Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Board to order. If the secretary would please call the roll. Michael Gravenson. Here. Doug Iso. Here. Stephen Vieira. Here. Philip Smallward. Here. Clint Baker. Here. Okay, you're all set. Okay, while we all here. So thank you for being here. The minutes for the February 10th meeting were circulated. Any comments, corrections? With no comment, without objection, we'll accept those as approved as being circulated. Any announcements from the staff? Just that per the agenda item number five has been continued to a later date. All proper advertising will be done when those come back before us. Okay, so if you're here for item number five on the agenda that was postponed. I will hold off, I'm not swearing in anybody until we start the third and fourth petitions. So without anything else we'll have the first petition, please. the record. Johnny Schau, Community Development Department. The applicant is requesting a street vacation application SV-25-01. And the Board of County Commissioners Adoption Hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2025. The requested street vacation is to vacate a portion of the undeveloped San Carlos Canal Basin behind their property located at Lott's 60 through 64, block 191 of the Harbor Heights section 11 part 2 subdivision. The total area to be vacated contains 26,142.97 square feet more or less and is generally located southwest of NEPTide Drive and northeast of St. Carlos Drive within the Mid County area and located and located in Commission District 1. Per the county attorney's office, the application is styled as a street vacation, which is the department's form for vacation of these types of easements, the term street vacation. In the context of this application, is a request to vacate a portion of the dedicated canal basin, which the legal department has determined to be either right of way or easement or an easement. Regardless of the term applied, the request is to vacate a portion of the dedicated canal dedicated basin that is not owned by the applicant. Therefore, the appropriate application request for a stream vacation is for a stream vacation, even though there is no screen involved technically. This is the location map. This is the aerial location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at mid range. And this is the aerial location map. This is the Eaglerial Location Map at Mid-Range, and this is the Arial Location Map. This is the Eagle View Image. The future Lane Use Map designation is low-density residential. The zoning district is residential single-family 3.5, and the notification of the public hearings has been sent to all property owners within a thousand feet of the site boundary. The flood zones are 10 AE and X, and a portion of the proposed area abouting the canal is within the tropical storm surge and category one storm surge coastal high hazard areas. Here you can see the proposed vacation and here is that proposed vacation overlaid onto the aerial. The applicant owns the subject property directly adjacent to the canal basin and if approved the petition would allow for more developable space on the property however the residential development rights will remain the same. No residents will be denied reasonable access to their property as a result of this petition and all permanent departments have reviewed the petition. All the affected utilities have been notified and county staff have offered comments and conditions of approval. The real estate services department is requiring that six foot easements are granted on the side of the proposed area for county drainage purposes and public utilities. Here's a proposed easement map. The green six foot drainage easements are shown on the side. The planning division of the Community Development Department is requesting an access easement for a five foot wide pedestrian walkway subject to the review of the County Attorney's Office and to comply with the future land use policy 2.1.5 access to public water bodies. A restrictive covenant is also required to restrict the base density of the entire proposed area to be vacated to zero units. The five foot pedestrian walkway easement is shown in pink. A 20 foot canal maintenance easement along the edge of the new property boundary is being requested by the Public Works and Real Estate Services Departments, and that is shown in blue on the map. The natural resources and environmental specialists of the zoning division of the community development department are requesting seminal of an HCP application and payment of the mitigation fee based on the total square footage in order to offset the loss of habitat that would not have happened if the vacation were not granted. And the applicant has agreed to comply with the conditions being requested by staff, requiring that they provide the legal descriptions, sketches, and draft instruments for the easements and then executing and recording the instruments within 180 days of recording the resolution to vacate the subject portion of the canal basin. That is of course if this request is granted by the board. Therefore it is also a staff's professional opinion that this should be vacation application as the dash 25-01 subject to compliance with conditions is consistent with Charlotte County's comprehensive plan Charlotte County's code of laws and ordinances and other applicable guidelines. Thank you. I welcome and I'm open to any questions Okay, thank you any questions for staff. Yes, I have a question In calculating the HCP C.CP, is it calculated on square footage because there was no platelet in the basin as a residential? It is calculated based on the total square footage of the proposed area to be vacated. Because there was never a residential component there. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, we'll hear from the applicant's representative. Good afternoon, Rob Bernson, Big W Law firm. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I think Jenny has covered it very well. This picture actually gives you the rationale behind. You can see the front end of the property along the lofts 61, 60, even into 62 is pretty heavily wooded. You can see kind of the open area right along the existing property line by lofts 60, 61, 62. The reason for the vacation is they intend to build their house in that open area while maintaining the foliage and trees. There's some heritage trees they believe on site. So this allows them to move the building envelope back into what would otherwise be the canal and allows them to protect the foliage on site. With that I'm happy to answer any questions and reserve any time for rebuttal. Any questions from Mr. Bernstein? Okay. Thank you. So we'll open up public comment. Anyone wishing to speak about this petition? Please come forward. I make a motion. We close public comment. So I have a motion. Second the public close public comment. All in favor say aye. Public comment time is close. Any discussion? Okay, so I'll entertain a motion then Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion to forward application SV-25-01 Third Board of County Commission is with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis on the staff memorandum February 28th 2025 Shalik County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board Second I have a motion to the second any discussion of the motion all In favor of the motion say aye aye any opposed Any opposed say nay. So that goes forward. Next item please. For the record Jenny Shao, community development department. The applicant Scott Andrew Ford Jr. is requesting a street vacation application SV-25-02. And the Board of County Commission's adoption hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2025. Scott Andrew Ford Jr. is requesting to vacate a portion of the undeveloped San Carlos Canal Basin behind his property located at 27048 San Carlos Drive being launched 39 through 44, block 191, sorry, of Harbor Heights section 11 part two. The total area to be vacated contains 24,382.06 square feet more or less and is generally located southwest of Neptide Drive and Northeast of St. Carlos Drive within the Mid County area and located in Commission District 1. Again, per the County Attorney's Office, the application is being styled as a street vacation. This is the location map. This is the area location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at mid-range. This is the aerial location map. This is the Eagle View image. The future land use map designation is low density residential. The zoning district is residential single family 3.5. The notification of the public hearings has been sent to all property owners within a thousand feet of the site boundary. The flood zones are 10 A.E. and X. And a portion of the proposed area abutting the canal is within the tropical storm surge and category one storm surge coastal high hazard areas. Here you can see the proposed vacation. And here is that proposed vacation, overlaid onto the aerial. The applicant owns the subject property adjacent to the canal basin and you'll notice that the previous petition SV-25-01 is directly abutting this one. If approved, the petition would allow for more developerful space on the property, however the residential development rights will remain the same. No residents will be denied reasonable access to their property as a result of this petition All permanent departments have reviewed the petition and all affected utilities have been notified County staff have offered comments and conditions of approval So again with the proposed easement maps The real estate services department is requiring that a that six foot easements be granted to the side of the proposed area for county drainage purposes and public utilities shown on the map in green. The planning division of the community development department is requesting an access easement for a five foot wide pedestrian walkway. subject to review of the county attorney's office, and in compliance with future land use policy 2.1.5, access to public water bodies, and for this petition as well, a restrictive covenant is being required to restrict the base density of the entire proposed area to be vacated to zero units. You can see the pedestrian walkway easement on the map in pink. And a 20 foot canal maintenance easement along the edge of the new property boundary is being requested by the Public Works and Real Estate Services Department, which is shown in blue. The natural resources and environmental specialists of the zoning division of the community development department is requesting submittal of the HCP application again and payment of the mitigation fee based on the total square footage in order to offset the loss of habitat that would not have happened if the vacation were not to be granted. If approved the applicant would be required to provide those legal descriptions, the sketches, and the draft instruments for the easements, and then execute and record the instruments within 180 days of the resolution to vacate the subject portion being recorded. That is, of course, if the board grants approval of the request. Therefore, it is also staff's professional opinion that this street vacation application SB-25-02 subject to compliance with the staff requested conditions is consistent with Charlotte County's comprehensive plan. Charlotte County's code of laws and ordinances and other applicable guidelines. Thank you. I welcome and I'm open to any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. So we'll have the applicant's presentation. Is the applicant here. I'm Scott Ford, the property owner at 27048 St. Carlos Drive. I would like to build on the original parcels. Hopefully start construction this year. Prior to me buying the properties that it seems as though my property was used as a dumping ground. So and it's the same for in the the part that I'm trying to vacate of the canal. So this would allow me to go in there and basically clean up the area, get rid of all the trash scrap metal and invasive species of plants. Do you accept the conditions that staff has placed on your education? Any questions for the applicant? Any further comments? No sir. Okay. So thank you. Thank you. Anybody from the public who wishes to make any comments about this petition, please come forward. I make a motion. We close the public comment. I have a a second to close public comment. All in favor say aye. Public comment time is closed. Any discussion or questions for anybody? Yeah, I've got a couple I think. In reading the documentation sent to us, there was some concerns by the county engineer as far as I know the canal is a non-developed canal. It's not part of an MSBU and it hasn't probably been dredged since it was dug. Her concern was that's the possibility they could happen in the future. And I see us we're moving along the canal basin and we're vacating those parcels. The parcels on the upper part of the basin wouldn't have access to the canal. It seems like. And so I'm concerned that there's going to be no access for those other parcels to follow suit as to what we're discussing here today and then be denied access to that canal if it should be developed in the future. So I have a question about that and how the county intends to address that. So the county's planning division of the community development department had requested a five footfoot wide pedestrian walkway easement it's shown in pink so I know we don't have a map showing the petition side by side but that would be ten feet of access going from that not vacated portion of the canal to the canal and so then with would the 20 foot canal maintenance easement on both applications then give you a 40 foot canal easement so there would be navigable water there. Is that what the intention is here? The canal maintenance easement is purely for maintenance of the canal not not necessarily access, but the pedestrian walkway should provide access for pedestrians to the canal. Yeah, by concern is about future voter. In future, that area, having lived in that area for 25 years, that's an area of the neighborhood that is seeing increased development and people are going to that area for obvious reasons. It is an undeveloped canal. My personal opinion is I don't think it will be an undeveloped canal for a long time, for very long in the future. So I'm concerned about the people to the northwest here, which will be 45 through 51, and then on the other side of the base and 59 through whatever the numbers are they go above there. That even if those folks wanted to command and do a street vacation, they would be denied access to the canal, the way it appears right now, just because of these two petitions coming together blocking that canal access. No actually it would be the opposite. We would require every single other one of them to also provide the same 10 foot or five foot on each property abutting it so that they would have a straight 10 foot wide wide easement to be able to walk down. This, the area was based on site conditions where basically it goes down to is where the water is. That's why it's a weird shape around there. It's very swampy and very wet. So this would allow them as every other one comes in. They'll have the same requirement for that five foot pedestrian walkway easement, so that will give all the upland people further up that ability to come down to