The February 18th, 2026 hearing for the Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission is now called to order. And I if I could have everyone silence any audible devices that you may have. And if you could please join me for the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. I need to rephrase that. It's the the
February the 19th, 2026 hearing. Okay. I'm a day behind here. Okay. Um, good morning everyone. I'd like to thank everyone for joining us this morning. And if I could have Miss Grinnon, could you please call have a roll call, please?
>> Member. >> Member Erison. >> Present. >> Member Craig >> here. Member Shelley >> here. >> Member Costa >> here. >> Member Bush >> here. Member Sixma >> here. >> Chair Mills >> here. Thank you, Miss Grunan. >> Okay, we do have minutes from January
15, 2025. Uh any discussion on those minutes? If not, I'll accept a motion. >> I'll make a motion we approve January 15 minutes. >> I'll second that. Okay.
>> 2026. >> Oh. I will amend my >> Do you want amend January 15, 202? >> Okay, that's the minutes from January on top, 2026. >> It says it on top
>> January 15th, 2026. >> Yes, it does. But he did not say it when he read. I said 2025. >> Sorry, >> that's all catch up. Come on. >> Yeah, >> I'm still writing. Clarify that. January 15, 2026. I got a motion from Mr.
Sixmith and a second from Miss Bush. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion is unanimous. Approved by unanimous. Okay. If anyone would like to speak for
against any of the cases being heard today, if I could get you to please fill out a form at the rear of the dice here and uh give it to Miss Grinning to my extreme left and we will be limiting you to a threeminut 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 um members of the public and the applicant. And glad to see a lot of members of the public here.
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 consider a final hearing. So new evidence may be introduced at the county council public hearing. However,
decisions on variances 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. Sur. And while on legal comments, I'd like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any exparte
communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quasi judicial matter. And I'll start to my immediate right with Mr. Ersen. None. I have none. >> None. >> None. >> None. >> None.
>> And I have none. Okay. We do have a couple of items to be uh continued. Uh B260009. Most uh Miss Costa, that's one's yours. >> Um hi, good morning. Um both of these
items did not meet public notice requirements, so they'll be continued to March. >> Okay. So that's B26009 and B2623. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. If I motion to
>> I'll make a motion to continue to February PLDRC >> March. I'll second >> March. >> Yeah. March. >> I'll second that. >> 2026. >> I'll second that. >> I didn't say any year.
What is our next uh commission date? >> March what? >> March 19th. >> March what? >> 19th. >> 19th. >> Okay. We got a motion on the floor to continue both variances B26009 and B2623
to our next U PDRC meeting of March 19th, 2026 from Mr. Sixma. Who second that? >> Actually, >> I think it was I second it. Yeah, >> I second. Edith went first, >> Mr. Ersen. And a second for Mr. Sixman.
>> Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we do not have any unfinished old business. So, we're going to move right into our new business. And I'll Miss Shelley, could I get that read into the
record, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-015. >> Variances to the accessory structure requirements on urban single family residential R3 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. And let me see
this. This is Mr. Costa. >> Hi. Good morning. Good morning, members. >> Good morning. Before you, we have a variance request for a 86 square foot pergola to be allowed in a
>> Thank you. to be uh permitted within a front yard setback and also to allow for a reduction in the uh front yard from 30 ft to 19 ft. Applicant
is seeking uh to put this structure within his uh front yard. Property is zoned R3 and uh is exempt from the provisions of the subdivision regulations per Dorse unrecorded 2026
EXM116. Uh property has two front yards. It is a corner lot. Uh he's proposing to place this pergola in front of his front door. Uh it is the property is located on the corner of John Anderson and Imperial
Heights Drive, both paved county maintained roads. He has a 288 square foot home and a inground swimming pool which were both developed in 1963. At the time of construction, the single
family residents met the 1962 North Peninsula R1A regulations with a front yard on John Anderson of 30 ft and a side streetyard minimum on Imperial heights of 15 ft. The home is a legal non-conforming structure at this time
because it does not meet the current 30-foot setback for R3 on the Imperial Heights side. We are recommending that denial on this. He the applicant has failed to meet four out of the five uh
requirements for the part. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Any uh questions for staff hearing. Miss Bush, >> if this were attached, would he need a variance? >> Uh yes. he still would not meet that 30
foot set back. >> And also from where he's setting it, it he has to set it away from the home a little bit so that he can clear the uh sopet. >> Okay. So, >> okay. Is the applicant present? Are you the applicant?
>> Yes, sir. >> All right. Good. Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Could I get your name and address for the record? Mark Dorse, 2689 John Anderson Drive, Orin Beach, Florida, 32176. >> Okay, you've heard the staff report here
this morning. Anything you would like to add to this? >> Uh, first of all, I want to thank uh everyone in this building for walking me through it and spending the time to help me get this far. Um, and you all here present today. >> Okay. the what I'm proposing is uh
aesthetically going to look correct because it's going to sit behind the driveway itself. It's going to come off the house uh and enhance the entryway. Um the the product is pre-made and is a
red cedar that's hopefully going to be appealing for everyone. I do have the abuters for my abutters uh that sign letters agreeing with it. And once again, I'm lucky to have good neighbors. So, that in itself is a nice place to
land. Um, you know, with the extra 55 ft from my lot line to the road, I don't feel it's going to be intrusive to anyone going by or future development. Hopefully, uh, they're not going to widen the road that
much to come up close. But um as far as what I'm asking for, I'm maintaining that land right now uh happily and future landscaping. Uh since the last people didn't take care of it, we're going to hopefully make that better and
along with the pergola is part of the whole plan. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Do we have any public participation forms for this case? No sir. >> Okay. We're going to close close the floor for public participation and have
a discussion here and give your uh result in a few minutes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any discussion on this? >> I think this motion go. >> I was just saying this is another case of the double front yards that people have to deal with. So, >> okay.
>> Go ahead. you. >> Uh, I move that we approve case number B-2615 subject to two staff recommendations. >> Second. >> Okay. I got a motion on the floor from Miss Shel to approve the two variances
for V26015 with the two staff conditions and a second for Mr. Costa. Any discussion on the motion, Miss Bush? >> Um, just, you know, I I thank you for thanking staff for walking you through this. I know that this process is
daunting and it's time consuming. Um, so I know staff does a really great job of walking the applicants through. So, thank you for acknowledging their hard work. Um, I do want to acknowledge that what you're doing, adding a pergula to your front door for like shading and beautifification should not necessarily require you to come through this body
for what you're trying to do, but we have rules in place that say that. I would and I have vo voiced this before love for our board and for staff to find a way to allow little things like a pergola in by your front door to go without having to come before this
board. Um it's excessive. I don't necessarily think it's necessary and as long as it's meeting the strategic planning goals and the comprehensive planning goals of the county, I don't think that the time that you've invested in this is necessary for what you're doing. So just wanted to make that statement for the record and thank you for beautifying your property. Thank
you. >> Okay. Anyone else? Okay, we got a motion on the floor. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. >> Miss Shel, could I get the next case? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Case number V-26-016, a variance to the maximum off- streetet parking requirements on general commercial B4 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley and Miss Tucker. This majures. >> Good morning, members. For the record, Kelly Tucker, Planner 1. Um, so today
before uh you, we have a variance request to exceed uh the 125% maximum allowed parking spaces for a proposed 7,453 square foot retail store for O O'Reillies.
The maximum off streetet parking currently allows them a maximum of 19 parking spaces and the applicant is requesting 30. Uh the subject property is located on the northeast corner of US7 and East David Street. This is the future location for the proposed
O'Reillies and is currently in the application review for a lot combination that will create a unified building site for the proposed development. Uh they are also currently getting ready to undergo an application for conceptual site plan and the site plan is what is
uh triggered the variance request today for the 30 parking spaces. Uh section 2865 requires a minimum of two spaces per thousand square ft of retail use area and this means that the project would be required to have a minimum of 15 and then the maximum of 19 with 125%.
Uh the applicant stated that out of the 30 spaces, two of them will be handicapped ADA required and then four spaces will be allocated for service vehicles. Uh so with that math, there's only about 24 parking spaces that would be allotted for customers and for store
employees. Um staff did conduct some field research. Uh that is on page four, excuse me, three of your staff package. Um, I drove out to four other adjacent O'Reillies that are in the area to see how many parking spaces they had, how many service vehicles, and how many
handicapped areas. Um, so I do have that information provided for you, as well as the total square footage of these uh buildings. Two of them are in the city of Dand. Uh, the one that's on East International, they actually had to request a variance to reduce the maximum number of parking spaces. Um, so they
reduced it by eight, leaving them a total of 23 parking spaces. and their site plan was approved in 2018. Uh the other O'Reillys in North Dan has a total of 35 parking spaces. City of Dan stated they did not require a variance and they
did meet the minimum parking standards. Uh that site plan was approved in 2012. Uh we have a previous Napa store that is now in O'Reilly's that's into land on South Woodland. Uh based on the square footage of that building, they do meet the maximum at 25 uh parking spaces. And
then there is one, it's a bit of an outlier. I know it's a bit of a distance from Dillion Springs. It's in New Simra Beach. Uh the city of New Sra Beach did state that no variances were required for this site was approved in 2022 and they had a total of 27 parking spaces.
The applicant's justification for the number of parking spaces is uh supported by a uh parking study that was submitted with the application and reviewed by the county's development engineering department who stated no objection to the variance request stating that they predict that the store will um exceed
the 75 percentile of success and will excuse me the 85 percentile. uh which would mean that they could have a weekly uh possibility of 18 parking spaces uh needed and Saturday would be 23.
Um staff supports the variance as they feel that it has met three of the five criteria for granting a variance and there are conditions provided uh for the PLDRC's consideration. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you Miss Decker. Miss Bush, you had a question.
>> I have a lot. Um, I want to start with the variance to section 72-286 in the staff report says that it's based on the zoning district, but it's based on the use, not the zoning district. Correct. >> Scott >> Scott,
it is based on the use of the automotive of the retail sales use. >> Okay. So, with the staff report, the way that it's written is incorrect then because it does say that it's based on the zoning district and that's not accurate. Well, that use is listed in the zoning and I'm apologize for that. It should be
specifically to the retail use and that's where that's too. Yes, >> that was my first comment. Second, um, thank you for conducting the field research. I really appreciate that. What I was more interested in is what would the capacity of those existing spaces
when you traveled to do that field research? Were they completely full? Were they empty? The applicant is asking for these additional spaces because he says that he needs it because of the busyiness of the store. So, I appreciate that you went and did and looked at all the other sites that had the parking
spaces, but what's the capacity in which those parking spaces are being utilized at any given point to justify this store needing above the 125%. >> Yeah, my field of research was done on a Wednesday afternoon between the hours of 1 and 4. Um so with a weekday the number
of spaces out excuse me taken up would be less than the Saturday like they predicted. Um there was anywhere between three to seven cars um in the parking lot at any given time. I think maybe I spent about five or six minutes at each location to count the spaces and then go
inside and ask how many service vehicles they had at each location. >> Awesome. Thank you for that thorough research and I appreciate you providing that information. >> Um next question. What is the flu on the property? Is the future land use RLC or is it ULI? Because in your in the staff
report up top it says that it's ULI but in your map below it says that it's RLC. >> Um correct that is a a typo in the staff report. It is in the Dillion Springs um local plan. So it is RLC. >> It is RLC. >> Correct.
>> Um and then I will bring this up later but I did not agree with the staff analysis at all. Um, but I will I will talk about all those things during discussion. So, thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Miss Craig, you had a question. >> How far is it from between the two
stores on Woodland? >> There's only one store on Woodland. There's one on 15A. >> Between the existing one and the proposed store, how far is that? >> That's a wonderful question. And I know
it's over 5 miles um from the distance of where the 15A location is um to the proposed at the corner of 17 and East David Street, it is over 5 miles. I don't have an exact uh calculation for
you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? Miss Bush. >> One more question. Do we have a requirement on the um um the parking analysis? It was done um
based on the fifth edition and there was a new addition. So I didn't know if Valuchia County required the latest edition to be used in evaluating for parking. >> Development engineering didn't signify anything to staff that it was reviewed based on a a previous or outdated code
>> because the sixth edition has been significantly updated to add context to consideration. And I'm not sure if the same trip generation analysis would be done based on the sixth edition versus the fifth edition. And I am concerned about that because the sixth edition was
updated to deal with the issues of overparking some of these places that we don't need to overpark. >> Correct. Um I can follow up with our development engineering group. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Miss Tucker.
