Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Hey, Gloria. Let's get Sorry. Call the meeting to order. Would you join me in the pledge? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I call the meeting of the land local planning agency to order. Um, can I have a roll call? Mary Albbright, Steve Coats, Jamie Ciphert, Sam King Kong. What was that? Robert ready. All right. Can I have an approval of the agenda? Move to approve the agenda.

I second. We have an approval of the agenda. Can I have a Did everyone get a chance to read the minutes? If so, can I have a motion to approve? Uh ready makes a motion to approve the minutes of the prior meeting.

I second that vote. [Applause] We have accepted the minutes of the previous meeting of June 5th. Is there any public comments? And if you want to object on this and by public comments, there's going to be uh two bearings hearing tonight. If you plan on commenting on bearings hearing,

then um actually hold your public comments to the that specific hearing because uh those are separate individual hearings. This would be more public comments in general about anything on the agenda other than the uh variance items or so no one has anything off the agenda. All right, we'll hear the first

and I'll swear I'll put this in actually. So, everyone who's here for any of the barren hearings, if you're the applicant or if you're a neighbor who plans on testifying or providing comments for you at this time. So, if anyone can stand, please raise your right hand. Does everyone swear to your culture? And you count your name. You can stand. So, All right, good evening.

Actually, Tim, I guess before you start, I actually did the exparte. Okay. So, uh it's been a while since we've done a variance, but uh what I have to do before we actually uh get into the actual hearing itself is just go and ask each one of y'all if y'all have had any contact with any individuals or received evidence about the matters before uh before you hear today uh prior uh to today's hearing. And uh I'll just go one at a time down the line. And if you have, it's okay. I just have to ask you uh a couple questions about those interactions and uh then you're uh you're fine as long as you limit your decision here today on everything you hear in the spring. And so I'll start with you, Miss Albbright. Have you received any exparte communications? No. Mr. Toes? Nope. Uh Miss Cipher?

No. Miss Concaid? No. Mr. W? No. Mr. Zinnick? No. And Mr. Renie? No.

Okay. All right, Tim. Hi, Tim Gibson, the planning supervisor for the city of Fort Walton Beach. Uh, first up tonight is a variance request uh for the allowable impervious and maximum side setbacks at 121 Watson Drive. Uh, the subject property, as I said, is 121 Watson Drive uh northwest. Um, on January 14th, 2025, code enforcement uh opened up a case for conducting work without a permit for an accessory structure that was being constructed on the property. Um on March 31st, 2025, uh the owner did uh submit a permit application for the accessory structure. Um now this accessory structure is um a little over 250 square ft. Um and per LDC 5.1.2 um accessory buildings in excess of 200 ft in floor areas shall be set back a minimum of 7 1/2 ft from all side and rear property lines. Uh this accessory structure is sitting um at the closest point 3.5 ft from the rear property line. Uh in addition to that LDC 4.1.1B um shows that the maximum allowable impervious surface ratio for the property which is zon R1 is 50%. And with the shed on there uh they did remove an older shed and then they built the new shed which was larger than the older one. Um and that put them at the end of the end of everything. their impervious ratio is now sitting at 50.7%. Um again, that cap is at 50% for that one. Um the the permit was denied for those reasons. And on April 11th, 2025, the applicant um was notified uh of those um issues with the permit. And on April 30th, 2025, they did submit an application for variance for these things. Um now, according to section 8.2.1A 2.1A of the city's land development code. The purpose of a variance is to provide a means to grant permission to depart from the standards of the zoning district where unique characteristics of a parcel together

with the imposition of spec specific regulations of the zoning district result in a hardship. And as you know, there's the nine criteria outlined in section 8.2.2 of the code. And it does state specifically in there, in order for an application for a variance to be approved or approved with conditions, the local planning agency shall make a positive finding based on the evidence submitted for each one of those nine criteria. The first of those criteria is that this is due to the unusual or unique physical shape, configuration, or other physical condition of the development site. Um, and that those are not typically applicable to other properties in that zoning district. Um staff does find that this property is not unusual or unique in its physical shape or configuration. Uh approximate the property is approximately a/4 acre uh in size and is rectangular shaped. Uh rough dimensions are 90 ft by 120 ft. Uh it is the same approximate size and shape as many different properties in the neighborhood. Uh this is a corner lot. Um like I said, it is 121 Watson. uh the westerly side property line um of Butts Baker Avenue Northwest. The next criteria is that the little interpretation and application of the provisions of this LDC would deprive the property owner of property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district resulting in an undue hardship. Um staff find that this would not be an undue hardship for the property owner. Um setbacks, as you know, we've seen several um variances for these in the past. These are something that we enforce across all um zoning districts and especially within the R1 zoning district. Um those are there. In addition, the maximum allowable impervious impervious ratio is strictly enforced due to uh the potentials for that causing additional flooding issues for neighboring properties. Uh the third condition is that the special conditions are not the result of the actions of the property owner and are not based solely on a desire to

reduce development cost. um staff finds that I mean this this this new shed was constructed um with the knowledge and consent of the property owner and without a permit. Uh in discussions with the owner, he did state that the uh the contractor he hired had told him he did not need a permit to do this. Um but it is still the owner's responsibility to ensure that that permit was obtained. Um fourth criteria is that the uh the shall not provide the property owner any special privilege that is denied to other development sites. And again those go kind of hand inand and you know other development sites they still held to the same setback and same impervious standards um as this one and this would not be anything additional that is not um required for those ones there. Um uh next is that the minimum var this is the minimum variance that results in the reasonable use of the land building or structure. Um in discussions with the property owner um they did indicate it would be potentially possible to move this shed. Obviously, there's going to be cost associated with that. Um, plus it may not end up in a location where they they kind of ideally want it to be. Um, but that was a possibility. Um, the shed's current location is 16.4 ft from the rear of the house. Um, so it is technically possible that that shed could be moved 4T forward. Uh, which would at least move it out of the required setbacks in there. um an an estimation would be that that would also reduce the amount of imperous area enough so that that 7 would be reduced down to an acceptable amount of at least no more than 50% in there. Um I don't have the exact math on that one but it should be enough to to reduce it down to that. Um six criteria is that this is to will ensure compatibility of the resulting development with uses and land character of adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Um and staff believes that, you know, I mean, the setbacks are there to make sure that these are compatible with their neighbors. Um you know, don't really want, you know, large

