PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING HELD AUGUST 16, 2018

Transcription

1 Page of 0 PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING HELD AUGUST, 0 The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission was called to order by Ronnie Mills, at :00 a.m., in the County Council Meeting Room of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, West Indiana Avenue, DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members answered present, to wit: FRANK SEVERINO - ABSENT WANDA VAN DAM JEFFREY BENDER JAY YOUNG RONNIE MILLS STEVE COSTA ELLEN DARDEN - ABSENT STAFF PRESENT: MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Assistant County Attorney SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, Senior Planning Manager PATRICIA SMITH, AICP, Planner II STEVEN E. BAPP, Planner II SHERRI LAROSE, Zoning Technician YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chair Mills led the pledge of allegiance. Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June, 0 No revisions or discussion. Member Young MOVED to APPROVE the June, 0 minutes. Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission Board were asked to please disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte communications that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is to be taken on any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any communication as listed below.

2 Page of 0 Members Costa, Van Dam, Bender and Mills had communications with Alex Ford regarding cases V--0 and Z--0. Member Bender also had communications with George White, and Taver and Joan Corrnett regarding case V--0. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN Proposed Ordinance 0- - proposed amendment to Chapter regarding Conservation Subdivisions Clay Ervin, Director, Growth & Resource Management Department. There was no discussion. Member Mills CONTINUED the proposed ordinance 0- for thirty days to the September 0, 0 public hearing. There was no objection to the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). NEW BUSINESS S--0 Application of Mark Watts, attorney for Florida Resource Materials, LLC, contract purchaser, Vincent Contestible, owner, requesting a special exception for a nonexempt excavation on Prime Agriculture (A-), Rural Agriculture (A-), and Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He explains the location of the special exception request and that the proposed nonexempt excavation pit is limited to a -acre portion of the A- and A- zoned portion of the -acre property. The excavation and reclamation activities are limited to a five-year time period. The excavation operation will have cells for dewatering while excavating materials, and reclamation will be done as each cell is completed. The overall plan for reclamation is to create a lake. If the special exception is approved by the county council, the next step would be to complete the Final Site Plan (FSP) process through the County s Land Development office. Staff has received comments from an adjoining property owner, Mr. Henry, who resides near the northwest corner of the property, as well as comments from the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the twenty-two conditions as outlined within the staff report. Member Van Dam asked if the wetlands ditch was considered a wetland. Mr. Ashley replied that his understanding was that it was considered a wetland and that it was a man-made feeder ditch between two wetland areas, which staff was willing to work with the applicant to relocate. However, this would require a wetland alteration permit during the final site plan process. Member Van Dam commented that the criteria requires avoidance of wetlands. Mr. Ashley replied that the applicant is avoiding the natural wetlands and the ditch appears to be man-made.

3 Page of 0 Mark Watts, Cobb Cole, North Woodland Boulevard, DeLand, stated they agree with the staff recommendation with twenty-two conditions. However he would like to add condition twenty-three (read condition into record) to address the concerns of the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, which has been sent to the Utilities Commission for review, who, to date, have not responded. He mentioned that condition nineteen was to alleviate staff s concern about truck traffic on Kersey Road, which will be done during the Final Site Plan process and dedication of that non-vehicular access easement will be to the County. The excavation is limited to a five-year time period, and, at the end of five years, the site will be reclaimed to a lake with the banks sloped and sodded and possibly stocked with fish. Member Young mentioned that he was concerned with the hours of operation, particularly the operations on Saturday as most people would be away working on Monday through Friday, but would be disturbed on Saturday by this operation. Mr. Watts replied that on Saturdays, the hours of operation will be limited and still have all the requirements for dust maintenance as part of the approval (watering trucks) provided. The pumps and other equipment are required to operate at 0 decibels, which is in compliance with the County s Noise Ordinance, together with limited hours of operation on Saturday, and final site plan approval, were conditions to address the potential impacts to the surrounding area. Member Young wondered if the four hours of operation on Saturday would have an impact (on the excavation) and is still a concern for him. Member Costa asked if Mr. Watts knew of any validity to the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach s concern that dewatering would cause a draw down problem for their well field. Mr. Watts commented that the submitted hydrological report shows that the -foot draw down contour line is north of State Road, so there should not be any issues. However, the recharge trenches would be an added measure of prevention. Member Bender asked about the Utilities Commission s request to limit the excavation to feet deep. Mr. Watts stated that the excavation is limited to an elevation of feet. Member Mills asked if the property owner was willing to eliminate the operation on Saturday since there is high traffic volume especially during summer. Mr. Watts replied he had not had conversations with his client about Saturday operations as of yet, but would prior to his rebuttal of public participation. Member Van Dam asked if the Utilities Commission had asked about having their well fields being monitored.