Uh is the applicant. Are you the applicant, sir? Yes, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Yes. >> All right. If I could get your name and address for the record. >> It's Mike Nikkerk at 306 North Market Street, Mount Carmel, Illinois. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report in
the extensive uh conversation that went on after the fact. You got anything you would like to say? >> Uh the staff report was very thorough and I appreciate that. I don't know what I could add uh in reference to the traffic study. That would be a question for our traffic engineer. Unfortunately, I don't know that answer either
regarding the addition, but I'm here to answer any questions that I can. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Miss Bush, you had a question. >> Yes. Um, you know, reviewing that traffic. So, I I work in transportation, so I have a little bit of expertise in that. So, I just will put that out there
for the record. Um, the parking analysis indicates that you're using the 85th percentile because you think the store is going to overperform, which totally understand. And you're asking from it to go from 19 parking spaces to justify it to go to 30 parking spaces. But you're using an analysis based on sore stere
size that is between 5,000 square feet and 14,000 square feet. And your store is only 77,000 72 >> around 75. >> 75. Okay. So it's on that smaller side of that square footage. And so you're using the numbers in your analysis to
justify a larger demand when I don't think based on the information you put into that IT analysis doesn't support that. >> I I apologize. I I can't answer that question. >> Okay, that's fine. I I just wanted to know what that justification was.
>> Excuse me. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, we do have a public participation form and I'll give you an opportunity for a buttle after the fact if you'd like and uh so we'll move right into that if you want to have a seat
right there. All right, Miss Manuzi. >> Good morning. Can I get your name and address for the record? >> Good morning. Amy Munzi to Leon Springs Community Association, Deleon Springs. We are very excited about this business possibly coming into our community. Um,
in probably the last 50 years, we've had one new building built, but Deleon Springs is going through a real change right now. We're excited about it. FDOT has come in and um four-lane the highway forward north. We have a new roundabout. We have our first ever traffic signal.
Um, beautiful addition to our river to sea loop trail. Don't laugh, we're getting there. Um, and so our community is really starting to move forward. I can give a community perspective as to why they need these parking spaces. Um, I think the closest auto parts place is
more like 7 to 10 miles away. Um, we found out about this because of um some guys that work at the forestry division and they were very excited because they've got huge trucks and giant vehicles that constantly need parts parts. And we have Lake Woodruff
National Wildlife Refuge to Leyon Springs State Park. They all have large vehicles and large trucks and they need parts all the time. We also have a lot of lakes and boat ramps. So we have the marine community that lives there and comes through and they all need parts for their trailers and vehicles. And
then we're an a community. So because of that you have a lot of people with large trucks, dual axle trucks, um big long trailers carrying cattle or horses, hay, and they're not the best at parking. So when you have one of those big trailers
with dies coming in, they could easily take up two or three parking spots themselves. Um, so we have some variables there that are different for our community than what you would have at a typical auto parts store in Dand where you'd have, you know, a few people with cars that might come in. We've got
huge vehicles and lots of need for this particular business, this type of business. Um, this will also serve um, Barberville to the north of us and Pearson to the north of them. again, agricultural communities with big trucks, big vehicles, lots of land
clearing equipment, lots of firefighting equipment. So, there's a great need for this and I could easily see their parking lot being full a lot of times, not just with cars, but with big vehicles, with big trailers. So, they take up a lot of space and that's the
reason why we support this variance and we hope you will too. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mini. Okay. Uh that is the last public participation form I have. I will say we did get two letters, one in support and
one in in u protesting the the U size. So those will go into the record also. And uh do we have anyone else that' like to speak about this case? Do we have any more public? >> No, sir.
>> Okay. Would the applicant like to have a rebuttal or just leave it alone? All right, sir. All right. So, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or even a motion. But I will tell you, I'm very familiar with this
area and there is definitely a need for this uh business to be located there because it is quite a drive from uh Deleon to the closest part store that I know of. And u and like Miss Munzi said, there are people there that have uh
trucks and trailers that need to be parked and you have to have the room to even just get off the road there. And I also know that a lot of times they use these areas for community events in the Leon Springs area. So I think it'll be a plus for the community and u that's
where I'm at on it. >> Well, I concur with that and I'll put forward a motion. >> All right. uh to uh approve V26-016. >> Two staff conditions. >> Oh yeah, and the two staff conditions. Sorry about that. >> Second.
>> Okay, I've got a motion on the floor from Mr. Ersen to approve B26016 with the two staff conditions and a second from Miss Shel. Any discussion on the motion, Miss Bush? >> Thank you, Chairman. Um I do not agree
with the staff analysis at all. Um, and I don't think that this necessarily changes how we all feel about the variance, but I just for the record want to make sure that my my points are um are put into the record. The special conditions number one, the beginning of that section states that no special
conditions or circumstances exist. Even the applicant said that in writing that letter, but staff felt that the criteria was met. And I absolutely disagree. If both the applicant and um the staff say that there are no special conditions, then why is that criteria met? And and
so that was a question that I asked staff originally. They got they got back to us with a an amended staff report, but it didn't necessarily address that question. The second special condition does not result in the action of the applicant. I know that the staff report was updated because originally it was in support of that criteria. the um number
three the special um the granting this variance. So number five would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this ordinance or the comprehensive plan that is pushing to be less autodependent and support smart growth if we have a maximum parking requirement is because we do not want to
prioritize parking. Um so I am a big no on this just because I do not think the model was done correctly. I think that there is a big gap between what they're able to justify based on that analysis and what their request is. I am not against the O'Reillys going into this
location. I definitely think that there's a need, but I am absolutely against overparking this business because it just leads to more urban sprawl and that is not what we're supporting in our comprehensive plan. So, I totally disagree with um the staff's analysis there. Uh and um would
hope that you all take that into consideration. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Uh, we're going to go ahead and vote on this variance. So, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed?
>> I. >> Motion carries 6 to1. Okay. Miss Shel, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-019, a variance to the minimum yard
requirements on planned unit development zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. And this one is Miss Ray. Good morning. >> Good morning. For the record, Kristen Ray, Planning and Development Services. So, the applicants are requesting a variance to reduce the front yard
requirement from 25 ft to 15 ft for a 2,000 ft proposed hanger. The subject property is currently undeveloped and located within the Spruce Creek subdivision of the Spruce Creek plan unit development. The applicant submitted a building
permit in November of 2025 and once it was reviewed, it was discovered that the hanger did encroach into the front front yard requirement setback along Lindy Loop. The parcel is irregular in shape with cross country drive to the northwest,
Lindy Loop to the southeast, and taxiway Charlie to the northeast. Uh due to the shape, sorry. Uh Lindy Loop is one of the few joint aircraft and vehicle taxiway streets within the Spruce Creek Spruce
Creek fly-in development. And due to the shape of the property and the minimum yard requirements, it limits what can be built within that eastern portion of the property. Uh the applicants did submit 13 letters of support um that was included in the staff report package as well as an approved site plan
from the Spruce Creek Architectural Review Committee. Staff's recommendation is to approve the variance subject to two staff recommended conditions. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Ray. Any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant present? Are you the applicant?
>> Could I get your name and address for the record, sir? >> Eric Popper, 3955 Fox Valley Center Drive, Apartment 110, Aurora, Illinois. >> All right, sir. You've heard the staff report. Anything you would like to add to it? Um just I don't want to be
repetitive but I do want to thank the staff because um this process is new to us and they've been extremely supportive, communicative and responsive and that uh has made this much less daunting than we thought it was going to be. So thank you. Um it's a new
construction in the flyin community. We've uh had a dream to live there for a long time. Um the house and the hang are in line with neighborhood standards. Um, we did meet all the neighborhood covenants uh and the POA uh setbacks. We had unanimous approval by the uh
property owners association. Large support from neighbors as you can see with the letters of support. Um we worked very hard with our architect to find a way to to use the minimum variance required and I believe we've
done that. Um, with the odd shaped lot, um, we did build a two-story house versus the one-story house we wanted. That was a compromise we made. Um, but, um, we appreciate your consideration. >> All right, sir. Any questions for the
applicant? >> Okay. >> I just put my input that that is a hard lot to work with. That's a weird shape on that. It it was um actually the lot had been for sale for a long time and we bought it and took a chance on it and I think our architect turned out >> I love the design we have for it. So go
ahead. >> Thank you. >> Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No sir. >> Okay. All right sir. We're going to close the for public participation and give you an answer in a few minutes. >> Okay.
All right. Any discussion on this uh variance here? >> I'd be glad to make a motion. >> All right. Go ahead, Miss Shel. >> I move that case number V-29-19 be approved um as it meets all five of the staff criteria >> with the two conditions. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. >> I got a motion to approve V26019 uh with the two staff conditions for Miss Shelley and a second from Mr. Sigma. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-02. Oh, zero 020, excuse me. Variances to the accessory structure requirements on rural agriculture estate RSA zoned
property. >> It's the lights. >> It's actually my highlighter. Good morning. Again, for the record, Kelly Tucker, planner one. Uh before we get into the staff report presentation, I do want to state that the applicant has expressed interest in removing
variance three from the request. Um so today I will only be presenting variances one and two. However, if Miss Olsen changes her mind, I will go back and present variance three. Um so today we are seeking two after the fact variances for a proposed 960 ft detached
structure. Um and I do apologize, it is not proposed. the uh concrete pad is already existing. They just haven't gone vertical yet. Variance one is to reduce the western sideyard from 25 ft to 11 ft for the existing detached garage. And variance
two is to reduce the western sideyard from 25 ft to 13 ft for the existing accessory structure. The applicants purchased the property in February of 24 and according to aerial photos, the site was already developed with an existing 609 square foot
accessory structure in the west sideyard setback and a large concrete slab. Uh the 1568 ft single family residence was constructed in 2025 and is located approximately 636 ft from the front
property line. Um the Nope, we're not talking about that one. Sorry. Uh the property is zoned uh rural agricultural estate RA and it does meet the minimum lot area as it is 25 acres and has a lot width of 165 ft. Uh
according to the applicant's written petition, if the detached garage were to be moved to meet the 25 ft yard setback, the applicant would not have enough space between the pond and the building to drive a vehicle or tractor. Um, a site visit was conducted in December 11th of 2025 when the applicant also
stated concern for their hor's safety if the building were to be placed closer to the pond. Um, staff did look at to see what the distance between the building and the pond would be. Uh, currently as it stands, there's about 34 ft from the water's edge to the building pad as it
is. If it were to be moved, there would still be at least 10 ft of clearance between the building and the water's edge. And according to building elevations for the building permit 2025 0516018, the access point for the garage will be on the southern side with a single
overhead door and there won't be any entrances to the east. There's too many papers. I apologize. Um after reviewing the analysis, staff did find um that they recommend denial for variances one and two as they fail
to meet criteria 1, 2, 3, and four for granting a variance. Um there are conditions available if the PLDRC finds approval. I'm available for any questions. >> Miss Tucker, these the conditions that we have, you withdrawing variance three, is that correct?
>> Correct. So we would be withdrawing condition two as well. >> That's my question there. Okay. And so the other so that would leave two conditions one and three. Correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Miss Bush, you had a question.
>> Um, yes. And I have now lost it. I apologize. I think it was more on the horse barn, but if we're not to discuss that, then I concede my time. Thank you. Sorry. >> It's okay. Any questions for staff?
>> Okay. Is the applicant present? You're the applicant. Can I get your name and address for the record, please? >> Britney Olsson, 4055 Swamp Deer Road, New Smyrna Beach, 32168. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> No, sir. Other than where the building
sits now, the runoff goes into the retention pond, so there's no flooding issues. Also, if we were to have to move it, trees would have to go down and there are tortoise burrows on site, so that would take into play, too. There's no other places with the wetland buffer that that building and its size getting
trailers in and out would actually fit without tree removal or tortoise burrows or flooding in the front yard. >> Okay. U one of the thing you're withdrawing variance three are you going to remove that structure? Is that what the >> No, sir. I'm in the process of getting
my property act exempted. >> Okay. So you can she come back for that variance if she doesn't get the egg exemption? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to make sure of that because otherwise you'd have to wait two years. >> No, no, no. It would only be for the same structure for the same type of
thing. So you're >> Okay. All right. Okay. Miss Bush, you had a question for the applicant. >> Sorry. Would the garage not count if they're egg exempt? >> The garage counts as part of their residential structure. So, the exemption counts for non-residential farm
buildings on a farm. >> Farm buildings on a farm. Okay. I mean, you kind of argue that the garage is for parking tractors, but >> I think they're storing. >> We could We have My husband has an inherited 69 Camaro, and that's what the building's for. It's been out in the elements for about a year now. So, we
just want this structure just to preserve his antique vehicle. >> So, we we definitely looked at this. If it was for um farm activities, yes, definitely qualifies. But this is for the antique car. Understood. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant?
