Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call the meeting of the planning commission to order for Thursday, February 26th. If you all please rise the pledge of allegiance, please. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Moment of silence, please.

Amen. Clerk, do you call our role, please? Stan Schmidt present. Scott Stagger. Angela Luk here. Daniel Malagal here. Maria Mills Benet. Boaming here. Thomas Jordan present. Thank you very much. Uh want to welcome our newest member Angela to the to the day is here. Welcome. Thank you. And you didn't get the memo that you were supposed to bring cookies or cookies. I didn't see that. How did we miss that one? Pumpkin cake. the foundates orientation. Pumpkin bread. I have to compete to compete with the pumpkin bread. That's why the drinkers are back here.

We're going to do a consideration of the minutes from November. Right. Move to approve. Have a motion to approve. Second. We have a second from Stan. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I nay. Motion carries. Uh we're going to move into the first item on the agenda here and the second we're going to open them both up at the same time. Thank you, sir. So, I'll take a motion on the item number four, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve case number CPAM-26-00001. Have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. Motion is second to open that. Mr. Mr. Chairman

motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve case number reszoning 26-00001. Have a second. Second. Have a motion. We have a second for the uh resoning portion of item number five. Penny. Hi.

Hi. Good evening. Penelopey Cruz, planning manager. Um, so we're back before you um with this property here located on the west side of Airport Road north of Charles Street. As you recall, it was annexed to the city of Port Orange in June 2025. Um, and once a property is annexed, the property then requires an assignment of a city future land use and zoning uh designation. In October of 2025, um a following the planning commission public hearing, the city council did not approve the applications for the previous request for future land use amendment and for a planned unit development resoning for proposed 113 unit single family home development on the subject property. Now, according to the land development code, when a resoning application is denied by the city council of sub of subsequent uh similar resoning on any portion of the same parcel may not be submitted for a period of 12 months from that date unless specifically authorized by the council. Currently, the applicant is now requesting a different zoning designation. The current request is to reszone the subject property to the city's R20 SF single family zoning district. And because the current request is for a different zoning classification than previously denied the previously denied PUD, the request is not considered a similar resoning request under the code and a new application may be considered within that 12-month period. Most of the property is cleared vacant pasture land with a single family home, detached garage, poleb barn located at the northeast corner of the subject property. And based on the aerial imagery, the subject property has been cleared as pasture land since at least 1978. The property, as we said, is consists of cleared improved pasture land. It's generally flat topography with a slight east to west slope containing man-made agriculture drainage features, including shallow north to south trenches and an

east west drainage ditch and a cattle pond. The only surface water on the site on site are the man-made agricultural ditches and the cattle pond. The environmental analysis um includes a review of the Valuchia County wetland mapping obtained from the county's website which indicates that no jurisdictional wetlands are identified within the boundaries of the subject property. Although mapped wetland features are present west of the site, none are shown on the subject property. Based on this mapping and other data collected by their environmental consultant, the assessment concludes that the property does not contain jurisdictional wetlands and that no wetland impacts are anticipated with any future development. With the first item that was open tonight, the applicant is requesting to change the future land use map designation of approximately 52.96 acres from Valuchia County agricultural resource and 3.57 acres of Valuchia County urban low intensity to city of Port Orange Rural Transition. The rural transition designation is intended for lands near Spruce Creek and its tributaries, particularly where properties lie between agriculture uses and established residential neighborhoods with a residential development limited to no more than two units per acre. The subject property meets the locationational criteria for the rural transition future land use designation as it is situated adjacent to Spruce Creek, bordered by agricultural land to the south and developed residential neighborhoods to the north, northeast, and west. Urban services are available in the airport road rideway to serve the subject site, and the proposed R20 SF zoning aligns with the maximum density allowed. According to the infrastructure impact analysis in the staff report, adequate public adequate capacity exists for public infrastructure and services to accommodate the proposed amendment. The second item that was opened tonight um is a request by the applicant to

reszone approximately 56.53 acres consist consisting of 52.96 acres of Valuchia County A1 and 3.57 acres of Valuchia County A2 to the city of Port Orange R20SF single family residential zoning. The dimensional requirements in the land development code for a single family home lot in the R20SF zoning are shown here on the screen as well as in the staff report. And according to the land development code, this R20SF zoning district is intended to function as a transitional zoning category between rural lowdensity areas and medium to higher density residential areas. Its purpose is to help protect existing agricultural uses and rural residences while also allowing for appropriate residential densities. If the future land use amendment and resoning are approved, the developer paid his homes intends to submit develop a development application for a 50 lot single family residential subdivision resulting in a density of approximately one dwelling unit per acre consistent with and actually lower than the density of the surrounding area. based upon um meeting the review criteria outlined in each staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed future land use amendment and the reasonzoning and is here to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is also here and may want to also present as well.

Cool. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Daniel, you got anything, Penny? Um yeah. So you're saying that you're looking to put one unit per acre, but we're looking for a four unit per acre zoning line wider disparity. So So the future land use designation actually has a maximum density of two units per acre. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah. Rural transition is 0 to two. Okay.

The zoning is R20SF. It is is one of the zoning categories that are that's in our consistency matrix for which zoning is consistent with which land use. Um, it allows a 20,000 square foot um, lot and regardless of what the lot size is. So, I'm trying to get to the um Oh, it's cuts off. I'm sorry. It doesn't show the full screen. It cuts off. So, Oh, no. It's right there. Everything. So, this is the 20,000 foot lot in the dimensional criteria. You can never if when they submit a a sub um a subdivision platin plans, you can never go above what your land use allows. Um, and the engineer of record can probably speak to this in more detail, but um, like I said with conventional zoning, it doesn't require a concept plan like the prior proposed PUB did, but in speaking with the development team, um, they obviously wanted to know what they were going to get if they were to reszone to R20. And their engineer of record has told us that, um, because with conventional zoning, you have to meet all the straight land development code requirements. There's no deviations or anything you can write into a master development agreement. It's just you're following the code. So, in order to follow the land development code and meet all of our criteria, all they could fit on the property are 50 lots. That's what they're proposing to submit if this gets approved.

Okay. Which would yield one unit per acre density, gross density, less than what the future land use allows. You good? I'm good. Thank you. Oh. Um, the only question I have at this point is the u uh the two parcels you've got an A1 and A2 uh previous zoning, right? They used to be A1, A2, different densities. Are they going to be equal as far as density is concerned? I mean, there's no distinction once No. So, this is approved.

So, there's there's three parcels that are part of this proposal. Um there's two different categories under Valuchia County. Um as is documented in the staff report, the current density allowed under Valuchia County yields 19 units. So and what they're looking to do is 50. So about 31 additional units. Okay. Thank you. But it's all going to be consistent. Yeah, that's what that was my question. Gota

Angela, you're up. Any questions for Penny? um the the Valuchia County A1 and A2 and it's called like prime agriculture and rural agriculture. Can you just explain what the difference between that is how Port Orange is going to see it? Is it going is it going it's not going to see it as agricultural preservation or agricultural land? It's going to go straight to the No, it would no longer have the Valuchia. It's getting reszoned to a city category which is the R20SF. So, it's a single family home uh zoning. It would not be agriculture anymore.

