##VIDEO ID:Tlh9lmz-rK8## [Music] microphone check I'm considered a security could get in you couldn't get oh no have a 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 the November 21st 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I could please have everyone please silence your 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 with liberty and justice for all good morning everyone I'd like to thank you for joining us this morning and if I could please have the roll call Miss Tucker good morning members member Craig here member Shelly here member Costa here member Patterson here member sixma here chair Mills here and our current uh County chair representative is currently vacant thank you Miss Tucker uh we do have minutes from our September 19th 2024 meeting and on our October 17th 2024 meeting do we have any discussion on either one of the those minutes hearing none I'll will accept the motion move to approve both September 19th and October 17 2024 minutes got a motion on the floor for Miss Shelly to approve the September 19 2024 and the October 17 2024 minutes with a second for Mr Costa any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay if anyone would like to speak for any the cases being heard today there's forms at the back of the Das here if you'll fill those out and hand it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left then uh you you will be heard we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the commission may have and this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair and this is for members of the public as well as for applicants that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone a real property from one classification to another pursuant to the zoning ordinance are recommendations only to the County Council and do not constitute a final hearing new evidence may be introduced at the County Council public hearing decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action subject to an appeal to the County Council and what this means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the County Council public hearing on the appeal an agreed party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body hearings by this body on rezonings special exceptions and variances are quasa judicial in nature meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral written or demonstrative evidence presented their decisions on these cases must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable bind would accept a support a conclusion thank you Mr chair thank you Mr Sor and while we're on legal comments I'd like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any exper Communications that you may have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any qu and I have none okay Miss Smith do we have items to be continued or withdrawn no sir thank you ma'am okay we do have some unfinished old business so miss Shelly could I get you to read the first case into the record please yes sir case number v-24 d75 variances to the minimum yard requirements on transitional agriculture A3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Miss Harris this is yours I mean Mr Harris I apologize our new one of our new faces on the DI here today so this case was continue from the October plrc hearing the applicant is seeking variances for a proposed 60 by 60 accessory structure the variance one is to reduce the West Side property or set back from 25 ft to 15 ft variance two is to reduce the Southside yard from 25 ft to 20 ft um the property is a 2 acre flag shaped parcel in the D land area sorry it is z traditional Agriculture and subject to a 25t side yard requirement the property is developed with a single family residence a detached garage and a storage shed there is a 30 foot Florida dep Department of Transportation easement that runs diagonally through the property um staff recommendation is to approve variants one and two as it meets three of the five criteria I'm available for any questions you may have thank you Mr Harris any questions for staff hearing none is the applicant present you want to come forward sir yes sir could I get your name and address for the record Keith Anderson and the address is 2287 North Spring Garden Avenue Florida 32720 okay you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to that nothing okay any questions for the appli all right do we have any public participation okay sir thank you we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll make a motion Mr chair yes sir make a motion to approve variances one and two on case number v-24 075 second okay I've got a motion from Mr Costa to approve variances one and two two for variance V 24075 and there is no staff conditions on this correct correct correct all right and a second from Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shelley could I get the next case please yes sir case number v- 24- 076 variance to the minimum yard requirements on Rural residential R zoned property thank you Miss Shell and this one is Mr Harris also okay this case was contined from the October plrc the applicant is Seeking a variance for a proposed 1200q foot accessory structure variance one is to reduce the front yard from 40t to 16 feet 9 in this is a 2.5 acre located in the Orange City area the property is developed with a single family residence and and an attached garage located centrally on the property there is a 15t Ingress egress East that runs along the Eastern property boundary um the property is considered to have two front yards in one side yard it is z rural residential with a future land use of UL it is subject to rural residential setbacks of 40 ft instead the 15 foot side yard setback the applicant did receive two letters of support from the adjacent Property Owners on the north and east side of the subject property and they indicated that they have no objections to the proposed variants the most affected neighbor will be at least 46 ft from the proposed structure staff recommendation is to deny variance request as it does not meet three of the five criteria I'm available for any questions question thank you Mr Mr Harris Mr cost you had a question I do Mr Harris how are you this morning pretty good how are you good do you see a path to approval here anywhere um yes he can place the structure to the more East centrally east of the property but the Africans stated that it would be a cost issue if he doesn't get the variance request and being that this property has two front yards if that's if that particular portion which is the I say that's the Eastern side of the boundary of the property if that was a side yard what would the setbacks be on variance one there what would that setback be if that was a sidey yard it would be a is that a 40 foot it would be what 15 foot 15 so the variance then would not even come into play correct correct all right thank you any question for staff is the applicant present you would like to come forward sir could I get your name and address for the record uh Mark Gan 627 East New York Avenue Orange City Florida okay you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to it um yeah I guess I really wasn't prepared for uh Speech but the um the variance I'm asking for because of the the RightWay yes sir that there's nothing there there's nothing going there I take care of the road I take care of the front yard and then I somehow or another I got two front yards but both those roads are you know yeah we see this quite a bit and you know you're taking 40 feet from my front from my two fronts you're taking 24,000 property from me that I can't use I just like to be able to use my property okay all right do we have any public participation all right sir we'll give you an answer in a few minutes we're going to close the floor for public participation and open it up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion okay Miss sh I move that we approve case number v-24 076 the variance to the minimum yard requirements on our zoned property uh and there are no staff conditions okay I got motion on the floor for Miss Shelly to approve V2 24076 the variants and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion we we've had this conversation before but I think it was mostly about fences and two front yards but in this particular case not only does he have two front yards he's also got the easement that's on there that counts against him which does I think I mean in my mind you should be able to go from the property line itself um as opposed to from the ement line but tot that's an argument for a different day any other discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously all right Michelle could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 078 a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Miss Ray this one is yours good morning the applicants are seeking a variance to reduce the South front yard from 25 ft to 20 to 20 ft for a proposed single family residence the property is currently vacant and heavily treed along the eastern boundary line historical photos show a previous single family residence was constructed on the property however with further research um we found it was demolished in July of 2011 due to fire damage the property is a corner lot and is subject to two front yards and two side yards staff's recommendation is to approve the variance request as it meets four of the five criteria I'm available for questions thank you m Ray any questions for staff here none is the applicant present you want to come forward okay all right you have any public participation for us okay we're going to close the for for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I'll make a motion uh case b 24078 uh make a motion for approval I got a motion on the floor for Mr 6man condition oh the one condition with the one condition yeah sorry condition okay we got a motion on the floor for Mr sixma to approve variance V2 24078 with the what condition and a second for Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay M Shel could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-247 9 variances to the midman yard requirements on Rural agricultural estate are a zoned property thank you Miss sh Mr Harris this one yours also this case was contined from the October pdrc the applicant is Seeking a variance for a proposed 60x 45 detached garage the variance is to reduce the West Side yard from 25 ft to 10 ft it is a 2.5 acre parcel located in the new smna Beach area it is own rural agricultural estate with a future land use of rural the property is developed with a single family residence and it's located with within the natural resource management area which requires a 50 foot Wetland buffer staff recommendation is to deny variant requests as the variants fails to meet three of the five criteria I'm available for any questions you may have thank thank you Mr Harris any questions for staff I have a question go ahead Michelle yes um good morning um in looking at the site plan page six um it could be an optical illusion on my part but is it 10 feet all the way it looks like it bends in closer as it goes further uh North or to the top of the page yes it's not 10 feet um all the way down it does b b in so what is the minimum that it's up there do you know has to be 10 ft yeah 10t okay so so that's what I was thinking that it's the drawing doesn't show that okay okay can you app L I guess the question is is the is the is the variance is what needed to put this building in so we use the number that was presented on the variance application but you may want to have the applicant come up and confirm whether it is thank you very much any other question for staff is thecan President would like to come forward please did I get your name and address for the record Charlene Davis 3945 swamp Deer Road okay anything you would like to add to the staff report it will be square 10 feet off the property line okay the entire line of the build will be off the 10et my neighbor approved it because we have things in our yard it's going to keep it all you get CL the mic please sorry my neighbor who's only living right next to us because it's all woods they approved it um because it would encapsulate all of our equipment boats Vehicles it would increase the property value and um make it safe in natural disaster question y looking at the drawing that's up there uh it's hard to see but there's a I can't tell what that box with the X in it on the very top of the of the you have your over overlaying the accessory structure over top of that what is that is there an existing shed or there at the moment or something oh at the beginning yes there's a shed that would be that would be removed and this would be go basically superimposed on top of the existing shed yes which obviously the shed is inside that 10-ft barrier as well and that's been there for a while we bought the house last year and it was already there okay and that is a pond and we have large boats so if we move it to 25 ft we won't be able to put the boat in the building okay that is the um so that's basically this the center back of your property is where that accessory structure is going yes sir all right thank you but should that the variance is for the 10 feet though y so all the way Vari for the 10et for the proposed structure corre correct what about the existing structur come down but you're removing that you said would include that it's being removed it won't be it's being removed okay the new building 10 ft all the way she said yeah y okay that's why I saw them thinking okay there we putting it right on top of the all right gotcha all right thanks right do we have any participation all right we're going to close the bo public participation open up for permission discussion on motion I do I do have a question for staff real quick um on the second page you you have a line in here about the 50 Foot Wetland buffer any bearing whatsoever on where this sexy structure is gone regarding the the Wetland buffer or is that just a statement it's just a St a statement in general okay um I know that you've you've made a a request for denial but I I really would like especially cases like this where there's another structure that's coming down that uh you give us an opportunity or an option for a a path to acceptance with the condition um so we don't have to put it in there in the future and with that I'll make a I'd like to make a motion Mr chair have you ready yes sir uh make a motion that we approve Varian um request for case number v-24 079 and even though there's not a condition but with a condition of the existing shed being removed second okay I got a motion on the floor to approve variant V2 24079 with an added condition to remove the existing shed that it was told to us that it would be removed and uh for Mr Costa and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I opposed motion carries unanimously okay that takes care of our old unfinished business so what we'll do is move right into our new business and missell could I get the first case please yes case number v-24 d080 variance to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R4 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Mr Harris this one is yours breaking you in Mr har the applicant is Seeking a variance for the proposed prola measuring 24t wide 10 ft deep variance one is to reduce the front yard from 25t to 16 ft um this is a 0.29 acre located in the Orman Beach area it is own single family residential with their fut future land use of urban low intensity the prop property is developed with a single family residence and an attached garage the rear yard borders the tamoka river and contains Wetlands which require a 25 foot buffer staff recommendation is to approve variance request as it meets three of the five criteria I'm available for any questions thank you Mr Harris any questions for staff ering n is the applicant president good morning ma'am can I get your name and address for the record good morning I'm Ellen crook 1065 Peninsula Drive Orman Beach okay you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to it just thank you very much just want your variance okay do we have any public participation forms for this one no okay thank you ma'am thank you we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or a motion motion I'll make a motion that we approve variance request v-24 d080 second okay I've got a motion on the floor for Mr caset to approve v2480 and a second for Miss Shelly any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shelly could I get the next case please case