##VIDEO ID:AdUV00pVeT0## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e the October 17 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I could have you silence any audible devices that you may have and if you 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 everyone for joining us this morning um and Miss Tucker could I please have a roll call hi good morning members member Craig here member Shelly here member Costa here member sixma here chair Mills here and our County Sheriff representative is currently vacant and member Patterson will be late okay thank you Miss Tucker and we do not have any minutes uh to speak of this morning and so we'll move right into it and uh if anyone would like to speak for against any of the cases being heard today if you would fill please fill out a form at the back of the D here and hand it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left uh we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit and after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the Commissioners may have and at this time I'd like to turn over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair uh this is for members of the public and for applicants that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which reasone Zone will 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 a 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 agreed 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 Soro and while we're on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any exper part 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 my immediate right with Miss Craig none none none none and I have none okay we do have some items to be uh continued this morning uh Miss Smith could I please get a comment on v 24076 um yes sir first however uh we did have one of your commission members request that ordinance uh 2416 which is case 245 be moved to the end of the agenda to be heard last okay that's on the ordance correct yes yes it's currently the second item so you all just need to take a vote on whether that's all right to do that and we will need to take a vote correct you've got control of the agenda so you can just move it wherever you want all right what we'll do is we'll go ahead and move that um old business item 02 24005 to the end of the agenda and and then we have um variance 24075 will need to be continued because the county did not do the correct due public notice so that will be we're asking that to be heard at the next meeting which is November 19th um and then v247 6 uh did not meet due public notice V2 24078 did not meet due public notice and V 24079 did not meet due public notice so we're asking all four of these items to be continued until the November 19th meeting okay thank you Miss Smith I'll entertain a motion for all four because of the Public Notices and a uh address correction for 75 what is the date of November meeting please no 19th um it's actually November 21st sorry sorry thank you this is why we have Kelly here they yeah I make a motion Mr chair that we continue cases v-24 075 v-24 076 v-24 078 and v-24 d79 until the 1121 November 21st uh pdrc meeting second okay I got a motion on the floor to continue V2 2476 v24 075 V 2478 v24 079 to our next no meeting of November 21st 2024 for Mr Coston a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion no all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously now for you folks that are if anyone is in here for any any of those uh cases they will not be heard today and so we are continuing those to the 21st of November so I just don't want you to wait and then find out you're not going it's not going to be heard okay um so the other case we do have an unfinished old business here um for v2 24068 Miss Shell can I get you to read that into the record yes sir yes sir thank you case number v-24 D68 I think I do need that no not not 68 78 78 yeah but we 068 yeah mhm I read okay um we're not continuing that no I know okay I'm just looking for the sheet that I normally have that tells me in in shorter terms what it's about instead of reading the full description but I'll be glad to read the full application of Travis bar agent for the owner requesting a variance to the minimum yard requirements of prime agriculture A1 zoned property property is located at 701 raisley Road new samna beach partial number 8201 00-06 50 thank you Miss Shelly uh Miss Smith this one is yours yes sir this case will continued from the September pdrc hearing the applicant is proposing to build a single family residence near New samna Beach it's a 2 and 1 half acre vested lot it's got a triangular shape with two front yards and one side yard it is zoned A1 and it's subject to the larger A1 setbacks of 100 ft in in the front yard and 50 ft in the sidey yard Wetlands do cover the Eastern portion of the site and it's in the natural resource management area which is subject to 50ft wide Wetland buffers the applicant is requesting the variants to reduce the front yard from 100 feet to 30 ft to avoid those wetlands and their buffers the variance meets three of the five criteria for approval and we do recommend approval with uh the one condition uh that it's in the location shown on the variant site plan we did have one letter of opposition and we did have one gentleman who came to the last meeting who wanted to speak in opposition and we are available for any questions you may have thank you M Smith any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present could I get your name and address for the record sir my name is J.J rup I am at 1411 South Woodland Boulevard um here in the land and I'm I'm here on behalf of TD bar construction okay you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to that um yes no we're just trying to stay out of the Wetland buffers and to preserve as much as the wetlands as possible so we're requesting you guys um permission to be able to reduce that front yard setback um to be able to do so okay any questions for the applicant go ahead Miss Craig have you taken a look at at this property since the storm yes I was there um the day after the storm and I was also there on Monday as well uh there's no standing water I have pictures I'm I'm happy to share it's a very unique property if you drive by it it's in flood zone X which is is odd for you know a wetland property um you know it's majority pine trees it's not like a Cypress you know cypress tree swamp like you would expect to see Wetlands um it is dry uh I walk the property um you know I'd be happy to share pictures of that as well so the building site and everything is it's uh you know pine trees and more traditional looking you know F rather than the wetlands what method of construction is planned for this uh it's a single family home concrete block it's a modest house it's about 1,700 Square ft living area it's a nice country style um the owner you know wants to preserve as much of the front yard buffer as well with the trees you know if they could push it back we would um but without disturbing the wet lenss you know we're going to try to keep a little bit of the the trees and everything in the front as well to kind of so it's important Place concrete concrete block correct yep thank you any other questions for the applicate Mr CER yeah we got several letters of opposition have you guys had a any kind of conversation with the neighbors or the surrounding homes no so a couple of the neighbors um the immediate neighbor I believe the property is for sale at least there is a big for sale sign uh it's a vacant piece of property uh there's a neighbor off across the Street I've never spoke with them but um no I have not talked to any of the immediate neighbors personally all right thank you okay any other questions I'm surprised it's dry right now rasley road is there a lot of water back there it's a very interesting lot um like I said it's it's flood zone X um you know during the due diligence you know of course we could probably have done a little bit more um but the county shows one little pocket up in the corner that is wet and they you know they said it was a good buildable lot we had non-conforming lot letter everything seemed good until we got a couple of um the Wetland delineation reports and it showed a little bit different story so now that's why we're here to try to incorporate the best we can with what what we now know okay all right sir we do have some public participation forms here and what I'll do is let them speak and then I'll let you come back up no problem answer any questions or concerns that they have yeah okay thank you guys okay we're going to start off this morning with Mr confidential it's confidential all right I'm not going to ask your name and address for the record so you had a comment you would like to speak about on this case I'm here representing the uh property owner um for p ID a201 000064 um his name and address is exempt protected by Florida State Statute um as is mine um well my name is not but my address is my name is Eric westall um I I didn't know my introduction would would eat all the time um okay well there we go U according to the demonstrable that's up there on the screen you'll see that the the plot map uh shows that the part the house is actually in the the uh the buffer on the upper corner um I would like to start to say but this this request is avoidable unnecessary and more importantly foreseeable the due diligence on the current owner would have highlighted the following concerns it's A1 agriculture with Associated setbacks um has a two front yards and it's entirely contained within in INR ma U which requires a 50ft buffer um and it consists of by their own by their own analysis 80% wetlands and it also contains St John biver management water uh District Wetlands it's a Flatwoods depression um in a report that was submitted by Trish Smith 17 Page report um on page two it clearly didn't alates the property contains uh nurma the Forester for the county Kevin or Keith abrahamson also drafted an Department memorandum to that report which shows that it has a nurma 50 foot Wetland buffer um however the applicant submitted his surveys that show a 25 foot buffer they house as submitted as demonstrable here um shows a 25t buffer so if you add the 50ft buffer required by nurma basically 80 to 90% of the house is contained in the Wetland buffer um so the request of the variance um is defective on its face um it shows the house contained in the only portion of the wetlands um that's it's buildable but if you add the 50ft uh boundary line again you'll see 90% of the houses contained actually the Wetland buffer so that require the house to be moved further 25t further to the west and if so they you have a 5ft setback if you have a 5 foot setback then where does the uh sey tank go where does the well go um the County's position is to protect Wetlands I don't have enough time to say all this but uh I'm going to give you 20 more seconds Sir okay um that the Count's um ordinance not only U protects the owner of the wetlands but also other citizens in the county for protection of the wetlands uh Inland Wetlands provide temporary storage of of water during floods um can contain an acre of wetlands can store and treat 1 Point uh or 1.5 million gallons of flood water uh they also filter sediment organic met U matter chemicals um and they also house uh half of all North American bird species in the wetlands there's a whole bunch on on this thing I submitted this report the homeowner submitted this report hopefully you got it for your review there's a lot contained in it um um but there's a lot of the the criteria that haven't been met either because of these Wetland buffers and the um site boundary issues um there was two separate boundary issues U submitted to the county one in 2021 by the previous uh owner of the property U Amanda rup LLC um that was completed by able surveying company on December 28th the plot map um submitted with this application uh was completed um October 31st we've given you your 22nd it is considerably different than the one that was shown um there's a lot of issues okay let's see if we have any questions for you sir hold on a moment any questions for the speaker all right thank you sir okay um Christen calwell can I get your name and address for the record um Kristen calwell 64 if you'll speak into the mic just P pull it down there there you go Kristen calwell uh 641 rasley Road I'm two lots to the side um I just am concerned about when you disrupt the wetlands our properties are already wet I don't know how he saw that that property isn't wet um cuz my property is wet um so I'm just concerned with disrupting those Wetlands that our properties are going to get more wet when the hurricane canes rains and things like that okay that's all I have to say any questions for the speaker thank you thanks and then I have a uh I can't see the last name here so is Tommy you could give me your name and address for the record sir okay it's Tom dady I uh the property he's talking about next to it I already had sold it you got an opposition letter from the new owner at uh 645 rasley Road um I live at 642 rasley Road and 4020 directly across my my issues are the due diligence he said he did due diligence they put in for an application almost three years or two or three years ago got denied by the board um there's been a lot of violations on the property uh they should have pulled them up the wetlands was cleared before they bought it and uh the disparity lines from the previous application to this application if you overlay them this one Wetlands just don't shrink but in this new application the survey guy shrunk it to put this house on there clearly if you go off a 20 2021 survey a lot more of that house is in the wetlands w Wetlands just don't go away soil doesn't change um I moved out to the rural area because I don't want to be living on top of people's houses 30 feet on top of the road when it should be 100 foot set back should done their homework should done their due diligence uh they can mitigate the wetlands they can push it back they can mitigate it but obviously they don't want to pay the cost to do so because it won't make it valuable for either the homeowner or for resale value um um me being a builder myself it's probably going to I would say upwards of $100,000 just to clear the Wetland to mitigate it um that's an option for them it shouldn't become our problem that they did they didn't do the due diligence and we should have to accept a house that is 30 ft from the roadway I didn't move out there 10 years ago for that um it's in my opinion it's going to diminish everyone's property value around there once again this is a huge investment for me I bought 25 acres subdivided it sold off two properties built Kristen's house for her and uh we have value out there and I think I in my personal opinion this is definitely going to di diminish all of our property values around us uh this will set a precedence for future Lots out there where um most of it is Wetlands that lot has always been wet once again I would like to see his pictures that don't show any standing water but it's you go ahead and walk through there and I guarantee you're going to sink the previous violation they sunk a uh bobcat in the back there they had to use my property to get it out um when they bought it they knew they knew what the setbacks were um once again they should done do diligence shouldn't come here after they buy the property and ask us surrounding Property Owners to accept a house being put straight on top of the okay so uh I do have a question for you do your property have water standing on it at the moment yes in the back of well my old property yes in the back it does okay any questions for the speaker road okay any question for the speaker okay thank you sir welcome do we have any more public participation forms for this case all right