e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I guess I should the July 18th 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I could please have you silence any audible devices that you may have and if you would 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 for liberty and justice for good morning everyone I'd like to thank those of you joining us this morning and if Miss Tucker could I please have a roll call good morning members member Craig member Shelly here member Costa here member Patterson here member sixma here chair Mills here and our County chair representative is currently bacon okay thank you okay okay if anyone would like to speak for against any of the cases being heard today if you'll fill out a form at the back of the Das here and hand it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left um and 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 uh the Commissioners may have and at this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair and this is for the applicants and members of the public that uh decisions on by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone Real Property from one classification to another pursuant to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and they do not constitute a final hearing new evidence may be presented at the County Council public hearing 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 AG grieved 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 comp substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept to support a con conion thank you Mr chair thank you Mr sorya and while on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any expart Communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which have voted to be taken on any quad judicial Manner and I'll start to my immediate right with Miss Craig I have none none none none none I have none okay we do not have any minutes this morning so uh we'll move right in and we do have any items to to be continued or withdrawn we have no items to be continued or withdrawn however we did advertise an item in the newspaper for shipping containers that's an ordinance we're working on we're not quite ready to bring it forward so as a courtesy we wanted to let everybody know in in case anybody came today to hear that item it will not be heard today all right thank you Miss Smith okay um we're going to move right into our unfinished old business uh Miss Shelly could I get get that case read into the record please yes sir case number V-22 034 variances to reduce minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you Miss Shelly and that is going to be Mr Shams hi good morning this Steve Shams with planning so the applicant is seeking two variances to our dock ordinance to reduce the West lot line from 15 ft to 8 ft and to reduce the East lot line from 15 ft to 7 ft for a new Dock and boat lift the item was previously heard at the April 2022 pdrc hearing with the applicant requested to continue the case to no date certain the continuance was requested to resolve opposition from the most effective affected property owner to the east the applicant was instructed by pdrc to coordinate with the property owner and resubmit a plan agreeable to both parties the applicant resubmitted their revised variance on February 20th 2024 the case was scheduled originally for May 16th 2024 but due public notice was not met uh the pdrc voted to hear the case no later than today July 18th um there is one correction to be made in the staff report uh the report says the seaw wall is 34 ft wide but is in fact 40 ft wide however it does not change the variance request because the property Narrows to a point as it converges into water so the property is currently developed with a single family home and it was previously it previously had a 200 ft dock but it was destroyed in 2022 by Hurricane Ian so the applicant is seeking to replace it with a 96 sqt Dock and a 154t boat lift as you can see on the site plan so section 278 uh 72- 278 requires docks and their extensions into the water to be a minimum of 15 ft from all side lot lines at its closest point uh the previous dock was 7 ft from the west and 3 feet from the East so according to the applicant it was difficult to secure their boat on the previous Dock and so the redesigning it to be easier the proposed Boat Lift would also provide additional clearance in the water the proposed dock will extend 24 ft into the water and will be 8 ft from the West lot line and 7 ft from the East lot line the previous variance request in 2022 was to reduce it to 8 feet on both the west and the East so this new variance requests an additional foot on the east side which directly affects the opposing party and I'd like to add we did receive one letter of opposition for this case from that uh Eastern property owner so overall staff recommends denial as the variances fail to meet three of the five criteria um the literal interpretation would not of the zoning code would not prevent construction of a dock it's not the minimum variance as it could be designed without a boat lift which would require less of one and the variance does not resolve issues with the most affected part uh neighbor as was directed by this board the proposed variance requests an additional foot which is more of a variance however should the peal the r c find evidence to approve staff recommends three conditions and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr Shams any question for staff Mr Shams has this been increased since the last time it was here um yes on the east side they're requesting one additional foot but the west side is the same okay okay is the applicant present you want to come forward sir good morning good morning sir you've heard the staff report is there anything you'd like to add for against that um yes I uh there's some errors in the staff report I hate to say but the original in 2022 that had a 10-ft platform at the end of it and um the numbers were off there was no way that with a 10-ft platform that they were going to get eight on one side and Eight on the other side and 4 foot you know gang Gangplank coming out that way with it's it was it's the numbers were off on the original on the original it's hard it's hard to to measure these things being that it's uh in the middle of the water you can't like pull a tape measure on there you know so uh um but anyway to move forward I want to address the uh the the the com uh uh versions of my neighbor and um if you on page 17 there was a uh an aerial photograph and it shows that this is a very wide parcel here at the bottom of Lake Barton um that scale is one to 1 inch equals 400 feet so that seaw wall running east to west up to the canal is about 100 yards and uh so there's a lot of space in there this isn't my Doc's not going to interfere with uh her getting to and from her property I've scaled the dock down I don't have a boat house at a minimum as it can get to actually have a boat in there and um uh so it's not like a tiny Canal that I'm trying to put this dock into and people are going to have to maneuver in and out around it and if you go back if you look on page 15 I submitted some photos that show exactly how much space there's no obstructions to hinder the kennedies to the west of the east of me the East party at all to uh interfere with them being able to pull their dock in and out uh they do have if you notice that on they have a uh uh on page 13 and 14 you can see the AA views they have a like a 15ft floating dock in there and they would have to avoid that dock anyways and um to come in and there if they avoid that dock they're going to avoid ending on my property anyways if they're implying that they need to use my property to to maneuver into their dock then that that that that should it seemed to be unfair to me to that they can uh use my property to move into their Dock and deny me use and enjoyment of my property also uh there's uh I I think if you look at Miss Kennedy's letter she states that she's had this property since 2010 and it kind of feels like she's uh she's adverse to change and that she feels like since she's been there first and has her stuff that I'm being a little bit uh uh I shouldn't be allowed to use an enjoyment of of my space either uh due to that but I think that I've made I've shortened this dock the original dock plan was for 26 foot out into the into the into the uh Waterway and that would have uh that would have even narrowed it down more and that's what I'm saying that the the 8T estimate that they had at 26 foot um probably wasn't accurate so uh I think this is the most minimal and least intrusive and it doesn't uh uh none of the other neighbor actually one of my neighbors the neighbor to the west is here to offer support and for variance one and uh so uh is it possible we can pull up some of those pictures yes ma'am if you want to state your name and address for the record please oh my name is Sandra Harris I live at 1022 shockney Drive I am the wife of the applicant okay did I get your Kenneth Harris I live at 1022 shne Drive okay what was you saying ma'am I was asking if the pictures could be pulled up because I wanted to make reference to that okay which page is we got pictures on page 14 15 15 13 pictures yeah yeah page 15 page 15 okay can you pull that Miss Tucker I just wanted to reiterate that we have um minimized what what we can put there and we've moved it as far from Miss Kennedy's property as possible this picture here uh shows the back of both of our houses of course our dock is no longer there as previously stated but um she has a a dock that Jets Out farthest to the right and then in the middle there you can see there's a floating dock and as my husband said that would be the inhibitor for her to be able to get into her um permanent dock um have to take an e easterly pathway which and we're to the west of to get into her dock so the my my dock would be a minimal intrusion to her and also in this picture I guess the next picture down shows it a little bit better um the arrow where the dock is actually being proposed to be located is the absolute furthest from her property we can get so um we've not been able to discuss this with Miss Kennedy she refuses to speak with us about it it after a couple of attempts um with our last uh proposal date in 2022 since then she's had no verbal communication with us whatsoever um and I feel like we've done everything we can to make it as small and out of the way for her um we would have done more if we would have had input from her but we just feel like she doesn't want us to have a dock at all and I don't feel like that is appropriate as um Waterfront residents of tamoka States we all live there together and we have common courtesy and respect as we all use the water together we're one of the only ones in this are in Lake Barton that don't have a dock everyone has a dock with boat houses and roofs and we're not proposing that we're proposing the minimal amount of space that we possibly can um the property is uh pie-shaped and that makes it difficult but I don't feel like it makes it impossible okay I'm noticing that the obviously the the problem with your neighbor's variance too is there any way you could align that dock on the west side there because you're asking for eight foot up at the front like obviously the way it's situated it's not going to be the 8 foot at the furthest point there to put more in line with the property line there yes yes you're saying so on the on the west property line yes I'm not sure what you're looking at right now I'm looking on the map you have here on page seven okay just going to get me back to page seven okay you see there where you up towards the bank there you got 8 ft yes and as it comes out it gets further away oh no it stays 8ot it's going to be in line with that property line 8ot the whole object that have that angling 8ot along on that property that property line angles out it's not a 90° dock you can see the dock is in there and it's going to be 8T my best estimate when I drew this up was that at 24t it was it was about 30 feet wide at because at 50 or 60 foot it goes down to zero and at some into the water into the water so because it's pie-shaped so uh that is uh that is the the place and and technically you know I mean as as we all know that if I The Boat Boat Lift wasn't there there would be no variance to the east anyways and so uh the uh the the boat list is uh isn't you know it's a it's a it's needed your boats sitting in the water take quite a beating and so um that seems to be Miss Kennedy's biggest objection is the lift because it's going to she feels like impede her view but again if you look at the pictures on 15 she has Clear View right out from her house our peer dock uh isn't going to interfere with her view um I I and it won't encroach on her property in her letter she says it actually would encroach on her property it encroaches in the water at 30 feet out nothing is near her property that's being proposed so you're saying this drawing is not actually correct oh it's pretty one that is further out than 8T oh no it's 8 foot on on the on the west side it's 8 foot at the start and 8 foot at the end of the of the pier it's 24t out and so then there's a 4ft pier so that that comes out to 12 feet 11t lift that comes out to 22 feet or so and so we're estimating about 30 feet 31 feet it's hard to really know exactly without because it's in the water you can't pull a tape measure on that and um so it could be might be 35 ft out there might be you know but it it's that was my best gets using a ruler and and taking a scale of the what it is and so I don't feel like the uh again I don't feel like that's an infringement on her use and enjoyment of her land and it gives me use and enjoyment of my property so I'm not sure if I misunderstood your question or not well I'm actually looking at your survey here this is an actual survey it shows where the property line comes out and they put your proposed dock at 8 ft at the beginning and that there has it going away from that property line as it comes out according to the survey now I'm not there and I can't tell you but I'm just saying right there you're saying it looks like the it's angling towards the middle I'm saying at the end of that 24t you're further away from the property line it shouldn't have been this is this is a it should be angling with the property line going out into the water not towards the east who drew that who drew that drawing that's on the screen right now so that was I did not draw that drawing on that screen right now we're about to put up the applicant's drawing so you can see it yeah okay and Mr Costo to answer your question I drew that based off of the materials I had to kind of consolidate the the plan so you see what we're seeing though yes that it appears to be much wider at the yeah further away then okay that's we're just trying to get an idea of whether it's truly going to be 8T all the way down the line which means that the dock will be then caned towards the property line that's the intent mhm okay so in other words even when you come out there 8 foot you're still going to have need seven foot on the east side best estimate okay all right conservative estimate okay that's the next question I have for you is this boat lift you got at 11 feet wide is that necessary to have the entire 11 ft for a boat lift um well I when I talked to the doctor Builder the duck Builder said that's kind of a standard width for an 8ft beam boat it can it can probably come in a little smaller but they said that that was kind of kind of a standard way they can bring it down to probably 10 foot but an 8ft Bean boat uh they said it needs to have a little bit of I I don't you know I'm not a dock Builder so I don't really I don't really know this space on either side side right because you can't rub right coming in coming in that's the size boat you're putting in there okay and uh so my next question is it's extending out into the water 24 ft and obviously if it was shorter we wouldn't have much of an encroachment on your property line is there any way to shorten that 24t um no because it gets really shallow up there by the seaw wall and so the boat wouldn't properly pull into the a 20ft boat would a bottom out pulling in if we had it at 20 foot and so uh and so that's why I did shorten it from 26t where started and um because the dock Builder felt like 26 they adequate room on the front end and back end for a uh for a dock but they they can be done I mean even even if I moved it in two foot down to 22 feet it's not going to make a substantial difference it's not going to open up another nine n he's not going to open up 10 or 11 feet 12T on her side of the dock it's a uh it's a tight situ it's unfortunate this lot is pie shaked and um it's just any other questions Miss Craig I'm curious about the the size of the boat lift you just said 20 foot boat but you're showing the lift at 14 feet front to back yeah well because you ride onto a lift and part of the back hangs off to lift and part of the bow hangs off the lift and it lifts the boat out of the water but it's like an open framework it's not a solid right that's the other thing I would like to reiterate is we are not looking to put a roof on this it is completely open any other questions Mr CRA Mr C all right I got several let's start with the first one um I think the instructions were to meet with the neighbors and see can come to consensus and if I understood what you said correctly that the neighbor Kennedy refused to meet with you absolutely refused you tried and you tried verbally just complete refusal spoke to her son short of sending her certified letter I mean she received the notice for this obviously and sent a letter of of U we have spoke with our easterly neighbor he's here to speak too and he was he he he helped he so you have neighbors of support as well as okay so we have this one letter all right can we put back page seven back up please so just so that I'm I want to be clear here the faint lines that triangulate off your property and come to a point that is in fact your property line correct so your even with the variances your boat and boat your boat dock and your boat lift do not go outside of