number v-24 d81 one a variance to the minimum yard front yard requirements on Rural agricultural estate are a zoned property thank you m sh Mr Shams this one's yours hi good morning Steve Shams at planning uh the property is an undeveloped L-shaped parcel that is vested in the the green unrecorded subdivision it does contain Wetlands on the western portion of the site which are subject to a 50 foot Wetland buffer the applicant is requesting variance to reduce the Eastern front yard from 45 ft to 30 ft for the proposed home uh the applicant proposed the placement of the home to avoid Wetland areas and their buffers while also minimizing any potential impacts uh overall staff recommends approval as the variance meets three of the five criteria and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr shames any question for staff Mr Shams they're they're not encroaching and they're going to meet their setbacks with the proposed structure to the wetlands uh can you repe the question you you said there is Wetlands here are you going to is this going to encroach or meet the set back to these Wetlands with the proposed so it may impact the Wetland buffers which and which case they would need a wetland alteration permit but they're not going to actually encroach into the Wetland okay yeah looking at this flooor plan at this layout they've went to Extreme Measures I mean look at the stair step they have on that side of the house to avoid land buffer uh you don't typically see that in construction right okay any other question for staff is the applicant present you want to come forward sir morning good morning can I get your name and address for the record yes uh Rafael gan 140 mney Drive Delona okay you and I want to make I'm sorry you've heard the staff report is anything you like to add to it yes uh during my application process I came to find out that the buffer is not 25 ft but 50 feet I have met with EP during the past couple years about three times and it was never brought to my attention and I presented several different plans I actually designed this house specifically for this slot to try to avoid the buffer and by if the variance was granted that was what we're going to be accomplishing you know avoiding the the buffer but during the process EP found out that this lad is on a Enterprise plan uh proposal I guess that increases the buffer from 25 to 50 ft if you see this plot plan this plat plan was designed with 25t buffer so unfortunately even if the variance is granted we will be encroaching into the buffer so we we we be be needing a buffer W um buffer mitigation that is from the county as the Enterprise local agreement is that what he's talking about yes that's correct got it even though I did find out my by researching this that somewhere in there it says that it should be for uh properties 10 acres and above MH that 10 acres and Below should be exempt from this and from here I was planning to stop by ep office to see if they will could give me further clarification on that yeah so you realize you will have to get additional uh approval in order to move forward even if you were to get the variance if if it's 503 if it's 25 no but if it's 50 feet like they find out there in my application and again I don't know why this didn't this didn't come out in the last couple years because I we designed three houses for this and we keep coming back this you know with the buffer and changing the the house location and they told me the first house was en coaching into into the 25 so they give us the idea that you know just calculate how many square feet you're going to impact and you know and we'll go from there but we deigned this house to avoid impacting the buffer now we found out I found out this when the email was sent to me a few days ago okay but you realize the variance if you were to get an approval this morning you still have hurdles to go over in order to get your for Bill okay yes sir just as long as you're aware of that yes I I I guess the Tommy is basically we're going to have to pay into the county fund for impacting buffer not Wetland but just the buffer all right sir any questions for the app okay we're going to do we have any public participation for okay you can have a seat sir we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion M Craig did you have a question no I don't know how often this happens that that some a discre discrepancy like this happens and and uh they go this far into the process before it's even brought to their attention and um well what brought then what the reason it occur is because the ENT Enterprise local agreement requires a 50 foot setback where the county code only requires a 25 is that correct Mr Sams they didn't find it out effectively yes under certain circumstances where it's a veral future land use then it it becomes What's called the natural resource management area right which has the 50 Foot buffer requirement so they would have had 50 foot regardless if it wasn't in the Enterprise local agreement um no because it's in the Enterprise local agreement it has that kind of like extra requirement so the Enterprise agreement is more restrictive than the county agreement and that's how it slipped through County's attention more or less yes okay understood okay correct yes I guess the question is if they weren't in the Enterprise local agreement they wouldn't have a problem with this setback that's correct got it okay any other questions that you may have I'll be glad to make a motion okay I move the case number v-24 081 variance to the minimum yard requirements on ra zoned property be approved I got a motion on the floor do we have any conditions no conditions okay do I got a motion on the floor to approve variance V2 24081 from Miss Shelly and a second from Mr patters any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously all right move right into our next Mell case number v-2 d001 a variance to the minimum yard requirements on transitional agriculture A3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell Mr Sham this one's yours uh good morning again so this application did receive four letters of opposition um from affected uh Property Owners uh the site is approximately one one acre in area and is currently developed with a 2200t home in the central area of the site the applicant is proposing to construct a 2400 foot accessory building on the north side of the site uh it is subject to a 25 foot side yard on the Northern boundary and they're requesting a variance from 25t to 10 ft according to the applicant's written petition the placement of the structure was selected due to the site's topography however the County's topographic maps indicate the site has an elevation ranging between 14 and 16 feet which is a difference of 2 feet over the 1 acre site we did calculate the grade and slope and it's about 1% across the whole site so overall staff recommends denial as the variance fails four of the five criteria um the Topography is similar to adjacent properties and doesn't constitute a unique special condition uh furthermore there is sufficient space to construct the building outside of the northern side yard and if there are areas at a site that are not leveled fill can be added to create a level stabilized building surface and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr sham any questions sta okay is the applicant present good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record Steve Smith 2748 Blue Heron Village to L Land Florida all right you've heard the staff report anything you like to yeah the elevation of the house is uh approximately uh three and A2 foot above the Crown Road and the slope coming away from the house is what I was trying to get away from I was just trying to set it over and set of 25 foot I actually could get away 15 foot but uh and I probably would do that as opposed to 10 foot uh I'm just trying to get the building down on flat land and get away from the slope of the house that's all I was trying to accomplish I'm not changing the rear setback it's still 40 foot uh so that was the whole thing I was just trying to do was get over 10 foot away from that slope all right sir any questions for the applicant we do have some public participation forms and I'll let you address any concerns that they may have sure if you just have a seat right there we'll get them up here and good moving on the way okay we uh Mr Douglas Oiler good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record good morning sir uh Douglas Oiler address is 2615 Spring Valley Circle to land all right sir you had some comments that you'd like to make about this variance yes sir um he's my direct neighbor uh uh we have six houses on this street if he were to move it backwards behind the front of his house like the other garages on the street uh my other concern is water right now all the water from his yard seems to go to my yard when he take covers another 2400 Square fet I'm going to get even more water if there's a way could move the building back a little bit or take something to do with run the water off down to the culverts um that would be fine all right sir any questions speak okay sir thank you yes one thing I forgot yes sir um so the other structures other garages are consistent agricult or consistent with the houses they match we don't have still buildings we have that garages look like the house thank you okay all right we have a Miss Heather Fontaine good morning could I get your name and address for the record Heather Fontaine 1957 Marsh Village okay if I could get you to speak in the mic but I 1957 marshen Village okay you like a comment on this I do I do um I also want to state that um I did file a statement of opposition in addition addition to uh my next door neighbor John gch at 1963 marshen Village and he's requested that I serve as his proxy today because he's working um on page four under review Criterion analysis section um number five it states that the Western boundaries are heavily vegetated which will provide a sufficient a sufficient visual buffer for the most affected Property Owners um on Spring Valley Road and within Quail Hollow which our houses reside however since this um variance request has been submitted that vegetation has been removed so there is no visual buffer um I have photos of evidence for that um we weren't uh told in advance so it was a surprise to all of us um but the main concern is flooding so after this last hurricane we have an easement that separates our homes with his um after the hurricane the easement was full and the the water came into our yards so if that um structure was built closer it would push the water further into which is a major concern in addition to the ey Source since the vegetation has been removed um that's all okay any question for the speaker I do is there an HOA here in this subdivision you do have an HOA yeah our two homes are are affected by that the home that this request is for is not within included within that ho it's not included in the HOA sorry so it's a voluntary HOA quasi or is it a I'm does make I'm trying to understand how a coule the house next door could be but this one is not so this one is behind our homes and not a part of our neighborhood not a part of your neighborhood okay gotcha all right thank you okay all right you can have a seat thank you Miss Tucker do we have any other public participation in this case all right um we're gonna ask the applicant to come back forward you heard the con concerns of your neighbors anything You' like to make yeah uh regarding the uh clearing the whole the whole property was surrounded by Vine uh that wasn't you know it wasn't trees it was just strictly cutu that was all up into the trees so I cleared the cutso out all the way around which obviously opened it up to the uh marshen uh residence but it was all cutu it was just something we cleared out I haven't changed the elevation of the property at all as far as the land we haven't done any filling we it's all natural the way it is so whatever it is has always been that way uh we have not altered that at all and I have no plans to alter it uh that property is wet uh uh Doug's property is wet next door he's got quite a pond there when we get you know when the hurricane came in and uh but I haven't changed anything as far as that goes I guess my question is so you want to put the building in the w area I just I want to set it down on the flat area yeah I mean the whole the whole thing is a little bit wet but uh it's not you know it's not a swamp okay all right any other questions for the applicant all right so you have a seat we're going to close the four for public participation open up for commission discussion I'm not encouraged to improve something in a wet area I can tell you that um it takes away some of the uping space of the property joining it there yes sh there seems to be unless I'm reading these wrong um some of these say v- 25-1 when in reality they're referring to this item that we're speaking to that is 25 well then it's not that way on my agenda yeah my agenda shows the large scale comprehensive plan I'm talking about the agenda that came with my packet I guess on FR yeah but it's Fe 251 oh up here V I'm sorry I'm sorry okay got it I'm I've read all the letters okay thank you the v as opposed to the C gotcha okay thank you you're welcome um okay any other M I'm just really not um prone to support this myself either looking at there's also some things I don't know that it was brought up but about possibly running a business from this site um or concerned about anyway anyway those are just I've got a lot of questions and the fact that it does fails to meet four of the five criteria that we have established for supporting so at this point I will be uh voting for denial any other comments I don't I don't see I'm looking at the survey there's no it's not indicating that it's in a in a wetland per se or a flood zone I don't see any flood zone indicators on this survey uh on whether that's say an AE definitely not an X I would imagine out there in that area but um distance from the house I don't see that the extra 15 foot the variance is 20 the 25t is a setback and you're asking for 10 you said he could live with 15 which means it's a 10- foot variance at that point which would put put it closer to the house but I I don't see that you would have had that much slope so that should be flat or land I'm I'm maybe I'm missing something here on the Aerials as far as location of this um of this building and where it could potentially go go so I'm looking at there's one picture on page uh 10 he if in reference to what you're saying if he were to meet the 25 foot he could still put it have room to put it in that's what I'm and and be it at a higher elevation also if in case it slopes that way if it does yeah and I'm the reason I say that look at if you look at the picture on P the top picture on page 10 of 17 where the driveway is and there looks like to be I don't know if that's an RV or motor home which is appar a little bit further away then from where they're depicting where this Barn is going to go uh so between the Shell Road and that and that RV I think it looks like pretty flat land at least from the picture they would put it in there without any variants required that's what I'm saying yeah I'm not in FA to approve the VAR not I'm not seeing a hardship here for a variant honestly personally does he Mr sorya do we have to make a motion in the affirmative in the affirmative yes so um we would request if if the council does not want to Grant it I would request that you uh someone make a motion to deny the variance so we've got you know you your decision is based off of an affirmative motion and based on the facts presented and the lack of comp substantial evidence to meet the criteria got it who wants to tackle it well I just want to make one more comment so regardless of which way this vote goes um the applicant still has the option of putting this this um let's call it a a barn transitional accessory unit still able to put it at the 20 foot 25 foot Mark which doesn't take away any kind of water that's going to go on any of the properties that was one of the uh one of the concerns number two this is not an an HOA so he can put up any particular style that he likes there is no qualification there it has to match the house that's number two and so number three is that we're arguing here over about 15 feet give or take um I just want to make that just want to make that statement that he still has the ability to put that in there without even having it come to