I'll give the applicant a chance to come back for rebuttal so a couple of the points um which I can see their their point to it um so directly across the street I believe is A2 which is a much smaller um setback from the road I do have a print out here subject property there's three different ones um this is the subject property they all are very visible from the street they're within 20 30 ft of the road I don't know if you guys want to look at this no you have to submit that to M Tucker to the to my left and that will become part of the record um so changing the neighborhood you know having the the house a little bit closer I understand you know they live in the country they want to have the space they want to have the setbacks but there is you know several other homes standing from that corner that you can see that are going to be the same as what we are requesting um I totally agree with disturbing the wetlands and not wanting to have to mitigate or push the water in other directions or have any issues to the surrounding neighbors that is why we're requesting this to be able to have the house brought up uh to not have to deal with the the wetlands um and disturbing the wetlands uh because I know we're all having issues with flooding lately and you know this is kind of our compromise and why we're asking you know to not have to have it completely in the wetlands because here whether the 25 or 50 foot I think that's for our our Wetland alteration permit to kind of decide on that but we are not in the wetlands we are just in that buffer area is what we're we're asking for um and I'd be happy to you know show the pictures you know I I guess I should have printed them to bring them but uh the property right to the north you know it has been um you know changed a lot over the years so I did see standing water on that property uh next door um because the wetlands there has been you know kind of turned to pasture land over the last several years so the water still sits there um um I do apologize we're having some issues with our hover cam so I did pass the sheet down uh to the members so it'll be there momentarily and it will be part of the public record so you can see the triangular piece and that one is in view of each of those uh those screenshots okay um one of the gentlemen spoke previously about the U Wetland buffer line correct being um not in the same area as it was previously correct are you familiar with that yes so there it was not done by the same company um the wetlands I think have changed significantly over the last eight or nine years in the neighborhood um I can submit that as well you can see the property to the north has been kind of cleared and changed um over time so that has I think changed our properties topography and and um kind of wetlands because if you look at the couny print out it shows a very small area um in the back corner is what we looked at when you know purchasing the property and now it has changed significantly because there's been some fill added and some Wetlands cleared and some different things going on to the property to the north which I think is kind of kind of changing and evolving the property directly next to it which is ours okay like the other thing too is if you're going to build this home here what is your expected elevation on or how much fill do you think you're going to be bringing in so I don't believe it's going to be a ton of fill if you walk it and look at the topography map um which I can probably submit that as well um there is not a it's not like a big depression low-lying area the property actually next door I believe is going to be lower on the topography map than where we are so they I think they do have currently standing water even today on that property there um if is there a way to submit the pictures that I did take because I know that was brought up unfortunately I don't unless you don't have it printed no yeah okay not a problem at all um but I do have these ones printed just showing the adjoining property and how the wetlands kind of you have to give that to Miss Kelly to my left Mr Sor is there a way to to for him to submit that into the record after those pictures so well it's it's if you haven't seen them you can't consider them so there's no yeah point I don't mind passing my phone down the row um I don't know if you can you could the doc cam isn't working so okay um I mean you can you can continue this to later on in today um if you can email it uh you know you can but right now if you haven't seen it there's no point in submitting uh evidence that you so you can you can see where the the sil fence and the home site is and there's majority pine trees and everything there all right sir yeah uh all right we can um for the folks that are here and for you too I don't I'm not you don't want to continue it do you does anyone in the commission want to continue this no yeah okay all right okay well going to close the four for public participation and open up for commission discussion we'll see where it goes okay thank you very much do you have a question for no I do for staff okay no sir my question is for staff um so I'm just listening to both sides of the story here and um I know from survey to survey you're always going to have some kind of a change two different companies you're going to have two different opinions of of location um looking at your report do you see anything here that's out of the ordinary anything that you that you would change other than your recommendation to approve at this point um based on what we have in our system when when we get variances in we send them out to all the different departments our Environmental Group did review it and I did just go pull the files from the um review of the single family residents and there is a pending Wetland uh permit in there our policy is avoidance and minimization they are clearly trying to avoid the wetlands and minimize the impacts to the wetlands which is consistent with our code so if EP is is okay with this then which is probably the strongest right right now every in this building correct right now they're waiting to see if um the variance is issued all right perfect thank you my question is for staff also the zoning on the property across from that is that that's not A1 correct it's A2 there that A2 zoning yeah A2 on the top two there's A2 to the north A2 to the East and the larger lots to the left are the A1 got it okay all right that answers my questions any other questions for staff okay we're I'm going to open us this up for commission discussion and um whichever way this goes what you need to understand is there's always an appeal process to uh the County Council um Mr sorya do you want to explain that the appeal process before we continue with this yes so um any person who is uh aggrieved by the decision of this this uh board can appeal I think within 10 days of the rendition letter to count to the County Council um if you appeal no new evidence can be presented you were just solely discussing the evidence presented at this hearing so that's that's you know if it if it gets appealed just know that those are um you can't bring up new things that were not brought up at this hearing you can argue and discuss you know the weight of what was previously in in the report or what was previously discussed but um when it comes to the appeal hearing um all new types of evidence will be thrown out okay thank you Mr Sor there's and I think there's a there's a form online right and this variance is just pertaining to the setback to the front yard is that correct it's not to the wetlands it's just it's not a it's not a wetlands that's corre we can't give a wetland variance anyway can we Mr Sor no sir no um environmental is the one that determines avoidance and minimization okay so if the if there you know even if this if this board does not Grant a a variance um or if it even if it does environmental still has that review capacity to determine okay is this development you know one of avoiding Wetland impacts and if it can't is it minimizing the Wetland impacts and if it doesn't we would not issue or environmental would not issue a development permit okay all right so basically we are just looking at the variance for the front yard setback we really we that's not our department for the wetlands so um and I'm going to stay consistent with everything I previously said on these A1 Properties for the setbacks like this and I I'm I'm I'm okay with it I make a motion Mr chair yes sir I make a motion to approve Vance request case number v-24 068 with the one staff recommended condition second okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve variance V2 24068 with the one staff recommended condition and second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed no okay we got a three to two Mr chair it needs four yes you need a minimum of four so um right now that motion fails so um your uh your options are um you can ask if there are any uh additional conditions any amendments to the variant request uh take up another motion or someone can make a motion to deny um or it's it'll just fail for the lack of uh getting a minimum four okay let me ask you this if if it goes through the obviously it's a technical denial correct yes and if it goes as a technical denial what is the time frame for them to reapply one year so they would have to wait one year for this technical denial correct unless it's appealed to County Council okay uh okay and the only reason I'm saying this is because we have five people here and we do not have a full commission here which is usually seven but we only have six appointed uh can I um well he hasn't heard the evidence I was going to continue it to the end of the meeting but I can't do that because he hasn't heard the evidence just a clarification to that onee rule yes um that would be specifically for this variance they could choose to come in for a rezoning which would then change the setbacks to 50 feet in the front 25 ft on the side and if you Kelly if you can put the um zoning map back up there you'll see there are A1 Property A1 and 2 a property surrounding them so that may be another remedy for them as well okay okay is it okay let me put it this way is there any conditions that the two members that said no would consider for this variance any other conditions no okay all right all right well it goes through as a technical denial and uh unfortunately your your variance has been denied um as M Smith stated just then you can apply for a zoning um one thing about the zoning uh I think the minimum uh size of A2 is 5 Acres this is a 2.5 acre property so that's something that um it it may come back you know in a in a in a different manner um the applicant May appeal the decision to County Council within 10 days of the rendition letter okay that's your option there okay all right let's move on to next case Michelle could I get uh okay that's it for the uh old business until the ordinance comes up at the end of the um meeting here so what we'll do is we'll move right into our new business U Miss Shell could I get the first case please yes I just don't okay um case number v-24 d050 the application of Angelo and URS mosia owners requesting variances to the minimum yard requirements and maximum fence height on Urban mobile home mh5 and resource Corridor RC zoned property property is located at 250 bip Bay Road oakill thank you Miss Shelly and this Miss Ray good morning the applicants are seeking variances for a proposed detached garage and a six- foot fence variance one is to reduce the front yard from 20 feet to 4 feet for a proposed shed or sorry proposed detach garage uh variance two is to increase uh fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet in the South front yard variance three is to increase the fence height from 4T to 6 feet in the west front yard variance four is to increase the fence height from 3 ft to 6 ft in the north water front yard and variance five is to increase the fence height from 3 fet to 5 to 6 feet in the East Waterfront yard uh the property AB buts the Indian River to the north and east creating two water front yards the property is also north of Bisset Bay Road and East of a rideway easement creating two front yards there is a drive that bisects the property curving from the southern boundary line to the adjacent parcel to the West the detach garage is proposed to be located to the west of the curve of the drive AIS and the southern boundary line staff's recommendation for variance one is for approval as it meets five of the five criteria and uh variances 2 through five are also recommended for approval as it meets three of the five criteria I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff there a none is the applicant present could you come forward sir and could I get your name and address for the record my name is Angelo mocha and I live at 250 bit Bay Road loil Florida thank you sir uh you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to it um no okay any questions for the applicate all right sir do we have any public participation forms okay we're going to close the four for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion all right I'll make a motion um case fe- 24-50 motion to Grant variances 1 2 3 4 and five with the staff recommended conditions second okay and how how many conditions I don't think there are any actually just as a proof there is none no okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve variance v2450 variances 1 2 3 4 and five 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 Miss Shelly could I get next case can I see your excuse me can I see your next one please just that one thank you so I'm reading these like they normally were in case number v- 24- 074 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential r five zoned property thank you thank you Miss shelle Miss Smith this one is yours it's mine okay um so the applicant is seeking variances for a proposed swimming pool variance one is to allow the proposed swimming pool to be located within the front yard variance two is to reduce the north front yard from 25 ft to 9 ft for the pool and variance three is to reduce the north front yard from 25 ft to 6 ft for the proposed screen enclosure the property is a double Frontage lot with Sunrise Cove Circle to the north and Roberta road to the South sou creating um the subject property with two front yards and two side yards the pool is proposed to be located behind the residence within the area that acts as the applicant's rear yard if the property was not a double frage lot variances would not be needed as within rear yard pools can be 8 ft from the rear property line and Screen Enclosures could be 5 ft from the rear property line staff's recommendation is to approve variances 1 through three um subject to one condition I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray and my sheet said Miss Smith by the way I didn't do that on purpose yeah apologies it was a typo error on my end okay is the applicant present you want to come forward sir can I get your name and address for the record sir yeah ahul uh 167 Rober Road or Beach Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything that you would like to add to that uh no we just want to build the swimming pool we are uh our families are in Europe and when they visit the nie nephews they we want to have a pool for them to enjoy their time okay sir any questions for the applicant all right we do have do we have oh miss Craig so you say that it it's it's just basically for people to come visit and stay there yeah for our family yes for us too because we work from home and we want like the nice pool view especially during the evenings with the so it would be vacant most of the time uh we are planning to stay at the sou of the year in Orland Beach I have businesses in Georgia but I have business in here too and we are working from