Please stand by for realtime captions. >> [ testing ] >> Good morning. The November 15, 2018 hearing of the planning and land development relation commission will not come to order. I would like to ask my colleagues on the commission, members of staff at those in the public today if you would please silence yourself and so they do not interrupt the proceedings, we would greatly appreciate it. And also welcome you here today participating in your local government. If you would like to speak to an agenda item, and you haven't already done so, there are present reservation forms found in the rear chambers. We ask that you fill it out, tender it to my extreme left and we will make sure you are hurt during the case.

This -- we will make sure that you are heard during the case. This limits me as chairman to help to conduct the meeting, and when we can accept public participation or certain conversations. So as the meeting proceeds, after public participation has closed, respectfully request that you let as continue conducting the business and stay on the agenda to be respectful for everyone who comes behind on the agenda.

So with that, let's stand and recite 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. >> Thank you. Just another comment, County Counsel have made it a practice to use a three minute timer for public or to the patient. And this commission has allowed us to relax that rule , so to speak, or that practice, as long as we are hearing new and substantive information related to the case. At the point where we start hearing a lot of duplicate have information or unrelated information that doesn't apply to the case, we are going to have to resort back to the framework in a time or two to keep on schedule. So thank you for your understanding and cooperation on that.

Ms. Summers, good morning.

Good morning.

And I have the rollcall please ?

Mr. Acosta.

Mr. Young. Mr. Vandamme. Mr. Mills. Mr. Bender.

Mr. [ Indiscernible ].

I am here.

Thank you.

Now the agenda shows that our minutes are going to be continued for 30 days. Yes sir.

Do we need a motion for that Rex >> --?

Mr. Rodriguez, or can we just table that? >>

Probably need a motion to continue it.

I thought so.

Do I have a motion from the commissioner?

I will make a motion to continue the minutes to the next meeting.

And that's for both sets?

And that's for both sets.

I will second that.

Okay second motion, second to be continued December December 20 hearing. Any discussion of emotion?

Yes I would like to make a discussion. I did have some clarifications for the September minutes. If I would put those in so they could clarify before we receive the back. >> If you give them to me I will take care of it after the meeting.

Thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Hearing then, all in favor say I.

Any folks they know. Motion carries. The Mac and now we have legal comments, good morning again Mr. Rodriguez. >> Good morning. Decisions by this body of special section cases and cases which rezone real property from one classification to another pursuant to the zoning ordinance, our recommendations only to the County Counsel. I do not substitute a final hearing.

New evidence may be introduced at the County Counsel public hearing. Decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action. Subject to appeal to the County Counsel. What this means is that no new evidence to be presented at the time the County Counsel public hearing on the appeal.

And a great party that appeals the decision is confined to the record may before this body. Pairings by this body of rezoning, special exceptions variances are quite unusual in nature desperate nature. Meaning this body is acting more like a quarter must take into account all written, and oral or demonstrative cases

This must be based on confidence of substantial evidence in the record. Evidence records have been found as reasonable evidence to support a conclusion.

Thank you sir. While we are discussing legal issues, it has become our practice to expedite any conversations. That means any conversations at

this question has had a agenda items outside the meeting, we will start now and my extreme right.

I've had no community spirit

None.

None.

I've had none.

In reference to case the 180189, the conversation Mr. Littler, and also had a conversation with Mr. Woods and Mr. Josh what [ Indiscernible ].

Would you catch Mr. Bender on them Mike.

Thank you. >> -- On the mic on the microphone.

So we have a little bit of housekeeping to do. An item to be continued. I don't to be continued -- ordinance 2019 2014, proposed ordinance amending chapter 72 regarding conservation subdivisions.

And Mr. Ashley, staff request.

Yes Mr. Chairman, good morning commission. We are requesting a 30 day continuance. We are still keeping desperate so keep the ordinance up for the book from other outside groups. With some of the changes that were taking, looking to bring forward to you, so hopefully next month we should have that. So I would ask you to continue this release for another 30 days to the December meeting, thank you. Thank you Mr. Ashley and good morning to you too.

Commissioners.

I make a motion to continue ordinance 2018 14.

Until the next meeting of December 20.

I will second that.

We have a motion to second to continue into the December 20 agenda. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing then, all in favor say I. I'll post say no. Motion carries.

First case, CPA 18 Dash 009. Application of your Alexander would occur, owner, request a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment from the forestry resource future land use designation to the rural designation. >> Thank you spending.

Good morning Susan.

This is a small scale conference plan is the conference plan amendment. It is for a 3.4 acre -- this is to go from forest to resource to the

broader land use Texas nation. The spec dissipation. You can see the 3.48 acres is already designated as rural. The middle portion is environmental since quarter in the westernmost portion is designated for four Street resource at this time. The purpose of this amendment, this is there's a companion rezoning that goes along with that will be her directly after this case. This property has been purchased and the new owner would like to put one single-family home on it. In order to do so , they need have a zoning classification where they meet the minimum standards. >> At that, if you could put up a zoning map please. In order to do that, the zoning class of a two which requires a minimum of 5 acres and a minimum of 150 feet of that with on the road, would be most appropriate. They currently do not have 5 acres of a two, and therefore we are suggesting that they amend the portion of the lot which is currently zoned FRN conjunction with the F our future land use. Rezone that 282. In order to rezone that to a two, we have to do the future land use amendment. That this case please do.

A little bit of history about the property, this property is known as the current property, and if you could put up the ownership maps from the staff report on page 3 of 28, you can see in that picture that larger purple in the first picture on the top, the large purple was originally known as the curtain track. And since about 1979, they have been splitting it off and transferring it to various family members, and then they changed hands numerous times since then. And the current ownership pattern is what you see on the second picture below.

The parcel that we are talking about has that red arrow pointing to it. We recently did probably within the last six months a similar land use amendment for two parcels down a little bit further south from this parcel.

So in order to legitimize a lot, in order to allow one single-family home, and to allow the rezoning that will permit that home, we have to do this future land use amendment to FR.

We have reviewed the criteria. And find that it meets all the criteria. It is consistent with the conference a plan. It meets the urban sprawl criteria and is considered to be I'm minimus impact of the currency minimum public facilities.

So with that, staff would recommend that the board find the future land use amendment consistent with the plan and forwarded to the County Counsel with recommendation of approval. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you was just. Any questions for staff?

-- Thank you Mr. Jackson

Okay hearing then, [ Indiscernible ] and come forward.

-- Hearing none .

Good morning. Start with your name and I just leave. >> Your Alexander Whitaker.

Current address.

[ Indiscernible - low volume ]

The over the staff report, anything to add for the consideration before we make a motion

No. Are there any questions for the applicant?

All right, hearing none, I do not paper public participation forms . Are there any public who wish to speak in this case. Close the floor and open for discussion.

Don't all jump at once. >> I would just a question, if I could please. Page 6 of 28, second paragraph , or actually first full paragraph. There is talk and there the city of Dayton the beach comprehensive plan amendment which would trigger the one unit per acre threshold. If this is approved, there is no way to put limitations on that, correct? If this is approved at some point, they could potentially be allowed to put one unit per acre.

The rural future land use one allow that if the parcel is within I think it is 660 feet of other parcels that are less that 1 acre in size, that he could go to that density of flow. So in the event that that area develops as it may, this parcel may be allowed to develop, the role part of it may be able to develop a density greater than 1 to 5. However, it is very very unlikely, you can get to the rear portion of it . So that's kind of off the plate unless somebody wants to come in and build a road. And then the other aspect of it is each person would have to have 150 feet on a public road, and there's only one , you know this parcel is only 150 feet wide.

So unless they want to build a road along the side of it , and parcel it out that way, but I don't think that that is at all possible.

But your question, we don't condition future land [ Indiscernible ].

Okay thank you.

Any other questions or comments? >> Mr. Young.

I will make the recommendation verify the future land use amendment consistent with the conference a plan and forwarded to the application to the County Counsel. In the case number CPA 18009. With a recommendation or approval to transmit to the Department of economic development. And to the Volusia group management .

That's a motion, right?

That's a motion.

Okay Mr. Bender second the motion, any discussion. >> All in favor single by saying I.

All opposed, say no. Motion carries. And Ms. Jackson demo that brings us to the companion zoning case.

Next case. The 18 test -- Z-18-106.

Application your Alexander Whitaker , owner, requesting a rezoning from the forestry resource classification to the rural a two agriculture classification.

Is Jackson.

Keep it brief because he just for the whole story. Is 3.6 acres of the 10 acre parcel been rezoned from F our 282 -- F our -- FR to A2 . To meet zoning standards. Staff reviewed the criteria and found that it met all the criteria for approval of rezoning therefore recommend that this board forwarded to the County Counsel with the recordation of public approval.

Okay. Thank you Ms. Jackson.

Any questions for staff?

Mr. Whitaker, thank you for many of the podium. But introduce yourself again for the record.

Is your Alexander Whitaker. 405 Florida district [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

Anything to add to this? Any questions for the applicant

To have any member of the public that wishes to speak on the case?

Hearing then we will close the floor and open for commission.

-- Hearing none .

For the motion. >> Okay, I will make a motion that we approve Z-18-106 and submitted to the County Counsel. And to all the other -- and to the County Counsel for final recordation of approval.

Okay so we have a motion to recommend approval to the County Counsel. Do I have a second?

I will second the motion.

Motion second for approval, recommendation, I need second on the motion.

All those in favor single by saying I.

Any opposed, say no.

Ocean district motion prepared

Next motion V-18-094 -- application of K Barnard , owner, requesting a variance to separate nonconforming lots of urban single-family residential zone property.

Good morning Mr. chair and members. This is a variance to address to develop lots that are in the lagoon beach area. This is the beach near the county work in the famous Davie fish camp restaurant site. Is actually the former property of Mr. Boland. Who passed in the last couple years.

This is a purchase, one of the properties that he owned, but it is a nonconforming lots, and anything else adjacent of the nonperforming lot, both have homes on them. So the request today is to separate the two lots so they will act and function independently. Miss Bernard is interested in adding in addition to the subject property, you see on the screen, it shows that the two homes, as exists in the lots, they are located on the west side of turtle Mountain Road. The house on the left his house in question she's looking for northern addition. But because it requires go through building permit process, because the nonconforming lots, that is being held, in advance to all of this action can occur.

We have gone through the review, the criteria. And based on the five criteria that we find there are certainly special unique substances as a result district not as a result of the owner, and it would be a hardship if she would have to comply. Therefore staff would recommend she approved the subject case. We 1809 four.

-- V-18-094. I would be happy to address any questions at this time.

Thank you, any questions for staff

We will invite the applicant forward. >> Good morning.

Name and I just please.

Cake Bernard, 6750, 6750 Turtle Mountain Road. , new Smyrna Beach.

The Smyrna you heard the staff are with any deliberation on this. Thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

Any members of the public who wish to speak on this case?

Hearing then, -- hearing none, [ Indiscernible ].

I make a motion to approve various national approve variance V-18-094. With the conditions on this. So that's it. >> I will second that.

I have a motion to second for approval. Any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor single by saying I.

Opposed, say no. Motion carries.

Thank you.

Next case -- S-18-098 . Application of Al Allen, agent for Elmhurst flowers Rovers Inc., owner, requesting a step special exception for a recreational area on prime agriculture a one zone property.

Thank you, Miss Jackson. My apologies, it was written as Scott doing this one.

Sorry.

Yes. So this is a special exception for a recreational area in the A1 zone. The specific special exception is for a golf facility, a practice facility for the Stetson golf team. Or men's and women golf teams. Recreational area is allowed as a special exception use in the A1 zoning classification. And when we reviewed this particular request, we found that it met all the criteria. Basically they are limiting the number of golfers to approximately 25 and coaches. However they don't expect that all of those people would be out on the facility at the same time. It would very likely be maybe about four golfers and a coach as a normal use of the property. However they do want to reserve the right to do some special occasions out there. The staff condition is to limit that to one per quarter. And not to exceed the capacity of the parking lot. They are proposing to provide hard surface parking, a maximum of 16 parking spaces.

And they are proposing to meet all the buffer requirements, parking requirements, and they are proposing a couple of buildings on the site.

So this has been somewhat of a fluid situation with the property owners working with the applicants just recently, so I'm not going to go through my staff report in text because I know it's going to change the limit, the representative Mark Watts comes up to the podium. If you can see basically, what I would like to say though that when we analyze this, we felt that it all the criteria for the recreational use special exception, and that it met the criteria for special exception within the A1 zoning criteria. And we would recommend approval subject to staff recommended conditions. Now you have passed out some revised conditions that Mr. Watson has been working with the property owners on. So at this time I would like to turn it over to Mr. Watts to walk through those conditions with you.

Good morning. Good morning. Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, it is good to see this morning. For the record, Mark Watts, North Woodland Park.

The land. >> I would like to thank Susan for the staff report. As you've seen in the materials, the staff has reviewed the application, and found it to be consistent with the standards for the special exception we are requesting. I would like to -- Stetson University, I've got Jeff here with the [ Indiscernible ] met with your the building director and Steve Burns with us, [ Indiscernible ] and Associates who is also one of the plan is working with us on the site.

That being said, I would think staff for the review that they did you and the recommendation that you have got before you. Several weeks ago, Mr. all tear on behalf of of that's and hosted a neighborhood meeting. To listen to some of the comments that were coming from folks that lived in or around the facility. The proposed facility. Since the time we have actually been in conversation with Astrid Barry who represent a member of the property owners in the area. So we have been literally up until I think about five minutes after meeting started this morning, owing to some revisions to conditions to try to address some of the concerns that are outstanding.

So I want to walk through what was passed down to you I think that's got to redline to the staff conditions. We have actually got a couple things that we modified to that. So I want to just walk through that, and obviously there's some other folks I want to speak to this I think. Ask them to come up and if I could come back and kind of go through any of the questions.

Sound good?

So right now, staff's recommendation was to approve it with the site plan submitted August 29. On the staff, the revised version of the staff recommendations that I sent out to you, or that you are handed out, we made a couple of modifications. One is we are asking you to to condition the special exception on the use in general extent of the improvements on shown on that site plan. And the reason I put the general extent in which on there is we are still working on shifting things within the footprint. So for example, if you look at the site plan that is in your materials, okay, this is a modified version of the site plan that is in your materials. And what it does significantly is a concentrates more the practice area closer to the marsh Road area. There were some greens and other things that were for the back towards the wooded lot. On the version that's in your site plan. So we don't want to have any more intensity, but we want to be able to continue to tweak the design rather than type down to a specific plan.

Now staff has asked that we go ahead and commit to a plan, so I think this is the one that we are focused on at this point in time. So if we need to make some tweaks between now and this goes to counsel for final approval, we can work with the staff to make sure that that's all fully covered.

So that is the first thing under the condition one. The other thing is in the current site plan, which had about a 1600 ft.² Pavilion building and about 750 and about 750 ft.² maintenance building. Under the comp

plan for this area, you've got an F they are .1. So you are entitled to do up to 43,000 ft.² on 20 acres or 10 acres. >> Of building area. We are busy don't need that much. But we did ask in the modification, in the modified condition in front of you, to be able to do the things in aggregate up to 5000 ft.².

The intent is for this to feel and look at the house out of the area. Not to be something that is different with the character of the area. I think that is in keeping with that overall intent, to kind of stay within the 5000 ft.² or less.

The modified site plan that we should a few minute ago district showed it district showed a 20,000 district showed a 20,000 ft.². -- So this would be within that 5000 ft.².

If you look at the map of the original site plan. And reference in the modification of the number one. That we would add netting, and a substantial landscape buffer the area indicated with the red arrow. One of the things that we have talked about, even this morning, is what is a substantial landscape look like? The concern is that the neighbor that is off to the top right corner there, has a solid and cattle operation similar to make sure we don't have golf balls going across the property line. So what they asked us to do is put the most intense landscaping buffer in the code, which is a 30 foot landscaping buffer which is porting the property wrapping on the north with preservation of existing visitation on the northern lot.