us again correct yeah okay all right I'll make a motion uh to approve case number v-2500 Z1 and there are no conditions I believe I don't know where yeah there are no staff conditions okay I thought he said to make a motion to deny in the affirmative when I say in the affirmative I mean um you know don't let it passively be like so for example if your motion fails you know that just kind of kills or fails the the the question presented so the motion to approve fails um I would still request an airm motion to deny that's when that's what I mean by the motion should be the I don't like that personally I don't like that at all I mean if you if you make a motion in the affirmative and it and it gets shot down zero to five five NOS zero one it's it just it fails and it dies right there why would you have to make a secondary motion uh because the order I would have to write or we would have to write um has the uh board adopting the specific findings that this application failed to meet this criteria that's why you're the lawyer and not me so there's there's a statute that all all all denials must be written and must have uh the factual basis for Denial in which case I withdraw my motion okay can I get a motion and I'll make a motion to deny that here case number B- 25-1 second I've got a motion the floor from Miss Shell to deny v251 and the second from Miss Craig any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously and this is for the applicant um uh within 10 days of rendition of the denial order you can appeal to the County Council you are stuck to the um evidence presented at this hearing you cannot add additional evidence um um and uh any members of the public also cannot add additional evidence you are limited to what was said at this hearing M shelle could I get the next case please yes case number v- 25-2 variance to the minimum yard requirements on Urban mobile home mh5 zoned property thank you Miss Shell Mr Harris this is yours yes the applicant is seeking to build a 12 by 24 screen room on an existing concrete pad the variance is to reduce the Waterfront yard set mat from 25 ft to 10.1 ft it is a 7 7,25 FT Property located in The Edge Water Area it is own Mo Urban mobile home and developed with a manufactured home built in 1989 the parcel is a canal front lot within the mosquito Lagoon local plan um there is the presence of wet lands on site which require a 25t buffer the entire parcel is within a flood zone which requires compliance with class two storm water requirements during the building process the existing concrete pad where the screen room is proposed has been has been in place for 43 years and it's located within the Waterfront yard which requires the 25t setb a l support was received from Penny and Tom Hower and even though they are not adjoining neighbors they do approve of this variance staff recommendation is to approve variance request with one condition as it meets forth the five criteria the applicant must obtain a class two storm water permit during the building permit process I'm available for any questions any questions for staff um hearing none is the applicant present would you like to come forward good morning good morning could I get your name and address for the record Jessica Celli 2900 cus Drive Edgewater Florida you've heard the staff report anything that you would like to add to it um not really um the only thing I would like to say is um they're not asking for we're not asking for any outside of what the surrounding neighbors already have um and I have pictures of the The Neighbors on what they already have if if you need them okay any questions for the app yeah I just want to get clarification here so we're adding a screen room on an existing pad is that correct yes okay and what was their prior just the pad or was there just just the concrete just the concrete okay thank you you're welcome okay we do have has some public participation for him so what if you just want to have a seat I'll give you a chance for rebuttal after the fact and we're going to get Mr Jeff zabach oh you don't want to speak okay you're here they're here they give me a form you're you're it now Jeff's alach 180 Coleman Street Edgewater all right sir do anything you like that into this uh sp there really isn't the pictures that we had um show the neighbors have screen or patio covers to the same uh Frontage that we were asking for the the manufactured home the back door comes out onto that pad so it's just adding the screen room um we I had a couple letters of support that my my neighbors are elderly so we just typed up a form letter and they sign it for us if you need to see them got it all right sir thank you okay and Pamela that's you correct oh that you don't have anything to that okay Jessica Patel oh that's you okay all right got them all I'm throwing a curve ball on me here this morning okay do you have anything else to add to this case all right do we have any other public parti point this no sir okay we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up commission discussion or motion to make a motion all right case v252 I'll make a motion for approval I got a motion for Mr sixma to approve variance V 25002 is there any conditions on this no no condition and a second from Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously Miss Shell could I get the next case please yes case number z-4 d012 rezoning from the prime agriculture A1 zoning classification to the rural agriculture A2 zoning classification okay thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning so there is an updated report in front of you um as we just had to um clarify the explanation for the clarify the EXP explanation within the environmental section um so there's a little update in there okay um so the applicant is requesting a resoning from the prime agriculture A1 to the rural agriculture A2 zoning classification the applicant's intent for the resoning is to subdivide the property for his veteran friend um all agricultural Pursuit are allowed in both A1 and A2 zoning a future land use for the property is rural um which allows a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 5 Acres it consists of areas that are a mixture of Agriculture and low density residential the subject property is currently heavily treed with Wetlands on the northeastern and Northwestern portions the resoning itself isn't anticipated to have an impact on environmental or natural resources environmental permitting team is not in favor due to the increase in density from one dwelling unit per 10 acres to one dwelling unit per 5 Acres um res residential density is calculated as dwelling unit per gross residential acre the uh rural future land use would allow a gross residential density of one dwelling unit per 5 Acres um any proposed development would need to be located outside of the wetlands and their Associated buffers um however if any encroachment into the wetlands or buffers would require a wetland alteration permit uh staff's recommendation is to forward rezoning to County Council for final recommendation um of approval um I will also note that a letter of opposition was submitted from the adjacent neighbor uh to the direct East I'm available for questions thank you m Ray any question Mr cost I do typically I don't have a lot of questions on this one but I do today um walk me through the logic of approval here from A1 to A2 there are no other A2 Parcels anywhere in this sector correct so when we're looking at um changes we look to our future land use map okay in this case the future land use map is not a which would be 1 to 10 it's rural which is 1 to 5 Acres so we look at it favorably for a change because he's asking to go to five acres which is what we are suggesting it should be in the future all right so you're that's I'm looking at page 18 now of 20 that's what you're we're basing it on the that's the uh future land use map itself so that whole sector basically becomes our yes that entire section is R right on okay all right so that okay and I might add something if you notice on our map here a lot of these Parcels that is actually adjacent to it are small are smaller than mhm okay okay all right is the applicant present could I get you to come forward sir I get your name and address for the record yeah Rick van or and it's 830 do Drive oin okay and uh this is my friend Eric he's a I'm the veteran was ined my name is Eric Hoffman I live at 830 drive off okay if you're going to speak for or against the case then we we need to get you to fill out a form okay I'm bad I didn't know because I yeah that's fine and just from M you can do it after the fact but just if you want to if you want to speak I'll give you an opportunity to speak after he's made his comments and then once that is done if you'll fill out a form then and then just give it to Miss Tucker because you're going to be limited to three minutes and he's not okay that's the reason I say that okay all right sir go ahead um I'd like to address this uh the neighbor that disapproves of this Ben Curry they don't live out there they just recently a few months ago they rented it to a to a guy they uh started a brush fire intentionally with no permits or anything and ended up burning five acres of our 10 acres and the Forestry Department had to cut 1,700 ft of forest trench to stop the fire through our property and and it ruined between 75 killed between 75 and 150 trees on our property and it also burned out all the brush which we bought that because we like the fact that it was thick thick wooded and you know you couldn't see any neighbors and we would put nature trails maybe through it or something and and so now we're going to we tried to settle with them you know out of court and they refused to even deal with us so it's going to you know go through a lawyer and there will be a lawsuit filed so this is just them being vindictive as all this is for them the rest of the neighbors out there have no problem with this at all okay but did you have anything to add to the staff report as far as the approval of this uh rezoning class I gu just to further that that the reason we're doing this this is a long time term buddy of mine and uh he's a disabled veteran and require some assistance occasionally and this is where we want to retire you know as neighbors right and and that's why we wanted to split it to two five8 lots okay all right well uh any question for the applicant okay we're going to give your partner there a chance to speak and u do we have any other public participation fors and after he's done uh obviously you speaking for you so we're going to close it for for public participation go ahead sir your name and address for the record yes my name is Eric Hoffman my address is 830 do Drive East o Florida 32764 um as we Rick just explained the reason we're trying to do this um I'm 100% service connected disabled that um in fact in the last year I've been through two major back operations I have what they call a zipper scar on my back where they have to go in and it's been mess um I had major issues trying to take care of myself I owned a home in flagor Beach on the beach but it's three stories high and I'm lucky if I can make four steps um so with the fact that my family my mom's 8h he can't take care of my brother's got his kids in his wife you know they I need so many to assist me at times now Rosco my service animal is great but he can't change bandages you can't make food for me the reason we're trying to do this is so I can have my own little place again and when my you know anal death occurs I could pass this on to my daughter as a legacy for her to live there with her family if when she has one okay so basically all we're trying to do is he's trying to help me out and I'm just trying to have a little piece of the life I had before my disabilities have taken over and not afford me the opportunity to live where I wanted to because of my okay all right sir well thank you for your comments appreciate it over there right now okay yeah now if you need to fill out a form for Miss Tucker over there she don't chop my head [Laughter] off I don't want to that's my Sid kick away we don't want to get her upset anyway um we're going to close the floor for public participation and open up permission discussion or motion I'm ready to make a motion Mr chair yes sir forward the resoning application case number Z24 012 to the County Council for uh for final action with a recommendation of approval second okay I got a motion for Mr Costa to forward the rezoning application case number Z24 z12 to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay what we're going to do here are these two tied no no no they're not tied okay Miss jelly can I get the next case please yes sir case number s-24 d012 a special exception for temporary campsites on Prime agriculture A1 and Forestry resource FR zoned property thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning again uh the applicant is requesting a speci special exception for a renewal of the uh Vietnam Legacy vets temporary campsites the property is split zoned um agricultural Prime Agriculture and Forestry resource the temporary campsites will be located in the A1 portion of the property which is approximately six acres uh the property has been used as a temporary campsite for approximately 22 years now uh there have been three previous renewals since the initial approval in 2002 the property is surrounded by agricultural properties to the north and south of mobile home to the East and Lake George State Forest to the West the site plan that was submitted does not propose any changes from what has been previously approved it is proposed to have temporary campsites 75% of it devoted to recreational vehicles and 25% devoted to tents the temporary campsites are not likely to affect the natural environment or cause excessive pollution environmental parenting has reviewed the request and has no objection because it proposes no change of impact traffic engineering reviewed the request and also had no objections as a campsite May generate approximately 250 daily trips if at maximum capacity when in use and when not in use daily trips will be consider less staff's recommendation is to forward to County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval with staff recommended conditions I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff Miss Ray what is the time on this special exception 10 years yes sir and they've redid this is the third time that they've redone this there's been three previous this this will be the fourth so they've been there for 30 years for about 22 years years approximately the previous renewals the first one was for five and then I think the first two were for five and then the third one was for seven um this one we are proposing for 10 well that's what I was going to make a mention of is rather than having to keep on coming back that we extend the time but you've already did that in the yes sir special good work okay thank you okay is the applicant present good morning good morning everyone for the record Jessica gaop Law Firm one Daytona Boulevard this has been a temporary Campground since I was in second grade so no changes uh proposed here um very simple um we've got a detailed survey I think part of the check-in process is just so we can get fire out there make sure everything still looks good on their side see if there are any tweaks or improvements needed um there's no change in operation so we're just going through and getting the re again and we're here for any questions okay thank you Miss go any questions for the applicant okay do we have any public participation all right we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I like to make a go ahead I'll make a motion that we forwarded special acception case s- 24-12 to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval with the staff conditions which there are 18 18 of second three pages yeah okay I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa for the special exception case number s 24012 to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval with the 18 staff recommended conditions and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any you opposed motion carries unanimously okay we got uh our next case I think we've got is is this a companion for the um spa 25001 and then the O 25002 Mr Sor can we hear both those cases at the same time you can uh this is a purely legislative decision so there are no due process issues you can hear them both for just both on them separately you'll be hearing the same