structures or whatever sitting right next to your property line if you're a neighbor. Um that's why we have these things enforced in there. Um and again, with the impervious ratio, um that maximum is there to ensure storm water is able to be absorbed on that property and doesn't u run the risk of running off onto neighboring properties. Um, seventh is that this is consistent with the intents and purposes of the requirements of the land development code. Um, and in section 1.00.01b7 which is the um is labeled as the intents and purposes of the LDC. Um that seventh criteria in there says that is the the intent is to be equitable in terms of consistency with established regulation and procedures respecting the rights of property owners while taking consideration the interest of all the citizens of the city. Again these are requirements that we restrict um on all property owners um and that would not be um consistent with those. The eighth criteria is this consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan and staff does find that it is consistent with that. Uh goal C of our comprehensive plan uh talks about enhancing properties um and you know enhancing individual properties is good for the neighborhoods uh which is in line with what our comprehensive plan outlines there. The final criteria is that this is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public and staff does not believe this would be detrimental um to any of those. Uh staff does u find that the variance request does not meet the criteria outlined in section 8.2.2 two of the land development code. And based on those findings of fact, staff respectfully recommends the local planning agency deny the variance request to increase the maximum allow allowed imperous surface ratio to 50.7% and reduce the rear setback requirements uh for an accessory structure in excess of 200 ft from 7.5 ft to 3.5 ft. Um and just as a reminder, if the local planning agency approves or denies the

application, then the findings of each of the factors listed in section 8.2.2 29 development code will need to be made on the record. Um, and Andrew, if you want to bring up the screen. Um, really the only pertinent attachment with this one is going to be the survey. Uh, and more just kind of gives you a uh a visual depiction of where the shed is. Um, this is the one at the north. They have a couple of sheds or another additional shed on the property, but the one up there where her cursor is right now, um, is the the shed in question for this one. As I said, it's set about 3.5 ft at the closest 3.6 6 ft. Um on the other side of that um it does meet the side setback requirement. It's just that rear setback that's in question right now. And with that pending any questions?

Anybody have a question? I I have one question. You said if they moved it 4 feet it would also reduce the imperial ratio for how did that happen?

So if you can see on there's already a concrete driveway right there. Um, that does, like I said, it impacts, I believe it is a garage on the back there. Um, so yeah, they could theoretically move it down there. That does limit their access into that garage area, but right now it's already a concrete driveway there. So, if they slid it down further onto that, they're sliding it off of what would be grass or dirt area there. They'd be sliding it more onto that concrete area. It's already sitting a little bit onto the concrete. Um, but if they slid it further down on there, obviously they're freeing up more impervious, I'm sorry, impervious areas um and putting it over already existing impervious. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

And Tim, actually, you told me one thing, maybe it'll help them for their uh in your opinion, was the shed movable? I'm sorry. Is it in your opinion? I think you said that you thought the shed was movable for I I believe it is just from discussion. I haven't personally put eyes on this. Um, as I understand from discussions with the property owner, it is possible to be moved. Um, I know that they've had a lot of difficulty with the contractor um that they hired. They were an out of state contractor. Um, from what I understand, they've had difficulty kind of communicating with them uh in regards to possibly moving it or something like that. Um, I'm not fully privy to that, but I do understand it is movable.

I had one question. Um, so if it's if the shed is under 200 square ft, there's a different setback. That is correct. Then it's 3 ft. 3 ft. Thank you. So they have that option to make it smaller. I I mean theoretically, but I mean this is a built shed already. It's not that they're proposing to build it. I mean they would have that would end up pretty much demolishing and rebuilding it into that smaller footprint. Okay. bring wall one wall in a few feet. Okay. Any comments from

the applicant? Uh whoever that who's the applicant for this case. Uh this is your turn. Speaker, you get up here. Just give your name the microphone. You're already in the road. So I'll have my name in the the notes in the intro. Is that okay? that they actually we need it for their audio recording. Harley Samson Jr. and 121 Watson Drive Northwest for Walton Beach. Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the LPA. Thank you so much for your time. As I mentioned, my name is Harley Samson Jr. and along with my wife Carmen Samson who is at school orientation. We are requesting a two-point variance for our accessory structure at 121 Watson Drive Northwest. Before I get to the request, let me tell you what led up to today. Prior to moving here, we had a home built in the country. Now, I'm not handy, so to accomplish this, we hired a contractor to handle everything. After what I thought was a relatively painless process, the home was built and our growing family moved in. Easy peasy. A few years later, we moved to Florida and uh we purchased a home close to our school and and my new job. With this home being much smaller than our previous house, it was quite cramped. Last fall, we needed some repairs. So, we took out a home equity loan. And with the remaining funds, we decided to replace the rusty old shed that was there. Unlike our previous experience, this little shed build opened up a can of worms and has been a burdensome nightmare for all half of this year. The reason we we chose the contractor we did was he built on site. Some of these come prefab. This was built on site. Prior to the build, we asked the questions, is there a setback requirement? Do we need a permit for the size shed? Contractor response, no and no. So, we scheduled a time for them to come and during the build, the same questions were asked. Guess what? Same answers. So, at that point, they're on site. The builder asks, "Where do you want me to place it?" And from the exhibit, you can see where it was placed. Partly on the driveway and then, you know, mostly on the grass. So, fast forward to the day I received the code letter and my wife and I are like, "What? We didn't do this." and with a large family, we surely couldn't afford the the fines of $250 a day. That was the week of the historic snowstorm. So, when the office here reopened, I I called someone

immediately, spoke with two wonderful people who said everything would be okay. And then six months of meetings going to the courthouse, uploading documents, talking to two engineers, a surveyor, FPL, which they visit a property several times, and then around $1,500 later, here we are. Through all this, like our previous build, we we met all requests and followed the rules. So, in your documents, you have, as was already outlined, um the twopoint request for this for our what we consider small minor adjustments. I'd like to acknowledge that yes, the shed was built without a permit. There was no nefarious intent. It was not to build or um not to bypass any rules. I was misinformed by the contractor who said a permit was not required. We're not asking for any special treatment, only understanding our lot, while similar in size to others, as was mentioned, is a corner lot and I believe it limits um placement of structures. Locating it would require costly rework and disrupt utilities. There's a power line there that would have to be moved. That's why FPL was out at the property several times along with um a disruption in the existing landscape features. We believe this qualifies as a practical hardship not shared by everyone in the the zoning district. Regarding imperous surface to go from 50 to 50.7% that's dimminimous. We have no drainage issues. So when I'm out there it seems good to go. As mentioned if we do have to move it there would be electrical issues. there'd be a power line issue. And um when I was talking to one of the people with the city um

because I had submitted some handwritten notes for placement of the shed, if if we moved it towards the home, it it would look so awkward. Um you would be opening up the the side door and walking out and bam, there's a shed there. And I think if someone was to purchase the property, the the value would go down with um moving the shed. Importantly, not only are there no environmental impacts, the shed does not negatively affect the neighbors. I've spoken with the neighbors. None of them objected. Um the shed is in good condition and blends in with the neighborhood. We're simply trying to make reasonable functional use of our property. Now in the um the points here in the um the agenda or the um the meeting packet I want to talk about some of the things um 22. So it says staff finds literal interpretation. I understand that but what about the spirit of what we're dealing with? Um you know it talks about hardship here. someone is defining this hardship for us and we've lived it for 6 months all these meetings um the payments trying to figure out u you know what to do with it there has been a hardship 223 um I think although this is literal um I think it's misconstrued I did not as I've mentioned a couple times there was no nefarious intent. Um I was you know the last last part here says um this is still the owner's responsibility to ensure the permit was obtained. Well I was assured that I didn't need one. So if I was told that I didn't need one, you know, why would I

be pursuing? However, once I received that letter and then started communicating with, like I said, the two people I spoke with on the phone during that week in um January and then um throughout the the late winter and early spring, I did everything that was required. I followed the process. I drove around, met with everyone I had to. I asked all the questions. Um kind of got a minor degree in this and um you know, here I am. 2.24, 24 I believe the the the zone we're in um you know there is no there flooding if if it is if it is um it's minimal and again with that increase from 50 to 50.7 um as I mentioned that's uh dimminimous this is not special privilege because this process does exist for for other people um 2.25 25 the um again this has to go with a movement of the the shed. There is a power line there which after um FPL's assessment probably would have to be moved. So, you know, there's the scheduling for that. Um and then well, I'd have to pay an electrician to come out and move that. Um 2.26. As I mentioned, um the neighbors are okay with the structure. Uh there's no effect that I have seen on u storm water and again it's 50.0 to 50 um 7 and as was mentioned it's already partly on a driveway and I guess the builder did that to um for stability. We totally understand the city's responsibility to enforce code standards. That said, we believe both of

our variance requests are minimal in nature and do not result in meaningful impact to neighboring properties or infrastructures. I'm going to touch on it again. As mentioned, the impervious service um went from 50% to 50.7 minimal. what is within what most engineers would consider a practical margin of error and it poses no measurable effect on drainage or runoff uh regarding the rear setback. Now granted that is a larger change but in real world terms there is still an adequate buffer. The the structure does not obstruct visibility doesn't affect neighbors privacy or contribute to runoff. As for the two closest neighbors, um both on the north and um the east, they're okay with the shed and its placement. We respectfully believe that when considered both statistically and practically, these variance requests do not undermine the purpose or spirit of the city's zoning code. And in fact, they represent a very limited departure that is that still aligns with neighborhood character, um, natural resource management and public safety goals. Approval of the request would mean the world to our family. Thank you for your time.

Hold on. Go ahead. So, I think Tim mentioned that you took a shed down um a pre-anel one. Yes, is that the one on the south side? No. Um it would have been the northeast corner. So this is a new survey. I was required to get um a survey for this year. So you have two sheds on your property. Correct. As we did in the past. Any other questions? And I will say for aesthetically this is much more improved than the one that was taken down.

I have a question. Um so I know you said your two of your neighbors um to the north and to the east said that they are fine with the shed, but how did the code enforcement were they notified or did by someone in the neighborhood about this or do you all just patrol and find? So, our code enforcement do um I mean they it's probably about I don't know I don't want to make up stats but roughly 50/50 um on you know they get a complaint from someone they go out there they investigate it and then they'll start a code case if they need to. Uh the other 50% is they do spend time patrolling looking for you know new construction going up that that wasn't permitted. You know they travel around with a tablet that has access to our permitting software. So, if they see some new construction going up that they weren't aware of, they'll kind of look real quick and oh, there's no permit for that. Um, they'll typically just kind of stop them and tell them at that point, hey, stop. Go get your permit and then we can go from there.

Anyone else? Thank you. Thank you. And any other individuals speaking on this particular case?

Yes. Hello, my name is Angela Hovermale. I live at 120 Watson Drive, northwest Fort Walton, Florida. Um, I'm the direct neighbor across the street from them. And this shed is beautiful. It fits in with the neighborhood. There's nothing wrong with it. Um, it's going to make it's going to make their lives a lot easier and that I think matters also. So, um, and it would put a hardship on them to move it. Um, we, his wife and I have tried to brainstorm how we could and stuff like that. We couldn't come up with anything. So, um, but it is no eyesore on the neighborhood. It and it just is beautiful. So, and it is an improvement from what was there. So, I just want to say thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else going to speak? on behalf. No. All right. Do we have a motion? Can I just make one question or comment for the contractors that don't or tell customers that they're not a private permit who they are? Do y'all tell or let these contractors know that they're mistaken? So that

So we we can um in this case it's an out ofstate contractor. we have a lot less control over those. Um so our building official does have reporting procedures for contractors that are not following the rules basically. Um and and we we do that often uh for contractors that that you know give misinformation to uh the clients or or lead them down the wrong path. uh for the out of state contractors it's it's exceedingly difficult to track them down and get those reported um just because you know like I said we're all of our reporting requirements in the Florida building code deal with the Florida ones um so it's when the downstate ones come in and we do see this a lot you know post storms thankfully we haven't had any of that around here uh recently but you'll see a rash of that um if you've ever seen any kind of the the post hurricane um areas in there all of a sudden there's 400 roofing contractors in that city. Um, and it just it it's trying to keep those crowded. A lot of times it is just people they come in from out of state and they'll tell the owner what they want to hear. Um, and and then go that way.

I mean, can they be fined if they keep doing something like this? Because it puts the homeowner in a bind if they have to.

It is. And I've spoken with Mr. Samson. I mean, we've discussed this many times and he's been he's been great to work with and stuff. I mean, I I I don't want to throw anything on that one or anything like that, but it it ultimately comes down to a civil matter um between him and his contractor because his contractors really put him in this situation. Uh Florida building code um is is really clear on there and that's why I kind of put on there that, you know, it's his responsibility for the permit. I mean, that that's Florida building code. I I understand myself, you know, before I started working for the city, I probably would have just listened to my contractor and been like, "Okay, cool. That's awesome. I don't need this." Um, I understand that. I really do. Um, unfortunately, Florida building code puts that responsibility on the property owners. Um, but you know, since that contractor put him in this position, you know, that would be a civil matter between him and that contractor. Um, if he chose to pursue that.

Okay. Anything else? Do we have a motion? I motion to approve the 50.7 imperous addition and then the three and a half sent back and are you basing your budget on all the factors in section 800 2.02 of the land development too? Yes and his comments or their comments. Is there a second? I second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on it?

We'll vote. Sorry, I couldn't find my mouse. Motion passes. 5 to two. She turned us off. Sir, congratulations. I'm sorry that happened. I hope it turns out well. And thank you for coming for our second motion. So, there's a second variance here.

Second variance. I'm sorry. It's 616 Powell Drive. And uh while Tim's doing that, I'll do the expart day and check with everybody. Mr. All right, did you have any expart day communications about this? Mr. Coats Cipher. No, Mr. K, Mr. Win, Mr. Ren. Okay, so just as clear, uh, the entire LPA said they had no expert communications for 616 drive. ready to go.

All right, good evening again. Um, so the second variance request um is the subject property is 616 POW Drive Northeast. Um, and it is for uh Kenneth and Katherine Thompson. Uh, the property is further described as lot 8, block J, first addition to the Country Club Estates subdivision. Um that subdivision was estat was created on March 25th, 1965. And part of that subdivision when it was created um states in there that a 5-ft easement for the installation and maintenance of utilities and draining facil facilities is reserved on all interior lot lines. This is the one, you know, we've we've seen some of these before in the past. Those are just kind of the blanket ones that were created um many years ago. Not sure where utilities were going to go at that time. Uh there are not any utilities in that easement, but the easement does still exist. Um so for this one, on April 30th, 2025, code enforcement um opened up a case for conducting work without a permit for an accessory structure on the property. This was one of the ones. They were just driving by. They saw the construction happening in there. Um and and so they did issue the stop work order. Um there was a lot of communication back and forth between me and uh Mr. Thompson. Um you know, as far as like part of it was like the roof was partially constructed. we did work with him on what we could finish out and not finish out and stuff. So, he did work with us um on doing a little bit more additional work on it just so that it wasn't in an unsecured state at that time. Uh on May 9th, um a permit application for the accessory structure was submitted. Uh the accessory structure is um around 620 ft total. Um and again, in excess of 200 ft, that setback requirement is 7 1/2 ft from side and rear property lines. Um, and this one, uh, the setback issue is from the s southern side property line. Um, and it's set back, um, 2.5 feet. Um, in addition, that 2.5 ft puts it inside

of that 5-ft easement. Um, so that's the two, um, issues at hand on this one. Um, and on May 9th, um, 2025, in addition to the permit application, they applied for the variance, um, for this here. Um, again, I've already gone over the the requirements um or the the purpose of the variance in the previous one. And again, on this one, you know, there LPA shall make a positive finding based on the evidence submitted for each of the following provisions. Uh, the first is that this is due to the unusual or unique physical shape, configuration, or other physical condition of the development site. Um, and there is nothing unusual about this property. Um it is approximately 27 acres in size and is roughly uh 90 ft wide. Um the property is the same approximate shape and size as many properties in the neighborhood. Um second criteria is that the literal interpretation and application of provisions of this LDC would deprive the property owner of property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district resulting in an undue hardship. Staff finds that a little interpretation of the land development code would not result in hardship uh to the owner. Uh again, setbacks are something that is enforced in all zoning districts um including the R1 residential zoning district. Um and and the restriction from installation in an easement um is u strictly enforced um as well even if there's not the uh utilities in there. Third criteria is that the special conditions are not the result of the actions of the property owner. Um and staff finds that the structure was constructed with the knowledge and consent of the property owner and without a permit. Um fourth criteria is that approval of the proposed variance shall not provide the property owner any special privilege that is denied to the other development sites within the same zoning district. Uh staff does find that it would be um a special privilege that is denied to other development sites and again this is something that we enforce

setback requirements on all developments in the city regardless of zoning district. But it's um for sure in the R1 zoning districts in there. Um this is um not in compliance with three separate sections of the land development code. There's the setback section and then there's actually two separate sections of the land development code that reference building in an easement in per general and then as well as building accessory structures in an easement. So there's three separate parts of the land development code uh that this is not in compliance with at this time. Uh for this one, the proposed variance is the minimum variance that results in a reasonable use of the land and staff does believe this is the minimum variance um that would allow for reasonable uh this is a structure that's been built um and like has a paper floor and everything on there. It would be impossible to move this um really. So this would be the minimum for that one. Uh next is that the approval of the proposed variant shall ensure compatibility with the resulting development and the use of the land character adjacent and surrounding neighborhood. staff find that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Um we've looked at the surrounding area and did not find any other accessory structures that were uh encroaching into any setbacks or into the easements that are across the entire neighborhood. Um in addition to that one staff has received several phone calls and emails regarding this particular variance. Um, as you all know, we send out notices to um all residents within a 300 foot radius of the property as well as putting signs on the on the on the property itself. Um, and we have received numerous inputs on that one of people objecting to it. Uh, I'm not sure who's here in the audience yet. We did have several people indicate they were going to come out and speak in uh opposition of this variance. Um, and next is if it's consistent with the intents and purposes of the requirements of the LDC. Uh, just like the last one, LDC 1.00.01B7 states being equitable in terms of

consistency with established regulation and procedures respecting the rights of property owners while taking in consideration the interests of all citizens of the city. Um the uh next is the proposal of the variances consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan and again that goes to the comprehensive plan goal C that talks about enhancing individual properties uh that being good for the neighborhoods and in line with that comprehensive plan. The final criteria is that this is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public and staff does not believe this would be detrimental in that way. Um, with that staff does find that the variance does not meet all the criteria outlined in section 8.2.2 of the land development code. And based on those findings of fact, uh, staff respectfully recommends the local planning agency deny the variance request to reduce the side setback requirements for an accessory structure in excess of 200 ft from 7.5 ft to 2.5 ft and eliminate the restriction for the structure being uh, built in an easement. Again, a reminder that if the local planning agency approves or denies the application, the findings um as to each of the factors listed in section 8.2.2 of the land development code will need to be made on the record. Uh we do have some uh pictures of this property. Um Mr. Thompson uh and I have been working together on this. He did send me these pictures in to get a a kind of a good uh idea of it. We did have some pictures from code enforcement, but they were obviously from the street. You couldn't really see much. Um so this is um looking easterly and that's the south property line on the right right there. Um and this is obviously looking over towards that side. Um

yeah and there's the the survey that shows where that uh pole barn on pavers. That's the new structure there that shows it's 2.5 ft off of that south property line. The rear setback is fine on there. Um but it is that south uh setback and the easement on that property that is the issue at this time. Um pending any questions? Question is isn't there a height restriction on secondary structures?

Uh it's restricted to one story. Um accessory structure is restricted to one story with the only exception being if it's a um an accessory dwelling unit above a detached garage. Uh then it could be two stories. There's no specific actual measurement of the height. It's just restricted to one story. What's What's one story? That's 16 ft. At that point, you get into the Florida building code. They do have different restrictions and stuff. It is a it is a range in there. Um stuffs again. So the the easement is on the fence line is

so the easement is it is a 5ft easement on all interior property. So along the north property line, east property line and south property line there's a 5ft easement. It's not depicted on the survey but but it's just basically a 5ft um U shape not along PAL drive around the rest of the property lines. Okay. Sir, this is a pool barn. Is it in enclosed or is it staying open? No, it's as I understand. I mean, this is the intent. Um, I believe this is the finished product. Um, okay. For what they're doing, I don't believe they have any intent on closing it in. Uh, I said it's got the paper floors um and fans and stuff in there.

Thought it was a great outside entertainment center is what it looks like. Yeah. Yeah. It's just that the south setback is the only issue on there. Okay, go ahead. The 7 and 12 ft that has to be from the 5 foot. So, so setbacks and easements are totally independent of each other. Um, so the setback is 7 1/2 ft. That's just from the property line. Um, but for example, if this was under 200 ft, the side setback is 3 ft. We would you'd still have to build it at 5 ft because of that easement there. So, the setbacks in the easements are different. This just happens to be inside of both of those.

Okay. Any other questions? If this was a different like material for the roof, would that make a difference of how that structure was? Cuz I know there was something more of those a certain type of roof like fabric, it would be different. Yeah. So really, I mean, it's it's measured from the from the wall or or basically from the post at this point where the setbacks were measured for not not even the roof overhang. Um, and so that's really what it would come down to is where those poles are p placed is 2 and 1/2 ft off of that side property line. Mr. W, were you actually getting into the hurricane strength uh how we had that one Mr. Nar's case? Is that what you're thinking about the integrity the integrity of the roof? Is it built up?

