Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

First, is there any change to our agenda or update to our agenda?

Good morning. For the record, Janie Baron, Planning Manager with the Office of Planning and Zoning. I'll be presenting to you the agenda which consists of four cases. At this time, I would like to enter into the record that the cases have been duly noticed in accordance with state statute and there are no changes to the agenda.

Okay. I do have four speaker cards for tab four. which is the Iglesia Christiana Pentecostal rezoning. Are there any other tabs today that anyone from the public wishes to speak on? If so, we would need a speaker card. Seeing none, then we probably need to pull tab four down to the regular agenda so that the four speaker cards we have can be heard on that.

Thank you.

Otherwise tabs one, two, and three will remain on consent unless anyone on the board has any reason for these to be heard or pulled off of consent agenda. Okay. Let's move on to the minutes. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes from the last meeting? If there's no need for revisions, I would entertain a motion.

Motion to accept.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same. Motion carries. At this time, we would entertain any public comment not associated with any of our items on our agenda today. So if anyone from the public wishes to speak on anything that's not being considered on our agenda, now would be the time to do so. OK, seeing none. OK, we will move on to consent agenda. If no one wishes for any additional information, I would entertain a motion on tabs one, two, and three.

Motion is to pass tabs one, two, and three.

Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, we'll move into our regular agenda, which will be tab four.

I WILL BE PRESENTING TAB NUMBER 4, CASE NUMBER PZ2023-262. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURE A DISTRICT TO COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT, CFD, TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLACE OF WORSHIP. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 13131 COUNTY ROAD 561A AND IT CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 2.63 ACRES. AND HERE'S THE ZONING MAPS AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED WITH A RURAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND ZONED AGRICULTURE A. SORRY, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT A. AND HERE'S THE OVERLAY MAP AS WELL. IT'S ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE BASIN OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND THE SOUTH LAKE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT AREA, WHICH IS THIS ONE WAS SPECIFICALLY SHARED WITH THE CITY OF MINNEOLA. And on the concept plan, here's just a zoomed out version of it, but here's a little bit of a zoomed in look at it. So the concept plan for the undeveloped property depicts a 7,337 square foot single story house of worship. UTILIZING AN ESTIMATED CHAIR COUNT OF 150. THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN DEPICTS 75 PARKING SPACES AND THREE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE ACCESSED BY COUNTY ROAD 531A. AND HERE'S THE SITE DATA TABLE. And also, as I mentioned previously, it was sent to the city of Mineola. They provided in-depth review. Ultimately, their recommendation was that the city of Mineola's planning department had no objections to Lake County rezoning the subject property for the intended use. MELDING WITH THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT. HERE IS THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AS WELL. I HAVE THE APPLICANTS HERE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME, I CAN ANSWER THEM AS WELL.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC? Is the applicant present? Okay, do you wish to make any statements before we hear from the public? Okay.

Yes, not only for a place of worship, but also probably a community center. You guys use it to have community meetings on our property. If a voting place needs to be open, anything that has to do with our community, we are willing to help. We have a place where... Not only we take care of our own people that come to worship, but we also take care of our neighbors. So, um, we haven't been able to do anything with a property. Um, and we haven't never been able to, uh, offer that. There's no way of doing that. But in the place where we worship, which is in Mineola, we've been allowed to serve our community. We have different medical clinics that come, and we offer them for free. And we also offer help in whatever sense of people need. whether it's a housing location or if we try to you know meals try to give meals we also collect bread from publics and we give it out to the community so there's a lot of different things not only hearts of worship but we offer you know our community to come and invite them to you know for meetings like such, you guys would like to express anything to the community, it would be nice to have the sheriff's office in there also, different departments, fire department, and for anything that the community needs, we are willing to work with.

Wonderful, thank you. You're welcome.

Sir, could you state your name for the record, please?

Your name. Oh, sorry.

My name Ernest .