what is currently water. From a pedestrian point of view, an often navigable point of view. Correct. So a question is, I'm trying to envision this here, where we have a 20-foot wide canal maintenance easement, and I understand it's from maintenance only. Is that a body of water or an easement that can be expanded to create navigable waterway to those upper properties? When I took a look at this canal has the same characteristics as the Solomon Canal, which leads it, which is just not even half a mile away. It's a bow shaped or a bow shaped canal. It has the same type of configuration. This has the same property. I'm just concerned about the future residents and whether we would be able to get in there. So my question, my simple question is, is that 20-foot canal maintenance easement cannot be expanded because we have two applicants right now that have done that. Does that become a 20-foot canal easement all the way up through the basin? Or could it become a 20-foot canal made its easement going up to the entire basin? I'm just looking to see that in the future we're not cutting off other property owners' rights to have access to that canal. Right. That would be a question, I believe, for the applicants and or their representatives. Again, we based it on what's there as you know, the ability to dredge and the permitting requirements for dredging are especially undredged, completely undredged, not just maintenance dredging are also next to impossible, not, because nothing's impossible. And we have to go by the conditions that are there currently. As of right now, none of those lots have water access because there is no water there, because it's all, it was never dug out. This is a legislative item, so this is legislative discretion whereby essentially it is if you folks feel or the board in their ultimate decision that there is no more need for this easement, this right of way, this street, if you will, then you would vacate it and it would revert to the underlying owners. So if we were to hypothetically speaking, if we were to approve this today, we've essentially cut off the remainder of that basin. What we haven't, we're suggesting that we cut off the remainder of that basin. Would that be- I think the short answer to your question is yes. I'm sorry. I think the short answer to your question is yes, because the way the parcels are being vacated, there's going to be a little bit that can be theoretically dredge out of that canal but it will never go all the way up to the full extent that it might have been planned for you know in the 50s or whatever. And so all of that all of that land it's in question now would become the ownership of all of the other owners that about it? It's unless they could they would have to come in and request a vacation similar than what what's happened in the past along this canal. Okay. So that wouldn't be something that we would do administratively speaking. It's just like this same same same processes the one you're doing today. Okay. And the idea would be that you because it's's dry up through there, that's why the request was made to have that walking path. So you could get down if there was some way to get down there to fish or whatever people are doing down there, they could do that. The alternative issue though, that's, you know, that the applicants have discussed, not with you, but with staff, is that there's a lot of people going back there doing things that they're not supposed to be doing, you know, dump and tires, doing all kinds of stuff. So they've had a big problem with that. And I think this is partly the required, these two requests, especially, are so that they can control this land. You know, they don't have kids and everything else going on back there. And we had many of these same discussions with public works. That's That's why we work with them on the conditions that are in place currently or that we are proposing. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Discussion? I can see your point, Mr. Viera cutting off the upper triangle, not being out on site to see how low it or drops off significantly as it gets to the base in there. So, you know, it's awful lot to dig out. As Sean says, probably not in the cards for permitting from SwiftMod in the future. I don't know what their tax assessments have been if it's been waterfront or not. But we also don't have too many here having commented on this. Don't have anybody comment on it from the public either for or against this. So to I can see the others coming in later after when they get ready to go build, as there was no other construction on the map above them, when they come in to want to build and say, well, we can just, yeah, it will cost us a little bit, but nothing like buying property to then just back into that triangle and have a nice property to go on, because two or three of lots are combined into each property there for the dotted lines. So I agree with the applicant. It has been a dumping roundup there for years. It has been on either side of it, even on the petition that we just heard previously. Some of that land was used for dumping because of hurricanes, because of builders, whatever the case may be, has done it. So it's commendable that they want to clean it up. I agree with that. Being a neighborhood resident for nearly 25 years, the more improvements that I see in that area, I applaud, actually. So I'm not opposed to what we're talking about. My concern was for future use, primarily. And that was the reason for my comments. Just to have the conversation for the commissioners to take under advice. I'll see. Okay. Any other comments? Then I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to forward application SV-25-02 to the Board of County Commission with the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis of the staff member dated March 2nd 2025 County Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board Second I have a motion a second any discussion on the motion All in favor of the motion? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. So that goes forward. Before we start the petition three and four, it's a combined presentation. Anyone who will be speaking about for this petition, please rise and take the oath because the last petition is quasi-judicial. Do you saw this with a testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please say I do. Okay, you may be seated. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon for the record. Jay Shao, committee member department and my planning expert qualification attached to staff report as exhibit one. Paradise palms RVLFC is requesting applications PAS-24-04 and PD-24-11. And these two applications are scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their adoption hearing April 22nd. The request small scale planning amendment is to amend the 2030 Fugelandius map designation from Lowdensity Residential LDR for approximately 16.85 acres and commercial COM for approximately 16.81 acres to low-dance the residential with an annotation to the 2030 future land use map stating that the base density of this entire site is 16 units and the use of the entire site for recreation vehicle park will be limited to 138 recreation vehicles and will not require a transfer density. And the applicant is also seeking a rezoning from residential state one, R-E-1 and commercial general CG to plan development. So the applicant is concurrently requesting to adopt the general PD concept plan and subject property located in commission district one. The notification of public hearings for these two applications was sent to the adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet. You can see on the screen