Local Planning Agency - Regular Meeting

Call to order the November meeting of local planning agency. I'll start with a roll call and introduce Thomas Cannon as our newest member. Thomas Canon. Uh Steve Coats, James McFersonen, Sam King Kade, Robert B Renie, Janet Wilson. All right, everybody stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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.

All right. I guess also to announce that Melissa Ozenic is out of the out sorry I she's no off the board. All right. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? Move to approve the agenda. Second. And everybody please All right, motion carries. And a motion to approve the minutes, please. Uh, Renie makes a motion to approve.

Second. [clears throat] Motion carried unanimously. And are there any public comments not already on tonight's agenda? Okay, take it away. So for the first matter here is this is the request for variance at 34 Temple Avenue Southwest. I'll need to swear in both Mr. Gibson and whoever the applicant is for this one. Is that all once or

um actually if I swear everyone in all once I don't have to do all individually. So if everyone will stand, raise your right hand. Do all y'all swear to tell the truth, hold the truth on the truth, help you God.

Okay. All of youall are under oath. That means when you all come up and present your matter, you'll be uh testifying as opposed to providing public comment. Tim Gibson, grow management director for the city for Walter Beach. Uh before I get into the details on this one, I do want to note that there is an error on the subject of this item. Um this there there are several variances um at play in this particular case here but uh in the subject it does say for the variance request to setbacks and maximum allowable impervious. Uh the impervious is [clears throat] not an issue on this one. So that is a that is an error on that subject on there. Um for this one so this is uh the subject property is 34 Temple Avenue Southwest and the registered owners are Christopher and Stephanie Zinc. Um this property um when the subdivision was done for this property, there was a 5-ft utility and drainage easement reserved on all interior lot lines. Um we have a lot of these in the city when the subdivisions were initially done. Um back in this one was 1963. Um in 2016, uh our public works department went out there to replace um a storm water line. Um, and right now they they put in a 42 in, so a very large storm water pipe um that runs through uh the Zen's backyard. Um, and it would not put in where the easement is, it's approximately 14 ft off of their rear property line into his property. Um, so whereas normally that would be in that easement back there, this one's sitting a good 14 ft into his property line. uh our public works is working with him to basically vacate the easements um that are on the rear and side property line of where he's at and and grant um an easement over the actual storm water pipe so this doesn't become an issue down the road in the future. Um this all came up um when they were the owners came in to talk about putting a a shed um on the property or detached garage on the property and that's when we looked at it and it's like okay well it can't go over that storm water pipe. So that kind of got us to the situation

we're at right now. Um on September 29th, 2025, um we did receive the application um for the variance request uh outlined in section 5.1.2 of the land development code uh regarding the accessory structure and setback requirements. Um that was initially what we were looking at was the setbacks on there. Um and then the variance application was submitted for reduction of the 7 and 1/2 ft side setback for an accessory structure uh down to be a two-ft side setback for that property. Um after more discussions with the property owner um we realize we're going to have to probably bring a few different variances into this one just to achieve what he's trying to do there. Um, so right now the um the plan he's got is to put a a detached garage um in the rear side of his property um and then on the second floor of that have a storage area um above half of the garage area. Right now these are just the plans he's got. There's nothing um like permits in place or anything for that. That's just the plan it is right now. Um and that is basically due to the limited availability in the backyard. If you want to pull up the show, Amber, can you

This will give you a little bit better idea of what we're talking about. So, yeah, it's a little hard to see there, but the black line that's running down the back of that property line is that 42-in storm water pipe, which basically um you know, our public works department is not going to want anything within 5T of that. So that even pushes it further back off of that property line and really restricts what area they do have available to put in something like a detached garage or storage area on that property. Um there are three separate sections or three separate um issues um really four sections in the code that this is going to need to address. Um the first one is LDC 5.1.2C3 2C3 um which states that uh that's what establishes the um accessory structures in excess of 200 foot have to have a 7 and 1/2 ft side setback. Again, the property owners requesting that down to a twoft side setback um on the southern property line um on there. Um next is there's two separate sections LDC 5.1.2A4 2 A4 and 5.1.7D. Um that both basically state that accessory structures um or the second one u goes specifically for detached garages um cannot be located in an easement. Um the third section is LDC 5.1.2C1 um that says that accessory structures shall not exceed one story except where an accessory dwelling unit is approved in the second story above a garage. Um the total structure that he's proposing would remain below the 20 foot uh maximum allowed accessory structure. Um however, our code does specifically prohibit that second story unless it's an accessory dwelling. Um speaking with the property owner, he could do that um if he needed to. Um but ultimately he's really just looking for storage space there. Um and with that backyard being kind of cut off so much of it, you know, the detached garage could go there as a single story. Doesn't really have anywhere for a storage unit. um on the

property there. That does bring us to section 8.2.2 of the code which is the nine criteria for the findings of the of a variance. Uh the first one is that the need for the proposed variance is due to the unusual or unique physical shape, configuration or other physical condition of the development site. And as we discussed that storm water pipe is very unusual for this property. It does cut off about 1,000 square ft of developable land in the back of his property um with that very large um storm water pipe running through the back of that. Uh, next is the low interpretation of the code would deprive the property owner of property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. And staff does believe that that would um cause a hardship there just because of the not being able to locate any of the sheds in that farther further back area there does very much limit this property. U third is that the special conditions are not the result of the actions of the property owner and the city is the one who put that storm water pipe back there. So that is definitely not the uh result of the actions of the property owner. Um fourth is that this shall not provide the property owner any special privilege that is denied to other development sites. And while by nature a variance does provide special privilege on there um given the [clears throat] the fact of this the situation and how this was arranged on the property, uh staff does not feel that this would be any real special privilege um over a property that would not have those restrictions on it. Uh the fifth one is whether or not this variance is the the minimum variance that results in a reasonable use of the land uh building or structure. Um this is something that can really be discussed by the by the board. Um I said right now the the applicant is requesting a twoft side setback. Um we could get into debates on whether or not that's the minimum um in order to achieve what he's trying to do with the garage and the second story on there. That's what he's requesting on there. Uh but ultimately that judgment call will come down to the board's decision on that one. Uh next is whether or not this shall ensure compatibility of the resulting development with the uses of

lands and character in the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. And staff does believe this would be um compatible. Uh while that will place the structure pretty close to that south property line, um the house just south of there um is uh a corner lot and it's angled so that it's facing kind of the corner of those two things. So really where the structure is proposed to go. Do you want to bring out the proposed one? It's one of the photos to the right.