All right. Thank you. At this time, we will go ahead and call on members of the public for any comments or feedback they wish to provide. You will each be provided three minutes for for making comments. I do have four speaker cards. If anybody else wishes to speak on this matter, please fill out a speaker card and provide it to the clerk so that we can make sure you have an opportunity to speak. And when you come up to the microphone, please state your name and address for the record. And we will start with Vic Pacheco. Pacheco?

Good morning, board members.

My name is Vic. I have a property that is adjacent or behind my property line touches them. moved here from central florida to get away from the crazy insanity of the world of dr phillips to a very private five-acre property with hardly any neighbors uh... everyone up on that bridge there are no everything is residential there are no businesses everything tends to be very private scale of homes with private families living out, getting away from the chaos. Um, I think this, uh, property would just not be part of that rural community of privacy and quiet living, um, which we enjoy now. Uh, you may not be able to see it from the map, but from the road up to the top of that property is almost a 90 foot elevation of height. So this will be a river running from the top of that property to the bottom of five 61 a. This property is also the basin for all the catch water for a half a mile of 561A from Heavenly Hills and Scrub J that ends up on this property. The bottom part of this property has come up almost 18 inches in ground from the water runoff from Heavenly Hills. So that proposed pond may not catch what comes from the top of that river and all the 561A leaving to flood problems for some residents down the road. My driveway is adjacent to this property. Hey, if it happens, that's fine. Hopefully they're good neighbors. I've been there 13 years. I had a couple of run-ins with property usage of coming up my driveway with 20 grown men standing there not allowing me to get through to my house because they were having an unpermitted event there a couple of years ago. And it's an unfortunate event because I had to be the jerk to tell them, move your car so I could come and leave. privately. It just worries me when the 78 parking spaces fill up, what will happen. Will they be parking on our properties? Will they be lining up 561A, which is, if you've been on that stretch of road, you know they drive as fast as 70 and 80 miles an hour. It's rural. It's very rural. It's very quiet. It has become what many call Millionaire's Ridge now due to the many homes, large homes and equestrian homes that they're building out there. I just don't think this type of property is conducive to the residential living of what is there now, you know, environmental noise pollution. This will definitely not be in the 50 decibels. This will definitely reach over 100 with a large instrumental band and music and singing for 45 minutes. And that's great, but I just don't think it works here. And I wish them the best of luck on their journey if it doesn't work or it does work, whatever the case is. Thank you.

Thank you. OK, Daryl Woodhouse.

Good morning. Darrell Woodhouse. I live at 2010 Sunset Lane, Claremont. I'm a realtor and I represented the purchasers for the property just to the west. The problems that I have with this, I'm a man of faith. It's a very important part of my life. It's not in that, it's just the size of the property. This size of the property is less than 100 feet wide. right at real close to a hundred feet wide but just under a hundred feet wide the impervious by this own report is going to be forty eight point something percent again i agree with vic talking about the runoff concerned about that but i just don't think the property is wide enough to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish there's not we haven't done a sound study we've not done an impact study on the surrounding properties I know statements have been made about they don't feel it would affect the values negatively but I'm here to say that it will and we're just asking that you at least do that due diligence before changing the zoning on this that will affect all future uses of this property it is agricultural it is a rural area there's a lot of residential to the north and to the east But right here, these are all larger acres of track in that vicinity. The width is what I'm concerned about. And the entrance in that, one entrance going into the property, 75 parking spaces, including the neighbor that is directly behind will be having to use that property. So water runoff, sound study has not been done. Impact study has not been done for property guys in the surrounding area. I would ask that... before we change the zoning, if they were to approve it, I haven't seen enough as far as buffer zones. Can buffer zones be put in and still accomplish what they want to accomplish? I don't believe in making variances for this entity that you might not grant to a personal property owner. It's the width of the property is the biggest thing. It's long and narrow. It would be great for a residential purpose, but I do not believe it's usable by your own study for the use that they're asking. Thank you.

Thank you. Louis Bedrago or Bedrago?

Good morning. For the record, my name is Luis Bedrogo. I'm in 13101 County Road 561A. I'm the neighbor actually on the west side of the property. And I'm probably, in my opinion, the most affected with the change in the zoning. Let me start with this. It's nothing against the church or anything like that. I believe in... got as well like everybody else. But I just believe that the site plan submitted is not conducive to the rural. I left a residence in Mineola because it was too close to me. I left that environment to move into an environment that is a little more open so I can actually raise my kid and have a little more privacy. So I enjoy the area. This is the only section of Sugarloaf Mountain that is not developed beside the other side of Mineola. So this is our only area in Claremont. I'm more concerned about the site provided. It's more conducive like a commercial environment. If you look at the plan, almost 75%, 80% of the property is going to be built out. One of the concerns that I have with the mention about buffering is really a narrow lookout. You see it in the plan, it's like a zoom out, but when you actually see it in person, you can even think that the church is going to actually fit in there. It's actually sitting about 10 feet from the fence. literally next to the residence. If you look into where the residence are around the neighborhood, we all live in the backside of the property, which is at the higher side. That building proposed up to 75 feet high, in front of my house, it would block the only windows that I had in my house, even my porch. So if I get up in the morning and get my coffee, right now I look into green. Now I want to look into a wall. It's literally encroaching into my property, almost literally there. From almost 200 feet from the road, they're putting the building right next to my house in front of my, the only view that I have. I'm not really concerned about that because that's where my kids are. I have parking all facing my property. in front, side, and the rear of my house. If you have kids, I don't know, you really wanna have people parking and walking in front of your kids' room, basically, that's where they're sitting. I'm also concerned about the noise and privacy that they mentioned before as well. This is a live church, they play live music. How are you gonna control the noise? I don't know if there's any studies done. but I don't wanna wake up on a Sunday morning, the only day that I have to sleep to get a lot of noise in cars and vehicles parking. And if it's at nighttime, imagine all these car lights basically facing into my property. There's no buffering in between the two properties. There is no landscaping proposed in there. The only trees in the property that they have is actually in the center of the property. All that's gonna be destroyed and they just put parking lot in there. You're talking about putting it away from the street. Everybody can see it. It's uphill, no cars, no trees. All you're going to see is a tower. That's going to be the next Citrus Tower, in my opinion, building next to my house. Another concern that I have, we don't have any services in our property. Is that it?

Yep.

Yeah, we don't have any water or sewer. And what's going to happen with those services when it's starting to run off into my side?

Thank you. Thank you. Omyra Biorgo.

Good morning. My name is Omyra Biorgo and I actually am Louis Biorgo's wife. I live in the property 13101 County Road 561A. So the biggest thing that I have to say is the same thing as what everybody else repeated, right? We moved into this property to avoid being in a neighborhood and being in privacy. I love the nature. I like to wake up in the morning, go out on my porch and have a coffee, right? That's exactly what I do every day in my rope. I'm not kidding. So again, I have no offense to anything that they may put on the property. I welcome if it is. I just simply feel that there is no privacy. There will be no privacy. And currently today, that is where I feel the most safe and at peace, even including my son, right? And I do have an elderly mother as well on the property who we take care of. So again, I think that the space is not big enough. I think it's very small, very tight, and the building being so close to us that it's literally a wall. You literally walk out of my porch and there will be the building based on those plans. And we do, everything that they talked about, the floods, every time that we have rain, we puddle all the way in the bottom. So there is a lot of risk as far as that as well. As far as, like I said, I just wanna make sure that you all understand that there is a privacy that we like about this property it is our place of peace and we would like to keep it that way so thank you thank you michael stencil my name is michael stencil i live at 12927 cynthia lane

