PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ......23 Geoff Marquard, 4161 Kersey Road, commented that...

PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION COMMISSION 1

PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2

AUGUST 16, 2018 3

4

The Public Hearing of the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation 5

Commission was called to order by Ronnie Mills, at 9:00 a.m., in the County Council 6

Meeting Room of the Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center, 123 West Indiana 7

Avenue, DeLand, Florida. On roll call, the following members answered present, to wit: 8

9

FRANK SEVERINO - ABSENT 10

WANDA VAN DAM 11

JEFFREY BENDER 12

JAY YOUNG 13

RONNIE MILLS 14

STEVE COSTA 15

ELLEN DARDEN - ABSENT 16

17

STAFF PRESENT: 18

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Assistant County Attorney 19

SCOTT ASHLEY, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager 20

SUSAN JACKSON, AICP, Senior Planning Manager 21

PATRICIA SMITH, AICP, Planner II 22

STEVEN E. BAPP, Planner II 23

SHERRI LAROSE, Zoning Technician 24

YOLANDA SOMERS, Staff Assistant II 25

26

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 27

28

Vice-Chair Mills led the pledge of allegiance. 29

30

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, provided legal comment. 31

32

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33

34

June 21, 2018 35

36

No revisions or discussion. 37

38

Member Young MOVED to APPROVE the June 21, 2018 minutes. Member Van 39

Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 40

41

Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications 42

43

Members of the Volusia County Planning & Land Development Regulation Commission 44

Board were asked to please disclose, for the record, the substance of any ex parte 45

communications that had occurred before or during the public hearing at which a vote is 46

to be taken on any quasi-judicial matters. All members present disclosed any 47

communication as listed below. 48

49

of 21

Members Costa, Van Dam, Bender and Mills had communications with Alex Ford 1

regarding cases V-18-076 and Z-18-077. Member Bender also had communications 2

with George White, and Taver and Joan Corrnett regarding case V-18-076. 3

4

PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS 5

6

ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN 7

8

Proposed Ordinance 2018-14 - proposed amendment to Chapter 72 regarding 9

Conservation Subdivisions………Clay Ervin, Director, Growth & Resource Management 10

Department. 11

12

There was no discussion. 13

14

Member Mills CONTINUED the proposed ordinance 2018-14 for thirty days to the 15

September 20, 2018 public hearing. There was no objection to the motion. 16

Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 17

18

NEW BUSINESS 19

20

S-18-044 – Application of Mark Watts, attorney for Florida Resource Materials, LLC, 21

contract purchaser, Vincent Contestible, owner, requesting a special exception for a 22

nonexempt excavation on Prime Agriculture (A-1), Rural Agriculture (A-2), and 23

Resource Corridor (RC) zoned property. 24

25

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He explains the 26

location of the special exception request and that the proposed nonexempt excavation 27

pit is limited to a 53-acre portion of the A-1 and A-2 zoned portion of the 231-acre 28

property. The excavation and reclamation activities are limited to a five-year time period. 29

The excavation operation will have cells for dewatering while excavating materials, and 30

reclamation will be done as each cell is completed. The overall plan for reclamation is to 31

create a lake. If the special exception is approved by the county council, the next step 32

would be to complete the Final Site Plan (FSP) process through the County’s Land 33

Development office. Staff has received comments from an adjoining property owner, Mr. 34

Henry, who resides near the northwest corner of the property, as well as comments 35

from the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach. Staff recommends approval of the 36

request subject to the twenty-two conditions as outlined within the staff report. 37

38

Member Van Dam asked if the wetlands ditch was considered a wetland. 39

40

Mr. Ashley replied that his understanding was that it was considered a wetland and that 41

it was a man-made feeder ditch between two wetland areas, which staff was willing to 42

work with the applicant to relocate. However, this would require a wetland alteration 43

permit during the final site plan process. 44

45

Member Van Dam commented that the criteria requires avoidance of wetlands. 46

47

Mr. Ashley replied that the applicant is avoiding the natural wetlands and the ditch 48

appears to be man-made. 49

of 21

1

Mark Watts, Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Boulevard, DeLand, stated they agree 2

with the staff recommendation with twenty-two conditions. However he would like to add 3

condition twenty-three (read condition into record) to address the concerns of the 4

Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, which has been sent to the Utilities 5

Commission for review, who, to date, have not responded. He mentioned that condition 6

nineteen was to alleviate staff’s concern about truck traffic on Kersey Road, which will 7

be done during the Final Site Plan process and dedication of that non-vehicular access 8

easement will be to the County. The excavation is limited to a five-year time period, and, 9

at the end of five years, the site will be reclaimed to a lake with the banks sloped and 10

sodded and possibly stocked with fish. 11

12

Member Young mentioned that he was concerned with the hours of operation, 13

particularly the operations on Saturday as most people would be away working on 14

Monday through Friday, but would be disturbed on Saturday by this operation. 15

16

Mr. Watts replied that on Saturdays, the hours of operation will be limited and still have 17

all the requirements for dust maintenance as part of the approval (watering trucks) 18

provided. The pumps and other equipment are required to operate at 60 decibels, 19

which is in compliance with the County’s Noise Ordinance, together with limited hours of 20

operation on Saturday, and final site plan approval, were conditions to address the 21

potential impacts to the surrounding area. 22

23

Member Young wondered if the four hours of operation on Saturday would have an 24

impact (on the excavation) and is still a concern for him. 25

26

Member Costa asked if Mr. Watts knew of any validity to the Utilities Commission of 27

New Smyrna Beach’s concern that dewatering would cause a draw down problem for 28

their well field. 29

30

Mr. Watts commented that the submitted hydrological report shows that the 1-foot draw 31

down contour line is north of State Road 44, so there should not be any issues. 32

However, the recharge trenches would be an added measure of prevention. 33

34

Member Bender asked about the Utilities Commission’s request to limit the excavation 35

to 15 feet deep. 36

37

Mr. Watts stated that the excavation is limited to an elevation of 15 feet. 38

39

Member Mills asked if the property owner was willing to eliminate the operation on 40

Saturday since there is high traffic volume especially during summer. 41

42

Mr. Watts replied he had not had conversations with his client about Saturday 43

operations as of yet, but would prior to his rebuttal of public participation. 44