So with regard to the landscape buffer, we're happy to agree to that standard. 30 feet, and by netting that is sufficient to make sure that the balls are not getting through the landscape buffer. That netting would be on the facility side of the buffer, so the buffer is facing the neighbors yard -- make sense?

Okay. In the course of our conversation, we didn't have any modifications to the second or third staff recommendations. Number four , I think we have gone back and forth on. What I would ask you to do, the version that I pass out to you, has the red text language in there about the only lighting of the site would be motion detector activated security lighting, and all fixtures would meet international dark sky standard. We want to make sure that those things stay in there. In speaking with Mr. Perry this morning, she has asked that we the site lighting plan. That's reviewed during final site plan as part of the condition and also that lighting fixtures should be limited to 20 feet in height and we can keep the religion there as well

So that would be the modification to what was passed out to you a few minutes ago with what she has requested there. >> And with regard to the only other change, I think we talked about on that condition was where it says the only site lighting permitted would be motion detector activated security lighting, it would be specified on the buildings.

So that it is clear. Again if back to my, Dominica that we are trying to make sure that the facility is very similar to the Houston area. You

have floodlights that are mounted on the corners of your house is for security. It would be to for what we are working towards.

Number five. The modification that I have there, I think this is one that we are still working on. There has been concern raised in particular by some of the folks that have some livestock in the area that sirens will cause issues with the livestock, the count desert the cattle and horses things of that nature. We don't want to cause an issue like that. At the same time, since it has on all the athletic facilities and to have lightning detection system to keep students safe, so it's a safety issue as well.

So what we have suggested with the revisions that we have the system deactivated at night. Turn on the system so it's deactivated night, and at all times during prolonged material -- prolonged periods for the facilities not used. Golf season is not all year long so there will be periods when this facility is used and periods when it's not used . So we would deactivate any system like that when it's not being used on a regular basis.

Now we have added in there that in addition to those standards, the speakers for the system will be directed away from the adjacent properties, back towards the facilities, so we are not getting across the open field. And that we would send it as a decibel level of 75 dB which is Jennifer rural agriculture levels which is tender with the county ordinances.

Mr. Perry pointed out this morning 60 dB in the residential standard, and more restrictive should apply, and we agree that that would be fine. To modify that tween 60 dB rather than 75 dB.

On the condition number six. We have two things going on here. One is that we have a facility that's used for meetings and things of that nature. The hours of operation that suggested, we have a all-day facility. The fact that we were not have lighting and things of that nature out on the driving range for the practice range or anything of that nature. The other thing that Mr. Perry assess this morning to include in here would be that golfing activities are limited to daylight areas. -- Daylight hours. So we would be happy to modify number six with an additional resection. So the facility would be there for team meetings and things of that nature. 79 during operational hours. But in the outside golfing activities would be daylight only. I think that's from practical standpoint. It's dark I 6:15 now. So you effectively would not be of use it without lights anyway.

We have been, the staff on condition number seven, requested that the two parcels that are part of this application be combined. One of the adjoining property owners in the course of our conversations has purchased about -- taking it portion of the property not being used improved in the site plan and actually transferring it to them, selling to them. In the interest of running out our property. So in conversation with them to do that I expect to finalize that and get a deal done to actually transfer the property to them. I think that 21.7 acres. We are talking about a .3 acres to be combined with property that has the

cattle and saw operation on it. So in the event that we finalize that, other than the two parcels be combined, the parcel would shift and go to [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

And then the last one, condition number eight. I think one of the, you know we talked a lot about and how this facility will look and feel within the neighborhood. And one of the things that Mr. all tear and Mr. Stetson is they really don't want this to look and feel like anything more than a house. So based on that, staff that already asked that it be restricted, so that the team is the only proof that other using it. So we added something which is to make sure that is very clear. Facilities available for use, it's not available for use by all Stetson students, but shall used by the Stetson golf team, members of the staff and related sports that. And then we did want to be able to have things like donors and people that support Stetson's golf team and invite them out there on a quarterly basis at Max. To have or see the facility and have like a barbecue or something of that nature. So we added the ability to do that. But again there were some requests from the neighbors we were setting this up in a similar to if you saw the boat facility on Lake [ Indiscernible ] I think there's some concern that would have events for you are writing other people in the things of that nature.

So we added language and here and send any special event outside normal golf team activities should limit to once per quarter. Many people who are not associated with the golf team provided such events are limited scope of a not to exceed [ Indiscernible ]. Do not involve rental , facility or mission fee. And specify that passing for this event would not be permitted second that parking lot size with 16 spaces would be kind of the controlling factor. They can think about 16 spaces, you're probably talking to me people. You that is consistent with have a barbecue at your house or something of that nature.

And then finally that it be gated to control access.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I apologize for having that many changes here in front of you this morning. But it's been a, I just got back two weeks ago and we kind of jumped right into having to address the concerns being raised and I think we will still continue and have some tweaks and I think that lightning detection system is one that we are still kind of working to make sure everybody is comfortable with that and how it would work and how we avoid the noise and things of that nature.

But in any event, with that, any questions you might have a will be had to answer.

-- I will be happy to answer.

I will refer to staff to get a recordation to get back to staff and I am assuming you still have more of a presentation about beyond just the modifications?

I would be happy to talk through the overview of the general facility. After staff's presentation, and get back to respond to any questions.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, any question for staff at this time?

If I have a question. This special exception, if we were to grant the special exception, would be specific to the Stetson golf team, what to special exception is granted, is it in the future become a private small club?

As long as the use is maintained as what is that we are proving ?

It is specifically for the Stetson golf team.

I understand what this before. But could be moved into a private practice in the future is what I am asking?

I would consider that to have to go through another special exception.

Okay.

I guess looks like it's ready jump in.

The special exception is basically going to run the land [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ] if somebody comes in and wants to expand the activities. Certain components that are not part of the special exception, yes, they will have to come in and submit for use [ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ]

But as long as they stay within the criteria of the special exception granted today, they could go on and it can be used as a private enterprise, is that correct?

Correct. It will be used as a recreational facility bound by the recommendation specification of that.

Thank you. Questions for staff. >> One of the criteria of the special exceptions is that it will only be used by Stetson golf team. Nobody can turn into anything else. Other than being invited by Stetson golf team.

That will be the only limiting criteria. Or any other type of music comes in will have to come back for this board to seek new conditions.

So if this gets passed, the way I understand it is they would not be able to be used by anybody else other than the Stetson call team unless district golf team.

And less will be heard.

If they're coming into amended . Yes.

Did used to have a question or to that answer?

Any other commissions that like any other questions for commission?

Ms. Jackson. I am just not clear on the applicants diagram on the back of the amended conditions. And I figured I would start with staff. The red arrow was referenced in talking about shielding. Or protecting cattle and the neighboring sought operations. With the information shared with us about the potential transfer of property. Does that plan include then the other, the new boundary line after the property transfers, or was that already included?

That's a good question. But the way I understand it is the enhanced buffer would go along here and here. I guess it's 30 feet, that's what's been determined with the netting, to go in this area right here. To shield this property from golf balls going that way.

And what they're talking about it doing is transferring this piece here over to this property. This would be connected, they would have to combine these portions of the property. And there would be a buffer required back here. To this property, new property boundary.

And is that covered in the amended conditions that were presented to us? Is there more tweaking still there?

We may need to tweak it a little bit to be very clear about that, but that's my understanding talking with Mark Watts this morning .

Okay I will follow up with that but I want to start with staff.

You so much. Any other Westerns?

Okay, Mr. Watts.

Okay. Take you Mr. Chairman. Again for the record, Watts with [ Indiscernible ] University. Your we talked quite a bit about the intent of the facility. So you see the layout that's in the site plan as part of this. You see the modified layout that I think you know that probably improves on that a little bit. The general idea with this type of a facility is for the team to have their own private driving range, chipping range, place where they can go and practice their skills. So this is something that is kind of a trend in college athletics where you have these types of facilities. One of the key reasons why this piece, this particular property was chosen was number one, East to get to it for the University but also they were looking for property that was already cleared. They don't have to go in and take additional trees and do a whole lot of site work and clearing to be able to create the facility.

So again I think the overall intent and my conversations with Mr. Alteer and the rest of the staff at Stetson is their goal is to operate this in a way that's very innocuous from the neighborhood can find it doesn't read any burdens on the surrounding property. It's very much in keeping with the look of the area. I think there could be some

additional conditions that we work with with Mr. Perry and her clients on. And we still may have some tweaks there. But we have had a very good dialogue. I want to make her and her clients for their role to engage in that.

I did want to mention one other thing, I think this is something you guys may have seen before. When we were talking with staff this morning kind of going through the course of the discussion, it was suggested that the facility at Lake [ Indiscernible ] one of the things that you added the requirement to check in in about a year to make sure the conditions were doing what they intended to do, and making sure that we weren't having any issues from an operational standpoint. We would be happy to add that as another condition as well

Come back and just kind of make sure that there has not been any issues within the neighborhood or any of the concerns what we're trying to address.

So I would be happy to add that as a condition. And I think it was two years, if I remember correctly. On the lake.

So with that, happy to answer any questions you might have. We again have our designer here. Mr. Alteer. Oh Matt left. So happy to answer any questions you might have. And if I can, come back up and address any comments that might need to be addressed after Mr. Perry and speakers.

Any questions for the applicant? >> Ms. Vandamme.

Mr. Watts, if you would, number seven. Defining the parcels. And I know nothing is finalized, you are in discussions now. But is the intent to leave a portion of that parcel, which is under discussion, with the other parcel as a buffer? >> Yes. And so one of the things from a design standpoint, you're looking at the facilities, there's a PTA standard for how long an area you provide for your driving range effectively. And the standard is 320 to 330 yards , to allow both the drive and that kind of the rollout after that. So in order to get that distance, we take about 152 160 or so feet to 150 160 or so feet. So that would include some wooded area there at the end and then wrapping around with a common boundary is with the cattle operation. So we have much more substantial, we have a tense district a 10 foot boundary. And we had a substantial wooded area on the north end. Northeast end. And then down on the common country with the cattle operation.

If you look on the site plan, just to the left of the arrow, there's actually a fence there. That is the property line where the further he kind of jogs. It has that little dog out on it. That's approximately the location of the boundary between the [ Indiscernible ]

property in the cattle operation. So the 30 foot buffer would be up in a corner and around -- does that make sense? I don't -- do I have that on here?

So here's that common boundary. Comes the expert.

Yep.

So right about here is that boundary. So here is going to be area that we would be coming up in with the enhanced buffer. Making sure we've got all the screening in there. And the netting on the inside of that so we want to have balls going over that property.

So it would be portion that is the longest that would remain with the other parcel.

We will have to do but line adjustments. So we would take a portion of the property into the parcel for the facility. And the other portion of the property within the join with the property over here.

Got it.

All right thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you sir.

If I could just reserve [ Indiscernible ] >> Let's start with Asher to Perry. >> Good morning everyone. My name is Astrid D Perry. I am here today on behalf of some of the marsh neighbors. So we have been working on this for a while. About a month. Is when we had our meeting and learned about the plans and got notice of what was going on. In the beginning the neighbors were not very favorable to this facility whatsoever. We have been working with Stetson since then, and we are close to having some reasonable grounds for agreement. I would like to pause out two quick points of the question was asked about whether they could tell this facility to anybody else , and there is clarification. Know that the limiting condition is that it can be used by Stetson golf team members. Coaches and related.

That is rather important to the neighborhood. Because one of the things that we have discussed all along is that Stetson wants to be a good neighbor. But who knows what the next person might want to be. So our conditional, we can maybe live with his is based completely and solely on the fact that this would be owned and operated by Stetson University, not by any other entity.

I would like to also has a moment on the landscape buffer. So on this particular aerial drawing , it looks like there is trees. Along the southern, if I've got my directions straight, where the red arrow is pointing. You would think based on this aerial that there are trees there. In fact there are no trees there. That is completely untreated.

So one of the things we have not recently settled on is exactly what landscape buffer our goal is to prevent any all falls from going anywhere near the triangular areas adjacent, because that's where one of my clients has called and paste the property. -- And hays the property. And anyone who knows Kells, -- who knows Cowles. They will eat anything. -- Cows Will eat anything. And we want to make sure that there is this like I want a massive landscape buffer. I want to make sure that not a single golf ball wanders into his property so that he doesn't have to spoil his hey or have his animals die.

-- Spoils his hay .

So the story and that drawing -- cattle I do that? -- How do I do that? >> They are not looking at that, so how do I make them look at that? Because I wanted to see that.

So you want to show that this area in here is not

So this area here, this area here needs to have a 30 foot landscape buffer. Because from here the trajectory of the golf balls is going to be heading towards my clients property. They want a substantial landscape buffer in this area to make sure that nothing goes on his property. And this is where the hang and the -- the hay and the cows are.

This is mentioned by Mr. Watts. We're looking have again a 30 foot landscape offer and the landscape ordinance, you have to maintain natural trees there. So terribly what it. We would like it to stay heavily wooded. And we -- that's the golf course of his property. I am very pleased to work with Stetson on this and reach some digital agreement on most of the points that we have been discussing and finessing. We are not completely there yet. One of the main concerns at this point is the lightning detection system. This is not something that you find in it agriculture area typically. And I don't do golf, I don't do horses either, but I am told that loud noises will scare horses, and you will hear from people who do horses, and we are concerned about that.

Within the counties, part me, noise ordinance, it allows for warning devices as exception to the sound limits, but then there's another section that says sounding of any signal, device or any necessary or reasonable the unreasonable piece district. Of time is under district not permitted. Because of just because there's an emergency warning system doesn't mean that you could use it. Now you are saying that we can program at the so that it's not on it night. That's good. From what I understood, Stetson told us of the public meetings that they only golf like 26 weeks a year. And so they are saying they can program this. Our question is, can't you just have a switch so that when the team comes, if there will be a gated entry so somebody needs to come and open the facility, can't they turn on the switch just like you turn on and off an alarm system. Can you turn on and off a lightning detection system? Does it have to be audible ? Can adjust the lights? Can be flashing lights that say hey, there's lightning coming? Can it be some other system? So this came up and we have been talking about it and haven't

come to an agreement. So I cannot represent to you that we are good with what they said.

We are absolutely good with if it has to be on, if it must be audible, then it should not be any louder then 60 dB. That's what the ordinance requires. But we submit that we don't need to have this thing running all year long. We don't need to have running every day of the week. If the team is not there practicing, we don't need it.

The neighbors don't need to know that there's lightning coming. They have their own way of figuring that out.

So in conclusion, we are very pleased to work with Stetson , trying to be good neighbor with Stetson. To try to work this out. They didn't want. The didn't like it. We didn't want a driving range in the middle of the neighborhood. But with certain protections, we might be able to live with it. There are still concerns about golf balls ending up in the forest and cow in the hay. And making it unnecessary noise with a lightning detection system . It is a completely rural area. It's agriculture. That's what people do there is to farm. It's intended for growing vegetation, not golf driving ranges.

Take you very much. Any questions for Ms. D Perry. >> Thank you.

I have a request from Josh Auster. -- Foster.

I would just like to remind everybody that we keep the comments to new information and try to avoid repeating what's already been said, it would be greatly appreciated.

So Josh Foster, I am the hay farmer on the south side of this property.

You are just.

4245 property.

You are just.

4245 Marsh Road.

And Astrid explained very well. We are continued to keep the lights down in the golf balls on the property. And that would make the neighborhood a lot happier. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] so we are working with them and trying to [ Indiscernible ] the neighbors.

Any response?

Thank you.

Jeffrey Rickles. >> I was looking for my councilman, but he's not here. Patterson.

I guess that's in the works right now. So I was hoping Ronnie could represent me. My name is Jeffrey Rickles. And I am the landowner . It would be to the northwest corner of that property.

