##VIDEO ID:oD7SVdw8Oi8## 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 ready rock and roll the September 19th 2024 hearing for the planning and Land Development regulation commission is now called to order and if I could please have any you silence any audible devices that you may have and if you could join me for the Pledge of Allegiance good morning every I would like to thank every everyone for joining us this morning and Miss Tucker could I please have a roll call good morning members member Craig present member Shelly here member sixma here chair Mills here and member Costa and member Patterson will be late and our County chair representative is currently vacant okay thank you Miss Tucker uh we do have minutes from August 15 2024 any discussion on the minutes I move to approve okay I got a motion to approve the August 15 2024 minutes from Miss Shelly and a second for Mr sixma um is there any conversation on that sorry I didn't mean to interrupt um there is one correction that we did want to make to the minutes on page 17 line 33 we wanted to correct the spelling of Christian nagle's last name it is n a l e okay get any Michelle you want mot I in my motion to reflect that yes sir second okay uh any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I motion carries unanimously okay if anyone would like to speak for or against any of the cases being heard today if you could please fill out a form at the back of the dasis and hand it to Miss Tucker to my immediate left we will be limiting you to a three minute time limit and after the comments have been heard I will give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns the speakers have and answer any questions the Commissioners may have at this time I'd like to turn over to Mr sorya for legal comments thank you Mr chair and this is for members of the audience for applicants that Decisions by this body on special exception cases and cases which rezone uh 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 decis 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 any grieved party that appeals such a decision is confined to the record made before this body hearings by this body on rezonings special exceptions and variances are Quasi judicial in nature meaning that this body is acting more like a court and must take into account all oral written or demonstrative evidence presented their decisions on these cases must must be based on competent substantial evidence in the record and competent substantial evidence has been defined as that evidence a reasonable mind would accept to support a conclusion thank you Mr chair thank you Mr sorya uh Mr Sor also could I get you to explain uh how many votes you have to have on the board because we have minimum of four here today so for variances um our uh regulations require that A Min minimum of four must vote to approve a variance so because we have a be Quorum um to approve any variance currently requires a unanimous decision by the four members um are currently sitting it is not a majority vote of those present at this time you need to meet that minimum four for recommendations such as rezonings or special exceptions you can approve uh a recommendation from for an item by a a simple majority of those present um if any member because you have a minimum Quorum uh leaves the dis such as goes in the back goes for a refreshment Break um my recommendation to the chair is to stop the stop the hearing um so that we have a you know a physical Quorum present okay thank you Mr Sor can I ask you something real quick that would make sense I can see during the voting part of it but when we are back there it's on the screen and you hear everything that's going on um so anytime any leaves at any time we stop anytime we drop below a physical Quorum yes oh got okay gotcha below four right the reason I mentioned this today is because we only have four here present got at the moment we have a couple on their way but we only have four at the moment so okay uh and while we're on legal comments I would like to ask the commission to disclose for the record any expart Communications that have occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any qual matter and I'll start with Miss Craig to my immediate right I have none none none and I have none okay we do have a request this morning for continu uh an item to be continued uh that's V2 24- 068 Miss Smith would you like to comment on that yes sir the applicant did not meet due public notice so we are requesting that this be heard at the October 17th meeting okay if anyone is here to speak to that meeting you need to be aware that that will be continued until October 17th 17th is that what 17th okay October 17th we need make a motion or okay we do need a motion on that okay I'll make a motion case 0244 uh be contend you until the August no no no no no no variance oh variance I'm sorry I'm s V2 2468 okay okay okay okay uh I can make the motion yeah do it I'll make a motion that case number v-24 068 be continued till the pdrc 1017 October 17th meeting perfect okay I'll back you up on that one second okay I've got a motion to continue variance V2 24068 to the October 17th meeting for Miss Shell and a second for Mr 6man discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay we do have some unfinished old business but we're going to because of our um request from one of the the board members to be present and he's not here yet so we're going to move that to the back of the meeting so we're going to move right into our new business this morning M shelle could I get the first case read into the record please yes sir case number v-24 d061 variance to increase maximum fence height requirements on tourist B8 zoned property okay Mr Shams this one's yours hi good morning Steve Shams with f County Planning um the subject property uh is running on three roadways and it's subject to three front yards on the east south and west uh the property is developed with a 1300 foot home and 200 square foot accessory structure the home was built in 1953 the applicant would like to secure and the property provide privacy from passers by on State Road A1A they're seeking two variances to our fence ordinance to increase maximum fence height within the front yard as you can see on the diagram variance one is to increase the fence height to 6 feet for a total of 33 linear feet in the west front yard so that's that uh northwest corner on the screen variance two is to increase the fence height to six feet for a total of 10 linear feet within the East front yard as shown by the green line um the rest of the fencing will be four feet tall and this includes a combination of proposed fencing and existing 4ot wall um overall staff recommends approval as variance one meets five of five criteria and variance 2 meets three of five criteria um in the staff report uh it it does say that variance two fails but we recently changed our uh review criteria to make a variance pass with 305 that that explains the change um staff recommends one condition that the variance are limit the variances are limited to the size location of the fenes as depicted on the variant site plan and I'm available for comment or question okay any questions staff you had me for a minute there I said when you were saying you were for both of them I like you're denying the okay change that okay is the applicant present can I get your name and address for the records sir yes Jason hudleston at 7 Neptune Park Drive in Orman Beach all right sir you've heard the staff comments is anything You' like to add to that no I just here to answer any questions um I think the staff I work in 14 counties in the state and I'd like to say that the bla county has been very easy to work with and I've been just shocked with sten's professional manner just this entire process has been mindblowing how just Precision you guys have okay all right uh do we have any public participation okay we're going to close the floor for uh public participation open up for commission discussion here okay have any questions for the applicant all right you can have a seat sir thank thank you okay I'll be glad to make a motion all right um I would like to move that case number v4- 061 be approved subject to the staff recommendation on page six and I also just wanted to make note that this piece particular piece of property has three yards that are considered front yards yeah does I'll that one okay I've got a motion on the floor for Miss Shell to approve variances one and two for v2461 with the one condition staff condition is that what it is yes one condition staff condition uh for Miss Shell and then I have a second for Mr 6man any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously M shell could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 062 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning Kristen Ray with bu County Planning uh the applicants are seeking variances for an existing carport and shed variance one is to reduce the South front yard from 30 ft to 14.06 Ft for the existing carport and variance two is to reduce the East Side yard from 5T to 3.51 Ft for the existing shed the carport was built in 2017 and the shed was built in 2011 prior to the applicants purchasing the property in uh 2022 the applicants are requesting the variances to legitimize the locations of the structures a staff's recommendation was for approval as it met five of the five criteria for both variances one and two should the pdrc find that the applicant provided competent subst evidence to support approval of the variances there are two conditions provided for consideration I'm available for questions thank you m r any questions for staff okay is the applicate present I get you come forward sir could I get your name and address for the record yeah Michael rer 1661 Britain Avenue okay you've heard the staff report this morning anything you'd like to add to that that sounds great okay uh any questions for the applicant okay hearing none Miss Tucker do we have any public participation on this one all right sir you can have a seat and we'll make a decision here I'm going to close the for for public participation open up for commission discussion or a motion I'll be glad to make a motion go ahead Miss Shell I move the case number v-24 062 variances to the m yard requirements on Urban single family residential R3 zoned property B approved there are no staff comments there is two conditions there are subject to the two staff recommendations I'm sorry okay I've got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly to approve variances one and two for V2 24662 with the staff two staff conditions and a second for Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I and opposed motion carries unanimously okay Miss Shell can I get the next case please yes sir case number v- 24-65 variances to the Min to the minimum yard requirements on Urban single family residential R3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and this one is Miss Ray also good morning again uh the applicants are seeking variances for a proposed 300t shed variance one is to allow the proposed accessory structure to be located within the front yard and variance two is to reduce the East front yard from 30 feet to 13 feet the subject property is bisected by John Anderson Drive the Western portion of buts Halifax River and is developed with a dock and the Eastern portion is developed with a single family residence pool and wood deck the applicants are proposing the shed on the western portion of the property which has is subject to one Waterfront yard two sidey yards and one front yard environmental permitting did not support the variant's request because it does not meet the avoidance of minimization criteria of the Wetland ordinance um however staff's recommendation uh for both variances one and two is a recommendation of approval as it did meet three out of the five criteria uh for granting a variance should the pl JC find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence to support approval of the variances there are two conditions provided for consideration I do also want to note that there was a letter um of support received from adjacent neighbor I'm available for questions thank you m Ray and I might want to comment here that the reason they're changing it from because our report showed denial is because there has been a state we we changed the ordinance to where it only has to have three out of the five criteria to meet in order to make an approval okay because I I don't know who's because it's on there it says deny so okay all right any questions for staff is the applicant presid can you come forward sir good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record Mike Del l 10 sand dollar Drive Orman Beach 32176 okay you've heard the staff report anything You' like to add to that I think I'm good thank you okay other than the letter of recommendation is we do we have any other public participation forms okay we're going to close the floor for public participation open up for commission discussion or motion I'm ready to make a motion case number B24 five5 or 65 sorry 65 uh motion for approval variances of Staff okay do we have any conditions on this one yeah two okay two conditions okay I got a motion from Mr sixma to approve variants one and two for B2 2465 with the two staff conditions any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any oppos motions carries unanimous shelle could I get the next case please yes sir case number v-2 24- 066 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban multif Family residential are8 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and miss m this's yours this one's a little different than our typical variances it comes to us from our Land Development Office the variances are for an undeveloped parcel and Norman by the Sea the site was previously occupied by a commercial structure that was demolished in the 90s uh the zoning is urban multifam residential or R8 and it's a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a maximum density of 20 units per acre the future land use is urban high intensity which allows between 8 and 20 units per acre the land use and Zoning are in place to allow the applicant to apply for final site plan without public hearings uh the site is just just under an acre and they are asking for the minimum 8 unit condominium complex with pools and decks the R8 zoning has some unique setback requirements which is why we're here the maximum allowable Building height is 45 ft the buildings are 41.4 feet tall the minimum front yard is 25 ft the minimum side yard is 12 feet but anything over 25 ft requires additional side and rear yards at a ratio of one yard for every foot of building over 25 ft and that's to prevent shading once storm water Landscaping fire safety and other infrastructure requirements are considered in the Land Development process variances are needed for the accessory structures on the north and west sides of the property the buildings do meet the requirements without variances however the zoning enforcement official determine that the setback the setbacks apply to the buildings and accessory structures so variance one is to reduce the north side yard from 29 ft to 20 feet and variance two is to reduce the West front yard from 25 to 15 feet If the ratio this is for pools and decks If the ratio was not applied to the accessory structures they would meet the 12ft sidey yard requirement and in most zoning classifications a pool can be 8 feet from the property line and accessory structures can be 5 feet staff does recommend approval of these variances and there is one letter of opposition okay okay thank you Miss Smith any questions for staff so Miss Smith you're you're pretty much saying that this can be developed is just be the accessory structures and the pool what we're actually taking into consideration here because the building can go regardless yes sir okay that's my question okay is the applicant present good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record morning my name is Mark Grande with kimley horn I'm uh at 1530 Cornerstone Boulevard in Daytona Beach okay you've heard the staff report anything you'd like to add to that no I think everything was well covered if you guys have any questions for me be happy to address them okay do we have any questions for the applicant having none we do have two letters I mean not two letters two participants this morning would like to speak and I will give you a chance for rebuttal after they have spoken so if you just want to have a seat close by okay Mr Edward Shoemaker yes okay you're fine good morning sir could I get your name and address for the record sure uh my name is Edward schum marker I live at two Sunset Boulevard Orman Beach 32176 okay and you would like to make a comment to this case sir yes sir okay uh along with being an adjacent property owner to the property in question uh I'm the director of the silk Suncrest Association Homeowners Association for the residential area that surrounds this particular piece of property uh just as a general uh item is that the association and the members of The Association are opposed to the construction of this condominium that's not an issue today but uh what is an issue is that the two streets that they're asking for the setbacks to BR bring closer are uh Sunset Boulevard and Ocean Crest Drive which are two-lane residential very narrow streets there are no sidewalks available there and the and the residents from the development that we're in pretty much use the roadway to get to and from uh a18 and various locations I think it would be a safety issue to put any property closer especially since the young lady mentioned that uh the minimum is uh met for the construction if they are granted a permit to build uh and it would not necessarily need a larger piece of property for that develop velopment uh I would request that it be the variance be denied based on that uh we have a heavy amount of traffic on Sunset Boulevard because it goes from A1A to John Anderson Drive and even commercial vehicles have started to use it to get to and from you know um so I would again request that it be denied okay sir any questions for the speaker now sir you realize this is the variance is in consistent with the pool and the accessory structures not for the main building yes I do okay all right sir all right you can you can have a seat sir okay all right then I have Mr James Pickins and you're for Carolyn Fitzpatrick is that correct cor correct okay you want to state your name and address for the record Sir James Pickins with the law fir Mackenzie Vincent pile uh 150 South pal Meadow Avenue suet 300 Daytona Beach Florida okay and You' like to make a comment to this request uh yes your honor uh I'm here uh represent representing the property owner to the north at 2030 Ocean Shores Boulevard um there was a picture earlier um but this is just a a wedge shape between two other properties that already has minimum uh beach view and beach access um and this uh the the first variance to restrict the north side yard setback uh 9 ft will have a significant impact on their ability to uh View and enjoy their property and we think it will have a negative impact on the property value so we would object uh and request the variance number one be denied all right sir and there again you realize that this um variance one is for the accessory structure there notar building itself and I believe there's a fence that's already planned to go within that setback area which would go to that all right sir any questions for the speaker okay hearing that okay you can have a seat sir okay do we have any other public participation forms for this case okay and let it be not Mr Patterson is here you're welcome all right okay um I'll give the applicant another chance for rebuttal on this and my question is which side which variant do sunset actually have an effect though if you'd like me to address that that was actually going to be the first public concern that I was going to bring up we're not requesting any variants along sunset so the if yeah if you could bring the site plan back up um the current front yard setb is per code so we're not actually looking to change anything there and for the public safety concern we are this development does actually propose a sidewalk in the right away um that that takes pedestrian traffic off of the road along Sunset Boulevard um and I guess to the other concern to the property to the north um again this this is just for the pool and deck and it encroaches into the extended setback that's only really required because of the building height and with the pool and deck not having any height you know we're well outside of the Standard 12 foot uh setback that would be required for a rear yard there uh and part of what we are proposing is a extended landscape buffer and and Screen fencing there for that adjacent property so um one thing the owner wanted to make clear is if the variance was denied the only thing that's changing on the site plan is the pool and deck goes away for that one unit and essentially the the landscape buffer and the fence goes all the way back to the 15 foot uh requirement so we're we were trying to actually enhance the screening from that property allow for the accessory structure F the