things it's you know that's what I'm saying I get it we're going to hear them both Miss Shell can I get him right into the record please yes sir case number cpa-2 d001 large scale comprehensive plan Amendment future land use element and case number 0-2-2 ordinance 20253 low impact development thank you Miss Shell and this Miss West good morning good morning Samantha West sustainability and resilience manager for Lua County okay so today before you we have our larg scale comprehensive plan Amendment and our ordinance for low impact development we have added language to the Future land use element and the creation of the ordinances for a creation of of flexible process to miss West could I get you to speak closer to the mic we we there having difficulty there you go all right for for the creation of a flexible process to implement low impact development in greenstorm water infrastructure um within the county with incentives so in front of you you have a timeline of this whole process we've gone through um from August 2022 to June 2023 we had a $75,000 Grant from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to develop a regional guide book for low impact development and give us Baseline um ordinance recommendations then after much work um in June 2023 enra provided a recommendation to County Council to implement the L GSI audit tool that was created by the University of Florida and um have a hybrid use of liid and GSI within our ordinances in October the County Council provided direction to staff to go through that L and GSI audit tool and create cre a voluntary L and GSI practices with incentives within our ordinances then November 2023 through August 2024 so about nine months it took County staff to go through that audit of our entire code including the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and Land Development code to look for barriers and opportunities for creation of incentives within those documents we also created an L guidance meu will go with this August 2024 through November it's gone through enra multiple times we had stakeholder and citizen comments as well these just a timeline of how many times we have spoken about low impact development at enra the three timelines in 2024 are when they looked at the documents before you today specifically okay so the structure of the implementation is that we have the comp plan changes to encourage the practices and then we have the zoning ordinance Land Development code changes to set those standards and then we have the development of that liid guidance manuals that has all the details and specific regulations with the incentives and maintenance requirements and there's a matrix um within that manual that is like a quick snapshot for a developer or someone to use to to see all of those requirements okay within the future L use element Amendment itself we have clarified and added some definitions we now are allowing conservation subdivisions within Urban residential land use designations before it was only allowed within or adjacent to the Eco overlay so we're trying to expand that to allow that for more places um allow L clustering and density bonuses within the urban low intensity and the urban medium intensity land use um and allow liid intensity so F increases and urban low intensity Urban medium intensity Urban high intensity commercial and Industrial we are prohibiting LED density bonuses and environmentally sensitive areas because that goes back to the you know the process and premise of having low impact development and then also prohibiting fill in the flood plane for L developments which is um the same as what we have for our conservation subdivisions right now which is the same um of what we uh allow for our conservation sub divions right now is that you cannot put fill within the flood plane for the creation of additional Lots you can put fill in the flood plane within that conservation subdivision for um roadway improvements for connection but that's it so we are trying to complement that okay so for the land use element Amendment we recommend approval to forward to County Council and moving on to the ordinance itself we changed multiple portions of the code so portion one is the article one of chapter 72 adding in those definitions chapter 72 Article 2 s zoning ordinance we are allowing liid incentives by right so they would not have to come before you if they wanted a variance to have a a smaller step back or increased height and things of that sort which just by right if they are doing this process we're removing barriers for any type of development So within the zoning ordinance right now you have a requirement for a non mount 6 in curb and for a landscape Island within a parking lot so little landscape Island you see you have to put those in the code right now we're removing that barrier um also the landscape material type a number for if you're doing any type of storm water within those areas um and the allowing them to do alternative irrigation methods because they're pretty specific in our code within the Land Development regulations we're adding fire Services concurrency requirements because those were missing out of the code um we had to reiterate the conservation subdivisions permitted within the urban residential land use classification because it also said that it can only do it in Eco or adjacent to and then we created the whole new division 18 low impact development which provides that General process on how these get developed um the process is the same so we're looking back to how would you normally go through a subdivision how would you normally go through a final site plan we just same process is already in code we're just looking back to that now the guidance manual that's that gigantic document that you have in your staff reports um it's close to 100 pages with all of the maps and figures and fun things uh so in there we have an educational component development standards and then the incentives we're providing a menu approach to where if a developer comes in they can pick four of the site design bmps and two of the storm water treat and conveyance bmps out of this gigantic list so there's 15 to choose from the site design and nine for the storm water storage treatment and convenance so depending on what kind of site they have they can pick and choose on what they want and depending on what they choose depends on the incentive they would get right but they do have to choose for the site design and two of the storm water to gain all of the incentives associated with it and to be in liid development and we recommend that you forward to Count Council with approval here any questions have ginger dare with Environmental Management also have storm casmer act County development engineer okay thank you if you guys don't mind I'd like to start off the question here um I know I'm very much for the lid okay what I don't understand is these density credits where is our net gain on the environmental side to allowing the lid if we're gonna increase the density is two fold okay so they're only specific um if you do a certain BMP best management practice whatever one you choose the specific ones allow a density bonus and the density bonus is the whole point is to Cluster and use less of the land for your development so you can leave the rest of it open for open space storm water management all of that type of thing so that's what we're trying to do and that's kind of what we have already within our conservation subdivision that's in our code that they have that ability to do that but aren't you using some of your in this plan some of your uh open space for your storm water you could be using it for your storm water that's the whole point is to do multiple smaller storm water areas throughout the site to kind of um make that flow not as fast and just to make it all over the side as opposed to one gigantic Pond um so yes some of your would be used for storm water that's kind of what we're going for but you're using less of the site so your the first part of it is that you're looking at your overall site for the design for the design and identifying that best place to put the development and we're giving you that flexibility to push it all in that smaller area which as you guys have seen a lot of the developments that are going through right now are those smaller Lots but they have to come through and do uh a PUD come through you and say hey are we allowed to do this but this is is allowing them to do it without going through uh a board besides the development Review Committee but not a public hearing like this and it lessens the the process for it and gives them that density bonus okay I guess my question is why hasn't this been looked at as a requirement I mean last Tuesday evening we spent over four hours of conversation on this and I think it was spoken very loudly as to what people thought about what they wanted and increasing density wasn't one of those but yet a lot of the principles in lid is what they actually wanted um and so that in saying that we haven't addressed we're addressing storm water but when you increase the densities you also increase the reclaimed water that's be coming coming back in reuse so this is back to my original question where are we getting the environmental plus out of this to to justify increasing these densities good morning Ginger dare Environmental Management director um two things you sort of touched on um one is that um this went to County Council and the committee and I believe some of the members are going to speak during public participation um recommended to council that certain elements of low impact development be required and then have it be this hybrid approach where you have to do a couple things and then you can choose from the menu and get incentives council did not vote for that they voted to make it entirely volunt so that's why what you're seeing today is entirely voluntary that's the direction we got from Council as to the density bonuses we were very deliberate in looking at what types of things you would have to do to be eligible for density bonuses so like Samantha told you there's a a long list of bmps the density bonus incentive only really goes to three of those bmps so if you have to do one of these three things to get it one of those is do a conservation subdivision like it already exists in our code and in that conservation subdivision language you can get a density bonus if you preserve the majority of the site so we didn't change that that already exists in the code and um in this low impact development you wouldn't get additional density over what is already in that conservation subsection um the other two things you could do to get a density bonus is you could maintain the natural Topography of this of 30% of the site right so you're you're really preserving a significant portion of that site that means you're not putting storm water in that area with natural topography you're not putting buildings um so you're getting a lot of environmental benefit from not disturbing a large section of the property the other BMP that would be eligible for for density increase is protecting 100% of the flood plane the FEMA identified flood plane over the site through a conservation easement dedicated to the county so when we were developing this and we were taking it through the committee and the public we felt like doing those two things are big asks of the potential developer and were the only things that were um significant enough environmentally to then allow for the additional density and like said that that would mean that those units are clustered and a lot of the site is preserved so that's why you have that in front of you and the there's one additional that allows increased density and that's if they did underground retention or detention systems so the amount of work and money they have to put into that and maintenance uh staff and enra thought that that would be acceptable for increased density well the problem with increasing density would be the fact that it like I said before on the reclaim order you're increasing that by fold and so therefore you're adding two the storm water issue is going to happen regardless it's going the rainfall is going to be there no matter 10 acres if you got a 100 units or 50 units I I agree there but the what's going to do the greatest impact is the amount of reclaimed water that's going to have to come back to that area you mean be so the there'll be greater pable water use which would create additional repl water because in in theory you're you're really doing what's considered a low impact development right and you've preserved 30% of your site or more in its natural state you're not going to have to irrigate it so there may not be the use of the reclaim but I get what you're saying is that we would be the those residents would be producing waste water that would become reclaimed water and in their consumption permits they're going to have to take back a certain amount of their water if not 100% eventually some of these subdivisions are taking more than 100% of what they're producing and so this is what the flooding issues that we was very much discussed in Tuesday evening was all about was that we're getting a ground saturation from the water that used to go into our uh open Waters which Open Water discharges eventually going to be totally eliminated it's legislatively made that we that's nothing that we have done locally uh but the point I'm trying to make is I don't see where we're getting uh gain from the environmental Side by allowing these density credits I'm all for the lid believe me and I think the lid will help Stave off a moratorium because I'm not for an actual moratorium either because it's going to affect a lot of Belia County as that's like cutting your arm off to for Scratch finger okay so but I think there is solutions that need to be done and I believe that part of that would be to implement the lid as being mandatory for these subdivisions and eliminate the density bonuses I personally this is just my opinion it's not the this boards and I'm sure they'll have comment on it uh are are not in favor of the density credits at all and more than likely I will I can't give a positive approval to either one of these the CPA or the ordinance with these density bonuses in it and and I'll be more than happy to listen to what every any everyone has to say but the fact of the matter is they spoke loud and clear I'm not the one that was speaking Tuesday evening the general public was speaking you had it on both sides you had people against the moratorium because it was going to affect their livelihood then you had the people that wanted moratorium and this to me would be a tool the lid in order to avoid a moratorium on building yes sir and it would be something that could be implemented a lot quicker than a lot of the infrastructure that was discussed to to resolve the issues that we have right and so um totally understand your perspective just so you know how we ended up with what you came before again Council voted not to make it mandatory so in order to provide sufficient incentives for developers to voluntarily do that that um we did a survey you know folks hey what kind of incentives would you need in order to do this voluntarily um and density bonuses of course are are one of those that and so you know the staff and the committee really tried to balance we want people to do low impact development because of the storm water benefits right you distribute the storm water over the site you don't have the issues of collecting the storm water in one place and having one overflow you know all of the reasons why Lowa development is important to do on a site um but we have to if it's voluntary there have to be incentives that developers will take in order to do it and so that's kind of how we came up with with what we did if it's mandatory then you don't need incentives right if you're telling the developer this is what you need to do you shall do this then you don't need the incentives like density bonuses and the others so um we have this approach because that was the direction we got from Council but certainly um this body could make other recommend Tuesday they may have a change of heart on that but uh the fact of the matter is the um what we also need to take in consideration it's not a whole lot of discussion on it and I don't really understand why is these consumption permits that require the reclaim water to go back to these subdivisions which has to me has a greater impact on some of them than what the actual storm