That's what they're all really about. Are they already vacant? Here I am. I am. Great. Great. Sixth grade. It's not in the right spot. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. Sixth. So are we on? Ready time. We're ready. Time. Go ahead. Good evening. First, let me just make a little bit of a public announcement. We respectfully request that all electronic devices are set for no audible notification, airplane mode, whatever the making silence. I appreciate that. This is the planning and zoning meeting of October 11, 2023. I call the meeting to order. Roll call please. Chairman Kennedy. Mr. Du Kennedy. Mr. Dwayne. Here. Here. Mr. Bocotano. Here. Mr. Hatcher. Here. Mr. Wright. And Mr. have any minutes at this present time. There's no old business. So new business. First order is VA 21 23 15. Request to allow for a swimming pool and cage. I'll come back to that later. Within three and a half feet of the rear property line in lieu of a required five feet setback on the rear property line in accordance with Article 3, Section 21, 36.09, D-E-D, and two. Stay up report, please. Thank you, Ryan Solstice, Development Services Director. There are quests to have an in-ground pool at the subject property of 301 Admiralty Court. You'll allow a swimming pool in cage within 3.5 feet of the rear property line and lieu of the required five foot setback. The explanation of the hardship by the applicant is that we are unable to build on the south side of the property as it is considered a front yard. Coming in from the property line will only allow 10 feet of pool space. So on quarter lots, the city of edgewater establishes two front yards and two side yard setbacks on any quarter lot with two right of way frontages. And according to section 21-100.040, the non-administrative variance, city of edgewater's land development code, in order to grant a non-administrative variance, that's in the planning and zoning board, shall make the following findings of facts, that granting of the proposed variance is not incomprehensible to comprehensive plan, that granting of the proposed variance will not result in creating or continuing a use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses in the area. That granting of the proposed variance is the minimum action available to remit reasonable use of the property. That the physical characteristics of the subject's site are unique and not present on adjacent sites. That the circumstances creating the needs of the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, actions proposed by the applicant, or actions by the previous property owners. And lastly, that granting the proposed variance or variances will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes intent of the land development code. Staff found that the applicant did meet the comprehensive plan and that criteria had been met. Whether the proposed variance would result in creating or continuing a use, staff felt that this would not occur and that criterion had been met. The proposed action and minimum action available to the applicant, staff felt that the applicant did have reasonable use of the property by conforming to the setbacks within the residential plan use development agreement for the subject property. The applicant does have use of the single family home. This criterion had not been meant. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? The applicant's response is yes, the home is located on the corner of the main entrance, and therefore has two front yard setbacks, which prohibit buildings on the side of the home. Staff's response to the subject site is considered a conforming lot. The parcel meets the minimum lot square footage, the minimum lot width, and the minimum lot depth. This criterion has not been met. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance to resolve the actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response is yes, would like to install residential in-ground pool with enough space to properly enjoy the pool and spa. Staff's response, yes, the applicant is proposing an in-ground pool, which is not meet the required five foot setback within the RPUD agreement. This criterion had not been met. And then lastly, well the granting of the proposed variance caused substantial detriment to public welfare to compare the purposes and intent of the land development code. The applicant's response is no. The home backs up to a nature preserve. Staff's response, yes granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. However, it will not be a detriment to the public welfare. This criterion has not been met. It received the following comments from the city departments. The environmental services department does not object to the requested variance to allow a setback of 3.5 feet from the rear property line to the proposed pool deck. Fire had no comments. At this time staff does not recommend approval of variance application BA2315 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance to section 21-100.04 key. Okay I'm gonna open up the meeting to the public. Applicant is here. Would you like to come to the microphone please state your name, address, and you have three minutes to respond. This is Paul Radcliffe and I live at 301 Avrilty Court in a drawer lakes. And I just wanted to say that the reason that we request a variance, we're usually very conformant. People, but we feel like two years ago, we started looking at putting a pool in and a pool builder at that time told us that we could put it three foot from our house. I'm not an engineer, but I'm not very comfortable with a pool whole dug in my ground three foot from the house. So by giving us these 18 inches, we didn't ask for the whole thing. We asked for three and a half feet because we feel just a little further away from the house would be better for us to enjoy the pool and safer for the foundation and the property altogether. So that's why we asked for it. Thank you, sir. Any other public comments? Board comments? I have a couple comments, but I'll. Chris? I'm assuming because there's an HOA here. Do we have something familiar, Joelle? Okay. You have the HOA president's at next day. And I clear this because I'm not in conflict with this. The applicant did in fact apply and was received approval from the H.O.A. Architectural Review Committee for this project. So it's definitely a go from the H.O.A. standpoint. Donnie, anything good? Okay. It's a put in a couple of statements. Regarding number three, reasonable use of the property. I think a resident has a right and we've been doing this a long time. A resident has a right to use their property, especially for a swimming pool with. And we're talking about a very, very small variance. Now, I understand the six questions, and if one or two strike down, the city has to say no. So just please hear me out. So I feel that a homeowner should have the right to put a pool. And I'm going on record saying, I really object to that use cage. Isn't it a screen room? It's a part two of the pool cage. Really? Yeah. Yeah, I don't want to pull the one of cage in my house. But that's besides the pool cage. We have a pool cage. There he is. All right. So that's my, we brought a lot number three. Number four, the subject prop, the subject site is considered conforming a lot, which I think is a positive statement. The parcel meets the minimum square footage and the minimum log with the minimum depth. Criterion has not been wet. Can you explain that? What's the criteria? Sir, the criteria is that question number four are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique if it's a conforming lot and that it can meet all the standards outright in that essence it is not unique because they have to go for variance is that why? No that the lot itself is not. It's a standard lot. Yeah, it's a standard lot. It's not of a particular shape that would not be conducive beyond the fact that the land development codes requires them to have two front yards and two side yards when it's on a corner lot. And the last one, I understand, because granting the variance would be a detriment to public welfare and impair the process and intent of the land development code, isn't that why you go for a variance? Because the land development code says one thing, and a person puts in for a variance to get an exception to that code, isn't that correct? Correct. I just wanted to state. That's all I have to say. At this point, I just want to let the homeowner know I was here three years ago, and I got turned down. I don't know how this is going to go but I came back. My engineer turned my pool a little bit, gave me a slightly more modified kidney and we fell in compliance. I don't know how big your pool is. It looks like 18, 20,000 gallons but just 7,500? You were close. Yeah not even. Well look at I'm going to ask for a motion on this item. We'll make a motion to approve V8, 2315. We have a second. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Yes. Just don't give up. I don't know how this is going to go, but I was told no. And you can turn things, move, tweak things. All right. So I'm going to ask for a motion on this item. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve V8 2315. Do we have a second? Okay. Okay, Tommy. I'm sorry, who's the second? Thomas. I'm just diagering. I know you can move over. Oh, Mr. Dwayne? Yes. Yes. Mr. Andrew Covex? Yes. Mr. Dwayne? Yes. Yes. Mr. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Andrew Covex? Yes. Mr. Malflittano? Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yes. And Mr. Rainberg? Yes. Okay. So we ordered. Here we go. Enjoy. Next item on the roster. VA 2316. Okay. Request to allow for construction of a new home with a larger footprint on a non-conforming lot with the demolished non-conforming structure in lieu of the required requirement to build a new home with an existing footprint of the demolished home in accordance with Article 7, Section 21, We have a staff report. Thank you for the record Ryan Solstice. The applicant who is the property owner at 123 East Park Avenue has a non-conforming lot and he would like to construct a new home beyond the original footprint. A lot itself is non-conforming as well as the structure that was once there. The explanation of hardship by the applicant is a new structure has a larger footprint is non-conforming as well as the structure that was once there. The explanation of hardship by the APKIN is the new structure has a larger footprint than the existing structure. As stated before, Section 21-100.04D, not administrative variance, the staff must find that the APKIN meets all six in order to recommend approval. With response to the Comprehensive Plan, question one, staff believes that the criterion had been met citing policy 1.1.4 limiting development and reducing limitations on infill development, which is policy 1.4.3. Number two, the granting of the provost variance result in creating or continuing to use, which is not compatible. Staff felt that no granting the variance will not result in creating or continuing to use, which is not compatible with adjacent uses. Is there proposed action and minimum action available to reasonable use of the property? The task response is yes, the prior home was less than 650 square feet for single-family residents. A lot is non-conforming as well as the house prior to demolition. The applicant is requesting to expand the base footprint of the home by 150 plus or minus square feet. Staff felt this criterion had been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? Staff felt that the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites. Staff felt that the subject site is considered a non-conforming lot with an existing non-conforming structure. The parcel does not meet the width requirement nor is it practical to meet the land development code setbacks for the R3 zoning designation on the non-conforming lot. This criterion has been met. Are the circumstance creating the need for the variance the result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? The applicant's response is yes for building a home instead of a cottage. Staff's response, no, the lot was platted prior to the adoption of the land development code and felt that this criterion had been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes and intent of the land development code? The applicant's response is no, rebuilding an existing home. Staff's response? Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. However, it will not be a detriment to the public welfare. Staff did receive comments from environmental services. Environmental services department did not object to their quest variants to reduce the side setback of five feet, matching the setback of the recently demolished structure on this lot. Staff does not recommend approval with the variants for application VA 2316 because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with Section 21104D. Thank you very much. Opened up to public hearing is the applicant in the audience. Would you like to come to the microphone, sir, and state your name and address clearly, and you have three minutes to respond. Yes, my name is David Murray, one, two, three East Park Avenue. And we took a small cottage down and it was two feet wide. And that's why we're here for the variance to build a, and you have a picture up there. It's going to look just like the cottage it came out pretty much. We didn't go for a huge house. There's only two of us, so all we needed. We wanted to maintain the building line because it leaves enough room to have a driveway with a green space on either side or on the other side rather than have the driveway right up against the side of the house. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other public comments on this item? Board comments. The agenda references a survey but I don't have it. I don't We have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a, we have a There we go. That helps us. Okay. All right. Read it. Read it. I know we're asking for a he's wanting a variance to build a new home with the existing footprint although it's slightly bigger. What is our actual- So we're essentially allowing him to rebuild a new home on a non-conforming lot with a structure that isn't conforming to the land development code that is larger than the existing home that was present. The land development code allows you to build the exact same footprint of the home. In this case, he's requesting a slightly larger home. That's what the variance is for today. The adoption of the setbacks I've shown on the site plan to allow for a slightly larger home. Right. Now as far as like, I know edge water's got different areas that require different setbacks, different maximum impervious, how are we on that? Are we under the impervious and all that stuff? Or okay, so we're literally just talking about building a slightly larger house. They're like a slightly larger house with basically the same encroachments that were before, but based on the diagram that I did provide, you can see that it's increasing north-south than east-west. What are we talking about in feet for the variance? The variance is about 150 feet larger, 650 feet square feet. Square feet on the base footprint is what I got about approximate measuring it all out. Okay. So effectively this is the new house. Yes. This is the old one. So basically what you're doing is squaring off all the little into it. But it's already there. Correct. Well, the house was demolished. He did well. No, it was there. He was there. Correct. So we're really not changing it very much. Okay. Okay. No? Sounds. Did you have Joanna Gaines in your own is design? Beautiful. Really? How's this beautiful? Very good. Nice. Okay. I'm trying to get on to you. I know. I know. Can I have, can I, any other board comments? Oh, where we need a motion on this make a motion to approve VA 2 3 1 6 second rain bird. Okay Roll call please Mr. Dwayne yes Vice chairman and or co-vix yes, mr. Malfa Tano. Yes, mr. Hatcher. That's a yes, and mr. Rainbird Good luck sir Yes. Mr. Hatcher. That's a yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Good luck, sir. I like that. I like that. Yeah. Yeah. I like that. Pick us some renters. Okay. Next item. This will never be the same. VA 2317. We request to allow the construction of a detached garage greater than 250 square feet with the rear setback, the backyard setback of six feet, and lieu of the required setback of 20 feet. The R2 zoning designation in accordance with Article 5, table 5-1. Staff report, please. Thank you. The applicant who is properly going to add 2, 4, 0, 3, Timber and Drive is requesting to build a two-car garage. He has requested for a six-foot rear yard setback and lieu of the required 20-foot setback. The explanation of hardship by the applicant is that the transition to the drive is too steep to accommodate the 20 foot step back and you need six feet. Again, in accordance with Section 21-100.040, the findings of facts, Paul VI 1.4.3, reducing limitations on info and redevelopment, that the applicant had met this criteria. Will the granting of the proposed variance result in creating or continuing use, which is not compatible? The applicant's response is no. Staff also felt that the granting of the variance would not result in creating or continuing a use, which is not compatible with that Jason uses. This criterion has been met. It's proposed action the minimum action available to permit reasonable use of the property. The applicant's response is yes. Staff's response. No, the applicant has use of a single family home, covered patio and pool. This criterion has not been met. Are the physical characteristics of the subject site unique and not present on adjacent sites? Staff responses, the subject site is considered a conforming lot within the R2 zoning