which is adjacent to this, would be behind them on top of the hill. I'm going to agree with every past four people that have spoken. The plan that is in this place with that 90 foot elevation, where's the sewer going to go? Because this isn't going to be on public sewer with . This is going to have to be on its own septic system. So even to install that hasn't been tested for its percolation. for what that's going to do. They're also gonna have to drill a well. And then the sanctuary that we all have up on those locations, I came into this court two years ago or three years ago to change our location where we built a home on Sugarloaf Mountain from residential one to agriculture because I wanted to start farming with my family. And this encroachment is just gonna be another encroachment and another encroachment and another encroachment to weed out all the people who bought property there and now live there just for the sanctity of quietness. On Saturdays and Sundays, 561A is a bike route. It's constant bikes. Has anybody considered the traffic flow that's gonna be there at that time? They're gonna be having church, and there's gonna be people on bikes. That's already a very dangerous road. And Lake County hasn't done anything on 561A to improve it, even though there was a study done in 2009. It still hasn't been improved, so. I think the footprint of this would be better served in Mineola where Mineola already has a multi-use plan of property that is readily available basically only a half mile, quarter mile from this location. And that plan that Mineola already has says multi-use, which would include a structure like this. So there is other property that's available. I believe that the request that's before you is a financial request. It's cheaper for them to build there on a piece of land that quite frankly, nobody else would build a house on. They really wouldn't not on that property. It's a flood zone. Thank you. Hope your consideration is to deny it.

Thank you. Doug Ramsey.

Good morning, my name's Doug Ramsey. I live at 13209 County Road 561A, three abuts to the east of this proposed property. We've lived there for 30 years, have a tree farm on our property, and where this structure would go would be within 100 yards of our home on the side of our bedroom. I think one of, although I am in agreement with everyone that's come up here before, I also know that this property is only two and a half acres In the current zoning, you could not put a house on there. So we're proposing to put a church there, a big 75 spot parking lot. And from the road, it's going to be no matter what you do on that piece of property, it's gonna be an eyesore. It's just like a needle from the road. I can't see how the operation of a church is going to be consistent with rural domiciles, many of whom are farming. And if we can't put a house there, why would we want to put a church? Also, we're talking about or worrying about Sundays and Saturdays But we all know that churches have operations all the time. When are they gonna wanna put a school in there? The comments about the road did leave out the fact that many of the detours that are going on through the construction of the turnpike are bringing traffic trucks and cars and dump trucks through that corridor in front of this proposed zoning difference. So that's another, it's already on certain days very difficult to get out of our driveway. Is that my time?

Yes, could you just wrap up your statement?

Okay, my statement is to deny the zoning change based on everything everybody else has said. I've tried not to duplicate their comments, but thank you.

Thank you. All right, does anyone else from the public wish to speak on this matter before we close public comment? Okay, seeing none. At this time, we would allow the applicant to make any additional statements. You would have 10 minutes to say pretty much any rebuttal information that you would like to state or clarify.

I've been in this property since 2007. It's when we purchased our property. I understand their feelings. wouldn't want that either in my neighborhood if it's been quiet for a while but when i purchased the property i purchased it with the intention of building the church and county when i talked to county back then they tell me you can do whatever you want in your property which I understood what they were saying. They were not saying it like that. They were just saying, it's your property. You've got to go by the means and the regulations that we have established. Well, of course, we're not here to upset anybody. We're not here to make noise. Obviously, construction has improved a lot, a great. Also, if you notice on the side of the road, we have a retention pond that we're going to build to retain all that water that they are saying. So it's actually probably a favor for them when we can collect all that water in that basin. That way we can control the storm. Not control the storm, but control the amount of water. Also, I have a responsibility for the neighbor right behind me, which is Toby. I had to make a road for him to go in and out, which that roundabout may not be in there, because I know he has trailers and he deals with horses. So I had to give him enough room for him to go in and out. Construction, if you guys know and understand, it's going to be a metal building, but it's going to be well insulated. With the noise, it's going to be well kept inside our four walls. Obviously, it'll be earlier in the mornings on Sundays, so it won't be late at night. And we are conscious of our neighbors. We don't want to disturb anybody. We understand that after 9 o'clock, the noise has to be reduced to a maximum. And there's a farm of trees on my left. If I'm looking at the streets, it's on my right side. From the street up, it's a farm of trees, which it kind of buffers all kinds of sounds. If you sit there, you can hear the trees, the wind going through the trees, which is a plus. And we're not here to bother anybody. We're not here to make any inconvenience. We just have the need for a place of worship. And the place that we've been, we've been 21 years, giving services and a rental place. And it's been an uphill. It's been an uphill for us. And we got part of the congregation sitting here with us. We just would like for you guys to reconsider, you know, and take it in sight. If there's any noise test that we could do, we could probably do it. But we can't do it now because we don't have the building done. So, you know, we can accommodate and try to reach a happy medium for sure. All right?