that's a buffer, the red circle. And this is a general location of the subject property, which is subject property located in the east county area. And this is the area image at the mid-range. The subject property is located to the west side of US 17. So you can see this subject property at the full close look out of the subject property. And on the screen, this is the 2050 framework map. The entire site is designated as part of both moturing neighborhood and also the economic center. And this is 2030 future Nandys map. The site is designated as both Low Dance to Residential and Commercial. And this is proposed future Nandys map designation one asked for small scale plan amendment to amend the FUN2 low-density residence show. And this is the existing Zoning map. The sub-depropter is Zoning the both RE1, which at one unit per acre for residential development and the CGZoning. So I keep in mind the CGZoningoning is complex designated as commercial, which allowed to have commercial development at the FOIA ratio is one. And this is a proposed PDZoning. So this is a flood zone map. The entire subject property property is located in flood zone X. So on the screen, this is the proposed General PD concept plan. So I would like to discuss a couple of major things for this project. First, I would like to discuss the base density. As I mentioned before, a portion of about 16.85 acres of site is designated as low density residential with RE1 zoning. So that means the base density is 16 units for the subject property. So the PD condition B reflects the base density. And the proposed PD rez only if approved, will allow up to 4.1 RVs per acre. So therefore the existing low-density residential feature and used map designation is an appropriate land use category, which allows for the proposed RV development at up to five. So the proposal is 4.1 RVs per acre. So and also the PD condition C1 is a proposal to make sure that transfer density is not required for the proposed development of the RV park. Because in our county TDU program, they only talk about single family, multi family, and the condo duplex tri-press. So our visa address, so they're exempt from the TDU program. So the, like I mentioned before, the proposed PD rezoning will have an opportunity to provide recreational users to this area. and is steps professional opinion that proposed changes are now country to the county's comprehensive plan and the US 17 plan. So in addition the proposed RV development comprised with special provisions for RV uses under the low density residential there have four specific provisions like the minimum size of the development must be 15 acres and also specific landscaping buffers required if you are about to use a single-fairly homes and require for on-site you need to provide the facilities for these RV users. So the PD rezoning allows county to place sufficient conditions like I mentioned, they have very specific uses for the site for the RVs and also buffering landscaping and the required PD setback. So it is staff's professional opinion that proposed development will have less intense uses and minimal impacts to what land and stay on land and surrounding residents users. Actually to the west, this is stay on land there. So the next I want to point out is the water and sewer. So they subject property located within the service area by a private utility company. And we received the letter from that private utility company, which states that it is unable to accommodate the request to provide water and sewer due to the lack of system capacity. So I tried to point out the county plan development, because there are requests for the PD rezoning. The PD rezoning may allow the developer to provide private facility. Utilities or services approved by appropriate public agencies as substantial similar to the public service. That means they can provide their own on-site treatment plan. So that's this, this project that proposed, there's no public water and sewer for this proposed development. So that's why the applicant's proposal to have on-site well system for water and on-site septic system to serve the proposed RV park, which is now country with the county's comprehensive plan and the land one regulations for PD zoning. So however, it is a board direction to allow on-site well system or septic system, which are subject to the state health department review and approval as well. So the proposed PD condition C1-S-C3E requires that drainfield shall be located at least 50 feet away from the eastern and southern property boundary because stay only and is located to the west and south of the subject property and at least 50 feet from the on site wetland. So the on site wetland will be preserved in perpetuity and drainfield will be located at least 50 feet away from the on-site wetland. So according the next item I want to talk about is scrub J. So according to the county scrub J permits boundary. Two parcels are located with this boundary which you can see, which winds this parcel, and winds this parcel. So the sum in SquadJ Habitat map, which you can see on the screen, so there are approximately 0.73 acres of SquadJ Habitat mitigation not required, and approximately 0.67 acres of SquadJ HabJ habitat mitigation required. So the applicant and the new Imam specialist, I'm sorry, has been working with staff from Sharcan Natural Resource Department to determine that approximately 0.7 acres of SQPJ habitat will be preserved in perpetuity. So I go back, actually, in this area. Actually, this scrapjet preserved area immediately adjacent to the stay on land. So the proposed PD condition and to condition have been drafted to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the County's scrapjet habitat conservation plan.itat Conservation Plan. So therefore, it is staff's professional opinion that proposed small scale plan amendment to low density residential and the proposed PD rezoning with conditions A through O meets the intent of the PD district which provide opportunities to impose conditions to ensure as a proposed development is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. So in conclusion, it is step-to-step professional opinion that the proposed small scale plan amendment and its associated PD PD rezoning with condition with conditions meet and a consistent with all requirements and the various goals objectives and policies as established in the county's comprehensive plan and the county's code of law and onens and other applicable guidelines. I'd be more than happy to answer any question you may have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff this time? Okay. We'll have the applicant's presentation then, please. Good afternoon again. Rob Bernson, big W. Law. I have been sworn. I have the project's engineers with me. If there's any questions you need for them to answer. This property is located on US 17, a major four-lane highway. Approximately half of it is its own residential estate. Pretty much the last place you'd want to put an estate lot on a four-way, major highway. The other half of the property is its own commercial general, but there is no central water and sewer to serve the commercial general property Which makes development of commercial Project on that site very difficult What you have before you is a great compromise for a upscale RV park That will provide both protection to the environment through Preservation the wetlands and the scrubjay area, as well as an RV park to allow people to come and enjoy the area, the nature around it, and the county in general. I know there's a number of people that stood up and got sworn in, so I'm gonna reserve most of my comment for a re rebuttal but I'm