your property line is that right because I'm looking at the email that we received from your neighbor that says hang on let me read this it's important it says that um encroach me encroaching again into the variance and onto my property right and I don't see anywhere in this representation of any encroachment onto her property there's not and I tried to address that earlier by saying it's not onto her property it's on to the water has staff had any Communications with this neighbor regarding that issue no sir okay so she hasn't called into okay all right so then my she's here my final question and this is just out of curiosity now because I see that that comes from a commercial email uh that is actually a boat company right do do they Park commercial boats on their docks no uh well on occasion but they they Park them in the driveway but not in the not in the back not on the no not on a regular basis every now and again I guess after they repair one they might put it in the water and run it around dock it up there then they pull it out of the water in a day or so and it's gone that's all I had thank you okay any other questions for the applicant all right I do have a public participation form here we'll see what they have to say and if it's if you want to speak after the fact you can thank you okay uh Mr Carlin and I guess Miss James okay you want to are you two together okay you want to come up with them and if I could get your name and addresses for the record pleas and Carlin we live on the property next door to the property at 1022 shockney Drive okay I'm Barbara James and I'm the other property owner at 1022 shockney okay you had something you would like to speak to this case oh yes um in the current doc design as we see here today okay on this variance request we want to fully support okay we feel it is a reasonable request that the harrises have asked for we urge the variance request committee to approve the Harris's request for their full enjoyment now I I live we don't live in this property next door but I I I live on the on the on shockne as well another location and I can tell you the width that he's talking about doing for a boat house an 8 foot beam boat is a pretty minimal that's not a real wide boat so I mean if you look at like your Key West your your Bay style boats which is a lot of what you see up there you he's not trying to fit a mammoth boat out here 8ft beam is pretty narrow and that's exactly what I owned when I had mine done and 11 ft I think is what I had to do when I did mine and that's not a lot of extra to fit a boat in between your you know your pilings pulling in there so I mean I don't think he's asking for anything over what is needed you know when you're one of the last people up there you know with small Frontage lots and we and I have a similar situation not a lot of Frontage people you know around you that have already built it's easy for them to you know condemn what you're trying to do but you know when you're trying to fit something in you know he should have the right to enjoy the property and I think you know the company he's hired is a very reputable company they they look at the whole design of it and I mean I I've looked at what I've got and 24 feet really isn't isn't way out there when you when you when you look at how far out a dock is okay so I mean this I mean as I you know I mean I've looked at this whole thing the draw I think I've even talked to Stephen before about it and uh I mean and having lived there on the water myself and seen what other structures are up there you know because certain times of year that water does get pretty low in the winter months so I mean not to be out the amount of feed he wants would would be pretty tough to be honest with you okay so I mean I'm willing to give up you know what I'm giving up on my side to be a reasonable neighbor because we all have to work together you know at some point in time so I mean I don't know what the deal is on the other side the non-communication but I I think their request is more than fair and I hope you guys see it that way and I I mean the drawing I mean I I think he's planning on keeping it 8 foot all the way out along my line you know even though the drawing May slightly look different than that but I mean this company it's going to build is a very IR reputable company I can tell you that okay Mr James did you add anything you wanted to add to it okay I have no objection to it all right well thank you for coming forward oh do we have any questions for the neighbor okay thank you all right do we have any other participation forms is there anybody in the would like to speak to this case all right sir you heard the comments did you want to say anything else before I close the four thank you okay all right we're going to close the four for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion I'll be prepared to make a motion okay case v 22-34 uh I motion is that we approve variances one and two with all three staff recommended conditions are we looking at that is that correct that we're what we're looking at now the seven feet on that one side and the 8 feet on the other side yes that's correct and I know there was a change there um I think the way the drawing shows is a little bit skewed but the variances are correct okay y second okay I got a motion on the floor from Mr C to approve variance V 22034 uh variances one and two uh with the staff how many conditions are there with the three staff conditions and second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously all right I think that finishes up on our old business do we have anything else Miss Smith on the old business no sir okay all right we're going to move right into our new business Miss Shelly can I get you to read that case in please or those cases yes sir case number v-24 d49 a variance to the maximum fence height on Urban two family residential R six zoned property thank you Miss Shelly and Miss Ray this one's yours good morning the applicants are seeking a variance to increase the maximum fence height from four feet to six feet in the East front yard the property is a corner lot and is subject to two front yards and two sidey yards there is currently a 6- foot wood fence constructed prior to the current owners um and the applicant's intent is to replace the wood fence in the same location um staff's overall recommendation is for denial however should the PDC find that the applicants provided competent substantial evidence to support approval there are two conditions provided for consideration I'm available for questions thank you m Ray any questions yes I do Mr didn't we put didn't we put some a mechanism in place to have this done at the at the desktop level yes sir um so it would have been an administrative variance however there are two different sections located in that same um um East front yard so that's why it's in front of you today repeat that one more time please there's two different sections uhhuh um and that's why it's in front of you to today there's one at the very at the north where it goes all the way to the property line and then um as it goes the northern Corner okay all right and and the the down where it come is that's what kicked it up to here it's like Mr cost you can see that on page 12 there's a photograph of it all right okay any other questions for staff all right is the applicant present you want to come forward sir can I get your name and address for the record sir uh Jonathan Baker uh 871 Taylor Road West okay you've had the staff heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that uh yes sir I the old old fence was there prior to my purchasing the house it's built like I think they said it was built in 2006 it's in need of repair and uh I'd like to replace it with a vinyl fence which will upgrade the value of the neighborhood and my property and possibly the neighbor's property I uh that one section that goes all the way to the property line that's I'm going to delete that section not take it all the way to the property line I'd like to keep the other the the the fence running South and West I'd like to keep that where it's at because I have sprinkler systems in place that was with their prior installation and I have Landscaping along that wooden fence inside if it if I have to remove that fence to meet the requirements it's going to cut into I'll have like 10 ft left between my screen my covered screen enclosure and uh the fence line I'd like to try to keep that backyard if I can and uh let me see if I got a couple of notes here also would like to keep the 6ft height as that for uh security reasons and uh I'd like the kids in the neighborhood I'd like to make it secure so they can't if I'm away they can't get in and possibly harm herself you know that's uh one of the concerns I had and I know it's an R six zoning two family but it is a single family dwelling okay so there's no more and Mr Ray we don't have a discussion on the location of the fence as much we're just the variance for the fence height correct right i' just like to keep the height height the same I know you mentioned you'd like to keep it in the same spot yeah in okay the same spot same same height that and you know notice on the uh on the survey there that that one corner where that fence goes all the way to the property line is off the property line by like 1.1 foot okay and that's going to be corrected on installation of the new fence even though I'm not taking I'm not taking it all the way to the property line anymore okay I hope I can get that pass today so I can move on with it he doesn't need a variance for that does he no no it's included with this variance question okay okay I'm looking here fence height not necess just the height okay and also if you if you notice that the fence doesn't go it doesn't inhibit the view from the corner of the road right and there's no inhibiting of the view and and it also would provide security for and more security for the pool area for people looking in got it all right do we have any questions for the applicate Mr cost it just I want to clarify you're replacing all of the wooden fence with vinyl yes sir so the whole existing fist is all coming down everything is coming down and putting vinyl up that's the only whole thing all right and you're cognizant of the second um recommendation that you've got to put the pretty side towards the neighbor oh yeah well that's only section that doesn't have that side is a side I'm doing away with there's a piece I'm doing away with okay and that was there built prior to my my ownership but the neighbor said it was used to be a shed for a tra but you're aware of that yeah re that that recommendation okay thank you any other questions for the applicant I do real quick um you're actually going to have less fence than you have now right I hear you say you're going to take moving I'm I'm doing away with it's like 12 feet 10 or 12 feet okay yeah all right okay any other questions for applicant okay we'll see if we have any public participation forms if we do you'll have a chance for rebuttal if not then we're poose the four than okay we do not have anyone like to speak to this case hearing none we're going to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll make a motion case v24 049 uh the approved motion for approval with two VAR I mean two conditions of Staff second okay got a motion on the floor for Mr Sigman to approve variance variance is V 2449 with to the two staff conditions uh and a second for Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I motion carries unanimously okay I didn't get in the oppose anybody oppos to that one no okay I didn't Gess that trying to rushes here okay Miss Shelly can I get the next case yes sir case number v- 24- 051 a variance to the minimum yard requirements and accessory dwelling unit Adu regulations on Rural agriculture A2 zoned property okay Miss Shelly thank you okay Miss Ray this one is yours so the applicant is seeking uh two variances for an existing Adu to resolve code violation uh variance one is to reduce the West Side yard from 25 ft to 21.3 ft and variance two is to allow the Adu to be greater than 50% of the size of the principal structure the applicant obtained the property in 2018 the property consists of a single family residence that was built in 1948 and the Adu that was built in 1990 and approximately 12 accessory structures uh six of the accessory structures are proposed to be removed um the remaining will either meet setbacks or be moved to meet the seta as displayed on the site plan um the applicant excuse me also requested a variance uh to allow the existing fence to remain between the principal structure and the Adu however according to our zoning ordinance perimeter fencing of a property that contains a primary detached single family residence and an accessory dwelling unit may not appear to separate the units as if they were located on separate Lots staff's recommendation is to approve variances one and two with the three staff recommended conditions I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff we're just legitimizing what's already there yes sir right thank you uh Miss Ray the additional fence that was requested uh is it is there a variance that that could have been in place for that to see if that could have went in I know they're not supposed to have it between the two dwellings but could they have not applied for a variance for that that is I'm going to say no because the variances are limited to dimensional Provisions this is a kind of one of those use restrictions to ensure that um uh essentially that the Adu is seen as part of the uh the principal structure so your variances are actually limited to your your setbacks your Heights your your dimensional criteria if there is an explicit restriction you know connected to the actual use um our interpretation is that the the variance is you cannot request a variance from essentially it's a use variance which is outside of the the um the grant of authority to to Grant variances and we have this in an ordinance is that correct it's part of the Adu Provisions yes yeah because I can see we're on large pieces of property where if you had an Adu further back on the property and you fenced off between the two then you'd be you wouldn't be in concurrence with the Adu requirement is that correct that would be correct depending upon how the fenses setup um if you treat it as its own separate independent dwelling unit outside of the Adu Provisions um it becomes an issue because you know so without a without a tweak to the ordinance there's no way that they can put the fence up through a variance process or anything is that right is that what you're telling me I believe so we'll take a closer look at it but um you know this is one of those strange questions of you know it remember these were designed for smaller Lots so the the large lot adus are kind of its own unique thing and poses its own uh issues and challenges um but we'll take a closer look at that you know that fence provision um but that's that's the intent of those Provisions is to you know as much as possible keep the two structures kind of of together but at the same time not make it look like a a duplex or or something like that right well I understand the intent behind it but I don't know if it was all if there was an Avenue for them to in order to put the fence in through the process pretty much and there's not of what you're telling me yes it's it's you're going to look at it yes okay there's no pictures of this fence is there the structure with the fence around it I'm looking at the Aerials are too far out to even determine that there's actually fence there it's on the survey um right it's to um the west of where you see the variance 2 box you'll see this um fence that goes from um East West that fence line okay so it's not up against the house it's basically separating the parcel almost like it's almost like a field fencing for cattle that's what we're looking at here not necessarily a fence not you didn't fence off the house but you fence off the pasture that rear pasture from the front which is the residence how big is this property couple acres it's one acre one acre so basically they from looking at this they split they got half an acre for the primary and they had the half acre for the back half which is their looks had their storage and all their other materials in there and then the Adu was put in place yeah um yeah with you that the the fencing on the larger Parcels becomes problematic absolutely and the thing about it is I'm familiar with what brought this these variances before says it was a code violation or something yes sir okay so is a complaint it was discovered by staff just accidentally okay unfortunately I can't speak on that all I saw that it was discovered by staff okay because this is I'm very familiar with this property and that fence has been there for years the Adu has been there for years so okay so I I'm just I'm going to go back to the code violation and discovered quote unquote by staff uh I take it that that is the x marks that are being removed that's what started all this items you have it marked as X either removed or being removed is that to comply with the code violation um what I read is that staff discovered that they were um making changes on site without a building permit and then from further Discovery that's when they noticed um the accessory structures okay all right thank you okay any other questions for staff all right hearing none as the applicant present good morning could I get your name and address for the records please William Peak 1798 West beersford Avenue okay Mr Peak you heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to uh not really the the fence has been there forever I just replaced it keep the animals and we the one driveway that goes right straight down the property yeah it's not that I was trying to separate the two buildings just we got deer and bear comes through there all the time I've got Mr Sor going to look into that fence issue so unfortunately that's out of our hands we can't approve it because it's not an considered variance for that fence because of the Adu requirements Okay so any questions for the applicant no okay and this is his anything