Thank you so much. And you understand the conditions that are outlined in the ordinance that would require you to do a noise study, environmental assessments, and all of those things as part of the site planning process. Correct.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

All right. Well, um, we'll bring this back to the board. Does anyone have questions for staff or. Anything to that nature before we go to a motion?

I have one question offer staff. What?

Hang on just a second.

What are the buffering requirements?

So in terms of the actual structures, it'll be a 10-foot setback. But for the landscape, we actually have it in the The ordinance itself, let me see here. Section D. So basically landscaping, buffering, and screening shall be in accordance with the comprehensive plan and LDR as amended. It would essentially be determined during the site plan review. It'll be sent to landscaping for them to provide what they expect for their landscape.

No fence requirements or anything like that?

I don't believe so. I don't think we have a fence requirement.

Madam Chairman, while he's looking at that, because this is a conditional zoning, you can add a specific buffer requirement if that's what you would like to do. We do have different levels, ABC, et cetera. So you could add that to this ordinance to address comments. You could also add language to this ordinance that offsite parking and parking along 561 and stacking of parking. or stacking while they're waiting to get in is strictly prohibited, you can add that as well. And then the section regarding open space impervious floor area and building height, currently it just defers to the LDR, but it looks like their proposed impervious surface is about 49%. I would suggest adding those specific numbers in there so that they cannot continue to add additional impervious if this gets approved today.

Thank you. And I did see in the ordinance it speaks to buffers, but does not stipulate what they would be comprised of, only that perimeter buffers shall be Florida native and all of that. So there's not a specific LDR requirement for the size of the buffer, or there is?

So there actually isn't for going from A to CFD. There is no perimeter landscape buffering requirement for that specifically, nor is there any for fencing either for it.

And that's because the surrounding properties are agricultural zoning?

Yeah, because typically they're going to be larger properties that wouldn't run into that kind of issue.

So your lowest buffer requirement in the code would be a buffer A, which would be 20 foot in width with two canopy trees, an ornamental tree, and single-growth shrubs, or 15 feet in width, three canopy trees, two ornamental, one single-growth shrubs. 10 feet with two canopy one ornamental tree and one row of shrubs five there's also a category for five feet residential to residential zoning which would require a six foot solid wall so you have flexibility if you want to add in buffer language to the ordinance okay

Um, and my question for staff, does that, wait a minute, does that address your question about buffering?

Did you have any additional questions?

Okay. Um, my question is about water and sewer. I understand those are not currently available, but the city of Maniola has stated in their letter that they anticipate water and sewer being available within five years. Um, so. there would be no obligation for them to connect into that water and sewer once that it becomes available, especially if they've already installed a commercial septic and well, I'm assuming.

Yeah, based on the city of Mineola's response comment letter, they didn't have anything in there noting that they have to connect to the city. I do know that they are doing that for residential properties on the older side of their town, on the western side of 27, but as for this one, they didn't have anything indicating that they needed that.

But we do have a, I think their letter did say they have over, what, 500 units coming directly across the street from this as part of a PD?