happy to answer any questions in the immediate portion if you have any up front. Any questions from Mr. Merzon? You might have to ask your engineers if you have to do on-site well and septic system. Yes, we do. On the PD concept plan, where is that located? So basically, I'll have them clarify, but it will be prepared to answer that when we come back up. Why don't we give that? Okay. Okay. So we'll open up public comment for anyone who wish to speak about this petitions, the two petitions. Please state your name and write it there on the sheet. Good afternoon, my name is Chris Frolic and I currently have, if you look at the map map you can't quite see from from this photo But one of the maps that was shown by staff There's a residential street that goes off of US 17 called Samway and I currently have two parcels under contract. Thank you You can see from there under contract to build residential property there so this came to my attention as a result of that contract. When we start by saying I stand in opposition to this proposal for a number of reasons, one of the things that I just heard from the applicant was that the last thing anyone would want to build is a residential property along a highway. I'm not sure that that's a decision that the applicant should be allowed to make because it goes a little deeper than that. You can see from this right here, that's in flood zone X, all right? And to the west of this property, which is zone R E 1 and is approximately 16 residential units there, you have a state preserved there. and I forget how many acres it is, but it's hundreds of acres. So there's essentially 16 residential home sites that are outside of a flood zone that back up to a wildlife preserve in the east part of the county. I would say that that's very very very desirable property given what's happened in this community over the last couple years in particular when it comes to floods. The other thing I wanted to point out which you you can't see from this photo, and I think you're familiar with the property, but this is what's called an emerging neighborhood. Sam way, and then all the property, they go to the east there, that's all Ridge Harbor. This property, at least the residential part of this property there that's to the north is part of the RE1. A maturing neighborhood by its definition is a neighborhood that is in the process of growing. This would essentially cut that off at its knees. And our V-park in that particular parcel would stop the neighborhood from maturing because we would have nothing but 138 transient RV units, whereas we could have residential homes, as well as the economic center there to the south. Anyone that's familiar with this area, there's a certain type of person that wants to live out away from the amenities, away from town. There's not a whole lot out there. You're far from the grocery store and everything else. There's about one commercial piece of property left that could be a restaurant, a gas station, a combination of things. It's right there in the economic center. It would be a deprivation from the residents of this area to take away not only 16 residential home sites that back up to a wildlife preserve, but also the possibility of what is by the county's own definition of the economic center. And all we'd be doing is putting something there. I got to be honest with you that even the photo kind of looks silly. It looks like a water park that backs up to a wild-dye preserve and it just doesn't seem like it fits in that part of the county. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? come forward. Good morning everybody or afternoon. My name is Joe Schwartz. I live out in this neck of the woods as well off Washington Loop and we already have an RV park that is going up 2.6 miles south of where the proposed entrance for this RV park is gonna go. And we also have one within three miles north of that just across the other side of the DeSota County line. So I'm not really sure the need, if any that we currently have for more RV parks right there and we already have one just down the road and it's Considerably larger than this RV park right here So to throw another one right here with all the traffic as well That's going up and down that corridor at this point. You know, just kind of seems a little backwards to me You know, I don't I don't see the the knee for it and I hope that you know with the land behind it and the septic issues that, you know, how much would the septic system cost to be able to put in this that we could make sure that we didn't have a flow over into the preserve with any kind of possible flooding from any storms. So, you know, and I was out here for when Milton came through and I know that the water came right up in front of Ridge Harbor which is across the street from there so that's all you know lower line land on that side of the on that side of the street so I just hope that we can you know choose another project that would be more logical for this location versus an RV park so thank you guys. Thank you. Yeah, my name's Justin Pace. Much like the press to gentlemen just stated we have another development going in just down the road living in that area. The way this is already zone I would much rather see the land uses its own now with 16 estate homes built in there with some hopes that they would leave some of the woods on the land that backs up to that preserve. The fences don't keep all the animals on the preserve. They still use that land there as well. So with developing it or putting this RV parking, they're going to clear every tree on that property. And I'd like to see it used as its own now with hopes of people building homes on some acreage versus 138 RVs being placed in there. On top of the issues with the water and community. I know you guys don't make the final decisions, but I just wanted to state some concerns that we had. This will be a lot more peaceful than the other, I promise. First off, I'm very happy that there were not any goal for tortoises found on this property. I do wish that this property was purchased with HCP funds in the past just to preserve it and extend the preserved that's there already. I know that it's too late for that. Scrub Jays, they continue to lose their habitat. The county is doing a wonderful job with their HCP program environment so they might hate me right, but I got to tell them they're doing a great job. And it's up to the public. Right now I'm dealing with FWC officers with a neighbor that has did things with tortoises and on ScrubJabitat. So it never ends with this environmental thing. I just wish that you guys would keep in mind that these mass buildings of neighborhoods are, you know, they're slowly or quickly, these are quickly taking away their habitats. No matter how much you preserve for them, PG doesn't have a hospital right now. There's no commercial areas out there other than the farm store that everybody gets their cigarettes and beers at. That's right next to Ridge Harbor. The 50 feet distance from the wetlands for the private septic drainfield are there studies that backs up the you know this that that's the safe distance. Is that something that I should look with the water management or something but I'm sure I'll figure that that out, but I'm just worried. And I would like to see some studies and how that 50 feet came up with. The last thing is will the developer be responsible to put in a traffic light or assess the traffic? I haven't really got a chance to see that. I know that the Washington Loop Road and the Ridge Harbor, they all have to use that, yeah, Washington Loop, they have to use that turning lane. So it's already a busy or a busy and dangerous