d [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] to e e e e e e e e e the April 18th 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regul commission has now called to order and if I could please have everyone silence any audible devices that you may have and if you could please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all good morning everyone I would like to thank you for joining us this morning and u m Tucker could I please have the roll call good morning members Donna Craig member Bender here member Shelly here member Costa here member Patterson is absent and member sixma here and chair Mills here thank you Miss Tucker uh we do have minutes from the March 21st 2024 meeting any discussion on the minutes I'll accept the motion I make a motion to approve the March 21st 2024 minutes second I've got a motion to approve the March 21 2024 minutes Shelly and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay if anyone would like to speak for against any of the cases being heard today if you could please fill out a form at the rear of the dis here and hand it to Miss Tucker to to my immediate left here uh we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit and then after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the Commissioners may have and at this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair this is for members of the public and for the applicants that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone Real Property from one classification to another pursuant to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and do not constitute a final hearing so new evidence may be introduced at the County Council public hearing however decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action subject to an appeal to the County Council and what this means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the County Council public hearing on the appeal an agree red party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body hearings by this body on rezonings special exceptions and variances are Quasi judicial in nature meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral written or demonstrative evidence presented their decisions on these cases must be based on 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 Sor and while we're on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any exper Communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quad judicial Manner and I'll start with Miss Craig to my immediate right none none none none and I have none okay do we have any items to be continued or withdrawn Miss Smith do we no sir thank you okay we're moving uh right into our unfinished old business and if Miss I get Miss shelle to read the first case in please yes sir case number v-24 d019 a variance to reduce minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R9 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Mr Shams this one's yours hi good morning Stephen Shams with planning um so the applicant's property is zoned R9 and it is considered a through lot as it is subject to a front yard on the east and west side the applicant is seeking one variant to reduce the East front yard for a new home uh this would reduce the East front yard uh East rear yard my mistake from 20 feet to 17 ft um they're building a new home on a through lot and the home is oriented towards the West Side um that would be pointed down on the site plan the site is also flag shaped so the east side is subject to a rear yard and a front yard the area in question is near the rear yard and R9 requires a 20ft rear yard setback um the home is able to meet the front yard requirement of 25 ft off of Central Avenue but it encroaches 3 feet into the rear um overall staff recommends denial as the variances failed to meet four the five criteria uh should appeal the RC find evidence to approve staff recommends two conditions one is to meet the requirements of the Indian River Lagoon surface water improvements and management overlay Zone and that is limited to the size and location of the structure as shown on the VAR ins sight plan and I'm available for comments or questions thank you Mr Shams any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record sure uh my name is Dave glunt with Spruce Creek Civil Engineering we're located at 1982 State Road 44 uh site 360 new spner Beach Florida 32168 um I would just like to uh take a brief moment to give you a little bit of history on the property uh my client uh Mr Rea has bought the property it is a flag lot configuration it does meet the minimum width requirement of 75 fet for the zoning District it is also uh meeting the minimum lot area which is 7500 Square ft due to the configuration of the lot and having double Frontage on uh South Atlantic and on A1A um because of that configuration the the when the parel was split the neighbor to the north also has the same configuration with uh with the when you look at the character of the surrounding area most of the lots that meet the minimum width and area requirements are more rectangular Lots which are um 75 ft by 100 foot yielding the the um 7500 square foot with that and taking into account the 35% maximum building footprint a typical lot out there can build a pad that is 60x 43 60 ft by 43 ft when you look at some of the non-conforming Lots out there with the 50 Foot there's some 50 foot by 100 foot small 5,000 squ foot non-conforming Lots taking into account again the 35% maximum building coverage they can build a pad that is 36t by 48 and2 ft deep uh with with the proposed site plan we're asking for the 3 foot variance so that we can build a 32 foot 8 in uh uh deep home which is more in line with the character of the surrounding area so as far as the uh the five conditions I think staff agreed that we meet the fifth condition and I would just like to say that um in looking at these conditions I can briefly go over these if if the if the uh is there any that you're in disagreement with I'm in disagreement ment with 1 through four one through four yes sir so the special conditions and circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the land obviously it's the flag shaped lot it's a peculiar shaped lot it's not in character with the other rectangular Lots um looking in a one M radius I saw about four lots that were configured in this manner the neighbor to the north of the property which is the other flag lot um has also requested a variance in the past which was approved by this board and he had a setback reduction of 17 ft the uh the owner of this property Mr Reva actually knows the the owner of the adjacent property and uh feels that there would be no no um objection to the variance giving a distance of 34t between the two rear uh Brewer yard homes um so as far as the first condition we feel that that the circumstances that exist are the configuration of of the uh the property the L-shaped lot you know yields to a very narrow building which is out of character with all of the surrounding buildings that we've been able to look at in that area and as I said even a 50ft non-conforming lot can build a house that's 36t in w we're asking for 325 I don't mean to interrupt you but what I was talking about was the two conditions in the event that it were to be approved on page five on page five yeah you're going through the criteria yeah what I'm looking at is the two conditions of the of the landscape and storm water requirements of the Indian River Lagoon and also the the variance is limited the size of the location and propos structure those are the two conditions I was talking about so uh in the event it was approved yes we Have No objection to meeting the uh storm water requirements M those are pretty standard for for all new developments all new homes built in that area um that shouldn't give us any heartburn to meet those requirements okay the the other is uh the variance is limited to the size and location of the proposed structure um yeah we we as long as we can have this 60 foot wide by 32 foot deep variance uh we will adhere to that um you know I mean sorry the 60t wide by 32 8 in pad size we can strictly adhere to that it's just that the 32t pad size gives us a little bit more flexibility on designing the interior space and given the size of the homes that are that are nearby we would we would feel that having this flexibility would increase the value of this home which would not diminish the values of the neighboring home which are quite larger because they're on 75 by 150t Deep Lots I understand that but what I'm saying is is your your site plan whatever you submitted on your site plan yes sir that's where it's limiting you to you understand that yes sir that's the point of yes okay Mr C you had a question yeah just I'm curious uh why did you not um just slide it further back and ask for a variance on the on the heavier side and the 20 foot side rather than the the 25t side rather than the 20ft side of the house well there's some other circumstance there it it we felt that that um since the variance was granted to the neighbor for the same uh got removal of setback that we felt that that would be um something that would be easier to uh you know get approved basically okay plus um A1A could be a busy road and um if that is the the frontage obviously you know without a lot of landscape you're probably going to have some road noise from that road since it's got more trips per day than South Atlantic what is that and I can't tell from this layup but what's the distance from the from South Atlantic to the front of the house on that flag the flag 2T 25 ft total oh no from South Atlantic yeah from the road cuz you got look like you have a long driveway to the house from the road correct on the flag yes sir let me look on the flag arm I should say it's 75 ft 75 okay well 75 to where where it jogs over so then that's another 17 ft so you're still you're still 72 ft basically y give or take okay that's all the questions I had okay we any other questions for Miss Craig um you mentioned that there are four other Lots in the area that are the same configuration have they been um have they been built on or they one appears that it's been built on and it looks like they had some uh uh looks like they had gotten a variance on their sidey guard setback so they got more square footage by going to the side I believe they also own the lot next door which has a long driveway through it but no structure so I'm not really sure what the history of that parcel is but that looks like the only one of those L-shaped lots that has any kind of development on it thank you any other questions for the applic do we have any public request okay all right sir we're going to close the floor anybody would like to speak to this case close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion it looks like there's like at least four of those flag shape plots just on that one block alone so um saying that I am ready to make a motion uh case B2 4019 I will make a motion for approval with the two staff