home so we have that flexibility so if we can like build the pool if we can make the house like more enjoyable for ourselves we probably spend most of our times in Florida because we like the weather and we like Florida better okay thank you okay do have any public participation forms okay we're going to close the floor for you can have a seat now sir uh we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion I'm ready go ahead Mr I'll make a motion to approve variance requests 1 through three on case v-24 074 with the one staff recommend a condition second okay I've got a motion on the floor for Mr CA to approve variances one two and three for variance V2 24074 with the one staff condition and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shell can I get the next case please did I see your next page just so I can read yes thank you V uh case number v-24 082 variance to dock requirements on Urban mobile home mh5 zoned property thank you Miss sh Mr Shams this one's yours hi good morning um before I begin just wanted to State uh the applicant wanted to attend but is not present due to significant hurricane damage but can you say that can you repeat that I didn't hear the last part um the applicant is not here today U due to significant hurricane damage to his home so he would like the variance to proceed uh we received two letters of opposition which have been provided to you um and I'd like to make one correction on the first page the variance is to the east side yard not the north uh the property is a waterfront yard on a canal with an existing dock the applicant applied for a building permit in April 2024 for a new boat house and Boat Lift to expand their dock area and store their new boat uh the permit was issued in July 2024 and the property owner began construction on the Dock's pilings and supports a code enforcement complaint was submitted by a neighbor shortly after after further review by the zoning official in September of this year the permit was found to be issued in error as the dock does not meet the side requirement of 15 ft um the property itself is 50 ft wide and the proposed dock would be built in line with the existing dock as you can see on your screen um which is it's approximately 16 feet on the western side and 11.2 feet on the Eastern side so the variance is necessary for him to finish his DOT construction and they're seeking the variance to the Eastern sidey yard uh overall staff recommends approval as the variance meets 505 criteria and we do not recommend any conditions I'm available for comment or question just want to clarify your first comment uh so page one where it says reduce the north side yard that actually is the East Side yard that's correct sir okay thank you Mr Shams uh any question for staff okay all right do we have a we do have a public participation form here Mr John Wilson [Music] you like to comment on this case sir yes my name is John Wilson I own 174 Charles Street which is to the east of the property and I'm also the president of the HOA uh the only comment is they say there were no complaints as soon as it started being constructed it's the first time anyone can see what's being constructed you used to be able to pull the permits off online until the last year we no longer can do that you no longer have to post them on site so until it's actually started conru construction the neighbors don't know what's going on the complaints with it is now I only have 11 ft on that side I can't get my boat in and out properly anymore plus it's also extended out into the canal past guidelines the guidelines are very strict they're 25% of the Waterway he is now going to be 34% of the Waterway this variance is strictly to the east which should be 15 feet it doesn't discuss the fact he's too far out into the canal they're both guidelines he doesn't follow we have over 250 waterfront homes in our community now you're changing the rule for every home we've SE over 30% don't have boat houses currently but over 70% too that have always followed the guidelines now we're starting Wars between neighbors just because the staff made a mistake the engineer should have known better the people who put in the polls should have known the proper rules and so should a staff I've personally gone through this process and it's not fund process to go through so I don't know how it got accepted but there are complaints from Neighbors the hoa's been getting calls on it everyone to his West will have problems navigating the canal because he's made it another six feet thinner than he's allowed to by code the wood dock you're talking about was never permitted was unconforming when it was built so I don't know how we're allowed to go past that when you build a boat house they measure from the water which you can see on his survey that's included in the application the boat the current dock sticks F six feet past the waterline so he should have had to remove that prior to the boat house being constructed and other other neighbors have had to so I don't see why a hardship that's been self-induced on this should be my hardship and every other neighbors going forward because there was a mistake and originally I complained the days the poll went into the neighbor and he said would remove the two polls to my side and move them in code instead he applied for a variance no one notified me and I didn't know until I saw the variance letter come out so there were complaints I didn't complain to the county because I assumed he was going to fix it and as soon as I got the variance letter I did send notification in that I had a complain about it I know the neighbors across the canal have complained and several up the canal I included that I emailed in the federal law that shows it's not to code the county knows it's not the code so I don't see how it can it be approved okay sir any questions for the speaker all right thank you sir thank you any other public participation form for this okay we're going to close the four public participation open up for commission discussion or motion uh actually I'd like to hear from staff on on that regarding the uh the federal regulations that that they were just talking about well I'm not I'm I personally am not familiar with it so we review for county code we are not allowed to hold up permits for other agencies if they are required to get other agency permits then they'll need to do that as well so if they're in violation of a federal rule that would be the federal folks that they work with okay and is that a possibility in this particular case I don't know the federal rules we review for county code okay okay um no we've closed the four for public participation no might okay uh go ahead Miss Craig what how does it stand as far as local regulations County or in this case versus HOA regulations who who typically gets the bigger voice we we do not review or enforce HOA regulations we don't have the authority to do that um you know if there is you know the HOA uh usually had is typically set up is there's an Architectural Review Committee um and you know HOAs have independent statutory authority to f um structures that don't conform to their regulations but that's not something the county reviews or enforces um we are only enforcing the county codes which is um you know the setbacks and the overall size of the uh the proposed doc so if there's a you know HOAs have that independent authority to enforce their own rules and regulations um the county doesn't step in and enforce it for them we don't have the right or authority to do that so there there that's not one over the other they're two separate tracks and two separate enforcement mechanisms um so you could be in violation of both you can be in violation of one or the other um but then uh they both operate independently I have another question yeah Mr yeah I I am I just want to clarify something in my own head here this variance is strictly for setback period nothing to do with the doctor nothing to do with a with a boat lift just a setback is there a permit in play right now for the building of the doc that we see in the pictures that it's in at different stages of development yes yes a permit was I'm sorry St oh go ahead a permit was issued in error unfortunately when the zoning Tech reviewed it she did not catch that that pole was not 15 ft it was at 11 ft he went ahead got his permit issued started putting his posts in and then um um A call came in and we went and re-reviewed the permit and saw that it did not meet the zoning code the applicant was notified immediately to stop work he did that and his remedy is to come in and ask for a variance for a variance all right so there there is a permit for the dock itself and so my question is that dock is is basically under the guise of the county and being on a Waterway is it also looked at by state or federal or strictly the county it could be depending on who owns the and I don't know the Waterway okay all right so this is strictly for a setback nothing more correct thank you I've got a question also this it says existing wood dock is that one that was previously there or is there now that's there now and they're adding to it with the boat house got it okay all right any other questions in commission discussion let's talk about it what's your feelings guys well this is similar to the one of the Els we had this is just nothing more than a setback I mean the the permit the permit for the dock itself is the one that's going to dictate whether or not they can build this dock where it's at where it sits um and again I not knowing this Waterway I don't know if it's controlled by a state or federal which typically requires yet another set of eyes on it before they can go forward so I'm I'm I'm fuzzy other than the fact that this is about a variance for a setback for for a dock that or a boat house or a deck that exists correct and we're adding a boat lift to or a dock existing dock to it expand you know rebuilding it I guess or am I missing something here I can clarify um so the dock existing wooden dock is currently there okay and they're building the new boat house and lift in line with that existing dock so it won't protrude further out it's just going to be a straight line through so they'll have the same setbacks or same sides so the new boat house with a lift will not protrude further out than the existing deck that's correct so we're putting it right on top of the existing wooden deck uh further out so it'll come further south hence the variance yes the variance is for the East Side okay I'm looking at this picture here the variances for the East Side M we're not really looking at the variance for going further down to the South no it's just for the East Side that's correct yeah that's what I'm saying it's that's what the confusion is we're not talking about it talk we're not going out the Waterway no we're only talking about the side of the prop talking about the waterways we're talking about the side property line okay got it okay so pretty much we don't we we don't we don't have we don't it's not in our purview to decide how far that do goes out in other words if it was to come in further he could go further out unless somebody said he couldn't correct that's yeah we're just looking at a side setback got it everybody clear on that mhm clear now okay clear as mud right okay okay anybody want to discuss it any further took a while to get there I'll make a motion when you're ready okay go ahead and make a motion I make a motion to approve variance request on case number v-24 d82 uh with no staff recommended conditions second okay I got a motion on the floor for Mr cost to approve variance V2 24082 and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify second saying I I any opposed no okay I've got a mo four to two with Miss Shelly and Miss Craig in descent okay Miss Shell could I get the next case please yes sir before we move on to the next case just for the record show I do want to let uh everybody know member Patterson is here oh yeah okay y presid case number z- 24-15 resoning from the general office B9 zoning classification to the urban single family residential R4 zoning classification thank you Miss Shell we read the two together since they're tied be glad to 24007 thank you are they the same thing case number v-24 077 variances to the minimum yard requirements accessory structure requirements and maximum fence height requirements on General office B9 zoned property thank you Mr sham system is yours hi good morning again so we'll start with the resoning um so the the property is currently developed with a single family home and a screen enclosed concrete patio the home was built in 1956 um the applicant as indicated the home and the structure will be completely removed and they're proposing a new home an inground swimming pool and a proposed uh accessory structure along with that so the site is located at the corner of A1A which is Ocean Shore Boulevard and ocean Bree Circle uh the surrounding lands are a mixture of office uses uh single family residential uses and multifam the existing home is non-conforming um and has been in place in 56 um the applicant is proposing to rezone because a single family resident is not a permitted use under B9 and uh since the property is approximately 9100 Square ft it does not meet the minimum lot requirement of 20,000 Square ft for B9 um we also for every resoning we look at comprehensive plan consistency and the future land use of this site is urban high intensity and R4 zoning is typically not compatible but we did look at uh further review of our future land use element and found this site qualifies for the exception of minimum density requirement uh there's six requirements that need to be met and we found they met all six um this would allow a residential density less than the minimum 8 units per acre um and since the site is resoning to retain the existing use of one single family residence there are no anticipated impacts of government services uh the site has on-site utilities and there's no additional School concurrency requirements or Transportation impacts and the R4 rezoning makes the site conform to our zoning ordinance so overall staff did recommend approval uh recommends forward to the County Council for final action of approval and if you'd like I can continue on with the variance yes please okay so they are uh requesting six variances for their proposed structures and the structures include a 2500t home a 500t accessory structure and a 533 ft inground pool so when we reviewed the site we noticed it has three points of Ingress and egress two to Ocean Breeze Circle and one to State Road A 1A um the drive aisle on the east side of the property that connects A1A to Ocean Bree Circle uh they are proposing for that to remain but they are the driveway to the West they are proposing to replace so that will be a new driveway um so in addition to the proposed structure the appin is also proposing to enclose the property with a combination of fencing and walls so on the East front yard uh there is a 6ft tall fence on the south front yard It's a combination of a 6ft fence and a 6ft masonry wall and on the west front yard they're requesting a 6ft masonry wall so uh variances one and two are for the yard requirements they're proposing to uh reduced the front yard on the south to from 25 feet to 12.8 ft and on the North side yard they're proposing to reduce it from 8T to 5T and this would be consistent with the structure that's currently there um oh can you go back Kelly sorry uh variance three is to allow the accessory structures to be with located within the front yard and then variances four five and six correspond to the fences um so we also had our traffic engineer review this application and he did recommend that the access point onto State Road A would be closed for safety reasons so we've included that as a condition um so overall step recommends