else you'd like to add no yes Miss Craig is is the fence issue something that could be addressed with Landscaping as opposed to a solid fence no you can't hear I just want to tell them what it is okay she is your mic on Mrs Craig is the is could the issue with the fence be addressed by Landscaping rather than a solid fence it's got flower it's got trees plants on front of it no what she's saying could you could you I don't have no choice don't look like sorry what did he say he says he don't have a choice I can I just go ahead are you saying like put bushes or something instead of a fence yeah can I get your name and address for the record go ahead uh William Clifford Peak the second uh 5206 oakor Drive D North Carolina okay yeah that's what she's asking if it you could meet the instead of the fence could you put bushes there yeah yeah okay that answers my question thank you well he's doing it for animal purposes also in the back there so he's been there forever like I said I'm very familiar with this property so but like I said it's the fence issues out of our hands we can't do anything with that okay Mr Peak we're going to see if we got any U public participation if we do I'll give you a chance to come back if not we're going to close the floor and have a discussion on it okay um Mr chair yeah that form was for um his son to speak oh that was for his son to speak yes sir okay I thought that was him okay would you like to speak I you just you just yeah would you'd like to add anything else you can goad I'm just curious um is this just for the the fence or is this for everything this is going to be the it says to reduce for the 25 for the accessory dwellings yes and for the uh after the fact permits after the fact permit it'll be a you're going to have to get a after the fact permit on what you have there and then you're going to have to um and it IT addresses the amount of area coverage there more than 50% of the dwelling so we're going to address that too yes sir I I want to make sure that we were the only thing we're we're not addressing the fence that's just it I make sure that we can't I mean if we could we would but the we can't Mr chair yes so what we're addressing in this room today are variances for the dimensional setex things within the setbacks there are other code violations they will need to continue to work with our code group to close that code case out okay we don't have anything to do with that okay okay uh the only thing I want to add this is um this is a a property that thank you for your time uh this is a property that's been in our family for Generations um this is a a promise from a son to his mother and his father um passing on down um and there was no ill intent behind any anything uh we just want to make things right that's all it is okay okay all right you can have a seat do we have any other public participation fors okay hearing none we're going to close the for for public participation open commission discussion Mr chair y'all can have a seat go ahead Mr chair so I have got a question I want I'm ready to make a motion but I also have a question and a statement at the same time okay you say we can't address the fence issue but in fact we can address the fence issue if I'm reading this correctly staff recommended three items the third of which is to to remove the existing fence we could pass this the variances with just recommendations one and two and delete recommendation three can we not yes we can you you could do that here today but it will still remain a code violation right because it does not meet our Adu so then they would have to come back for a variance for that fence unless there is something that Mr Storia can find along the way you can't get a VAR no um if you delete that provision what it does is it essentially um it's a it's a condition to the granting of of the variance so essentially um it would still be a code violation but you know the variance is no longer hooked or conditioned upon the removal of the fence so they you're granting the variance they would have to face that code violation and remove it anyway but you're not putting their V Ian permit at Jeopardy if they don't remove correct so I want them be able to move peacefully with the adus themselves they could fight the fence issue at a later date right because or comply with with the with the code basically what he's saying we don't want to tie their hands to the variances with the fence issue you're going to look into that because there's an opportunity there there may be a possibility of a of a let's call it a gray area somewhere that we haven't explored yet on that fence potentially I mean it's I think we took looked at an aerial it is I think a last time it's a solid wood fence um so it does appear That's why I said there was no pictures of the actual fence so I couldn't tell what it so um one last question and it probably would have been a question for the applicant is this property have a exemption no it's not a property at all I don't know what the zoning is on it but it doesn't have the exemption CU he mentioned animals and that's what I'm I'm questioning is if there's an a exemption on here no too small all right in that case I'm prepared to make a motion okay you can have see ready yeah on case v-24 051 I make a motion to approve variances one and two with staff recommended conditions one and two only okay yeah okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to approve variances one and two for v2 2451 with the with eliminating the third condition three including condition one and two and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously good luck guys okay next case Mr Chelly yes sir case number s- 24-6 a special exception for communication Tower exceeding 70 ft in height on Prime agriculture A1 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and this is we got here miss Ray for this one also sorry about that I'm getting a little confused so the applicant is Seeking a special exception for a 255 ft communication tower on a 10,000 ft parcel the parcel is surrounded by agricultural properties the proposed least area is 3,600 Square ft um proposed to be located between the CSX Transportation Railroad and North US Highway 17 the proposed Tower to um will accommodate five tenants uh with AT&T being the initial VC the proposed Tower is approximately 1,400 ft away from adjacent residential dwellings the proposed Tower will have a galvanized steel color um there is two 12T wide gravel access drives from US Highway 17 one at the Northeast and one at the southeast the southeast is proposed to have a 30ft wide access utility Corridor with a turnaround uh the proposed Tower will cover the gap between three towers due to the narrow parcel there are also variances being requested for setbacks um the variance case will follow this special exception case um the proposed Tower will not create uh undue traffic congestion as the site will be visited by maintenance only um it is also unlikely to be a hazard uh we did receive an engineered letter stating that if the tower were to collapse it would essentially fold over into itself um and we also did receive a letter from the FAA stating that there's no Hazard U staff's recommendation is to forward to County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval subject to four staff recommended conditions I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any question for staff Miss Ray that airport up there that's not in the flight pattern of that airport I know you're FAA but does the FAA look at that small Grass Airport in Pearson yes sir and it was all cleared for that yes sir okay okay is the applicant present I have some handouts off okay you give it to Miss Tucker and she'll take care okay we've got it right here good morning sir if I get your name and address for the record uh good morning my name is Andy roten strike my address is U 19016 Avenue North in Birmingham I'm here on behalf of the applicant ignite uh Wireless which is um working with a tower company called City switch to place a tower on CSX property to just confuse everybody early in the morning so this is CSX land City switches building and owning the tower and has a lease with CSX to do so ignite was hired by the tower company to develop and go through the process of getting all the approvals and I'm here on behalf basically of everybody but with Ignite and City switch so um as Chris said we are proposing a 255 ft self-support Tower it'll have a 10t lightning rod on top uh this is really just taking a step back why are we doing this is to provide the critical infrastructure in this area there is a significant Gap in coverage for selfservice in this area so we're proposing to build one Tower to accommodate all the carriers so not only AT&T but this Tower will be built strong enough for Verizon T-Mobile um CSX actually uh has the ability to put its equipment on there to for its uh railroad Communications so it will be available to everybody so we'll only have one structure the other thing because AT&T is the official provider of first net which is the First Responders Network that AT&T won the bid from from the federal government this site also will have first net for First Responders Network so there's a lot of critical safety and emergency reasons not just so your cell phone works but also it does allow highspeed internet wirelessly for people to you know that are working driving and living all within the range of this site so um we need a special exception every Tower over 70 ft in valua County needs a special exception so we have applied for that there are nine criteria uh in your ordinance we think we meet them all uh we are going only the minimum height that AT&T needs that's an engineering requirement it's based on the signal that it needs to connect this service with service from its nearby sites right nearby towers that are two three five miles away whatever they are um and also the topography uh plays a critical role if we were up on a null we could do a shorter Tower but because we're pretty flat area we need the 255 in order to get the coverage to fill it in and keep Tower the number of towers to a minimum in your county which your ordinance requires um we are over a th000 ft to any residential structure which your ordinance requires um the nearby properties are there's a plant nursery adjacent to us and there are uh Agricultural and some residential uses like I said over 1,000 ft away um the Ingress and egress is uh already there off of one Highway 17 that's why we're proposing it in this location this gets within the SE area and gives the uh existing uh gives the coverage that AT&T needs uh we looked for existing towers for AT&T to just hang their equipment on that's the first thing we do uh every time so we don't have to build a new structure but there was no Tower within the search area and I'll show you what that was in just a moment there is a tower Point 82 miles to the west but that Tower is very old it was built in the early 80s and and it's not strong enough to hold the equipment that AT&T proposes to put up there it was built before the cellular industry even came into existence so it was a pretty flimsy Tower I think it's for an old radio station something to that effect so we looked at it it's a little too far to the west to get the coverage we need but it's also structurally would not hold this so we did look at that and because there's no existing structure to place the antennas our only option is to build this new structure so uh Kelly handed out a couple of sheets to you just to kind of walk you through what we're doing and why so this first one I wanted to show you on page one this is a uh site plan just showing you uh where we're located so the railroad tracks well let me back up the yellow is the access area and you can see there's a turnaround there and then the orange outline is the lease space that City switch is leasing from CSX could I interrupt you just for a moment can we go ahead and read the variance into this case too so we don't have to go through the presentation again can we do that yes I'm we're going to go ahead and read the variance with this I wasn't I didn't realize they were companion so if you want to go ahead and read that variance in yes sir we'll include that in case number v-24 052 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Prime agriculture A1 zoned property Miss Ray would you like to add anything to that variance um so just to be um I'll make it brief um so the varant requests are for the location um to reduce the north property line set back from 127.5 Ft to 92.1 ft reduce the East property line set back from 127.5 Ft to 26.2 ft and variance 3 is to reduce the West um West property line setb from 127.5 Ft to 103 .2 ft um for special exceptions for communication Towers they must meet the setback distance equal to 1 half of the height of the communication Tower with the proposed tower being 255 feet in height the resulting setback would be the 127.5 Ft um the property is long and narrow and would not be able to meet the required setbacks without the variance requests um and staff's recommend recommendation is for approval of all three variances thank you m r okay I just wanted that way you can include the in your presentation yes sir so you don't have to hear from me twice I get it um all right so just to show you again so this is the lease area is outlined in Orange that's the only area that the tower has access to we cannot go outside the orange area the tower will be within that orange area and the ground equipment that each carrier will require on the ground will be within that orange area if you notice the railroad tracks are to the left left and Highway 17s to the right so that's what's adjacent to on either side if you turn the page on the left side and Kristen showed you this page I just wanted to highlight on the left just so you can kind of get an idea of what the tow is going to look like this is a lattice structure it's the strongest structure uh that we make it's not the guide ones with the guide wires and it's not the pole type this is the strongest three-legged uh and anything over 200 feet we usually go to this type of structure and if you're over four or 500 feet you go to the guide wires which we didn't need because we didn't need that much height so that's why we're using this uh type of structure the next page the colored Maps this is AT&T's engineering Maps this shows the need for the coverage in this area um the green is existing AT&T sites uh in and around the area where we're looking to go uh where it says propose site and a Black Arrow sorry if you can't see that very clearly there's no green and yellow in that area which is the problem for coverage uh so this really truly is a significant Gap in coverage for AT&T um so if you turn the page that is the exact map with this site turned on so you can see with one structure AT&T is able to cover that entire area and fill in its Network right picture it like a honeycomb this is an empty honeycomb we've got a to fill it with signal in order for folks to be able to use their devices Kristen also mentioned a fall zone letter so when these towers are designed and built we build into them stress points so that will dictate how in the very unlikely event they were to collapse they would do so so we have built the uh stress point into this structure to where it will collapse down within that orange uh square that I showed you so we can't let it obvious VI ly fall on the railroad tracks and we can't let it fall on the road so this letter is an engineering letter signed and stamped showing you how this Tower will be designed so that in the unlikely event it will collapse upon itself towers are designed you know the strongest points at the bottom where the footings are deep into the ground I picture it the best example I can think of is like a drinking straw that have the crinkles about 2/3 of the way up you can bend the straw over that's the stress point so we bend it over so the top will bend where all the weight is where the antennas are and fall straight down into the compound that's how it's [Music] designed the um first thing like I said we look for is to try and collocate and if we can't collocate then we have to look for a to build a site inside a particular area we call that a search area this search area is on the other handout that I showed you it's not a very wide area because if you move it north south East or West it moves that green coverage I showed you northsouth east and west and therefore becomes a problem either too close to existing sites to cause interference or too far away from other sites to where you still have a gap so these are precisely place so that the network works you don't drop calls 911 calls can go through and so forth so the uh purple circle shows you the search area is about a quarter of a mile wide so I want obiously we were very limited in the properties that we could use and of course we reach out to all the property owners in that area to see if any of them are interested in leasing land to us that's the first thing we've got to have right we got to have a willing land owner we got to be able to meet the ordinance as best we can and we've got to have a site that's constructible right a location we don't need deep ravines or high Cliffs things that make it so we can't construct the site and the access here we have CSX with which was a willing landowner with in essence an industrial use although it's in an agricultural zone property I mean this is a railroad line that's what this is we're going next to the railroad tracks um and we can get there off from a public RightWay from Highway 17 and we can construct on it and the placement on this property is due to where the access roads already are off of 17 we have to stay away from the CSX equipment that's already adjacent to the track you know the signal devices and things of that nature so the last two pages well I'll show you the second page here shows you the zoning in and around the area and you'll notice that the uh a lot of this is conservation and it's a resource Corridor which we can't build on so that limits us so we're basically down to a few spots and we're trying to stay as far away from residences as possible