order does and so so we this is something need to be looked at and I don't see it as much on the uh county level as I do for the city level and so because the cities usually have the municipal side systems that have to get the consumption permits and it's just you know that's just my opinion I mean we I'm sure we've got people on this board that feel differently than I do but uh I just wanted to put it out there and and try to get an idea of where's the net gain environmentally for giving these lid when we have to give the density credits and twofold by the way it increases it by two other words from eight to 16 and from four to eight and so it it's going to have a big impact because each dwelling unit produces anywhere from two to 300 gallons of plottable water per day and this is not my numbers comes from the Department of Health two to 300 gallons of water for his average home and that water is going to have to be stored reused and everything else somewhere else so we're increasing that by twofold and that's where I'm at with that and I opening up for any other discussion that the board may have anybody else have a question I I just think you made some very good points that a lot of people maybe not even thought of but especially after Tuesday's meeting we know where the public stands yeah unfortunately that it's a bad timing we've been working on this for almost four years so understand that and I there again I think the lid is is excellent I mean I don't have an issue with that at all it's these density credits is what I've had an issue the first time I ever heard it discussed and was trying to talk about incentives to get developers to do this I question the fact whether the density credits was what way to go on this and U and that's the issue that I have a problem and and I you did a great job by the way it's just that I just don't know that this is going to be a net gain environmentally when you take in consideration yes on the storm water because that's the amount of rainfall is going to fall there regardless of how many units you have right it you have to take into consideration of what the these uh consumption permits are going to add more water to that area also because of the additional units yeah if it's the will of the board to to strike the density bonus incentive from it it's not a difficult change on our end let let me speak up then on that case I I have no problem with the density credits yeah that's is what I'm saying you know I mean I knew he was G to have a difference of opinion I respect it and I respect his opinion I do I'm not I'm not going to sit here and argue the fact with him I just I I respect his opinion and I respect everyone's opinion on this board and that's why I kept on saying this is my personal view I look at it this way if if this is a if this program is is a great program the lids and you want developers to implement it rapidly the density credits are the way to go because you're going to get more people jump on board sooner than well yeah maybe maybe not they're always going to kick this off to the side because there's no that's fa at the end of the day it's it's still business that you're running um so I think from that perspective that's maybe what the council was seeing is hey this is a way to get these folks to Vol involuntarily voluntarily jump onto the program and I do want to point out that staff had recommended lower density bonuses um but enra actually made it higher made it double what the maximum was in those land use categories so it from what I gathered as staff member at enra that they felt like it needed to be more of an incentive than what staff had proposed to them well we got a member of the board here I've got to be more than happy to question that okay any other questions for Miss West Miss Greg yeah I I think I I go along with you as far as the density issue I feel like with the so much of this being voluntary rather than required I think it's unfortunate that the that the County Council chose to go that route because I think it renders a lot of it a lot of the regulation and the goal of uh the whole program somewhat Toothless and um I I would like to see it in place you know in light of what we've seen in the last few weeks with the with the storm and the long-term result short term I mean it was it's horrifying it's only going to get um increased um everything all the indicators that we that we've had are that that these um situations will get worse so um I also have a problem with the density okay we do have some public participation for so hope maybe that we'll have some questions and answers for you after we hear that Miss Wendy Anderson I'm sorry I should thank you commission for um for hearing us today I'm Dr Wendy Anderson and just very quickly I am a professor of environmental science at STS and I am a member of inra I'm also an elected official on the ficia oil and Water Conservation District board I think about and teach about and dream about sleep about low impact development every waking breath and sleeping breath I I do this all the time um I am not speaking on behalf of the committee I am speaking on behalf of myself Miss like Mr Mills here um when I have spoken in front of you all in the past on just a few occasions it has been about flood concerns um and highlighting particular risks um to various developments that you all were were reviewing um I agree with you Mr Mills we're in a different condition right now um than we were when we started this work on inra um it wasn't just Tuesday this week it was the vucha County council meeting in October where there were two hours of speakers sharing their horror stories every city Commission in this county has had the same experience over the last six weeks of homeowners coming in and sharing their horror stories we're in a different condition right now one of the things that M West and Miss adir did not explain to you is that the reason well it may not be the reason but a a circumstance um when we presented our recommendation to council to have a hybrid approach to liid which would be partially mandatory and then partially incentivized we believed that we were under the constraints of Senate Bill 250 which was imposed on the county after Hurricane Ian saying we could not have more onerous development um rules for developers um and so and so we thought that we couldn't uh we couldn't have and they couldn't approve a hybrid approach and so the default the only option to be able to move forward was was a voluntary approach we don't know if they would have approved a hybrid approach had Senate Bill 250 not been um constraining them so since then Senate Bill 250 has been removed and expired and we no longer have that constraint I asked inra at the last meeting if we could pause and actually go back to council for updated direction to ask if we could make adjustments to the plan that we were pushing forward um to move back into that hybrid mode and um and and the rest of the committee wanted to just continue doing the work we were doing so we could stay on schedule with presenting to you all but I'm letting you know that we had that conversation too and um and I do think that it would be interesting for you all to send a clear message to council yes I want you to push this forward but I would love for you to push it forward with a clear message that mandating liid or at the very least making it a hybrid approach is the only way that these tools are going to go into effect um having incentives you know are lovely but we've had conservation subdivisions as an option on the books for 20 years and we just now have the first one moving through the system voluntary isn't going to entice people we're going to have to make it mandatory if we want to use these tools um and we should come back to the conversation about recla claim to water I've always wanted to sit down and talk to you about that okay I have a question for you though was in your discussions at inra is is reca water and consumption permits ever come up I have brought it up several times that we need to talk about it but it we just haven't got into that topic and I bring it up because I've heard you bring it up several times and I think that we need to address it I moved out of Victoria Park after being on the board for five years um because I couldn't stomach anymore what we were doing and you know and after hearing you talk I you know I went back to that board and I'm like look what are we doing here and um I I want to have this conversation personally and I want to have it as a county yeah and we had uh people speaking Tuesday uh one of them even mentioned without calling out anybody's name uh I don't know how factual it is but I think in that area right there they brought in 200 million gallons of water in two month period of time um that number probably isn't right typically the neighborhood purchases about a 100 million gallons a year so I can't imagine that they would have purchased 100 million gallons in the month of September okay um just in the Victoria Trail section 100 million gallons I think that was the whole development as a whole and I think they've got two um reservoirs in that area if I'm not mistaken they just recently lined one of the there's there's five there's five reservoirs in all of Victoria Park that hold reclaimed um yeah they just did a new liner on the Victor discuss definitely needs to be uh brought forward absolutely right so anyway those are my thoughts is that if you all would like to endorse a more um toothy approach it might be useful thank you okay all right we do have another speaker Melissa Lamers good morninga lmer myera D or Beach Florida excuse me which is actually oring by the sea in unincorporated Valia County thank you very much um I chair the environmental and natural resources advisory committee enra which as you've seen has devoted a number of meetings to low impact development and greenstorm water infrastructure in October of 2023 as Dr Anderson just said we recommended to the County Council a hybrid approach to implementing Li which would have consisted of developers being required to adopt two of the best management practices and then if they did more they could have incentives and this was um the idea behind it of course was to get adoption uh going in a big way um but because of Florida Senate Bill 250 the council couldn't approve our initial recommendation and instead directed staff in in to develop a voluntary incentive based approach to lid that voluntary incentive based approach as you've seen is what you have before you today because those were was our instruction as you know and as you've discussed flooding has become a huge problem in our County especially since the 2022 storms revised environmental standards and ordinances can't do anything to help current flooding but can go a long way and it's in's aim to provide as many tools as we can so that new development ensures that the post-development hydrology is the same as prior to development no no change to that which greatly minimizes the chances for future flooding lid begins in the design phase it's not a retrofit and it seeks to mimic or preserve the natural drainage processes in order to manage storm water green infrastructure incl natural or living features or design structures to mimic those living features that perform critical natural processes or Services taking together not only can oid and Jas go a long way toward maintaining predevelopment drainage patterns that can also go a very long way toward returning water to the aquafer in a less pled state that when it runs off from prvious impious surfaces water quantity and quality are of critical importance to the future of Bia County and we want as much clean water going back into our soil Source aquifer as possible so again our ordinance currently before you is entirely voluntary with incentives that enac believe are compare we have a number of developers on our 14 member committee um to adopt all ID and J proses we thought it would be a bring in under the structures as a count were faced at the time of uh developing these and we had would agree with that um additionally and this is me speaking very personally not as the chair of inor I also would hope that the County Council would revisit this topic outside the constraints of sp250 I say one more thing chair thank you um but I will also say that as a 14 member multidisciplinary committee enra has very B it mimics our society um the incentive structure would surely change if we return to a hybrid process and that will require more work by the committee which we're I'm sure ready to undertake we are all very committed to the work that we do at inra thank you you uh my question is what Miss Anderson brought up is after the Wayside of Bill 250 why was part not brought back up because we had one um and it was after that heartbreaking toour comment period um we did not have a clear read from the council personally I would I think it's stronger to go in with the PD RC's concerns as well now that you have now that you have heard our work history on this topic um um rather than to grind to a halt what had been clear Direction the only really clear Direction we've gotten from County Council on our work um to subvert that I think it it makes sense to join our our recommendations and again I cannot speak for enra on on that particular I have not had a meeting with them to say I'm going to go before the PC and so let's yes revisit this yeah because after your October meeting with the County Council and the previous meeting this past Tuesday we may have a different environment in the County Council because they they were really uh I mean we've gone as far now as talking about you know moratoriums and to me I think that would be detrimental to BL County to put that in place uh I'd rather see something come about that would reduce the problems that people are facing and this is one solution to the approach in the lid and forgive me for emphasizing this but it's important prospectively it solves for the problems of flooding on existing properties this is not a retrofit technology it it it it is a better way of developing going forward but it can't help the residents Who currently believe that new development adjacent to their properties is the cause of their flooding neither aori I'm I'm not not even not going moratorium itself would not necessarily met what's already occurring it would just save it off and for the future and so my point is um you know that that's a what I want to say an arm twister in order to do something to get a solution to this problem I mean we're still going to have those problems that exist what you're my understanding is going to be approached infrastructure side but I'm talking about future development and and the moratorium is going to affect the future development and the sooner that we have l in place the better the more the tools in the developer toolkit to have more San uh development patterns in our County I would hope that in parallel there is investigation under into what I believe are more per factoral causes of the FL on existing properties and that homeowners find some type of relief uh I think we're I concur with Dr Anderson that the rain events and storm events we're having aren't anomalous it's are new normal and we need to adjust to that the sooner the better um that's that's me and let me also State one thing because we've just the municipalities had to deal with this within the last 10 years of having no open discharge so all this reclaim order and retention of reclaim order has to be restored has to be stored and it has to be used back for consumption for irrigation and that nature um so in saying that to increase the densities and going back to densities to increase the density would actually be adding more to this issue in the long run I think the consumption permits and the uh maintaining the ReUse water is probably if not as great as much of a problem as the storm water in itself I can share what I know about city of Roman Beach because I spoke at length and visited their wastewater treatment plant back when we had the opportunity on the North Peninsula to um consider sanitary sewer and Omen Beach is building new water storage facilities because they faced the problem that they lacked enough reclaim water during the dry season to meet the demand that people had and in the rainy season they had too much and that meant that they had to continue doing discharges into the Halifax River of partially treated Wastewater um cleaned waste water so it was not adding supply to the nitrogen