4 Page of 0 Mr. Watts replied that there has not been enough information yet to know if that is needed, and that is a reason he asked that the Utilities Commission be involved in the final site plan process because the hydrology reports will be more in depth at that stage. Public Participation. Jennifer Hall-Sniadach, Kersey Road, stated she is located directly in front of this operation. She has two children; one has asthma and the other is home schooled. She is concerned that the noise and dust is going to severely impact her lifestyle and decrease her property value. Member Young asked Ms. Sniadach to point on the map where her property was located. Ms. Sniadach stated she was near Jason Street and was the property with the three ponds. Member Costa asked why she thought this (excavation) pit would be dusty. Ms. Sniadach replied that she has been on a construction site and doesn t need a study to understand that 00 trucks coming in and off a dirt road would cause dust. She also commented that traffic on State Road was heavy now and doesn t need to have a study to understand that 00 trucks per day would cause more traffic issues. Geoff Marquard, Kersey Road, commented that this is a horrible idea, the neighborhood doesn't want this, and it will destroy the property values. He mentioned that the operation site was in the front yards of the property owners on Kersey Road, not in their back yards, and it was unfavorable to be woken up every day at :00 a.m. by loud trucks. He considered 00 trucks a day heavy traffic in his front yard. No one has done a study on what this excavation will do to the wells to the north of this site. He also commented that having one day off from the impacts of this operation for the next five years was not right. Member Young ask for their location. Mr. Marquard replied his location is to the northwest end of the property and is the fourth property east on Kersey Road. Patricia Marquard, Kersy Road, commented that she has to use oxygen and has to sleep a lot for her health. She stated that they raise miniature donkeys, and this is detrimental to her health and her animals health. She added that they will lose half the value of this property if this happens, and this would flood their homes. Tom Wright, Powerline Road, asked the commission to provide the next steps in this process in order to give the homeowners time to do research and be prepared for another hearing. He had concerns about the noise, the pumps running all the time, the operation on Saturday, dewatering, wells, and the heavy traffic. Member Mills replied that the commission makes recommendations to the council. He asked Mr. Ashley to provide the council date for this application.

5 Page of 0 Mr. Ashley provided that the county council will hear this request on October, 0, with a time certain of : a.m. Time certain means it cannot be heard prior to that time but anytime afterwards. Member Young asked Mr. Wright for his property location. Mr. Wright stated that he was the fourth house on the right from the intersection of Powerline Road and Kersey Road. Mr. Watts reiterated that this location was the property that the county was looking to acquire for its road and bridge facility. The zoning and land development codes provide criteria for such projects to minimize the impacts of concern that have been provided by the public today. He mentioned that he spoke with his clients and they could minimize the Saturday operations to Saturdays a year for maintenance only, not excavating. He introduced John Mikkos from Bio-Tech Consulting to clarify any confusion regarding the dewatering and the hydrology report. Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, asked Mr. Watts to clarify whether he was providing for informational purposes that the proposed pumps and equipment would operate at 0 decibels, which is lower than the decibels allowed by the county, or offering it as a condition of approval. Mr. Watts clarified that it was not a condition of approval, merely mentioning that the pumps were going to operate lower than allowed. John Mikkos, Bio-Tech Consulting, East South Street, Orlando, commented that the primary intent of the design using recharge trenches is to ensure there is no drawdowns of the wetlands and no impacts to the ground water. He also stated the upland cut ditch is being relocated and no change in drainage would occur. Member Costa asked that the recharge trenches will be designed and permitted through the St. Johns River Water Management District. Mr. Mikkos affirmatively replied. Member Van Dam asked if monitoring is required. Mr. Mikkos replied that we do not have the answer yet, and it would depend on the permitting analysis by the St. John s River Water Management District. Member Young asked about the quality of water of the surrounding wells. Mr. Mikkos mentioned that the recharge trenches would address quality issues, however the quality of ground water that is used for any domestic water wells would be under the Department of Health (not the St. John s River Water Management District). Member Young asked if the Department of Health would have oversight on this project.

6 Page of 0 Mr. Mikkos replied that the Department of Health would not have oversight however, should a complaint be filed with them and they would contact the St. John s River Management District if necessary in regards to the dewatering permit for this project. Member Costa asked about the details of the landscape berms. Mr. Watts provided the specifications of the berm requirements as listed on pages through of of the staff report. Member Bender asked about the corrective steps for the surrounding property owners that may have a problem with their wells. Mr. Watts replied that the permitting agencies would require an alternative plan for dewatering but there is no proposed impacts to any surrounding properties. Mr. Mikkos stated that the quality of the wells will not be affected by this project. Mr. Watts spoke to page of the staff report, which is the dewatering plan for the excavation. He commented that there is no water actually leaving the site. He provided the example of using a straw and how the levels around the straw lower when used but when the straw is not used the levels return. Member Young commented that his concerns about the quality of the water was because, during water pumping, other minerals can be pulled in and be mixed into the water when the water levels return. Commission Discussion. Member Costa commented that the landscaping berms will be beneficial to help with the noise concerns. He has not seen any evidence that the surrounding wells will be affected. He commented that he would support the recommendation of approval. Member Young mentions he still has concerns with the Saturday operation. Member Mills echoed the concerns about the Saturday operation. He stated that it was a limited use that had to be completed within years. He also felt that weekends should not be noisy and thirty weekends is still more than half the year He would be more favorable if there were no Saturday operation. Mr. Watts commented that they would further restrict the Saturday operations to a one or two- person crew that would be for inspections and maintenance of the pumps and equipment, and there would be no excavation operation or traffic generation by trucks. Mr. Ashley provided that the commission would need to amend condition thirteen concerning the hours of operation and the addition of the applicant s condition. Member Costa MOVED to FORWARD case number S--0, to county council with a recommendation of approval with the following modified staff recommended conditions:

7 Page of 0. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant shall submit for and obtain Final Site Plan approval, pursuant to the procedures of Article III, Division of the Land Development Code.. The Final Site Plan shall comply with the all the excavation requirements of Article II, Division, Section -() of the zoning code.. The Special Exception is limited to Tax Parcel ID # A revised boundary survey shall be provided during the Final Site Plan review process. Any work proposed beyond Parcel # shall be subject to a review by the PLDRC.. There shall be no new or expanded operations beyond the footprint identified in the Excavation Plan on Sheet C.0 in the Construction Plans signed and sealed by Nick John Gargasz and dated May, 0.. The special exception shall be limited to a term of five years, which is consistent with the proposed plan to finish the reclamation work within five years of approval of the special exception. Any modifications to the timing shall require review by the PLDRC.. The applicant shall incorporate the preliminary comments and recommendations of the technical review staff report, dated June, 0, which was provided during the Special Exception review process (attached). Modifications to the preliminary recommendations will require approval by the Development Review Committee.. A time, duration, phasing and proposed work schedule shall be provided as part of the Final Site Plan review process.. The applicant will provide a final dewatering plan in accordance with the Final Site Plan requirements.. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted during the Final Site Plan review process that meets the requirements of Section - of the Zoning Code.. Perimeter landscape buffers shall be established prior to initiation of the excavating activity and shall meet the requirements of subsection - ()a, Landscape Buffer Table.. A detailed Reclamation Plan that meets the requirements of Section - ()b()ix shall be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan process.. A detailed Hydrologic Report that meets the requirements of Section - ()b()x shall be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan process.

8 Page of 0. The excavation shall operate from :00 a.m. to :00 p.m., Monday through Friday and :00 a.m. to :00 p.m. on Saturday only. The site will be closed on Sunday and federal holidays. Saturday operation shall be limited to site and equipment maintenance only, with no excavation activity or truck trip generation. This maintenance-only use shall be limited to thirty () Saturdays a year.. The excavation shall be enclosed with a six-foot high, chain link fence with a gate that shall be closed and locked at all times when the excavation pit is not in use.. The applicant shall comply with any applicable local, state or federal rules and regulations of applicable governmental agencies.. The applicant shall post an acceptable performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or funds in escrow in an amount up to 0 percent of the estimated reconditioning costs, as estimated by the Developer s Engineer in the proposed plan of reclamation and, in a format approved by the Volusia County Environmental Management Services. The guarantee shall run with the life of the excavation and reclamation activities. If the applicant has not completed the excavation within the term granted by this special exception, the county may redeem the letter of credit, escrow, or bond and utilize the funds to perform and remedial work necessary to complete the terms and conditions of the reclamation, as required by the county in the special exception and final site plan approval processes.. The applicant shall submit an engineer s certification and progress report to the Planning and Development Services Division on an annual basis outlining that the excavation is proceeding in accordance with the terms of the excavation permit and/or DRC requirements and/or conditions.. A water tank truck shall be utilized (four times a day) for dust suppression in the borrow pit area and on the haul road. Haulage trucks shall utilize a tarp or net blanket over the material to be transported.. A one-foot non-vehicular access easement will be established along Kersey Rd. 0. The driveway should include a -inch STOP sign and a minimum of feet of -inch double yellow thermoplastic striping that meets the requirements of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices.. Gates must be a minimum of feet from the right-of-way line of SR.. An employee trailer shall be placed on site prior to initiation of excavation activities. The trailer shall contain, at a minimum, a chemical toilet and a water tank that will serviced regularly to remove waste materials from the