fence and the landscape buffer you're saying is with is not as close as it could be is you're trying it's currently greater than the code minimum okay and I'll get Miss Smith to verify that well I actually would like kimley horn to clarify because we got these numbers directly from our Land Development office they said you will need two variances I what I'm hearing you say is you don't need variance one no we need we do need two variances um I was just addressing the one of the public members had mentioned that the um the variant affected Sunset Boulevard it's not along Sunset Boulevard it's only along uh Ocean Crest no we're talking variance one where you said the fence and the uh the individual that discussed about the north side yes sir so yes variance one we are needing that for the accessory structure only what I mentioned was we are proposing an additional landscape buffer in that area which I don't know if you can zoom in on the site plan but um we we provide around 20 feet it which we can clarify on the site plan too during the Land Development review process but we propose around 20 feet instead of the 15 foot minimum buffer adjacent to that accessory structure so you would address that with our land development team with any comments with them what we're doing here in this hearing is giving you that 20 feet if the board desires to work within so it you will need that for your accessory structure one way or the other according to this site plan correct okay okay any other questions for the applicant anything else you'd like to say uh no sir okay we're going to close the for for public participation and open up for commission discussion or motion and I might add uh I understand not wanting to have a tall building there but we're not really looking at the building we're looking at these accessory structures and I don't know how much of an impact that would actually have anyone else like to make a discussion on this I think you made a good point on that so all right can't I mean they they've got full right to to build the building itself yeah I'll entertain a motion Donna you've been quiet down there did you want to speak Miss Greg the reason I'm reluctant on this one is that I live up in that area and I see it you know just filling in more and more and I I don't like the idea of they being a 40 foot building up there but I think it's already too far along in the process of that well the building it's not the building that that is in question here it's the ACC the building can go it's just it's these setbacks to the accessory structure of the pool and the fencing there I guess that's all I have to say at this point okay I I like I said in my comment I can understand them not wanting the building there but that's not what we're looking at here mhm might be totally different situation yeah it' be different but you know yeah so all yours Ed okay uh um yeah I'm apologize your microphone's not on thank you my loud voice would just do it case number v-24 066 variances to the minimum yard requirements on Urban multif Family residential R8 zoned property uh be approved subject to oh there are no staff conditions on this yeah I will make a second to move it okay I've got a motion on the floor to approve variance V 24066 variances one and two and there is no staff conditions uh from Miss Shell and a second for Mr 6man any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously if I can make a note on this if it was coming down to the building itself my vote would probably be totally different but accessories okay Michelle could I get the next case please make note Mr Costa has arrived case number v-24 069 a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Prime agriculture a one zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Mr Shams this one's yours H good morning um the applicant is proposing to construct a 1988 ft home 448 accessory dwelling unit and a 1500t accessory structure uh the property is unique in that it is separated in the Southeast corner by Reynolds Road the majority of the property and uh the area the applicant is looking to construct is on the larger side the property is subject to two front yards as it fronts Reynolds Road on the south and an unopened RightWay on the East um the property has significant at Wetland areas it's the whole site is about 20 acres and it's covered with about 16 Acres of wetlands so the buildable area is very limited in addition the property is within our natural resource management area which requires a 50 foot Wetland buffer as you can see on the screen this further limits the buildable area so the applicant is trying to um cluster the buildings in a high and dry location and not impact those wetlands um so they are requesting three variances variance one is for the home uh they're requesting to reduce the front yard from 100 feet to 63.2 feet variance two is for the Adu they're requesting to reduce the front yard from 100 feet to 39.7 Ft and then variance three is for the accessory structure and they're looking to reduce the very uh the front yard from 100 ft to 41 ft uh overall staff recommend approval uh variance one meets five of five criteria and variances two and three meet three of five criteria um we do recommend one condition that the variances are limited to the size and location of the proposed structures and I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr James any question for staff uh Mr shames you said it had how many conditions one condition sir hey applicant Pres can I get you come forward sir could I get your name and address for the record sir Kenneth Haven and address is 4629 heren Drive New M Beach Florida all right sir you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to that no sir okay any questions for the applicate do we have any public participation on this all right sir we're going to close theor for participation or commission discussion or motion any discussion on it I'll be glad to make a motion okay I move that case number v-24 069 be approved subject to the one staff recommendation second okay I got a motion on the floor from Miss Shelly for v2 2469 for variances one two and three for approval with the one condition from staff and a second from Mr sixma any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I any opposed motion carries unanimously 69 got continued or 68 6 Road okay yeah 68 got where am I can I get the next yes I'm sorry trying to make me look good aren't you case number v-24 070 a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Rural residential RR zoned property thank you Miss Shell Miss Ray this one's yours good morning the applicants are seeking a variance to reduce the West rear yard from 40 feet to 21.1 feet for a 53.4 squ foot home edition the single family excuse me sorry single family residence was constructed on the property in 1985 um it does sit Di Al um which does provide um little space for them to do the home addition um the garage and driveway on the Northern section of the residence the screened in pool on the west side and the septic system is to the southeast of the residence um the home addition is proposed to the Southwest section of the home um staff's recommendation on the report says denial however the variance criteria has been changed that needs to meet three out of five for approval um therefore staff's recommendation is for approval as the variance request did meet four out of the five criteria should the pdrc find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence do have one condition provided for consideration I do also want to note that there was a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor that would be the most impacted with this variance request in your report packet I'm available for questions thank you Miss Ray any questions for staff and just to bring the uh members that weren't here earlier up to speed uh because of the new code or ordinance is was that what it is an ordinance ordinance allowing staff to recommend with just three meeting three of the criteria rather than the five that's why on your reports it may say deny but they've recommended approval okay okay all right uh where was that no questions for staff as the applicant present I get you come forward please good morning could I get your name and address for the record uh Jamie mofet 2040 Duncan try DeLand okay you've heard the staff report anything you like to add to that no I'm just here for questions if you have okay all right do we have any questions through the applicant okay do we have any public participation okay we're going to close the four for public participation and open up for commission discussion I'll make a motion okay Mr SI C you go I'm only 20 I'm half an hour late and I already forgot my name that's okay so case number v-24 d70 um make a motion that we approve with the one staff recommended condition second okay I got a motion on the floor for Mr Costa to approve variance v2470 with the one condition from staff 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 Michelle can I get the next case please yes sir case number v-24 072 a variance to the accessory dwelling unit Adu regulations on transitional agriculture A3 zoned property thank you Miss Shell and Miss Ray this one is yours good morning the applicants are seeking a variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be greater than 50% of the living area of the principal structure the property is currently developed with a 2009 square foot single family residence a pool and a detached garage the applicants are proposing a twostory accessory dwelling unit near the Southeastern Corner uh the ad is proposed to have a garage Workshop bedroom and bathroom on the first floor and on the second floor it will have a family room bedroom bathroom and kitchen creating the total living area at 1,312 sare FT um which is about 65% um staff's overall recommendation is for denial however should the PDC find that the applicant has provided competent substantial evidence there is one condition provided for consideration and I'm available for questions thank you Mr Ray Mr C do you have a question I do um I want to say that I as well I've read this Adu thing many times but I was also the impression that was the um overall footprint of the house not the living area of the house so that being said the um if we're not counting the living area doesn't count the garage doesn't count the porches etc etc etc correct only under air correct all right so when we're comparing that to the Adu this Adu has a lot of space that is not living space so we're going to look compare apples to apples I think that we should discount anything that's not living area on the Adu for that 