PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING HELD November 15, 2018

Transcription

1 Page of PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING HELD November, 0 The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission was called to order by Frank Severino, at :0 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, Chair RONNIE MILLS, Vice-Chair WANDA VAN DAM, Secretary JEFFREY BENDER JAY YOUNG STEVE COSTA 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 DAVID STALLWORTH, AICP, Planner II SAMANTHA WEST, Planner II JESSICA R. FLOWERS, Staff Assistant II YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Severino led the pledge of allegiance. Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 0, 0 October, 0 Staff pulled minutes from the agenda for corrections. Member Mills gave a correction to staff for the revised minutes. Member Young MOVED to CONTINUE the September 0, 0, and October, 0, draft minutes to the December 0, 0 hearing. 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 were asked to disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte communications

2 Page of 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. Member Mills commented that he had a conversation with Mr. Woods, Mr. Cockcayne and Mr. Littler regarding variance case V--0. No other members present provided any ex parte communications. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN Ordinance 0- Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter regarding Conservation Subdivisions. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, stated that staff was still working with outside review groups and making revisions to the proposed ordinance. Staff is requesting a 0-day continuance to the December 0, 0 hearing. There was no discussion. Member Mills MOVED to CONTINUE to the December 0, 0, public hearing. Member Young seconded. Motion CARRIED unanimously. NEW BUSINESS CPA--00 Application of Bjorn-Alexander Whitaker, owner, requesting a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment from the Forestry Resource future land use designation to the Rural designation. Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson explained to the commission that the requested future land use amendment was required in order to be able to rezone the subject property so the applicant could build a singlefamily dwelling. She stated that the amendment was to go from Forestry Resource to the Rural land use designation. The accompanying rezoning application was to go from the Forestry Resource (FR) zoning classification to the Rural Agriculture (A-) zoning classification, which required a minimum of five acres and a minimum lot width of 0 feet on a public roadway. Ms. Jackson explained that to legitimize the lot and allow the rezoning, the future land use must first be amended. Staff found the request meets all criteria and recommended that it be forwarded to county council with a recommendation of approval. As there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. Bjorn-Alexander Whitaker, Whipporwill Drive, Port Orange. Mr. Whitaker had no comments. Public Participation. None.

3 Page of Commission Discussion. Member Van Dam referred to page six of of the staff report and asked about the City of Daytona Beach comprehensive plan amendment, which would trigger the one unit per acre threshold and asked, if at some point, the applicant could then put one dwelling per acre if the request were to be approved. Ms. Jackson stated that the rural land use designation would allow for that density; however, the subject property has no access to the rear and each parcel would have to have 0 feet on a public roadway. Since the subject property only has 0 feet on the roadway, someone would have to build a road along the side of the property to parcel it out, which was highly unlikely. Member Young MOVED to FIND case CPA--00 CONSISTENT with the comprehensive plan and FORWARD it to county council with a recommendation of APPROVAL and transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and Volusia Growth Management Commission for certification. Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). Z--0 Application of Bjorn-Alexander Whitaker, owner, requesting a rezoning from the Forestry Resource (FR) classification to the Rural Agriculture (A-) classification. Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Ms. Jackson explained to the commission that the request was to rezone. acres of a 0-acre parcel from FR to A-, subject to the approval of the future land use amendment. She stated the applicant wished to build a single-family home and staff recommended to forward the request to county council with a recommendation of approval. As there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. Bjorn-Alexander Whitaker, Whipporwill Drive, Port Orange, FL. Mr. Whitaker had no comments. Public Participation. None. Commission Discussion. None. Member Young MOVED to FORWARD case Z--0, to county council with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Member Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). V--0 Application of Kay Barnard, owner, requesting a variance to separate nonconforming lots on Urban Single Family Residential (R-) zoned property. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained to the commission that the requested variance was to address two lots in the Bethune beach area. He explained that the subject property was a nonconforming lot

