Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Board and welcome all the citizens who came out today. If the secretary would please call the roll.

Clint Baker.

Here.

Steve Vieira. Here. Kevin Graham.

Here.

Phillip Smallwood. Absent. Robert Segur.

Here.

We have a quorum. Go forward.

Thank you. The minutes were circulated to the board. If anybody has any comments on those? If not, we'll approve those, and I have signed those and returned them. And I'd like to mention to everyone to please silence your phones if you will be speaking today so it won't interrupt others. And I think everything today is legislative, and so we probably do not need to swear in, do we, sir? No, sir. Okay.

and sean any comments from staff today uh not at this time sir okay i believe we can begin with our first petition thank you sean cullinan planning zoning official uh this is a legislative item this is a plat vacation for chad and wendy and i apologize i'm going to butcher this uh solo becko they are requesting to vacate a portion of Port Charlotte subdivision section 17 lots 21 through 23 this is located in the Kenilworth area and in Commission District 5 here is the aerial location map the full range mid-range and the close in aerial you may recognize some of these areas they are just up the road off of veterans The county's solid waste transfer station is a little bit further down here. These are the Eagle View image from 2025. The future land use map designation is low density residential. And the zoning designation is residential single family 3.5. This is the 1,000 foot mail notice area. Here are the proposed changes. It would be taking those three lots and turning them into one lot. So again, it would just be under one ownership. The main reason for this is the utilities are available here on Kenilworth, but not on Rutland, as this is a low pressure sewer. The county will be owning all of the infrastructure going up to the house, including the grinder pump system. And so in order to be able to do that, it was their requirement that this be vacated to one lot. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I believe the applicant is present.

Sean, I do have one question. Is there an increase or a decrease in density to the site? Are we only allowing one lot, one unit of density?

No, sir. This would still have three units of density because that's what it was. The original plat invested lots of record. It could be split or subdivided again in the future, but it would have to go through whatever process is in place at that time. All right.

And with not a subjective number, all right.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. If not, I'm going to hear from the applicant if you come forward.

Okay, Chad Solowaco is my name. We're the ones, my wife and myself, petitioning to do this. As was expressed, it's just for the purpose of bringing utility to the house with public water and the low pressure sewer system. We have no intention to build any more than one unit on this property. Perhaps we would add a detached garage or something, but not additional residential units.

okay thank you sir okay and i guess we can now open it up to public comment if anybody wishes to speak thank you sir thank you and uh we'll give anybody a chance to speak on it mr chairman i'll move to close public comment we have a motion Second and a second all in favor aye. Okay public comment is closed and at this point do we have any discussion about the petition.

all right i would make a motion to forward application vpl 2603 to the board of county commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis of the staff memo dated september 14th 2026 charlotte county's comprehensive plan and the evidence of testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board all right we have a motion any discussion on the motion all right i'll second that motion

I'm sorry, you should have seconded it first. It's been, that was a quick one. I wasn't going to call you out that way. It's okay, it's okay. Any discussion now that it's been seconded?

okay gentlemen all in favor aye aye all opposed it passes unanimously thank you sean thank you uh once again sean cullen and planning zoning official uh if the board is all right with this i'd like to do this one and the next one just go straight into them as the roadways are adjacent and essentially t into each other um and the back patterns are very similar So VST 2602 and 2603, 2008 Florida Recovery Limited Partnership. That's a mouthful. They are looking to vacate a portion of Fox Globe Lane on the first petition, which is a road off of State Road 776. Now this road is being required to be closed off by FDOT. At the time that the plan development that's been approved for that area comes forward to actually start developing Nothing will be happening right now right now. We're just looking or they're looking to essentially race lines on paper Here is the location map Here is the mid-range. Here's the eagle view Here is the area image for Foxglove. So you can see this is the area that will be vacated This is the results of the proposed changes. It'll all be one big, adding that in, it'll be all one big piece. This is the existing Foxglove Road. You can get a couple feet in, but not much after that. The future land use map designation is compact growth mixed use, and the zoning is planned development and residential multifamily five. Flood designations are 8AE with a portion of X. Here is the 1,000-foot mailed notice area map. And here are the proposed changes over with the aerial. So going into the next one, it essentially ties into it. This is for EIP4 Florida Colusa Land LLC. I love these corporate names. This is to vacate a portion of Oxbow Street, which was platted in 1911 as Orange Avenue. As part of the overall PD, again, just erasing lines. Once again, the long-range location map, mid-range, the eagle view. And so as you can see, the portion that we just spoke about is this here, and this road tees into here. You can see that there are roads that go up to Cattle Dock, so there will be no deprivation of access here. Once again, wet and vacated. The future land use map designation is compact growth mixed use. And the zoning designation is planned development. The flood designation in this area is all 8AE. Again, the 1,000 foot mail notice area map. So with that, staff did put that it may not be consistent with the comprehensive plan, but it may be deemed consistent as well. So staff has really no objections. Some of the reviewers did have some concerns about landlocking parcels, but some of the parcels that were discussed, such as parcels down here, they are part of this plan development. They have the plan development zoning, and other parcels have other access through here. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is present as well.

