not expand or enlarge it into a big block wall. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other question? Mr. Costa. >> Yeah I see that on this on what you submitted here there is a the letter with it's all the signatures on it for
the neighbors. Any neighbor missing? What had happened? We were in a single permit, a single variance, one one property >> and we got all all the neighbors for that concern and then it became a triparty variance
>> because of the uh in of the uh wall being on both properties >> and I got all the property owners except uh from Stan um to the to the west to the east the next property owner that would be Bill. Mhm.
>> And then behind him are the Browns and they they just got their notices last whatever a couple weeks ago, but I don't I did not get their signature. >> So the adjacent property to the left and to the right of the subject property, they're signed off on this sheet >> as well as across the street. >> Across the street. Okay. Thank you.
>> And I was one of those across the street. >> All right. Perfect. Thanks. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We're going Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for
public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion. >> I don't know what y'all's >> opinion is on this, but I mean I'm >> a little bit either way be >> all right. Let me start it then. We'll
get from there. Get some argument going. Uh, >> okay. >> Case B-25-032. I make a motion that we approve variances 1, two, three, four, five, and six with the two staff recommended conditions and adding the third that any fence material is to be uh equivalent to
the existing material. And I would also like to add just the language there regarding uh the environmental permitting even though it's there about the applying for the wetland >> and also requiring it to apply for the wetlands alteration permit and a class
two permit to bring the site into compliance. >> Second. >> So we're adding two more conditions. >> So four conditions total, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. Wait a second. All right, we got a second on that. You got a second on that, Miss Shelly?
>> Okay. >> All right. Do is any discussion on this motion? >> Okay, Miss Bush. >> Um, just for clarification, there are eight variances, so we're only voting on six, correct?
>> Nope. Did I miss a couple? >> Yeah, I think you >> There's So, two different staff reports. The one from this month had two additional variances versus the one that from the prior two months ago. >> All right, let me amend that motion then to include variances seven and eight. So
it's all variances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8 with the um four recommended conditions or the four conditions that we put on here. That work? >> Yep. >> And I'll amend my second. >> Okay. All right. All right. Any
discussion on the motion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Kiss. Do I need to restate that motion, Paula? >> I didn't. >> No. No.
It was understood the um on what conditions uh we're going >> the four conditions now instead of just two >> and the the amendment was just to add in the additional two variances seven and eight right >> with the same conditions. >> Okay. I didn't restate it
my mistake. >> Okay. All right. The other old unfinished business was V25062. Miss Shelley, could I get you to read that case in? >> Yes, sir. Case V-25-062,
a variance to the minimum lot coverage and minimum yard requirements on urban single family residential R5 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. This is Mr. Jula.
>> Good morning. The applicant is seeking a variances to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35 to 41% and to reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 ft to 10 ft for proposed principal structure. The property is zoned R4 with
a minimum setback of 25 ft in the front, 5 ft for the sides, and 20 ft from the rear. Uh the parcel is vacant at roughly 5,000 square ft. It remains undeveloped prior to initial building permit. It is located on the east side of Cedar Streak
Street, approximately 255 ft from the intersection with Spruce Creek, Daytona Beach. The applicant proposes uh a 252 square ft square foot single family residence. During uh permit review, the
the Florida Department of Health required relocation of the septic and drain septic system and drain field to the front yard to satisfy public health and safety standards. The relocation uh resulted in the shifting of the principal structure 10 ft towards the rear property line which caused the
variance. Number two, uh upon review um staff identified that the principal structure results in 40 uh in a 41% lot coverage which exceeds the permitted um maximum by 6% and was not identified or
noted previously. Um accordingly, staff included additional variance to address the deviation. Um the original site plan met uh setbacks requirements. Only the septic and drain field relocation triggered the second
variance and the slight plan was not found to be greater than the maximum coverage until the variance staff review triggering the first variance. Uh both of u these are both non-self-imposed hardships. environmental permitting
reviewed the application had no objection and then also there was a letter opposition submitted from the south of butine neighbor which uh council has with them in the email. Um the neighbor stated the applicant is building within 5 ft of the property and
does not want them building right on the property line. To address this letter, the proposed principal structure meets sideyard requirements at greater than 5t and is not proposed on the property line. Staff recommends approval for the variance request. Should appc find the
applicant has provided substantial evidence for uh approval. The conditions are provided for your consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Any questions for staff? >> Miss Bush. >> Thank you, chairman. I have a few. Um,
so the not meeting the 35% lot coverage or building area um was not due to shifting of the home. Correct. That was an original size of the home, original permit. >> Okay. Um,
are there any are there any homes that are surrounding that exceed the maximum lot coverage? >> Not to my knowledge. Okay. Um, and then on the property location map on page 14, um, well, I'll save that for I'll save
the rest of my comments for discussion. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> All right. This letter of objection there, that's not the property line
we're dealing with. Correct. They're the south uh 1174. Um, no, we're not dealing with that one. That's a sideyard setback and they may >> That's what I heard you say that. I just want to clarify it. So, okay. So, regardless, you could still It would
still be only 5t away. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Is the applicant present? Applicant not here. Yeah. >> Okay. Do we have any public participation
forms? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation. Open up for commission discussion. And I might add one other thing. What is the amount proposed square footage on this home?
>> What is it? >> Yeah. 252 square feet. 52. So if they were to reduce the size of the home, they could meet the lock coverage. Is that correct, Mr. Jacuzzi? >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> All right. That was my questions. Any discussion or a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead, Mr. >> Um, and I'm going to be rusty at this. I apologize. So, I move to deny variance
25-062, the variance for the minimum lot coverage and minimum yard requirements for the urban single family residential R5 zoned property at 1991 Cedar Street. >> And I will I will second that one actually.
>> Okay, that's on variance one >> and two. >> Two. Both of them. >> Both of them. >> Okay. Um, okay. I would wait for discussion. Okay, we got a motion on the floor. Any discussion on the motion?
>> Yes, chair. >> Go ahead. >> Um, a couple things. one, I think that they wouldn't need if they were to reduce the um lot the house size, then I don't think that they would need to um have variance one, which is the variance
to the the rear yard. >> Second, um this is to my knowledge the second time in six months that we've had a variance come before this board that was due to a building permit issued in error. And I just do not feel
comfortable approving variances that are not I feel like they are injurous to the public and I feel like that is not our job is to correct issues that because staff is not um unfortunately and it happens but then let it be non-conforming at that point. Don't
force this body to then make a decision um to approve something after the fact or after that permit is issued. Third, um I have harped on this since I've sat in this chair, but you know, increasing the um building coverage, the lot
coverage increases the imperous surface and we really need to be strict about ensuring that we keep to those standards um to reduce flooding in the future. So that is why I made the motion for denial. >> Okay,
Mr. Sorry, you had a comment and I'm sure you want in the affirmative or >> No, no. Uh, Miss Bush's um, uh, motion is is fine. That's that's not about that. This is about just making sure that the applicant was informed of today's hearing. Um, that it was
properly noticed and they are not here and therefore they have waved their right to present any evidence and object to um, your decision. They can appeal it to county council, but they're not here, >> right? >> So, you can make
>> So, they can't appeal it even though they're >> whatever whichever way. >> So, you can take action if you want to. You can you can continue it. Um, but there's a motion on the floor to deny. >> Okay. Um, I got one other question for staff on variance two, the 10 foot uh
the 20T to the 10 foot. If they were to go the 20 feet, could they meet the requirement for a smaller home? for if they reduce the actual area they probably could depending on the shape that they make it.
Well, didn't Okay. Is that because of the septic system that they would be required? That was the reasoning for them to push it back? >> Yes, they're required to push it back 10 ft and so they moved it back 10. So even with a smaller home, they would they
would still have to do that, would they not? >> Yeah. So the Department of Health required the septic and drain field in the front yard. So that wouldn't change. >> Okay. >> So no matter what, they have to accommodate that. >> So denying him variance too would
basically deny him any kind of uh development on that plot. >> Um they would be forced to adhere to 20 feet in the rear and the required front as well. So >> So they they wouldn't be able to put it in there. >> Not not the house that they currently
have planned. >> Okay. All right. Let me rephrase that then. Is there any configuration that they could put in a home and meet that 20 foot setback and also give the additional setback on the front yard for the septic
system or an on-site system I should say? >> Yeah, if they reduce the size of it, they could reduce the 10 foot uh reard to 20 ft to meet it. Just reducing the size of that.
>> Okay, that was my question. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? >> Um, yes. I I I have a question. Um, thinking of the applicant and I noticed um you know in the staff report um according to staff
um all criteria all just checking again all were said that they met which is fine. I I I get that. But I'm concerned um did did you have any discussions with them after that? Because I'm thinking if you're not familiar with this process,
if you get this and you hear from staff that they've approved everything, the average person might think, I don't need to show up because it's been approved by staff for everything. There's no question. So, I'm just wanted to know the discussions that were held
with the property owners. So, uh, whenever they submit their due public notice, uh, and they pick up their poster and the letter that goes out, they are told that it's highly recommended. We can't require somebody to show up, but we highly recommend that applicants are present for the
commission in case they do have questions. >> Oh, I wanted to hear that that when they So, that was set in person to them when they pick up the packet. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. In the event that they got tied up for
whatever reason, can we postpone the vote to the end of the meeting? >> Yes. >> So, >> are you okay with that, Miss Bush? >> Okay. Because I'm going I'll give them an opportunity at least to the end of the meeting to for the vote. Okay. >> So, we'll do that.
>> Don't you don't you think they would call they were behind? >> Not necessarily. Who you going to call? >> Yeah. >> No. >> Well, even call the the land develop I mean >> Yeah. Paul off. Come here. Who's going to answer? >> I've been the rookie. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean >> you have not.
>> I think that not to be the rookie that I think >> you want to take a vote and then have them show up here and and then >> Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm fine with that. >> That's the only thing. I'd just like to postpone it. >> I'll make a motion to postpone case V25-062 until the end of our new business.
>> I'll second >> the vote. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All those in favor of that motion signify by saying I I. Any opposed? >> Okay. We'll postpone the vote until the end of the meeting. All right. Okay. Now, we're going to
move into the new business. Miss Shelley, could I get you the first case, please? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Case number V-25-056, a variance to the accessory structure requirements on on rural agriculture
estate RA zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shirley, and this is Miss Tucker. >> Good morning, members. Um, so firstly, I'd like to make a couple uh corrections to the staff report. On page three, at the bottom of paragraph one and the fourth sentence in the third paragraph,
it states it's a rear yard setback. Uh that is a typo. We are talking about a sideyard setback today. Uh and lastly, the staff recommendation uh in the report states approval. However, it should be stated for denial as they failed to meet criteria 1, 2, and three.
So to go ahead and get into the presentation, the applicant is requesting a sideyard setback variance from 25 ft to 15 ft for a proposed 964 square ft accessory structure. The parcel is zoned rural agricultural estate and meets the zoning requirements
as the lot is 2.5 acres in size and even with the new proposed structure they will still be under the 35% lot coverage. The applicants proposing this location uh because he also intends to build a 10x10 well uh cover. Uh he has
equipment that's currently in the sideyard. It's next to the location. So, in addition to the original 864 square foot uh accessory structure, he plans to build a 10x10 uh roof lean to that would cover uh the
well equipment. Uh there is an existing uh accessory structures that are located in the rear of the property. Uh however, after staff conducted a site visit on August 28th uh and observed wet conditions that had had
uh been raining that week, the applicant also showed where there were hard water lines uh where there was over 12 in of flooding during the Milton hurricane and previous hurricanes before. Uh so after speaking with the applicant, he decided that the sideyard would be the highest
location as even our topography maps show that there's about an 8 foot decrease in change in the rear yard and there's also a canal at the rear of the property as well that the water drains off to. Um however, staff does recommend denial for the variance as it fails to meet
criteria 1, two, and three. However, if PLDRC finds that the applicant has presented substantial evidence, staff has recommended two conditions for approval. Environmental permitting has also reviewed this case and did not object the variance. And I'm available for questions.
>> Thank you, Miss Tucker. Any questions for staff? >> Is the applicant present? >> Good morning. >> Morning, Michael Mooney. 4054 Swamp Deer Road. >> All right. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it?
>> No, sir. Uh the again the reason uh for the location also is there because the accessory buildings in the back there is a road. >> I bought the house two years ago. The older couple lived in that never really drove around. They just drove in the driveway. There was at one time a
circular driveway in this property. I'm just trying to put a building someplace where I'm not disturbing disturbing the least amount of property trying to get this done. Um, so that's that's basically what it is. >> Okay.
All right. Miss Bush, you got a questions for the applicant? >> Yes. Um, are you having to remove any trees to put in the structure? >> No. No. I actually What happened was in Milton I lost a tree, two trees in the front. One was hit by lightning and then another one the whole top of it got
ripped out. So when I had the arborist there he he recommend taking down the pine tree by lightning because it was going to deteriorate. So other than that I don't have to take down if I can't put it here I to go in the backyard I do have to take trees to get around. So I'm trying to avoid I'm trying to keep do
this with the least amount of disturbance to the environment. >> Understood. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Okay hearing none. Uh is we do have any u public participation for? >> No sir. >> Hearing none. We're going to close the
four public participation. Open up for commission discussion or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Miss Shelly. >> I move that we approve case number V-25-056 subject to the stu staff recommended conditions.
>> I'll second. I got a motion on the floor to approve V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V B V25056 with the two staff conditions from Miss Shel and a second from Miss Bush. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. Okay, Miss Shel, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-25-061, variance to the accessory structure requirements on urban single family
residential R4 zoned property. Thank you, Miss Shelley. Mr. Harris, this one's yours. The applicant is requesting variances to the accessory structure requirements to allow a residential addition in ground swimming pool
and an attached deck within the waterfront yard on R4 zone property. Variance one is to reduce the required waterfront yard from 25 ft to 13 ft for a proposed residential home addition. Variance two is to reduce the required
waterfront yard from 25 ft to 17 feet for a proposed inground swimming pool. Variance three is to reduce the required waterfront yard from 25 ft to 9 ft 7 in for a proposed attached deck. Variance four is variance four is to permit
accessory structures within the rear yard of of an atypical lot. The subject property is a 24,829 square foot parcel that fronts Cali Carmen and backs into Cypress Lake. It
contains a single family residence built in 2001 and a small storage shed. The property is a is an atypical lot with wetlands and flood zones 8 and X along the rear boundary. The applicant is proposing to extend the residence for
additional living space and construct a 12x 24 ft pool and attached deck behind the home. The application of the 25 ft waterfront yard requirement leaves about 1,162 square foot of buildable area behind the home.
All propo all proposed improvements are located within a 25- ft wetland buffer. Environmental permitting reviewed this request and had no objection provided all wetland and permitting requirements are met. Staff recommendation is to deny variance requests one through four as
the variances fail to meet the the criteria for granting said variances. Should the PRDRC determine that this the criteria are met, staff recommends the following conditions. That the variances are limited to the
size and location of the proposed home. pool and deck as shown on the varian site plan. That variances one through four shall not apply to any other existing or future structures. That any new structures constructed or installed on site should be required to apply for
an additional variance. And that the applicant shall obtain the wetland alteration permit prior to permit issuance in construction. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any questions for staff? Miss Bush.
>> Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, did the neighbor receive a variance for the construction of their pool? Do we know if we have one on file? >> They they did not. >> They did not. >> It's not on file. >> Okay. Do we know if it's within the setback or not? >> It's within the setback.
>> It is within the setback. Okay. >> Um, and then is there any mitigation requirements for building into the buffer? Uh Scott Ashley for the record as far as let me just back on the older uh the property to the south that pool that's
an older home if I believe it was built in the 70s along with the pool. So that would have been different part setback standards uh that we have today and if there's any uh impact to the wetland or wetland buffer there would be addressed during the building permitting process.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? >> Good morning, sir. If I could get both of you to give your name and addresses if you're going to present this morning. >> Morning, chair. Um, council members.
Jose Aan Garcia, 2110 Cali Karman. >> Okay. >> Jose Alvarez, 1154 Treway Drive, Deltona. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. there anything you'd like to add to that? >> I do have a clarification um regarding
the wetland buffer. Not all the addition is on the wetland buffer. It it does all along the edge of the wetland buffer but not in area. >> Okay, >> that makes sense. >> All right. Anything else you'd like to add? Go ahead. >> Yes, sir. Um I would like to add that
the uh proposed build here is uh the purpose of it is for the uh for my son therapy um he's diagnosed with uh mild cerebral pausy and autism. The area the additional room is not it's a gym area
therapy area padded floors along with the pool and he's the architect uh for the blueprints and all that. in the pool. You just see the pool there, but on the pool um blueprints, it has a flattened area for therapy and you know
what entails therapy, aquatic therapy and all that stuff for the council to take in consideration when you vote. Thank you very much. I have the um IEP individualized education program for him here in George Marx and uh his diagnosis
with mild cerebral palsy, autism, uh spasticity, leg spasticity and so on so forth. I can provide for the record if necessary. >> Yeah, I'm not sure we can Mr. Sorry. Medical records. Uh >> uh I would not recommend that anything to do with any medical records and I'm
just is you're familiar with variances. It should pertain to the property, not to the person. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> So I I I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately we're not supposed to consider that.
Miss Bush. >> Um yes. Are you having to bring in fill dirt for the addition, the home edition? >> Um, fill dirt only within the confines, meaning it's going to be a stem wall foundation. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, it's going to be it's going to be within that that that building footprint area. >> So, you're doing stem wall. You're not bringing in fill. >> No, we're not bringing in fill. >> Okay. >> Um, and then my second question, um, did you look at because I I see that the parcel actually juts out, I guess, to
the north. Um I know that you have the septic drain field there, but have you considered moving the pool um at least there? So it's the minimum variance necessary instead of putting the pool in the wetland and in that buffer. >> Um so again, it goes back to
accessibility from the home since they have to walk across the drain field. And also there's a lot of vegetation and trees in that area that we're trying not to impact cuz with this addition we don't have to take down any trees or anything.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Do we have any public participation forums for this case? >> No, sir. >> Does any of the commissioners have any other questions for the applicant? Okay, sir. We're going to close the
floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion. Make a motion on case V25061 to approve variances 1, 2, 3, and four with the four staff recommended conditions. I believe
>> I'll second that. I got a motion on the floor to approve variances 1, two, three, and four for variance V25061 with the four staff conditions for Mr. Costa.
Boy, I just lost my vote. I'll be right with you. Sure. >> And a second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Oh, Miss Bush. >> Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I I am a little I am very concerned of the fact
that they're building this in the wetlands. I'll be honest, I'm going to be a no vote for that because I am concerned that not just the fact that you're implicating wetlands, but um you're you know, if we get significant flooding, you might have damage to that
structure. And I am concerned about what that's going to do long term. Um, I have an autistic adult brother, so I empathize with you. I I totally understand your situation. Our pool is not next to our house. He has to walk in order to get to it. And he is an IEP and
and it is a part of his um uh therapy to do that as well, right? To swim, and that's one of the only things that he really does. So, I empathize with your situation, but um because of the fact that this is, you know, an impact to wetlands is the reason why I'm I'm going
to be a no vote specifically. Thank you. Okay, Miss Bush, Miss Craig, >> I also have an issue with the um encroachment into the wetlands. I think that that's uh something that should be avoided if at all possible. So, I I would vote no on
that as well. >> Okay. Okay. I'm looking at this and um the actual encroachment is for the pool. Is that not correct on the >> Okay.
All right. Any other discuss? I I'm really wrestling this myself, but I I still have that same concern um as mentioned by my two colleagues and um if
they could yeah because we have to treat everyone on the playing field as we said um with other issues that are really tugging. But if someone did not have
that um how we have to look at these all equally. So I myself am leaning towards a no vote on that as well. >> Okay. The I understand the concerns into the wetlands and this was a building it'd be
different as far as I'm concerned. Uh what I do note that is they would have to obtain the wetland alteration permit. And the we're looking at 17 foot on the um
the uh well not quite 17 that's to the structure to the wetlands and um it's not in the actual wetlands. Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may, that's what I want to clarify here. So I was confused.
That's why I'm looking back at this map. So we're not touching the wetlands at all. What they're touching is a wetland buffer. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah. That's where I'm >> So there's nothing that's actually we're not impacting the wetland. It's just the buffer itself. >> That was the comment I was making. And also
>> we're looking at um >> the pool the port a portion of the pool there. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay. Okay, I've got a motion on the floor to approve variances one, two, three, and four with the four staff
conditions. I think I've already said this, but for B25061 for Mr. Costa and a second for Mr. Ersen. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> I, >> one opposition.
61. >> Motion carries six to one. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right, Mr. Chair, um we did receive word from uh Miss Bryant for a V25062.
She did have an emergency this morning and she is going to try to attend later in the meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. What we may do on this and something to consider and we can do that is we can postpone the the vote
u to our next meeting if you'd like. That's that's something that's for you guys to think about and we'll go from there. >> Give it to the end of the meeting and decide then >> to to the vote. >> Yeah. For the vote. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we and at that time any the member can ask for um during our
discussion on the vote ask the uh applicant any additional information. >> Got it. >> Am I correct in saying that Mr. Sora? >> Yes. So, um you would have to essentially you'd have to reopen um the applicant's ability to present.
>> Yeah. It have to be done by one of us. Yes. >> During the discussion, correct? >> Um yes. So, so if you can hold a meeting, you can hold the decision today or you can continue it to a date certain
preserve the notice um to you know uh take in additional evidence. Well, we've already got it for the end of the day, so we'll go from there and if see what happens. Okay, Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please?
>> Yes, sir. Case number V-25-063, a variance to the minimum yard requirements on urban single family residential R4 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley and Miss Costa. >> Okay. And
>> good morning, members. who this lady was. >> No relation. >> Okay, this one's yours. >> Ah, thank you. Um, the applicant is applicant is requesting a variance to reduce his north rear yard setback from
20 ft to 14 ft for a proposed attached screen room. Uh, the property was developed uh with a 1894t residence which is located towards the center of the property. This is a
legal conforming lot, interior lot as part of the West Highland subdivision with platted alleys to the north and to the west, 15t to the north, and 25 ft to the west.
Property is zoned R4. Minimum requirements for setbacks are front yard 25, rear yard 20, sideyard 20 ft combined, minimum of eight on any one side. Uh the lot is 7500 square feet and
75 foot in width. Um environmental permitting has permitting has reviewed his application and has no objection. Um staff is uh recommending to deny the variance because he's only met two out of the five criteria.
And we do have uh two conditions if we do decide positively to approve it. >> Okay. Any questions for staff? Miss Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh have other neighbors received variance of for
similar structures in the neighborhood? >> Uh yes, there was a variance on 10th Street uh several years ago for it was a five- foot reduction in the rear yard setback. >> Okay. Um, could the applicant vacate the alley in the rear yard?
>> Uh, yes, he could vacate both alleyways actually and increase the lot as well. So, he could meet the setback that way. Um, his concern was time because it does take a longer period of time to vacate that. Um, he is placing the screen room
on the existing there is a existing concrete slab already there. Um, have others around this property vacated the alleys? >> Uh, not around this property, but several in the neighborhood. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Miss Greg. >> Uh, yeah. I was wondering about the existing concrete pad if it was permitted or if a permit was needed for that. >> A permit wouldn't have been needed for that. That is flat work. That was It's a step out from the back of the rear of the home.
>> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> Okay. Is the applicant present? >> Could I get your name and address for the record, please? >> Absolutely. My name is Robert Wright and I live at 178516th Street.
>> I'm Angela Wright, 1785 16th Street. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? No, I just um the only thing I want to add is that uh the the setback that that alley is there. That's not anything that we could do anything about
that alley. Um other than now we know we can vacate the alley. Um but that would take quite a bit of time um to do that. Uh so we were just hoping that we could get the variance to build the screen and then go back and vacate the alley if we
needed to do that. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay.
All right. We're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Strong enough. There you go. case that uh we approve case number V-25-063
subject to the staff recommended conditions. >> Well, how many is >> two? >> Second. >> I got a motion on the floor to approve B25063 with the two staff conditions for Miss Shel and a second for Mr. Costa. Any
discussion on the motion? >> Miss Bush, >> I have a question for staff. What's the approximate time for a vacation of an of an easement or an alley or or something like that? >> Uh the Scott Ashley for the record. Usually it takes four to six months um
because of the timing when they make application. They have to uh send notices or letters to all the utility providers to make sure they have no objections. Um basically they're determining do they need that alley? Are they using that alley for any utility
purposes? Once the letters come back and submitted to staff, then there's an internal staff review to make sure, you know, planning, road and bridge, whoever may need or think we need to keep portions of that or maybe in wave it or
vacate it, but maybe require an easement over it, something like that. So, it goes through that staff review and then there's at least, I believe, two uh public notices in the paper uh before it gets to county council. >> Okay. Thank you. Any
other discussion on the motion? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Miss Shirley, could I get the next case, please? >> Mhm.