4 Page of and that both lots were nonconforming with homes on them. He explained that the owner wanted to build an addition onto her home but due to the nonconforming lot status, she was unable to obtain a building permit. He concluded that staff recommended approval of the case. Being that there were no questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. Kay Barnard, 0 Turtle Mound Road, New Smyrna Beach,. Mrs. Barnard had no comments to add to the staff report. There being no questions of the applicant, the chair opened the floor to public participation. Public Participation. None. Commission Discussion. None. Member Mills MOVED to APPROVE case number V--0, a variance to Section -0() nonconforming lots to separate parcel from parcel Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (:0). S--0 Application of Al Allen, agent for Elmhurst Flower Growers, Inc., owner, requesting a special exception for a recreational area on Prime Agriculture (A-) zoned property. Susan Jackson, AICP, Senior Planning Manager, presented the staff report. She stated that this is a special exception for a recreational area for Stetson University s golf teams to practice. She mentioned that the staff recommended conditions would limit the use to the golf team and coaches. Other people may attend special occasions, limited to once per quarter; however, the number of people is not to exceed the capacity of the parking lot. The parking lot contains a maximum of sixteen parking spaces. She stated that staff reviewed the request and found it met all the criteria for a special exception; therefore, staff recommended approval subject to recommended conditions. However, the applicant informed her that he has been working with the surrounding property owners, and together they have worked out revised conditions that better meet the needs of the neighborhood. She suggested that their representative, Mark Watts, be invited to the podium to explain their negotiations and present the revised conditions. Mark Watts, North Woodland Boulevard, DeLand, stated that staff has reviewed the application, and found it to be consistent with the standards for the special exception for a recreational use. He mentioned that Jeff Altier, Athletics Director and Matt Adair, Project and Construction Management Director from Stetson University, and Steve Burns from Zev Cohen & Associates, were available to answer any specific questions if needed. He mentioned that several weeks ago, Mr. Adair hosted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the concerns of the surrounding property owners. He stated they have been in conversation with Ms. Astrid de Parry, who represents members of the area, and have been working on revisions to the staff recommended conditions to try to address all of the outstanding concerns. Mr. Watts stated that the staff recommended conditions are based

5 Page of on a site plan submitted August, 0. The revised conditions are based on a modified site plan (Evidence ) where the development is concentrated closer to Marsh Road. It also limits the aggregate footprint of buildings on the property to a maximum of,000 square feet. He stated that,000 square feet is below the comprehensive plan allowance of,000 square feet. The intent is to blend in with the character of the area. The landscape buffer along the southern and southwestern property lines is still being modified; however, we will be adding netting inward of the buffer area, and agreed to a 0-foot wide buffer. The netting is to be high enough to ensure no golf balls exit the property and that the neighbors see the landscaping not a large net. There were no modifications to conditions two and three. Condition four is still being discussed. Lighting for the site will be a motion detector activated security lighting system and all fixtures will meet international dark sky standards. That said, this morning Ms. de Parry asked that a lighting plan be approved as part of the final site plan review and that the lighting fixtures be limited to 0 feet in height. Condition five is still being modified as there have been concerns raised by residents with livestock. He stated that they do not want to cause issues for the neighbors, but all athletic facilities have must have lightning detection systems to protect students and staff. He stated that they agreed that the system be deactivated at night and when the facility is not in use for a prolonged period of time. The system speakers will be directed away from the adjacent properties so that the sound does not cross open fields. The system will be set with a decibel (db) level that is consistent with rural agriculture db levels and with county standards. However, Ms. de Parry mentioned this morning the 0 db level is the residential standard and the more restrictive level should apply. Stetson agreed to the 0 db level. Condition six is being modified so that the facility can be used for meetings, but Ms. de Parry would like it stated that golfing activities be limited to daylight hours only. On condition number seven, we are requesting a modification to allow the splitting off of a portion of the back parcel that will not be used with this facility. The adjacent property owner has an interest in purchasing it to include with their property. Finally, condition eight is to limit the use of the facility to the golf team, not all students. Stetson wants the ability to have a quarterly event at the facility for sponsors and such, but the events would be limited to the parking spaces available. They also want the facility to be secure, so he asked that it be gated. Mr. Watts concluded his summary of the modifications and apologized for the last minute changes. Chair Severino stated that he would return the conversation back to staff and assumed Mr. Watts had more of a presentation than the modifications of proposed conditions. Mr. Watts replied that he would be happy to talk through an overview of the general facility after staff is finished and respond to any public participation. Member Mills asked that, if the special exception were to be granted, would it be specific to the Stetson s golf team or be a private club. Ms. Jackson replied that it is specific to the golf team. Member Mills asked if it could be turned into a private club in the future. Ms. Jackson stated she would consider it to need a new special exception.

