39:39The most notable topic was the proposal to develop 88 multifamily residential units on a 14.6-acre parcel. Despite an existing cap of six units per acre set in 1973, which could permit up to 712 units, the applicant committed to limiting the development to just 88 units. The applicant stated, “we do not desire to remove the cap,” emphasizing a deliberate choice to maintain a lower density than permitted under the Live Local Act, which could allow for up to 30 units per acre.

Board members raised concerns about environmental impacts and traffic, with one member recommending that the applicant invest in a traffic study to better understand the potential implications of the development. The applicant assured compliance with all county environmental regulations and highlighted plans to provide a transition buffer from higher density housing to single-family homes. Despite some skepticism among board members about the density and the number of variables involved, the proposal passed by a narrow margin of four votes in favor to three against.

0:03Another central discussion revolved around a zoning request from Cameron and Courtney Parker to change the future land use designation from residential (res one) to residential (res one per 2.5 acres) and the zoning classification from general use (GU) to rural residential (RR1). The Parkers aimed to build on a 1-acre lot surrounded by similar residential properties, but the current zoning required a minimum of 5 acres. Concerns were raised about the non-conforming status of surrounding properties, highlighting potential complications for future building permits. Board members expressed a preference for addressing these non-conforming lots collectively rather than individually, though it was noted that such changes would require direction from the County Commission.

The board’s approval of the Parkers’ request underscored the need for consistent zoning designations to facilitate residential construction. Additionally, natural resources staff noted that a wetlands delineation would be necessary during the permitting process, given the property’s size and potential environmental impact.

In another zoning application, Robert and Michelle Matthys sought to unify their property’s split zoning from EU and AU to all EU to allow for a significant addition to their existing home. Represented by Thomas Brandon, the Matthys’ request aimed to streamline the property’s zoning, which was unanimously approved without opposition.

A separate zoning request involved Invest Bright LLC, represented by Pao Jimenez, seeking to change the classification from R-17 to R-111 for a split property intended for a single-family home. This application addressed the non-conforming status and was approved by the board.

57:22The meeting also featured discussions on a zoning change from BU2 to RU-1-7 for a 2.7-acre parcel owned by Billas at River Palms LLC. The representative emphasized an intention to develop single-family homes instead of townhomes and limit the number of units to 11. Concerns about compatibility with surrounding land uses, including a nearby gun store, were raised, but the motion passed unanimously after confirming adequate water and sewer services and addressing flooding concerns.

Lastly, the agency deliberated on a zoning change request related to a personal business intended for a spa, initially intended for commercial use but reverted to residential zoning due to past complications. The applicant addressed parking and traffic concerns, with assurances that the existing garage and parking spots would suffice. Despite previous objections from a local resident, the motion was approved with only minor hesitation from one member.