45

Member Van Dam asked if the Utilities Commission had asked about having their well 46

fields being monitored. 47

48

of 21

Mr. Watts replied that there has not been enough information yet to know if that is 1

needed, and that is a reason he asked that the Utilities Commission be involved in the 2

final site plan process because the hydrology reports will be more in depth at that stage. 3

4

Public Participation. 5

Jennifer Hall-Sniadach, 4015 Kersey Road, stated she is located directly in front of this 6

operation. She has two children; one has asthma and the other is home schooled. She 7

is concerned that the noise and dust is going to severely impact her lifestyle and 8

decrease her property value. 9

10

Member Young asked Ms. Sniadach to point on the map where her property was 11

located. 12

Ms. Sniadach stated she was near Jason Street and was the property with the three 13

ponds. 14

15

Member Costa asked why she thought this (excavation) pit would be dusty. 16

17

Ms. Sniadach replied that she has been on a construction site and doesn’t need a study 18

to understand that 200 trucks coming in and off a dirt road would cause dust. She also 19

commented that traffic on State Road 44 was heavy now and doesn’t need to have a 20

study to understand that 200 trucks per day would cause more traffic issues. 21

22

Geoff Marquard, 4161 Kersey Road, commented that this is a horrible idea, the 23

neighborhood doesn't want this, and it will destroy the property values. He mentioned 24

that the operation site was in the front yards of the property owners on Kersey Road, 25

not in their back yards, and it was unfavorable to be woken up every day at 7:00 a.m. by 26

loud trucks. He considered 200 trucks a day heavy traffic in his front yard. No one has 27

done a study on what this excavation will do to the wells to the north of this site. He also 28

commented that having one day off from the impacts of this operation for the next five 29

years was not right. 30

31

Member Young ask for their location. 32

33

Mr. Marquard replied his location is to the northwest end of the property and is the 34

fourth property east on Kersey Road. 35

36

Patricia Marquard, 4161 Kersy Road, commented that she has to use oxygen and has 37

to sleep a lot for her health. She stated that they raise miniature donkeys, and this is 38

detrimental to her health and her animals’ health. She added that they will lose half the 39

value of this property if this happens, and this would flood their homes. 40

41

Tom Wright, 259 Powerline Road, asked the commission to provide the next steps in 42

this process in order to give the homeowners time to do research and be prepared for 43

another hearing. He had concerns about the noise, the pumps running all the time, the 44

operation on Saturday, dewatering, wells, and the heavy traffic. 45

46

Member Mills replied that the commission makes recommendations to the council. He 47

asked Mr. Ashley to provide the council date for this application. 48

49

of 21

Mr. Ashley provided that the county council will hear this request on October 2, 2018, 1

with a time certain of 10:30 a.m. Time certain means it cannot be heard prior to that 2

time but anytime afterwards. 3

4

Member Young asked Mr. Wright for his property location. 5

6

Mr. Wright stated that he was the fourth house on the right from the intersection of 7

Powerline Road and Kersey Road. 8

9

Mr. Watts reiterated that this location was the property that the county was looking to 10

acquire for its road and bridge facility. The zoning and land development codes provide 11

criteria for such projects to minimize the impacts of concern that have been provided by 12

the public today. He mentioned that he spoke with his clients and they could minimize 13

the Saturday operations to 30 Saturdays a year for maintenance only, not excavating. 14

He introduced John Mikkos from Bio-Tech Consulting to clarify any confusion regarding 15

the dewatering and the hydrology report. 16

17

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, asked Mr. Watts to clarify whether he 18

was providing for informational purposes that the proposed pumps and equipment 19

would operate at 60 decibels, which is lower than the 75 decibels allowed by the county, 20

or offering it as a condition of approval. 21

22

Mr. Watts clarified that it was not a condition of approval, merely mentioning that the 23

pumps were going to operate lower than allowed. 24

25

John Mikkos, Bio-Tech Consulting, 3025 East South Street, Orlando, commented that 26

the primary intent of the design using recharge trenches is to ensure there is no draw-27

downs of the wetlands and no impacts to the ground water. He also stated the upland 28

cut ditch is being relocated and no change in drainage would occur. 29

30

Member Costa asked that the recharge trenches will be designed and permitted through 31

the St. Johns River Water Management District. 32

33

Mr. Mikkos affirmatively replied. 34

35

Member Van Dam asked if monitoring is required. 36

37

Mr. Mikkos replied that we do not have the answer yet, and it would depend on the 38

permitting analysis by the St. John’s River Water Management District. 39

40

Member Young asked about the quality of water of the surrounding wells. 41

42

Mr. Mikkos mentioned that the recharge trenches would address quality issues, 43

however the quality of ground water that is used for any domestic water wells would be 44

under the Department of Health (not the St. John’s River Water Management District). 45

46

Member Young asked if the Department of Health would have oversight on this project. 47

48

of 21

Mr. Mikkos replied that the Department of Health would not have oversight however, 1

should a complaint be filed with them and they would contact the St. John’s River 2

Management District if necessary in regards to the dewatering permit for this project. 3

4

Member Costa asked about the details of the landscape berms. 5

6

Mr. Watts provided the specifications of the berm requirements as listed on pages 32 7

through 36 of 79 of the staff report. 8

9

Member Bender asked about the corrective steps for the surrounding property owners 10

that may have a problem with their wells. 11

12

Mr. Watts replied that the permitting agencies would require an alternative plan for 13

dewatering but there is no proposed impacts to any surrounding properties. 14

15

Mr. Mikkos stated that the quality of the wells will not be affected by this project. 16

17

Mr. Watts spoke to page 53 of the staff report, which is the dewatering plan for the 18

excavation. He commented that there is no water actually leaving the site. He provided 19

the example of using a straw and how the levels around the straw lower when used but 20

when the straw is not used the levels return. 21

22

Member Young commented that his concerns about the quality of the water was 23

because, during water pumping, other minerals can be pulled in and be mixed into the 24

water when the water levels return. 25

26

Commission Discussion. 27

Member Costa commented that the landscaping berms will be beneficial to help with the 28

noise concerns. He has not seen any evidence that the surrounding wells will be 29

affected. He commented that he would support the recommendation of approval. 30

31

Member Young mentions he still has concerns with the Saturday operation. 32

33

Member Mills echoed the concerns about the Saturday operation. He stated that it was 34

a limited use that had to be completed within 5 years. He also felt that weekends should 35

not be noisy and thirty weekends is still more than half the year He would be more 36

favorable if there were no Saturday operation. 37

38

Mr. Watts commented that they would further restrict the Saturday operations to a one 39

or two- person crew that would be for inspections and maintenance of the pumps and 40

equipment, and there would be no excavation operation or traffic generation by trucks. 41