Okay. Do we have any public participation forms with this case? >> No, sir. >> Um, sir, real quick, I'm so sorry. I also have photos of how much space is in between where the proposed building is and the pond. >> Um, >> okay. If you want to, you can give miss those to Miss Grin. >> Okay.
>> They will not space. >> They will go into the record and you will not get them back. >> Okay. Yeah, here's the >> screen. Can you put those up on the visual real quick? This is going to show where my truck and trailer is parked in between where the
building would be and the pond would be. And like I said, if there's a horse that goes down and we have to move it closer to the pond, I won't be able to get a vehicle back there to do anything. They're just there. Okay. Okay.
If you'll just passing down the dice here, we'll take a quick look at them and then Our horses also free roam our property. So if the building gets closer and they fall into the pond, that could be a potential hazard as well, which is one
of my main concerns. >> So before these photos reach me, could you explain what I'm going to see? >> Yes, sir. Um, where we're trying to put the proposed garage, we also have a retention pond right there. You're seeing my truck and trailer parked and how much space is left in between to get
any vehicles out. And this would be where the actual variance would come into play. This is where we want it. But if we have to move it closer to the pond, it's just minimizing space. We won't be able to get any vehicles, any tractors, anything to the back part of our property. >> The photos show that. Mr. Crossy, you had a question.
>> Yeah, I end up looking at the picture. So this form boards, variance one and two is for that. It's not poured yet. It's formed up. >> Correct. Yes, sir. We ended up getting the permit and then um we hired a company to do the concrete and didn't realize that we were within the setback. So the permit got rescended and that's how we're here today. >> Okay. And one more time, what is the
purpose of that building? >> To store my husband's 69 and here >> and then the other building that you withdrew the variance on is for the horses the horse barn. Um, all right. My only comment is >> Why would you withdraw the third variance request?
>> Just because I'm in the process of getting >> I would leave that I personally I would leave it in the package. >> Okay. I This is my first time here. I I don't know. This has been an ongoing year-long thing. >> Well, I'm saying regardless. So, let's say let's say you don't get the a
exemption for whatever reason. >> Yes, sir. Now you're in now you're in violation as opposed to at least take your take your take your shot with the board. You've already gone through you've done all the heavy the heavy lifting. Oh, it's finished. >> Okay. >> So, let us decide. >> This has been going on back and forth with code enforcement. There's um there
was an open complaint about my barn that was closed. They said it's fine. Then I started the egg exempt. So, I don't know what I'm doing. >> So, you've been dealing with this for like three to four months, maybe longer. >> Oh. Oh, like a year and a Okay. >> A couple months. >> A year and four months. Uh it was just to to um second what Mr. Costa said.
You've already you've already advertised for it. You've already done all the effort for it. You might as well just include variance three because you know god forbid anything were to happen on the egg exemption. I looked into egg exemption. I have horses and it wasn't doable for me. Um because there are lots of requirements for that from a like a
business perspective and I I it's personal, right? So I never went the egg exemption route and just permitted all my structures. So you're here now >> but that's up to you. >> Yeah. I I would like to point out that one of the staff recommended conditions was that the applicant apply for after the fact permits for the unpermitted
structures within 90 days of the variance. So if you're going to add the or not withdraw the variance number three, um the commission might want to modify that condition. >> Well, and that's the problem, too, because like I said, we've been going back and forth with code enforcement.
The barn, the violation was closed. We are good to go. I got recommended to add it to here because I'm here anyway. But the problem with the reverse engineering is I've already gotten a quote and it's $2,000 to get a reverse engineering plan on a barn already. So, um, we're pretty
deep into it with how much money we've come out of pocket just to get the garage. >> Mhm. >> And that's why I wasn't even considering the barn cuz the barn was a past problem that had been closed. So, I was just recommended to put it on here because you know what could happen. But then if I need the reverse engineering or
another permit, you're looking at another $2,500. That's assuming that you don't get the a exemption. >> That is assuming. >> So, um, >> so yeah, >> my I I would We're not We're not closed yet, are we? >> No, we're not closed. No, we're not
closed. >> What what my what I would suggest and this is just a suggestion. It's only my suggestion is that you leave variance three on there and potentially the this panel up here this board may decide that and rather than give you 90 days for approval is to double that give you 180
days which is more than sufficient time to get your egg exemption and then you can decide whether or not you need to go to the next step which is what you're speaking of. That gives you almost 6 months to get that taken care of. >> M shouldn't take that long. We would we would probably recommend if you're going
that route to give a significantly longer time because um I think the A provisions start the first of the year. >> Um so the A classification doesn't go into effect until January or in February.
>> Understood. But she could still be approved prior to it taking full effect >> for a exemption >> because the complaint was already closed and code enforcement didn't find that building in violation and it was just added just for craps and gigs. What if I just take it off and then even if I
don't get act exempted if the the complaint's still closed? Does it reopen again? >> You'd still be in non-compliance. Someone else could >> complain and and you'd have another code by >> with a complaint. >> Yes. >> I'm just going to take it off. Okay, >> I'm going to risk the complaint, just
take it off of the variance request >> and then work on the act exemption if I need to revisit this. >> Let me let me just go in line with Mr. Costa said. If you get the variance doesn't necessarily mean you have to pull the permit. You've got that much time to do so. If you don't get your egg
exemption, then you could at that time apply for the permit. Okay. >> Yes, sir. I understand that. again with the reverse engineering cost and then pulling the permit cost of another $300. >> But you but just because you have to have a variance does not mean that you
have to apply for the permit especially if you get the egg exemption. Otherwise, you're going to be in in violation uh and go have to go through code enforcement again. You'll be going through this whole thing again. If I get another complaint >> or you don't get the egg
>> or if you don't get the egg exemption really >> might as well let us say yes or no. >> Okay. >> In addition, if you were to ever modify your property at any point in time and need building permits, they would flag that this is non-conforming and make you include this in this process. >> I'm trying to help you out, you know,
because >> my brain is mush every time I come into this building. >> Let me put it this way. If we approve this variance, we that doesn't mean you you do have to get it. If you don't get your egg exemption, you have to do the permitting to be in compliance. If you
want to not get it and not be in compliance, the variance will go away. If you don't get it within that certain period of time, so that variance will go away. I mean, and when I say go away, it means that you'll be in non-compliance again.
Okay? Do you understand where I'm going with this? >> Yes, sir, I do. Mm-m. >> Okay. >> So, what they're trying to tell you is is to go ahead and apply for this. It will not harm you in any way and it doesn't force you into getting the permit. >> Okay? >> Unless you don't get the egg exemption.
And if you don't get the and if you then if you don't get the permit, you're in you're in uh you're non-conforming on that one. >> Okay. >> With an additional complaint though because code enforcement was already closed. Well, that >> or or if you were to do any type of improvement on your property and they
flag that it's not it's not a permitted structure. >> Okay. >> I I would um request that maybe we table this until the end of the agenda if you want to have the opportunity to talk to your husband and talk to staff and then maybe come back to us and decide whether or not you want to continue for the
removal of variance 3. I I would be willing to adjust the agenda and give you that time today. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If you want to talk to staff about it and see what you want to do, then you can do so or we can remove it. Whatever you want to do here. >> Do you want just keep it on?
>> Okay. We'll just keep it on. >> We'll just keep it on. >> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Good call. >> Okay. Do we have any uh this Tucker? So, because we're adding variance three
back into the record, I do have to present staff's findings on the building. Go ahead. >> Um, so for variance three, it is to reduce the eastern sideyard setback from 25 ft to 13 ft for an existing accessory structure, uh, stable structure. Uh, the
5 857 ft non-conforming stable building was built on top of the existing concrete pad that was previously a basketball court. Um, it was built in 2025 without permits. staff did find this building. Um, in our initial review of the variance, the original request
came in for the garage building on the western sideyard. Um, I did recommend to Miss Olsen that she add it to the variance request. That way, it would solidify the existing location of the building. If it were ever to be uh demolished or need to be rebuilt, she could refu it in its current existing
footprint. Uh the recommendation is still the same as the variances one and two for denial. Uh but we do have condition two. Um and staff is open to any modifications from this board. >> I'm available for any more questions. >> Okay.
>> And and staff recommends the 90-day change to one year. >> To one year. >> Yes. >> I like that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And while we're uh just to touch on something, Mr. Sorry, on the legal side that we haven't said something that
would not be correct to the applicant as far as going ahead and applying for it. And being that if they don't get the exemption, >> so right now we were presuming that there's no ad classification on this property. So everything every single
structure on there um needs a permit. Once that ad classification comes in, those structures that are non-residential farm buildings on a farm no longer need a permit. Like even if we granted the variance, basically the state statute says ignore the county codes, ignore getting a building permit,
proceed as if it was a agricultural barn. So, you know, uh um C this commission is basically granting, you know, a year after getting this variance to come in and and apply for a permit
for that barn in the event that you do not get the ad classification. >> You do get the ad classification, you do not need need the building permit anymore. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I just wanted to get it from legal side that we weren't misleading you and you come back. Well, they said >> planning for dummies.
>> Okay. All right. Do we have any public participation points for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor and we're going to give you an answer. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm prepared. >> Go ahead, Mr. Cost. >> I'm prepared to make a motion. Case V-26-020.
The motion to approve variances 1, two, and three with three staff recommen recommended conditions and changing the timeline from 90 days to 365 days of approval after the variances. Second. Second.
>> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor to approve B26020 variances one, two, and three with the three staff conditions with with uh making it 365 days instead of 90 days to
get the permits required from Miss Costa and a second from Miss Shelley. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. You got your three variants.
>> There you go. Congratulations. >> Good luck, guys. >> You won't regret doing that. >> No, thank you. Thank you. >> Uh, hey, Miss Shel, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir.
Case number V-26-021, a variance to the accessory dwelling unit ADU requirements on urban single family residential R4 zoned property. >> Okay, thank you, Miss Shelley. And this one is yours, Miss Tucker.
>> Good morning. Again, for the record, Kelly Tucker, Planner 1. I just enjoy talking to you guys so much. So today before you we have an application to uh increase the proposed size of an accessory dwelling unit. Current standards allow it to be 50% of the
principal structure. Um and today we are asking to increase that. Um the uh owners purchased the property in January 2019. The property was developed with a 2,94q ft single family residence
that was constructed in 23. Um, this is a vested lot and eligible for building permits. Uh, the property owner stated that they're building the ADU uh to have an elderly family member, >> sorry, uh, to have an elderly family
member uh, move into the property to be closer. And then they'll also have another family member that'll be their caretaker. Um they're currently proposing a two bed, two bath um ADU that would meet ADA standards. Uh the subject parcel does meet the R4
zoning requirements as it is 1 acre in size and has a lot width of approximately 145 uh feet. Staff does recommend denial for the variance as it fails to meet. These microphones are very close
together. Give myself a little more room. Sorry. Uh, deny the variance request as it fails to meet four out of the five criteria for granting a variant. Staff does recommend two conditions that are on page uh, five of your staff report. I'm available for any questions.
>> Thank you, Miss Tucker. Any questions for staff hearing? None. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward, sir? You've heard the staff report. anything you'd like to add to the staff report? >> Uh, yes sir. My name is uh Wayne
Scantling and uh I was engaged by the owner and the owner's mother to look at this. Uh certainly the goal as Miss Tucker said and I'd like to thank Miss Tucker and Miss Grimmage for the work that they've done to address some of the concerns and uh I've gotten some
information out of it that's very beneficial for what we're trying to do. But certainly the goal is to make this not an uh accessory dwelling unit, but an accessible accessory dwelling unit. And as such, as Miss Tucker said, what
we would have to do is try to try to follow some of the guidelines associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act, certainly the Florida Building Code, the International Building Code. I could not find anything that specifically related to accessory dwelling units and accessibility
requirements for that in the code. But the requirements that are used mostly for commercial building buildings apply to across the board for anyone who is confined to a wheelchair or to a walker or whatever. Much like the parking lots,
you see the spaces that are larger than regular spaces for cars. no matter whether it's a private or or commercial. So from that standpoint, uh I think the statement about the fact I think it was number one on the criteria that talked
about special conditions, the special condition is this needs to be accessible. The person who was slated to utilize this structure uh is mobility challenge and it is even though it's not actually stated medically
there have been notice some uh mental challenges also and that be can be become can become a problem certainly from the standpoint of pots that are put on stoves and the stoves aren't turned off. I know for a fact that there was an occasion where the individual fell down and actually broke the glass in the
stove and had to call 911. If no one was there to uh to uh call 911, she would have been in dire situation because it was not just I've fallen and I can't get up. Is I've fallen and I'm injured and I can't get up. So uh the other thing was
it said it asked us uh who is are we the ones or am I the one who is causing this? And I think the response on the staff report said that I was the one who chose all the dimensions. No, those dimensions that are chosen are based on
what the accessibility code says. if we wanted to look at it and we're able to put that page is page nine uh of the staff report and page 10 where I actually did a study that incorporated the code into a pathway that would be
allowed inside of this unit and also the 60 deg 60 inch diameter turnaround that's necessary for wheelchairs to be able to maneuver inside bathrooms and also the pathways like I said to get around furniture and it was determined that the necessary square foot for that
and the housing of the uh caregiver was 1,500 square f feet. Now there was a little bit of confusion on my part because the definition given in the staff report for the uh living area and
the area under air as the living area. But when this report was done and the numbers that came from it, it actually took into account the outside perimeter of the building, which from a design professional standpoint, we call that the footprint. And so that made the
square footage a little bit larger than what we were actually intending. But certainly we can shorten that design to be actually 1,500 square ft of the outside perimeter area as opposed to the actual living area which would be
smaller. Um also we were accepted on criteria number two um which uh I thank them the uh the uh staff members for doing that. Uh criteria number three had to do with minimum size. Certainly, like
I said, we can make this into the minimum size, but the size is determined by the special requirements for accessibility and mobility with a wheelchair, getting around furniture, the size of the bed, the size of the bathroom, and all those things associated with it. Number four was
talking about in harmony with the rest of the area. Um, Mr. Solomon's residence is, as we as was stated, on a 1 acre lot. It has a I think a six or eight foot fence all the way around it. It cannot be seen from the street.
