Good morning. December 20, 2018 hearing for the planning and land development regulatory commission is now called order. I would like to ask everyone to please silence your phones Berkel Berkel and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flight. >>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> We have a nice weather day today. If anyone would like to speak for or against any of the cases heard today, please fill out a form at the back of the room. Give those to Ms. Summers, she will , this commission has adopted a policy that as long as we are receiving information related to the case, we will not adopt a three-minute time limit perk up if we start receiving duplicate information from the speakers or information not specific to the case, we will have no option but to implement that time limit perk of Ms. Summers, roll call please Berkel Mr. Kostis, Mr. Young, Miss Vandamme Here. Mr. Bender, Mr. Frank Costa, Here. . Speech at we have quite a few minutes to consider this morning. Is there anyone who would like to one of the things I would like to ask you is on March 15, two of the commissioners here were not present. We do not have any more that were. We don't have people here that were heard on the minutes. >> We have three votes , we can go of those votes but we don't have enough votes to approve those minutes and I don't think at this point we will ever have enough votes for those minutes because the position of the chair is now vacant Berkel we could move on to those but we want to consider a vote and review them , we don't have any inkling that you may or may not believe that the minutes are not accurate we can reflect so in your vote. It is an approval of the minutes but not necessarily ratifying your position to approve the message and be available to the public for review and we can go forward with the vote on that. Speed Gexa we can vote on those speech up if you have no reason to believe, if you have inquired as to the accuracy or specific accuracy, you can acquire to that with the staff Berkel if you have no doubt that the minutes are accurate and accurately reflect the meeting, you may go forward and vote to approve them so that we have a provement of the meeting. Speech thank you. In saying that, also is it okay to combine minutes into the discussion . Speech it you can do that.'s project we will go ahead and combine the minutes for today. That will be the, the March, the April, the September, October, November, of 2018 minutes. Is there any discussion on anyone perk up speech it Mr. vice chair, you skipped over July. Speech it I did not receive the corrected information If I could interject, we have revised minutes for November. Those of the ones that were actually -- speech it the minutes for November, that we had ordered or ready previously approved that is what we are saying? Speech it November 15 minutes on page 32, line 1 through three, was revised. Speech at >> What I will do is pull the November once at the moment and we will discuss those in a moment speech it we will look at the revision. We will deal with the others . That will be the March, April, September, and October . Is there any discussion on the minutes. Miss Vandamme. 's project okay. Hearing no discussion on it, I will entertain a motion perk up speech and I will make a motion that we accept the minutes March, April, September, and October. For approval. I will second that. All in favor. The motion carries. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Motion carries. 5-0 with Mr. Frank Costa abstaining. Do we have the time to look at the [ Indiscernible ] On November. I have page 11, [ Indiscernible ] Lines 23-27. At the meeting, it was decided that there would not be audible, no indication by email indication. The way this reads, no loudspeaker or call system shall be used which does not limit the use of the emergency lightning notification system. Providing such system is activated at night. That makes it to me, it a loudspeaker or it reads like an audible system shall not be used. I wonder if that second sentence should be strike in its entirety. The last line. I just noticed that, if it doesn't bother anyone else than I am fine with that. Then the only other thing is on page 16 of 34th lines 21, there's just one too many words in their. And that was it. I remember that discussion also and that was part of the [ Indiscernible - low volume ] That there would be no audible lightning detector. That is correct. They may have some other method [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . Thing like in restaurants or something. That is correct however those conditions specifically were provided by the attorney and approved by the commission. You were saying that the second sentence does not limit the use of emergency lightning notification and discussion provided such is activated at night and all for long periods is not needed perk up not interpreting that to mean that there can be a loudspeaker call system? I know the last system was emergency lightning system will not be audible. Our interpretation is that it will not be audible. Not audible but you don't think that second sentence should be strike? Not necessarily. In this case [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Is approved [ Indiscernible - low volume ].'s eject No audible information. Not a public hearing. [ Multiple speakers ] That was my only question. We can't change the minutes. All right. >> Not any other discussion on that. We will entertain a motion. I will make a motion that we accept the November minutes as stated. Speech at all in favor? I have a motion and a second. All signify by saying I. Any opposed? I have 5-0 with Mr. Frank Costa abstaining [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. >> That takes care of that. At this time I would like to turn it over to Mr. Rodriguez. Decisions by this body and special exception cases and cases with reels on real property from one classification to another pursuant to the discerning audience on a recommendation only to the county council. They do not substitute a final hearing. New evidence may be introduced at the public hearing. Decisions on variances made by this body constitute final action. Subject to an appeal to the Council. What this means is that no new evidence may be presented at the time of the county council public hearing under appeal. An aggrieved party that appeal is confined before the body perk up hearings by this body and rezoning special exceptions and variances [ Indiscernible ] And this body is acting more like a court and take into account oral, written or demonstrative evidence undertaken perk up decision must be based on substantial evidence in the record. It has been defined as that evidence that's a reasonable mind would accept to a conclusion. Thank you very much. As long as we're speaking legal today, I will have legal comments that the commission disclose for the record any ex parte communications that have occurred before the board or during the public hearing at which a vote to be taken on any issue matter. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The only communication I have had [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Same. I did not see the emails that I've had no other correspondence. >> No correspondence and no emails. I have had none, also. Okay. Do we have any other items to be withdrawn or continued? We do. Ordinance number Ordinance 2018-14 Proposed ordinance amending the chapter 17 regarding conservation subdivisions. Miss Jackson? Speech it staff is requesting [ Indiscernible - low volume ] To the January 17 [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Any comments from the commissioners? A motion? I will make a motion perk up that we continue the ordinance Ordinance 2018-14 To January meeting. What is it? The 17th? For the January 17 meeting. I will second. I have a motion to continue with ordinance 28 2010-14. All in favor? Signify by saying Iannetta. All opposed? It carries. 5-0. Miss Vandamme? First case, PUD-18-092 , Application of Darren Elkin, attorney for Victor LLC, contract purchaser, Fifth Third Bank, owner, casting a major amendment to resolution 2008 -- 42. Miss Jackson, do you have comment on this please? >> This is a four-point one acre parcel located at the [ Indiscernible ] At the southeast corner . This is an aerial shot that we have before you right now. The zoning of it is currently [ Indiscernible - low volume ] And designation is zero, I. For background, this is already in a proved PUD in it allows a maximum of 10,000 square feet that are allowed to be in two 5000 square foot buildings, limited to offices type uses and banks, financial institutions [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. This amendment to that beauty is to allow for a slightly larger development at 12,500 feet with one of the buildings being allowed to be 7500 square foot [ Indiscernible ] , And emergency critical care animal Hospital, not just veterinary office. Allow for boarding of animals and ill animals will be allowed but it will not a normal veterinary clinic. Then the other use is the same [ Indiscernible ] That allows offices or financial institutions however they would not allow for drive-thru. That is some general background of this development. The original BTC was approved in 2008 and in fact [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Now we have this coming forward to amend that. What I would like to do is if you could put up the preliminary plan. I will walk through the development agreement on the overhead. The development agreement, it will allow for spacing of the development, all be built in one in two