42

Mr. Ashley provided that the commission would need to amend condition thirteen 43

concerning the hours of operation and the addition of the applicant’s condition. 44

45

Member Costa MOVED to FORWARD case number S-18-044, to county council 46

with a recommendation of approval with the following modified staff 47

recommended conditions: 48

49

of 21

1. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant shall submit for 1

and obtain Final Site Plan approval, pursuant to the procedures of Article 2

III, Division 3 of the Land Development Code. 3

4

2. The Final Site Plan shall comply with the all the excavation requirements 5

of Article II, Division 8, Section 72-293(15) of the zoning code. 6

7

3. The Special Exception is limited to Tax Parcel ID # 7222-00-00-0010. A 8

revised boundary survey shall be provided during the Final Site Plan 9

review process. Any work proposed beyond Parcel #7222-00-00-0010 10

shall be subject to a review by the PLDRC. 11

12

4. There shall be no new or expanded operations beyond the footprint 13

identified in the Excavation Plan on Sheet C4.0 in the Construction Plans 14

signed and sealed by Nick John Gargasz and dated May 29, 2018. 15

16

5. The special exception shall be limited to a term of five years, which is 17

consistent with the proposed plan to finish the reclamation work within 18

five years of approval of the special exception. Any modifications to the 19

timing shall require review by the PLDRC. 20

21

6. The applicant shall incorporate the preliminary comments and 22

recommendations of the technical review staff report, dated June 29, 2018, 23

which was provided during the Special Exception review process 24

(attached). Modifications to the preliminary recommendations will require 25

approval by the Development Review Committee. 26

27

7. A time, duration, phasing and proposed work schedule shall be provided 28

as part of the Final Site Plan review process. 29

30

8. The applicant will provide a final dewatering plan in accordance with the 31

Final Site Plan requirements. 32

33

9. A Landscape Plan shall be submitted during the Final Site Plan review 34

process that meets the requirements of Section 72-284 of the Zoning 35

Code. 36

37

10. Perimeter landscape buffers shall be established prior to initiation of the 38

excavating activity and shall meet the requirements of subsection 72-39

284(2)a, “Landscape Buffer Table.” 40

41

11. A detailed Reclamation Plan that meets the requirements of Section 72-42

293(15)b(1)ix shall be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan process. 43

44

12. A detailed Hydrologic Report that meets the requirements of Section 72-45

293(15)b(1)x shall be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan process. 46

47

of 21

1

13. The excavation shall operate from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through 2

Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday only. The site will be 3

closed on Sunday and federal holidays. Saturday operation shall be 4

limited to site and equipment maintenance only, with no excavation 5

activity or truck trip generation. This maintenance-only use shall be 6

limited to thirty (30) Saturdays a year. 7

8

14. The excavation shall be enclosed with a six-foot high, chain link fence with 9

a gate that shall be closed and locked at all times when the excavation pit 10

is not in use. 11

12

15. The applicant shall comply with any applicable local, state or federal rules 13

and regulations of applicable governmental agencies. 14

15

16. The applicant shall post an acceptable performance bond, irrevocable 16

letter of credit, or funds in escrow in an amount up to 100 percent of the 17

estimated reconditioning costs, as estimated by the Developer’s Engineer 18

in the proposed plan of reclamation and, in a format approved by the 19

Volusia County Environmental Management Services. The guarantee 20

shall run with the life of the excavation and reclamation activities. If the 21

applicant has not completed the excavation within the term granted by 22

this special exception, the county may redeem the letter of credit, escrow, 23

or bond and utilize the funds to perform and remedial work necessary to 24

complete the terms and conditions of the reclamation, as required by the 25

county in the special exception and final site plan approval processes. 26

27

17. The applicant shall submit an engineer’s certification and progress report 28

to the Planning and Development Services Division on an annual basis 29

outlining that the excavation is proceeding in accordance with the terms 30

of the excavation permit and/or DRC requirements and/or conditions. 31

32

18. A water tank truck shall be utilized (four times a day) for dust suppression 33

in the borrow pit area and on the haul road. Haulage trucks shall utilize a 34

tarp or net blanket over the material to be transported. 35

36

19. A one-foot non-vehicular access easement will be established along 37

Kersey Rd. 38

39

20. The driveway should include a 36-inch STOP sign and a minimum of 25 40

feet of 6-inch double yellow thermoplastic striping that meets the 41

requirements of the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 42

43

21. Gates must be a minimum of 125 feet from the right-of-way line of SR 44. 44

45

22. An employee trailer shall be placed on site prior to initiation of excavation 46

activities. The trailer shall contain, at a minimum, a chemical toilet and a 47

water tank that will serviced regularly to remove waste materials from the 48

of 21

site, subject to approval of the Florida Department of Health – Volusia. 1

2

23. Additional recharge trenches shall be added at final site plan to connect 3

Wetland B to Wetland D and Wetland F to Wetland SE in order to provide 4

additional recharge north of the New Smyrna Beach Utilities 5

Commission’s potable water wells located south of State Road 44. In 6

addition, the applicant shall copy the final site plan submittal to the 7

Utilities Commission and representatives of the Utilities Commission shall 8

be invited to submit comments or attend Development Review Committee 9

meetings held to review the final site plan to ensure any concerns 10

regarding dewatering operations are addressed. 11

12

Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED 4:1 (Member Bender in 13

opposition). 14

15

Z-18-069 – Application of Donna Greenlund, agent for Dorothy Hansen, owner, 16

requesting a rezoning from the Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoning classification to the 17

Prime Agriculture (A-1) zoning classification. 18

19

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report explaining that 20

the property was located in the Emporia rural community, at the intersection of Emporia 21

Road and Peterson Road. The goal is to rezone a corner portion of the parcels to A-1 22

that will enable a property line adjustment, which will make parcel 5814-02-08-0011 20 23

acres in area and allow it to be subdivided into two 10-acre, A-1 zoned properties. He 24

stated that the staff recommended approval of the request. 25

26

Donna Greenlund, 438 Emporia Road, was present and had no additional comments. 27

