Plan Board Meeting

23718 W US HWY 27 Telephone: (386) 454-1416 High Springs, Florida 32643 Facsimile: (386) 454-2126 Web: highsprings.us HIGH SPRINGS PLAN BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 20, 2026 Meeting called to order by Chair Riddle at 6:30PM. Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Riddle ROLL CALL PLAN BOARD: Chair Tim Bolliger – Present Vice Chair Rick Testa – Present Member Julie Tapia-Ruano – Present Member Zachary Walter – Absent Member Bradley Riddle – Present STAFF PRESENT: Kristyn Adkins, Planning Technician Kiersten Ballou, City Attorney Motion Member Riddle to approve the December 15, 2025 meeting minutes. Seconded by Member Tapia-Ruano. Motion passed 4-0. NEW BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. PB/CUP 25-01 – CONDITIONAL USE MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEX The City Attorney swore in all those who would speak on this item, as well as the next, and asked the board whether there were any ex parte communications for either. Riddle stated he spoke with City staff to get information. There were no others. The attorney read the item. Sergio Cruz, on behalf of the applicant, gave a presentation on the location of the project, scope of work, and other details. Member Tapia-Ruano asked regarding density/percentages of the site. Chair Bolliger asked who bears the cost of the bringing the water lines there – the applicant does. Member Tapia-Ruano spoke of the old growth trees/a number of them coming out/replanting. Page 2 of 4 Citizen Lance Briner spoke in opposition of the project, asserting that it did not meet the standards, is incompatible, health/safety issues, traffic issues, etc. He provided a handout. Member Riddle asked for more information regarding the quality of life item. Mr. Briner stated the density creates more noise and light pollution. Member Testa spoke of the opposition he has seen in the past to duplexes in the City. Citizen Dan Dorshef spoke in opposition of the project, asserting that it is incompatible, will cause excessive traffic/public safety hazard, spoke of issues from McDonalds/TractorSupply, crashes on 441, access, drainage, parking, limited guest spots, stormwater, etc. Citizen Brad Bower spoke in opposition of the project. He spoke of the project being directly adjacent to River Run Plantation subdivision, of buffering, landscaping, lighting, effect on surroundings, etc. He spoke of missing evidence required by code. Citizen Scott Jamison spoke in opposition of the project. He spoke of property values, the size of the living spaces of the duplexes, inconsistency with River Run, Drainage. Member Riddle asked if he had data showing property value drops from McDonalds or the Gym. Mr. Jamison did not. Member Riddle asked staff regarding the zoning of the property. Mrs. Adkins responded that it is zoned C1, which is a commercial district, and generally it includes neighborhood commercial type uses. The audience asked regarding whether the burden of proof was on the applicant to provide studies proving they meet the code. The City Attorney responded that the applicant has a responsibility to provide competent substantial evidence, but that doesn’t necessarily limit it to requiring studies. The board decides what is competent substantial evidence. Citizen Joe White spoke in opposition of the project. He stated that single-family is fine but the development is too dense. He spoke of how it took 3 years to get Boat Ramp Road fixed. He spoke of grinder pumps, water concerns. Mr. Cruz responded to the comments from the citizens. He spoke of how at the next stage there would be a geotechnical study, traffic study, that the trip generation provided is the industry standard. He spoke of the owner having an appraised property value of each building being 325,000. He spoke of opacity of buffering, emergency vehicles. Chair Bolliger asked if the applicant was willing to compromise on things. Mr. Cruz stated yes. Chair Bolliger spoke regarding grinder pumps. Mrs. Adkins stated the City is trying to move away from grinder pumps so if at all feasible for the project they would use gravity. Member Tapia-Ruano spoke the traffic generation information provided and her concerns on the numbers being inaccurate. Mr. Cruz stated it is generic based on the IT Trip Generation standards, and if the City requires a full traffic study it would be done. Member Tapia-Ruano spoke of her previous employment at Butler Plumbing for transparency sake, and stated it does not effect her decision. Chair Riddle spoke of his site visit and that he did not see any gopher holes on the site, but one adjacent. He spoke of the potential of a privacy fence. Member Tapia-Ruano agreed regarding a privacy fence. Chair Bolliger spoke of working with Developers, following code, and regarding revenue/costs. Member Riddle spoke of being diligent regarding code