Certainly the neighbors could possibly see it through the trees. They could see the roof of it, but I don't know if it'll be something that will be seen uh and and will make the area look degraded. I did a drawing uh kind of a
rendering of what it would look like and it's on page 10 of the no page seven of the report my I'm sorry. and uh we'll try to make it look as much like the house as we can so that it will not cause any type of conflict of the way
things look. In addition to that uh we certainly uh are making sure that those things that could cause problems with the area are taken care of. Wildlife, there is no wildlife protection necessary. There is no um wetlands area
that needs to be protected. We tried to minimize the number of trees that were being taken down. I think we're taking down one or two. And uh aside from that um there's nothing else the injur in injurious that we can think of um other
than um well I can't think of anything right now actually but the appearance of it is going to be very nice. And also I I my understanding is that Governor DeSantis is actually trying to put forth legislation or or have legislation put
forth that will allow and kind of reduce some of the requirements on ADUs because of the cost of housing and the need for individuals to be housed. When we look at the moral nature of what we're talking about, certainly I think it's
very moral for a child and a grandchild to want to take care of their aging and ailment ailment mother grandmother. And so from that standpoint, uh we're requesting we can make the the ADU smaller, the accessible ADU smaller. We
don't think we have an appearance issue from the way it's going to look. We don't think it's injuring any wetlands or anything like that. And the size of it is because of the fact that it is accessible and that's the reason why we're doing it. >> All right, sir. Any questions for the
applicant? >> Okay, we do. Is Mr. Solomon Steven Solomon? Yes, sir. Would you like to come forward and speak? >> Hi, good morning. >> Morning. I'm Steven Solomon at 1285 Caldwell
Avenue, Orange City. Um, so this ADU, the purpose of it, like was said, is for my mother who's 66 and my grandmother who's 91. Uh, my grandmother my my mother is the full-time caregiver for my grandmother. Um, my grandma
uh is still mentally there, but is getting worse. And a wheelchair is certainly necessary for an ADU, especially going forward cuz anyone that has seen uh family members age, you know, that they don't get better, they
just get worse over time. Um and so the I wanted to address some of the criteria um that was on the report. So the first one was the special conditions criteria and um as was mentioned before, the special condition is the usage for this
ADU. It's not used like a normal ADU because this condition for this one is that it be wheelchair accessible and because of that it requires a lot more space. The turnaround, the hallway size, the accessibility of the bathroom, um
all these things require more space than a normal condition ADU would require. Um, and while a floor plan can be reduced on paper, you know, to address the criteria for the minimum necessary, you can always reduce something, but you
can only reduce it so much and be able to meet the conditions for wheelchair usage. Um, and so that's how we came up with the number that we came up with. Um, the the fifth criteria, harmony with the area. The ADU won't even be visible from the street. It's set as far back in
the property as it can go. um it'll be like it never even doesn't even exist to anybody that's driving by. Um and so the the purpose of the ADU is to care for my aging family. Everyone knows that nursing homes are expensive and this is
a multi-generational living arrangement that I'm trying to set up at my home. And uh with that being said, I hope you approve my variant request. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for
commission discussion or motion. I will make a comment that this property size even though it's R4 is one acre. Um, and I kind of depending upon the size of your house is the size of your ADU, which I've never
agreed with. So, so, uh, that's my comment on it. I'm in favor of it. Any other comments? >> I'll make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> I move that we approve case
>> microphone >> V26 >> microphone. >> Sorry. >> I move that we approve V26-021. Are there any conditions with the two conditions? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Where did that second come from?
Mr. Ur. >> Okay. And I for discussion purposes I would just like to add I live in a multi-generational home. So I totally understand. I have a 94 year old grandfather and my parents are in their 60s. I have an autistic adult brother. So I totally understand and really feel I've made this comment before that we
really need to be friendly to accessory dwelling units for those purposes. Um we are going to be seeing more people aging in place and they need to and we need to allow that. So, um, I am in support of what the govern the legislature is trying to do in order to make that
easier across the board for everyone. I have some other things to say about that, but I just very supportive of this and I think that we need to make it easier as people continue to age and we have more aging population to age in place. So, >> I concur.
>> Okay. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to approve variance V26021 with the two conditions from staff uh from Miss Bush and a second from Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? All
those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. Okay, Miss Shelley, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number V-26-024, variances to the minimum yard and
accessory structure requirements on transitional agriculture A3 zoned property. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Shel. Miss Costa, this is you. >> Good morning again. Staff is requesting
a variant or our customers requesting a variance to a reduction in the east waterfront yard for a rock reventment. Uh similar to a seaw wall
>> or 22. >> You're called 24. >> 22. It is 22. >> You got 22 up there. I'm sorry. You called for 24. So, >> no seaw wall needed. >> No, sorry. This is actually um a
application for a variance to the minimum accessory uh structure requirements on a rural residential property. Okay. Fine. Okay. So, we are requesting a variance
to three variances. Uh variance one is to allow an accessory structure in the uh front yard. Request two is to reduce the east front yard from 40 ft to 10 ft for proposed 2400 square foot metal garage. This is a
corner lot. Again, >> can you get closer to your mic? >> Thank you. >> Is that better? >> Yep. And variance three is to reduce the west sideyard from 15 ft to 10 ft for the same proposed metal garage. The site is owned rural residential
subject parcel meets the dimensional requirements of at least one acre. It is a corner lot which must meet 40 foot front yard setbacks. The parcel was bested in 2000 by the previous owner. It is part of the Butler
Chain of Lakes uh subdivision. This proposed garage is going to be taking the place of an unpermitted uh pole barn that was uh placed by the previous owner. This uh case went to DRC because the
property lays within the enterprise community overlay zone and uh they requested waiverss to section 723052 BNC um for accessory structures. Uh they
did receive approval from DRC for um the height of the building exceeds the height of the home. Uh the mean roof height. It will not exceed the at the peak. Also, it is placed in enterprise
overlay zone requires the garage be placed behind the front of the home with having two front yards. This makes it difficult for the owner and they approved that as well. Staff recommends approval for the 2400
foot garage as it meets uh one, two uh for variances one, two, and three as it meets three out of the five criteria for granting said variances. Also, the property is oddly shaped and this would be the only place that he
could place the structure. It's almost an hourglass shape. So, he's placing it as close to the home as he can without interfering with the He also has wetlands on the property at the south end and it's in the flood zone. So, he's avoiding the flood zone utilizing a
portion of the property that is already cleared and we would like to recommend approval. Are there any questions I can answer? >> Miss Bush, you had a question? >> Yes. and um oh our attorney's gone. It's mainly for him. I'm curious that DRC is
able to approve essentially what I think are size and dimension criteria which is something that should come in before this board. So how was the DRC able to approve that um waiver request without it coming to PLDRC? >> Sure. So that is that's basically the code the the the code grants
specifically to the DRC because it's treat it's treating it more like an architectural provisions in this specific overlay. Okay. So that's that's why it's it's a it's a design and aesthetic feature um for um location of the garage and the height of the
structure for compliance. That's why the code specifically says that the DRC has that variance and waiver authority rather than the PLLDRC which is the normal one. So that's that's kind of like those strange oneoffs. >> Okay. Right. >> Understood. I just I've I've I've known
that that's happened before, but again, once the DRC approves it, it still goes to a governing body to make that decision because it is a size and dimension criteria. So, if that's the way it's written, that's fine. That's just not that's nuanced and not necessarily what I think would be the proper order of things because essentially DRC gave them approval and
now they're asking for us to give approval for something they've already received approval for. So, it's just the timing and what comes first. And like I said, how was DRC able to do a waiver to size and dimension criteria? I understand if you're putting it on the architecture side of things, but it's still a height and it's still size and
dimension. Miss Bush, if I could just clarify that, Scott Ashley, zoning enforcement official, uh it's not so much a dimensional requirement that they're waving, it's the placement because the applicant normally would still have to meet setback requirements. is that accessory structure cannot be in
front of the primary structure. It should meet the setback still, but it's a location where it needs to be back behind not in front of the primary. So that's what they're reviewing for the uh criteria of the overlay standard is allowing the structure one to be in front or beside the main structure, but
it should be still compliant with setbacks. In this scenario, be based on the configuration and shape of the parcel. he can't do both meet setbacks and be uh located in behind the home if you will. So he needed both. One was for the code provision for location in a
sense for the architectural visual and then the second one which is before you is the actual dimensional standard >> and I'm not arguing that it's the size of the structure. It's the height that's dimension right comes back where the structure cannot exceed the primary home. There is a
height standard in the code, right? But there's also that secondary with the overlay that for the uh it the accessory structure is intended to match the mass and height and scale of the principal structure. In this scenario, it's
apparently not. So that's why there may be another variance for the height issue based on that standard. >> Okay. But they're not requesting the height variance, >> right? But I'm disappointed you won by the height, but you know, they still have a height standard for accessory structures, but if that exceeds what the
height of the present home is, that's tied into the overlay standards, which the DRC would then review and approve. >> Yeah, totally get that. Just from a professional standpoint, I've never had those two things combined from an architectural review board. >> Well, we have that provision for
enterprise and OAN. >> I know it was an Ostein. I wasn't aware it was an enterprise. So, thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. The applicant. Are you the applicant, sir? >> I am the applicant. >> Could I get your name and address for the record? >> Nicholas McAlpin, 2623 Carolyn Street.
>> Okay. You've heard the uh staff report. Anything you'd like to add to that? >> No. I would like to echo some of the sentiments earlier. The staff has been great walking us through. Um they're reasonable. They're logical, which I cannot say is the case for other counties or other entities. So I would
just like to appreciate them for what they have done for me. Um the the reason for building the structure as our family has grown, as our hobbies have grown through the years, uh we also need a larger storage structure. We're planning this for current and future needs. Uh and we don't want to leave Valuchia
County. We love where we live. Um uh another nuance to this. when I engaged a family acquaintance in early 2025 to build the structure, uh, I went ahead and I purchased it and I got everything going. And when I questioned him about
permitting, he told me that I did not need a permit. Um, I'm a licensed general contractor and I said, "Well, that doesn't sound right. That that can't be the case." The more I worked with him, the less confidence I had with him. I then said, "Well, I'll just do this myself." And here we are. So some
of the issues with the size of the building um I could have reduced the size. However, I have already purchased and received the building due to that situation. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? M. Okay.
All right. Sir, do we have any public participation forms? >> No, sir. >> Hey, we're going to close the floor and give you an answer in a few moments. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any discussion or a motion? Either one, guys. Let's get it done.
>> Miss Bush. >> No, go ahead. >> Make a motion case V-26-022 that we approve variances 1, two, and three with staff recommended conditions, two of them. >> Two. >> Second.