My address 43 4326 4326 Marsh Road. 4326 Marsh Road.

And my wife and I are opposed to this because of the noise and I think the attorney Watts pretty much helped our case , because he had to spend so much time explaining the restrictions. So anybody has to spend that much time explaining how this would work in it agriculture environment, I think obviously it needs to go somewhere else. And also I have seven horses , and they run around with things happen. They get excited. And so this is the reason why they want to put the property there is because it's already cleared, obviously because it's farmland. That's what you do with farmland, is clear it. And so I think Stetson are to be the one that clears the land for their golfing range and set of farmers. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Rickles?

Thank you.

Deborah Bennett. >> Good morning. Deborah Bennett, 1768 ¢ trail. I am direction challenged but I think I'm west of there. My big concern was the lightning system. It sounds kind of okay. But my other concern is traffic. Being a college student many many years ago, college students don't either look or adhere to the speed limits. And the sports complex which is further down, I have gone how many nights where when they have a game or whatever, the traffic is just incredible. And the speed is incredible also. So my biggest concern I think is the traffic. Because it is very rural out there.

Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Bennett?

Okay thank you.

Leslie Stevenson. >> And she will be followed by Paula Hauser and if you want to come up and get the front row ready to go, we would appreciate it.

Good morning.

My name is Leslie Stevenson. I live it for 3 to 5 March -- marsh band which is just to the north east of the property. And we're trying to work with session in regard to this. I think they don't have an appreciation of exactly what a rural active agricultural area is. Almost all of the people in this area that have property and most of it is over 10 acres. They have livestock. Or they have some sort of agricultural pursuit. And they chose this particular area for that reason. We did not want to be near urban development. We don't want urban development in our neighborhood. We're trying to work with them so there's

accommodations on both sides. As someone who has been involved with horses for over 50 years, and has horses as do most of the people on my road which is marsh band, horses are flight animals. They don't stand their ground. They run. And my husband is a large animal vegetarian, works primarily on horses. And in the 20 years that we have been in business, we have had uncountable numbers having to attend horses who have run defenses. So running into each other. And or being cut up in fences because of the loud noise.

And the comparison of this particular noise to say a lawnmower, is understandable, but a lawnmower said something horses generally run from.

A loud sharp piercing siren is something that horses run from. I don't want my horses to run through fences. I don't want them injured. I don't think anybody else in this area wants to see this happen. So at this point, that is our main focus.

We have eight some drive, can somebody help us?

Oh, thank you. >> [ Pause ] >> [ Indiscernible - Static on the line ] that is the lightning alert system on a golf course. I don't want that -- as I am separated by the subject property by a hayfield. My property starts at the top of marsh band, and there's no trees. Between me and this property. So whatever, however they point the sirens, it's going to be audible to the whole neighborhood.

I mean I have friends who live on the land where Stetson has is on the playing field. They are 4 miles away and they hear these to the house. So my animals and everybody else's animals are going to hear this.

Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Stephenson?

Leslie, I have one. I'm sorry. I want to get my colleagues eight just to go first. When you downloaded the file, is there any chance that there is a decibel level that described what you were desperate [ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ]

I Google that excepting and all he came up with -- [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

Thank you very much. >> And Paula Hauser meant. >> Good morning. I am Paula Bauserman. I live at 40 to 65 Bauserman. I live at 40 to 65 Marsh Road. Bauserman. I live at 40 to 65 Marsh Road. We are the owners of the 20 acres that were selling, and we lived next door, that's our house next door. Also our business. So we live right next to the property. That is being sold. And there's a rumor going around that we were possibly selling our business. Which we are not. And I just wanted to state that.

Okay, any questions for Ms. Houseman ?

Thank you for being here today. >> Yes, thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak to this case?

Thank you Mr. Chairman. As I said on the outside, the lightning detection system is an issue that we're still trying to work out. There are just a couple of thoughts on that. With regard to the decibel level, some of the research I did on lightning detection systems did have communication with the average decimal was, I think it was in the 100 hundred 20 decimal range. For that alert. -- 120 dB age.

So the sooner that we are suggesting is 60, so that's about half of what that typical decibel level would be. That being said, one of the things that Mr. Alteer and I have been talking about is the idea of flashlights or visual system and the key to the extent that point , making sure that the people they are using the facilities on-site. So if there's a way to do that, we are happy to explore during a visual system. If you think about the tee box and you have people out there getting or on a putting green, if you have a flashlight or something like that. We are more than happy to continue with the standard that doesn't have that audible alert. That has some other type of alert that would again as long as it's a learning our participants . In the athletes out there.

I think we can more confident that we can come up with the right solution there, but we don't want to harm any of the livestock or cause any concern for the neighbors. And I would say just personal experience, my front porch which I spent a lot of time sitting on, is on the corner of Garfield and Rich, I am two blocks from the football field, with little lacrosse facilities and we have some alerts there. I think I have heard them once. So I understand the concern about it. I am confident and Jeff is confident that we can get a solution and the results of concerns that are out there with the neighbor. With regard to that.

The other point, I think it goes back to Mr. Rodriguez advise you as far as with regards to the special exception, I think in the condition number eight, with the other different restrictions that we have in there about who's able to use it, and making it specific to the Stetson golf team, it avoids that concern about is this something that you can sell and have a different operator. And I appreciate Astrid's comment that we may be trying to be nice neighbors with Stetson, but if the property changed hands, it is with the next operation would be like.

I would suggest that in that same paragraph eight you can't limit the special use exception to while Stetson owns a property. So if it inspires or if Stetson were to sell the property or transfer it.

That way you have every assurance that if it goes out of Stetson's ownership, there's no continuing right to operate it [ Indiscernible ]

And I after that, we stipulate that if you think that's an appropriate condition. >> One of the things that has been referenced is that this is a agricultural area that is absolutely true. But in the A1 zoning, we do provide throughout the county for recreational opportunities. Part of it is because you do need land when you're doing something this. You do need the 10 or 20 acre parcels. So the zoning code recognizes that this is also an appropriate place for recreational type used

Provided to meet the conditions.

The staff has reviewed it and can't include that we do. I think we have added some additional assurances to try to ameliorate some of concerns referred. As we have been in discussion over the past few months. With the surrounding property owners. So I think based on all that, we would ask that you recommend approval . Subject to the modify conditions that we talked about this morning.

Happy to answer any other questions you might have.

Thank you sir, any questions for Mr. Watt? Mr. Young.

Yes. I have one question. That is I'm familiar with one of your alarms because we have shoot the sheriffs shooting range and they have one. Do you know the decibel level of that? And also that one goes off and hurts my ears a little bit , and lasts for almost 3 minutes. That alarm. How long will yours go off for and you know the decibel level, because that is loud .

I don't know the specific decibel level on the system here. I do some research and looked at what decibel levels are typically for lightning detection systems in the research that I found dedicated between 101 turn to 120 dB. So the standard that the county noise ordinance limits noise in a residential system to 60 dB. So what we have here is that would be the maximum that we basically reduce the standard in half. I think what we will be able to come up with some other approach whether it's a visual system or something of that nature. But if there's no alert him it's an audible alert.

At the very least we would make it half of what the --

Is district as a ring for long. Of time because there's

It never ends.

Experience with it is a typically go off for a couple of minutes to get attention of the golfers and things of that nature.

Thank you.

Mr. Watts.

One of the things about the decibels , you must agree that it has to be loud enough to be effective, is that correct?

It does. And the thing that I think helps us here is , back to my [ Indiscernible ] here. This is the area here where this is taking place. So one of the things that I think it gives us the ability to do is we don't need have speakers throughout the property. If you are doing it with speaker system. You can literally if you think about the fact you've got a putting green. You have a tee box that people will be hitting from. You can have speakers just in those areas that are aimed at where the participants are standing. So you don't have to have something that is blaring out over the entire site. Nothing that's very focused in the area where the people are for the activity.

So I think again is a worst-case scenario and we have to stay with the audio desperate audible system. But we are more than happy to work with Astrid and her clients to [ Indiscernible ] that's a possibility.

Okay the second question is the, you placing your fencing and your buffer there in the trajectory of the golf balls at the end of the range. What you do in the occasional machine go? >> While they probably need more practice if they are singing national and that's why they are out there.

The point of it is, I know the intention is not to have golf balls in a pastor or hayfield, -- and you have to understand being in the type of situation it is, is very detrimental for golf balls to be in a pasture, so maybe horses are cows or maybe the hayfield because they can be put up in the hay, not noticeable and be brought somewhere else.

And I was actually one of the comments that when we first started the conversation with Astrid and her clients, that was one of the point that was raised. To have it roll up in the bales and it will create problems for the customers if you are delivering hey with all positive. So the place we have adjacent to this proposed facility, the only place where we have that livestock and pay use is in that corner. So that's why we specifies to do the maximum landscaping. And we can work to have whatever materials are in this and make sure nothing will go through.

-- The hay fields.

And on top of that have knitting. And if you look at how the distance in here on the site plan . So the distance coming out here. And to where the end of the ranges. That is 330 yards. And so if you think about golfers , whoever plays golf, with the golf ball, he goes out for a while. It's rising and then it kind of comes back down. The point you are here, where we need to make sure that the balls are not getting through, is the point where balls are coming down, number one. So it will be more to ground level. You are not going to have something traveling to the air as sufficient distance to get into this area.

It's going to get knocked down by landscaping and the netting will be provided there.

That's specifically why we were talking about putting that in that place to make sure that nothing is getting through.

And I think that based on everything that Stetson has been willing to do this point in time, if there's a problem, we will work with them to fix it. But we don't want there to be harm to livestock. We don't want there to be on to the hay operation. If we can fully screen it.

I did talk to Eric Engstrom as well, a extremity attorney right there. I want to make sure that they did have any concern about it. Eric invited us to hit just the good balls over to his area because he would like to get as many free balls as he can.

Fishing balls.

-- Fishing balls.

-- The Shing balls .

They will test back Mr. Foster is doing that and I'm not sure if he wants to do that anymore because of the balls in this particular field, unless they do something along that area. Apparently they are not concerned about that, but I did want to point out that I think somebody said what about a shank ball

I think that's what goes left or doesn't know the way you want to go. If you end up with golf balls here, we haven't address that.

Hopefully we will address it in this area and that will be adequately [ Indiscernible ].

Stetson's plan is to be a good neighbor.

Okay, Mr. Acosta.

Yes, quick question mark. When, how far is it to hit a ball straight 320 V, that's world-class. That's what the spec [ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ]

So to hit one in error at an angle, which is I doubt it's even possible. So how far is it to that area , that little triangle area, there.

I don't know , I would venture to say 200 yards. I would say probably closer to 250 at a minimum.

Again, as a golfer, unfortunately I'm learning that this is a bad habit to hit golf balls in the pasture because I have grown up doing it. [ Laughter ]

But to hit the ball in the air that far, that's impossible.

I think the risk is slight, but I want to add the buffering that would minimize it as close as we can to zero.

I think that's a good idea. No one wants to cause the livestock any harm.

The other thing I would ask you is the spec I had the, when you're looking at decimal levels, I just had the recent joy of doing a sixth grade science fair project with my son, and we were studying decibel levels. And so I had an apple my phone and I was just sitting here recording. Conversations that are happening here. And Jay, you hit 79 dB with your voice when you are talking to Mark. Just to let you know.

I'm a big guy.

You exceeded the agricultural noise levels, and Mark, you did once. So that's just giving example of that 70 dB level.

That's a hard converse know. Because you're not only looking at decimal levels, I am an engineer, my background, the dB levels are part of the factor, but you also look at the frequency. For instance my dog last night unfortunately the fire alarm went off because batteries are running dead, and he was in my bed immediately and yet I didn't hear it. Because he heard the screeching sound. So you got the frequency as well as the decibel level. To consider.

That's why I ask about the sheriffs gun range, because it's piercing .

And it's supposed to be.

Now the noise that was played a few minutes ago, I'm not sure what the dB was, to me it sounds almost like a sawmill. I think that's a frequency issue. You get that kind of wine going. Again, we are confident we can come up with a strategy and we can work on that [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

Not to get out of the subject, but a good suggestion, I have heard this done before. Is you ever went to a restaurant and they say wait in line and they give you that little box and it keeps? When it rains, they actually give people a box for calling in as well as an alarm, so you may want to consider a device like that.

That's an alternative that we will certainly explore.

Going back to the netting. What is the height on that? Because if you go down highways, they put driving ranges on highways now and things like that, and the netting is sufficient to keep it from going over outside the intended area. But you have any idea what the height is on this?

I think because of the location, you're looking at here, this is just speculation on my part at this point, I would say you looking at maybe 10 feet. Maximum height there. Was it you see like a top golfer

something that, we're actually have this conversation, the entire facility is surrounded by and at the looks like it's held up by cell phone towers. You know you've got 70 foot, a for towers that kind of go around the facility. That is at a location where you are hitting every ball and it could go right or left or whatever and you don't have sufficient room because of those types of facilities to have kind of that margin of error, if you will.

Here the area that we are really kind of making sure that we are focused on protecting and buffering the right way, [ Indiscernible ] if you will to keep also going in there, is in that area from a 250 until 300 yards away from where you will be hitting the ball.

And so because you think there you are on the downward trajectory. You know, you don't have to have that full height. To be able to kind of block that area.

Again, we talked about trying to make sure we have an appropriate standard. For that netting. And we are far more than willing to work with neighbors to make sure that our goal is to make sure they don't have any of the balls going to the property where the livestock and the sod operation would be.

I play golf two and I would like to have my balls hit that straight.

Just being at a 10 foot -- that's not really that high. Especially at 200 yards. Possibly clear it. So I would like to see a little more light on that netting .

Sure.

And I think we're happy to specify on the netting that whatever I seem to be appropriate to ensure that the balls are not going into the air.

That's Michael's make sure that they don't have the balls in the area.

And I think we can probably come up with a [ Indiscernible ] with the trajectory with would be.

And just to go back to one thing , with the said earlier about there were a clause that Stetson decided they won't use that facility, is it possible to do something like that legally and do away with this?

I would actually be more comfortable with an expiration to special exception that the title is to change hands than to have a hard fast restriction. Which may percent problems and could be , not concluding, but it could be deemed unreasonable restriction on the inundation of the property. However I think a expiration will enable, should be a better result. So it's tied to the title to the title holder for the use. And then they can sell the property. And it will be a hard fast restriction on the new owner. The new owner could then come in and undergo the same exact process and the neighbors will have the same exact opportunity to come in and

challenge and express her concerns. So I would be more comfortable with an expiration date on the special exception title of this property.

And I think that's consistent with what we are willing to regulate. To have a transfer title to sell the property or transfer the title out, the special exception will terminate. And they would have to start all over.

And then just for neighbors take, I know there was some concern about noise and traffic and things like that. Golf is a pretty well established of individuals and especially if you're out of the range and some is addressing the ball, there is no talk. I mean if I'm sitting on agreeing with you or the team that with you, I'm not allowed to talk to the other golfers standing here. Because I don't want to take the attention away from that guy or the end lady that's addressing the balls. I don't think the noise is going to be a factor. Outside of the possibilities of that warning system going off.

Going to the warning system if fire alarms go off, they have a flashing light. So maybe they could deactivate the noise because everybody's in the confined area right there on the driver district driving range. In a time 70 would be downrange -- somebody would be downrange would be maybe maintenance or cutting the grass of the soundtrack. Nobody will be out there anyway with people desperate but people addressing golf balls. So just have the flashing light system that will probably be sufficient.

We agree.

As long as we can address safety of the function of the property were happy to get some type of system like that.

Think you for your patience. Mr. Watts, my apologies. I was trying to keep track of who lives where with folks are speaking. We have been talking about the lower portion going off to the right here. The portion going the opposite direction . What is going on there and what is the buffering that's there. Is there concern from those property owners from horses and hay or is it only the bottom corner?

Mrs. [ Indiscernible ] was one of the last people to speak, Stetson is under contract with them to buy this property. So they are the sellers that are located on the property here. Are the ones that are selling the property it's on the property Stetson.

And so for me use SharePoint -- standpoint, I think what Astrid's standpoint was his foster, the one in the bottom right-hand corner, does harvest hay on the property. In the continued district

[ Indiscernible - low volume ]

So there are no horses and so on on that property?

Know, all right. Thank you.

It's a nursery operation if I remember correctly.

[ Indiscernible - low volume ]

I will need you to get the testimony in the microphone.

I think the testimony that the announcements home they have a nursery operation so it's a nursery. >> Any other commissioners questions for the applicant? >> Okay, I appreciate the number of time you have given us his morning. I apologize that we are sort of working on things on the fly but we're trying to make sure that we get the right set of conditions and to make sure that we are addressing the concerns. To thank you for the time.

So now it's up to us. >> Who wants to start the conversation?

I will start the conversation. I feel that the joining property owners are feeling that they have to get what concessions they have because they don't choice of whether he goes there or not. I know this area very well, it's very highly agricultural, and it's primarily the fields and there are a lot of horse farms out there.

-- hayfields .

And intent is not to hurt the neighbors. You have to consider the area it's going into in the concession is made. And you being that if it's just different race or forestry or something like that I can possibly support it. And I'm not take I can support it, but in the event goes further, the Honorable. lightning detector, I think would be totally because in order for it to be effective , it has to be loud enough for them to hear. So I can only provide a visual lightning detection, and the netting as Mr. Bender spoke of, I know that at the end of the range, probably wouldn't get high enough to get over the 10 foot fence, but somewhere in the vicinity get the projector he off the spec the trajectory off. When you shake a ball, when you go high enough to go over that barrier, a 10 foot barrier and it would project out to the 200 yard range. So in saying that, I find it , I just find it hard to support the special exception at this time. Unless somebody else could convince me otherwise. >> [ Clapping ]. Now that I think about it I have a question for the course lovers out there. Is flashing lights bother the horses? I mean last time I was in a farm was when I was 17 years old when I moved out from my parents. Does flashing lights disturb horses?

Or animals . Cows or what have you. Since we have been talking about sound, I'm just curious.

It depends usually on the individual animal. Individual animals react differently to different races and different sites. I mean a horse, don't let me get too far but courses [ Indiscernible ] [ Audio cutting out ] you can walk by something 20 times were when I was looking at it.

I should become a horse.

And turn around and they startle. And it's a two -- I have horses myself, I have walked them by the same thing hundred times . I will walk them by and it will be moved or it will be sideways and all of a sudden they are backing up [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

So it depends.

So I was listening to the monitor. I feel like you have to district they still have to get an account to counsel for final action. I feel like you are making progress towards solutions. I think a couple more weeks at it and it will be going in front of counsel. With the solutions at hand. And that the neighbors looking for. But they can get their -- we need to forward it with the recommendation of approval hoping that they will work it out, and if not the Council gets final action.

In other words is going to action -- to counsel with or without the approval.

Other comments or discussion points? >> I was going to make another suggestion and looking at all this, maybe we should also consider a check back at one year if we go on with this. To at least that would give us an option or give an option to review this at one year. So that's something I think maybe we can put in there. Is a nine or 10 [ Indiscernible ]

I would like to address --

Hang on.

We are close with participations of a commissioner has direct Weston. But at this point we are the ones running the conversation now unfortunately. Thank you.

[ Indiscernible - low volume ]

Anybody else?

Getting back to Steve's question or comment. I think the concessions are being made because they feel like they have to get whatever they can . Because it's going there regardless. That's the reason for concession. They have already made a point that they don't want there. And one of the other things that I take in, if we see this more than not, or we take our agricultural communities, and we limit, they tend to be going away. As the lady stated, if this goes into play, then that hayfield is going to go away. So we are depleting our agricultural uses in the agricultural communities. So this, I just don't take the shoe fits in this area. How does that fit in an agricultural area? There's a lot of places it would. But for this specific area here, I just don't believe it fits in the area.

Mr. Bender, looks like you have your finger on the button. >> I am an old ad guy. Future farmers of America -- [ Indiscernible ] to high school in 79. So I am very familiar with this area. But going to the lights, the questions about whether the lights that Mr. Young asked whether it would spook an animal. If they are going to properly offer that with trees or shrubs or whatever they do, then that's going to deflect that and should be an issue for speaking animals. If they go and put up a fence, or netting that is appropriate, to catch the ball, at 200 yards, that's been shanked, to eliminate that ball going into the field. I don't think a 10 foot fence is the appropriate height. This study maybe needed to look into that to see what the appropriate height that would kill that opportunity. >> It's limited in scope. I don't think that I mean 16 cars, I just don't think it's going to affect the neighborhood and that they will notice it. That's to be a problem. It's certainly not to be anything that is close to a [ Indiscernible ] field is generating the speed or the amount of cars. And for the use that it will do. So I am kind of like on the fence, but I am thinking that the process go forward, and they continue to work towards something that all parties can live with. And let the County Counsel make the final decision. >> Anybody on the side?

Misspent them.

Yes this is tough. We all bring our personal experiences to these, and I am a horse owner that lives in an act of cultural area. I have been on a horse that is spoofed due to noise. So I am having a big problem with the possibility of this loudspeaker system.

And I don't think I can support this as long as that is in play. That is one concern. The second concern is what Mr. Mills brought up, and that is the property going, if you want to call it up on the map here, understanding the current property owners don't have an issue with this. My concern is we are putting something here that a future agricultural buyer probably is going to be okay with. So my thoughts are running in line with what Mr. Mills is and under these current conditions, I don't think I can support this.

[ Clapping ]

Anybody else?

Let's be honest. It's agricultural area. When you really look at part about horses. Horses are just as much a recreational use of agricultural. Nobody is using horses to plow the fields anywhere. It is true already. We're going to arenas. You can do all those uses that are probably more intrusive to horse riding arena. It's probably more intrusive to a cough range. So this is coming in as a recreational use. That is allowed, is supported by staff, in this agricultural area because it's recreational use. It's not about, we are not losing AgLearn. If something goes away, for some reason, it can always be converted back to ag. Monopoly houses on it. That's losing agricultural property, when somebody builds a house on something, this is actually a placeholder on the property, you can always be reused for agricultural

at a later time. We are not changing that. But very nonintrusive. I do think it keeps open space, it's green. .

I think we've been around the table. Any motions?

This type of agricultural use can be done with other arsenal uses but you can't raise a horse without being in agriculture use. >>. Sure you can if the zoning allows it.

Zoning allows raising a horse [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - muffled speaker/audio ]

Depending on the jurisdiction.

Anybody want to venture with emotion.

How much latitude do I have here Mr. Rodriguez ?

I was trying to address one comment.

Unless the Council asked for it and I think that would be [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

Right now it's close. We are at commissions discussions over the matter unless the commission desires to entertain an additional comment or to question the applicant . At this point -- it's your discretion.

Is there a question for the applicant this point? Aren't we have emotion?

I would be willing to hear from the applicant. I like to hear what he has to say.

As we're talking, we don't how it will work but were willing to stipulate a visual or tactile type alert system. So we don't have a audible system and can avoid that. We have been reluctant to do that because we just don't know how that system will be determined. But I think we heard today the comment that was made, you can have boxes that are handed out. We will explore all the systems in the flashing light option as well. And be willing to change the commission so that you take out the amplified sound altogether and specify that they would be an amplified sound system on the site.

In addition to the other concern about the netting height, I threw 10 feet out as an option. I think what the appropriate standard to be whatever the appropriate standard is to make sure the balls are going through that. So I think we can determine that from an engineering point is to get approval to stipulate to height specific title.

Thank you. In that case do you have any object in the spec objection to two other conditions, and what is that we put it check back. Of time in there and also the expiring, if you transfer title.

We do stipulate both of those, I suggest from an operational standpoint, we suggest a minimum of a year after the facility is open. That's what I thought too.

I think two years is what was used on the [ Indiscernible ] facility but this number of issues. We want to make sure we are not creating problems.

Is that a problem with legal?

I think if we are consistent with what we did before with the regatta facility, in which we did that, but I think it's safe to be consistent.

Okay I want to do here expiration. I'd be more willing to entertain and we put the review and the expiration.

Okay. >> We correct the motion without any further discussion.

I will make a motion. For the the special exception case it is 1809 eight. -- S-18-098 subject to the modified step conditions that have been submitted to us today. Including a check back. Of one year. -- A check back time of one year and expiration of special exception time upon sale of the period.

I have just a couple questions on that motion and maybe staff can help clarify. The document we have before us had modifications since it was pretty, and some of the discussion included on item number four, a lightning plan. Which I think we're talking about in the visual or tactile, and then on six, daylight hours for operations.

Mr. chair, number four was lighting plan, not lightning plan.

Yes. The lighting plan and number four. And five was the sound system.

Number four is to clarify, four is deleted in the revised is actually undeleted. So there will be a site meeting plan to be submitted during final site plan stage of development and also the restriction on the height of lightning, lighting, sorry, lighting fixtures. 20 feet is to remain as a condition.

Okay and again in item 6, discussion of daylight hours for operations. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] for daylight area district daylight hours.

And then back to just tying in a number five, the discussion on the visual district visuals and tactile system.

Yes, did I miss anything?

Yes. We also had in item 1, that the landscape buffer would meet the highest standards applicable which is 38 in the Midshipman-Maxim plantings, that would extend all the way of on the common property line along the south and the east

The area where the wooded portion is an area just to the aspect to remain [ Indiscernible ] >> The security lighting would be on the building. They would be random. They would be on the building. If there were, and maybe at some point. If it's going to just be noun system whatsoever, some kind of a lighting or something, and the decimal requirement is not applicable but otherwise it would be 60.

I think we can find as they would be stipulating to, where do visual or textile

These are tactical.

But Ms. Jackson, I tried to ask you if staff had any input on what we were just articulating?

Yes, I actually want some clarification on the landscape buffer. Can you put up the, one of the drawings

On the south side of the facility, are we asking for a 30 foot landscape buffer along this entire piece here and this entire piece here? Or does it stop here?

Here and up in this area, the existing [ Indiscernible ] [ Indiscernible - low volume ]

So this would be 30 feet with maximum landscaping but keeping all native vegetation, and this as well? From here to this quarter here?

Okay. Correct.

All right . Susan.

I have one more clarification. So the hours of operation are limited to single hours for golfing activities. Other types of activities would then be the hours of operation, 7 AM to 9 PM weekdays, 7 AM to 7 PM weekdays and holidays.

Weekends and holidays.

Then I am clear. >> I would say that staff is in support of those revised conditions. And the condition to check back in a year to completion of the site. For issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And whatever national change the of ownership. The washing of the special exception should that's and relinquish ownership.

I want to clarify something on the hours of operation. Because having two separate sets is going to cause a problem . And I will explain why. We currently have hours of operation limited to 7 AM to 9 PM weekdays and seven weekdays and 7 AM to 7 PM weekends and holidays, that's fine. If we had additional conditions and golfing. Regarding daylight hours, when we are daylight savings time, daylight will stretch past seven daylight hours, when we are daylight savings time, daylight will stretch past 7 PM and he can theoretically be golfing out there until 830. A few want to do daylight operations and then add the caveat no later

than 7 PM, we have the same problem on the beach when it comes access. That we got two separate sets, where driving comes to a point, but we have all the employees to cover at a fixed time. So if you want to have daylight at golfing two occurred during daylight, during daylight hours, but no later than seven 7 PM on weekends and holidays, is that going to be, that will at least provide some clarification and consistency in your condition .

Is the Commissioner okay with that?

Okay. So I make that motion.

[ Laughter ]

[ Indiscernible - low volume ]

[ Indiscernible - multiple speakers ]

Yes to staff and including staff recommendations. Recommendations -- so do I have an emotion with the amended staff recommendations?

Emotions second for a Ford account of approval. And with the amended commissions, and a discussion on the motions?

So hearing no discussion of the motion, all those in favor signal by saying I.

I, and he opposed, say no.

No. Motion carries 5 to 1.

With member mills in opposition.

Thank you very much. >> Okay. Next case. V-18-099. Application of Michael Woods, attorney for Stephen and Connie Cockayne , owners, requesting a variance to minimum yard requirements on urban single-family residential R4 -- zone property.

This is a request for three variances for a piece of property located in the Westland area as you see in your screen. This location map. It's in the St. John's garden subdivision. An Interstate 44 and just a little bit northeast of the county line.

In the St. John's River.

The subject property is vacant, somewhat vacant property, there's a family home that was permitted and built of the property 1988. And destroyed by fire. Back in 2014. And the applicants have purchased property are interested in building a new home on the property. In doing so, though they desert the size of the home they are wanting, location they would like to put it would result in a zero setback. There's also to existing structures on the property. It shows a plan that one on the south line next to the proposed home, that is a 12 x 16 metal shed. And then there is approximately 8 x 14 metal frames

structure national metal frame structure that looks like maybe a pen or dog pen of some sort. Just pointing on the screen there in the westerly side of the property, that is also the zero setback in order to retain the structures.

Staff cannot find any records of either of those two accessory structures obtaining permits to be located in the property. So in order to legitimize the applicant is requesting grants for that.

Staff has just to go over the property, it is a conforming lot. Technically, because it does need the certified put lot with and 7500 with and 7500 ft.² area for the zoning for that price property. However the standard measurements are in reverse that it 75 feet in depth. And 100 feet in width. The applicant has pushed the home to the rear part of the property. One for the size of the home they are doing, plus there is existing septic systems that they are trying to maintain or protect. According to the information and concern they may have to expand with new structure. I don't know based on the plans, and I don't know if he knows, the applicant, where the actual subject take is located. -- This subject take. Because that feels there are options for developing the site that would either if not meet setbacks, more meat setbacks that the word are shown on the plan to the other structure would be altered or moot or shift of the property to have some setback at zero.

We have gone through certainly some extensive reviews provided on pages six, seven and eight of the report and based on the staff to review, we are recommending that you deny all three variances because we do not find the meat all the five criteria. And staff needs to address any questions or comments at this time.

Thank you. Ashley. Any questions for staff?

Yes, I do. Mr. Ashley. When you say that you feel there's other options for development of property, where would you actually put the home?

Well, one, this is single story home. They could afford. There's also 19 feet of additional land area that the house can be built in. Between what is the minimum front yard setback requirement. That the could be shifted , it could be redesigned or reshaped. And recently have a particular box. If this were an L shape or some other form or design. Again, I don't know where the septic tank , I don't know if it's over here or if it's over here. That would certainly have some impact on what the design can be done. And where structures could be built or where the existing structures could be shifted to.

But there is between the house that is there now and the setback point, there's 19 feet of land area where some form of the home could be shifted. And if it's elevated to a two-story structure, that also would at least get the home of the property. You have see these type of plots in format but the beaches would be a good example where we see revenue pieces, and we see revenue pieces of 50 x 50 lots. And we are able to get setbacks from the slots. And no we're not doing with the subject

and we have additional 25 feet that most of those lots do not have. And we don't and up with a zero setback in the slots.

So that's why staff feels there some other options. I don't know what they have explored. But certainly something more than just a rectangular box where we have a setback, it's right up against the line. And hope that addresses your questions and

Okay.

And with a two-story configuration, you feel that even in the L shape, you feel the width of the house would be less than the 31 feet, is that what you're saying?

It could be the original home was 24. Plus the second two-story option was the goal , at least in this concept was a 1736 ft.² home. If that's the goal. Perhaps if it were two stories, and home could be the depth of it could be reduced. And still give them the square footage they are looking for. And you would have at least some form of setback. Again how could you shift on the lot, to some extent or reconfigure to where you can have a portion of the home, if not more of it than what's shown here, would be the setbacks. Or if it doesn't the 20, canopy 10? Right now we don't feel there's any variances being met.

