The May 21st, 2026 hearing for the Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission is now called to order. If I could please have everyone silence any audible devices that you may have. And if you could please join me for the pledge of allegiance. Ice
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Good morning. I would like to thank
everyone for joining us this morning. And Miss Tucker, could I please have a roll call? >> Good morning, members. Member Harrison >> present. >> Member Craig >> here. >> Member Shelley >> here. >> Member Costa >> here. >> Member Sixma >> here. >> Chair Mills
>> here. >> And member Bush is absent. >> Thank you. Okay. We do not have any minutes this morning. So, we're going to move right into our explanation here. And if anyone would like to speak for against any of the cases being heard today, if you could please fill out a
form at the back of the dice and give it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left. And we will be limiting you to a 3minut time limit. And after the comments have been heard, I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions
the commissioners may have. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sora for legal comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for members of the public as well as the for applicants. Um 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 introduced at the county council public hearing. However, 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 comp 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 ask the commission to disclose for the record any experts communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing which a vote is to be taken on any quasi judicial matter. And I'll
start with my immediate right with Mr. Ersen. >> None. I have none. >> None. >> None. >> None. >> And I have none. >> Okay. Do we have any items to be continued or withdrawn? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. We're going to move right into our um unfinished old business. Miss Shilly, could I get that case right into the record, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number 0-25-00008, Ordinance 2026-05,
amending chapter 72 of the Code of Ordinances to amend zoning classification and backyard chicken regulations. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. Mr. Shams, this one's yours. >> I'm going to be reading this one today. This planning manager.
>> All right. So, uh, county council directed staff in May 2025 to review the backyard chicken regulations in urban areas. Uh, currently permitted, they are only permitted by conditional use permit, um, in R1 through R4 classifications R six and MH6 zoning.
Existing code requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre limiting participation in smaller lot zoning classifications. Uh, only three conditional permits use permits have ever been issued countywide. At the March 19th, 2026 PLDRC hearing, the commission directed
staff to re re-evaluate a few items. Those included the maximum number of chickens for small lots under 5,000 square ft for larger lots over 2.5 acres. Uh the number of coups permitted and or a maximum coupe size. And then
the fly tight storage bin setback distance. So, the revisions that we have made since that March hearing, they're included in the staff report, include that we removed the three chicken cap for lots under 5,000 square ft. Now, it allows four. We added a 50 chicken
maximum for lots that are 2 and 1/2 acres or more. We've reduced the fly type bin set set back from 20 ft to 10 ft from the property lines to account for those smaller lot sizes. and one coupe is still allowed per part per per
parcel, but lots 1 acre or more may exceed the 150 square ft coupe size limit. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Miss West. Any questions for staff? Okay. Do we have any public participation forums 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'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Miss Shel. >> Or do you have a question? Go ahead. I I do have a question. >> Yes. >> Um and maybe I should have directed this
at staff on page 14 of 52 and maybe I'm misreading this, but it's for um two family classification and it says that maximum project density eight dwellings per net acowed
in a two family classification. Miss West, would you like to explain that? So, uh, Scott, >> uh, Scott Ashley, zoning manager, the density references for under the R six,
you can apply for this multifamily special exception, and that zoning classification fits in with our urban medium dens uh, intensity land use designation, which allows a density up to eight units to the acre. So, we're not changing anything. That's existing
code language. >> Yeah. >> Only strike through and under being changed. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions or discussions? Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Second. >> I haven't made it yet. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. Go ahead.
>> I mean, I didn't I just >> I'll second it anyway. >> We had a question. Okay. Um, I move that we find ordinance 2026-05 consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward it to the county council for final action with a recommendation of
approval. >> Second. Okay. I got a motion on the floor from Miss Shel to find the ordinance 202605 consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward it to the county council for the re for final action with recommendation of approval and a second
from Mr. Costa. Any more discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, Miss Shel, could I get the next one, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-042,
an application of barrel construction LLC, agent for the owner, requesting variances to separate non-conforming lots to the minimum yard requirements and to the accessory structure requirements on prime agriculture zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. Miss Tucker, this is yours.
>> Good morning again, members. For the record, Kelly Tucker, planner one. Um, for the record, I do want to uh state that there is a correction to the staff report on pages 2 and 8. Staff is still recommending approval for the variances. However, requests 5 through 7 only meet
four of the five criteria and not five of five as stated in the report. Uh, the applicant is requesting nine variances to separate non-conforming lots, to the minimum yard requirements, and to the accessory structure requirements for proposed 1,800 ft mobile home, proposed
638 ft accessory structure garage, and an after the-act 2,684 ft accessory structure farm building. The subject parcel may look familiar to the commission as a variance was previously granted at the June 2025 PLDRC hearing. The owners purchased the
property in October of 2025 and were aware of the previous variances. However, they wanted to develop a residence on the southern portion of the property. The parcel is zoned prime agricultural A1 and the zoning classification has a front yard setback of 100 ft and a side and rear yard
setback of 50 ft and a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The subject parcel has a total lot size of 2.48 48 acres and is has a unique layout as it has two front yards, three side yards, and one rear yard. Lake Winona and its associated
rideway is located on the west and north sides of the property. Due to the rideway on the property and the size constraints of the parcel, there's a total of 1,762 square ft of buildable area on the site with 1,370 square 79 ft being located on
the northern part of the parcel and 383 square ft of buildable area being located on the southern part of the parcel. In February 2026, a lot combination was applied that combined parcels uh with the last four ending in 0120
and 0125 into one buildable lot. Uh during the review, it was found that there was common ownership with the adjoining southern parcel from 1978 to 1995. Variance 1 is a separate parcel number 0120
from parcel number 0122. Variances 2 through 4 are to develop a 1,800 ft mobile home on the southern part of the parcel. Variance 2 is to reduce the western front yard from 100 ft to 75 ft. Variance 3 is to reduce the south sideyard from 50 ft to 23 ft. And
variance 4 is to reduce the northern sideyard setback from 50 ft to 37 ft. Variances 5 through 7 are to develop a 638 ft detached accessory structure garage. The owners would like somewhere to park their vehicles since the mobile home does not have any uh attached
garage. Variance five is to reduce the western front yard from 100 ft to 99 ft. Variance six is to reduce the northeast sideyard from 50 ft to 14 ft. And variance 7 is to allow the accessory structure to be located within the front yard.