um next slide com um denial for variances 1 2 4 and five and recomend approval on variances three and six and our one staff condition is to close the Eastern property access point to A1A thank you Mr Shams is there there an existing fence there on variance four now um no sir there's not and that's on A1A correct yes sir okay and just one question just to clarify I just it's obvious but I just want to clarify this house does in fact have three front yards yes sir all right thank you okay Mr storge good morning and and first of all I want to thank everyone for coming today name and address for the record sir dealing with hurricanes thank you uh it was not easy to get out of my house because it's surrounded by Lake but we did so the bottom line in this case Mr Storch could I get your name and I'm sorry uh Glenn Storch uh 4 20 South Nova uh Nova Road Daytona Beach Florida is the name of the off is the address of the office okay all right and I represent the applicant in this case um they're a wonderful couple they were very happy to buy what they thought was going to be a house they could then build the Dream House own uh next to family they're um um U the family of the of the couple live next door to the it's perfect for them so when they bought this they thought it was a house they thought it was a residential structure and because it been used as a residential structure for years we went through this we thought we could deal deal with this we thought we could take this as a non-conforming use and build up using the exact same Footprints as the non-conforming use as it turns out uh a very diligent staff member found that years ago literally decades ago this was used in fact for a commercial use for a for an office and therefore we could not use it as a non-conforming structure uh we had to come in and actually come in and redo everything so now we're here uh to make this part of the neighborhood to make this uh a neighborhood um residential structure and to do that you have to have variances because you can't build a mobile home home size house on this site which is what you would have if you didn't have the variances that allowed for the use of the existing footprint um the uh concept was to look at this as the existing structure one of the things that staff did not look at because of the fact they said this is going to be torn down and I understand that is the fact that the existing structure is a basis for a variance as well that is a basis because if I kept those walls those two walls the north wall and the South wall and just went up from those walls I wouldn't have to have a variance but at the same time that's stupid because I couldn't build a strong house using those old walls is that correct well I don't know about the strong house but yes so I mean this is on the ocean you need to basically when you build this you need to rebuild it so it meets current code and current criteria and I don't want to use those same walls to go up so in this particular case what we're saying is we're keeping the footprint where as far as the north south north side and the south side we're just building different walls better walls stronger walls to protect the neighborhood and to protect the uh applicants uh in this case so those the th that's the key issue as far as the variance you know the the size of the the the the size of the setback to the um to the north which by the way is the side that is adjoining the family and the side to the uh to the South which is the the Side Road those are the key issues the pool apparently has no issue whatsoever we've you have a recommendation for approval of that the second issue is the wall uh there are I think you can see what the status of this house looks like now uh we're showing it on the on the screen uh it needs to be replaced it needs to be repaired there was also some storm damage uh as a result of the hurricane this is one of the reasons why we need to rebuild this house uh at this point so this is the wall by the way that you're showing uh that I believe is directly adjacent to the family member so that's a six- foot wall already all we're trying to do is to match the 6ot wall all the around and provide for some privacy and security both for the pool and for the family uh I should point out and I'll go ahead and provide this as as evidence there's already been one Sheriff's uh report uh regarding a Breakin to the site they are worried about the site they're worried about the Privacy it's right on A1A so this is something that we wanted to make sure that we did have and the six- foot wall would provide us that privacy uh and so those are the two issues really the two issues are that can we build this in current to the current setback to the current footprint and can we uh deal with this uh as to the safety issue I understand if that is the issue we can certainly talk about that we'd obviously love to have the A1A access as well but if we don't if that's the the case if that's the biggest issue then we can resolve that but the other part we we OB obviously have to have the appropriate setbacks in order to build a home and we uh we really need the appropriate sized wall that matches all the way around uh to provide the safety and privacy necessary and that's really it I mean I uh this is we're trying to be do something good for the neighborhood this family has been part of the neighborhood for literally years and years how many years decades 25 years so this is important to them this is important for the neighborhood uh this is important to my clients uh if I can provide any additional uh conditions that are appropriate let me know but this is this is what we're trying to do we're trying to improve the neighborhood this doesn't need to be a an office or anything else that that is currently allowed under that that B9 designation this needs to be a home and part of the neighborhood do you have any questions Mr cust I'm Sorry Miss go ahead Mr go ahead M craigg go ahead you brought the issue of of there being a Breakin there was the house occupied at the time of a Breakin I don't think so it wasn't no so that's part of the problem you're right I mean the I'm sure the fact it was it was sitting there was one of the issues as far as why there was a Breakin but it does create concerns for the for the family as you could imagine and so the only issue is whether it be a 4-ft wall or a six- foot wall the six foot wall I think would be especially nice with the uh with the way we have it set up and and what year was the house built 1956 okay thank you and that access to A1A has been there since 1956 a beg pardon that access to A1A uh has been there since 19 56 yes and this has been a residential use it's been a residential use for most of the time apparently there was a small time that that it was used as an office and that's the thing that keeps us from having a non-conforming use it if I had a non-conforming use I didn't have to be I wouldn't have to be here today but because of the fact at one point it was used as an office it creates the legal requirement for me to ask for the resoning and the variances any other questions for go ahead Mr C good morning good morning so to save you some time coming back uh just want to clarify something with you and then direct it to staff uh so very Ian 4 that 6ft fence stops at the roadway and the condition is to eliminate that access to A1A I would assume that you'd want variance 4 to continue to the property line yes okay thank you and then to staff that that would be the we'd add that as part of the condition would that be a problem continue variance four all the way to the property line AC would they close that roadway um no I don't see an issue with that I'm sorry I said I don't see an issue with that we can perfect thank you I I have a comment about that wasn't there something in here about that Miss Craig go ahead speaking sorry yeah go ahead that portion of the fence at the front it was it redesigned to allow for better view around onto A1A to the north um I'm not sure if it was redesigned to allow for better view of that area uh do you know there hasn't been any I mean we could do that if necessary uh I can certainly work along with my engineer for that I'm I'm familiar with the property and I feel like that um your view is blocked pulling if you want to pull out on A1A from the side street there there's a problem seeing around that corner and traffic up there is getting heavier all the time and more and more difficult to uh to get out so could I get you to come up to the mic and and and Mr Craig I appreciate that and if I could get your name and address for the record sir sure uh Matt barard uh address 2260 Ocean Shore Boulevard um the you can see on this diagram here where the the road actually starts it's at that that bend and people will pull all the way up if you can see on the South Side kind of by where our North arrow is that's where the stop sign is so people would be stopping well past the fence um that's how it's used today I I think the question she's having though is you see this corner here could that be rounded to provide a little additional and and yes that that's our intent with this drawing here to provide some additional uh view shed and I think we can make that part of the uh part of the variance conditions thank you you're welcome I I I got one question it seems s weird Glenn that this was ever used for any commercial I know like it's sitting right in the middle of all residential I I know but at the time don't forget a 1A was a major road right and so I I think it was used as a realtor's office gotcha oh realtor forget about right about these guys yeah so it seemed like a good idea at the time yeah yeah hey this is like old school having you here and Chris and Scott in the same day that's I I got to tell you old days I really do enjoy seeing yeah we miss you right here yeah Mr Sor what legal wording could we put in there so it wouldn't extend to the corner of the property and maintain that radius you can basically say that they'll be subject to um uh was it a sight triangle um line of sight and sight triangle Provisions so it'll be reviewed by uh traffic engineering Traffic Safety to ensure that um basically give it leave it up to the determination of your your traffic specialist to to make sure that you're not blocking a line of sight but but wouldn't that be part of the pering process when they submit for it yes traffic going to look at that anyway for line of sight so we don't necessarily need to add it here they're already going to do that as part of their due diligence cause that's my understanding of the permit but you can always put it as a condition I got saying you know uh variance I think is that four and five I'm just trying to limit my words when I make the notion we we stipulated to the to the uh sight triangle so I think we're fine right okay all right so we don't need the conditions no cuz it's going to be covered under the the permit is going to when they do the permit they're going to basically dictate what that side triangle is MH okay all right is any other questions for the applicant all right we'll see if we have any uh public participation do we have any we don't have any Mr C the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion and we'll take the zoning first yes sir ready for a motion go ahead uh I make a motion that we forward the rezoning application case number Z -24 015 to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval second second okay I got a motion on the floor to forward the resoning application case number Z2 24015 to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval for Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly uh any discussion on the motion no all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries un ly okay next case uh if I can get a motion on that I make a motion on case v-24 077 to approve variances 1 2 3 5 and six and variance four to approve it with the uh extension to the property line uh with the one staff recommended condition which is closing the access point onto State Road A1A second okay that make sense yeah okay okay I want to with on the discussion on the motion I would like to State I thought we weren't closing the one them I agree I didn't think we were closing a one part of the condition I know but we were talking about taking that that's why we made the sight line then in that case then the extension of Varian four doesn't come into play because it would basically close off that it goes to the property line if you the that roadway the extent see how that 6ot well 6ft fence stops at the road if we close that road then they would need the the additional to the end of the property line it stops at stops at the driveway at the driveway but and that one of their conditions is to remove that driveway from sou Varian four has to do with the height of the fence I thought I see what you're saying to to move the condition to the uh I mean the variance to the property line correct rather than just stopping at the roadway but if we leave this roadway in then the variant says as the variant stays at is is plotted on the site Mr CA or I'm sorry Mr chair um our traffic engineer was very specific that if we issue variances on this property that we close that A1A entrance there are several entrances from the side street which they have determined are much safer as far as your variance four the variance covers the entire length of the East okay side so you don't have to worry about adding anything okay thank you that's that's true so you want to close it or not well well yeah I mean it's a staff recommended condition that's if not they're going to kick it back and permitting got it okay second okay again as long as we understand that the offense can go all the way to the end yep we're good yep okay all right okay good so I got a motion on the floor for Mr tasa to approve uh variances 1 two 3 and four and five and six and six for v2 24077 and to do and miss miss said we do not have to she said it's already part of it to the end we with the one staff condition correct for Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly any more discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carried unanimously all right now we're going to go back to that uh ordinance and bring it into the um ordinance 0245 which is part of our old unfinished business want to read that into the record Mrs CH okay um case number 0-24 005 ordinance 202 24-16 amending chapter 72 of the code of ordinances to allow for shipping containers as an accessory structure in certain zoning classifications and established regulation for use of set structures thank you Miss Shelly Mr Ashley good morning older faces still morning but it's a cleaner face though okay I got five days younger um good morning again this is ordinance uh 024 d005 uh proposed ordinance 20146 uh this is a proposed change to chapter 72 the code of ordinances to allow shipping containers as an accessory structure inser zoning classification and to establish uh regulation standards for that structure uh just kind of a preface and background uh right now the code specifically does not allow for shipping containers and anything similar to a shipping container as an accessory structure pursuant to our definition of accessory use and structure under article one of chapter 71 of the code of ordinances um at their hearing of October 2nd 2023 the County Council directed staff to investigate how to allow the use of shipping containers as storage on properties with commercial and Industrial zoning uh at the County council meeting October 17th 2020 23 uh County staff provided analysis and options for the potential regulations if the county decided to allow the shipping containers in non-residential zoning classifications again their initial uh Focus was on Commercial and Industrial but through the discussion at that hearing it was kind