Yes, so they have Mineola Ridge, which is a PUD down there, which would have several hundred houses. And they also have Del Webb at Mineola, I believe, right down the street as well, which is another, I believe, almost nearing 1,000 houses for that one as well.

Right, and that's an age-restricted community, correct?

Yes, yeah, I think it's a 55-plus.

Okay.

And I did want to enter into the record for the table. There was an error on the maximum ISR for the table for the rural future land use. It would actually be 20%. So were they to get approval today and submit for site plan, they would have to meet that required ISR maximum.

So the maximum impervious permitted where we see table one existing and proposed, where it says proposed CFD, the maximum ISR for CFD is actually what?

So it would actually be for the rural future land use that has the 20%. I don't believe it's on the table itself, but it does have, I think that the CFD would by default be 80%. However, meeting the rural future land use category requirement, it would be 20%.

So which controls, the land development regulation or the comprehensive plan designation?

Well, it's the most restrictive.

Okay, whichever is the most restrictive. In this case, it would be the rural future land use. So the rural future land use impervious surface is 20%? Yes. They're more than double that in their concept.

Correct. So if they got and received approval for it, they would have to meet that requirement, which would likely require reduced impervious surface ratios for them. as well as the structure itself reductions.

So the bulk of their impervious surface is parking from their concept? Yes. So that would be where they would have to make up that impervious standard. So I guess my larger concern then becomes what surfaces are they permitted to use for parking

that are pervious as opposed to impervious other than just parking on grass or gravel madam chair i was rereading the the um for the record jane burrow and planning manager so the table one just to provide clarification it's not an error table one itself provides the and the criteria asset in the land development regulations so it included the 80 percent that's allowed per the community facility district in reviewing the rule future land use it does state There is a secondary impervious surface, which is 35% for civic uses, which is what this would fall under.

Okay. Their proposed use still exceeds 35%.

Correct. So at the time of site plan, should the rezoning request be approved, the site plan would have to be in compliance with that impervious surface ratio criteria.

So again, given that the majority of their impervious is coming from their parking and access road, I'm assuming that's where they're gonna make that up and they can't really reduce their parking because that would put them in another problem where they don't have enough parking for their facility. What types of materials would be alternatives here? I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Would they be allowed to do gravel parking, for example, or grass parking? Because those are equally concerning with environmental potential issues.

The grass parking would be permitted. That would be something we could look at. Yes, ma'am.

but then we have conditions of potential runoff from vehicles parking over grass, correct?

Correct, and that would be something, and if there's further, I can have Public Works come up, and there are subject matter experts in that criteria, so we can definitely have them provide that information, because I knew the stormwater was going to be the next question.

Wonderful, thank you.

Seth Lynch, Public Works Department. Grass parking is an option for churches, but they still have to manage the stormwater runoff off the parking. The drive aisles should be paved and then a turnaround, however that may occur because he's mentioned issues with the property owner to the north.

So the entry driveway would still have to be paved?

The drive aisles would be paved. The Parking spaces could be grass. Handicapped spaces, if they provide them, have to be a concrete or asphalt.

Okay, so they have some ways they could make this work, theoretically.

Theoretically, but there's gonna be additional right-of-way that most likely will determine that site plan, but there'll be additional right-of-way on 561A that could push the site work further up and reduce some of the parking.

Why is additional right-of-way needed on 561A? Is that just standard now for anything?

Typically, we determine that at site plan when we get the full whatever they're allowed to do. We got all the information, surveys, design, the ordinances in place of what they can do. So the ordinance gives them the maximum can they do it or not, that comes down to their experts fitting it in. But there's, this is a road that's gonna need to be improved in the future with all the development Mineola has.

Right. Okay, does anyone else have questions for Public Works?

I do.

Yes, ma'am.

Can, I'm sorry, if you would allow me to just.

Is your microphone on?