>> Yes, sir. Case number V-25-065, variances to the the accessory structure requirements on transitional agriculture A3 and resource corridor RC zoned property. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Jascoula, this is
yours. >> Good morning. The the applicant is requesting variances to reduce the front yard setback from 40 ft to 29 ft and to reduce the westside yard setback from 25 ft to 10 ft for the um a,000 square ft accessory structure. The property is
zoned A3 which requires a minimum setback of 40 ft from the front and rear and 25 ft from sides and 20 ft from waterfronts. The subject parcel is 1.08 8 acres in size and above Spruce Creek to the north. Uh it is located on the
north side of Lithia Street approximately 449 ft west of the of its intersection with Creek Shore Trail. Um, the site is currently developed with a roughly 2,871 square foot single family residence
built in 1978 and and is located towards the southwestern portion of the property and a,00 [Music] 1,174 ft unpermitted cottage with a garage to the east. The property also has other structures that staff could
not determine if they were permitted. Um there is an ingground pool behind uh the residence on the western portion, two sheds in the eastern portion, a gazebo behind the principal structure, and a boat uh a deck and boat slip along the
northeastern portion of the property. The owner previously received a variance for the same accessory structure, case number V25022, approved in February 2025. The variance allowed the reduction of the westside yard setback from 25 ft to 10 ft which
include included conditions limiting the variance to prop to the proposed uh accessory structure as shown on the approved site plan. U an expansion or relocation not meeting the A3 zoning setbacks requires uh would require a new
variance. The applicant is now proposing to shift the accessory structure further south into the front yard which results in the structure encroaching into the 40ft front yard setback. This change makes the previous variance and inapplicable uh since the relocation does not comply with the original
conditions for of approval. The previous variance expressed a special condition of being constrained by the spruce creek and flood zone location. In this case, there is no hardship or special uh condition as um the current uh request result in the self-imposed circumstances
related to the relocation. The accessory structure could have remained in the approved location without triggering another variance for the same structure. Um environmental permitting reviewed the variance request and had no objection. However, the um project um structure
must comply with the applicable environmental regulations of the land development code. Staff recommends denial for the various requests as they fail to meet three of the five criteria. However, should PL and DRC find that again provided substantial evidence for approval, staff recommends two
conditions for consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Okay. Any questions for staff? >> Mr. Costa. >> Yes. A quick question I have for you. Do you determine there's a better location for this on this site for the structure?
Uh, the approved location. >> I'm sorry. >> The originally approved location. >> The original improved. >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Miss Bush. >> Just out of curiosity, does Valuchia County have any type of policy for um
unpermitted structures? When an applicant is asking for permits for a new structure on site, do you require them to bring the unpermitted structure up to code or so? Our current policy is to uh identify the structures, let the applicant know
that should they um need to replace them. Um they would not they have to meet the code if they do replace the structures. Um, we want to make a record that we've identified the structures that are non-conforming and it's up to the applicant to just determine whether they want to include it in the
application or not. >> Okay. But there is no like you don't put a halt on them requesting additional permitting until the unpermitted structures have been permitted. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? I'll just add that there's been no uh
co- compliance, no uh complaints, and since that's rarely where it comes from, we're going to address it like uh Steve said, we'll note it, but we haven't received any complaints, so we're haven't there's no code enforcement off processing going on right now for us to
address it. >> Understood. I in my previous employer, that was something that we required was to make sure that any unpermitted structures were brought up to code. Okay, Mr. C. >> Yeah, my memory isn't great, so can you help me out here? It says February 25th,
we we approved the previous uh variance. Was that also for a thousand square foot structure or was it a smaller structure? >> It was the same structure. >> Same structure. >> They're just shifting it more towards the um the south. >> Okay. And I guess we'll find out why when they get up here. All right. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Could you come forward, please? And if I could get your name and address for the record. >> Yes. Charles Armmitage, 2769 Le Street.
>> All right. And I'll wait for your partner there. >> I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Uh Mike McDaniel. I'm the one the contractor helping build the building. >> Okay. You want to give your address? >> Uh this address? >> No, you're 270 Lake Hires Road, Dion Spring.
>> All right. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> Yeah. So, so we got to move the >> Get closer to the mic, please. >> We got to move the building away from the property line. We won the variance last last month. Um, there was just a big oak tree in the way. Didn't want us
to cut down the oak tree. So, now that we moved the for that forward, he got all the power underground from the up top. Put underground. Got it all ready. When we stake it all out and get it all ready, can't get another car out of the other garage. So, it just need to be backed up 10 more feet. So he could use
his house garage for his cars and then his other cars and fourwheers and stuff in the others. So there was just no way to to make one garage work with the other garage. >> Okay. >> All right. Any questions, Mr. Cost? >> Yep. All right. So I'm looking at the
sketches up on the screen above you. >> Um so before we were shifted in more towards the driveway and so you're saying that that's the reason you're shifting it over to the to the left on the picture. >> Yeah. So, >> so you can get two cars out of that two-car garage of the existing house. >> And and and where it's at now, it's
still it's too close to the garage, so it needed to come to the street more. That's the other variance we're applying for today. >> Okay. >> It was like 10 ft. >> Yes. >> I was going to say you guys are glutton for punishment. You were just here in February. You came back again. >> That's right. >> Once we put the vehicle in front of the
garage, you couldn't get out of the other garage. What how is this garage being accessed? Uh from the from the top bottom or from the left right >> from left to right from the 40. >> So you're so it's a side entry the front entry garage there facing it. All right. And you have which means you're going to
have to put more driveway there I'm assuming or shell road. What are you going to put in? >> Nothing nothing's coming from the road. It will be coming in from the side to the original driveway. >> From the side to the original driveway. >> So see where it said the 40 y will be coming in that way.
>> Okay. You're become that's the access point. >> Yes, that's the access point. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Miss Craig? >> So, the entrance there, you you will or you will not be adding additional concrete driveway to enter the the new
structure. >> We should not I think there's like at one point we'll be adding like two feet of concrete just to go up into the garage from his original driveway >> because his driveway circles around. Isn't that correct? I mean, >> it's really nothing more than it was
before. >> Yes. Yeah. >> For the concrete. >> Even though it varies significantly from what's on this drawing, right? >> Yeah. It' be moved down 10 ft. >> Commissioner, if you'd look at page three that has the drawing,
>> it depicts the what was approved, the previous variance, and the lower part of that page and what you see on the screen now shows what they're asking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So they've shifted so from 40 to 20. Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. Miss Bush. >> So for clarification, you are not expanding the driveway to access the structure since it's been shifted 10 ft to the south because on the site plan. >> Yes. >> It shows that you only are accessing I guess the northern bay, if you will. >> Yes. That's
>> And so you're not going to have any access to the southern part of this. So you're only going to have one ingress egress. So there's not it's not a two bay garage. It's just one bay and >> it is. It's going to have two garage doors. >> So, is this the concrete here? Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. So,
>> we're probably coming over maybe. >> So, you are having more concrete. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. >> That's what I assume. Thank you. >> When it was back, it wasn't as much concrete. That's right. Okay. See now. >> Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Do we have any public
participation for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right. We're going to close the four for public participation, open up commission discussion. >> I would like to add that this is uh they're asking for 29 ft and residential
is 25. >> Mhm. >> They're asking for uh 10 ft and sideyard and the residential is five. So here we go a penalizing an A3 property >> for being agriculture.
>> That's my point of view on that. >> Are we closed with floor? >> Yeah. Yeah, we closed the floor. >> I'll make a motion case V25-065. We approve variances one and two with uh >> two conditions. >> Two staff conditions. >> Second.
>> I don't think you got that second. >> All right. I've got a motion on the floor to approve variances one and two for V25065 with the two staff conditions for Mr. Costa and a second for Miss Shel. All the Any discussion on the motion?
>> Yeah, inherently I don't have a problem with with moving this especially with the u you're right the A3s always get the brunt of it. Yeah. >> Um I don't think it's going to be interest to anybody at this point with on this particular site. So that's my comment. >> Any other comments?
Miss Bush, >> I have a question for staff. Is there a limit for the number of accessory structures on an A property? >> Uh, no, there isn't. It's based on uh >> the minimum floor, maximum lot coverage standard >> of the zoning classification.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, any other comments? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. Hope hope not to see you back.
>> Miss Shayley, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-25-068. Variances to the accessory structure requirements on transitional agriculture A4 zoned property. >> Miss Tucker, this one's yours.
>> Good morning again, commissioners. So, the applicant is requesting two variances. Man, it's hard to drive and talk at the same time. Sorry. Bear with me. Uh, a rear yard setback from 40t to 30 ft and a sideyard setback from 15 or excuse me,
from 25 ft to 15 ft for proposed 1,800 square ft detached workshop. The parcel zone transitional agricultural A4 and meets the zoning requirements as the lot is 3 acres in size and will be under the 35% maximum lot coverage even with the
new proposed structure. The applicant is proposing this location because it's one of the most level spots and will require minimal tree removal. Uh the applicant also submitted one letter of support which is on page 10 of your staff report from the adjacent neighbor to the west who would be most affected by this
proposed location. Staff also conducted a site visit on September 15th and observed um elevation changes throughout the rear of the property. And there's also an existing driveway parking pad on the west side of the lot that would line up to the entrance to the proposed
structure. Uh environmental permitting has reviewed this case and did not have any objections. However, staff does recommend denial for the variances as they fail to meet criteria 1 through 4. However, if PLLDRC finds that the applicant presented
substantial evidence, staff has uh recommended two conditions for approval and I am available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Tucker. Any questions for staff? >> Is the applicant present? >> Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record?
>> Yes sir. Neil Peabody, 1895 Twin Oaks in Dand, Florida. >> Okay. You've heard this staff report. Anything you would like to add to that? >> I I think Miss Tucker did an excellent job and I'm just uh trying to save a few trees and uh not deal with the changes in elevation that would be further
towards the east on the lot. >> Okay, Miss Bush, you had a question. >> More of a comment. I just wanted to thank you for working with your neighbor first and foremost. That's um somewhat at least in my experience uh uncommon to go do that um prior to making that
submittal and then just making the minimum impact on your lot. I appreciate that. >> Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Any Let me see if we have any other questions for the applicant. Do we have any Okay. Do we have any public participation forms? >> No, sir.
>> We're going to close the for public participation permission discussion or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. that we approve case number V-25-068 subject to STU to the two staff recommended conditions on page five.
>> A second. >> Okay. I've got a motion to approve variance B25068 variances one and two with the two conditions from staff from Miss Shel and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion
on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. >> Shel, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes. Case number Z-25-011
reszoning from the rural rural residential RR zoning classification to the rural agriculture A2 zoning classification. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. Mr. Harris, some jurors. The the applicant is requesting a
resoning from the rural residential zoning classification to the rural agriculture zoning classification. The intent is to allow farm animals on the property for personal use. The subject property is 9.81 81 acres and
located on the south side of Mud Lake Road in in the Deion Springs area. The property is vacant and part of the Gomez unrecorded number five with a vested rights determination confirming it as a legal lot of record. Surrounding
zoning includes R3 and A4 to the north and the east, A2 to the south, and RA rural agriculture to the west. The resoning aligns with the adjacent agriculture uses and provides a transition between residential and
agricultural development. The future land use designation is rural which allows one dwelling unit per five acres. The A2 classification is compatible with this designation. The property lies within the daily
springs BMAP and priority focus area. Environmental permitting has reviewed this request and had no objection provided all land development code and BMAP standards are met. Staff recommends forward in this resoning to county county council for final action with a
recommendation of approval. >> Any questions? >> Thank you, Mr. H. Any questions for staff? >> Is the applicant present? Can I get you to come forward, please? >> Morning. >> Good morning. Could I get your name and address for the record?
>> Romelia Gomez, 370 Alcasosar Avenue, Deion Springs. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Hey, Miss Craig.
>> This sounds very cute having >> I'm sorry, Miss Craig, your mic's not on. >> Yeah. >> There you go. >> I like the idea of having this lot dedicated to animals, but will there be any structures necessary for uh equipment associated with animals being
there? >> Uh we would probably build uh for now a small pole barn, but that's about it. Maybe in the future, uh, a home. >> Okay.
Out of curiosity, what kind of animals? >> Just couple of cows, some goats. That's been my husband's dream to have, you know, something like that. So, that's the reason why we purchased the property. >> Miss Bush, did you have a question? it was addressed.
>> It's just the type of animals and if they were going to build on the property in the future. >> We do have some public participation forms for this case. So, I'll give them a chance to make their comments and give you a chance for rebuttal when they're done. Okay. >> Thank you very much.
>> All right. Uh Ray Benel, if you can come forward. Good morning, sir. Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Yeah. Raymond Benel, 2060 Mud Lake Road, Dion Springs, Florida. >> All right. You had a comment you'd like to add to this case?
>> More questions than commenting, sir. Um, under this A to rural agricultural classifications, there are a lot of choices that what they could do to the property, what they could use it for, >> right?
>> Wouldn't they be able to just flip on a dime and two months down the road instead of a couple cows there's 90 cows and 14 donkeys? Is there anything stopping that? as long as
>> or put or put in a fernery with noisy diesel engines or what they have so many choices that seem to be they could do without any further actions >> unless it's a special exception they could do with the choices that you have in that zoning. So it doesn't
>> now some of those are special exceptions that are in that list, >> right? >> But the ones that aren't Yes. You're to answer your question, they could once it's reszoned. >> So if you gave >> long as they meet the guidelines of the of what they're trying to do. >> So it doesn't really matter what the
owners say today, they could do something totally different. >> The zoning goes with the property. You're absolutely right. It does not go with the >> by the end of the year. It might be a landfill. That's on the list of accepted things. >> That's on special exceptions though.