of a workshop on a couple different ordinances they included or several of the members wanted included in residential areas primar agricultural rural areas because they saw that as a uh item that would be fit be fitting allowance in those areas uh and one specific council person indicated they wanted to be clear that it'd be allowed on properties of at least one acre that required at least one acre so we have the rural zoning classifications in addition to which are not strictly agricultural classifications but they are part of the rural area and there was that preference for that so we've included that in the ordinance as well um one of the things that was disced us and pointed out for allowance of this and and what we should come back with in staff is look at how to regulate shipping containers where they can go obviously onlyon classification where you place it on a property that would get into where how do you site it using setbacks also there is discussion of of screening height and things of that nature and staff is trying to extrapolate that information from what the council discussion happened last October into the ordinance you have before you um changes have been made since the last meeting try to provide a clear purpose intent which is in listed on uh page seven of the agenda item uh we also included a new definition in the code for a ship container we've modified the accessory use and structure definition to address the shipping container usage um also to make it more clear from our discussions last meeeting uh the shipping container if it's used in conjunction with an agricultural use on land classified as agricultural by the property appraiser is exempt from these regulations um and I do one correction uh it was reference in the staff report and in the uh beginning of the ordinance the whereas but I fail to add it to the actual code section on page seven and eight and that would be that uh the non-residential Pud would also be allowed to have shipping containers so I want to make that adjustment at this time um one of the things that did want to discuss with you uh that I've looked at some of the different ordinances we've looked at and wanted to present to you I think there was some discussion I think maybe Mr Costa on the number of shipping containers and that was kind of a decision point I want to bring up to let you decide uh We've looked at different ordinances where they allow one two uh some of them do BU so many per acre you know you can have one and then you can have one for every so many acres to a maximum number or just if you have so much land if you have at least five acres or 10 acres in one instance then you can have one basically for every five acers of land you have so there's some variety of different options so I want to present that to you uh I think there was some discussion on the number issue last time let you decide and and we'll add it to the ordinance it's up to you whether or not you want to address that issue on the numbers so I put that to you can okay all right um I really don't have much more else to go over you I'm presume you have some questions for me so I'll be happy to address them at this time okay Mr C yep uh two basic two started questions and then I want to hold the rest of my questions till after I hear from uh from Mr Nagel as it looks like we're may be on some of the same Pages uh RC why is RC left off RC is a resource Corridor designation it doesn't allow for um there's a limitation on the impact of the property and that use and it was not one of the zonings because of the resident the environmentally sensitive nature of that zoning classification that's why it was left off but RC can also be used for grazing of C it can be used for grazing yes and and silver culture but if that's and that's where the and that's where the container comes into play well if that's a pleasure of the commission you can certainly add that in well that's why that's why I'm bringing it up is because of I there's several large Parcels that are RC that are used for cattle grazing that um uh a container either already currently exist or would would readily be existing the second question I have is on the exception for um for Exempted agricultural uses you added except for can you explain to me this Florida ha the flood Hazard management ordinance and how that entails well if this property is located if if you have an ex agriculturally exempt property but is in 100-year flood plane any structure has to get a permit MH that's state law that's that's not a building permit that is a that's um the state exempts non-residential farm buildings on the farm from the building code however it does not exempt them from your flood Hazard mitigation permits um which we do so it's not a building permit it's make sure that accessory structure um it meets the flood requirements more detail please um so we've got so essentially you have to uh uh was it it's our our flood Hazard mitigation Provisions in chapter 72 so 756 uh yes yes so that is the only section of the code that by Statute applies appes to uh non-residential farm buildings on a farm um by a statute so that's that that applies to any structure any structure yeah so you know it's you know could be uh a shipping container it could be a large barn um State Statute says hey you can ignore all the county codes except this code with the the flood Hazard mitigation code I guess one of the and following up with Mr Costa saying is there uh a need for that to even be in there because it it that require is the same for any structure you put on your property regardless if it's a shipping container if you leave it off it wouldn't really affect it it's just you know we would just tell them um it's just kind of a a inform people that if you have a shipping container and you have um you have a farm and an agricultural classification um you know you can basically uh you're not you're exempt from the from the restrictions in this section but if you put it in the flood plane you still have to comply with flood with the flood uh plane code it's more of a notification and I believe the uh building official asked for that clarification just so that you know people come in with the correct expectations so I mean we would apply it regardless this is just informing um I guess people with an agricultural classification it would be just a warning is what you're telling me okay you're not impos I can live with a warning yes you're not imposing a new a new regulation that is on top of an existing provision this is just informing people who have Shimp containers and on agricultural property if you put it in a flood plane you're going to have to meet the flood plane requirements but we don't require building code we don't require a building permit or any other type of permit for a bonafied egg yes all right okay I'm going to reserve the rest of my questions till after Mr Nagel okay any other questions for um Mr for staff for Mr Ash are are we trying to uh decide how many containers per acre or whatnot today or not yeah yeah yeah I want to see what has to say okay all right Mr Ashley they want to hear from Mr Nagel and then we'll probably have some more questions or comments to you okay do we have any other public participation forms other than this one okay Mr Nagel if I could get your name and address for the record sir my name is Christian Nagel I live at 350 steel Brook Trail in the community of Enterprise uh I presented to the county staff yesterday um my comments I also brought again I brought another markup and strike through version of the code that that include my recommended changes to the code and recommended improvements to the code um I wanted to mention I didn't get to last time I hope I'm going to run out of three minutes but I am fortunate enough to be uh have 40 40 more year 40 Years of professional planning experience also was fortunate to work for 17 years for vush County and Planning Development Services I also was fortunate to write or help write at least two different Zone and ordinance amendments for valuan County so um I appreciate the efforts that the staff's making I appreciate the efforts pdc's meeting y'all are on the right Road you just you just need to keep the truck going a little bit more to make some further improvements and refinements to the code and I I thank Mr Ashley for recognizing the uh need to accommodate the the shipping containers on the non-residential portions of a PUD Zone and classification uh the but my biggest thing I want you to consider is that the proposal is that you're going to allow shipping containers in the RR zoning classification the rural residential classification I'm sorry that particular classification is a residential classification it's not an agricultural class classification it's a residential classification nor is an IT and agricultural uses there it's not an agricultural use either if you're doing agricultural uses on RR you have to have a single family dwelling on the property and you're keeping and raising your crops and animals is restricted to the personal use of the people who happen to reside there so it is it is a residential classification it is not an agricultural classification at all and um so I ask that the ordinance be amended to not allow shipping containers in RR zoning classification it's I don't believe it's in appropriate um the second change I recommendation for you is that I'd ask for the the ordinance the staff to look at the ordinance a little bit better and look at the better Define where the sure structures can go um you can start by amending the uh proposed definite adding adding or working on the definitions for setbacks and upins those terms are used in this proposed ordinance but they're not defined in the uh uh article one of the uh of the Cy code uh so that's that would be a nice uh Improvement also um and the last thing I'd ask for you to consider we had lots of discussion today about wetlands and trying trying to avoid Wetland impacts and Wetland buffers we had a gentleman that wanted to build a house in a in a wetland buffer or Wetland today I'd ask you to consider to also prohibit these proposed sh shipping containers in Wetlands Wetland buffers platted easements and utility easements um you've got a basically you've got a minimum one acre size requirement for allowing uh use of uh the shipping containers there should be adequate space to to locate your shipping container out of these areas and to maintain their already designated uses um and I thank everybody for your efforts here and I I appreciate your comments and I appreciate the ability to speak before you okay the uh Wetlands buffer Mr sorio refer back to the to the requirements that we previously were talking about is that correct um well we I can't remember typically did we allow accessory structures in the Wetland buffer it would if so it would require Wetland alteration permit um this this commission can restrict shipping containers even more and say hey you can't even place these in the Wetland buffer don't even try to come in for a wetland alteration permit I see what you say right because otherwise you mean it's treated as an accessory structure um to uh the principal use so that's why meets the same kind of principal setbacks principal yards um we treat the locational criteria in the same way as locating a principal structure so if they're if they're proposing it in the Wetland buffer they would have to go through a wetland impact permit but if the commission chooses otherwise you can say no don't you know keep it outside of that even okay thank you Mr Nel we do have a question for you from Mr Costa yep so let's go back to the RR sir rural residential that's the name of it that's the name of it so I could own 40 acres of RR property and you're denying me in a container on my property that was my comment that's y'all's decision I mean I'm agreeing with you on some of these items I just want to get clarification on that but that's what I'm looking at is I'm looking at those Parcels those rural part that are that are held in in in in large in large volume and by eliminating the RR I think we're knocking out a few that potentially would be in the same would be usable of these containers well I agree with you there on especially if you gave the using your example uhuh okay but if you're going to allow them in RR I would encourage the staff to work on the ordinance some more so you can have some better ational standards for them unfortunately because of at least of based on my memory I could be wrong but unfortunately this ordinance has been amended last time the last version of this ordinance said that you couldn't have a shipping container uh behind the uh in front of the front plane of a structure right that's been taken out now under this one it says well that limitations only applied to commercial industrial Zone zoned properties and I I realize why that is okay because of a state statute requirement concerning Residential Properties but I would encourage the staff to work on hey if you're going to allow them in RR let's see what we can do so they're not sitting well well there's at least not in a front yard yeah and there's well there's one of the questions that come up so we're we're also in the statute we're talking about limiting it to maximum of two per parcel so two two storage containers on a 1 acre parcel is pretty hideous in my mind right and I'm pretty liberal when it comes to usage of your land that's pretty a hideous uh scenario and other than the RR the only other zoning classification that is a that is a minimum of one acre is the mh4 so I don't know if if maybe we should limit this to Parcels of 2.5 and above for storage containers uh is that too restrictive is I mean depends on how the rest of my colleagues feel but that's I'd have to defer to Mr Ashley I don't have all the minimum lot sizes required memorized for all the zoning classification I had to look them up that's why I know so I don't know if they all if any of them are Le any all all the rest of them are to an half acres or more yeah the exception would be on a on a PUD mhm uh they can be less than two and a half acres uh in size but I'm not too worried about puds because in puds you negotiate with the applicant to get something that works for everybody so I'm not concerned about that okay but I am concerned about a shipping container being lo I got RR zone property I got a residential home and I end up with a shipping container that's in front of my house and I agree and in front of all my neighbor's houses also on RR well two actually you could have two have two of them there and under this ordinance there's no size limit to the size by the way there's no specific size limit to the containers nor is there specific height requir to the containers we put a minimum we have a minimum size uh below that we don't consider that a shipping container it's more like one of those like you don't have a maximum I don't you know because we we want to separate like I understand why you don't have those in the ordinance it gets very difficult to administer it you get people coming in here for variances sure they got something a little different so I understand why you're not in there but yes I all I am all in favor of having at least a maximum number of containers you can have on your property I'm going to leave it up to the pdrc to come up with a good number two is a good start but if you want to be a little bit more liberal that's fine I just want if you're going to have shipping containers I don't want them in front of people's residential homes and that's difficult to do with the state statute requirements as I remember them but I could be wrong but at at least keep him out of a front yard and out of a side street yard and again when you're talking residential home you're talking I got a residential home and I'm going to end up with a shipping container in front