50% margin and I know that I know how it's written currently but I'm I'm making a a statement more than a than a question and if I take because if we start with subtracting the garages in the workspace that are not living areas I think we're below that 50% margin the garage work workshop is not included in the 50% margin not included in the 50% no sir well then that changes thing now so you're comparing living to living but you had a good statement that was I did yes sir the um bedroom and bathroom on the first floor is is in the living um area uh and that's what is um sets the um Adu over the 50% what is our number what what is the actual 50% number the actual 50% is I mean how far over are they I guess is the question approximately 300 Square ft over they're 300 over yeah okay okay y any other questions for staff is the applicant present good morning sir can I get your name and address for the record yes it's John Bentley at 820 Haden Lane Delona all right you've heard the staff comments recommendation anything You' like to add to that yeah I'd like to add add that the the added living space downstairs it it can be turned into a non-living space easily by putting a door in but it would be very convenient for myself being that I work out in the yard a lot to do be able to walk into a a restroom that is air conditioned or in have the extra bedroom used as an office and store uh uh sensitive uh things like clothes and stuff like that so it's out of the U elements so it's in an air conditioned area and because of I've had uh slight disabilities in the past foot surgeries and stuff like that it would also be nice to have extra room to recover and and and that's about it okay yeah either way the the the building does not not exceed the footprint and the the affected U living space the air conditioned area is not going to affect our neighbors or any anybody else we did when we had the plans made up we had super insulated so to reduce our air conditioning costs so that extra living space shouldn't impact our uh our electric bill okay that's it any questions for the applicate question yes Miss yes hi um is is your son currently living in the main house so that's your the future plan that's the future plan and he'd be he'd be nearby sure I thought as time goes on all right great and I thought so because I was like are y'all all living in the main house right now no okay thank you any other questions do we have any public participation for okay sir we're going to close the for public participation open up the commission discussion or motion I'll be glad to make a motion but I have a question for staff um not really on this but it's sort of on this um and looking at the big map and maybe I looked at it wrong it looks like there's a large dirt area I don't see any trees on it do you know what that is I'm just curious It's to the uh yes up there do you do you know what that is okay because I mean I I'm just curious I'm John Bentley again uh there there's a company that's moving into that space and they leveled the whole they took all the Green Forest that's gone okay which was a major impact we almost cried when it you know was leveled but right now it's not uh they they're not anything yeah they put put a big metal building up and it's as far as I know empty okay thanks and I'll make that um motion okay okay I move that case number v-24 072 be approved subject to the one staff recommendation second got a motion on the floor to approve variance V 24072 one staff condition from Miss Shelly and a second for Mr 6man any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay make com talk about that okay Michelle could I get the next case please yes uh case number z- 24-13 resoning from the shopping center B3 zoning classification to The General commercial before zoning classification Mr chair should we read that along with with the next one yes sir let's go ahead and read both of them into the record case number s- 24-10 a special exception for a car wash on General commercial B4 zoned property okay all right this one is Miss sham Mr Shams hi good morning again I didn't make right I didn't think you that's all right Mr sh so the applicant is proposing to rezone about three acres of a 15.4 Acre Site from the shopping center B3 zoning class to General commercial um the applicant intends to construct a 7-Eleven convenience store with gas station and automated car wash uh the car wash is contingent on the accompanying special exception so the site's being rezoned for two reasons um one the minimum wat size of B4 is far smaller than B3 which allows for a standalone site of approximately 3 acres B3 requires 10 acres uh in addition uh the car wash that they are proposing is permitted under special exception in B4 but not in B3 so that's kind of the reasons why uh the parcel is look is currently undeveloped and heavily treed uh is located at the intersection of North US Highway 17 Glenwood Road and State Road 11 it's within the County's thoroughfare overlay zone is required it must meet those requirements um due to being on a thorough Fair the site is located in a commercial Corridor the areas south and west of the site are developed with a gas station and Auto Sales respectively the areas north and east are a mixture of undeveloped land and residential use es the residential uses include a mobile home park uh the site is within the city of D's utility service area and the city indicated they do have capacity to serve a site in addition the city also identified the site as being within their Transit oriented development Corridor and the city's Activity Center which provides higher density uses that are compatible with residential um the staff found the proposed resoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it has a commercial feature luse designation and the proposed use is consistent with that um they they applicant did submit a traffic analysis for review um and the proposed resoning and use would result in approximately 1,555 daily trips but would not negatively impact the current level of service of US Highway 17 uh bua County Traffic engineering did review the project and found um there's analysis sufficient the current daily traffic on us7 is approximately 15,800 trips and their threshold for reducing level of service is 39,800 so there is a lot of volume that can be placed um overall staff recommends forwarding to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval for the resounding um and now I'll kind of go through the special exception briefly so uh the special exception is for a car wash on the site special exceptions are required to meet the dimensional standards of the zoning class and all the special exception criteria for staff approval uh based on the site plan provided the proposal development does meet those standards um specific to the car special exception the car wash will be a 900t automated car wash with a 50ft long area for customers to vacuum their cars and fill tires with air improvements to the site also include an improved stabilized driveway and two storm water ponds uh the proposed hours of operation for the gas station will be S days a week 24 hours a day it will be automated and open the same time as the gas station and according to the applicant they wanted uh to make note the car wash will utilize recycled water in its operation um the site is within the County's thare Zone and is subject to a 35- foot landscape buffer along us7 and that must be met and they must also meet the non-residential design standards of our zoning ordinance it does meet all special exception criteria and is consistent with the comprehensive plan plan policies relating to new urban development meeting concurrency requirements overall staff recommends approval and uh does recommend four conditions I'm available for comment or question thank you Mr Shams any question Mr C yeah I'm looking at the site plan that was on the screen um is that a u preliminary or is that final it's preliminary it's just for the special exception okay so you don't know if they've already applied with uh uh Florida Department of Transportation for Exile Dell Lanes oh not yet not this stage that'd be during the Land Development stage I'm looking trying to make a coming out of that onto State Road 11 trying to make a left going across those two lanes is going to be a bit hairy I think at some certain times a day but I'll let the Traffic Engineers deal with that one just curious thank you yeah that was my only concern also I was wondering how they're going to get it in there because you got a red light right there on the corner and then you do you've got a actual stop sign not on 11 but on I guess it's gr U Glenwood Road right there coming into 11 even though you don't have that much traffic going that way but it's gonna create traffic okay but that's something traffic going have to work out okay uh is the applicant present yes go ahead um I this is probably something that I don't know about that's but in one in one area on the zoning change it says reclaimed water is not currently available and then on the the other section it's it mentions the car wash will utilize recycled water in its operation their own water that's their own water usage of the I'm sorry when they use it it goes into a drain and gets come back come back up and reused I understand so that's something that will be that will be included in the in the construction yes the reclaimed water comma is from the city they can't Supply that but the applicant is going to as Mr Mill said recycle the water they use okay thank you yes okay any other questions okay hi hi can I get your name and address for the record Alana Smith with cob Co Law Firm 231 North Woodland and we do have a presentation okay okay so as you know this request is to Res Zone from B3 to B4 and the site currently that we're looking to develop includes approximately 2.97 Acres of property and it's Zone B3 which as stepen touched on gas stations and convenience stores are permitted uses under B3 the issue here being that the minimum project size in B3 zoning is 10 acres so we're requesting to Res Zone to be4 to allow development of a 7-Eleven gas station and convenience store and the minimum lot size in B4 is one acre so again we could still have this use if we develop it currently on 10 acres but instead of doing a larger gas station like a bues or something with a higher footprint the developer wants to rezone to be for it to allow the development of that site on a smaller foot footprint and again the land use for the site is commercial which is consistent with the use and then just a survey of the site again we're doing it on the smaller proposed parcel to