>> Okay. Miss Push, you had a comment. >> Yeah. Again, just one of those things where I don't agree with staff analysis. I totally understand where you're coming from. So, I'm still supportive of the variance, but I do not necessarily should have passed the criteria, the special conditions. I agree with variance one that the special condition
exists within the layout of the property, but I do not agree with the deductions, the reductions, and the setbacks meeting that special condition. The building could be smaller. I understand this is before hearing all this, right? The building could be smaller and therefore variants two and three would not be needed. Therefore, I do not feel like variants two and three
meet that criteria. Special conditions as a result of the applicant. Again, I agree with staff on criteria one for variance um criteria for variance one on that, but it's not uh not for two and three due to the size of the structure. The existing barn unpermitted is half the size of what is being proposed. So
therefore, those circumstances are the result of the applicant's desires. So I do not feel those conditions are met and the literal interpretation would deprive the rights yes to variance one, no to two and three. Again, the applicant can make it smaller and meet those provisions of the ordinance. So, I just want to correct and make sure that staff
is really doing that analysis and not necessarily doing it in favor of the project. That's I've seen some of that in some of the staff reports that were written this goound and so I'm making those comments because I do not feel that that's accurate. I do agree though that this variance was worthy and I will
be voting in favor of it. >> Okay, any other comments? We do have a motion on the floor. We got a motion for I may have already stated this >> uh for you. >> I made a motion. >> Yeah, Mr. Costa made a motion to approve
V26022 with variances 1, two, and three with the two conditions and a second for Miss Shel. Any any more discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries
unanimously. Thank you. Okay, Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please? Appreciate you. >> Yes, sir. Case number B-26 Dex-024. Variances to the minimum yard and accessory structure requirements on
transitional agriculture A3 zoned property. >> Thank you, Miss Shel. Miss Costa, this is yours. >> Yes, sir. Good morning. staff or customer is requesting uh variances to the minimum waterfront yard
standards for an existing home and pool under construction. Uh Coina Rocketment uh is required to prevent shoreline uh erosion and to resolve an environmental permitting code violation
uh when the applicants applied for the home. This is a new home and a ingground swimming pool. When they applied for this permit, they were meeting the waterfront yard setback
requirements. However, um let me go back for a second here. We're we're requesting to reduce the waterfront yard setbacks from 40 ft to 22 feet for the single family residents and the east waterfront yard from 40t to 9 ft for the uh partially constructed
and ground pool. is not completed as of yet. Um, this is a three zone property. Uh, it is a vested plot. What had happened was, uh, during
construction, the wetlands became damaged. >> Sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. uh during the construction of the home and the pool uh the wetlands did become damaged and then hurricane Milton in
2024 eroded and destabilized the wetlands further and washed out the shoreline. So they are needing the rock reventment to restore the shoreline. Um they're going to go back in after once they receive the variance. U environmental permitting has been
working very closely with us to approve this uh so that they can restore the wetlands as well once once they can put in the revetment. Uh there are other revetments in the area as well on the neighboring
properties on either side. So this would continue the look and not change the feel of the neighborhood. >> Are there any questions I could answer for you? >> Yes, Miss Bush, you had a question. >> Yes, thank you. Um did the property receive a prior variance to build within
the wetland buffer? Uh it because it to there were two different site plans. One showed that most of that part of that back end of that structure was all within that buffer. >> Um a wetland buffer does not require a variance. It is um with a wetland
alteration permit that's approved by environmental permitting. So, so you can mitigate for any type of impact um as staff reviews for the environmental permitting staff um if you have any impact to your your wetland buffer. So, it's just it's just a
permitting thing. It doesn't go through this board. >> Okay. I swore that we've reviewed cases where Okay, I could be wrong. I guess I am. >> Uh that's all the questions that I have at this time. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Hearing none. is the applicant. You're the applicant. >> One of them. Yes. >> All right. State your name and address for the record. >> Jason Heert, 2229 Old Dixie Highway. >> Okay. You've heard the staff report. Anything you'd like to add to it? >> No. Just again, I want to reiterate what we've heard all today is they were
wonderful, uh, helping us step us through this process, which we don't do ever. So, uh, very helpful. Um, and thank you all. >> Professional, friendly. Okay. >> If you'd like to if any, would you like to speak?
So I'm Ramona Heert, same address 2229 Old Dixie Highway. But I just want to say professional, friendly, very educational. We have learned so much in building this four generation home. Like I am telling you without you guys it would have been impossible. So thank you
very much. >> All right. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Miss Bush, you had a question for the applicant. >> Yes. I'm curious. Um what were the wetland impacts that the contractor made? you want to.
>> So, with us building this home, we went ahead and hired our our builder, Olsson Custom Homes. He went and applied for all the contracts and we submitted everything. We got approval. We actually did not know there was wetland buffer area. In hindsight, we should have
known, but that's hindsight. And so, with us here, it was at a time of growing pains with the county and with our builder. It was like the perfect storm. Builder got cancer. You know, he gave it to the the the
sub, not the sub, he gave it to the superintendent. Um there was somebody who came out and actually went ahead and looked at it from environmental and from the county and said no wetland, no turtis. We actually built then we started working with Julie and she said
there's wetland buffer. And so with that there at that point the house portion had already been approved without environmental looking at it. And so you can you can pay up to 50% into wetland buffer. Um I had called in and spoke with somebody and said hey there's these
pepper trees. Can I get rid of them? They said yes. Didn't know his wetland area. Didn't know. And I thought well okay we could just pull them out. And so there were mistakes on our part on everybody's part. So as far as this here are we learning? Are we making it right?
Yes. Um that part there, the pool and the part that you see in the wetland area, that was all approved in the initial build permit. So this part here, what we're asking for is to do a cocaine reventment, a wave breaker to protect everything that we're going to restore.
Okay. Um and just for the record, I just want to say that your letter was very well written. I had a lot of questions when reading the staff report and a lot of those questions were answered because of how well written your letter was. So, thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for the
applicant? >> Do we have any public participation forms for this case? >> No, sir. >> Okay. We're going to close the floor for public participation of commission discussion. Get you an answer. All right.
Discussion or a motion? Let's go. I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead, Mr. Ch. >> That we approve case number V-26-024 subject to two staff recommended conditions. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor for
Miss Shelley to approve B2624 variances 1 and two with the two staff conditions and a second for Mr. Ersen. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Bush. >> Thank you, chairman. Um, again, I really felt like this did not meet the sniff
test of the variance. Um, the there's some direct language that I'd like to quote from the staff report. It says uh for criteria one, therefore these variances um I'm sorry, this is not criteria one. This is just in general. Therefore, these variances are necessary as a direct direct result of the protective reventment. And I disagree.
um the variances are necessary because the applicant, the contractor and the conditions that happened um destroyed the wetlands or impacted their wetlands which violated the building permits and the other things that it might not have violated building permits but it um violated their wetland permit uh and
requires correction. So no way does that meet any of the special criteria uh special conditions criteria. Um, I'd like to know where in the code does it state literal application of the zoting ordinance would require the applicants to restore wetland impacts without
utilizing coina rock. Is that somewhere? Because it was listed in the staff report that that was the that they weren't able to do this without the rock and that it's the literal interpretation of the zoning code that wouldn't allow them to do it. And I'm not sure why.
So the utilization of the revetment, the revetment is where the waterfront yard is um measured from. So if they were to restore the property and then the mean high water is further out, then that is where the um measurement would be from
for their um waterfront yard. So if the waterfront yard is further into the water, then that's where it would be if there was not a revetment. Now there's a revetment. That's where you're going to be um measuring your waterfront yard from. >> But is the reventment required in the
code for what the implications for what they're dealing with? >> No, she's saying literal interpretation because if they wouldn't have the revetment then they would they wouldn't need a variance because the waterfront yard is further out. >> That that's how that's what she's meaning by what she wrote in the report.
>> Right. So where in the code does it say that the reventment becomes the waterfront yard >> within which portion, Scott? section 72 294 that deals with waterfront yards and also another factor is this property is in the um natural resource management
area. So that prevents or prohibits the use of heart armoring of the shoreline as an alternative to that is a vertical. So the alternative has been with the living shoreline which include a revapment and plantings in front of that as an alternative in the Norma area.
>> Okay. So they can't do a traditional vertical seaw wall. >> So what was that section of the code that you read? >> 72 294 is the waterfront yard >> 72-294. >> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. >> And specifies where the yard is because of the waterfront and how you apply the
setback especially if there is a seaw wall overment. >> Okay. Um and then I I disagree that such variances will be injurous to the area involved. The whole reason that the variance is needed is because there were damage done to the wetlands by the applicant. So granting this variance would, I don't think, be inharmonious
with the surrounding areas because of the wetland destruction. Um, I'm just curious how many other homes have this um that has been implemented to prevent erosion on this stretch of land. And I apologize, I should have asked this earlier.
the two neighboring properties, the ones to either side and an additional one all have rock reboundments. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You can see that from the aerials in the report. >> Okay, >> those are my comments. Thank you. >> Okay, Miss Craig, you had a question
>> or a comment? >> Yeah, it's more of a comment than anything else. I I this happens to be a hot button issue for me with the with the waterfront um modifications basically being made. I feel like the the regulations are there
um for a reason and um it's unfortunate that this was a a natural uh occurrence that that caused this problem. But um I really I really think we need to be very careful about these kinds of uh
variances. That's just basically a comment. >> Okay. And would anyone else like to comment? Okay. We do have a motion on the floor. Uh so we're going to go ahead and take a vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.
>> Any opposed? I I >> Okay. Motion carries 5 to two with Miss Bush and Miss Craig in descent. Okay, Miss Shelley, can I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. Case number Z-25-010,
reszone uh reszoning of portion of property zone transitional agriculture A3s to the neighborhood commercial B2 zoning classification. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley. Miss Ray, this one's yours. Good morning. For the record, Kristen
Ray, Planning and Development Services. So, this is a unique reasonzoning request. I'm just going to start off by saying that. I'll also go through the a little bit of history of the parcel as well. Uh, so the applicant is requesting to reszone a portion of the 3.09 acre
parcel that is currently splitzoned, transitional agriculture, and neighborhood commercial. Currently, the parcel has approximately 2.59 acres of the A3 transitional agriculture and approximately.5 acres of the B2. The
reszoning would increase the acreage of the B2 zoned area to uh sorry, resulting in approximately 1.57 acres of the A3 and 1.52 acres of the B2. Uh the subject property is currently developed with a single family residence
on the southern portion and it is treed and undeveloped on the northern portion. So a little history on the parcel. So prior to 1980, the parcel was zoned general district agriculture A1 which had a minimum lot size requirement of
20,000 square ft. When the unified zoning ordinance was adopted in 1980, the portion uh sorry, the property was zoned transitional agriculture A3. In July of 1989, the previous owners reszoned the northern portion of the
property from the A3 to before general commercial. In that same year, the previous owners applied for a conceptual plan, but decided not to go through with the um site plan process. In April of 1994, an administrative resoning was
approved, changing the B4 zone portion to that current B2, and the previous owners opted to remain A3 instead of changing to R4 like the surrounding area. Uh, prior to the administrative resoning, there was a mixture of A3, R4,
and B4 zoning surrounding the subject parcel. Um along there was a strip of B4 also along uh State Road 472 that got reszoned to the current R4. Um as previously stated, the proposed
resoning would increase the existing B2 zoning from.5 acres to 1.52 acres. Um making the B2 portion of the parcel conforming. The B2 zone has a minimum lot area of one acre and it is currently
non-conforming. Uh the property does have a split future land use designation of ULI and UMI which is urban low intensity and urban medium intensity. Both flu designations allow neighborhood convenience uses and
both zonings are conditionally compatible with the future land use. The applicant's intent is to subdivide the parcel at the zoning lines with the A3 portion on one parcel and the B2 on the other. And staff's recommendation is to forward
the reszoning to county council with recommendation of approval. I'm available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Ray. Miss Bush, you had a question. >> I have a few. Um I'm going to start with I'm again the order of operations. Why are we not reviewing this after the lot split takes place?
>> It's concurrently. He um currently has an overall development plan in place to split the lots. >> Okay. Because normally it I mean correct me if I'm wrong, don't we normally not like to put split zoning on a single parcel? Like don't we normally try to correct those issues when we have zoning
hearings before us? >> Yes, ma'am. Um but yes, he is going through the process concurrently. Um and even if he did do the um overall development plan before, he would get the um if everything is approved, um he would get a notice of intent pending this resoning.
>> Okay. >> So yeah, it's just going kind of hand in hand. >> Okay. Um what does it mean when the zoning is conditionally compatible? >> Um that means that there are um more criteria that we need to look at when
looking at the zoning classification to the future land use designation. So, a part of um the analysis under the um comprehensive plan, I included the um the location criteria. And so, that's kind of that the extra step I need to
evaluate the um the zone the zone the zoning classification to the um future land use. Um, one other thing I the in the staff report there was a property location map
that had some shade of red at the bottom uh left corner and it's unidentified. So, I wanted to make sure I didn't know where that was. >> I'm sorry. Which page on the staff report? >> Pull it up. Hold on.
