Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezone Twigg Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board splits with 3–2 vote to change Twigg Street parcel to RM and approve R‑2 rezoning
Summary
After public comment opposing spot zoning, the Planning Board approved a future‑land‑use amendment and rezoning for a 0.39‑acre parcel on Twigg Street; the FLUM amendment passed 3–2 and the rezoning passed by the board majority.
The Palatka Planning Board approved a future‑land‑use amendment and two‑family rezoning for a 0.39‑acre parcel on Twigg Street after a divided vote and public comment objecting to spot zoning.
The item, PB24‑24, had been continued from a prior hearing after a split vote. Staff described the request as an amendment to the future‑land‑use map and a rezoning from single‑family R‑1 (R‑1A in city coding) to two‑family R‑2 to allow the applicant to build a duplex. Staff said the parcel sits within an area of mixed and mismatched zoning and that the requested changes would align the property’s designation with the applicant’s plans.
Resident Allegra Kitchens addressed the board during public comment and said the city commission has consistently opposed spot zoning for about 25 years and described placing an R‑2 spot in an R‑1 area as “spot zoning” regardless of intent. The board asked staff and board members to clarify whether the request constituted spot zoning; staff replied that the change is residential‑to‑residential and, in staff’s view, not spot zoning.
A motion to amend the FLUM from City of Palatka Other Public Facilities (OPF) to City of Palatka Residential Medium (RM) was moved by Planning Board member Edie Wilson and seconded by Planning Board member Mister Deloach; the motion passed 3–2. The subsequent motion to rezone the property from City of Palatka R‑1A to City of Palatka R‑2 for two‑family residential use also passed on a roll call of the board (motion recorded as approved by the majority in the meeting transcript).
Board members discussed two paths for addressing wider mismatched zoning in the neighborhood: individual property owner applications or a city‑led mass rezoning, which staff said is possible but labor‑intensive. No additional conditions or required studies were attached to the approvals in the meeting record.
The record indicates the item will proceed to the City Commission with the Planning Board’s recommendation (FLUM amendment recommended 3–2; rezoning recommended by majority vote).