which this site allows us to do it allows us to meet your ordinance of over a th000 ft away and we have the willing landowner we can build on it so that's why we are at this parcel so when you look at this and then the last two pages is actually a report that shows you each attempt with each land owner in that search ring to try and talk to that person about maybe leasing land to us and none of them except CSX would enter into a reasonable deal with us so that's why we're on this paral so what this is showing you is that we have done made reasonable attempts under the federal law to try and look at alternative sites and we've also basically in this particular case didn't come down to the point that this is the only location within that search ring that would work so we first looked for existing Towers there were none we had our search area we reached out to every possible land owner we had conversations with a few and we we ended up with this one because it was a willing landowner and constructible and met the ordinance as best as possible as for the variances the hardship is the shape of the property if you can uh go back to the outline of the property this is a very long narrow parcel I just want to go um maybe it's in your documents the red outline of the narrow parcel just to show you what we're looking at um there I mean this is the parcel this is what we're dealing with so the whole entire railroad RightWay is only 116 ft wide but that also includes the tracks so we have to be certain number of feet per CSX off the tracks and we are in between the tracks and the highway we're not on the other side where the nursery is um so this was our hardship was the shape of the parcel so we meet it you know up and down but we can't meet it side to side and because it's not at a direct north south lineage here we're having to get three variances because it's tilted if that makes sense when you look directly north and directly south and directly east and west so that's the reason for the variances we meet the criteria in your ordinance for the variances uh we're not going to adversely affect nearby properties there's no noise from this use there's no dust there's no fumes there's no odor and there's no traffic so there's no objectionable issue here with the use of the property um so with that let me stop staff says we meet your criteria for both the special exception of the variances we agree with staff um you may know about some federal regulations and state of Florida regulations on the sighting of these uh Mr Sor and I can help you address those if needed but I'll stop there and see if you have any questions I have several so let's start from the beginning um this is now going to become a commercial or industrial Venture on agricultural property correct on a1's own property I'm not sure how the ordinance characterize a cell tower but it's a cell tower use you have tenants on the tower how many there will be tenants how many AT&T is is a tenant and it's available for other tenants and available for so that hence makes it a commercial Venture okay all right that was my first question so the next thing I have is you are doing a land lease correct or you purchasing the property from CSX lease lease for how many years uh I don't have the lease in front of me they're typically 25 to 30 25 okay and it's for and your typical land size that you guys lease is what typical area um whatever we can get I mean out in rural areas we can get as high as 75 by 75 Square we've gone as small as 30 by 30 I've seen right so on this case we've got a it's a 10,000 foot um space that we're looking at no sir it's only this one's only 3,000 some odd square feet um oh 4,200 square feet 4,200 ft total the orange outline hence the hence the variances they get to squeeze this tower on that small of a space well we're measuring it from the uh boundary lines of csx's partial not the lease area all right you mentioned um that you had reached out to the other owners inside the circle mhm and that you gave us a list of them yes and that none of them could come to what I think the words you use were a reasonable offer so if you you elaborate on that one well so if you know it it tells you exactly the attempts and who we talked to some most did not call us back there was another one that was interested M um let's see let me find it oh number four Miss Everett initially we were unable to contact the property owner they we tried to reach her and couldn't after a conclusion of the C effort so after we had gone through the whole process after we had come to terms with CSX after we had started developing the property um the property owner returned phone calls but the site was already Chosen and the terms proposed were outside of the industry standards so we were already down the road it was months after that we initially reached out and we didn't hear from her so technically that was a non-responsive landowner but we certainly wanted to make sure you guys knew that uh towards the tail end they did reach back out what's your duration in the land leases approximately they're only 25 to 30 years 25 to 30 so 25 to 30 years so the tower obsolesence is what 25 to 30 years what you say the lifespan of the tower more than that it's seal structure okay because you mentioned that the one across the way was a flimsier structure that it is it was built for a much lighter load okay oh because a much lighter load as opposed to this it won't hold these antennas much less antennas like from Verizon and T-Mobile as well this one will hold all of them and the height of the 255 ft which is extremely high in my opinion um is so it can communicate with the closest towers that AT&T currently has out there now yes to create the the network now the tower that is to the West that I mentioned that was built in the 80s is over a th000 ft are there any Towers along the way that are not AT&T towers that AT&T could have least space on and reduce the overall height of their Tower no sir that was the comment earlier that we looked for existing towers for it's a desert no towers that would give the signal that was needed so nothing within the search area and other than that one I pointed out there was nothing within two you got to sell you got to sell desert basically is what you're looking at cell signal desert which creates the substantial Gap in coverage all right um I don't know that we've got any opposition from any homeowners there's not really homeowners around there I know the area because the um the slaughterhouse that I take my animals to is right off of that road right off of uh um little brown church Road and um I reached out to them for comment and they weren't even aware of what was going on but and that's not on you that's on how we have ad vertise uh in general so okay that's it thank you any other questions for the applicant I got one real quick go ahead Mr I've always heard with 5G technology that's out right now that you can actually go a lot lower so there was a uh push towards the use of something called small cells M that were about 50 to 60 feet tall but they get one little area and we really don't use those anymore they prove to give the service we needed I'll tell you where they are still useful is areas that are very dense with users such as for example um a stadium mhm a racetrack that gets crowded the French Quarter airports uh those types of places you can use that technology to get more signal into the area because you have a high concentration of users right so a cell tower like this can only handle so many users at one time time the antennas mhm and when that usage overloads you got to have more signals so you got to have more structures that allows you to get a lot of signal so a lot of people can use their phones at the same time gotcha in one small area okay I've got a quick question the um with the technology the way it is today and you're looking at a 25 year lease what happens with this tow has become obsolete so your in your future plan if it would it remain would it come down what would happen so in the lease if the tower and I think in your ordinance as well if the tower becomes abandoned not used it has to come down per I think it's per the ordinance as well but definitely is in the lease okay got it okay we do have some public participation forms I'll give you an opportunity to make rebuttal be great thank you very much okay we've got uh Andrew nusan good morning sir if I can get your name and address for the record yes sir good morning your honor uh Andrew nusan um 1134 North US 17 I'm the owner of the uh the tree farm the nursery and uh the first thing I need to mention is that nobody contacted me um so if you have please show me the evidence now I wrote something I would like to read to to you uh 3 years ago I left my to a lot of people fantastic corporate job I sold everything that I own borrowed heavily to buy the buy flowing well Tree Farm in hope to get closer to Nature and make money by growing native and fruiting plants now my Nursery produces by far the best Florida native plans for everybody to enjoy especially ever growing construction to fulfill the tree codes set forth by the governing bodies my business my main source of income is heavily dependent on walk-in buyers coming from all Southern States North Carolina to Texas tall and mature trees uh separating me from the railroad and other neighboring Farms is a key feature to my farm that makes my farm not shy of being a piece of heaven I do not have any uh visible Tower from my farm currently and building any uh uh Tower in that area in short term given the only entrance and exit from my farm is on a Highway 17 is going to interrupt the full of customer and in long term makes my farm Urban commercial setting which has a negative effect on my business although the need for cell tower is essential in my area I'm only opposed to the placement and operation construction as well as dismantle it after the useful life of it to remedy the location uh the to remedy the location concern I would like to offer the sell company to find a better location such as back of my prod property or a neighbor uh property that I can tell you that nobody got contacted them I can tell you I can assure you that um I did try to call the cell company after the the the public notice was up next to my my farm and uh I did not hear back anything from them and they basically ignored me they said we're going to call you back then they did not give me any information I run a small business and all my funds have been invested in the farm therefore I do not have the money to hire a lawyer to defend my farm in this case so I do appreciate your much needed and careful attention in this case and Trust the outcome of this court thank you sir thank you any questions for the speaker okay thank you sir thank you okay and I also have a Jeremiah Leonard good morning sir if I can get your name and address for the record yes hi good morning Jeremiah Leonard 11:30 North US Highway 17 in Pearson I was the the kind of square shaped lot there below there um same same as my neighbor here uh Andrew trying to create a Homestead Property we have five children um I've been in this state my entire life and seen a lot of changes um U since the 70s I was born and seen a lot of changes uh and coming from Sarasota County purchased this Farm I have over aill million dollars invested in my own money I didn't take any loans um and really wanted to different pace of Life uh with cattle and chickens and and homesteading type of life that we have again we have five children um I was not contacted either uh I was only contacted by by you all um so I don't know where that came from um it for me some of the biggest questions I have more questions uh is is it's very vague everything we have here we don't have any information as to up until today but these these uh you know these plot maps and they're very out of scale you can't see where it actually is going to be on Highway 17 in reference to my property uh on here it says it exceeds 70 ft today we finally learn it's 255 so again very vague without giving us too much information um we don't know if there's the quantity of is there just one or there two um he he says uh you know they're they're strong and they're not going to fall but we do have obviously hurricanes here um maybe where he's from they're not as intense but um a hurricane can if it does break as he says it it can move pretty far my property's right there um and again we have five children um is is this going to be connected to anything um again why the height why this location I own the property south of here as well that is not highlighted um is there anything going to be there um and and again you know why um is this going to be 5G or 4G and and is there any data to the repercussions uh you know internet is is fairly new here uh and we don't know what the repercussions are of 5G no one knows do they have any data on that that they can supply to to radiation or Mr chair I'm going to I need to interrupt the speaker um there's a there's an issue with federal law that prevents the introduction of um essentially testimony regarding radio frequency and its environmental effects so that is something that that the Telecom Communications act says um that is not permissible testimony for the location and construction of cell towers um so that's because that is directly um regulated by the federal law so any testimony on radiation electromagnetic effects um cannot be uh introduced and I would direct the commission to disregard those wow so it just doesn't matter okay well I just hope my time can get kicked back as well but um but in and also to that question things change in 25 years now what will be up there will it be something more intense than 5G and we have to deal with that throughout our lives will there be repercussions to that am I allowed to say that um it there just needs to be a lot more data on that and I think it should be shared with us thank you thank you sir okay do we have any other public participation forms for this case Okay do was anybody like to speak to this case all right if I can get the applicant to come back up please you've heard the concerns so would you like to address those yes sir let me the other than the U frequency waves um yes let me uh touch on a couple of things um and I didn't get Andrew's last name my apologies who owns the the plant nursery um the location on this property let me make sure I was clear the letters that went out this whole project started in 2022 when we were looking for property this is not a project that started 2 three weeks ago so this has been going on for two years it takes time to get FAA approval which we've obtained approval from the FCC we have to run a bunch of Environmental Studies so when we outreached to them was back in 2022 not sure if they were the owners of the land but you see exactly the attempts we made and how we came to the conclusion this is the only viable option for us I'm not really sure I heard any details on the negative effect on the business uh again this is a structure there's no traffic dust no noise no odor no fumes I'm not sure how it would negatively affect a nursery business uh it will be there uh and you will see it but it also I would say argue the other side it's going to provide more benefits for Public Safety and public connectivity than it will for any negative effects on nearby properties um if he tried to call the cell tower company I'm not aware of it I certainly would have called him back I speak with with folks when I do this all the time that have questions a lot of times those questions get answered before we get to the hearings um but certainly staff was there to answer questions as well and to my knowledge staff received no calls on this issue um with regard to the uh to try and answer um you know uh Pao talked about the health effects issue and the federal law limitations there and he's absolutely right but there's also uh limitations on aesthetic concerns and if you kind of take a step back and you know the need for these types of devices and the the network for these things to work we rely on these phones now for everything from working to playing to entertainment to emergencies to anything about 83% of 911 calls come from cell phones and if your cell phone doesn't connect you don't get the service the first net First Responders will have the same issue here unless this site's built so aesthetic concerns are not something the federal government and state of Florida has allowed as issues for denial certainly we're trying to address address every other concern that's why we're putting it between the railroad tracks and the road so the railroad tracks and the trains run between where the tower is going to be in the pl plant nursery we're not on the other side of the track on his side we're on the side away from the nursery um the location changing um you see why we were limited to this area with the search ring and the parcel shape and so forth uh and the Outreach um I mean he's inviting us to put it on his property so I'm not really sure what the big issue would be with regard to a negative effect on his business with regard to Mr Leonard's um issues um I think we've Prov proved well I know we provided everything that's required in your ordinance we tried to give you the information who we are what we're doing and why we're doing it and why we got to here so we think we have done that he asked a question about quantity this is the only tower that will be needed in this area that's why we're building it uh as strong as we are and as tall as we are to make sure it meets AT&T's engineering requirements but also the engineering requirements of Verizon and T-Mobile whose antennas will be underneath each other other therefore lower but they can still get a signal adequate enough to connect to their other sites in the surrounding areas so there is some uh you know method to the madness s to speak we didn't just come in here and say darn it we want a tower and this is where we're putting it we have done everything we can to get find the least obtrusive site to do the reasonable attempts to find alter alternative locations and we're going the minimum height necessary and we're on an oddly shaped piece of parcel