6 Page of Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, commented that the special exception will run with the land, not the golf team. If someone wanted to expand this in the future, they would need a new special exception, but, if they operated within the same special exception standards, they would not. Member Mills asked that, if the special exception were granted, and in the future someone else came in and operated the same operation as a private entity, then they would not need a new special exception. Mr. Rodriguez responded that, if the recreational area is operated within the approved conditions, then it could continue without a new special exception. Member Costa commented that one of the conditions is that it is used only by Stetson s golf team. So there is no option to be turned into something else for someone else. Mr. Rodriguez responded affirmatively and stated that the special exception would need to be amended. Chair Severino asked whether the enhanced buffer location is considered in the possible transfer of the portion of that parcel and do the modified conditions reflect that, in regards to the revised site plan submitted today. Ms. Jackson replied that it was her understanding that it was and that the conditions may have to be modified to make that clear. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. Mr. Watts, explained the modified site plan and that the general intent is to provide an area for the team to practice their skills. This property was chosen because it is easy to get to, it is already cleared, and it requires minimal site work to create the facility. The additional modified conditions are to maintain harmony with the area, and we are still in conversations to address all concerns. The regatta facility had an inspection after the two years of operation to ensure the facility operated as expected and that there were no operational issues or new concerns. We would be agreeable to a similar condition for this facility. With that, he was available for any questions and asked for time after public participation. Member Van Dam asked Mr. Watts about condition seven regarding the portion of the back parcel. She asked if it is the intent to keep a portion to use as a buffer. Mr. Watts responded affirmatively and explained that the standard for a driving range is 0 to 0 yards to allow for the drive and roll out. He demonstrated on the site plan where the boundary and enhanced landscape buffer with net screening would be. Public Participation. Astrid de Parry, 0 East Church Street, DeLand, stated that the opposition that she represents would like a condition that the recreational area is only operated and owned by Stetson University. It is important to the neighborhood that this facility can only be for

7 Page of the Stetson University golf team and no other owner or operator. She mentioned that on the aerial site plan it appeared there were trees on the site in the buffers; however, there are none. One of the conditions still being discussed is just what the landscape buffer is going to be. The point is to ensure there is no possibility a golf ball can exit the property. The adjacent property owner has a hay operation and raises cattle. Golf balls are not good for animals and we don t want to spoil any hay or have any animals die. The landscape buffer should be heavily wooded and be massive in size. The lightning detection system is of concern because the noise is bad for horses and there are several owners with horses in the area. She mentioned that the lightning detection system was not required to be audible. This is a completely rural area, prime agriculture, which is intended for farming operations not golf driving ranges. Josh Foster, Marsh Road, DeLand, stated he is the hay farmer on the south side of this property. He commented that Ms. de Parry said it clearly; we could continue to work with the University and keep the lights low and the golf balls on site. Jeffrey Slade Rickles, Marsh Road, DeLand, stated he was the landowner to the northwest of this property. He is opposed due to the noise, as he owns seven horses. He commented that Stetson [University] should clear land for farming, not for their golf range. He commented that, if you have to have so many restrictions on something, then obviously it doesn t belong. Deborah Bennett, Sand Pine Trail, DeLand, stated she was west of the property, and the lightning warning system is an issue for noise. She mentioned that traffic was a concern because the speed limits are not obeyed with the Sperling Sports Complex. Leslie Seamonson, Marsh Road, DeLand, stated she was not sure Stetson University understands what rural agricultural is and that this is agricultural land. She stated that her family chose this area because it is rural. Her husband is a large animal vet and horses are flight animals. They run from noise such as sirens, and lights such as lightning or strobe lights. This could cause harm to the animals. An audio file of a lightning warning siren was played (Evidence ). She further said there are no trees between her property and this property. They are separated by a hay field. The sirens at the Stetson field in DeLand can be heard up to four miles away. Chair Severino asked Ms. Seamonson if the audio file had any decibel information associated with it. Ms. Seamonson replied that she did not know the decibel level. Paula Hausermann, Marsh Road, DeLand, commented that she was the current owner of the subject property and the property to the north. She resides on the property to the north and operates a business there, and she is going to continue to do so. Applicant Rebuttal. Mr. Watts stated that Stetson University did not want to cause harm to any animals and wanted to keep students safe. The lightning system standard is 00-0 db. Stetson agrees to reduce the decibel level to 0 db, which is about half the standard, but will

8 Page of continue to discuss this concern and try to resolve it. Stetson also agrees to revised condition eight to state that the use shall expire once the title of the property is sold or transferred from Stetson University. Member Young referenced the Strickland Firing Range and asked what the decibel level was or how long the siren lasts. He said it alerts for a long time and is extremely loud. Mr. Watts replied that research shows 00-0 db is standard, and typically for a couple of minutes to get people s attention. Member Mills asked about the alert having to be loud enough to be effective. Mr. Watts replied that the speakers for the loud system would be pointed inward and concentrated to limit the sound carrying, but will continue to work with the residents to limit the noise as much as possible. Member Mills asked how a shanked ball would be handled in regards to the fencing and landscaping because a golf ball off-site could be disastrous for livestock, horses and hay operations. Mr. Watts stated that in conversations with the residents, this is one of the primary concerns. Therefore, a 0-foot landscape buffer with tall vegetation and netting to keep the balls from leaving the site has been proposed. Ms. de Parry mentioned that on the north side of the property is the Hauserman s property and there is a hay operation on it that might not continue if there is a possibility of golf balls ending up in that area. The Hauserman s are okay with the 0-foot landscape buffer, but they may not always be the owner of the property. Member Costa asked what the distance of the range was. Mr. Watts replied between 00 to 0 yards. Member Bender asked about the height of the proposed netting. Mr. Watts guessed that it may be 0 feet. Member Bender commented that the netting may need to be taller to keep the golf balls on site. Mr. Watts stated that the netting will be a height that is needed to ensure the balls remain on site. Member Bender asked Mr. Rodriguez about a reverter clause and whether it was possible to condition the special exception use to this particular property owner. Mr. Rodriguez commented that special exceptions run with the property, not the owner, but if the applicant and the commission wanted it, the preference would be to stipulate an

9 Page of expiration of the special exception based on title transfer of the property from Stetson University. Mr. Watts agreed. Member Bender commented that there are concerns for noise and traffic; however, golf is established as a quiet sport. There is no talking on the range so there is no distraction to the person addressing the ball. Other than the warning system, noise may not be a problem. He mentioned that maybe the warning system could have flashing lights in lieu of the loud sound since people will be confined to a specific area. Member Van Dam asked about the landscaping for the north property line. Mr. Watts replied that the property owners (Hausermans) live on the front parcel and operate a nursery on the back parcel. Mr. Foster currently contracts with them to harvest hay on that side; however, there may be questions as to whether that operation would continue. Member Van Dam confirmed that no horses were on this side. Mr. Watts agreed. There being no further questions, the Chair asked for commission discussion. Commission Discussion. Member Mills commented that the property owners are trying to get concessions because they feel this is going to happen. This area is agricultural and has existing agricultural operations. Although the intent is not to harm the surrounding area, this use could potentially be very harmful to the existing agricultural uses. Maybe if the area were ferneries or forestry where the potential for harm was less of a possibility; but the audible warning system could cause harm, and the possibility of a golf ball exiting the site where an animal or hay operation could be harmed, make this request hard to support. Member Young asked if horses or other farm animals were disturbed by lights and sounds. Leslie Seamonson replied it is unpredictable and would depend on the individual animal. Animals react to different things; sounds and lights, differently. Member Costa commented that it appears the applicant is working on solutions for the area s concerns and maybe in a couple weeks the solutions will be had for both parties. He stated that the request should be forwarded to council with a recommendation of approval hoping the concerns can be resolved prior to council. If not, then the council would have to decide the action. Chair Severino says either way it is going to council whether the recommendation is approval or denial.

10 Page 0 of Member Young commented that maybe a one-year re-evaluation is necessary. Member Mills commented that the neighborhood is making concession because they feel they have no choice. They have already said they didn t want it out there. He commented that it seems we are depleting our agricultural uses in the agricultural communities, as stated the hayfield operation would cease if this is approved. Member Bender commented that if the area is properly buffered and netted to eliminate the balls leaving the field, and the sound and light concerns are resolved, then the incompatibility of the area should be resolved. Member Van Damn commented that noise does spook horses, and although the current property owner to the north doesn't have a problem with the special exception, a future agricultural buyer may have issues. The loud speaker is an issue and is tough to support. Member Costa commented that this is a recreational use and horses could be a recreational use as no one plows land with horses any more. This doesn't feel any more intrusive than riding trails, and it allows for open space. If Stetson goes away then the land could be converted back to agriculture land. Mr. Watts asked to speak. Chair Severino commented that the floor was closed unless a commission member wanted to hear from Mr. Watts. Mr. Mills stated he would like to hear from Mr. Watts. Mr. Watts stated that, with regard to the lightning warning system, Stetson would be willing to stipulate that a visual or tactile type of warning system be used rather than an audible system. Member Young asked Mr. Watts if the conditions of re-inspection and expiration of title change were okay. Mr. Watts replied that he would prefer the re-inspection to be after two years from opening similar to the previous regatta site condition, and agreed to the expiration upon transfer of title from Stetson University. Member Costa MOVED to APPROVE case number S--0, a special exception for a recreational use on Prime Agriculture (A-) zoned property, subject to the following modified conditions:. Special Exception approval is limited to the use and general extent of site improvements as permitted by this Special Exception and as shown on the site plan submitted August, 0. However, the maximum area of the buildings shown on the site plan shall not exceed an aggregate of,000 square feet. In addition, netting and a maximum landscape buffer of 0 feet shall be installed maintaining the existing natural vegetation along the southern and

11 Page of southeastern property lines, to prevent errant golf balls from impacting the cattle and sod operations on the adjoining parcel.. The Special Exception is subject to compliance with applicable county land planning regulations of Chapter county code. Any proposed expansion of the proposed use or change of use will require approval of a new Special Exception.. Before the commencement of any site work, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of a Final Site Plan application to Land Development Activity, as provided under Section -, zoning code, as amended. The Special Exception plan may be modified during the final plan review process to comply with Chapter of the county code.. A site lighting plan shall be submitted during the final site plan stage of development. The only site lighting permitted will be motion detector activated security lighting mounted on the buildings. All fixtures shall meet International Dark Sky standards and be directed downward and shielded to prevent light pollution from impacting the surrounding areas. All lights shall be located no closer than 0 feet to the property line and directed internal to the site. Lighting fixtures shall be limited to 0 feet in height.. No loudspeaker or call system shall be used. This does not limit the use of an emergency lightning notification system for the protection of golfers, provided such system is deactivated at night and at all times during prolonged periods when the facility is not in use. The emergency lightning system will not be audible.. Hours of Operation shall be limited to a.m. to p.m. weekdays; a.m. to p.m. weekends and holidays. All golf operations will be limited to daylight hours not to exceed p.m.. Parcel and Parcel shall be combined into one parcel under unified ownership. The full parcels shall not be required to be combined if all or a portion of Parcel is combined with neighboring property identified by Parcel , the remaining portion of Parcel shall be combined with Parcel The facility will not be available for use by all Stetson students, but shall only be used by the Stetson golf teams, members of the coaching staff and related support staff. Any special event outside of normal golf team activities shall be limited to once per quarter year and may include people who are not associated with the golf team provided such events are limited in scope not to exceed existing on-site parking, do not involve rental of the facility or an admission fee. Busing attendees to the site for special events shall not be permitted. Access to the facility will be gated.

12 Page of The special exception is required to have an inspection after one year from the date of certificate of occupancy. 0. The special exception use shall expire if and when the title of the property is transferred from Stetson University ownership. Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED : (Member Mills opposed). V--0 - Application of Michael Woods, attorney for Stephen and Connie Cockayne, owners, requesting a variance to minimum yard requirements on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-) zoned property. Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley explained to the commission that this was a request for three variances for a property located in the St. John s Gardens subdivision. He explained that the subject property had a single family home on it that was built in but was destroyed by a fire in 0. The current owners purchased the property with the intent of building a new home on the property and are requesting a zero-foot rear yard setback due to the proposed size and placement of the home. Mr. Ashley continued to explain that there were two existing accessory structures on the property, one on the south property line next to the proposed home, and a metal frame structure on the western property line that would also require a zero-foot setback to retain the structures. He stated that staff could not find records of either of the two accessory structures being permitted to be located on the property, and that the owners were requesting variances to legitimize the two structures. He continued to explain that the subject property was a conforming lot as it met the -foot lot width and the 00-square-foot lot area requirement of the R- zoning, but that the standard measurements were reversed because it was feet deep and 00 feet wide. He stated that the applicant pushed the proposed residence to the rear of the property to accommodate for the size of the proposed home and the existing septic tank system that they would like to maintain. Mr. Ashley concluded that staff found that there were other options for developing the site to provide less of a setback encroachment and they felt that the other structures could be altered, removed, or shifted on the property to provide some sort of a setback other than zero feet. He stated that based on staff s review, they recommended denial as all five of the criteria were not met. Member Mills inquired about where staff would place the home. Mr. Ashley stated that instead of a single story home, they could build upward. He went on to say that there was feet of buildable area based on the front yard setback requirement. The home could be reshaped instead of it being a square. Mr. Ashley continued that he was unsure of exactly where the septic tank was located and that that could have an impact as to where the home could be located, or where the accessory structures could be shifted to. He concluded that there was feet of land area where some of the home could be shifted to, and if it were elevated to a two story structure, it would get the home off the property line. He also stated that there are remnant pieces of