Any questions from the board? Sean, could you refresh my memory on the main parcel? It's been before this board before for its approval factor. It's just an administrative issue that we're dealing with here strictly?

That is correct, and one of the main reasons for it is this entrance here that led to that. road that was one of the photos, when the development comes in, this road is too close to cattle dock, which we are not shutting down cattle dock, that goes to parks, county facilities, other things, DOT, Florida Department of Transportation, is requiring that this be closed at time of development. Right now it's just more of a farm trail, access into here for management.

but in order to do that they're going to add it into the development and as i said essentially we're racing lines on paper and and in the future does the development then provide access to the other i guess that's a question for mr bernstein to the for the other parcels the back there i'll let you present and then i'll follow up yeah any other questions for sean from the

Okay, Mr. Bernstein.

Good afternoon, Rob Bernstein, Big W Law. I haven't been sworn because I didn't need to be. I'm so used to saying I have been. I'm here on both these petitions as indicated by Sean. This is part of the overall big picture for for the project out in West County. As they are moving forward with the preliminary work, they met with FDOT who indicated that that roadway is too close, so it will need to be closed off. The road that you kind of see, and I use road very sketchily, the area that's currently Oxbow will be a road and will provide access to the out parcels that are not part of the overall project. The two out parcels for the Foxglove, which is just north of where it says subject property, one more, No, right there. Yeah, those two those two parcels are out parcels. They're not part of the zoning They're not part of the overall plan. They've been owned by the same family since 1985 and Nothing's happened. Even if they were to try to develop them their multifamily zoning They couldn't use that existing roadway would have to be brought to County standards and they would not allow that roadway to be improved because of its proximity to cattle docks so there are two separate applications because they technically don't touch each other but they're right there in the same area and it's just in furtherance of the overall development that will be coming back as it moves forward I have questions so so there's also access from cattle dock road yeah you can to those parcels you're mentioning that are owned separately

yes so if you go back Shawn go forward maybe this is probably the clearest one here this is Fox glow this is oxbow this is a road continuation of oxbow page 24 is probably the

if you go one more where you just were yeah see you can see those lines that's the road they're paper roads at this point but those roads do those access points do exist for those property correct that's correct they still have legal access okay okay I'm happy to answer any questions. There was a lot in the packet of emails going back and forth, but we worked it out with staff, and everybody kind of came to this conclusion that it's a legislative matter. Yes or no, it's up to the board.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brinson. And we'll let you reserve comments if we have any public comment, and I'll open that up now. Anybody here who's wishing to speak on this petition, please come forward.

Chairman, I'll move to close public comment.

We have a motion. Second. And a second. All in favor, aye. Aye.

Okay. It's rare that I have a petition that doesn't have anyone speaking. And then you don't have a rebuttal.

We'll take it. They're not speaking because the ship's already sailed around. I might be a whole lot different if it hadn't.

Any questions or comments on the...

I feel we've got no alternative because as I just indicated the ships already sailed on this particular project but the reality is this is one of the last areas in West County that could have been utilized for any wildlife habitat, and once it's gone, there's gonna be nothing left over there. So it's most unfortunate. When you look at the original documents on this, this original plot was for the town of McCall, it goes back so far, which puts it around the turn of the century or shortly thereafter, when it was certainly a different lifestyle. than we have today, but I am disappointed that this particular property's gone down this road, but certainly there is no choice legislatively on this but to make the decision that they've asked for.

Thank you, and this is in my district, so Mr. Rivera, maybe you would be so kind as, and we'll have to do these each separately. Correct, yes, sir.

I'd like to make a motion to forward application VST-26-02 to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff memo dated September 14, 2026, Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. we have a motion do we have a second second and we have a second any further comments or discussion yeah okay gentlemen all in favor aye aye all opposed this one passes unanimously and we're ready for the next one okay uh i would like to make them excuse me i'd like to make a motion of forward application vst-26-03 to the board of county commissioners with the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis in the staff memo dated September 14th, 2026, Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board.

I have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. And it is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. And this one carries forward unanimously as well. And Mr. Cullen, ready for the final one.