9 Page of 0 site, subject to approval of the Florida Department of Health Volusia.. Additional recharge trenches shall be added at final site plan to connect Wetland B to Wetland D and Wetland F to Wetland SE in order to provide additional recharge north of the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission s potable water wells located south of State Road. In addition, the applicant shall copy the final site plan submittal to the Utilities Commission and representatives of the Utilities Commission shall be invited to submit comments or attend Development Review Committee meetings held to review the final site plan to ensure any concerns regarding dewatering operations are addressed. Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED : (Member Bender in opposition). Z--0 Application of Donna Greenlund, agent for Dorothy Hansen, owner, requesting a rezoning from the Transitional Agriculture (A-) zoning classification to the Prime Agriculture (A-) zoning classification. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report explaining that the property was located in the Emporia rural community, at the intersection of Emporia Road and Peterson Road. The goal is to rezone a corner portion of the parcels to A- that will enable a property line adjustment, which will make parcel acres in area and allow it to be subdivided into two -acre, A- zoned properties. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the request. Donna Greenlund, Emporia Road, was present and had no additional comments. There was no public participation. There was no commission discussion. Member Van Dam MOVED to FORWARD rezoning case Z--0 to county council with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). V--0 Application of Jason Tanner, owner, requesting a variance to the maximum building height for an accessory structure on Osteen Transitional Residential (OTR) zoned property. The property is located at 0 Dads Wayout, Osteen; ±. acres; Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained that the requested variance was necessary for the owner to construct a,00-square-foot accessory structure to provide storage of a personal watercraft. Mr. Ashley referred to the south elevation plan on page three of of the staff report to assist in the discussion and said that due to the height of the watercraft on a trailer, a -foot high ceiling with a -foot entrance clearance at the doorway is required. The code defines the building height as the average distance between the eave and ridge

10 Page of 0 for a gable roof, and in this zoning classification the maximum height is feet. Mr. Ashley stated that the application meets all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends approval subject to the three staff-recommended conditions on page five of of the staff report. Jason Tanner, 0 Dads Wayout, Osteen, Florida. Mr. Tanner stated that the accessory structure was needed to protect his personal property from the weather and to provide security. He was in support of the staff recommendation of approval. No public participation. Member Young MOVED to APPROVE case number V--0, a variance to Section -()(e) for the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure from the maximum height allowed of feet to. feet on Osteen Transitional Residential (OTR) zoned property, subject to the following staff-recommended conditions:. The proposed accessory structure shall be constructed as indicated on the proposed building plans prepared by Orlando Design and Drafting, LLC, dated June, 0.. The proposed accessory structure shall be located in the area indicated on the submitted concept plan prepared by Orlando Design and Drafting, LLC, dated June, 0.. The applicant shall obtain and complete all required building and development permits and inspections for the proposed accessory structure. Member Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). V--0 Application of Donald Roebuck, owner, requesting a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Rural Residential (RR) zoned property. The property is located at 0 Old Titusville Road, Deltona; ±. acres; Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained that the requested variance is necessary for the owner to construct a 0- square-foot accessory detached garage on an existing slab in the front yard setback. Mr. Ashley referred to the concept plan on page three of of the staff report and said the Development Review Committee would need to grant a waiver from the Enterprise Community Overlay Zone design criteria to allow a metal façade treatment on the proposed accessory structure and allow the structure in the front yard. The RR zoning classification requires a front yard setback of feet from Old Titusville Road. Mr. Ashley said the proposed accessory structure could be relocated to meet the -foot front yard, thereby eliminating the necessity of the variance. Mr. Ashley stated that the application does not meet all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends denial.

11 Page of 0 Donald Roebuck, 0 Old Titusville Road, Deltona, Florida. Mr. Roebuck explained that his property is +/-,00 feet from the nearest paved road [Garfield Road], and Old Titusville Road is a dirt roadway maintained by the individual property owners. Mr. Roebuck informed the commission that he received four letters of support from the adjacent neighbors as to the materials and location of the proposed 0- square-foot detached garage. Mr. Roebuck stated that the proposed accessory structure would have trim to match the principal single-family dwelling and be cohesive with the rural character of the area. Member Costa inquired if the proposed 0-square-foot detached garage could be relocated elsewhere on the lot. Mr. Roebuck responded that it would be convenient for storage to place the proposed 0-square-foot detached garage on the existing slab. Mr. Roebuck stated that there is an existing fence preventing the structure to be relocated further on the lot to meet the -foot setback. Vice-Chair Mills asked Mr. Roebuck if he had the letters of support from the neighbors. Mr. Roebuck responded in the affirmative and stated that the letters of support from the adjacent neighbors were ed to Ms. Somers, Staff Assistant II. Member Young stated that the fence could be pushed back approximately seven feet resulting in the proposed 0-square-foot detached garage to be relocated to meet the code requirement of the -foot front yard setback from Old Titusville Road. Mr. Roebuck responded that there is an oak tree just inside the fence line, therefore the fence could not be relocated. Member Young expressed concerns with the requested variance and acknowledged that there is sufficient space on the property to construct the proposed 0-square-foot detached garage to meet the code requirements. Ms. Somers informed the commission that staff received two letters of support. A letter was received from Andre Smolinsky, Old Titusville Road, Enterprise [neighbor to the west]. A letter was also received from Kathy Audia, Saxon Boulevard, Deltona [neighbor to the north]. Vice-Chair Mills stated he would like the two remaining letters of support to be included in the record in the event of an appeal to the County Council. No public participation. Member Young MOVED to DENY case number V--0, a variance to the minimum yard requirements on Rural Residential (RR) zoned property. Member Costa asked the commission to consider adding a condition requiring that a - foot conservation buffer be provided to maintain the existing thick vegetation along Old Titusville Road.