Variances 8 and 9 are for the after the fact 2,684 ft farm building. A site visit was conducted by staff on March 11th of 2026 and I observed several horse stables and a workshop that was associated to the agricultural use. The owners were under
the impression that because the property was zoned in agricultural classification that they could construct a farm building without permits or approval. However, they are currently working to obtain their agricultural exemption. Uh but they would still like to proceed with requesting the variances for the location of the structure.
Variance 8 is to reduce the front yard setback from 100 ft to 24 ft and variance 9 is to allow the after the fact accessory structure to be located in the front yard. The subject parcel has an existing lot coverage of 2.5% with the proposed additions in the
parcel or excuse me the proposed additions to the parcel the total lot coverage would be 4.7% which is under the minimum allowed or maximum allowed lot coverage of 35%. Staff recommends that the PLDRC find approval for variance case V26042
as variances 1 through 4 8 and 9 meet five of the five criteria for granting a variance and variances 5 through 7 meet four of the five criteria. Staff has also provided five conditions for the PLDRC's consideration. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Ducker. Any questions
for staff? >> Yeah, actually I do real quick. Um you said it is it does or doesn't have a exemption at this point. >> It currently doesn't have an agricultural exemption just an agricultural classification of the A1. Okay.
>> Um however they are working with the property appraisers office and typically those exemptions go into effect in January of every year. >> Mhm. I was just thinking I mean I would I personally would think that the uh building for farm equipment would be
allowed also without a permit >> under egg. >> They don't have that exemption. So and and if they did have the exemption, they would be able to put the building down. >> Right. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Any other questions? And by the
way, my queue is set up for the council members. So just look at me and I'll recognize you. Also, we want to make note that Emily's here. So, >> yes, for the record, show that Miss Bush is here. >> Thank you, chairman. I um I do have a
question for staff real quick. Um under uh criteria number four, uh for variances 8 and nine, uh it states that staff finds this criteria is met, but it just says that the building um is located 24 ft from the edge. So the
criteria of what staff explained doesn't provide the minimum variance or why the min why this is the minimum variance. So I wanted to ask staff why you felt that staff finds that that criteria is met for 8 to 9 if you did not provide justification that this is the minimum
variance. So from the buildable floor area exhibit for the northern part of the parcel where they're located and yellow is their buildable area. So they don't have the area to reasonably put that accessory structure farm building
without going through this process unless they have that agricultural exemption. >> So I understand that but it's not you're not answering the the request of the fourth condition which is is this meeting the ver. So the answer is yes but that needs to be written in the response because just and you don't even
refer to this exhibit. You just say that it's located 24 ft from the edge. So when someone's reading this, they're not understanding that there's no connection. There's no nexus to how your answer finding that the criteria is met answers the question that this is the
minimum variance. So either report back to the buildable area exhibit and talk about that in your narrative or explain that the buildable area is this and this is the minimum criteria met. That would be my suggestion just to make it very clear because it is very not the way that is written. But let it be known
that the commissioners can ask the staff of any questions if there's any need of clarification. Um, so I just, you know, we don't want to sit and question how they come up with their you if you have any questions
as far as the uh how they met the criteria, then that can be met discussed prior or after the meeting. >> So if you have a question, yes, you can ask. >> Well, that was my question. if you have a statement what's the justification for meeting the minimum requirements. So I
just I I didn't see that there which is what I was acting there are other comments that I will make regarding the justifications later on >> but that was my main question was what is the justification because it's not listed or presented in the way that it's written. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> All right. Michelle, you had a question. >> I just have a a quick question on uh page 67 of variances 5 through 7. It states staff finds that this criterion is not met and um according to the recommendation is the all the everything
was met. So is that a typo? >> Yeah, that was in the beginning of my presentation I had stated for the corrections. Thank you. >> No worries. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present?
>> Would you like to come forward, sir? And if you'd like to give your name and address for the record, sir. >> John Frell, 585 Williams Road, New Simmer Beach. >> All right, sir. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it or I think it's pretty accurate at this point.
>> Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Okay. We do have one um public participation form and after they speak, I'll give you an opportunity if you'd like to come back. Okay. >> Sure.
All right. Uh, Miss Munzi. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Amy Munzi, De Leon Springs Community Association. Um, I don't know if y'all know the backstory on that property, but I have been in that area. I've lived in that area for 20 years,
and um, it's been a nightmare parcel. There was a old clapboard building that was there. I'm sure Mr. Mills is aware of it. He knows that area well. Um maybe 1930s era building and it was basically abandoned and the weeds were almost as
high as the building itself. Eventually doors were kicked in, windows were kicked in. It became a real frightening place uh anytime after about 4:00 because of a lot of prostitution, drug activity, vandalism that went on on a regular basis. And the owner at that
time just did nothing about it. So, it was a nightmare for everybody that lives in that area. Um, and the area around it is all farming. Uh, some older houses similar to that, but it's not really residential. It's mostly A1 and most of us are out there. We have 10 acre or
larger parcels. So, um, and then over time, somebody along the way took down that building. We were very grateful for that. And various things, as you know, have happened since that time. Um when the fererals purchased the property um they started cleaning it up and we were all really grateful for the excellent
job they were doing with that. Uh and then they started building that farm building and since it was A1 I mean I drive past her at least twice a day and since it is A1 I made the assumption that you know we can put up pole barns and that type of thing without pulling permits. So it never crossed anybody's
mind out there that anything was being done untored. And I don't know if you visited the property, but it is a phenomenal building. The construction is incredible. And then they started filling it with all of this horse tack, which was really exciting, and bringing in these beautiful horses and then
training them. And sometimes I just park and watch what they're doing there. So, it's a very odd piece of property, as you can see, very strange because of the way it's been cut up over the years. And so, I believe, you know, when you see this many variances, you wonder, you know, what's going on? a lot of
variances. In this case, it's exactly what PLDRC is here to do. Help make a piece of property like this come into compliance, make it useful, and I can tell you right now, what they are doing is a tremendous asset to our community. So, I said all that to say that we're in
support of the variance. Thank you. >> Thank you for your >> variances. Okay. Do we have any other public participation forms? >> No, sir. >> All right. Sir, would you like to comment on what she just said or you good? Mr. Frell.
Okay. All right. We're going to close the four for public participation. Open up for commission discussion or a motion. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Miss Shel. >> I move that we approve variance request 1 through nine, case number V-26-042. Um, as uh variances do meet five of the
five criteria. >> I'll second that. Mr. Recommended conditions. >> Yes. >> Are you good with that, Mr. Some of these staff have conditions? >> Yes. >> Can I ask for a correction? We did have it was four of the five criteria met, I
think, on some of the variances, right? So, if we could just make sure that that's corrected in the >> They were all five. >> No, she presented in the beginning for one was four. Yeah. Okay. >> She said that at the beginning. >> Okay. When I asked that question. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. four of four the five. >> Okay. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? >> I just have a few comments. >> Okay, Miss Bush. >> Uh not necessarily on the motion in of itself. I totally agree with what you're doing with the property. Um the more we
can increase uh horse ownership and uh the opportunity to keep horses in our agricultural zoned property. I'm supportive of. My comments are really on the way that the staff report was written. Um I have a couple comments in regards to how the staff um wrote that
they met or did not meet the criteria. Um I will go through those briefly. Um but the first one special conditions exist. The property is not unique. There are people that Dyson puts together and put them apart all the time. So I
understand that this might be a unique situation um but not necessarily a unique request. That said, I do not agree that staff um that all the criteria are met here. I feel like some are and I can have that conversation with staff independently after this meeting. Um the second special
conditions are not a result of the applicant. Part yes, part no. You did build a building without permits. Unbeknownst to you, you didn't know you were aware. However, that variance request still exists as the direct result of the applicant. So I do not feel that we can say that that is um
meeting all of the test of the variance because you you did build the building and that is why we're asking for some of these variances today. Um so those are my two main points. I already spoke to the uh minimum granted variance earlier so I will uh conclude my comments. Thank you chairman.
>> Thank you. Okay. How many conditions were there? Five. >> Five. >> Five. >> Five. Yes sir. >> Still are five. >> Okay. Okay, I got a motion on the floor to approve variances 1 through nine with
the five staff recommended conditions for V26042 from Miss Shel and who who give me the second. Mr. Ersen, give me the second one. And um any discussion on those motions? All those in favor signify by
saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please? Yes, sir. Case number V-26-049. Variances to the minimum yard
requirements on prime Agriculture A1 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. Miss Costa, this one's yours. >> Good morning, Laura Costa, Planner One. Uh, we have a uh request for a variance for a proposed 1568T
replacement mobile home. Uh variances are to the west front yard from 100 ft to 42. Reduce the north sideyard from 50 ft to 24 and reduce the southside yard from 50 to 11 ft. Property is currently developed with an
1132 ft mobile home located towards the center of the property, two sheds and a dog kennel. Um all the existing structures will be removed prior to the placement of the new mobile home. Applicant purchased the property in
2005. Current mobile home received a variance to the minimum requirements um in October 26 and building permit in December 2 2006. Sorry. Uh the replacement mobile home if it
were the same size would not require us to come back for variances again. The subject property is zoned to A1 which requires a minimum of 10 acres and a minimum lot width of 150 ft. The subject property um does not meet these
requirements. It's 26 acres and a width of 72 ft. Uh the applicant it is a non-conforming lot and the applicant has provided us a valid non-conforming lot letter. The subject property is vested through
Wentworth unrecorded 2026 SEXM0212 and is eligible for building permits. The A1 zoning classification has a minimum front yard of 100 ft, minimum sideyard of 50 ft, and minimum rear yard of 50 ft. When the A1 minimum yards are
applied, there is no buildable area left on the parcel. These variances are further encroachment than the variance from 2006. The applicant included the written petition that the parcel is narrow and places constraints on placing a mobile
home. Currently, there are two open code violations at this time. One for a dilapidated mobile home and one for um resident living in a camper. these variances once she places them mobile
home will uh release these and resolve both these violations. Environmental permaning has reviewed the application and has no objection. However, the project must comply with all the environmental regulations. Staff recommendation is to
approve variances 1 through three. Um staff appreciates your consideration in this matter. Okay. Is there any conditions on that? >> Uh, there are three conditions. >> Okay. >> Any questions for staff? Miss Shel,
>> I just have a a clarification again. Um, page four, uh, staff, um, down at the bottom, uh, variance, uh, it says this criterion is not met. >> That was a typo. I'm sorry. We will
typo. >> Typo. Yes. Great. Thank you. >> Which one is that? >> Criterion four. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff >> and the applicant is here. >> Okay. If the applicant is present, would
you like to come forward, please? Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Seoia and it's 551 Spring Hill Court, Ostein, Florida 32764. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> No.
>> Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant, >> Miss Shel? I mean, Miss Craig. Um I'm just wondering why um the increase in the size since a smaller um mobile home
would have uh resulted in no variances being necessary. >> Um so my father is disabled and his wife has cancer. So we are actually going to be living with them to take care of them. So the smaller home wouldn't accommodate our family and taking care
of them as well. So, we did look for the smallest double wide, which is the 28T, cuz they're usually 32 feet. So, we did. They're also around 80 feet long. The one we are getting is just above 50 ft long. So, we did try to find the smallest accommodation for our whole
family to be comfortable. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Hearing none, uh, do we have any public participation forms? >> No, sir. All right, we're going to close the for public participation and give
you an answer in a few moments. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> To approve uh V-26 uh-049 with the three conditions. Second. >> Second.
>> Okay. I got a motion on the floor from yeah, Miss Bush to approve variance V26049 with this three staff conditions variances 1, 2, and three and a second for Miss Shel. Any discussion on the
motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-050.
Variance to maximum wall height requirements on rural residential RR zoned property. >> Tucker, this one's yours. >> Good morning. Again, for the record, Kelly Tucker, Planner 1. Um, I do want to make an addendum to the variance request subsection of the code that
we're quoting. Um, in the staff report, it quotes 722822. However, the correct code citation is 722821B. Uh, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a solid 6-foot concrete wall along the front property
line along Honoun Road. Uh, section 722821B of the zoning ordinance states that fences, walls, or hedges in a front yard shall not exceed 4t in height. The subject property contains whole lot three and half of lot four within the
Bvard uh excuse me Beersford Park subdivision and the underlying lots were combined into one unified building site in August of 2012. Property was developed with a single family residence in 2013 and the residence sits roughly 325 ft from the front property line. The
owners purchased the property in August of 2025 and the subject property is zoned rural residential and has a front yard setback of 40 ft. According to the applicant's written petition, there are other homes in the area that have concrete walls in the front yard and
they're also requesting the 6T tall wall to protect their assets on their property. staff did field research on April 14th of 2026 along Hon Road and observed only one other property that had a combination of a 3-FFT solid wall
with a metal rod fencing on top with a total of 6 ft. Um, and it also had concrete pillars about every 6 or ft 6 ft or so. A photo of this entrance is on page 12 of the staff report. All other properties observed along Hauntu Road
had either short metal rod fencing along the front property line or no fencing at all. Staff recommends denial of the variance request as they did not meet any of the criteria for granting a variance. However, staff has provided two conditions for the commission's consideration if they find that the
applicant has presented substantial and competent evidence for approval of the variance request. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Thank you, Miss Tucker. Any questions for staff? Yeah, I do. Real quick. >> Go ahead. Mr. Is >> are they proposing a solid you can't see
through wall all the way across the front? >> Yes, sir. I included the building elevations. I believe it's on page eight of the staff report, but I can double check for you. >> That's fine. I'll find it. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> Is the applicant present?
Would you like to come forward, sir? Can I get your name and address for the record? >> Jerome Kramer, 211 Hon Road, Dand. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. What would you like to add to it, if anything? >> Um, I mean, when we first started the looking into building the wall, we spoke
to the I believe it was Miss Tucker directly. There is another property that's 1.8 mi from our front door that has a 6ft wall, exactly the wall we've we've proposed to be built. There was a open permit on the property that was approved by the building. Miss Tucker did verify that the day that we called
her. We've had bricks delivered to the home already that's been in the yard for about four or five months. Um she made a mistake on the phone and said that the property had an open permit was never closed. The property has since sold on Fattio um and closed the permit. So, we're kind
of looking for a little lenience because I've already purchased all the stuff to have the wall built and most of the bricks already on the property as she'll tell you. Um, you know, I bought the home in July of last year. We've done a ton of remodeling. Mr. Chase has done all of our work. Um, everything we've
had done has been permitted. You know, we've improved all the value of the home. I am a car guy. I have a bunch of exotic cars that are at the property. You know, I I just think that with with the previous owner's unfortunate reputation of I that I
didn't know until after we purchased the home, you can Google the address, find who the guy was, had a very very bad reputation from the minute we've moved there. We've had some issues. Um we have a a trained protection dog in my house that runs the yard all at all times. So, I mean, it's the fence. My wife is
really concerned that the wall is needed. >> Okay. Miss Bush, you had a question for the applicant. >> Uh, yes. Um, so thank you for elaborating on the safety components because I I was really struggling to find the reason why, right? Especially
when none of the other properties nearby, right, have that issue? So, um, from do you have you been broken into since you've owned the place or have your neighbors immediately been broken into and anything stolen? >> Um, we didn't move into the home until November. We purchased it July 21st of
last year. So, we did a lot of remodeling. Um, we've had three instances that we know of that people were in the home after we moved out. Um, they cleaned out an attic. We weren't sure if it was the previous owner of the home. Um, we did call the Valuchia County Service Department and let them know that there was somebody on the property. We now have cameras up at all
all angles of the thing. We've had people get from a boat on, I'm sorry, the boat onto our dock, walking the yard thinking this guy still live there. It's >> okay. Um, you're not planning on building a fence in the backyard, are you? >> No, ma'am. We we have a fence along the
all along then the rivers and behind the house. So that's all open. >> Understood. Um and when you purchased the bricks and and discussed with um Miss Tucker about the open permit. Was it the assumption that you were going to build to the foot height? >> Yes ma'am. We we actually if the address we provided on Fattio it's the exact
layout design 100%. We didn't change not one thing. And when when she misspoke I mean I guess I jumped the gun and told him let's get the stuff coming. I want it done. Um, but she's like, "Yeah, we'll get it we'll get it approved by the the zoning per commission or whatever it was, whatever the the
terminology used and we'll get right back to you." A couple days later, she picked up the phone and called me and said, "I made a mistake." The permit was open but was never closed properly and that Do you have the address? Did you provide the address to them? >> Yeah. Bill Chase, 167 West Main Street, Lake Helen. Um, we went to pull we
submitted for the permit and so that's kind of how this kind of got moving because what we did was we submitted for the permit 6ft wall and then it was denied and we had already looked at a a permit that had been pulled for another
you know wall that was 6 ft and and so our assumption was that that it would have been approved. However, that's not what happened. And so, kind of now we're here. I mean, materials aside, that was the plan is to move forward. And then we've been p like Mr. Drum uh said,
we've been pulling permits for everything. So, and doing things the way we're supposed to be doing. >> Okay. One quick question, Scott. I remember back on this specific road, it's been a while back, and that's the reason I'm asking you, is I believe the
variance was pulled for a 6ft wall. Was it not? I don't know in this specific location. We've had some in that area. Um there was one where they wanted part of the wall 6 ft and the rest would be part of the white iron fencing. Um I think that might have been approved. I
know there's another one was denied. The distinction is going to have to be um agriculturally zoned property and which is um a few properties along Hon are I don't think down this area but they're exempt from the fencing. So if they may
have seen a wall or fence that over that height, it might be in one of those zonings. I don't know. Uh but all other zoning classifications, you're limited to in residential to 4ft height in the front yard. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Um by chance, and
I'm I'm looking at the survey here, how far off the pavement is this wall going to be if you were to get the approval? Well, we're right now we're less than the 40, which I think was the in question. So, we're we're around 20 ft
right now from the actual road. >> The actual road >> where the existing fence is is where we had planned on putting the the new wall same area. >> Got it. All right. And then and then that would be the other question. Is
there any type of, you know, maybe there's a split the difference kind of thing that we were had discussed too on how maybe we could at least get some of that and bring it back, you know, bring it back in towards the property, which obviously we didn't
want to do the 40 ft, but if there was some sort of, you know, we could get some amendment to, you know, maybe an agreement to do, you know, 2530 or something like that if, you know, if at all possible. for the six foot. >> Got it. Mr. Cost, you had a question.
>> Yeah, I recall doing uh going through these something similar to this one. I'm not sure there was actually here on Hontoon, but another one. Um I don't have a by by in general, I don't have a an issue with the 6T fence in the front yard. I do have an issue with the 6ft solid concrete wall fence in the front
yard. Uh, and I think the suggestion I made that was passed probably a year or so ago was a a twoft uh concrete wall sub fence and then 4t of rod aire fence giving you this full 6 ft. So you still have the 6T capacity but it's a optic fence and you can always landscape
behind it if you want if you're looking for more privacy standpoint as opposed to having a solid concrete wall on there. That would be my my suggestion. So that's all. >> Is there a reason that would not work for you? That's not what I want. >> Pardon me? >> That's not really what I want. I mean,
that's not that wasn't the plans. That was the That wasn't the look we were looking for. That wasn't I mean, people can still see from the road to my home. That's not what that's what I'm trying to avoid. >> I think with the one of the ordinances was they didn't want to see compounds. >> Mhm.
>> And and that's the reason for the ordinance in itself, >> you know, to have solid walls up 6t high and and that was the reasoning. And I believe what you'd say, Mr. Costa, that might have been the one I was thinking about. >> But um
>> you getting the one on the patio. >> Yeah, because if you look at the one that you you put in the staff report there at 2139 Hon Road, uh they've got >> that picture up. >> Page 12. >> Yeah, page 12. Um they've got that rod
iron fence. You have like a solid at the gate. That design there would be more appropriate than a than a 6 foot high solid concrete wall right across the front. Have you got a copy of that, sir? >> Yep. There we go. It's up on the screen.
>> They put it up on the screen here. >> You see how they did that? >> Mhm. Yeah, that's the other one. >> Yeah, something like that. See, they've only got a two foot on the bottom and then two foot on the top. OBS a still 4ft fence, but I wouldn't have any issue um with a rod iron going up to 4 ft and
giving you that 6ft wall. Gives you the security. They're they're going to hop a 6ft concrete wall. They're going to hop a 6T regardless, but at least you give that 6T. And you can always back landscape that whole thing if you're looking for bigger privacy and it still blends in with the neighborhood because of the greenery as opposed to just a
solid concrete wall. >> Can you bring up Can you bring up the home that's on Fattio? >> I'm sorry. Can you bring up the home the picture of the home on Fattio that shows the the wall that we want? The reason that this whole thing started because somebody in the Valuchia Countyy's office made a mistake.
>> It's documented. I have an email from her. >> I have that facial road maybe. >> Yeah, fio. >> I'm trying to bring them up now. >> Okay. She's looking for it now. >> I just have to move the whole email. >> Now, what what reference would that have on Hon?