13 Page of x0 lots in the Bethune Beach area, where setbacks weren t at zero feet, and that is why staff felt there were other options. Member Mills stated that with a two story configuration, or even in an L-shape, that the width of the home would be less than feet. Mr. Ashley stated that the original home was feet wide. He stated that the proposed home size was -square-foot home, and if the home were a two-story, the depth could be reduced while still attaining the square footage. Mr. Ashley stated that staff didn t feel that the minimum variance was being met by not shifting the home on the lot or reconfiguring it to meet the setback, or a lesser encroachment than what was requested. Being that there were no further questions of staff, the applicant was provided the floor. Michael Woods, East New York Avenue, DeLand. Mr. Woods referred to a power point presentation presented into evidence. Mr. Woods explained that the owners were trying to do the right thing by asking for permission to true up the site conditions to develop a new single family home. He stated that the nature of the surrounding canals were part of the reason why they were comfortable with asking for the zero-foot setbacks. He went on to explain that they didn t agree with all of staff s responses to the criteria and that they were unable to come to an agreement with staff on the bare minimum of the variance. Mr. Woods went on to explain that the septic field was built along with the original home in, and that the likelihood of being able to maintain that septic system was very narrow. To bring it up to par, the field would have to enlarge versus shrink which would limit the configuration of the home. He explained that many of the adjoining property owners were more than happy to have the site be rehabilitated and provided letters from them. He referred to the survey on page of the staff report and stated that the lot combination should have occurred back in when the original home was built, but the official action was taken by the county in 0. He stated that the biggest challenge was discerning how the canal system came to be before aerial photos, and that basically, it was excavated by someone to create the canal system which created a remnant parcel that touches the subject property. Mr. Woods went on to say that they considered purchasing the remnant property to extend the lot size, which would negate the zero-foot setback. However, this would change their required setbacks because it would become a water front property, and it would create a nonconforming lot size for the other lot. He continued by stating that the best case scenario would be to pin down how to develop the subject property and then approach the owners to the rear and obtain a use-easement to be able to be on the property, not to improve upon it or to build upon it. Mr. Woods explained that the septic field would cause a design issue no matter what. They attempted to call the City of DeLand to see if sewer had been run out to that neighborhood, but to no avail. He stated that they had to verify where the home would be before applying for the septic field. Even if they would be able to keep the existing septic field, it would still cause issues with the setbacks. He continued to explain that, if the rear setback of 0 feet were applied, and that the front of the home would not go any further towards the front than the septic field cleanout trap as shown on the survey, that portion of the home would only be feet deep. This would create design challenges, as it would make the home around 0-square-foot. He

14 Page of referred to the staff recommendation of building a two story home and stated that the proposed home was for retirement, which he thought created a hardship. He stated that they were happy to comply with the requirements for the accessory structures that were included in the application because they were looking to bring the whole property into compliance. Mr. Woods stated that they would reconfigure where the accessory structures were located if they could place the primary structure where they proposed for it to go. He stated that even if the subject property were never developed to begin with, the reality would be that the septic field would still be located in the same spot since it was the furthest point from where the two water bodies met. He referred to the survey completed by Efird Surveying and outlined that if they stuck to the 0-foot setback, it would cause the home to be feet deep when they were proposing a home that was feet deep. Mr. Woods stated that he understood that a zero-foot setback could be difficult to understand versus having a one or two-foot setback, but that it would be disingenuous to require the property owners to develop a two story home when the ability was there to keep it as a one story home like the owners desired. He concluded by saying that they were trying to get ahead of the issues without getting dismissed outright so they could move forward with developing the property. He stated that they had no objections to staff s conditions of approval and that they were trying to bring the property into compliance. He continued by stating that if they got denied, they would go back and re-design a traditional home which would inevitably get denied by the health department and end up right back to where they were requesting variances again. Mr. Woods requested that, if the commission were leaning towards a denial, to ask for more information and work it out so that they did not lose a whole year. Chair Severino asked the applicant about the well depicted on the photo and what the current water situation was. Mr. Woods stated that it was centralized water from the City of DeLand. Chair Severino referred to the survey on page of in the staff report and asked about the distance between the seawall and property line. Mr. Woods stated that he thought that staff took a stab at measuring it using GIS, but that their survey didn t show it. Chair Severino clarified that staff s best estimate was somewhere between feet and feet. Mr. Woods answered in the affirmative. Chair Severino asked whether or not they had anything from the Department of Health (DOH) that spoke to the current condition of the drain field and septic system. Mr. Woods stated that in order to determine the size of the septic field, you have to have a layout and plan for the home. He continued that permission was needed from the reviewing authority that stated that was what they would be allowed to build.