28

There was no public participation. 29

30

There was no commission discussion. 31

32

Member Van Dam MOVED to FORWARD rezoning case Z-18-069 to county council 33

with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Member Young SECONDED the motion. 34

Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 35

36

V-18-073 – Application of Jason Tanner, owner, requesting a variance to the maximum 37

building height for an accessory structure on Osteen Transitional Residential (OTR) 38

zoned property. The property is located at 520 Dads Wayout, Osteen; ± 3.93 acres; 39

9217-00-00-0136. 40

41

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Ashley 42

explained that the requested variance was necessary for the owner to construct a 43

1,600-square-foot accessory structure to provide storage of a personal watercraft. Mr. 44

Ashley referred to the south elevation plan on page three of 18 of the staff report to 45

assist in the discussion and said that due to the height of the watercraft on a trailer, a 46

14-foot high ceiling with a 13-foot entrance clearance at the doorway is required. The 47

code defines the building height as the average distance between the eave and ridge 48

of 21

for a gable roof, and in this zoning classification the maximum height is 15 feet. Mr. 1

Ashley stated that the application meets all five criteria for the granting of a variance, 2

therefore staff recommends approval subject to the three staff-recommended conditions 3

on page five of 18 of the staff report. 4

5

Jason Tanner, 520 Dads Wayout, Osteen, Florida 32764. Mr. Tanner stated that the 6

accessory structure was needed to protect his personal property from the weather and 7

to provide security. He was in support of the staff recommendation of approval. 8

9

No public participation. 10

11

Member Young MOVED to APPROVE case number V-18-073, a variance to Section 12

72-277(1)(e) for the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure from 13

the maximum height allowed of 15 feet to 17.6 feet on Osteen Transitional 14

Residential (OTR) zoned property, subject to the following staff-recommended 15

conditions: 16

17

1. The proposed accessory structure shall be constructed as indicated on the 18

proposed building plans prepared by Orlando Design and Drafting, LLC, 19

dated June 29, 2018. 20

2. The proposed accessory structure shall be located in the area indicated on 21

the submitted concept plan prepared by Orlando Design and Drafting, LLC, 22

dated June 29, 2018. 23

3. The applicant shall obtain and complete all required building and 24

development permits and inspections for the proposed accessory 25

structure. 26

27

Member Costa SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 28

29

V-18-074 – Application of Donald Roebuck, owner, requesting a variance to the 30

minimum yard requirements on Rural Residential (RR) zoned property. The property is 31

located at 1690 Old Titusville Road, Deltona; ± 5.97 acres; 9104-02-00-0061. 32

33


explained that the requested variance is necessary for the owner to construct a 450-35

square-foot accessory detached garage on an existing slab in the front yard setback. 36

Mr. Ashley referred to the concept plan on page three of 22 of the staff report and said 37

the Development Review Committee would need to grant a waiver from the Enterprise 38

Community Overlay Zone design criteria to allow a metal façade treatment on the 39

proposed accessory structure and allow the structure in the front yard. The RR zoning 40

classification requires a front yard setback of 40 feet from Old Titusville Road. Mr. 41

Ashley said the proposed accessory structure could be relocated to meet the 40-foot 42

front yard, thereby eliminating the necessity of the variance. Mr. Ashley stated that the 43

application does not meet all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff 44

recommends denial. 45

46

of 21

Donald Roebuck, 1690 Old Titusville Road, Deltona, Florida 32725. Mr. Roebuck 1

explained that his property is +/- 1,700 feet from the nearest paved road [Garfield 2

Road], and Old Titusville Road is a dirt roadway maintained by the individual property 3

owners. Mr. Roebuck informed the commission that he received four letters of support 4

from the adjacent neighbors as to the materials and location of the proposed 450-5

square-foot detached garage. Mr. Roebuck stated that the proposed accessory 6

structure would have trim to match the principal single-family dwelling and be cohesive 7

with the rural character of the area. 8

9

Member Costa inquired if the proposed 450-square-foot detached garage could be 10

relocated elsewhere on the lot. 11

12

Mr. Roebuck responded that it would be convenient for storage to place the proposed 13

450-square-foot detached garage on the existing slab. Mr. Roebuck stated that there is 14

an existing fence preventing the structure to be relocated further on the lot to meet the 15

40-foot setback. 16

17

Vice-Chair Mills asked Mr. Roebuck if he had the letters of support from the neighbors. 18

19

Mr. Roebuck responded in the affirmative and stated that the letters of support from the 20

adjacent neighbors were e-mailed to Ms. Somers, Staff Assistant II. 21

22

Member Young stated that the fence could be pushed back approximately seven feet 23

resulting in the proposed 450-square-foot detached garage to be relocated to meet the 24

code requirement of the 40-foot front yard setback from Old Titusville Road. 25

26

Mr. Roebuck responded that there is an oak tree just inside the fence line, therefore the 27

fence could not be relocated. 28

29

Member Young expressed concerns with the requested variance and acknowledged 30

that there is sufficient space on the property to construct the proposed 450-square-foot 31

detached garage to meet the code requirements. 32

33

Ms. Somers informed the commission that staff received two letters of support. A letter 34

was received from Andre Smolinsky, 1630 Old Titusville Road, Enterprise [neighbor to 35

the west]. A letter was also received from Kathy Audia, 105 Saxon Boulevard, Deltona 36

[neighbor to the north]. 37

38

Vice-Chair Mills stated he would like the two remaining letters of support to be included 39

in the record in the event of an appeal to the County Council. 40

41


43

Member Young MOVED to DENY case number V-18-074, a variance to the 44

minimum yard requirements on Rural Residential (RR) zoned property. 45

46

Member Costa asked the commission to consider adding a condition requiring that a 25-47

foot conservation buffer be provided to maintain the existing thick vegetation along Old 48

Titusville Road. 49

of 21

1

Member Bender SECONDED the motion. 2

3

Member Costa expressed concerns with denying the requested variance and restated 4

to the commission to consider a condition of approval requiring that a 25-foot 5

conservation buffer be provided to maintain the existing thick vegetation along Old 6