phases. I will draw , this will be the veterinary building, 7500 square feet, this building and all the infrastructure meaning the roads, all the landscape buffers, the detention, all that has to be built in the initial phase. If it is split into two phases. The only thing that would allow in the second phase would be this portion if it is built in a second phase, it might be, it might be built only one phase. In addition to that, if you would push that up, this poverty is allowed to be subdivided in the future if they so choose. This would be one lot right here. The other lot is everything else. Surrounding it. So it doesn't have to be subdivision, subdivided but they have the option to choose in the future. Permitted uses, have I said before, it allows for the veterinary hospital, medical and dental offices and financial institutions without drive-thru's. Setbacks. This is probably one of the more important issues of this, can you low up on the drawing, the preliminary, please? This site is designed to accommodate the future whitening or improvement to State Road 44 [ Indiscernible ] And specifically at that intersection perk up as you can see, this data line that goes along here, this property here is going to be utilized for those roadway improvements. So they designed the site with that in mind. That may not happen [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. They are providing landscape buffers that meet code. Of 40 feet from State Road 44 and from Kepler landscape buffers to the rear of the property. To the south. They meet code 30 feet on the south side and I think it is 40 [ Indiscernible - low volume ] I think it is 40 feet on the east side. Those areas are all supposed to be tree preservation areas. Further on the south side, which is adjacent to the residential neighborhood, there will be provided an eight foot masonry wall that will be on the inside of the buffer so that it represents [ Indiscernible ] Adjacent from the south and enjoy the landscaping then looking right at AWOL. That was a requirement that is being carried over. Building set backs, they more than meet the building setbacks. The building setbacks are required to be [ Indiscernible ] From Kepler and 44 [ Indiscernible - low volume ] As well as from the rear. They are 30 feet to the south. That setback as well. Maximum building height is allowed to be 35 feet which is standard code. The maximum lot coverage is listed as [ Indiscernible ] That is far below those at 20 percent. Minimum building separation is 20 feet, that is standard as well for [ Indiscernible ] Setback for any lot line. Signage will comply with [ Indiscernible ] Standards and [ Indiscernible ] Emerging Gateway [ Indiscernible ]. The nonresidential development [ Indiscernible ] . It will largely look like this building. We are not holding them completely to this. We haven't been able to evaluate completely, we need dimensions and so forth. But the intention is that it will meet the architectural standards and [ Indiscernible ] Design standards but it will look largely like these buildings here. Illumination, standard illumination requirements however this building is going to anticipated to operate as a 24/7 operation and therefore security lighting may be required. Security lighting allows a little bit more illumination than standard illumination [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. It will meet all environmental considerations. Water and sewer are provided by the city of Deland. Water available [ Indiscernible ] When it is available it will be required [ Indiscernible ]. It will meet all storm water requirements. Back to the site plan, please. The [ Indiscernible ] System . They will be limited to one access point on Kepler , a little bit smaller, please. One access point on Kepler here in one access point on State Road 44 here. It is not known at this time if there will be [ Indiscernible ] Only or if there will be allowed for access, it will be required to, they have turn lanes [ Indiscernible ] Not known at this time. Those determinations will be made during the final site plan. There is still information in coordination that has to Accor with SDLC to know exactly conditions will be like for those improvements and how that will affect [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The requires to [ Indiscernible ] This easement to the parcel to the east. Then, I should mention about the parking. One of the requirements for building less than 10,000 square feet is that the parking, only 50% of the parking can be part of the building to the roadway. Because this property has two roadways , that is a difficult thing to achieve. And because you want to push the parking away from being adjacent to the residential to the south, we are in the [ Indiscernible ] Providing for located between the front façade and the roadway. The other thing [ Indiscernible ] Is this encroachment basically three parking spaces and a bit of the driveway that we are allowing to encroach into the landscape buffers. Because of this corner area here that will be dedicated for right-of-way, utilize the right-of-way, it assumes so much of the property, and could shift the development so far to the south that we are recognizing that they may need to encroach into that landscape buffer. However they still have to meet their landscape requirements, it doesn't reduce the landscape requirements, just allows it to be [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. All the other items in the development order are just standard. We reviewed this against our rezoning criteria, consistent with the plan and that we meet all the zoning and land development regulations. We are recommending approval, we have two [ Indiscernible ] With that approval. Listed on page 11 of your report. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know [ Indiscernible ] Is in the audience representing this development. Thank you Miss Jackson. Any questions? I have a question on the site plan. The dotted line at the top, is that the line that shows , is that where the buffer will start? The buffer, this is the outside of it. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Speeches so my question is, on the area that is set for future expansion, this area here, what is going in there? Nothing will go there perk up that will be utilized for the [ Indiscernible ] So it will be stabilize? In the interim I would assume. We don't have a time frame on when they will do the road improvements. Then my second question is on the sketch that you had where they subdivide. Put that back up there. As for as the subdivision is concerned, in order to develop lot two, all the improvements for lot one would have to be completed in advance, correct? All the improvements for lot would and any -- lot one and any for the roadway over the potential lot has to be done , all the landscaping has to be done. Everything has to be completed and then they can subdivide. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Vandamme? If you would, I know the intent and the site plan is for an emergency medical clinic for animals. But it is not locked into that, correct? So the way this is written. This can still, if this were to go away, and they decide not to do that, they can instead put a bank in. It would be restricted to a bank without [ Indiscernible ]. We would be going , I'm thinking with the road improvement not there yet, if I am reading this correctly, on pages 58 and 59, we are looking at the trip analysis. The veterinarian emergency clinic would generate 26 peak hour trips. A bank would generate 151. So if this is approved, we could be looking at 151 trips, not 26. Because it is not mandated that this has to be a veterinary clinic. That is correct. A bank without drive-thru's would have more trips than one according to the [ Indiscernible ] Trip generation. If that is true, they're not required to build only the animal hospital on that so when they do have trip analysis, they have the highest generated use activity on that property. So if this is approved, there is a possibility that it could come back and say now we decided that we will not do the animal clinic, we will do the higher intensity such as a bank. My concern is that before the road is improved, if we approve this now, and it ends up not being an emergency clinic, then we are throwing an awful lot of trips on their. It is not considered that many more trips. They will be required to mitigate for any additional trips that reduce level [ Indiscernible ] And at that intersection. So when they go through the site plan approval, they will be required to do a transportation impact analysis specific to that use. Proportionate their share will be determined at that time. [ Indiscernible ] You are mentioning the site is already approved. That hire trip category. They are already approved for a bank there perk up so while this use is going to, the intensity maybe less, but if they elect not to do that they will go back to a use that has been approved and has already been calculated perk up this is not. The bank was a smaller size. But those trips properties have already been vested with that [ Indiscernible ] And that calculation analysis it's already been done at the hire trip level perk up if they go back, they would be going back to something that has been analyzed and approved by Council. I think if they go back, are they allowed to do a 12,500 square foot building. There is currently approved holding [ Indiscernible ]. That has passed, this is an amendment to zoning. If they will change their use and change the square footage, they have to come in with an amended development and take into account the property already has certain vested rights. I don't want to [ Indiscernible ] Going down if the site changes, we have already analyzed up to that point. If they were to go above, then yes, they would have to do the site plan process perk up they would have to ensure medication to absorb those additional trips. Into the use. And take into consideration whatever D.O.T. is going to decide what the intersection perk up and the reason for that large corner taking into consideration the possible roundabout which is something that D.O.T.. So you were saying that should we decide not to do the veterinary clinic they are allowed to put a bank in the 12,500 square-foot. [ Indiscernible ] They are approved for this development. But not 12,500. [ Indiscernible ] That is the agreement on the site. Any changes to that will require coming back to amend it. I do want to clarify that they are allowed one 7500 square-foot building in 150 square-foot building. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] The maximum square footage can be on the entire site, the maximum size building are 7500 [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. >> Any more questions? Hearing them, is the [ Indiscernible ] Present? Members, good morning, my name is Darren Elkin, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] I'm here on behalf of of the contract purchaser. Before going through a whole presentation , they've covered every going to cover but I want to [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Background on my client. And concerns that are heard. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. My clients have an animal I will call it an animal hospital. In Orland Beach and is been there for a number of years. And the demand in that industry if you will. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Animal owners. They wanted to expand and open a facility on the west side of the county [ Indiscernible - low volume ] This is an area that is approximate to the lake county and other areas and location this is a site [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. They are not developers. They didn't go find proper to develop for the purpose of developing and making it on the development side of it, they wanted a site that was geographically [ Indiscernible - low volume ] For what they want to accomplish. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Is it possible that they wouldn't build the animal hospital in 7500 square-foot building? That is a possibility, if it doesn't happen it will be a huge disappointment to them. They are excited about this and ready to go. They want to get to the [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. And build the building. Things happen, anything could happen [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. It is a possibility. As staff pointed out, it would have no use [ Indiscernible - low volume ] More significant than what they have. The reason we came through and did this rezoning is that one of the primary reasons was that you don't have in your code a defined use of an animal hospital. Or animal ER. You don't have that in the code. So staff couldn't make the decision that general office or the medical office would allow zoning code for animal ER. That seems to be logical, is just not under the code. That is the primary driver. They want to have the option to build a bigger holding that 7500 square feet. They are really excited about the project. Is a perfect location for low traffic generation, load traffic generator location. We talked about the intersection improvements which is dear to my heart personally. And maybe some people in the room. This client , they own all of the property that is almost to the edge of the right away. There's some additional right away [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. They are dedicating to the task of no compensation, 70 feet of right away along Kepler and 44. 70 feet of right away. In addition, I will collate a corner clip, that triangular piece, they are dedicating that to the county for no compensation, we will get impact credit for the additional corner piece. But the beauty of that, the significance of that is the county and local communities try to get the D.O.T. to do an intersection improvement and on the intersection improvement at the location, the county said listen, we've got the right-of-way, I think it is already lined up for the [ Indiscernible ] On the opposite corner, now we've got the right-of-way on this corner. So on the two corners, they don't have to require right-of-way and no taxpayer money or acquire [ Indiscernible ] I don't want to say incentivize but facilitate development of the intersection improvement. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] That is something I am personally excited about. As far as the other 5000 square foot building, they are just so far below what they could do on the site, they have no plans for that. For number of years they could have trees on it. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Don't have any plans for that. Any other questions? Any questions for Mr. Elkin? Thank you. At this time we do have some speakers. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Time after the speakers to speak. To address any concerns or issues that they bring. At this time I would like to have the speakers,. Astrid Deberry. Please come to the podium. Good morning. Happy holidays to everyone. I will keep this short. Please state your name and address. My name is Astrid Deberry I live at 113 [ Indiscernible ] Drive. Neighboring property, not neighboring but within the neighborhood. As some of you have been on this board no, I have been here many times talking about this corner , state Route 44 [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would like to say at the outset that I am very pleased with the proposed use of the property for an animal veterinary hospital. I think it's an excellent choice for this property. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] When we [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Every once in a while, they would say well, if you don't like that what would you like? And you know, I had to scratch my head and say I'm not positive, maybe a church, maybe something but never imagined an animal hospital. That was not on my radar. To my way of thinking that is an extremely good use for the property. It's a good location for it. It is not going to have the same kind of peak our problems that banks and medical offices would because it's 24 hours. You don't go there at 10:00 or 8:00. So I am very pleased with the proposed land-use. I'm very pleased with the proposed site plan. I think it is an excellent job of planning the property. So that it accommodates as many of the issues that we have talked about, the problems of State Road 44. And as a staff report acknowledges, State Road 44 [ Indiscernible ] Whatever the standards are , it's a long way in the right direction to facilitate the improvements. I am pleased. The only thing that I want to say is to encourage this body in the city and all the other parties that have a stake in this to continue with their eyes on the [ Indiscernible ] Improvements and make this happen. The intersection improvement for State Road 44 and Kepler happen, and we don't know that it will, we hope that it will be or provide some relief to the [ Indiscernible ] On State Road 44. There are a lot of things that are in the works right now which has not yet become, come before this body. And the school board [ Indiscernible ] . At Summit and 44th where the proposed [ Indiscernible ] , That property is presently under contract for commercial development. There are a lot of moving pieces here. I think there will be changing maybe rapidly we don't know, these are all the proposed but there are things that are in the works that I'm hoping that we can focus our collective attention on how we can make the neighborhoods work better and [ Indiscernible ] And make this work together. Thank you very much for your time. The only thing I want to say is Ms. Vandamme made the point about the difference and I wonder if there is any reason why given [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. >> Is there any reason we cannot remove financial institutions from the list of the [ Indiscernible ] So we don't have to face the possibility of this being a 7500 square foot bank? I will let them address this question. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you. Any questions? Hearing none, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The next speaker is Nancy . [ Laughter ] I will give you a chance to pronounce it. Good morning my name is Nancy live rivière. I'm the VP of the lake [ Indiscernible ]. I am here speaking on behalf of the Association. I am sure that most of you recall [ Indiscernible ] Association opposition to the racetrack [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Located at the intersection here. We want you to know that we are not opposing the proposed animal hospital. While we don't really oppose the development, it is a far cry better than the gas station. We feel very urgent about the [ Indiscernible ] Extension. And the current traffic overload. As it is about to get worse. There is a contract on the school board property and possibly on the 400 acre [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. We are concerned about that. With development and the animal hospital will add to the congestion at this intersection. In case there are any new members that are not familiar with the [ Indiscernible ] Plan, that new road would connect state Road 44 with MLK Boulevard. Some of you in the past have stated that you actually avoid the 44 Kepler intersection when coming into the land or leaving during rush hours. The traffic count is over 20,000 cars a day and a two lane residential road. I am here to be [ Indiscernible ] And Road extension is imperative that they release a current physical restraint of the 44 Kepler Road intersection. Both of these roads are at our overcapacity. The [ Indiscernible ] Any new development traffic engineer addressed [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Hearing none. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the site? Mr. Elkind? Your rebuttal, please? >> First off, does anyone have any additional questions for me or my client? With regard to miss the Perry's request, about limiting the bank from 7500 feet to 5000 square feet, what I think [ Indiscernible ] To do, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] I know Astrid well, I will talk with the client and we will discuss the thing and if it is a bank it's only 5000 square feet. I don't know that anyone builds a bank over square -- I don't build banks for living. I don't want to commit for that nor would I require that. From a legal perspective, I think we are entitled to do what we [ Indiscernible - low volume ] , That said, maybe a nonissue to us. To make the neighbors happy. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] I will make a representation to you that we will absolutely discuss that with the client. And get the information. And if it does not hurt us in any way, then [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The possibility if it is a bank, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would ask that you not make that recommendation. If we can do it [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you Mr. Elkind, any questions? I am curious about one thing, in an animal hospital or clinic like an emergency room, is it like a hospital, there will be ambulances coming? I'm going to ask my client. I don't think there is an ambulance that will transport an animal. Like if something happens to my dog and I have to get there and it is at night, correct me if I'm wrong [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. There's no endless. But to be honest, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] There have been instances where police dogs [ Indiscernible ] But I couldn't represent to you that a police dog [ Indiscernible ] Lights and sirens. I cannot represent that there would never be lights and siren. I was curious. Thank you. I never thought about that. Speech of any of the questions? Hearing none, and any other questions we will close the floor to public participation. And open up to the commissions to discuss. I would like to amend the e- command the applicant's for the dedication of the right away because once that interchange is being done, that would be a costly acquisition for the department. And taxpayers. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Parking spaces and all of that , the driveway through their [ Indiscernible ] Would be very costly. Great use of the property. If the neighborhood is okay with it. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] I thought they would speak, I was thinking oh my God, but I am biased. [ Laughter ] I am in full support. Thank you, any other questions? Any other comments? Go ahead. Having said that, I'm not comfortable with the fact that they were not restricted to the animal hospital. At least giving a good chance of getting the hospital there the client has agreed they will get that proposal [ Indiscernible ] So they will discuss reducing the size . And approving , a good shot of what would be a much better use [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Anyone else? Okay, I concurred with Mr. Bender, I think it is a good acquisition for the county. In order to approve the intersection and we know it is coming. One of the things that we met with concern in the past was the congestion at that intersection. [ Indiscernible ] In a short period of time. In saying that, I want to entertain a motion, if anyone wants to [ Indiscernible ]. I will make a motion to approve the UT -- PUD-18-092 With staff recommended conditions. I will second that. The have a motion to send the recommendation of approval for PUD-18-092 With the two staff recommended additions, all in favor? Signify by saying I, and he oppose? Motion carries . 6-0. Ms. Van Dam. Next case, PUD-19-006 Application to the planned unit development classification. Mr. Ashley, good morning. Good morning Mr. chair and commissioners. For the record, zoning manager. The case before you is another lending a development rezoning request. For a site in the south east part of the county. This is located what we consider the silver Santeria between [ Indiscernible ] And [ Indiscernible ]. This is a current develop or condominium or show line by the sea. We are here to rezone the property, get your initial review of the rezoning to the PUD for business use. The property owners for the portion of the owners within the property have been operating a short-term rental operation and they can [ Indiscernible ] Operation is a cone -- is akin to a hotel motel use and is not [ Indiscernible ] On the screen, page 39 of 42 of the staff report, showing the area zoning. It is our eight and the W indicates that it is Class II overlay water area. As we call it. Indian River Lagoon and surface water improvement over the zone. This area if we go back to the aerial , on page 38, shows intensive area of condominium development. Along the stretch of Southland Avenue. Short is a two tower tower consisting of approximately 58 units and based on information from the code compliant staff, approximately about 24 units owners have been operating short-term rentals of the units. To address that use, it was discussed with the applicant to do it PUD instead of a straight rezoning [ Indiscernible ] Which is in the surrounding property areas. Part of that is to reflect the be eight allowed additional commutes are -- commercial uses which not fit a work on the site because it's been pre-developed. The goal was to limit the commercial effort use it the property to particularly the hotel motel use. So with the PUD document that we attach for you, we've addressed the process existing site development, tailored the agreement for a setback and buffers. Parking, everything that deemed consistent or conforms to code as exist now because this is a pre-1980 development. We provided language where the site could be redeveloped or substantial damage were done and would have to be reconstructed, they would address current code conditions as amended at the time it was happened. Page 34 of the package which is on the screen now, the current as built survey that shows existing site as it is. With the two Towers, private recreational amenity in the middle of the building and this is offstreet area parking. No site improvements are proposed, there will be no hourly change of the building or site to indicate how it is operating. And we are looking to legitimize how the site is being used for at least nearly half of the units. By the residents of shore horn rentals. And that's pretty much it. The uses we looked at again are keeping to the multifamily and typical accessories and this use is associated with it. Recreational facilities associated with it. Then uses like [ Indiscernible ] Central utilities and hotel motel. We do have a couple of conditions, one addresses in the document is the current owners who are operating the short-term rental and business tax receipt and because they have been operating for a while, because did they do have a 120 day approval [ Indiscernible ]. Effective date and that would be by the Council. Again, no changes really to the site. It's an area that is developed [ Indiscernible ] For similar uses in developing area. So with the criteria we provided to the zoning, really isn't meet all the criteria so [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Recommendation of approval. With the conditions outlined. The applicants here, they may want to discuss some of the language in the development agreement and I think they have some alternatives [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would be happy to addressed any comments or questions. Thank you, any questions? Hearing none, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Good morning. I am Charles Gray, this is Jerry Robinson. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Orlando Florida. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. We concur with the staff recommendation. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Code in 2004. Hotel and motel [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. 80% of the applicants are renting for less than 30 days. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. This is an ongoing thing. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] It is a matter of cleaning up [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . The only change we are recommending, not really a change is [ Indiscernible - low volume ] With those who do not rent [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . We just want to add [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Short-term rental. Maximum 120 days [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . That's the only change or staff recommendation we would like. To complement the staff [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . >> Thank you Mr. Gray, any questions? Ms. Van Dam? >> I saw the report stating that 81% of the property owners voted to make the application, you are saying that 81% actually do? I misstated. 