And Okay. And there's never usually an opportunity to go back to agriculture at that point, right? Um I've only seen one in the 20 years I've been here, which we just did uh about a month or so ago in November. There was the property off Fern Park that went from a higher density down to agriculture, but that's once in 20 years, and that's what the applicant requested. We don't have a lot of um agriculture zoning in Port Orange because we're a city. And so most of the agriculture uh zoning that you see on our zoning map and it's actually described in the land development code that it's a like a placeholder until property develops. It's kind of um

well that's what kind of because I looked up the code and like section 4 is a agricultural preservation which we have less than 1% in the city but the agriculture district we don't have any in the city. So you're talking correct there's two different sections. So there's there's future land use and then there's zoning. Um we actually don't have any agriculture preservation. We have agriculturally zoned property in the city but they're not actual agriculture properties. The majority of there's like one that's in so the designation on the comprehensive plan that's compreh so so

that's not the same thing future land use and zoning are two different things. Um, but we have one property in the city that's zoned has agriculture zoning and is in timber production, but pretty much all the other zoning properties that are zoned agriculture have single family. They're just like oneacre lots and they're they were zoned that way as placeholders. A couple of them have developed into subdivisions with 1acre lots because they allow people to have horses on them, but we don't really have agriculture a lot of agriculture use in the city proper other than the one property that's um it's in timber use. Well, there was a couple that are current I saw on the zoning map,

right? I mean there's correct but like what I was saying as far as how they're used they're not used for like farms for agriculture purposes they're mostly single family large lot subdivisions right so as a community we don't really we don't we're not really concerned of like preserving any of that like food like food scarcity is not a concern for the city

I don't think anybody said that. Um, so we actually have in so most cities are are different than rural areas. Cities are more suburban and urban density and you don't see a lot of traditional commercial farms within cities. You do see smaller like um community gardens and things like that. And every zoning category allows community gardens. We've never had anybody want to do that. Um but there it's a permitted use in every single zoning district. So if any community wanted to come in and do one in their neighborhood, it's allowed. Um so we've actively um amended the code to promote things like that that are the typical types of agriculture like smaller scale that you see in urban areas. Um, as far as these properties, um, the property owners have a right to apply to change their density and we have to process their their request. The current property owners are in contract with the the contract purchaser. The current property owners don't have a desire to continue any kind of agriculture use on this property, nor does the p purchase contractor. So um contract purchaser sorry and we are processing their request. We have to review it against the review criteria in the comprehensive plan the land development code and according to that analysis of that review criteria it meets those criteria which is why we're recommending approval.

Right. So yeah, whoever made the comprehensive future plan whenever they made it years ago, they didn't want agricultural preservation because it wasn't in this future zoning maps at all. So I mean that makesense. We we don't actively change private property land use. So property owners apply

to change land use. We actually didn't have an agriculture preservation designation until the last update or so and we created that category to make it available if anybody wanted to utilize it. But as a city, we do not change land use on private property. The private property owners make applications and we review those, but we do not go change them without any authorization from the private property owner. But we created the category to make it available if anybody wanted to utilize it. Right. There's Yeah, there's two different categories.

Yes. The the preservation one was not available before. That's a new category that came into into play with the current update of the plan. Before we had agriculture and then we we've created this new category too that is available for people if they want to use it. It wasn't always part of the comprehensive plan. Okay. You good for now? Yeah. Okay. Cool. Stan, I think I'm good for now. Only question I had was on the Let's Make sure I'm on the right one here. So, on the uh the plan amendment, the traffic section on page, what page am I on here?

Eight. So, it looks like the only significant area where the yellow the adopted level of service could be the actual use could be lower than the LOS um is down on Pioneer. Is that right? Correct. And that's with this comp plan amendment. Um we have to um analyze theoretical max, right?

Two units per acre. Um as I stated, they intend to come in if this is approved with a subdivision that would be one unit per acre. So if the land use and zoning is approved, we have to do an another another we have to do a concurrency review at that level. Okay. And we will have an updated analysis at that point that reviews what's actually proposed on the property, which would be a lesser density and then see see where things are at that point. Yeah. Does does that take has this taken into account what's happening on Pioneer now or we're looking at it? Yes. Yeah. And it will the future analysis will be. So you have those plans already built into the model. It it should. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

And therefore we have the possibility that will exceed or not meet the level of service then. Well potentially like I said this analyzed the theoretical max but they have to do traffic study anyway. Yes. They'll have to do an updated one if if the land use and zoning is approved and they're able to move forward to the next step of submitting subdivision plans. they will have to provide an updated concurrency level at, you know, subdivision level of actually what's being built, right? You know, not a theoretical announcement. And that's the point where you could determine whether there's a fair share. Correct. Impact. That is when you determine it. Yes. Okay. Very cool. Yep. Very good. Anybody else have anything for Penny while you're sitting there thinking? No, you're good. No, sir.

Cool. Penny, thank you very much. Presentation. Uh, I'd like to bring the applicant up to do presentation. Uh, answer any questions. All righty. Okay. Good evening. Uh Joey Posey, 420 South Nova, attorney for the applicant. Um uh just to maybe paint some picture for how we got here a little more than I think the staff report uh mentioned. Um for really the benefit of the two members especially. Um yes um property was annexed about a year ago, a little less than a year ago. Um the I think the zoning designations, the zoning and all of that has been identified. But um the one thing I wanted to point out is that when it was up for annexation uh you know the intention obviously was to come in as a plan development with 113 units that was the representation we even were transparent about at the council level and also as we move through the annexation process and of course you know as Penny mentioned the uh that didn't move end up moving forward because of the 22 vote but at the you know that was where we started from and that was what originally came before this board recommendation to be reviewed for uh consistency with um the future land use and off in the zoning code. So um fast forward to today, here we are again uh with a very materially different application in terms of the you know the intensities and densities. Um and you know the R20 uh single family residential category as Penny had alluded to um just applying the code in a vacuum trying to lay it out uh it it nets only a one unitit gross acre uh lot subdivision that is functionally how it

works if you just meet the minimum standards of code. So in a hypothetical world where you just apply what the code apply is the code rules it it it's at greatest at 50 but you know as we all know as you move through these processes and your permitting uh that's that's a that's a ceiling that isn't a floor. So you start at 50 and you work backwards. So um you know I suspect it you know 50 is probably a little bit of ambitious and I and there we I have the plan in the um presentation too that I will point out but uh I just wanted to make the the frame of reference um you know just to understand a little bit that uh when you're talking about hypothetical density under the future land use that that isn't your um developable density. It's not what goes into the ground and what appears. That's what you know from a policy perspective you're saying is the acceptable range that this property can hold. But you still have to apply the zoning. The zoning is what controls and if you apply the zoning uh you're talking about a hypothetical ceiling of 50. So, um, just to give you a sense, I think that Penny had mentioned that it's transitional when you're talking about R, uh, R20 is a transitional zoning from a more rural low density to a medium to high density area. I think it's arguable to say that the surrounding neighborhoods are necessarily medium or high, but um, you know, given the feedback we've received, uh, it's in our mind an appropriate density, uh, given where we started and given, I think, the feedback we've received from the community. Um, this is, uh, just in context for folks that may not realize where we're at. Uh, you have the Flying to the north, W's Edge, Cypress Head is, you know, to the east, and there's a unincorporated mobile home park or unincorporated county mobile home park to the immediately to the west. Um, these are the city identified future land use map densities. So, in terms of I guess acceptable hypothetical density in a future land use map sense, um, it's