Titusville Road. Member Costa acknowledged that the applicant has neighborhood 7

support and he stated that there is an opportunity to keep the vegetation in-tack and 8

construct an accessory structure with minimal impact to the area. 9

10

Member Young responded that the code specifies a 40-foot setback is required in the 11

front yard and there is more than sufficient space on the property for the proposed 450-12

square-foot detached garage to be in compliance with the required setback. 13

14

Motion CARRIED 4:1 (Member Costa in opposition). 15

16

V-18-076 – Application of Alex Ford, attorney for Fredrick and Theresa Kaiser, owners, 17

requesting a variance to the minimum yard requirements and maximum building height 18

for an accessory structure on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-3) zoned property. 19

The property is located at 2625 Flowing Well Road, DeLand; ± 34,848 square feet; 20

7923-05-00-0380. 21

22


explained that the requested variances are necessary for the owner to construct a two-24

story 2,250-square-foot accessory structure to provide storage of a personal watercraft 25

and motor coach. Mr. Ashley said that the owner is requesting a 10-foot reduction of the 26

south front yard setback and to the maximum height requirement from 15 feet to 22.5 27

feet to accommodate the 30-foot by 75-foot accessory structure. The R-3 zoning 28

classification requires a front yard setback of 30 feet on Flowing Well Road. Mr. Ashley 29

said the proposed accessory structure could be relocated to meet the 30-foot front yard 30

and eight-foot side yard setbacks, thereby eliminating the necessity of one variance, or 31

the variance could be minimized by architectural design. Mr. Ashley stated that the 32

application does not meet all five criteria for the granting of a variance, therefore staff 33

recommends denial. 34

35

Vice-Chair Mills inquired if other accessory structures exceeding the maximum height of 36

15 feet exists in the neighborhood. 37

38

Mr. Ashley responded in the affirmative, and stated that a variance was granted in 2011 39

for an accessory structure height of approximately 18 feet for another lot in the 40

neighborhood. 41

42

Alex Ford, Jr., Landis, Graham, French, P.A., 135 E. Rich Avenue, DeLand, Florida 43

32720. Mr. Ford stated he was aware of two other accessory structures exceeding the 44

maximum height of 15 feet located on Flowing Well Road that possibly were 45

constructed prior to the zoning code height restrictions being in place. Mr. Ford 46

summarized the two variances his client was requesting for the property. Mr. Ford 47

stated that the original variance application had been minimized by eliminating the 48

necessity for a variance to the rear yard setback and that the variance application 49

of 21

included letters of support from the neighbors. Mr. Ford acknowledged if the Smart 1

Growth Initiative was approved amending the maximum height of an accessory 2

structure from 15 feet to 20 feet, then his client was simply requesting a variance of 2.5 3

feet. The code currently does not provide for customary accessory structures for the 4

storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Ford referred to the motor coach picture on page 5

15 of 29 of the staff report, and explained that the motor coach is 14 feet 4 inches in 6

height and in order to provide routine maintenance of the air conditioning units and 7

antennas, a four-foot overhead clearance is required. Due to the unique configuration of 8

the property, the roadway and the location of the existing septic tank, a re-design of the 9

2,250-square-foot accessory structure would create a hardship in maneuvering the 10

motor coach in keeping the turning movements within his client’s property. Mr. Ford 11

stated the structure would be constructed to architecturally and visually enhance the 12

neighborhood, and asked the commission to grant the requested variances. 13

14

Member Van Dam asked Mr. Ford if any of the accessory structures exceeding the 15

maximum height of 15 feet in the neighborhood that he referred to in his presentation 16

are 22.5 feet in height. 17

18

Mr. Ford asked Mr. Carelli to provided additional testimony. 19

20

Robert Carelli, Draftworks Design Associates, Inc., 1109 Saxon Boulevard, Orange City, 21

Florida 32763. Mr. Carelli referred to Exhibit six on page 18 of 29 of the staff report to 22

assist in the discussion, and stated that the structures pictured appear to be at least 20 23

feet in height. The proposed 2,250-square-foot accessory structure would be 24

constructed with block construction, stone columns and a metal roof to aesthetically 25

match the future renovation to the existing single-family dwelling. 26

27

Mr. Ford acknowledged that his client could wait for the future ordinance to amend the 28

code to meet the 20-foot height requirement for an accessory structure, but it wouldn’t 29

be as functional or attractive. 30

31

Mr. Carelli referred to the elevation plan on pages 22 and 23 of 29 of the staff report, 32

and stated that the proposed 5:12 roof pitch is necessary to accommodate the size of 33

the motor coach and maintain its equipment. The proposed 2,250-square-foot 34

accessory structure was designed to aesthetically fit with the structures in the 35

neighborhood. 36

37

Member Van Dam expressed concerns with the proposed 2,250-square-foot accessory 38

structure exceeding the maximum height of the future ordinance of 20 feet. 39

40

Mr. Ford responded that his client is asking for a maximum height of 22.5 feet but would 41

accept a 20-foot height if it was more favorable to the commission. 42

43

Member Bender stated that he had spoken with some of the neighbors regarding the 44

requested variances. The neighbors are in support of the proposed 2,250-square-foot 45

accessory structure and for the existing palm trees to remain in place. Member Bender 46

stated that the proposed height of the accessory structure is in character with the 47

existing structures of the adjacent neighbors’ properties. 48

49

of 21

Mr. Ford expressed concerns in relocating the proposed 2,250-square-foot accessory 1

structure westerly as the dwelling of the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Pugh, is very close to 2

the lot line. Mr. Pugh signed a petition supporting the requested variances. 3

4

Member Bender stated that Mr. Pugh’s single-family dwelling is very close to the shared 5

lot line, and relocating the 2,250-square-foot accessory structure westerly could 6

inconvenience that adjacent neighbor. 7

8

Member Van Dam expressed concerns with the requested additional height of the 9

variance, and would like to minimize the impact. 10

11

Vice-Chair Mills asked Mr. Ford if the site plan on page 21 of 29 of the staff report is the 12

same site plan that the adjacent neighbors’ were in support of. 13

14

Mr. Ford responded in the affirmative. 15

16


18

Member Costa MOVED to APPROVE case number V-18-076, a variance to Section 19

72-277(1)(e) for a front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 20 feet for an 20

accessory structure (variance 1) and a variance to Section 72-277(1)(e) for the 21

maximum height requirement of an accessory structure from the maximum height 22

allowed of 15 feet to 22.5 feet (variance 2) on Urban Single-Family Residential (R-23