>> Yes. Uh that would Yes. Landfills and excavations would um to the extent that it's a borrow pit as in they're trucking you know fill offsite and selling it um would have to go through this board for a special
exception process. So, but if it's um anything related to agriculture and accessory to it, um you know, that goes into accessory agricultural use. So, if they have these
cows or whatever animals, it appears that they could actually uh butcher and sell these, which would almost be like a commercial property. >> What it's ever on the is on your list there. And it's and be I Mr. Cross you
mentioned >> personal use is what the >> personal use. >> Yep. That's what it says on here. >> That's what they're using it for. >> So, >> but correct me if I'm wrong. We can't we can't can we apply that condition that it has to be personal use when we were doing this reszoning? Yeah. So, I don't think that that matters.
>> No, we we do not do conditional resonings, right? um you can you know it's it's the the zoning district is what you're considering and you know everything good everything bad about that zoning district. >> So it doesn't matter if it's personal use today it could be for business
tomorrow. >> That's a big concern for me being adjacent to them on a small country road basically. >> Well your concern is noted. I mean that that's why >> I'm assuming that you did get my my email.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, one other thing. There's I think it's a misprint. We received this. All the adjacent land owners received this. And it states at the bottom that you would accept all comments
through October 16th, which is today. But back here, it says you only accept comments to the 15th. So, I'm asking you if you would accept. I know there's of at least one other person that objected to this and emailed last night. So, I'd
like you to accept that because it does say the 16th on ours. >> If we receive the email, it was accept we'll accept it. What is the meeting today? As of right now. >> As of right now, you'll accept it. >> Correct. >> And this isn't this isn't uh because this is a resoning. This is not the final hearing.
>> Correct. >> This goes to county council. Um, this commission makes a recommendation takes into account all citizen comments received and you know stated verbally at this meeting and it all goes to uh our elected county council um who will make
the final decision. >> That's not that that's not this group of people. This is somebody else. >> Yes. >> In the same place. >> Yes. >> Will I be get notification of what you recommended? >> Will you be getting the notification? >> Yeah. have what your recommendation was
to >> public record though. >> The county council will get our recommendation. >> Yeah, they will get they will >> they will see it. >> If you if you wait, we will make a recommendation possibly today. >> Today? Yes. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Cross. >> Yes. Before Before I let you go, um that email I read the email online, but I'm it's not in my packet. So, just for >> You want a copy? >> No, I they'll they'll take care of it. Um, where exactly do you live adjacent to this property? >> Um, >> you on Spencer?
>> No, I'm on Mud Lake Road. >> Mud Lake. Okay. >> And I'm just east of it. I'm a connected on the east edge. >> So, you touch their property line. Your property lines touch. >> Yes, I touch it. And then behind me, the the the school touches it. There's a school that's also attached to this
property adjacent to it. So on this picture that's up on the screen now, you are to the left of the subject property. I >> I don't know. I'm east. >> It's to the right. School wraps around >> the school wraps around your property. >> Yes.
All right. Uh and while I got you one, I have a question for staff real quick. Can you tell me the uh the allowed density for R3? Well, you're looking at the R3 allows a requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. >> So, looking about four units to the acre
on the gross. >> So, on this 10 acre parcel, let's round it up. He could potentially have 40 houses on there. >> That right? >> Well, on the gross, but once you do, you know, storm water and all that, it's going to be less. So what I'm So what I'm proposing now to the to to you to
this gentleman here is if you look at the density this would be the most logical would be to change that zoning to R3 to match the one that's right that that absuts it the larger piece across the way which could potentially put 30 to 40 homes on there versus five to 10 cows. So those are your I think those
are your two options. That's come I just want to paint that picture for you because that's what sometimes people overlook that >> it's already subdivided into four >> but it's currently RR and it's what 10 acres I believe 9.9 9.8 acres something like that. Yeah.
>> So if you applied it to the if you look at the the picture up there you see the R3 touches the RR. The most logical combination would be to basically mirror what's up there on R3. I pref pre my preference would to leave it in the agricultural vein. where you got
possibly one home and maybe 5 10 cows. Uh as opposed to the opening that up to potentially a continuation of what Spencer Street is, which looks like to be about four units an acre. >> So those are the two I'm saying I'm just showing you that potential >> I certainly don't want 40 houses or
mobile homes, whatever. That would be really bad. All right. >> So >> I just want to make that point. >> If they're going to have farm animals on this property, wouldn't it have to be totally fenced in? >> They will have to contain their animals. Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> No, I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Miss Bush. You had a comment. >> Um, no. I think it was prior. >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Dwayne Weldon.
>> Good morning, sir. >> Good morning. >> You'd like to make a comment for this case? Dwayne Weldon, 2050 Spencer Street. I own 330 ft of property that connects to the souththeast corner. >> I bought the property 33 years ago.
Basically, I grew up eight miles north of Detroit. The reason I'm mentioning that is because of the noise and pollution and non-stop traffic, sirens. I bought this property because I wanted peace and quiet and solitude. Wasn't for the house. It was the location. It's
residential property. not near large pumps that are furneries, you know, that make a lot of noise or there just no there's quiet at night. All you hear is crickets. So I that's the reason I bought is I wanted solitude and I don't want to I mean in the future they could
put a fernary there with a large diesel pump. They could put a large cattle farm, a large chicken farm, a large anything there that would be noisy, cause pollution and I just don't want to I would sell my property if something like that happened. Mr. Costa, I'll let you take that.
>> Simple question. What do you prefer? Agricultural or residential on that lot. >> 40 homes or four or four cows? >> It's plotted right now for two two and a half acre lots and four oneacre lots on Mud Lake Road. That's six lots. That's what I would prefer. >> The way it's plotted now. Doesn't have
to be reszoned to get small subdivision lots in there. Doesn't have to be approved by the surrounding people to like subdivided into 40 lots. Does it have to be approved by somebody? I mean, right now it's plotted as two two and a half acre lots and four one
acre lots. >> Understood. They want to use as an agricultural venture. And my point is they could easily just as just as easily convert it to an R3 zone as opposed to an uh A2 zoning, which is going to give you a lot more density of potential density of
homes versus the animals. That's my >> But wouldn't that have to be approved by the surrounding neighbors? >> Either way, yeah, it still have to come through front front of us and front of the county council. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, but I'd wait till that reasoning happened and, you know, >> all right. >> Complain about that, but I just want peace and quiet. I don't want to smell cow poop, you know, or chicken poop or
anything like that. I've had peace and quiet for 33 years, and I just want to continue. >> I think they should have bought agricultural property if they wanted agricultural property. Just my opinion. >> All right. Your comments will be noted, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other public
participation forms for this case? No, sir. >> Okay. I'll give the applicant a chance for rebuttal if you'd like to. You don't have to. Are you good? >> Got it. Okay. All right. We're going to close. Mr. Costa, did you have anything
else? Okay. I'm going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion for a motion. I'll make a motion on Z25-011 that we forward the resoning application to the county council for with a final
action recommendation of approval. >> I'll second that. >> I've got a motion on the floor to forward the resoning application case number Z25011 to the county council for the final action recommendation of approval from
Mr. Costa and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Bush. Thank you, chairman. Um, I sympathize with the um, uh, opposition uh, next to me and I'm in A4, so I'm a
transitional agriculture zoning district. Someone bought that property and said they were just going to put a couple cows on it and now it's a petting zoo. Uh, they have more animals on that property than what's substantially it could sustain. And, um, after going through code enforcement a few times,
there's really nothing I can do. Um, and it is it is loud and noisy. I'm now up at all hours of the night, so I hear the chickens, I hear the pigs, I hear the cows. Um, and unfortunately, they they feed them well, but they just don't have a lot of space to move around. And there
is nothing that prohibits someone from putting um a massive amount of animals on a limited size lot other than the condition of their care. Um, so I I do understand where they're coming from the neighbors point of view where they're coming from because I am dealing with
that on a daily basis right now. Um, I agree with u Mr. Costa though that that's the lesser of two evils to to downzone it essentially to the agriculture zone versus maybe leaving it where it's at. However, I think that I
would have felt more comfortable with zoning it to that agriculture uh zone if the special exemptions weren't just stripped um from con council and from this board and a lot of these agriculture uses are now by right which
again I I sympathize with the um adjacent property owners. I'm really on the fence on this one. And I was going to approve, yes, but because of all the things that I just mentioned, I'm not sure if that's an appropriate use for this property, especially considering the residential in and around this area
and how it it looks like to me it is in a transitional type of um period where there are single family homes coming in um and this might not be the best use for an aggric type use in the future. So that's my stance. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. Any other comments on the motion? >> I'll make a comment real quick. >> Go ahead, Mr. Chair. >> Um, I know there was talk about not being close, not wanting to be close to firmary and that like a firmary like a thousand feet to the south.
>> Looks like all covered teran. Is that what I'm seeing? >> I think there is. >> And overhead picture. Yeah. Looks like >> you talking about on Ottabon. >> Yeah, that's that is a furn. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Okay.
>> So, my point here is that um >> you can't >> is um I mean, yeah, I sympathize to a certain extent, but it's like buying a buying a piece of property next to an airport and complaining because the airplanes are landing. This is a this is rural part of
the county. Um, and looking at the other things surrounding it, yes, any one of these could be a farm, a uh and any one of these could be a feed lot. Any one of these could be a potential chicken a farm, but that is part of you got to take the good with the bad when you live in the country. And animal sounds to me, again, I have
animals on my property. Um, I didn't sleep a wink last night because one of the cows got out and the mother was mooing all night. So, that is just part of the part for the course. You bought it in the real area. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and take get a vote on this. Yep.
>> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. >> Any opposed? >> I. >> Motion carries six to one with Miss Bush and in descent. >> Okay. Miss Shel, could I get the next case, please?
>> Yes, sir. Case number Z-25-012 reszoning from the neighborhood commercial B2 zoning classification to the general commercial B4 zoning classification. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. And Miss Ray, this one's yours.
>> Good morning. So, the applicant is requesting to reszone a 2.39 acre parcel from the neighborhood commercial B2 zoning classification to the general commercial B4 zoning classification. The property is located on the southwest corner of Glennwood Road and North
Spring Garden Avenue, also known as State Road 15A. Correct. >> The property has undergone multiple resonings. In 1980, the parcel was zoned suburban single family residential R1. In 1989, it was reszoned from R1 to a um
business plan unit development. Uh the BPUD had a reverter provision in uh because the final site plan was never submitted, the resoning changed back to that R1 zoning. And then in 2004, it was reszoned from the R1 to the current
neighborhood commercial. The area contains a mixture of uses. To the north is a house of worship and a convenience store. To the east is a cemetery and undeveloped parcel and then to the west and south is one unified
undeveloped parcel. Um as previously stated the property is located along state road 15A which is a thoroughfare arterial roadway causing the property to fall within the county's thoroughfare overlay zone. The thoroughfare overlay zone makes the
development on the property more restrictive as it requires all principal and accessory structures to remain under 30% maximum lot coverage as compared to the maximum 35% in both B2 and B4 zoning without the overlay.
The property does have a commercial future land use um and the B4 is assumed compatible making the proposed resoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. Environmental Permitting has reviewed the proposed resoning and had no objection. Staff recommends to forward
the resoning to county council with recommendation of approval. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Ray. Mr. Cost. >> Yeah. Can we put that uh zoning map back up, please? The existing zoning um timeline. The parcels to the north of it that are B4, were those reszoned about
the same time that this one became a B2 or was that always been B4? >> I believe those have always been B4. They've always been B4. So the the B the one that we're looking at right now was the one that changed from >> from R1 to B. >> From R1 to B. Okay. >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> Applicant present. >> Good morning, Mr. Ford. >> Morning. >> Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Certainly. Alex Ford, 145 East Rich Avenue. the land representing the uh
applicant. Um the property is owned by a company named Webster Gas. I actually represent uh Corgan Enterprises, which is a contract purchaser of the property. So the uh the the plan uh is basically my client wants to put in about 12,000
square foot uh uh specialty retail uh shops um for his daughter. Uh she's going to use it for u uh trading cards, hobby shop, and then about 2400 square feet would be used for
some other use, maybe a coffee shop or something like that. Um the uh the B2 allows all kinds of things uh including convenience stores. Actually, back when the property was reszoned, Mr. Costa at one point it had been zoned uh I think
it was either I think it was BPUD and that zoning lapsed. Um I represented the the purchaser back then a company called Gas Properties. We got reszoned for the purpose of putting a convenience store. >> Um that company ended up failing and uh
sold the property to current owner Webster Gas. Um so it's it's it can be used for a sea store right now. >> Mhm. um it can't be used for specialty retail, which is what my client wants. The other limitation that is problematic
for my client is there's a 5,000 square foot limitation on use. You can have all this retail or uh use uh but it can't be you like you could have like a 5,000 square foot here, 5,000 square foot here, all next to each other, but you can't have a big box.