the lowest in the area. Um and it would argue and it would most certainly be the lowest in terms of what the developable density is. So um the this property has been a farm for quite quite a long time. Uh it's um it's been uh cattle and uh you can even see even back to 1978 here just to give you a sense of what it looked like. Uh uh it's been an impacted piece of property. It's doesn't have you know wetland body on it. there's not a substantial tree coverage on it. Um, you know, in terms of infill, you these are the kind of properties you're looking at when you say, um, this makes some sense for where you would expect development to occur. And obviously, it's local dependent, but, uh, it's not a piece of property that you have to substantially impact in any material way when it comes to tree coverage and water bodies that may be on the property. uh the history maybe for the other this is more for the folks that may have not been here. Uh you know we really over a year ago plus now you know we were at started at a discussion point of 153. It's been walked back a number of times to what the previous application for the vintage acres development was at the 112 units plus the the Balman what we call the Balman track and uh you know just given the substantial leg work that the applicants done over the last few months to try to find a a feasible uh alternative for this property which is essentially what resulted in what this plan in rough concept is. This is the um an example of what R20 would lay out as if you applied just the code in a vacuum. And um you're cutting it's essentially cutting the density in half of what the previous uh application was for. It's a reduction of 113 watts to 50 lots and you're more or less talking about an impervious coverage of about 20%. Uh which is very very low. Um it's

it's probably less than that too. This is just a generalization uh you know because until you design it it's hard to pinpoint a number but that's probably a safe again a safe ceiling for what we're talking about. Uh these are the characteristics of what this type of zoning category is. It's it is rule in nature. uh you're 100 foot minimum which uh I was just chatting real quick to make sure I had my numbers right but uh you know the surrounding communities in terms of spruce flying w's edge um uh and the flying I think is a 70 minimum or more or less there's an 80 minimum for cypress head if I recall correctly plus um water's edge so I mean you're already starting from a a you know a point that's already 20 foot in addition width for minimum lot size and obviously that creates creates a minimum bigger minimum lot area and a substantial increase in the lot open space if and if I recall correctly for the previous application it was 30% per lot it's minimum code requirement which can deviate from of 60% per lot uh the that results as you can see if you just run this the scenario of a maximum 50 lot unit uh 50 lot project on a 56 acres which results in a a gross density of one per acre which is substantially less uh any of the surrounding communities more or less except to the south. I mean that's a I will um be transparent that some of the southern community um is a lot of old cattle farms or all just old farming community that in between pioneer there that's 1 to 5 acre but everything from you east west north it's far less than all of those uh larger lots less density less impervious um there's no waiverss being requested this is just straight zoning um you know we're not looking for deviation in any way uh I think traffic impacts was mentioned and As Penny had mentioned, you know, you you have to look at the hypothetical based on the

future land use um hypothetical maximum even though it's not possible if you resone the property to uh ma'am. Ma'am, ma'am, if you'd like to carry on a conversation, could you take it outside? You're spreading around the room. So, thank you. Go ahead.

Okay. Uh so uh I I mean if you're just thinking about it logically that if you're half the density you're half the trips more or less then you're half of the impacts. Of course uh what uh I think I would point out is that typically when you go through this process you do a traffic memo that kind of estimates those impacts. In this case we're relying on what was what we like to call a baby TIA that analyzed some intersectional impacts when we were originally coming in with 113 units. uh there was no impact uh there was no failures under that analysis and you know I'm putting on my layman hat but um if you cut it in half the impacts or hypothetically should be no impacts when it comes to half of the density but um we're still obligated to do a TIA like Penny mentioned uh and uh at the time of subdivision and that would also result in a pro proportionate fair share contribution to the city for any necessary improvements. So, um, you know, the same commitments are being made even though they're not necessarily, uh, straight zoning. Uh, you know, we're not looking to connect to Charles Street. Uh, just emergency only. That's not a problem. Uh, the design works with that. Um, so from a traffic perspective, there's no issues there. Um, and you know, obviously the applicant is the same applicant and this is just, you know, quick summary that I we had mentioned the last time for Pis Homes. I'm sure most in the community know who he is and uh he had a hand in many of the communities that surround this comm community proposed communities. So, uh he's very familiar with the um just the nature of the area. Um uh again the this type of zoning is something that even further aligns with what the the rural nature of this area would be. And um the thing I think to keep in mind too is when I I think we were talking in terms of the future land use and you know cities are uh urban character when it comes to how development proceeds in them. So usually you see for instance the agricultural

type zonings transition when urban services become available. So um you know once upon a time everything out here and even the flying if I remember correctly was A1. So that's just the nature of how you know as cities evolve they they grow up you provide urban services urban services become available which makes the um what uh would be the appropriate category uh you it shifts a little bit and you know from the developer perspective you know being on the far lower end of that spectrum is where he wants to be just in the nature of the project but um I think that's con maybe helps conceptually how you wind up in a situation where you know as your city grows how do you incorporate well you incorporate in an urban services expand which affects the what the appropriate zoning category would be on a piece of property. Um again the the I guess the obvious things are you know this is um you know nice it's a smaller project but it's a project that you know would have benefit to really um just a little bit of an infill development but you know it creates that you know jobs it does create its own revenue. uh it's a major step down from what was originally proposed. Uh and in you know in our mind that this is uh you know given the nature of what's surrounding it and what maybe the appropriate category would be it is a a responsible zoning category to go to for uh development of the property. Uh other than that uh we're you know our team's available to answer any questions or clarify anything but um you know in terms of the reduction in density and what the impacts were from the original proposal that moved through this is it's it's night and day. So uh I'm available for questions or try to facilitate feedback as I as I hear it but uh other than that that's my presentation.

Very cool. Thank you sir. Appreciate that. Uh any questions for uh for the applicant staying? Start with you. Can you put the map back up of the site? Um kind of that last one that you're showing that has the the ponds in it and uh the that shows the potential layout, right? Okay. Yeah.

Um so the uh so you've got the two ponds. The one that's farther west is is a retention pond with the controlled outlet. The one in the middle then is also that. And then over to the right of the middle of that L-shaped, that's really, if I remember correctly, that's really just a dry zone that will help you uh bleach out or leech out all the

the nutrients. Yeah. That's a Yeah, the dry treatment down to the wet retention. Um, it's the new St. John's requirements in terms of how you have to treat water. But I guess the the the added benefit of designing this way, unlike a lot of older subdivisions, is that it does create more capacity because you have to have volume to treat the water.