We wouldn't have started this process and spent all this money to get all the bricks and all the material if somebody in your office didn't make a mistake. I I haven't done that one thing and I finished a >> But what's on facial? What has that got to do with what's on >> It's a 6ft tall fence. Exactly what we submitted to you guys.
>> And what you see here, this is on Beersford Road here. This is on Beersford. >> That's not the one. >> Well, this is what we try to avoid is having a compound. >> That's the one we're talking about. >> That's the one we're talking about. Yeah. Okay.
And what road is this on? What road is this on? >> Fasio, which is not by pontoon. It's over a mile from the subject area. >> That's what I thought. >> Mhm. >> Obviously, I wasn't here when that variance got me either.
>> And on that on that last picture, how far is >> It may be non-conforming. >> Excuse me. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Miss. >> How far is that from the road to the wall there? >> Uh 24 and 1/2 ft. This one.
>> Yeah. 24 that one. >> Yeah. 24 and 1/2 ft >> from the from the road. >> From the road from the road. >> Mr. Chair, if I could, uh that first photo you showed, if you go back to that, Kelly. >> Mhm. I can tell you that wall right there, that's that's agriculturally
zoned property cuz that was a code case initially where a gentleman brought in some basically concrete blocks and stacked them up. Uh but that is an A3 zone agricultural property which is exempt from the fence regulations walls and everything. So I was wondering how
they got away with that cuz that is definitely blocks for you and everything. >> That was a big issue for >> Is that is that the one in Spring Garden? >> Yes, sir. Spring Garden and Beersford Road. >> Yep. >> Chair, if I may, I would like Oh, sorry.
Over here. I'd like to make a correction that whenever I spoke with the applicants, it was solely in regards to the variance request itself. We never discussed anything about building permits. And our initial conversation, I asked the applicants if they were willing to move it back to the 40ft mark
to not need the variance. But I never spoke about that they could go ahead and bring in material for their fencing. That was never a topic of discussion. >> Okay, Miss Tucker. Okay. All right. Any other questions for the
applicant? Okay. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation and try to get you an answer here soon. One of the things that I may ask you is because I wouldn't
want to uh change the design of the wall unless you were in agreeance to it and if you were did was a plan submitted with this for the sentence. >> Yes, sir. Let me pull up the building elevation. >> Okay. We'll give you an opportunity if you'd like to change the design on it
and come back and request. we can do a 30-day continuance and then you can bring that make the changes that need to that you think would that would go with this and then we can uh discuss it at that point. But I tell I'll be honest with you what we're looking for is more
of what we're seeing here as the uh on 2139 Hon Road Facial Road and Hon Road is two different locations. I understand what you're saying, but we don't want to see compounds. And that's what you're seeing on um when they do the whole entire six
foot wall. You could either do that or move it back >> or you wouldn't need the variance. >> 40 ft. 40. I'm not doing that. That's back. >> I mean, I'll I'll let you make that decision. >> I'm not doing that. >> You don't want to do that?
>> No, sir. >> Okay. You understand? And if we turn your variance down, it' be two years for you can apply for another variance for that fence. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Mr. Chair, it's one year. >> Go ahead. >> It's one year before >> one year. I thought it was two years.
>> Okay. My mistake. I'm sorry about that. >> Okay. >> All right. What are the Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation. Open up commission discussion. Um, I don't know if moving it back less
than the um 40 foot satisfy anyone. >> Is that an option? >> That's the only option I can see. Um, >> no. >> What's the question again?
>> My question is would it satisfy anyone to move it back further than the required >> Oh, yeah. >> 40 foot. He if he moves back 40 foot he can build it >> right. He doesn't you know he doesn't >> but he's I'm looking for something somewhere between 20 and and 40. Is there anything that would satisfy anyone
to help him out in any way? That's what I'm asking about. >> Well, Mr. Chair, um so the variance is strictly for the height four to six feet. He's not asking for a variance about moving the fence back and forth. It's strictly for the height of the fence four to six foot period. That's what that's the only request here.
That's a condition that we could add >> that if he moves it back. Well, but if he moves it back, he doesn't really need our permission, does he? If he moves back 40 feet, he doesn't. But if he hasn't anything less, and this is what I'm asking. >> Oh, yeah. Okay, I got you. Anything less? No, I wouldn't be in favor of that. I'd say 40. >> Bush.
>> I would agree. I'm not in I'm not in favor. >> I agree. Also, >> I just wanted to give them benefit of the doubt in case there was someone here that would feel that way. Okay. Well, this is my neck of the woods, so I'm prepared to make a motion. >> Okay, Miss Therson. Uh, Miss Miss
Shelby, you had >> I just have a quick question. Um, I guess what keeps sticking in my mind is the word compound and um would it be approp What what was the the reason we don't want it to be a bunch of compounds? So,
what is the negativity to that as opposed to the other? I mean, just because someone puts in a block wall and it doesn't look it's not I don't know if it's concrete, but I'm sure it's going to be a beautiful like they showed that. And I'm thinking, okay, that doesn't mean that their
neighbor will follow suit or not follow suit. So, um there had to have been some discussion in that area when you were talking about or this board was addressing we don't want there to be a bunch of compounds. Well, I'm I'm addressing the ordinance in itself. I'm
not addressing that particular case as much as the ordinance itself. >> I mean, I understand that, but why why was that? >> Scott could probably answer that better than I could when the ordinance was drawn why they didn't want 6t high solid wall. >> Well, I can tell you it's always been
there when I got here. Um, but you certainly part of the uh reasons for height limitations specifically in the front yard has to do with safety. >> Right. I understand that part. But the word compound threw me off that I mean well the enclosure the height and you know
>> the traditional free air but also driveway you're coming out you don't want to be blocked from visit your your view shed coming out with a sixft wall causing accidents so there's that height restriction in the front yard >> well in the front of mine and I'm thinking and I'm not I'm not sure how
far I am from the road but there's no view restrictions >> well and that's part of it is this the front yard area. Yeah, but my I mean mine's not >> maybe 10 ft back from the road, but it's not that far back from the road. So, I was just wondering. Okay. Thank you. >> I was just referring to the ordinance.