nutrients is not right PL water 98% approximately in that case of that wastewater treatment facility we have a number of them along the Halifax I believe Port Orange also has um a very large uh open space area they places in Florida where they have created um artificial Wetlands there's Sweet Water in Gainesville There's the um there are wetlands to the south of us there's Wakota hatchee down in South Flor flid that not only take that store water and reclaim water and store it it's a tment train and it sends it back to the aquafer and has the additional benefit that they are amenities I the babon Watchers love these places because they they attract birds so there are many ways to attack this quite frankly I was not aware that the reclaimed water from a development had to go back to that development because as I said I'm familiar familiar with Orman Beach yeah I'm don't misquote me on that what I'm saying is that's where's intended use is supposed to be it doesn't necessarily I mean because some developments uh may or may not in their consumption permit have to take 100% of their order back but it's got to go somewhere so where is it going this is the point I'm making and I believe there may be instances where maybe some subdivisions are taking back more than what they're actually producing and then what we're doing here by giving the density credit credits of twofold we're increasing this reuse water okay or reclaim water understood and so that's my concern and uh on the density credits not to even address the infrastructure problems and I think the important point of and again to get through a 14 member committee or seven member committee MH compromises have to be have to be made um or are made to move forward but the idea of clustering density not necessarily additional densities but clustering density on a property is hugely important to environmental concerns and certainly a fundamental part of of the low development preserving as much of that natural topography as possible and I hope I hope that that is understood broadly not just I don't mean just in this committee disagree with you there at all because overall the it doesn't increase the density overall you're just more the density in a specific area got it I get that I mean I'm not against that but what I'm saying is when you increase the overall density that's when I throw up a red flag and say whoa wait let's back up and look at this for a moment you know and so that's my opinion and Mr uh Costa here probably Mr Costa I'm looking at Mr Patterson and going to say your name Mr Costa here is has a difference of opinion like I say I respect his opinion and uh so I but and I'm sure he's got a different perspective on that democracy is wonderful thank you very much for your tment for your work any other questions for the speaker okay um I don't know whether it's within the scope of this particular ordinance that we're that we're discussing but one of the things that that Miss Lamers mentioned was um uh it doesn't include anything having to do with existing Properties or or development and I think that one thing that could be helpful going forward is if existing property owners were given some guidance guidance and some help some suggestions about what they personally can do with their own property to uh Aid in this this issue of of the reclaimed water and and the resorption of it um but I don't know that that could be incorporated into this document if not I think it's something that should be considered down the road yeah and and it mentions here on page three of this of um the ordinance uh document ation it said identifies that failure to maintain or removal of Li bmps will result in Code Compliance action and I'm curious about what that is and how strict that is um and you know who who works with that uh that compliance um uh uh that's it for now uh Miss Wes could I know you want to answer that could I get we got one more public participation form let's hear that and then we'll go over the her concerns Miss go Jessica go good morning again Jessica gal um I'm Vice chair of enra but again like my colleagues I'm just here personally um to provide some comments um one you can see we've been working on this a long time I think that um Even in our committee I will say inra has never formally adopted a recomend a for a solely voluntary program so the history of in's motions has been we wanted a hybrid that was our recommendation some is mandatory some is voluntary um staff has done a fantastic job at the policy Direction provided by Council given the constraints under Sate Bill 250 um I think we mentioned at our last enra meeting that um at least a few of us especially those here would be making the same recommendation to you all an to councel that while we think that this is a great starting point we've got a lot of the framework put in place we want to come back and look at a change system a hybrid to amend that right away if we can get their Direction um it's just that I know that staff and kind of our board are constrained by the policy direction we get from Council and so we definitely do want to see that aspect on the retrofitting of existing properties I do think you know Melissa has a point when you're looking at maintaining hydrology and all of that it works best in the new development but there are pieces of this that can be implemented on Redevelopment on existing neighborhoods um say you know we're looking at density you have a a 10 lot subdivision they've got some open space if they put in a rain garden and some swailes and and did enough you know they have a benefit overall to their neighborhood they want to pull it in um so I do think there is some retrofit opportunities um especially in the guide that we're creating for property owners who are interested and on the density bonus the only thing I'll say is in a voluntary system um when you look at clustering density in order to implement liid taller buildings or more constrained buildings are more expensive right when you go up a level construction prices go up when you're maintaining 30% of the site's natural topography you still have to bring in fill for remainder of it and then you have to bring it down to gr so you're losing physical space on the site you're going up if you have the voluntary option to do that or to do a typical development program for cost they're going to do the typical development program if they can do all of these things with liid have a little bit more cost but get five extra units that that balances the performer I would say um and so I think that's why we see this in terms of the incentive that density increase um with that you know we do really want to see personally I'll say I guess I say the collectively I want to see a hybrid system I think that makes the most sense um I think it's a great tool in our toolbox it's not going to address all of our flooding concerns in our community we're going to need counsel and Direction and all of that I'm in a collaborative approach there but this is something we've been working on for years and can only help thank you thank you any questions for Miss good I comment Mr so I agree with you that the the the density bonus will then allow the builders to go vertical what I disagree with is that I don't think we want vertical development in this County we don't want Skys skyscrapers in this town and so we're in a catch 22 you want a cluster cluster cluster big city T style where everybody lives within a half a block of each other but yet you have all this great open space versus what we have now which is more of a sprawling um scenario where some people live in the country some people live country in the city uh larger parcel so we have a lot of land in valouch County um and we also are tied to the uh urban sprawl condition as well so it's it's one of those it's a balancing act it is you were trying to force everybody into the infill areas and yes that's going to cause more density more density more impervious surfaces more impervious surfaces more runoff more flooding Etc and it just it's an end of the cycle um I look at this from a completely different perspective is that I personally grew up in the city I moved out to the country on purpose I live on five acres on purpose does my property flood yeah every time it rains but then again I know that I have an X zone in my property and I have an AE Zone in my property the AE Zone will always be wet that's a given there is whether we get 14 inches of rain like with Milton or 28 inches of rain that I got with Ian my back path flooded no doubt about it had nothing to do with any development had nothing to do with anything else around it was just the lay of the land that being said this plan I like it in the fact that it's in a voluntary Condition it's taken four years to get to this point uh rather than kick the baby to the out out the window I would suggest that uh that our this panel consider moving this along and potentially putting a timeline to revisit this and say 18 to 24 months and see how many people have jumped on board if it's zero then we can ret and go back to a hybrid or a more of a of a mandatory type scenario but I think that doing the climate and the condition of things that are going on in today that to delay this any further would be a disservice to the four years that have been invested and I don't know how many people have come and gone since it started but four years has been a long time agreed and and I will just say on the the clustering and the height and we talk about vertical I agree you know there's in my heart you know people may say otherwise I don't think that developers are looking at a former agricultural land in valua county and saying 12 12 story skyscraper apartment um I think that targeting that height and development to Incorporated areas make sense but I also think that if we can never go past 35 ft on a building height we're never going to get cluster subdivision and open space and the preservation that we want to see there's a me there's a medium there I mean it's twostory three story product um maybe even four story if it transitions well with the existing neighbors so it's going to take work it's going to take transition plans um I think the reflex is always we don't want to be Miami I don't want to be Miami I agree 100% yeah I say we can visit there for a weekend if you want um but I do think that there is a mix there you know the the tongue and Che respon tongue and cheek responses if we don't want to continue to grow out we have to learn to grow up a little bit and so well there is there there is latitude in limiting the vertical side I'm not saying that go unlimited and have skyscrapers but I am saying though I'd prefer rather than increase density to look at some of the more different ways to approach this maybe the hybrid approach okay but that's just there again that's my personal opinion just like Mr C's got his okay thank you guys any other comments or questions for Miss SC okay all right we're done with the public participation do we have anyone else okay Miss West would you like to come back okay just to answer a questions about Cod compliance so um The Code Compliance is the same as it would be for a typical development um it's done by our Code Compliance activity within growth and Resource Management they work with Land Development staff and land development manager um if it is identified that someone is they took up a portion of their Road or their Road has washed out within that or their storm water system isn't working that is already a system in place what we did here within that new division 19 for low impact development is that we just reiterated that hey just to make sure that you understand you have to maintain these things that you have put in and if not it'll be co-compliance normal process for it no there's nothing additional is there any followup though I I live in an unincorporated part of the county I live in in Orman by the Sea and Code Compliance only gets involved is somebody calls and complains so my concern is with developers who um will push the limits as far as they possibly can um or go beyond it because as you know has been said many times it's easier to ask for forgiveness and it is to ask for permission so they you know my my concern is the ones that'll push beyond the limits and then later come back and say oops now I need a variance can I have a variance and when the damage is already done so during the development process we have staff that go out and doing the inspections and all of that before it's finalized right um what's great is with the new storm water rule that's coming down from the state is that they have operation and maintenance requirements for um inspections so if anybody they're going to have their um Erp permit it's called um and they will have to have specific maintenance and inspection schedules um that is either supervised or they submit the report to the state so that is above and beyond what is currently done now um it's so that they can meet those um heightened restrictions or heightened um requirements for potion control so the state is going to be doing that we'll have that extra um process in place and that's just during the development that's going to be afterwards so it's it's operations of Maintenance good okay and I'd like to make one other comment I don't want you to think that that the work that you've done over the past four years is in vain because the fact of the matter is you've come up with some good things on the l site what the only objection I have to this this uh CPA and this ordinance is the fact that the U is the density credits very front and honest with you um and maybe it should be a hybrid approach or a mandatory approach you know I mean that's not for me to decide that maybe the council's got a change of heart I don't know uh I'm just speaking from a personal point of view and uh try to give a perspective from the way that I right now it seems like the general public seems to feel and uh even the people that were against the moratorium even stated there should be something implemented uh they didn't know what but you know we and I've always said you can't do a whole lot of complain unless you come up with a solution and I think this is part of the solution I really do so don't think your work has done in vain for the last four years because I liked pretty much everything until I read the density credits and then I I had to pull back on it you know all part of it yeah um I did want to comment on the increased maximum height so we do have that as an in incentive in here um but it does have restrictions right so um we have it that they can increase the maximum height that's already permitted within the zoning ordinance by 30 ft within multifam commercial and Industrial zoning classifications so we do not have it within residential zoning classifications um it also is restricted um with on the the Atlantic Ocean Side um the same restrictions for sea turtle lighting so um it's very specific in essence it can't be between the Atlantic Ocean and the western boundary of any Lots or Parcels for that eastern most ride of way that's there so that whole beach side they can't also have um increased height so we did put those types of restrictions in there and then also for rural areas we did have it the restriction on density increases can only happen with that Urban low intensity or Urban medium intensity land use classification so these things cannot those specific density increases or clustering cannot happen in the rural areas because we wanted to make sure that we kept those landforms the same okay okay any other that's correct when the council recommended against the hybrid approach or the um what they vot they voted against mandatory right they voted against mandatory and they the reason that mandatory but I will say one thing for the council back during that meeting and correct me if I'm wrong is one of the drawbacks to the mandatory and the uh uh hybrid side of this equation was the fact of Bill 250 was it not miss that was my question yeah that's what I wanted to ask was that made before that was the drawback for the council I mean they didn't feel like Mr Sor you may want to jump in here they didn't feel like legally they could require that advice legally after Ian there was you know sp250 they're they're correct sp250 within 100 miles of landfall of either Ian or Nicole so um Mims was within 100 and only Mims was within 100 miles of the landfall of Nicole uh it swallowed up the entire County and it said you cannot impose more onerous or uh rigorous Land