3) zoned property. 24

25

Mr. Ashley asked the commission to consider the addition of staff recommendation #1, 26

referring to pages 22 through 23 of 29 of the staff report, requiring that the 30-foot by 27

75-foot accessory structure is constructed as indicated in the proposed building plans 28

prepared by EPI, Inc., dated May 12, 2018. 29

30

Member Costa AMENDED the MOTION to include staff-recommended condition 31

#1. The proposed 30-foot by 75-foot accessory structure shall be constructed as 32

indicated on the proposed building plans prepared by EPI, Inc., dated May 12, 33

2018. 34

35

Member Bender SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED 4:1 (Member Van Dam 36

in opposition). 37

38

Z-18-077 – Application of Alex Ford, attorney for Bradley Sutherland and Mark and 39

Sarah Pavelchak, owners, requesting a rezoning from the Prime Agriculture (A-1) and 40

Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoning classifications to the Transitional Agriculture (A-4) zoning 41

classification. 42

43

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report. He explained 44

that the intent is to vacate the underlying plat and to create 2.5-acre lots, and the 45

rezoning is to help accommodate this future plan. The A-1 zoned property to the 46

northwest has physical access through the plat and is nonconforming with the lot size of 47

the zoning classification. This request will provide them direct access on Kicklighter 48

Road and make it conforming to the proposed A-4 zoning classification. Staff finds this 49

of 21

is a good transitional zoning from the one-acre lots to the west and the larger five and 1

ten-acre lots to the east. He mentioned that staff finds the request compatible with the 2

comprehensive plan and recommends approval as presented in the staff report. 3

4

Member Van Dam asked if page 8 of 14 of the staff report represents the proposed 5

division of this property. 6

7

Mr. Ashley replied affirmatively. 8

9

Alex Ford, Landis, Graham, French, 145 East Rich Avenue, DeLand, stated the request 10

is from A-1 and A-2 to A-4. The property is adjacent on the west of the City of Lake 11

Helen and has the City of Deltona to the south. This is a good transitional lot size 12

between the west and south one-acre lot sized properties to the larger five and ten-acre 13

lots to the north and east. As part of the vacation of platted rights-of-way, we are 14

proposing to dedicate right-of-way for Kicklighter Road. The proposal is to create 2.5-15

acre lots, except for the one large lot, which Mr. Sutherland will retain for his home. 16

17

Public Participation. 18

David Houghton, 900 Pineda Road, Lake Helen, commented that this (displayed aerial) 19

map does not show Muck Lake, and is from 2015, which was a drought year. He stated 20

this area is underwater and that his property is four ten-acre properties to the east of 21

this property, which has standing water. He explained the properties drain to the west 22

and to the south into Muck Lake and feels five-acre lots would be more suitable for the 23

area. He stated the people of Deltona use this private road as a cut through from Lake 24

Helen to Deltona and that the county will not assist them with the traffic or the drainage, 25

as it is a private road. 26

27

Member Van Dam asked what road he is maintaining. 28

29

Mr. Houghton replied Ranch Road, which is not shown on the map. 30

31

Member Mills asked how 2.5-acre lots would cause greater flooding than 5-acre lots. 32

33

Mr. Houghton replied more homes would decrease the surface area where the water 34

could drain to and the traffic will cause more wear and tear on the private road. Muck 35

Lake backs up to our properties in Shady Acres. 36

37

Rachel Houghton, 900 Pineda Road, Lake Helen, stated this request will ruin their rural 38

lifestyle. She inquired as to why it cannot be 5 acres to 10 acres, instead of 2.5 acres. 39

The road and drainage is an issue for this area. She questioned the compliance with 40

due public notice as the she believes the posters were not posted until August 8TH. 41

42

Fiona Ash, 2590 East Kicklighter Road, Lake Helen, stated the property owner is only 43

wanting to do this for the money. The Pavelchak’s have deeded access to their 44

property. If there are more houses, it will increase the crime rate. 45

46

Raphine Pierce, 800 Sand Crane Lane, Lake Helen, echoed the issue with due public 47

notice. She explained the aerial map that was shown is from a drought time period from 48

2015, and that there is now standing water in the area. There is a county dedicated park 49

of 21

and lake within this property. She commented that Kicklighter Road is not built to 1

standards and should not be used to support this request. She stated there are no 2.5-2

acre lots within 660 feet of this property. 3

4

Mary Ann Bardon, 25 Lake Drive, DeBary, stated she owns the property to the 5

northeast of the subject property and that Kicklighter Road is not where it should be 6

because it was shifted to save a tree. She asked for a clarification of the rezoning 7

classification. 8

9

Member Mills replied that it was being rezoned to A-4 which allows 2.5 acres. 10

11

Ms. Bardon asked which way the water flows. 12

13

Mr. Ashley replied that he didn’t have that information. 14

15

Ms. Bardon stated that she has an issue with ingress and egress to her property and is 16

concerned that with additional impervious surface she will be prohibited from using her 17

property. 18

19

Clifton Patterson, 1435 Ramsey Acres Lane, Lake Helen, mentioned that there are 20

flooding issues and would like clarification about whether there will be new roads for the 21

2.5-acre lots. 22

23

Mr. Ashley responded that the existing platted roads would be vacated and then the lots 24

would access Kicklighter Road. 25

26

Mr. Patterson stated his property is at the corner of Hogsback Road and Ramsey Acres 27

Lane and described the property to the west as more Resource Corridor than 28

Agriculture, which is more compatible to the area, being five to ten-acre properties. He 29

further stated the area is low and flood prone according to FEMA, and reminded the 30

commission of the troubles in Deltona when people built in the dry lake beds which 31

became flooded after the rains and storms of recent years. 32

33

Mr. Ford rebutted stating that the 2015 aerial map is the latest from the county, and that 34

it was not his exhibit, and there was no intent to mislead anyone. Mr. Sutherland is 35

proposing to retain 34 acres for his own property between the proposed new lots and 36