of it or two of them in front of the plane not necessarily in front of it right well it could be yeah but if you're on let's let's take my let's take my property for instance so I'm on five acres my property sits half my home sits halfway back on my five acres yeah so now I've got two and a half the front two and a half in the back because of the location of the cattle and the entrance to the roadway my shipping container would be forward of my front plane of my house and on five acres who cares on one acre it becomes an issue I agree with you right and that's why I'm saying if we limit it to I appreciate it you're we're all now we're on the right page now we're talking about something important now we're talking about where your wonderful shipping container ends up in front potentially in front of Resident right I think we've had we've had several variances where we've done that and allowed it to go forward of the front plane based on thep type of property that it was at yes and that would be their option of course depending on what standard you set but right now this proposed ordinance needs needs a little bit more fur to do that are in favor of not allow these shipping containers in front of people's homes I don't want to create additional variances requests for things I don't either I like the ordinance to be designed so nobody has to apply for the variance nobody has to sit through the variances and besides last time I look Den now midal that was four years ago but in my humble opinion about n over 90% of the Varian applications got approved I don't know but that was four years ago it may be different today may be different today yeah maybe more okay okay Stony did you have a question yeah I just I I just hate to see any container put on some land that's less than two and a half acres there you go I think that should be a minimum okay then you're going to need to change the RR then you're going to then they wouldn't be allowed an RR cuz rr's got a minimum one acre I I would I would say with the exceptions I mean somebody's got one acre RR I don't think they should be have have a container in their yard I own 40 acres in Port orangee that is owned RR 40 acres continuous so you're saying can I put containers a container on there because there it goes but I'm saying there there should be a minimum lot size yeah a minimum lot size before you can have a shipping container with the exception of the Pud classification because lots of that you got variable lot sizes on there and with a PUD application you got the you got the ability to propose zoning or changes you couldn't get otherwise right under the code so okay okay what about use um shipping containers for homes well yeah need you need a little bit more work on that too if you saw my well that's strike through an underline just to be safe I mean I hated to throw that out there but it's yeah well that's that's coming they're making those and the shipping them up to the North Carolina right now uh as temporary housing y okay all right well any other questions for Mr n thank you much for letting me thank you sir y letting me participate this is something I get very well we appreciate motivated by you give us some insight on what the thought is because you know I'm glad you didn't restrict me to three minutes thank you much thank you sir okay we don't have any other okay you want to Scott come back pleas Mr Ashley could you come back please you've heard the discussion on RR yes sir is there is is right now is it omitted from the allowing it well the well one of the first things that um I guess we should discuss is we already talked about the RC that I think I'd like to see the RC in there okay is the um number of units number of containers per parcel and and the problem that I have with limiting it to per parcel is the same as we just had so if you have a if you're on a one acre you're allowed two units if I've got 100 acres I'm only two containers and I I think there is that's where we need to separate that um I I really don't have a problem with with uh with Mr sixma suggestion that that the property be a minimum of 2.5 and above to have a container I think that that eliminates the the crossover on you know any the any RRS that are actually more residential than they are rural what's your you know I'd like to get more opinion on that for those those of us who live in the country what about clation again the location I I don't prop yeah it depends on the property size okay because we're allowing that now in from a standpoint of um a variant standpoint on Accessory structures and dwellings accessory dwellings why would this be any different again in a residential setting yes it would be a hideous thing to have a container forward of your front line but on a 5 acre parcel or a 2 and half or partial that it's that it's 10 ft AC above again it's not we're not picturing the here's the house and the container sitting in front of it it could be off to the side but forward of the plane MH because a lot of people have with the Acres they have barns pole barns and stuff it's actually in front of the house on the side we so you're saying that any R can be less than two and a half acres r r is RR has a minimum of one acre so you're saying putting a minimum of one acre on r correct I'd say minimum two and half 2.5 but but but this is the point I'm trying to get at we have agricultural classifications that are less than two and a half they W modify the a the A3 is a one acre that's why I if I could a question because the discussion came up from Mr Nagel that the RR because of being residential and one element of that is that zoning only allows agricultural Pursuits if you will keeping of animals raising crops for personal use only only not resale so it's not a true agricultural classification right if that is a concern then we need to drop out the mh4 the mha the ra and the RR if you don't mine those zonings but you want a minimum standard of two and half acres across the board then yes A3 has a 1 acre we'd have to make it a two and a half acre r r would be have and mh4 would have to be okay you're a minimum one acre lot but you got to have at least two and a half acres to do this is the point I'm getting at right now that's what I'm talking about because I could be an r z it's more the 30 you know yes combined same with an mh4 even though it's a minimum of one I could be sitting on a 5 acre parcel and then on the plane issue that was the question you had last time Mr Costa and that's why we changed the code um about because you felt that was not necessary for a property because like you just describe here the house be could be in the middle of the lot but you know where it needs to be is forward of the house M so that is why the the modification to what you see today which number are we on um this is Page these because the your numericals are out of yes I see that it's number it would be number the true number four shipping container shall be located behind the front plane or facade on commercial commercial industrial Zone okay got it okay and then we say got it and we only address it for those yep so that's that's a requirement on those two particular Zone Parcels I'm that I'm okay with Okay C and I only okay um the the one thing that we're and I want we'll come back to the the minimum size and the number if you don't mind um you and I discussed it Mr chair uh last time is that we're only addressing this for Bonafide a exempt how do we deal with the rural class and um the the requirements item one two three and actually one two and three now because four is for only commercial and uh and um industrial well we're applying to it just like any other accessory structure that would be allowed on those classification the permitting process putting it on a pad and that's where I'm thinking that we may be I don't think it needs to be on a pad it just needs to be what secured secured yeah we're not I don't think we're requiring an actual concrete pad it just needs to be stab code but if you if you don't want it then we can strike it I just similar language to the other ordinances um because that's a better way to how they secure It To The Ground by bolting it to a foundation or a pad well this is this is my point that we spoke about before is that if you got an agriculture exemption which you consider a Bonafide agriculture they have no restrictions on as far as what can go and they can have the same zoning classification as your next door neighbor but yet he has to go through different Hoops in order to put that shipping container on there same thing if you build a garage this is a problem I've had the whole time and we've had this discussion your times is that if you got an agriculture zoning when you buy the property and the adjacent Property Owners know that it's the agriculture zoning that they should have the same requirements and setbacks as your Bonafide agriculture I know where this come in previously so to put additional restrictions just because it's not Bonafide egg because you know the Bonafide egg may change next month they may sell it and now it's not Bonafide egg they still have that shipping container there so my point is is that to make it Bonafide egg I think is if you're going to stick with egg you need to P agricultural zoning and rather than Bonafide egg and and I know where this comes from you know I mean One Bad Apple destroyed it for everybody cuz it did it used to be that way and then they started putting in big barns to store cars and stuff and covered up the whole property I get it but unfortunately it it had a big ripple effect on everybody else who owns agricultural property they can't get the same uh benefit as an Bonafide agriculture right beside them and so that's where I'm at with that and you wanted to add the that no I I'm I'm in agreement there and I'm not sure how to address that in this particular concern case without leaving them all out of the equation well if it's Bona if rather than saying Bonafide a if it's just a zoning for that which is your A1 through A4 there you go and if you're putting a restriction on the the size of the property that would pretty much sir your mh3 and your mh8 2 and a half acres so you're already uh got the size limitation there so your M3s and mh8 which are also in the rurals uh would require unless they were Bonafide a would require to go through this process well if it's MH or RR either one because that's more of a residential classification yeah that I can understand that okay it's required going through the um permitting process on that okay if they put a utility shed are they going to increase that to 400t by the way the utility shed right now it's 100 um I don't know that's a that would be a building code yeah change um someone was speak talking about increasing that I heard that on the council discussion right of the increasing the 400 square foot the 400 and they less than 400 they don't need a permit but they I'll need a check yeah because right now it's 100 I think and so uh and we can look at it that way because if you you know if if we're going to require this I I just can't see given one benefit over the other and on residential which is RR MH what is it mh5 three mh3 I don't have the ordinance three four and eight are around here okay and so those zonings are more of a residential zoning and so they obviously they would have to go through the uh permitting process you you say that and I have I have to smile because mh3 is prevalent down cury Road when they're all five Acre Farms really yes sir I'm MH I am I'm mh3 really yes sir okay yes sir when that when that was all subdivided out and plotted out that's why I'm saying so mh3 is deceiving yes yes you're right in a perfect world mh3 would be a in a residential SE setting but mh3 is are in fact bonafied aegs and and working and working Farms currently that may not be uh you know I've got all the neighbors have got horses I mean whether they're a agricultur you know business or not but they are definitely in a rural agricultural vein and mh3 is a 5 acre minimum five acres yeah it's mh4 it's one acre it's one acre well that that's what I'm saying I that that comes back to the limiting of well you go back to size minimum size well then you then we're going to be regulating you want to regulate use issues because you know if it's a garage you got to go through a permitting I don't ask if the garage going to be used for agricultural use unless you you the applicant tell us this is going to be for agricultural purposes same thing with shipping container it's going to be an accessory structure here are the standards for it I'm not ask unless you tell me that you're using frag you got to go through the whole permitting process just like any other accessory structure but you just want to clear so what kind of notes I need to if this going forward do you want want to exempt out this because it's on an a zoning or because it might be used a I mean that's the kind of wording I know you're struggling with but I got to then translate it into prepare to council report how you want to address that that's the that's the part that's giving me a little bit of heartb the mh3 which is an agricultural classification with the residential it's a subclassification of Agriculture okay is it not I I don't know Miss Smith they all allow residential use on the mh3 mh3 the A1 A2 A3 those are all you have a lot of areas that are just like A3 is an agricultural zoning but you have areas that basically it's a g farming it's not like you use the word Bonafide agriculture yeah and you B and it's an agricultural zoning I this Bonafide agriculture is where I had the artwor and and well I mean if you buy a piece of property that's own agriculture you should expect that if You' got the agricultural uses being used beside of you you know I mean and you should be able to use the same as your joints and Property Owners that's what I that's but that exemption is if you're to address his concerns on mh3 let's look at it independently if we if we need be now my concern is the agricultural properties all right and if you want to address the mh3 if you got some stipulation there and we're already going to it sounds to me like we're we're pretty much going to limit to the size I I yeah I well let's let's let's talk about that one then so I I mean they can be separated they just it doesn't have to be a broad sweep of the brush you can set put that in a different sentence you know separate for True a zonings and rural zonings well yeah I mean you could make different stipulations for that and would Encompass your RR zoning you know it doesn't necessarily have to be a broad sweep of the brush uses threshold like two and a half A3 because that's an a used maybe doesn't have that threshold that what you're getting it what I well it depends on what he wants to do with mh3 now he's got an opinion on that so I well I do because because there's several Farms that would be impacted by I agree I hey that are not that may not and I'm not sure that they are or not but they may not be bonafied a how would you structure that into this ordinance it that's that's the question well yeah it would it would have to be back on page uh on page seven of 11 basically where it says that the uh where he states that Bonafide a is exempt it would have to include include Bonafide a and Bonafide a and any a Zone properties I'm I want to take out the Bonafide egg on completely on on the agricultural properties you just want to put it as agricultural agricultural on the egg properties yes both commercial and or personal yeah I'm I'm good with that uh uh that's where I'm at with that because it's I've been stating this and it's just not specifically to this ordinance it's across the board well how you treat one agricultural property you can have one sitting in the middle of two Bonafide agric agriculture exempt properties and they can do I'm not going to