12 Page of 0 Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Member Costa expressed concerns with denying the requested variance and restated to the commission to consider a condition of approval requiring that a -foot conservation buffer be provided to maintain the existing thick vegetation along Old Titusville Road. Member Costa acknowledged that the applicant has neighborhood support and he stated that there is an opportunity to keep the vegetation in-tack and construct an accessory structure with minimal impact to the area. Member Young responded that the code specifies a -foot setback is required in the front yard and there is more than sufficient space on the property for the proposed 0- square-foot detached garage to be in compliance with the required setback. Motion CARRIED : (Member Costa in opposition). V--0 Application of Alex Ford, attorney for Fredrick and Theresa Kaiser, owners, requesting a variance to the minimum yard requirements and maximum building height for an accessory structure on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-) zoned property. The property is located at Flowing Well Road, DeLand; ±, square feet; Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained that the requested variances are necessary for the owner to construct a twostory,0-square-foot accessory structure to provide storage of a personal watercraft and motor coach. Mr. Ashley said that the owner is requesting a -foot reduction of the south front yard setback and to the maximum height requirement from feet to. feet to accommodate the -foot by -foot accessory structure. The R- zoning classification requires a front yard setback of feet on Flowing Well Road. Mr. Ashley said the proposed accessory structure could be relocated to meet the -foot front yard and eight-foot side yard setbacks, thereby eliminating the necessity of one variance, or the variance could be minimized by architectural design. Mr. Ashley stated that the application does not meet all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends denial. Vice-Chair Mills inquired if other accessory structures exceeding the maximum height of feet exists in the neighborhood. Mr. Ashley responded in the affirmative, and stated that a variance was granted in 0 for an accessory structure height of approximately feet for another lot in the neighborhood. Alex Ford, Jr., Landis, Graham, French, P.A., E. Rich Avenue, DeLand, Florida 0. Mr. Ford stated he was aware of two other accessory structures exceeding the maximum height of feet located on Flowing Well Road that possibly were constructed prior to the zoning code height restrictions being in place. Mr. Ford summarized the two variances his client was requesting for the property. Mr. Ford stated that the original variance application had been minimized by eliminating the necessity for a variance to the rear yard setback and that the variance application

13 Page of 0 included letters of support from the neighbors. Mr. Ford acknowledged if the Smart Growth Initiative was approved amending the maximum height of an accessory structure from feet to 0 feet, then his client was simply requesting a variance of. feet. The code currently does not provide for customary accessory structures for the storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Ford referred to the motor coach picture on page of of the staff report, and explained that the motor coach is feet inches in height and in order to provide routine maintenance of the air conditioning units and antennas, a four-foot overhead clearance is required. Due to the unique configuration of the property, the roadway and the location of the existing septic tank, a re-design of the,0-square-foot accessory structure would create a hardship in maneuvering the motor coach in keeping the turning movements within his client s property. Mr. Ford stated the structure would be constructed to architecturally and visually enhance the neighborhood, and asked the commission to grant the requested variances. Member Van Dam asked Mr. Ford if any of the accessory structures exceeding the maximum height of feet in the neighborhood that he referred to in his presentation are. feet in height. Mr. Ford asked Mr. Carelli to provided additional testimony. Robert Carelli, Draftworks Design Associates, Inc., Saxon Boulevard, Orange City, Florida. Mr. Carelli referred to Exhibit six on page of of the staff report to assist in the discussion, and stated that the structures pictured appear to be at least 0 feet in height. The proposed,0-square-foot accessory structure would be constructed with block construction, stone columns and a metal roof to aesthetically match the future renovation to the existing single-family dwelling. Mr. Ford acknowledged that his client could wait for the future ordinance to amend the code to meet the 0-foot height requirement for an accessory structure, but it wouldn t be as functional or attractive. Mr. Carelli referred to the elevation plan on pages and of of the staff report, and stated that the proposed : roof pitch is necessary to accommodate the size of the motor coach and maintain its equipment. The proposed,0-square-foot accessory structure was designed to aesthetically fit with the structures in the neighborhood. Member Van Dam expressed concerns with the proposed,0-square-foot accessory structure exceeding the maximum height of the future ordinance of 0 feet. Mr. Ford responded that his client is asking for a maximum height of. feet but would accept a 0-foot height if it was more favorable to the commission. Member Bender stated that he had spoken with some of the neighbors regarding the requested variances. The neighbors are in support of the proposed,0-square-foot accessory structure and for the existing palm trees to remain in place. Member Bender stated that the proposed height of the accessory structure is in character with the existing structures of the adjacent neighbors properties.