the South and then that was all for the resoning if anyone has any questions on that as we were touching on the special exception sort of ties into that as well so so again it's a request for the car wash with the vacuum service it's a single Lane Car Wash so just one car coming in at a time or again it's a closed system in terms of water use so that water is getting recycled and again car washes are permitted special exceptions in the B4 zoning district and the use will be limited to the site improvements and area depicted on the concept plan that will show and then I just wanted to touch on some of the features of the site integrating that car wash with the gas station consolidates those uses together it makes it a accessible site for people who are already there using utilizing the main use and then it's also bordered by North Woodland to the West State Road 11 to the East and Glenwood to the South and then to the north as you saw on the survey it's undeveloped land up there and then the surrounding roadways sort of provide that buffer it mitigates noise or visual impacts because it's not directly adjacent to any developments on the site and then the proposed dual access configuration from North Woodland and State Road 11 that'll mitigate traffic to bit you're not concentrating any traffic on One Singular roadway so it's dispersing that traffic a bit and then there's sort of the concept plan that I was discussing and I know it was already put up here earlier but you see the car washed and it's abing the back of the um undeveloped parcel to the North and then there you see the gas station convenience store and then to the back AB buding State Road 11 is the storm water area and then one final thing I wanted to touch on and I do know we received a letter of concern from a resident on Fernwood which I don't know if you can see it on here but it's kind of up to the north and they were mainly concerned that removal of trees in that area will cause noise from uh North Woodland to carry over to the residential area and I just wanted to note that again the proposed development is just for the southernmost portion of the parcel so we aren't even touching anything up beyond that area so the trees all there are remaining the same and they'll still act as that sort of buffer from anything near Fernwood in terms of noise or anything the trees over there aren't being touched it's just the focus is the small parcel on the bottom okay Mr cost you had a question now you brought that up so does your client own the entire piece or just the corner their our client is the developer they're the contract purchaser but the the owner owns the entire parcel they're aware of the requests they obviously authorizes us to do this request but yeah the our client is the the contract purchaser so there are plans for that the rest of that parcel in the future I I don't know what the owner intends to do with the I mean I guess they could develop it if they wanted to but I they haven't we haven't spoke with them about it okay all right thanks okay in that line of questioning um Miss Smith does that does that make this does not make the remaining non-conforming correct that's correct okay just want to clarify that okay any questions for the uh applicate all right do we have any public participation forms okay thank you we're going to close the FL for public participation and open up for commission discussion I will say this is an area that's that is being developed into some commercial uses through that line down through there so I don't see any issues with doing the zoning request or special exception really special exception just for a small car wash I hope you have better luck than the rest of the commercial businesses down that end want to take these separately it's going to happen though yeah well read in the U zoning requests first and then we'll do the special exception all right on uh case Z24 d013 I recommend that we forward the resoning application Cas z- 24013 to the County Council for a final action with a recommendation of approval second she beat you too oh I didn't do it oh Pat did I'm not I'm not going to compete with her she's fat I'm fast fast okay I got a Pat was sleeping over here motion on the floor to forward the resoning application case number Z 24013 to the County Council for final action recommendation of approval from uh Mr Costa and a second from Miss Shell any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay Mr cost I'll accept your motion second I make a motion to forward the special exception case number s-24 d010 to the County Council for final action with a recommendation of approval second guys need an arm wrestler or something here okay no I'm not an arm wrestler see she's got the Vantage of her Pat because she's sitting right next to you I've got a motion on the floor for Mr CA to for the special exception case numbers s 2410 to the County Council for final action with recommendation of approval and a second from Mr Patterson any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I any opposed motion car I got to keep it clear okay that brings us to our original old new business of the um ordinance and Miss Shell if you want to read that ordinance in the the record please I don't have a copy of that ordinance well it's right there just the one on okay on the agenda okay um ordinance -24 d004 five lot subdivisions okay Miss McFarlin this one is yours yes good morning thank you Carol mcfarling uh planning and development services director so we're here to talk about the five lot subdivisions this is I believe the third time we've talked about this at the planning U commission just to I want to get too far into the intent because we've already talked about this a lot but it's about creating an easier path for development and Easy Button if you will about common sense um decisions that staff could make when very little to know infrastructure is required for a subdivision um so just to clarify plats are required for subdivision of three acre or three Parcels or more if you're doing a minor subdivision just a split you can do that through an overall development plan application um so it's instead of going through three steps to get to a plat you kind of do the first step and then stop and the reason why that's important is I want to make it very clear that uh we do have a traditional subdivision process in place that can be used so it's not you either do the five Lots or you plat we actually have you know some easier ways to get there under certain circumstances try to narrow in on the changes that were made since the June discussion we added a wear o Clause so that we can clarify the intent I think part of the discussion that we had back in June was making sure that we were very clear about certain things especially roads and storm water management so we clarified that a grading plan or an Affidavit of drainage control is required uh storm water permit is not and we also made changes to division 8 Storm Water Management to make it clear that if your your subdivision falls under this criteria and it's 5 Acres or less you don't need a storm water permit and that did cause our the short title for the ordinance to change so we had to read advertise that's why this didn't go last month we also combined information relating to Road access into one sub paragraph e and we did clarify that no RADS or access easements can be created to serve the New Lots so we talked about direct access if a lot has direct access onto a road or an easement that the New Lots would also have to have the direct access on that road or easement um so with that I'm here for questions again those were kind of the the main changes that we looked at I'm hoping that we we provided a lot of clarification on some of the things that we talked about last time um staff does ask that um forward the ordinance to County council with recommendation of approval and if you have any comments um whether it be you know little things that we want to change in the ordinance or if there are bigger broader policy decisions that we need to look at to um let's just make sure that we work together to get some really clear recommendations as we move forward to County Council thank you I'm here for questions okay you can go first Mr cost go ahead probably address thank you for pushing this to the end for me I appreciate that um and I may have missed this the last last time around on um section 72537 uh little C where we're talking about contains at least 10,000 ft of contiguous buildable area above the 100-year flood plane Zone in layman's terms tell me what that means the 100y year we we talking xzone only is it that is Ex Zone correct only right so can you currently build on AE only if you take that out of the flood plane in other words if you do a letter of map revision um you'd have to bring in fill to get you above the base flood elevation okay um and then you would not be in a flood plane um so what we're looking at with um sub paragraph C is we want to make sure that um we're not affecting lands that are within a flood plane right um you really can't just fill a land just in a flood plane just to fill it um there has to be some sort of a proposal for development or some sort of agricultural use that require the fill um so we believe that this sub paragraph C it it tries to make it very clear that it's it's not that you can subdivide the lands and then put the fill and to bring it up to above base flood elevation it's if you if you have to provide fill to get to that 10,000 foot area that you go through the traditional subdivision process to get there does that make sense yes but no because what we're looking at here these five div these sub five lot subdivisions are going to happen in your rural communities so that being said for instance I'm on five acres let's just say that I was on 50 acres but I'm on five of my five 75% of my property is AE the balance is X obviously I built my house on X but I would have not made that 10,000 square foot minimum here but we were subdividing so my point is that while we're not telling them that they need to they go need to fill in all two and a half acres at 10,000 ft because that's going to be when they go to build they're only going to have to build the footprint or the pad up for whatever structure they're putting on to get upside outside of that flood plane zone is I think we're kind of limiting it the scope down quite a bit it's going to eliminate a lot of these subdivisions because of that I mean Florida there's very few that are that have still have pockets of x in them in the large Parcels especially if you're if you're doing a five unit subdivision right so again