Development regulations um within your jurisdiction so because a piece of the county was within that 100 miles it encompassed the entire County so you know any any of the regulations that were more restrictive including you know a mandatory or hybrid approach of Li you could not legally do you couldn't even start the process it wasn't even just adopt you could not give a direction to to you know to process that type of amendment and that probably was a lot of the I'm not I can't speak for them but I mean if I was sitting on this board and was told legally I could and do it I would not suggest that you circumvent that and do it you know so I don't know what they're thinking at this point and this may be something that they need to discuss of looking at it through a hybrid or a mandatory side and maybe they want to piece it out some of it mandatory some of it hybrid um but I think you're on the right path with your lid requirements and what you've come up with that it's just that I'm not too sure that we're there yet okay that's where I'm at okay okay uh where we go from here okay um would someone like to make a motion for the CPA 25001 I'll read it okay on case CPA 25- Z1 finding the amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and forward the application case number cp-251 to the County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Department of Economic Economic Opportunity for stake coordinated review and to vucha growth management commission for certification I've got a motion on the floor from Mr Costa to find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward the application case number CPA 25001 to the County council with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Department of Economic Opportunity for State coordinat review and to valuch growth management commission for certification from Mr Costa and a second from Mr Patterson and any discussion on the motion I will be voting against it because of the density credits so that's just my their personal opinion I have I not only the density credits but can we do it with recommendation that um certain that what was it that we that we wanted them to consider I guess the a hybrid or or a mandatory going with a hybrid approach well that would be up to Mr Costa to include that in his in his motion I couldn't support that n he's not willing to change his motion now if for some reason this motion fails someone else can bring that up and I got okay any other discussion on the motion is everyone understanding what's going on here okay any event this motion Mr C's motion were to fail he's he was to fail he's sending it in through as is someone can make a motion and correct me if I'm wrong Mr zoria that you could do that with the stipulation that they were to include hybrid take out the I guess how would you do that make it either a hybrid or mandatory rather than the with density credits uh those are two separate Provisions but you can make that recommendation um what it would look like at the you know when it gets presented to council um that'll take some work shopping with staff or you can send it through with the denial with the reason for the denial one of the two right it's completely legislative decision you can make any and all recommendations okay now those recommendations would be part of the ordinance not necessarily part of the CPA correct uh it would be I don't know Sam does that density Provisions have to be the CPA um CPA so it CPA yeah it be in the CPA also I read to move yeah okay okay are we ready to vote on this anyone else want to comment on it okay all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed I we want to take a roll call member Craig no member Shelly no chair no member cost absolutely yes member Patterson absolutely absolutely yes and member six F no that is a four to two motion failed to carry with a 4 to2 vot okay so where do we go from here does anyone else want to make a different motion or would you rather send it on on with the with the denial you they got they've got the notes I mean on on R you guys voting for on the no on this thing um like I said um I'm have no problem sending it along with the denial and let uh Council decide how to do it it's been four years so I think that um the only and if I went to and we're talking about the ordinance now on the ordinance the only thing that I would suggest that I would add as a condition would be to re-review this whether you make it 12 months or 18 months but I think a review at a certain timeline down the road to see has this worked it's taken four years to get to this point has this worked if that point doesn't work then you can go and approach with the more mandatory or a hybrid type of approach but I think after four years that they've come up with this plan again as I said before I think it would be a disservice to hold it back um because of those issues I think that that probably what would happen would be the council would give staff uh the say that no this is what we want or the fact that they would make their changes and under the condition certain conditions that they're facing now I think that would come pretty steadfastly I don't think would be something that's going to be drugg out we're going to go ahead and um send it back truthfully I'm look from the temperament that what I hear is probably more or less going to come back in a hybrid situation um rather than the U the density credits so are we ready to move on to to the case uh ordinance ordinance 25002 so I mean we've got a failed motion so Mr chair um you know if you could call of whether or not there are any other motions um you know if there's a motion to deny or failure to do that we will go with um you know failure to obtain majority vote of uh this agency I think what we decided was let Council come back with Direction on to staff of what they want want to see in it uh they may not change anything this is just a this is a recommendation by us right and so they may P it on through I don't know procedurally um we would have to make this body's recommendation to council to be denial by failure to obtain a a a majority vote of the recommended changes for the comp plan that's what we're looking at right yeah that's what we're looking at I don't think anyone's willing because you can put in things that would actually you know they may not see what our recommendations are I mean they're going to have to that they I think they're going to get it loud and clear what our concerns are what someone would understand from the failure to obtain is there's there's no consensus by this board of what the proper path is it's like you can't you you have not obtained majority vote where a majority of this this commission has identified yes we want to do this so that's what this type of uh uh uh negative recommendation um pertains uh you can do this in a legislative process because I don't I'm not concerned with uh uh due process are having to write a development order for denial um so it's fine in this case we understand your policy making decisions um and your temperment okay let me ask Mr s a question if we could compose a motion that would send it to County council with a recommendation of approval less the density credits is that what you want because ultimately that I think that's where we're at on this is the density credit I would say it's that it's not what I want right it's not about what I want I guess is what I mean to say um you you I think you have a couple options you could if you had consensus you could send it forward in a voluntary way without density bonuses that's a motion you could make you could um send it forward in some modified manner however you choose with your um opinion that that the council should consider a hybrid approach or if we send it through with no motion then it'll be the staff's responsibility to explain why this committee didn't make a recommendation at all and then we'd have to come back once Council gave direction we still have to come back because at some point this committee has to find it consistent with the comp plan correct there's just a recommendation they can find consistent or inconsistent so the fail to make a recommendation for approval is a non-consistent finding by this by this board but the council could still find we do have consistent findings I think we all agree that the the the hurdle here is the density credits well I mean that's the that's the consistency determination so um you know uh yes County Council can take the recommendation or whatever it is and make its own separate uh fact uh determin of consistency with the comprehensive plan so that's that is what we are looking for um in terms of what this uh this is statutory obligation is is are the proposals consistent with the the County's comprehensive plan so we can't find it consistent with the exception of the density credits that is an option um you know it's it's it's whatever this board you know determines if you don't have a a majority approval then you know we would report that you know the the proposed amendment is that they found the proposed amendment not consistent and then go into explanations of which portions of it yeah okay so if someone would like to make a motion I have a clarification question go ahead and is that because density bonuses aren't necessarily an issue for me I I guess my my question is and I just um from my perspective again is what I heard and I could have heard incorrectly um but that all of the work that's been done on this all of the year when it was first you've been working on this were under constraints that are no longer applicable is that did I hear that correctly yes we're no longer constrained by Senate Bill 250 yes um and uh from and I don't want to throw away all your work I don't so that's my concern I'm thinking so we've made something that we're no longer constrained by you were following the law doing what you needed to do and so how can this um I'm just trying to find a way for it to move forward that that like would that be by amendments would that be things coming in like this that would you you can move it forward um you know you can make someone can make a recommendation on approve but you know consider a hybrid approach perfectly make excuse me perfectly accept by using the hybrid because that's where I'm coming from that okay it's not the density bonuses it's the hybrid approach that I prefer so you could move it forward as is a recommendation that you know it can go as is or we recommend the council consider the hybrid right so then you're at least moving forward and and because as a no vote I mean I'd like to put that I mean that's why I'm doing no it's not because of some of the other comments I've heard so that's one option you could have someone make a new motion to approve it as it is and recommend that the council consider changing it to hybrid but then if they don't want to do change it to hybrid then at least we're moving forward on the voluntary I understand that that's just a consideration yes it's just a consideration not yeah or mandatory well there that's where you lose me I mean I'd be glad to make it mandatory is the density issue separate from the hybrid approach because if we're going to be sending it with recommendations I would like to see both of those addressed with the mandatory the hybrid and the way it exists currently with the um incentives so I think mandatory we we I don't think that we'd ever get that pass mandatory across the board so I I see density being an issue and I see a hybrid approach being um will it be EAS to compromise the hybrid so you know I think that what could happen is if in fact the council supported a hybrid approach where you have to do some things then you don't need the incentive of density bonuses because you're saying to that development Community you must do some things the incentive for density is because if it's completely voluntary there needs to be something in it so that the developer will choose to do it because it will cost a little more so if it's required even some elements of liid being required like originally we had talked about you have to do two liid bmps and then you can choose incentives from this the rest right if it goes back to a hybrid Approach at Council then they probably don't need to have density as one of the incentives so they are a little bit tied together um if it in fact remains fully voluntary it was the belief of the staff and and I think I could speak for enra that it's their belief that you need to have robust enough incentives to get people to to come to the table so you could incorporate that in a motion think though by doing this is solving one problem creating another one right I I understand what you're saying I'm just saying like if you if as a body you wanted to move it forward the way that it is recommend that the council consider making it hybrid if that's what you choose and in that consideration of hybrid then perhaps you don't need the density incentive right right that would be the trade-off there so what we could do is send it Forward removing the density and looking at a more hybrid approach right that's a third option if you sent it forward and Council still wanted it to be voluntary but you've said without incentives then there's the question of does that bring the developers to the table and we would see I right like with anything maybe it works you know and um we do have in the um plan to re-evaluate in two years the manual um to see if it's working see if somebody comes up with new bmps faked in already it is but at the staff level it would go to the our development Review Committee would it necessarily come back before this body I just don't want to solve one problem and create another one and by well you're increasing the density when you increase the density you you increase the amount of reuse water that's coming back to that development so now because that's what the problem is some people think that that's what the problem is with the flooding issue okay and because what it's doing is when you send this much use water back to the development what you're doing is you're increasing the seasonal high water table be by do of saturation that I understand what I'm confused about is what now creates that problem that what we're talking about by no I just said if we make it incentiv and increase the densities the incentive being increase in the density I don't want that to implement lid which is benefit there's no I agree with the benefit from lid I just don't want to solve that environmental and then turn around and create another one with the flooding issue by increasing the densities which would bring in more um more saturation of water because it's more than just rainfall that's what I'm saying since it's a recommendation to County do we dare go forward with and or well I mean Andor what density and hybrid well I I I I can't support density that's the problem that I have I agree restricting density and or hybridisation of of all oh yeah you could do it that way you could do it that way but I the minimum I would think we would have a something of a hybrid approach and the only reason the point I was trying to make was the only reason that that County councel or staff either one wasn't even looking at the Hybrid approaches because of Bill 250 which is went away so they haven't really dis have they ever have they discuss it since we it hasn't even been up for discussion and I just don't know under the circumstances yeah the council hasn't addressed this issue again U they gave us Direction and we've been implementing the direction and so um intent was to under restrictions process come here and then you know go back to the council yeah I I will say that you know they were under the constraints of Senate Bill 250 but the other direction we've been given both as staff and and as the enra committee is to look at not only ways to better protect or or um increase the environmental minimum standards but look at ways to have less bureaucracy and and less required regulation right so in that um you know we we just don't have other direction from the council other than what we've been given and so that's kind of why we're proceeding in the way that we've been directed to do I guess our decision here is what do we want to send it with another motion or or do you want to just let it go as it is because I think it's going to be discussed pretty thoroughly when it gets the council and so they're going to have to make a decision on whether they want to leave it as is because they can just we're just sending recommendation or they can