say whatever they want but they can there there's more benefit to those two than it is me sitting in the middle because I'm not agriculture exempt for Bonafide a correct and this is the problem I have with this and have had it how do we write that Mr Ashley uh well then we just take out the Bonafide a do that and only shipping then shipping containers are allowed to be exempt no matter what because it's on EG but any other accessory structure size requirement the size okay size requ the two and a half acres a minimum of two and a half acres M how do everybody feel about that I I totally agree and but now we have to address your mh3 and your RR zoning how do you want to word that well can I just follow along on page seven then um B2 the ship container used the conjunction with an agricultural use can you speak I can I can barely hear you um with a code section that on page seven of the agenda just be clear under B1 the applicability your proposal is a shipping container used in conjunction with agricultural use um is exempt strike everything else in between is exempt from provision of the SE section except for the flood Hazard man uh management ordinance correct that what you're looking for let's read that one more time please a shipping container used in construction with an agricultural use is exempt from the provisions of this section except for the flood Hazard management ordinance requirements of article 3 division 7 of chapter 72 so we're dropping the on land classified property appra are Pursuit I understood that's what you're looking striking all that agricultural use yeah so doesn't address the The Zone I mean that's you you just went back forth said whether exempt or not exempt doesn't doesn't address the additional zonings which would be well I mean that's one step y we'd have to add a second or a third applicability section but throw in the mh3 and and and eights mh4 again here's what I'm looking at I know that these are minimum sizes so in an mh4 parcel it's a minimum 1 acre parcel but an mh4 could exist as a 20 acre parcel and to basically knock them out of the equation well that's why you put in the size limitation of the two and a half okay so then we we have to include all of these in this in this exempt sentence or additional sentence here is adding the MH 3 through eight well M8 including the RR and the uh I mean yeah including the RR basically at that point of 2.5 acres or larger well you need to address the location if it's 2 and a half acres or larger the location is it's basically a moot point it's similar to anything else as far as if it's under two if it's under 2 and a half acre you're not getting a container on it that's how I'm envisioning that's what I'm here in here unless it's unless it's a commercial or or commercial or industrial use which outc comes to you know your less than less than two and a half acres is going to be your your feed farms and your different businesses locations so I'm I'm more concerned about the the rural community the I the The Business Industrial section of this I get it I'm I'm right with you you're with me just I'm just at a loss for how to write how to word this that makes sense but you're still sticking with only agricultural use classifications being exempt because ra RR mh4 and mh8 are not agricultural zoning they personal use only that's that's that's what I'm trying to lump those in there either it's a separate sentence right okay that's why I said separated yeah so okay they're still permitting and whatever but 2 and half acres as at a minimum the all a zonings they're going to be exempt basically yes okay that make sense to you because it's is pretty clear as mud to me if you can write this in a fashion that here's my understanding of The Proposal so you know you have B2 which is the ex for a classified Bonafide a property um what the proposal is I'm hearing is is just to make that apply to all agricultural zoning classifications is exempt from the provisions of this section with the exception of the flood Hazard mitigation because that's that's required um and then when we go to C for the location you know obviously take out your a zonings there because they're they're exempt um and then you make the rest of those non commercial and non-industrial Zoning classifications have a minimum 2.5 acres you know to address the concerns so of uh of you know regardless of zoning classification but we're going to put in the um uh minimum size requirement on the egg properties also oh yeah you can do that as well so you know B2 so A1 to A4 of at least 2.5 acres you're you're exempt from this provision um and then for the rest of it you need at least 2.5 acres to have a shipping container and you're subject to the rest of the terms no that's not what we're talking about no no no no cuz you're again you're going back back to the beginning I want the mh3 through 8s as well as the RRS to be also exempt as as similar same as the agricultural property as long as they're 2.5 acres or larger I don't want them to have to go through this yeah now you now you're back to me that would be different yeah it would be so basically because the MH 3es you're looking at these are Parcels that are being used in a agricultural in a rural let's call it rural setting okay so they're they they're boarding horses they've got family cattle they may not be in the business of but they are in the agricultural world and that's where we start separating because it's not just on the a properties agriculture is happening it's happening on the MH properties as well okay so B so it's all all A's R RS r a and MH and all the at least 2.5 acres exempt from the provisions of the section right um what does that leave it leaves commercial industrial okay well what if you're RR and you have okay well your R again your has to be over 2.5 I'm assuming if you have less than 2.5 acres and you are not uh business or industrial you can't have a shipping container is that I don't think you I don't think you can get an A exemption on under 2.5 acres anyways if I'm not if I'm not mistaken I think the cut off is three acres minimum minimum so you can't be a Bonafide egg under under two and a half under three acres it's all how you defend Bonafide egg and this goes back well it goes yes a count guys of I'm not sure the property praiser has a I think there's case law you can't have but the property praiser cannot have a minimum size it's it's a lot of factors that they look at on whether or not not to designate something so that you can have like an apiary get which is small lot get a Bonafide classification from the property appraiser so minimum size isn't is isn't a 100% guarantee but for purposes of whether or not a shipping container needs to meet this criteria you can set a minimum size just you know on average Parcels less than 2.5 are not engaged in either you know an actual ual or uh hobby type agricultural activity and also what I think one of Mr Nagel's concerns was is that putting these containers in the front yard of r r zoning MH five and three or whatever so how but we're we're we're eliminating the one acre we're we're setting it at 2.5 are we not yeah so I mean when we're exemp when you're exempting these basically none of these criterias apply so we're not subjecting them to the principal setbacks or anything like that they're just my my understanding is you want us to treat them in the same way as a bona as a non-residential Farm building on a farm essentially you know as long as they are compliant with the flood plane requirements they can put these anywhere no matter the use so yeah you're you're basically we're we're limited ordinance from what you're describing to just commercial industrial now that's I mean that's where we're headed cuz you're you're you're sound like you're want to exempt everything as long as two and half acres you can't have a St without two and a half acres and if you're two and a half acres and larger you're totally exempt so we won't have any standards for them because there's no way to to review for it if there's no permit to go by so size two and a half acres well how are we going to know you don't come in you can tell somebody that but there's nothing to they're not coming into us to to find out did I do it right unless it turns in Code Compliance issue I guess if somebody wants to complain they don't have two and a half acres well that be the one acre partial complaining that two and a half acres got a container and they can't get one that'll be the call and then as a dimensional requirement I don't know can they ask for variance to what on the two and a half acre requirement it's not it's not the I want to be clear so we we don't go to that R I think so yeah it's a it's a dimensional requirement that's connected to an exess not the lot size of the zoning it's the dimensional standard for this particular structure yes but I mean that's that's um so it's I'm not sure we're ready to approve and send us to council no I think it needs I think that this this particular paragraph needs to be defined and to defin it basically I I I just don't want to I don't want to eliminate people needlessly and have them go through a process that they don't need to go through if we can take care of this here at this table um since we're on that subject and I and I agree with you I think we're going to have to kick this can down to the next you know to another revision let's talk about um the maximum number some guidance yeah let's talk about the maximum number of units per parcel or do we want to limit that per maximum units per acre container wise right now the way it's written it says you can you're limited to a maximum of two containers per parcel period that's uh what do you have 100 acres that's my point how do we tweak that to basically specify maximum MH go ah go we could 2 and A2 acres and then for every two and A2 Acres after that we could put one container with a do have put put a cap on it number of containers total you got to put a cap on it if not you we start making storage yarts right yeah I mean I I'm logically yeah you know I I would I would be comfortable would say with a total of five I was going to go six I like I like even numbers okay maximum of six so if you got 100 acres six containers spread out over 100 you're not going to you know yeah but every every a container for every two and a half acres is a lot though well you're you're limiting you're allowing two per paral right okay what about that 20 acre piece you can have up to five is what you're saying or six the way it's currently laid out I mean not the way it's currently layout the way we're proposing it yes and so we have to limit it somehow got to put a limiter on there yeah well I like the two per parcel but I don't want to restrict it per parcel I want to restrict it per a size for the additional two and a half or one for every five total five or one for every five after the first two and a half up to a Max maximum of six total yeah you can if you can kind of write that in a way that we can understand it for the first two and a half you could have up to the first two and a half you can have two storage containers correct and then for every two and a half after that you can have one additional up to five a six total yes right every two and a half is what yeah okay but a 5 acre parcel your maximum is three three yes uh on a on a 15E four Mr Sor does that sound logical yeah yeah it's it's it's it'll be a math Pro math question but that's you know it's um this isn't this isn't unique to you know when you count the number of things you said a minimum and then for every and then afterwards you you can set a ratio and then you cap it that's that's pretty common um so my understanding is you get two for the first 2.5 and every 2.5 after that you get an additional one of to a maximum five or six six yeah six uh we got to put a cap on that because you don't have a little one acre uh A4 prop was it A3 on the One Acres A3 is one AC one one acre lot with two storage containers behind it do we no I think that's what we're I think just to clarify the cap we're also we are applying it to the zoning designations you want to exempt from the rest of it but they're not going to be exempt from the cap from the count from yeah from from the it will not be exempt from the count that the count applies to everybody okay I think the count it applies to everybody and the I think the minimum lot size should also apply to everybody which is two and a half correct but are we're getting the permit for them or we exempting them from that process to track that so that's where it does come in pardon sir are we but I got the impression we were you wanted to exempt them from permitting MH yep uh I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to regulate or follow that Implement that other than somebody has complained hey we think they got too many then we'll have to ask I guess surveys and counts and yeah I see where you're going but that would be more of a code enforcement would yes it would yeah and then they're going to wonder how am I figuring this out well well I mean obviously if they if anybody puts anything anywhere they have they called IFI or should if they need a permit or not and that that time they could be informed that if they put a shipping container they have to have a minimum of two and a half acres and this is what it is and you for every uh two containers and then anything above that they have to have a minimum of two and a half up to six containers total but to you know to I mean most people don't know what they have to have permits for m so it wouldn't matter I mean they'd put them in there without a permit even if a permit was required drop and go yeah I I'd like to see the the next rev honestly I mean I don't want to make it too where you have a bunch of shipping containers all over place but yet there is a they're they're they're being used now we just have to make them legal right because they are being cited they're being cited for code enforcement and so that's where we're just making them legal and and U at what point is it are we being too restrictive on what is allowed on a piece of property or not you know one thing I like to throw in is the way you guys have a proposed now you could have four on a 10 acre parcel that seems like a lot of that seems like a lot of containers for 10 acres well that's my my throughout if you got your two two and a half then if you double this that one for every five after that because then you're you're doubling that's what I would yeah something like that um you know you want toct I think four four for 10 acres way too many I just do that asence two and a half as a starting point I just doubled it up so you get one additional for every double basically of the two and a half so five suggestion to let you parel still at three at that point and then if you go to 10 you're potentially at four maximum MH I I I I mean I personally I think two for on a two and a half acre parel's too many I just threw that two and a half out there you can make it for every additional five acres one for additional each one for each additional five acres you guys are comfortable with two on a two first two and a half you can have two anything additional over uh and then after that instead of do the two and a half make it five I guess that's what we're saying yeah but you guys still you comfortable with two containers on a 2 and a half acre parcel that seems like a lot I can see one and then for every five acres you could do another one up to a limit of six two and a half acres is not that big well I can see the the argument on an agricultural piece of that yep I really can mhm two and a half that because we're not making an exempt from that particular count correct bonified a is not exempt from that count they're exempt from everything else but they're they're not exempt from the number of units per acre right a Bonafide