recommendations second okay I've got a motion for Mr sixma to approve the variance for V 24019 with the two conditions of Staff recommendation and um a second for Mr Costa any uh discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shell could I get the next one please for the record uh we have a member that showed up late oh yeah yeah Mr Patterson is here he's in room morning fighting that 44 traffic right fighting that 44 traffic okay Miss Shell could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 d025 variance to increase maximum fence height requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you Miss Shelly Mr Shams this one is yours also uh good morning this Steve Shams with planning um so the property is zoned R4 and due to existing roadways and ploted rways it has four front yards so the applicant is seeking three variances for a new six- foot fence along the northeast and Southern uh property lines um variance one is to increase maximum fence height from four to six feet uh variance two is to increase maximum fence height on four to six feet for the East front yard and variance three is for Max to increase maximum fence height from four to 6 feet on the south front yard so they're seeking the variances to include ensure safety of pets children and property um so R4 requires a 25 foot front yard and since they are requesting a six foot F fence on the property line and also from the property line to the home you can see that in on the the north side and the South Side um variances are required so they're proposing uh wooden board fences to be located along the easternmost 40 feet of the North Front the entire 100 ft of the East front and the eastern most 47 ft of the South front and it also includes the segment that connect the perimeter to the house and these segments also include Gates so it's there are two 5 foot Gates um overall staff recommends denial as they fail to meet the criteria variance one fails four or five and variances two and three fail three or five um but should the staff uh should pdrc find evidence to approve staff recommends uh one condition that they are limited to the size and location of the proposed fences on the variant site plan and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr Shams any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present good morning sir can I get your name and address for the record Robert shapo 1615 18th Street orang City Florida 32763 okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to it um yeah the it's got the front yard one side um I guess it would be the the north side of the property um there is a road on that side the east side is um it's like a backyard where the properties meet there's never going to be a road going through there um and then the other side of the yard is kind of the same thing where the properties meet they never be any roads to there so they want to have their sixo fence in order to keep their uh pets and their children safe and property safe as well okay any questions for the applicant all right this driveway is coming in on the side of the house is that what that is on the 19th Street um it's technically yeah technically I guess it's the side of the house because their address is the land and not 19th so do they access your driveway through 19th or the land Avenue um the driveway is on Dand Avenue no I'm sorry the driveway is on 19th Street 19th Street yes okay and you don't feel that that six foot fence would obstruct their view coming out of their driveway no not at all what type of fencing is it uh wood for on board okay any questions for the app do we have anybody to speak to this case okay thank you sir thank you is there anyone here like to speak to this case if not we're going to close the floor for public uh participation open up for commission discussion I'll be glad to make a motion um Mr chair I don't know if the thing working Mr B wa request I request uh okay request to speak that's I pressed the wrong button that's what the problem was oh there it is there see it now huh I got to pay attention to that I got a problem of the all right and in in looking at this um de I guess staff was there any concerns from the neighbors or anything like that no sir no then my only other concern is I would be okay with it if it came up and went across to what where the home is instead of uh all the way out to the street because just changing putting the fence up like that I think is changing the character of that neighborhood and stuff by putting such a large fence all the way up to the road uh taking up that front yard so I don't if you can explain why that has to be and I don't know why it shows because it doesn't actually go to the road goes about I don't know 8 or 10 ft before the road it goes just the property line which there's an easement between the property line and the road itself right well I'm I'm still thinking that's changing the character of the neighborhood to put up such a large fence in that front the people across the street from them have the same fence the same same fence all the way out okay and it's on the same side the same 19th side that that it's going to be on as well okay okay that answer your question Mr Bender okay apologize for that okay I don't sure anybody else wanting to speak I I will we just real quick um and I think if there was concern about this neighbors would be out at least voicing their opinion on this but maybe not okay they have the opportunity okay I move it I'm ready okay you move for for a motion I move the case number v-24 d025 variance to increase maximum fence height requirements on Urban single family residential R4 Zed property be approved subject to the staff comment one staff I'll second okay I've got a motion to approve variances 1 two and three for V 24025 with the one ition from staff and from Miss Shell and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously M sh all right that does it for the old business doesn't it let me look here yep okay Michelle now we're going to go into our new business Michelle could I get the first case please yes sir case number v-24 d030 variances to the minimum yard requirements on planned unit development PUD zoned property thank you Miss Shelly and this Miss Ray good morning the applicants are seeking variances U for a proposed pool and screen enclosure within the Halifax Plantation plan unit development uh variance one is to reduce the East Side Street setback from 20 ft to 0t feet and variance two is to allow the proposed pool within the front yard uh the subject property is triangular in shape um and it is also a corner lot it so it is subject to two front yards and one side yard um fronting um mogen drive and then this unopen ploted side street of ported down street um the property um does have a 10-ft uh drainage easement bordering the uh east and south side of the property uh setbacks are measured from the easement line that's why it is proposed to the zero um to Zer feet however uh the pool is proposed to be 10t off the property line uh staff's recommendation is for denial however should the plgc find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence one condition was provided for consideration I'm available for questions thank you m Ray any questions for staff Mr Bender um what's the possibility have they ever looked at um pter down being opened up I'm not sure I don't it goes to a vacant um property to the north um owned by vucha County um but I haven't seen anything about that being open okay so it's leading to County owned property okay and then it seems like there's a utility easement of some sort that's off to the east yes sir okay thank you okay any other questions for staff is the applicant present could I get your name and address for the record sir yeah it's Warren trimmer 2821 monah Drive waron Beach Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to that uh I have a couple things when I bought the property back in uh November 17th from Dr Horton the salespeople told us that road would never be built because they tried to buy that property behind us and the county said that is wetlands and Forever Wild property that road would never be built I asked the salesperson at that point I would like to put a pool in he explained to me that is an oversized lot you would never have a problem with that so I went to try to get a ver get a pool and I ran across that that could be a road possibly a road all my neighbors have been told the same thing that would never be built back there because it's Wetlands so all I'm asking for is I like to put a pool in my backyard and I like to put a normal looking l i in it I'm not putting oversized pool I'd just like to get one that would look normal in my backyard uh the pull I'd like to put in I would need a variance of I don't know is it 12 feet I think the 12 foot one would be the one I would be looking for which means I need a like a 10- foot setep back I've had quite a few of my neighbors all stop and ask me about the variant sign that's in my front yard front yard they all mentioned if there if anybody if I would like to have anybody write a letter or any to you on my behalf I told him no because I've never been to something like this so I didn't know what I was up against okay of course I'm it's not that bad oh it's been very pleasant so far well my concern is if I don't get a set of variant my pool my lenai area is going to be chopped off and it's not going to be very appealing to sell the property with that Lai having a 45 degree chop off on it I've looked on Google Maps over the whole area and I don't see another one in a square mile that got a chopped off Leni I would just like to put a normal looking pool not a large pool I think my pool's going to be something like uh 13 ft wide by 20 ft long which I think is pretty small it's not and I'm not looking to get anything bigger but I would just like to look make it look nice appealing uh one thing I did notice it you had that my property has got a 3,000 square foot home on it my my home is only 20 2,000 and feet 2,000 maybe 100 m it's not 3,000 square foot house okay okay let's see what we we can do for you I appreciate it okay any questions for the applicant M Mr cost so my question is this you mentioned the 45 cut off if I'm looking at this correctly the variance if granted would require you to have that 45 angle on that screen room on that Leni yes that's what it that's how would that's what would the finished product would look like what I'm seeing up on the screen correct in other words you're not going to have a 90° angle with those two meet I can only I only see what what was submitted for for variance so right okay well this is what it would actually look like if you want to submit that for the record you will not get it back though that's perfectly fine it's not what I'm hoping for go ahead yeah I just want to clarify that point cuz you're talking about building a standard uh rectangular Leni but I'm looking on this variance uh site plan it would require you to give you that zero variance