Sorry. So where he's proposing to put it in the back there, that's really would be the backyard. So it's really the sideyard, but it would really be more what the traditional backyard of his neighbor's property on there. um and uh we can distribute it out. Um the neighbor that owns that property there did write a letter saying that they're okay with this variance if it's issued. We do have copies of that for the board members um here. Um

also be it. Yes, it'll have to be entered. We just did not receive it in time to put it as part of the actual package in there. Um, seventh is that it's consistent with the intents and purposes of the requirements of the LDC and staff doesn't feel that it is in there. Um, specifically being equitable in terms of consistency with the staff's regulations, procedures. Again, this is following the code. Um, while this is specifically not what's allowed in the code, the various procedures are in there and they're being followed and and staff feels with the unique situations on here that it would be appropriate for that one there. Uh eighth is that is consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan and this is a pretty standard answer on this one for the residential variances on here to maintain a safe and adequate supply of housing by preserving the existing stable neighborhoods, stabilizing um and enhancing neighborhoods that are in transition and restoring and rehabilitating neighborhoods that have declined. And the final criteria on here is that it is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public and staff does not feel that it would be. Um and with those findings in fact, staff does believe that this meets the criteria outlined in section 8.2.2. And with that, staff um respectfully recommends the local planning agency approved the variance request uh for the following three sections. And again, these can be addressed independently. Uh they'll have to be addressed independently as they are three separate variances really uh for this. The first one would be to reduce the 7 and 1/2 ft side setback down to a twoft sight setback um on the south southern property line. Second would be to eliminate the restrictions of a permanent structure being located in easement. And finally would be the elimination of the restriction from a second story only being allowed for an accessory dwelling. And again, as always, if the LPA does approve or deny the application, then findings as to each of the factors listed in section 8.2.2 of the code uh will need to be made on the record pending. Any questions? How long did you say the storm drain's been there?

I'm sorry. How long has the storm drain been there? 2016 it was installed. Thank you. And that is something that our public works is looking at because it's it's not just this property obviously that that storm water does not stay in that easement. They're working on that. That's obviously a much longer solution um down there. Um, like I said, we could just let that one play out, but that's going to really probably delay um their project. Um, that's why since we were bringing the other variances here, we just decided to bring the variance for that one as well. Yep. And this is just for y'all's benefit. Do you know the stats of the easement uh work with public works? Is have there been any hiccups? Are both sides playing fair on that?

Um, I think everybody's playing fair on that. I'm not really privy to that. The easements really are their public works in there. Um, frankly, I don't know if it's a huge priority on them to fix this just because they knew that we were going through this process um and things and it's it's on their radar to do this. I don't know how far they are on it. And the only reason I bring that up board is y'all can condition any bearings y'all do grant tonight on uh the granting of the easements the city will need due to the placement of the pipe uh outside of the actual easement it was supposed to be placed in originally. So, so how does that happen? How does it happen that they're that far off? I I I do not have an answer to that.

I'm assuming there was a a logical reason for it. I don't know. You know, obviously the more turns and twist you put in the pipes, the worse it is for the flow of those pipes. Sometimes it can deal with the elevation, but I do it. Anything I would answer would be purely speculative. Any other questions? And the property is here, please. Sir,

name's Chris Egg. Uh, thank you for giving me an opportunity to come in and talk to you guys. Mr. McFersonson, I've been asking that question since my wife sent me pictures of I never physically seen that pipe cuz I was in Iraq when they installed it. And my wife said, "Our backyard looks like this." And I said, "That's a lot different than it looked when I left." Uh, but I'm thankful they did put that pipe in cuz the old corugated metal caused a lot more problems than that concrete pipe does. So, I'm fortunate to own the property that is the drainage point for for Temple Avenue. Uh, if we didn't have those pipes, uh, we'd probably have a lot of other problems that I wouldn't have time to worry about trying to find some extra space for my family. Uh, the grand scheme of this is the reason I the Mr. Gibson already alluded to it, the storage aspect of it is uh, when I moved in, I had one kid on the way. I was a lieutenant and I thought I was going to be here for 3 years. Uh 13 years later, I have four kids. We're a family of six and I'm out of space. Um moving is expensive. Government shutdowns don't help. Uh but uh ultimately I'm going to try to close my garage in. That's the down the road plan. But in order to do that, all the Christmas decorations, Halloween stuff, and garage gym and kid bikes and scooters I have have to find a new home. So that's just a rough idea of what I'm trying to um do in my backyard. Uh this is the first step of that obviously cuz uh I can't go and get any kind of plans drawn until I have the where I can actually build to. And the whole reason for the variance that came up aside from the second story aspect of it was I lost a good bit of length of what I could potentially build in my yard. So I'm just looking to recapture some of that square footage with a little bit of additional width. Um, fortunately I have a very good relationship with my neighbors I share the line with. Um, and they, you know, they they understand, uh, my kids spend plenty of time in the yard trying to recover things that they kick over our friends. So, they understand that, um, and no and there will be no vantage point on that second story. Um, the loft in portion, the the plant, the side I plan to put the loft in is the side that favors my yard. So, while there may be

some windows elevated that to allow natural light and there will be no elevated vantage point where anyone on my property can stand and look down into someone else's yard, I wouldn't appreciate that as a homeowner. Um, so the elevated positions will basically be overlooking my backyard, not my neighbors. So, um, but that's uh that's ultimately what the plan is. I still got a long way to go, but this it starts here tonight with you guys talking about a variance. So, I appreciate the opportunity. Is there any of you have any questions in terms of the grand scheme of what I'm looking to do? It's a bit nice building. Looks nice.

I I hope it looks uh my goal is to find someone that can build me something that looks just like that picture does and hopefully is nice. But um I'm sure I'll be able to find some some local businesses to help me out with that. But Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question? Do you mind? Sure. Uh would you uh do you have any issue uh with the variance they do grant for tonight being conditioned on granting that easement the city will need for where the pipe's located?

No. The uh the gentleman that um the GIS department I contacted them. They had their survey team come out and they uh put they had the robot I guess and they they went down and mapped it. Um they flagged the center line of the pipe and they spray painted the offset points. So anything I've planned or tenative plans have been predicated off of those additional easement setbacks off of what they placed in the yard. So as long as those lines don't shift, um I guess beyond what the survey team marked in the yard, uh there should be no issue. And I actually I didn't build right up to those points, I know that things aren't always perfect. I don't want anyone to have to destroy or break up concrete or a structure that I built. So, I've offered myself an additional buffer off of what the survey team marked just to make sure that we're safe. Um, so it should not be an issue if they go in and adjust the easement for the the Cattywus pipe path that has found its way across the backyard. Um, so it shouldn't be an issue.

There's a fence. There's already a fence in between you the property on the south. Yeah. Yes. Yep. There's already a fence there. And then there's a um there's the the whole yard's privacy fenced as well um on all sides. This will cut down the children's playing area. It It will except for the interior portion of that. When I say it's multi-use, there will be um ample space for activities inside there. It's not for me. It's it is for to contain my hoard of children and give them space to put their stuff and hopefully maybe hang their items on a wall or, you know, use an actual storage system instead of the clutter that I have in my garage currently that doesn't house cars. Okay. Okay.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I think he had treated one at a time. Is that correct? That would be my recommendation. Yes. I make a motion that we Do you want me to state the land development code in the motion? No. There's on on the recommendation in the staff report under section 4, uh it says recommendation. If you read out 4.1.1, that's the first one. I I recommend of the 7 and 1/2t set back for an accessory structure to a twoft side setback located on the southern property line.

Okay. And and your motion is to approve of the variance for that. Approve the variance. Correct. Renie seconds. Okay. I have a question. Can I ask a question since we're going to discussion? My question is for the attorney. So, at what point do we need to put in here for um additional uh easement for the city? Which one of these actually I was about to actually ask uh just condition all three of them on that because the whole condition has been created by the pipe and so all the variances are being requested due to the location of the pipe. Is that correct? Okay. So, is the pipe actually going to be moved or No, this is So, the pipe does not have to be moved by the city. Okay. All right. Gotcha. So,

and none of this variance is for the rear where the pipe is anyway. It's just correct. You just got to move it because you can't put it behind there. And I might be speaking out. If the pipe was not there, then the basis for this variance would not exist. That's the best. So, the the the location the pipe is created the necessity the request for the variance. And so the only thing I would ask is maybe uh I will end the discussion that it is contingent on the city's additional variance needed for the pipe uh east receiving. All right. And I need that seconded. I'll second the amended motion. Thank you. All right. Can I get a vote, please? Comments. Oh, sorry.

Public comments. Public comments. Done.

All right. Motion carries unanimously. All right. On the second I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I just have one question as as a follow just because this is Do I have the microphone? Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh for the the contingent portion, I I know you had said the process was ongoing and you weren't sure of the priority. My only concern would be that my plan is to move out on this sometime in calendar year 2026 in terms of the next step would be variance and then plans and then construction. I worry that I will potentially outpace the city's municipal process. I don't think you will. Okay. Yeah,

I just want to make sure cuz uh and uh contingent is one thing, but if it's already there, I just uh I'm hoping what was marked in my yard on my property. I don't think so. Okay, just to answer that so everybody and it's on the record and stuff. So, um when you're ready to come and get the permits for this that will go through the standard review process that includes our GIS department, which is the one that would be determining the the easement that's needed in there. So by that point they should know exactly what they're going to need. They're going to know where this is going to go. So there will not be any issues with that. They would not approve the permit if it was going to be where that easement was needed to be. So it'll be done simultaneously basically. It'll be done simultaneously. It could be. Yes.

Okay. Perfect. But it would not hold him up. Right. That's fair. Fair. That's fair. I move to the elimination of the restriction from a permanent structure being located in an eman for this said property and that's also contingent contingent upon the city uh fair receiving an easement easement any seconds comments unard Let's vote.

Motion carries. 6 nothing. I move for the elimination of a restriction for a secondary story only being allowed for an accessory dwell dwelling contingent upon the city's easement. 90 seconds. And let's vote. in public comment. Oh, public comments.

I'm second. Oh, I I'm sorry. All right. Motion carry. 6 nothing. Very good. Congratulations.

Congratulations. Okay, the next one is the request for the variance to reduce the rear setback lot at 312 Lee Miller Drive Northwest. Amy Nelson Wolf, a city planning supervisor. This is for the location of 312 Lee Miller Drive Northwest. It was constructed back in 1964 and the when the structure was built, it was put in with a rear yard setback of 7' 7 in on the east southeast side of the property. And right now, the structure does contain a porch/deck with the rear yard set back at approximately 16 ft 7 in. And back on September 12th of 2025, staff received a building permit for an application for a 14 by 18 ft screened enclosure that would already be on the existing porch deck that's there now. And the property is owned by

or 18. You said I say that one more time. You said 14 by 8. My apologies. No, that's

14 by8. After reviewing the application and the site plans, it was determined at that time that the property would be considered a detrimental nonconformity according to section 8.01.02 of the land development code. So at this time, the building permit has not been approved. And back on October 20th of 2025, we received the application for the variance to reduce the minimum yard rear yard setback of the non-conforming structure. And that came in from the property owner Bridget Carney for the property at 312 Lee Miller Drive. So it states in section 4.01.01 01. The minimum rear yard setback for property zoned R1 is 25 ft. The survey provided by the landowner shows the corner of the house is 7 ft 7 in from the rear property line. And you can see that up there on on the section. And you can see the 14x8 uh in the yellow. That's where they want to put in the screen porch on the already existing So the encroachment into the required setback is less than 10% of and it it's considered to be benign nonconformity. Sorry, losing my spot. And it states the nonoria is not identified as benign shall be considered a detrimental nonconformity. The existing home is encroaching at 69.7% into the greer setback and is therefore considered a detrimental nonconformity. So this is where we go into section 8.02.01 01 of the land development code.

For the purpose of the variance is to provide them the means to grant permission to depart from the standards of the zoning district where unique characteristics of the parcel together with the imposition of a specific regulation of the zoning district results in a hardship. And according to 8.02.02 02 the variance is to be approved or approved with conditions the local planning agency LPA shall make a positive finding based on the evidence submitted within. So the need for the proposed variance is due to the unusual and unique physical shape configuration other physical conditions of the development and site. These special conditions are not generally applicable to other land structures or buildings of the same zoning district. Staff finds that while the overall lot shape and size is not unusual, the configuration of the house is angled towards the corner of the lot, it does pose a challenge not typically seen on normal lots in the city. So literal interpretation and application of the provisions of this LED would provide the property owning property owner of the property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties the same zoning district resulting in undue hardship. Staff finds that the literal interpretation of the application of LDC would result in a hardship for the owner. The house was built back in 1964 and as previously stated, the angle of the house causes one corner of the structure to be a little closer than allowed by the LDC. As this causes a detrimental nonconformity, the owner is restricted from adding onto the house despite the additional meeting of I'm sorry, onto the house despite the addition and meeting the LDC requirements. The structure which is a

detrimental non-conformity shall not be expanded stated by LDC 8.01.07 2.2.3 special conditions are not the result of actions of the property owner and are not solely based on the desire to reduce the development cost. Staff finds that the special conditions are not a result of the actions of the property owner or based solely on reduced cost. As stated, the house was built in 1964 and the owners purchased the property in 2019. 2.2.4 Approval of the proposed variant shall not provide the property any special privileges that is denied or other to other development sites within the same zoning district. Staff finds that this approval would not provide the owner any special privileges as the proposed addition will be required to meet all LDC requirements. 2.2.5 The proposed variance is a minimum variance that results in the reasonable use of land, building or structure. Staff finds that the variance granted is the minimum necessary to afford the applicant reasonable use of the land, building or structure. 2.2.6 Six. Approval of the proposed variance shall ensure compatibility of resulting development with the uses of land and character of the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Staff finds that the proposed screen porch will and porch enclosure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2.2.7 The proposed variance is consistent with the intent and purposes of requirements of the LDC. staff finds this proposal meets the specific intents of the LDC, being equitable in the terms of consistency with the [snorts] established regulations and procedures, respecting the rights of property owners

while taking into consideration the interest of all citizens of the city. Staff finds that approval of this variance is equitable and allows this homeowner the ability to make improvements to the house. The proposal variance is consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan and staff finds that this variance is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance is not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Staff finds the uh proposed variance is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. So with this, the staff finds that the variance does meet all the criteria outlined in section. 8.0. 02.02 of the land development code and we respectfully respectfully recommend that the local planning agency approve the variance requested for 3.2 3.12 Lee Miller Drive Northwest to reduce the minimum rear yard setback to 7 ft and 7 in. And then I think we had to where you could have two options to where you would allow the minimum rear yard setback reduction to the 7' 7 in or it is possible that you could I'm sorry let me flip over here that basically that you would um wave the LDC section 8.01.07 07 expansion or modification of detrimental non-conformities which basically states a structure which is a detrimental nonconformity shall not be expanded. I'm a little confused on why this is expanding it.

Yeah, it's because it's already on a that's like already a concrete patio. I'm assuming some kind of imperous surface. You're just putting a roof on it. Well, you're correct. So, when you when you doing a screened in porch and it depends on how that is like a screened a screen porch which is all the way up and down, that would not be considered to where you're adding on to it. But whenever you have the halfway point, I guess the panel, the kick panels is what they call them,

that right there makes it into four walls. And so that you're adding on to the actual structure, the principal structure. So that would be expanding onto but I thought it was expanding the non conformity. It says expansion or modification to any Yeah, because it's already the principal structure is already now a detrimental nonconformity. So you're

right. We've done this many times before where it's as long as he didn't basically hit closer than the in this case the 7.7 it was still not expanding it the modification I mean modifications all the time I've been saying you can't build anything on your house if you so technically under the law like if you make any changes to a non-conforming use then you need to ask for a variance to make pretty much any change to it. I mean there there's very minor changes you can make but since they're I guess going to be building a enclosed screen around it that would be considered a large enough change to have to come see a variance. Right.

This one gets a little complicated in there because and I know exactly what you're referencing. We have done several of those. That's where it's it's key to understand the difference between a benign nonconformity and a detrimental non-conformity. So your rear setback for an R1 property is 25 ft. If you're say 2 ft into that setback, your house is set back 23 ft. that's less than 10% into that setback. That makes it a benign non-conformity and you can expand that as long as the LPA approves it and it does not increase the extent of that non-conformity. That's what's in the code that says you can do that if it's a benign non-conformity. The fact that this is more than 10% in that rear setback is what makes this a detrimental non-conformity. And the code very clearly says in there it may not be expanded. Even if that expansion meets the code, you cannot expand it at all. Um, and that's why really this is there's two the two different options on there for this. One, you could approve a variance to that part of the code that says you cannot expand this and that's fine cuz they can expand it and they can build the screen porch. The other alternative is to grant a easement, I'm sorry, a variance to the rear setback. What that does is reestablishes so that that 25 ft setback no longer exists. that 7T that 7.7 ft is now the rear setback which means this property the structure is no longer non-conforming at all. Um what that does is basically cleans this this house up for the future as well. If you provide a variance right now to wave the expansion of a detrimental non-conformity that's good for this project but if you gave the variance to the rear setback that's basically reestablishing a new setback and the house is now conforming. So they would not run into this problem again in the future.

Can I ask a question? Have the neighbors I mean everybody's been notified. Are there neighbors? I'm not familiar with this area. There are and I know a few neighbors have reached out and asked questions about it just because the signs are posted out there. Um yeah, most of them um when they called in, they wanted to know first of all what it was for and once that was explained to them they were like, "Oh, that's all it is. Okay, thanks. And so I have no complaints about it.

And the proposal meets LDC requirements. So this screened in porch would be allowed to build be built. No questions. Nobody would have to come here except for the fact that that structure is sitting with a 7.7 ft rear setback. That's what creates that detrimental non-conformity, which means we've got to come here for this. Intent of clarification, if they approve the second variance that you had mentioned or the option, then if M. Carly wants to tear down the screen Porsche and reconfigure it, but in that same footprint, she would not have to come back for variance.

That is correct. And that's why that would be my recommendation is to just reestablish that rear set back to the 7.7 ft. That way, this doesn't come back in the future cuz it is a very small addition, just the the 14 by 8 ft um screened in area on there. But if down the road she wanted to screen in the whole thing, we'd have to come right back here again for the variance to modify the detrimental non-conformity. I lost my mind. Is there anybody here for

Thank you. Um your name Oh, Bridget Carley. Uh we've lived in the house since 2019. Well, my daughter and her son, my grandson are we're going to share housing uh for economic reasons. And what I want to do is add this little screen in porch to give my little mother-in-law room a little bit more space for me and my cats, honestly. Uh a little bit more privacy for my daughter and grandson. So, if I want to come from the carport into my bedroom, I can do that. Um, that's really the whole purpose behind it. You have any questions for me?

I don't have any questions. Thank you. I will recommend we if there are no more questions or comments. I will recommend that we reestablish the career set back to 7.7. Thank you. And grant the variance. And grant the variance. I'll second. And then uh before after after all debated uh make sure to seek public comments any more discussion and based on the findings. Public comments. Yes.

And then uh your motion was based on all the required findings in the code of correct all the How are you?