14 Page of 0 Mr. Ford expressed concerns in relocating the proposed,0-square-foot accessory structure westerly as the dwelling of the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Pugh, is very close to the lot line. Mr. Pugh signed a petition supporting the requested variances. Member Bender stated that Mr. Pugh s single-family dwelling is very close to the shared lot line, and relocating the,0-square-foot accessory structure westerly could inconvenience that adjacent neighbor. Member Van Dam expressed concerns with the requested additional height of the variance, and would like to minimize the impact. Vice-Chair Mills asked Mr. Ford if the site plan on page of of the staff report is the same site plan that the adjacent neighbors were in support of. Mr. Ford responded in the affirmative. No public participation. Member Costa MOVED to APPROVE case number V--0, a variance to Section -()(e) for a front yard setback from the required feet to 0 feet for an accessory structure (variance ) and a variance to Section -()(e) for the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure from the maximum height allowed of feet to. feet (variance ) on Urban Single-Family Residential (R- ) zoned property. Mr. Ashley asked the commission to consider the addition of staff recommendation #, referring to pages through of of the staff report, requiring that the -foot by -foot accessory structure is constructed as indicated in the proposed building plans prepared by EPI, Inc., dated May, 0. Member Costa AMENDED the MOTION to include staff-recommended condition #. The proposed -foot by -foot accessory structure shall be constructed as indicated on the proposed building plans prepared by EPI, Inc., dated May, 0. Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED : (Member Van Dam in opposition). Z--0 Application of Alex Ford, attorney for Bradley Sutherland and Mark and Sarah Pavelchak, owners, requesting a rezoning from the Prime Agriculture (A-) and Rural Agriculture (A-) zoning classifications to the Transitional Agriculture (A-) zoning classification. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained that the intent is to vacate the underlying plat and to create.-acre lots, and the rezoning is to help accommodate this future plan. The A- zoned property to the northwest has physical access through the plat and is nonconforming with the lot size of the zoning classification. This request will provide them direct access on Kicklighter Road and make it conforming to the proposed A- zoning classification. Staff finds this

15 Page of 0 is a good transitional zoning from the one-acre lots to the west and the larger five and ten-acre lots to the east. He mentioned that staff finds the request compatible with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval as presented in the staff report. Member Van Dam asked if page of of the staff report represents the proposed division of this property. Mr. Ashley replied affirmatively. Alex Ford, Landis, Graham, French, East Rich Avenue, DeLand, stated the request is from A- and A- to A-. The property is adjacent on the west of the City of Lake Helen and has the City of Deltona to the south. This is a good transitional lot size between the west and south one-acre lot sized properties to the larger five and ten-acre lots to the north and east. As part of the vacation of platted rights-of-way, we are proposing to dedicate right-of-way for Kicklighter Road. The proposal is to create.- acre lots, except for the one large lot, which Mr. Sutherland will retain for his home. Public Participation. David Houghton, 00 Pineda Road, Lake Helen, commented that this (displayed aerial) map does not show Muck Lake, and is from 0, which was a drought year. He stated this area is underwater and that his property is four ten-acre properties to the east of this property, which has standing water. He explained the properties drain to the west and to the south into Muck Lake and feels five-acre lots would be more suitable for the area. He stated the people of Deltona use this private road as a cut through from Lake Helen to Deltona and that the county will not assist them with the traffic or the drainage, as it is a private road. Member Van Dam asked what road he is maintaining. Mr. Houghton replied Ranch Road, which is not shown on the map. Member Mills asked how.-acre lots would cause greater flooding than -acre lots. Mr. Houghton replied more homes would decrease the surface area where the water could drain to and the traffic will cause more wear and tear on the private road. Muck Lake backs up to our properties in Shady Acres. Rachel Houghton, 00 Pineda Road, Lake Helen, stated this request will ruin their rural lifestyle. She inquired as to why it cannot be acres to acres, instead of. acres. The road and drainage is an issue for this area. She questioned the compliance with due public notice as the she believes the posters were not posted until August TH. Fiona Ash, 0 East Kicklighter Road, Lake Helen, stated the property owner is only wanting to do this for the money. The Pavelchak s have deeded access to their property. If there are more houses, it will increase the crime rate. Raphine Pierce, 00 Sand Crane Lane, Lake Helen, echoed the issue with due public notice. She explained the aerial map that was shown is from a drought time period from 0, and that there is now standing water in the area. There is a county dedicated park