that you want zero feet you'd have to cut it off at a 45° angle on that corner I want to make sure you're aware of that that that's basically what I'm unless I'm misinterpreting something here no that's what he was saying are you saying if I get a like a 10- foot variance well if you get the Varian is being asked for is from 20 to zero is that correct on the east side street that's what we're looking at variance number one he's got two angle cuts on both sides see on that depiction there on the depletion there Mr up here yeah you see how he's got that little cut there m okay that's a zero variance right there yes I'm asking oh yeah asking him you realize we talking about you can't Square it off simply because you got the variance that's what Mr cost is trying to get at y yes understand that okay all right just as long as you're aware of that that's the main thing I want to make sure yeah I was a little confused on that one okay so this one here is what I'm hoping I can get which is like a 10- foot variance it's only got a little bit of a 45 cut off all right we well we're we're going by what is what was submitted this is what was submitted Mr chair I think we need to to clarify a few things um so I I I think there there's there's a potential error in the way it was described um the the variance is actually 10t from the property line because um no matter what you do we we can't allow a structure in that 10-ft utility easement right so it would be instead of zero feet from the property line it's actually 10t from the property line and Zer feet from the utility I was going to make comment of that I saw that in there that the zero setback is actually to the easement line there rather than that actual property L yes yeah and and normally we would say we would measure from a an access easement you know we treat it the same way as the rideway this is not an access eement this is this is a utility eement for uh gas for cable for yeah I was going to make mention of that I saw that on here so your actual variance is actually 10 foot if you want to look from the property line but it's a zero if you look from the eement yes we we just like to clarify for the record it's 10t from the property line is is the actual requested variance okay and even the requested it's still going to have can we go back to the site plan please you're still going to have to have make that 45 cut to make it fit in that in that with that yes because otherwise it would be encroaching in the utility easement so that that has basically that's what the final product should look like he yes he can build up to to to there okay he can he can reduce the Leni and square it off if he wants to which you know would still require an encroachment in the front yard but he can't go into to the utility understood okay so that zero feet setback is to the easement yeah is to the easement not actually to your property line okay okay you understand what we're saying here we'll be C because you can't go into the easement regardless it's not going to be when I was told I had to have stay off that I had to be in 20 fet on my property line now you're saying 10 ft if you get the variant with the Vari well that I'd be very happy with that that's what we're saying yes that's what that's what we're looking at according to what we're looking at that's what that is right there okay okay so all right it's not to it's not zero to the property line it's zero to that easement easement y okay okay long as we're clear on this and the easement is 10 foot off the property line so may I ask if this is what you're well I can't go by that U I have to go by what your actual variance is so whenever you get ready to lay your pool out you need to understand that you can't go any closer than what that easement is the 10 ft okay from the from the property line okay everything right yeah yeah it's 10 ft from the proper that includes it's zero feet up to the easement to the EAS Zer feet up to the easement so okay yeah I I just want to make sure that uh on the variance one that on the the way we have it written here is actually correct CU it's saying from 20t to 0 feet for the proposed pool and screen enclosure so it's 20t from the property line that's not we're not giving them zero to the property line correct correct it's measured from the easement line so it's 10 ft off the property line still so is that 20 foot the way this variance one is written should that not be 10 foot yeah that's what my question should have been read when the proper taking Zero from the property line no I was looking at that in yes yes if your measurement if your point of measurement is from from the property line and yes the requested variance would be to encroach in to 10 ft from the property line okay so that's what I'm asking so variance one we need to correct that yes to to read 10 ft yes 10 ft from the property got it 10t from the property that's what I was now now we're cooking okay okay so you you see where we're at with this I believe I am it's all the technical part I was screwed up because of that 20 fet well I understand but the 10 ft makes it a lot nicer looking they were looking at 10 to the easement 10 to the property from the easement to the property line you got a 10 foot easement there yep and so you take that into account off your property line your property sit property line sits within the EAS in other words okay okay all right SS like Frank's about ready to do something here okay let's see all right let's see do we have any public ipation on this okay okay we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I'll make a motion Mr chair uh before I make a motion I want to change uh for the record uh variance one to read a variance to the Halifax Plantation PUD to reduce the east side street from 20 feet to 10 feet for a proposed pool and screen enclosure and then with that change I'd make a motion that on case v-24 d030 we approv variances number one and two with that change and uh staff recommendations second may I question you you said to the street you want to make it from the property line correct sir to reduce east side street it's east side street from there were they're calling about the street I don't know why it was written like that it's because it's a PUD and that's the wording in that particular PUD okay so okay so we want to do keep Street okay just it's good we're not going to put them in a Bine by we know it's it's going to be 10t from the the property line there you go even though your VAR Read Street that's fine yes that's okay yeah all right long as you know okay that's my I wanted to get that in there okay otherwise we'd be putting them into the into the proper into the easement okay all right and we got a second from who okay Edith all right and we do we have any conditions on this yep staff recent conditions how many are we have that one one okay okay okay I got a motion on the floor for Mr Costa to approve variances one and two with the the uh make that 10 feet from the East Side Street and for variance one in this case V2 24030 with the one staff condition that was for Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously I hope you guys got that over there good luck with your pull thank you appreciate it all right Miss Shelly can I get the next case please yes case number v-24 031 variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum lot coverage on Urban single family residential R9 zoned property thank you Miss Shell Mr Hansen this one's yours good morning Michael Hansen Planning Development service this particular case is uh has six variances attached to it the property is a lawfully non-conforming R9 zone property that's 5,000 square ft in size and how it's broken down variances one and two relate to the house on the property variance three relates to the deck variances four and five relate to the garage and variance six is for lot coverage so starting with variance one the house was built in approximately 1915 it shows up in a 1992 uh State Master site file that was sent from our County historic preservation officer at the time to the state State uh division of historical resources uh with data to give uh a build time around 1915 um so we don't have an ex exactal date of when it was built but the house as is on the property as you can see on the variant site plan is uh lawfully non-conforming structure as it doesn't meet the required 25 ft front yard setback under variance one so variance one reduces that to 21.6 Ft it also doesn't meet the required 7t sidey yard on variance two so it reduces variance 2 reduces the house from 7 ft to 4.3 ft um and regarding the house staff has a recommendation for approval for both variants one and two noting that it meets all five of the criteria now variance three for the deck according to our records the deck was originally built under a 1991 permit that was never finalized and it recently had a closure request made by the applicant back in January 2024 um noting that the the applicants weren't the one that pulled the permit in the first place they they purchased the house in 2008 uh decades after the original deck permit but the deck was built anyways the permo was just never finalized the deck encroaches into the required sidey so as the deck is an accessory restructure the required side yard is 5 ft so it reduces the 5T sidey yard to 4.3 ft as it's flush in line with the house staff has a recommendation Of Denial on variance three noting that it fails two of the five criteria the applicants are seeking to uh rebuild the existing G Garage in or a garage in the same location's existing garage so variances four is reducing the requ requ ired rear yard setback from 20 ft to 1.6 ft variance 5 reduces the required 7t sidey yard as the garage is 536 ft so it meets the criteria to be treated as a principal structure uh down to 2.8 ft staff has a recommendation Of Denial on variances four and five noting that they fell one of the five criteria variance six deals with the lot coverage of the property and with a 5,000 ft lot 35% of the the lot would be 1750 Square ft the existing lot coverage is at 18835 so it's over by 85 square ft so that would increase the lot coverage from 35% to 36.7% overall staff has a recommendation to Denial on the lot coverage noting that it f two the five criteria we do have a number of conditions on the variances should the pdrc approve the variances uh with the condition limiting variance one and two to the size and location of the house variance three limiting the limited to the size and location of the deck and variance four and five limited to the size and location of the existing garages footprint and that the lot coverage may not exceed 36.7% Additionally the applicants will be required to apply for a building permit for the wood deck within 180 days of the approval of variance 3 this case did receive two um letters of support through a series of messages that the applicant submitted and those letters of support are appended to the end of your staff reports um therefore from the adjacent property to the