>> It's at the very bottom. It's all your There it is. It is your subject property map, property location, page 17 of 25. You got some red shade at the bottom of that map, and I would love to know if that's jurisdiction. >> I apologize. Yes, that's um the city of Orange City.
>> Thank you. Um I believe that is my final question for now. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. So, you the applicant? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Would you like to
>> Mark Laauo 1418 East Illinois Avenue born city? >> All right. Would you like to comment on what the staff report? >> I agree with everything they say. I'd like to thank the staff, your staff. Stephen, Yolanda, Kelly, Kimberly, Christian, Laura, Lisa, Kimberly, Todd,
and Monique. They're all phenomenal to help you through this simple process that I thought was simple. It was not simple. But um a previous owner, a friend of mine, my mentor Sandy and Bud Ellis, Bud uh they started this a long
time ago and uh wanted this actually was approved for B4 and um but the health issues stopped him from continuing the situation. Um I bought the property from them a few years ago and um um Jessica had to follow through with what he was
intending to do. He asked me to, so that's why I'm here. >> All right, sir. Any questions for the applicant? >> All right. Do we have any public participation for >> No, sir. >> You'd like to speak, sir? Okay, you can
speak. Come come come forward and give me your name and address and when we're done, if you can just fill out a form and give it to Miss Krennon to my immediate left. >> Hello. How you doing? Um, my name is Lewis Adams. This is my wife Susan. >> Uhhuh. Uh we live on um past Indiana
road which he wants to develop. >> Indiana road is a dirt road. It's a single one lane dirt road and um it's all been zone residential ever since we've been there. We've lived there over 25 years.
>> Okay. And this lot that he wants to develop is right on the entry of the dirt road where all of us live. So, and that dirt road is not maintained by the county. We have to take care of it as residents. So, we're not interested in
any commercial property being any commercials property being there because it's going to create a big traffic flow on that dirt road. And like I say, it's a oneway in one way out dirt road. So, we're like oppose the changing and the
reasoning. >> May we ask what you want to do? >> You can ask us and we'll we'll give him chance for rebuttal and and if I could get you just to have a seat until they they're done. Okay. >> Can we ask what he wants to do with this commercial section?
>> We can ask that. >> Yeah, we'll we'll ask that. Okay. You can ask that. >> Okay. What's the proposed use is? Okay. And I might state it still regardless of when he starts to develop, they'll take all that dirt road in consideration
and he probably won't be allowed to have ingress and eress to the property on that dirt road from that for the commercial side of it for the front side of it. >> That's the only way into the property. It's just the one road all the way down to where we live, which is the end of
the road. >> Okay. But he's the front of the property is on Minnesota. >> I'm sorry. What? >> The front of the property is on Minnesota. >> It's a long property. This side is on Minnesota, but the length of is on
Indiana and that's where we live at the end of Indiana. >> We'll ask staff, but I'm sure this will be addressed during the U development portion of that as far as ingress and egress to your commercial side. >> Okay. And just >> it means the entrance and exit to the
commercial site. >> Just this is a residential area. We're just trying to keep it residential. >> Right. Right. I understand. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> And if you'll fill out a form and give it to Miss Grin, please. I'll give you a
chance for a rebuttal. >> Yeah. That um the entrance would be on Minnesota, not on Indiana. >> Okay. And um I'm the one that maintains the road because the county is supposed to maintain the road but they do not maintain the road. So I grade the road regularly.
>> Okay. And what is your proposed use for the commercial just >> your proposed use? >> Right now um I was going to try to build on it myself. U but it would take B4 because I have a landscape company. I was going to try to build my shop there
but um Mr. Steven here told me he probably would not pass because of the residential area. B2 would be more residential friendly >> and um so right now it'd be just up for sale for for commercial use which I believe you know in the best interest
you know the area around there is growing like crazy. You know 472 is going to become a very populated area soon and there going to be some other businesses probably to support that area in that area. So that's what my thoughts were. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions for
the applicant? >> All right. Do we have any more public participation forms? M >> none. Okay. All right, sir. We're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion and give you an answer in a few moments. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And I might add that this does go to the county council. We're just making a recommendation to the county council for the proposed resoning application. So, there'll be another public hearing
after the pack. Now, if I could get y'all to hold that down back there. Okay. All right. Um, any discussion on this request? I will accept the motion. >> I'll make the motion then. Go ahead
forward um reszoning application case number Z25010 to the county council for final action with recommendation of approval. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. I got a motion on the floor for
Mr. Ersen to forward the resoning application case number Z25010 to the county council for final action with recommendation of approval. And I've got a second from Mr. Costa. Any discussion on the motion, Miss Bush? >> Thank you, chairman. Um, again, I'm
going to I'm going to disagree with staff and say that I do not think that the expansion of the B2 is compatible with the surrounding area. Um, you know, commercial could be more positioned onto 472, which would be more in line with where that commercial should be located
for trip um traffic purposes and keeping um vehicles off that residential um street and other streets. So, um, that is where I stand. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Any other comments?
We do have a motion on the floor, so we're going to go ahead with the vote. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? >> I >> I >> Let's take a roll call, please. >> Member Erien, >> in favor. >> Member Craig?
>> No. >> Member Shelley? >> No. >> Member Costa? Yes. >> Member Bush. >> No. >> Member Sixma. >> No. >> Chair Mills. >> Yes. Motion fails to carry with a >> what is it? Three to four. >> Three to four. Four to three.
>> And can I get a motion for the affirmative then? >> Just >> I will move that we deny 7-25 or not. I don't how would that motion? >> Recommend denial. >> Recommend. Thank you. uh for so um move
to recommend denial for Z25-010. >> Second. >> Okay. I've got a motion on the floor to forward reszoning application case number Z25010 to the county council for final action with a recommendation of a denial from
Miss Bush and a second from Mr. Sixma. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in Well, let's have a roll call, please. Member Eri for denial. >> Yes. >> Member Craig.
>> Yes. >> Member Shelley. >> Yes. >> Member Costa. >> No. >> Member Bush. >> Yes. >> Member Sigma. >> Yes. >> Chair Mills. >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. That's done with that. Miss
Shel, can I get the next case, please? >> Yeah. Well, I guess you can appeal it, right? No, he's it's >> going to council anyway. >> I will state that that last case will go before county council. >> It's just going to go with a
recommendation of denial. >> Miss Shel, could I get the next case, please? >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, got it. Okay. Uh case number PUD2410-0 reszoning from the resource corridor
zoning classification to a planned unit development. >> Thank you, Miss Shelley and Mr. Shams. This one is you. >> Hi, good morning. Steve Steven Shams with uh Bush County Planning. The applicant is proposing to reszone a 67.9
acre rural site from resource corridor to plan unit development. This the intention is to legitimize existing uses on three contiguous parcels that front Lake Harney. These are being combined into one unified building site with an accompanying lot combination.
The site is developed with a approximately 3,000 ft home, a 2100T garage, a 3,400 ft barn with about 1,000t of the barn being designated as an ADU for a caretaker. a lawful
non-conforming 175 ft metal observation tower and an Xshaped asphalt airirst strip. The airirst strip was originally built in 2014 by a previous owner for hobby radiocontrolled aircraft.
It's approximately 59,000 square ft and nearly half of it is located on an adjacent parcel without any known agreements. Um, the current owner purchased the site in 2021 and uses it for personal travel. As part of the PUD agreement, the
property owner has agreed to remove all asphalt from the air strip on both the subject site and the adjacent parcel and restore it to a natural grass strip airrip condition pending FDOT and FAA approval. In the development agreement, the
permitted uses include all agricultural pursuits, one single family home, and one accessory dwelling unit. Uh fixed aircraft, grass landing fields for personal use only, recreational areas, docks and boat ramps, and the existing
observatory tower. Uh we did write a prohibited use that includes aviation fuel storage and dispensary are prohibited. Um the development standards also require 50 foot perimeter setback for all structures except for the existing ADU on the northern property line which
is 35 ft away and also that this may be reduced to zero ft at the end of the grass landing strip as the owner does want it to m to remain in its current location. Um the observatory tower is located
approximately 300 ft from the northern property line. The site is designated environmental systems corridor or ESC due to its environmentally sensitive nature and nearly all 67.9 acres are within a flood plane with numerous wetlands. The proposal complies with ESC
policies by not increasing density be beyond the existing one unit per 25 acres and prohibiting additional development. The proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan as it does not authorize additional development, reduces impervious s surfaces by
removing approximately 59,000 square ft of asphalt, and maintains the majority of the site in an undisturbed natural state to protect flood planes and natural systems. Environmental permitting and county staff review the application and do not object, noting that removing the asphalt and restoring
the area to natural conditions will improve site conditions and reduce adverse impacts, particularly to the adjacent property where half the air strip it currently encroaches. If the PUD is approved by county council, the site will be required to complete a conceptual site
plan application with the planning office. Overall staff recommends forwarding this application to county council with the recommendation of approval and I'm available for comment or question. >> Thank you Mr. Shams. Any questions for the uh staff? Miss Craig,
>> I'm curious about the abuing property that we're part of the airirstrip um feeds over into that section. Does that owner the owner of that property have any um requirements for allowing the use?
>> Well, it it encroaches on their property. I believe those are own that's owned by the Fords. Um so that's a that's a private dispute. Um we cannot approve an encroachment on, you know, another property that is not part of the
application. So we are just looking at, you know, what the current applicant owns. Um, and the presumption is that they're going to remove that encroaching area. >> They're going to remove the encroaching area.
>> Uh, the uh encroaching strip on the >> on the adjacent property. >> Okay. But could the owner of that property then come back in any way and dispute this change? >> Uh, they they would have the same rights as an adjacent property owner um for a
reasonzoning. We are not approving the um uh legitimacy of the encroaching portion of the air strips on on the adjacent property. That's not that's that is something that um the county does not have the authority to grant.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Miss Bush. >> Thank you. Um and I apologize if this was in the staff report and I missed it. Did would the single family home more importantly be permitted today in today's standards with where it's sitted cited? >> Yes, it it does meet the suffax for RC
and it is consistent with um the land use. >> Okay. >> Density. >> Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? >> Good morning, Mr. Watts. Got to get the name and address for the record.
>> Good morning. For the record, Mark Watts with the law firm of Cobb call, 231 North Woodland Boulevard, Dand. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. Um, on behalf of the applicant this morning, um, mad dog, no Englishman, but um, some people will get that. Um, no, I I I this is one of those really kind of
interesting situations. It's not often you're looking through an aerial and you find an accidental air airport um, in the middle of of uh, you know, the county. Um, Stephen, do you have the uh on the staff report the aerial um that you can put back up there that shows the blue parcel boundaries? I think it's
part of the map series in the report. Okay, that that kind of shows it on the on the right. Um, yeah, this this is kind of an interesting situation. Our clients purchased the property as it is today. Um, and then learned after the fact that nothing had ever been permitted with regard to the air strip. It was an evolution of a grass strip
that was used by the prior owner for remote control airplanes. Um, apparently these were large remote control airplanes. They were quarter scale jet um, remote control airplanes. Um, which I seems like drones that we're attacking people with now. But, um, in any event, um, we have worked well with with staff.