Muck Lake, so any water overflow would be on his property. He provided the site 37

photos of the property posted on August 6, 2018 (Evidence 1). He mentioned that his 38

client is allowed to sell his property for full market value and as to crime, there is no 39

correlation to 2.5-acre lots causing crime and 5 acres not causing crime. He mentioned 40

that vacating the plat is within the county council’s purview and he mentioned it to give 41

full disclosure. Mr. Patterson’s property is north of two 2.5-acre parcels. Finally, his 42

client is willing to remove his personal property from the rezoning request and leave it at 43

5-acre minimum lot size. 44

45

Commission Discussion. 46

Member Van Dam asked the county attorney if removing the personal property of Mr. 47

Sutherland would be a condition of approval of the rezoning. 48

49

of 21

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, replied that it would not be a condition of 1

approval. The applicant would need to amend his request in order to remove his 2

personal property. 3

4

Mr. Ford stated he is authorized to amend the application to withdraw of the 34-acre 5

parcel (that would be Mr. Sutherland’s personal property) from this rezoning request. 6

7

Member Mills asked if county council could make the determination whether the 34 8

acres should stay in the request or not. 9

10

Mr. Rodriguez stated that you could recommend approval or denial of this request or an 11

amended request. The applicant can amend his request before the county council, if he 12

wanted to. 13

14

Mr. Ford formally requested to withdraw Mr. Sutherland’s 34-acre personal property 15

from the consideration of this rezoning request. 16

17

Member Costa commented that this is a 74-acre property and would allow twenty-four 18

five-acre lots, and is now proposing a sixteen-lot subdivision that fixes a nonconforming 19

lot and provides right-of-way for Kicklighter Road for maintenance. He is in support of 20

recommending approval minus the thirty-four acres. 21

22

Member Costa MOVED to FORWARD case Z-18-077 to county council with a 23

recommendation of approval of an amended application to only rezone forty 24

acres of the original seventy-four acres. Member Van Dam SECONDED the 25

motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 26

27

Z-18-078 – Application of Joshua Wells, attorney for Joseph Puleo, owner, requesting a 28

rezoning from the Rural Agricultural Estate (RA) zoning classification to the Rural 29

Residential (RR) zoning classification. 30

31

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, presented the staff report explaining that 32

the rezoning would allow a reduction in lot size from a minimum of 2.5-acres to a 33

minimum of one-acre in area. The property is 4.74 acres in area, which includes a 34

portion that is zoned Resource Corridor (RC) that will not be changed with this rezoning. 35

There is an existing home on the property and a plan, in the staff report, that shows that 36

the property can be divided into two parcels meeting the minimum dimensional 37

requirements of the proposed RR zoning classification. There is RR zoned property to 38

the south and Transitional Agriculture (A-3) zoned property, which requires one-acre 39

sized lots, to the west. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the request. 40

41

Joshua Wells, 340 North Causeway, New Smyrna Beach, on behalf of the owner, 42

commented that the owner had the wetland delineation done prior to applying for the 43

rezoning so that the Resource Corridor was clearly shown when submitting for this 44

rezoning to a common lot size in the area. 45

46

47

of 21

Public Participation 1

William Abraham, 1153 Turnbull Creek Road, New Smyrna Beach, completed a public 2

participation form in opposition of the request, however he was not present during the 3

hearing. 4

5

There was no commission discussion. 6

7

Member Van Dam MOVED to FORWARD rezoning case Z-18-078 to county council 8

with a recommendation of APPROVAL. Member Young SECONDED the motion. 9

Motion CARRIED unanimously (4:0) Member Bender not present for vote. 10

11

V-18-080 – Application of Daniel Asencio, owner, requesting a variance to separate 12

nonconforming lots on Rural Agriculture (A-2) zoned property. The property is located 13

on Hamilton Avenue, Orange City; ± 1.9 acres; 7032-04-15-0410 and 7032-04-14-0220. 14

15


explained that the requested variance to separate nonconforming lots is necessary for 17

parcel 7032-04-15-0410 to be eligible for the issuance of building permits. Mr. Ashley 18

stated that the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision was platted in 1925 with a typical lot 19

size of 25 feet wide by 29 feet deep. The minimum lot size of the A-2 zoning 20

classification is five acres. Mr. Ashley summarized the layout of the subdivision, 21

consisting of numerous nonconforming lots, and acknowledged that the applicants 22

purchased the property in 2016 with the intent of constructing a single-family dwelling. 23

Mr. Ashley explained the nonconforming lot provision of the zoning code requires 24

commonly owned parcels to be combined to meet the minimum dimensional standards 25

of the current zoning classification. Mr. Ashley stated to create conforming parcels by 26

purchasing adjacent lands would create a hardship on the various lot owners due to the 27

existing lot pattern. Mr. Ashley referred to the site plan on page four of 15 of the staff 28

report and said with the granting of the variance, the single-family dwelling can be 29

constructed to meet the required 50-foot front yard and 25-foot side yard setbacks of the 30

A-2 zoning classification. Mr. Ashley stated that the application meets all five criteria for 31

the granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends approval subject to the one staff-32

recommended condition on page five of 15 of the staff report. 33

34

Daniel Asencio and Stephanie Taylor, 485 Park Avenue, Orange City, Florida 32763. 35

Mr. Asencio and Ms. Taylor stated that they are in support of the staff recommendation 36

of approval. 37

38


40

Member Van Dam MOVED to APPROVE case number V-18-080, a variance to 41

Section 72-206(1) Nonconforming Lots, to separate parcel 7032-04-15-0410 and 42

7032-04-14-0220 of the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision on Rural Agriculture 43

(A-2) zoned property subject to the following staff-recommended condition: 44

45

1. Lots 41 through 50, Block O, of the Lake Beresford Heights Subdivision 46

shall be combined into one parcel through the subdivision exemption 47

process prior to issuance of a building permit. 48

49

of 21

Member Young SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 1

2

OLD BUSINESS 3

4

V-18-067 – Application of Thomas E. Makowski, BPF Design, Incorporated, agent for 5

