Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Meeting of the planning board to order.  Uh, are there any changes or deletions? No, I'm sorry. Roll call. Roll call. Board member  Carol here. Board member Stamps is absent. Vice   Chair Barker here. Board member Rich here. Chair  Newower is absent. Okay. Are there any changes or   deletions? Vice chair. There are no changes or  deletions that staff pass this afternoon. There   are none. Okay. There are none. Are there any  announcements or disclosures? Uh I would like to   disclose I've talked to Mr. Cameron on the phone  and I'd also like to point out that both Florida   Gator fans are not here today and I probably  wouldn't show up if I lost to USF either. So,   yep. And I did also talk to Mr. Cameron on the  phone. Okay. And which item are we disclosing   this for? The first item. The first. Okay. Yes,  ma'am. Okay. Um, yeah. Can I get a approval of the   minutes? Uh, motion to approve. Second. It's been  moved and second that we approve the minutes. Call   the role. Board member Carol? Yes. Board member  Rich? Yes. Vice Chair Barker? Yes. Motion passes   30. Okay. This time we will have the quas judicial  proceeding. Uh we proceeding I'm sorry. Uh certain   matters that comes before the plan planning  board are quasi judicial proceedings meaning   that the board will hear evidence and render a  decision regarding this matter based upon the   evidence received. The part is before the board  and the public are entitled to present evidence,   documents, witnesses and cross-examine  witness. All witness are on the oath and  

the entire procedal recorded. However, if you  need a verbatim record, you must hire your own   court report and we going to allow you to uh  swear anybody in that need to be sworn in. Yes,   sir. Okay. Okay. You ready? Uh staff, will  you raise your right hand at this time and   remember that you will remain under oath during  the entire proceedings. Do you swear and affirm   that the test and anyone who is here to testify in  the proceedings um may stand at this time as well? Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you're  about to give is the truth, the whole truth,   and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you.  And if you have not been sworn in, but you do wish   to speak during any of these public hearings, if  you come to the podium and just let me know that   you were not sworn in at the time, I will go ahead  and swear you in at that time. Okay. Are there any   other requests? Miss Mr. Vice Chairman, I just  wanted to ask if we can go back to item five,   the approval of the 2026 planning board meeting  minutes. I mean, I'm sorry, meeting schedule. Oh,   that's right. I just do that. Thank you. It's  a little different this this this evening. I'm   not used to doing the planning things. I know.  It's okay. All right. All right. In in front   of the board members, you have the planning board  meeting schedule. Uh can I get a motion to approve   this? Yeah. I'll make a motion. Yep. Second. It's  motion and second that we approve the planning   board meeting schedule for 2026. Call the role.  Board member Carroll. Yes. Board member Rich.   Yes. Vice Chairman Barker. Yes. Motion passes  300. Thank you for that. Thank you, Sister H. Y'all keep me straight. Are we ready for  for part A now? Okay. There we have before  

us developmental service department staff  report A. All right. Item A, case number   0946. This variance request at location 743  Redwood Avenue. Personal ID5945-010-0000. The owner and applicant is James Cameron  of JC Homes and Development. Um they're   requesting for variance from the  setback regulations established by   section 104-36.3 and staff is recommending denial. Do we have anyone here to speak on this? See? Hey, good afternoon everybody. I am James Cameron  with JC Homes and Development. I appreciate the   opportunity to come before you guys today  to uh with my request for variance. Hey,   this is a first for me, so bear with me.  I'm not great at public speaking either,   so forgive my uh reading of the notes here, but  um I've been in construction for over 20 years,   and this is the first time something  like this has ever happened to me. So,   um just to kind of give a little background on the  uh on the property. Uh this is not just my area,   but most of the lots in the city are pretty tight.  And so I'm well aware of the required setbacks to   make sure that we don't encroach upon uh anything.  So I always hire a surveyor to make sure my houses   are staked and the uh and in the correct position  to avoid issues just like this. So I've been using   a uh a gentleman, Mr. Zany White with Z's Land  Serveying and Mapping for the last couple years   to make sure problems like this don't arise. He's  always done a great job for me, but unfortunately  