>> Okay. >> The word compound compound stuck in my gut. >> Maybe I use that in the wrong phrase, but >> I do. >> That's when I see something like that. That's what I >> Okay. All right. Any other comments? Mr. Costa, you still have a comment?
>> Uh, no. No. I'll just when we do the motion, I'll make the comment then. >> Okay, Mr. Ursen. >> Okay. I move to deny variance request case number V26050 as the variance does not meet all five criteria for granting said variance. >> Second.
>> Okay. I got a motion on the floor to deny variance V26050 for Mr. Ersen and a second for Mr. Sixma. Any discussion on the motion, Mr. Costa? Yeah, just want the record to show that the uh applicant was given the option of doing a split wall of two foot
concrete and 4 foot of um rod iron and they declined on this particular motion. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> No.
>> Or I whatever say. >> Motion carries six to one. Now, you do have an opportunity, sir, to appeal that to the county council if you'd like. >> 10 days from the rendition is your opportunity to to appeal.
>> I didn't email came from that would have been approved by M. I misspoke. I thought I had an email from that and had sent me the copy of the
prior >> like we can't hear him. Well, I can't hear you and and truthfully, we've closed the case. I mean, if you'd like to make an appeal to the county council or maybe speak with them and see what their opinion is on it, uh you can do so. And but like Mr. Sor said, he has
what? 10 days? >> 10 days from the rendition. Uh so whenever you sign the final order denying it, you 10 days from that date to appeal to county council. >> Okay. All right. Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please?
Yes. Case number V-26-054 variances to the minimum requirements on urban single family residential R3 zoned property. >> Mr. Shams, is this one yours? Okay. >> Hi, good morning. Um, the applicant is
proposing two variances to a proposed one-story single family residence. Um variance one is to reduce the east front yard from 30 ft to 20 ft and variance two is to reduce the west front yard westwater front yard from 25 ft to
15 ft 4 in. Uh the property was previously developed with a twostory uh 1728 ft residence that was built in 1984. The home and its detached garage were demolished in February 2026 to develop
the site with a new one-story home. The applicant has uh aging parents and the single floor will assist in their mobility. Uh currently the site has a revetment, a dock and a boat slope. The lot is located along the Halifax
River and is subject to a waterfront yard. Since there is a revetment, the waterfront yard is measured from the the landward side. The R3 zoning class requires an area of 10,000 square ft and a width of 85 ft. These requirements are
met. However, the orientation of the lot is long and narrow as there is a lot width of 135 ft and a depth of 75 ft. The R3 zoning class requires a 30ft front yard, a 20ft combined site
sideyard, and a 25 ft waterfront yard. The site orientation establishes a wider front uh wider front and waterfront yards and provides less buildable space than a lot of the same area with a greater depth.
When the minimum yards are applied, there is only 1,277 square ft of buildable area remaining. This is depicted in the buildable area exhibit. Due to its proximity to the Halifax River, a 50- FFT upland buffer
is also required. When the buffer is applied, uh, there is a buildable area of 224 ft. The previous two-story home encroached into the east front yard at 29 ft, the south sideyard at 7.7 ft, and the west
waterfront yard at 22.8 ft. Just for clarification, overall staff recommends approval of the variances as the five criteria are met. Uh we did find in our review that this is not the minimum variance as there was previously a home on the site with minimal encroachment. Um but it did meet the other four
criteria and we are recommending two conditions for approval and I'm available for comment or question. >> Thank you Mr. Shams. Any questions for staff? Miss Bush. >> Yes. Thank you. I am trying to find this in the staff report now, so bear with me. But um I read a note that it said
that the riverfront unrecorded subdivision was approved through an appeal to the council after it was denied by the county engineer. Is that true? Does anybody have any history on that? That sounds fascinating. >> Yeah, there's a whole file that we could provide you on that, but yes, it's a
correct statement. >> Okay. Um in quick summary is there what deserve why the engineer the county engineer denied it? >> It it did meet the minimum requirements of the um subdivision regulations at that time. >> Okay. Okay. I will in I will investigate
further. Thank you. I just found that that was fascinating. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? >> Good morning sir. for the record. Jeff Brock, 444 Seabbze
Boulevard, sweet 900 Daytona Beach, Florida 32118, representing the owners, um Jean and Pam O'Neal that are here today. If you have any questions for them, um the subject property is in the North Peninsula up in the Orman by the
Sea area. And the farther you go north in that area, the narrower the lots tend to to uh be. In fact, the lot immediately to the north of the subject property is an unbuildable lot. It's only about 40 ft and it's covered with mangroves. So, there will be no um no
house built to the north. And the house to the south is actually owned by the owners of the subject property. So, they are going to live next to their aging parents and build them a single uh singlestory house. Um, and I don't have anything further to add other than it's
really the shape of the lot that's driving this. >> Got it. Any questions for the applicant? >> Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We'll close the floor for public
participation. Open up commission discussion >> or a motion. >> I'd be happy to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Mr. Ersa. Approve variance request one and two case number V26-054 as a variance meet at least three of the
five criteria granting said variances. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Do we have any conditions on this? >> Yes. >> Oh yes to include >> the >> How many conditions do we have? >> Two. >> Mhm.