designation. This criterion has not been met. Are the circumstances creating the need for the variance to result of actions by the applicant or actions proposed by the applicant? Staff response, yes, the applicant is proposing an accessory structure that does not conform to setbacks. This criterion has not been met. And lastly, will the granting of the proposed variance cause substantial detriment to the public welfare? Will I impair the purposes and intent of the land development code? The applicant's response is no. Staff's response, yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code? The applicant's response is no. Sass the response? Yes, granting the variance will negate the intent of the land development code for establishing setbacks. However, it will not be a detriment to public welfare. This criterion has not been met. I have a lengthy conversation from environmental services. The environmental services department does not object to the requested variance. It reduced the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet for the construction of the garage. The applicant obtained a building permit number 23-2346, the place at 30 foot by 25-26 foot wide metal garage connecting to the existing concrete driveway apron on the north side of the property which extends to the unpaid, unopened 24th Street right of way. The submitted plan showed the free standing garage building to be attached to a new concrete slab and meeting required setbacks of 10 feet from the north property line and 20 feet from the eastern rear property. Clearing and grading stakes have been set at the property for the garage slab. The applicant now asserts that there is insufficient room to place the garage such that the incline from the existing driveway apron to the top of the proposed slab would be shallow enough in slope to allow the vehicle use without scraping the bottom of their vehicles. On October 2, 2023, Randy Cazlow, Environmental Services Director met with the applicants on their property to review the existing storm water runoff patterns. The rear setback is already encumbered with the construction of a pool deck with its fill slope and filtration equipment and close proximity to the fence line. There did not appear to be a concern regarding impounding of rear yard runoff with the requested variance. As any store of water collected in the backyard, it appears to flow either west or east to Tamarind or Unity along the depress side yards at the southern property line. Fire department had no comments or concerns. At this time, staff does not recommend approval of the variance for application VA 2317, because all six criteria could not be met in accordance with section 21-100.04.D. Okay. Is the applicant in the phone? Please come to the microphone. Please state your name and address. We have three minutes to respond. My name is Roger Boyso. We're a 24-03 Tamer and Drive. And the reason for the variances, once the concrete crew came in and barbed in 50 yards of fill, it pumped the level up enough. So the existing driveway from the house won't transition, but it'll just steep rate from the finished floor. And with six foot into the rear that would give us a lot less of a slope to access the vehicles into the garage. Thank you. Do we have a diagram or a picture of what this structure is going to look like? Oh, I mean, that's it doesn't say house doesn't doesn't tell me what it's gonna look like. Doesn't it look like a warehouse? Does it look a little bit? Is there something else that you can do to transition? So my that was my question, sir, if you don't mind my asking. So you said they brought in 50 yards of fill. So why are they bringing up? I'm to the microphone, sir, during this conversation. I'll wait till you get up here. It's basically an obstacle illusion. I didn't even realize that they'd be needing fill. But the garage would have to be at the finish floor level, would have to transition into the driveway at that level. Why are they raising the slab of the garage up so much higher than the driveway? Why would the driveway be like this? No, it's gonna be even with the driveway. This would be, the driveway comes down to a slope like this, and it's gonna be even to start at this end, or at this end over here. Oh, it's because to be even to start at this end or at this end over here. Oh it's because you're driving away sloping down. Now that makes start okay that's making better sound like why are they going up to the lion right so that's so that slab is already poured. It's the existing driveway slab and it slopes towards I guess that cross street unity. Oh right the driveways to the existing rail. Whatever that that cross street is So what he's got is you know effectively be What would be the southwest corner of the garage is at the same elevation as the driveway But because of the slope of the driveway to the West Right no north Yeah to the north. If now causing the north elevation of the garage to be up higher than the driveway. So his issue is on one side he's going to be flush or at the same elevation that the other side he's going to have this weird sloping thing happen. And at some point it's going to be, you know, without actually knowing your actual site plan, without having elevation marks, I don't know exactly the height. Yeah, it's just like what you're saying. Yeah, it's like 16 inches in four feet for that slope, which is really rough. Because it was the front, it would be a lot easier. Yeah. You just put some sort of transition in, but towards the back. Yeah. Because I mean, the problem is if he brings his existing driveway up, now he's just taking that transition and putting it down there at the ditch. Right. Take one or two. Pretty much. Now, where are your actual doors on that 26 foot side? Does it just, what do you got? Two garage doors or just one garage door? Two garage doors. Two garage doors. Two garage doors. And the existing house doesn't have a garage. It does. So it does. Yeah, small garage. Anything prohibiting him from turning the building 90 degrees to the north and just adding a driveway off of the current side street right into the garage? I think the intent here was to simply have another drive coming to here from the basically unopened 24th street there. Right. Well, I mean right now though he's got his garage doors on his driveway. If he turns the building so that the garage doors are pointing towards 24th, he can just pour an apron over 24th and access the garage doors in 24th. You can't pour an apron over 24th because it, although it's, it's a platted right away, but it's not improved and actually the city uses most of those as somewhat of a stormwater. Right. Okay. Gotcha. That's why they're mostly in the access. I'll try. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion on the right? Public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Public comments. I'm sorry and you have any public comments? Any board comments Other than what we've discussed so I mean really what we're talking about is he's gonna pinch into the rear setback by four feet Right, this is currently it's a 10 foot rear setback, right? No, it's over 250. 20 feet. That's 20 feet. 20 feet. 20 feet. Come back. And staff with review of lots and Florida shores, staff has delineated that because of that part of the code that calls for two front and two sides. And Florida Shore staff have been administering it with standard setbacks where you just have sides even on these unopened right-of-ways. To accommodate. Okay. Because they're not technically. Got you. Improved. Okay. That's all I got. Okay. Looking have a motion. The work in. You can pass the gavel. Bob, you wanted like to make a motion. We'd have the passage to another important member. Hold on. You get it back. Building a party purchase. Yeah. What was the question? I was asked and the building was already. I already knew the ads. I assumed already knew the answer. I just wanted to clarify the building's already purchased. And that was the yes. Yes. Because my first inkling was reduced the size by 10 feet or something like that, you know. But the environmental you said environmental had no problem with granting the variance? No, they, I guess, environmental services. Mr. Coslow went out and inspected and didn't I believe there'd be a detriment to stormwater. How tall is the structure? To the peak or the heel height? To the peak? Okay. So we're not taller than the resting house. Okay. Otherwise, that would have been added to the floor. Hold on. Another very hits. Yeah. And this is a metal structure. Correct. So you'll have to put a facade on it to me because it's Is that a stipulation in the variance or is it that you would need to make that stipulation for the app. So the building has to conform to the aesthetic. No, the land development code out right, if you're over 350 square feet on a building, and on an accessory structure, it has to match the facade of the home. So if the board wishes to wave that, then you would have to stipulate that in the variance as well. If you don't mind, sorry, I want me to keep bringing you up. I'm just asking with pleasure. You have to come to the microphone again. So right now, it's just a steel building, probably, with the PR-BRB metal, or are you actually going to like stucco the facade? No, it's not going to be. It's just going to be a Wayne's coat, and then just metal building. No, no. The plane's on the inside. On the outside. So there'll be two tow to match the house. Oh, it's the house. I thought the house was stuck. The house is the house is stuck. But it's just gonna match those colors. Does that meet the, would that conform with land development code, or would it have to be stuck? No, you would need to request because it specifies the sod, treatment, material. So you would need to allow for the option to do the two-tone color and lieu of. OK. I know we ran into this years ago on Silver Palm and that's probably what brought together that lamb vellumco change. That's why I was asking those questions. All right, so do we have a motion for the board? I'm going to make a motion to approve this. I'd like to see the facade at least look like the front of the house. That's just been one of my stipulations with all of these detached garages. It needs to look like the house. It should be very specific. Yeah. So, I'm going to make a motion to approve VA 2317 with adding the stipulation that the facade facing Cameron matches the facade of the house. Is that clear enough? Okay. I remember. Okay. Roll call please. I'm going to go to the second. Okay. Roll call please. Mr. Duane. Yes. Vice chair. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Moffatano. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Thank you very much. Good luck. Hatcher. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item. A N 2303. We request to approve the annexation of 743-004-020-320-744-3004020-310-773-004-020-300-74030-340304-020-290 and 743-004-020-220-920-74030-020-220-220-220-220-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320- two zero two nine zero and seven four three zero zero four zero two zero two eight zero generally found near Elizabeth Street. Whoa need to clear report. You need to clarify one thing. Yes. The third seven series you. Seven, four, I'm sorry. Sorry to be. I apologize, Tom. Again, the third item was seven, four, three, zero, zero, four, zero, two, zero, three, zero, zero, zero. Thank you. The question for you is for an annexation of these five parcels located along the Elizabeth Street. The applicant intends to do a lot combination if the annexation, comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is approved. The intent here is to do a lot combination combining two of the five and then three of the five and the applicant is requesting to annex these properties. They are located within the Volusia County agreement, the