I want to thank both your environmental staff and and your planning and zoning staff and Stephen for kind of working through this. Um, this is one of those rare instances when we're not coming and asking you to increase entitlements in any way. Um, we're simply trying to legitimize everything that's there,
ultimately pull it into one parcel. So, you've got basically a family home site. Um, this is a second home for a family that lives in Jacksonville. Um, they happen to be corporate pilots, dad and grandfather or dad and and son. Um, and they have a um, you know, kind of like
the what is it? The Piper Bush type planes, the short takeoff and landing type planes you see going into the back country, you know, you know, all over the place. Um, so that's the type of operations that you would see kind of coming in and out of here just for personal use. So, um, in regard to Miss
Craig, your, uh, question, um, right now they have a cattle lease that covers the full pasture area, so kind of where the rest of the the runway goes off the site, but we don't have any rights and we're not asking to add that air strip use onto the property that's owned by the Fords. In fact, I think that's under
consideration by Valer Forever at this point in time for a conservation acquisition. So, um that um that portion of it would be deconstructed. Um one of the key things in working things through with with environmental staff was they saw the benefit of taking the the
asphalt um out of the you know the areas that it's been laid down in um and just using it utilizing it just as a grass strip. So effectively what you'll have is a cow pasture that uh occasionally planes land on and and as long as they make sure to dodge cows. Um but uh in
any event um again happy to answer any questions you might have. Um it is worth noting um there is actually already an approved um seplane base um by FAA on this property. If you look on the top left corner um you can come in on Lake Carne and land a float plane and pull it
into um the the uh little u boat ramp area that's up on the top left corner of the property. And that's an existing condition as well. So you'll note in the staff report all the things that we're we're going to have to address moving into the site plan to kind of finalize everything through this. So again, stop
there. Happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Okay. Any Miss Bush? >> Um thank you uh for answering this. I one I think the PUD is a very creative solution for the issues that are on this property from an entitlement perspective. Um was were there other
options on the table besides the PUD that you were able to come up with? There really weren't. There's um there's actually sort of precedent for this and and I'll give you a little history on on it. I think I was in eighth grade. Um and I I spent a day walking from Highway
11 uh through Tedar Grove um all the way to Lafayette Landings, which is um a strip that exists in the middle of the Tiger Bay State Forest um and is on private property, but it's a fly-in community with about u eight or 10 home sites that are around it. Uh it's a grass strip, but it was FRZ owned
property. Um, so it was FR instead of RC. Gave us a little bit more flexibility apparently back in the day. Gave my dad a little bit more flexibility to get that approved. Um, you know, as a as a operating air strip. So here we really had to go to the P the PD route to be able to incorporate it in. And it gave us the flexibility to
kind of put some of those other terms in there like the rem you know conditioning the removal of the asphalt and everything else. >> Okay. So >> and the prohibition uh for example the prohibition on storage of aviation fuel and stuff on site that was a um you know something the PUD allows us to do as a vehicle. So
>> yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Okay, Mr. Watts. Thank you. We don't have any public participation forms for this. Do we? >> No, sir. >> We're going to be giving you a decision in just a moment.
>> Okay. I'll take a motion or discussion or whatever we want to do with this. >> I'll be glad to make a motion. >> Go ahead. >> That we approve case number Z-25-010 um to forward this resoning application to
the county council for final action with a recommendation of approval. I've got a motion on the floor to forward the resoning application case number PUB24010 to the county council for the final action with a recommendation of approval
from Miss Shelley and a second for Mr. Sixma. Any discussion on the motion? Miss Bush. >> Thank you, chairman. I feel like that should be a part of your monologue regardless of if you do that and then Miss Bush, right? Um, for the record, I understand the PUB option. Sorry, Mark.
Um, I totally get that. I thought that was a smart move on your part. I am very concerned about the precedent that it sets putting a PUD in conservation land essentially. Um I wasn't aware of the precedent on the forestry um commercial or um the forestry corridor, but I'm that was a long time ago and I'd rather
not set that precedent moving forward. Um uh you know with FDOT's whole airway the you know um sky airway highways that they're planning you know it's going to be a matter of less than a decade before we start seeing more of these types of
airirst strips where personal aviation vehicles can be landed take off and things like that. So personally for me just representing this community and knowing that they don't really want to see changes to land use especially PUDS I am not going to be able to support this. I understand the intent behind it
though, >> Miss Craig. >> Um I am in full agreement with Miss Bush's um concerns on the PUD uh zoning, especially now that um we've been told there's um water taxi access that will
be allowed. that that to me just opens up uh too many options and um and setting a precinent I think would uh would not be in the in the uh um advantage
uh to the current residents. Thank you. >> Okay, any other comments? Okay, we're going to take a vote. All those in f do we want to let's do a >> vote roll call vote.
>> Member >> no. >> Member Craig >> no. >> Member Shelley. >> Yes. >> Member Costa. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Member Bush. >> No. >> Member Sixma. >> Yes. >> Chair Mills? >> Yes. >> Motion carries four to three.
>> Thank you for your time. Mr. Chair, can I offer an editorial comment on the PD? >> Yes. Um In regard to that, sometimes it's the only vehicle available. So, I want to give one other example. Um, are you familiar with Cracker Creek canoeing over on Spruce Creek? >> We did that as a PUB because you didn't
have the flexibility. Even though it's in an environmental area, sometimes you just don't have the flexibility. From a comp plan standpoint, PUDS are conditionally compatible with um uh any of the the ESC or other elements of the comp plan. Again, it gets into the detail. From a precedent standpoint, I
think the important thing to remember is no individual zoning case sets a precedent for another one because they all stand alone, >> right? >> And so they all stand on the particular facts of that case. So those are just I just wanted to offer those those points because knowing, you know, going forward sometimes that's the best vehicle even if it's in an area where you don't
typically see them, but it allows us to put more of those restrictions in place. And Cracker Creek just came to mind when you when you made your made your comment. >> I don't, like I said, I don't argue what why you did the PUD vehicle. I totally agree. And when I looked at that, I was like, of course Mark would come up with that. That's very smart. So I I do not
argue that. I just and I understand the setting the precedent. You know, we should be individually looking at that. But >> we're people and that sometimes doesn't happen and this body changes over time and they can go back and look at cases and say, "Hey, because they agreed to do this >> 20 years ago, we should probably do the
same." And I'm just not willing to set that pre I'm not willing to make that change, >> right, >> because of that reason. >> Yeah. And if memory serves, Lafayette Landing, the other one I mentioned, was actually a special exception. It wasn't a reasonzoning at the time. So, okay, that one actually existed. And again, >> things change. >> I was in eighth grade, probably a little
bit more than 35, 40 years ago. So, >> I wasn't going to put a time there. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> Okay, >> Mr. Mills, if I could, I just want to kind of tag on that so there's no misunderstanding. Lafayette Landing was a special exception because the FR
zoning permits it by special exception. This property is RC and it's not permitted by special exception RC and because of the ESC land use, there is no way to reszone to another classification without doing a lot a a comprehensive plan amendment. So the only feasible
option is the PUD process which is listed as a potential zoning in the ESC land use. >> Absolutely. >> So in that sense, I mean we've had most of our air strips have been in a areas. Uh this is unusual for where it's located, but that's the reason for the
PED is the best vehicle to get there because it's the only vehicle to get there. >> Yeah. Again, not arguing that just what that does in the >> Well, I was just concerned statement of being, you know, president setting. It's just that land use or that zoning in
Lafayette Landing permitted it uh by special exception where in its other egg areas it is by special exception as well. Right. >> This is unique. But remind me that this is the airirst strip use, right? Everything else is fine. It's just that we're trying to codify the air strip use
within a environmentally sensitive land area. So that's again trying to >> we're trying to and we're trying to do after the fact clean up, too. This is the best way to handle that. >> I'm pretty sure Lafayette Landing was one of Scott's first cases. So >> Well, I certainly was around with the
lawsuit to get access to it. >> Okay. All right. Is there any other public items? No, sir. >> Okay. Any staff comments? >> Uh, yes. Actually, we are very sad that
um this is Kimberly's last PLDRC. She's leaving the county on March 6th. >> Quit on it. >> She's off by me. bigger and better things. But we do wish her well and thank you for the time that she spent with us. >> Okay.
>> It's been nice having you. Just got you trained and now you're leaving us. >> You're going. >> Okay. Any other staff comments? >> Um I Well, a few meetings ago, we talked
about the stipend, right? And we are now in budget season and we said we were going to bring that back or you requested to bring it back for discussion. Um so if you still want to bring it back, we're going to make it an agenda item for the March meeting.
If you do not want to bring it back, please say so now and then I will not add it to the March meeting. >> What are we what the statement better let low. >> I believe >> my comment to that is you better let
sleeping dog alone and I'm with you ditto on that. >> Right. >> But I know where Mr. Cost is coming from. He >> we know where Mr. Cost >> I think he second the motion when I made >> Has anyone spoken with any of their uh commissioners? >> I have.
>> You have. And what was the >> I've spoken with two the one directly representing one entire county and they are both Use your mic, please. >> Okay. >> Can you use your mic, please?
>> Oh, sorry. >> Especially if you Yes. So, I spoke to two of the council members and um they weren't like it wasn't a resounding, oh, yeah, no problem. But it wasn't a no either. So, and when when you bring up the timeline that this number has been this way for x amount of years, they
were kind of just like we were when you first brought that up. It's like, really? It's been that long? That number has not changed. >> So, what was your reception, Miss Craig? >> I spoke to my appointed rep and he um I
approached it the way you did. Should we let sleeping dogs lie or should we poke the bear? and um he said rather unhelpfully use your gut. It's it's my um feeling that uh
I think leaving sleep letting sleeping dogs die is perfectly fine. Um for my from my own personal standpoint, you know what how it affects other people. I I could see where someone might have a different opinion, but I'm okay with it as is. Well, don't don't
get me wrong when I say that because I'm willing to go to battle for it. It's just that we may not like the outcome. That's all. And I'm good either way. >> And I want to say that I would put an agenda item for your meeting in March so that you can make a motion and add any
other additional information. So that's what you're discussing right now is if you want me to put it on the agenda to make a final decision >> on it. >> Well, I forewarn you. I'm not going to be here next month. So,
>> I was going to let you know before I left today because comment. >> All right. >> So, I mean, that's it's totally up to you guys to make up your mind. Um, I'll go either way. So, I don't mind going to battle with it. I mean, it doesn't, like
Mr. Cross has said, it doesn't hurt to ask. So, I just want you to know where I'm at. >> What's the worst they're going to do? Take it away. All the They're going to take the entire stipen away. It It's not >> No, I get it. >> Yeah. >> Well, you know, you guys can decide that
in March, right? I go ahead. Go ahead. Put me down for a Yes, I guess. >> All right. >> Okay. Oh, >> I I would love to try. >> Oh, do you want it on the agenda for March? That's the question. >> Our agenda.
>> Our agenda. >> Yeah, we can kick it around. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm not going to be here. Do we want to >> You already said yes. >> Do we want to check with everybody because I I feel differently and I would like to have that opportunity. >> Um I don't think we put it on the
agenda. I have reached out to the person who appointed me. I've not heard back. Um I let them know how I felt about it. Um so I just at this time I just don't that's my personal opinion. I would like to hear from everyone else as well.
>> Okay. on the agenda portion. If it wants to go on the agenda, that's what we're discussing at the moment. >> Right. >> For us to open up the discussion on our floor. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Do you guys want on the agenda? >> Give me a yes or no. >> You want to what's >> I mean my my vote is leave as is, but
>> Well, I mean, they can you can talk about it and listen to the discussion if you want it on the agenda is what she's saying. Yeah. >> Where you at, Mr. >> No. >> No. No. >> I originally made the motion and I think
differently now. >> Oh, I haven't changed. Absolutely. Yes. >> Be a yes because I'm not going to be here. So, >> I mean I mean you already got a vote right here. So, you're looking at uh what four to four to two against. So it pretty much dies even if we put it on
the agenda for a formal vote. >> Yeah. >> You know, I've never backed away from a fight. So I'm I'm still a yes. Well, but the majority rules, that's how we this is democracy, right? >> Right. Well, I don't mind taking it to the council. >> Yeah. You know, I will >> with the assumption that we're gonna
>> Well, they certainly wouldn't do it unless we >> we're gonna get something out of it because I like I not to put it on I hate to debate it now, >> but >> not to put on the agenda, this is something what I say back since ' 86.
>> Mhm. >> It hasn't changed. >> Yeah. >> So, it's not like we're asking for something that that is just out of this world. And uh I know especially you guys coming from the uh east side
>> over here >> there are expenses involved you know and I know that we're not covering our expenses because I'm not doing it on my side. >> So you want it on the agenda and >> one more time I'm not hearing a consensus. So I think to put on the
agenda I I would recommend that it be a vote. >> Okay. >> Vote it up and down. Yeah. >> Okay. Let's vote it. Mr. >> I recommend that it be a vote because I'm not hearing a consensus from the entire board on whether or not to put something on the agenda.
>> Okay. This is just to put it on the agenda. Mr. Ers, I mean, go ahead. >> I make a motion to remove it. >> Well, it's not even on right this Well, it's an old business. >> It's never been >> We're just It's only ever been a discussion item.
>> Okay. I see. >> Yes. And so I'm saying that I would like to put it on the agenda if you all have a consensus of doing it and legal is saying that you all should take a vote now to identify if you want to put it on the agenda or not. >> I vote not in favor.
>> Well, there's no motion. First off, >> I'll say yes. Put it on the agenda. >> I have no problem with putting on the agenda. >> Same. Put it on. I feel like it's a wasted effort. So, no.
>> If you guys want it, we can look at it, but I think you know our answer. >> Well, I won't put the yes so y'all can talk. Y'all can hash it out. >> Just let me know the outcome. >> Thank you. I'll Yeah, I'll text you. >> Send me to the woods.