Okay, I just wanted to get clarification thoughts.

Thank you.

Questions for staff?

Okay, we like the applicant to come forward.

Good morning. I think it still morning, good morning. 351 351 E. New York Avenue. 351 E. New York Avenue. Here on behalf of the Cockayne family requesting for this. I think if we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation.

I always get the fun interesting ones I think the request itself is pretty straightforward. But I want to give you some background to tell you why we are going with this approach and what some of the challenges have been with the property for effectively redevelopment of a single family home.

[ Captioners transitioning ] >>

We have the nature of the surrounding canals and I do have a picture. This is a concern. How the lot will fit. And how the old house was instructed . We are trying to clean it up. And to address the nature of how the lot [Indiscernible ] . It is a lot combination that was about two years ago. There was a good discussion with the staff early on what was permitted versus how the house was encroaching. That did bring us to the septic failed. -- field. And we had to look at the surrounding next-door to us. For the criteria, this is where we need to get the this is the primary structure. And I think the concern that we have

there is a ping-pong back and forth not to be able to establish a comfort level with the minimum variance. And we do have the current setbacks. Then we need to look at the permit for the septic field. And the septic field was built with the home back in 1988. We want the health department to come back again. But the big concern is, what was realized for the septic tank in 1988 versus what we need to do today which is to enlarge. And again it is limiting the location where we can configure a home. This is the L-shaped structure. The goal is to refrain from going back and forth. We want to establish a single-family home. We can locate in this corner, and again it does meet the criteria, in conjunction with the standing property at it will not cause any harm do our neighbors. And there is a reference as well. These are the property owners that have had approval. And again this was a burnt out structure. I will tell you, across the street, 0509 just went up for auction so that is why we did not have any feedback. But I do not think we are causing any hardship. And again the regional home burned down in 2013 . My clients purchased the property in 2016. And I think you can see the survey on page number 13. How did that original home get a permit? And what was the history? And I told you the lot was combined when the home was constructed back in 1988. This is the action that was taken by the county. And the encroachment goes beyond the building's footprint. There is a larger tract of land, which is right this -- look at the red square . It is directly to the left. That is the parcel that will have to be combined officially. You can see a remnant . And this is the big track of land which is 006. This is your commercial property. And the nature is used for storage. The biggest challenge, you have the canal system. And it was interesting how that was established in the good old days before aerial photos. And so they created the system of the canal. And now you have a remnant parcel, that is encroaching on the property. We do have a staff report that is going to come up later in the PowerPoint presentation. But there is back up here, a depth between our property line and where the canal is. One of the things that we try to do, we just purchase that property, and it is a regular lot size. And here they do not have the zero lot line anymore. We want to address the step backs for the property. And it does create an issue for the property owners behind because that is a nonconforming lot. So there is a question whether or not using that property in 1988 Dash they did not go to that level. In all likelihood the best scenario is that we can pin down how we can develop our property. To get permission to build a home that we would like to. The best scenario, for our neighbors is to give them information. They are never going to be able to use the land without a bridge or a boat across the canal. We are going right up to the limit. There is land, that will never be developed. That is why we are asking about the lot line. And so the question was, how do we get to where we were? This is the material , that we pull through public records back in 1988 in this was laid up for the home construction. As you can see this is the original home in 1988. And it was constructed on the property. The line down the middle, up and down is the split line. This is a good reference. How we ended up with that, ultimately was in the survey. There is no record to show that it has changed. Something was reviewed and approved because they did live there for a number of years. And the big issue is the night -- issue is the 1988

document that you can see in the middle. It has the property line. It goes about 50 feet. This is a mounted system that is out there. And it is my suspicion that it is what shifted things over. And the health department has to work with you regarding where you can put that septic tank and the size. This is going to justify the encroachment next-door. And it shows you a pretty good layout. And you can see there is a concrete wall as well. That is what we they created the initial situation. And that will continue to be a design issue for us moving forward. So the new home does require a septic field. We do not run a sewer line [Indiscernible ] . With the septic field we have to verify what the home is going to be, then we can -- if we are lucky -- we have to configure it but it still causes us concern. It will probably not go any closer to the canal. But it will go down the canal road or the driveway. This is where it will be configured. We think this is going to be a big problem. We are trying to avoid trying to redesign everything. So if you apply the rear setback, and this is part of the house that will be constructed, where the sector failed is on the survey -- septic field on the survey. And you could see it is 11 feet. And so now we have design challenges. And this shows what the square footage will be for the home as designed. We cannot move the house that much closer to the road. This is right around under 860 feet. And the staff recommendation says, if you want the minimal square footage, you have to be have two stories. But this is going to be designed for retirees. Does that rise to a level of hardship? I think it does. It does cause -- it does give us pause, if you want to build you have to have a two-story structure. They want to have a ranch-style . And again this is the adjacent property and here is the canal. We are happy to comply with [Indiscernible ] structure and it is included -- and we are asking for the variance for the primary structure. There is the shed. It is closest to the neighbor residential partial. And the lot line is against the rear property line. If that causes you heartburn is far is granting [Indiscernible ] , we can reconfigure that and where it will be. But we can do that if we could put the primary structure where we want. However the scenario with the shed in the back corner, again we are not encroaching upon or stepping upon property that will be developed . So going through the criteria that was identified by the staff. Basically it does recognize there is a need to look at the property. And here again, I think the staff is missing the impact. I do not want to delay barrette. -- I do not want to delay barrette. But we are concerned that this is going to cause limitations for us moving forward. We have to put this in the back of the property. We want to use the least resistance to building a single-family home. If we deny it now or appeal it now, you are going to see a irregular shape building. They will have to have a C-shaped form -- Z shape home . We do not necessarily have to rely on how the old home was configured. There was a home in there before. It will probably go exactly where that is. You have water so we are trying to stay away from their. -- there. And if we were building , on a lot that never had a home on it before we still have to look at the septic field. But that is not where we find ourselves with the existing field. And here is the problem. I will remember to use darker colors in the future. But this will outline the existing former home footprint. This is 20 feet off of the

property line. And we are proposing a 3100 foot home, and 20 feet away, that portion located on lot 26 is 21 feet. Right in front of it is the canal. Then you have a field. If you go farther to the driveway, and again using the existing footprint of the home, they cannot go closer to the canal road because of future development. And so this is the 820 foot [Indiscernible ] . And that is the bare minimum for the minimum lot size. And again that is assuming that there is no enlargement. Criteria number two. This one has been met. For criteria number three. This is going to deny the rights of the applicant that others have enjoyed. This is where the conversation comes from the staff. We have to treat it if we are developing it as a green property with no development already. So now we have to look at what the septic field design can do for us. I think it is unrealistic to assume that it is a new location. Criteria number four. This is the minimum variance. This is for the building structure. We are asking for a zero lot line. Versus having a one foot step back. It is a very small footprint . I do not know if that was the intent of us for us to have such a small lot side -- size. and a desire to have a single level home. I do not think we should obligate people to build a two-story home. On criteria number five, so this is the interesting one. The first couple of line says, request is not comprised -- compromising the health of [Indiscernible ] . But then it states if you approve this it is going to worsen the issue for the adjacent properties. Why would this be because you have an encroachment already from the house before. Do you have a legal right to be on their? Do you have a legal right to access the property? I think the critical element, there is no harm or foul. We are not going to have any impact to the other property owners. There is a canal. Unless they go in and [Indiscernible ] the canal . Then there would be an impact to the adjacent property owners. And again, I think a single story home is appropriate for retirees. What we are trying to do is design the property and design the likelihood of good planning. We just want to get ahead of this so we know what to do. Should you find that the criteria has been met, and conditions for approval, we have no objections. Again if there is heartburn about the existing structure, [Indiscernible ] we can move forward with the site plan . We could leave the shed where it is. But again we are available to have a discussion with you. We need to be able to look up and down the envelope of the home . I do tend to know the heartburn issues. The process would be that we design something to the standards for a traditional home. And if it was denied by the health department we will be back here again. I think we could avoid this process and get it wrapped up right now. Thank you sir.

Do we have any questions for the applicant? >> I do not have any questions. >> The only thing that I would ask, if you guys have the heartburn, of course we are aware that the issue is hot . Before you issue a denial I'm wondering what kind of information you need from us? >> We are trying to make sure that we do not waste time and money and that we work with you. >> Do we have any questions?

Let me ask you a few questions. Let's go back to 1988. In the upper right-hand corner it shows a well. What is the curtain -- current water situation?

The water is from the city.

Go to 13 of 22 .

The staff report?

Yes the staff report. I do not see the delineation for the sea wall. And the property line. >> They use GIS.

Do you have anything survey related?

No. >> But our survey does not show that. But the photo gives you a good idea on what is out there. It was surprising going out to the property for the first time. >> So it is between 21 and 23?

Yes.

Lastly, do you have anything from DOH?

We do not have anything yet. >> For the determination of designing your septic field, you need to have a layout and a plan of the home before you submit it. And I think you have to have approval from the review and authority in the county for the home. And here is what we are allowed to bill -- built. If I am getting this wrong feel free to say something.

The agency is independent agency. And they usually see the report before it comes to us. And they will design the system in accordance to [Indiscernible ] . I know , because I just put a new system in. You may have to do the aerobic system because it is close to water. Because there are requirements if you are close to a water body. So you will have to go back to the state for setback purposes. If you do not know where the septic take lies or where it is located, it will dictate how you can move other structures on the property. If you have other setback areas, you could move that shed because it is not built into the ground.

I appreciate the input. >> That answered all of my questions so far.

Do we have any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak regarding this case?

Hearing none. >> First of all Mr. Woods, contacted me and I asked what they were requesting. And he said zero [Indiscernible ] and I said wow. So I looked at the property. They talked about the remnant parcel and they said to take that into consideration. There is a bit of property to the rear that is not being used. And it is accessible by the property owner. I understand if they try to purchase the agenda -- agenda. Because now they are not compliant for a nonconforming commercial lot. So I went out and looked. I think one of the reasons why Mr. Wood contacted me, because I him in the septic business. And so I know a little bit about it. One of the things that we did not bring up

about the setback and the septic system. I know the current requirements, there has to be a ditch in the property and maintain a 15 set -- setback for the septic . But the lot is not big enough. In the code it does allow to go up to 50 feet. There was an existing home, when it became inhabitable, they should be allowed to use the existing system . I do not know if they will be allowed to use the testing system but I do know it will have to be modified. And the reason why I say that, because the size of the system currently does not follow the codes we have today. It has to be a mount or innovated system. ATU or something of that nature. And saying that, even if you build a two-story building -- I asked Mr. Wood what he thought about the configuration of the home. And I believe, and there again, what the health department does. When you go and apply, you have to give them a location. You have to give them a set of home plans. I can understand, he does not unders -- he does not know if he can build a home. So that is why we do not know the size of the septic system itself. But I will tell you from the time of 1988 to 2010 they have increased in size. This is not a substandard surface. You have to have a 4 foot shoulder around the drain field. It also has to have a slope. And that slope cannot encroach on the adjacent property. And so that is going to move the system back. Even a single story or even a two-story they have to have a zero lot line in order to develop the property. What is so unique , you have a canal on both sides. It is not just in the back. You have two canals and the addition in the front . So that is going to be very hard to get a system in their -- there without having to move everything back. In the rear and to the west, you have [Indiscernible ] come into play . You cannot put a driveway over the top of the septic system. I do not know how they could get egress to their home. But like I said, I was [Indiscernible ] when I saw the zero lot line request . I thought it was going to be an uphill battle until I went out and looked at the size. When I was there I did talk to the adjusted -- AJ said property owner. He made the point that the original house -- it set back further than what was up -- what was proposed. After I check all of the skin -- after I took all of this into consideration, for the reasons I just mentioned, I just want to give you my idea about what I know about the sept Dick system -- septic system.

Ms. Danielle? >> So are you saying any L shape configuration is not possible?

No. If the septic system is going to play into the L configuration -- the system will be larger. I do not see them using the existing system. Because of the requirements. To make it larger, they will have to put in a whole new system. That is what I am saying . I do not know if they can work. But I do know, even with the L will require a zero lot line.

My concern is, I am trying to think through this. It seems like we are doing this backwards. To me. I think we should figure out what is going on with the septic so we know what we can do with the house. So we know where the house can go somewhere.

You have to have your house plans in order to get your septic. If he pays an engineer or a architect to design the home, and come to find out it will not work. Then he has to turn around and do it again. He would have to reapply for everything. He has to have some leeway. And the point that I am making, he needs a zero lot line regardless of what he puts in. That is the point that I'm trying to make. Because it is a unique situation because you have a -- two canals and a ditch.

What about the property with the metal shed? >> So if you do away with the metal shed -- if you replace the shed with a home, [Indiscernible ] . >> I am sorry I am saying put some type of setback to make the lot wider . >> You could do that but the problem lies is that, you have to enlarge the drain field. There is a possibility that the drain field can be [Indiscernible ] . All I am trying to do is say that I can understand why they need a zero [Indiscernible ] to get -- to move forward. There is a remnant piece of property. I know we were not to take this into consideration. But there is 20 feet between that and the Sea Wall. But we have to use the common sense figure. And so here we have a buffer between the end and the adjacent property owner and the canal.

Do we have any other comments ?

I have a comment. I would hate to see 80 lot line just -- I would hate to see a zero lot line just in case there is an issue with the adjacent property owners.

That is what I was going to say. With my background, what happens during construction or repairs? On the structure? When you have workers trying to do stuff on the subject property but they have to be on somebody else's property in order to do what? -- to do it?

It should have an access easement over the neighboring partial for maintenance. Most of your lot line communities, include the easement . To go on their property for maintenance. If there is something to alleviate your concerns that could be a condition that if you are going to permit the variance to allow for a zero lot line it must have an accompanying lot easement. I would advise this brewing the zero lot line with out the accompanying lot lease -- easement.

Let me jump into this conversation. It is a zero lot line versus the septic tank. The testimony given to us, from the applicant, we do not have anything from the health department. And not knowing if any modifications need to be made, does not rise to the level of evidence to support against the criteria for granting the variance. And I feel like the chicken is coming before the egg. But it does make financial sense. But not for the zero lot line. So my suggestion, what would make me more comfortable, if we could look at this from a blank piece of paper. And if the department of health new what the property wanted -- property owner wanted. Looking at the system. Then we can start looking

at the design features or that site layout. But white now what is before us I cannot support a zero lot line. We do not know currently what is going to be required . So there is my hang out -- up. >> The trespassing issue , what would be the minimum setback to alleviate that problem ? >> I cannot render an opinion. If you have 2 feet or 5 feet, to maintain that lot, it really is -- just like what we learned in law school, it always depends. >> We have to look at the type of home he wants to put in and believe me, I did not like the zero lot line either. But I did take into consideration about the property. >> When you take this through , for maintenance how much depth would you need from the vertical wall?

We know it is not 0 feet. Even with pain and you have to have a roller down the side. So you need some Clarence. I cannot support a zero lot line. But I think we should have 5 feet because I do not think you can do much with 5 feet that is just my feeling. I am convicts -- I am convinced that we cannot support a zero lot line.

What are your thoughts on 5 feet? >> I think with 5 feet, the issue with the construction works. But you need 5 feet the entirety of the back. If you could get rid of the shed . It really is the chicken and the egg. We need to know from the department of health, what design we can have. But we do have a fighting chance, working with the Department of Health. The benefit of zoning right now, for the setback, if we need to adjust, let's just assume that lot 26 is where the lot is. So we can bump it over a little bit to the west. But that flexibility is only there if we have 5 feet. When I hear conversation for Mr. mail, -- Mr. Mills it is an uphill battle. But obviously I would like to have less than 5 feet for construction. I do not want to get [Indiscernible ] from the adjacent property owner but we could. But right now, we have 5 feet.

Do you want to continue to explore those two avenues? >> Uncertainly is -- uncertainty is the critical path.