agricultural ex you know with an act classification is not is is not restricted but if you just have your a zoning then you're subject to the 2.5 and whatever maximum and ratio you're determining um because a statute will will kick us out when we try to regulate that uh UMass agriculture exemp no like that no I don't know let's see the math I mean that's all I can say is like let's see the write up and hopefully we can what is the consensus two for two and a half and one more for so many acres or he's seems to go one for two and A2 and then add after two and a half or well you were you were two for per parcel previously so um stick with two for the two and a half yeah my my opinion okay two for two and a half and if you want to make the additional one for every five acres over and a cap of but still a cap cap of six okay instead of the two and a half one or above just make it five and I'm sure it may change before we get it through here yeah after we look at it right yeah once we look at it on paper again it may not make as much sense as spitballing it right now we're just giving you something to work with yeah understand you don't have anything else to do right there's nothing else going on you don't have anything else to do do you Scott get it to council sometime I think you get this of where I'm coming with the agriculture though okay and um we we kind of go back and clarify then that's the ratio issue yeah and then for the applicability you want all zonings agon roll the two and a half acres are exempt from the regulations they're not exempt from the but not the cap but not the cap okay but everything unless they got an agriculture exemption then we can't yeah yeah that's that that'll solve itself that's keep we keep on throwing Bonafide a out there they Agri and that's only because we we can't limit that right I understand Bon exemption we have other structure just because it's a zoning doesn't mean it's automatic that's why to be clear from what I heard earlier all the zoning class residential classification we're proposing which are Agriculture and Rural and plus the RC if there're two and a half acres in size they're exempt they can have a shipping container exempt from these regulations other than the cap ratio of so many per acre MH correct all right and then when this gets the council they may want to see that everybody should be allowed to have a a container so I mean we're not the final say on this oh I understand but yeah whatever I draft it for you will be your recommendation to them I want to be sure I've captured all your thoughts and ideas on what we want to do and if if you know if someone's got something to justify making it less than two and a half you know hopefully they would we would hear from them Mr Nagel says he's got go ahead I'd like to hear your question go ahead I'd like to hear your question is the pdrc majority of the members here are you recommending that you're not going to regulate shipping containers just because I've got a zoning what we're we're going to regulate it but we're going to regulate it on size of the property M and we're regulating on the maximum number that you can have and the and the ratio thereof of starting at two and a half acres the the problem with that though is that the only people are really going to it's it's not going to work well because the only people that's going to going to find out about those requirements that you just mentioned are the people that get complained about and then then they get told that oh you got to go get a permit and that's a great that's very that's a minority of people most people want shipping containers they're not going to they're not going to naturally come and think that they got apply for a permit well even if we were to put an ordinance in place that would put those restrictions on them they would still do the same thing yeah but you I'll be quiet okay they would still do the same thing and that's what's happening now how many people come in and ask if they need a permit for shipping container and how many do we have out there uh I'm pretty sure we don't issue permits for shipping containers but how many people ask I'm not saying you do but what if they what if they how many people ask well people have asked and we talk them they're not permitted or certainly co- compliant sees them because they know and they site people to bring it onto their property the point I'm trying to make is I don't think that's going to change whether the amount of people coming in and asking or not and when they do then they'll get informed yes you can have it but you have to have at Le two and a half acres and then and then go on and so forth like that and the amount how many they can have you know but I don't think it's going to change the fact that people coming in and asking if they got a permit or not or need a permit well part of that was you know to secure them to the ground make sure just like if it's going to be structure because they they can blow over video of Milton shows it they get knocked over just like anything else if it's strong enough wind so we were wanting to secure them but that would they be exempt from all that other than the acreage so there's no permit I mean there's a violation somebody has just tell them maybe take off one or two if you got too many and it's just a checkup so you know the question about a permit there won't be a permit based on if we go forward if Council adopts the language you were suggesting if they're a zoning two and a half acres or greater you're totally exempt except for the ratio issue from from these special requirements M may have still apply to accessory structure standards already in a code I would say there are minimum standards for a property under 72 277 a shipping container to me you got to you got to think about what we're dealing with the shipping container to me it seems like a tractor trailer being part there would be more detrimental than a chipping container that's another so I mean I mean are we going to have a permit to for a tractor trailer are we going to yeah you know I mean at some point the mean you know the ways out weighs the means in other words I mean we got to you got to draw a line somewhere I mean the shipping container that's the whole purpose of these things yeah they're not a metal shed they're not just going to get up and you know people can park a boat in their backyard what stops that from flying away that boat's going to fly away before the shipping container uh a vehicle's going to fly away before that shipping container it sit on the ground it has no uplift so right it has no uplift sorry Miss Craig you're not on record thank you you're seeing people um talk about converting shipping containers to Living Spaces well this is what the exactly we talking right I mean obviously that's got to go through the permitting process if it's inhabitable yeah if if if they use it as a material we don't have an issue we're just going to treat it like a normal dwelling sure build whatever you want out of whatever it just come in for building but once again don't aren't to introducing the possibility of having more after the fact permitting um requests if there's no regulation on the the original I think what I'm trying to get into is is is and I think I've discussed this before it's just like on Arizon you have to have a permit for a chicken coup that's bigger than a 10 by1 now you got have a permit for a chicken coup and I asked the code enforcement officer why that was he said well that if that way is we know it's secure and it won't blow into the neighbor's yard but my point was yeah I can part a sailboat behind my house too during a storm and what stops that from blowing into someone's yard you know we don't want to get into to that and right now or zoning anything bigger than the and I don't want to tangent off of this but you have to have a permit for anything larger than but in chicken coup well I will say we get a lot of Code Enforcement complaints of people converting structures that they that shouldn't have been converted into habitats that is not a new thing we deal with that you deal with that you know you know you've got your barn dominium that come before you and someone converts a barn into an accessory dwelling unit you you've seen those variances if they can't meet the setback so we have after the fact permits um you know you make them retrofit f it um so that's not a new process and we're not unfamiliar with that that type of process significantly harder to do that with the shipping container unless you know because it's it's kind of small um but that it does not prevent someone from saying you know going through the process and actually using those shipping containers as material to construct a habitable structure U that's not prohibited by by what we're doing here so we're not that wouldn't be allowed no matter what we do any other thing we want to add to this Scott more questions um I think we're probably still need to look at in a fair point from uh Paulo there that you have the language in here some of this may not be applicable anymore by the permitting but I would think certain things like um not using for habitation because that again purpos was storage and that's why you want to be exempt a storage not a house so I think some of this language would need to still apply it's just maybe others doesn't and that's what we'll have to work on and hopefully capture that and we'll have good minutes so we can track all that information okay all right all right okay so we you need to make a motion or anything on this continue it or yes yes yeah let me hear a motion uh make a motion that we continue uh or case number0 I'm sorry case number 0-24 d005 uh 30 days 60 days what do you need how much do you need Scott do you think we can bring it back the 21st or do we want the December well uh no CH is telling me we should we probably want the December one because that's a yeah November's a large meeting December what no December 19th 12 19 all right yeah you just so let me rephrase that U motion on case 0-24 Z5 to continue it to December 19th uh pdrc meeting second okay I got a motion on the floor to continue the z245 ordinance to their meeting in December the 19th 2024 from Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay let me get over here a few more things it looks like it's it and um do we have any other public items no sir any staff items uh yes sir just to let you know next month you will be looking at the comprehensive plan amendments and the zoning ordinance changes for the lid project hearing about lid right low impact development yeah I know you like using acronyms we we also will be having the four cases we didn't hear this month plus our regular load that we have scheduled for next month so okay on that on that note U well on that note sharpen yourself up on these lid what lid actually is what it does what the purpose of it is and what the overall impact it will have because uh there's a lot to it there a lot to it people have different ideas and we may have some different ones too than what comes forward through the lid and I think a lot of this lid is coming from enra is it not yes that's right en's been working so that that's their recommendations and they've spent a lot of time on this and what we need to do is uh that's why I would like for you to really dwell into it and see what's coming forward okay um any other staff items no sir staff comments no sir commission comments yes sir go ahead Mr cost I would like to formally make a request that um anytime we have ordinances and comprehensive plan changes that are basically in-house items that we keep it to the bottom of the list not at the beginning of the meetings so that we can get the general population in and out as quickly as possible so we could spend our time discussing it without holding them up for the day we can do that I mean that's uh something can be done at the time and if it in inadvertently gets put forward the reason that was before up beginning with is because it was old business and we usually take care of that well in the first pass it was also one of the top items on our agenda as I was late that day that's why I asked for it to be moved the reason we do that just to let you know is um we try to to give a courtesy to our employees who are trying to do 100 things during the day so we bring them in first so that they can get it done and get back to work but we can certainly put it at the end as well and as far as um being able to bring the packets to us we need to notify staff in the event that they can't you can't access your property they can't get to me now unless they come in with a canoe and so I'll make sure the paddle is ready next month we are looking at different ways of doing this in the future um Kelly has the production down pretty well and and we believe we'll be able to mail everything out seven days in advance which is the way we used to do it yeah so that may be coming your way in the future you may not get a hand delivery in the future okay and I like it hand delivered it's the only time I get to say hello and just kind of hang out Kelly wants to see my cows come on yeah and a lot of things that come while we're on that comment I mean discussion a lot of things come across this board that we have to make decisions on and recommendations on as to how it impacts the uh neighboring communities and so we need to keep an eye on this uh I don't think it's as much impact as what some of the cities are doing but we need to have more of a communication with the cities so that we don't end up in situations like like some of the ones we're having now um and I'll leave it at that um but we just need to be thinking about it because there are a lot of people impacted we had a lot of a lot of rain I get that U but a lot of these problems existed before Milton and uh we need to that Milton just magnifi these problems um so keep that in mind as we move forward as far as recommendations and and um that we need to I think we need to work closer with the cities and make sure that we're not affecting the adjacent Property Owners as much as we as being done by the cities uh just so that you all know for every project that's a rezoning or a comp plan Amendment or a special exception um if we are near a city the application goes out to the city planning department and to the utilities department for comments well I'm not necessarily talking about the county I'm talking about the city reaching out to us and getting our comments and our input I don't I don't see that much in the county um but I do see quite a bit in the city so uh we need to keep that in mind see if we can get some communication going on there and some understanding of how it impacts the adjacent County Property Owners because we're we if we live in the county we don't necessarily have representation on the city Commission to the city as far as uh we don't have any representative there go ahead just to let you all know about an upcoming um project that we're working on that we'll be bringing to the County Council in March we're working on a rural you probably have heard this in the news and in the last County council meeting but we're we're looking at the rural areas and coordinating with the cities about annexations and and um what Urban uses and Rural uses so you'll be seeing part of that is that we're going out to all the cities and to vCard and to the environmental Coalition so you will see a lot of Outreach in the next uh series of months appreciate that okay any other commission comments you I just wonder if we could talk about uh storage containers before we leave go ahead no I'm I'm put your leg I don't want to go ahead I don't know if you're going to have a quum but go ahead okay any other commission comments any press and citizen comments this meeting is adjourn e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for