Um, and the other thing to keep in mind too is that, you know, a lot of the older communities don't have systems designed like this. Um, you know, even going across just the, you know, the creek and, you know, just for instance in Quiet Place, uh, it All of, if I recall correctly, most of the storm water design was incorporated on the lots. So, you know, this is a community that would be controlled by an HOA um in terms of its design and that's what in lot of modern communities eats up a lot of your a lot of your area. So, um long-winded way of getting to I think what you're getting to. So is there my question then is is there a connection uh between that what do you want to call it leeched out area to the main drainage that is to the east pipes

other pipes correct correct okay and will there is it possible for uh anything in the other two ponds to flow back uphill into this leech out area uh shouldn't be but the I do caution that uh uh this hasn't been designed necessarily designed fully. So it has to be okay. I will say that. So you know from a site development perspective and applying the code you have to do it that way. So I guess it's safe to say that it would have to be do done that way but I I can't speak to necessarily the right what I see in front of me.

Right. Okay. Uh, and then there's two small areas up in the upper right corner next to the the was it the Bowman piece below that are those kind of leech out areas also?

Uh, correct. And part of this is um and this is maybe getting into the weeds a little bit. Uh we are um you know again as part of the last goound we uh the applicant made outreach to the Spruce Creek flyin and trying to get their input on you know how to help them in terms of how the design would be and a lot of this conceptually on the northerly boundary is a result of some of that discussion and trying to figure out well what's the best way to help them too and you know maybe some swale maybe uh in terms of you know how the systems design a little bit or maybe it's an independent swale. So this isn't necessarily in stone, but okay, I understand that.

But but again, we're trying to conceptually help them too with the design of this project. So um but hypothetically, yes, it would it would all have to be piped together. It's more driven by my old eyes. You're getting kind of tiny on some of this stuff. I think that's it, Mr. Chairman. Very good. Thank you, Angel. No questions. Oh, what what about the water? I I know that's an issue and u I'm curious of how we mitigate that. We have a plan there. Yes. Okay. Can we talk about that?

To a degree that we would we can't avoid city requirements and we're half the lot. So, um, you know, I think from a net benefit perspective, if you know, you're going to an impervious coverage of closer to a 20% coverage, uh, with a minimum lot coverage of or in, uh, minimum open space for every lot of 60%, uh, it's a net positive in my mind from where originally the proposal was versus where this proposal is going to.

Yeah. Okay. Um, and I don't know if this is a Joey question or Penny question. Uh, was the Sam Sula overlay ever a part of this issue of this property or is it has it been subject to the Sam? Well, this the overlay is and Des County uh county attorney has chimed in on this. The overlay applies to properties within its jurisdiction. So, this property has been annexed into uh the city of Port Orange. But the other nice benefit I guess is that this layout results in a gross density of 1 acre. So

you know arguably you're meeting the 1acre threshold that you otherwise would have been in the simsula local plan too. But um but in terms of its applicability, it doesn't apply to the jurisdiction of the city, but it does expand the the boundary of the city for future, you know, uh annexing. Well, the annexation's already occurred. So, so you know, in terms of the demarcation line, it's the southerntherly portion of this property. All right. Regardless of the outcome today, yeah, it's already in the city. Okay. All right. Thank you. You good? Any No questions. Thank you. Question. Um Joey, real quick. Yes.

Sorry, you don't get to go. Okay. From my understanding on the on the uh water retention and release. There's there's rules that say how much you have to be able to hold on the property. And there's also rules that say how much you're allowed to release over a given time. Is that correct? That's correct. And and a lot of them are you permitting driven and um you know actually it's changed even too from St. John's because they have new standards that have gone into place. So you know from a um you know water retention side and how you treat your water. It's much more stringent over just the course of this project

right than it was when you from the permitting side from St. Johnson from when we started. So, um I guess what my question is you have to design to those new rules. Yeah. And we would have to design to the St. John's the new St. John's rules. Correct. And that um and that's just something that comes out of the subdivision process, which again another lengthy process. You'd have to go from this point forward. So, uh we would be subject to any rules that apply at the St. John's level and then we'd apply the city's rules in conjunction with that. All right. Very good. That's all I have for you. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to Okay,

we're going to move on to public comments. So, I want two things. We had a couple people that were recording and that's really cool. I just want to remind everybody this is that we will put this up on the YouTube channel for the city shortly. So, you can come back and review the whole thing afterwards. Um, and also just a reminder, we're a quasi judicial body. Uh, so we deal in facts. That's really how how we're structured. Just to let you know, that's the the things we like to talk about. So, what I'll do is uh we'll invite anybody who wants to come up to come up and speak. Everybody gets three minutes, up to three minutes. You don't have to use the whole time. And we prefer that if somebody's already talked about a particular element, a particular item or an issue, we don't need to have it repeated. We understand you're passionate about it, but uh in the interest of time for everyone, we don't need to have redundancy in the comments. So, uh if you want to raise your hand, what we'll do is I'll call on you. When you come up to the microphone, you uh want we want to know your name and your your address. Those are the two things that we need for public record. Anything else, Angus?

Got it. We're good. Cool. You sir.

Good evening. Mike Ponittowski, Tamoka Farms Village. For some strange reason, Street addresses you. It's protected by law. Protected. Yep. Just

for some strange reason, I feel like I'm in a time warp or some kind of groundhog day on steroids. I carefully read items four and five on tonight's agenda and it brought to mind a verse in Jesus's sermon on the mount. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves suggesting that their true nature would be revealed by their actions or by an Asop's fable under a sheep skin often hides a wolfish mind. In plain English, today comes before you a wolf in sheep's clothing. Palin acres look suspiciously like vintage acres, which which this body approved back in October of 2025, but your city council twice voted down soon thereafter. At that time, the mayor and council members stated that they wanted to wait on the results of the Spruce Creek wershed study, which your agenda item notes will be completed in April this year, just two months away. This project squarely sits in the wershed. In fact, it's a mere yards away from this designated outstanding Florida waterway, which still demands the highest level of protection. No surgeon would ever perform an operation on any patient without having the proper test results in hand. Why reszone a piece of property when you still don't have the results of that very important watershed study, which could determine changes need to be remade? We also are aware that the first vote of the city council was 22 against and the second vote a month later was again 4:1 against. In fact, some of the documents in your packet officially describes Palin acres aka it says vintage acres in bold reality that the name has changed but the plan is not except for a lower density. It's still going to be a fill and build slab on grade project. The names are the same, the players are the same. The location is the same. Everything is the same. In fact, the damage that can be done to the neighbors is the same. Why the fourth bite at the apple within the 12-month period? If you are truly concerned about the environment, your citizens, and the uninorporated county, what's the harm in