cross-section. So I just hope that everybody keeps that in mind. Thank you guys. I wouldn't want to do what y'all do. I hear that, I'm sure you hear that all the time, but thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Casey Dubarry. I live off of Washington, Libroad and I do I did read the staff report and I do want to express some concerns about that. Everybody said about the sewage and draining. I agree with that being a concern as well with the 50 feet just because one of the drain field locations was pretty close bordering the wetland and like kind of backing up what Courtney had to say about why is it only a 50 feet minimum in general to a wetland that's going to cause major issues. Also one of the suggestions is a 25 foot border or an 8 foot berm. I was kind of confused on which the deciding factor was going to be, but in the sense of I feel like 25 foot border is not really enough for the wetland border with the road coming through and then you have your storm water management ponds. But then if you build a eight foot berm, you're kind of going to create the way the water flows because the wetland continues behind, right? And it's a 17 acre wetland. So you're either going to flood the wetland or you're going to flood the park. Just like they were saying with Hurricane Milton, we saw water come up to the front of Ridge Harbor flooding. So that water is just going to pool in my personal opinion. But also the land surrounding this is all owned by the water management district and to preserve it. So essentially you're just going to create more problems at all draining on to that property. To continue, it does say in the decision letter that in one of the engineer surveys that it is possible that it's going to affect approximately 0.15th of an acre of a category two wetland. I still think that's an area of concern. Why is it why can't it just be all conserved together? There in also in the decision letter it was stated that they would have tree permits done. Has that been done? Do we know? And it also states that the Department of Health is in charge of the private like approving the, since it's going to be private, not county or whatever, that it's now taken over by the Department of Environmental Protection. Has DEP been met with? Have they, they tend to be more regulatory and strict on items? So has that been met with? I would really like to see the staff report be more current to be completely honest with you since DEP has taken over not the Department of Health and also like Courtney had said, the hospital's closed. So you're too close as hospitals, one's gonna be in Port Charlotte, and one's gonna be in DeSoto County. When you add a 138 units, okay, you do what? Four people on average, I think was in the staff report per an RV, that's gonna be what? Mm, three, two, three, two. Over 250 people, possibly at one time plus staff, that's adding a large influx of possibility for emergency in my personal opinion. Also with the traffic, it did say that if needed that a right hand turning lane would be put in and to extend the left hand turning lane where you would turn on to North Washington Loop. As you can I live on Washington Loop, the influx of traffic that has come you can wait up to five minutes with five vehicles behind you just trying to turn north on to 17. And considering that this is going to be RVs these are going to be larger vehicles you're going're going to have to have what, either the RVs driven themselves or a truck towing them, you're adding 276 vehicles in that area. I know for a personal fact, a piece of her campground when they have big weekends like July 4th, you want to go whatever with your family, they're turning in, they're blocking traffic on 70 because the line is so long. So how is that going to work? I would really love to see what their process is going to be. Like, are they going to turn in and circle around to check in? Are they going to be responsible in that turning lane? If the turning lane is not deemed necessary, is that going to block the whole right lane of Southbound 17? You're going to add a lot more traffic. And also if you guys know you know the plan developments with tagging than the other that's going to be just north across that's 4,900 acres that's going to be all homes. That's all like I understand like yeah this little piece like everybody's saying it's not going to be a big deal it's not going to we're meeting the requirements we're preserving we're this for that but if you look at the bigger picture 270 more vehicles whatever the case may be then eventually you're going like by 20 the 2030 plan you're going to have a way more dense area of traffic, emergency, septic, etc. Also, let me read my... What was the... Oh, and the decision, the decision letter as well that came from the county on January 14th. There was supposed to be a second entrance for emergency personnel. Now is that going to be because I kind of see in the one entrance it's like too laneed essentially so I would assume that it's like one going like you would go in and then that would the other side would be exit. Is that counting or or okay, if that's not, where is the secondary entrance going to be? Because on the north end you've got, it looks to be what is that gonna be the storm water, part of the storm water management pond on like this little corner. And then the other corner you have the scrub J habitat. So where is that going to go in? Or if you put it in what in the middle per se, you're blocking drain fields. So that's going to cause issues because it's supposed to be only one drain field can serve eight RVs. So ultimately, I just think like everybody else has said, we also have another RV park going in 2.6 miles down the road that's substantially larger. I don't think it's necessary at this point in time to put in this RV park. I think there's better uses for it, just like they were saying the 16 single family residences is a lot more less of an eye-sword and damage to the community than an RV park in my personal opinion. And also, when you have major construction like that, the wildlife is going to flee. Even if it's to the preservation, preserve, it's still going to leave. I mean, so people that are the justification that people want to be out in nature, well, there's not going to be any nature to see because they took it away. So that's just my concerns and comments. I really hope that you guys take that into consideration and have a nice day. My name is Camilla Spicer and I live out there off at the loop too. And I am not educated about this particular request here for approval, but living in the neighborhood, I would like to, and taking the time, the long time it takes to drive here from there anymore, the county seats far away. It just will be a 20-minute drive. Now, hour and ten, I don't think we need any more traffic on 17 from the loop on in. And we still haven't seen the repercussions of the park, the RV park that they've been referring to. Like I said, I haven't educated myself about this enough to go to details, but I reiterate that as a neighbor, I am against this and I appreciate and agree with what the other neighbors have said. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, John Martin, Washington, Luke Road. And I have been sworn in. I agree 100% with everybody what they've been saying so far as far as all this development that's been going on and I'm very proud of them too right there. Those are my kids and I'm glad to see they're in here fighting for what they grew up for and with. Okay. My daughter stated that they're in which is agreeable right now. You have one little development, not a big deal. Then we know that there's two others in the works also. Okay, with larger homes or excuse me, larger areas for homes and such, that puts a lot of pressure on Highway 17. Okay, we all know that. The wetlands, I agree. You move the what's going to end up happening, or what appears to happen is, well, we've preserved this area, but we've disturbed everything else and all the animals and everything have moved somewhere else. Well, now when we do a study, OK, those animals aren't there anymore. Look, we can expand a little bit more, okay. It's nonsense. We've got to slow this down, okay. Suge, I don't, the last, I'm in the current stages of building the house right now, but my last house, my well had to be 75 feet from my sewer, or excuse me, my septic tank. So we're only going to put 50 feet here. That makes more sense. I don't think so. Okay. I agree 100% with everybody that's here. And I disagree with the fact that the applicant gets to have the last word all the time. Disagree with that. And I don't think he has the right to make a statement that who would want to build a house on a For lane highway because if you go just down the road, there's plenty of houses on a For lane highway. Thank you Anybody else wishing to speak please come forward. I make motion we close public comment. Second. I have a motion and second to close public comment. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Public comment time is closed. Mr. Bernson with the areaottle? I'll start by calling up the project engineering to answer some of the questions that came out. Yes, please. Remarkown on what's subsequent engineering. So thing, what's the septics? We do show one within 50 foot and that will be moved. The state regulations on septics are 15 feet from dry retention, which wetland would be considered that this one is normally dry. And then from wet ponds or streams, creeks, other things like that, 75 feet. So we had this one place coordinate state regulations but we will move it to meet the county 50 foot setback that they put in place and then we show our typical 25 foot wetland offset in that plan. So we're not quite 50 on that one but But we'll meet all that for the traffic impact statement. According to protein who we had the sub do the report for the left turn lane will need to be extended 40 feet and they're saying right now according to the traffic count they received we do not need a right turn. And 2026, when this project is expected to be completed, one may be required just for safety reasons, but not based on traffic volume alone. Well, when we come in for final approval, based on the age of this TIS, it may be updated, and we'll have a for sure answer then. And then, with concern about the with the eight foot berm that was mentioned, it's going to be an eight foot fence surrounding the property and then our stormwater to the wetland will be managed at a rate that equals or is less than the rate going to the wetland right now. According to the SwiftMod guidelines, you can't discharge more than your pre-development addition, and we're gonna meet all the state guidelines on this. And then also, going back to the specifics one more time, even when the specifics were governed by the health department, based on the flows that are expected from this, it was gonna be DEP anyways. I provided a waste water narrative. I believe it's page 134 in the staff report. And it talks about the flows that you could see on the existing zoning compared to the flows we'll see here. And with the existing commercial zoning's going to the PD that are posing we're very much less impactful on the wastewater. So we'll meet all the requirements that they count as set forth and I'm going to treat it at least to the state standards. And then we show our well to our west of the the Welcome Center in that area in that little dip in there by the wetland. Once we actually come to design, yes, correct right there. And once we actually come to design, if we need to move it, we can. But that's the most logical place to us to have it. There's other developments that are served by wells, we're not expecting any adverse conditions from the well placement there and One of the another one of the issues was talking about expanding into the wetland Staff is requiring signage be posted at certain intervals along the wetland saying this is a wetland node dumping allowed and also along all the preserve Western and southern boundaries of the property and Then then talking about the staging of the RVs, I don't have the exact number of talking ahead, but they would turn into the site. They would turn left on the image right now. And there's room to stack. That's a couple hundred feet. So at least you'd be able to stack a decimated RV before you back up into the street. That's all I have for right now. We'll let Rob take over. Thank you. Just a couple of things. Again, remind you the existing zoning commercial would be very difficult to develop without central water and sewer available. The utility that is responsible for that area has indicated they do not have capacity to serve water and sewer. I will say personally I would not want to build a new home on a one acre state lot on a four way state highway an area that's growing like this. The fact that there's other RV parks in the area, it just shows the popularity of RVs in this day and age and the generation, my generation that's getting to an age that are using the RV parks. We don't deny something because we want to build a gas station and there are already a gas station on the other corner. There's always a lot of synergy between different uses. Some people like the larger park. Some people might want a smaller park. With all of that, I would respectfully request your recommendation of approval about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning, keeping in mind most of what you heard in opposition was opinion, not factual competence, substantial evidence. Thank you. Okay, any questions for staff or the applicant? I do. I'm trying to see on this depiction where the actual sewage treatment is going to be located. I see the drain fields, but I'm trying to see where the sewage treatment is going to be located. So there's not a central sewage treatment plant. They are individual septic systems shown in pink. So it's gravity systems? Yes. Okay. Just a comment or observation. So you mentioned the densities units are exempt for these, which is mind-boggling to me that we do so much for our houses to restrict how many units can on property, but when you get down to an RV, which can be permanent and not transient, that we don't care other than just the plan development. So Sean, you have to come in the county at this point and do a plan development is the only way to get an RV park now. There's no area that's zoned. We don't have, you know, like we have multi-family, we have single family. We don't have an area of the county that's zoned for an activity like this, do we? We do. We have RV park, RVP zoning that they could have applied for as well. That's a straight zoning designation. And so as you're well aware, the board, as well as this board has like specificity, likes to see things. With respect to why are transient parks like this, not counted toward density, even though they're quasi-residential, we don't require permits for the parking of it. So those other parks, you speak of Those would require permits. So we do that in this sense because there are a lot a lot of other state Regulations regarding lengths of stay can't stay more than I believe it's 180 days in the same spot So there are a lot of other regulations in place relating to RVs that are different from say a mobile home park or something where the vehicles, whatever