Yeah, I I I believe it can't it if it's not I mean obviously the permit has not been issued for this so it has not gone through the inspections. Um some of the difference in in the case you're referencing there that was more of a storebought thing that was engineered a certain way. Um when these are what we consider stick built um you know built on site they're a lot easier to shore up and make them um you know capable of standing the requirements in the land development code for the wind speeds.

I don't I don't know if it's hearsay or not but can you tell us what the objections were from some of the neighbors or some of the surrounding people? No real specific ones, just it's it's a large structure. Um, you know, being, you know, over 600 ft. Um, it would more seem to be just that the large structure is pretty tall. Um, considering uh and just the closeness to the edge of the property line was just the general um concerns I've received from people. Nothing real specific. And in the future,

you can include those in the packet. That that would be evidence actually. So just some of this came in um more recently um than after you know we have to submit this several weeks in advance of these things and so some of these things came out more recently than that. When you say numerous give me a range I I believe received three three okay okay and just being honest but I'm not sure if they're connected or what but we did have received the three um components. Okay.

All right. Thank you. This is the time for the owners or the to come up and state your name and address, please. Uh Kenneth Thompson, 616 Powell Drive for Long Beach. Thank you.

Um I do want to start by saying I'm in no way blaming the city for this. I know it was my fault by, you know, not pulling a permit. I do understand now that I needed to pull a permit. I thought by building my own structure by myself that I could not have to pull a permit. I did all the work myself. Uh except for my brother had to help me with some of them, uh the big poles. Um but um I built this structure. Had to get some water. So I built this structure because I have I have family here. I built it for entertainment. I have my both my daughters are here. They have grandkids that come over at least twice twice a month for cookouts and parties and uh that's I've been wanting to do this for years and this is something I've always wanted to do. Um and I did it and I and obviously I did it without y'all's permission. I I apologize for that. I I uh I know now that I need to build or when I do build something I need to have a permit. Um this structure is definitely not movable. Um it is built solid solid as I can build it. It's they're they're 6x6 post, 4 foot in the ground. There's probably 300 lb of concrete on each post. Uh I built it very structurally sound. It's not going anywhere. Um as far as the height goes, it's no higher than my home. Uh so as far as the roof goes and before I even built this home or built this, I went to my neighbor gym where the where the uh 2 and 1/2 ft is. I knew it was going to be closed over there cuz I had a swing set there that I I had in the ground with poles for my grandkids to swing on. So, I moved that I had to move it over as far as I could. So, before I even built it, I asked Jim, I said, "Jim, is this your, you know, forever home?" He said, "Yeah, I'm not going anywhere." I said, "Well, this is my plan. This is what I'm going to do. Do you have any objections to that?" And he said, "No." He said, "It sounds great. Sounds like a great entertainment place." So, my neighbor Jim, where I'm impeding, uh, he had no issues whatsoever with it. Uh, and still

doesn't. I did bring him to to verify that to talk to you'all if you have any questions for him. But um this is going to be where I put my grill, my smoker. I love to cook out. I love to entertain. And uh this is something I've learned to do for a long time. I I just bought the house eight years ago or so, six, seven years ago. I've been saving up to build this. Uh I would it would be devastating for me to take this down. um uh uh as far as um the um uh like 2.1 I can't say anything about 2.2. I can't say anything 2.2.2 I have I I can't say anything about um structure on the knowledge and consent of the property owner. Yeah, I 2.23 I can I can't do anything about but 2.24 24. Um, staff find that this variable provides applicant a special privilege. Well, I don't feel like it's a special privilege. Um, to be honest with you, uh, I drove around my neighborhood and, you know, without giving I have no need to give anybody addresses or anything, but there's there's other people in the neighborhood that aren't aren't 5 feet. I mean, I I I'm not the only one, but I'm not I'm not here to blame, you know, take blame away from me or anybody else, but I stopped counting at 12. I I drove my bike around and I stopped counting at 12 uh other people that they're that have structures that are within 5T, not not, you know, closer to the fence than 5T. Um, so remain 2.25, I'm good there. But and the 2.26 26 again is um my neighbor Jim uh behind his house, his neighbor behind him has a gazebo and the gazebo roof is

hanging almost hanging over his fence. Uh and he he went fall on vacation for two weeks. That's what he told him. He came comes back and this gazebo is built and he didn't complain or call anyone but you know and I saw that gazebo built that close to the fence. So why can't I do it? I just did it myself, you know. So that I mean this I have a picture of if y'all want to see it, but there's a gazebo right in his backyard and the roof is almost coming over his uh his fence, his property. So all I'm asking is, you know, just, you know, if we do it for one, do it for all. I I don't know. I'm just very nervous. I just hate to have to take this thing down. Um would you like for Jim to come up and talk? That's all I have.

Yes, ma'am. You have a question. So Tim, it's those those posts on closest to the fence. Those posts would just have to come in a couple of feet. Correct. That's where you're measuring.

So it would be a little more complicated than that. So like I said, the setbacks are measured from basically where the wall or those posts would be. Um I think I understand what you're saying. If the post can move and leave the roof where it is, uh we do have restrictions on the maximum um amount of roof overhang that is allowed on there. Um, so really that would not be a a possible solution to this. It would essentially have to be shrinking the whole thing. Um, cuz as you can see the roof overhang is on there um and stuff. So if you start moving it, you're going to you're going to have exceedingly larger roof overhangs that are not allowed in and plus that what that would do to the structural um capacity of of the structure.

Great. That was my question. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Like my neighbor to come up and speak. Thank you.

Hello everybody. My name is Jim Schultice. I live at 614 Powell Drive. I'm the uh on the other side of the fence here that you see. Um about probably a month before uh Kenny started building this, he came over and said uh he asked if I'm planning on moving and I said, "No, it's going to be they'll have to move me out of the time comes." And uh we he told me that he wanted to build this uh for his kids and his grandkids. I know them. They're over they come over to my house even. And uh he said that's what his plan was. and and I went over in his backyard and he literally laid out exactly where it was going to be and what the plan was and where his smoker's going to be and he had a sink and all this stuff that he's buying and u I I had absolutely no problem with it. I think this looks very um unfinished and and I he does plan to enclose it on several sides and also run a a gutter across the the side of the u probably on both sides, but certainly on the side here with my fence so that there wouldn't be any water run off into my yard. Um, I was over there many times as he was working on this and uh, I was amazed at how deep he was going on the post. I mean, these are big post and he said 300 lb of concrete in each one. I think it's probably more than that. And he's out there mixing this stuff himself. I mean, he just he basically did this whole thing by himself. I volunteered to come over. probably a little older than he is. So, he said I didn't have to, but he's had a couple of his relatives just help him lift the stuff up. But, um I'm I'm confident that if the variance is given, and obviously you're going to have somebody come over to inspect the integrity of the structure, this is going to pass code. I mean, it's it's built really solid.

Any questions for him? No. Thank you. Thank you. appreciate and Mann's other folks out there too. Okay. Anyone else if you would give us your name and your address.

My name is Dolores Bentley. I live at 620 All Drive. I'm not real familiar with the procedures here. My first time. I do have a problem with hearing. So I didn't get all the explanations clearly but I do know that is more than one story high. I think the gentleman has previously had a nice camper. Don't know if he still has that. He now has a really nice looking big boat. This particular building is normally built to cover recreational vehicles. It's super high. You can see it from the street, from the sidewalk, and it is definitely way close to the property line of the next people. Having been involved with bad weather before, any little wind can gust up and blow that over into neighbors yards. And it is not a very attractive building, but I just have a feeling that he's building that to store his boat in to get it out of the weather where he has it on the side of his house. When he brought in the pavers, the neighbors all thought he was putting the pavers on the side of his garage to make it more secure to park his boat on, which a lot of people and uh I'm sorry. [Music] I can't get it out. It's not the can't get it turned off.

all this new technology I'm not too good at. But uh anyway, and also when he began building the facility, it was reported to the city, he did not have a permit. Apparently, the city went to him and talked to him and to put it in nice words, he told them to go fly a kite. and he continued to build it. And I think that he should, he's a businessman. He knows there are codes. Anytime you build something, you have to go get the permit beforehand and make sure it's okay to do it, not just ask your neighbor if it's okay to build it. And I think it needs to be in the consideration of what your decision is. Thank you.

Can I respond to some of that in a minute? Are is there anyone else that is to speak? Any other neighbors? No. Okay. Go ahead.

Um I just want to say that I don't know where she said that I told anybody from the city to fly a kite. I would never ever do that. Uh, I was building this thing and I got a letter in the mail. Soon as I got the letter in the mail, I ceased what I was doing. I didn't do a thing to it after that. And I never ever told the city in any way, shape, or form to go fly a kite. I don't know what she's talking about. I have no idea. I did have a fifth wheel. I sold my fifth wheel cuz we don't go traveling very much anymore. As far and my daughter parks her boat in my driveway cuz she has a she doesn't have a house to have a driveway in it. park a boat in there, but there's no way I could even put a boat or anything back. It's not like you can't even fit anything back in my backyard. So, I don't know where where that's come from. I never ever said anything like that whatsoever. No.

Thank you. And never would

if I can add on to that real quick. I can't speak to what was done before or after um any kind of notifications from code, but uh as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Thompson did reach out to me uh while we were going through the through the um through the variance process. Um we were coming into the hurricane season. Obviously, he did express some concerns about the roof not being as secured as he wanted it to, but he was under the stop work order. Um and he did work with me asking for permission to go up there and finish securing that. Um again, I worked with the building official. He said he was okay with that just obvious for obvious safety reasons and everything in that room. Again, I'm not saying that work didn't happen after the the thing. Staff obviously has our assessments and findings on this thing, but uh yeah, he did reach out to me before he finished up the work on the roof.

Okay. Any other comments from the committee or the public? All right. Do I have a motion? I just have a question. Sure. From the the lawyer. Oh, yeah. Jeeoff. Um, can we do like an amendment to this? Like if if this passes like approve this if it passes code inspection for hurricanes because I do believe there is a Oh, I can help

like a So, the variance is basically to the location. Um, this still has to go through the full permit process. If this is not if this so our building official will still have to review all plans, approve the permit. They will go out there and they will do physical inspections on the property. Um, I don't know. Some of the times it it it gets a little more difficult after the fact ones because like the, you know, like the concrete that's in the ground, how much of the host is in the ground. Sometimes they But our building officials, I mean, that's what they're they're trained to do is make these assessments on whether or not this thing would withstand storms. um and built to the Florida building code requirements. If the answer is yes, you can. Yeah. So, yes, you can. So,

okay. Do I have a motion? I had one other question. So, the edge of the roof is in the easement. How far back would the um if that's the if that's east, this would be south. So, how far up the roof line would the roof have to be cut not to take down the entire structure if you could modify it?

So, the roof line is not really what's measured. Um, all all the setbacks and everything are measured to the wall or those post in this case. So, theoretically, it would not be the roof line that would have to move. I mean, the post would have to move. I think it's 2 and 1/2 ft right now. So, it would have to move another 5T um there and the roof going with it basically. So the entire structure would almost have to shift by ft um for that to meet the setback requirements in there. Again, it's it's 12 to 18 in is what the maximum roof overhang is allowed to be. Um I I believe is the range in there. Um and stuff. So again, if even if you move those posts another 5T, well, you can't obviously have, you know, 6 ft of roof overhang.

No, that's why. Yeah. So the whole thing would have to shift, but it's it's it's really measured from the walls or the post. Thank you, Mr. Okay. Go ahead, Mayor. If this had been the 200 square foot, would that have mattered or made it less encroaching? Um, so it obviously be less. Yes. So, but I mean the the easement is still 5T. It would have been well within that. Um, the setback at that point if it was um under 200 foot would have only been 3 ft. Um, and they still would have been inside of that. Obviously, not as much at that point, but it still would have been encroaching in there, but we're

there's quite a few neighborhoods though in the city that do have these utility easements that have never been vacated. Correct.

That's correct. Yeah. There's a whole process to go through to actually vacate an easement. Um, it's rarely done. I mean, obviously the city um typically won't support vacating those even. um unless they get kind of like for like life because you know what is the future going to be you know what utility is going to be coming out the next 10 years that everybody's going to need to survive on. We really just don't know and just kind of having those options in there. Um the city likes to maintain them if possible. Um they're not super strict on them and stuff because I mean obviously there's nothing there. There hasn't ever been a need for it. Um but typically they don't um give up easements unless there's a a real need for it. That's why even on this one is if this is granted the easement does not go away. Um so the easement is still there and if the city were to come in you know 10 years from now and say okay we need to come and bury a a new water line here it would have to be removed at that point at the owner's expense um because that easement does still exist.

Gotcha. But if the home sells the variance stays. That is correct. This will be recorded with the property. Right. Okay. But the future owner still would have the same risk. Would have the same risk. Yes. But a lot of variances are only for the for the owner in some instances. They they they run property most of the time. Not not the owner. So I think in our area I think I've only ever seen it maybe one time actually on the owner. Yeah. Not Tim. Is there an is there an easement restriction on driveways? I'm sorry. Is there an easement restriction on driveways?

Uh, no. So, easement restrictions are for structures, um, flat work, driveways, sidewalks, that kind of stuff, patios, those those those are allowed to be in easements. Um, just simply, I mean, because it all really comes down to if we need to go and trench a thing through there, it's a lot easier to just trench through and and repair a driveway than it is to tear a building. repair a building.

Yeah. and applications the structure in there. a practical application. Actually, they actually ran into this problem a few weeks ago. Public works department had to contact me and they actually some people were out of town and they went in there and they knocked their sheds down like this because they needed to be able build uh they're doing that major project over there on the storm storm water off of uh Martisa I believe. Yeah, they had to actually do that. I think they eventually the last one they were able to get a hold of the guy. I think he works on oil rigs, but it uh it's a real risk in the future that you know that might we don't think it will be used today, but it might be used in the future. Burden on the future homeowners for sure.

Okay. All right. I need a motion. And Mr. Coach, just go back. You can put a condition. It's you can do conditional conditions on the variance if you want. I motion to approve the the easement. We have a motion to How do you What do you have? Do I have to approve? Can you state the Yes. The variance name? Right.

I motion to approve the 2 and 2 and 1/2t back. I think is what you're asking for, right? I believe there's a a second. Is there a second? So So the variance is really for two things. One is to reduce the side step back from 7 1/2 ft to 2 1/2 ft by the second to allow the structure to be located within an east and it's 4.1 application 22. That would be the

that's the number we need. I motion to approve the variance requests to reduce the side setback requirement for the accessory structure and to 2 and 1/2 ft and eliminate the restriction for structure being within the within the easement. This is based on all the factors found in 8.02.02. And do we have a second? Renie will second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. The motion does not carry.

Oh man. So, you'll need to make another motion uh either to uh deny it or to grant partial uh partial variance. And if y'all do deny it, uh you'll need to pick the ground that you're denying it on. Uh and save that on the record.

Do you pick a partial variance? Explain. Uh well, partial variance, you could say we're not comfortable with the uh the 5ft easement. So, we're only going to give them an easement of 2 and 1/2 ft uh as opposed to 5 ft. Uh because we'll allow them to approach some into the ement but not all the way. Uh or maybe that backwards, Tim, they would get maybe

a lot of times on these I I'll kind of bring actual different orders and ask you guys to vote on them separately because they're two separate items like you know, a variance to the east restriction and then a variance to the setback restrictions. Um, on this one I just created as one where we can modify that however we want to. Um, that's just kind of what I pitched in there because it was kind of a it seemed like more of an all or nothing. Um, you know, if you're going to approve the setback, well, that automatically approves the easement thing there. If you're going to not approve the ement, well, the whole structure is still going to have to move anyways. Um, so whether you're shifting the whole thing 2 and 1/2 ft or 5 ft. um was there. But theoretically, if you did want to say, "Okay, I'm comfortable with it, but not that close, you can pick a number and say, I'm, you know, I vote to approve the easement with a with a four foot setback and be in the easement or a 7 foot setback or you can you can really establish whatever you want that new setback number to be. Essentially, the variance is establishing a new standard in the LDC. Right now, that standard is is 7 1/2t setback. you can create whatever that standard you want it to be if that makes sense.

Also, you put conditions. I know they indicated maybe they want to close part of it. Uh at least that's what the neighbor indicated. you you can almost I've seen this before in some other cities uh where there was a big concern on short-term rentals uh on sheds and they said we'll grant you your uh setback variance but you uh on the condition that you never have a short-term rental located in that shed that has electricity and water running to it. So y'all have a lot of power actually to craft uh your some conditions and also to do a partial variance like

I guess I have more issues with something closed in because I think that's going to be an a livable type of unit in in some of the in some of the neighborhoods and to help out. I think the the openness of the pole barn is much more easily for air wind go through and not and not create a permanent looking structure out there to look like a house in a backyard

if that was your concern. I mean it is you could make the like like Mr. Burns was explaining there, you can add a condition on there that you you make a motion to approve the the variance as presented um with the condition that the building never be closed or that no sites can be closed or no more than one site. You can add those types of conditions onto there. Obviously, I'd have to redo the order and get you to sign it at a later time, but um but those really the sky is the limit. I mean, you could put restrictions on there or or set whatever you want it to be with these with these variances.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the variance with the structure having no more than one side enclosed. And you you're basing on all the factors all the factors that we did previously. I'll second that. kindness.

And just so I'm clear, you're you're motion is to approve the reduced step back to 2 and 1/2 ft and the approval to be in the easement. Correct. As long as no more than one side is ever enclosed. Correct. The motion does not pass. Wow. I guess I need to know the difference of what we've been hearing today.

I make a motion to deny the variance and make the setback comply with the seven and a half. Is that what it is? 7 and 1/2 foot. this as it sits right now with that size this minimum setback would be seven and a half ft. And sucker just because this is the first time y'all are doing this and just so you make the motion correctly uh just take a moment since you're in the process of doing this uh pick one of the factors that is uh you have the agenda pack in front of you for this. So the factors start under section 2.2 too. You have to give the reasoning for your

and so you need to just pick one of those reasons as the factor as to why you're not granting the variance. And uh you can take a moment. I think I backed up too far to the first one. I can bring you my copy. No, I'm here. Wait, I'm here. So, what am I supposed to do? You have to come up with a reason to your motion that says I move to deny this motion on the grounds of

Okay. So, you pick one of the you can pick more than one if you want, but you would say I don't believe it this condition. And just say why you fine it meets one of these conditions. And I'll leave this one to you. Well, based on 2.2.3, it was conducted without a permit. Is that fine? That's one. If you have more, you can listen to [Applause] that's enough.

I guess it's the first time I made a motion. Sorry. Is there a second? I'll second. Is there discussion? Y'all can discuss some factors and flush it out a little. Can you tell me why this motion is different than the first motion? The first the first I voted no on that one too. And the reason the just because they have no permit

because I've never built anything, but I have the common knowledge that if I'm going to build something, I have to go to the city and get a permit. And that's why I voted no on that one. And that's why I'm voting no on this one. Like I know that if I'm going to build something, I have to go to the city first and make sure that what I'm going to build is going to comply with the codes.

If I can and Mr. Burns, please interject if I'm going down the wrong road here. We have to be very careful on comparing variance to variance as well. Your decisions have to be made strictly on the facts presented for this variance based on what was done previously, not what was done in previous meetings off of this specific variance. Any other comments? [Applause] So, if you vote yes, you are voting to deny. Correct. If you vote yes on this motion, you're passing a motion to deny the And we had a second. I second.

You, Mary? All right. Let's vote. Motion passes. Wow. All right.

Next item is the ordinance number 2189. [Applause] This is an ordinance that city council of the city of Portage, Florida meeting chapter 9 of the land development code to update the process for handling subdivision request and comply with Florida statutes authority provider servability for effective date. This is a quasi legislative hearing. Uh please Gibson's hand reigns off uh to his successor to take over. Hello. Good evening. Amy Nelson, city planner. Back on June 20th, 2025, Governor Deantis signed Senate Bill 784 into law. The bill amends section 177.071 of the Florida statute pertaining to the approvals of plats and replats. This did go into effect on July 1st of 2025. The previous section of 177.071 Florida statute designated city councils as the authority responsible for approving plats and replats. The statute now requires that the city council to delegate the platin plat authority to an administrative official who will be responsible for approving conditionally approving and denying proposed plat and rate plats that we are in compliance with the updated requirements of section 177.071 of Florida statute staff is proposing the following amendments to the land development code. So the first one is LDC section 9.0 01.01 types of applications and entities responsible for recommendation and final decision. This has been revised to eliminate references to specific types of plat and reflect that they are now staff level decisions. LDC section 9.01.11 01.11 procedures for plats or replats that has

been added to establish the uh procedural requirements in accordance with the updated statute as adding the development administrator is designated as the approving authority and also the timeline for the initial and subsequent application reviews that's also been established. The last one is LDC section 9.04.01. It has been updated to remove preliminary or final subdivision plats from the list of applications types that are required for public notice. So with that, staff respectfully recommends the local planning agency recommend that the city council adopt ordinance number 2189, which amends the land development code provisions regard, excuse me, regarding plat or repat review and approval to be consistent with the amended section 177.071 Florida statute.