look at what we were talking about and I'm sure it's going to the staff is going to tell them why it failed to to pass was strictly because of the density credits that that was going to be allowed to happen um I'm what I'm saying just let it goad I wanted to hear your point of it legal point of it in terms of the discussion right now on what staff will bring forward to councel from my experience in Palo weighin and staff can weigh in if you you are saying density is an issue I think a few of you are that's a deal breaker for me I got that 100% % but unless the majority of this committee says that's a deal breaker for all of us that's not what staff is reporting staff will say a member voids concerns about density and so I think having a United approach of even if it's a we recommend approval condition strong recommendation you come back with the hybrid approach or if a majority says we recommend approval removing the density bonus that's way better than having a yeah V like I said if if I don't have a direction then I'm going to say this committee couldn't make you know come together to make a determination of what is the actual objection so we will report everything in terms of you know each individual Committee Member um had these concerns okay I'll let someone one one other I'll let somebody characterize a motion for that if you'd like I can't make the motion if if it's pull you can if you pass the gavel can I pass G okay a tie though is a denial uh yes a tie would be a techical denial okay okay yes sir I'm gonna pass the G I've been waiting to use this thing not okay okay I would like to forward CPA 25001 the County Council and find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan for the application case CPA 25001 to the County Council recommendation of approval with the exception of the incentives put forth and would rather have Council revisit the hybrid or mandatory part of it because now they're not under the constraints of Bill 250 and then once they find their um if whatever they decide to transmit the Department of Economic Opportunity for State coordinat review and volucia growth management commission for certification how' that do Mr Sor that works uh with the exception of yeah so find consistent with the comprehensive plan the exception of the uh I'm going to say density bonus incentives um and uh with the recommendation that County reexamined the hybrid mandatory approach because we are no longer under the constraints of SP sp250 uh for direction to the Department of Commerce now and the valua growth management commission got it I can second that line for sure yeah that's the longest one I've ever heard also very well put though Mr chair or Mr chair we move for this one is your bill I can't even repeat what you said so uh so we have a motion in a second on uh Cas cp-251 to U forward the comprehensive bill right to the County Council just say as stated as stated good enough with that yeah is anybody going to second the motion already did we had a second by did second yeah thought yeah motion made by Mr Mills seconded by Stony uh we'll go ahead and do roll call vote save the time thank you member Craig yes member shley yes chair Mills yes member Costa no member Patterson yes and member sixma yes that's five to one okay all right you can have this back get back to me again okay just take off your shoe okay okay now we're going to tackle the ordinance well that's easy um well we there again if we're going to be consistent with what the was just made in the ordinance it does have the density credits so uh we would we can send it through recommended that the p uh we the ordinance consistent with the comprehensive plan for for finally we recommend District approval with the exception of allowing um a reconsideration of because of Bill 205 to a hybrid or a mandatory requirement is how that does that work yes it could be the same motion to uh recommend approval with the exception of the density bonus incentives and for County Council to reexamine the hybrid mandatory approach because that's okay okay I would like to make a motion passed the gavel to Mr Costa I got it to uh to recommend um okay is that for okay find the ordinance 25 20253 consistent with the comprehensive plan except for the ex with the exception of we would like to see Council uh Rel take another look at your hybrid and uh hybrid and or mandatory requirements because of the fact that bill 205 doesn't restrict them to doing so anymore and otherwise and forward the County council with the recommendation of approval uh I would also recommend with the exception of the density bonus because it's the density bonus is implemented also in with the exception of the density bonus and have them look at because they're not under the constraints of 205 now to look at the Hybrid or mandatory approach Bill 250 yes we have a second 2 Bill 250 and you second it so we have a motion on case o -25 Z2 by Mr Mills as stated and a second by Mr Stony any discussion any discussion on the motion roll call please member crank yes member sh yes member Co um sorry chair Mills yes member Costa no member Patterson and member sixma yes that is 5 to one 5 to one thank you okay Miss Smith do we have anything else no sir do we have any other public items no sir staff comments um what's December look like meeting wise we currently have five cases coming your way that's it plus the the storage containers are they pushing that storage containers are supposed to be on that agenda supposed to be okay supposed to be all right um one staff just one staff item um I'm very pleased to say that Kelly Tucker was recently promoted to a planner um sad to say uh Scott Ashley is stealing her from me so she won't be here in the future so she won't be visiting once a month well we're probably going to encourage her to come back next month and help us out till we can get a new person but um beyond that Kelly is moving on all right I want to say it's been it's been a pleasure working with everybody on the board congratulations very smooth with you back there definitely going to miss you I appreciate your kindness thank you okay any other staff comments no sir okay commission comments none uh I'll let you forewarn you I will not be here next month so Mr Costa you get to keep the gabble you to keep what do you mean again I'm sure you can handle it okay um and uh there again Mr CA I do respect your opinion on these things because I think you're very knowledgeable oh yeah I mean it's just we're not we're not that far apart there are far apart thises that uh and again from a from a build building perspective if I'm giving up 30 40% of my land for conservation which all right that's great the the density credits allows me now to go vertical my situation is I don't see this as being a vertical County I don't either I don't either you know but the incentive is there and it would only apply to uh multif family housing obviously we don't have a lot of condos within outside of the beach side like you would see in a downtown area uh for instance and um this applies to County particular not necessarily all the municipalities so if you you start looking at it from the county perspective these are very small pockets and the other thing that that with the hybrid approach I just don't like I don't like government I I want less I like less biocracy not more and so that's where I with the whole mandatory thing I the the term mandatory always get I'm right there with you I'm right there with you but the fact I I believe in smaller government too M but when we when we start allowing developers and that's not a bad word in my point because they they they contribute a lot right to this you know to our economy and and to our area it's just that when it starts encroaching on existing private property rights that's when I have an issue I don't dis I don't completely dis I don't complet completely disagree with you on that and and this is what I think what's going to happen here and hope I was hoping it would happen after Ian but it didn't but now that we've got Ian behind us and we have this Milton behind us and we've got the The Barrage of people that came in front of county in front of council perhaps now it's time a good hard time to take a look at why are we flooding you just can't point it to One Direction and say it's all about building you got to look at storm water you got to look at Canal maintenance you have to look at ditches you have to look at how we've been doing it for the last 20 years which apparently is no longer working but you can't just say it oh it's because of development that's why everybody's flooding that is not the case and it's it's an easy SK it's a low hanging fruit to grab but nobody wants to approach the bigger issue which is we have a storm water issue that is not a system that is not maintained that's Antiquated and until until we kind of refocus and say all right root cause was 14 inches of rain in 24 hours that was the root cause a lot of these water issues were occurring before we had that though we had a week before that we had almost 5 Ines that came in so the ground was already pre-saturated prior to the storm yeah so but and and I agree with you there I mean I'm not putting it all on development at all and this is why I don't want to see a moratorium yeah I I'll be honest with you yep because I think it would be detrimental to the county and the community to put a moratorium on building it's the low hanging fruit to grab yeah and so so but we have to come up with Solutions and this is why giving incentives to density when density may be the cause and and because what we're doing is we're not if you look at some of our older subdivisions they're they're mostly on quarter acre lots Y and now they're not you're putting six and eight house units to to an acre and so therefore you're reducing the amount of green space that you have and then on top of that uh most year developments now are not on onsite they're on municipalities and now the municipalities have got their hands tied because of the state legislature says you can't do any open water discharge so if you've got if you've got a storm coming they can't just reduce their amount of capacity by putting it into our waterways they've got to do something with it and they're sending it back to the developments that's their only way they can do it right now they need to look at that too we need to be looking at spray fields we need to be looking at being able to put it back in our recharge area they can't right now they can't do that and so there's a lot of things that that that are added to the equation and I'm not putting it on Strictly development but right now because of the density here we go again with the densities we are pulling more water out of the aquifer that we've got to do something with and that's why developments is getting the the uh the the the bad side of this equation as bad sure yeah and uh no I mean but we have a lot of over subdivisions that we never had this problem with because of the lot size and so when you put more houses per acre then you're going to have issues that arise I'm not saying they can't be addressed we may be able to allow the densities I don't know from an infrastructure way but actually from a storm water but I think these these uh consumption permits and re on reused water need to be looked at just as hard as these uh storm water water yeah and because water's water and the the surface doesn't know any different and flooding doesn't know any difference whether it come from storm water or whether it come from uh reuse and I do know that it has a big impact uh I can tell you I live in an area that it's is affected by it and I can tell you when they're putting a lot of water in these reservoirs just strictly by my water table on my property so there's a different correlation there and that needs to be addressed and I think once that is addressed you're probably going to eliminate a lot of the the flooding issues you have because now that seasonal high water table isn't maintain at the highest level because in Florida I know that it fluctuates it can fluctuate as much as four to 5 ft and if you don't start getting that fluctu fluctuation you get a saturation which moves the water laterally and this is some of the the flooding issues that were that is occurring and in our I tried to get this pushed through in our development process during our um what was the storm water I mean the um not storm water but waste water pable I think was the pable and sanitary sewer elements sanitary sewer elements I tried to get the to to have some uh alternatives to the municipality hookups and now that didn't fly it went all into the uh municipalities now these municipalities are getting more water and they're being hamstrung by legislation that will not allow them to handle the the water that they have to deal with it all has to be either kept on site or or or sent back to the uh development so yeah there's a lot of finger pointing and I'm not doing it all on the U because it's it's legislatively also and maybe that's where we need to be looking at a lot of this problem but anyway that's the end of my comment my my comment to that addition to that is um Mr Costa calls it low low hanging fruit but it's also the most immediate um way that we can start to uh really evaluate and and affect a change we don't have control over the rain uh we don't have control over the Hurricanes we do have control over how much development goes on and we know that it has an effect on the flooding situation we've seen that it may not be the only thing that's causing it but I think that's where the idea of a moratorium which is temporary uh gives us some breathing room to start making a change um that will have that we will need for long-term Solution that's my Soap Box well I hadn't planned on making a comment on the moratorium but I will say this if you look at our community and how much of an imp that will have not not on the flooding side but on the uh you know you're talking families some of these guys are are going to be out here looking for work and and so it may be temporary to you but it may not be temporary to them that's the problem and and and and I just I can see where it can create a hardship even if it were let's take your case and point some of these are people that are out here working hourly not necessarily the builders themselves but the employees that they have they're working hourly if they don't have any work they don't have any income they still have that monthly light bill they have the monthly food bill they got to support their families and they're going to be scammer and we've had because there was a time uh many years ago during the 70s and I'm tell them how old I am now but anyway during the 7s we had a case where there was no work there and people were really having an issue trying to make it make ends meat I don't want to create that scenario I don't want to make solve one problem and create another one I think there could be if if we can just get together and agree I believe there's avenues that we can do in order to solve some of the issues that we have immediately it's just that we have to come up with Solutions and whe it's done through infrastructure whether it's done through density I don't know but I I do know that we a lot of the things that are occurring now um and and we some of the stuff we try to solve one problem and then like I say create another one we need to look at the big picture not just one specific as Mr CA said the pointing finger at the developers uh they may they they may be part of the problem but they're not all the problem saying that they are but I am saying that it's a moving Target and at some point we've got to try to fix the Target in a in a spot where we can uh intelligently address what needs to be done I I agree I mean it need it definitely needs to be addressed and we can't continue to kick it down the road but um I mean obviously from what you saw Tuesday we had over four hours of of comment on one item of this flooding I mean something's got to be done something will get done I I got faith that we're going to come up with some solutions I do know that a lot of the solutions are in in the process right now hopefully they're come about sooner than later and uh once we start seeing Solutions I think a lot of this is going to ease up so that's just my opinion you know on that okay uh do we have any presson citizen comments this meeting's adjourned 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 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e