um it doesn't mean you can't subdivide the property you can go through the minor subdivision process we we're not subdividing through the easy plan now we got to go through the hard plan which is kind of defeats the purpose here well again that's a that's a broader policy decision um certainly you know debate amongst the commission and we'd be happy to take whatever recommendations we need to okay all right thank you you have any other questions okay um noticed that since our we've added in the proposed tree preservation areas is that correct if we do a proposed tree preservation area and then it becomes uh agriculture exempt that becomes mute does that not true on that that is correct yes okay my question to you is why are we putting that in on a agricultural Zone properties when you most of these properties are used maybe not necessarily for agricultural exempt for commercial use but most of it's used for like horses pasture and things of that nature I mean I from my what I reflect on people doing most of the time that live in these areas they don't want to clearcut it anyway because you got to have trees and stuff for animals to get out of the Sun but the think we're adding on an additional layer here that we don't really need because you're looking at a minimum of two and a half acres it's not like we're doing a small lot and so personally I'd like to see that proposed tree preservation cut out of there because I think it's a mute point in the event if it were I think we're being penalized if we don't have an agriculture exemption on the properties from these agricultural properties um from that standpoint um and I might add too that the if it was Exempted we pay a whole lot less taxes and these folks pay quite a bit of taxes on these larger Parcels that are not agriculture exempt so I'd like to see that stricken from these agricultureal properties the second thing I had here was on the easement it says uh the applicant can prove that there are free and clear rights to add the New Lots to the private easement why does someone that gives an evenement have the right to allow me to subdivide or not why do I have to prove that if I've got an A Legal easement to my property um is it okay if I address the the first statement about tree preservation thank you um the requirement um is for submittal documentation to show the tree preservation area um nothing in this section precludes or or trumps the chapter 50 minimum environmental standards um we do have circumstances that are already built into the code and whether it sounds funny or not the policy the way that our code reads is you have to do your best to protect trees while you're going through the subdivision process you may set aside areas but there are lots of circumstances where after you build a house on the lot now your tree exempt it's a little frustrating for um people who want to save all of the trees for in perpetuity but that is how the code works so um I did just and I understand what you're saying that is a fair point but I just want to clarify that that added language in um 10 a number two is explaining what the code already does so um do you have any questions about that before I go to your second Point well I have a problem with the code but I there I'll be straightforward here because I think it's unfair to penalize someone just because they don't have a commercial use for their agricultural property when like I said they pay more for their because they don't have the commercial they pay more property tax then the adjacent property owner to them that can do just because he's got an agriculture exemption can do whatever and and I think that's being I think these agricultural properties are being unfairly penalized so that's from a code point of view to address your code it's it's the it's the same story the same situation that we had last month is the difference between a exempt and a and here we have the same condition is if it's a exempt there but it's not it's a two and a half acre hobby Farm or or a gentleman's Farm as they call it they are now held to the fire which I don't see that to be correct I don't either and that's where I'm coming from on this and I think you said it pretty correctly there okay um second and the second one yes um was about direct access um and having a private easement um and having to to show that there's clear free use of that easement to add another lot um what that means is um the private easements where there is some sort of a a covenant to it or restriction um we see sometimes with private roads not really very many from what I've seen most um private easements it's just you know I grant Ronnie Mills access to cross this part of my property but there are a lot of easements that specifically say for one house or one lot um and they do try to limit the number of houses that are being added to that easement because that affects all of the people who use that easement and um maintain that easement um if they've already put restrictions in place on the number of people that can access that privately maintained easement then um we need to make sure that we're not doing something that's counter to what a legal document would say they allowed to do okay here's the scenario that I'm that I'm going to give here in the event that this were to stay in if you say okay I want you to prove it so I need for you to give the documentation from the property owner that has given you that easement the problem with this is it may not be the same property owner give you that easement so that property owner now can say well I don't want to for you to have to subdivide that and I've got a legal document meaning the de showing that I got legal access to my property through this easement that I actually purchased and now I've got a different property owner that who originally give me the easement and he does he wants to hamst string me and say okay you can't do this you see where I'm going with this I do easements run with the land access easement land and sometimes they do say you know the owner of this property comma Ronnie Mills um but the easement runs with the land so any of your future successors um would have the access to that easement as well so why are we putting the burden on the property owner to prove that that's the case so all they have to do is give us a copy of the easement that they were given um those are usually on their survey anyway they usually call out you know per or or per book and page number um this is the easement and we read the easement to see you know if it has any restrictions in it there are a lot of times where there is no easement and in those cases you would have ACC or ability to add new units to that easement because there's no restriction so um again if we're looking at survey of the property it's going to show us that information anyway it doesn't mean that the property owner has to go to their neighbors to get them to sign anything well this is what the point I'm getting at when it says to prove it and and I think it would be probably better worded is if that it says that you do have a legal unrestricted easement that to that would allow that rather than say to prove that I see what you're saying so if the applicant can prove there are free and clear rights maybe it should say that the applicant has free CLE and clear rights right okay we can we because otherwise I'm going to tell you right now what's going to happen is is somebody's going to say well I need a letter from your property owner maybe not you maybe not this staff but maybe the future staff down the road may consider that it goes back to the agriculture exemption process there too at one time if you owned a piece of agricultural property you had the same rights as a person that had an Agri exempt property and for somewhere down the road it became okay okay to make it a Bonafide agriculture you have to have an ex agriculture exemption and I know that's not the case but the the hurdles that you have to jumped in order to get that Bonafide agricultural use makes it very difficult for the property on and I think it puts on a un burden on them that it shouldn't be there okay because like I said that originally fuel an agricultural property you you had the same rights as an agriculture exemp property that's M anybody else anybody else have any comments on this that they like to address okay so do we need this this doesn't need to are are these going to be addressed before it goes to council I mean I hate to keep it coming back but correct um so what we would do is um we always move forward to Council the ordinance um that was presented to pdrc we give a brief explanation of if any changes were made to made to what we call the clean version that ends up going to council so it would be we would include this staff report package and also um a statement that says PDC you know wanted this specific change done and then the because I I think the taking the can can prove there are free and clear rights I think changing that to has that's definitely something staff can support so we can make sure that that change happens in the ordinance prior to going to council because I can show you a deed that has my easement on it without any restrictions right and that should be sufficient rather than that Pro there kind of get you in the mud Fair Point yes okay and then what about the proposed tree preservation areas um again that's repeating what is already in the code um if you want to have that provision stricken um I can say that it was the Count's uh County Forester that wanted to have that information in there he is not here today um I just want to say that even if you remove it we're still obligated to ask for it it's it's a chapter 50 provision when you are subdividing and you don't have that agricultural classification if you're subdividing you know land uh chapter 15 which is the minimum environmental standards requires that 15% tree preservation so even on agriculture property if you don't have agure what if it's exempt if it's exempt then they don't they don't have to there you go that's the point I'm trying to make but if they're if they are if it's even if it's Zone agriculture the purpose of this is for the development of residential lots so it's large residential lots but here we go back again we're limited on the zoning classifications a matter of fact it doesn't even include the all the agricultural the 1 acre agricultural Zone properties this is a minimum of 2 and A2 Aces and so it's very possible that an individual would want to have a pasture and have a 15% coverage of trees I think is an undue burden on them in the because and the reason I say this is because if it was an exempt property