>> And so n they they want to have I think is it 9,400 square foot job? I mean for for Kristen >> 9,600 for the the uh retail specialty they couldn't do that under the existing B2 zoning. So those were the two
motivations for asking for B4. Um the um uh I think the staff report notes you know the the difference in the the the traffic. Uh it's not really significant. Um, it's actually uh
because of I think in my opinion a glitch in the way they did the traffic study, it I think it showed actually more traffic under the B2 than the B4. But what we're going to actually use the property for will be significantly less than anything that's that's shown there.
If I have any if you have any questions, happy to answer them and appreciate your time, >> Mr. Cross. >> Yeah. So I I think uh couple of things and people looked at this initially uh that probably made them uneasy is that the owner is a uh gas company and since there's no site plan attached showing
that you're going to potentially put down a a strip center which is what you're what you're intending to when I first read I'm thinking are they going to put a gas depot there and sell either propane tanks or refill trucks and because that's the intent of the zoning. >> So I think that a sketchy site plan
would have probably been uh gotten you a little more >> sure yes >> oomph at the beginning point. Yes. >> But yeah, that was just my only comment. Thank you. >> We um like I said, Webster Gas, they're the current owner, but my client is actually the the purchaser from them. Okay. >> Yeah, >> Miss Bush.
>> Uh thank you, chairman. Um yeah, that was my comment to staff actually when reviewing this case was what's the use, right? Because why why ask for um reszoning from B2 uh to B4? because it seems like what you're projecting that
you're going to put in is um conducive with that transitional business right um in the area. My question I um I was confused as to the discussion on the traffic analysis to be honest because of the fact that I'm like how could they submit something if the use wasn't provided? So how would they know the
difference because the varying uses and before could be you know um higher traffic impact versus less traffic impact. And then with that, I also just wanted to ask staff, it wasn't included in the staff report. So if it is mentioned in the future, I would like
those documents to review specifically because I think it would have pointed out what that use was when that traffic impact analysis was completed and that would have answered some of my questions. Um, >> and and what what I think I'm not sure code requires it, but what staff looks
at is basically like the last application you had, you know, you look at all the uses and they say max it out, >> right? >> And so that's that's what it did. It max it was like a 50,000 square foot. And by the way,
current zoning allows the same size building, whatever that is. I think we determined it could go up to 50,000 square feet regardless of which zoning category it is. Um so but as I think it was the the the earlier traffic uh study
we submitted um which is not mentioned here actually went to the intended use but staff said that's really not what we look at. So, we submitted a new a newer report that showed maxed out. Um, >> and that was my assumption was that it
was for a potential convenience store, gas station, which would have a lot more trip generation than say a conveny retail store or something along those nature. But yeah, I was just concerned about the use and >> anyway, thank you. >> Okay, Craig.
>> I'm sorry. What did you say the retail um establishment was that you're putting in? The plan is 9600 square feet for a It's a um like trading cards and hobby shop. Um I keep wanting to say
uh card and gift shop. It's trading cards and hobby shop and then the remaining square footage is some other you like a coffee shop or something like that. They don't have that pinned down yet. The 9600 is going to be for their use. The rest of it will be for I guess
rental. >> It's a lot of trading cards. >> Thank you. >> And hobby. Yeah, trading party. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> All right. I do have a public participation form and I'll give you a
chance for rebuttal. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh Michael Maggie. Good morning, sir. Can I get you? >> Michael McGee, 2331 Glennwood Plantation Road, Dan 32720. Um, so a concern here is uh again it looks appears that you
all are doing just rubber stamping, but that's fine. Background is 30 years in the military. I've been to Afghanistan and Iraq. The reason I mentioned that is I've helped rebuild governments and countries as part of my uh my job duties and requirements. Little concern with
environmental impact. Um, if you I bet you all haven't been to that intersection in quite a while. is raised ground. As you look at B26A, I believe it's B2CA. I'm sorry, Bravo. Well, it appears to be Bravo 4 Charlie A on one
and Bravo 2 Charlie. I guess that's the uh the zoning differences. The the concern here is multiple here. None nonetheless, which might be environmental. um you've got a lot of I think I'm sure
irresponsible decision-m being done um and studies when you talk about environmental impact and traffic uh conduction. If you look back towards I believe that would be the north as you go back towards Glennwood Road there's a new development of uh one acre uh lots
going back and I believe there's 10 10 lots going on back there decked down where there used to be the rings uh rink facility uh there was a nursery there which is a Canadian company expatriated obviously the funds that built those 40
or 80 homes that went there on that nursery um the rank I understand is going to be a U multi-purpose use for storage possibly. That's what I understand. Bottom line is you're getting way too much traffic on 15A and the Glenwood transiting. Um, glad to
hear it's not a gas station cuz there is a Shell station 1.3 mi away from that intersection as well as a Circle K back towards International U, um, Speedway Boulevard. Um the other concern might be yes we're mentioning 12 thou 12,000
square uh ft for a multiple use facility. Um concern might be that that might grow into a dispensary as we know those are quite uh interesting little concepts. Um so you don't really ever know what the use is. Additionally I see I'm running out of time but if you're
looking for retail space the Brandy Wine facility which houses the Wind Dixie has a lot of vacancy down there. So instead of these planning committees and the city council or county council just um rubber stamping approval requests, why
don't we use the existing square footage that is available for usage? Across from that Windixie is an old family dollar that's also vacant. Lots of other things that could be used and just because a property can be zoned for commercial light, medium or heavy duty doesn't
necessarily mean that that needs to be happening. Um, again, Florida sits on basically a rubber sponge. You ought to consider consider yourselves with the environment and your responsibilities from that standpoint, too. Again, I'm running out of time, but thank you for
your attention to these concerns. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. Do we have any other public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> All right. We're going to let Mr. Ford come back and for rebuttal and then
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. again, Alex Ford. Um, I'd like to speak with Mr. McGee afterwards and maybe hopefully give him some asuranc as to what the the plan is. And but as far as environmental issues, there there really there's not an environmental issue here. This property can already be developed to the
same extent that in either zoning category. So, there is no environmental issue there. Um, as far as the the issue of a dispensary, um, I'm not sure if it's permitted under this. I I haven't looked for that specific use, but uh my
my guess is that it would be much better to have a local owner uh developing this instead of having someone from outside of the community. Mr. Corgan actually lives a little bit further uh north on 15A or just off of
15A. Um so he's not real close, but he's a couple miles away. Um, as far as the the the uh the neighborhood, other developments that we're talking about, this is really a standalone uh consideration. I don't think you should be looking at the uh
like the old skating rink. That's that's actually going to be a boat uh sales place, but um you know, we need to look at each one of these individually. And um this this is you know we're permitted to do something much more intense than
what is being proposed for this property once it's reszoned. If you have any questions I'm happy to answer them. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Thank you. >> We're going to close the floor for public participation. Open up for commission discussion or motion.
>> If nobody has questions, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Mr. Sixman. Uh, I want to forward case Z25012 to the county council u with recommendation of approval. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I've got motion on the floor to
forward the reasonzoning application case number Z2512 to the county council for final action recommendation of approval from Mr. Sixman and a second for Mr. Costa. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Craig?
Um, I I did drive by this property and I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised at at um the idea of of taking down all the trees. It's a beautiful lot. It's completely covered with trees. It's quite lovely. Uh it's a
res, you know, it has a real strong residential feel. Uh and I I'm sympathetic to the uh to the opposition from an environmental standpoint. I think that it it would be a disservice to take all those trees
down, but I understand that if it's if it's um okay, then that's what will happen to it. But I I wonder about the neighbors and what what people in the immediate area uh additionally would um would have to say about this.
>> Okay, Miss Bush, >> I'll just chime in a little bit. Um you know, I was originally concerned about the use. why was it going from B2 to B4? Um you know what and then after hearing from the applicant you know I I understand that the intent is somewhat
transitional in nature based on you know the surrounding is very um residential. I do understand that there is opportunity for putting these types of facilities and stores and uses to the north or south. Um, however, you know,
the facility, the roadway that it is on, um, and where the parcel is located is really designed for some type of commercial use in in the future. Um, this was something that in my former position I grappled with. Um, because a lot of residents came out and said,
don't develop that. But that that's not something that we have necessarily control over. That's the market. Um, and if they own this property outright, they um are allowed to do certain things with that property. So, from a private property rights standpoint, I do um you know, empathize with the property owner
and wanting to do what they want with it. Um I just wish that they will use um developmental best practices, low in uh um low impact development. We try to save as many trees as they can. I know that's not really um conducive and um you know, stripping the site and then
putting in, you know, 3-in caliber oak trees is really the standard. um but would like to see the applicant, you know, take the best approach as they can to provide um a bigger buffer maybe um and really limit the impact on the site. So, those are my comments just on this
and um I'll be probably voting in favor of the reasoning. Thank you. >> Okay. And I might note that the impact environmentally would probably be greater if a gas station were to be put there >> than what is proposed. So,
okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay, that's correct. >> Chair, I did want to let you know that the applicants for V25062
are in the audience. >> Okay. All right. Would anyone like that have their input? If if you can I'm going to open the case uh V25062 [Music] back up or for consideration. We do have
a vote a motion on the floor but if any of the uh members would like to hear from the applicant there so speak now Miss Bush. >> Um chair, do we want to summarize what that um motion is for the applicant
since they weren't here when we made the motion? The motion for that uh B25062 was a motion for recommendation um for uh for denial of variances one and two.
>> Okay. So yeah, I would like to hear from him. >> Just make a comment that you like >> I'd like to hear from the applicant on this. >> Okay. >> Push my button and I don't get called. >> No. >> You're so used to me yelling out, aren't you?
I was trying to be good >> pushing this button all the time like my name and >> I don't recognize her. You're >> like calling. >> Okay. Miss Shel, would you like to make her? >> Yes. I would like to hear from the applicant. >> Okay.
>> Serric O'Brien for 1991 Cedar Street. >> Okay. Um, are you familiar with the staff report? >> I got what I got from the party that I was working with. Um, I guess when the
septic tank had to be moved to the front of the house, it pushed the house back out of minimum requirements, >> right? >> And so when we pushed the house back at that time, I wasn't aware that the city and the environmental kind of don't
communicate. So when that was done, we already had the building permit. So, I didn't realize that there was an an issue because we I had already because that property didn't have any water there. We had to pay like the city of Daytona about $10,000 to do an extension
on the water. I put basically like my life savings into this project because I didn't know about the minor well I guess it's a major issue that was going on in relation to the house and the size and the requirements.
>> Okay. So you've already pulled the building permit. >> Yes, we were approved a building permit. >> Okay. For that size house. And I think one of the questions that was coming about that me personally was why you couldn't reduce the square footage of the helm in
order to meet the requirements of the setback. >> Well, I didn't when this came about, it was advised to submit for a variance. If there if if I have to downsize it, I can most definitely go back to my planner and seeing it. I just need the
opportunity to be able to build on the lot due to all of the money that I put into it. >> Got it. Well, for future reference, if you ever have to go before anything, it doesn't matter what the recommendation
is. I'd highly recommend that you try to be, and I understand you had an emergency, um, or call someone or something because this could have went very bad with you. >> Absolutely. And I did try and call. I just wasn't getting it. Once I realized I wasn't going to be here right at 9:00.
I did make a few calls. I just kept getting like a voicemail and I was like, I don't know if I can dial in. So, I just I kept trying to call till I got somebody. >> She reached our zoning tech line. One of our technicians emailed um Steve and myself that she was attempting to
contact to let us know she'd be late. >> Okay. All right. I'm just giving her I'm not I'm not >> I appreciate it. I'm not uh >> Hey, at least she showed up. >> We've had numerous ones in the past that didn't make >> you a comment.
>> Yeah, I just had a question. So, if um would you be willing to um you know, shrink shrink the size of the footprint of the home in order to meet the conditions? >> Yes. If I could be told exactly what I need to put it there, I'm willing to do it so that I'm able to build on the
property. >> Okay. And is this a singlestory house? Yes, it's a single story. >> Okay. Would you be opposed to a twotory in order to get the square footage that you would like? >> Um, could we He help He's kind He's like He helps me because I'm new to this. So,
do we know if we could I mean, >> it's a preference thing. I just didn't know. Some people are building for like a senior family member and they can't do twotory. So, that like prohibits then the smaller square footage, the the footprint of the home. So that's why I just asked, but there is no limitation.
You you could essentially go >> Thank you, >> Shel. >> Miss Shel, your mic's not on. >> Believe you said so that she could meet the conditions. However, this application does meet all the conditions. So I I just I'm just
>> I apologize. Meet the uh setbacks and meet the U maximum the coverage. Right. So, um, meet the requirements >> what you're talking about, but it does meet all the the, uh, conditions that were, uh, addressed by that came before this this count or this board. Um, so
that was the comment I wanted to make. Thank you, >> Mr. Costa. >> Yeah, I just want to make sure we're are we we're hung up on the the lock coverage or the setback here. What's the most the consensus? Because I'm looking at this lock coverage. I don't have a issue with I
don't either. My question on the lock on the on the setback though is there any reason that that home cannot move forward say even 5t if not the full 10t and you're only asking for than a 5ft variance as opposed to a 10ft variance. Can that shift forward? >> I think the setback happened because of
the septic tank. The septic tank was originally in the back but environmental said >> you had to put it in the front. >> We have to put it in the front. >> So because of the setbacks of the from the septic that's why the house shifted to the rear. >> Correct. >> Bingo. All right. In that case, then I personally don't have a problem with
these these two variances. >> Mr. Sora, >> I just want to clarify um uh when she says environmental, that's not our environmental department. That's the health department. It's a state entity. Um they have jurisdiction over the location of setback of septic systems.
>> Right, >> Miss Bush? >> So, just to clarify, my hangup right now is the maximum lot coverage, not so much the the 10-ft setback. Um and and I personally feel again originally that um you know our hand is kind of being
forced because of the fact that they issued you a building permit and shouldn't have. They should have caught that and now it's being you're being requested to come here to ask for a variance from something that staff should have caught and asked you to um either resubmit and or go through the variance without having the building
permit approval. So I'm it's not has nothing to do with your project. It's more the fact that I feel like we're being forced to make this decision and to approve this after the fact. Um, and I'm not comfortable with that because of the considerable amount of flooding that our community has experienced with increasing the amount of impervious
surface area. The fact that rainwater has nowhere to go and the more that we continue to build and sprawl across our land is the limited amount of space that our storm water has to go. So, that's my hangup personally. um and wanted you to hear that from me because we did make I
did discuss this but you weren't here. So, thank you for for being here today. >> Okay, Miss Ray, >> you had a comment? >> Sorry, it was me. >> Um >> no, no matter what, they're going to have to meet the 35 foot in the front
because the septic system pushing at 10 feet. So, it's 25 then the 10 no matter what. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, you may, Miss Craig, >> I have one more comment that I wanted to >> um
back up what Miss Bush had to say that the square footage uh is an issue for me, but I don't really feel like there's there's much that can be done at this point because these poor people have been put through so much at this point. But um so I'm on the fence.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Uh, any other questions for the applicant? All right. I might make note that we do have a motion on the floor for a motion of denial for variances one and two. So,
you would be denying the variances if you vote yes on the motion um or approve it. >> So, we will have >> pushing but it won't let me. >> Mr. I've been pushing and pushing. Go ahead. I keep looking and my name's not there.
>> They ask that you repeat. >> Oh, this one. Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Mine's easy. I just wanted you to repeat it. Go ahead, Madam Secretary. >> No, go ahead, Mr. >> I just wanted you to repeat the motion. Bring Bring me back to where we were this morning. Yes. >> The motion on the floor is to deny
variances one and two. That's what the motion is. >> And who's the first and second? >> The first was Motion. And who seconded that? Yeah, I did. But I to make note of it, I'd like to withdraw my second. >> Can I do that or you just want to vote?
>> I have to ask Mr. Sorry about that. >> Um if not, I mean, we can vote, but I'm I'm >> You can withdraw your second. Um we would just need another to continue the motion. We would need another second. You are not required to vote in the same way that you seconded.
>> Yeah. >> The motion. >> So, you can withdraw or not. >> Okay, that's fine. We'll leave it. We'll leave it. >> Okay, Miss Shelley. >> Um, I just wanted to say I'm I'm familiar with this area in Cedar Street in Daytona Beach, and this would be a
lovely addition to that area and that part of our community. >> Okay, we're going to go ahead and take a vote. Now, I remind you again, this is a vote to deny variances one and two. >> So, clarify, a yes vote means >> a yes vote means they don't get it.
>> Correct. Okay. >> All those in favor signify signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> I I motion failures to pass with a six to
one in descent. >> Do we need a positive? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. I'll make a motion case B25-062 that we approve are variances one and two with uh staff recommended conditions if there are any. >> And I'll second that. >> Yeah. two staff recommend conditions.
>> Okay, I got a motion on the floor to approve variances one and two for V25062 with the two staff conditions for Mr. Costa and a second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? I >> motion carries 6 to one with Miss Bush and descent. >> Good luck. >> You showed up. >> I hope you don't have any more hiccups. >> Okay.
All right. We're going to move right into our attendance policy discussion this morning. Um I do have a comment on it if >> Yes, >> if I'm if I may. uh you put in here that
it would and I think it's contradicting itself a little bit about being consecutive meetings. I don't think consecutive needs to even be in there as long as it's three >> that was um so that mentioned in the report was that was part of the discussion. So, so I did not write in
that the meetings had to be consecutive, but that was part of the discussion that, you know, this commission could also put in that it's three consecutive meetings because right now the drafted language is just three meetings throughout the uh the year beginning the
term of um appointment. >> We wanted an opportunity to bring it to the commission before it's >> automatically removes them from the board. >> Yes. and the the uh absences would be um
unexcused. That was with some of the discussion that we were >> three unexcused absences. >> Yes. Three unexcused >> within a >> within within the 12-month period starting April 1st. Yes. April, April, April. >> When I said when I read the consecutive, I'm saying, okay, that could be
misconstrued as missing every other meeting >> and you could actually miss six. >> Yes. So, so that's that wasn't like it's not in the current draft for consecutive. Um, it's it's just that that was one of the options banded about
by the commission. Okay. >> Of like okay in lie of the you know uh excused absences. You could discuss you can make it you miss three consecutive for whatever reason whatsoever. >> Oh, okay. Instead of two, >> right?
>> Oh, okay. That's why it was put in there. I I will note that I took a look at the old attendance policy of this PLDRC and it was it was three consecutive unexcused meetings. Um that was the that
was the old policy of the PLDRC attendance. So you actually had both. So you know so you had um potentially attendance issues with members kind of being here but not here. kind of what I
want to say, Miss Bush. >> Thank you, Chairman. Um, having hopefully what would be deemed an excused absence last meeting, I appreciate that you guys had the discussion about excused unexcused. I'm just curious as to why um, you defined
an excused absence as a result of extraordinary circumstances, which is to be determined by the good judgment of the other members of the commission. >> Sure. So that language tracks with um some attorney general opinions on um attendance policies or physical
presence. So back during the pandemic during COVID um there was an AGO opinion that said you need a physical quarum you know we need people literally here. Um and uh the AGO uh said okay uh governor
you can you can wave that provision but the standard rule is um if someone can't be present physically they can uh participate virtually or through telephonic um aspects but they limited it to extraordinary circumstances
usually medical issues um or you know the not just something for convenience, but at the end they said uh the extraordinary circumstance provision is determined by the good judgment of the board. So the board polices themselves.
>> Okay. >> So that's that's the standard that we use um for virtual participation. It's kind of the same, you know, uh you're not here because it's inconvenient for you. You are you are not here because of
some extraordinary circumstance. Usually it's medical, but if it falls outside of that, um, you know, we leave it up to your fellow board members to determine uh some uh the the unavoidable conflict
rises to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. >> Understood. I guess I'm just um concerned about maybe not listing some of those extraordinary circumstances or at least pointing to that AGO um uh documentation. I'm just concerned the the comment of
the good judgment by the other members of the commission, not nothing to do with my my fellow commissioners here. Um it's just that if there were to be in the future um you know one particular member that the general body didn't want, they could use that good judgment
to then you know and I just want to make sure that it is you know above par and that there are some parameters put in place. I I appreciate the language, but more definition as to what those circumstances could be. >> And that's something easily included, but not limited to these types of
situations. So, um that's something that uh is easy enough to do to list examples of what is considered extraordinary circumstance or excused uh unexcused absence. Um it's it's the determination
whether you want complete flexibility or you want some some go some guard rails. That's your decision. That's you know that's policy decision. Um so I'll draft whatever you uh whatever you decide on. >> Okay. Thank you >> Mr. Cost.
>> Yep. Uh just to clarify this the tennis policy that we're reviewing really has nothing to do with you and your circumstances. This has to do with something that happened last year. And second off, the the the last meeting that you missed would technically fall under unexcused absence
because I asked the question if you were, you know, having delivering your baby at the time and no one seemed to knew. No, nobody seemed to know. So there's no call in, there's no email saying you were going to be not in attendance, at least not from this level of the of staff because it was asked point blank.
>> I did email staff and let them know that I was being induced that day, that I was literally in labor while you all were meeting. you have an email stating that and I understand that this is nothing to do with my personal circumstance that this was from prior. Correct. >> So yeah, that's >> I just want the record to reflect that I
did communicate that with staff. I did not send that email to everyone because of um >> conflict, right? And I was hoping that staff would then relay that message to all of you as as they should have done. >> I'm sure staff will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I point
blank asked that question and was told that we don't know. >> Yeah, I was here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I I sent it to staff. I copied everybody on it so I can I can forward that to all of you. >> No, no, no. That's good. I'm sure you did. That's I was just I was just bringing that up as a as a point of conversation here in this attendance
thing. I think we have to have a limit regardless of combination of excused and unexcused. And I would set set the limit at say four total. If you have a combination of four, three excused and one unexcused, four, you're out. I think that's logical. If not, you could get to the point where you can have an excused
absence for a medical condition that could last 6 7 months. As a board, we need to have all the seats filled butts in all the seats to vote. That's that's we went through last year, we ended up with two seats vacant for the better half of the the last sessions of 24. And
I don't think we need to go I don't think we need to do that again because became very trying on the rest of us to make sure we were here till we had at least a quorum. And I think that that's we need to kind of tailor that a little bit to have a combination thereof or a maximum number of absences combined.
Just don't know what that number should be. >> I personally I think it's four. >> And and the way it works is the excuse maybe I should write this down and be clear the the excuse decision doesn't happen to happen on the day that the member is not present, right? you know,
it's it can happen, you know, the next meeting because if if the circumstances doesn't allow don't allow you to communicate, >> you're in a car accident on the way to the meeting, you can't I can't call you and say, "Hey, I just got in a wreck. I can't be there." You're going to hear about it the next day or possibly a week later if I'm, you know, laid up in a
hospital. So, yes, I understand that. >> Well, Mr. uh was Miss Craig, you was up there. Um it was brought up in the discussion what I had to what I had to ask about which was at what point is at
the decision made about whether it's excused or unexcused. >> That's where I was going to go. I missed due to COVID. She missed due to pregnancy. >> Miss Miss Bush, >> where is this tracked? >> Yeah, >> Miss Bush. >> Um I will agree with um Costa's uh
discussion about a limit between unexcused and excused absence. If you do have an underlying condition that does not allow you to be here, I think then that needs to be unfortunately I would hate for that to be the decision of this body to make for that person. That person should just resign from that position if they can't be here and I
would hope that they would do that. But I think we do need to put guard rails in place so that we can make that decision. Um, so I I totally 100% agree with that. And I I'm not sure if after we approve this, maybe there's some policy that's
not necessarily specific in an ordinance that says at what point do you make those determinations because I don't think we need to put in when we vote for the excused unexcused into the ordinance specifically. But I do think we need to come up with what that decision is and a
time frame or a framework. And then just from, you know, not to bring in my own personal, you know, situation, but that staff needs to let the rest of the members know if one of the members does email and say they can't be there, that should be reflected in the record at the meeting.
>> I think at the last meeting, you weren't here, we were talking about the uh members not being able to email each other, and I think the consensus was just put them all as a blind copy. >> Yes. >> So, well, that's that's that's it's a that's an option. No, it's it's when
staff communicates with all of you, we blind copy you. Um, do not blind copy a fellow member when and email directly a fellow member. Um, so >> no, no. If I if I'm emailing the staff to say, "Hey, I'm going to be absent." Can I not at that same time blind copy
the rest of the members? >> No. No, I would not recommend that. Um, >> you don't recommend it, but why would why don't you recommend it? >> That fall that could potentially fall into that communication between other members. um >> if if there's a two-way communication.
So that's where you and I differ. But >> so the issue is is if someone responds to that blind copy um because it becomes a two-way communication between um member two members of the same board. So that's why uh please do not do uh direct
communications um with each other even if you blind copy them. Um, it's it's when staff issues information or material, we will blind copy the entire commission so that you can't reply all
and uh or if you do reply all, you're not replying to a fellow member of the commission. You're just communicating with staff. >> Miss Shel, you had a comment. >> Michelle, your mic's not on. >> I can't do one or the other here. >> Which
>> I feel you, girl. Um anyway, I'm going on that. Um but I've I've always tried to air on the side of caution with that. Um but my my the reason I I wanted to speak is when we were talking about the absentees and all that. I also think it it falls on
the shoulders of whoever appointed us if if those absence that they should be the ones that's you know they might say okay my person's been gone this amount of time as well and that they enforce that as well to possibly not reappoint the person so that they can get somebody who will be on there and and represent their
area. But anyway, that's just a comment. >> Mr. I'll just reiterate what I said last month. Three for me is considered abandonment. Period. That's just my opinion. >> Miss Bush. >> Um, two things. One, um, just for the
record, um, Samantha West and Carol McFarland both replied to my email that I had sent. It was Steven was also copied on that email as well. The rest of staff was not, but again, I was I was hoping that that would been reflected. Um, and you were all notified. So, I apologize that that didn't happen.