ISBA, Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement with the city of Edgewater. The applicant had a pre-application meeting with the development services, development services, advise the applicant, the apical future land use request would be low density residential with a conservation overlay and it's a zoning designation of R2. The applicant would like come into the city, the property is serviced by water but is not currently serviced by sewer and essentially it's whether the city would like to have it on the tax roll. Very good is the applicant in the audience? The applicant is not in the audience. All right? All the comments please step to the microphones. Please state your name and address and you have three minutes. I think it's Mike Bang, 1351 Elizabeth. So the property is directly across the street from this. And so I think I just have a variety of questions concerning primarily flooding, which has been an issue all over really. I understand I am county county so I appreciate your time and maybe some of these questions you really don't have an answer to but maybe you can help me. So let me just run through a few things. First, I had been told by somebody that this property had failed to be approved for development in the past both by the county and the city. I'm not sure maybe that's a rumor. Second all, the past, both by the county and the city. I'm not sure, maybe that's a rumor. Second of all, the drainage, excuse me, there's the drainage goes from behind the homes on the east side of the road. It comes into my property. It goes down the drain through a culvert under the road directly into that property. And that property is the low spot for this side of the area. Actually, there's a drainage thing coming from James that continues into the canal that's on my property. So I guess a question that would be like, OK, if they develop it and it becomes edge water, then if there is a flooding issue, say, you know, if they develop it and it becomes edge water, then if there is a flooding issue, say down the road, then we've got the county is going to coordinate with the city, you see what I'm saying, about flooding issues, how would that be resolved? Because there is a culvert going right under that road, as I'm sure you're aware, and it's considerable flow. Like the rains we had just about a couple weeks ago, that property is still flooded across the street. I mean, it's underwater. And there is a considerable actual flow. I took some video of it, fresh some leaves, just to get a video of it, and it's like a little river, right? So I'm just kind of curious about how flooding issues would be resolved between property that is county and then property that is now a small little piece of city. Is the county aware of say this annexation and how it might affects them? So anything within the ISBA is eligible for annexations. Once the comprehensive plan amendment goes through, it's sent to Lucia County Growth Management, and they review it as well. Any small scale or large scale comprehensive plan amendment, kind of in the next item to be heard, is the small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The subject property does have a conservation overlay that will be applied to it. So when this gentleman does come in for site plan, conservation overlay, future land use, annotation to the low density will require him to do extra stuff to mitigate that as far as the city and the county would We have the ISBA is interlocal service boundary agreement. So it allows us to To interact with each other over the jurisdictions in here both county and non-county both within the city and not in the city over the jurisdictions in here, both county and non-county, both within the city and not in the city, especially in this area, the two property south are in the city, and then everything west of here is in the city as well. Okay, so there are means for, and people are aware of all this sort of stuff, so okay, so great. I guess another question that I have is like, just continue, then, you know, last year or earlier, they had, you know, after the storm, they had talked about a county city mega flooding comprehensive survey plan coordinated with like, I think, Army Corps of Engineers, anything come of that, you know? So the city is actually looking to adopt stricter storm water standards in the upcoming months. We are going out, hopefully bid in the next few months for a master storm water plan that will be comprehensive to the city, but at this time that's still preliminary. Okay, great. Let's see. And then the last thing, and again, thank you so much for your time. The canal that actually sits on my property. I talked with somebody from the county who's not you know officially Can give a decision on this But he had said that if if a canal or a piece of drainage is physically maintained by the county It belongs to county. That's why they maintain it like dredged to get out No one has touched this canal ever, it's not maintained. What's, is there anything to stop me from just say filling it in and expanding my property? Because it's, I actually have two technical lots, you know, one, you know, so, I mean, is there some, what I have to apply for a poem that build a culvert to cover it? Or could I just like one day just take decide okay I'm just gonna cover it it's no it doesn't it belongs to me etc. I mean not that I'm planning to do that but you know I mean you you can do what you choose but yeah there are mechanisms you would need to get a permit through the county to do it correctly right okay and that would have to be reviewed by the county and with regards to the county regulations typically the city will not take over maintenance of anything within the ISBA, whether it's canal roads, unless 51% of parcels are a joining subject area. So in this case, the canal maintenance would be a county issue. Okay, and if they're not dealing with it, is that just, they just don't feel like they need to at this time kind of or? It's one of those things that unless dealing with it, don't feel like they need to at this time. It's one of those things that unless you report it, you're actively reporting it to the county. It's not going to be on the radar. It's the same thing here with potholes with the city. The city has a process where people can report potholes, but the city cannot be everywhere identifying potholes and going out and fixing them all the time unless the public itself people can report pot holes, but the city cannot be everywhere identifying pot holes and going out and fixing them all the time unless the public itself is reporting it to us. Okay, great. Thank you. And then one last question. Some neighbor was at the time going. I was at the time. I was at the time going. Oh, sorry. You didn't stop at the time. Am I going too long? One last question. Okay. Well, that's okay presumably new smart of power will still be the power company for these new lots. Okay, great. Hey, thank you very much. By the way, if you want or in thinking of messing around with water and canals, the big brothers ain't done to remember water management. Yeah, with the big hammer on your head. Okay, so I mean this technically isn't just some off the radar little creek that I have nothing is nothing is just I mean, mean yeah they take it very serious. Well that's great then they take it seriously. So if there is a flooding issue and involves the culvert and the new property they're all going to be looking into it and there's means to address it and become a squeaky wheel. If you point it out, if you point it out, it comes with squeaky real. Very good. Okay. Any other comments? Board comments. Yes sir. I'm in San Remo behind the Walgreens. I'm surrounded by this right now. Right behind publics, a guy bought a lot, and it was just like he said, it was flooded, there were leaves in there, they just, they just piled dirt in there. Now, in front of Kenney's, which is like 20 feet up in the air. You can jet ski from Indian River Elementary School all the way to public to Walgreens now. They're just piling up, is that what's gonna happen here? Is that gonna's going to happen here? Is that going to be the solution? Is there going to be somebody? Because they overlooked a lot of stuff. When he or Horton built, Woodbridge lakes up against San Rimo. We're having an issue. Randy's addressing it, but they just put this ditch behind us that's doing nothing. And people along my street that have pools, when it rains, they're out there in the back of the yard with a squeegee, trying to get that water back to that supposed thing that was gonna save the water. I mean, are they just gonna raise this up and create more of a problem? Especially if that's the low point. Yeah, I mean, how high would this property have to be raised up to become a building lot? I don't know, I would have to look at the flood elevation but typically it's one foot of the base flood elevation I did discuss with the applicant that if he did come in with this conservation overlay We look into doing a joint pond across the three lots Because he will need some fill to get out of the flood zone that's just a requirement but And in lieu of that perhaps in the backyard at Site Plan, or when he applies for a building permit, we look at doing some sort of joint bond across all three. These, the ones before you tonight are going to become two lots. He owns the ones to the south as well that are already within the city. The intent here is to build three homes across all seven lots. But right now, add our business we're working on an annexation issue. It's whether you want it in the city. Yeah that's all exactly in the city or out of the city. All right. What would yes? So it's R2 so what's the maximum of pervious coverage? 60%? Yeah, I'm certain it gets 60%. Okay, and I think the answer to your question about how high he's got to go up is his slab has to be one foot above the ground of the road or the lizard's street. One foot? One foot. That's going to cost a lot of dirt. Okay, it depends on how low he is. All right, do we have any other public comments? Seeing no public comments, board comments? I mean, I know what comments. Obviously, we have control over good. We're just we're just worried about the annexation. Right. annexation right but I have a feeling there's Two of the Annacation right we have a motion on this item I have to gather I can't say you can't I like I'll make a motion to where am I at? Where am I at? I'll prove the annexation of 8 in 2303. I think we got to send a favor to the table. We have to send a favor over recommendation. That's basically exactly. Scratch that. I'll make a motion to send a favorable recommendation for A N 2 3 0 3. Second. Also I get it. Thank you, Thomas. Roll call. Mr. Duane. Yes. Vice Chair Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Malfotano. Yes. Mr. Hatcher? Yes. And Mr. Rainbird? Yes. Next item, CPA 2304, request for small scale comprehensive plan amendments from Volusia County System corridor, ESC, and urban load intensity, ULI, to City of Edge Water low density residential with conservation overlay 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 1 0 7 4 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 7 4 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 9 0 and 7 4 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 8 0 the zero zero zero zero two eight zero well done well thank you the applicant did have a pre-application meeting with development services development services did advise the applicant that the Apical future land use designation Would be low density residential which is existing to the south. Staff felt that the conservation overlay would be critical to this part. The subject properties are 1.13 plus or minus acres. The low density residential allows for four dwelling units per acre. The subject property has a future land use currently in Volusia County of Environmental