you want to call them, are staying in a static state. Again, that's a difference between a house, which is there permanently versus something that's transient such as this. Okay, so to clarify, these RVs do have regulations on howl, so you could not put an RV there and leave it permanently No, sir not today who regulates that we have regulations in both the code But the state also regulates that the PD condition also regulate right, but if I left it there you we've got counties gonna drive through Okay, so no one really know We have the ability though to take a look at it as well as again the state looks at it because being in RV park they're subject to different taxing mechanisms and so they would be checking that as well because once you go past 180 days I believe there are different taxing implications. So the state of the state. The condition does state that you had that they have to open their books up and show us the records of how long people are staying. So we are. Yeah. Based on based on complaints. Based on complaint. Thank you, Shelby. There's no residential component in this proposal. There's no casitas or anything of that nature proposed. No, it's very specific. There's no casitas. Only RVs. I have a question about the sewer also. Don't state regulations say if there are sewer lines available within so many feet they have to hook up to that sewer plant even or that sewer plant has to be expanded to meet the conditions of the new development? Don't believe there are any provisions that a sewer plant has to be expanded, but there are provisions in both code and statutes that if a puddle will water and sanitary sewer become available to the site that they have 365 days to hook up to it. But the lines are already there. No, full of a plan. No, correct. There's no lines within 117. 117. 117. 117 has, I believe, transmission lines for peace river, but there are no distribution lines. That's why a lot of these projects are proposing this because there are no distribution lines. There may be some transmittal lines, which are the real big guys right but there are no distribution lines and the The engineers indicated the closest sewer is several thousand feet away Okay, and also 75 gallon for an RV is a little bit underestimated That's a science that I'm not familiar with. That will be dealt with through the permitting agencies. That 75 gallons per day per RV is from the State Health Department and they've done studies on it. That's what they've determined. That's with water and sewer hookups without sewer and without sewer hookup they have her chicks again per day for her. You know I wanted to kind of piggyback up the sewage too. I mean I know it was mentioned that you know if there's a gas station across street you can build gas station across the street and I get that supply and demand but they're not asking to re-zone it. I had a question about sewage. It's 16 houses. I know there's a commercial aspect of 16 houses versus this. I don't know if it was mentioned. I thought it was, but is there a study or a report or something that says the difference in sewage usage compared to the 16 houses in this? to do a comparison. It's in the staff report and on the online PDF, it has paid to 134. And comparing the sewage flows from our to the current zoning, that would be reasonably able to be fit onto the site. I thought I heard that, but I just find that hard to believe that this has less of an impact. So I could just give you the quick snippet from it real quick but CG zoning you could put a restaurant in there. That 200 seat restaurant could be situated on approximately two acres including stormwater water and we're going to be able to get a lot of water. seeding 200 people each on the 16 acres that would be a potential flow of 68,000 gallons per day of wastewater. 138 RV sites will produce 10,350 gallons per day. And now it's just from the commercial zoning. Thank zoning. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions for staff? I have one more. Go ahead and emergency access, because it was brought up. Are they required to have a condition? A condition of the, so these projects go on two parallel tracks. We apply for the comp plan and rezoning that comes through this board separately and before we can get here, they have to go through the staff development review committee for review of the project. That took this project and places conditions on what you have to do when you come in for final. So they will have an emergency secondary access most likely up at the northern portion of the property. But we don't redo everything based on the staff comments. We redo it when we bring it in for final PD. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Any discussion? Then I'll entertain a motion. Before I make that motion, I just wanted to make a comment. I understand that the basis of the development is transient. And vehicles are going to come and go. And I'm looking at the aerial maps that were provided to us. And I just happen to look at the Duncan Road North, US 17, just at the intersection of Washington Loop Road, and as far as I can see, it's zoned RMF-10. So I just wonder aloud about future development on that side of the road, not being transient, but being a permanent situation, and we would end up there. It's just food but thought. It doesn't influence my decision on what I'm going to propose here, but it's just an area that is open to development now, and there's a lot of multi-family and commercial zoning along that corridor that we're going to see, I think, a lot of in the future. So it's just food for thought. It's there. Can I make a comment? Go right ahead. In that some, the public comment talked about during Milton that the flooding came up to a spot. I'm assuming it covered some of this area. Because you are on the, this is on the west side of 17, 17 kind of being the burn from stormwater flooding up through here. Not a positive deal. What better to have in something that's kind of maybe flood than a mobile home or an RV that you can take and move, escape from the flooding than a permanent fixture. Sure. But it is all economic driven by individuals. It is. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. And well, just to conclude, you know, our decision here is just the first step in several other hearings that are going to have to finally approve this and a lot of scrutiny too. So with that, I'm going to make a motion of forward application, PAS-24-04 to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and staff report dated February 26, 2025. Charlott Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the motion, say nay. Nay. Okay. You were an aye. So it's three to two ye for versus nay Do you need the Pull Do you need a pull? Yeah That's easy. Okay That goes forward three to two. Okay. And so to complete the transaction, a motion of forward application PD-24-11 to the Board of Concomitantious with a recommendation of approval, we conditions A through M, based on the findings and analysis of the staff report dated February 26, 2025, Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. I have a motion. I will second that. Any discussion on the motion? All the favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed to the motion say nay? Nay. Nay. So that's three to two, again the same once. But then it goes forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Our recommendation or comment to the public that these have come before the commissioners again on April. Twenty second. And so make your presentations to them. Any other items or comments, conditions from the staff? No, sir. Thank you. Okay. We have completed our agenda that we are adjourned.