then you wouldn't have to have that why why they being penalized this is what I don't understand when the ne neighbor right next door to them can have it well it's they're using it for for you know a essentially non-agricultural development so if they were completely developing in terms of you know a Bonafide agricultural provision State Statute says Hey County get out get out of the way right you can't touch them um but the you know the purpose of this subdivision is to allow for large two and a half acre residential lots in the agricultural zoning districts so they can have a combination of residential uh and agricultural Provisions but it's that the the fact that they are um essentially large residential lots where someone can have that kind of you know ranchette lifestyle that falls squarely within you know the Land Development Authority of a county if they wanted to to just completely Farm um yeah this goes through the process and and they don't have to talk to us U but these are these are five Lots with five potential houses that are you know we're allowing to be developed without going through the plating process that's the that's the point of it five Lots five houses with a whole density that is is very low you know we're talking very low on the two and a half acres and this is where I'm going with this I mean for the majority of this most of these lot these five lot subdivisions are going to be a lot larger than the two and a half acres because you're only allowed to do it five five on the and then depends on the Sony if you could have 40 acres you can't do five eight acre lots if it's an A1 it's got to be 10 acres all you could do is four yes but at the same time you know we've got minimum environmental standards in in chapter 50 that regardless of the size of development or the size of the the Lots has that 15% tree preservation um you know every time you're subdividing uh a property you know that chapter 15 minimum environmental standard kicks in that okay I don't want to beat this to death but what if I have an agriculture exempt property and going remain agriculture exemp but yet I want to subdivide it do I have to go through this depends upon if you're putting in a single family house but if you're just subdividing an agricultural piece of property you don't have to comply with so long as your subdivi subdivisions um don't result in transformation into a non-agricultural use sure you can subdivide all day what if it's got dual uses then you're probably going to have to top of Permitting so so all right so you've got so I've got 20 acres right and I'm full agricultural right and I'm thinking about subdividing and since I'm a since I'm a exempt I can basically come in and and take down as many trees I need because I'm farming the land cor correct yes so what we're doing is we're telling people go ahead and clearcut it now and then go subdivide not the other way around and leave trees from behind because you're going to force them into putting the easen in we do have a what's it is it three years there's a a three year I understand a threeyear window I get that but still three years is nothing it's a blip I've been here for more than three years and it seems like I just got here yesterday right um um we're we have to work with the statutory preemption of hey if they've got this classification County butt out um and that that causes a lot of kind of strange timing issues uh um what's a good example uh barn weddings right so it's all about timing so you have an ad classified property build a barn put some hay in it the next day you can have a wedding in it but you can't purposely built like a wedding bar and start it off that way so you know we are having to accommodate this agricultural exemption which preempts a lot of our code so it's it's it it seems unfair but State Statute says Hey they've got that classification we can't touch them that should be on all agricultural zone property because you know what you're buying the whole purpose of the codes and and the ordinances and everything to protect the public is not to to govern just to be governed and so I'm putting this undo burden on a property owner that doesn't necessarily need to have it on there because if it it was they wouldn't allow you to stay away from agriculture exempt property well that that and this is the point I'm making that you know that ad classification also kicks in the Right to Farm Act which is you know protects existing Farms from nuisances essentially you know if they've been established for a year they can operate as a farm and you know farming is intensive it's not nice it's not it's it's it's not low impact um so that's one of the the the things about that you know that whole bundle of rights that goes with agricultural classification is hey we're here you know we're we're a commercial agricultural activity we can generate a lot of um impact a lot of dirt a lot of noise um and county you can't touch us well and I I agree they shouldn't I'm not going against the agriculture exemption what I'm saying is we're not we're in an agricultural zoning we're putting agricultural zoning has got more restrictions than a residential zoning does when it comes to setbacks and and unless it's exempt and if it's exempt the setbacks go out the window so it's an undue burden on the agriculture properties where it didn't used to be years ago and the agricultural zon you could do the same thing you could build a barn you could put it right on the close to the property line you didn't have this 8 40 foot setback you had to contend with if it's not agriculture exempt that's the point I'm trying to get that um I did want to and I don't want to belabor the point um you know you guys are the decision makers and that's perfectly fair but I do want to point out that the reasoning behind adding that language was not to require the tree preservation area it was to make it clear to everyone in that this is something that could apply and you need to be thinking about it at the time of submission so it's it's not trying to create regulations um because again that's already in chapter 50 it's more to make it very clear that this is something that could come into play okay wa so can you one more time repeat that please because it kind of contradict something I'm reading go ahead say that one more time for me so the any proposed tree preservation area um is already required in chapter 50 this section 72537 does not make any environmental rules okay so you're going back to chapter 50 that's already required there gotcha which coincides with statement number two on the first page where the Forester said that tree preservation areas must be shown on the proposed plan subdivision plan is that right correct and so that's you he's referring to chapter 50 correct I still don't agree with it but that's another day yeah um while we're talking about changes yeah I am not I'm not keen on this 10,000 square foot um I don't know how the rest of you feel but I think that um I would cut that in half to 5,000 uh which is a is a doable building it's plenty of building pad uh if you need it to be and it basically especially with some of these properties that are um it's going to be tough to find you know 10,000 uous you may have scattered about uh high pockets but uh I think 5,000 is doable in my opinion okay um and that's in 72 537 number 10 C so lot size saying is an area 10,000 equivalent to 100 by 100 correct mhm and so what you're saying is 5,000 5,000 in the which you can't build it's in the Uplands correct is that what you're saying well she says it's got to be xzone yeah you have to have x x amount of XOne property when she calls it the 100e flood plane so in layman's term it's exone property got it so if you've got you know 20 acres and all your X is one in one spot you are basically now cannot subdivide even though you can technically still build an AE you have to build up but you can still build an AE and we're not talking about 5,000 or 50 wi foot wide Lots or you know uh uh these are lots that are not 5,000 sare F feet these are 2 and a half acre lots so if any water just displacing you're displacing it on your own property we can ask Oran we're going get it absolutely 5,000 be for the 75 okay I'm Sorry Miss Craig your mic's not on thank you the restrictions that are in place though are there my mind to avoid future problems so if you're talking about subdividing and then and filling in to uh make the flooding issues for instance go away you know you're creating other you're creating additional problems other problems that the that that the regulation is in place to um alleviate to begin with we're not looking at we're not yeah we're not looking at small Lots we're looking at large Lots two and a half acre minimum minimum two and a half acres and you're not filling the entire 2 and a half acre the only thing that has to be filled in is actual the footprint or the pad for the house itself and since we're not doing um sub standard subdivisions where you have 55 50ft wide Lots you have a house next to each other and all those are being now elevated that's what's causing some of the water runoff issues in this particular case you're only filling in your the your pad size for your house let's say you build a 5,000 foot house so it's just a 5,000 ft out of 2 and a half acres is a dropping a bucket so you're displacing the water back onto your own property it's because you're looking at over 100,000 square foot minimum lot size you know that's a lot of this came into play this and then the subdivision rules and Miss mcfarling can correct me if I'm wrong is because of the densities of these Lots in W to make sure we're not flooding out because I do know in cases where they've filled in the Uplands or and so now the water has nowhere to go except on the adjoining property owner I see where you're coming from but in this case you're talking we're looking at a total different an here when it becomes a 2 and A2 acre lot compared to 50t wide by 60 or so lot and the some of these subdivision and we approve a lot of these things and this is you know if we got it wet sensitive area then we need to but in this case you got two and a half acres there over 100,000 square foot compared and he's and what he's asking for is to reduce it down to the 5,000 only have to have 5,000 right that's correct y'all so anyone else can get their input on this if they I mean yeah we're not the only ones you know okay okay does anyone have a problem on reducing it from 10,000 to 5,000 no okay can we we make that notation can we make that notation I was was just asking Kelly if there were any speaker cards if we need public participation can