south and north of this property with that I'm a for any questions appe to your see may have any questions for staff okay Miss let me see Mr Hansen the the request for variance four and five that's for for the garage sir yeah it isn't to legitimize what is there but for new construction did I hear you say so the intent of the applicants is to uh demo the existing garage that is lawfully non-conforming in its current location but during that rebuild due to the the the wear on on on the existing garage they they seek to rebuild it in the existing footprint so any kind of rebuilds that exceed the um property value appraisal of 75% for that structure would have to meet the exist or current zoning uh code so that's why these variance requests so they're seeking the variances to be able to rebuild the garage in the existing footprint but they would not need a variance if they wanted to leave the existing garage that's my question that's correct because it's a lawful non-conforming structure got it that's the point I was getting okay okay is the applicant present can I get your name and address for the record sir yep uh sea Rogers 4047 orial Avenue Port Orange 32127 you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to it no and I'm appreciative of all their efforts here I know this is a confusing one um I'll just go through the variances and I made a chart that might make it easier because it was hard for me to kind of keep it all straight one and two uh like uh Michael said related to the house just trying to legitimize where it is uh it's it's close to the uh uh doesn't meet the current uh setback rules but just want to go ahead and legitimize where it is uh to his point on the deck uh apparently I guess there was a permit back in 1991 that I only found out about the beginning beginning of this year when I was getting uh permits for getting the side of the house helical peers put in to keep it from sinking and it was not approved because there was an open permit and I searched and found this one from 1991 um the permit office was not totally sure what it was about who would put it in and they said for me to get the permit to put the helical peers in that needs to be closed so I submitted the thing to have it closed um the deck's been there since you know forever I've had multiple permits since I bought the house in uh 2008 uh since then that had been opened and closed and never heard about the deck problem so that's what that is it like he said it's in line with the house um never had any issues uh the garage it's a it's a building that sits back um it's near the property lines also um I over years I guess of the the the contiguous Lots eroding and that kind of stuff you know it's sinking and it needs to be structurally U solidified I had the Spray Foam Guy comeing and try and pump up the uh the one side of the slab and it's still got issues um arguably like like you said I could leave it and not not need a variance and I could Patchwork it trying to fix it and all this stuff but it would in the end it would cost much more take much more time not be as nice so ideally we would just knock it down and rebuild it in the exact same place with correct footings and everything up to current codes um and then the overall lck coverage variants I've talked to both the North and South neighbor which are the text uh in there and I actually talked to the east neighbor he just now broke ground on his properties behind me talked to him two days ago and they're all very supportive um knowing that I'm not going to make it any bigger I'm not trying to build new you know additional structures or anything like that I'm just trying to fix what's there so that it can be usable and safe and and look nice okay any questions for the applicant do we have any public participation fors for this one all right sir we're going to close the four from public participation unless there is someone that like to Mr Bender uh question where is the because I was looking at it if you move that garage off of that property line some you made reference that it would make your septic system inaccessible where where is the septic system in your backyard septic system is right behind the deck uh next to kind of the little concrete walkway to the garage that's where the tank is and the drain field is on the north east corner of the property there okay so it would be difficult to move it then would it yeah ideally I'd love to be able to hook up to the Sewer one day do what the septic but that's another fight all right okay any other questions okay we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion thank I'll make a motion okay uh case v-24 D31 on variances 1 2 3 4 5 and six make a motion to approve with staff recommended conditions second and I believe there are five yes sir five conditions I'll second that sir you're aware of the five conditions in your report real quick just clear um basically it's leave everything doesn't get any bigger footprint wise and get a permit for the deck whatever those conditions are in here is what you have y f me okay all right okay I got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa for v2 2431 variances one through six with the five staff conditions to approve and a second from Miss Shell anything discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Mich shelle could I get the next case please yes sir case number v- 24-32 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Rural agricultural A2 zoned property Mr Hansen this one's yours good morning once again Michael Hansen Planning Development Services I'm uh this particular uh application has two variance requests in it uh and it might sound familiar because we've dealt with a number of properties recently with on Hamilton Avenue so the particular area was historically platted in 1925 and the plant created these small shaped Parcels so the the owners of the parcels have combined them um to create the current configurations in the area but the existing zoning classification is our rural agriculture which requires minimum lot sizes of 5 Acres there's essentially no properties out there in that General vicinity that meet the 5 Acres so um in in the staff report you'll notice that there's been five variances for setbacks for the A2 standards that have been approved by the pdrc um similar to this particular one now the variance is requested in order for the applicant to be able to site the proposed single family residence as you can see on the variance site plan here are for the front yard on Hamilton variance one reduces that 50 foot down to 32.3 Ft um Additionally the rural agricultural zoning classification requires 25 ft for the sidey yard on what would be the applicant's rear this this particular property is a corner lot as where it shows Baltimore at the top is one of those unopened plaed rways so we're taking a look as far as both of the the two setbacks on it and in evaluation the criteria staff does have a recommendation to denial noting that it failed two of the five criteria um that theoretically the the house could be reduced in size to less than some of the variance requirements however the proposed structure of the house fits with similar designs within the surrounding area that particular property is 15,180 square ft in size and the proposed house is going to be approximately 1775 ft in size with a depth of 46 .33 ft um we did not receive any letters of support for this particular application uh we do have one condition if the PDC approves the variances that the variances are limited the size and location of the residents I'm available for any questions you may have thank you Mr Hansen any questions for the staff Mr cost so my question is this you're saying that that whole sector Zone day2 and there's nothing out there that's 5 Acres so when we took a look along or when I was looking under Hamilton here the existing zoning is is A2 and it was historically set to be A2 after the adoption of the comprehensive plan back in 1990 um because it was assigned a rural future land use which requires a uh density of one dwelling unit per five Acres because the underlying plant for the the properties and and there's actually two of them so on the west of Hamilton is a different plat M and the one where the subject property is Delan Heights plat both were ploted back in 1925 mhm so the owners of the property um as as you may remember from last month we did one uh a variance just to the north of here on the West side of Hamilton they've had to combine multiple 25 foot wide uh blots to create up uh essentially their their parcel so this particular applicant for the the subject property combined if I'm not mistaken five uh of these lots to create the depth of well actually it looks like six on on here to create the the current partial configuration but he's nowhere near the 5 Acres no he's at 15,180 Square ft mhm barely uh barely half an acre quite frankly this this location out here should be a resoning of are are what's the reasoning administratively that why that hasn't been done so this is an older plot many of these um Parcels that you see here are not vested we only take in um Parcels that are vested so you'll continue to see them along Hamilton because one of the requirements is it has to be an open and passable Road um so all of these closed rights of ways where you see these interior Lots will likely not be vested unless they purchase out to the street so we deal with them as they come in okay okay any other questions for staff is the applicant present can I get your name and address for the record sir my name is Ryan Corgan address is 119 West High Banks Road Barry Florida okay you've heard the uh staff report anything you'd like to add to that no sir all right any questions for the applicant all right sir let's do we have any public participation okay sir we're going to close the floor for public protection open up for commission discussion or motion and I will say that this is more of a ourr location than it would be an actual yeah A2 so you can have a seat nobody speaking up I'll make a motion case v-24 032 that we approve aranes one and two with the staff recommended condition one staff recommended condition second I've got a motion on the floor for Mr CA to approve variances one and two for variance V2 24032 with the one staff condition and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any OS motion carries unanimously M shelle could I get the next case please yes case v-2 24-33 variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum lot coverage on planned unit development PUD zoned property thank you Miss Shelly Mr Hansen this one is yours good morning once again Michael Hansen Planning Development Services this particular variance application includes three variance requests um it's located in uh the Spruce Creek unit 2B portion of uh the the Spruce Creek overall uh plan unit development and it's designed to support residents with uh planes and this particular property along with all the others in in the surrounding Street have uh hangers