I would like to have a five-minute recess. >> That way you have a couple of minutes with your clients. And we can get some water. I think we can get together again at 11:55 . >> I think we can take a recess. >> [ Session is on a recess. Session will reconvene at 11:55 AM . Captioner standing by. Thank you ] >> We are going to call to hearing back to order and resume where we left off. >> The proposal would be to do a 5 foot setback on the property . For the primary home. That would give us the ability [Indiscernible ] and the secondary structure on the west side will go away.

So you would not need the third variance? >> I think that 5 foot setback is applicable to the primary structure. >> So you would adjust the rear lot ?

We are still okay with public notice.

So let's it does make open it up for further comments. >> Mr. chair if I could jump in. The 5 foot setback is the minimum structure for under

[Indiscernible ] and so that is the standard . That would not need a variance either.

For the entire property?

I just want to make sure that no structure will be closer than 5 feet.

Thank you . >> And Mrs. Vandamme, do you want to start?

The shed , that we are talking about is on the image to the right ?

We will adjust that.

So you have the space where that home could be moved.

That is correct. As long as we know we can have the 5 foot parameter around here and shift the home and the shed could go away. And the variance today would give us 5 foot. >> Does anybody else want to make a comment? >> I have drafted some recommendations. And I am modifying based on the structure. I have a copy for the staff on the screen.

And based on what the original request I came up with four potential conditions for you. Obviously with the what they applicant stated, this could be limited to the second rare line to 5 feet. He would meet the recall -- me the code requirements. And three could remain and number four that we used in the past but I will leave it up to you if you want to incorporate that as well.

You probably have the same concerns.

With the zero lot line it does make sense. But we do want to have [Indiscernible ] for single-story .

We can just drop it to say single story.

My concern is the basis for the 5 feet is a one level structure. But if the geometry changes -- we need to make sure that we tie that up. With the 5 feet. And I agree we do not need the dimensions of the structure anymore. But with one story you should have a [Indiscernible ] pipe , so it does not come back and challenge what one story means. Do you remember that? >> I am not sure if the one story will have problems.

The issue is it differentiates it from the previous case. We will not have people arguing over the height. Because people want to keep their view of the canal. But at the end of the day you are going to be bound by the maximum height requirements whether you are one or two Tory -- story house.

The minimal setback , and the practicality of people not trying to trespass to perform work. So if you go past a reasonable one story the geometry changes so therefore this setback would increase.

That 5 foot setback might restrict the height of the home. You have to construct something within the parameter of the setback and if you go to high you cannot maintain that structure with the setback. If you go above that you are looking at potential trespassing.

I see where you were coming from and your concern. We will have a single floor home. If you give us the 5 feet , that gives us the safety measure that we need. If we find yourself having to develop a second-story, we cannot construct until we get authorization from the adjacent property owner. We cannot put our equipment out there without [Indiscernible ] . And again we are here for a single-story. >> The height right now is 35 feet in that is within the zoning. And that would be a three-story home. But we need to think about 20 or 22 feet or one story with a roof pitch. Or you could go lower. But if the goal is to keep it at one story, we do not have to reference that case.

I need to make sure about the setback. I do not want to get into if we are going to go higher and then we are back to trespassing. >> I think his scaffolding would allow for two-story. >> I voiced my ideas with the commission. But anyway that was my thought on variance one. There is the foot but limitation that we -- there is the footprint limitation that we are talking about with the setback.

Is number four necessary? >> I think we could eliminate number four.

It is up to you if you want to keep it.

We still have the shed.

That is going to be relocated . >> I think we need to incorporate that as a condition. Because if not you will have to ask for a revised plan. And the shed, will be in compliance of -- it will be moved to meet the requirements. And the mainframe structure will be eliminate or in compliance or either way. >> Do we have one for the single-family?

We are working on the one variance right now. >> I was just indicating in my thought process we would remove the second shed.

I think we should reword number two. The variance request is no longer needed because the shed now is in compliance with the structure setback. And it will comply or be eliminated. So for number two we have to address the two structures. Now do you want to do number four? >> Yes. >> Do we have a motion?

I make a motion to approve variances, one, with the revised step back to 5 feet across the rear property line. And also included in that, would be the metal shed. It has to be within 5 feet of the rear property line. And with the following conditions. It would be limited to the single-family dwelling . And condition number two referring to eliminating the 18 x 14 metal shed be removed. And the condition number three. >> There was a discussion on modifying number four.

I thought we were going to eliminated.

Do we have a motion on the second? >> All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The motion passes. >> Next we have V-19-001. >> This consists of two lots. They are lot number 17 and 18. Combined they are 387 Combined they are 387 ft.². Which exceeds the minimum lot area requirement for R4 . But this sept edition was plotted -- but this subdivision was plotted with [Indiscernible ] . Even though they are larger than necessary, the lot does not comply to our four -- R4 zoning . They want to combine the lots to make one building. That is the nature of the surrounding plot. The owners, have a copy of the plot. They want to combine two and three lots to meet or exceed the minimum requirements. The applicant wants to separate the lots. I do have an evaluation for you. This is the criteria. Currently if you dealt with just one unit it is not consistent. It is still not consistent with the [Indiscernible ] but it is closer . Because it does increase what you have right now. And the staff reviewed it. They did give us a brief synopsis and they do say to approve the separation of the lots. I will be happy to address any comments at this time.

Did you say the staff approves?

I apologize . If you do approve it there is one condition.

Do we have any comments? >> We will invite the applicant to come forward.

Good morning. For the record Mark Watts. I am here on behalf of Crane Strand LLC and the owners. I will try to be brief. But I think the staff did a very good job with the staff report in their comments. We have two lots. With the development of two single homes. We do realize that each lot did not meet the with requirements for the standards. So at this point in time based on the requirements to the code, we can only develop one house on the combine lot. That condition that the staff included if you choose to approve , is acceptable to our clients. When we initially filed the applicant -- it also included the setback. There was an indication that [Indiscernible ] so we went through the request . That is just for the wet -- width. The condition that the staff is recommending, that adjacent property owners would have the same rights. So I do believe it is 8 feet on both sides with a combine of 20 feet. One thing , when you look at the staff report one criteria , in the evaluation indicated, was number four. The variance that was granted. I want to focus on reasonable use. As your staff indicated, from a policy standpoint, this is in the urban medium. So reasonable use, is higher density. There is more development per acre. So here we have a unique situation. We have two parcels. And if you develop it, and it has been

in common ownership sense 1978 -- since 1978. Now they are not legal forming lots. The variance is the only path. And it will make it more consistent for this area. So you have individual parcels, but we have to keep them together so you have almost 1 acre of land that is supposed to be developed. But we can only put one unit on it. Because of the width , we cannot get to the full consistency. But we need to look at the comprehensive plan. And we have to look at reasonable use. And reasonable use to develop with the comprehensive plan, so we ask you to support the variance and move forward with that.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

David Townes? >> My name is David Townes , I live to the west of the property. First of all I want to address the addition on page 7 of 16 in the paperwork. Paragraph number one, stated without the release of this requirement, under zoning, the applicant will only be able to build one home on two lots. My reply to that is, before this builder purchase the property, I would've thought they would've done their due diligence. To ascertain if they were able to build two houses on that lot. And the lot was listed , and I had an opportunity to speak to the real estate agents. And it was very clear to me that it was two lots. And if you wanted to build on the lot, you would have to purchase both of them. And have them combine into one lot. They said we could sell you one lot but it does not meet the county standards and you would not be able to build. So they were suggesting, that you buy both and combine it into one. So in summary, the purchaser should have been made aware of this. And both realtors did make it clear on the situation. Paragraph number two. They stated that the applicant cannot build a new home on two lots , because of the zoning requirements just like our neighbors were able to do. The reason the neighbors all fit into the current R4 zoning. Look at the colormap in front of you. This was distributed. In yellow, I put the lot frontage of eat -- each lot. You can see the 10 neighboring lots, range frontage from 85 feet to 250 feet . So coming in at a smaller dimension, would not fit into the neighborhood. On page number three a 15. The last two sentences it mentions the fact that since 1955 various lots adjustments have occurred. In order for the builders to meet the R4 requirements. From my research there are no other variances at this time that have been approved. And in this area by the county. Those that have been developed majority had to do what they needed to do in order to make that lots meet the standards. In paragraph number four. It states that R5 -- R4 , reserving the character of the neighborhood. And it suggests approving the variance would not harm the appearance or the quality of the neighborhood. Again refer to the colormap. You can clearly see in gray, the square footage of the homes that are currently there. They range in furnish from 1315 attachment -- 1300 ft.² to the 2000 feet. Now R4 would allow homes small as 850 ft.². That would certainly haul -- harmed the character of the neighborhood. I'm not saying the builder is going to build a home that small. But checking with the permit department, there have been no plans submitted to the county showing what size homes would be built there. But it was approved, it would not blend in with that will that -- 2000 ft.² average home. In paragraph number five. It would say -- it does say does not impact the surrounding property owners. I think my

above statements, reflect [Indiscernible ] and I concur with the staff recommendation to deny this variance. Thank you.

Do we have any questions from Mr. town? -- Towne?

Next we have Mr. Richard.

My name is Richard Simons. My wife is with me. I just have a couple of comments on what David mentioned. The data that he put together uses the county assessment value -- assessors value. I called up about that because mine was not right. So I went on the site, they are all equal and greater then the frontage length. The numbers that David showed, the smallest one is not -- I think he had 85 feet but it is actually 120 feet. If you take the lot, Florida avenue all the way up to [Indiscernible ] . He restricted it just where Collins Street goes through. The average lot size is 230 feet. That does not include the corner lot. This is where Collins and Florida Avenue breakoff. Look at the bigger neighborhood. Almost all of the lots in this neighbor -- neighborhood is about 150 feet. Look at the ones right here. In the area that he is talking about. Those are about 250 and these are the numbers I got from the actual deed. So a 70 foot lot is less than half than the average area in this neighborhood. In the application, as David mentioned, he said it would be in a manner consistent with the other neighbors. The lot is much wider. People has had to adjust, to agree with the zoning requirements. I am saying the lot sizes based on [Indiscernible ] and it is not in harmony with the rest is -- the rest of the neighborhood. How are people going to do landscaping? What about a driveway or undergrads -- or a garage? What about the septic system? And so if you have two separate homes you have to have two separate septic systems. There was a known fact that the two lots needed to be combined in order to build into the neighborhood. And so if he ignored it or if he was not aware of it, and they just bought this back in February. Now that -- and now they expect the game to change. >> Please adjust your comments to something new.

As I mentioned, splitting them, raises all of these concerns for aesthetics, landscaping, driveways, garages , septic systems and wells . You have to be very careful if you want to get a truck back there to do anything. That is basically what I have.

Do we have any questions for Mr. Simon? >> It seems like the one next to the water is narrower than 70 feet. >> See how it is narrowed down? >> At one point there were parallel lines off the road.

I'm talking about your statement about having access -- to the back. It seems like they are all narrow at the backend.

My comment was, if you have a 70 foot wide lot , and you have 20 feet. So you have a 55 foot house. You would not get a problem with a driveway. But how are you going to get back there? >> I just wanted to bring to your attention that they are narrow in the back. >> My name is Tracy Santos. We have been homeowners for about three years. I do

not agree with this. We are adjacent to the smaller lot . We were told there would only be one house built on the property. So I do not agree with putting two houses. I do not think it is right.

Do we have any questions for Ms. Santos? >> Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak about this case? >> I appreciate the comments from the neighbors. With regard to the R4 and the minimum how sides -- size. That is the standard under the R4 . I just want to put up if I can, this was actually included with what we submitted to the county. You can see what we are proposing to build. This is the average size , for the surrounding property area. And this particular floorplan if you look at the dimensions, it shows that it is [Indiscernible ] and they do have to revise this . When we initially submitted the variance request we asked to have a variance for the side yard as well. So we could fit the building. Now we have revised the [Indiscernible ] so that it fits within the existing setback requirements. And we did agree with that condition and the recommendations. But I think getting back to the point that we made -- the pattern that is developed, you can see if you look at the original plot lines. Everything has been adjusted over time. But now, what we are asking to do is to bring the property into more compliance. Getting two units on the property versus one, is aligned with the planning [Indiscernible ] in this area . We have seen more modern subdivisions . We have some that are actually 38 lots -- 38 foot lots. I think going to 70 foot standard, it does not disrupt that character of the neighborhood. And now the houses are consistent with the size. And with general quality and value. So that is why we ask you to support the variance. I am happy to answer any of your questions.

I think we can proceed with a discussion or a motion. >> I am looking at the conditions. And the request to meet all of them except for one. Especially when Mr. Watt talked about the comprehensive land. I think it is consistent. >> And I recommend a variance with conditions. >> That is just one condition.

There is a motion do we have a second?

I set the I second it -- I second it.

The motion carries. >> V-19-001 Application of Bradley Eaves, agent for Peter Thompson and Janine McGowan, owners, requesting variances to minimum yard requirements for a swimming pool on Urban Single-Family Residential zoned property. Th e property is located at 6439 Engram Road, New Smyrna Beach; ± 6,275 square feet; 8505-01-46-0500. This is a request for a swimming pool.

This property is located in [Indiscernible ] Beach . The property has frontage on two streets. The single-family home does face the road with single access. It has two platted lots. They have a 20' x 50' strip adjacent to the road. This is for a 5000 square-foot [Indiscernible ] . The previous owner obtain [Indiscernible ] and it does not meet the hundred foot

depth. The state obtain additional right away to widen the road. Now this is not up to code. This 25 foot strip, they want to build a swimming pool. The requirements are 8 feet from the side. With the result of a 9 foot [Indiscernible ] for the swimming pool without a variance. It is the goal of the applicants to create a pool, roughly 31 feet in depth and 12 1/2 feet in width . And to do that there is a request for a variance from the side for feet -- and 6 feet . The staff provided you with the analysis on pages five and six . We do find that there are some criteria that are met and some do not. So it does not fully meet the full five criteria. With the interpretation. We do not feel it needs the minimum variance. So now we do not recommend [Indiscernible ] . I am happy to address any comments that you may have.

Do we have questions for the staff?

Ms. Vandamme?

Page 4 of 19. In 2016 [Indiscernible ] was built , that is keeping the pool coming closer to the house.

I do not have that information.

According to the plan or report they did have a permit.

They did have a permit?

Yes.

Thank you.

We will asked the applicant to come forward.

Good afternoon. My name is Pete Thompson. We are the applicants . I have my wife here, Janine. To address your questions, with regard to the structure of the porch, there is a 2 foot difference in elevation from this area down -- it is about 2 feet in elevation. So that is another limitation. Moving it back further 25 feet. With regard to the criteria number three. There is no interpretation, and there are others who enjoy [Indiscernible ] . We obtained from all of the neighbors, that was on the mailing list, they agreed and they are all in favor and there were no objectives. We have to vacation homes -- two vacation homes . But everyone who lives there, I have obtain their perspectives. The immediate neighbor in the back, where the rear lot is, is currently a swimming pool. Which is about the same size. So when you are looking down, from the porch, into the backyard it is going to be identical to that setback. That neighbor is a builder. We talked about this. And because of the taking of turtle Mountain Road , now we are irregular in size. Instead of having a front yards that beat -- setback of 20 feet now it is 12 feet. If you look at the overhead, on page number 14, I'm sorry page 16. If you were to look at the overhead from Turtle Mountain. All of the properties,

-- this is where our houses and this is George's house. And down here, this is the setback all the way down. You can see all of the new houses are consistent. With the 12 1/2 foot to -- 11 1/2 feet from the edge. And our front yard is on Ingram Road. So taking the fact that 12 1/2 feet will make it consistent with everyone else's property up and down Turtle Mountain. And again having a pool less than -- the approved pool it is less than parking space. So it does not make sense to do that. The side to the south of the lot, there is a vacant lot. And in fact it is about 100 and feet and it is all bacon. Add two doors down my neighbor bought that, in the last 30 days. For the purpose of keeping it green. So his house does not have anybody build behind it. So he wants it all to be kept green . So the immediate neighbor to the left, back of the pool, the neighbor is in favor of it. And we have Mark Randall, who bought it so nobody could build behind his house. So the unique circumstances of the road and taking of Turtle Mountain , most of the houses fall under the classification of the ordinance section 72, 277 . This is a lot cover requirements. This is any lot 50 feet less than depth. Which would be a normal lot if you had to that I have. They cut the minimum front yard to 12 1/2 feet. So the ordinance is already taken into consideration for this property. And you have [Indiscernible ] which is Turtle Road . This was taken in the 1960s. And the lot is for single-family residence structure. So again we believe that this is consistent with the neighborhood. And again looking back from Turtle Mountain, all of these new properties, as I have demonstrated, there are also a lot of vacant lots as well. They are going to have to have the lots that are longer. They will also have 12 1/2 feet. We believe it is consistent with the neighborhood. And there is no negative impact to the adjacent property owners. And they are all in line with this. And again , if it was smaller it would not make sense.

