The scheduled meeting of the City of New Sermon Abedage planning and zoning board and land planning agency for Monday March 3rd 2025 may come to order. Police silence all cell phones. Stephanie, could you please call the roll? John Cazie, Thomas Bean, John Hall, Stephen Yates, Larry Leecraft, Curtis Hodges, and Kip Holdvershorn. Here. Thank you. Thank you. City staff do you have any changes to the agenda? We do not thank you. Thank you. Okay we'll move to approval of minutes. Earlier today we have February 3rd, 2025 minutes sent to us. Did you have the opportunity to review those prior to the meeting? Any questions? Any comments? Okay, seeing none, could I get a motion to approve those minutes? I'll make a motion to approve those minutes? I'll make the motion to approve the minutes of February 3rd. Second. Thank you, Stephanie. Could you please call the roll vote? Member Bean? Yes. Member Hulvershore? Yes. Member Cawsey? Yes. Member Hall? Yes. And Chair Wheatcroft? Yes. On the motion to approve the Planning and Zone and Board February 3rd, 2025, regular meeting minutes as submitted. The vote is five in favor, zero, pose the motion passes. Thank you. Also January 6th. Nope, it won't be. We didn't receive the January 6th today. Oh, okay. No worries. So we'll go ahead and move to public participation. In accordance with resolution number 11-89, a three minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. This is the opportunity to address any item not a part of tonight's agenda. The time is yours and again that's for anything that's not on tonight's agenda. Good evening. Good evening. Showed the loop back, 3587, because of the circle, Venetian Bay, a member of the Venetian Bay, Home Onus Coalition. A couple of items, one, good news, you may be aware that Geosam, our major developer, had imposed paid parking in the town center much to the chagrin of everyone who lives there and visits us. People were having to pay to park in front of their own home. The good news is the city issued compliance notice against them and at the eleventh hour, HeEOCM withdrew 11th hour with respect to this special magistrate meeting withdrew their applications, their all assigns it down. So we think this is any for that. Secondly, related to that, earlier this week or last week was a pre-application meeting for a plan that geosam has for improving the parking in the town center It's incredibly devastating. It in fact has two violations of the MDA and we require Coming to before you to allow that to happen and then vote on by the mayor. I'm sorry, the city manager. We hope it never gets to that stage, but if it does, we'll be seeing you again. Lastly, with respect to stormwater, excuse me, there is a moratorium on building in Venetia Bay until the issues with the southern section get resolved. The only project that out of effects happens to be the commercial building near the south entrance. There is a category called convenience commercial, which is a two-way car sight. The proposal that has been submitted for the city to look at happens to be a pool and clubhouse for the adjacent golf course, have nothing to do with the site that is scheduled or convenience commercial and it's being used and advertised to be parking spaces mostly for the clubhouse and for the conveniences that they provide. Hopefully that will not be pursued further but if it does you'll be seeing us on that one also. Thank you. Thank you for comments. Is there anyone else I'd like to come forward? Okay, seeing none, public participation is closed. There's no old business so we'll move right into new business. First up is V-2-25 at 1216 Palmetra Street. This is the public hearing for a variance to allow a reduced side yard building setback on an existing single family parcel. City staff do you ever report? I do. We have applicant and property owner, Sandra Gregory, 1216 Palmetto Street and this We're in thendabeech, Florida, 32168, requesting a variance of 3.4 feet to allow an existing single-family home to be 4.1 feet from the side property line, creating a non-conforming setback. Property is located on the north side of Fifth Street, on the west side of Paul Meadow. Here it is right here, as an aerial house and the yard. As you can see the house is very much on the north side of the property with a relatively clear land on the south side, the other parcel. Plated a long time ago as you kind of know it's now, the Petillo schools kind of on the west over there and was on the street kind of been realigned with US one so it's not exactly as it was laid out back in whatever it was 1920 or something. The applicant basically what it says is two plated lots, lot 18 is a 60 by 160 or 9600 square feet. Lot 17 which contains a single family home which built 1950 is 57 by 160 or 9,120 square feet. So she intends to split the parcels back to their original plat lines. However, the single family home on lot 17 would be 3.4 feet too close to the property line have split. There's a picture of the house from the street and then that's from fifth. She's got some trailer and some stuff over there which is in the process actually right now she's having a big sale going on where most of that stuff is going to be removed. There are five criteria that go along for every variance. Special circumstances exist which are peculiar to the applicant's land structure or building and you're not generally applied to the neighbor's land structures or buildings or buildings in the same district or vicinity. The only special circumstance is the applicant wants to put the lot back to its original two lots. So still own both lots, at least for the time being, and retain the house in the reduced setback. So if you choose the cell of either a lot, the potential buyer will be aware of any setback issues that it would exist. So, consider this one has been met. Strict application of the LDR would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights, commonly applicable to other properties in the district, or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. Again, a side yard setback of 4.1 would impact the applicant slash property owner and a potential buyer of the platt of a lot of melee to the south. A lot of the lots that become across are 50 foot wide and this instance is 157 to 160. So they meet the depth, they meet the area but they don't meet the width of a standard 75 foot wide or two lot. You know, lots can be swept back to the original plant and lots. So in this instance, being that the person that owns the whole parcel will the one that ultimately be affected most by this, I'm looking at this one as being met. Special circumstances and conditions exist that do not result from the direct or indirect actions of the present property owner or past property owners. And this is the one that trips up pretty much everybody typically. You she is the one that's splitting these she'll be creating a lot that is technically non-conforming so I technically can't say that she has met this one. The granting of the variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purposes in tender the LDR. Again being that she is the owner of both lots with no short-term plan to sell and if they do sell they will be aware of the setback issue that is there. So I don't see any detriment to the welfare or hardship be borne by the property owner or future owner has been met as well. And the granting of the variance from that constituted grant of special privilege that is denied by the LDRR to add their land structures or buildings in the same district. Again, it affects her. I don't see this as a grand a special privilege. I think of this one as being met as well. Any questions for me? Any questions the city staff? Can you go back to the exhibit that's the aerial shot? The other houses are nearby. Do they all meet the setbacks for their lots? They look relatively close in this picture. You know, these are kind of these are the county lines, so they're not survey quality, but they're I mean they're required to be seven and a half feet. There's a role probably built for our two zoning with a place. And my guess they can be where from like five to seven and a half as it is. Okay, so there are less than the seven and a half put setbacks typically out there. Yeah, in the older parts of time you'll find a lot of times that it isn't exactly meeting our current R2 seven and a half of setbacks. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. And I did have one statement with my recommendation if you do go forward with it, you know we I would like to recommend that if this house ever does get torn down raised The variance goes away which is allowed in the LDR so basically in the future Should have to meet seven and a half if this house does come down Makes sense. Thank you Okay, is the applicant a representative president? Would you like to come forward and say anything? You don't have to? Thank you, Mayor or gentlemen. Okay, well thank you. At this time we'll go ahead and open up public participation on this agenda item. A three minute limitation would be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. So the floor is yours. Saying none, public participation is closed. Since we had no further comments, I'm sure nobody has any additional questions of staff or the applicant. So discussion, the end or questions by the board. No discussion. The only item that I was going to bring up was city staff that identify one criteria that had been met. Part of the requirements is all of them have to be met. I kind of wrote something up real quick. The more I looked at this, I kind of felt like the one that staff identified is not having been met. I considered it to be met. So I understand why city staff assesses this criterion as having not been met. However, I would review this criterion as having been met considered the residential home was constructed in 1950. Prior to zoning regulations has been sold many times since then per the county property prazer's office. The applicant did not create the issue where the home is located but rather is now continuing with updated regulations for trying to fit within the character of the applicant's neighborhood. Approving this variance will be in keeping with the neighborhood's existing lot sizes for most homes and provides a residential infill opportunity in one of the city's older neighborhoods. So, I just wanted to put that out there so that way we could consider one of the criteria that staff identifies not potentially as met. If there's no other questions or discussion, do I have a motion to approve the variance request? And if so, it would also include potentially if you included your motion. A staff's recommendation that if the current or future property owner voluntarily raises the existing structure of the variant should expire. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve item 5A 1216 Palm Edelstreet with the added condition that the staff has recommended that this variance will go away if the building shall be demolished. Second. Second. Do you have both of this, Stephanie? Can we please call the roll-out? Okay. Member Bean? Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. And Chair Weakraft. Yes. On the motion to approve V-2-25-1216, Paul Meta Street, asked the defendant in the additional condition for the recommendation that the vote is five in favor, zero, pose a motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And best of luck to you. Okay, we'll move on to our next item which is V-1-25 at 1824 Downing Street. This is the public hearing for a variance to allow a reduced side yard building setback on an accessory structure. City staff do you ever report? Yes sir. Excuse me. I got some new glasses. All right. So the subject property is located on the south side of Downing Street between Park Boulevard and South Mertle Avenue. The address of the property is 824 Downing Street. The property owner has requested a variance from Section 505.05, paragraph A, of the city's land development regulation to allow a second floor to be constructed on a non-conforming accessory structure to be less than five feet from the property line. Under that Section 505.05, it's basically where lawful permitted structure existed effective of the adoption of this amendment of the ODR that could not be built in terms of the ODR by reasons of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards. It's location of the lot and other requirements concerning the structure. Such structure should be continued as long as it remains otherwise lawful subject to the fall on provision. And provision A is that no such conine conforming structure may be altered or enlarged except that where an enlargement or alteration is proposed in the required yard space which contains an existing non-conformal structure. And where the existing setback is at least five feet or greater. The enlargement of the alteration of the said non-conformance structure may be permitted as long as the existing setback is no further reduced by the enlargement of the alteration and provide all other applicable district regulations that are complied with. So the property is owned or five, multi-finder residential. It contains approximately 0.17 acres. The property is adjacent to other residential properties, and it does have an accessory structure that was closer than five feet to the eastern side property line. The applicant did provide a survey, and based on that survey, there is a nine-couple-mine structure and the southeast section of the partial. An unpermitted second story construction was on this non-cropomating accessory structure that was located less than two feet from the pipeline. Also there are access easements located on this partial and the neighboring parts to the east. So the applicant did provide a building detail for the second floor addition. The floor plan shows the first floor half bathroom. The plan label also the structure as a shed but based on the city's land development. Regulation definitions, this structure is too large to be a shed and would be considered a shop or a garage. The applicant also provided past in more recent site photos. So as you can see, the photo in the top left corner and the one on the right shows that the accessory structure was once a double garage with half the garage on each property. The photo at the bottom left corner shows that at some point half of that garage was removed. So this slide has photos that were submitted by the applicant and these photos you can see that the rear accessory structure now has a second floor placed on the structure. Now for some background that was supplied by the applicant, the original single family house house was constructed around 1927, and then an additional, an identical house was constructed next door at 822 Downing Street. The property understated that two single-family houses were constructed by twin brothers, and the brothers also constructed a shared accessory building that straddled the property line at the rear of the property. The brothers also shared a driveway that was located between the two houses. Moving forward in time, the two simmer houses were so, and a six foot accessesment was granted to 824 Downey Street that was placed between the houses for the use of the existing driveway. The half of the accessory structure that were located at a 22-downing street was demowed and half located at a 24-downing street remained. And then over time, the accessory structure located at a 24-downing street had modifications done and the roof line was redesigned. So the land of element regulation requires variance requests to meet all the following criteria. The applicants responses are in italics and the staff responses are in bold. Number one, special circumstances exist, which are particular to the applicants land, structure or building, and do not generally apply to the neighboring land structures or buildings in the same district or vicinity. The applicants response that in the 1920s, 22 downing and 824 downing were built and owned by twin brothers. They shared a driveway between the two homes with an oning that touched both homes and covered driveway between the two. At the rear of the property that garage was also owned about properties. Half on 822 and the other half on 824. Sometime years back, this was legal without any variance of any type. Before my purchase to this home, both houses were so-dolph and modifications were also made. Also, 822 down the street removed the existing half of the garage while 824 down the street kept the structure in place without a setback So the plan department's evaluation was that the special circumstance that did exist was the garage that was shared a property line between the two previous owners if no addition was done to the rear garage building it could remain in in its previous date until the structure was replaced. And the replacement structure would have had to meet the current side yard building set back of seven and a half feet from the side in the rear property line. The plan department has determined this criteria has not been met. Number two, it's true of the provisions of this land development regulation would deprive the applicant of reasonable rights commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. Applicants response was that reasonable rights that request are the ability to get the owner builder permit for upkeep and or improvements to an existing structure. As pertinent to value of home and property and existed at the time of purchase, failure to do this upkeep or improvements would result in a loss to property value and ability to improve property value would set area of building if wished it. The plan for this evaluation was that part of the intent of the R5 zoning district is to enhance roadside appearances and encourage well planned projects. The requirement of a seven and a half foot side and rear setback would be in line with the intent of the R5 zoning district. The rear garage per per the Volusia County property, Prazer's website was constructed in the 1940s with a storage or garage structure that was not designed or intended to be an occupied structure or creating a second floor would be the opportune time to reconstruct the entire building and relocate that building to meet the required building setbacks. A 7.5 foot side yard setback is no more cross most of the residential required building setbacks. And it is no more cross residential zoning districts within the city. So allowing it reduced setback from such a modified building would not include a benefit to the community in general that plan in parliament has determined that this criteria has not been met. Number three, the special circumstances and conditions exist that do not result from the direct or indirect actions of the President's property owner or past property owner, this criteria should not be satisfied if the President's press past property owner created to any degree the hardship That is the subject of this very interquest The applicant's response was that special circumstances this matter are multiple years of sales and homes have taken place since it was originally built Modified without buyer or seller or municipality sharing or forthcoming with this information This would be no different than buying something new under false representation than punishing owner of the purchase. The plan to pharmacy valuation was that the special circumstance and conditions that existed directly resulted from both past and current property owners. In the 1991 land development regulation, as amended, does allow for structures that don't meet the current building setbacks because they were constructed before current land of Elmbergulation and zoning districts were in place. To remain, if they were not altered or enlarged, in this case, the non-conforming structure was altered and enlarged. So the plan of the department has determined this, it has not been met. Number four, the granting of the variance would not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or impair the purpose and the intent of the ODR. The applicant's response was that granted his variance would not cause detriment to the public welfare or impair the purpose or intent of this ordinance. The plan to partner's valuation is the only property that this variance could be detrimental towards would be the property next door located at 22 down the street. This structure is located within two feet or less from the neighbor's property line. Water runoff from the roof could be expected to float towards that neighbor in property unless there was a gutter system That was installed generally the purpose of the setback is to establish a consistent appearance with a particular zoning district This form of contuity would help establish the character of a neighborhood This the plan department has determined this criteria has not been met that. Number five, that granny in the variance would not constitute a grant a special privilege that is denied by this land development regulation to other land structures or buildings in the same district. The applicant's response was that grant into the said the variance would not constitute any privilege that's denied other land structures or buildings in the the same district but also were subject to construction of property that border prior current zoning of our five Code setbacks and purchasing the residence without notification of a non-compliant building on a residential property The plan department's evaluation was granted to this variance would constitute a grant a special privilege. The land development regulations are clear that non-conforming structures can remain as legal non-conforming structures as long as there are no enlargements on the side of the non-conforming setback. The plan to apartment is also determined that this criteria has not been met. So after evaluating the merits of the applicant case and the responses to the criteria from the applicant, the plan department has concluded that the application has not met all the listed criteria. Therefore, the plan department cannot support the variance application and would recommend denial. And that's a summary of the staff report, except's up to any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Any questions? The city staff? Bob, could you go building to the photo to the south that was provided shows the view from the other side yard of that accessory structure in the bag. So in essence the work's already been done. The work has already been done. He was cited by co-compliance for work without a permit. He attempted to apply for a building permit with the building department. That's where his plans. He had a local architect draft some plans for him. The building department could not approve the permit because they said it was too close to the property line. And so he's here seeking a variant so that he can move forward with his permit and also be in compliance with the co-compliance. Thank you. Any other questions? Out of curiosity, when was the alteration made made when was the second floor added to staff now? Well the photos that he presented here was from April of last year. Okay, so. So the applicant probably had more than all I have is the date was on his photos. Okay, thank you. Okay, is the applicant a representative present? and say your like to come forward. If you could say your name and address. Yes. I'm Casey Statenbeck, 824-Towney Street, Miss Murnabee, Florida. I apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for not recognizing or knowing that this was a not-compliant building. My ignorance in doing the actual construction on the building without a permit was obviously wrong and Not knowing that it was a non-compliant building is why I'm here again today The building is completed it does meet the codes per the building structure The seven foot variance being that it was on the property line, I thought that that was a grand bothered in thing. I didn't have any idea that there was an eye-compliant rule as far as adding to the structure, doing anything to improve its structure ability. Anyways, prior to my buying, some of these things were already done. And all I did was finish, but was started again, my ignorance. But I would ask the board for your sympathy in this matter because removing this entire top floor and what have you is quite the undertaking. And I'm hoping hoping that somehow some way we can come to an agreement or compromise of some type without having to obviously remove the entire building. I do know it's on the border as you see it was split in half again prior to my owning the building or any knowledge of I've kind of researched and found all these things after the fact so that's all I wanted to share anyone has any questions to say me any questions of the applicant do you have water, sewer and electrical in that building yes there is running water sure step the end can you just speak in the mic. Oh I'm sorry. Yes there is running water. Sure, Stephanie, can you just speak in the mic? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, there is running water. There is a toilet in the first floor with a small sink for washing hands. Where did you tie the sanitary in at? Say again. Where did you run your sanitary? Did you tie into the main line? The sanitary was tied in prior to my mind, the home, but the line goes from that to the back main line because the house actually exits out the back with the septic, goes down along the back and then down the side along the fence there. So it was tied in the back yard to the PVC. There's a white four inch PVC pipe. Like gravity flows then, or did you have to pump to it? Say again. Did you grab any flow? Didn't it that? Yes, gravity flows. So you had to get it. Yep. And I don't have any issues with drainage or any of those things. The neighbor and I do know each other. We have spoken on the matter. She doesn't have any issues with it, but obviously it's not up to her or I. It's up to you guys whether or not the variance will go through. The only way for me to satisfy the seven foot would be to literally take the whole building down. Did those, did the water sanitary and electric was it there previous prior to you going yes it was all there so it had a toilet there yep first floor had electricity water sewer there was no residents or anything like that it was just a garage that was I don't know what they used it so but so the only new work you did, you have run electrical upstairs? Yes. And some water upstairs? Yeah, I ran just electrical upstairs. And I do have water up there as well, but there's no sinks or toilets or showers or anything like that up there. It was stopped in process when Herman troughlying, I believe it is. So you put the new roof on it, correct? I did, yes. And for this, have you ever done this before? Yes. You didn't think with the utilities and the roof there would need to be a permit on. Oh, I was well aware that I was violating and not. I'm being honest as I can about that part. That's why I went and had the drawing done as an as-built and I've been working with the building department. Possibly getting a permit. Their big thing was the seven feet and the upper structure has a door on the far, right on the borderline on the second floor. They requested that I move the doors up and feet to the other side of the building. They also told me that the rear of the structure was too close to the property line, so I removed half of the deck that was back there, had to redo the drawings again, resubmitted to the city, and then they told me that the left side border was also an issue, and it was like a one thing at a time going back and forth with them. And unfortunately, this has been gone since February or March or something of that effect. So my next meeting with the magistrate is April. Yes, April of this year. And I was hoping to get a variance prior to that. If not, I'm not quite sure what next steps will be. You got to speak in the mic when you do talk, though. I'm sorry. It's okay, I know you want to bring a little bit closer to you. Yeah. Yeah. No, I just again I just reiterate that I'm on the mercy of you guys at this point. I'm not sure what else I could do to fix the issue When did you buy the property? I bought the property in 19 and when you bought it at 2019 did the structure look like this? It just simply was unfinished? No, it didn't look like this. It didn't have that second floor, but the first floor had all new studs inside. And interior plywood and a door window. What I did was the roof roof was shot and it was leaking inside of the building. So when I tore the roof off, that's when the brain fart of going a little higher came into play and I added more than I should have. And again, in hindsight, I wished I had not done this on what I have. So... Any other questions? Do you see none? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. This is your time if you'd like to come forward and speak on this agenda item. Okay, seeing none, public participation is closed. Is there anything further from city staff? I'm just available if you had more questions. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there any other, something similar to this on that street where this being an old neighborhood that the law you were out there or someone was out there? Is this a first or a- His situation is unique because the house that's next door is identical to this house. And so it was a pair of brothers that owned it and they built a garage in the backyard they shared that space in the back and basically they drove between the homes to get to those garages. You know now we're years later part of the garage has been removed and he's put a second floor on his side of the garage and right now he can't obtain a permit for it without a variance that's really where he's here at tonight. If this were approved are we setting a precedent that if you run into this two streets over you know we never set a precedent. Everyone's separate. Everyone looked at individually. Each variance should stand on its own its own merit and and its own criteria. Makes sense. Yeah, I'm gonna do that. Could you clarify just, I wasn't clear on whether this is on sanitary sewer or a septic system. I know that the house next door is on septic tank. So this house may have been converted to sewer. Did happen to hear the applicant by any sewer. But so you're aware. Yeah. Yeah. She has a septic tank. She has a septic tank. So she came to her office and told her she has a septic tank that she's not on sewer. Interesting. Any other questions or stuff? I have a question for you, applicant. Can you purchase the property? Do you mind coming forward and back up to Mike? Yeah, but, yeah, just come on back up. Make sure you speak in the mic, though. Yeah, my will. Sorry. When you purchased the property in 2019, so it basically was a one story with some sort of cut the roof off and it was one jet kind of roof look like a salt box, you know, I mean It was very tall where they'd cut the center piece So it wasn't exactly like an eight-foot seal on it was a 12 to 15 foot peak, right? Did that build it was about three feet to that building having added? Yes It a, on what you call an attic, but there was an upper level in it with studs and... So it had a ceiling system from below or floor system creating the attic at that point in time? Correct, yeah, there was a pitch and there was an attic, it wasn't a finished attic, it had studs up there or joys with plywood on it and they were storing stuff in the upper. What was the access to that attic? They had a pull down. Pulled on hatch? Yep, a little pull down hatch. Mind you, it was a really bad shape. And how was the building being used now? Right now it's not being used at all. hasn't been since Mr. Trawlign and I have spoken. I was still doing construction on the property around the building when Mr. Trotlin confronted me. There was an anonymous call in from somewhere that said there was construction going on in the facility and he did a stop work. Sorry, I did a stop work order when he saw it. Okay, so if this variance was approved, what's your intention for use of this building? Garage storage, she shed pretty much. It doesn't really have an intent. There's no intention to occupy it. The there anything new in it or any kind? The outside of the building actually has a, you know, like a little sitting area around it and stuff. That it's a backyard. I didn't have a purpose for it. I just did it for the sake of storing things. And, you know, I have no intentions of living in it or anything like that. I also own a second home on West 7th Street there near the middle school. So my intentions actually were just to fix this place up and sell it. That's kind of my hopes but this is kind of slow things down a little bit. Thank you. Any other questions? The applicant? Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have a question for attorney. Can a variance like this be written such that if this particular owner sold the property the building would have to be removed? Typically it would run with the land so that variance would continue on to the new owner. I'm saying is there an exception that could be written in that may that go away. I haven't seen that done in the past. I'd actually have to get back to you on that specific issue. So you would like the building removed if he exchanged ownership? Well, I sympathize to an extent. The gentleman made a mistake. He apparently has no specific use for housing units. It's going to be storage. It shouldn't be there. But if it was allowed, maybe for his use, but if he sold the property, as as you said, he intends to do, a condition would be that it had to be removed at a time, if something like that could be worked out. I don't know if I'd still be in favor of it, but I mean, just asking that question. Sure. I'll go ahead and officially make this the discussions and or questions by the board. So just to make that clear for everybody. Oh, OK. So since we started discussing. So since you bring that up, and since it was also brought up earlier, that it was a co-compliance issue, I'd like to go back and look at different code cases when variances come up, because sometimes I'll notice that they're after the fact variances due to code coming across the across the initial. So I'd taken a couple notes from the special magistrate meeting that I went ahead and watched. So one of the comments I was made was on April 16, 2024, Code enforcement officer had spoken with the owner and confirmed the garage had been converted into a studio apartment. And then the report from the officer, which the report is from April 4, 2024, stated the following is a violation, the barn, which the officer called her to barn. The barn at the back of the property was converted to an upstairs and downstairs rental units, which has a tenant living in the downstairs by the name of Andy. The owner installed plumbing, electrical and outside stairwell on his own without any inspections or code. So when I saw that, I was kind of concerned with one of the criterion, which was the public welfare. If we were running it out, I understand it may not be running it out going forward if this was approved for whatever reason. But I was concerned with the fact that it was rented out at one time without any proper building inspections. and it seems like a pattern as far as circumventing the process. So, no, sorry. Sorry. It's discussion for us at this time. Because it's disturbing to me. Mr. Cawsey, can you guys speak in the mic, sir? Thank you. You can bring it to you. It's disturbing to me this is only my fourth meeting. And two variants cases have come before us because the owner did not follow the permitting process in doing their due diligence to do it right. And yet we're being asked basically to maybe wave our hand and make it the problem go away. And I think that's not what we're here for. When it wasn't created by the city or. Yes, when it was truly 100% or generally created by the applicant. And I would like to remind the board that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. So we're held in bound by the criteria within the code. So that's why the last variance I just kind of mentioned, hey, I want to make sure that we're looking at that one that didn't match. In this case, city staff with their expertise couldn't find any that had met. And when we look at these, we're supposed to make them meet. So I'd just like to make a point of that. Any other discussion or questions? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve the requested variance? And then you may decide whether or not you wish to approve it. Is it to approve? So we have to make the motion to approve the variance and if you disagree then you would say no. If you agree and want to approve it then you say yes. Okay. If that makes it clear. So the motion is in the positive and then the vote follows. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the requested variance? I'll move approval of V-13-24, 27-03. Hills Street? No, I'm sorry I'm the wrong one. V-125. V-24 downing Street. Yeah. Do I have a second? Second. OK, thank you. Stephanie, down in street. Yeah. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, thank you. Stephanie, can you please call the roll vote. Number over, Sean. No. Remember, CAUSEY. No. Remember BEAN. No. Number HALL. No. And Chair, WE CRAP. No. And the motion to approve V-1-25-824 down in street. The vote is zero in favor by the pose, the motion fails. Thank you. You're welcome. No, I do wish you the best. We're held within our balance. So thank you. Understood. Okay, we'll move on to our next agenda item. V-13-24 at 2703 Hill Street. This is a public hearing for a variance to allow a swimming pool to be east of the city coastal construction setback line. City staff do you have a report? I do. We have applicant John Adams for 14 Canal Street and Juist Merton Beach representing property owner Ken Marciano, 1-1-0-0-4-5, Kingston Way, Windomere, Florida. Request a coastal construction setback line variance to allow a spot and pool and pavers east of the coastal construction setback line. Substitute property is located at 2703 Hill Street, zone R3A, and the lot is 25 feet wide and 220 feet deep. It is located three parcel south of East 17 Street between Hill Street and the ocean. Here's the request right here to allow a pulse body to be located, you know, this is 105 feet, six inches east of the coastal construction set backline. But as you could see in this drawing, there's already an existing wood stairs going down to the ocean and a seawall around it. So the whole acre, the whole lot itself is only 0.125 acres. This diagram right here kind of shows you where this pool spa would be located. So it's behind an existing seawall. While I've mentioned that it's that far east of the coast of construction and setback line, as you can see looking south in this photo, a lot of these buildings along this whole stretch are way east of our setback line. And in fact, the plighted lot line, there are about 70 feet east of that as well. But this kind of what the DEP and I think in the city allowed you know 40, 50 years ago when they were allowing us there to be built. So that sea wall would have been approved by the DEP fairly recently. So they approved that. There are criterion specific to the coastal construction set back line variances. But strict application of the requirements at 4th and section 70302 would deprive the owner of rights presently enjoyed by other nearby property owners. As you saw in that photo, they are already out there with pools and seawalls. So other properties in the vicinity have seawalls and pools as far as the subject parcel. I'm looking at that one as being met. Granting of variants and requirements of section 70302 will not cause substantial judgment to the public welfare safety navigation or convenience. As the applicant pointed out, there is hard armoring around this already. And I do agree with them. At this point, the pool itself isn't going to impact the public welfare safety or navigation. Look at that one as being met as well. Granting the variance, CCSL variance will not negatively impact the doon system. The county's beach reimbursement system project is scheduled to commence in April. At this point in time, there isn't a doon system. You have the beach that kind of comes up to it. With county cooperation it is possible the property under complaint negative native doing vegetation but because this is outside the city's jurisdiction we can't require it but we can't recommend it. We're looking at that one's being met as well. adequate land does not exist the landward of the CCSL to allow the reasonable, normal and customary use and accessory uses of the property as compared to others in the neighborhood, and getting the narrowness of this lot, and the amount of development already on it, there isn't really any or or else to put this on it. There is a seawall and adequate space behind the seawall for the pool spot, and look at that one as being met as well. The proposed construction does not cause a substantial adverse effect on functionality of the existing doom system, either as a habitat for native species, of animals and plants, or as a tidal barrier. As the pool is proposed behind the seawall, the proposed improvement will not impact the doom system. Again, met. Granting of variance from the requirements of Section 7302 will not cancel you to grant a special privilege denied to other property owners. There are other property ones with pools east of the CCSL in this vicinity. Again, we get that one being met as well. The proposed construction is located behind an existing seawold or title armamenting correct. Again, it's behind the seawall. That one has been met. and the request is both a minimum required distance seared at the CCSL and the minimum required height is reasonably and customarily necessary to accommodate the proposed construction. Given how it developed the parcel, the west is the only reasonable location for the proposed improvement. I say that one is met as well. Therefore, we have to recommend approval on this one. It's kind of a not situation with the 25-foot lot, and how far it is, but it's already a seawall that's there, and I can't see how it really is impacting anything east of it. So, any questions for me? Any questions at City staff? I guess I just have problems that we keep violating the Coastal Sedd崖 line. Why even have it if we don't pay any attention to it? I mean, it, it, it, it, that was the idea of setting that a lot of different. I would look at it at this point is my initial thought on this whole thing is I, as is much more of a serious issue when there is no seawall in time. And then I've also thought, which way do you go with this whole thing when there's already a sea wall there and I think it's the prudent to keep it in place the way it is right now because I mean with the storms that come through and everything else sometimes they're severely compromised when they might be coming up for a Request for a pool or something else that's behind this wall so in this particular instance. This is a new sea wall I kind of I'm going along with it, but I you know, I think it should stay in place process, but case by case as we've done it in the past. And the whole idea about seawalls, I mean, my understanding is that seawalls don't work in a very good solution. They're temporary at best, and actually make the situation worse than if you had a natural doon system in the long run. They're going to be undercut. You're going to have worse problems. Is the city getting liable then that we're allowing? I could see them saying, hey, you let us do this. It's the DEP that approves all these seawalls along the coast. I'm fully aware of when the waves hit these seawalls, they transfer the water. And if you don't have a seaw wall, it further impacts them even greater. There was actually an article in the New York Times about Newsprint of Beach and the doing system about 15 years ago. It was a pretty interesting article, but it talks about wave transfer along the sea walls and everything else. They're great for the individual owners along the coast, but for our beach in general, they help you road it. we're just sort of trapped if D. P. is using bad science basically they're not paying any attention to the best available science and now we're trapped by their decision. Yeah we have there is a beach reimbursement project they had said April and actually I don't know if anyone went over to that meeting they had last week at the Brandon Center but I think It might actually be starting to now, but we're not about 100% sure. So they will be pumping in sand along the whole beachfront all the way down, starting either in about a month or so or in about six months. We'll see. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative? Under a few lines, stating your name and address for the record and whatever you'd like to share with us. Good evening. Jonathan Adams with C.R.A. and associate's engineering. Representing Mr. Marciano and paired I.C. I would like to address your concerns. We have very similar concerns about the well-being of the native dune and the protection that it offers and hard armoring and its complications. And we do agree with the coastal control obligations being met moving forward for new construction. But this is a structure that previously existed and it was vulnerable after the storms of 2022. And the only way to protect the structure was by doing a hard honoring system. We've worked since then in conjunction with Embry Riddle and University of Central Florida to start exploring new ways of protecting homes in this similar situation including scour protection that will help to replenish student systems and this is some of the things we're proposing on this project. So with that being said, I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? When was the seawall constructed? The seawall was constructed. I believe it got finished in 2023. It was permitted post Nicole, post the end of Nicole. So really the seawall that's in place is nothing new. Excuse me? The seawall that is in place is nothing new. Oh no, no sir, the seawall is permitted over a year and a half ago. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go open it up to public participation. A three minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the board. A few of my saint in your name and address. Absolutely. Good evening, everybody. Jeremy Putnam, address 2701 and a half hill. I know, funny address, half. We're right next door located to the north side of this property. We engineered and built a seawall approximately about the same time. So we're in the same boat as them. Couple of questions that we propose and we have an issue with is insurance for seawalls. They're actually not covered by homeowners insurance or anything. Every seawall is actually out of pocket expense. We spend a great deal of money, I mean, hundreds of thousands of dollars building our sea wall. So since insurance does not cover sea walls for any residential home under policy, who is going to be responsible if the wall fails, damages our wall or existing walls next door? I mean, that's putting an undue stress on a wall initially. You know a 10 by 20 pool is about 7,500 gallons of water weight so that's approximately about 62,000 additional pounds. You know we all have to pass this so are we gonna be grandfathered in? We do have a neighbor to the north of us that does have a pool. They've been grandfathered in since the late 90s. We also have another house to the south of this property that does have a pool, but it's actually back from the coastal construction line. And all my other pools that are past the coastal construction line are actually condos. So commercial properties. So the engineering of the wall, we just want to make sure that it's engineered correctly and then the pools engineered correctly because we don't want undue stress and undue damage to our property, our wall that we spent a lot of time of engineering and building. So just that's it. And I know the variance variance it's a case by case basis so Obviously everybody's gonna do their insurance and their their due diligence according to how it's built how it's structured and everything But I'm I mean obviously we we want to be respectful of each other's neighbors and not just this this does directly affect our Property so that's it. Thank you Is there any one else that I would like to come forward at this time? Seeing none, public participation is closed. Any further information from city staff? Anything further from the applicant, anything you would like to address? that we did engineer the seawall. It's designed with 10 feet of embedment past the low, the seasonal low water line. So it's intended to last for 75 years. And just for your information and water, per cubic foot is less than saturated soil. So I have a question for you. Yes. The point is gentlemen raised is by making, right now there's nothing within the seawall I take it. Correct. OK. Is there any special engineering precautions from your design standpoint to minimize pressure inward going out instead of the other way and explain those? And that's a very, very good question. As I said, saturated soil is 150 pounds, approximately per cubic foot. Water is 64.2. So it's far less load on the seawall than saturated fill would be. And then also the consideration for the they during a habitable structure which is in the statute for DEP guidelines for securing non habitable structures like pool accessory structures is in place. So we have helical piles that will secure the structure should there be a failure of a sea wall which is highly unlikely. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to disassusc. Excuse me. Discussions and our questions by the board No discussion. Well, just a comment. Sure for for me the CCSL is very confusing and you know if you just read the literature the literature, you know, you're thinking one thing, but did you go to the photos? And every house on every house to either side of the subject property has violated the CCL setback probably for years. And so does that lead to the fact that we need to or the city or someone needs to revisit the CCSL and make it give us guidance to where it's not as confusing because I'm sure it's confusing to the homeowners as well. Yeah, I think for me, I look at the, and granted this is a little lecture outside of the variance itself, but for me, I look at it as the CCSL is the line that eventually we would like to get to the point where we're not developing beyond that. That's why we have exceptions like this variance before us. It's kind of like whenever you have a future land use where you're saying, hey, this is going to be a commercial area one day, but we have some residential homes still in there. Over time, the residential. whenever you have a future land use where you're saying, hey, this is going to be a commercial area one day, but we have some residential homes still in there. Over time, the residential homes will probably convert to the commercial areas. So I think that's the same concept with the CCSL is eventually we'll get to the point where they cannot develop beyond that. But there is some language within the variance criteria that I think could be short up, but that's stuff that staff would have to kind of work on and potentially look for the City Commission on. But yeah, for right now we have what we have before us. Any other discussion or questions? Okay. If there are none, do I have a motion to approve the variance request? And there was a staff's recommendation within the report. It said that the property owner will coordinate with Volusia County to plant native dune vegetation east of the seawall. Do I have a motion to approve potentially with the recommendation from city staff? I do have to have a motion on this Not at this time Understood. Thank you So do I have a motion to approve the variance request with the possible conditions? I'll make a motion to approve item V1324, 2703 Hill Street variants with the suggested language of staff. Which has been agreed upon by the applicant. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Stephanie, can you please call the roll vote? Member B. Yes. Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Hovershord. No. And Chair Weekraft. Yes. The motion to approve V-13-24-2703 Hill Street. As the men in addition to the recommendation from staff, the vote is for in favor. One opposed the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item D which is A-2-25 at 2061 page avenue. This is a review in first public hearing of a voluntary annexation, rezoning and small scale conference of the future land use maps. City staff, do you have a report? Yes sir. So the prop owners have requested the voluntary annexation, small scale conference planning amendment and a rezoning from the Vluchia County mayor's office is the mayor's office. The mayor's office is the mayor's office. The mayor's office is the mayor's office. The mayor's office is the mayor's office. The mayor's office housing. So staff recommends that the plan is only board give a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request of annexation. Small scale comprehensive plan amendment changed to the future land used to city medium density residential and rezoning to city R2 single federal residential with an A attached for the airport height and location zone. And that's a summary of the staff report, subject and equations aboard may have. Thank you. Any questions to the city staff? You see none, thanks. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative present? Does it look like it? So we'll go ahead and move on to public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the planning and zoning board. that move on to public participation, a three-minute limitation, be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you don't mind stating a name and address for the record again. Sure. Joe Dullback, 3587, because off the circle. I just wanted to pass along a comment that I heard in attendance at some of the Volusia County meetings, where one of the gentlemen sitting at the desk offered a comment of how the cities were short circling activities that was going on at the center. Probably at the at the county level. Maybe not this in particular but it had to do with annexation where there was a proposal made to the county council. They negated it. They did not approve it. The owner then went to get annexed into the city and approving what the county just rejected. that and I just offered that as a general comment and maybe a question ought to be for all these applications of annexation, whether in fact they have been applied and denied at the county level. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Would anyone else like to come forward for public participation? Okay seeing none public participation is closed discussion and or questions by the board Okay, seeing none is there a motion to recommend to the city commission to approve the overall annexation request including the rezoning and proposed future land use. I do need a motion. I'll move that we add as to as 25 that we give a recommendation to the city commission of voluntary annexation approval. With the rezoning proposed future land use. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote. Member Hover, Sean. Yes. Member CAUSEY. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hall. And Chair, we craft. Yes. The motion to recommend approval to City Commission for A-2-25, 2061, page avenue as submitted. The vote is five in favor. Zero votes and motion passes. Thank you. Welcome. We'll move on to item E, which is S-E-5-24 at 666 Dora Street. This is the first public hearing in recommendation to the City Commission for a proposed special exception use of boat and RV storage facility. City staff, do you have a report? I do. We have applicant Jennifer Cornelius, 307 Columbus Avenue, Newspaper to Beach. Requesting, representing property owner, NSB boat and RV storage LLC, 307 Columbus Avenue. Requesting special exception, approval of a boat and RV storage facility to operate the B3 zoning district. The property is on the west side of Dora, Peacan Street to the west and Wayne Avenue to the north and Vineyard Lane to the south. Here is a picture of, with a lot right here. So as you see, it's the cleared out one, three down from Wayne right there. There is a possibly sea house to the north with a garage. And then this is kind of what it just looked like. That house has been raised through the trees on the south side there, underneath that is another house. So this is kind of from the street right here. There's a picture of the house to the south and the upper picture. You can see it's probably seven, eight feet from the property line. And then to the north, there's a house with a garage on that side as well. This is kind of like a general layout that they had provided with a pecan street. Basically, you can have like a driveway entrance and door on the other and then kind of spaces going all the way across this with Clujia, which is type of vegetation which is It goes about four foot well growth taller than four-foot tall Outdoor storage of vehicles and the B3 is allowed with special exception approval Now this is specific to the B3 right here outdoor display stores or sale of vehicles or other equipment or material Provided that the interest of safety to children and adjacent property Outdoor storage will be encompassed by a fence or wall at least six feet high the bottom four feet being solid and the top two being open Operative motorbills and mobile homes for sale shall be exempt. So, we go back to that. This is the fence that they put in. From what I understand, I talk to the building department. They came in, they wanted to put in a solid fence. And the building department was concerned that people aren't going to be able to see pulling out of their houses. Well, this can be down the street with this six foot tall solid fence. So they went with this fence, which you could clearly see through, but some might get a little breakdown in communication. And... with this six foot tall solid fence. So they went with this fence, which you could clearly see through, but some of you guys will break down in communication and they didn't really, research wasn't done on the B3 zoning and follow up on what they're actually proposing with this built-in RV storage actually required a solid fence four feet up and two feet clear on the top. So their solution out, this fence is in place, is to put it in this heavy vegetation along this whole inside of the fence to buffer so the house is on either side, they don't have to look at that. There are three criteria that all special exceptions have to meet, you probably heard these before, as I go through these. A, requested use is listed among the special exceptions in the district. They meet that. C, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage sanitation. Will be available or provided for the proposed use. And then the requested use will not impair the character of the surrounding or joeity districts. Norby Dutch amounts of the public health morals or welfare. This one kind of has me a little bit concerned. Basically right now, there's nothing on the lot except gravel. They're going to have to submit a site plan to be a class too, kind of showing where their stormwater is going to go. And then with the vegetation that they proposed to put in, it has to be maintained and kept alive and kind of put in at four foot tall from day one to kind of meet the requirement of the fence that they're required to have is kind of like a workaround I guess if you will. Like hey we'll put this vegetation inside of this four foot solid fence. So I can't necessarily say that I agree that B has been met on this one. Again this kind of goes into the effort to comply with the special exception, this is kind of what they proposed. In the visibility triangle, which is where people will be backing out on the streets, you can't exceed three feet in height and they can't really have anything solid,, which is what initially the whole thing was having to forfeit fence around it. So just because there's houses on either side, we can't allow that because it would be obstructing their view. They do have to have a five foot wide landscape buffer along Pecan and Doris Street. And based on the lot size and our LTR requirements for trees, actually we require to plant seven trees somewhere on this lot. Be palms, but they have to put seven trees on here, which could also be part of your buffer along the perimeter too. And recommendation, I can recommend approval provided that the landscape plan and that is four-foot tall from day one and nothing over three-foot and a visibility triangle is long and it would and it have to be irrigated and maintained and the seven trees and then of course I mentioned the site plan and I have to meet the engineering department's requirements for stormwater because right now it's a shell lot and I don't think there's anything really been designed to make sure that the water stays on site Any questions for me Any questions the staff? Yeah, is there anything in Either the RLDR or let's call it general planning Suggestions I'm concerned about the fact that there's 35 foot bay for parking an RV or boat separated by a 22-foot Center road to get into there those relationships seems like that's awful tight Well, yeah, you couldn't really swing a 35-foot boat with a 22 foot out So I've acknowledged that so I think that that part of the soul's site plan is gonna have be tweaked, so you have more smaller vehicles getting in there. So you could actually make the swing to get a boat or smaller RV into the sides. Is there anything in RLDR or anything that specifically says it for 35 foot, you need 35 foot or whatever? RLDR goes more into like standard parking lot stuff. It doesn't really break it down for you're trying to park a 40 foot Our solid body RV into a parking space. Okay, so it doesn't really exist, but it you know I the way it's proposed right now with the drive-out that it is in the length of those spaces It's not going to quite work perfectly. Okay second Second question is, could you show where the overhead view that shows defense and a relationship of the houses? That one? This one. That is a fine. Is defense on the blue property line? Well, that blue line isn't perfect. It's, I think you could probably see the previous fence just kind of south of it right there. If you look at that line right there, so it is, it shows it there, but I think the blue line is showing a little north of the actual fence line. A concern I have is that we have setbacks for visibility and safety reasons. The houses are setback. Does storing a tall RV can that be a part ahead of the setback line? Well that would certainly obstruct your view into the vehicle as well. Absolutely, that's great. But it could be if it was approved in this, and again, this site plan is something just first shot, first draft, let's call it. This has to go to city commission. So here's an example of a boat and RV storage facility that we had years ago, but it's up US 1 at Mary right there on the west side, and it kind of splits off right there. They have to keep whatever vehicles they have to be very low right there. So they have to have like, you know, like you would almost have like a little pool behind one that doesn't top out more than about four or five feet closer you get. Then as you go down the street more, they could have, you know, whatever, win a bago or something over there, it's taller. So it's, it's, it's, well, it's happened where we have not allowed things in the visibility triangle over a certain height. Thank you. As far as the landscaping regulation, so considering landscape buffers, would they not be required to have any type of landscape buffer currently under code, or would it fall under the new landscaping regulation that we're considering? But it would be what we have in new plan that will be able to be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a new plan that will be able to have a which is why it's important to have the new code that we're considering later. Okay. Any other questions? And just to be clear on this particular item, what we're considering is the idea of using it for boat and RV storage. All the site plan specifics have to be approved at a later date. All we're looking at is whether or not they can use this type of use on the property. Correct. Yeah, they still have to go through, it