16 Page of 0 and lake within this property. She commented that Kicklighter Road is not built to standards and should not be used to support this request. She stated there are no.- acre lots within 0 feet of this property. Mary Ann Bardon, Lake Drive, DeBary, stated she owns the property to the northeast of the subject property and that Kicklighter Road is not where it should be because it was shifted to save a tree. She asked for a clarification of the rezoning classification. Member Mills replied that it was being rezoned to A- which allows. acres. Ms. Bardon asked which way the water flows. Mr. Ashley replied that he didn t have that information. Ms. Bardon stated that she has an issue with ingress and egress to her property and is concerned that with additional impervious surface she will be prohibited from using her property. Clifton Patterson, Ramsey Acres Lane, Lake Helen, mentioned that there are flooding issues and would like clarification about whether there will be new roads for the.-acre lots. Mr. Ashley responded that the existing platted roads would be vacated and then the lots would access Kicklighter Road. Mr. Patterson stated his property is at the corner of Hogsback Road and Ramsey Acres Lane and described the property to the west as more Resource Corridor than Agriculture, which is more compatible to the area, being five to ten-acre properties. He further stated the area is low and flood prone according to FEMA, and reminded the commission of the troubles in Deltona when people built in the dry lake beds which became flooded after the rains and storms of recent years. Mr. Ford rebutted stating that the 0 aerial map is the latest from the county, and that it was not his exhibit, and there was no intent to mislead anyone. Mr. Sutherland is proposing to retain acres for his own property between the proposed new lots and Muck Lake, so any water overflow would be on his property. He provided the site photos of the property posted on August, 0 (Evidence ). He mentioned that his client is allowed to sell his property for full market value and as to crime, there is no correlation to.-acre lots causing crime and acres not causing crime. He mentioned that vacating the plat is within the county council s purview and he mentioned it to give full disclosure. Mr. Patterson s property is north of two.-acre parcels. Finally, his client is willing to remove his personal property from the rezoning request and leave it at -acre minimum lot size. Commission Discussion. Member Van Dam asked the county attorney if removing the personal property of Mr. Sutherland would be a condition of approval of the rezoning.

17 Page of 0 Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, replied that it would not be a condition of approval. The applicant would need to amend his request in order to remove his personal property. Mr. Ford stated he is authorized to amend the application to withdraw of the -acre parcel (that would be Mr. Sutherland s personal property) from this rezoning request. Member Mills asked if county council could make the determination whether the acres should stay in the request or not. Mr. Rodriguez stated that you could recommend approval or denial of this request or an amended request. The applicant can amend his request before the county council, if he wanted to. Mr. Ford formally requested to withdraw Mr. Sutherland s -acre personal property from the consideration of this rezoning request. Member Costa commented that this is a -acre property and would allow twenty-four five-acre lots, and is now proposing a sixteen-lot subdivision that fixes a nonconforming lot and provides right-of-way for Kicklighter Road for maintenance. He is in support of recommending approval minus the thirty-four acres. Member Costa MOVED to FORWARD case Z--0 to county council with a recommendation of approval of an amended application to only rezone forty acres of the original seventy-four acres. Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). Z--0 Application of Joshua Wells, attorney for Joseph Puleo, owner, requesting a rezoning from the Rural Agricultural Estate (RA) zoning classification to the Rural Residential (RR) zoning classification. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report explaining that the rezoning would allow a reduction in lot size from a minimum of.-acres to a minimum of one-acre in area. The property is. acres in area, which includes a portion that is zoned Resource Corridor (RC) that will not be changed with this rezoning. There is an existing home on the property and a plan, in the staff report, that shows that the property can be divided into two parcels meeting the minimum dimensional requirements of the proposed RR zoning classification. There is RR zoned property to the south and Transitional Agriculture (A-) zoned property, which requires one-acre sized lots, to the west. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the request. Joshua Wells, 0 North Causeway, New Smyrna Beach, on behalf of the owner, commented that the owner had the wetland delineation done prior to applying for the rezoning so that the Resource Corridor was clearly shown when submitting for this rezoning to a common lot size in the area.

18 Page of 0 Public Participation William Abraham, Turnbull Creek Road, New Smyrna Beach, completed a public participation form in opposition of the request, however he was not present during the hearing. There was no commission discussion. Member Van Dam MOVED to FORWARD rezoning case Z--0 to county council with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0) Member Bender not present for vote. V--00 Application of Daniel Asencio, owner, requesting a variance to separate nonconforming lots on Rural Agriculture (A-) zoned property. The property is located on Hamilton Avenue, Orange City; ±. acres; and Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained that the requested variance to separate nonconforming lots is necessary for parcel to be eligible for the issuance of building permits. Mr. Ashley stated that the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision was platted in with a typical lot size of feet wide by feet deep. The minimum lot size of the A- zoning classification is five acres. Mr. Ashley summarized the layout of the subdivision, consisting of numerous nonconforming lots, and acknowledged that the applicants purchased the property in 0 with the intent of constructing a single-family dwelling. Mr. Ashley explained the nonconforming lot provision of the zoning code requires commonly owned parcels to be combined to meet the minimum dimensional standards of the current zoning classification. Mr. Ashley stated to create conforming parcels by purchasing adjacent lands would create a hardship on the various lot owners due to the existing lot pattern. Mr. Ashley referred to the site plan on page four of of the staff report and said with the granting of the variance, the single-family dwelling can be constructed to meet the required 0-foot front yard and -foot side yard setbacks of the A- zoning classification. Mr. Ashley stated that the application meets all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends approval subject to the one staffrecommended condition on page five of of the staff report. Daniel Asencio and Stephanie Taylor, Park Avenue, Orange City, Florida. Mr. Asencio and Ms. Taylor stated that they are in support of the staff recommendation of approval. No public participation. Member Van Dam MOVED to APPROVE case number V--00, a variance to Section -0() Nonconforming Lots, to separate parcel and of the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision on Rural Agriculture (A-) zoned property subject to the following staff-recommended condition:. Lots through 0, Block O, of the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision shall be combined into one parcel through the subdivision exemption process prior to issuance of a building permit.