for their aircraft it as you can see on the variant site plan it fronts on Lindberg lane and then to the rear of the property on the on the bordering the rear property uh line is taxiway kilo West in the Pud development agreement it specifically states that taxiways that do not support non aircraft or travel um or Vehicles so if it doesn't allow for cars or trucks that the taxiway is not considered a street so thus it does not prompt the rear yard to be considered a second secondary front yard in this case so the property is therefore an interior lot the lot size is 18,75 square ft and variance one is to reduce the required rear yard of 30 ft to 9 1/2 ft to legitimize the existing location of the 2372 ft hanger The Hanger was constructed Ed along with the principal house and the the the pool back in 1987 at that time the county treated The Hanger as an accessory structure which only had to meet a 5 foot rear or sidey yard um the county in 2004 adopted an ordinance ordinance number 24-20 which made it so that any accessory structure over 500 square feet had to meet the principal uh yard requirements so as the structure was created and constructed before that ordinance was adopted at that time it only had to meet um essentially 5 ft and it was built to match the drainage and utility easement that you see on the site plan in front of you so the variance one is in order to legitimize the existing structure and due to that staff has a recommendation of approval on variance one now the applicant is looking at adding an addition to the hanger the addition would be 470 Square ft designed for maintenance and storage of parts for aircraft maintenance in discussion with the applicant the intent that he had was that due to some of the maintenance requirements of maintaining aircraft it essentially acts as a safety mechanism due to debris flying with some of the on-site maintenance that he was worried about damaging his two aircraft that he has in the hanger the proposed addition as you see on the site plan would have to meet the rear yard requirement of 30 ft but variance 2 reduces that down to 11.1 based on what you see on the variance site plan staff has a recommendation to Denial on variance to noting that it Fells five or four out of the five criteria uh in in analysis of it it's potentially possible to redesign the existing hanger footprint to allow for a partitioned area for maintenance of the aircraft without needing the um proposed addition and that was one of the basis for um failing some of the criteria variance 3 relates to the lot coverage in that plan unit Dev the maximum lot coverage is 30% typically Urban single family residential is 35% but in the development agreement it specifies the lot coverage limit is 30% the request with the addition would increase that to 32.75 Ft the existing lot coverage is currently at 30% and this has a recommendation of denial as well noting that it Fells for the five criteria we do have a condition that the variance would be limited to the size and location The Hanger and proposed Edition um otherwise we had no letters of support as well with the application I'm available for any questions you may have thank you Mr Hanson any question for staff Mr Hansen just for clarification because of our last one this is a variance from the property line and not from the easement correct that's correct so zoning makes it so that we only measure a uh from the the easement if that easement includes Ingress egress or a road easement so if it's a drainage utility easement we still measure from the property line okay thank you sir is the applicant present yes could I get your name and address for the record Sir William Jabor 1818 Lindberg Lane Port Orange 3 32128 all right sir uh you've heard the staff report is anything you'd like to add to that uh yes yes sir I'd like to address the uh analysis on uh the uh variance 2 and three okay the uh Federal Aviation Administration lets me do all the maintenance that I need to do on my airplane since I built the airplane myself so I'm listed as the manufacturer of the airplane to segregate an area inside the hangar would make it impossible for me to get for me to get the two airplanes that I have one is mine one is my wife's in the hanger what I need the segregated space for is some of the maintenance I do generates uh metal dust things that would be adverse to the airplanes that are stored in the hanger additionally I do uh composite material work which demands uh a controlled environment and uh segregating this much space in the hanger would uh would make that impossible to get both my airplanes in um so it's the segregation that I need as well as the size that I need to do that in within the hanger uh the the sighting that I selected keeps the structure out of all the drainage and utility easements and uh so I don't think I I have a problem there so I that's the reason I requested uh the variance all right sir any questions for the applicant okay now your maintenance that you do is that on your personal aircraft yes sir or do you bring anybody else's aircraft in for maintenance okay okay I have enough trouble keeping my own flying yes sir okay do we have any public participation forms okay we're going to close the for for public participation that enough commission discussion or a motion I'll make a motion okay Miss Shelly I move that we approve case v- 24-33 subject to the one staff condition second second oh doesn't matter I I'm impressed he's got his and her airplanes that's awesome his and hers that's a happy marriage that was variances one two and three yes sir okay all right I got a motion on the floor for variance V2 24033 to approve variances one two and three with the one condition from staff from Miss Shelly and a second from Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss Shell can I get the next one please yes sir case number v- 24-34 variances to reduce minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property okay thank you m Shel Mr Shams this one is yours hi good morning Steve jams with L County planning so the property is uh zoned R4 and the applicant is one variance to reduce the north front yard for a second floor addition uh the reduction would be from 25 ft to 11t 2 in so the home was originally constructed in 1978 prior to the zoning ordinance and is currently located 19 ft from the north property line which does not meet the current R4 requirement so the addition itself as you can see in the uh green hatch box on the site plan would include a 471t living area and a 110t covered porch which is a total of 581 Square F feet um overall staff recommends denial as the variance fails to meet four the five criteria uh primarily because they're not minimizing the existing encroachment um it's also important to note that there were two letters of support for the case and one letter of opposition the one letter of opposition we received is for The Neighbor on the east side and they are the most impacted by this variance uh should PE DRC find evidence to approve staff recommends one condition that it's limited to to size and location as depicted on a variant site plan and I'm available for comment or question any questions for staff no is the applicant present can I get your name and address for the record sir it's n day 709 Commerce Circle Longwood Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to that yeah um I'd like to speak on the um the reasons for U the special circumstances um the main purpose for this number one the only thing that will be visible the only thing that will be projecting into the front yard yard is the uh upper porch and it's really more of a balcony as it has zero impact on the footprint of the house it's a 8ot projection from that side of the house it nowhere near exceeds the projection of the garage um it is in a regular shaped lot and if you look at how the culdesac is cut in on I don't know which view which page that's on but the way the culdesac is cut in it's cut in more to the Middleton's yard than any other yard in there um so we're not impacting the lower uh floor of the structure the main reason for putting it on the front is because we gain a view of the ocean which is what the middletons would like to enjoy if it's put off the back of the home you would not have any view because uh the other home next to it um it IT projects into the backyard you wouldn't have a view okay so the the the conditions to some extent we we there would be no benefit to adding the porch on the back it's not just to gain a second floor porch it's to gain a view of the ocean so okay all right do we have any questions for the applicant Miss Craig what kind of support is there for this extension of the second floor um it was it was it was was we submitted it but it's not in the packet um but it's basically a triangulated the the look of this house it'll be greatly improved and it's very much in the spirit of the rest of this neighborhood but um you know it's getting a metal roof it's more of a traditional you know Florida Coastal kind of vibe going on with this house when it's done so it's just an angular support our other option is to move this back over living area which we can do but it's always problematic and we don't want to we prefer not to do that it's not best construction practices so and it encroaches greatly into this space that we would have upstairs Mr C so I just want to clarify that I want to be clear rather this second this second floor Edition is being built onto the existing house footprint correct and what's what's hanging over or the variances for The Hangover of the deck or porch or however you want to call it correct not the actual structure just the deck itself just the deck itself enclosed deck got a ra it's going to have that railing around I'm assuming just railing okay no steps going up to it or anything like that it's only accessible for inside the house correct it's 8ot it's an 8ot extension it's very minimal cuz I'm looking at the so the picture that you can see up on the screen so that green box area basically that encompasses both the the addition plus the deck yes sir all in one square yes sir correct okay all right thank you okay you're going to be increasing the height of the the sing the resident correct correct what do we height wise what do be looking at we'll be at um we'll be under the I think I think we have a maximum of 25 fet there we're under it's 25 or 30 feet I think it's 35 is it not yeah and we're close to 28 somewhere in there 28 ft from where you're current from the from the ground to the top of the roof okay and there there are second floor editions in that neighborhood and we actually received one more letter of applaud for the changes to but it it was just after we had made our package submittal okay so the majority of this encroachment as Mr Costa said is going to be from the deck correct yes sir okay I didn't see your design there is it a candal lever type yeah it's canal levered with a support just a the triangulated support and if that became a condition we'd be happy