would be a site plan process where they have to meet engineering and everything else. But people typically come up with a vague maybe proposal at this point in time just trying to show, hey, this is what we're trying to get at, but they're still going to show this is where the stone mar is going to go you know they've laid out where the shrubs are going to go and everything else but when it gets the site plan time it gets a little bit more specific. Okay does that site plan come back before this board before? That is strictly in house the site plan itself and this will go to city commission depending on how how much they want to put into it before they get to that to maybe ease their mind. It's kind of up to them. Because the other thing I saw on this is I believe there's an 80% impervious coverage rule for this and this exceeds it to sketch. Yeah, yeah, well it's Shell and this will all come down to basically our engineering department reviewing it and then you know the three foot Yeah, you're probably gonna be over it right now over 80 Did you get any feedback from the neighboring homes about how you feel about I did not well at see this point all the all the public advertising for this all goes on to see commission So so the ad went out for this. It's a commission they will get letters and the sign in the yard and letters to the neighbors. Next up. Jake do we have an RV and both swordslot adjacent in the other homes in the city. There is one down the street that is actually owned by the same people, a little bit further south. Yeah, they purchased that as an existing business. And it's kind of a similar situation to this lot right now where if it was a brand new project, they'd have to be putting in some more trees and some vegetation or everything else. But as they bought it, it's probably been operating for I don't know how long, 20, 30 years, I have no idea. But you bought it like that and it stays like that. Unless it either kind of goes, nothing happens for six months, then you're required to bring things up to code. Or a whole new different type of use goes in, then you've got to beat all your landscape requirements at then. Okay. So. Any other questions, the staff? No. Thank you. Is the applicant or representative present? If you'd like to come forward, if there's anything you'd like to share with us, feel my state in your name and address for the record. Into the mic. Okay. They have to transcribe all this. Hi. This is Jennifer, obviously. I'm Clinton Cornelius. I live on Newt and 307 Columbus Ave and then the facility we're talking about is 666 stores street. So I wanted to give everyone a little bit of color on the history here. So we're small business owners and new smart and we have a few. One of them is NSB Bowen-RB storage, where we operate on Dora Street currently doing the same thing and it's less than a block away on Dora Street. So that property is B3. We invested in this property,66 knowing it's B3. We wouldn't know any different. And we did permitting three different times. The first permits were to demo the two homes that were in shambles to obviously have the vote in our best or the second permit was for the east and west fence and we went back and forth with the city the permitting department and they came out did multiple inspections we were very diligent on doing this knowing how this works this process. So they approved it, the inspections, and then we did the same thing on the south and the north fence. We actually tried to do a fully enclosed fence and the city denied it. They said we can't do that. So they suggested we do chain link fence. so we installed the chain link fence so we're $70,000 here on fencing and upgrades and we're doing again the same thing down the street so we're a little taken back on what direction to go here we're willing to do whatever we're trying to make this situation right we have no plans on storing large RVs, whatsoever. It doesn't fit in that yard. These are smaller work trailers or smaller boat trailers. So that's our plan here. But Jennifer, she can comment on the engineering piece. Right. Well, so when speaking with the city engineer, he said that we would need to have at least 1,800 cubic feet of shell. Which we did put more than that. Do you mind bringing the mic down to your... Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're good. He said we would need to have at least one and a half inches of the shell, which would be 1,800 cubic feet. We did put 4,600 cubic feet down. But as far as stormwater drains, whatever other suggestions they can give us, we're willing to do. We just need to know what we need to do to get it going. So. We didn't know that there was an issue. We had no kickback on any of the permitting whatsoever, although a couple questions. We didn't know there was an issue about zoning until we went to turn the water back on. And then we got this red flag. Say, wait a minute, you got to go through this process. So there's there's a gap. There's an issue here between these departments that I wouldn't know. She wouldn't know. So there's a communication breakdown. I feel if there wasn't, then they should have flagged it and said, hey, you need to time out. You're not going to get approval for this fence. And I wouldn't have contracted the homes to be removed. I wouldn't have probably brought the property. I wouldn't have probably contracted the two fence contractors to put all the material up. So that's an issue for us. And, you know, we've been, we've purchased this property almost a year ago, and we've been dealing this with five months not being able to operate. So we've got a financial investment here that we're not able to recap at this moment. So we're asking you to take a look at the big picture here and and help us out. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Just your previous storage facility. Does there have houses on each side of it or front and back or? There's houses on one side of it, yes. Any complaints on the north? No complaints, no sir. And when we did we did permitting for that fence as well. So we went through that whole process and there was no, you know, discussion of vegetation. We have the same exact fence from a local firefighter that installed the new fence. It's 666. So we're We're not changing anything. And that's a lot he was talking about in the one corner where the houses are that we did agree to just keep lower vehicles over there not anything high and we have been doing that the whole time. The fence that you put up is it on the property lane? It is not. We have this the city actually came down when we were city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city. The city is not the city., the five foot setback. That was to accommodate the visibility. I'm sorry. The setback was required to accommodate the visibility of the houses on either side and their driveways. So the setback is only at the street side. Correct? Yeah. Okay, so it's only on Doris Street. Ampecon. Yeah, Ampecon. Okay. You've bought this as a business venture to run out to spaces and so forth. It looks like you're not going to fit this money space is in when it gets redone. Does that kill your business plan? No. No. Okay. But we'll review that once we get to the site plan process. Obviously, first they have to be approved to use this property for RV and boat storage. And that's what we're here for today. Once we get past the approval, then we'll get to the site plan where they have to meet all of the regulations, which is the four foot lower section of the fence, the landscaping, the impervious, the drainage, whatever other things will come with the site plan. Essentially, we're just looking at the three criteria that Jake had brought up to us and said whether they met or not. So any other questions of the applicant? No. Did they tell you an inch and a half of Shell would be all you needed there? Yes. After this meeting, the next day or two, you need to go down to the city here, engineering and talk to them before you spend any more money. Yeah, well, I think that you're not going to believe it. I mean, it's going to cost you a lot of money to do this under the regulations. And, you know, as a developer myself, there's a whole, it's changed. You know, there's a lot of regulations. So just don't spend any more than you and it may work out perfectly for your hopefully it does. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay thank you. Thank you. Okay at this time we'll go ahead and open up public participation a three-minute limitation the imposed unless otherwise granted by the board. Okay seeing none public participation is closed. City staff, do you have anything further? Anything you like to? I would like to just reiterate that the special exception approval, as I said just a moment ago, is for the use of the property, not the landscaping, not the impervious or anything to do with the site plan which are requirements that they will go forward with during site plan approval. So your vote today is should we allow vote in our B storage on this property which is a special exception use within the B 3 zoning? Yes, this area is an older neighborhood that does have housing on it, but it is B3 and this special exception is up for, obviously, your recommendation to City Commission. Can I ask a question based on that then? I know we're strictly sticking to the uses, but I also noticed that staff had criteria or recommended if we recommend approval. So for example, it talks about landscaping, offencing, it talks about tree requirements. Do you want to speak about magic? It talks about storm water. So it looks like we're kind of mixing both uses and the other, but I understood it would just be uses. So I want to make sure we're doing this correctly. I think because there were so many things brought forward, Jake, go ahead and just talk about it. I know there's going to be lot of problems on the site plan and a lot of changes later on, but I wanna make sure what we're addressing now. This is what is noticeably kind of lacking at this point in time, it's gonna require to have trees, it's gonna have to have a storm water system that meets it. So it's kind of like, we would recommend approval meeting these conditions. and they have to meet it regardless later at a later date with the site plan anyways. They're going to have to do it anyway. So there's really no point in adding that correct? I guess that's not exactly the point. But it's just kind of, you might make the city commission understand where you're coming from. It's my thought. Okay. And in the same line, I'll just add to it, that still bothers me to fact that without something said and added like this, tall vehicles can be parked in front of those houses. Blocking those houses, my safety view. How does that address in this whole process? Well, we do take, as they said before, the fence was required to be set back for that visibility. So that when they're backing out of their driveway, their visibility is not blocked by the fence. So everything else would be behind the fence. So, yeah, they could- Is the five foot setback for the fence the same as a building setback on that street that is no Well, that's my point right the buildings are back and it's gonna Be sticking out with tall Boats are these potentially potentially Yes Taking into consideration that this is B3 zoning even though though you have existing knowledge informing residential units there, this kind of goes back to our CCSL thing from earlier. See, I idea that over time things will eventually change. And this street has evolved over time. There have been houses taken down along this B3 corridor between Pcan and and Dora. There has been a transition, which is. Single family homes are actually not conforming uses in the B3 Sony district. So when they are removed they can't be rebuilt as homes. Yes and as you mentioned they do have another business. That was the one that Jake had mentioned was an existing business prior to these regulations being in place. So at the time that that business was permitted, there were not the same landscaping regulations and fence and whatnot. But did they have to get a special variance for that business? I'm not sure. It may have been before we had that regulation in place. I think that business has been operating for at least 25 years. I would have to dig back and see if they went through any special approval. I guess is. No. No. Okay. So just since we're in the discussion portion just to have this as well. I know Jake had mentioned that the idea of bringing up the recommendations was so the City Commission understood that you know this all be done at a later point. What I think is we'd leave them out during our motion but rather it could be included in staff's report to the City Commission to say, hey, they've got to address all these things during the site payment process. So maybe if you bring it up that way, they'll fully understand and you don't have to go through the recommending the additional, if that makes sense. So it might be better for the City Commission if it helps. You can make your motion as you like. Okay. So, would that being said, any other discussion or questions? Any seeing none? Do I have any motion to give a positive recommendation to the City Commission to approve the requested special exception? I'm need a motion on this one as well? Do you need a... I'll give it a shot. I make a motion to approve the special exception to allow a vote in RV facility at 666-3. Item SE-5-24. Thank you. Do I have a second? I second. Thank you, Stephanie. Could you please call the roll vote? Member Cawsey. Yes. Member Bean. No. Member Hall. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. And Chair Weakreff. Yes. On the motion to recommend approval to City Commission for SE-05-24666 St. S-Mendit, the vote is formed favor 0. Opposed the motion passes. You said 0. I mean that's 0-1. Okay. Just to post. The motion passes 4-1. Thank you. Just to be your records. Sorry. Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item F, which is ZT-1-25, text amendment to article 6. Review and give a recommendation to the City Commission on a proposed zoning text amendment, amending section 604.04, landscaping requirements of the city's land development regulations. And we have a representative for the city. Yes. Do you have a report? So we have, James Hartfield with VHB. He's our consultant that has been working on this for, I want to say, the last three years. And we've brought this to the City Commission at a workshop. We've brought it to you guys as a review item. And now we are ready to move forward with a final draft. We've gotten some comments from a few of you and we appreciate that. Many of those comments were taken into consideration. I think James will touch on some of those. But mostly he's gonna go over what some of our changes were the most notable changes and then also how we've incorporated some of the suggestions. Well, that was certainly the idea, but I don't have my notes. So I'm James Hartzfield with VHB, and yeah, like Stephanie was saying, this is the update to the landscaping code, so thanks for having me back. Is it not allowing you to view your notes on the PowerPoint? It is not. Do we know how to change? I mean, it's just a setting. I'm not sure if we have a second to. I hit the button. They go away. I think if you choose the layout, it may give you, yeah, I'm not sure. It's like true. So you definitely want you to be able to reference your notes as we go along. Percent review. Monitor. Do you just have notes on a different slide? Maybe if you find it. It's at the bottom of the slide. I'm not sure if Phil Nanziato knows how to change the... It's us one or maybe if you change the different slides, maybe you'll have notes on a different slide, if that makes sense. No, because the view is different. Okay. Yeah. It should be different from my screen as the... Yes, I think that's our... Try custom slideshow. At the top. Over. I'm going to go over. Phil, are you in the house? He knows this program. Well, it's all right. Are you sure? Yeah, yeah, we can move on. Okay, okay. It's weird. All right, I guess we'll do it live. Yeah, we'll do it live. I do have your crosswalk if you'd like a copy of that. If that was helpful. No, we'll hold on to it. All right. All right, so here we go. Just to reiterate some of the goals. the goals, this has been a pretty long process going through a bunch of staff and prior to it getting here. So the first was to incorporate the disparate code language from all different sections of the land development code as it is currently kind of consolidate all of that into one spot. To emphasize maintenance and operations within the code, provide relevant illustrations where necessary, although we have cut some of those as things have changed around a little bit, and then to revise the payments and penalties. So the first two sections we're going to talk about is the intent and applicability. Those are almost entirely new sections or no, those are entirely new sections, all new text just to help guide the intent to the code in the event of like edge cases and then to clearly spell out who the code applies to and when it applies. The second is probably the largest section and that's the general requirements. It covers a bunch of different things. Landscape plans talking about what goes on a landscape plan when it's required for what types of uses. Landscape material standards that's all the planting requirements, how those are intended to be planted, sizing that type of stuff, requirements. Maintenance requirements, so that is who is responsible for maintenance as well as when it needs to happen, well, less when it needs to happen, but more who's responsible in how things are intended to be maintained. Sutter requirements for common areas. We added a new non-vegetative material section. That is to specify when and how non-vegetative materials are to be used in conjunction with other planting requirements. And then a new utilities section to guide when landscaping is required near utilities and who also needs to be looking at that. And generally the rule of thumb is to avoid utility areas. Continuing on with general requirements, we do talk about the minimum landscaping standards. So that is where you're talking about specifically What needs to be planted where those minimum requirements for residential non residential uses as well as subdivisions and multifamily Parking areas is a is a completely new section as well with with some existing code brought into it that describes how landscaping in parking areas is meant to look and requirement for landscape islands that type of stuff. And then lastly, special uses within the zoning code, there's a handful of special uses that have particular landscaping requirements. We wanted to bring that over all into this section instead of just having people jump around through the code. Buffers is a completely new section. We designed the minimum standards, described the responsibilities who's in charge of buffers and when they need to be put in that type of stuff. And then the minimum planting requirements and access requirements, some of that is existing. But the big takeaway from the buffer section is describing the size planting requirements and when they are required between certain zoning districts. I have an example of the illustrations we provided here. It shows a 10 foot buffer and then a what we call the low buffer, which is a minimum of 10-foot with and then a medium-plus buffer, which is a 15-foot with and then the planting requirements involved in those areas. And then we also redid a lot of the tree preservation section. Some of this stuff is new, but a lot of it is existing text that has been kind of moved around a bit. The general section talks about the prohibition of tree removal without permits, establishment of trees, special cases, and then minimum coverage requirements. Tree removal and replacement section is mostly existing text with some updates for Florida friendly language, that type of stuff that requires which trees require permits for removal. And then replacement trees is a lot of that is new due to issues with calculating replacement tree costs when mitigation needs to happen, that type of stuff. Although a lot of the text regarding the tree mitigation fund is still remaining the same, the calculations for those costs have changed. And then permitting is mostly existing text as well that talks about details on who needs to be requesting tree removal applications, the timing and restrictions of that. There are changes to that section. And then violations and penalties is also a lot of the same enforcement text, although calculations for those costs have changed. And then lastly, appeals has is pretty much existing code that has changed slightly to just be consistent with other areas of this text. All right, so let's get into questions. We did receive some comments, so we have looked into those as well, and we appreciate those comments. Any questions? So the only one I was going to bring up, so I provided a list of staff, I believe you went through it. The only one that I was going to mention out loud, because most of its clarification, it's in-house stuff that can be done. But there was a part on here about the no permit to cut down move, remove, remove, or destroy any tree, shall be issued for any property unless property owner has a permit essentially for act of building, laying, clearing, or water management. I found an issue with that in a past project that I worked on which was the insurance coverage requirements. So what is happening now, especially here with Florida, with the way the insurance is, insurance companies will be assessing your home and go, well, that tree is too close to your home and we want to move. So the language doesn't currently providing any type of exception for insurance. So I was made of recommendation to maybe consider providing some type of language that considers documentation from an insurance provider saying you have to move that tree or we're gonna drop your homeowners coverage as an coverage as an example. We think this is kind of an artifact of the initial revisions where we removed a lot of the existing exceptions or tried to incorporate them within the text instead of having an exceptions area. So that's definitely something we can look into and yeah we would want to we we would want to provide or Require the applicant to provide some sort of documentation for that I am well we can discuss that another time, but Would you want that to be an exception? Like section or just incorporate Not necessarily just in for right there within the language that as long as the homeowner provides documentation from the insurance provider. And I'd imagine this could possibly be affected by non-residential owners too. So you have a business, trees too close, maybe the insurance company does not want to cover the business. So maybe it should apply to both. Yeah, I like the caveat of having an insurance provider Provide documentation that way it's not abused sure absolutely if we don't want it to be abused But I also don't want to see people lose their insurance coverage especially with the insurance issues that we have right now Absolutely sure now why are we approving denied it sounds like you're still tweaking this this. It's still working progress. I'm going to defer to Stephanie on that. We did just receive his comments about an hour and a half before the meeting, which is why it's under the discussion now. We've incorporated many and not most of your comments that we received a few weeks ago. Thank you. So really we are requesting that this move forward to the City Commission for approval and if there are any sections that such as this exemption that could be part of the recommendation to move it forward to City Commission is that we also include this. If you all agree that this section needs to be added. So since he's bringing it up during this meeting, we can absolutely still include it into the text. If you... The material in our agenda packet is not the final version. It is the final version, plus what Larry is suggesting. If you all agree that you would like that exemption portion put in regarding insurance. I would also add scriveners errors as well. We do have a few scriveners errors that we have noticed along the way once we started reading through it. Just minor. Yeah, but the one comment I was making that was just, it was the major thing that I felt that I wanted to bring up. The rest of it was just your typos and minor corrections. So we also, I know there is a state law that has included and we'll look into it, but trees that may be of danger to properties. It may, that may be why we remove that exemption. It may be included in that section of the state law. So if it is covered, then we'll look into that. Otherwise, we will include it in another section. But I believe it's already covered. And that state law would preempt anyway. It's supreme to our code. This is sort of a reactionary question, but I think a lot of people in town are not particularly happy with the landscaping on 44. Let's say for example, okay, what if this ordinance were in effect, what would be changed there? How would it differ from, I mean, are we making improvements that will keep us from making those same kind of mistakes again? I guess there's one on the asking. I would say yes. So one of the major portions that we're making an improvement on is how we handle mitigation, how we handle those after the factory removal permits. We're making it more understandable before we had to go to a code and forced before we could implement mitigation. We didn't have a section that was available for folks to pay into our tree fund from the residential side of a violation. They could only replant on site and anything