we make that notation on your proposal to 10,000 to 5000 5,000 absolutely if that's if that's what we don't have problem I think we've got no one has an issue with it and the the easement then the change in the easement that was the only other thing that I could see from proving into the the half changing from prove to has to have and legal easement that that allows it pretty much and the only reason it wouldn't allowed is if it had a restriction on the easement and that's the way we would view it like someone just gives me a copy of the easan and there's no restrictions good to go but if that easement is has a restriction or I don't know the easement was Court created or something then you know we've got concern here Mr Sor is further down the road that somebody comes up and says okay I need for you to the property owner that I give you that a or has that easement needs to give you permission and I don't want that to have to occur because I can promise you oh I don't want yeah that's I don't want that to occur either that's well that's why I say we could to to have has rather than to be able to prove okay yeah I'm fine with that okay okay other than that that's all I have there public speakers for this one do we have any public speakers okay okay okay uh we done on this that was only two things that I had ini isue and then Mr C had an issue on the square footage so can I ask a question that's kind of related but but not directly um you work for the county for how long approximately I've been here cumulatively for 18 years 18 years because I know the note in here says existing lot and outside of any Wetlands or Wetland buffers are you aware of any case in 18 years where we've approved a subdivision to be built on Wetland on a bonafied wetland not a flood plane bonafied Wetland um I think your question is have we ever created a lot that is a 100% Wetlands is that what the question is sure let's go with that um my understanding is that there is a provision in the comprehensive plan that um requires you to have certain number of square footage outside of the wetlands I believe it's 10,000 square feet look it sure um there's Wetlands don't provide a lot of density so you know Uplands and wetlands are calculated differently in terms of density you don't get a lot of yield from a wetland um we also have avoidance and minimization standards which says you know if someone wanted to develop today step one avoid the wetlands if you can't avoid the Wetland as in it's necessary usually you're building a road or some form of access then design the infrastructure so that you minimize the impacts um and then if you are building in a wetland uh you got to mitigate and compensate for all that water somehow correct um and that just spirals into a giant storm water Pond somewhere uh but you know I think environmental usually makes the comment hey this does not meet our avoidance and minimization standards don't design a lot that is completely in the way well in case in point uh two years ago or maybe three years ago we approved the uh the borrow pit off of 44 and they were putting in temporary access roads that were cutting through the wetlands and I remember that conversation went on for a good hour because there was no way to avoid it so what they did was they built a temporary pond in the event that when the when they were um when the pit was then uh abandoned or completed they would restore that section back to the original Wetland correct that would in the case so in general to answer my original question in general no you cannot build on Wetland as a as a generic term unless it's mitigated unless well guess it's mitigated it depends on the quality of the Wetland too you there's not um if you if you have like low isolated Wetlands that are less than a certain acreage um you know those aren't jurisdictional the Water Management District doesn't account for them and they don't require mitigation um for those types of those things potentially you know a lot could impact it right um but designing a modern subdivision in a wetland is something that I don't believe we've approved at corre least I haven't been here for very long now you do have old subdivisions that are literally built you know designed in a swamp somewhere um that's usually older subdivisions right we've also got um subdivision being put in the UPS which creates a problem overall but that's for another story oh that's for yes that that's for comment we're not going to get in I'm not going to hold you here for that yeah I to hold you okay all right so we're we've made the change we've made the recommendations and so can I get a motion to send this on to council with the changes have been requested it don't come back to us then just the changes are automatic the two changes we're looking at the two changes from 5,000 I mean they're saying they're going to do it so when will this go to council um probably the second meeting in November um the first meeting was cancelled it fell on on Election Day so we would be looking at the second meeting in November uh possibly the 1 in December because we're here we're here today is it is it a conflict for us to speak at that meeting no it's not um yeah it's just uh if just how you're speaking is really what I would advise you um if you would like to speak as a body I would recommend a a motion to designate um a few people to speak on behalf of the entire body otherwise you can come up um and you know speak on what you've stated your individual Provisions but you have don't don't have authority to speak for the body as a whole that's really the only thing um my three exceptions are the size 5,000 square feet contiguous the second one was proof of easement yes I could just show that you have was there a third one well the third one was the uh tree preservation but that my understanding is that reflects back to to 50 to 50 which we have no control over okay all right correct okay I don't want to see anything yeah all right yeah let's um let's see if let me give it this a whirl here so let me make a motion on case -4- 004 that we forward to the County Council uh with a recommendation of approval with the two changes that discussed one being the reduction of contiguous from 10,000 to 5,000 s ft and to the changing in the in the wording for um proof of easement I believe right can prove there are free and clear rights that abiz second okay I've got a motion on the floor to go ahead goad uh to for the ordinance 024 I mean 0244 to Count Council with the recommendations that we have foret in this discussion this morning I have a a question from M Mr Costa and a second from who second edth shell question yeah exactly question do we need a second for Miss Shell any discussion on the motion now go ahead Michelle thank you I just um just for clarification this discussion will be in their minutes correct not word for word but it will be there broader than just the two recommendations to give that background for and we can link this is being recorded so we can we can link to the uh the agenda item I'll set a Tim stamp for if you want to hear the discussion you know here's go ahead and then by doing this well are we saying because you you were talking about speaking on behalf of of the board or not so as we're doing this recommendation then therefore um our chairman and people that can speak for the board at the I would recommend a separate motion if you want to designate someone to speak on behalf of the board otherwise you can you can go to the County Council and speak individually and mention you're a member of the pdrc um here's my thoughts on it but technically you're not speaking on behalf of the entire board okay then I would recommend that after we do this we do we do bring that forward to have because I from my perspective than happy for um Mr Mills and Mr Costa especially the the big discussion going on here um to speak on behalf of the board that's my point okay so we got a motion on the floor and a second and um any discuss more discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay you want to address that now Mr cost wants to go speak no we need to make a motion Edith all yours go ahead well do I have a second just kidding Pat is waiting to do the second he's waiting for his turn nobody jump in here is it all right to name yeah both of you yes you're good with that okay um I'd like to to make a motion that uh chair Mills and uh pldd RC member Costa uh be allowed to speak on behalf of the board at the County council meeting okay I've got a motion on the floor for to allow myself and Mr Costa to speak at the U November County council meeting in regards to this the the ordinance uh we again should you put a date on that or not in case they change ordinance 024 d004 got you okay Mr cost Mr Mills to in ordered to speak on behalf of the board any discussion on the motion all those in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries unanimously okay I will say the way that that ordinance is presented Mr Soria I did notice that you know you took out we took out the uh access the road but then we put in further down in the comments why wasn't that back to back and and also I think it's a word formatting issue um when we remove that because because uh we'd rather have one section that just talks about the first thought it looks like okay we're not t not yeah it's this it's a duplicate there's the original ordinance had two sections where it talked about access so we remov the extraneous one and we just you know we clarified yeah you can get access off of a public road a private road or an easement um and you know that that is already constructed and the whole point is minimal infrastructure minimal investment go ahead and subdivide I mean that is the entire point and having two sections talking about access was confusing using so we just remove the extraneous one because it it almost looks when you're starting to read it why do they want to completely throw this out but then it falls back in for replacement further down the line right we can we can provide a clean shop probably should provide a clean version without the the kind of uh word lineups okay all right okay do we have any other public items no sir any staff items no sir any staff comments I apologize that the Cones were not out today we'll work harder with our facilities group to ensure that they will be next time I thought I was here the wrong day I was late and on the wrong day thought I was late yeah commission comments that was it I think we've made our comments pres citizen comments this meeting is a journ 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 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