that's why we need the variances and we think we've satisfied the hardships as your staff has said and we think we've satisfied all nine criteria for your special exception as staff has said so with that if you have any more questions I'll attempt to answer I do Mr CER yep I want to go back to your AT&T coverage map Pages 25 and 26 CU you just you said that this Tower is the only Tower power that AT&T is going to need to for that coverage area period correct it will provide that service you see on that second map okay so my question is because there is no frame of reference here what is the what is the approximate diameter of that bloom that green Bloom now once that Tower goes live uh it is probably a mile and a half maybe two in either D any direction a mile and a half maybe two in either direction yes and that's an estimate on my part and then the search the search ring obviously is not a mile and a half in diameter no it's a quarter mile quarter mile okay um in looking at that search ring on page uh what page is that I think it's the comprehensive elimination report which go shows the four can we go to that page I think I think it's uh two the third page on his handout this one right here second page oh yeah the one that's got the shows the proposed Tower the pins in it it's got the four properties yes sir identified and I'm looking at that ring if we can pull that that's a one yep no go back right there actually one more I'm sorry that one right there can we zoom in a little bit so looking at the center of that Circle that would be your theoretical perfect perfect location is that correct that's the center of the search ring we try and start from the center and work out yes and so that is the best that would have been the ideal primary location and so uh owner two didn't respond which owns on down to the bottom of that Circle I'm looking at the red is a noo Zone and the pink is noo and the pink is a no-o zone so we have that one and then to the left of your center pin is that the nursery the pink yes no to the center of the circle itself from the that right there the nursery is the pink in the upper left in the upper left and that's the nursery that bleeds down into the circle gotcha okay that was the limitation there I'm just looking at why we didn't why why do you why you didn't locate closer to the center of your search radius as opposed to way up there so and that gets back to what I was saying earlier about the use of the railroad by CSX we had to avoid their equipment that's already in their RightWay MH that's the reason why we're at where we are on that thin parcel but we only had four options five if you count the railroad if you can see by that map you pointed out those are the only four properties that could be used that that that responded to you or did not respond to you no those were because the red and the pink prohibit those we only had five options including the CSX site that we could look at it all within the search area and we show you why the other four didn't work and we're on the fifth which is the CSX that's why this is the only only parcel that would work other than two three four one no sir because of the commentary I I got that right we tried is my point that's what I'm saying those are the on they would have worked from a technical standpoint that's where you reached out to that's right but because they could work from a technical standpoint we could work on the zoning ordinance limitations and they looked constructible we certainly reached out to them I'm just looking at that bottom left corner of the center of that Circle that does not have a pin in it and one why that one was eliminated or not contacted the red no it's where green it's from the center from the center of the C right there oh that is part of number one that is part of number that is part of yeah they just put the pin up there that but that's that entire parcel that's all entire parcel and they were not and they were not interested that's right that is Acres okay one corresponds with pin one two below corresponds with pin two Sor now makes it much more clear my I should have made that a little simpler my apologies see looking the roadway just I you're assume that that was a break in and I look at too many of these all the time and I look at them you don't see them like I do yep all right I get it sorry about that so that's that's what I want you to see was our due diligence to try and find the best parcel and that's how we got to that okay any other questions all right sir thank you we're going to close the floor from public participation open up for commission discussion or motion all right let's wake up U well I'm not I'm not I'm not going to make a motion but I do want to have a comment and and the comment is this um I see that in this particular case an a zoned Prime agricultural A1 zone property we've got glaring approvals here to convert the A1 Property into a commercial industrial Venture with tenants and we've had other issues come up with A1 which are not quite as intrusive as this that were shot down handedly because it was an A1 Property so because this fits the greater good per se we're we're opening up Self Service to an area that is a desert p in in general my reservation here is that if it's good for one it's good for another well okay I'm right there with you okay and with that I'll let somebody else make a motion but I will make a comment that we have to look at each case individually understood we can't look at what hopefully we can uh be a little bit more lenient on the other ones and I'm assuming that's where you're going with that okay would anybody else like to tackle this come on people well let's get to let's get some let's get some uh input then what is your thoughts Miss cig go ahead I know you want to say something well I feel like this piece of property is basically not usable for anything else I mean because of the nature of of its shape and and the you know the narrow uh width there I don't see that it could be used for anything else but a commercial I don't know nothing nothing um substantial I feel like it's a reasonable use of the property I I guess I got lost as to why it couldn't be positioned further south looking at the elimination report from the search results radius that was handed to us just earlier it seems like there's there's enough space there that it could go farther away from the uh the nursery and that would eliminate that um well during that conversation it was because of the resource areas well we're looking at the resource uh corridors and we were looking to um help me on this m what was was a resource that we couldn't go further south management while had Wild Life management area under resource Corridor yeah the the applicant um can add some information on that yeah I'm sorry sir do you mind repeating that into the microphone just so we can get it on record thank you sorry part of the reason we're where we are uh on this property is because moving it South moves us closer to the residences and we can't meet the thousand foot setback got so we located here to meet that okay thank you okay anyone else's comment look I'm just going to go ahead and make a motion I will say normally I'll tell you where I'm at usually on these cell towers when I see one pop up on every corner I'm a little very hesitant to approve any of them but I do know this area and I do know we don't have very good uh cell tower in you know out there that with the information that we're actually needed so as long as it's not just the AT&T Towers if it's available to the other uh companies out there um I'm kind of leaning towards it I'll be very honest with you okay be glad to make the motion since you don't want to [Laughter] please and just for the audience we have to make these in the in the affirmative um I guess we don't case number uh as I move to approve case number 24-6 subject to the four staff recommended conditions so we're is that that's the forward that's 06 that's the forward to the County Council yes second what about the Varian have the there a condition well you need read one and before you do I did say subject to the four staff recommended conditions but I'm reading this because this one goes uh yeah I get that okay okay I'll second there that motion and I'll be mind I'll reread it on 246 that I'm seconding that that she we're recommending approval uh forwarding this to the County council with for a final re final action up with a recommendation of approval and the four staff with the four staff staff recommended conditions on page eight okay got it easy for you to say that's what we were saying you know it's it's a second yeah yes and I was a second I was rereading and second claric reading gotcha okay I got a motion on the floor for case s 24006 to forward the special exception case to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval subject to the four conditions from staff that was for Miss Shelly and then I got a second from Mr Costa any discussion on the motion in general I don't have a problem with uh cell towers and I agree with you like I said I've been out to that I go to that area frequently um to the slaughterous and um that is a dead zone that is Def definitely needed if you're driving through coming back from Crescent City late at night you hit that pocket where there is zero coverage whatsoever uh which becomes a problematic problematic on a number one a highway that is extremely dark uh and heavily travel but extremely dark and um becomes an issue to disabled motorists so from that standpoint I I'm in agreement what I am not in agreement with was the comment of that what's what's really sticking on my crawl is reasonable offer and being as a as a realer and real estate developer I have had these reasonable offers before on other with other clients so I have a different opinion on that but anyhow um I'm ready to vote when you are on this one okay and I will also say that as long I'm in favor for it also as long as the uh it's not limited strictly to AT&T and other uh providers can access that Tower also at a reasonable amount yeah yes okay all right any other discussion on the motion okay all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously now we'll handle the variance um could I I have a question um when will this go before the County Council September 9th September 9th before the County Council thank you um um actually it's um September 3rd sorry September 3rd okay okay we'll handle the variance now if you want to make a motion on that one I'll be glad to make a motion case number v-24 052 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Prime agricultural A1 zoned property subject to the one staff recommended condition move for approval okay that's variances one two and three correct yes sir second okay I've got a motion on the floor for Miss Shelly to approve variances 1 two and three for variance V 2452 with the one staff condition and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion so that nobody is shocked here because I know that you will be I cannot support this one because I think there are properties that with a better offer would not have required these um baranes to put the tower up and would have it would have fit the bill equally within that Circle that they pointed out to us can you tell us what a better offer I I don't know what a better offer is because I I wasn't privy to their count in other words his he used the word reasonable offer so they have a number in mind they have a fixed number that they will pay I don't know what that number is and so they it's either take it or leave it you don't like it we go to the next guy you don't like it we go to the next guy so they found a a parcel that would fit their needs which does but in order to fit their needs we've got a shoe hornet in there by giving them these three variances dropping this sepex from 127 to 92 from 127 to 26 and from 127 to 103 and so when we see this in a residential scenario we basically kick this around it's like no you can move the house this way you can move the house that way but in this case they're squeezing 10 Pags 10 pounds of manure in a 5B bag and that is where I have the problem that I think that a better site a larger site further down would have been suitable it would would have cost them a little more so it doesn't fit their model and I get that I mean a business is a business I'm a businessman just like they are so you're looking at where you can do it with the least uh the least amount of output and this is the site that they chose and so for that reason only is the reason that I am am not in support of the particular variances on the SE I am in favor of the tower trust me but it's just this sticks on my crawl just a bit okay but but other on have their options absolutely yeah exactly I mean I on a on any other given day I would I would be a yes vote so well this is a point that could be brought up you know I'm assuming it's going to be one denial I don't know until we get a vote but what I'm saying is it would be brought up at the council sure get there at least get their attention to this yeah and the residents have a chance to come before the council residents do that yes that was obviously they have a second they have a second chance at they got a second chance to go to council and plead their case M okay did we have a motion on this yeah and a second and a second y I'm the motion you're the mo that was the discussion on the motion yes okay all those in F favor signify by saying I I any opposed I okay uh it's a five to one vote with Mr Costa in dissension and he'd like that to be put into the record so Council will be aware of it and what his reasoning was okay Miss Shelly could I get the next case please yes sir um case number CPA d24001 no no no Z2 24009 okay thank you okay case number z-2 24009 resoning from the planned unit development PUD zoning classification with a mixed use subclassification to the rural residential RR zoning classification okay thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning the applicant is requesting to rezone um his a 5.05 acre parcel from a plan unit development with a mixed to subclassification to ro residential um the applicants intent is to build a single family residence back in 2004 the parcel was rezoned um along with the property to the north to the um PUD for single family residence and a wholesale plant nursery uh the previous owners did not complete the final site plan process resulting in the Pud expiring the subject property and the property to the north have always been separate parcels and the applicant purchased the subject property in 2021 the surrounding area is developed with single family residences and they vary in lot sizes from 9,000 ft to 3 acres uh the parcel is currently vacant um but was previously used as the plant nursery the existing future land use is urban low intensity and the proposed rural residential is conditionally compatible staff's recommendation is to forward the rezoning to County Council for final action with recommendation of approval I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present good morning sir would you like to state your name and address for the record please R Marshall I live at 1455 excuse me West French avenue in or city I am the applicant I did this property in 2021 from the property owner to the north uh he is the one who changed the zoning to uh the mpud zoning he had a thriving uh commercial I mean excuse me Wholesale Nursery business at one time fell into some problems and the nursery's been abandoned abandoned for years so I bought the souly 5 Acres um I'm asking for it to be rezoned to rural residential if you look at the surrounding properties uh to the uh West South and East is saw R4 uh to the north is still the mpud and to the uh Northwest is rural residential which touches diagonally to my property at one time this property was R4 uh I want to be RR I don't want it to go back to R4 I want it to be less dense than than the R4 I I live not far from there on French avenue this back road here is kind of a sleepy little area uh I befriended some of the property owners and I don't want to see it uh R4 with potentially up to 20 houses in there the RR is one house per acre and that's that's the zoning that I'm requesting okay sir any question for the applicant okay do we have any public participation forms for this case all right hearing none we're going to close the for for public participation and open up for commission discussion um I do have a question uh for Miss Ray the the mpud would still be intact to the north of this property is that correct what does that do to that mud because wouldn't it revert back to the original zoning Miss Smith or Miss Ray wanted you to um no oh yeah yeah the answer to to the question of puds unless it's uh is in the county now it's different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction um puds do not revert when they expire High um the obvious issue is okay that was an mpud say a neighborhood goes around it and but the underlying zoning was something like industrial if the Pud expires it reverts to an industrial zoning District in the middle of a residential neighborhood so in the future it causes compatibility issues kind of like worst case scenarios so here in the county it's different in cities um when puds expire there expired puds and someone has to come in and Revitalize the Pud either through resoning or doing a major amendment to basically reinvigorate the Pud but they do not automatically revert okay so in other words the mpud will still be intact to the north correct yes and before they can do anything they're going to have to come back before this board or the council and either go back to the mpud or PUD and or is rezoning yes there you go that was my question okay we're going to close okay Mr C do you have a question make a motion okay all right we're going to close the for for public we did that we're gonna open up for motion or Mr chair I'll prepare to make a motion that we forward the resoning application case number z-2 4-9 to the County Council for a for final action with a recommendation of approval and there are no uh there are no other criteria that's it second yeah okay we've got a motion on the floor for Mr CA to