waiting the allotted time for the study to be completed, those results to be delivered for digestion and analysis by planning, by the commission, by your great minds and the developer themselves. So why don't we protect this outstanding waterway by waiting the 12 months, by waiting until the wershed study is presented to us in April so we can use those results to make an informed decision which is best for the community, best for the environment, best for your citizens, best for the neighbors, and best for the developer. This is no more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. The same plan, a little change, and nothing else has changed. So, please bear that in mind when you vote tonight whether to approve or deny. Please wait until we have the results of the tests so we can make an importantly informed decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Katherine Pante, slow the growth paluchia. My address is protected. Tonight, I strongly oppose this resoning application to proceed any further. Article 1, section 7D of the land development code states, reapplication for denied zoning. When an application for resoning is denied by the city council, a subsequent application for similar resoning on any portion of the same parcel may not be made for 12 months from the date of denial unless specifically authorized by the city council on any portion of the same parcel. This applicant was denied on October 21st, 2025 and denied again after appealing to the commission in November of 2025. Under the rules currently in place, the land owner is not eligible to reapply for any zoning change until November of 2026. The 12-month waiting period exists for a reason. Allowing this application to proceed now sets a dangerous precedent. If one applicant can sidestep established rules, others will expect the same treatment. At that point, the land development code becomes optional and decisions begin to appear arbitrary rather than grounded in policy, planning, and fairness. I also want to address public perception. A request like this creates the appearance of quidd proquo between a builder who sits on the city commission and another builder who submitted the request and contributed to his political campaign. Please turn to page 10 on the first line. The development of the subject property will increase the amount of imperous surface area. Now look at the

final sentence. Four rainfall events have exceeded the 11in 24-hour threshold. See figure 4. Consider Hurricane Ian in 2022 which brought 20 in of rain in 24 hours and Hurricane Milton in 2024 which brought 15.26 in in 24 hours. Both events far exceeded that 11in threshold. The continued loss of green space is contributing to worsening flooding events. To recap, during Hurricane Ian, 7,000 homes and 1,000 businesses flooded. Five Valuchia County residents drowned, and Valuchia County Sheriff's Office performed 1,000 highwater rescues. These are not just numbers. These are lives, families, and neighborhoods. When will development decisions begin prioritizing public safety and public health over private development interests? The city has a fundamental responsibility to protect its residents. You're under no obligation to approve development applications or change zoning from its original agricultural designation, especially when those changes increase risk, jeopardize public safety, and erode community confidence. In closing, I urge you to uphold the integrity of our rules and of this commission. Follow the code as written. Do not wave up the 12-month waiting period. The applicant is not entitled to a zoning change. This property is on agricultural land and should remain that way. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Uh sir, you have your hand raised. My name is John Gerchek. I'm a Vietnam veteran and I've lived in this property since 1979. Could you give me your address? 295 Hunt Country Circle Drive East. Thank you.

I've been married for 51 years. And out of those 51 years, they've all been in the same residence. And I've never flooded before until Hurricane Ian. And I don't believe this building is going to stop any flooding because the watershed survey has not been done and I lost a lot of tools. It flooded up to my house. It took my air conditioning out inside and out and I lost a whole bunch of electric tools. My barn went completely underwater. And if you'd like to see pictures, here they are. And I don't know how to work your computer. So, um, let's see. This might help.

We've never had any flooding until Hurricane Ian. It's come up to the bank in the backyard, but it's never flooded until Hurricane Ian. And this development going in is only going to help it to continue flooding. Well, I that's about all I have to say is my house went underwater, my barn went underwater, and I oppose this new zoning. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Mr. Chairman, is there a possibility we could see those photos? Uh, I don't think that's relevant to the case. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.

My name is Gary Singleton and my address is also protected. Oh, a simple piece of information. Uh, this property was annexed because it was under the protection of the Samsula local plan, which would have they needed to avoid that. So, that's why it was annexed in the first place. The original design of for the development of this property was denied, requiring a one-year wait to resubmit. He appealed and was denied. Uh, Mr. PIS should be held to the decision of the Port Orange City Council and be made to wait one year to resubmit as per your rules. Mr. Pis staff, even the Port Orange City Council are not above the law. The rules are clear and should be applied to everyone fairly, equally, and with total transparency. Accepting this resubmission sets a dangerous precedent. Staff should not be allowed to break the rules previously imposed by the city's elected officials. The project was redesigned as required. The number of lowered, but this is a resubmission. It's the same property, same project, same developer. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The original submission was denied not because of the number of units, but because of serious issues regarding harm to Spruce Creek and the flooding of neighboring properties. Does the resubmission address the required improvements needed to properly manage storm water runoff? Will peak rates and volumes approximate existing pre-development conditions with precautions taken to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flooding as required by the minimum standards set forth in Valuchia County Ordinance Chapter 50, which are enforcable within municipality city limits. I ask that you hold to your

rules and deny the use of a technicality to break the moratorum imposed by the elected representatives of Port Orange. Thank you, sir. Robert, good to see you.

Commission members, Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Texture Drive, Port Orange. Um, I support what's been said and but I also feel very uncomfortable that uh when they say they're only going to have 50 homes that they'll only have 50 homes. Um, this property is going to be zoned two units per acre. And as long as they conform to the land development code, to me that means there's the potential that they're going to give us 120 or 119, whatever it was, 113. Uh so um I don't feel comfortable with that. Uh because once you zone it that way, then they just stick to the code and they can give you more houses than the 50. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else before we close it out? Last chance. All right, we're going to close out public comment. Bring it back to the commission. You may

Okay. Uh Joey Posey, 420 South Nova, attorney for the applicant. And um I you know listening to some of the speakers um um I I think we're mischaracterizing a lot of how this process played out and I want to make sure on the record that it's clear. Um you know at no point from start to finish have we not been honest and upfront about what we're proposing. Uh even you know it's very unusual even partisan annexation application to represent how many units and the proposed design of your project before you even annex a property. That's usually that's not the case. And you know, part of that transparency was to avoid partly the miscommunications that happen up here after the fact. And you know, Mr. Pis especially has been very upfront that the original design of this project was 113 units and that was what was represented before the uh both the council this commission and that hasn't that didn't change. Um the the vote also too I want to make sure is very clear on the record that it was a 22 on the resoning but the 41 that was referenced was in reference to allowing that project to come back for reconsideration 113 units. It wasn't anything beyond that. So um to suggest as if this is um you know some kind of mortorium or declaration as to the use of this property is incorrect and a mischaracterization. And even when you read the code, how how it states explicitly that when it comes to what is bars an applicant to come back is a similar reasoning. It is not any reasonzoning. It does not say that. It adds the word similar. I'm sure you know legal counsel if there's u you know the appetite to get that clarification. I'm sure they'd be more than willing to provide it. But uh to suggest as if no reasonzoning is possible is uh you're just reading the code the way you want to read it. you're not looking at what the term of the code says. Um, the other thing to keep in mind with this property is that it's currently