Yes. Okay, just make sure. If you would just allow me to repeat what I think you said. You are telling us that their parking spaces, the number of them, could be impacted based on things that may occur with 561 and all the other requirements such as, you know, the parts that have to be paved and the parts that don't, correct? So they could end up with less than 75 parking spaces.

They may have to reduce the site or push it further north in order to make the buffering that you guys have mentioned and the additional right-of-way. The stormwater retention sizing it, engineer has to size it per the new water management rules for the state. And there's about 75 feet or more drop from the north side down to 561A. So they've got a lot of challenges.

Thank you. Does anyone else have additional questions at this time? Thank you, Seth. Okay, are there any other questions for staff or... legal at this time. If not, we can entertain a motion and then we can bring it back for board discussion. Does anyone care to make a motion? Anyone? We do need a motion in order to go into discussion, just so you know.

I will offer a motion for the purpose of discussion. Thank you. What is your motion? I offer a motion that we consider allowing for the proposal of this church facility to be built as it is stated pending outcome of voting. Is that okay?

Pending the outcome of what? Of what voting board decides. It's got to be a motion to approve or deny, correct?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

It's pending site plan approval, guys, so I have no problem making the motion to approve. I mean, site plan is going to make the final decision on some of these items that we're discussing.

Yes.

Yeah.

Are we required to put any restrictions or is that all going to be? We can.

That's what Melanie was just telling us is some of these things, like the buffering we talked about, there is no requirement for buffering between ag and community facility district. We can add because this is conditional zoning as the... community facility district. So we can add a requirement into the ordinance that they comply with a certain buffering.

I believe one of the buffering items that we could do is a 15 foot landscape buffer, correct?

Yes. That was an option.

I'd make a motion to approve subject to adding the 15 foot landscape buffer.

Okay. So you would say a 15 foot, can we not do that as a motion just yet? Would that be okay?

That's fine.

Okay. So if we did the 15-foot buffer, that's the type A that you referenced, correct?

Correct. It would be a type A 15-foot. Type A 15-foot buffer.

And then the other issue is the impervious because the zoning does have a maximum impervious of 35%, correct?

The future land use does.

Sorry, the future land use has a maximum, okay. Okay. All right, and then everything else would theoretically be subject to the site planning process. That's where our, everything else is gonna come into play. How this all lays out, if it works, if it can be made to work, correct?

That's correct. The only other suggestion I had was to add language to the ordinance to prohibit stacking of cars and or parking offsite.

And that's on, this is County Road 561A, right? Okay, so that would essentially be three conditions to consider adding to the ordinance as it's written now.

Madam Chairman, and just a question that staff raised on the buffer, would the 15-foot buffer be all the way around the entire perimeter, or would it just be buffering against the residential uses? Public Works has a concern that they're not going to be able to do a 15-foot buffer based on the width of this property.

Right, because it's only 100 feet wide, or it's not even, it's 97 feet wide.

Correct, and the setbacks are 10, as it is in the ordinance.

Okay, would we be comfortable with a 10-foot buffer since the setback requires 10 feet anyways? And that it would be for the entirety of the property, I'm assuming, given that the parking would create headlight visuals pushing through to the other properties as well. So... What's the pleasure of the board on that? Would that, are y'all thinking the buffer goes all the way around the property or it's only where the structure is, or it only extends to where the parking extends to.

I think it only goes, you only buffer on the side where the residential parcels are.

There are none.

They're all ag and buffer on those sides.

And I mean, just the, so are we, so that's the thing is it's ag all the way around it, the, the north, south and east. I mean, this is sideways, so east, north. West, north, and east sides are all ag. There we go, sorry, I'm looking at the map at an angle. So all sides are ag around it, but they have residences on those ag properties.

So you buffer on all those sides.

Okay. And we're thinking the buffer extends the entirety of the length of the property, not just to where the parking is or where the structure is.

We can have Janie pull up the aerial.