>> Two conditions. Okay. >> You that is that part of your motion? >> Correct. Yes. to include the two >> second. Okay. >> I got a motion on the floor to approve variance V26054, variances one and two with the two staff
conditions for Mr. Ersen 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. All right,
that does it for the new business and uh we're going to move into other public items. Any other public items? Mr. Shams, do we have any? >> Uh, no. No, sir. >> All right. >> Do we have any staff items?
>> Yes, sir. We do actually have a few today. All right. >> Um, so you all should have received your 2025 financial disclosure forms via email. Those are due by July 1st, 2026. Um, in addition, um, this the county council chambers
will be undergoing, uh, AV re updates to the room. So, the June and July PLLDRC hearings will be held in the historic county courthouse in the courtroom. >> Oh. >> So, a little bit of a change of scenery. Yes. >> Across the street. Yes. >> Can you send a memo?
>> Yeah. Yeah, we're hungry. >> I'll be wandering around here. Can we just walk in? Like, >> I'll follow up with an email shortly after. >> Um, and then on Tuesday, I'm sure some of you heard of the county council hearing. Uh, they the appeal for
variance case V26032. This was a denial that you guys provided um for lot coverage on a property in John Anderson. That case was overturned. So just uh for your information and there was also one other item that uh Paul can speak on.
>> So the county council discussed the uh proposed attendance changes and they declined to make any changes. They did request that uh if you know they be informed if a member of PLDRC was coming close to that um uh absentee threshold
um so that they can be informed to like immediately reappoint at the next meeting if if something should occur. So their request was um to be informed. Staff will try um we'll keep them informed as well as you know you're uh as members of the PLLDRC you can contact
and communicate with your uh council member or any council member at any time. You are not subject to the sunshine law when you're discussing you know anything related to PLDRC with them. >> On that note, Mr. Sorry. Uh, quick
question. Once they we go back to them, does that have to be put on their agenda and how long does that process take? And I heard the discussion at the county council, but my question was if that were to occur, I re I understand we could reapply
at, you know, to be reinstated, how long does that process take? And that was my question when they were having this discussion. >> Um, depends. We we've we've rushed applications pretty quickly. Um that's
coordination with Carissa Green. Um you know I'll have it's a coordination with the county manager to put something on the agenda or you know just walk agenda an agenda item on with for reappointment.
Would they have to go through the whole appointment process or just reinstatement of the the members? >> It's the same thing. So, um the provision applies that you can, you know, uh they can consider anyone who
still has a valid valid application. The applications are are valid for one year after they're provided. Um so, anyone who is in that one-year period can be considered during the reemployment reinstatement um provision. So, you know, if a member of the PLDRC
um was, you know, had too many absences, I, you know, recommend just updating that application. Um, coordinating with um was it Steve or Sam? Yeah, coordinating with Steve. We will also coordinate with uh Carissa Green who
does the appointments, you know, to get that scheduled as soon as possible. It could be we're just going to walk on an item for a council to consider and reappoint. We have done that before. Um and so that's always an option to to you
know have a member be reappointment reappointed at the next county council public hearing. We just need to make sure that your uh current application is uh up to date and consistent. So that's that would require coordination with um
with Steve. Okay, Miss Bush, you had a question. >> Um, not necessarily on this topic, but I guess on this on the same terms. Um, the Florida Planning Conference is in Miami this year and it is unfortunately the week of this meeting. Um, and I am
speaking at the conference. Um, so I will not be able to attend. Um, so just for the record, but I wasn't sure if you all were attending and if you would, you know, maybe shift these meetings. I'm not sure what that structure looks like. and just pointing that out that there is
conflict. >> So yes, I will also be attending at the conference, but we do have coverage. So the meeting will go on. We're not going to reschedule it. So you know, al also on that note, I was looking at my calendar. It falls on what? 18th, the
next meeting. >> I'm I'm on a family vacation from the 14th to the 21st. >> Unless something changes. Yeah. >> And how many absence have you got, mister? Zero. >> You don't have any? >> Yeah. New year. I have none. >> This year? >> Yeah. I have none.
>> Okay. It was last year. >> Yeah. Same as one. >> I have one. >> Got one. >> Yeah. Hey, we're together. Okay. All right. So, any other uh staff items?
>> Uh, no, sir. >> All right. Staff comments? >> No, sir. >> Commission comments? None press and citizen comments. I do have a public participation form for that. Miss Manuzi
Amy Munisi to Leon Springs. Um I've noticed that Miss Bush is a little rough on the staff and her comments toward them are often disrespectful, rude, and very sharp toward them. Um, they do make typographical errors. They're not
high-powered attorneys like Mr. Sora over here. Um, they do >> I disagree with it. That's that's um >> I've seen my salary items are not highowered at all. >> Okay. Well, be that as it may. Um, you know, they work really hard and they cross their tees and they dot their eyes
as best they can. Um, but they're planners and they work really hard and they don't get paid enough to be publicly publicly disrespected like that. Um, I'm sure you're not feeling real comfortable with me criticizing you in public. Um, and you can imagine how
they feel. They work so hard and um, they just don't get paid enough to be treated like that in public. You have an opportunity to talk with them in advance if you notice they haven't crossed a tea or dotted an eye. If you do your reports and you do your due diligence in
advance, you're going to be able to call them up and say, "Hey, I noticed that this isn't right or that isn't spelled right or whatever." But to publicly embarrass them like that is wrong. And that's how we lose good staff. So, I would ask you to be more respectful to them. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Any other citizens comments? Okay. This meeting is adjourned.