forward the rezoning application case number Z2 24009 to the County Council for final action on recommendation of approval and is second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimous thank you sir Miss Shell could I get the next case please uh yes sir may I um yes you can both of those we got two companion cases here so we're going to read them both into the record and we'll tackle them or try to tackle them or do something with them all right go ahead case number CPA cpa-2 24-1 smallscale comprehensive plan Amendment from the rule R future fure land use designation to the urban low intensity UL future land use designation and also case number p- 24-1 a resoning from the urban single family residential R4 and transitional agriculture A3 zoning classifications to a planned unit development with residential subclassification thank you Miss Shelly and Mr Shams this one is yours hi good morning morning this is Steve Shams with planning so the subject site is comprised of three Parcels that total 35.0 n Acres just want to set some facts in the case so one parcel um to the north is already Uli and it's about 10.04 Acres so this application is for the southernmost Parcels uh these are a combination of rural Andi and combined 2.05 Acres so of these two Parcels the 25 acres um the future land use change from rural to Uli is for 14.58% with the accompanying PUD and also to add um the Pud is proposing a conservation easement over sensitive areas so with the current designations the site could be developed with 82 units and the request of 90 exceeds the allocation if the future land use change is approved the maximum yield if the site were a straight Uli is 112 however the applicant is only seeking 90 which is an increase of eight units the site is located within the city of D's utility service area and has capacity for Central Utilities in addition this is this site is also subject to their 2050 Vision plan and according to this plan the site is within the urban core and is adjacent to an employment center along US Highway 92 which is just North of the site staff found it consistent with Comprehensive plan policies related to discouraging urban sprawl meeting concurrency requirements and Environmental Conservation according to the traffic analysis the site's existing designations could yield 560 daily trips and 44 p.m peak hour trips if developed as is the proposed Uli designation could result in 758 daily trips which is an increase of 198 daily trips uh traffic engineering for the county reviewed the the application and will continue to coordinate with the applicant for their uh traffic impact assessment analysis uh overall staff recommends forwarding the CPA to County council with the recommendation of approval and I can also go through the Pud yep um so the Pud the Pud application is to construct the 90 duplex units the area to the north of the site is industrial along US Highway 92 the area west of lake lendley is within the city of D land and it's developed as an urban residential uh community and the area South is low density residential and the areas East are undeveloped as you can see on the aerial uh the property has approximately 5.6 Acres of wetlands on site the applicant proposes to preserve approximately six acres of the site along its southern side within a conservation easement a draft version of the easement was included Ed in the pdrc package and it will be finalized during the Land Development phase environmental permitting identified about one acre of wetland and their buffers being impacted on the northwest corner of the site so the plan that you see in the screen is uh oriented as North on the left East on the top so the impacted areas are in that North the far left of the plan you can see a small line through the pond um so this northwest corner of the site is not being proposed for development it'll be utilized as a landscape buffer and storm water retention the Pud will developed in one phase and is proposing fee ownership for each unit SL lot and each lot is proposed to be 38 uh well 3,850 ft there will be a 20ft landscape buffer along all sides of the site and a m maximum Building height of 35 ft which is consistent with adjacent residential zoning classes uh in addition to meet the Pud requirements the county has set forth the site will delineate 20% to Common open space which is about 7 Acres and per the applicants uh development agreement amenities to be offered include a sidewalk network uh walking trails a picnic area open grass areas and the area near the lake uh the proposed ped is consistent with the proposed Uli feature lanus designation uh the current existing zoning which is R4 and A3 could generate 560 daily trips and 44 PM peak hour trips if developed as is the proposed PUD could generate 636 daily trips in 51 PM peak hour so it's an overall increase of 76 daily trips and 7 PM peak hour trips when you can consider the Pud resoning and overall staff recommends forwarding uh the Pud to the County council with a recommendation of approval and I'm available for comment or question on both items thank you Mr chams any question for staff Mr chair we also have our Environmental Management director and our County Forester in the room if you have questions for them I do okay Mr Shams yes sir the current zoning on this without changing the CPA would allow up to 82 units on the property that is UL correct is that what you're telling me um um so if the if the property was not changed at all yes with the rural and the Uli as is to be 82 units 82 units yes sir so my question to you is it would be 82 units if they were go through the developmental process how many of the would it still be 82 units after they put in the retention the roadways and everything like that that varies 82 is the maximum 82 is the maximum yes sir so more than likely it would meet those 82 units correct correct yes okay the 90 duplex units is that is that consider is that 90 or 180 actual units if it's a duplex is two is the two 180 or is it 90 it's 90 so there'll be 45 2units that was my question okay okay so in other words they could take in uh under the current um comprehensive plan they could develop currently up to 82 units but more than likely not that many because of the development code correct yes correct would would in the current I I guess what I'm trying to say is would we we have the I see in here on the Pud side where environmental had a problem with the conceptual plan correct yes okay in the Pud side why was that not addressed before it come before us so ultimately the plan is conceptual and they will have to go through Land Development and satisfy any uh uh comments or concerns environmental has um so the P itself is really just approving the use of the 90 duplexes so um so the conceptual plan is just it could all it could totally different than what we have on our packet correct yes I mean and more than well it will look different because environmental has has some issues with the current conceptual plan yes sir okay okay I'll leave it right there and then I'll probably have some questions for environmental before we're done with this but I'm going to go ahead and let the um applicant come forward go ahead quick question for staff I've been down this road before from a preference standpoint the advantages of the Pud versus the straight zoning coming in with site plans from a staff level would be our what um it allows more specific uh criteria to be catered to the site um we're aware of exactly what they're intending to do um and we're able we were able to kind of include the conservation easement as a means to really protect a lot of key features of the site on the St side correct so the Pud gives you more teeth than the straight zoning sure on an application like this correct okay that's what I wanted to make Point thank you okay is the applicant present good morning got to get your name and address the record for the record Mark wats with the law firm of cob Cole 231 North Woodland Boulevard D land uh here on behalf of the applicant um which is actually from our standpoint our client cap 5 development we've got some of our Representatives here as well but Astra deer is the representative of the owner of the property up here over my my left shoulder um so I don't have a m a big presentation for you this you know this morning um staff I think has done a great job with their analysis um both on the comp plan Amendment and um and on the proposed rezoning um I do want to point out you know we do have kind of a unique situation here where we've got the Uli and the rural that splits one of the parcels um you know if you go back and look at you know the comp the comp plan land use maps and everything else that you've got here um the site really is surrounded by you know similar more intense development um you know opportunity at least with with regard to the land use you've got industrial to the north you've got commercial to the Northeast um you've got Uli on the properties that zoned by the Ford family to the to the east um and then you've got the U cities um low density residential with um The Waterford laks development properties over to the West so it really does fit very well one of the things that um you know staff indicated was that um you know this is within the city of D's 2050 Vision plan as you know part of the urban core um we initially intended to bring this proper this project forward with the city of Dand um but we have an enclave issue if we were to Annex the property into Dand it creates an enclave with one of the purple Lots that's up there off of 1792 for those of you who know the area hunts upholstery that parcel would be an enclave still in the County so we couldn't cut that off and so we're here before you but um one of the things just under the just so that you're aware of it I know you've heard us talk about the 2050 plan in the past what that plan does is it really kind of concentrates where development should occur and where densities and intensities can be increased as the land grows and continues to provide for you know that growth into the future and so this area is in you know that Urban core which is on their map you know kind of an orange color and it's referred to as category to and it says Urban core area where the majority of New Growth will take place within the city of Dand so it's kind of within that footprint the other thing that I'll I'll touch on and then just open up for questions um with regard to the location of this property I think one of the things that we looked at as a particular benefit of this location is one of the key drivers for the city of D land from an economic development standpoint is the airport industrial complex in the airport industrial park and so this really provides a great opportunity for us to to bring forward some you know diversification of the of the housing uh that's available uh in the land um with uh in close proximity to that employment center um so I think that's a point that was raised in your staff report as well um but I do think that's one of the the key things D land in general has been pushing for more of a mix of housing types Town Homes duplexes um Apartments you know kind of missing middle type type um uh developments and so I think this fits very well within that long long range plan um with regard if we can go back to the uh concept plan for just a second um we're aware of the the comment from environmental with regard to um a wetland impact just so that you can see where that is if you look right here that's a wetland line that's in our storm water Pond um really the key moving forward I can see it um does that go up there at all it does it's not showing when I draw on the map here well if you look in the bottom corner uh you can kind of see a diagonal line going through where that storm water Pond is that's the Wetland area that we' we've got to work on and essentially um you know as as staff indicated you know we're at a conceptual level at this point in time what environmental staff has asked us to do is is demonstrate avoidance and minimization of impacts to um that Wetland as we move forwards which as we get into the um as we get into the actual technical design of the storm water system we would certainly be working with them to make sure we take that into account so we have no problem moving forward working with the Environmental Management team um to you know to make sure their concerns are addressed or or we've demonstrated avoidance and minimization so with that happy to answer any questions you might have uh do appreciate staff's recommendation of approval on both of them so okay any Mr cost you keep mentioning duplexes and the diversity of homes I haven't heard the the buzz phrase affordable housing here is this these are market rate units I'm assuming they're rentals or they're going to be fee simple for sale these would be fee simple and and I think that we haven't said affordable housing because this isn't something intended to qualify for for the you know the Ami Target ranges that that would apply to I think what D land in general is trying to do is increase the diversity of things like town homes and duplexes or paired Villas so that you have a supply of more affordable you know hous it it makes it yeah I mean the term sometimes throws you people into a different spin but this is more of affordable single family attached single family home that's correct that's correct and there's only one point of Ingress egress on this project right there there is there's one point on Jacob's da Road or on Jacobs Road I guess is now the the formal name for it um what we've worked with and we've done this in the past and working with your fire Services Department if that's a divided Boulevard they look at that as having two points of Ingress and egress because you it can have one lane that's open if the other one is blocked and so that's one of the things that we've done again as we get into the formal engineering and site design we'll have to continue to go through and work with fire Serv so this point you don't know if you're going to have to have Dell Lanes coming in or like that okay yeah I I anticipate there'll be Road uh improvements that are required if you know Jacobs Road um the east side is more open uh open sale along the rideway west side I think in this area we've got um we don't have that open soil in this particular section we'll have to coordinate all those improvements whatever is required whether it's diesel Lanes turn Lanes things of that nature with uh with our use permit and I know this is just a conceptual plan but um uh City Water city sewer here at the site at the site yeah City Water city sewer um and that's you know another another way that the city of Dand has designated its Urban kind of core for that 2050 plan is to focus that on areas where those facilities are already in place so we're you know in an area where we already have available sewer and water lines that we can tie into here um immediately to the north for those of you know the area it's burner's auction house is is what's immediately on kind of on the to the left on the north side of that storm water pond so it's you know as staff pointed out a very good transitional use in the area as well so okay thank you okay any other questions yeah I do real quick Mark what's what's the size of each not the whole unit but each side F I don't know that I have a a square footage on on the individual units yet mhm so and what about the I know Mr Shams was talking about the the traffic the trips and stuff I know that being a two-lane road uh it's not the the widest Road in the world it doesn't seem like uh but during school hours is that going to be a problem um again um we'll have to get into that as we get into design and permitting for it um right now there there's a lot of school traffic that goes back and forth to um you know to the high school um there's a lot of students that walk up and down road to to the racetrack um you know lunch hours and stuff like that so we'll work with your staff you know there's typically things like sidewalks and everything else that are required as part of our improvements and as part of our use perit conditions so okay great okay okay uh I think uh what I'm going to do is I'm going bring environmental in then I'll get give you a chance to okay talk about what they have to say appreciate if I could get the environmental staff he's got big old book full of stuff yeah good morning could I get your name and address for the record Keith Abramson County Forester U my address is here 123 West Indiana Avenue got it um I know you had some concerns about the conceptual plan in the wetlands here and we're looking at the conceptual plan now uh what was the biggest drawback to this that you found well it was the Wetland impact in the northwest corner of the property um we feel that that area could be avoided or at least minimized um you know minimize the impacts of the wetlands and buffers they're not showing the the buffers on that in that particular area right now um you know there's just some more work to do on you know on the site plan level um they need to prove to us that there's no possible way that they can avoid that impact of that Wetland system okay uh let me also ask you a question if if we were to allow the P go through PUD to go through we don't have any limitations on elevation of the projected project do we the elevation I mean thought when I'm saying elevation in the height is is a lot of this property in here virtually now Uplands of the wetlands a majority of it you know is heavily impacted by agriculture um so even the wetlands that they're preser reserving on the south side of the property they're they're basically grasslands um you know we'd be looking at during the ODP phase or pppl subdivision review we'd be looking for uh maybe partial impact of this Wetland system and then restoration of other areas um and restoration of wetlands and buffers as a part of meeting Our Land Development code um but yeah generally uh most of the the uh wetlands are are impacted by agricultural site this is the only um wooded area of wetlands on the property um also which wasn't mentioned in my my uh comments is you know we have the 15% tree preservation area you know