Thank you. Okay, this is the request for variance to the maximum allowed impervious amount at 100 Maryland Avenue Northwest. Okay, the subject property here is 100 Maryland Avenue Northwest and the owners are Monty L. Wyrick BB and Handan Williams. On September 3rd, 2025, a permit application was submitted for a new 24x 12 foot uh square. It's basically 288 square foot inground pool. This permit was reviewed and approved with the LDC requirements for setbacks and impervious ratio requirements. On September 9th, the permit was submitted for an extension to a driveway. [clears throat] The permit was reviewed and approved by public works utilities per OBC 4.01.01b. The maximum allow allowable impervious service ratio is 50%. And the extension of the new driveway increased the property's impervious service ratio to a 53.2%. Now, on September 24th, an application was submitted for a variance from the requirement outlined in section 4.01.01, the land development code, regarding imperous service requirements. The applicant submitted on October 3rd an inquiry about adding an accessory structure to his property. And this accessory structure would be a 10x 20 at 200 ft². And so per LDC C3A, accessory buildings up to 200 square ft and floor area shall be set back 3 f feet from the side or rear setback property lines. The

addition of the 200 ft accessory structure increases the property's impervious surface ratio to 55.1%. So on October 8th, the applicant met with the planning department to discuss the issues with the property and decided to put in for the variance um for his imperous surface. So we go into uh section 8.02.01 for the land development code. This is the purpose of the variance and has provided a means to grant permission and department depart from the standards of the zoning district where unique characteristics of the parcel together with the imposition of the specific regulations of the zoning district result in a hardship. So going through question number one the nine criteria the need for the proposed variance is due to an unusual or unique physical shape configuration or other physical condition of the development site. The staff finds that this property is not of unusual or unique phys physical shape configuration or other physical condition. The property is approximately 0.25 25 acres in size and is roughly rectangular in shape with the approximate lot dimensions of 85 ft by 129 ft. This property is the same approximate shape and size as many other properties in the neighborhood and this property is the corner lot on the southern side property line of budding homes Boulevard Northwest. [clears throat] So this uh the property owner of the property rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district resulted in an undue hardship. The staff finds that the lit literal interpretation of the land development code would not result in a hardship of to the property owner. The maximum res surface ratio is consistently enforced across all zoning

districts. The special conditions are not a result of the actions of the property owner and are not based solely on the desire to reduce development cost. Staff wise that the additional impervious surface additions were at the direction of the property owner. Approval of the proposed variance shall not provide the property any special privileges that is denied to other development sites within the same zoning district. Staff finds that granting this variance would result in a special privilege not afforded to other development sites. As previously noted, impervious service ratios limits are enforced to help mitigate flood risk for both the subject property and neighboring areas. The proposed variance is a minimum variance that results in reasonable use of land, building, and structure. The stat finds that the applicant has not shown that the property is subject to a hardship that is unique or particular to the land itself. Instead, the request appears to be the a desire to expand or alter the property beyond what is allowed by the zoning regulations. Approval of the proposed variant shall ensure compatibility of resulting development with uses of the land and character of the adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods and staff but is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the maximum impervious service ratio is intended to asssure adequate storm water absorption and prevent negative impacts on the adjacent properties. The proposed variance is consistent with the intent and purposes of the requirements of the LDC. Staff finds that this proposal does not meet the sub the specific intent of the LDC. Specifically, LDC 1.00.01B7 01B7 states, "Being equitable in the terms of consistency with the established regulations and procedures respecting

the rights of property owners while taking into consideration the interest of all the citizens of the city. The proposed variance is consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan. We find that the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The prophet's variance is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The staff finds that it would not be detrimental to the health and safety of the general welfare of the public. So with that, staff finds the variance request it does not meet all the criteria outlined in section 8.02.02 of the land development code. Uh based on the findings that we respectfully recommended the local planning agency deny the variance request and to increase the maximum allowed imperous surface ratio to 55.1%. And on this one there is again a little uh caveat I believe to that one. We have two of them because first whenever they put in the ingground pool and then put in the driveway that increased the impervious surface to 53 but when they want to add the 200 ft uh again yeah 200 ft shed that's going to raise it up to to 55.1. So we're looking to to at least get approval for what's already there which is the driveway and the pool. The accessory structure has not been put in yet. So, that would be something on top of that.

Right. You're you're asking for approval for the pool and the driveway. I'm asking um for approval for Well, you can look at it two ways. Either the 53.2% 2% impervious uh variance for that because it's already put in place or for the 55.1% which would include the accessory structure on top of what's already there. So this wasn't done when they did the permitting. They didn't count on this the 53 for the driveway and the pool.

No no what happened is the pool came in. [clears throat] So when the pool came in that was approved it was under the 50%. And then they came back and they did the driveway and public works approved that but within planning we did not see that. We didn't get that within our

it was basically a process error. We've amended that now. So driveway permits at that time were only reviewed by public works. They weren't necessarily looking for this pushing it over the impervious. Sometimes they would catch it, but they weren't always looking at it as as probably as keenly as the planning staff would. We've since changed that process and now planning is looking at every driveway per permit in addition to public works. So that way this doesn't happen again. But at the time they did apply for the permit. They were issued a permit. They did the work in accordance with the permit. That's why now they're at the 53% now. All since all that was permitted, that's why staff were were willing to recommend approval to make them legal now at the 53% because it was really a staff error on approving that permit. It should not have been approved, but it just was not reviewed by staff at that time.

And that would actually fall under the elements, not hardship created by correct. Exactly. I just have a question for Tim or you ma'am. If they were to put the structure off the ground, is that still considered impervious?

It it is. So, I mean, depending on what it is, um it's still really it doesn't allow for the ready absorption of water. Um the vast majority of that can water get under the edges? Yes. How it doesn't go all the you know, water is not going to flow all the way under there and absorb into the ground. There are still areas of that that will largely be impervious. Um and and that's where really it's at that point. Do we have any information on that's been provided to us as to where this structure is going to go? Am I missing some items here? [clears throat]

Yes. Could be around in that area there. Yes. Okay. How does that affect the setbacks? The side setback there this structure going in there. It it won't because there if it's 200 f feet and any it has to be 3 ft from the side. Okay. So they would be fine with that. I saw it already on this GIS map. That's not the shed. There's a I guess wing for on the GIS map. Yeah, there's a little Yes, there is.

What that is is that that shed was originally over on the other side of the pool and it had to be moved. So, it was moved over there temporarily, but I'm sure the property owner can explain that a little bit more. Does that Does that shed have to be permitted? Does it? Yes, it has. Did you say permitted? Yes. So, I guess the question I have that I are you replacing the shed that's already there? That shed's not your opportunity until something gets up there. Okay. Sorry. Yep. No more questions. Anyone?

All right. I think I need to hear from the applicant. Yep. Okay. I thought Mr. Coach was looking at me when that question got it.

It was our immediate little winner in Maryland with my wife and Williams. So, yeah, pvious and non-pervious. Well, let me tell you, I didn't know what that was. Like, it was explained to me. And I also have those signs in front of my house. And I've had numerous people, neighbors and not neighbors, ask me, "What the heck is that?" So, I go into this whole story of what it is. And I asked them, "Do you know what pvious and non-pervious is?" And they look at me, I said, "I didn't either." And they go, "Well, we don't." Then I explained to them. So, nobody knows what pvious and non-pervious means. I I don't know how we can fix that for everybody in the city, but it helped everybody out. So, knowing I'm at 53% already, if I would have been aware of that, obviously I would have cut the corners on my driveway. I would have shrunk the footprint of the pool. But, uh, that's where we're at. Um, I have plenty of notes, but I'm going to kind of paraphrase everything. In that top left corner where there was a small shed, again, it had to be moved and I moved it down there where it says North 89 151 150 out of the way so the guys can build the pool. And then, uh, now that shed's gone and then, you know, I'm like, okay, now I need a shed because, you know, I got to have my stuff for my man cave. And then that's when I find out about this pvious non-pervious. And um the thing about the north side of the house, that's all my windows. And that's also back by the pool. There's a slope. There was a slope there before in my yard. And now it's a little bit even higher. Um and there's and all the windows are on that side on the south side by homes avenue. uh just left to that small uh thing where my AC sits where it says 50 59.5 right below that there's one window and that's the bathroom window and it's about this high. So, in my thinking like great, I still got a space for a shed

and then I found out this pvious and uh the variance request. Uh also on the north side, um I've already paid to have my neighbors trees cut down because they were landing like this over the fence. Um and so I want to put this shed on this side, you know, to make the uh best use of my land and it's our forever home. I'm retired. I can't give my wife's age, but she's close behind me. Uh, you know, our grandkids come over there. Uh, I mean, I got I can counter pretty much every question that statements that that she put, but you know, I don't think we want to be here all night cuz I got about three pages. But, you know, mostly it's about closing blocking windows, ventilation to do any tree work cuz there's still trees on that side of the property. Um, my pool is screened in, but I still got leaves everywhere that I'm taking care of. So, that's why we're trying to get the shed on the south side. Uh, again, from all my junk, I guess.

A question. I have a question for you. I I see that part of the driveway actually comes down and around the corner on that south side. Is that not feasible to put the shed on that area? What are you talking about now? The drive. I'm getting a carport put in which uh should be in the permit office somewhere in the process. And even if I did put it there, I'm still on the variance. Okay. And the driveway is done with concrete or pavers. Concrete.

Concrete. Concrete. Yeah. And I have no problem the city have to dig a trench there in my concrete to lay two new technology that might come our way in 10 years. and I have no problem paying out of my own pocket to have if I do get approved for that shed to move the shed so they can put that uh technology that could go in there in 10 years or so. So, um and I can just keep rambling on, but it's all it always comes down, you know, best use of the land for us as homeowners is for our forever home. And like I said, there's minimal blocking it. I only have that one window on that side and it just works out the best because in the uh left hand corner at the top that's where it's sloped. So if I put a shed in there then I'm I'm putting steps in and you know it's the build starts to get more complicated. And I'm not going over 200 square ft. That's all I need. And that 184 I put the shed I split I put 4T from the property line 4T from my house. I can drive my lawn mower through there if I need to. Um, so that's really where I'm at on this. So, and if you have any other questions,

Tim, I have a question. Actually, [clears throat] the issue here is not a setback or var or that's not the variance issue. The it's the impervious. That's correct. And

just if I can add to that, um I mean obviously it happened to no fault of anybody in particular. But if I could have shrank that footprint, I would. But since I can and now I'm even asking for more. But uh you know I I I just I guess I'm up against the wall right now until you guys tell me decide what you want to do. Um because I have you have to break a lot of concrete to uh get under 50%. Might be might take me a minute. That's a question for staff. If it's pavers, that's not considered impervious, is it?

As long as they're impervious pavers or pvious pavers. There's you have impervious where it won't go through. And then there are some out there that are pvious pavers that they could use instead. Okay. There's there's all sorts of pvious materials out there. If there's pvious concrete, there's pvious asphalt, pvious papers. It's typically more of a system. Even though it's not like you can just grab a paper and stick it on the ground and have pvious there's a whole system. You have to go down several feet. There's layers of gravel, layers of sand, there's a whole system to it to make it pvious. Right. Okay.

Correct. typically they're impervious and and there is the the conversations the the ones that we can calculate for pvious. Um you've seen some of the ones there's more like the grid with grass growing in the in the little small squares those are partially pvious and typically with those the manufacturer will actually tell you what percentage of it is pvious and we can calculate that to give pviousness off of there. But the ones, you know, we we've heard the argument before, well, they water will still absorb in even if they're butted right up against each other and and yes, a tiny tiny amount will go into there, but if they're installed properly, there's sand packed in there, you're not really getting much of any absorption into there. So, typically, they're going to be considered impervious.

Okay. I'm I'm done making stuff on except Well, it's too late to change it anyway, but I was asking for our reference on that one. Okay, chairman. I think the spouse applicant wanted to speak too. She get my boss is coming.

So, um hi. First of all, I want to say thank you for everybody um informing us on what we need to do and we always ask permanent first before build and say, "Hey, I'm sorry. I didn't know." because we've been watching all the videos after this variance and we have the signs in our yard and people stopping and asking us and we were watching the videos and see what was the term. So I'm learning a lot of terms and rules and regulations. So that helped me a lot. I just want to say thank you for that really open and share with everybody else so they make a decision you know I can guide them through this is what you need to do. And the second of all, this is our dream home. And you know, we've been traveling for overseas for a long time. And we came here, settled down, and we have the pool. My grandson enjoys more than anybody else. And uh everything is nice. Yard, you know, first time pool owners, house owners were so excited. And that storage, that was the only place. If it was the other side, it would have be okay, but that was the only place that could go. And that was the issue. And then we learned about the in previous. So say thank you again. Just wanted to share that.

Any questions for me? Any other questions? I have a question for staff. I've heard them say twice that the other side would not have been a problem. But that still creates an impervious surface. Is that correct? That is correct. Unless this shed was to be placed on already existing uh impervious materials like you mentioned over part of that driveway there that where they're planting the carport that would have been allowed because you're not adding any other impervious. The north side of the property is still pvious. So if the shed were to be put up there we would run into the same situation. Okay. The only question on this one really is the impervious allowances. Not setbacks, not sizes, nothing like that.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Thank you. So when the permits are given, is the impervious amount um calculated always calculated so they know you're coming close, don't get anything else. This can't happen. Yes, they are. Yes. Yes. But it was the driveway that started this. That's so if they would have been told you're you're too far over, they would have been known to bring that back. Correct.

Correct. To keep it under the 50. That's why I said staff is is is happy to support a variance to the 53.2 I believe it is. Um because that was I mean nobody told them, hey, you know, you're going over your amount here or anything like that. That was the the permit. They did like they said, you know, they came in, they pulled permits for what they they were doing. it just got through um without the impervious review on that one, which is why we've changed the process honestly is because of this one

and I understand that. But had had this been caught by staff which created this problem, they could have corrected everything and built everything down to a 50%. I mean, that's a potential um typically it's a potential. That's it. Okay. Any questions or anything? Okay. Thank you. Discussions.

I'd like to make a motion that we grant approval for the maximum allowable impervious area on the subject property to be 53.2%. So, are we doing two approvals here or? No. Uh, either that motion will die for lack of a second and the two alternative. There's actually unlimited alternatives on a varian [snorts] request. You can always go less than 55 the ultimate request which is 55 something%. Uh but uh if if this motion dies for lack of a second, then someone needs to either make a motion to deny it all together or accept the recommendation of 55

one one. Yeah. 1%. I'll say 55%. Sorry. But uh and or you can pick a lesser number than that too if if you don't like the 50° number that M. Wilson said. Oh, they'd had less driveway if they had done done it. Disgusting. We need a second. Oh, okay. to adopt. Okay, I will second. I was This is just for the discussion. This is for what is currently now let's discuss. So it's currently it's 553 and there's none and aside from making them tear out which is unreasonable that needs to be approved in my opinion. So

that well it is not a reason to second is to have the discussion because we had discussion first. We he didn't second it for any reason he wants. So now this part was debate after we seconded it. So recommended that. Okay. Right. It didn't come before staff. The driveway didn't come before staff. Had it come before staff they'd have never had a driveway that big in the first place. But my problem with this is is that staff created this by not having this fail system fail system in place. Correct.

And therefore, had he known that he was getting close and having this discussion when they put the pool in, he could have narrowed back a little bit on one of those put in first, right? Right. But the fact he's not willing to put the shed on the driveway portion already% there's no room put it back I think is for two% it's 5%

it's no cuz it's 53 they're already granting and want to give so we're only asking for 2% on this they already want to % because they didn't have the fail safe. Well, they need to 53 as well, right? It's almost nonconforming. That's why I was asking, are we are we voting on two or are we voting on one yet? No, because uh you're either going to approve the full 55% uh the 53% which is what it currently is without the shed or totally reject it and make them move out.

Right. Right. They so that from my understanding you were asking for 55%. Correct. The staff is asking for 53%. So to me that is two different we are asking for two different approvals here. We have the other I mean you can do it you can you can do it that way if you want. Y'all y'all y'all could do two separate motions if you want or just do one motion. See see what I'm saying here? So you can approve if it's three and then approve. Right. Right. So, so Tim, you do we do two or do we do one? Like Mr. Burns said, it's really up to y'all on that. I mean,

if you're going to approve the 55, it would just make sense to just do one motion approval for the 55%. But if you want to approve the 53 and then go into a discussion on the 55, I mean, that's that's it's legit if you guys choose to do that that way. Well, I think we can if we vote on this one and then just make another one. So the 53 Yeah. is you're the chairman. So you have that power. Yeah. Let's let's let's vote on this one. The 53. So we're we're voting on the staff's recommendation. Recommendation, not what they're asking for at this point. At this point. At this point. Okay.

And public. Yes. So clarify for me that if you vote no or yes, whichever way and it doesn't if we vote if you vote no on this, then it's then it's not 50, right? [clears throat] If you vote no on this, it's I think though with the question, Miss K, I think there's going to be a second motion uh [clears throat] and y'all are going to debate that whether or not to then do a second variance up to 55%. And so uh so I think that's is that the plan? [clears throat] That's what I'm asking.

And given this scenario, theoretically, if if the board chooses to vote no to either variance, then their maximum impervious would be set at 50% as it is in the code. The city would not come in there and say now you need to pull out 3% of this stuff. That it would be considered an existing nonconformity at that point in time. That is a benign nonconformity. But, you know, just that's what I was saying for staff. We were recommending the 53 as a minimum. I mean, you can approve whatever you want. We're we're recommending approval of 53% just because that way it keeps this property from becoming a benign non-conformity when it wasn't their fault.

Right. And I guess what I'm asking is just to make sure that when people come and need this extra, that should be the red sign at the top that you get 50%. Mhm.

Because many people don't come and to the city and ask for variances or easements or whatever and they just do it anyway. and and half of them never get caught or we never look at that many of them cuz I can tell you on balconies there's a couple backyards that are nothing but papers and the whole yard is pavers and driveway and there's only very little grass on that and that's probably why the water runs so fast. So, you've never seen that issue,

but people that have flown their um drones figured it out and are looking at at completely burnt backyards. And so, some of this being the city's fault, that should be the big red thing at the top of that application that you are, this code states 50%. So, be careful. Yeah. And I'll say I mean the miss

try to make sure I word this correctly. We do that. Um that is something that staff does. We'll say hey this appears to be at about 49% you will not be allowed to expand anymore. Um some statements along those lines is what we do. Um that is not a requirement. Um it's just it's the right thing to do. We know so we do tell people on that one but ultimately the building permit should be approved or denied based on what they file for. Um, like I said, that's an extra thing that we do for people. Um, I honestly do not know if we made a comment on the pool permit. Um, I did not think to look at that one. Um, there's a chance that we did say something on there. Hey, you're getting close to your impervious. Um, because that is a standard comment that we do put on those. Um,

Mr. Gibson, I have a question. If we don't approve this 53.2% 2% at least when they come for bu a permit to build the carport they're going to run into the same thing because

no so at that point um one of the requirements like I said earlier in the code you have um the code defines these things are benign non-conformities if it's not one of those it's detrimental the detrimental ones are the ones that are difficult to deal with um one of the um items in there that's specifically defined is an an um excess of imper not even an amount. So theoretically, if this was 100% impervious and they came in, it's still a benign nonconformity and it would just follow those things which can be expanded, can be built on as long as you don't increase the extent of that non-conformity. Okay. Gotcha. And clarification question, Miss Wilson, your motion was made on all the factors in the code of ordinances, correct?

Yes, that's correct. It was the motion and James seconded. We have a motion on the floor. Okay. So, we're and then the chairman's made it clear that he does plan on entertaining a second uh motion debate to what 555. Okay. that carriage 69. So the purpose is now 53 whatever whatever

two and then I will make a motion to allow it to be increased to 55.1 for the 200 ft accessory. I'll second based on the based on the factors and the in the code and yes

I make the move and I'll second I guess we had to write it out because it's not in there public comments public comments there will be debate first I guess we want debate. Anybody want public comment? Public comments public comments. All right. And it carries 521.

Yeah. And just so we're on the record and clear on this one, since there was two separate variances, we're still going to have you sign both of the variance forms and I'll go into the records on there. Ultimately, the first one is kind of moot, but since it was done, then we'll we'll have that signed off as well. And technically, the city could decide to appeal itself. I guess the city could decide to appeal. Yes.

So, uh, next time's ordinance number 2194, an ordinance amending LDC section 5.04. 04.11 community residential homes and the title is an ordinance of the city council of the city of formal beach Florida amending section 5.04.11 of the land development code to update procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residence requests to comply with Florida statutes provide authority provide recoverability and provide for an effective date and Amy's here to present.

All right so for section 397.487 487 Florida statute was amended on June 26 of 2025 requiring each municipality to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and approval of the certified recovery residents by January 1st of 2026. The ordinance must include a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any local land use regulation. The ordinance must be consistent with the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and Title 2 of Americans with Disabilities Act. The ordinance must establish a written application process for requesting accommodations. It should also require each local government to date stamp each application request upon receipt. If there's an additional information required, the local government must notify the applicant in writing within 30 the first 30 days after receipt and allow applicant 30 days to respond. The ordinance will require the local government to issue final written determination on the application within a 60-day um after within 60 days after the receipt. The ordinance will require that the applicant include basic name and contact information. The ordinance may not require public hearings beyond the minimum required by law. To ensure compliance with the updated reg requirements of section 397.487 Florida statute, staff proposes the following amendments to the land development code. Right now, we currently have LDC section 5.04.11 04.11 community residential homes and it has been revised to comply with the amended section 397.4

487 Florida statute. So basically what this is it's it's replacing what we already have in the LDC and that's to become in compliant with by January 1st of this year with store Florida statute. We respectfully recommend that the local planning agency recommend that the city council adopt ordinance number 2194 which amends the land development code regarding certified recovery residents to be consistent with the amended section 397.487 Florida statutes. What is a what is this?

Basically um the the gist of this is right now what what we currently have in place is the community residential homes that's a recovery for treatment for for a recovery homes or someone who is getting back back out into society and it's basically updating what we currently have to match with Florida statute once to have amended by the January 1st. Okay. I'll make a motion to recommend the city council adopt ordinance 2194 to amend section 5.04.11 of land development act. Reny seconds.

Can I ask a general question? So um reading in the media on Tallahassy's um somewhat leaning into local responsibilities of city governments trying to help us do a better job. If that's your perspective, is this an attempt at that or is this just an administrative change? I mean, is this a benign change to our code or is there something in here we should be made aware of that changes our jurisdiction in this regard? I think it's just a general um mandate, but I'm not 100% positive.

I I'll tell you this, the existing code as it's written is not very clear or enforceable. uh in some sometimes it's it's it's enforceable, but there's some houses that try to claim they're uh these type of houses and they're not really those type of houses. And this process that's established in the updated uh ordinance will make it clearer and make it easier actually I think for the city to vet these type of houses on the front end. I'm just curious whether or not it makes it uh easier for the city to say no. Probably not. But it doesn't really change anything in that regard. The city's hands are already tied to extent on when they can say no to these houses.

Yeah, we've allowed them, but some cities have not and now they're required to have a process to allow them. So, that was, I think, part of the move in there. There's been a lot of case law, Mr. Burns can certainly speak better than that than I, um, about certain of these recovery homes that have actually sued municipalities for wanting to be there. There's some provisions where they're considered a single family residential. There's a lot of debate on there when these things pop up and you know it's your neighbor and as long as it's up to six no more than six residents it's considered a single family residential. Um and like I said that can be debated but um it's out there and now this basically Florida just trying to standardize this across everybody. So you don't have some people saying yeah do whatever you want and others like no. Um it just really standardizes it.

Okay. Thank you. I think if you were one of the cities that didn't allow them to begin with already, you would be disappointed to hear that you haven't allowed them now. Whereas Orton has already allowed these, right? Okay. They bought them in Walton County and Dustin too that we had a motion. Yeah, we already second. Yep. I didn't

car would have kicked you. [laughter]

Okay. Uh Amy, are you going to present the election of the chair person and vice chairperson? question. You should do a separate motion for each position.

Um the background is is every year the members of the local planning agency elect a chairperson and vice chairperson to serve as officers of the board for the ensuing calendar year. Uh the chair and vice chair terms are for one year. officers may serve up to two consecutive one-term uh year terms. Uh the chair presides over the meetings and takes any action necessary to preserve the order and integrity of all proceedings before the local planning agency. Chair is also a voting member for the LPA who can who can make and second a motion. In the absent of the chair, the vice chair shall act as chair. Both chair and vice chair were elected to full terms on December 7th of 2023 and October 3rd of 2024. The current chair and vice chair are termed out and are not eligible to serve a third consecutive term. We respectfully recommend that the local planning agency nominate and vote for a chair and vice chair to serve from January 2026 through December of 2026. And the vice chair could be the chairman though.

So if you work with the vice chair before, you could. And vice versa, the chairman wants to be the vice chairman. So you can flip them. You just can't. But you are termed out. We just did this like two months ago. [laughter] Well, this doesn't go in effect till January. So it's a couple months out. All right. Oh, I would uh if you would accept, I would like uh Mr. Remy to uh serve as chair. If you I'll second. So, okay.

All right. So, Mr. Renie has been nominated by the current chair to be the future chairman and seconded by Miss Wilson. All right. for that.

You do need to vote. I can't abstain. [laughter]

I wasn't the mover. You were Oh, I guess it was staring at it [laughter] for me. All right. I move Mr. Coats be the vice chair. Renie seconds. And I can get fired. Motion carry 620. Now I have a question. Um, am I turned out of everything? Just as the chair just as the chair said. So I just roll. That's correct. Okay.

And this starts January. There won't be a December meeting. There could be. Um, we don't know yet. We're not past the deadline for that one. So, a variance or something could come in. Actually, I do have one item I believe that will be coming. So, you got one more. I wanted to try to put it all in tonight, but didn't have it that way. It was enough. All right. Supervisor reports. You guys do a very good job. By the way, reports in board member reports. And Tim, I think two of the members were absent the other night, right? I'm sorry. We still have two members that were absent tonight. Correct. That's correct. Okay.

Or three members abic she stepped off, didn't she? Um, we still have the alternates and stuff. So, it was Mr. Tone Win, Jane, Cyford, Thompson Cipher, and um, Miss Alre. Yes. Okay. Are there any board

board reports or anything? No report. All right. We are journal prefer to rush in December or January. would rather get it done start of December or the start of January if they were thinking about that. I was thinking because the January January what's the date meeting would be the [screaming] real we typically are not going to do a January meeting typically there trust we we did do one this year though that would be the first year

yeah it's January this year worked out to be like a like the sixth or seventh or something like that so it was late into it yes so January 1st we're definitely doing an LPA It may just be to say hi to each other, but I'm going to have no question.