15 Page of Mr. Ashley interjected that the DOH was an independent agency and that usually people already had their septic system prior to coming to the planning and development division. He continued by stating that he didn t know what type of system they would be utilizing, but that a variance could be requested from the state for a setback from the waterbody. He stated that if they didn t know what the size of the septic tank was, or where the vault would be located, then they didn t know if the cleanout could be moved or how much room would be freed up for the home or other structures on the property. Public Participation. None. Commission Discussion. Member Mills stated that when he went to look at the subject property and the remnant piece of land, he understood why the other owner wouldn t want to sell their piece as it would create a nonconformity for their commercial lot. He stated that he is a master contractor in the septic business and that the current requirements for setbacks for their septic system would be feet from the ditch across the front of the property, and feet from the canals, which they wouldn t meet because there isn t enough room on the lot. However, there is a provision in the code to go to 0 feet without having to go to the state for a variance. He continued that had they done this within the timeframe of the original home becoming inhabitable, they might have been allowed to use the existing system. He was unsure of whether or not they would be able to utilize the current system due to the lapsed time, but an update to a larger system with a mound, or innovative system, would be required to be up to code. He continued to say that when you went to the health department to apply, you had to give them a location and a set of home plans. He understood why the homeowners didn t have plans drawn since they didn t know whether or not they could build the single story home. Member Mills said that the septic system sizes had increased since and that, with a mound system, you have to have a - foot shoulder around the drain field and a slope that could not encroach on adjacent property lines or into the ditch area. He stated that with a ditch to the front and a canal on two other sides, there wouldn t be many options to develop the property even if they built a two story home. He stated that he was hesitant about the zero lot line request but after seeing the property, he understood it was a unique situation. Member Van Dam asked if an L configuration was impossible. Member Mills replied that it was not impossible, but that the septic system would play into the configuration. How much was uncertain, since the system would be larger than what it currently was. He stated that, even with an L shaped house, it would still require an almost zero-foot setback. Member Van Dam expressed her concern for doing it backwards and thought the septic should be figured out first. Member Mills stated that house plans were needed to apply for the septic permit to know how big of a system would be needed. Hiring an engineer or architect to design the home only to find out that the home will not fit without a variance to the setbacks would land them back at square one. He pointed out that regardless of all of that, no matter how the

16 Page of home was designed, the owner would still need almost a zero setback due to having a canal on both sides, a ditch in the front, and the required setbacks for the septic field. Member Van Dam inquired about extending the home into the area where the metal shed was located. Member Mills asked for clarification of replacing the shed with the home, that the home would still be sitting on the lot line like the shed was. Member Van Dam stated that a setback would be in place, but to make the house wider. Chair Severino interjected to clarify that the square footage would be gained by going to the side as opposed to the rear. Member Van Dam concurred. Member Mills stated that could be possible, but that if the drain field had to be enlarged, it could come back further towards where the proposed home site was. He said he understood why they would need the zero lot line to move forward with the development of the property. Member Young stated that he would hate to see a zero lot line just in case there were to be a conflict between the landowners and would like to see it setback a few feet. Chair Severino inquired of legal about the zero lot line and the need for a construction or maintenance worker being on someone else s property to work on the subject property. Mr. Rodriguez stated that if a zero lot like were accepted, the variance had to include an access easement over the neighboring parcel to provide access for maintenance of the property. He stated that they could condition the variance with an accompanying access easement; otherwise they would be encouraging trespass on the neighboring parcel. Chair Severino stated that he felt that they were being painted into a box in regards to the septic and drain field. He stated that since they didn t have any input from the health department and not knowing if any modifications actually had to be made, he felt like the chicken was coming before the egg. He concluded by stating that if the DOH had an approximate of what was being requested and could provide dimensions for the septic system, then the commission could identify what the minimum required variance would be. He stated that he couldn t support a zero lot line when they didn t know what was going to be required for the septic. Member Mills asked Mr. Rodriguez what the minimum setback would be to eliminate the trespassing issue. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he couldn t render an opinion on what would be sufficient as it depends on the home.