Again, this is why I think we need some sort of policy as to who we then need to contact so that you all can let this body know when someone is not here so that you all can make the decision as to whether it's an excused or unexcused absence. Um the second thing that I do want to mention um is that on our board
it's two um absences. Um we do allow for unexcused for personal purposes, but it's two so within a 12-month period. So I'm we're a little bit more strict and we have meetings every month as well. Um, so I'm could go either way, but I do
agree. I think this may this language in the ordinance needs to be modified a little bit to either explain or provide what those um extraordinary circumstances are. And then I think there needs to be a limit to both excused and unexcused absences. And I'm willing to agree with um Commissioner Costa to say that four is the
appropriate number. I almost think less. Um but if if the rest of the commissioners want to say four, then I will agree with that. I'm just looking I'm playing devil's advocate here that if you in you know if you had one unexcused and three excused absences I think that's still you know your medical
conditions like are you coming out of it or not I agree >> and I you know you give them the best benefit of the doubt we've lost good members because of that but at the same time you can't operate a board under staff >> clarification on the on the number um I
was thinking it was the number of excused absences but you seem to be talking about a combination of excused total comp combined total, right? >> Cuz if you have unexcused and it's unlimited, I mean, technically I could, you know, have a a foot ailment or a
back ailment 11 months of the year. And then I one month that I show up, I say, "Hey, I'm going there. I'm going to go to Cabbage to Cabbage Patch for Cole Wrestling instead of being here on a Thursday." And so I still am on the board because I've only missed one unexcused absence. currently is two ter
you can have two unexcused absences whether it's excused or nonex uh unexcused. So right now I'd like to see if you're going to put a limit of four I'd like to see at least two and two. >> Yeah. >> Is it is it two or three? Because the way that the ordinance is written it's
three. >> It's it's it's you can miss two. If you miss the third one you're automatically >> it says three. if any f a member fails to attend three meetings during the um the December 31st calendar year. So
you're allowed to miss two. >> And the way this is written, it doesn't say anything about it just says if a member fails to attend three unexcused meetings, but it doesn't say anything about excused meetings. >> That's why it said we need to have a combination. Yeah. Maximum number. So,
so it was it was there was no limit of the number of of excused meetings which is the discussion at at this point. If you are >> if if if your seat is empty but you have you meet that extraordinary circumstance test but you're not going to be here.
>> That's that's the the policy standpoint of well does the the council remove you? Um should you be granting um the excused if you know that it's a prolonged kind of absence? >> Could I Yeah. Could I make the
suggestion then is that um we put in here that maybe it's failed to attend three unexcused meetings and then it's um maybe a certain number of excused consecutive meetings because obviously extraordinary circumstances you might
have two excuses and the third one you you know you might potentially be it could just be a really bad year right whatever the case may be um and that's where I think the the consecutive might be a good option for the language that is used So that way if somebody has a longer medical condition and they're
gone from multiple meetings, then it's really clear that they either need to step down or we need to take action um or the county council member that appointed them needs to take action. My suggestion, >> we're obviously giving this a lot of thought. So >> yeah, it's it's it's
uh it's not overly complicated right now because you're just dealing with, you know, two two conditions, but the more conditions you put in, the the harder it is for the member and staff to track. Um that's so that puts a limit on the number of excused absences. You can only
have two uh two conse you know but you're allowed to have two consecutive excused absences but you're not allowed to have the third one. You know at that point you were you know you're >> vacant the the seat >> currently. Currently we have it as you
can be out twice. >> Yes. >> Excused unexcused it doesn't matter. >> No call no show. Yep. Okay. And now we're trying to put limits on excuses and try to determine what's excused and not. Why don't we just increase it to one one more absence and be be done with
it? >> There's four total. >> Just know three total. >> Three total. >> Three total. >> That's why >> the three total is is 25% of the meetings >> without having to vote on any kind of excuse unexcused. >> Unexcused. Nobody's going to sit here and dislike someone or whatever. Let's
just increase it by one. I think uh in my case and I've been here for a while. Um I took off and I went to Indonesia. That's unexcused. That was my choice and I missed two consecutive meetings. Now I
had to really watch myself the rest of the year and and if I I would have to come in sick, show up and then leave. And that's what I was trying to avoid. There going to be circumstances where and I think for the
most part we all want to be here. I don't think anybody's here for that big old $200 a month check. So for the most part we all want to be here. But there are circumstances that come along. We can really simplify this
by just adding one more and I think that's 25% basically when I even considered this. That's all I was asking for to begin with. >> Me too. And so >> so three and out period. >> Three and out. >> That's what I say. >> And they can be excused, unexcused. I mean,
>> doesn't really matter. So there's no really need there's no need to call other than courtesy call. Hey, I'm not going to be there. So we know for a quorum standpoint. >> So you're saying for for the appointment year? >> Do you want to change still tracked with the appointment year and not the calendar year? >> Yeah, the appointment year. Yeah.
>> Just make it three and just be done with it instead of what we're doing. You still have the opportunity to go back to council, state your pro case. I was out with a broken leg and >> couldn't walk and couldn't get here. >> You can do that if you wish. You can
appeal to council. You don't It's not even an appeal. You go in there, you during this public conversation, you can ask to be reappointed >> and to be done with it and just because we're going to sit here and say, "Well, you're favoring this guy and that guy
and >> my opinion there is everybody should get along anyway." But that's beside the point. That's not going to happen, I guess. >> But not not the not the appointment term. >> Can you can you rephrase your um Yeah, >> just to change it from two to to three period.
>> I moved on that. Yeah. >> And change the uh time frame from January to December 31 to April 1 >> to to May 31st. >> So all right. Unless I'm unless I'm misunderstanding you, nothing has
changed because right now it's three. You miss three, you're out automatically. >> So So we would be changing that to four to four. If you miss four throughout, you know, I was >> I was trying to track with you and I'm okay. It's like we have it. We're not to where you can miss three >> three
>> and without any consequence >> without any consequences. It you miss that fourth, you're automatically out at that point. Okay, there we go. Now we're on the same page. >> So So um what what I'm what I'm understanding is simplifies it significantly. So we just change the the
number of uh misses before it's automatically vacated from 3 to four and then change the term for when those misses count from 12 month from April to April. basically the the term appointments rather than through calendar years. >> Yeah. That way we don't have to worry
about excused, unexcused, any kind of voting. It's just a straight black and white. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Can I You could miss three, no problem. You missed that fourth one, you gone. Right. >> For clarification purposes, isn't the term for two years? So would it be for a calendar year and not the term year?
>> Yes. Yeah. So it's it's No, we um the issue is it's calendar year right now. So, it starts from December to December, but you are appointed in April. When I say term year, I mean the 12-month period from April to April. >> So, it's a 12-month period. Okay. >> Not for the 2-year term. I don't know if
four for two years is the appropriate answer either. >> It's 12 months from April. You're >> right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. That make it better. Makes it better. >> Do we need a Do we need a motion for that? >> Yes. I moved on with So, if you can make
a a motion. Um um we will take this to uh to council, get the go-ahhead. If I get the go-ahad, I'm just going to start drafting um the ordinance. And then hopefully the next time you see it, it's going to be an advertised ordinance form. Um and then we're going to have to
follow back to amend the bylaws to match the ordinance. And then, you know, you can have there's also some additional provisions in the bylaws that were identified. Don't forget the secretary's position to then take all that. Is that is everybody good with that? >> Yeah.
>> Are you good with that, Miss Shel? Or do you want to take everything in? >> Stamp it. >> Give you a stamp. >> I'm I'm working on the buttons. >> So, do you need that official motion then? >> Um I I I think I would like an official
motion because I can take your motion to county council. >> Yes. So, >> I mean Okay. >> Yeah. Look, right. I was going to make a motion to amend um section K of the um
what is the bylaws, rules, and procedures of the PLDRC to state four absences um within a 12-month period beginning
April 1st of each year. >> And I'll second that. I've got a motion on the floor to amend the bylaws of the PLDRC
to to make it four absences instead of the current three and change the time frame from April 1st for 12 months
instead of for a calendar year also. Did you want to include change in the secretary's position? >> Yes. And that is >> C. >> In article four, officers letter C,
secretary amend the language to remove the duty to receive any evidence or documenting presented to the commission at any commission meeting and to sign or initial the date of such documents or evidence.
>> Okay. to also include in the secretary's portion of the bylaws. It shall also be the duty of the staff recording secretary to receive any evidence or documents presented to the commission at a commission meeting and sign or initial
and dated such documents or evidence. >> That correct? >> It's it's we're basically doing what we're doing now. >> We're doing now. Exactly. So that's that's in the bylaws. That'll actually come that's not an ordinance change. So that's something that you can
you can address later on. >> That motion was by Miss Bush. And there's a second. >> I second. >> And Mr. Ersen was a second. Is that you good with that, Mr. Sora? >> Yes. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I got comments. You didn't ask for comments and I got a comment.
>> You want Go ahead, Mr. President. >> Um were we going to address the uh the stipen issue? Um the stipened issue is another resolution >> separate from this one. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then we can vote on this. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Now, can we talk about the site? >> That is that's going to be a county council decision because it's a a Hold on. I actually have the resolution um
from 1995, I believe. Yeah, little bit of a change in >> $200 in 1995 >> is equivalent to what today? >> I thought it was 87. >> Oh. Oh, I think you maybe right. Hold on. Let me >> That was a lot of money in ' 87. >> Uh,
>> was it 87? >> Yeah. Yes. 87. 1987 143. >> Um, so yeah, this is a a county council um uh resolution. So, it would have to, you know, go to county council to uh
potentially increase that, but it has been $200 since 1987. >> A lot of money back there. >> Yeah. >> Should we figure it out? Did you ask uh Siri what the difference is?
>> The equivalent. >> We might be getting all kinds of applications for this board. >> Siri is working. >> Maybe we will stick her. But I understand the the my understanding is the discussion was was uh linked to the um >> cost of living.
>> Yes. And also the >> the printouts for the the physical printouts >> that hold on the fuel. >> Yeah. Say traveling >> was before Google Maps. >> Would be I'd be curious to see what the uh the council stipens were in ' 87
versus what they are today. what that change in in number. >> So, so the that's governed by the charter, >> right? >> The charter says no in no refunds for incounty travel. So, the council members
do not get reimbursed for all the activities they have to drive through in county, but outside of county, they can get reimbursed is how our charter reads. >> But they get a salary. That's what I'm saying. what the salary I meant I said stipen but I meant salary
>> yeah salary is I think 50% >> between 87 to today is what the differential is >> right I think that their salary is the chair gets 60% of the state um salary and then everyone else gets 50% >> and let the >> I tell you what I'd like to say there's
a motion by as a group to at least approach council >> for that uh consideration >> to review it yeah >> consideration to increase the stipen pardon I know I probably know where this is going because I've already heard it, but
>> anyway, I'm talking about council. >> Hey, you know, >> so somebody make a motion just for us to send to them. >> Yeah, I'll move forward that motion. Second. >> Oh, thanks. >> Who made the motion?
>> Nobody. He just did. person. >> He just paraphrased what you said. >> Okay, >> Mr. Sora, do you have that that said that bring to council? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, we'll it'll have to go through growth and resource management staff. They're the ones who handle the um the
budgetary things. It's not really a legal item. It's a policy item. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And before we vote, it's like a $300 to $500 difference from today's value. So, just so that you know >> that is a big difference, isn't it?
>> 300 to$500. >> Mhm. Depending on the source, >> correct? So, the value $600. >> Correct. That would be the value of the $200 today from 1987. >> Okay, we're done with that. Uh, do we have any other public items? >> Did we vote on that?
>> Favor. >> Oh, >> we may have a motion in a second, but I think >> I think we have a motion in a second. I'm not sure we have a >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. Any other public items? >> No, sir.