Correct. I'll go ahead and pull up the aerial, but I did want to enter something into the record. So from the right-of-way, a Type A landscape buffer is required no matter what because it's a right-of-way. So if the pleasure of the board is to have a 10-foot landscape buffer, then we could probably look at having it on the side and rear, okay? So give me just a moment and I'll pull up that aerial for you.

Thank you.

And I can zoom in.

So once Janie zooms in, you can see the residents on either side are all the way in the back. And then of course there's the properties that access to the rear.

Does the property on the north have to access that property to get to 561?

I believe so. That's what the property owner was describing was they have an easement that allows for them to access through. And I think it's actually stated somewhere in the ordinance that Or no, sorry, it's stated in the narrative from the applicant, if I'm not mistaken.

If you look at your site plan and your packet, you can see that their proposed building in the back of the property is going to be almost directly adjacent to the neighbor on the east. And the neighbor, I'm sorry, the west and the neighbor on the east has their own tree line buffer. That's where the tree farm is.

So the project narrative from the applicant says the property will have private access, which will also serve the adjacent rear parcel through an existing easement. So I'm assuming there's some sort of easement in place for that rear property to access through this. It's not shown on the concept plan, but maybe they have it on their survey.

There is a gravel road that shows on the concept plan. So we can't have you talking from the audience because we can't get you on the record.

Well, that's something that's going to have to be resolved through site planning, correct? Correct. And that these two property owners probably, if there is no legal document, probably need to get something in place to make sure that they maintain that access. Okay.

Madam Chair, Janie Baron again for the record. I was made aware of an LDR. The LDR for the front has to read LDR as amended because my understanding is there will be an ordinance that's coming forward depending as to when the project is developed that may include the front to be a 20 foot buffer versus a 15 foot buffer based on the code. So we just want to make sure that the front we label that it's per the LDR's amendment and then be very specific as to the buffer that we would like on the sides and the rear.

Okay, so the front buffer that's against 561A would be per LDR because a buffer is required there either way. And then The east, north, and west sides, because there is no buffer in our land development regulation requirement for these uses, would be proposed as a 10-foot type A buffer on east, north, and west. Is that generally what we're talking about?

Yes.

OK. So aside from the buffer, the impervious surface, and the prohibition of offsite parking and stacking of any vehicles along 561A. Are there any other concerns that need to be documented in the ordinance at this time?

No. Not in my opinion.

OK. So we currently have a motion for approval. With a second, and we're in discussion, do we wish to amend that motion? Yes, ma'am. What about other offsite parking that was mentioned? So I've got it as prohibits offsite parking and any stacking of vehicles on 561A. So that would mean they can't have folks parking either on an adjacent property or elsewhere. and then you know walking or traversing in other capacities to get to this facility and then it would also prohibit vehicles stacking while they're trying to turn in to this property which would create traffic backups along 561a if they're trying to get into the site so all stacking should be internal which may be complicated by the width of the property okay um but again that's something they'll have to resolve at site plan Okay, so we currently have a motion for approval, but there's no conditions. Does anyone wish to go forward with that motion? Does someone wish to offer a new motion? Do we need to vote on that motion?

No, you can amend the motion to add those conditions.

Would you like to amend it?

You got all the info.

Okay. So I'm just going to state those, and then you can say amend per. Okay, so the proposed amendment to the ordinance would be to require a type A buffer 10 feet in width on the – west, north, and east perimeters of the property, and the south buffer along County Road 561A would be in accordance with the county's land development regulations. The property would be subject to a maximum impervious surface ratio of 35% per the county's comprehensive plan. Off-site parking would be prohibited, and any stacking of vehicles on highways County Road 561A would be prohibited.

Amend accordingly.

The second amend.

Does the second accept that amendment? Yes, second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second with those conditions in play. Is there any more discussion or any additional topics at this time? Okay, seeing none, I would call for a vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, and that is the last item on our agenda today. Is there any other business? Janie?

No other business, and our next meeting is on May the 6th.

Thank you. Next meeting, May the 6th, everybody. And we're adjourned.