it's an unimproved old cattle farm. It's not a water body that accepts storm water flow. It's not improved in any way that is a natural body that would otherwise take the sheet flow from other properties. It just runs in all directions. So, uh, to suggest as if that it is in its natural condition some better situation than what would otherwise be improved with a storm water system, I think is a little bit of a mischaracterization of how this property from a development perspective would function. Um, and also to two to characterize the um, you know, some of the events we received. You know, of course, uh, you know, I can I'm not here to just say that, you know, to defend the development per se, but, you know, King Tide, you know, the lack of maintenance in a lot of the canals that has occurred in the last few years. I mean, there's a very different situation and of course, you know, I recognize that, you know, residents can I I I I sympathize with, you know, where they're coming from and making sure it doesn't happen again. But there have been proactive steps to ensure that uh trying to watch that and be careful with it is, you know, that they're that they're being looked after. And you know, I understand the hesitation and where they're coming from, but to suggest as if we we're living in the same situation again, I think is again not not the case. And um the um to clarify the future land use is a range of 0 to two. That's what you're asking from a policy perspective on whether that's an appropriate uh dens uh maximum density for this property. But that is not the developable requirements. So developable requirements are the R20 and that's what would control development of this property. And if you add the 15% tree preservation, if you add the storm water control which is has to be there by code and you add the minimum open space, there's nothing you can do to avoid getting to the ceiling of 50 that 50 is your ceiling. Uh I would imagine that you know for instance that would come and tell you the same thing that that's

the uh that's just all that's what you can do by code. you can't go beyond it. So, um, you know, to suggest as if we could come back here with a subdivision plan that deviates from that, it just isn't true. But, um, again, I I I do recognize, you know, a lot of a little bit of where they're coming from in terms of, you know, not being impacted and making sure that we do right by them. But, you know, again, I have a hard time just I I have to disagree that, you know, going with half of the density, going with a substantial amount more open space and less impervious isn't a better outcome for them. Even though, you know, I understand that you may not want anything there. But, you know, I I don't see anything as an option. You know, it was annexed into the city. It was clearly representative of what the density that the developer was moving forward with. So, um, uh, other than that, um, I'm available for additional questions, but I at least wanted those clarifications on the record.

Thank you very much. Um, so we'll bring it back to the commission here. And any comments, questions, things you want to talk about, Daniel, start with you. I just want to clarify before I miss the opportunity. Um, when you do get to the point where you're going to vote, just make sure it's um, we do the two separate votes for each case. Thank you. No questions. Oh, any comments?

The only question that I have is I thought I understood or heard at some point that the u uh the shortened period for uh a rehearing was u approved by the council. Was I wrong on that?

No, the request was to rehear the 113 unit PUB resoning which the council did not entertain. So in terms of that development plan and anything similar to that development plan then yes they would be barred for the year unless council had approval. But um you know the the direction with the city attorney's review is that a straight zoning category of R 20 which is half of the density is substantially deviating from what the original request was. So because he reduced the density of this project immensely. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You good? I'm good. Thank you. Cool. Angela,

I just have a lot to learn. We all do. And uh you know, I mean the comprehensive plan to me it's of our city. It says that we'll, you know, as the city expands into rural areas, we will we will try, you know, protect the agricultural preservation, future land designation and zoning. And I don't, you know, I don't see how this is doing that, but maybe I'm misinterpreting it. I I think you I Yeah, I don't want to try to I don't know who give you an answer,

right? Is that something for the attorney? Is that something for the the city manager? I mean, or the planner. I would sit with the community development. Okay. Cover that. Stan, uh no questions at this time. No, I'm good. Um, I assume you're all then ready to vote and we're going to vote on the uh KCPAM260001, the uh comprehensive plan amendment first since the second one is dependent upon that. So you'll call the role madam clerk Stan Schmidt. Yes. Angela Luke, no. Daniel Malagol, no. Bo,

yes. Thomas Jordan, yes. two. Is that what I got? Yep. Yep. All right. So, that passes. Uh, moving on to the resoning. Case number reszoning-26-00001. So, please call a roll on that one. Stan, yes. Handu, no. Daniel Malib, no. Yes. Thomas Jordan,

yes. That motion passes. All right. So, the next step will be it goes back to city council chat with them. Um, moving on to item number six on the agenda is an application. Are y'all leaving? If you could all as you leave, thank you. as you leave, just kind of make sure you keep your conversation outside in the hallway so we can continue business here for the rest of the night. We appreciate it. Uh, moving on to case number I'm item amendment six, the LBC text amendment changes. I'll make a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve uh case number DCAM26-00001. We have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. We have a second from Daniel. Hi. Hi. Good evening.

Thank you. Penelopey Cruise Planning. Um so the proposed amendment in this package um are intended to enhance the existing code as part of a city's ongoing maintenance efforts. Every year we try to bring forth a few amendments to the code to try to clean it up as we encounter different issues. Um with that the amendments in this particular package address issues encountered by applying the code including regulations for outdoor donation bins, temporary storage containers, the method for determining whether a color qualifies as an earth tone or pastel and clarification of color regulations for murals. The first item um is to amend chapter 16 to establish clear, consistent, and enforceable standards for outdoor donation bins, replacing previous practice of classing them, classifying them as part of a service area. So service area requirements in our land development code are intended um to apply to mechanical equipment and other elements that are associated with a principal structure um such as their AC units, um dumpsters, uh tanks, things like that. Because a donation bin is typically operated by a separate organization and is not part is not an accessory to the principal structure on the site. The staff is proposing specific regulations for these donation bins. The amendment adds a definition for donation bin and establishes standards addressing their location, size, appearance, number, operation, and maintenance. These regulations are designed to improve aesthetics, public safety, ensure site functionality, and provide clear enforcement mechanisms. These key provisions of the amendment was detailed in the staff report. So, I'm not going to go over all the details tonight. The next amendment is um also to chapter 16, but this is regarding temporary storage containers on non-residential properties. Um so similar uh to we have regulations in our code right now for these types of structure um uses these non um temporary

storage containers on residential properties but for non-residential properties the code doesn't clearly address that. Um they're commonly used on non-residential properties for construction, renovation, tenant improvements, repairs or damage restoration. sometimes to store furniture, equipment, and tools, materials during these improvements. Under the proposed amendment, these temporary storage containers would be permitted only in association with active building permits or approved site improvements. Um, and they would be allowed on the property uh for the duration of that permit and must be removed prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final inspection or other unique circumstance that the administrative official can review. Um it provides clear consistent standards for review for these non-residential properties um while ensuring compliance with construction and site improvement regulations. The next item is an amendment to chapter 2 and 14 with regards to colors. Um, the land development code currently requires the color of structures other than single family homes, duplexes, or mobile homes to be limited to earth tones or pastels with other colors excluding fluoresence being limited to not exceed 20% of any single elevation. The proposed amendment does not change any of that. Um, it doesn't change the allowed colors. Um, rather it just updates the determination of whether a color how a color qualifies as earth tone or pastel. The current definition in the code is based on a percentage of black or white in a given hue. Um, and after speaking to um after calling to verify colors that were proposed over the years and speaking to um paint professionals at Home Depot and Lowe's and Shervin Williams, um when you call and ask, "Does this color have 6% black content?" They're like, "Yeah, we don't do it that way. That's not how we measure it." Um that's not really how