17 Page of Member Mills stated that was the same issue with the septic system since it depended on the type and size of the home. He went on to state that he was in the wrong in considering the remnant property from a legal standpoint. Chair Severino asked him to consider what depth would be needed from the vertical wall to the property line to perform any task. Member Young stated that it couldn t be zero feet because you wouldn t be able to paint at zero feet. Member Mills asked member Young what he would support. Member Young stated that he was unsure but that he felt possibly five feet. Chair Severino concurred with member Young and stated that five was a reasonable request to accommodate the slope of a ladder. Member Young stated that that wasn t set in stone but that he was convinced zero feet wouldn t work. Member Mills inquired of the applicant what their thoughts were on five feet. Mr. Woods stated that he had conferred with the owners and that they had discussed the two feet but that he thought that if it were five feet, it would need to be a blanket five feet along the entirety of the back since it was unknown whether or not they would have to eliminate the shed to make up for square footage. He stated that if they knew they could go within five feet of the property line, they could design the home and have an answer for DOH in planning for the septic. He continued to highlight the variable side yard setback within their zoning and the flexibility it provided in the design. Mr. Woods stated that he wished he could get less than five but that he couldn t guarantee an easement from the neighboring property owner so for some certainty, five feet would suffice. Chair Severino asked if he wanted a continuance to explore the two avenues between the neighbor and the DOH, or an action now. Chair Severino called a five minute recess to allow Mr. Woods to confer with his client. Mr. Woods proposed to do a five-foot setback across the rear of the property for the accessory and the primary structure and the secondary accessory structure would be eliminated. Chair Severino clarified whether or not the third variance would be needed. Mr. Woods responded that it would be a single five-foot setback variance applicable to primary and accessory structures along the rear property line. Chair Severino asked Mr. Rodriguez for comment. Mr. Rodriguez stated they would adjust the rear setback to five feet.

18 Page of Mr. Ashley interjected that the five-foot setback was the minimum standard for an accessory structure under 00 square feet. The shed would already meet that provision so it would not need a variance. Chair Severino stated that they were talking about one single variance for the entire rear property line. Mr. Ashley clarified that Mr. Woods stated principle and accessory unless he was talking about an accessory structure over 00 square feet. Mr. Woods stated that he wanted to be clear that no structure would be closer than five feet from the property line. Member Van Dam asked about the shed to the right and whether or not they were requesting for that to stay. Mr. Woods stated they would adjust it to five feet. Member Van Dam clarified that there was space there for the home to move without the shed in being in that place. Mr. Woods stated that that might be removed to shift the home and that the variance being granted would give the flexibility to be responsive to the DOH. Member Van Dam asked if there were staff conditions to go along with the variance if they were to approve it. Mr. Ashley stated that he had drafted some recommendations and was modifying them based on the conversation. They were submitted into evidence. Mr. Ashley stated that condition one would be limited to five feet, condition two would not be needed since the western structure would be eliminated, and the shed would be moved to meet the current setback standards. Condition three could remain. Condition four would be up to the commission to decide to incorporate. Mr. Woods stated that with condition number one, that with the zero lot line it would make sense to have specific dimensions, but that they wanted the flexibility to make changes to the design and that even restricting it to one story would potentially be constricting. Mr. Ashley stated that they could make it a single family dwelling. Chair Severino expressed concern on the basis of that five feet was for a one story structure and that if it were to go two stories, the geometry would change. He stated that he agreed that the dimensions weren t needed, and that maybe a mean roof height should be considered. Member Mills stated that he felt it wouldn t be an issue whether it was one or two stories.

19 Page of Mr. Rodriguez stated that he didn t feel that people would be fighting for a view of the canal and that they would be restricted by the maximum height requirement of the zoning district. Chair Severino stated that the thought process to get to a minimal setback was to prevent people from trespassing to perform maintenance or construct the home, and if you go passed one story, the geometry changes and the amount of setback needed would increase. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the five-foot setback would restrict the height of the home because you would have to be able to construct within the parameters of the setback. Mr. Woods stated that he understood the concern and that the goal was to have a single story home. But in the essence of not returning for another variance, if they had to construct a second story, they would have to get a temporary construction easement from the adjacent property owner, otherwise they couldn t utilize the building permit. Mr. Ashley stated that the height standard was feet in the zoning, which would accommodate a three story home and suggested a mean roof height of feet for a onestory with a roof pitch. Chair Severino stated he did not have a problem with the height; he just wanted to make sure the setback variance was reasonable for what is placed on the property. Member Young stated that scaffolding would maintain a two story. Member Bender inquired as to whether or not condition four was necessary. Mr. Ashley stated that it was used in the past and that it was up to the commission to decide. Member Van Dam stated that the shed to the west was staying. Mr. Woods stated that it would be in compliance with the new setbacks. Mr. Ashley stated that a condition would need to be incorporated, and a new revised plan would be required. He continued to say that the metal shed would be moved to meet the accessory structure setback requirements, and that the western structure would be eliminated or comply. Member Mills inquired about clarification on the variances. Chair Severino stated that only one variance was on the table. Member Van Dam stated that the shed to the left of the property was still there. Mr. Ashley stated that he would re-word condition two to reference that the variance request was no longer needed, and that the metal shed shall comply with appropriate