this is basically one of the few treat areas on the lot we be looking to to utilize that area for their tree preservation requirements as well right what I've from our past experiences with the developments what we've had seen anything close to any kind of wetlands is that when we reduce the Upland size it has to go somewhere else making it increase the wetlands in in in essence of the area that it would currently be uh the water has nowhere to go the water sits there longer so then evidently what we end up having is a uh designation of a wetland that wasn't a wetland before have you have you experienced that in your my experience is a lot of times when you take something that's basically Flatwoods and you and you clear it and you're taking all that vegetation off that property that would utilize a lot of the groundw and a lot of the rain water through transpiration and you know those ve that vegetation is no longer there that Pine Flat would can become a wetland in six months that's that's my point that's exactly my point and because we've been experiencing some of this in some different areas and I know we're supposed to look at each case individually but my also concern is is if it expands that what is it going to do the joining properties that are already on that Lake that's a good question yeah we don't I can't answer then we didn't know I mean we just don't know yeah I do not know okay I know that the upholstery property and that I've driven by there many times and when we've had like significant rain event I've seen that pasture back behind that ooler area flooded and so being that joining property owner this would probably have an impact on that from your past experience yeah I would assume so I know you don't know anything factual till it actually happens because we don't have any thing that put it but for your past experience we're more than likely going to have more water standing there because you you've eliminated the Upland area closest to the Wetland correct it could be possible yeah okay okay that was my point okay uh any questions for for environmental okay thank you sir do we have anyone else that like to speak to this all right Mr Watts you've heard of my concern and that's is what my concern is yes sir um because whenever we're dealing with any area close to a Wetlands uh inevitably when you develop the area to the north of that it's going to have an impact on your the joining Property Owners because now that Wetland area is reduced I mean the Upland area not the Wetland area the Upland area is reduced so therefore it doesn't dissipate out through the and go back uh if it has it makes the wetlands larger in other words so the the area that we're talking about with regard to the the impact that and and I think what what Keith said is absolutely true we have more work to do on the design in the site plan process which is the next step um that's where we get into the actual Tech techical design of what the storm water system looks like and how it functions the Wetland area that you're talking about if you look at the the aerial photo on the right it's the very top piece you see where the the treat area is that comes across at a little angle that's the Wetland area that we're talking about with regard to the avoidance of in minimization the other significant Wetland area that's on the site is if you look on the south you can kind of see that little little Pond there to the right um on the southern end to the right of Lake Lindley um there's that little pond pond that's right up against Jacob's Road and if you know that area and drive that area there's actually a culvert that goes under right there there's a there's a little standing um water on the on the pasture side as well right where that little Pond area is down there so what we're what we're proposing do is we're putting that's the part that we're putting into a conservation easement that 6 Acres that's on that southern portion of the property um the area that we have to talk about with regard to how the storm water system is designed is up on that area you know on the Northern end and that's the the the impact that that um that Keith just mentioned there's a number of things that we may be able to do as we get into that technical design one of the things we did you know with the couter cres one project that's being built next to Lake wiet now is we used the you know the existence of the stor of things like Wetland systems as part of the water quality and as part of the you know the storm water system with the liid standards that both the city has been pushing and and the county has been been pushing where you can actually have the storm water system function in and you know together with the Wetland system to actually maintain the the health of that system we don't know what that design is going to look like because we're not at that stage yet um but I think Keith and and ginger are here to say you know we we need to continue having those conversations as this moves forward um you know on the the system that we have in in uh for I'll use crestwind as as an example we actually have things like you know biooils and everything else that then drain into an area that then kind of drains into the Wetland naturally so that you kind of keep that Wetland intact and you know have that be also serving a function as your as part of your storm water system so there's a number of options that we can look at moving forward if at the end of the day we end up still having some impacts to that area we've got to demonstrate avoidance and minimization before we can you know permit those impacts um but some of the things like restoration of those other systems the southern system is probably a really good candidate for some restoration to to take place on um if we have to you know kind of mitigate any of those impacts on the North so again I agree as we get into ODP and get into the design moving forward we have further conversations with regard to how everything will function what we have been able to do um with regard to the site if you go back and look at the way that the site layout is put together one of the reasons that we actually ended up going with a duplex duplex type um development here was it let us cluster the development on a much smaller footprint of the overall property and leave the rest of the natural areas there um that particularly that were in flood plane or that had Wetland characteristics so we avoided flood plane impacts we avoided um Wetland impacts to the large you know to the greatest extent possible we may still have some more avoidance to to go through that may bring the numbers down you know on the overall number of units that that are able to construct this sets our maximum with the the Pud that that is before you this morning so again more work to be done once we get out of the conceptual stage yeah well the point I was making with Mr abrahamson there was the fact that we don't know what the impact is going to be that's the problem well we don't know overall what's going to happen once you do this and you reduce the eping area what kind of an impact is it going to have on hunts of foler or or even even around the lake there we just don't know what kind of an impact and so my experience from the puds in the development process is when they come in and develop it they get everything high enough even their retention fonds high enough to where they don't cause a problem within the area of being developed But ultimately what they do is cause a downstream if you want to call it that they cause problems Downstream and so therefore that that's what I'm trying to avoid I get it it's it's not it's not that we need the housing or anything else I'm looking at the adjacent property owners and what kind of an impact is it going to have on them in the future because like I said we take every case individually but I do know of other cases where we've had and it had a big impact on the joining Property Owners so what I can tell you is what the law is um the law that we have to comply with both at the county level and at the at the Water Management District level and what the law says is that when we develop a site we have to do two things one we have to continue taking any water that comes onto the site from the adjacent properties we have to accommodate that water still coming onto our site to the extent we send water off of our site we can't increase the rate that that water leaves the site or the volume of water that leaves the site That's the Law so the way that our regulations are set up we are not permitted to do that now that's an engineering exercise and we have to show that in our storm water design our storm water calculations and everything else so you know and I'm aware there's a lot of examples that that you know obviously the county has talked aot about you know kind of around the land around other places where there's concern about how those designs function the law is what I just said it was we've got we we're not permitted to have those impacts off site I can tell you because of the other you know kind of situations around the county your staff and every other staff that has to look at the storm water design is very much focused on avoiding repeats of those of those scenarios and so when we get into that storm water design um you know and and how the actual system is designed they're going through all calculations with the F tooth colb to make sure that the assumptions and everything else that are in those calculations are accurate and correct because again based on what the law is we can't do what you're s what what what you're concerned about um I know in practice it has happened in some instances in a lot of other instances it hasn't happened so it's a matter of making sure that we're following things and that that the eyes are being doted and deeser being crossed as we go through that engineering review okay in saying that I agree that's on the Pud side yes okay but on the CPA side you know we have to take into consideration of what the impact is going to be on this small scale Amendment yes okay and what the impact from my point of you is we the CPA goes through and then we've got the Pud it almost hand in hand the Pud is going to come into play M CPA doesn't go through the Pud don't come into play correct and so so from my point of view is if we know we have a possible and environmental has already brought the issue up at the CPA level I mean at the PED level it influences me on the CPA level sure but I think I think you have to look at what the objection is from from an environmental standpoint I think he's here if he wants to speak to this as well I don't think what you see them objecting to is the approval of the CPA what they're what their concern is is how will the ultimate site be designed and are we meeting the avoidance and minimization criteria in the code with regard to that one particular Wetland area so I don't think I think if you look at this from a policy standpoint so when we're talking about the CPA Amendment you're talking about land use policy should this be an area where we increase density and intensity to accommodate growth we know that there's I mean there Still Remains a shortage in in housing Supply and the Dand Market even though D's number two in the county with regard to residential building permits um there's still a shortage of supply and attainable supply for a vast majority of the population that's moving into into the city so this is a you know what the city has done with regard to you know that particular question is from a policy standpoint said we are going to identify the areas that we think densities should be increased over time to accommodate the growth of our community and that's the 2050 plan context um that is you know the um you know the basis on which we're we're asking you to to amend the comp plan to be consistent with what you know the the um you know the 2050 plan vision is for the city of Dand but here you've actually got U on that portion of the property where this particular Wetland impact is um I don't think environmental is objecting to anything with regard to the change in the land use it's the detail of how we develop under the Pud moving forward that I think we've got work to do and that's we really can't get there until we get into the engineering okay well I understand with your future L use plans but what I also have to consider is the existing individuals that live here obviously there's a disconnect there u i listen every time we put one of these through my phone goes what what are you thinking yeah you know and so and I have to make reasoning why it does go through and in this case you already have an issue on the Pud side not an issue that can't be addressed I get that but in order to get to that PUD you have to do this CPA that's where I'm at yeah okay I just want you to be aware I appreciate that my mindset where I'm where I'm going with this okay any other questions for the applicant okay well thank you very much you have any other public participation forms okay we're going to close the for for public participation open up commission discussion and we will be taking the CPA first I'll be prepared to make a motion Mr chair okay CPA 2401 make a motion that we find the future land use Amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA d24001 to the County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce for expedited State review and to the vucha growth management commission for certification second okay I got had a motion on the floor from Mr CA to forward the uh the future land use Amendment uh to the County council with a recommendation of approval as stated and a second for Miss Shelly uh any discussion on the motion I have to go on the record that I have a problem with it being so uh open ended at this point having to do with the with the water issue I I agree with you wholeheartedly on that that something that really needs to be considered okay and I think I express my thoughts to to the applicant so I'm the hold there so any other discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed I okay the motion carries four to two with uh chair Mills and Miss Craig and descent okay the next one would be PUD so yep Ready PUD d24001 make a motion that we forward the rezoning application case number PUD 24-1 to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval second okay I've got a motion on the floor to forward the resoning application case PUD 24001 to the County council with a final act with a recommendation of approval from Mr Costa and a second from michell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed I is any other M Craig was you opposed you're okay so five to one 5 to one okay and that that's because the conceptual wasn't in place to where to address the uh environmental concerns understood thank you very much for your time this morning thank you okay next case Miss Shelly yes sir case number zero case number -4- 006 ordinance 202 24-12 variance Criterion survey Rec requirements thank you Miss Shelly and Miss Smith this one is yours yes sir we're continuing our efforts to make the county processes more efficient uh today we're discussing proposed ordinance 20242 which is variance criteria um you may recall Paulo and Susan Jackson brought this item forward for discussion back in June of 2021 they noted that it's difficult to meet all five criteria during the staff review so we're frequently we have to recommend denial uh some of the discussion items back then were reducing the number of criteria necessary for approval allowing the majority instead of all of the criteria to be met for approval and addressing are frequently applied for variances and evaluating the potential code changes to reduce the number of variances then in August of 2021 that went before the council and they directed us to review the criteria to address the pdrc concerns over the past few years we've been working through a variety of code changes and we brought this item back to Council in May of 2024 with the recommendation to reduce the number of required variance criteria to three instead of five um they directed us to draft an ordinance that keeps all five criteria in place and reduces the number to be the majority or three out of five for a staff recommendation of approval so we are back at pdrc asking for your recommendation on the proposed ordinance the ordinance also includes changes to the boundary survey survey requirements when someone applies for a building permit they only need a survey that's two that's 5 years old when you apply for a variance we require a survey to be less than two years old so if you're in the building permitting process you need to go back out get your survey recertified so we're going we're requesting to change our requirement to meet the permitting requirement of 5 years we we will reserve the right in the case of um code violations or if we don't have Arial pictometry to see what's out there now to ask for a dimension survey to address those sorts of issues so we recommend approval of the ordinance and I'm available for any questions thank you Miss Smith any questions for staff okay do we have any public participation well I do have one question when would these changes take place go into effect well it needs to go before Council so that will be uh September 3D and they'll do the final vote and then is there a second hearing P um no uh so if if the council passes this ordinance then it takes effect once the uh we send it to the Department of State and wait for their response yes so chances of it starting this year are very good very good very good is it retroactive to anything that would be already in the pipeline or only new applicants from that day forward we would do technically it's new applicants but someone can just resubmit and then say hey I want to take advantage of the new uh uh law and place or the new rules in place um and that's that's kind of all they have to do uh is just you know if they're in the pipm right now um they can go forward with the existing law as it is because their grandfathered didn't or they can tell us hey I would like to uh resubmit same application um but I want to be evaluated under the new change okay any other questions okay uh we'll