to make it Canever I mean if that became a condition okay all right any other questions for the applicant okay do we have any public participation for this okay we do have one letter of recommendation of Deni if you're aware of that did you see that is it support no but we also have support letter packet yes yeah okay okay let me see let me look at this question yes sir Mr C all right I just want to I'm looking at the letter of of um of of uh Denial on yours here so I just want to clear here we're not this addition is not protruding further out than the garage itself currently protrudes correct that's correct and then the physical addition excluding the porch how much more of the residents will that how much further to the side yard will that zero zero so it's built is built within this current footprint plus the additional at whatever how many feet of overhang deck correct got it okay only encroachment is that second floor deck gotcha okay and and we're not encroaching towards the street towards the culdesac section at all correct um it is going forward it is going forward it'll reduce that yeah the deck will go that depth going forward be beyond the house Y how many feet it's eight feet how many eight eight feet on that side and how much on the side yard zero zero zero side zero so the entire deck is on the okay yeah just forward on the ocean facing side all right now it's all coming together straight up with the uh straight up with the living area and a small it's really should be considered a balcony if we wanted to be Technical and still The Edge okay and still the edge of that let's call it a balcony still the edge of that balcony is aft of the the forward face of the garage it's behind the garage itself it's approximately 12 feet behind the face of the garage which is in in tune with the drawing that the that we're looking at here okay thank you okay my my question is for staff this condition says of location proposed second floor addition has dep depicted on the variant site plan but we're not talking about the construction is there a condition that we could put in for the that it would only be for the deck or can we do that or not Mr Sor for that 8 feet I I think we are we are uh staff is recommending you you apply the entire condition because the the house itself is non-compliant with the front yard setback um they are building on the existing footprint they are adding an addition and they are encroaching further with the deck so that's why we are we are uh you know encompassing the entire addition you can break that down um you know it would just be to clarify that it is um uh variance for 25 to 11 and 11 foot2 for the addition consisting of uh no more than an 8ot extension of the of the deck So Okay the reason I'm asking this is because as you know the variances go with the property yes and the event that it was a cell in the future they enclos the deck to make the the the actual structure larger and that was the reason and if we just put it in for the way it's predict said here is the addition then they would be allowed to go ahead and enclose it because they already have the barrian then then if that is a concern of of the board then would clarify that the um 8 foot of that extension would be for deck only yes got it like it could never be made living space or something like that yeah that's what I'm saying yeah because that does make a difference as far as sitting out there and I don't think you're going to be obstructing a lot of you with a deck and if I'm correct the house that made mention of that it's their garage side of their house it's near this so okay this will have zero effect on that home next door okay we don't have any more part participation for we're going to close the floor and have a commission discussion here we're in a motion thank you okay we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I'll let Mr costone make that motion with the eight foot language in there then I'll be glad to make a motion then go ahead I'll help you out on help me out people okay um that we approve case number 24-34 variance to reduce the minimum yard requirements on the urban single family uh zoned property but with the that would be the Vari the variance is limit to the size and location of the proposed second floor balcony an addition wait I mean yeah how do I put the E feet in there it would be a the proposed second floor addition with um uh uh the 8ot yeah the 8ot uh extension I guess I mean you do have a site plan um on page six M so as depicted on uh the site plan Pro provided in page six of the staff report but the proposed second floor addition uh I forgot all the language you just said Mr sord um that the um 8 foot extension I'm going to clar I'll clarify clarify there thank you I got a v variance to approve variance V 24034 with the one staff uh condition and that the uh 8 foot of the 11t 2 in to be uh deck only correct Mr SAR uh I think we would clarify that the 8ot um extension is to remain un en closed deck okay to remain an unenclosed deck the 8ot extension is to remain an unenclosed deck got it okay any discussion on the motion I got that from Miss sh who seconded it Frank did I include that under the roof over the deck the deck is Under The Roof okay is that going to make a difference I didn't yeah well I didn't realize there was a anyway okay let's um I'm gonna hold back okay should I withdraw that motion that's up to you yes so we can get a clarification let me withdraw the motion yeah I was thinking it's was going to be just an open deck yeah I did too okay yeah pardon but without the deck it wouldn't be non-conforming okay is that going to create a problem with you guys you know again at that point a aesthetically it would um look better it would look better than just having the a deck just jutting out there mhm you know with a rail around it yeah rather than the roof line no I mean I I think that the roof line would actually add to it not take away from it um I think that being just a deck by itself he made mention of a metal roof and I'm not sure if it's the entire house or just that particular section M you can call the uh the applicant back up to answer just get a little clarification on this please y I'm going to open the floor back up to the applicant for a moment we have do have some more questions here Mr chair would it be helpful if we put his elevation on the screen for everybody to see yes yes yeah I'm sorry about that that's all right sir if you could provide your elevation to Kelly she'll put it up on the screen for you and that'll be become part of the record that will be helpful no you don't get it yeah I need to see what is going all right much easier to look at we needed that in our packet so that support there is that going to come down in front of the building in front of your garage garage is on the opposite side yeah that angles on the opposite side so that again it's the basically the same question as I had before if I'm looking in that direction you are not the obstruction is not forward of the garage it's still rearward of the forward- facing wall of the garage so regardless of that deck being there or not I still have a clear shot across the deck there or across to your front yard correct okay I okay personally I don't have an issue with this no I don't either an answer to a question question you ask about the metal roof it is the entire house yeah you're re-roofing the whole house okay all right aesthetically I think it looks better and adds more to the property MH than just to have that deck just sticking out there in the Wind by itself okay what is what is the square after the porch that's the that's the side of the garage which depicts it it is actually sticking out forward thank you yes okay thank you so it really doesn't extend out past the garage no no that's what he was saying that's yeah okay yeah well okay all right so I think we've got it okay I do apologize I just wanted to be clear not have another go around yeah that come back and find out you can't put a roof over your deck okay so how would would um it would be the same motion to uh reduce the front yard set back to 11 fo2 um uh with the uh the 8 foot extension um not being able to be enclosed but being able to to have a roof over it m as you know as depicted on the the site plan and as provided by the um the elevation by the applicant so we'll incorporate those two documents in the the variance approval okay elevation submit okay you ready for it Michelle are you ready or you want me to go why don't you go you're the Builder all right on case number v-24 034 uh make a motion that we approve that case uh variance number one with the 8ot deck not to be enclosed as per the site plan submitted and the elevation submitted by the applicant second subject to the staff condition St and subject to the one staff recommendation yes second okay I got a motion on the floor to approve variance 2434 uh with the one condition from staff to with the site plan plan and elevation to be included in the packet so that the 8ot extension will not be enclosed correct that get it Mr sorya that's good okay that was easy Mr second for Mr Patterson uh any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously all right made it through that one Mr Baker looks like Clint Eastwood he looks like Clint Eastwood in face okay Miss Shell would you read the next case then please case number v-2 24-35 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you Miss sh Miss Ray this one is yours good morning so I do have a correction with this variance request as it um kind of goes along with the my previous variance um there is an 8 foot drain adment that borders the entire property um variance one currently shows that it is 25t to 0.8 ft for the South front yard it'll actually be uh 25 ft to 8.8 ft from the property line um to the proposed carport variance two will not be required because measured from the property line will be 9.6 ft and that will meet setbacks so it will we are only looking at variance 1 to the South front yard from 25 ft to 8.8 ft from the property line um for a 425 squ ft carport um the property as you can see is a corner lot um they are proposing the carport over an existing concrete driveway off a Fairwind Circle staff recommended denial for the variance um should the applicant provide competent substantial evidence there was one condition provided for consideration and I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff just a clarification we're only looking at one variance and not two as listed in our packet yes Ma we're only looking at variance one only variance one yes ma'am and that's 8.8 rather than 0.8 yes sir M just the same same situation as before you got 25t from the road to the edge of the property line or is that the the the road is the property line I'm showing um I'm on that drawing right there down below you've got it says it shows 25 ft from Fairwind circle to the solid black line which I'm assuming that's their property line yes the solid black line is the property line and then