Do you have any questions? >> Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak? >> I have a question . Are you saying that for variance one, to reduce it to 12 1/2 feet? I think it makes sense.

The side , there is a foot and a half . There is a little style instead of just having it square. And there will be vegetation planted between us and the neighbors on the side . And the vacant lot. For the next short period.

Do we have any app -- do we have any questions for the applicant? >> Does anybody have any opening thoughts? >> Ms. Vandamme? >> I appreciate that you are going from 11 1/2 feet to 1200 feet -- 12 1/2 feet and so I suggest we approve this . Change variance one from 11 feet to 12 feet.

Variants two and three?

Variants two and -- variance two and three I agree with.

Do we have a motion or a second?

For the approval for the adjusted variance.

I think I am the loan hold out. I appreciate the staffs efforts to provide us with five of 19. The applicant was trying to use residential [Indiscernible ] to justify the structure . I just cannot get there. So I cannot support the motion on the floor as it stands. Does anybody have any comments?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The motion carries -- 5 to 1 >> Next we have V-19-002 - Application of Jon Dickerson, agent for Peter and Renee Lanza, owners, requesting a variance to the maximum building height for an accessory structure on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-3) zoned property. The property is located at 111 Lake Winnemissett Drive,

This property is located in [Indiscernible ] . Near State Road 44. The subject property is proposing to construct a 2400 -- accessory building. There is a portion of the partial. Currently there is an existing resident and they propose to demolish and construction a new structure. And they want the new structure to be in the back part of the property aired on page number three there are examples of the photos of the type of accessory, for recreational vehicles they want to store in the building. We do have a concept, regarding the elevation on page number for the report. This is going to have 14 foot high doors. To provide RV and [Indiscernible ] structure. And therefore they indicate that this is going to dictate the height. And again height for any structure is measured when we are dealing with a non-flat roof, will be the distance from the Eve and they it edge. The structure would be taller than requested. And in this case the drawings indicate [Indiscernible ] design . So their application , indicates that they needed because of the recreational vehicles. The staff looked at this, and it states that they do meet all of the criteria. Except for number four. There is because [Indiscernible ] they indicate there is a need for a bit -- pitch roof. They are trying to accommodate the other structures that are in the neighborhood. And that is not a requirement of the code but they are trying to match what the neighbors have. And that is the reason why they want to have a picture -- pitch roof. They do not meet the five criteria but therefore they must deny the variance. But there are outlines on page number six to improve the variance -- approve the variance. This is based on the plans that were submitted. And they did obtain the necessary permits. And the property includes more than one lot. I will address your questions.

Do we have any questions for the staff at this time?

Do we have the applicant?

Please come forward.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Dickerson. My address is [Indiscernible ] . As Miss actually put all of these details together, I think this is pretty cut and drive. We do not want to flat roof. Also flat roofs, invite Lees and limbs -- leaves and tree limbs [Indiscernible ] . >> There is a lot of cleanup regarding a flat roof.

It is a 412 and most houses are 512. >> We are going to put a roof on it anyway. It is going to be a metal roof. >> But at any rate, this is the design we have for this.

If the roof has restrictions, the height between the top of the door, versus the rest of the wall up to the roof line . Do you have the ability to narrow that area?

The wall height is 16 feet. I have an area, I mean I have to have 5 inches for the door.

Are you using the track system?

Even if we had a rollup system, we need [Indiscernible ] .

What is the minimum variance needed? >> Do we have any other questions for the applicant? >> Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak?

So now it is open for discussion. >> Are you building the resident also?

Yes.

One-story?

Yes, it is one-story.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do we have any comments? >> That means there is a motion ready. >> I do not think anyone wants to grab it. But the driving factor for me, accommodating the recreational vehicle and the height. I concede that this does make in the past -- and I know we are not supposed to go to the past to make a decision. But based upon that , I will make a motion to approve variance 19-002 .

Even with the pitch of the roof? >> [ Indiscernible low volume ] >> It is at the back of the house. I do not think it will be aesthetically noticeable because it will be in the back of the house. I think we should take this into consideration. >> If it makes you feel better it is about 400 feet from the property line. >> What is the character of the land between the house and the land?

The actually cleared the land .

Is there any shielding?

Yes. There is the pitch from the road. So you will not be able to see it from the road. >> Mr. Ashley ? Are these issues that the staff took into consideration?

That distance , we did look at the issue. There was the minimal variance -- I think it is at the pleasure of the commission on how you feel about that. >> Is there a motion and a second for approval ? >> With recommended conditions.

All those in favor?

Any opposed ?

The motion carries.

[ Captioner transitioning ]

>>> So the structure , let me see here. That used to be a barn and a single-family house on the property sits here. This house was constructed in 1945 and we don't know exactly when the barn was constructed >>> The property was purchased in 2016 and when the barn was converted to a single-family home, permits were not obtained for that so when they purchased the property and moved into the home they were unaware that there were not permits to legitimize the house. So what they want to do in the big picture is be able to have the existing small existing home built in 1945 converted to a garage apartment so that their parent can move into it and in order to be able to request the special exception they have two legitimize the barn as the primary use of the property in order to legitimize that they need to get the permit that were not received in the 1990s and in order to do that they need variance to the existing setback. So that is the chain of logic we have to follow. The barn when it was first constructed as a bona fide agricultural use barn did not need to meet that but where it sits, being in the zone it is required to have a 100 foot front step back, can you put that up? So it is required to have a 100 foot step back but the 100 foot front goes to this line here . Even though the property line goes to hear this is the easement that goes across the property. So what they're requesting is the variance from 100 feet to 93 feet for the easement line and this site is required to be 50 feet, they are requesting variance to 41.8 feet and these variances will meet the current location of the house so staff did review and analyze this request and finds that it meets all of the criteria and therefore recommend approval . Subject to the one condition that should the house be enlarged to increase any of the nonconformities that it would have to go through another variance. A procedure, if you have any questions I would be happy to answer.

Okay thank you any questions?

The proposed garage apartment, does that meet back?

It is not, it is considered a legal nonconforming use.

So it is legally nonconforming thank you.

Any other questions? The applicant present? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

You have heard the staff report do you have any other information or evidence for us to consider?

No, we bought it, did not know that it was not permitted and we would like to make that structure legal.

Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Stay close , are there members of the public that wish to speak to this case? We will close the floor and do we still have the form text

I would like to make a motion we approve variance request number one and number two on case 19 005 with the accompanied staff recommendation.

I second that motion. >> I have a motion and a second for approval with staff recommended conditions. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Motion carries.

Next case eight teen-110 application of Glenn and Catherine Jones owners requesting a special exception for garage apartment on prime agricultural A1 zone property. >> So again, this is the house that has been on the property since 1945. The house that meets the criteria. 800 square feet. It has storage space for one vehicle. It meets the height requirements for accessory structure and the applicant's would like to establish that existing house as their garage apartment and in order to do so they need a special exception. It does not meet step back however it is considered a legal nonconforming structure. So as long as they do not make any changes to the building to increase the nonconformity it can remain a legal nonconforming structure and can be considered for the garage apartment meeting although the criteria. So will staff analyze the special exception and found that it met all of them and therefore recommend approval. I don't remember if we have conditions.

Yes we have two conditions that if the approval is subject to finding the single-family home to be the principal structure and that it is not expanded beyond the 800 square feet. Do you have any questions? I will be happy to answer.

Any questions? Miss Jones? Please introduce yourself again.

Catherine Jones. 3799 watermelon Lane.

Anything to add to the report? Any questions for the applicant? Any members of the public that wish to speak to this case? Motion?

I will make a motion to forward special exception case S-18-110 to County Counsel with recommendation of approval subject to the staff conditions.

I will second that motion.

I have a second to forward with approval and the conditions. Any discussion? All those in favor signal by saying I. Motion carries. Looks like we are getting into old business.

Okay. V-18-095 application of Gary Segret owner requesting variances to the minimum yard requirement on planned unit development zone property. Okay. Mr. Ashley.

This property is located in the Quail Hollow on the river one of the original from the county in the 1970s so there is a historic PUD plan development project. Done near Deland, the applicant is proposing approximately 3796 square foot home on a 12,000 1000 square foot parcel in the development and as part of that construction he is seeking relief for the front yard setback and the rear setback to fit the proposed home. What is on the screen is a copy of the plan. Showing the home as it would lay on the property. Essentially we have highlighted the two points in the front yard because of the shape of the lot and a curse into the cul-de-sac the applicant shows the corner of the lot and the front porch area which are highlighted would encroach one and a half feet to the setback and he is showing the entire rear part of the property or of the home would encroach five feet to the rear yard setback. Based on the staff evaluation we have highlighted on page 4 and five, it was determined at the request that the zoning did not meet four of the five criteria therefore staff has recommended denial on both cases. Happy to address any comments or questions at this time.

Questions for staff? Okay good afternoon.

Hello my name is Gary Segret. Just trying to see if I can get a variance to build the house.

Any other points or? Other items to consider? Understood, any questions for the applicant?

Yes, have you already, did you get your building plans for this home already?

Yes I have the plans.

The size of the home is requested at 3700 almost 3800 square feet? Is that all living area or including the garage?

That includes the garage.

Okay that's what I needed to know thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. I do have a request. Is it Beth? Ruth, please come forward. You can take liberties with your R's like I do. Name and address.

Ruth Kilpatrick --

Welcome and the floor is yours.

On his written petition initially he had said the [NULL] a did not have a problem with the plan, at that time we did not. The initial floor plan he submitted to us fit within the guidelines and now having seen from the variance we are finding that has changed again. That it is encroaching also on the corner of the garage. So we have consent with that. The backside we did not have an issue with them going back to the five feet initially but we are also seeing it is right on that property line or the easement line and we have concerns with that also as to what will that do with drainage as well as then hearing as to being able to get back there. If a utility truck does come through. It is close to where the pool is and could end up damaged. We do not want to see that because that would be very costly for the owner. Since there is such a huge lot, we feel like the house, the house plans could be changed to meet our requirements as well as the County.

Okay any questions ?

You mention you approved it originally?

There was no formal application made to the Association yet as to the ARB but he sent a notice to us saying they had purchased the property and would like to build this house and send a plan to me. I took it to our group and at that point it fit within the land that was needed. Everything was fine, so initially we said if you're wanting to go back the 25 feet and 1 1/2 feet in the front you have to go through the county in order to get those variances. We do not control that. It is in the guidelines but because of the county setback we try to go according to the county guideline. We said if the variance is approved then ARB would have to approve it but at that point it was just email, not a formal request to the ARB.

But nothing has changed since that point? I'm looking at this now so though 1 1/2 feet and then the five feet in the rear?

We said if the county approved it but so many things have changed with the floor plan compared to the first one that we got as well as the driveway. The driveway changed, it is now a half circle.

When was the email sent to you? Prior to the first hearing? What was the date of the email?

I don't have the date. August 9 or something like that.

[ Indiscernible ]

The first variance was then in October. >> [ Indiscernible ]

He will need to make application and I have notified him when we were here for the first hearing so she had the notes and that is where we found the whole floor plan had changed and now there was even a greater amount of the house that was going to be sitting in the setback. As well as the pool being right on the line concerns us as well. If we get utility trucks back like we did with the hurricanes that I'm afraid of what would happen to the pool. >> Will he have an opportunity to address?

Yes he will have a chance to address but he will need to make the formal address to the board and we have notified him of that. Is on our website as well and what is required follows the requirements on there as well.

Any other questions? Thank you for being here. Are there any other members of the public who wish to speak to this case? None, we will close the floor and open for commission discussion. Anybody have any ideas they want to share? Go ahead.

I'm okay with variance one. I'm having trouble with variance two, the entire back portion of the house.

Okay. Anybody else want to weigh in?

I tend to agree if we would like to have a motion.

I will make a motion that we approve variance one and deny variance two. >> Would staff recommend conditions?

Staff recommended conditions. There are no conditions. Just staff recommendation to deny.

Okay do you want to give staff an opportunity to weigh in just in case?

Staff is there anything we need to add to that?

I would suggest that we get a revised plan because if the vote goes to one and not to make we would want a revised plan showing only variances for the front portion which is what number one is for. And then standard condition for necessary permits. That is pretty much all I can think of off the top of my head. >> Can I ask for clarification on your variance? Are you talking about just for the corners to encroach because the request is for the entire front. Only the corners encroach the actual request is for the entire front of the property.

I'm sorry you are saying that the variance is required for the entire front of the house? Not just the corners?

The request was for 25 but he only needs two spots of the home plan require the setback . So do you want to limit to those spots or you willing to give us the entire front?

My intent was for the front two spots. My apologies.

Can we get you on the microphone?

How wide is the house going to be?

Wide or deep?

Deep. What is the distance on that? 31 feet?

Hang on. If you're examining the applicant.

I was asking staff to answer that's fine.

I cannot, I do not have the dimensions but I know to measure off from the set back he has got only 25 feet and then 25 feet in the front. The lot goes from 85 feet on one end to 100 on the other end so the house has kind of been designed below that somewhat.

Can I ask the applicant what is the with of your actual building lot --

Mr. Segret please come back to the microphone.

Okay.

You asked for the variance of a 30 foot to 25 foot reduction in the back for the rear yard. If we deny that what is the footprint of your building then?

It will be 31 feet.

31.

Then we had a 12 foot cut in.

Okay thank you. >> So a pretty narrow house.

You still have a motion that was clarified with staff conditions. Has there been a second ?

Yes I second it. With the clarification.

Any discussion on that motion?

31 feet dreams -- seems pretty narrow for the neighborhood.

That is a narrow lot. I went out there and looked at it . I don't know how he is going to do it, but not getting that variance across the back might do it.

Okay any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor signal by saying I. Any opposed say no.

Which way did you vote? So that motion fails 3-2 is there another motion?

I would make a motion to approve variance request one, variance request two with the addition of staff.

I also recommend.

Motion and second for approval as requested to include staff conditions any discussion?

I would like for Mr. Bender to clarify his visual on the lot.

I went out sitting on the road looking at the lot trying to figure out how this would fit so I tried to step it off and it is very very narrow. Even with the variance I don't know how he will do it.

Even if you were to reduce the square footage? He will still have a problem?

He is going to have a very narrow home regardless. With or without the variance it is going to be very restrictive and then trying to put a pool or the porch? A porch across the back. It is going to be narrow.

This still has to go through the architectural review for the homeowner association? Is that correct? Okay.

Okay any other questions on that motion? All those in favor signal by saying I. Opposed say no. That one fails.

So if we cannot get a majority .

The matter fails.

Okay , we tried both ways and the matter failed to garner the appropriate votes both ways. Now it is a moot point. The request fails. Well, the applicant request fails.

Now he doesn't have one or the other.

Right. Okay. Read the next one for the record.