we had an error on this one. Uh, unfortunately  also, Mr. White is traveling with his family this   week, so he's unable to be here with a uh with  better explanations, but um I included a letter   uh from Mr. White with an explanation. Um, if you  guys are good, I'll I'll read that to you have a   copy, but I'll read I don't know if Nick has seen  this, but he he uh he states, "Mr. Cameron, the   observed deviation from the prescribed setbacks  is attributable to the existence of duplicate   monumentation within the subdivision limits.  There are multiple property corners established in   conflicting positions, some of which fall within  the paved roadway. Selection of one set of corners   places the subject residence beyond the setback  but well within the property boundary. However,   reliance on the alternate set would instead cause  the adjacent residence to actually encroach beyond   the property line onto the subject property. After  the new building setback lines were established   for the layout of the newly constructed residence,  additional field information was collected.   This new information led me to reset the western  property line. This removed the encroachment as   previously monumented in the field by others.  However, it did cause the current development   to exceed the setback line. The current  layout represents a practical and equitable   interpretation of the boundary and avoids placing  neighboring improvements over the property line.   However, it does place the new structure slightly  over the new setback lines. I humbly request that   the Panama City Planning Department grant Mr.  Cameron a variance. The surrounding residences   along the same corridor have not historically  conformed to strict setback requirements. In  

balancing these conflicts, it's important to  recognize that surveying is as much an art   as it is a science. and professional judgment  must be applied to resolve discrepancies in a   matter that's both reasonable and consistent uh  consistent with the established de development   patterns. So, thank you for your consideration.  So, that was that was the letter from from Mr.   White. Um I'd like to tell you just a little bit  about I won't be long. I just want to tell you a   little bit about the house. Um there were several  pictures uh that was handed out to you guys. Uh,   it's three-bedroom, two- bath house that I built  as an affordable option for a future homeowner.   Although listed is what I call affordable,  it also has similar finishes to higher priced   homes. Options like quartz countertops, nice  cabinetry, LVP flooring, LVP flooring throughout,   full stainless appliance packages, and many  other feature to make it stand out. Again,   especially when we talk about affordability.  I think it's a huge asset to Panama City.   It's currently under contract with a professional  female in the mortgage industry. I think this is   uh the exact type of buyer we need in the  neighborhood. She's excited to move in has   been patient while we waited for the hearing. I'm  personally excited for everyone including City   of Panama City to have more young professionals  purchasing houses in this area as opposed to the   uh all the investor purchases we keep hearing  about. Um, again, I've included several pictures   uh of the interior and exterior of the finished  product. Uh, finally, as you can imagine, this has   created a a great deal of stress for all parties  and um we tried to do everything by the book and   u surveyor just just just made an error. And um  I appreciate you allowing me to come before you  

today and uh just just ask that you approve  the variance and I'll answer any questions. Are there anyone from the audience  who'd like to speak on this? Do we have any questions  from the board? Mr. Cameron,   what at what point did they realize that  there was an error in the survey? Of course,   after the house is completed. when when the s the  uh when the buyer requested a um survey. So, okay. When you turn the plans in to the planning board  or to get the home approved, they'd have to have   a survey of the completed ex structure to  the who? I'm sorry. To the to the building   department. Go get your building department.  Yeah. No. No, they don't require one. So,   yeah. So, that they they require a site  plan on the front end. They had a site plan,   but nothing not. But no, no, that really  typically just comes from the purchasing. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody else? Uh,  I make a motion that we approve. Okay,   I'll second that. It's been motion to approve.  We call the role. Been a motion to second. Call   the role. Board member Carroll. Yes. Board  member Rich. Yes. Vice Chairman Barker?   Yes. Motion approved. 30. Hey, thank you guys.  Appreciate it. Okay. All right. We'll make item B. Item B is case number CPC PLN 2025 1137 which is a  application for variance from Brandon and Jennifer   Berg. The applicant is requesting a variance from  the minimum rear building setback requirement  