the industry works. colors are based on uh mixed with different bases. There's a variety of whites, a variety of blacks, there's different bases that you mix colors with. And so really the most um consistent and measurable tool to determine a color is um earth tunnel pastel is is the light reflective value. Um so we are updating the land development code to use this light reflective value as an objective measurable standard that is the industry standard um for for determining colors. We've added we've updated the definitions in the code to reflect that um and that'll give a clear um and efficient determination when people apply for this. So let's see the next one is chapter 15. As we were amending the regulations for colors, you know, we were thinking about, you know, our code really doesn't we allow murals. That was an amendment when we updated chapter 15, but we don't but it doesn't really address that it's you can use more colors in murals than just earth tones and pastels. So, this amendment basically um clarifies that murals are not subject to the color regulations required for buildings with the exception of reflective or fluorescent colors. Those are still prohibited for safety reasons. Um but it allows other colors um in order to allow for that flexibility and creativity of unique artwork. So, um with that, staff is recommending approval and is here to answer any questions you may have.

Man, I learned more about colors than I I never thought. Hopefully it'll help you out the next time you paint your house. Check that LRV. I need an LRV check, please. Do you got anything? No questions. Thank you. Bo, yeah, this is kind of interesting. Uh, the are we talking about residential and commercial? For what? As far as murals, which is

No, murals are not allowed on residential. There's our land development code. It's murals are in the sign code and they're for um like non-residential properties and there's a certain percentage like on Ridgewood you can have 100% of an elevation, but other categories you can have I think it's like 50% or something like that. So, but not for residential. Yeah. I've always wanted to paint a big uh raccoon on my garage door, but because the HOA, you know, I was going to say, I don't know if your HOA would approve that. I I know them. Yeah. What if they're the right colors? Hopeary green. I do have another question. Um, what about dumpsters? Is there any kind of a color code for those dumpsters? Yeah.

So, dumpsters are supposed to be enclosed in a dumpster enclosure. and dumpster enclosures are required to be consistent with the principal structure. So, most of buildings that you see that have um that are more of like a Mediterranean look or what have you would have you'll see a lot of dumpsters that have a stucco finish and then they'll have the opaque gate. Um some along Ridgewood are more either like a PVC vinyl fence with a gate or wood um f wood enclosure with a gate. There are some older properties that were developed 70s and earlier that just have dumpsters out there without enclosures because they were built without them. But if they were ever to like redevelop or what have you, all the new development that you see has a dumpster enclosure. And so the the dumpster itself is screened.

Yeah. And that the same thing applies to temporary dumpsters on our construction site, right? No, we don't regulate the color of temporary because they're just there for construction purposes. It's not something that's going to stay on. Some of these dumpsters you see how many there's blood running down the outside of, you know, and maybe it's rust.

We'll check the other. Angela, want to chime in here? I don't know if you can. I don't know how you follow that. Please chime in here. Um I don't have any questions. Spam. I actually have questions.

You can see that. Yeah. Um there's a couple things are kind of interesting. Number one, if you go back to page three and there is a um uh about the sixth or seventh one down on relocation. Um, so the the bin cannot be remove cannot be moved without obtaining a new permit from the city. So if the build if the business ceases and now we're at in front of an empty commercial building. Correct. You have to remove it. But I have to have a permit to move it.

No. So if you're so say for example um you have a bank and they and and somebody a business that has a donation bin approaches them to put a donation bin in their parking lot in an approved area. That company or the property owner have to apply for a permit to put the bin there because we have to review now all this criteria make sure it meets it. If we issue a permit, if it meets all the criteria and they place it there, but then that business the the bank shuts down and it sits vacant, that bin has to be removed. Code enforcement will notify them to remove it. It can't be relocated if the business is vacant. It has to be an occupied business that's allowed to happen.

All right. So I guess the way I read it might have been screwed up because it looked like it was and also in this on relocation say you have a shopping center sometimes what we've been seeing is they'll they'll drop some bins most of the most of the time all the property owners that we've talked to these shopping centers they've never been contacted for approval. These groups go and drop the bins there and they don't ask approval by the property owner. The property owner doesn't want them there because they know it's not allowed. Um, and so they'll they'll they'll remove them, but then like a week or two later, you'll just see them in a different spot, right? And so what this means is once you get approval to put it in this spot, you can't move it somewhere else without a new permit,

right? But if but if I don't have another place, I want to I'm going to bring it back to say the back of Goodwill, do I have to have a permit to move it from the front of some Yeah. To move it from because that's the way it reads. Again, they're relocating it back to their office, for example. No, that's not how the ordinance is written. It's to relocate it on the property, not to remove it. To relocate is to like locate it somewhere else on the property. Remove is to take it away. So, you can't

I'm just reading it says the donation bin shall not be moved from the approved location without obtaining a new permit. So if the the location that was approved is no longer meets the code. There's another section though that we go to that says if the business is no longer occupied, you have to remove it. Right. So that that clarifies. But do I have to I guess you don't need a permit to remove it. It look All right. That's why I'm You don't need a permit to remove because it looked to me like I had to have a permit. No to pull it out of there. No.

All right. Well, that's just you me being me. Um, the other thing that was kind of interesting is that uh the um the company that owns the bin uh has to move the bin in case there's a a basically a hurricane warning or hurricane watch.

Um but yet we also require them to tie these things down so they won't blow over. So, I'm assuming that most people who have benz, it's not like they've got hundreds of benzo, they've only got one or two or three in the city, but they're going to have to go ahead and remove it and unbolt it from whatever it's tied down to and move it somewhere that's not going to be subject to the wind.

Correct. Because just because you're tying it down, there's not like a it's not necessarily meeting Florida building code wind load standards, for example. There's not engineering or anything for the for the structure. You're tying it down so you don't get situations. I wish I put the picture in there, but I think it's on Taylor Road or somewhere like that. I don't know if you guys have seen it driving around. There's actually a bin like in the grass right next to the roadway and it's like sideways tipped over. I don't know if anybody's seen it driving around town, but like we don't want stuff like that. Um, but it's obviously not, you know, we can't guarantee that that would meet building code for windload standards.

So, is the property owner required to notify the ben owner that they're planning on shutting down? No, but when we see that's so there's there's there's code enforcement action, but they have the tools now to to site them. So when we know a property has been vacant, then we can contact the because they have they're required by Florida law to have their contact information on the bin. So we can contact them and tell them this is this property is no longer I get that. But what I'm saying is that so the property owner has given the bin owner permission to be there. They're jointly and severally liable. Um there's a permit that's issued to one of them to have it there.