Okay other public items, CPA-18-010 proposed ordinance for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the transportation element.

Ms. Smith ?

Good afternoon. This is a large-scale amendment, we are looking to make some changes to chapter 2 of the transportation element and the definition section which is chapter 20. We need to address changes in the state law that have occurred over the year and we are looking to eliminate obsolete policies. This has not been updated in quite a few years. We also need policies to be consistent with the variance plants created over the years and they have their plans as well as the airport

have a bit of their plan. We would like to recognize the relationship between land-use and transportation planning recognizing we are not just building roads but sidewalks and bike paths and landscaping and those sorts of things. We added references to the County dynamic master plans and essentially what you have in the packet is a clean ordinance. We would be looking to repeal the existing ordinance and replace it with the clean version that you see in your packet and to help guide you through the process we also included a matrix of all the underlying strikethrough's that we did throughout the process. We were not going to go to those here today unless you have specific questions. We do have someone from the traffic engineering group here to answer any questions you may have about the roadway system. With that we hope you find the amendment consistent with the company has a plan and forward the application to County Counsel with a recommendation of approval and we are here to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions?

So the only changes are in the red? Or is this whole draft ?

The whole draft is a new draft, amended and restated so the chart is trying to give you a comparison of what were the changes that were done to the original. If I would've done strikethrough and underline of the entire check section it would have been pretty troublesome to read.

Any other questions?

Yes I have a question.

Go ahead.

I am looking at 2.1.1.8 new. When it says Volusia County shall work with the city to assist planning and building city proof barriers in high-growth areas, is that going to be working both ways? The city working with the county also? Because that seems to be a problem.

Melissa can you address how you work with the city?

Good afternoon. Volusia County traffic engineering. That policy was rewritten to mimic what we are doing currently through the TIA process all cities coordinate upfront. A lot of times in the zoning and land-use amendments part of planning. So we do work with them to plan roadways and get them built. We always try to improve that process, but what are your concerns?

Well, one concern, a lot of times we take into consideration the impact on the through affairs when we look at the developments and the city seems not to just overlook our concerns so in other words they are putting the development and traffic onto the county roads and services. And I would like to have more relationship with the city going back and forth bilaterally on both sides to express those concerns because obviously they are not being looked at.

Understood. We try to coordinate as much as we can. We cannot tell the city what they can and cannot do. It is a partnership, sometimes the stronger partnership with some cities than others. I don't know what our limitations are but I know working on various projects it could be side projects that are no longer, we work with their higher-level upper management, we work with the planning staff, engineering staff on various issues. The relationship is how does the developer work with the city and how does the developer work with the county? It is comp located and different every time we go into it.

Right. I just want to make sure we get some sort of reciprocation from the city.

We really try. It is very time-consuming, can be frustrating but very rewarding. >> Some of these policies you are encouraging, [ Indiscernible ] how is the county planning to encourage objective work?

Right and a lot of that language is better located inside cities where there are urban land-use plans. We don't have as many situations in unincorporated county and that is a good thing as that is where the urban development is supposed to go. But we work with cities to try to hint around regarding better ways of moving people. It is up to them though and some of these changes might have to require land development changes further down and it has not happened yet. Do you have suggestions?

Perhaps one of those things -- very comp located. I look at traffic studies and try to understand some generations feeling or not feeling. It is a challenging subject. Explained to me what these constrained roadways are just for education. I know you have listed constrained roadways.

Those are roadways we are not planning to widen. They could be physically constrained where there is development on both sides of the roadway, and we don't want to tear it down. It could be constrained by environmental reasons like wetlands or a body of water. It could be policy constrained. A good example of a policy constrained is Granada Boulevard, Orman city Council 10 years ago maybe 20 years ago specifically said we want to have a four-lane roadway serve as the main corridor. We don't want six lanes, it is a completely different feel or they wanted to retain that more suburban . I think that they put a higher emphasis on bike and pedestrian mobility and anybody knows the time it takes to cross a six lane roadway is much different than a four-way especially when you have turn lanes and a wide median. Possibly ditches on the side. It is a game changer.

I was going to piggyback because the 2.1.1.8 happened to be one that I checked as well . Just from what I have seen in the past there does not seem to be much of a partnership many times. We listen to the cities insist the road get widened but they offer no financial help in getting it widened and we need to try to work on that.

Anybody else? >> [ Indiscernible ] I see we are providing an activity center obviously. My question is, that is contingent upon them bringing into the land is it not? Just want to make sure because I think we are getting , yes.

Can you speak to that?

The plan is the guiding document, things we want to see happen in our community so in order for those sorts of things to happen they have to be incorporated into the comp plan to make them come to fruition.

I understand that but we don't have it here yet so the way to say the least I don't know if we are going to get, I don't know if it's a go on the comp plan if it is going to the southwest side of the county rather than bringing it all into Deland.

We do have the activity center in the future land-use element which has already been provided for in the future land-use. The actual activity center.

I know, but we also had a son rail station in the future land-use and that is not happening.

You never know.

Just want to make comment.

Any other comments or questions? My turn. Melissa, I will be nice. The five-year Road program.

Which one?

Just the general program. Would it be accurate to say that there are roads identified to be on the plan that either get pushed out because of funding issues or get dropped off altogether after period of time ?

Yes.

Just because something gets the plan does not mean it will actually happen within the five years.

When gas taxes were keeping up we were able to plan against that better than we can now. I know like Helen Boulevard has been on forever. There are other projects that remain on there forever and you talked about development driving the need for other roadways and cities . Us working with the city to promote building of the roads. Sometimes those roads that have new needs will come in and push. That has been discussed through the impact discussions and it is an issue we are aware of.

Right but there has not been a significant change for that characterization to alter greatly one way or the other.

Just the reality of development.

I agree, with that in mind my question is going to be on 2.1.3.3 and that is for the dedication of right-of-way. For the roads identified in the five-year program. I am wondering what the rationale is when you have roads that have sat on the five-year plan for over 10 years, is that a good way to induct -- conduct business when you have right-of-way dedication determinations? I am on page five of 18 which is 40 of 53 of the staff report and it is objective 2.1.3.3. It is not new it has a minor edit but given the conversation recently as Melissa pointed out. Over the years that we have looked at the five-year programs and the capital budget plans we have seen a lot of the same roads on here every five years over and over again so just again wondering if this is the right way to set the objective and I don't mean to put you on the spot but maybe this is a note for counsel to consider when it gets to them. >> All I can say is dedicating right-of-way is very different from having to acquire it. Dedicating right-of-way means the roadway as a better chance of getting billed than if we have to acquire. >> Meaning little segments at a time. In some cases.

Very difficult and we work with the city to try to get the right-of-way or obtain the right-of-way through their subdivision process or upfront earlier in the planning process rather than too late where we go parcel by parcel. It is very difficult, drives up the cost delaying the project so it could double or triple the time.

From the county point of view when you are the applicant and your project is being identified as a five-year plan and then 15 years but we will take the property anyway and then budget as priorities change and of falls off the list. I think we can do better to represent ourselves and I wanted to bring that up and at least get it on the record for discussion as it goes beyond us.

I had not thought of it to be honest. I guess I am upset with the current funding situation of the roadways and the Council updated the impact fee ordinance. But hopefully with passing the gas tax we will be able to get what we need to get the roadways back to where they need to be. Meeting the levels of service that are adopted everywhere. And then this won't be as much of an issue.

Okay. Anybody else? >> This is not just like we have seen this in two or three years. I have been here long enough to go through multiple capital improvement budgets and to see the projects and the ones that stay on forever and the ones that fall off. To tie a policy to that kind of system to me is asking for a reevaluation of something a little more equitable for all parties involved. Just throwing that out. >> The staff does not intend to do that it just happens because of the nature of everything going on. The economy, we try to move things along. We work with the transportation department who works with the government and tries to get funding just to add to projects and get them. We have become quite innovative upstairs.

[ Indiscernible ]

We can raise the issue in the staff as it moves on to counsel.

It certainly would be my pleasure. Actually the, is very intriguing. I don't know that anybody has discussed.

At least some type of compensation mitigation.

Anybody else with comments or questions?

I'm not going, okay.

The point of mentioning the Boulevard circling right back around to working with the city again. Cities that are saving literally millions by taking advantage of the fact that the county is spending millions to develop a road. They go in and develop their water and sewer systems but there is no reciprocal money coming forward. So this is, [ Indiscernible ]

You talked about the transportation tax, is that correct? Possibly going through. Will that be earmarked specifically for roadways or does that encompass sun rail and other public transportation?

I'm not sure if that is finally determined yet. It is still on the table and all cities are involved.

Okay. Just a thought.

Anybody else? Okay. A lot of good stuff has been brought up. I think the task in front of us is to move this forward with finding consistency, that is our charge. There have been some points that we can find consensus on to see if we want to send certain highlights of county counsel for attention. So why don't we start with that part and work our way into finding consistency. Starting with city and county partnerships reciprocation.

I would like to add that and I don't know how we can do this but just emphasize that we feel there needs to be continued work toward trying to get some type of reciprocal agreement going on with the city rather than county being fully responsible for roadways that go through the municipalities. I don't know how we would word that. >> We can wordsmith that but these comments can come forward to the Council via the minutes is that what you want or do you want them as part of your motion?

Do you want to assume all the minutes are red? >> Can we make a motion?

You can make comments that will be included in the motion that the motion is taking the amendment. Because you're not adding the language to the body of the amendment it is not included as part of the comprehensive plan. You are looking at certain things to be aspirational goals for the Council to consider and look at. So yes if you provide as minutes if you want to earmark which ones you want highlighted to the Council than those can be included in the staff report to the Council as this is what was commented on when reviewing the amendment. And it can go forward that way if you want to earmark these are the highlights we

want to hit, staff can go through the minutes and make the summaries and include that as part of the staff report.

We only have two major ones. Unless I am missing one.

The coordination between the county and the city? The five-year plan versus using that as a mechanism?

You don't feel the sun rail issues with keeping it in the company has a plan? If it is not moving forward?

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that would be a deeper issue because that is already in the comp plan.

Remember conference appliance , that is really the aspirational document planning ahead. So that might not be presently discussed you want to plan ahead for it to be possibly taken into action. You already plan for that.

Okay. Let's start there. Are those things something the commission wants earmarked in the staff report? If so we need a motion for that. Cleaner that way?

You can make the motion to approve to recommend approval of the amendment to the transportation element. To the Council for approval and to highlight comments to be addressed to the counsel.

We can do it all in one. Who wants to make the motion?

Make a motion to find the case number CPA-18-010 to forward to the County Counsel with recommendation of approval with two notes as discussed including cooperation with the city and looking at right-of-way with the five-year plan.

Can we work with that?

That is fine. Right away dedication.

That was a split there.

Okay I have a motion staff can work with. Do I have a second ?

I will second.

Any discussion on the motion? All in favor signal by saying I. And he opposed say no. The motion carries and I believe we have another ordinance.

Yes ordinance 2019-03 proposed ordinance for amending Chapter 72 section 72-303 nonresidential design standards. Mr. Ashley. Last one. Bring us home.

This deals with nonresidential design standards intended to provide some visual appearance and architectural guidelines for various

nonresidential developments in the county. One of the things we have run into is the way the code is set up , if you want to seek modifications to certain standards the way to do that is in the zoning ordinance you get a variance on the land development code of the ability of the review committee can modify the process. This is a zoning ordinance and a lot of design standards are not related to the height area or things you would get a variance as described in the ordinance. Other areas we do provide for some administrative relief through a zoning enforcement official waiver modification if it creates hardship so we have run into some issues in the last few years. Now and then there was a project that cannot meet certain standards or has alternative guidelines but we don't have anything to code that is designed to accommodate that so the goal is to one, modify the section document to add a provision where the zoning enforcement has the ability to make waivers or modifications to certain standards and to accommodate that it will be during the site review process and the second issue this addresses is industrial environment. Right now standards apply to all buildings in a project area and trying to dress things up. I guess it is going to amount to consequences for industrial where you might want the front area of the industrial development to look nice because it is on the main road but really in the back part of the project area the building needs to be nice looking to each other. So we suggested and all of these requirements as a guideline have been sent and it has been looked at and we have incorporated comments into the ordinance but basically we are looking at dropping the industrial use from the majority of the design standards and setting up their own set of design standards. Sewing new subsection which would be addressed in the industrial development starting on page 6 of the package. We would still have some design standards but again focusing more on the front of the buildings where the general public would see a not necessarily make it a point that the entire interior has to comply with the same standards that you might find in a commercial project with multiple buildings with public driving through and so forth. So this is our recommendation to make those changes and we ask that you find the ordinance consistent with the plan and forward that to the County Counsel with recommendation of approval for the first reading which will be January 22. Any comments or questions I would be happy to address them.

Other questions from staff?

I have a question, did this relief you're talking about go to the zoning planner, is there another avenue to take it further if that does not work out? Or is it finite? >> If they cannot ask for a determination from the zoning enforcement official and they disagree, you can appeal to the County Counsel.

Okay.

Help me with zoning enforcement official. Are we speaking of one individual making the determination?

The zoning enforcement official by ordinance is the director of the growth management roads and resource management Department or is

assigned. So at this point there are basically three people who make decisions on various points of the ordinance. I am a zoning enforcement official for certain elements of the ordinance so if I review and find there is reason to change the code or provisions . For instance one of them is fencing, we require the good side to face out. If there is existing vegetation or another fence there that prohibits that, the applicant can request the enforcement official to waive the provision and just build the fence the way they can. And then landscaping allows for waivers from landscaping standards if it creates a hardship because that is tied to primarily nonresidential site development than the land development manager has authority with input from staff for plan environmental changes that he can make or changes to the code. They are written specifically in the code to provide for that, there's nothing for the architectural design standards and there is really no provision to get a variance. So we felt this would be a good way. Administratively it will streamline the design professionals in meeting the intent but maybe not the full scope or maybe they don't know of an alternative design that the code does not provide for but it could be just as drafted.

Questions or comments? Mr. Ashley, we had some pretty in-depth comments and the staff of the opinion have they incorporated any of the comments or how are they being treated is a better question?

That have not been fully incorporated, but we do have some of the language they were looking for like intent, we can further reevaluate but my understanding is we have this report on page two. At this time they have not been incorporated for something you would see that is invalid but we can look that up to weigh in on some of those options.

Page 11 of 12 seems to have the most impact, most of them seem to be edits for grammatical. Functionally on page 11 of 12 there are some good points. I did not know if staff had vetted those. Do they disagree? Will it take to get to the Council?

I think it will take to get to the Council before it is fully vetted.

Okay I appreciate the comments that were given. I think they would be important to the conversation. We will leave it at that. Anything else? Any members of the public wish to speak to this? We will close the floor. Anybody want to take a shot at this?

I will make a motion that we find ordinance number 2019-03 consistent with conference a plan and forward to the County Counsel for first hearing with a recommendation of approval.

I will second the motion.

I have a motion and a second, any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The motion carries. Staff items.

I have no specific staff items but I do want to take this time to thank Mr. chair for his fine long service. Starting in 2007 until now. Started as a new member and then vice chair and then chairman for most of his tenure and we do appreciate the time you have taken to run a very thorough meeting. Certainly very evenhanded, providing for both sides to vent their issues and -- you have done a good job and certainly I and behalf of the staff thank you for your long service and you certainly will be missed.

Any other staff items? Staff comments? Commission comments? I'm going to jump in and say thank you to County Counsel for allowing me to serve the community in this capacity. Reiterate the appreciation from staff but in your direction I have enjoyed working with everybody, in my tenure there has been a dramatic shift in the organization and the style and personalities. Trajectory is now better going forward as it is positive and has been a pleasure to be part of it. So thank you, I appreciate all of the relationships and support along the way. I'm going to miss everybody.

We appreciate your work and mentorship and getting us going in the right direction.

Thank you. Press or citizen comments? Okay then this will be my last time adjourning, thank you everybody.