81% [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Not 81% ? Okay. Thank you. To clarify, the staff recommends [ Indiscernible ] In paragraph two, you are okay with the property owners that do rent to provide by the 120 days and then those that do not , [ Indiscernible ] Required. Thank you. A right we will close the floor for public participation and open up for Commissioner discussion. I have a question for Scott. There's an email that was presented to us for questions asked why are they not going after the V8 tourist suits that is prevalent in the area. Can you tell me the gist, the difference between the UD you're looking for versus the tourist? The Beatrice allows an addition to multifamily hotel motel allows nightclubs, and allows retail, shops and a couple of other commercial uses. In addition to what they're using the property now. Essentially what the PUD, we limit the main use of the property to the multifamily and adding hotel motel and a customary uses for recreational facilities, doing on-site work , there's an exempt excavation in landfill for on-site root -- on-site work [ Indiscernible ]. We propose in the agreement. Okay, thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Number two recommendation. You want to put your words in there to clarify? The wordsmith that I am, the proper language for that condition, I am trying to come up with that and work with the applicant [ Indiscernible ] I feel more comfortable and specifically identify those property owners that are undergoing or undertaking short-term rentals. I think the effective date of the agreement, you they will have 120 days for VR and then having added language, those that shall commence short-term rentals after the effective date, shall need to acquire VCR prior to engaging. Create two separate classes to clarify that if you do it now, there's the effective date and we will give you 120 days to get the VCR and if not, and you decide to start thereafter, you've got to get everything the VCR and extend that to 120 days. Is that the right wording for that. Then that could make it clear as to what you get once it becomes effective. So they're currently doing a, then plan on entering it after. After this goes into effect. That's the language [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. What we will do is make it if we do approve the recommendation we will go ahead and make my the number two in staff recommendation conditions that the wording would be worked out between the [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The intent of the condition remains, that does not change. We will have the specific language to implement that condition. That should be worked up by the time [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. But what that condition intends to do, there's no problem with that. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? I will entertain a motion. I will move forward PUC -- PUD rezoning PUD-19-006 The county council election [ Indiscernible ] And staff recommended . I will second that. With the legal jargon put in. Thank you Mr. Bender. Rewarding, intended recommendations number two [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. By staff and applicant. All right, I have a motion to forward the PUD rezoning application, PUD-19-006 County council will finalize recommendation for approval. Subject to staff recommended addition and new wording with number two in the recommendations between staff and applicant. All in favor? Any oppose?? Motion carries 6-0. Ms. Van Dam. V-19-008 Applications of B Trent Enterprises, agent for upscale nest, owner, requesting varies to the maximum number of parking spaces on general commercial before his own property. Ms. Jackson, we will hear from you. >> This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum percentage , 125% of the parking , exceed the maximum number of parking spaces 125%, 157%. If you recall the site , this is before you and March of this year. For three separate variances, the site is self is zoned B for which is one half acre. Or one acre, the site is only about half acre. It is a legal nonconforming lot. It has three frontages, it fronts on Sunday sure drive, [ Indiscernible ] And ocean shore Boulevard. So with all of those things against you, it is a difficult site. It is an infill development, and difficult to develop. It previously came through and after three separate variances, one would allow 100% of the parking between the front façade of the building and the right-of-way which was granted, another one was not required to have a loading space. And one was , one of the front yard setbacks [ Indiscernible - low volume ] , That was granted. So they went through site plans and approval process and at that time, they were wanting to build a better 3400 square foot building. Well, 3900 square foot building and now after going through the site plan process, it actually is being actually the building order, they determined that it made better financial sense to try to reduce the size of the billing to about 2400 square feet. And in so doing, there parking calculation changes. The maximum number of parking spaces they would be allowed is six. They have concern that that is an inadequate number of spaces to serve the building. They are anticipating three tenants, one being a nail salon. So having three tenants and only and at least three parking spaces will be taking up with employees. One is handicapped accessible. So only a person with the right sticker on their car could park in that space, not only to additional spaces for customers, they are concerned that it may not be sufficient to serve the building. They simply are requesting to be able to maintain the eight parking spaces that they have with the original development. Which was proposed at 3900 square feet. Staff reviewed this criteria for a variance request and found that it met all of the criteria. Therefore we recommend approval. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you Miss Jackson, any questions? Hearing them, is the applicant present? [ Indiscernible - low volume ] 880 Airport Road [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I want to introduce myself [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. This proposed design is a decreased holding side size [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. It doesn't leave enough parking, in our day and age everyone has a car. Employees and customers [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Enough parking for clients. I want to put it in person active, for a larger development, 30,000 square foot, it would require 60 spaces and have a maximum of 75. That would be 15 extra spaces [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. But since we have such a small size building, that takes down and we only have one space [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I want to thank you for considering this. Thank you to staff for putting together the written report. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you. Any questions? I do have some public participation forms. Mr. Dennis Beyer. Good morning my name is Dennis Beyer and I am an attorney [ Indiscernible - low volume ] About half-mile from this project. I am familiar with the area. In the office development constraints. I represent [ Indiscernible ] Enterprise which is north of this property. Would you please state your address? 109 [ Indiscernible ] Pebble Beach Florida. First off, I want to assure the applicant that we are not objecting to the variance. We want to add clarification and confirmation of a couple of points. My client for a number of reasons noticed a large variance [ Indiscernible ] They moved out of state [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . What happened between the fire variance in March and July, the letter was sent to the applicant concerning my clients property that that said my clients property parcels needed to be combined for purposes of future development. My client never had a development application and we did not [ Indiscernible - low volume ] The property appraisal [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Without us ever submitting any kind of application whatsoever. A little bit unusual for the circumstance. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Somebody else's development application [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Just a little unusual. We worked it out , we worked it out with the property appraisals office. Nothing with this variance [ Indiscernible ] Somehow applies to my clients property and also that the parking which we are not opposed to [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Those the only two points I wanted to make. Given the unusual history of this project, my client wanted me to come here out of an abundance of caution. I will let Mr. Rodriguez address that. Those concerns. It is not necessarily a legal comment, Mr. Ashley may have some. When we reviewed this, the variance and the [ Indiscernible ] Application process we found that the subject property was divided not in accordance with the land development code. [ Indiscernible ]. And per the review process, was to straighten that out. That tied into the property to the north which was a portion of this historic lot. And carve the notch out was part of this property and went to the property to the north. The goal was to recombine legally as to the subdivision process, those two lots but the owner at the corner so a combination of their property so they are not sold off individually because they are not conforming to the one [ Indiscernible ] Lot size requirement. To be clear, you were saying that my client continued to work with the county? It has been combined. I guess it is done but that was the purpose was to address the nonconforming lot situation. We addressed that through the ownership and we found the subdivision issue that the properties were broken up, not in accordance with the subdivision process. That was the reasons for the recombination. The requirement. In the subject property to the north had a nonconforming lot and two lots, one parcel but [ Indiscernible ] So the goal was to combine those so it was all one parcel in one lot. So it could not be broke off and sold individually [ Indiscernible ]. Already nonconforming. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] And zoning situation by having a smaller lot. So the property [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Not them. I will follow up because the [ Indiscernible ] There are three separate parcels. The document filed in the public record [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I will follow-up. I don't want to take away from their various. That is a separate case. The letter was written to the applicant [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I will follow-up with Mr. Ashley. We do not object to the variance. Okay. Anyone else like to speak to this case? Hearing other public participation, I will close the floor. We will open it up for Commissioner discussion. I don't know if you recall, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Are positioned to this project , because of the amount of parking was insufficient beside the building, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Wherewith they unload , all the things that we are now here to debate. I appreciate [ Indiscernible - low volume ] What was approved back in March. Go back and look at [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you Mr. Bender. Any other comments? Okay, hearing no more comments, I will entertain a motion. I will make a motion that we approve variance 19 008 with the conditions presented by staff. I will second that. The motion and second to approve the variance with the two recommended conditions, all in favor? Hearing none, all in favor. Any oppose? Motion carries, 6-0. Case 19 -- 009, application of sunny short LLC, owner, requesting a variance to the minimum yard requirements on urban single-family residential are for zoned property. Mr. Ashley. Again, Scott Ashley from the zoning manager. This is a variance to address existing developed homes. Located in the north [ Indiscernible ] Area on the sunny sure planted residential subdivision. Created in 1958. And around the mid-50s and the house was built in 1958. The property is currently nonconforming to current zoning requirements, the are for zoning [ Indiscernible ]. It is only 6200 square feet. Excuse me 60 and -- 1600 square feet and the minimum is 7500. The subject property is also planted at an angle like some of the older plats of the 1950s and early 60s. That was done to allow these homes to be angled toward the east. So presumably a visual either receive the sun more have a chance to look down the beach and the unencumbered land free lot would. The home on the property had a carport on it and was damaged by Hurricane Irma. It encroached into the front yard setback by approximately 1.8 feet. The applicant before you today requesting the proposal of a garage construction that would encroach approximately 5.1 feet into the front yard. The 19 point form [ Indiscernible ]. So the garage as you see on the screen is approximately 12 by 26, according to the floor plans provided. The tenant to provide one space for larger more modern and larger vehicle as well as provide additional storage space. For the property because typically the subdivisions are generally smaller in size. So the looking for additional storage space. As you see, the angle, once any addition is brought up to basically be in line with the home, because of the configuration and location on the lot, one and will be lower or away from the road from the other in addition would past the line of the home that it would encroach. So that's why the physical constraint of the site. Based on the five criteria we find that the shape of the lot and configuration location of the home and the lot lead to special circumstances and therefore it is recommending to approve the variance as presented. I would be happy to address comments or questions. Any questions for staff? Scott, you said you recommending approval for this? I'm sorry, they meet four of the five. Four of the five so technically we can ask the board to request that it does not meet all five, but we have three conditions. These are soft denials. All right. Hearing no comments from staff, is the applicant present? Good morning my name is Lorna Herschel and on the air. And owner of the property. I want to thank you , the step that has really helped [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Maggot your address? >> May I get your address. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. In Maitland. Basically, anything to said beyond the application, the neighborhood has [ Indiscernible - low volume ] And a lot of the other residents , additions have been made. In close in ways that I feel that are not really the most desirable aesthetically pleasing type results. Some of them still have carports. There is no storage in these houses. The bedrooms are one bedroom and one bath. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] If you drive around the neighborhood, you see a lot of people's belongings and it really affects the value of the area. Basically what we want to do is bring this back to the 21st century. To try and also we have the whole issue [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Things exposed to the street. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the proposed [ Indiscernible ] But what we want to do is bring this in accordance to the rest of the house so it looks like it is not an afterthought. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] A lot of houses of the neighborhood look like that. Our current front door is on the site. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Otherwise the front door will be inside the garage. So the question [ Indiscernible - low volume ] So little more comfortable. If we keep it as is. I feel like if you wait , if you encroach a little bit, it would improve the aesthetics so much and the personality. I would respectfully ask that you approve it. Thank you, any questions? Hearing none, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak to this? Hearing none, I will open it up for Commissioner discussion. I was out there, I don't see any problem and in fact a lot of the houses have got problems that could be improved. I am in favor of it. Plus, I do have one, in the past, that would have been a, it would have been okay , in the old zoning code, right? It would have been approved. It might have been , on the old north [ Indiscernible ] Regulations that went into effect in the 80s or 60s. Without researching. Those homes were built on the same line. I have seen some that looked like they had additions pushed out like that. I don't see any problem. I am in favor. Any other discussion? I will entertain a motion. Speech and I will make a motion that we approve variance V-19-009 With the three conditions , staff conditions. I will second. I have a motion to approve variance V-19-009 With staff recommended, three staff recommended conditions. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any oppose? Motion carries. 6-0. Application of Chuck Piper, agent for James Tybee, owner, requesting variances to minimum yard requirement on urban single-family are nine zoned property. Mr. chair, members, Scott Ashley, zoning manager. This is a variance between beach area and approximately a repeat variance. The applicant is not here in 2015, excuse me 2013, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Requesting the exact same variance which is reducing front yard setback from the minimum 25 [ Indiscernible - low volume ] And waterfront yard from 25 [ Indiscernible ] To construct a single-family home on the property. Power of the applicant did not go forward in a timely manner to utilize the variance and did not request an extension. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] So we are here today requesting basically the same request, same building footprint as you see on the screen. We reviewed this and went over this criteria, similar to what we did in 2013. Staff found that it does not fully meet all five criteria. We felt this was [ Indiscernible ] Variance was not met. This was outlined on page 4 of the report, therefore staff could not recommend approval. But if you were to repeat based on your review of the report and the public [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Today, I feel you can supported. Staff would ask that you include for conditions that we provided [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would be happy to address any comments. Do we have any comments or questions? >> Are these conditions similar to what the Russians were last time when we approve the? Yes they were. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? Go ahead misspending. Mr. Ashley, looking at the report from the environmental [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Is there a possibility even with the variances that if we , is there a possibility that if we approve the variance that is to will not be able to meet building code? >> I'm not sure if the building, but maybe the environmental permitting that goes along with it. It is a waterfront lot so there is an buffer requirement from the lot line which would be basically the tributary area of the river. He would have to go through probably if not a wetland, I don't think the buffer wetland up buffer alteration permit as part of the [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Purses . Typically I believe it's a 25 and this is an RC area of the map, it's 50 foot upland buffer. The full 50, this is not a very [ Indiscernible ] Lot. We would have to work with the environmental staff and the applicant together to coordinate how they can fit on the lot and whether or not to what extent the could be granted modification to that process. This is what we looked at previously, staff was hoping for reduction possibility of 20 foot. As you can see, based on design, I do recall that the northern portion [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Because of the garage area is on the north end of the building and it pushes additional living area past the main part of the home. That is why it pushed into the setback to the [ Indiscernible ]. Okay. I have a question. There's an email here dated yesterday. From diamond holdings group. Thanking the applicant for dropping their rear variance request. I don't see it changed , is that correct? Or is that miscommunication? That information , you will have to talk to the applicant about because that's new information to us. We have not seen anything from them. Speech of any other questions for staff? Hearing them, is the applicant present? Come forward please. State your name and address for the record. James Tybee, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Proposed buyer has backed out. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Variance on the [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. If you would state your address? I live at 550 [ Indiscernible ]. I have spoken with diamond holdings and they own the 25 foot lot across the street [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Her objections were primarily to the 25 foot lot [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. For the property across the road. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Two partials on the ocean side. A little sliver , 25 footer [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I believe she was allowed to. Allowed to put in a small dock. Concerned with the rear variance. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . I don't think I agree entirely on that side but on the other hand one night [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I thought with the rear variance the way I was asking [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Probably could push more with the redesign [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Did not request the 25 foot variance. Those three homes to the north are somewhere about 9-14 feet from the site back [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. My proposal would be to bring this forward as much as possible to avoid as much of the wetlands [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I really don't think the rear setback [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. The other thing is, [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Staff wanted no overhangs , which you are allowed a three foot overhang [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Even if we don't put the building [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would have no issues on what would happen on the north and east side. But on the view [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. With the 25 foot setback [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would officially like to drop the request [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . That right there. Just stick with the front variance. As stated, 15 feet to the house. And moved 25 feet [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Garage. Maybe allowing a 15 foot overhang be [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. >> Again regarding the conditions [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Someone else would design what they like [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Any questions for the applicant? You are not building a house, you are trying to get this variance for somebody if they want to build a house in the future. I was told that it would be possible. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Previously I was [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Not able to transfer it. Can they get a variance to transfer? No, you don't get a transfer to it is for land. Keep up with the timeline associate with the variance. Once it is approved, it is 12 months to utilize. In this case, basically they submitted a pro meant dashed permit to use that variance, didn't last time for an extension which staff is allowed to use another 12 extension. That's why it expired. He's not going to build a he needs to sell it to somebody and then someone else will transfer [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Apply for a building permit or apply for an extension. For additional 12 months. So say it was granted today than were looking at December 2020 , the life of the variance. If someone wants to build on it. I guess my problem is looking at doing this and in the future, looking to get somebody coming in and say this isn't enough and we be looking at another variance again. You could. I am not real excited about giving a future variance. Mr. Piper indicates that he would selling , liquidate the funds [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. More likely May or June of next year and could come back [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. That's why we had an interest in the variance process [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I may or may not have the financial ability to do this. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Personally I may not [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Any other questions? Yes, I have a question. You said you don't have any current plans for the site, correct? I do not. Other than it is marketed as for sale. >> Okay. I had a buyer who is going through the process [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. So my question to you is are you certain that you want to draw up a variance that you don't know what house is going on there now? I would have advised him [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I believe a lot of those issues [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. A lot of the issues are related to the wetlands [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Little bit of more to work with. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. With the current setback it's really not workable [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Okay, thank you. Speech of any other questions? I have a question for staff. You mentioned something about the balconies. Doesn't he need the variance for the balconies to bring a builder into that area? He would if it will be on the east side. And adjacent to the roadway. Any roof overhang or unenclosed balcony that's is allowed to extend our project into the yard by 3 1/2 feet or half yard, whichever is less. The condition would follow from 2013 was extending into the setback with the approved variance at the time. Has to point where the three and half feet would be. That's why staff had requested no balcony or any extension into the setback. Now, that would apply on the Eastside if you will, adjacent to the road. If you would withdraw and the waterfront setback, that is still available to him. And certainly modify that condition. That would be number three to be specific on the variance, then [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Which is the front yard. Would need a revised plan which condition number one, the plan that we have. We would want the revised plan to show the variance that he's asking for and if it is granted. But, the key was primarily what would've been the east and west frontage, at the time we went to the variance granted to the entire area because of the wetland. And also the 10 foot encroachment into the front yard was to accommodate. If you look at the survey, you've got about 85 foot depth on the north end, and one under 50 on the south and. And that's the shape of the lot and why the house is part of that, the depth is great on the north end [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. So it starts to narrow and pinch down on the southern end, encroach any additional structures [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Or decks would further go into the setback. Because of the angle of the lot and that's what you are getting, a break from the setbacks. And extensions that go beyond normal allowance would be. Is it my understanding that you are concerned with the West End of the property? Is that correct? [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Additionally would have limited where the residence was [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. >> [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] The front variance [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. My question goes back to Scott, do we actually need recommended conditions for number three? Yes, we would ask that you still employ that in regard to variance number one which is the front yard. Because typically , if you had the typical 25 foot front yard you could only go 21 1/2 foot setback for any unenclosed balcony , any overhang or roof overhang of things of that nature. You have 15 is well into it. So we recommend we restrict the front. Or east facing area of the front yard at request. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, I will close the floor. Open it up for Commissioner discussion. I have a feeling that we will see Mr. Tobbie or Mr. Piper again. In regard to the variance. The house design from a developer standpoint, which I am, I would put those two together and not use it. Rather than not have it and need it. Especially when it comes to the porches on the house, it will encroach regardless. So in the future, if it was my house, if I were building I would have a duck on the backside. Overlooking the water. So that would give me concerned that we will see this again. For number two. If we don't go and talk about the combination as opposed to [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I agree. If we drop variance to, we probably would have a better report from environmental staff, correct? Yes, you would. That is some of their main concern. Waterfront area , the wetland buffer , being close to the wet learners and upland wetland requirements. Would that not be a battle , that you would have to fight. It will be a battle no matter whether you do one and two are just number one. Because if he needs -- meets the 25 foot setback, then he has to deal with the deck issue with the environmental because they're looking for how one of the key is to try to deal with minimization if they can't. And some limitation at that point. If you get the ATC as shown, it has the same as general configuration, that will have an impact on the buffer. If you leave the house at 25 [ Indiscernible ] But if the deck, you know that would be, not attached or I should say not attached but not required of the home to be support. Or main support structure to be detached [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. That still will require permit and probably involve wetland permitting one because of the class to area and to because of the waterfront lot. It will be going into the upper buffer. The RC I think is adjacent to let me check the map, it is RC so it's Norma, from the shoreline and typically a 50 foot because of the platted lots, then you have a 25 foot setback. And then prefer to work with the map [ Indiscernible - low volume ] At 25 so, that is part of their thinking. To go further into it then you will have to adjust it. It will come up whether you have one and two together today or one by itself. The future of the homebuyer once the most likely , because it is a waterfront lot, they want some time [ Indiscernible ] It will be a building issue or a variance issue. I would like to point out as well that it has been hashed out in 2013 before my time, we are basically doing the same work all over again. I don't see any reason not to proceed with it. As opposed to shutting it down at this point. I am pretty certain that someone will come back on variance to at some point in the future. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I question granting the variance [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I don't know. I am thinking environmental will not be quite as opposed [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. That's my thought. >> Reflecting on this, Miss Van Dam, for the process, a lot of times we looked at what was the minimum variance requested in the property owners have actually decided to withdraw that. I understand where you are coming from. On the applicant or the owner here, in this case, will need to drop variance to. So I'm inclined not to support the variance. That's fine, I'm trying to give the applicant every possible opportunity to change his mind at this point. At this point I would like the applicant, after hearing the discussion, what is your take on this? Do you still want to drop to or would you like to leave the place? After hearing the discussion? I was not aware this was optional. If you don't just come in with a plan [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. 25 foot line. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] The porches on the back [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I would be in favor of leaving it as is so that if that is the best way to move forward. [ Indiscernible ] Wetland issues in the back would be the problem. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Getting as much space in the front, with the minimum required, basically that's what I feel [ Indiscernible - low volume ], Bring it forward 10 feet. Work within what's left. I don't think you would ever grant a bigger variance on the front [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Between the lot line in the road. I understand all of those . I think it would be better once the design of the house [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Again, it's more for you guys, if you feel more comfortable putting the two together, give me assurances [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. I won't be subject to any further limitations [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Thank you. Any of the discussions? Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on this matter? Is there anyone in the public [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Hearing none, I will clear the floor and open up for Commissioner discussion. A motion? Like you said, the intent to minimize variances that are requested as much as possible. And if we have an applicant who is stating that they would drop a variance, that is minimizing so I would be in favor of approving the request to variance one and I don't know if it would be necessary to deny variance to or just indicate that it has been dropped and then the question is what does that mean to the staff recommendations. Well, that takes care of the objective objection, at least to the minimum variance. So you would be in favor, change the recommendation from the night to approve by eliminating variance to? >> Withdraw variance to, then variance when we need to amend , we need to revise the family dwelling footprint, using the one in the PACs, -- in the past, modify that, basically limited to the use front yard [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Deny the variance You mentioned that was the problem. That middle variance for the second one but looking at getting a better of the two, because we have done smaller setback in the front , that pushes it further away from the wetland area [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Staff would concede the applicant [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. One main concern would not object to the first one. >> Anyone want to put a motion forward? I will make a motion that we approve the request for variance one, and then I'm not clear on what that would involve with staff recommendations. Do we need the staff recommendation and place? If I could, we have had some discussions here, looking at code, [ Indiscernible - low volume ] Use withdrawn request for number two at the meeting. And come back within the year and asked for [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Within a year. Yes. >> What do we need in terms of recommendations, number one and two? Or do you still need all three? You need all three. Actually with four conditions. I'm sorry. You still need all four. Just alterations to number one in [ Indiscernible ]. >> Then approval, but would make a motion to approve the request for variance number one, with the four recommendations from staff. Is amended by staff again, the current condition one is limited to the [ Indiscernible ] Tolling footprint area. [ Indiscernible - low volume ] But we need a revised plan for the official approval. That changes the shape of the home footprint. Shows that it does meet the rear yard right of -- waterfront setback. Number one, date Revised plan states variance one only. And then condition three, something as is or the main issue in this case would be the front, east front yard area that's only 15 foot setback. And limit condition three to that portion of the property. [ Indiscernible - low volume ]. Condition three would only apply to the front of the home correct? Yes. Staircase shall extend an overhang to the east front yard established on the approved plan. Thank you. Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I second. I have a motion to approve variance one with the staff recommended conditions , with the revisions to one and three. A second into withdrawal variance to. Rather than deny, is that correct? That is correct. All right. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying [ Indiscernible - low volume ] . Any opposed? Yes. I've got 5-1. With Mr. Young . All right. That takes care of it. Is there any old business? I see none. Do we have any other public items? No Sir we don't. Happy holidays to everyone. Any staff items? Any commission comments? Merry Christmas to everyone. I would like to welcome our new Commissioner, Mr. Frank Costa. Not to be confused with Mr. Steve Costa. We will get it figured out. For the record, we are not related. All right, we need to keep in mind that whenever you get ready to do that, we will proceed with that. And get it on the agenda. I would like to say that I would say that for the end of the year that the staff this year has been very good and helpful. And I wish all the stuff a Merry Christmas. You do a great job. >> Do we have any press or citizen comments? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. [ Event concluded ]