Todd Stefaniak, owner, requesting a variance to minimum yard requirements on 6

Spruce Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoned property. The property is 7

located at 2540 Taxiway Echo, Port Orange; ± 2.39 acres; 6225-15-00-0020. 8

9


explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard to construct a 11

proposed 4,900-square-foot aircraft hangar addition. Mr. Ashley referred to the site plan 12

on page 11 of 16 of the staff report and described the property improvements with a 13

single-family dwelling, an aircraft hangar, swimming pool, and a tennis court. The 14

applicant is seeking to construct a second aircraft hangar east of the tennis court that 15

will attach to the existing hangar and require a rear yard setback reduction from the 16

minimum 30 feet to eight feet on Taxiway Aldo. The Spruce Creek PUD was designed 17

as a “fly-in” subdivision where property owners could access their properties via a series 18

of taxiways and store their aircraft in hangars within their own lot. Mr. Ashley said the 19

proposed 4,900-square-foot aircraft hangar addition could be reduced in size or an 20

alternative location on the lot is an option in reducing the requested variance of the 21

property. Mr. Ashley stated that the application does not meet all five criteria for the 22

granting of a variance, therefore staff recommends denial. Staff has prepared four 23

conditions of approval, if the PLDRC finds the application meets the criteria of Section 24

72-379(1)(a), of the zoning code, referring to pages six and seven of 16 of the staff 25

report. 26

27

Member Costa asked for clarification of staff-recommended condition #4 and if a gopher 28

tortoise burrow existed on the property. 29

30

Trish Smith, AICP, Planner III, responded that a gopher tortoise review would be 31

completed during the permitting process. 32

33

Thomas E. Makowski, BPF Design, Incorporated, 207 Fairview Avenue 34

Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. Mr. Makowski stated that his client owns more than one 35

aircraft and requires the proposed 4,900-square-foot aircraft hangar addition. Mr. 36

Makowski referred to the aerial map on page 13 of 16 of the staff report and expressed 37

concerns with relocating the hangar as it would impact the existing tennis court 38

foundation. Mr. Makowski introduced a copy of the site plan with signatures of support 39

from the adjacent neighbors (Evidence 1), and asked the commission to grant the 40

variance. 41

42


44

Member Young MOVED to APPROVE case number V-18-067, a variance to the 45

rear yard from the required 30 feet to eight feet for a 4,900-square-foot aircraft 46

hangar addition to an existing single-family residence on Planned Unit 47

Development (Spruce Creek PUD) zoned property, subject to the following four 48

staff-recommended conditions: 49

of 21

1

1. The variance shall be limited to the size and location of the second hangar 2

as depicted on the site plan provided by BPF Design Incorporated, dated 3

May 29, 2018, and attached to the staff report. 4

5

2. The property owners or authorized agent(s) shall obtain and complete all 6

required building permits and inspections for the proposed structure. 7

8

3. A letter of approval from the Spruce Creek Property Owners’ Association 9

(SCPOA) shall be submitted to the Building and Permitting Division with 10

the building permit application. 11

12

4. The applicant shall protect gopher tortoise burrows with a 25-foot buffer 13

during construction. If the burrows or the buffers cannot be avoided, a 14

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission gopher tortoise 15

relocation permit shall be obtained. 16

17

Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 18

19

OTHER PUBLIC ITEMS 20

21

1. Request for rehearing of variance case V-18-064, application of Michael Jabolnski. 22

23

Michael Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, explained the intent of Section 72-381 of 24

the zoning code is for the commission to determine if the rehearing request meets the 25

criteria of the code. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the applicant would need to show the 26

facts discussed at the July 19, 2018, public hearing were either overlooked or 27

misapprehended any facts of law. The applicant may not introduce new facts or 28

evidence. Mr. Rodriguez stated should the commission decide to rehear the variance 29

case, it should be stated its reasons for doing so with a future date and time for another 30

public hearing, subject to compliance with due public requirements. 31

32

Scott Ashley, AICP, Senior Zoning Manager, summarized the requested variances were 33

necessary for the applicant to construct an accessory structure that exceeds 500 square 34

feet in area, exceeding the maximum height allowed of 15 feet, and would encroach into 35

the required five-foot side yard and 20-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Ashley stated that the 36

variance was denied at the July 19, 2018, public hearing. Mr. Ashley said should the 37

commission decide to rehear the variance case, staff recommends the rehearing occur 38

at the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 20, 2018. 39

40

Member Young acknowledged that the commission discussed various options for the 41

applicant at the July 19, 2018, public hearing. 42

43

Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the applicant shall state which facts were not considered, 44

misunderstood or misapprehended at the July 19, 2018, public hearing. 45

46

Michael Jablonski, 1763 Ridge Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. Mr. Jablonski stated 47

that the manufacturer can redesign the proposed accessory structure to eliminate the 48

of 21

requested variance to exceed the maximum height allowed of 15 feet, and the structure 1

can be relocated [left] to eliminate the requested side yard variance. Mr. Jablonski 2

expressed concerns with the distance of the septic system in the rear yard and clarified 3

that he was amending his request for a reduction to the rear yard setback only. Mr. 4

Jablonski attempted to introduce new information [site pictures and letters of support 5

from the neighbors] for the commission to consider, and asked the commission to grant 6

the rehearing. 7

8

Mr. Rodriguez stated the pictures and letters of support are new information. Mr. 9

Rodriguez clarified that the applicant would need show the facts discussed at the July 10

19, 2018, public hearing were either overlooked or misapprehended any facts of law. 11

Mr. Rodriguez said the addition of new information or evidence goes beyond the scope 12

of the rehearing criteria. 13

Mr. Jablonski expressed concerns with the denial at July 19, 2018, public hearing, and 14

stated that the project is financially burdensome. 15

16

Mr. Rodriguez stated that the applicant may request an appeal to the county council, but 17

the introduction of new evidence would be prohibited. 18

19

Member Young stated there is no basis for the rehearing. 20

21


23

Member Young MOVED to DENY a request to rehear case number V-18-064 on the 24

basis that the applicant cannot introduce new evidence, and there was no 25

evidence presented that was overlooked or misapprehended any facts of law at 26

the July 19, 2018, public hearing. Therefore the request to rehear the variance 27

case does not meet the criteria for a rehearing. 28

29

Member Van Dam SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED unanimously (5:0). 30

31

STAFF ITEMS 32

33

STAFF COMMENTS 34

35

COMMISSION COMMENTS 36

37

PRESS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS 38

39

ADJOURNMENT 40

41

Having no further comments from the public, staff, or commissioners, Chair Severino 42

thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 12:49 p.m. 43

44

of 21

PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ......23 Geoff Marquard, 4161 Kersey Road, commented that...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ......23 Geoff Marquard, 4161 Kersey Road, commented that...