close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion and or motion um I will make a motion on case -24 d006 that we forward ordinance 2 20 23-27 to the County council with a recommendation of approval second okay I've got a motion on the floor to for the ordinance 024 0 6 to the County council with a recommendation of approval from Mr Coston and second from Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor sign oh go ahead Mr Craig so the change of reducing it to three out of five rather than five out of five unanimous M what does that functionally do that would allow us to recommend approval if they meet at least three of the criteria you still vote however you choose to vote but right now if you can't meet all five criteria we must recommend denial does it have any effect on what we what we take into consideration yes because and let me say this a lot of times we hear that okay staff recommended denial and then you guys approved it so you're just rubber stamping everything when in fact staff may feel that it does meet three of the five criteria and they may feel that they should be able to get that variance but they can't do that because it's got to meet all five criteria so does this open it up so that they can say they can have an opinion well it gives them a little bit more leeway it does okay okay because some of these that come before us you know they say Okay staff has recommended denial denial Deni and you guys keep on yes yes yes well we kind of look at it we take in consideration the criteria but we look at it we may look at it as a as a group differently than what they do theirs is black and white and it it has to meet that criteria there's no leeway we got some gray area that we can go into by the uh the what we hear from the applicant or somebody that doesn't because they've recommended approval sometimes and we we've denied it okay not very seldom but most of the time so if if it if they meet three of the five criteria does staff then automatically have to say yes go ahead yes well is it automatic or staff would recommend approval um if they meet three they're still looking at it black and white um but you're not going to get like 12 variance applications and all 12 have staff recommendations because usually the one they fail is it's not the minimum variance necessary yeah because we say Hey you can just build a th square foot house somehow you know 10 by 100 go and they can't justify they got to go by what's submitted to them where we're in here we we can take that in consideration but we can still give them a variance we can reduce that or agree to reduce it through the applicant and we can also deny it yeah we can deny it yeah you're looking at criteria four and five are the ones that are eliminating those are the subjective ones that could go either way one two and three are basically a black and white yeah uh you know so that's thank you that's where we're at on that okay did we vote oh no we did not vote all those in favor signify by saying I I any oppose motion carries unanimously uh with Mr Patterson stepped out yeah okay all right do we have any other public items no sir do we have any staff comments two quick comments just a reminder the growth management Workshop will be held by the County Council next Tuesday the 23rd at 3:00 in chamber MERS if you're interested in knowing what will be on that agenda it it is all of the information is out on our website currently the second one we're thrilled to say our planning team is full um in the back of the room we have two new planning team members okay um Courtney Harris and Robert MacArthur have joined us and you'll see them up here with us next month all right good to know congratulations yeah okay uh commission comments uh what were you saying before about the containers oh it was um we advertised it um but it still needs a lot of workshopping um we got direction from County Council to see if we can accommodate shipping containers on non-residential properties and and agricultural properties um we're seeing you know that kind of request for essentially cheap storage um in those areas where it wouldn't be harmful or impactful to say a residential neighborhood so discussion is okay people say shipping containers but they all come they come in all shapes and sizes you know they you know uh how big where can you locate them um you know are there any any screening requirements any you know any setback issues you know to basically make it compatible in wherever you're going to put in there and prevent them from becoming an isore but still allow their use you know for um the businesses and agricultural properties that would like to use them m i I hear a lot of people now are trying to get those and convert them into tiny homes that's actually allowed if they use it as a material for under the building code it's just a standard material under the building code we're we're dealing with just the plain use of a shipping container and you just plop it on the property and it's not occupiable and it's not habitable so if you turn it if you strictly for storage directly for storage if you use it as part of your home um you know your shipping container homes which are kind of trendy in some areas it's just it's just another building material well what's the zoning got to be for that for any you can't go into some any zoning because it's just it's just building material so it's it's the same as a more or less a stick build you just have to comply with the building code when you use that material mhm okay living quarters that is as long as you do for living quarters not for storage right yeah living storage is not any Zone totally different Right Storage to use as a storage container is not in any zoning correct oh well that's what we're addressing the technically we've got a Prohibition on shipping containers in um for use as storage um in most zoning districts except for I think your actual storage facilities so that's what we're addressing we've we have a lot of businesses that um use shipping containers they're everywhere technically not allowed so we're we're trying to address that so you're when you say pretty much all zonings I and this one we just passed here this the duplexes you're telling me that they can put a storage container on their yard it's part of construction for storage for storage after the fact after they've moved into their house is that what you're telling me no no it would only apply to um if non-residential zoning and in agricultural zoning that's the areas where for the use of shi containers all right I misunderstood you then I thought when you I understood all zoning and so they're currently prohibited in as an accessory use in all zonings so you know we know there are some a lot of people out there who have shipping containers on their property usually in agricultural areas what is a workshopping requirement you say it requires more workshopping what does that mean um well we're trying to figure out you know what the regulations are going to be in terms of um I guess any required Foundation can you just plop it on soft ground and let it syn um any screening requirements um I think some of the things were were and the maximum size or minimum size of a shipping container because I don't want to start regulating those like temporary storage pods M like no that's you know those are temporary in nature we're really trying to focus on you know the traditional like cargo containers shipping containers 2040 240 and 53 yes yeah those are your sizes okay any other commission comment comments okay I've got one I've been getting some calls quite numerous calls I guess in April we put another layer on the building permit process and that has to go through a pre so that is that's um how do I describe this okay so are are we used to do a concurrent review where uh the the zoning Land Development code was reviewed concurrently at the same time as the building code um you submit one permit um and it has all the information and we take you through Land Development and we take you through the building code at the same time um um then the state comes in and they set different shot clocks for the building code and different shot clocks for the Land Development code under the Land Development code we have 120 to 180 days which includes your environmental reviews um zoning reviews utility reviews and and all those things for single family um we don't know what's out there do a lot of tree surveys a lot of environmental work a lot of zoning uh Provisions a lot of determinations of whether or not it's a buildable lot in the first place that is all under your Land Development code review the building code has a shock clock of 30 days upon submitt so that's the issue um the the way it's and and you know those are two separate processes under two separate statutes and so you know we can no longer do the concurrence of middle even if we requested a waiver that is no longer allowed by Florida statute the Florida law says hey you cannot include the waiver as part of your application process so now we are we are required to do a consecutive review where you go through your Land Development code reviews your your zoning environmental utilities first so it's okay it's a buildable piece of land and then take that information and you transition to the building code and it all it reviews is compliance with the building code that's vertical construction so that's your engineered plans that's your architecture so that is unfortunately what we have to do in response to the revised shot clocks okay and if we if we fail the if we don't meet the building code shot clocks um We R we reduce the building permit fee 10% per day until it's free well this is I think the intent of the 30-day shot clock on the permitting side was to speed it up yes ultimately what has happened now you're putting 180 days in front of the 30 days so actually delayed it even 30 more days thank you Tallahasse yeah and but anyway that a lot of people have asked me to explain why this was put in place cuz they now there is get taking them longer to go through the 180 day process we can start the building permit process we can't we will not accept a permit because the moment we do I know that starts the 30-day shot clock okay yeah just what I'm saying and then so this is what I'm was hearing is okay it was supposed to speed it up and instead you put that 180 day in front of that 30-day when it used to run concurrently yes we've sped up we don't have an issue with issuing building permits under the Florida building code um that's usually not not an issue it's the it's the the zoning reviews of you know strange pieces of property that require you know determination of is it is it buildable do you have legal access what's the what's the Wetland impacts what's you know go for tortoises what's your um you know all the other things that are not just the vertical construction of of of foundation all the way up to the roof I guess my question is is why can't that 30-day time clock start within that 180 days at the end instead of going after the fact because well it's the 180 days is the maximum really the 30 the building permit starts when you have a completed um review review for under the underlying Land Development permit so the the issue is don't Can it can technically start before the 180 days if they have a completed um I guess they use the term preapplication or pre phase one you know if they have completed phase one review before the 10080 days yeah go ahead and submit for the building permit um the issue is you know when you're when you're going vertical you should have all of your horizontal you know determinations set you know where you're going to put the house and um you have mitigated or have promised to to mitigate or done all of the infrastructure requirements you know and you you know that's all said and done and you know uh going forward that you can just pull a building permit we'll get it to you in a few days and you can just build the house um you know if you don't get your underlying clearance for the land first you're not guaranteed to be able to place your house where you want to right or you're not addressing all of those and that puts us in an issue of okay 30 days are up do we issue a building permit when we know that they are not compliant with all of the underlying site plan issues well I guess when that they heard about the 30 days and then and then all of a sudden they get kicked in the knee that okay I can't submit this this until you go through their all your reviews first and now it's taking them longer to get their permits back and it did PRI and and I'll we I think it was last tues last council meeting um we did hire a an efficiency consultant well zoning hir not we um to look at our zoning process to look at our permanent process to see if we can we can speed up that that zoning and Land Development process um see what efficiencies we can save so it's not a true 180 days that we can we can do all of the zoning environmental and utility reviews in a shorter time period and then hand it off to build to uh the building division okay anyway that's just some things that was brought up to me and I thought I'd what is it about the concurrency that you said why is no we we do uh we used to do concurrent review so that is taking nonbuilding code reviews and building code reviews and lumping it all in one permit and the entire department kind of reviews you know but they their aspect is um nonbuilding code reviews have a different statutory shot clock we have 120 days to 180 days to approve that and um they're sometimes they take longer because we don't know what's on the land what's on the property uh it could be a zoning issue or an environmental issue or something like that and and I guess my question is why was the concurrency eliminated as a possibility because this this the state um doesn't allow the building code to look at anything else but the building code so your building inspectors your building plans examiners should not be held up or make a determination for or Denial on a building permit for things that are outside of the building code so you know the state has said do not deny a building permit or do not fail to process it if there is an environmental issue on the property you are only looking at the building code and you've got 30 days to do it so the the state has separated those two processes and they don't mesh well together they're under different statutes they're under different shock clocks different timelines and dis and different criteria um so that's why we can no longer do the concurrent review conr currency as in you know is the infrastructure in place is is still there but we can no longer uh um do a building permit review and a non-b building permit review you know at the same time because we it's essentially the state is as basically said you you have to do consecutive reviews or else you are put at risk of a 10% reduction each day you are over your sh clock can you not make the granting of the building permit contingent on the the granting of the other no because the um the building permit uh building permit review only looks at the building code okay so they they've kept those two processes separate um so you know and it doesn't okay we issue a building permit you're still subject to dealing with the the underlying uh zoning and environmental issues it doesn't take us long to issue the building a building permit building permits um you know when we looked at our our statistics you know they're issued in in a matter of days there's no hold up on the building permit end it's the it's prior to the building permit right it's all the reviews is what's the big hold up and you have to go through all those Hoops building permit usually comes back a lot sooner than the 30 days so usually as soon as it signs off within a few days you have your building permits after everybody's signed off but the problem is they won't let you submit your application until everything's signed off and I think the state was trying to reduce some of the red tape and in instead they found theirself not addressing the entire issue and as I said we're we're we're trying to make it more efficient on the pre-building permit stage um because we know it's a it's it's a sticking point it's an issue you know I fed some calls about it and you know we are looking at other other jurisdictions that on on how they implement the pre-building code provisions and and maybe if we get everything very efficient we can go back to uh concurrent reviews but right now we don't know if the holdup on the pre-building permit reviews will exceed the the 30-day shot clock of the building permits well the problem on the reviews is times you have your um uh different departments having to look at the review maybe it should be a step in there to where does it need that review because some of these reviews that are going through and you're waiting on a department to clear it doesn't necessarily even have to have that review in other words it get give you a prime example and this happen happened to me you got an existing residence on a property why would you have to go through if you're replacing that existing residence go have back through a land use review zon for that yeah you I mean why do you have to do this and that that should you know that would that alone would speed up some of the because one's waiting on the other during your review process and so I mean this this is the point I'm getting at you know we're getting kind of bogged down in this because everybody's protecting themselves because of the statute making that you have to do this within a certain amount of time and once you do it you don't go back and so you can't issue a building permit and then go back and tell them okay well then you're halfway through and uh we found out you can't you shouldn't be building here so or you've got a wetland issue or storm water issue or something else going on and we're going to Halt you we're going to red tape your building process uh so but anyway that's that's just thought this is what what we're hearing on that so anyway any other commission comments president citizen comments this meeting is [Music] adjourn e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e