Are there any questions? [Music] plat like when you do a subdivision plat or someone's only put in a subdivision and the plat is it's placed out how it's divided out like a parcel of land. Yes. Okay. You have one parcel of land but how section each so like in the earlier one when we talked about the subdivision identified the the creation of that subdivision as a plat. Okay. I think the flat was even in one of the various packages. So if you want to go back they don't allow to be that big.

I'm from I'm from the north so we don't call them flats. What we do here? And who is the development administrator? That's the right now it's the growth management director. So it would be Christopher or it'll be Mr. Gibson. Mr. It's two weeks now. A little over a week. Yeah. Congratulations. Congratul Congratulations. Still in my calendar for the So, I need to provide a report. I'm sorry. Okay. So, does this not allow for the public to be notified or input in Okay.

Straight administrative process now. It's already gone into effect as of July 1st of 2025. This is just updating our land development code to reflect that. So, we're just signing off on it. Basically, it's a formality. The state actually is requiring this. So, this is just updating the state requirements. So, we can say no. It doesn't matter. They'll do it anyway. Yeah. Um, can I ask so how does this um bypass the sunshine law? I I mean

to me we want to conduct government and and have visibility to the public and this looks like we're moving something from the counter and putting it in the closet just as a theoretical. So the state legislature creates the sunshine law and they give it and they take it away. Here they're taking away. They're saying councils no longer get to be involved in the plat process and they're the ultimate decision makers on the sunshine law. So they created it. They create all sorts of exceptions. They're taking this out of the council's purview. So that's kind of they they can arbitrarily do what they want.

And if I and if I'm a party and and and I want to appeal what has been decided, where does it go? If it's been stepped down from the city council, do I appeal to the city council? So, most likely you would be an applicant. You're saying there is an appeals process, an administrative appeals process that actually comes, but it comes before this board. That's correct. Y and your decision they desired appeal, it goes into the circuit courts. It does not go to city council even if that administrative decision is appealed. So, I can make a decision Mr. Gibson right would make actually theoretically can be brought before we all practice.

Okay. I want to know which shell the P was under. I got it. Thank you. Got it. All right. Do I have any other questions? Do I have a motion? Uh let's see this correctly. Right. Right. It's 2189 ordinance. Right. So um I make a motion that we accept ordinance 2189 as proposed in our minutes. uh correcting the sections of the um Fort Walton Beach city regulations to make them compliant. Is there a second? Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes. Is there any supervisors report? Would you like to surprise? So yeah, now Mr. Fetti has accepted another position in a different city. Um so he will be moving on next Thursday as his last day and they have selected me uh to move up and be his replacement. Um so congratulations. Um

Amy here has been an outstanding addition to our planning team, has been a planner with us for several years now. um and she has graciously accepted the position to move up as the planning supervisor. So for the bulk of these LPA meetings, she will be the presenter in these. Um I'll probably be attending with her for the first several that she handles. Um just until she's more comfortable with it. Um but yeah, she's going to be your primary contact from now on. And we wish Chris good travels and hope this is good for him. Tell him congratulations. Is there any board reports? Uh Tim, are they going to re remark this parking lot?

There's there's a lot of discussion around that. Yes. I pulled in. I was like, uh where are the parking spots at? Oh, we're having a parking problem over here. I'll give them some coaching. I just made my own. I'm like, yep, this looks good. All right. Anything else down here? Uh I do have one more thing. So we get we've been since I've been on the board here, we've been doing a lot of this the variance like adjustments specifically the easements so on and so forth. Is there a plus or minus like 10% written into the variance code anywhere to where it doesn't have to come to the council

with with easements? No. Um easements are kind of a hard step thing in there. Um for setback prescriptions um there is um a variance in there. Um so essentially what it is we cannot approve a permit um that does not need setbacks. However, if somebody comes in and says I'm going to build this house, this new house, and it's going to be set back 7 1/2 ft from the sides. Um and they go out there and they start building and they pour the foundation and the foundation 7 and 1/2 ft on the sides. But then when they add the bricks on the outside of it, well, now they're at 7.4 ft um from the sides. As long as it's less than a 10% encroachment into that setback. Again, the plans have to be approved meeting setbacks, but if after the final as built to the set, it's less than a 10% encroachment in there. Um it can be done through an administrative waiver is what it's called. So kind of like a mini variance. um is a much easier process that goes to the development administrator for the decision on that one uh to make on there. But again, that's there's there's a few things outlined as far as the administrative um waiver process on there, but for setbacks, that's what it would be for the 10%.

Is it the same thing for the imperous ground? Well, that was more than 10% ratio. Yes. So there there are again there's different criteria in there for different things. because there can be reductions sometimes to uh a parking requirement of up to 10% of that. There can be for the impervious um ratio I believe I I'll have to get back with you 100% on that one. There there's like four or five criteria in there that can be waved. Um but again, those are the very small um waiverss for sure. Anything once gets more than that 10% in there, there's no waiver for it.

It's probably not 10% ratio though. I think it's probably smaller. Yeah, it would definitely be smaller. I I want to say that it's not allowed an administrative waiver for the impervious. Um but I don't I don't want to say that 100%. Um it would definitely be less than 10%. So I since you opened this door I um have so if a property if somebody wants to build a house on a property and there are no easement um constraints has the city changed the setback requirement from 2000 to it's different today because my observation is we're building larger homes on smaller pieces of property in the Ferry Park neighborhood. So, you know, my house is 10 ft from the property line and I see this mega mansion that just went up and it's 5 ft from the property line and I'm like, oo, did this change or is this just a bigger house and they could have put a bigger house on the piece of property when they built mine? I I'm just curious. So, the the setbacks are going to depend on the delist um primarily for the R1 single family district, I believe, is what you're referring to. Um those setbacks are always a 25 foot front setback, 25 foot rear setback, 7 and 1/2t side setbacks for interior property lines, and 15 if it's a budding a rideway. So if it's a corner property, the interior 7 and 1/2 ft, the the side adjacent to the road would have to be set back 15 ft from that side property. Um I can tell you for certain um in 2012, that was the last major rewrite of our land development code. There have been no changes in there since then. I would have to do some research to see what they were pre20 level. I believe they were still with the seven and a half that time though.

I got it. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Any other comments motion to adjurnn?