between that line and the road is what that's just RightWay easement but it's not it's not their property is my point correct okay their driveway extends into [Music] that Circle well I should say their apron okay 13.5 ft to the edge of the road correct and all right so you look at the if you look at variance number one uh where it's showing the 25t in blue right that's the the the width of the length of the structure correct and then you the what is the dot so I'm looking at the dotted line here and then there's another the solid black line and that's what I'm trying to figure out where is their property line is it the dotted line or the solid black the solid black and so then the difference between the distance between the dotted line and the solid black is just another variance I mean uh easement correct correct the but easement so we're giving them again so what is the dimension from the property line to where the variance would be off the easement please 8.8 prop yep property line to the proposed carport is 8.8 got now I'm clear that was the problem they they the original Varian showed it from that easement rather than the got it now it's clear as mud thank you okay right all right oh I better get on course here I'm any other questions for staff is the applicant present if I could get your name and address for the record please good morning my name is Angela Lindsay and we are at two Julie Drive in Orman Beach 32176 okay and you sir good morning and my name is Michael Lindsay anded all right you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to it um yes so with regards to um first of all on the screen the address was wrong so I'm not sure if that means anything but you guys had us in in like Port Orange or new samna and we're actually in Orman Beach um on the opening screen that was put up for our case so I don't know if that means anything but um they go by the partial number on this okay so um with regards to where we want to put the carport um first of all that section of our lot is um we consider it our side and I know that we're on a corner lot so we are considered two sides um but clearly when you look at our house the front of the house is is the other side and the side where our garage is is the side of the house that's also a CU AAC so there are only a certain amount of homes around that area so it's not like it's a drive-thru um to another section it's basically just a culde saac and a very small one at that there's only a few homes there um our house if you look at the footprint first of all we're on almost a double lot for the zoned area so we have um 13 over 13,000 Square ft for our lot and our house is set very far back so you can see our backyard is a lot smaller than our side and our front yard um so it's really we're not utilizing that much of the yard space the our yard currently is mostly grass and and Landscaping um so that side of the house is also very subject to the Sun so we're you know we are a west facing house and the side of our house is um a Southeast facing portion and so we literally get cooked on that the house for like the duration of the day um and hence why we want to put the carport over there our two car garage is a very small one because when our house was built in 1987 um the you know they're considered a two-car is kind of a smaller area so to to us it's really a onecar garage we fit one car in there um the rest is basically storage and you know beach stuff um so the carport that we're proposing to build would enhance the look of our proper property I mean we're very house proud We love the look of our property and where it's at um our neighbors um you know I've spoken with the general neighbors right next to us and they're all okay with it I don't believe that we actually had any letters of recommendation but um you know as far as we know there's no objection right in front of our house is a huge condo complex but they're facing the Oceanside and they parking garage and their tennis court is the only thing that faces our house but they can't even see around our corner so our corner is kind of secluded to our little culde saac um and so it kind of is a unique setup as far as that's concerned it's not a typical Corner House um and so again where we are proposing to put the carport um it's you know four posts it's going to tie into the look of the house it'll tie into the roof line of the house we are putting a pitched roof but it'll look um aesthetically nice it's not you know we're not proposing to put anything that's an isore the other reason why we want this carport is because we are in a hurricane you know susceptible area we could put up shade sales or something temporary but that it just wouldn't be conducive to where we live so this would obviously be to code with regards to all the hurricane um proofing and materials um and that's pretty much it okay any questions for the applicant Mr yeah can we put up page 12 and this comes with a it comes with a disclaimer because it says it's for Illustrated purposes only but my question is once she gets it up there how close to this is what you're proposing well we want something that's going to look like our home we have a stucco home so the legs would we would want to do like a stucco design and the roof we re we recently had our home re roof this year year so the roof line and the roof itself it's not going to be a tile roof because our home is is a shingle roof so it would be a shingle roof but something similar to this um so we're not just putting up a an aluminum no it'll have aluminum for poost and a and and pan pan roof you know I mean it's it'll be nice you know we're looking to do maybe a little bit of a a storage on the top but it'll be covered closed I mean you know it'll look nice and it ties right into your existing garage correct correct yes sir got it all right thank you any other questions for the applicant yeah I was just going to make one one comment you're Lily polis her dress right there you go my niece designed that fabric you're kidding no no that's one of her fabric she's designed she works for for Lily okay Stony let's go move on I just had to tell her well tell her it's my favorite PR favorite little dress proud of my niece I have the matching purse too Cosmopolitan group fashion show Miss Tucker do we have any public participation on this okay we're going to close the for for public participation open up for commission discussion thank you ma'am thank you thank you so all all we have is just that one U yeah you I might mention that is the side of their house yeah and this is the where they got two front yards okay I which we run across okay I'm ready to make a motion uh case v24 035 uh make a motion for approval with the one um only had one staff recommendation right Vari VAR Vari Mr chair I just want to clarify that that variance is to reduce the that side yard to uh 8.8 ft right from the property line right and the condition is specific to variance one correct the fight plan yeah yes y okay second okay I've got a motion from Mr 6man to approve variance v435 and with the clarification on variance one to go to 8.8 uh rather than 0.8 and um with the one staff condition and a second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay michell can I get the next case yes case number z- 24-6 rezoning from the prime agriculture A1 zoning classification to the rural agriculture A2 zoning classification okay miss smth this one's yours yes sir um this is a 15.7 s acre parcel on Ranch Road in the Lake Helen area it's located near the City of Deltona and the City of Lake Helen the applicant is requesting a resoning from Prime agricultural A1 to rural agricultural A2 um and if I may he has suggested that as he's getting older it's harder to maintain the larger piece of property um if you look at the zoning map the blue lines on the zoning map on your screen you'll see that there have been three other rezonings in this area recently directly to the east a few Parcels to the East and then the parcel to the South um it is A1 mostly to the north and west but the lot sizes range from 5 to 20 acres it's A2 to the south and east and those lot sizes range from 5 to 10 acres currently one house is allowed under A1 and the partiel already has a house on it potentially If This Were to be subdivided if you approve the rezoning one potential home could be added the application does meet all the criteria to Grant the rezoning I do just want to bring up one issue because there is an environmental permitting letter in there that says they don't support this and I'd like to just explain that a little bit more to you um there are wetlands on the Eastern portion of the property and Kelly if you can bring up the um aerial please just so they can see that it there you go um environmental permitting is concerned that the resoning could allow a greater density in the Wetland area so I just want to let you know that if somewhere one we're going to build on that property they would need to adhere to our County's avoidance and minimization criteria for building in Wetlands or the wetlands buffers and they would require a wetland alteration permit setback variances are available so they would have the opportunity to come through you if they're trying to stay out of the wetlands and the buffers so if the property is subdivided and the new owner applies for a building permit environmental permitting would evaluate any Wetland impacts at that time we do not have any development plans in house uh this is only for the resoning and we recommend approval I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Miss Smith any questions for staff Miss Smith if they were to go back to subdividing this they would still have to you would have to make clarification that during a subdivision of the Wetland situation on this property correct if they came into subdivide they would need to provide a wetland survey correct and then um our environmental permitting will get their first shot at the shot there to say something and then if the subdivision is granted they will get a second chance to look at it if a building permit comes in but you could deny it on the premise of the wetlands is that correct they would have to adhere to the avoidance and minimization so they would have to divide the property in in such a way as to minimize well one avoid any wetland disturbance and two if it's necessary they have to minimize the Wetland disturbance and that's with subdivision creation itself and then when they go to pulling a building permit the same avoidance and minimization criteria apply um such that they have to demonstrate that it is absolutely necessary to impact the wetlands so you know um I don't want to say that we're going to make a a a a validly subdivided parcel unbuildable but you know we can basically um during this the creation of the second lot say hey if you create this um that is not adherence adhering to the avoidance and minimization provision and deny it that particular way right because are uh I guess my question to this are we not creating a problem by the resoning of this because we've got that a parcel that would impact the Wetlands if you were to try to subdivide we don't know we don't know if they're going to impact the wetlands they have the ability to subdivide um when they subdivide they have to accommodate that avoidance and minimization standard when they're creating that second in order to get the subdivision so they'd have to go through another layer yes even if it was rezoned yes as as myth Smith says you know environmental has two shots to basically say no don't subdivide that way because it's very expensive when you you touch that Wetland um this benefits the county and it also benefits them you know to avoid unnecessarily impacting that W I just didn't want to create a situation where they were re they were entitled to a subdivision and then would someone come before us and say well we got to do something with it you know uh so they won't be entitled to the subdivision you would have to look at that with the criteria of the wetlands yes they would have to create a um uh they can subdivide but they but the way that they're going have to subdivide would have to be adherence to the voice they have to meet those requirements okay any qu other questions for staff okay is the applicant present and I could get your name and address for the record uh Bruce crane 2640 Ranch Road Lake is okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to it uh yeah plenty other one starting uh this is could be a classic example of shooting yourself in the foot no one requested the environmental survey I did that just for thoroughness for everyone there's lots of bogs out in that area um this property is actually really unique and then it has a ridge that goes through I've got live oak trees that are 75 ft from from these Wetlands um this is a low spot that I I don't even know you could do anything with it it's it's a pretty deep hole there's several properties behind me that all drain to it it all goes pretty quickly to the South even in the most dramatic uh hurricanes we've had the water levels barely even come up there it just it's a it's a low spot this big bog that's there there's tons of them out in that area and uh I might have made a mistake even bringing up this subject it was my surveyor that said Hey in the nature of thoroughness you might want to go ahead and get this so I did so it's ironic that this thing now all of a sudden could be an issue for me there's been plenty of people that have done what I've done there and nobody's even gotten the environmental survey so I did it in the nature of thoroughness so uh I would regret that if it ends up being some kind of real problem the property is set up really nicely with to topography and everything that it would be cut into three very nice 5 acre pieces that that would have no no way uh or intention to ever affect that low area where all the water's just kind of passing through there um there's good high ground everywhere on that property including where my home site is and in the middle and we've never uh had any uh need or intention to disturb that that that Wetland whatsoever but it's no different than a lot of the bogs that are out in that area basically except there is a ridge on the Eastern side of the property there's a real defined Ridge that goes through there that and then U it drops off very abruptly into that hole okay well you've done your might regret it you you done your due diligence in the event you yes sir they have to go through the subdivision and find out get guess what I can't subdivide this because I've got a Welling here and I went through the whole resoning process and then that's what's going to happen is you're going to say well you let me reson it to this so I could subdivide but now you're telling me I can't subdivide and so we just you have done what you needed to do to realize that there's is a possibility you may hit a roadblock when you go to subdivide it even though you get the rezoning because of the wetlands that's all I'm that's all the reason we're bringing that up that's all no I appreciate that requested this and it's it's just it's just a bog out there like you have so but of just because you get the resoning you're not entitled to the to the type of subdivision that you may want to create is what I'm trying to say and I can appreciate that this this property's pretty it's got good topography it's not like little flat Ranch Land out there you don't y it's got real nice topography okay guys I appreciate it okay um Miss Craig you had a question yes sir um is there uh sewer aail available out there or would would this no no this is all unmaintained County out there all the uh land owners own we actually own the roads and everything there's no uh infrastructure at all out there does that not complicate things with the type of topography that you're talking about and the and the what that thing no none whatsoever um it's all U there's great in fact one of the reasons I bought that property it was one of the last pieces the Mitchell people had going way back Caroline chicken form yeah well last P Caroline and Eugene Mitchell had out there and uh uh that's one of the reasons I bought it it was very very uh the the stuff that is high is real high and the water moves through this property very quickly and wonderfully uh with the exception that there's a ball there in the middle like there is so many of them out there but uh but no there's no issues there's no infrastructure out there other than swes we have to maintain some ditches and coverts and stuff like that which we all do as private as as property owners okay all right sir do we have any public participation on this we do not okay we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion and I might add the only reason I brought this up was simply because we see this happen a lot they'll and everything and then when they come to um get their subdivision or dividing it up they find out for whatever reason and and then what happens is they say well I've got it reone for this particular reason and that's the only reason I'm bringing it up yeah now I get it I appreciate that it's very disappointing that the all right we're going to close the floor for public and then okay you can have the seat now sir okay well actually is Jeff and I know I mean born right up the road as crow flies I'm like a mile from this property so I'm very familiar with it um if anybody has nothing else to say I'm ready to make a motion Mr Patterson you had a question no I I just want to say it was a real Adventure driving out there to check that out going through the gullies Down rocoss Road it was it was a place that I had never been before in my life and I've been in here 39 years almost but it's it's beautiful back there yeah which you know connects in the Delona um as far as the A2 goes it fits right in with with the rest of it out there okay case uh z246 I'm going to uh go with staff recommendation make a motion for approval to AFF the County Council second okay I've got a motion unless you beat you to it Mr you gotta be quick come on be sleeping over here you can't outdo her ears now she's quick I got a motion on the floor to forward the the resoning application case number Z2 2406 for the County Council the final action with recommendation of approval uh for Mr sixma and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimous good luck sir good luck all right that takes care of our business for today um and um let me see what we got here do we have any other public items no sir do we have any staff items no sir actually Mr chair com the um the county council's April 30th Workshop where they were going to discuss those list of special exceptions that uh we went through last time um that has been rescheduled to another date that we're trying to figure out okay to be determined yes to be determined I might show up I have to show you my schedule so so we'll inform sometimes they may need a little help right uh when we get a revised date um I'll inform the um the commission and okay we'll advertise it any other staff comments no sir okay any commission comments yeah just real quick I I brought something up to Trish that at I thought it might be of interest to others on the panel um doing some research for a client I came across a zoning that I had never seen before and I thought I knew all of them but it was an A1 C and looking at the chart of zoning that c was not specified so I was kind of lost what the C stands for if you could shed some what you're really going to get upset with is when the city uh their requirements are more stringent with their own well this was this all in county and this particular one has happened to be out in the county out in the woods so it stands for A1 cow any anytime you see no it's it's a corridor ah anytime you see a letter it's not actually the zoning it's an overlay and that particular overlay is a thorough Fair overlay and and if you see that letter it means it's subject to additional standards above and beyond the what's normally allowed in that zoning classification in this case it would be additional Landscaping wider buffers so we'd have to go I'd have to go to a different page and plan to find this going give you a cheat sheet I'll give everybody in this room a cheat sheet you always be nice that would be great the other overlay you're probably going to encounter is an airport overlay so when you see that a at the end okay then you know don't build High bad things will happen understood with that line of comments I've never understood why this overlay because it's requirements from the city then when or whatever the overlay is to can be more stringent what their own is within in the city boundaries I have to own a piece of property that has that classification and the landscape buffer for it is 30 ft but yet in the city it's only 15 ft and I found that very odd and when I questioned it to the city of course they say well you can we we will give you a leeway on that but you still have to put still put the same amount of vegetation in that landscape buffer and I found that very odd when I was looking at this and I don't know if it's something that everyone's aware of or how can the city can make it more restrictive than what they have on in their own uh jurisdiction did you take a note on that Mr s yes I think those are the probably the entryway Corridor requirements um so those are unique to each City so we'll get with our resoning um and kind of look at that well I don't want to make ours more stringent we need to get some relief from these City requirements that's what I'm saying and if it's in a County property I don't have any say so for the city and yet I've got to abide by their regulation but anyway okay um any other staff comments commission comments uh press and citizen comments hey we need to hear from Al now and then I'm not going to talk to us I've tried to get him up here before and he won't do it no all right this meeting is journ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for