neighborhoods. He inquired how that is addressed. What they are doing is one size
fits all, and it should be in key areas and not blanket across the county. He would like
information in relation to density bonuses on how much the rate is going to be, the fair
market value, and how it's going to depreciate the neighborhood.
With regard to accessory dwellings, Commissioner Constantine stated they still haven't
figured out the question of ongoing ownership, and it's not in here. He doesn't know if
it is judicious to start changing this without coming up with that answer first. Ms.
Athanas noted currently the Code requires that the owner lives on the site in one of the
two units. Ms. Borkert added this was discussed at a previous meeting, and direction
from the Board was to maintain status quo, so staff didn't change that provision in the
Code. Commissioner Constantine expressed his concern is what happens when the
owner sells the house and how it is used, if it is sold to a landlord that intends to rent
out both units or a vacation home. Ms. Borkert reminded they cannot prohibit vacation
homes as it has been preempted by the State. Having the owner on the property and
not rented out is an existing requirement in the Code. She explained, however, it is
very difficult from an enforcement standpoint to make sure that continues to occur.
Upon Commissioner Constantine's inquiry regarding separation requirements between
alcoholic beverage establishments and churches, Ms. Borkert explained there have
been instances where churches are moving into large spaces in strip malls where there
are existing restaurants, so the setback doesn't exist.
Mike Rhodes, Interim Development Services Director, addressed the Board and
advised staff has been working with the County Manager's Office and County
Attorney's Office with regards to how they are managing vacation rentals, and they
hope to bring some amendments to the current ordinance and processes, to make it a
little better and effective, later on this year. They have heard the concerns and intend
on correcting them.
With regard to public participation, Jim Hattaway spoke in support and recommended
approval, and Alison Yurko spoke in support and distributed a packet related to the
WRPA and her family's property located at SR 46 and Orange Boulevard (received and
filed).
Dave Axel spoke in opposition and requested a change in the alternative design
standards. He explained he has a client who owns 66 gross acres at the northwest
corner of Celery and Cameron that is currently under contract for a proposed
development. When they attended pre-application in December 2025, they were made
aware there were alternative design standards. Their understanding of the reason was
under current lot criteria, it is not possible to achieve or get close to the allowable land
use density. The pattern of development along that road has been gated subdivisions
typically with 50-foot lots, and that is what they are proposing with a mix of 60 around
the perimeter, which would achieve a density of approximately three units an acre. The
property is bounded by wetlands on the north, by roads it would be connected to on the
south and east, and by a gated subdivision on the west, with a gated subdivision
across Celery. He is requesting that Section 35.73.1(c)(1), projects using these
standards shall not be gated, be stricken. In this section there is still a requirement for
connectivity, so if connectivity is possible, it will happen. In his particular case, it is not
possible, and he does not want to be forced to go through a PUD process to achieve