19 Page of 0 Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). OLD BUSINESS V--0 Application of Thomas E. Makowski, BPF Design, Incorporated, agent for Todd Stefaniak, owner, requesting a variance to minimum yard requirements on Spruce Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoned property. The property is located at Taxiway Echo, Port Orange; ±. acres; Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard to construct a proposed,00-square-foot aircraft hangar addition. Mr. Ashley referred to the site plan on page of of the staff report and described the property improvements with a single-family dwelling, an aircraft hangar, swimming pool, and a tennis court. The applicant is seeking to construct a second aircraft hangar east of the tennis court that will attach to the existing hangar and require a rear yard setback reduction from the minimum feet to eight feet on Taxiway Aldo. The Spruce Creek PUD was designed as a fly-in subdivision where property owners could access their properties via a series of taxiways and store their aircraft in hangars within their own lot. Mr. Ashley said the proposed,00-square-foot aircraft hangar addition could be reduced in size or an alternative location on the lot is an option in reducing the requested variance of the property. Mr. Ashley stated that the application does not meet all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends denial. Staff has prepared four conditions of approval, if the PLDRC finds the application meets the criteria of Section -()(a), of the zoning code, referring to pages six and seven of of the staff report. Member Costa asked for clarification of staff-recommended condition # and if a gopher tortoise burrow existed on the property. Trish Smith, AICP, Planner III, responded that a gopher tortoise review would be completed during the permitting process. Thomas E. Makowski, BPF Design, Incorporated, 0 Fairview Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida. Mr. Makowski stated that his client owns more than one aircraft and requires the proposed,00-square-foot aircraft hangar addition. Mr. Makowski referred to the aerial map on page of of the staff report and expressed concerns with relocating the hangar as it would impact the existing tennis court foundation. Mr. Makowski introduced a copy of the site plan with signatures of support from the adjacent neighbors (Evidence ), and asked the commission to grant the variance. No public participation. Member Young MOVED to APPROVE case number V--0, a variance to the rear yard from the required feet to eight feet for a,00-square-foot aircraft hangar addition to an existing single-family residence on Planned Unit Development (Spruce Creek PUD) zoned property, subject to the following four staff-recommended conditions:

20 Page 0 of 0. The variance shall be limited to the size and location of the second hangar as depicted on the site plan provided by BPF Design Incorporated, dated May, 0, and attached to the staff report.. The property owners or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all required building permits and inspections for the proposed structure.. A letter of approval from the Spruce Creek Property Owners Association (SCPOA) shall be submitted to the Building and Permitting Division with the building permit application.. The applicant shall protect gopher tortoise burrows with a -foot buffer during construction. If the burrows or the buffers cannot be avoided, a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission gopher tortoise relocation permit shall be obtained. Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS. Request for rehearing of variance case V--0, application of Michael Jabolnski. Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, explained the intent of Section - of the zoning code is for the commission to determine if the rehearing request meets the criteria of the code. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the applicant would need to show the facts discussed at the July, 0, public hearing were either overlooked or misapprehended any facts of law. The applicant may not introduce new facts or evidence. Mr. Rodriguez stated should the commission decide to rehear the variance case, it should be stated its reasons for doing so with a future date and time for another public hearing, subject to compliance with due public requirements. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, summarized the requested variances were necessary for the applicant to construct an accessory structure that exceeds 00 square feet in area, exceeding the maximum height allowed of feet, and would encroach into the required five-foot side yard and 0-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Ashley stated that the variance was denied at the July, 0, public hearing. Mr. Ashley said should the commission decide to rehear the variance case, staff recommends the rehearing occur at the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 0, 0. Member Young acknowledged that the commission discussed various options for the applicant at the July, 0, public hearing. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the applicant shall state which facts were not considered, misunderstood or misapprehended at the July, 0, public hearing. Michael Jablonski, Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. Mr. Jablonski stated that the manufacturer can redesign the proposed accessory structure to eliminate the