in the R1 zoning district. The applicant is  requesting a reduced building setback of 10   10 ft 4 in rather than rather than the standard  20 ft. The applicant is proposing to build a 221   ft addition to the existing single family home.  For the applicant that the addition will provide   outdoor covered space for their family, which  further enhances the livability of the home. After   reviewing variance requests, staff finds that  the petitioner or the applicant has satisfied the   uh five criteria criteria in the land development  code variances. I I won't go through each one of   them uh unless you want me to. No. Um, we believe  staff believes the request does not undermine the   intent of the uh residential f future land use  category which is intended to provide areas   for preservation or development of neighborhoods  consisting primarily of single family dwellings on   individual lots. As previously stated, the subject  property is in a regular irregular shaped lot or   parcel which presents unique circumstances for the  BU building setback requirements. The variance,   if granted, would still provide a building  setback of 10 ft 4 in from the rear property   line. No other building setbacks or side  will be affected by the proposed addition.   The single family home on the neighboring  lot parcel appears to be set back 10 plus   feet from the shared property line providing  for adequate building separation pursuant to   Florida building code. In consideration of the  variance criteria provided in section 102-42 and the unique circumstances of this request,   staff recommends that the planning board  approve the variance allowing for a rear   building setback of 10 ft 4 in for  the property at 1600 Dwit Street.

Happy to answer any questions. Okay. Do we have  the rep the applicant here? The applicant is here.   Would you like to say anything? If you'd like to.  That's up to you. She needs to be swearing. No,   I just need them to swear me in. Yes, ma'am.  Miss B, will you raise your right hand? Do   you swear and affirm the testimony you're  about to give is the truth, the whole truth,   and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you.  Thank you so much for uh hearing my request   for my variance today. Um I was certainly taken by  surprise to find out we had such a large setback   because our uh lot is in odd shape. Um, so we we  desperately want to build an area for our family   where we can have some shade. Of course, we we've  lived in this home for quite a while, sold it,   and bought it back because we loved it so much  and uh lost our tree cover during Michael. Um,   so this would definitely allow us to enjoy  our property. So, we definitely appreciate   um an approval of the variance. Okay. Is  there anyone else you through? I'm sorry.   I'm all done. Unless you have any questions for  me. Uh, I I do with with the existing carport or   whatever the structure is back there. Is it any  different than what's already there? Currently,   it's it's no different. So, we're not asking to  go out any further than we already are with the   carport area. Okay. You're just basically building  out to the distance where that carport currently   exists. Yes. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. That's  all the questions I have. Any other questions?   Anyone else here want to speak on this matter?  Yeah. Vice Chair Parker, did you ask for any um   exparte communication on this item? I do, sir.  We did at the very beginning, but you disclose   all of the export for all of the items at the very  beginning. That's what I thought. Yeah, I thought   that's what we was doing. Okay. Okay. Okay. I just  want to be clear. Okay. All right. All right. Does   the board have any questions? Nope. Okay. Can I  get a motion? Uh motion to approve. Can I get a  