So now the property owners are going to go out of business. So at that point in time, by default, the Ben owner has got to move that thing. Is there a notice from the property owner to the Ben owner that, oh, by the way, in 3 weeks, I'm going to I'm going to fold up. No, that our regulations don't require that. It would obviously be in their best interest because they're taking on liability, but that's a private they may have a that's a private um decision between the two. At the end of the day, the city will contact that that them that it needs to be removed. But if if they don't get a warning and now code enforcement shows up and oh, by the way,

well, they go and empty these bins, right? So, they kind of know what's going on at the property, too. You'd be surprised. It could be their front yard. They might not know. Um, so those were a couple of the things I had. Let me let somebody else in for right now. Yeah. While you're at it, while you're doing that, my question was really, I've seen these bins and you some of these places you look at it and you're like, what? Who the heck put that there? Whose property is that they would allow that to be? Is that what you said?

They don't. They don't. So, we call we've called when we see them popping up everywhere. We we'll call the the shopping center owners that we know and we say, "Hey, did you give permission? Do you No, no, another one popped up." And they'll call and have tell them to move it. A lot of times, not all of them, but I have spoken personally to a few that they have said bin owners. No, to the shopping center property manager saying that no, we did not get permission. We don't want it here. I will have it removed.

And that's where my question was going to head was so you get these bins, somebody just drops them off in the middle of the night or the middle of the day, whenever. Doesn't really matter. Um property owner doesn't have any idea that it's even there until you happen to call or enforcement. So you're how are we how are we protecting the property owners from getting penalized for that? They didn't even know it was there. Well, right now it's you know there's we don't have the strongest regulations to be able to help site them so that it's not just on the property owners trying to get them off. Now we have now we will have clear and enforceable regulations so that code enforcement can do you know

well but the liability and that's the way I read it. I assume that's the way I read but it says the permit and property owner may be held individually. So property owner has no idea it's even there once it's permitted. Once it's once it's permitted once it's permit. So they so they just drop it off. No permit like they're doing now. Then we can only go after the bin owners. Yeah. If there's no permit because we don't you know if there's no permit then we don't have anything showing that the property owner gave permission or anything like that. Then it's just the bin owner. How responsive are these bin owners now when you call them out? We've been when right now we've been primarily talking to property managers.

Okay. Yeah. But it's required by law that they have their contract. There's Florida state, there's Florida statute requirements that are cited here for specific signage where they have to clearly state their organization's name um and their contact information and things like that. And so that's required by Florida statute. And then we have other signage provisions that we allow as well. So that should be all very clearly on there. Cool. All right. Ben, can I follow up, John? No, let me ask one more question. Uh on the uh back to the the non-residential temporary storage on non-residential properties, there currently no limit as to how long they can be on a property. So

no, currently we don't have regulations for temporary storage. We have regulations for outdoor storage um on non-residential where it has to be screened and things like that. But for temporary, we just we don't really have a provision for it. The codes doesn't really address that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Now now you understand. Okay. So, um, is there a way since this is going to be something kind of new? Is there a way that we can send out a letter something to the just a generic letter, dear Ben owner, here's the new rules you have? Yeah, that's in the staff report that code enforcement has the court enforcement's reviewed this proposed ordinance and they've agreed um as documented in the staff report that they are going to send out a notification.

I must have missed that, but that's one of the things I was thinking about is yeah, let them know. M um there was something to do with the like pods sitting in your uh let's say that you're going to resurface your garage floor and you are you talking about a residential property? It's residential.

Okay. Yeah. That that's not part of the amendment. The amendment is just for non-residential. Residential is already addressed in the code. And so residential, there's a little cleanup on the residential, but it's not the main beef of what is um in the amendment. Basically, if you have a permit or for things that don't require permits, when you're doing like renovations, it can be there for the duration of that that job that you're doing. Say you're resurfacing your garage or what have you, but then when you're done, it has to go. You don't need a permit for that. That's resurfacing your garage, your floor at the garage. I haven't been while you're

No, it's it's just part of your associated work that you're doing. Yeah. Yeah, that was my question because if you look at uh way in the back under chapter 16 uh one residential uses and then uh C, it says that uh the pods are restricted to the driveway for a period not to exceed 72 hours in any contiguous 30-day period. But a lot of times you want that pod there so you can unload your garage and then you're hoping that the guy your your contractor is going to be ready to go so that when you're unloaded he can start in right away but that may not happen.

Well and that's where it says you know or for inspection is applicable or allowed for other improvements or scenarios that might not require that's where we have that flexible language in there for ministry official. There's some improvements you might be doing that don't require a permit and may not require a CO or final inspection, but you're still doing improvements. You don't want to get arrested. Okay. Yeah. So, we try to build in that flexibility there. Yeah. They're really nice about it. Trust me. Yeah. Come on. Couple nights overnight. You're good. I am good. Yes. I have one more question. What room are you painting? I got green and topiary tent. that those were just the first ones that came to mind that were on the same.

All right. Anything? Can we vote? No pastels only. On only a men. No pastels. I was just timing this conversation. We spent more time on this than we did on the pages. We're good with you. Uh any public comment, Robert? You want pastels?

Commission members, Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Dexter Drive North. Um, I was confused with regard to the bins. Um, is this permitting a a new requirement? And if it's an old requirement, uh, will the current permits be recognized and grandfathered in? Thank you. Thank you. Penny, you want to address that while we're on the mic?

I'll be curious planning it. There are new regulations. We currently do not have detailed regulations. bins have been treated in the past as service areas where they just needed to be like screened from the rightway and and things like that. Um we haven't had a permit that was required. It was just kind of an informal review. So there is no existing permit that you would have to notify anybody about. There's a this is a new set of regulations with a new permitting requirement. Thank you very much. Anything else? Any public comments? We're all good there. Bring it back to the commission. Unless you have anything else, assume you're ready to vote. We're good.

Uh, if you could call the role, please. Stand. Yes. Angela Lu, yes. Daniel Molo, yes. Bob Famy, yes. Thomas Jordan, yes. Passes. Thank you very much. Uh, other business, commissioner comments. Daniel, anything from you? Uh, welcome back everybody. Been a few months now. Yeah, really good to see you guys again. Yeah, seems like forever. Last year, a year. Um, let's do this again real soon. Okay, next week. Yeah, really. Uh, Angela, welcome. Glad you're here. Thank you. We missed you.

You're welcome. We had an empty chair and now you can you taking care of us there. Any comments? No. Thanks for having me. I have to sit next to Yeah. Do I have to sit next to Stan? Told you to bring cookies. That's why you're sitting here. You get paid. You get paid bi-weekly, by the way. There you go. Stand. Did uh did we resolve the issue of uh reorganization vote for this body? A reorganization? Yeah. We got to do new officers, fun stuff. Next one.

Okay. That's why I didn't hear the final outcome of that. That's why I'm asking. Okay, cool. Start your campaigns now. Very good. Uh, I have no comments other than thank you staff. You guys do great work and we appreciate what you do for us. We missed you for the last two months. Uh, any staff comments tonight? Here it comes. Oh. All right. Public comments. Robert. No. Seeing none, seeming ready to adjourn. Is that all right? Absolutely.