System Corridor and Urban Low Intensity, which allows respectively for one dwelling unit per 25 acres and four dwelling units per acre. The subject property also has a current zoning designation of Volusia County Resource Corridor and Urban Single Family Residential. Staff did receive one phone call from the member of the public with questions regarding the application. Concerns were raised that the city was attempting annex all properties within the area. Staff declined that the intention is to only annex these unincorporated properties when requested by staff and allowed by the ISBA. The environmental services department did a state that the application is to annex five consecutive vacant parcels along Elizabeth Street, each 50 and width by 200 feet in length with the intention to combine and subdivide to into two single-family residences. The property is within the City of Edgewater's utility service area for portable water, sanitary sewer and reclaimed water service. Environmental services is recommending annexation as well as the first two my department for the zoning and future land use designation. Is the applicant in the audience? audience. Okay. Any public comments on this item? Board comments please. It would be possible to get the applicants name on here like it used to be. Well, we addressed that earlier. Yes, we're going to have the old format. I request that I'll show you. I'll show you at the meeting. So do we have any other board comments at all? Do we have a motion from the board? Make a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Council for RZ 2303. three oh three oh no CPA twenty three oh four are we skip this one no it's all right make a favor make a motion to senate favoral recommendation to see if you're 23 oh four second rain bird roll call please mr. Duane oh I got to check yes vice chair and your covix yes Mr. Andrew Covex. Yes. Mr. Malfotano. Yes. Mr. Hatcher. Yes. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. 743-004-020-320-743-004-020-310-743-004-020-330-004-020-330-743-004-020-330-004-020-290-743-004-020-020-320-020-320-320-020-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-320-743-004-020-280. From Valusia County, Resource Carder RC, and Urban Single Family Residential R-3A, the City of Edgewater R2. Stair Freeport, please. Thank you. Again, the subject properties are 1.13 plus or minus acres. The applicant is requesting to annex process a small scale conference of plan amendment. And before you right now is the rezoning request. The parcels to the south, we're already within the city limits and has a zoning designation of R2. The R2, a lot of dimensions required 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 80 feet, a minimum lot depth of 125 feet with a 30 foot front yard setback, a 20-foot rear yard step back, and a 10-foot side step back. The applicant is proposing a 100-by-200-foot parcel and a 150-by-200-foot parcel. So the R2 zoning designation will comfortably fit within the requested lot combinations that will be processed once the annexation small scale conference of plan amendment and rezoning if approved Okay, thank you Is the applicant and the audience Being no applicant. Is there any public comments for this item? Seeing no public comments. Are there any board comments for this item? Seeing no public comments. Are there any board comments for this item? Seeing no board comments. I need a motion gentlemen. I'm doing okay. I'll make a motion instead of a favorable recommendation for RZ Roll call. Mr. Duane. Yes. Vice Chair and a crovick. Yes. Mr. Malfhtano. Yep. Mr. Hatcher. Yep. And Mr. Rainbird. Yes. Thank you. Next item, S.D. 2202. Request to approve the preliminary plat for Edgewater Preserve Phase 2. The preliminary flat is for the recording of a 200-unit residential subdivision of single family detached for four-possil, 8184, 0, 3, 0, generally located west of Alcoa Road. Stay free for please. Thank you. The request before you tonight is to set a favorable recommendation for a edgewater preserve phase 2 preliminary plat. The subject development encompasses 84.10 plus or minus acres. Subject development has a zoning designation of our PUD, residential plan unit development. Subject property has a future land use designation of low density residential. Phase two, in accordance with the residential plan unit development agreement, is providing 51 out of the 200 lots with a width of 60 feet. The PUD did stipulate to develop development, must provide 60 foot with lots for minimum of 25% all lots amongst all phases. And this phase of developer is providing 25.5% of those 60 foot lots. The density for this phase is 2.37 units per acre, well within the future land use of low density residential, which allows for a maximum of the four dwelling units per acre. The applicant submitted, resummitted for the third time to the Technical Review Committee on October 3rd, 2023, staff met with the engineer of record in the developer. At this time, staff do not have comments upon the third semiddle. However, comments from the second semiddle are provided below. The applicant has stated he has satisfied all prior comments in the third semiddle. In accordance with Florida statute, any application may only be reviewed three times prior to being scheduled for public hearing unless the applicant has waived their right in writing. Staff has coordinated with the applicant and believes the third semiddle will have satisfied all remaining comments Staff comments for the second seminal are as follows With that said staff is recommending the planning and zoning board said a favorable recommendation or the preliminary plot of edgewater Preserve phase two to city council with the condition that all comments from TRC technical review committee be satisfied prior to city council. Is the applicant here? Please step out to the mic, state your name and address for the audience. Good evening, Joey Posey for 20 South Nova attorney for the