>> Any staff items? >> No, sir. >> Any staff comments? >> No, not today. >> Any commission comments? >> Sir, >> I have some, but go ahead. >> Uh, Miss Bush,
>> I have a few, so I apologize, but this is my my standard. Um I would like to ask staff for a couple varying changes to staff reports moving forward. One um the jurisdiction the jurisdictions aren't labeled on the um vicinity map
and there were a couple locations that were adjacent to cities so and they were grayed out or they were different color but there was no legend on the map. It wasn't until I got into the zoning or the future land use maps where it was identified. I would just ask that you start labeling those with the
jurisdiction so that we are aware of where that's at. Um second, because of all the changes to the special condition or the special exemptions and that whole um change that occurred, I would like to start seeing the different uses of
what's allowed and and what's not allowed when we see reszonings just so that we can become a little bit more familiar, at least myself, um as to those changes and uses. I did have to ask staff on the um business resoning as to what the different uses were in each one. Um and I'm not really sure if
that's codified yet or if that's up on um in the um Munich code. So just providing that in the future would be beneficial. >> Yeah, the ordinance has not been uh assimilated into the the ordinance but it is on the website if you go to MUN
code. uh all the different jurisdictions there copy of the ordinances are available for they break it down by year. So the 2025 ordinances are there and that's one of them it's available but it has not been assimilated into the regular text as yet. >> Okay. So yeah just providing those uses
for clarification would be beneficial. Um and then I do have um a couple questions on some things that we've discussed in the past and I just wanted to know if if where we're at with some of those things. you had presented to us the changes to the size of the square
footage of mobile homes and I was wondering if that was moving forward to county council at any point in time. >> Yes. So, we had an ordinance meeting I believe last week and I believe that will be going forward um back to county council at the beginning of next year of
2026. >> Okay. So, >> will it come before this body because we we reviewed >> No, it's okay. Um, so we still need direction from county council. So what we're going to do is present what we've uh the research we've done and then if they would like us to begin to draft an
ordinance, it will come back before you. >> Got it. Okay. Um and then prior to we this this commission, this body, I had asked a couple different times to look at the impervious surface ratio and make that and um as a part of our review. It was voted on. So I'm just curious if
that's made forward movement to the county council to ask if that's something that they want to change. That current provision is is barred by SP 180 because it is a more restrictive or burdensome amendment to the land
development um regulation and we are prohibited from even proposing an amendment to it. >> Okay. So can we just agree that that might be on hold until SB80? >> A lot of things are on hold >> because of SP80. Okay. >> Um, you know, we had, in my opinion, a
very good storm water ordinance that was reactive to actual pond failures >> that we had to void because of SP 180. >> It's not voided. It's just on hold. Let's just use more positive language. Um I would like and I don't think that this
is subject to Senate Bill 180 and I think that this is in um alignment with what um the chairman has kind of echoed over some time but I would love to revisit agriculture accessory structure agriculture setbacks in general both for accessory structures and for principal
structures. um some of these lots don't necessarily meet the um minimum lot requirements where they're substandard lots and so sometimes they're not able to put these buildings where it's intended to by the code. There's also environmental constraints that they're dealing with. So, we have a lot of
variances that we review from this and I think that it would be, you know, it's becoming not burdensome, but I I just think that if we're trying to be supportive of agriculture ventures in the county, then we should eliminate the need for them to come forward for a 10-ft accessory structure setback.
>> We've done a little bit of that with sheds and fences no longer requiring a zoning permit. Um uh if you have a shipping container and you have you are in agricultural zoning um that also does not require a permit and I think the
it's like a 15 foot side setback or something like that but that is something um that you know staff can absolutely look at in terms and and um interfacing with what is the
agricultural business committee Right. >> Relations. >> Yeah. So there is a specific uh agricultural inter inter relationships committee that um provide us provides us comments um all the time. So that's one of the things that staff can definitely
look at um to make it a viable um career option to do agricultural here in Valuchia County. >> Yeah. And just to like I said, it's more of like the accessory structures that I think are you know prohibitive. No one's going to build a 500 foot shed um on an
A2 or A1 zoning to, you know, house animals. It's not really big enough in certain circumstances. Or they might need to put it, you know, more adjacent to the property line in order to avoid wetlands, tree removal, things of that nature. We see that quite often, at least in the cases that we've reviewed
in the time that I've been on the board. >> Yeah. So it's it's it's a timing issue because you know before they get that ad classification they have to comply with our setbacks but the moment they get their ad classification non-residential farm building doesn't need a permit and
ignores all of our codes except for flood plane codes. >> Um >> I'm saying irregardless of the a exemption if it's a zoned property I think that we should re-evaluate the setbacks. I mean some of them for A1 are somewhat excessive. I think it's like 100 foot for, you know, certain
setbacks. So, I just I want to re-evaluate those to really see if they're necessary anymore, especially as we um are supporting agriculture uses on smaller substandard lots throughout the county and we and we want to to you know
um support those per for personal use, right? Um andor for business. So, I don't know if we need to take a vote on that in order to send that in order to to get that to go to council. I think I hope council will be supportive of that and I do not feel like that is
burdensome under Senate Bill 180. Uh it depends upon I mean you could take a vote um to uh PLLDRC asked you know that council direct staff to look at it and they would be very interested in
looking at the accessory uh the way that um accessory structures are handled in certain zoning um classifications. uh and then you know if we have a motion we can take it to to council um and say
PLDRC really wants to look at this this particular aspect. >> Okay. I will open it up to my fellow commissioners to see if that's something you're interested in. >> Well, I've been talking how long have I been talking about this, Scott? >> Quite a few years. Huh? >> I've been talking about this for a long
time. Um and under different councils, too. So, I don't know where it would go. The the fact of the matter is you can have a non agriculture exempt property sitting
between two agriculture exempt properties and they could do whatever as long as it's agriculture related. But unless I'm agriculture exempt or can prove an agricultural use, then I've got a problem on my setback.
But the biggest problem is the agricultural setback is more restrictive than the residential setbacks. >> And I don't know the purpose behind this other than you got a bigger piece so you can move further back. I don't know who
ever come up with that. >> So I have expressed this for quite a few years and Scott can tell you I've went back and forth on this many of times uh ever since I've been sitting on this board. as a matter of fact and
I'm in total agreeance with what you're saying. Um I don't how we get it pushed forward. I really don't know. Council has made a few strides on some agricultural properties as Mr. Sor has said, but they've never really addressed
the setback issue. It's always been uh I think one of the greatest things was the five lot subdivisions on agriculture property for large parcels. And uh then we have the u the fence um
ordinance that just went into place that you don't you don't have to put a permit as long as you meet the requirements accessory structures. Uh, so I'm all in favor of of them looking at it and further than what is
currently been looked at. >> That's my >> Well, I'm I'm wondering about the gentleman that was here earlier who spoke of nuisance issues basically with something going in that, you know, smells and uh noise, that sort of thing. Um, I
think that probably played into why the setbacks are as small as they are. Well, to address that comment is is, >> you know, you don't go >> sit next to a pool if you don't want to
get wet, >> you know, >> airport analogy, >> you know, um, truthfully, that's what if you go buy a piece of agriculture property or buy next door to an agriculture piece of property, then you can expect that.
That's the whole purpose. It's a rural environment. And I mean, that's just my just the way I feel about it. Um, so if you don't want that, go ahead and get in a residential neighborhood where you don't have the smells or the animal noises.
But what about somebody who already an existing property and the adjacent property gets reszoned in such a way that the setback is reduced significantly from what there was before.
So um uh there's a there's two answers to this one. Um you know as as we had this discussion today fundamentally the zoning is a compatibility issue. you are determining can these two uses coexist over a prolonged period of time and not
negatively impact each other. Um second one is there's a state right to farm act. Um and that right to farm act says if you have an agricultural operation and you are operating for a period of one year what it does is it says um you
are exempt from um public and private nuisance actions. you know, to the extent that you've established that particular farm activity. It doesn't say you can expand the farm activity and still be exempt. Um, but you know, if you get your ad classification and
you're operating as a farm during that one-year period, um, basically you're no longer subject to private nuisance actions due to your farm activities. So, there's some state protection associated with bonafide farm activities.
>> So, the neighbors lose their uh ability to raise an objection within after a year. >> They lose their ability to sue on private nuisance and public nuisance um for the extent that the that specific
activity has been in operation. So that's that's the the Right to Farm Act and how it operates here in in Florida. Um but prior to that be it initial establishment of a farm um if they don't have an uh you know something that
allows them to do it by right to do bonafide farm operations that's a discussion for this commission on whether or not from compatibility standpoint you should be you know uh putting or reszoning something to allow
full-scale farm operations. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if they are a full-scale farming operation, then they're exempt from meeting the setbacks for any of those structures anyway. >> Yes. >> Right. So, this would just be for those non-agg if it's not a exempt. Like my property is not a exempt. So, I would
have to come before the board in order to place something on the property that doesn't meet excessive. It is more for you have a pig farm and you put the pig farm right next to your neighbor. They have a year essentially to object and
say, "Hey, this is a nuisance." Um, and after that year goes by, they can no longer sustain a private nuisance action against the farm. So what do we want to do on the classifications?
>> I will move to uh ask this commission or move that staff go to council to evaluate the setbacks for agriculturally zoned properties for both accessory structures greater than 500 ft and principal structures.
>> I'll second that. >> So just so that I'm clear. So we're looking at them to look to they're looking at the azone property versus bonafideed a and trying to marry those two together. So the a zone gets the same benefits as a bonafideed egg from
>> so the the zoned property not a exemption from property taxes purposes >> understand but from the setbacks and because if you're bonafideed a you as he was saying you can plop down the pole barn wherever >> right so this is a zoned property >> just to be clear just an example like
the A1 you mentioned earlier is a 100 foot front yard 50 side and rear A2 is a 50 foot front rear 25 on the side A3, an A4 or 40 foot front yard, 25 sideyards. You're looking to affect the setback to
that zoning classification. Instead of 100 or instead of 50 or instead of 40, it'd be X. And then if the because under the code, if you have an accessory, no matter what zoning you're in for residential purposes, if you have a accessory structure over 500 ft, you
must meet the minimum requirement of that zoning. So you're looking to affect a separate code align if you will that for structures over 500 square ft in egg zonings is an example they would have to
meet X. It may not be the minimum requirement of the zoning but it' be another number. >> Correct. >> That's lesser but not as burdensome as the principal standard. >> Correct. >> I think I I think I understand. Um so for example today uh you made the
comparison if this wasn't ad zoning if this wasn't equivalent residential with the same uh you know minimum lot size what would the setbacks be >> so you can have something to the effect of um different setback standards for different types of uses within the same zoning district I mean that's that's a
common practice >> all I'm saying is that do accessory structures in agriculture zoned properties need to meet the principle because that's right now the requirement I'm suggesting that we separate the two and just evaluate because we've issued a lot of variances to accessory structures
greater than 500 square feet meeting a smaller setback. I don't necessarily think that we need to amend the principal structure setback could still be 50 foot for A1 in the front yard, but maybe the accessory structure then is 25 because it's not a principal use, right?
So having those varying setbacks and I just identifying what are other counties doing like Lake County, Ocula account, you know, just trying to figure out if if we're being too burdensome on those setbacks and requiring a lot of applicants who are just trying to build a structure to put a tractor in or put
a, you know, a cow in um to come before this board when that is the intent of the zoning district and the intent of the county's wishes is to make that easy for people to have in in the county. be simpler than because if you're talking just accessory element then
that's we'd be looking at modifying section 72277R code which deals with the accessory structures and has the language for all the residential classifications that if basically no matter what the zoning is you can be if it's less than 500 square
feet it could be 5t from a property line but not in an easement but if it's over the 500 it has to meet the principal no matter what the zoning so we'd have that basically another clause if you will the following zonings presumably I would say I guess the FR
>> um and RC because those were big setbacks. So the RC FR A1 through A4 >> um classifications because those are your primary a classifications. >> Yeah. I mean I I would look to staff to bring back
>> two big setbacks. >> What the Yeah. >> Okay. So we allow for obviously um a reduced accessory setback standard. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. We need to take a vote on that.
All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Mr. Costa, you had a something you wanted to bring up. >> Yeah. Go back. >> This goes back to staff comments. So, um, cuz there was no staff comments. My
question is, Mr. Shams, aren't you in a different position today than you were last time we met >> officially? Yes. >> Officially, >> yeah, >> that you might want to share that with us if you would, please. >> Okay. So, I've been um, I guess promoted to be the PLDRC supervisor coordinator.
So, I'll be your point of contact. >> So, are we going to get an email with your email address so that we can send you notices that we're going to be absent? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And for the record, I we should email you specifically and not is Samantha no longer the planning manager or
>> he's still the planning manager. I'm simply um under her position to >> You're the handler to >> coordinate this board. Yes. Okay. >> He handles our board. >> She handles the board. Yeah. >> Well, great. So, make sure we have sugar in the coffee by the coffee pots and uh you know, cups and stuff. We'll see what we can do.
>> All right. Appreciate it. Thank you. That was my comment. Thanks. >> Mr. Er, did you have a something you wanted to say? I was going to say the same thing. >> Okay. >> The the faces have been moving around the chairs. I can't Every time I look up, someone's moved to a different side of the room over here. So, I'm trying to
figure out what's going on. But now I understand. >> Okay, that looks like the end of the commission comments. Miss Tucker, we'd like to thank you for taking multiple tasks today. >> I do my best. >> He was had to do
>> made sure Mr. Costa had his sugar today. You know, I become a bearer. No sugar. >> I'm going to return my um iPad. Didn't work out. Mine's better. >> Okay. You return an iPad. Okay.
All right. Any other commission comments? Any present citizen comments? This meeting is adjourned.