Thank you. Once again, Sean Cullinan, planning zoning official. This is another street vacation. This is legislative for, and I apologize, I'm not even going to try to state the applicant's name. They are requesting to vacate an undeveloped portion of Flamingo Boulevard adjacent to lot 1 within the Port Charlotte subdivision section 44 this is located off of O'Hara Drive in Commission District 4 here is the high aerial full range aerial map mid-range map and here is the the area image as you can see the driveway is coming in here that was permitted via Public Works and they are now just looking to vacate they are leaving a strip of un-vacated land so there will not be any denial of access to water but they are looking to just make sure the driveway is within their property here is the 2026 aerial image Future land use map designation is low-density residential with the zoning of residential single-family 3.5. Here is the 1,000-foot mailed notice area map. Here are the proposed changes and the proposed changes overlaid onto the aerial. The property ownership, again, would stay with this property. It's not one where it's getting split down the center. It's only a partial. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I believe the applicants may be present.

Sean, why in this particular one, normally we would just go ahead and vacate the entire street and split it amongst the two property owners. Is that still possible?

They just didn't ask for it. The access to water issue. If you recall, typically when we vacate access to water, The comprehensive plan requires there to be an offsetting public benefit. So by leaving this portion, now these folks could come in to look at vacating their half, but because we're not vacating the whole thing, the public still has legal access right to come down this paper roadway to fish or put a kayak in or whatever they'd like.

Oh, so I don't remember that one. So what would happen, let's say the other family did ask for it and the county does vacate, you said you have to replace that or something?

Under the comprehensive plan, you're required to, if you're vacating public access to water, there has to be an offsetting public benefit. Now that is a very broad term that is decided on by the Board of County Commissioners. Some people have had to make improvements depending on location. Some folks where it was just completely overgrown, nobody could actually physically access it. They just felt that the increase in taxable value was sufficient, but it's a policy in the comp plan that there has to be an offsetting public benefit.

So basically, the driveway was built in the wrong place, so we need to give up the access to the property so they can be legal?

Well, the driveway was properly permitted. It went through. We found the old permits and emails. Those are in the packet. It's because most driveways, for instance, a driveway here is within the right-of-way, the roadway. This is just they want to be able to fully control that area. Right now, you could walk up their driveway to here. Right now, it's built on a legal access easement, basically? No, sir. It's all legal, but they can't preclude somebody from walking onto their driveway and things like that. Okay.

yeah exactly interesting yeah very interesting uh okay well if we if the applicants are here if we could hear from them uh just one is fine you can i'm logan degross i'm here on behalf of mr zhang okay um he's just had trouble selling this property everybody who's looked at it has run into this and backed out after making an offer and when i called everybody at the county Nobody had ever heard of this before. It seems like it's a pretty unique situation. So we're just trying to get it to where he owns his driveway, it was permitted correctly, and now somebody could just park there and launch a kayak, apparently. So we're just trying to fix that issue so we can sell it.

Okay, and that makes sense.

And I think the property next door, we spoke with him. He was okay with it. He was happy to get half of the... vacation if possible but i think his property was already the conforming lot and so giving him an extra 20 feet or so didn't make sense okay

All right. Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant?

Okay. If you could just, before you walk away, just enter your name into the record really quickly. And then Mr. Zeng, if you could also enter your name into the record and just answer whether or not you authorized this gentleman to speak on your behalf. Thank you.

My name is Logan DeGross.

My name is Tiso Zeng. I authorize Logan too. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. And now we'll open it up for public comment. If anyone is here wishing to speak on this petition, please come forward. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I'll move to close public comment.

Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So public comment is closed. Any discussion? um it looks i yeah i understand the applicant sean you guys wouldn't and i know it's too late but you wouldn't advise them just to have gone all the way down to the water on that width or did you not want to

Again this is what they proposed we would have normally or both what we've done in the past if the other person had wanted some they'd probably have to both provide an easement on typically what we've been doing is a three to five foot easement on each side of the center line of the road to continue the public access that's what we've done in previous vacations of this type when it is vacating access to water but this is what they proposed.

Okay, that's fine. This is, of all the ones we've done, I think this is one of the more odd ones. This is a weird one. It's the most unique, yes. Yeah.

Okay, any other questions?

Again, in my district, Mr. Rivera, if we would hate to burden you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make like to make a motion to forward application VST dash 26 dash 04 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff memo dated September 14 2026. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before it's planning and zoning board. We have a motion second and a second any discussion?

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? This unanimously moves forward as well. And Sean, any comments?

Yes, sir. Just a quick comment. You, Mr. Baker and Mr. Smallwood, you are up for re-election or reappointment to this board November 30th of 2026. So if you want to put your, obviously Mr. Smallwood's not here to hear this, but if you want to put in your application, your term will be up at the end of November.

Okay. Thank you, Sean. I'll do that. Any other announcements? All right. Well, thank you.

Meeting adjourned.