second? Okay. Motion and seconded. We approve  this. Let's have the role. Carl. Board member   Carol. Yes. Board member Rich. Yes. Vice Chairman  Barker. Yes. Motion passes 30. Okay. Item C. Item   C is case number 0920. Uh it's a request for  a small scale future land use amendment and   resoning from residential 1 to mixuse 3. Um  the owner and the owner is Jamco Properties   LLC and the applicant is Donald Cox on behalf of  Southern Living Homes LLC and it's located at 1026   Malberry Avenue and the owner has the intent to  build a duplex on this lot. Okay. Is the owner   here? You want to speak to this matter? I can.  If you have anything that you want to say, uh uh will you raise your right hand? Yes, ma'am. Do  you swear and affirm that the testimony you're   about to give is the truth, the whole  truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes,   ma'am. I do. Thank you. And state your  name? Jamie Hollesen. Thank you. Uh yeah,   it's pretty much um next door there's a duplex.  Bought the house or bought the vacant land. Um,   hoping to do the exact same thing as next door,  build a duplex. So, happy to answer any questions. Any question? No, I mean on this particular  property, all the adjacent ones to the north   are all the same designation as what  he's trying to go go for. So, I mean,   that was part of what I was thinking  about with it. Sir. Yeah. I I think   the only only my only concern is that  once you start encroaching on one,   you just keep on going and keep on going. Next  thing you know, you don't have a residential,   you have mixed use all the way down. Yeah. He he  does have a duplex at the property immediately  

north to there. So that's true. Any other anybody  else here want to say anything to this matter? Okay. All right. I'll uh make a motion to  approve. Second. Motion and second. Approval   is given. All right. Uh may we have a roll call?  Board member Carroll? Yes. Board member Rich?   Yes. Vice Chairman Barker? Yes. Motion passes  30. Thank Okay. Item D. Item D, case number   0955. It is a smallcale land use amendment  resoning. The applicants are requesting to   move from residential one to mixuse 3. The owner  is Jamco Properties LLC and the um applicant is   Donald Cox of Southern Living Homes. The address  is 1018 Oak Avenue, personal ID 18560-0000-0000. And staff is recommending denial. Okay.  Is the owner here, the applicant? Yeah.   I should have just stayed up here. Yep.  Uh same thing. I bought the one one street   over and then I guess after that somebody  contacted me asking if I was interested   in that one as well. On that one I mean as  you can see there's mixed use all around. Um   I've got a list if it would help of all the  duplexes that are currently on Oak Avenue   um up and down the street if that  would be helpful in your decision. Any questions from the board? No, when I I I  did drive out and look at the houses that were   on that street in the adjacent area and the ones  that are immediately surrounding that property   are not duplexes. They're all single family  dwellings. So, I I can understand the city's  

position to deny that. So, anyone else? Boy, you  have anything you want to say about this one? No, unless you all have any questions for us.  Well, I I'm certainly aware of what you're saying,   but I I too rule by there. And I don't like spot  even though you have mixed use all around in this   particular street. That's all single residents and  I don't want to start in the middle. I wouldn't   want to start in the middle. Give it mixed  use. All right. If it came from the end, I I   might have more consideration, but to start in the  middle, I wouldn't I wouldn't like to do that. So,   uh, that's my take on it. Anybody else? Anybody  here to talk about? Anybody here else to talk   about? That's why I asked anybody here. Anybody  else here to talk about this system? Yes. I'm sorry. I thought I need your next. Yes. My  name is Benedict Teen Zenner. I live next door at   1012 Oak Avenue to the vacant lot. Um my concern  is changing the designation to be neighborhood   with commercial mix. My my fear is that in the  future somebody could put a commercial business   in there and it disrupts the whole neighborhood.  I've lived there for 13 years and it's all been   single family homes and it the integrity would  be changed drastically by putting a duplex in.   That's all I have to say. Thank you. Anybody  else? She's anything from the board? Not. Let's   have a motion. No. I I think for the reasons  we talked about earlier with the previous  

uh one, this this one does not seem to fit  that street. So, I'll make a motion to deny. Second. I'll second. Okay. And roll call, please.  Board member Carol, yes. Board member Rich,   yes. Vice Chairman Barker, yes. Motion  passes 30. And for the record, I'll note   that she was sworn in at the very beginning of the  proceedings. Okay. At this time, there is an open floor if anybody want to say anything. If not, we declare the meeting.