compliance/Anytime Fitness Page 3 of 4 complaints. He spoke of traffic issues. Chair Bolliger spoke of DOT. Member Testa spoke of there being a lack of rentable housing, the ‘not my backyard’ mentality, and unaffordability. He spoke of the updated architecture from the Convenience Store project they reviewed previously. Chair Bolliger spoke of feedback from the citizens and changes to code. Mrs. Adkins asked for clarification from the applicant on the duplex unit size. She stated that the plan provided states “habitable area per dwelling unit is 1,860 SF”, but that is a different from earlier where it was referenced as 600 per dwelling. The applicant stated that is the building size. Member Riddle asked regarding the sidewalk being to the property line. Citizen Mike Anderson spoke in opposition to the project. He asked whether the duplexes would be rented or owned, of affordable housing. He stated that Anytime Fitness lowered his property value by 11%. He spoke of issues with lights and landscaping with Anytime Fitness. Mrs. Adkins responded regarding the issues the codes department has been dealing with on Anytime Fitness. Citizen Jamison stated his issue is the size of what is going in there. Motion Member Testa to approve with the condition to reduce it to a maximum of 4 duplexes, and add a 6ft privacy fence along the west property boundary. Seconded by Member Tapia-Ruano. Motion dies 2-2, Member Riddle and Chair Bolliger against. Motion Member Riddle to approve with the condition of a 6ft privacy fence be installed along the west property boundary. No second. Motion dies. Chair Bolliger passes the gavel. Motion Chair Bolliger to approve with the condition to install a 6 ft privacy fence along the west property line, and a maximum of 5 duplex structures. Seconded by Member Tapia- Ruano. Mr. Cruz stated that the project is most feasible at 12 dwelling units. He states that per code they are allowed 12 dwelling units per gross acre, yet what they are proposing is 8 dwelling units per acre. Motion dies 2-2, Member Riddle and Member Testa against. No further motions were made. The record will reflect three failed motions and no recommendation. 2. RESOLUTION NO. PB SE 25-01 – SPECIAL EXCEPTION DUPLEX Mrs. Adkins presented the details of the project. Member Riddle asked regarding the property owned by the City next door. Mrs. Adkins explained it’s technically a corner lot as it abuts a ‘paper street’ that was platted but never installed. Member Riddle asked for clarification on the setbacks. Mrs. Adkins confirmed that the zoning district is R3, which calls for 10 feet in the front, 7.5 feet on the side, 7.5 feet on the rear. Page 4 of 4 Chair Bolliger asked whether it would be a grinder pump. The applicant, Mr. Herring, responded that it is. Member Tapia-Ruano asked regarding the old growth trees on site. Mr. Herring stated that they are within the building footprint and would unfortunately have to come out, but that they would be planting trees once the construction is complete. Mr. Herring spoke of the setbacks and building orientation, that they are rental, and regarding trees. Mrs. Adkins clarified that this is a special exception, and this would be the only time the board saw this particular house, as it was not within the historic district/did not have any additional steps. Motion Member Tapia-Ruano to approve. Seconded by Member Riddle. Motion passed 4-0. 3. RESOLUTION NO. PB/LPA 26-01 – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES Mrs. Adkins presented the item briefly in that it is in response to legislation changes with the state and is now required. Member Testa spoke regarding Section 8 housing, and asked for clarification on the language used. The City Attorney the terms came from Statute. Member Testa spoke of ALFs. Member Testa stated he contacted the commissioners and asked them whether they have experience with Section 8 housing. The City Attorney stated that Testa is welcome to contact commissioners but did not want him discussing their responses in a recorded meeting since the item was on an upcoming agenda. Member Tapia-Ruano asked whether this was open to changes given that it was mandated by the State. The attorney responded not really. Motion Member Riddle to approve. Seconded by Member Tapia-Ruano. Motion passed 3-1, Member Testa against. Chair Bolliger mentioned that he would like the City Manager or the Public Works director to be present when there are projects like the one earlier in the meeting so that we can give better answers to questions. Mrs. Adkins responded that she would pass along the message, and that this time around the meeting unfortunately coincided with Alachua’s meeting in which we were an affected party on an item, as well as a BMAP related meeting. Motion Member Tapia-Ruano to adjourn. Seconded by Member Riddle. Motion passed 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:07PM.