>> All right. We will have it on the March agenda. >> Okay. And then uh updates. If you were uh listening to county council's meeting on Tuesday, they ruled on the appeal of this commission's order regarding the um
location of the dog kennel. So they um granted the appeal and for at least for the kennel portion, they have uh reversed the decision of this PLDRC and basically denied that portion. So the um the applicant and the owner um would
have to uh remove the kennel and locate it 5 ft from the property line. Uh due to a change of the code, uh accessory structures below a certain size no longer require permit. So they just need to
pour a different slab and then construct the the panel. Okay. And along the lines of that, Mr. Sora, I wanted to I know I voted no on that to begin with, but my thought on
that was is that I felt from the information that we received during the hearing that there was still an ongoing code violation. even though we weren't considering the code violation, we were seeing I wasn't going to facilitate a
variance that was still doing the wrong thing. And that was my the reason the only reason that I did that. Um obviously uh council must have thought the same way but um I don't know that
wasn't the reasoning behind it though as far as they were doing on a rule. But from my the from what I was hearing >> so my understanding is it did go through code enforcement uh previously and that
they had stopped breeding and that they had stopped advertising um or stopped the use of the the hobby breeding component which is not an allowed use unless you get a special exception. Um so and
let's see what else. Um, and I think there were multiple issues or multiple complaints on a noise level, >> but I don't believe any of those has been sustained on because the barking has to persist for a certain amount of
time. Um so uh you know at the meeting we said if there are existing code violations such as they are actually engaging in uh an illegal hobby breeding activity or noise persists um that is
independent and file a complaint regardless of the decision on the variance. So if you grant the variance you're still subject to noise and that restriction. If you deny the variance, same rules apply, but a person gets to have five personal dogs and they get to
have a dog house at least, you know, minimum five feet from the property line. >> In saying that, it's not a right to have a variance though either. Yes. >> And I wasn't going to facilitate an ongoing code violation. >> That's where I'm at on that. Not because of where I was at, you know, the the
distance itself. And I know that most people looked at it because I did when I first saw it. I said, 'Why not let him do that? But then after I heard the presentation here and also at the council meeting, that's I just wasn't
willing to facilitate the um the code violations and that's that's where I felt and that's just my opinion. I wanted to explain why I felt that way. Okay. All right. Any other staff comments?
>> No, sir. Commission comments. Do we have any, Miss Bush? >> Yeah, I I wanted to comment I made a lot of comments on the staff analysis this time around and um I know that we have a lot of newer staff that are still learning a lot of the the requirements
and things, but I would really like um I don't know if you I know you have a review process, but some additional review to make sure that we don't have some of the errors just I mean there were like future land use chain errors that were in there. or some of the recommendations were incorrect. I just felt like there was a lot of issues with
the staff reports the way that they were written. And then of course the special conditions and how those were presented. I really felt like for commercial side, they were very much in favor of it. And on the residential side, it was denial. And I've just seen that trend. Um, and it it shouldn't be based on that. It
should absolutely be based on the code. And I'm just not seeing that. And that's why I'm being very vocal about my opposition to staff's analysis. So I would just love a further review. The other thing too, I'm AICP certified, so ethics is like a big deal for a certified planner. Some of the things
that were presented in there, I don't felt like I mean could argue ethics is is very um you know um situational, but I I really felt like if someone with AICP would have written that staff report, it would have been written differently. And I think the conditions and the way that that analysis would
have been done would might have been a little different. That's just my interpretation um in my experience of writing staff reports and going through the variance process um at the various positions that I serve. So that's my only comment and just would like further review of those staff reports so we don't have some of those issues. Thank
you. >> U mayor comment on that. Miss Bush, in meeting the criteria, if you see a a problem with the staff report or anything to debate it at the meeting, you I feel
that you could reach out to staff and debate that there before it got >> I did on one of them um and the they updated the staff report um without track changes and to I didn't know what those changes were. So, um, Scott,
actually, not Scott, I'm sorry. Steven got back to me with what those changes were to the analysis, but I still didn't agree, which is why I wanted to make that vocal on this board. >> Um, so if I do find that there are issues, I absolutely reach out to staff, and I've done that on multiple occasions. This was just really
excessive, and I didn't have a chance to reach out on the other two that I felt weren't um uh supportive of that analysis. Um, and so I didn't have the time to send that to them. And I I think that um we appreciate you reaching out and letting us know of any errors in the staff report. We have changed some of
our internal um processes to address those. Um if you could let us know more than two days before the meeting that would be very great. We all have internal deadlines we're trying to meet for other projects. Um we did I don't know if we talked about on this board but all of our planners now are full
project managers from you know initial concept of a pre-application all the way through final site inspection for development projects. So their um work load has changed since um they we have done a bit of reorganization. Um so keep
in mind the time frame. If you have those please let us know a little bit more in advance. Um, and then we could give you more of a detailed analysis on what changed. Um, and in in this case scenario, it was the wrong staff report that was posted. So there wasn't a track
changes that was done. It was just a new one was posted because it was the wrong one that was there in the first place >> because I just don't feel comfortable about putting staff on the hot seat during a meeting. you know, I mean, it didn't have to explain that maybe they
could have been preempted before the meeting. That's all I all I'm asking is to reach out to staff and try to if you can't get it earned out, we can you then you're more than welcome because I respect your your your conversations on those. >> Thank you. >> Okay. U the other thing is um I don't
know if the other members of the board, but I received an invitation. I know I asked and I two others did for the club crest win um ribbon cutting. Uh I just want to advise
>> and I'll let Mr. story to talk about because we do have a case coming up out there in relationship very close proximity to that about attending this and in sunshine. So I would recommend that you do not discuss um applications
that may or may come may or may not come before you for consideration not only amongst yourself. It's obviously um if multiple members of the PLDRC are going there. Let's let's just advertise that ribbon cutting um and we'll may have
someone there just to make sure you're protected on the sunshine issue. So, you know, in the event there's, you know, someone takes a picture and two more two of you show up in the same picture, no big deal. That's like this is an advertised meeting. I would recommend not having a discussion on um future
applications with uh members of the public. Um one, you'd have to disclose it as expart communication. Um, two, you know, it could rise to the level of a due process issue if you indicate how you are going to vote or indicate, you
know, um, anything other than the evidence that will be presented in the staff report by public at uh, uh, the actual public hearing. >> Okay. >> So, um, and Mr. Mills, when was the ribbon cutting so we can >> I think it's next Tuesday, is it not,
Miss Shelley? next Tuesday. >> Okay. So, we'll >> I'm not saying don't go, but what I am saying is we do have an upcoming and you can get into a discussion there and before you know it, you're drawn in and because you know it may look
not the best, you know. >> So, um is are more than one of you planning to attend that ribbon cutting? I know Mr. Mills. All right. Is anyone else gonna >> I probably will because I've got some
>> So, we'll go ahead and put something on um the PLDRC calendar saying that one or two members of the PLDRC are may attend and participate um so that we're clear from a sunshine issue. Uh, I would recommend that you not discuss any future applications that may come before
this um board with members of the public or amongst yourself just to make sure we've got a a clean record if that item comes before you >> because I do know that there is a petition going around in that area right there specifically right next door to
that area. And uh I just don't want to get us into a bind here and I just want to make that to the other members of the commission before they attend it. That's all. Okay. The other thing is I'm not going to be here next month and
>> Mr. Costa, it's all yours. >> All right, Miss Shelly, I think then it falls into your seat. But okay, any other commission comments? any present citizen comments. >> I just wanted to follow up real quick,
chairman. I forwarded that invite to you all so that you have it for um sunshine purposes. >> Um I do have another question. Sorry, real quick. Um you had mentioned that we shouldn't have discussions about items coming before us in the future. I'm not
sure how to find that out. So is there a way how do I know that something's going to come before us in the future? Right. You don't. So, >> well, the only reason I just I didn't hear this is something that I've seen on social media with the petition, >> okay? >> And I know what's coming, >> okay?
>> You know, I'm involved in the community and I and it's it's going to be a hotly debated issue, >> okay? >> So, I just want to keep anyone from, you know, getting themselves in a quagmire there with two PLDRC members and then it's going to be before us and and then
that being brought up in the future. you know, you already made a decision. You was at this event, you know, and so that's I'm just trying to eliminate any problems down the road. >> When is when is that particular issue
going to come before us? >> I have no idea. >> Don't know. >> It's not on the agenda, >> but it's kind of >> I think it's just in an application stage right now. So there's it's I think a special right now in its current form, it is a special exception for a truck
stop. thought. Yeah, >> now I know what you're talking about. >> So that's um so uh current incomplete application, but you know, a lot of these things go to this PLDRC for your final determination. Um so that's
that's why so um for development things just basically assume that most unless it's a resoning most things will stop at this that the PLLDRC >> I think that meeting we're all sick
>> I'll be here >> that's going to be a hot meeting >> I'll be here >> no it'll be fine >> okay all right anything else this meeting's It's a journal. >> So you got on your agenda that you got to convince.
>> No, but it is a principle. Yeah. Yeah, Emily's got to get that. >> Yeah. So >> 6,000 a year but at least expenses expenses this morning came in less afternoon she go to that was on the company
and we've done the same trip. I mean, we're not, >> you know, >> well, the O'Reilly thing is that the fact of the matter is >> it's hard to compare some on 15A when you got numerous ones,
then you got one up there in Leon Springs that's in the middle of nowhere. >> Right. Right. Right. And servicing a different market. That's the whole thing. Servicing, it's servicing a market that has no other alternative. So I think that's what she says. >> I want to stop that crap there. That's
uncalled for. >> Well, yeah, >> that's reflected by the report. So that's >> she needs to take it up. >> Take it up with staff meeting. You know, this is not the place for
>> we tour. I seen the bus out there. Is that was there a bus out there? >> No. Hey, Kelly. Thanks for your humor today. That was great. >> Hey, I I guess you're coming back, right? >> You did good, though. >> I hear you're coming back.
>> Are y'all bringing Yolanda back? Y'all bringing Yolanda back? >> Where is she at? >> What are you doing, girl? Leaving us. >> I'm running. >> Where are you going? >> I'm buying the marketplace at Rivertown. Dash. I don't know if you know it.
>> Um, do you know where >> everybody's going? Everybody's leaving. >> Bananas >> or >> Oh, yeah. I know what you're talking about. >> Is a threetory vintage mall. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm buying it. >> Oh, really? >> Perfect. Oh, and this one.
>> Everybody keeps rotating or rotating out. Yeah. >> When are you going to bring one of my >> We We got We We got We got three new calf, too. I should bring the calf in. >> December. >> Sorry. >> I thought you was changing something.
>> Alaska. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. >> We got We got three new babies. Oh, here's your uh public participation forum. >> Kelly bread and donuts. Go ahead. >> I need to I need to >> What's that?
>> I'm gonna call out O Riley. >> Crazy. Good to see you. >> Bye, guys. We'll send you everything call. Are they? >> I didn't know that.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. >> I'm assuming >> building truck washes. >> My used to be a professor, you know. So, um, so he that's why I'm like >> knowledgeable.
Yeah, >> it's always been like council for what I've always for years. >> We had a system, but now >> they did that big study and identified I think four or five locations. I mean
again I Yeah, in district five. So that's why I knew it was coming. I think they're bullying >> they have to stop. Yeah. They have to Yeah. They need to rest and if they don't have places to do so and they run out and they they're not allowed to go any further. >> Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
>> So interesting. Okay. Now I'm caught up on all >> but that project has it's going through it. That's another issue. >> Yeah, I think it's all a study lane and they're they're working independently with engineering. >> Okay.
>> We had a technical review meeting and they kind of engineer. >> Yeah. With how they were showing >> they have to go specialite.
It would be pretty heavily >> at the But you have your technical review. >> We've already done >> we do that in order to make sure that we don't want a big change in the concept plan because engineering didn't look at
it or because traffic didn't look at it right. This is See you later. So it's it's good. We are Okay. >> Yeah. >> But I do
I think it will I know So the reason It was a bit >> That's You have that exact job. I appreciate that.
>> So yeah. Right. >> Yeah. And I worked through it. >> I figured >> because better part of a read will provide
I have a I have a right hand that I bring back. Make sure they're already very Yeah, I understand. That's fine. >> So, Awesome. Well, thank you guys. I appreciate
Awesome. Thank you guys so much. I appreciate it. >> Yeah. Can I go this way? >> Oh, I be involved. You might want to know. This is that when I Chad got the nuance. So
these two looks like based on this All we want this is six to seven acres down here. This is 12 acorically. They're already
It's all the next I mean, I think I think after. Well, yes. I have may have exist an Facebook. >> That's all I want. I just want to be
able to get maybe one year. >> Here's a question. I've got one next to me. Are you right now? I'm done. Okay, I want to I think I can tell. I can get
Yeah. Well, everybody's >> What's interesting? That's the way that the brokers, you know, And we can make it effectively sitting next