that couldn't be planted on site would have to be purchased and donated to the city for the city to plant within public realms. So this changes that a little bit to really reinforce those violations to hopefully deter them. Also the intent section is very, is more clear. We also separated it so it's more understandable and more readable from the residential side to the commercial side. Before it was kind of all together we'd have have to constantly explain to applicants whether it be residential or commercial or industrial. What applied to them and what didn't? So this really spells it out a lot clearer, which was really needed. Help me out, James. What else? I can remember sitting here and hearing a couple specifics, one hearing from the attorney for the apartment complex that went out there, the ones that gets finished with the landscape, you wouldn't even be able to see those apartments from the road wrong. If you go out there. Some of the fast food places that we heard the same comments, they'll be so screened that you won't even notice those from the road as you drive by. That's not the way it turned out. Are we going to get closer to what we'd like to be? I think that the buffering that they've put, the buffering criteria that they've put in definitely lays out a better system for creating those buffers that you're speaking of, whether it's between different uses or along the road frontage. I think it's clearer and we beefed it up a little. It's requiring a little bit more. And they had landscape architects on their side giving us the recommendation of what actually fits. And when a new project gets completed and they put in their landscaping, it's the minimum size. You know, the intent is, okay, a few years, that's going to grow up. And then you'll have that screening that you're looking for. So we did take on still the advice of the landscape architects of like, let's not over clutter in those initial plantings so that it has space to grow instead of dying off because they're cluttered. So I understand what you see at the CO is the building, not the buffer that you were promised, but that is taking into consideration that three-year growth period. And you know, plants, they have a cycle. Sure. There is also a kind of across the board 20% increase and required tree plantings. So that is another thing that the intent of the code was to have a greener city overall. And our previous code was based off of Volusia County's code, which had been updated over the years. And ours did just not follow suit suit which is why we were happy to bring on VHB because they have a team of landscape architects to weigh in on what's appropriate? Out of curiosity, I'm centrimension of 44, do we have any type of overlay district for 44? We do. Okay. Is there specific landscape guidance? Yes. Okay. The corridor overlay zone I believe has its own set of landscape requirements. I was going to say the corridor overlay zone is exempted from this code because it has its own landscaping. Okay. So when we're talking 44 landscaping, you know, with your concerns, it wouldn't actually be addressed by the text that we're voting on tonight. It would fall under its overlay. Anything not covered by the overlay, then would revert to this text. And the corridor overlay zone did have a study, and it was revamped, I think, 2018, 19 timeframe. That's when they got those 50 foot front buffers on the Western portion of St. Road 44. and that landscaping actually was beefed up quite a bit as well just for the corridor overlay zone. But again, it takes time to grow. It's been disappointing though to see what happened versus what we were told from those projects we presented. Any other discussion or question? I do. The follow-up was Mr. Hubbershorn said using 44 is a good example. Look at when you next time you go down there, look at... I hope you can hear me now. Look at 7-11. That's one of the best 7-11s I've seen. And it's very well vegetated proper terms, but then you go to the next building or the next, you know, between 711 and XXB's world of difference between those properties. So and I really have not looking for an answer, but I guess preparing my comment is that why don't does the city have a concept for 44 that says this is the image that we want people to see when they go down 44 east into our city. So when we did that corridor overlay zone, we did workshops and really there was a lot of attention paid to basically at that time everyone wanted just to see trees when they walked out or when they drive down Sanro 44. They didn't want to see any buildings. So this was a compromise. And what you're seeking about is that row of newer businesses, they are part of the PUD and it was a master frontage landscape plan. Right, that's why it has to be done at the very beginning, at the planning stage so that like the apartments, you can go back, you're in code violation. Right. We can see see almost inside those apartments because the the footage and I remember hearing the same comments setting out there when they going before the commission and so forth so there should be some recourse thankfully I think I think are you speaking about beacon apartments the ones on the corner of Glencoe. They did actually save some of the existing vegetation that was there, or we may also see those smaller trees that hadn't had the chance to flourish. They did save those taller pine trees along there. So I'm actually pretty pleased with the things that they did save so that we don't see as much of it because otherwise we would be seeing what's in front of say the PUD next to it where you have the gas station, the Wendy's and you know where it's all it was nothing there to begin with but they had to replant to meet that corridor overlay zone. But that's the requirement. And I won't belabor the point. But that's the perfect time in the planning session. Because we kind of know what people are wanting to put in there. Or if I want to put it in goggles in there, you're going to tell me, well, you need to put on your buffer or your walkway, you need these plants so that they are floured from the plants. They are drought tolerant. You know they use less water and so forth. But just a thought. But it doesn't start here and it doesn't start in the planning department. We're only going to get what little they can get away with. So in many and I'll just throw this out there is we are also dealing with the abutting utilities. And so a lot of the plants that are chosen, you're not getting oak trees out there, you know, we're looking at how close are we to the utilities, you know, what's the long-term viability of these plants. But I understand where you're coming from. And we do look at those plant lists, and we do it frequently ask them to swap plants out for, you know, things that are not Florida friendly. And we are, you know, we do look at the compatibility. And I'm certainly not saying the planning department isn't doing their job. Sure. I'm just saying that the lawyers and the developers know all the loopholes. If we can close some of those, then it's black and white. Either you did it or you didn't. And so forth. And again, shape what? And this is for the commissioners to shape what we want the city to look like before it's built. So I'll just throw this out there. We also have the activity center which is right at the intersection of 95. That's also has a different landscape requirement as part of the activity center. center. So when you start seeing some of that come along, it actually is a little bit reduced based on the code that was written for that activity center for that grand entrance of the city. So when you start seeing those ones pop up, it is a little less landscaping required as if when you go down into the corridor overlay zone of State Road 44 and it's a little more beefed up. So we are working on it. This will help with making, like he said, 20% more coverage than we had before. And I think really the buffer zones are where you're gonna see the difference. But State Road 44 does have its own set of plans. Thank you. Thank you for indulging me. We definitely just want you guys to know how we operate, how we review these things in the different areas. Because I think sometimes it is what you don't know is, we have corridor overlays zones, we have activity center zones and they all have different requirements. And we know what the residents wanted when we did that quarter overlay zone is I just want to say we can be bold we can be bold as a community yeah and we're desirable place to live these people want to come here they want to build here and we don't have to back off on these things we can. OK. Any other discussion or question on this particular item? OK, seeing none. Do I have a motion to recommend approval of the requested text amendments to the City Commission? And we did talk about potentially adding a recommendation to consider an insurance exception with insurance documentation for tree removal. So if you like that, that is part of your motion. You're more of the welcome. So moved. So you got to make a motion. Move it. Zulu Tango-1-25. Text amendment, Article 5, Article 6, the land development regulations for the City Commission. So, recommended. Can you say that again? I didn't quite hear you. Okay. With mic too. First, definitely. I recommend Zudango-1-25 Text Amendment Article 6 of the Land Development Regulation Landscaping Requirements. Move forward with approval. Recommendation of approval to the City Commission. All second. All right. Hold on. Hold on. You want to include the insurance exception? Yeah, sure. We can add the insurance. Okay. As I described earlier earlier does that work for you? Yes, that's fine. Okay, go ahead in a second. Do I have a second? I'll second that too Thank you gentlemen Stephanie, could you please call the roll though Amber Holbershorn. Yes, remember Hall. Yes, remember Caussie Yes, being and chair we crap. Yes, I'm the motion to recommend approval to City commission for ZT-01 05 tax amendment to the article 5 of the LDR landscaping requirements which include additional comments for Insurance exceptions or exemptions exemptions about is by in favor Zero opposed emotion passes. Thank you And then thank you as well for helping the city with the rewrite. I've done those and they're, yeah, they take a lot of effort. It's been, it's been an enjoyable experience. Thank you all. And have a great night. Thank you. It's a good dog. Okay. Comments or statements by members of the board? Does anybody have anything? Let me just one comment. The idea of developers coming in with the attorneys and the engineers and as you say, what you hear is not what you see later. You know, that's why it's important that this, that the city that planning, the engineering comes from here, that's the tighter that we develop it and make it. I agree with everything that was said today during this, but cities don't, you know, a lot, we're a lot, we're the ones that are responsible at the end of the day. Most wiggle or me attorney, if it's black and it's white, they're not going to be, they can't be job. I mean, they can sue you for something else. Anyway, I just, I really, I think that we all are on the same line as far as they're coming here so we can demand more. We can demand to have a city that we're already proud of, but let's control it from here. I think those would be recommendations from probably the City Commission and top down to the staff and if they would like to see anything different I know we can make suggestions but I know the staff has to be directed to To do a lot of their work. I know they're busy is anything just to keep up with what they have so Understood and we definitely can enforce what's in the code. That's why it's important when we have these Code amendments brought to you guys if you know if you want to see more, it's their time to give that input. You want to see more, if you want to see less. Because we can only enforce the maximum of what is in our code. We can't, after the fact, say, well, we'd like to have this much more or this done this way. Because then they are subject to, you know, taking our opinion, but not following it if the code doesn't back us up. Hopefully the input that we're providing as well helps you guys. And we're not just doing that. It does. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, Kip, you had some great additions to the intent and other sections. So I mean, those are things that we thought, oh, okay, yeah, those make sense. I think we like those. Okay. Well, if there's no other comments, I'll go ahead and turn it over to Stephanie and report some communications by staff. I'm good. I have nothing further. Thank you. This will go forward to City Commission. Next. What do you think? Excuse me? I have it written down. This will go to City Commission March 25th and April 8th. Okay. So fairly quick. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned.