Jan 21, 2021 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order.]

[00:00:21]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE AND WELCOME THOUGHT PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY JANUARY 21, 2021.

WE'VE GOT SOME NOTICES HERE TO READ, SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE BE PATIENT.

GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY.

I AM MIKE EP KOPPENHAFER THE CHAIR OF THE AGENCY. CONFIRM THAT THE AGENCY MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY PHONE CAN HEAR ME AS WELL AS CALL ROLL FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE IN PERSON.

FELLOW AGENCY MEMBERS, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE RESPOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MIKE KOPPENHAFER IS HERE. MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES.

>> DR. MCCORMICK. >> HERE. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> HERE. >> MS. PERKINS. >> HERE.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> HERE. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> HERE. >> WE ARE ALL PRESENT. THANK YOU ALL.

INTRODUCTION TO MEETING INCLUDING REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION AND REDUCE RISK OF COVID ILLNESS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY AS ADOPT USING REMOTE PARTICIPATING AND TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC THE MEANS TO COMMENT WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING. ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING EMAIL THE PUBLIC LABEL TOO COMMENT BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING VIA GTV OR BY STREAMING ON THE COIN COUNTY'S WEBSITE ANOTHER, . THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE PUBLIC USE, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE TO CALL INTO THE MEETING IS (904)209-1265.

THE NUMBER CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON THE WEBSITE. EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT, PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED THAT PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING WHO DID NOT PROVIDE COMMENT AND THOSE PENDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

PLEASE NOTE THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. FOR THOSE OF YOU CALLING IN TO COMMENT, IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL OR A DISQUECTD PLEASE CALL BACK.

PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. WHILE A THREE-MINUTE COMMENT TIMER WILL BE DISPLAYED ON GTV AND THE WEBSITE, DUE TO A DELAY IN THE AUDIO AND VIDEO WE WOULD ASK EACH CALLER TO ALSO CHEF TIME THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT WHEN THEY ARE COMMENTING.

PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE WAITING TO COMMENT, AND THEN MUTE THE MEETING ON YOUR EL HAVE TELEVISION OR COMPUTER WHEN YOU ARE SPHEENG VIDE AUDIO FEEDBACK. AGAIN THERE IS AN APPROXIMATELY 30 SECOND DELAY IN AUDIO AND VISUAL PRESENTATIONS ON THE GTV AND WEBSITE.

IF WE EXPERIENCE ANY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE WILL RECESS WHILE THEY ARE RESOLVED AND THEN RESUME THE MEETING. MEETING PERILS MATERIALS P THE MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING ARE AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE UNDER AGENDAS AND MINUTES. AND FROM THERE YOU CAN CLICK ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THEN PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MEETING.

YOU WILL AND YOU WILL SEE TG LINKS TO THE AGENDA AND THE INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ITEMS. ROLL CALL VOTE. FINALLY IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, THEN EACH E. VOTE TAKEN IN THIS I MEETING WILL BE CONDUCT VIE ROLL CALL SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD DONE FOR THE ATTENDANCE. UP NEXT WE HAVE A READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES STATEMENT BY

APPLY VICE CHAIR, MR. WAINRIGHT. >> ONE, THIS IS A PROPER NOTICED PUBLICG HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUO OFFER COMMENTS AT A DESIGNATED E DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRI SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEART THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN .

THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIM THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHOM THEY REPRESENT, AND THEN STATELY THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIM. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED E AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. II.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL AY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO AY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARINH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF PRS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MAH

[00:05:06]

ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVI PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, R WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.

THE RECORDWILL THEN BE AVAILABLR OTHER AGENCIES OF THE COUNTY IN ANY ROW VIEW OR APPEAL RELATED TO THE ITEM III. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THATE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHO WHETHER THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE NORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENT

[Approval of meeting minutes for PZA 12/3/20.]

CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANR EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.

WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> THANK YOU, ARCHIE. UP NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 3, 2020. IF YOU CAN DO THANK IN THE MICROPHONE, ARCHIE.

>> I'D OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. >> ANY SECOND?

[Introduction: Christine Valliere, Assistant County Attorney]

>> SECOND. >> SECOND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYONE? WE'LL JUST TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THIS, A VOICE CALL. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

ARCHIE, YOU HAVE SOME INTRODUCTIONS? BRADLEY?

[Formal reading of Section 112.3143, Florida Statues Form 8B]

>> FORWARD TO IT AS WELL. OF COURSE, THERE'S THE HEAP HOUR.

THE NEWEST ATTORNEY BUYS THE FIRST ROUND. ISN'T THAT RIGHT, BRADLEY?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> I'M AD LIBBING, RIGHT. BRADLEY, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE

NEXT TWO ITEMS HERE, THE FORMAL READINGS. >> THE STATUTE WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF FORMS TO READ HERE. AT THE LAST MEETING MR. KOPPENHAFER, YOU DID ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON A MATTER RELATING TO PUD GRAND SUPPRESS AND YOU COMPLETED FORM 8B, THE STATUTE DOES REQUIRE THAT IT BE READ PUBLICALLY AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING SO IT DOES INDICATE THAT ON DECEMBER 17TH OF 2020, YOU DID ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THE BASIS THAT A MEASURE CALM OR WILL COME BEFORE THE AGENCY WHICH INURED TO THE SPECIAL GAIN OR LOSS OF ST. JOHNS RACING WHICH IS THE PARENT SUBSIDIARY OR SIBLING ORGANIZATION OR SUBSIDIARY OF A PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS RETAINED YOU. YOU SIGNED THAT ON THE 28TH OF DECEMBER AND THAT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING. ON THAT SAME DATE, DECEMBER 17TH, MR. ALAIMO ALSO ABSTAINED FROM A MATTER. THIS WAS THE ISLAND DOCKS MOWLT RI ROAD REZONING 2020-08. HE ALSO COMPLETED A FORM 8B WHICH AGAIN DISCLOSED THAT THE DATE ON THE WHICH THE DATE OCCURRED WAS DECEMBER 17, 2020, THAT A MEASURE CAME OR.

WILL COME BEFORE THE AGENCY WHICH INURED TO THE SPECIAL GAIN OR LOSS OF A PARENT SUBSIDIARY OR SIBLING ORGANIZATION OR SUB I SAIDER YAF A PRINCIPLE WHICH RETAINED HIM AND DESCRIBED THAT WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BUT IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION HE RECUSED HIM FROM AGENDA ITEM RES 2020-08

[Public Comments]

THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU.

UP NEXT IS PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS A TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK ON ANY TOPIC THAT IS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND I UNDER THEY HAD ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER CARD, JOE MCINERNEY.

IF YOU WOULD APPROACH THE MICROPHONE, YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES, JOE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. I DID TODAY SUBMIT AN

[00:10:04]

I AM A RETIRED ARCHITECT. IT'S ALL IN THE COVER LETTER, RESUME AND OTHER MATERIALS THAT I DID SUBMIT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE TO PUT A FACE WITH A NAME, TO EXPRESS TO YOU DIRECTLY MY INTEREST IN SERVING WITH YOU ON THIS BOARD.

AND I AM HAPPY TO MEET YOU INDIVIDUALLY OR TOGETHER WITH ANY OR ALL OF YOU AT ANY TIME.

SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING WITH YOU.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK.

YOU GET TO MAKE CRAPPY JOKES IF YOU'RE UP HERE, TOO. ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS?

[1. SUPMIN 2020-08 Salvation Army (1425) Old Dixie Highway).]

SO WITH THAT SAID, I WILL BRING UP ITEM NUMBER 1, SALVATION ARM ARMY.

MS. BISHOP, GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND AGENCY MEMBERS. THIS IS ITEM 1. IT IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

SUPMIN 2020H.08. IT'S FOR THE SALVATION ARMY LOK AT FLEAN 25 OLD OLD DIXIE HIG.

IT IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH, AND THE CONTINUATION OF A CHURCH AND THE FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM FOR THE SALVATION ARMY. AND IT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED MIXED USE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT IS ZONED RG 2.

AND THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A BUILDING THERE THAT IS THE CHURCH. THAT IS BEING USED AS THE CHURCH AND THE FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM.

A SPECIAL USE WAS GRANTED IN 2012 TO ALLOW THIS USE AND IT WAS GRANTED TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY WHO LEASED THE PROPERTY THEN TO THE SALVATION ARMY. THE COUNTY NOW DESIRES TO CONVEY THE PROPERTY TO THE SALVATION ARMY, AND THE SALVATION ARMY DESIRES TO OWN IT.

THERE ARE NO CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO THE EXISTING USE, AND THE OPERATION OF THE SITE THAT I AM AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. AND THEN THE 2012 SPECIAL USE WAS GRANTED NON-TRANSFERABLE TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY SO THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE THE NEW SPECIAL USE APPROVAL. THE SPECIAL USE WITH RESPECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE, THE SPECIAL USE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.

IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PUMPT PREVENT COMPLAN AND THE LAND -- COMPREHENSIVE CODE AS THE COMOICH AND THE FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM WAS EXISTED INS IS 2012, AND NOT BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THERE HAVE BEEN NO INLSZ VIOLATIONS OR CONCERNS EXPRESSED.

THE SPECIAL USE IS COMPATBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE AREA CONTAINS A MIXTURE COMMERCIAL AND STIEWLINGSZ USES. THE SPECIAL USE COMPLIES WITH ITS APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THERE HAS BEEN NO PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS WRITING. THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL USE WILL ALLOW FOR THE SALVATION ARMY TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING CHURCH AND THE FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM, AND STAFF OFFERS A EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT INVENTIVE CONDITIONS IN SUPPORT AND SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THEM, AS WELL AS ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. APPLICANT AND PRESENTER. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER

CARDS? >> NO. >> PUBLIC SPEAKING IS THEN CLOSED FOR ITEM NUMBER 1. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

LET'S GO THROUGH OUR ROLL CALL VOTE P MR. MATOVINA. >> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 2.03.1 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE 1,000 FEET AWAY FROM ANY VENDOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND THE OTHER TWO REQUIREMENTS, THAT THOSE HAVE

BEEN MET. >> YES, SIR, THOSE HAVE BEEN MET.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE ALSO ASK FOR EX PARTE ON THIS ITEM.

>> I WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACKWARDS HERE.

GREG, ANY EX PARTE TO DECLARE? >> NO EX PARTE. >> ROY, ANY EX PARTE TO DEKLAUER

AND ANY QUESTIONS? >> NO EX PARTE. , NO QUESTIONS.

>> MS. GLERNTION NO EXPARP, NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. COP KOPF HAS NO EX PARTE.

A QUICK QUESTION. THE ORDERS WRITTEN FOR IT TO BE NON-TRANSFERABLE, SHE'S

PREFERABLE. >> TO THE VALERIE STUKES, I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NONE. >> DR. HILSENBECK?

[00:15:03]

>> I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY, AND I DO WANT TO STATE THAT I THINK THIS IS A

VERY GOOD AND MUCH NEEDED USE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. >> DR. MCCORMICK.

>> NO, EX PARTE AND NO QUESTIONS, AND I AGREE WITH DR. HILSENBECK, SO WITHOUT PONTIFICATING, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> LET'S GET TO THAT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, MS. APPLICANT? >> NO, SIR.

THANK YOU. REBECCA NEEDS YOU NOW. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE SUPMIN 2020-08, REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SECTION 2.03.12 TO ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A CHURCH AND THE CONTINUATION OF FOOD PREPARATION AND DELIVERY AS PART OF THE FEED THE HUNGRY PROGRAM IN THE RG-2 ZONING DISTRICT, AS ALLOWED BY SUPMIN 2012-01 LOCATED AT 1425 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY BASED ON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO

SEVEN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM GREG.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL FOR A VOTE.

[2. SUPMAJ 2020-12 Ayla's Acres.]

I GAVE A AVOTE. MR. MATOVINA. >> YES.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES. MR. WAINRIGHT?

YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> YES.

>> DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES NAN MUST 7-0.

THANK YOU, UNANIMOUS, 7-0. THANK YOU, MS. APPLICANT. ITEM NUMBER 2, WE HAVE MS. AS VEED WHO IS NO STRANGER TO THIS ROOM. KNOWS EXACTLY HOW TO BE

EXPEDIENT HERE. HOW ARE YOU TODAY? >> GOOD.

HOW ARE YOU. SHANNON ACEVEDO WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, 7 WALDO STREET FOR THE RECORD. NEXT ITEM IS FOR THE ALICE ACRES SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

MY CLIENT IS HERE. SHE'S FROM AN CHARLESSON IS ON BEHALF OF YALE A LAW PEST CS BUTTERMORE IS HERE WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, AND OUR ENVIRONMENT AT CONSULTANT IS MICHAEL. SO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CONNER ROAD 20 AND 8 COUNTY ROAD 13A NORTH. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN RURAL, AS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND THIS REQUEST IS FOR A NO-KILL ANIMAL SHELTER.

THIS IS THE A 501C3 NON-PROFIT AND THE IDEA IS SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION, SPAY AND NEUTERING AND RESPONSIBLE CARE OF ANIMALS. THIS IS A SPECIAL USE REQUEST BOTH FOR KENNEL USE EXCELS FOR A VETERINARY CLINIC, AND BOTH USES ARE ALLOWABLE WITH THE A PLIEFL SPECIAL USE IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S A VERY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MOMENT. ABOUT 9 NOW 974 SQUARE FEET PLANNED OVER 17 ACRES OF LAND.

AND THE COOPERATION CENTER HOURS ARE -- ADOPTION CENTER HOURS ARE EXPECTED TO BE 8:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. MON MONDAYS THROUGH SATURDAY. THE CLINIC URS OR 1:00 A.M. 6:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY IS TO BE DETERMINED AT THIS POINT AND WILL DEPEND ON DEMAND AND THE ABILITY TO COOMENTD THAT IF IT'S NEED IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE EXPECTING ABOUT TEN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES PLUS ANY TWER WHERE BETWEEN TEN AND 15 VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE ORGANIZATION. SO GETTING TO THE SITE PLAN, WE CAN SEE WE'VE GOT ACCESS OFF COUNTY ROAD 208. THE PARKING KIND OF TOWARDS THE FRONT.

AND THEN THAT ORANGE BUILDING YOU SEE THERE, THAT'S THE MAIN ADOPTION CENTER, EDUCATION CENTER. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DOG KENNELS BEHIND.

THESE ARE SEPARATED INTO TWO P KIND OF AREAS FOR OLDER DOGS AND YOUNGER DOGS, AS I UNDERSTAND, AND THEN THE PURPLE IN THE MIDDLE, THOSE ARE THE CAT CONDOS SO THEY THE GET THEIR OWN HOUSE.

AND, OF COURSE, THE VET CLINIC, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OFF TO THE SIDES.

THAT SMALL LITTLE BLUE SQUARE YOU SEE KIND OF BELOW THAT, THAT'S A QUARANTINE AREA FOR WHEN DOGS COME IN, SO JUST LIKE WITH COVID, IF WE HAVE TO QUARANTINE OURSELVES FOR A COUPLE WEEKS, SAME THING WITH ANIMALS, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SAFE TO INTERACT

[00:20:03]

THESE ARE GOING TO BE OF AYLA'S ACRES OPERATION, AND THE IDEA IS YOU HAVE TWO SO IF ONE PERSON WANTS TO GO ON VACATION OR WHAT NOT, YOU HAVE ANOTHER PERSON THERE TO KIND OF FILL IN OPERATIONALLY. SO I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE FULL SITE.

SO THIS IS THE SAME SITE PLAN BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HERE EVERYTHING'S REALLY KIND OF CONCENTRATED TOWARDS THE MIDDLE. THE CODE REQUIRES 5-ACRE MINIMUM FOR KENNELS FOR SPECIAL USE.

THIS IS 17 ACRES WAS WHICH IS FAR OVER THAT. FLOOR AREA RATIO IS GOING TO BE VERY SMALL, LESS THAN 2%. NO WETLAND IMPACTS. THE WENTDZS THAT ARE ON SITE THERE ARE NO PLANS TO DO ANYTHING ON THE SITE OF THE PROPERTY SO EVERYTHING IS FOCUSED TOWARD THE CENTER HERE AND VERY LOW TRAFFIC IMPACTS. SO IN TERMS OF COMPAT COMPAY BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THAT MAIN DEVELOPMENT AREA TOWARD THE CENTER, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAILS TO BUFFER THE USES. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE LARGE RURAL ESTATE TYPE LOTS, FARMING ACTIVITY, KIND OF RANCH AREA TO THE SOUTH, AND WE'VE PLANNED AROUND THAT TO TRY TO CENTER IT AS INTERIOR AS WE CAN WITHIN THIS SITE. AND IN TERMS OF OF FENCING, WE'RE LOOKING AT -- WHERE YOU SEE THAT IN ORANGE, THAT'S GOING TO BE A STUCCO, MORE OF A FINISHED FENCE, WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IF YOU WERE COMING FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN A NO-CLIMB WIRE FENCE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY FOR SAFETY REASONS. AND IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY, THE SURROUNDING AREA, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SCALE HERE BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A BIG PROPERTY. WE DO HAVE A SMALL OUTDOOR FENCED AREA.

IT'S 218 FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, AND 450 FEET TO THE RESIDENCE IF YOU WERE COMPARING FROM THAT AREA TO WHERE THE ACTUAL HOUSE IS THAT'S CLOSEST.

AND SIMILARLY, 500 FEET, ABOUT 500 FEET FROM THE KENNELS TO THAT SAME SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN GENERAL IDEA OF AESTHETICS.

LES THOMAS IS THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GOING TO BE A FLORIDA CRACKER STYLE BUILDING. SO HERE'S SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE MAIN ADOPTION AND EDUCATION CENTER. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE DOGHOUSE ELEVATIONS.

THIS WOULD BE LOOKING STRAIGHT ON. AND THEN THIS WILL BE A VIEW FROM THE KENNELS THEMSELVES ON THE SIDE. SAME THING FOR THE CAT HOUSE ELEVATIONS, JUST TO GIVE YOU A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE.

AND IN SUMMARY, WE FEEL THAT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NON-PROFIT TO ADD TO THE BENEFIT OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY THROUGH THESE EDUCATIONAL AND ABILITY TO REALLY GIVEÚRESP. AND WITH THAT, I REQUEST

APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LET'S GO INTO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS?

>> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. THEN WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT SOME QUESTIONS IF SHE WILL SIT TIGHT. LET'S GO THROUGH THE LIST.

I KNOW I HAVE ONE OR TWO. MR. MATOVINA, EX PARTE TO DECLARE AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR

THE APPLICANT? >> NO EX PARTE. SHANNON, THE AREA ON THE CORNER THAT SAYS "FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,," WHAT IF ANY THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT THAT FOR THE FUTURE?

>> THERE IS NOTHING PLANNED FOR THAT PIECE OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> NO EX PARTE AND NO QUESTIONS. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> NO EX PARTE AND NO QUESTIONS. >> NO EX PARTE FOR ME BUT A QUESTION.

WILL THE AREAS WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO 218-FOOT, THESE AREAS WE ARE, WILL THEY BE LEFT MOSTLY NATURAL

AS A BUFFER? >> YES. THE IDEA IS FOR THIS TO BE KIND OF A NATURAL SANCTUARY, AND WE DO WANT TO KEEP THE AESTHETIC OF THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS KIND OF LOOK HAD A TRAIL, PASSIVE TRAIL THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE BUT NO DEVELOPMENT ANY SORT AND NO -- AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL, THERE'S A LOT OF GREENERY THAT

CAN HELP BUFFER TO THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. >> SO THOSE TREES MORE OR LESS

WILL REMAIN. >> YES. >> ONE LAST QUESTION.

[00:25:01]

>> I WOULD PREFER THAT IT IS TRANSFERABLE SINCE THESE WILL BE PERMANENT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S

PUT INTO PLACE. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL FOR ME.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NO COMMENTS. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> IN TERMS OF EX PARTE, YES, I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY YESTERDAY.

AND I THINK IT'S A SUITABLE LOCATION. THERE'S A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION OUT THERE AND THERE WAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC BACKED UP. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND MR. KOPPENHAFER DID GET TO IT AND IT WAS GOING TO ADDRESS, IT'S MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE LANDSCAPING, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

HE ALLUDED TO YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE AS MUCH VEGETATION AS POSSIBLE ON THE SITE BECAUSE, NUMBER ONE, THAT'S GOING TO COST YOU LESS, AND THIS IS A 17-ACRE SITE WITH ONLY 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF FACILITY, SO YOU CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT OF NATIVE VEGETATION.

TWO, I BELIEVE THAT VEGETATION IS GOING TO PROVIDE A MUCH BETTER SOUND AND VISUAL BARRIER THAN EVEN LANDSCAPING. I HOPE YOU WILL UTILIZE AS MUCH VEGETATION AND LEAVE IT AS-IS.

THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. >> DR. MCCORMICK.

BILL, ARE YOU THERE? >> NOW I AM. I WAS ASKING CAN YOU HEAR ME? OBVIOUSLY I HAD THE MUTE BUTTON ON. YEAH, I HAVE NO EX PARTE, AND,

AGAIN, I WOULD AGAIN MOVE TO APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL. >> WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A

SECOND. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> THAT'S IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BACK IN THE AGENCY THEN.

DR. MCCORMICK, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION? >> SURE.

MOTION TO APPROVE SUPMAJ 2020-12, REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SECTION 2.03.32 AND SECTION 2.03.41 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A VETERINARY CLINIC WITH OUTDOOR KENNEL FACILITIES IN OPEN RURAL ZONING SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS OF

FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND MEGAN. >> MR. CHAIR, IF WE COULD GET SOME CLAIRVEG. AS YOU NOTED ON THE TRANSFERABILITY.

>> DR. MCCORMICK, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE DIRECTION ON WHETHER THIS WILL OR WILL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE

IN YOUR MOTION. >> YES. MY DIRECTION WOULD BE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT AS A CONDITION OR NOT, BUT IT SHOULD BE TRANSFERABLE.

>> SO THAT WILL MAKE IT TRANSFERABLE. MEGAN, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT?

>> YES. >> APPROVAL ON THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO LOO THE ROLL CALL VOTE. MR. MATOVINA.

[Items 3 & 4]

>> AYE. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> AYE.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES? AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS 7-0. NEXT,.

>> AGAIN, SHANNON ACEVEDO 7 WALDO STREET WITH MATTHEW DESIGN FOR THE RECORD.

THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEMS 3 AND 4, THE WATER PLANT ROAD BORROW PIT APPLICATION.

AND OUR APPLICANT IS HERE, BRENT & FRENCH REPRESENTING RAINIER ON ENGINEERING ALEX ACREE WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP. ALSO JERED PIT WITH GEOTECHNICAL, MYSELF IN PLANNING, AND DAVID JEFF WITH CARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF OUR PROJECT TEAM. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 214, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL, IT IS DIRECTLY ACCESSED BY WATER PLANT ROAD, WHICH MEETS COUNTY ROAD 214 JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-95.

AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN RURAL. SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR AN

[00:30:09]

THE REASON THAT WE NEED THE ZONING VARIANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS, SO BECAUSE WE HAVE DIRECTION ACCESS TO WATER PLANT ROAD, WATER PLANT ROAD IS TECHNICALLY REGARDED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR, HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINOR COLLECTOR STANDARDS, AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT WE CAN BE ABLE TO USE THIS BORROW PIT BY WAY OF ACCESS THROUGH WATER PLANT ROAD.

SEE GECHT TO THE SITE I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL JUST TO GIVE AUN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE IN RELATION TO THE SITE. HERE'S THE EXISTING BORROW. HERE'S WHAT WE'RE EXRPG.

AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE BECAUSE THERE ARE WELL SITES WITHIN THIS PROPERTY WHERE THOSE ARE AND WHAT THOSE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ZONES ARE IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED BORROW.

SO THERE IS 150-FOOT YOU EVER B, ACTUALLY MUCH MORE THAN THAT, OF COURSE, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU THE SCALE THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR JON COUNTY CODE TO WATER PLANT ROAD.

50-FOOT SETBACKS FROM WETLANDS WITH 25-FOOT BUFFERS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A 25-FOOT UNCLEARED NATURAL BUFFER FOR ALL REMAINING SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS OUTSIDE ALL OF THE PRIMARY WELL HEAD ZONES, AND JUST AGAIN TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SCALE, ABOUT 4,000 FEET FROM THE PROJECT ENTRANCE, SO THIS TRAIL ROAD THAT COMES DOWN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 4,000 LINEAR FEET THERE. SO IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL APPLICATION AND SITE PLAN, MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 50 FEET, OPERATIONAL TIME IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT FIVE YEARS.

WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE A 20-FOOT WIDE STABILIZED DITCH THAT'S RUNNING AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE. NO UTILITY EASMENTS ON SITE. WE'LL KEEP TO THE CODE IN TERMS OF THE PAVED FDOT STANDARD, DRIVE ENTRANCE FOR THE APRON, FOR THE EXIT AND ENTERING TO THE SITE. AND IN TERMS OF OPERATION, TO GIVE YOU A GENERAL IDEA, 7:00 THROUGH 5:00 MONDAY TO SATURDAY. NO OPERATIONS ON SUNDAY. ABOUT TWO TO THREE EMPLOYEES ON SITE. ABOUT TEN TRUCKS. AND THE MAXIMUM LOADS PER DAY WILL BE 100, ALTHOUGH WE'RE ESTIMATING ON AVERAGE WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 50 AS A DAILY AVERAGE LOAD. AND THERE IS ROADWAY CAPACITY ALONG COUNTY ROAD 214 FOR THESE ADDED TRIPS. SO NERMS OF DEWATERING, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS OUT THERE TO GIVE SOME GENERAL INFORMATION. MAXIMUM CAPACITY IS 694 GALLONS PER MINUTE WITH A MAXIMUM PUMP SIZE LIMITED TO 4 INCHES. AND IN TERMS OF WETLAND DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS, THERE WILL BE A RIMIGE DITCH CONSTRCTED AROUND THE IT. DURING DEWATERING, AND THIS IS TO HELP MAINTAIN THE OPERATIONS WITHIN THAT AREA AND MAKE SURE THERE'S NO IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND THAT THOSE STAY DELIGHTED DURING THIS TIMEIN TERMS OF COME NEAREST DPRENS IS DRENS IS OVER 800 FEET AWAY.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS ON THIS MAP IN IN GENERAL AREA. OTHERS ARE OVER 1100 FURTHER UP.

BUT THERE ARE NO ROCK HAULS. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO COME DOWN THIS DIRECTION ALONG WATER PLANT ROAD AND TO COUNTY ROAD 214. LOW DENSITY, LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AROUND THIS AREA.

IT'S A MORE RURAL AREA. NO HAUL ROUTES ARE PROPOSED TO THE NORTH, AS I MENTIONED.

[00:35:01]

AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD, AS I MENTIONED, FOR MINOR COLLECTOR WHICH WOULD BE LIKE AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE, 12 LANES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A PRETTY RURAL TWO-PLANE SCWIBILITIES SWALES ON EITHER SIDE, AND -- FACILITY, SWALES ON EITHER SIDE, AND THIS PARTICULAR ROAD SERVES ABOUT 20 RESIDENCES, AND IT ALSO SERVES THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES TO THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT. IT WOULD BE INFEASIBLE AND CREATE A HARDSHIP TO TRIPE TO BUILD THIS ROAD TO A MINOR COLLECTOR STANDARD.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THIS PIT. THERE'S BEEN A PIT IN THE IFNT HISTORY, AS I MENTIONED, WITH THIS SITE. TRYING TO FILL THIS UP WOULD CERTAINLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND COULD POTENTIALLY CALLS DRAINAGE ISSUES AS WELL AS IN THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. TO GIVE A GENERAL IDEA OF HAUL ROUTES, HERE ALONG CONNOR ROAD 14 WHERE THE DIRT WOULD TO PECIALY BE HAULEDOFF TO COUNTY ROAD 13A OR HOLMES BOULEVARD, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THERE AREN'T SCHOOLS ALONG THIS PATHWAY BUT AS IT GETS TO WHATEVER SERVICE THEY'RE SERVING, TRUCKS WILL BE RADAR REQUIRED TO AVOID ROADWAYS. PEAK SCHOOL HOURS. THAT'S A CONDITION OF THIS SPECIAL USE. JUST IN TERMS OF RATIONALE, THERE ARE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA SUCH AS END TRAWD A AND SOME OF THE OTHERS YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT TRACKER.

AND IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA. MOSTLY PINE PLANTATION IS THE LAND USE COVER ON THIS SITE.

IT'S NOT NEAR ANY DUMP SITES OR LANDFILLS. NO EAGLES WITHIN A MILE, DID NOT FIND GOPHER TORTOISES DURING THE PEDESTRIAN SURVEY OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OR WETLANDS.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS AROUND ON THE PROPERTY BUT NOTHING THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA. AND SO WITH THAT, WE REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THAT CORRESPONDING ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW ACCESS FROM WATER PLANT ROAD.

MY PROJECT TEAM AND I ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARCHIE, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC

SPEAKER CARDS? >> YES, WE DO. DID YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM NOW?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> MR. MICHAEL CARRIGAN. SIR, IF YOU WILL COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN AND YOUR ADDRESS EXPL, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL CORRIGAN. I LIVE 2144 WATER PLANT ROAD.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS, AND FOR THE LAST HERE, I'M GOING TO SAY ROUGHLY FIVE TO EIGHT YEARS AGO WE HAD THE DUMP TRUCK COME OUT THERE, DID THAT FIRST PIT, AND THE SPEED LIMIT ON THAT ROAD IS 25 MILES AN HOUR. AND THEY DON'T DO 25 MILES AN HOUR.

THEY DO OVER 25. AND SO I HAD TO CALL ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OUT THERE QUITE A FEW TIMES OR SO, AND THEY STOPPED A COUPLE OF THEM OR SO TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS, BUT AFTER THEY LEAVE, THEY'RE RIGHT BACK AT IT AGAIN.

AND THE ROAD IS KIND OF NARROW. IT'S NOT MADE NOR DUMP FOR DP TRUCKS.

THIS PAST SIX WEEKS WE HAD LOG TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE OR SO.

AND SO I'M JUST ASKING DON'T APPROVE THIS. WE DON'T NEED IT AT ALL, PERIOD.

AT ALL. SO THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU>> ANY OTHER CARTS,? >> THAT'S IT. >> WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC SPEAKING. IF WE CAN HAVE SHANNON COME BACK UP.

THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU HERE. LET'S GO THROUGH OUR ROLL CALL FOR EX PARTE. ON ITEMS 3 AND 4 AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR SHANNON.

I'VE GOT ONE OR TWO. MR. MATOVINA. >> NO EX PARTE.

SHANNON, I DON'T SEE A STUDY IN HERE OF DEWATERING OF THE WETLANDS.

[00:40:03]

>> I WILL BRING UP OUR JOEY TECH GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT. HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BES.

I'M THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECTTHE WATER LEVEL AFTER DEVELOPMENT I BELIEVE --

>> DO YOU TALKING RIGHT INTO THE MICROPHONE, SIR. >> EXCUSE ME.

I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE A 43-1/2. AND THE WETLANDS, THEY RANGE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 42 AND 43, EVEN DOWN TO 41. SO THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL POSTED ELEMENT IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED, FOR THE WELLS AREN'T GOING TO BE AFFECTED, POSTED ON THERE AT

ALL. >> THANK YOU. MR. ALAIMO.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD, THE GTV STAFF IS TELLING ME WE DO HAVE ONE CALLER ON THE LINE FOR

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT.

IF WE CAN HAVE THAT ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER. HELLO?

>> HELLO. >> HI. YOU'RE ON.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS DONNA SPARKS. I OWN HARDWOOD FENCE COMPANY.

BOTH MY PARCEL RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS IS LOCATED AT 2370 FOR PERSONAL AND 2410 FOR WATER PLANT ROAD. WE WERE THERE LAST NOVEMBER A YEAR AGO FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WE CAN DRIVE ON THIS ROAD.

AND OURS ARE ALL 3500 LIKE LARGER THAN PICKUP TRUCK TRUCKS, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY FROM OUR NEIGHBORS, AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE ROAD COME TO ME AND ASK ME TO COME AND AT LEAST VOICE GOING THAT THIS IS WAY TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.

ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS LIVED HERE WHEN THE OTHER BORROW PIT WAS HERE AND IT WAS A DIRT ROAD AT THIS TIME AT THIS END. IT WASN'T EVEN PAVED YET. AND THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THIS ROAD NOT ONLY FOR THE SIZE OF THE TRUCKS, HOW WILL IT TEAR UP THE ROAD, THE NARROWNESS OF THE ROAD, AS WELL AS THE SPEED, AND WE JUST WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND SAY SOMETHING AS WELL. THE KIDS AS WELL.

WE HAVE SEVERAL CHILDREN ON THE ROAD. SO I WANTED TO BE SURE AND VOICE OUR OPINION AS RESIDENTS OF WATER PLANT ROAD, THAT WE ARE DOING OUR BEST AS A BUSINESS TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS ASKED OF US, AND THIS IS WAY, WAY, WAY BEYOND OUR TEN TRIPS A DAY BETWEEN 9:00 AND 5:00. SO WE WANTED TO VOICE IT ON BEHALF OUR NEIGHBORS AND STAND WITH THEM TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE, TOO, OPPOSE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE STAND AGAINST THAT NUMBER OF TRUCKS. OF UP TO 100 VEHICLES AND THE SIZE OF THE TRUCKS GOING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD. IT WOULD LIMIT US AS NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS EVEN OUR BUSINESS.

OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC

SPEAKERS ONLINE? >> NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU CAN RESUME. SO FROM A GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS. >> YES.

SO JUST BASTED ON THE GEOTECH, THE DEWATERING SURVEY THAT WE DID, DURING CONSTRUCTION AND POST DEVELOPMENT THERE IS NOT GOISHT GOING TO BE ANY SORT OF DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY WILL BE TOTALLY HYDRATED BY THE RIM DITCH AND POST DEVELOPMENT THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL SHY EARN THE

ELEVATION OF THE WETLANDS SO THEY WILL NOT BE IMPACTED. >> THAT ASSESS YOU, GREG?

>> YES. MR. ALAIMO? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE NO EX PARTE TO DECLARE. I SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRIPS.

100, IS THAT -- THE AVERAGE IS GOING TO BE 50, BUT 100 IS MAX. IS THAT STANDARD WITH THESE

BORROW PITS? >> I'M NOT THE ONE THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, SO I

COULDN'T COMMENT. THAT WOULD BE SHANNON. >> SO THE 100 TRIPS IS AN

[00:45:16]

SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT OPERATIONS BETWEEN EIGHT 8:00 AND 5:00 OR 6:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, THAT WOULD BE A LOGICAL OPERATION TO HAVE A TRUCK COME FROM THE BORROW PIT TO WHERE IT'S GOING

AND BACK>> WHAT WOULD BE THE TIE THAT THE MAJORITY OF TRIPS WOULD COME FROM DURING THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU HAD SHOWN ON THERE? WHAT WOULD BE THE HOURS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE TRIPS?

>> WELL, THAT'S JUST IT. I THINK IT WOULD BE PRETTY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE DAY. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND TO THE OPERATIONS OF HOW THEY CAN LOAD AND IT GET IT TO WHERE IT'S GOING AND BACK. SO UNLIKE SOME OTHER USES WHERE YOU HAVE A HIGH P.M. OR A.M. PEAK OUR, THIS TYPE OF TEMPORARY OPERATION WOULDN'T HAVE THAT

SAME HIGH AND LOW. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. MS. PERKINS. >> SCHTD HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS? AND HOW DID YOU ADDRESS THEM BEFORE IN THE PRIOR BORROW PIT? IS THERE PINT POINT PERSON? WERE THERE ANY COMPLAINTS PRIOR FOR ANY OTHER BORROW PIT OR IS

THIS KIND OF NEW? >> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE PREVIOUS BORROW PIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HANDLE THAT APPLICATION, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD TODAY FROM THE RESIDENTS IS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SPEEDING, I CAN'T CONTROL THAT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT TYPICALLY THE NARROWER THE ROAD, IT ACTUALLY CREATES LESS PROBABILITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE IN SPEED. SO I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION IS TO WIDEN THE ROAD OR DO AN IMPROVEMENT OF THAT SORT. ACTUALLY, I THINK THAT COULD HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF MAKING PEOPLE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE SPEEDING. IN TERMS OF THE ROAD BEING A DIRT ROAD BEFORE AND NOW, AS YOU SAW, IT'S A PAVED FACILITY, WE WOULD COMMIT TO IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL IMPACTS TO THE ROAD, THAT WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR THOSE TO THE SAME CONDITION THAT THEY'RE IN TODAY. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO TRY TO CHANGE THAT ROADWAY AS FAR AS IMPROVING IT TO A MINOR COLLECTOR. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE THE SOLUTION.

>> I'M BACK. >> OKAY. THANKS.

I WAS JUST WANTING TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF AT LEAST HAVING MEMBER FROM RAINIER GIVE OUT THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION SO WHEN THERE IS A PROBABLY, WHICH THERE LIKELY WILL BE AT SOME POINT, DURING THE TIME PERIOD, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SOMEBODY ON TOO REACH OUT TO OTHER THAN ST. JOHNS SHERIFF'S OFFICE TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN A NEIGHBORLY

THING RATHER THAN AN ADVERSARIAL. >> YES, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA. I'M GOING TO BRING UP MY APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THAT

LAST PART. >> BRENTON FRENCH 94202. REPRESENTING RAINIER.

I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO NOT HAVE HAVE NOT ONLY MY PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION BUT WHATEVER OPERATOR WE END UP USING AT THE PIT. WEET RAINIER TAKE SAFETY VERY SERIOUSLY, AND I'VE HAD ISSUES WITH TRUCKS ROLLING STOP SIGNS IN NORTH GEORGIA, AND THAT WAS QUICKLY ADDRESSED, AND IT WAS TO THE POINT WHERE IF STOP SIGNS WERE NOT PUT IN, TRUCKS CHOSE TO AVOID THAT, THEY WOULD NOT BE OPERATING OUT OF THAT PIT IN THE FUTURE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM BEING A GO-TO CONTACT PERSON. WE CAN ALSO USE A CAMERA SYSTEM

TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT FLYING DOWN THE ROAD. >> PERFECT.

THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> ME, NO EX PARTE TO DECLARE BUT SOME QUESTIONS HERE. IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ORDER FROM 2006 FOR 2006 WHEN THW PIT WAS APPROVED, THERE'S A SERIES OF STIPULATIONS HERE.

ITEM NUMBER 7, LIMIT OF SPEED ON WATER PLANT ROAD BY LARGE TRUCKS SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 15 MILES

[00:50:07]

DURING PEAK HOURS DEFINED IN WRITING BY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND ATTACHED HERE TO AS AN EXHIBIT, MEANING NO ONE WANTS LITTLE CHILDREN IN THE VICINITY OF A SPEEDING DUMP FRUBLG OF DIFFERENT, I GUESS. DIDN'T DUMP TRUCK FULL OF DIRT, I GUESS.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO YOU CONTINUE WITH THE SAME STIPULATIONS AS WHAT WAS FIRST

APPROVED. >> YES, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. >> TERESA, WERE THERE ANY COMPLAINTS, IF YOU RECALL, FROM THE FIRST BORROW PIT FROM THE COUNTY'S PERSPECTIVE? DONE IF THERE HAD BEEN SOME, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FROM MS. COLEE BUT I DO NOT RECALL IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE BORROW PIT. THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO MENTION SINCE I'M HERE, IF I

MAY, MR. CHAIR. >> SURE. >> IS THERE'S A NEW, A REVISED ORDER TO APPROVE THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU ON YOUR DAIS, AND BHAIT ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT IS WATER PLANT ROAD, AND IT ADDED CONDITION NUMBER 12, WATER PLANT ROAD SHALL BE MILLED AND OVERLAID UPON COMPLETION OF BORROW PIT OPERATIONS TO RESTORE THE ROAD TO THE LOCAL ROAD STANDARD, AND THAT IS A CONDITION THAT IT IS IN NOW AND WHAT I THINK YOU HEARD MS. ACEVEDO SAY, THAT THEY WILL KEEP THE ROAD TO THE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE CONDITIONS IT IS IN NOW. ALSO WE HAVE MR. D'SOUZA HERE IF YOU ALL WANT TO SPEAK MORE WITH

B. THAT ROAD WAIVER OR ANY OTHER CONDITIONS WITH THE ROADWAY. >> OKAY.

DICK, YOU'VE BEEN VOLUNTEERED. I GUESS THE QUESTION REALLY IS, SO WITH 100 DUMP TRUCKS A DAY DRIVING OVER THIS ROAD FOR FIVE YEARS, WHAT'S THE COMPTATION THAT IT'S GOING TO BE --

EXPECTATION. >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE CURRENT AGE OF WATER PLANT ROAD.

THE ADDITION OF 100 DAILY TRIPS, GIVEN YOUR STANDARD SIZE DUMP TRUCK, ISN'T GOING TO TRIP ANY OF OUR TRIP THRESHOLDS BASED ON A SINGLE AXLE LOAD SO IT WILL STILL FALL UNDER THE LIMITS OF THE LOCAL ROAD STANDARD. THE IDEA OF THE MINOR COLLECTOR IS BASED OFF OF THE IMPACTS I THINK VISUALLY OF THAT BUT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL STRUCHT ROAD IT WON'T IMPACT IT.

IT WILL BE NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL TRIPS, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A NORMAL DEGRADATION ADDITION OF THE ROADWAY BUT IN TERMS OF NEEDING A HIGHER STANDARD OF ROADWAY STRUCTURE, I DON'T SEE THAT AS ACTUALLY BEING THE CASE WITH JUST 100 DAILY TRIPS. FOR EQUIVALENCY OUR LOCAL ROAD STANDARD IS BASED OFF OF 2,000 DAILY TRIPS SINGLE LOAD EABLGZ. BUT EVEN WITH 100 TRIPS THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE BUJ THAT UP TO WHAT WE WOULD GOT ENGINEERING STANCH CONVERTING TO A 18 -- A MULTIPLE AXE EL VEHICLE DOWN TO

SEVERAL AXLES ON THE SCALE THERE. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. REPORT WAS A LETTER FROM THE DUVAL -- I'M SORRY, -- THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD WHICH HAD THEIR TIMES WHEN I GUESS THE FLAGMAN WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE BEGINNING OF SCHOOL AND END OF SCHOOL.

I'M SURE THESE TIESMTION CHANGED. 6:15 IN THE MORNING TO 9:00 A.M.

AND 2:15 P.M. UNTIL 4:15 P.M. EXCEPT ON WEDNESDAYS WHETHER WH THEY DO EARLE RELEASE, 1:30 OR SO. AND YOU CAN ASK THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR WHAT THOSE TIMES ARE.

AGAIN, THEY MIGHT HAVE CHANGED BASED ON THIS BEING 14 YEARS OLD.

IN MY OPINION, IF YOU CAN ADHERE TO THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS AND THE NEW ORDER, I WOULD FIND THAT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONLY THE NEIGHBORLY THING TO DO ON THE ROAD WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC YOU'RE GOING BURDENING THOSE FOLKS WITH.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE YOU STILL GOING DOWN THE LIST?

>> I AM STILL GOING DOWN THE LIST. >> DO YOU MIND 23EU JUMP IN, MR. YOU HAD REFERENCED A FEW OF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE TWOWK 2006 SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

YOU ALSO MENTIONED A NEW ONE IN A DRAFT THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE AGENCY HERE.

[00:55:02]

FLAGMAN ON THE SMITE. >> CONDITION 7 AND CONDITION 8. 7 BEING THE 15-MILE SPEED LIMIT AND 8 BEING THE. AND THE 12TH 20 CONDITION, 13 AND 14, I ASSUME, REPAIR THE

ROADWAY, THEN I THINK THAT'S FINE. >> IF I COULD JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. ACEVEDO, ARE THOSE THREE CONDITIONS ACCEPTABLE TO THE

APPLICANT? >> YES. >> AND SO FOR THE -- AGAIN, THIS IS A LITTLE OFF-TOPIC, BUT FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SPOKE OR THE ONE ONLINE WHO SPOKE, THE -- YOU'LL HAVE THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE RAINIER FOLKS OR THE BORROW PIT FOLKS BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY 15 MILES AN HOUR IS AWFUL SLOW AND PRETTY MUCH YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 15 AND 25, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR YOU ALL. AT ANY RATE, MR. WAINRIGHT YOU'RE UP NEXT. EX PARTE AND ANY QUESTIONS I HAVE.

>> NO EX PARTE. A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND THE LIKELY SPEED, AND I THINK THAT THEY'VE BEEN RESPONDED TO, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONTACT INFORMATION. IT'S REALLY THERE WHEN THESE FOLKS CALL THAT YOU ANSWER THE PHONE AND THAT THAT NOT BE DILUTED THROUGH A SERIES OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ANSWER THE PHONE BEFORE YOU DO BECAUSE YOU WILL GET PHONE CALLS. THIS ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD.

OKAY. SO PEOPLE CAN DRIVE ON IT. IT'S NOT MEANT FOR THIS TRAFFIC.

IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS TRAFFIC. IT'S TOO NARROW.

AND YOU'VE RECEDED REACCEDE. YOU'VE SAID SO. AND I APPRECIATE THATI'M CONCERS TOO NARROW, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE WORK VERY HARD TO KEEP THE SPEED LIMIT DOWN.

THOSE MEN AND WOMEN DRIVING THOSE TRUCKS ARE WORKING FOR A LIVING.

THE MORE HAULS THEY MAKE IN A DAY, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKES. THAT'S THE WAY THAT WORKS, AND THAT'S GOOD. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING MORE HERE THAN JUST HONORING THIS IN THE BREACH VERBALLY, THAT IN FACT WE PROTECT THE KIDS AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THAT ROAD. I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN METHODS HERE TO DO THAT, AND IT

IS IT IS UP TO YOU TO BE SURE THAT HAPPENS. THANK YOU>> UP NEXT, DR. HILSEN.

>> CONCERNING EX PARTE, YES, I DID DRIVE OUT TO THE SITE YESTERDAY.

I HAD BEEN OUT THERE SEVERAL YEARS AGO ON A CONTRACT, ACTUALLY, WITH HARDWICK FENCE SO I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND THE HARDWICK FENCE. AND THEN I TALKED TO INDIVIDUALS. THERE WAS A MAN RIDING A HORSE, HIS HORSE WHO HE BOARDS OUT THERE. HIS NAME WAS CHET SMITH, SANTIAGO NATIVE, BUT HE WAS -- ST. AUGUSTINE NATIVE, BUT HE WAS RIDING HIS HORSE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND I ASKED HIM SOME QUESTIONS. ANYWAY, AND THEN THIS MORNING I HAD SOME MORE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY. WANED TO SEE HOW MANY SCHOOLCHILDREN MIGHT WALK UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD, AND THIS IS OVER A MILE LONG ROADAND SO I CALLEDK FENCE BECAUSE I DEALT WITH THEM BEFORE AND I ARE SPOKED TO AN INDIVIDUAL NAMED DONNIE OUT THERE.

HE DID ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME. BUT I DO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE, I'M WORRIED ABOUT ALL THE WET AS WELL AS THE WATER TABLE IN THAT AREA. THIS IS PART OF A WELL FIELD FOR THE COUNTY.

THEY NOT ONLY HAVE ACTIVE WATER WELLS OUT THERE BUT MONITOR THE GROUND WELLS FOR THE COUNTY IN THAT AREA. AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND I GOT THIS INFORMATION TBRT WATER RESOURCES ATLAS OF FLORIDA THAT I USED A LOT IN MY WORK, AND THE WATER TABLE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY DROPS CONSIDERABLY OVER THE DECADE, SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT FURTHER LOWERING OF THE WATER TABLE IN A WELL FIELD AREA. ALSO, THAT ROAD IS -- [INDECIPHERABLE] AS NOTED, AND IF I LIVED OUT THERE, I WOULD BE AGAINST THIS. THERE ARE QUITE A FEW RESIDENTS ALONG THAT ROAD, AND 100 DUMP TRUCKS A DAY WENT UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD, I COULDN'T -- IT'S A

[01:00:05]

ALSO, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THE BORROW PIT WAS GOING TO BE 8.85 ACRES.

IN THE APPLICATION THEY PUT IT AS 18.85 ACRES. SO I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. IT TALKS IN THE APPLICATION ABOUT THE DISTANCE TO DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THEY MIGHT HAUL THIS FILL. ARE THERE QUITE A FEW WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS. WATER PLANT ROAD FIRST AND 214, MAYBE OVER TO HOLMES BOULEVARD DOWN TO 207 OR YOU TAKE ALLEN NIECE ROAD DOWN TO 207, BACK OVER TOWARD I-94.

YOU HEAD WEST ON 214 OUT TOWARD -- [INDECIPHERABLE] AND 13A FOR TOWARD TRAIL MARK JUST TO GET OVER TO STWFNT. THAT'S ABOUT -- [INDECIPHERABLE] NILES SO THAT'S NOT WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS.

UP TO TRAIL MARK, I CLOCKED THAT AT 13 MILES. SO THAT'S WAY BEYOND A FIVE MILE RADIUS LIMIT. BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SCHOOLCHILDREN. I DID ASK HOW MANY SCHOOLCHILDREN ARE DROPPED OFF ON THAT ROAD. THEY ARE DROPPED OFF BY SCHOOL BUSES ON COUNTY ROAD 214 AND THEY HAVE TO WALK, DISTANCES OF UP TO A MILE. I HEARD THERE ARE AT LEAST SIX TO EIGHT CHILDREN THAT WALK ALONG THE SIDE OF THAT ROAD UP TO THEIR RESIDENCES.

AND I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY CALLING IN TO REPORT A TRAGIC ACCIDENT ON A VERY NARROW ROAD, AND I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO WORK. I IN GOOD CONSCIOUS CANNOT VOTE FOR ALLOWING WHAT IS REQUIRED AS A MINOR AND MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD TO OCCUR ON THIS PARTICULAR VERY NARROW RURAL ROAD, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. SO THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS AND

COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF

THOSE? >> YES. I APOLOGIZE, THAT IS A TYPO AT THE BEGINNING. DR. HILSENBECK IS CORRECT, IT IS 18.85 ACRES IS THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT. NERMS IN TERMS OF THE CONCERNT SCHOOLCHILDREN, THAT IS A VERY VALID CONCERN, AND AS I HAD MENTIONED, WE ARE OPEN TO THOSE MITIGATING STRATEGIES WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. AND IN TERMS OF OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, AGAIN, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE MILLING AND RESURFACE ING OF THE ROAD TO MAE SURE IT'S BROUGHT BACK UP TO CODE. IN TERMS OF THE PERSPECTIVE HAUL ROUTES, IT'S KIND OF D. DIFFICULT TO STHAIT POINT. I DON'T HAVE A LIST OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE OPERATION.

HOWEVER, WHAT WE DO TRY TO DO IS SHOW SOME PROBABLE ROUTES AND COMMIT TO NOT OPERATING DURING THE TIMES, IF WE'RE GOING BY A SCHOOL, OF DURING THOSE PEAK HOUR SCHOOL TIMES, WHICH WAS

PART OF OUR SITE PLAN AS WELL. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> I'D JUST SAY THAT THERE WERE& SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE APPLICATION, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE COULDN'T BE REITERATED TODAY, BUT THERE WERE NUMEROUS, INCLUDING TRAILMARK AND SOME OTHERS, LAKES THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION, BUT THIS JUST ISN'T A PLACE FOR THIS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DR. MCCORMICK.

EX PARTE AND ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HEAR NONE.

MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES, SIR. >> COULD I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION

OR MAYBE TWO MORE QUESTIONS? >> YOU CERTAINLY MAY. >> IN ORDER TO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, THERE HAS TO BE A HARDSHIP PROVEN, AND THE CODE SAYS LAND EXCAVATION AND BORROW AREA SHALL BE ENCOURAGED TO LOK IN AREAS THAT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE RECEIVING SITE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL, ET CETERA. AND THIS IS RAINIER. I ASSUME RAINIER OWNS A LOT OF

PROPERTY IN THIS AREA. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO WHY IS THIS -- DO THEY OWN ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES?

[01:05:02]

>> ADJACENT TO THIS 625-ACRE SITE? >> CORRECT.

>> NO. >> SO WHY IS THIS ON A 625-ACRE SITE, WHY WAS THIS ONE PICKED OUT OF ALL OF RAINIER'S PROPERTIES FOR A 19-ACRE BORROW PIT?

>> WELL, AS I MENTIONED, IT HAD BEEN PERMITTED PREVIOUSLY. IT IS AN OPEN RURAL, RURAL/SILVICULTURE LAND USE, SO IT IS ONE OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT'S ALLOWABLE.

MOST DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COUNTY REQUIRE SOME KIND OF SPECIAL USE FOR A BORROW PIT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS WITH THAT. BUT IT IS A SITE THAT COULD DO WELL BY ADDING A SECOND BORROW PIT. AS I MENTIONED, I CAN'T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY DHESSMENTS THOSE WOULD -- WHICH DEVELOPMENTS THOSE WOULD BE CARRIED OFF TO, THE SPOILS WOULD BE CARRIED OFF TO, BUT IT IS IN AN AREA WHERE YOU'RE IN AN AGRICULTURAL RURAL SETTING BUT YOU'RE STILL CLOSE ENOUGH BY THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS ENDTRADA THAT ARE UP AND RUNNING THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THAT SANPETE SPOT.

YOU HAVE A SHORT SORT OF HAUL ROUTE TO SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING BUT YOU'RE STILL FAR ENOUGH OUTSIDE WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING AREAS.

IN THIS CASE, AS YOU SAW ON THE SITE PLAN, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE WHEN YOU ARE I GUESS FATHOM WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT 625 ACRES, BUT TRULY THERE'S A GIANT BUFFER THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE OPERATION ITSELF. THE MAJOR THING TO CONTEND WITH, WHICH WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT POD TODAY, IS THE ACTUAL TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING OFF WATER PLANT ROAD BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME RESIDENCES THERE, BUT ASIDE FROM THE VARIANCE FOR WATER PLANT ROAD, THIS IS IN AN AREA WHERE YOU'RE HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY FROM ANY OTHER KIND OF ACTIVITY, WHICH IS TYPICALLY A GOOD POINT OF COMPATIBILITY TO SURROUNDING AREAS WHEN LOOKING

AT A BORROW PIT OPERATION. >> OKAY. BUT THE QUESTION IS HARDSHIP, AND I GUESS LET ME REASK THE QUESTION, THEN. DID RAINIER LOOK AT THEIR OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT PERHAPS HAVE FRONTAGE ON A ROAD SO DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE DOWN A ROAD LIKE THIS SINCE THEY ARE ENCOURAGED TO LOCATE IN THOSE AREAS?

>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT AGAIN. WITHIN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY AREA, THIS IS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST QUALITY MATERIAL AS WELL AS THE CLOSEST PROXIMITY TO STRONG ROAD FRONTAGE.

IN TERMS OF FEE OWNERSHIP LAND IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WE DO NOT HAVE EXTENSIVE HOLDINGS THAT HAVE STRONG ROAD FRONTAGE OPPORTUNITIES ON THEM. SO WE VIEW THIS AS A QUALITY

MATERIAL AS WELL AS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO DEVELOPMENT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD FOR YOUR TEAM?

>> NO. I'LL BE SHORT. I KNOW THERE'S A LONG AGENDA

TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

PUBLIC COMMENT, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. FOR THOUGHTS OR A MOTION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY ONE FURTHER THING. I APOLOGIZE.

I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED IT BEFORE. YOU HAD MENTIONED WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITION ABOUT A FLAGMAN BEING ON SITE, THAT PERHAPS THE EXHIBIT FROM 2006 WHERE IT PROVIDED A TIME FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD, THAT THAT MIGHT BE OUT OF DATE IF THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS CHANGED ITS START TIMES. PERHAPS, IF THE BOARD SIN CLIEND TO ACCEPT THAT CONDITION RATHER THAN REFERENCE THAT EXHIBIT, WE COULD JUST PROVIDE THAT THE FLAGMAN SHOULD BE THERE DURING PEAK HOURS AS DEFINED BY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND LEAVE IT AT THAT OR ALTERNATIVELY THERE ARE ALREADY HOURS OF OPERATIONS IN THE CONDITION THAT REFERENCE AVOIDING ROADWAYS WHERE SCHOOLS ARE LOCATED DURING SCHOOL PEAK OURS 7:00 A.M. TO 9:00 A.M. AND 2:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M., SO THAT MIGHT BE ON ANOTHER OPTION IFE BOARD WANTED TO SPECIFY WHEN THE

FLAGMAN NEEDS TO BE THERE AS WELL. >> RIGHT.

SO YOU'VE GOT LITTLE KIDS AND ON WEDNESDAYS THEY GET OFF EARLY, SO I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO SAY IT'S BETWEEN SUCH-AND-SUCH A TIME BECAUSE THE SCHOOL BOARD MOVES THEIR STUFF AROUND, AND CERTAINLY ON SCHOOL HOLIDAYS, AND THERE ARE MANY OF THOSE, THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A FLAGMAN, IN MY OPINION. IN MY OPINION, I WOULD PUSH THAT BACK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AND LET

THEM ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> IF E USE THE LANGUAGE, AS DEFINED BY IS THE ST. JOHNS

[01:10:03]

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. >> ACCEPTABLE, IN MY OPINION. THE ONLY OTHER THING I FAILED TO MENTION WAS, AGAIN, THIS DOESN'L NOT BE TRANSFERABLE, AND IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT

IT IS NOT TRANSFERSABLE. >> MR. CHAIR, YOU ASKED FOR COMMENTS.

>> COMMENTS OR A MOTION, YES. >> NO, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YES, DR. MCCORMICK. >> DR. MCCORMICK. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

IC. >> HEAR YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

I WAS NEVER OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT. >> SURE, YOU WERE.

>> NO, I WASN'T. I SAID EX PARTE, AND THEN I WAS INTERRUPTED RIGHT AWAY.

SO I DID HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE. >> PLEASE DO. >> AND FIRST OF ALL, MY COMMENTS WERE, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAID NOW, IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE MITIGATING CONDITIONS, IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THEIR INPUT ON SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE AS OF UPDATED NOW, SO THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING IS THAT REGARDLESS OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE ROAD, I'M NOT TENDING TO SUPPORT THIS

MOTION ANYWAY. NOW I GOT MY TWO CENTS IN. >> THANK YOU.

ARCHIE? >> YES. AS I SAID, THIS IS A PUBLIC ROAD. THERE'S TOO MUCH A HAZARD HERE. AS I'VE LISTENED TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, PARTICULARLY THE COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG THE ROAD, THE SPEED LIMITS

HAVEN'T BEEN, LET'S SAY. >> OBSERVED. >> A VERY NICE WORD, OBSERVED.

AND THAT'S A NON-Y EXPERT EVIDENCE. BUT LAY PEOPLE HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF SPEED ON A ROAD, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE CHILDREN INVOLVED.

AND THEN I LEARNED THAT CHILDREN WALK ALONG THE ROAD. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS.

AGAIN, LOOKING FOR MORE THOUGHTS OR A MOTION. >> I'M SORRY.

IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO ADD ONE MORE CONDITION OR IS IT TOO LATE?

>> YOU MAY ADD. >> THANK YOU. ONE THING I WOULD JUST LIKE TO OFFER UP IN HEARING ABOUT THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCHOOLCHILDREN IS TO ADD ONE MORE CONDITION THAT WOULD LIMIT THE COMPLETE HOURS OF OPERATION, NOT JUST ONES GOING BY SCHOOLS, SO THE OPERATION OF THE BORROW PIT ITSELF AND TRUCK ROUTES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL DURING THE SCHOOL HOURS, THE SCHOOL PEAK HOURS OF TRAVEL TIME AS DETERMINED BY THE SCHOOL

DISTRICT. >> OKAY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THEN, SO NO TRUCK ACTIVITY ON THE ROAD, YOU CAN DO IT BACK IN THE BORROW PIT AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT THERE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING NO TRUCKS ON THE ROAD DURING THOSE CRITICAL SCHOOL HOURS THAT THE SCHOOL

BOARD WILL THEN TELL YOU. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> THAT WOULD NEGATE THE FLAGMAN CONDITION.

>> MEGAN, YOU WERE GOING TO -- >> YES. FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2020-12 SECTION 2.0 AT ANY TIME 10A.3A TO ALLOW DIRECT ACCESS TO A BORROW PIT AREA VIA PAWRT PLANT ROAD SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDE IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> IN ADDITION DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING YOU MENTIONED EARLIER FROM BRADLEY.

>> YES. I BELIEVE THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. >> RIGHT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE WOULD BE CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE ANY SECOND TO APPROVE THE MOTION? A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO A MOTION THAT GOES NOT APPROVED DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER MOTIONS THEN? THAT MOTION DIES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT JUST JUMP IN HERE, OF COURSE, IT'S UP TO THE AGENCY TO MAKE THE MOTIONS AS THEY FIND, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO STAFF AND TO THE APPLICANT IF THERE IS A MOTION TO DENY. THAT WAY WE WOULD HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT, AGAIN, BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT COULD MOVE FORWARD ON AND MIGHT PROVIDE SOME CLARITY IF THAT DENIAL WERE TO BE APPEAL EITHER TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ULTIMATELY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, BUT THE BOARD CAN MAKE OR THE AGENCY CAN MAKE WHAT MOTION IT MIGHT FIND APPROPRIATE.

[01:15:06]

THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> PLEASE DO. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY SUPMAJ 2018-13 REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BORROW PIT ON APPROXIMATELY 625 ACRES OF LAND IN OPEN RURAL OR ZONING SUBJECT TO THE CRIESHT OF SECTION 2.03.10 AND SECTION 6.04 .09 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUBJECT TO THE SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT, AND I'LL PLACE THE SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON NUMBER 1, THE SPECIAL USE CANNOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT SPECIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THIS AND SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE A HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THIS WAS THE BEST SITE IN TERMS OF PROFITABILITY, NECESSITY TERMS OF THE LOCATION AND SOIL THAT THEY HAVE AND THAT THAT WHAT IS THE REASON THEY SELECTED THIS PARTICULAR SITE. AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT

QUALIFIES FOR A HARDSHIP. >> ALL RIGHT. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT WAS

FOR ITEM NUMBER 4? >> YES. >> DO WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTY

ITEM NUMBER 4. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> MR. WAINRIGHT IS THE SECOND. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUMP IN AGAIN, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR REPEATEDLY INTERRUPTING, AND I I THINK MR. MATOVINA KNOWS THIS, OF COURSE, BUT THE VARIANCE APPLICATION, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 3, WOULD HAVE HAD A HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT.

WE RIGHT NOW HAD A MOTION TO GRANT THAT, THAT FAILED FOR WANT OF A SECOND.

THE HARDSHIP IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>> I'M SORRY. I READ THE WRONG ONE, DIDN'T I? >> WELL, FOR RIGHT NOW THE VARIANCE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT WE DO HAVE YOUR PENDING SPECIAL

USE MOTION. >> . GO AHEAD.

>> I'LL STRIKE THE PART ABOUT THE HARDSHIP. THANK YOU.

>> SO WE'RE STILL SITTING ON A MOTION TO DENY AND A SECOND ON THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE. AGAIN THIS IS FOR ITEM NUMBER 4, MOTION TO DENY. A YES IS TO DENY. ARE IN MATOVINA.

>> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> NO. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS NO.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES. >> DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES TO DENY 2. IS THERE ANY DESIRABILITY, BRADLEY, TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER 3?

>> WELL, AS YOU INDICATED, MR. KOPPENHAFER, IF WE DO NOT DOESN'T RECEIVE A SECOND AND- THEN A MAJORITY VOTE, THEN THE APPLICATION IS DENIED. AGAIN, AS I SAID, IT COULD BE HELPFUL TO THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A AFFIRMATIVE MOTION TO DENY, BUT THAT'S UP TO THIS BOARD HOW

IT WANTS TO PROCEED. >> WE HAVE LAST CALL TO MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> YES WIEBD LIKE TO DO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE 2020-20 REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.03.10 .A .3A TO ALLOW DISTRICT ACCESS TIE BORROW PIT AREA VIA WATER PLANT ROAD SUBJECT TO FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT AND SPECIAL EMPHASIS, AGAIN CORRECTING MY MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 4, ON THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE A HARDSHIP IN THAT THEY'RE RELYING ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE FOR THE PROFITABILITY.

>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. WAINRIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE.

AGAIN, A VOTE YES IS TO DENY. A VOTE NO IS TO NOT DENY. MR. MATOVINA.

[5. NZVAR 2019- 10 Flying J Travel Center (950 SR 206). ]

>> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> NO. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS NO.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES. >> AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

>> MOTION TO DENY IS APPROVED 5-2. MOVING ALONG, THANK YOU ALL.

MOVING ALONG TO ITEM NUMBER 5. MR. EVERETT. >> YES, SIR.

[01:20:02]

>> HOW ARE YOU TODAY? >> I'M DOING WELL. HOW ABOUT YA'LL?

>> GOOD. YOU MAY START. >> MY NAME IS MICHAEL EVERETT.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF FLYING J TRAVEL CENTER. AND WE ARE SEEKING A NON-ZONING VARIANCE, 2019-10. REQUEST FOR A NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 7 .02.05.B .1 TO ALLOW A REPLACEMENT CELEBRATE ON-PREMISE SIGN TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF 300 SQUARE FEET ADA BY 140 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 440 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS A MAP OF THE LOCATION. THE AERIAL VIEW. THIS IS YOUR LAND USE MAP.

AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN THE CHT ZONING COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY. NON-SHOANG VARIANCE 19-10 JIEG J TRAVEL SIGN. WE ARE SEEKING NON-ZONING TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 140 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL ON-PREMISE POLE SIGNS. SPECIFICALLY WE ARE REPLACING 480 SQUARE FEET DOUBLE POLE STRUCTURE DUE TO STRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN AS CLOSE TO WHAT IS EXISTING WITH 440 SQUARE FEET PROPOSED.

WE BELIEVE THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWS FOR BETTER VISIBILITY WITH THE AUTO AND TRUCK DRIVERS NOTICING THE SIGN EARLIER. THIS WILL ALLOW THE DRIVERS TO PREPARE FOR EARLIER, FOR SAFE FREEWAY EXIT. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THAT IS THE EXISTING SIGN. IT'S 480 SQUARE FEET. WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT IS ON THE LEFT AT 440. THE TOP VIEW IS THE CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SIGN.

THE BOTTOM IS IMPOSED WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER WITH 440. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE EXIT. SORRY. THEN SOUTHBOUND YOUR CURRENT CONDITIONS ARE AT THE TOP. AND THIS BOTTOM IS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE, AN EIGHTH OF A MILE FROM THE SOUTH. ADDRESSING LDC SECTION 10.4.3.B THERE ARE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CARRYING OUT THE STRICT LETTER OF THE REGULATION. THE EXISTING SIGN CABINET IS CURRENT 480 SQUARE FEET. THE STRICT REGULATION WAS PUT INTO PLACE YEARS AFTER THE SIGN WAS INSTALLED. WE'RE ONLY ASKING TO KEEP THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WE CURRENTLY -- AS CURRENTLY IS IN PLACE, A LITTLE LESS. LESS ACTUALLY.

THE VARIANCE COST IS NOT BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE THE COST OF DEVELOPING THE SITE. THE REQUEST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REDUCING OF THE COST.

THE PRPT PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION OF SURROUNDING PUBLIC STREETS, THE DANGER OF FIRE OR OTHER PUBLIC HAZARD. THE EXISTING SIGN IS 480 SQUARE FEET, AND THIS WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE PUBLIC STREETS, NO DANGER OR POSE A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLYIN DIMINISH THE PROPERTY CIEWLS AND NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA SURROUNDING THE SITE.

THE EXISTING SIGN IS 480 SQUARE FEET WHICH HAS NO AFFECT TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES OR DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE NEW SIGN WILL BE AT 440 SQUARE FEET, WILL NOT, EITHER. THE AFFECT OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CODE AND SPECIFIC INTENT OF THE RELEVANT SUBJECT AREAS OF THE CODE.

WE MEET EVERY ASPECT OF THE CODE FOR THE STRICT SQUARE FOOTAGE REDUCTION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> LET'S START WITH PUBLIC

SPEAKERS. DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS? >> NO, SIR.

>> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE OR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL LIST AND DECLARE ANY EX PARTE AND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

[01:25:05]

FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. MATOVINA. >> NO EX PARTE, AND I THOUGHT IT

WAS A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> NO EX PARTE, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO IS THE EXISTING SIGN IS 480 SQUARE FEET. DID YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE US BEFORE, THEN, TO DO THAT BECAUSE

IT WAS OVER THE 300? >> IT WAS BUILT BACK -- WE BELIEVE IT WAS BUILT IN 2000

BEFORE THIS CODE WAS PUT IN PLACE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED IT TO BE 120-FOOT TALL AS IT IS NOW

AND THE 480 SQUARE FEET. >> I GOUT. EVERY TIME THERE IS A SIGN CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE US? IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE

TRANSFERABILITY? >> THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS ALLOWED IS 150 PER TENANT, SO IT WOULD BE REDUCE TODAY 300 WOULD BE ALLOWED PER CODE AS IT STANDS NOW.

SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL 140 SQUARE FEET SO THAT WE'RE CODE COMPLIANT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> NO EX PARTE, NO QUESTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. KOPPENHAFER, NO EX PARTE.

I DRIVE BY IT ALL THE TIME. TERESA, SO THE SIGN WAS BUILT BEFORE -- CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE SIGN WAS BUILT BEFORE ANY SIGNAGE CODE EXISTED ON THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY?

>> I CAN'T. I CAN RESEARCH IT FOR YOU BUT, NO, SIR, I COULDN'T AT THIS

PARTICULAR MOMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> IF THE SIGN IS THERE NOW, THE SIGN'S THERE NOW?

>> YES, SIR. >> AND IT WAS BUILT BEFORE OUR CODE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING, IS IT WAS. I'M SORRY.

>> THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> CONCERNING EX PARTE, I DID DRIVE UP AND DOWN INTERSTATE I-95 YESTERDAY FROM STATE ROAD 16 HEADING SOUTH.

I GOT OFF AT -- I'M SORRY. I WENT BY 206 OFF OF BONILLA US-1 AND HEADED BACK NORTH.

I WANTED SEE VISIBILITY AS WELL AS IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER BILLBOARDS OR OTHER INFORMATIONAL SIGNS THERE FOR FLYING J. GOING SOUTH ON STATE ROAD 16 THERE WAS A BILLBOARD, AT LEAST ONE THAT STATED THERE WAS A FLYING J AND DENNY'S COMING UP, COUNTY ROAD 2 EXIT. BEFORE THE EXIT THERE WERE STANDARD EIGHT SPONSORED INFORMATIONAL SIGNS THAT GAVE ALL THE RESTAURANTS, GAS STATIONS, WHATEVER.

SO THAT WAS WELL EXIT. COMING BACK NORTH I DID NOT NOTICE ANY BILLBOARDS, BUT AGAIN THE INFORMATIONAL SIGNS WERE THERE INDICATING A DENNY'S. SO I COULD SEE THE SIGN COMING BOTH WAYS. AND QUOTING FROM THE APPLICANT, IN ADDITION TO THE NON--- REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 0.03, THE APPLICANT HAS TO PROVE TOT THAT THE COPY FACE OR MESSAGE WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVELY VIEWABLE FROM THE NEAREST ROAD OR FREEWAY.

I COULD SEE IT EASILY FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY COMING NORTH I COULD NOT SEE IT QUITE AS EASILY. THE PROPERTY, I WOULD SAY IF THEY MOVE THEIR SIGN FROM.

[INDECIPHERABLE] A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH, IT COULD GET A LITTLE MORE VIZ PINIELLA BUT SINCE WE HAVE A COMPETITOR OF THEIRS UP THE ROAD A WAYS AT I-95 AND INTERNATIONAL GOLF, WHICH HAS HAD A POLE SIGN WITH A 300-FOOT -- SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUMH THAT, AND WE HAD THAT PENDING BEFORE US, AND I HAD VOTED FOR OTHER LARGE SIGNAGE. HAVING A 440-FOOT SIGN IS.

[INDECIPHERABLE] ESSENTIALLY NEARLY 50% OVER THE LIMIT OF A 300 SQUARE FOOT SIGN.

AND I'LL TELL YOU THIS. I LOOKED AT THE SIGN AND THEIR MEASUREMENTS, AND IF THEY JUST CUT FIVE FEET OFF EACH SIDE OF THE LOWER AS DENNY'S, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT BACK AND SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, IF THEY CUT 5 FEET OFF EACH SIDE TIMES THE 9.2 FEET HIGH, THAT WOULD BE 92 SQUARE FEET, THAT WOULD BRING IT KNOCKING NEARLY 100 OFF, THAT WOULD MAKE IT AROUND 340, 345 SQUARE FEET, I COULD VOTE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HAVING IT 50% OVER AND A COMPETITOR FURTHER NORTH THAT WITH COMPETITIVE SIGNAGE, I JUST CAN'T SEE IT.

SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> NO EX PARTE AND NO QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO ADD? >> I WOULD ADD THAT WE'RE DOING

[01:30:04]

SO WHAT WE DO IS GO BACK AND BUILD THAT POLE WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED 320 SQUARE FEET.

WE'RE ASKING FORS AND OF 140 SQUARE FEET DUE TO THEIR LOGO. THEIR LOGO ONLY LOOKS RIGHT AT THAT SIZE, AND WE'VE DONE THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY TO KEEP THEM THAT SIZE AND KEEP THEM -- WE BUILD THEM ONE AFTER ANOTHER, JUST ONE AFTER ANOTHER AT OUR FACILITY IN HOUSTON.

SO IN ORDER FOR TO US MAKE THAT SIGN TO THE REDUCTION THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, WE'D TO HAVE SQUEEZE THAT LOGO, AND IT JUST WOULDN'T BE THE CORRECTLY LOGO LOOK THIS THEIR.

THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO ADD. >> THANK YOU. BACK IN THE AGENCY, THEN.

THOUGHTS, COMMENTS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND I FIND

IT COMPATIBLE AND I'D BE HAPPY TO OFFER A MOTION TO SUPPORT. >> IT PLEASE DO.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE A NON-ZONING VARIANCE NZ VAR 2019-10 FLYING J TRAVEL THERE IS TO ALLOW FOR REMACEMENT REAL ESTATE TO EXCEED 300 SQUARE FEET AMOUNT OFDA BY 140 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 440 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 950 STATE ROAD 2060 SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS.

AND BASED ON SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> SECONDLY, MR. MATOVINA. ALL RIGHT.

GOING THROUGH ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL

[6. REZ 2020-21 Summerlins Commerce Park. ]

LIST. MR. MATOVINA. >> YES.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS NO. MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> NO. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> NO.

>> AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES 4-3.

GOT A BIG SIGN. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, MS. TAYLOR. SUMMERLINS COMMERCE PARK.

HOW ARE YOU TODAY? >> I AM GREAT. HOW ARE YOU ALL TODAY? GOOD AFTERNOON, KAREN TAYLOR, 77 SARAGOSSA STREET. THIS IS SUMMERLINS COMMERCE PARK, AND IT'S ACTUALLY NAMED AFTER THE SUBDIVISION THAT IS NEXT TO THIS, AND IT'S SUMMERLIN ROAD NEXT TO IT BUT THE ACTUAL THING, IF YOU WONDER WHY THERE IS AN "S" ON THIS.

WITH ME IS OUR TWO STEVE BENINGERS, FATHER AND SON, AND THIS IS THEIR PROJECT.

SO THEY ARE HERE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THIS IS THE LOCATION.

IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1 NORTH, AND IT'S NORTH OF THAT SUMMERLIN LANE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF GUN CLUB ROAD AND THE AIRPORT AND A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF ISLAND LANDING. IT DOES CONSISTENT TWO PROPERTIES. I KIND OF PUT THAT ON HERE JUST TO SHOW YOU.

AND THERE'S A VACANT MOBILE HOME ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

JUST JUST ON HALF OF IT. FUTURE LAND USE IS MIXED USE AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAPS THAT THE MIXED USE EXTENDS UP AND DOWN US-1. IT MEETS THE AIRPORT DISTRICT SOUTH OF HERE. IT'S INDUSTRIAL AND AIRPORT DISTRICT ACROSS FROM IT, AS WELL AS SOME INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT EXTENDS OUT TO SOME RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION AS WELL AS SOME RURAL SILVER CULTURE. CIVIL CULTURE.

AREA ZONING IS JUST YOU CAN TELL LOTS I DIFFERENT COLORS, LOTS OF THING GOING ON.

THIS SITE IS ZONED OPEN RURAL BUT THE AREA ZONING GOES FROM OR TO CG, CI.

THERE'S PUDS THAT ARE FOR RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.

THERE'S INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, AIRPORT DISTRICT, AND DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL.

THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS OR TO THE EAST AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE THERE IS A STRIP THERE.

ALTHOUGH THERE'S CI ABOVE THAT. AND TO THE SOUTH IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

AND TO THE WEST OR ACROSS US-11 WOULD BE OR AS WELL. AND ACTUALLY, JUST FROM EXPERIENCE THAT I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT SITE THAT CONTACTED ME, THAT'S

[01:35:03]

THE SITE HAS A LITTLE LESS THAN 200-FOOT OF FRONTAGE. IT DOES HAVE WETLANDS.

THE WETLANDS ARE IN THE BACK CORNER, AND WE'LL KIND OF HOOK AT THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. AND THE SOUTH SECTION HAS BEEN CLEARED AND HAS A COMMERCIAL USE. AND SUMMERLIN ROAD IS ACTUALLY A DIRT ROAD, AND I'VE GOT SOME PICTURES TO SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW, AND I KNOW IN MY APPLICATION I SAID BETWEEN AND 89, SO WE'RE AROUND 8400 HERE,.

BETWEEN 8 AND 9. THAT CAN OBVIOUSLY CHANGE. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN BUT IT'S ONE TO GIVE US AN IDEA AND BE ABLE TO TALK TO DOT AND DETERMINE THINGS.

SITE PLAN SHOWS A TOTAL OF NINE PARKING SPACES INCLUDING A HANDICAP SPACE.

PLUS THERE'S LOADING AREA THAT'S DEEP ENOUGH FOR TRUCKS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS ITSELF, SO THOSE ACTUALLY COULD BE CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND COULD ACTUALLY BE STRIPED ALONG THAT. AND WE KIND OF DID THAT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THOSE GARAGE DOORS, YOU WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO PULL YOUR TRUCK IN AND LOAD THINGS OR UNLOAD FROM THE BACK.

ACCESS, CURRENTLY THERE'S ACCESS THAT COMES IN TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE, AND IT'S SHARED WITH THE GENERATION HOMES, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF THAT MAY NITTANY LION.

DOT DOESN'T LIKE THAT. IT'S TOO CLOSE TO SUMMERLIN ROA. SO THEY WANTED US TO MOVE THIS AS FAR NORTH AS WE COULD. THERE IS A DRAINAGE INLET THATLY BELONGS TO FDOT, AND SO BOB MORNING WHO IS OUR ENGINEER HAD TO SHIFT THAT. SO THAT'S WHY IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL, BUT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE LINED UP THE PARKING, YOU COULD BRING A TRUCK IN AND TURN IT AROUND. AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO GO FOR THE "T" SINCE WE COULDN'T GET THEM TO ALLOW US A SECONDARY EXIT, A RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT. STORM WATER RETENTION IS PLANNED TOWARDS THE REAR. WE DO NOT PLAN TO IMPACT THE WETLANDS BUT THERE IS MITIGATION TO IMPACT WY DOING A BY DL AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT AND THAT IS MITIGATION HA HAS TO BE PURCHASED. THEREWILL BE A 30-FOOT BUFFER ON THE NORTH SIDE, A 30-FOOT BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEN A 20-FOOT BOWFORT SOUTH SIDE. BASICALLY WE'RE ACCOMMODATING THAT BECAUSE BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE REQUIRES 20 FEET, INDUSTRIAL REQUIRES 30 FEET, SO WE LEARNED OUR LESSON ON THE STRATTON ROAD ONE AND SO WE'RE PUTTING 30 FEET ON THOSE SIDES IN CASE THESE BECOME INDUSTRIAL USES. JUST DEFINED LOOK, THAT'S THAT DRIVEWAY I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THEY KORN CORNER OF GN HOMES AND IT IS SHOWS YOU THE SOUTHBOUND RIFF THIS PROPERTY. THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE, ASIDE FROM US-1.

THIS IS FROM THE SITE LOOKING NORTH. AND YOU SEE THE DO NOT PASS.

THERE'S ALL THE ACTIVITY GOING ON IF YOU DROVE OUT THERE. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE SITE LOOKING TO THE LOT LINE IN, AND YOU CAN SEE THE OLD MOBILE HOME THERE.

THIS IS THE MOBILE HOME THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE SITE, SO THIS IS THE BACK PROPERTY LINE.

AND THIS IS THE CONTINUATION OF SUMMERLIN ROAD AND YOU CAN SEE THAT MOBILE HOME, AS SHOWN, AND THEN OTHER HOMES DOWN THE ROAD. THIS IS ALSO SUMMERLINS COMING FROM US-1, AND THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO SUMMERLINS. SUMMERLIN ROAD. ONLY THIS POURING IS PAVED, AND THE DID -- ONLY THIS PORTION IS PAVED, AND THE REST IS A DIRT ROAD.

NORTH OF THERE THERE ARE SOME OTHER PROPERTIES AND SHOWS YOU SOME OF THOSE CI USES THAT WERE SHOWN THROUGH THE ZONING. AND TO THE SOUTH, THIS IS FROM THE SOARTSDZ OF THE SITE LOOKINE LOOKING SOUTH AND YOU CAN SEE THE GENERATION HOMES BUILDING. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. THE ADJACENT LAND USES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY ARE DEEMED COMPATIBLE, AND IT'S A VERY LOGICAL INCLUSION IN A MIXED USE CORRIDOR ALONG US-1.

THERE ARE SIMILAR USES, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.

AND THIS REQUEST IS FOR COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE, SO IT IS THAT FLEX SPACE COMBINATION ZONING CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS FOR BOTH THOSE TYPES OF USES. WE ARE PROVIDING BUFFERS TO THE

[01:40:02]

AND WE FEEL IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE WITH A VARIETY OF USES ALONG US-1.

IT'S VERY SIMILAR IN INTENSITY. AGAINST, THIS HYBRID TYPE ZONING.

WE ARE KIND OF COVERING THE BUFFERS. AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS COMPATIBLE, WILL NOT HAVE UNREASONABLE COMPATIBLE IMPACT ON CONTIGUOUS AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THE TRAFFIC FLOW IS ACCOMMODATED FOR.

NO UNREASONABLE IMPACT. PERMITTED USES WOULDN'T CAUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

AND IF YOU NOTE, TOO, ALL THE ACTIVITY ON THIS SITE WILL BE TOWARDS US-1.

THE BACK WILL BE THE RETENTION, AND THE BUFFERING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND THE STRUCTURES IN THE CW CATEGORY WILL ALL BE ALLOWABLE AS ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIXED USE. SO AGAIN WE FEEL IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN, AND ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONSISTENT.

LDC, AND WE WOULD REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, AND I'M HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S SEE TBREEF ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. -- IF WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

ARCHIE? >> NO. >> DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC

SPEAKERS ONLINE? >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO THROUGH ROLL CALL LIKE WE DO FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR COMMENTS AND EX PARTE.

MR. MATOVINA, YOU'RE ALWAYS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. >> NO EX PARTE, NO QUESTIONS.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO HAVE EX PARTE.

I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER MR. BENINGER, THE FATHER YESTERDAY TO GET AN IDEA OF THE WHERE IT WAS AREA-WISE. I. NO COMMENTS. I THINK IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE.

>> 34-Z PERNGZ. >> NO EX PARTE, NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER HAS NO EX PARTE. QUICK QUESTION. WHEN YOU GET RID OF THE UPLAND

BURVES YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT. >> YES, YOU DO.

>> LIKE A WETLAND. >> IT'S CONSIDERED SECONDARY IMPACTS.

>> BUY TO A MITIGATION BANK? >> TO THE WETLAND WHY E., YES. >> MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> YES. I'M AN ENGINEER AND I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK THESE KIND OF QUESTIONS, BUT DOES THE DUMPSTER HAVE TO GO RIGHT OUT THERE ON US-1?

I CAN'T BE PUT SOMEWHERE ELSE? >> NO, THAT'S THE DUMPSTERS FOR THE ADJACENT AND, NO, OUR DUMPSTER THERE HAVE TO BE SCREENED. IT WON'T LOOK LIKE THAT OTHER ONE. YES, WE DO HAVE IT RIGHT NOW ON US-1.

THAT MAY CHANGE BECAUSE IT END COACHES A LITTLE BIT ON THAT, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY OTHER LOCATION TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN. IF YOU -- IF YOU NOTE, THAT BUFFER LINE AT THE TOP EXTENDS ALONG HERE, SO YOU HAVE NOTHING NORTH OF THE EDGE OF THAT PAVEMENT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT IN IT. AND THEN THE REST IS ALL IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND I THINK THAT ALWAYS LOOKS RATHER BAD TO HAVE IT.

SO IT WILL BE SCREENED. IT DOES HAVE TO BE SCREENED AND BUFFERED WITH EITHER A FENCE

WALL AND LANDSCAPING. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION. THE FENCE IN THE BACK WHERE IT COMES UP CLOSE TO THE BUILDING LINE, WILL IT BE REMOVED UP THERE AT THAT POINTY THING AT

THE REAR OF THE BUILDING? >> I'M NOT SURE. >> WHAT DOES IT DO?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU -- ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE? >> RIGHT THERE.

>> IT'S A WETLAND LINE. >> THAT'S A WOODEN FENCE THERE. >> NO, THAT'LL BE -- AS I SAID, THAT IS PROPOSED AND IT WILL BE PERMITTED AS WHAT'S CALLED A NEE WALL, SO IT MIGHT BE A FOOT TO TWO FEET HIGH AT THE MOST. CIEFNTSD LIKE A RETAINING -- KIND OF LIKE A RETAINING BALM AGAIN YOU SET IT OFF THE WETLAND AREA AND YOU MITIGATE FOR THE BUFFER.

YOU DO NOT IMPACT THE WETLANDS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THAT MITIGATION, BUT YOU DO MITIGATE

FOR THE BUFFER. >> THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK, QUICK

QUESTION OR COMMENT? >> EX PARTE. I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTIES.

I HAVE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. DR. MCCORMICK.

>> NO EX PARTE AND NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, MS. TAYLOR? >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. BACK IN THE AGENCY THEN. THOUGHTS, COMMENTS OR A MOTION,

PLEASE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> PLEASE DO.

>> OKAY. A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RES 2020-21 SUMMERLINS

[01:45:01]

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND TO APPROVE.

[Items 7 & 8]

>> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES. >> DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS 7-0. UP NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 7.

LINDSEY HAGAN. AGAIN, NO STRANGER TO THIS ROOM. LINDSAY, HOW ARE YOU?

IS. >> , GOOD AFTERNOON. JOINING ME AT THE PODIUM IS CITY'S LEWIS WITH GUN STER. ITEM 7 AND 8 ARE COMPANION SO WE'VE COMBINED OUR PRESENTATION INTO ONE TO MOVE THINGS ALONG. THE REST OF THE TEAM, LET'S BEGIN AND JUMP IN.

SO FOR THE RECORD THANK YOU, LINDS E. HAGA WITH P. I'M A SPR PLAN PER IF REST OF OUR TEAM IS HERE. MR. GREG KERN REPRESENTING GREEN POINT WHO IS THE DEVELOPER TRAILMARK. CITY'SI WITH GUNSTER. JEFF CRAMON OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEER. AND THEN ENVIRONMENTAL WE HAVE PATRICK PIERCE.

IF AT ANY POINT YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR DETAIL FOR THEM WE CAN BRING THEM YOU OF U. UP IF IT'S SOMETHING NEITHER OF US CAN ANSWER. TODAY WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE ADOPTION HEARING OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THEN THE COMPANION DRIMODIFICATION THAT WE TOUCHED ON WHEN WE WERE BEFORE YOU BACK IN MAY OF LAST YEAR.

BUT THIS WOULD BRING TOGETHER THE FINAL ADOPTION AND TO REALLY KNOW WHERE WE ARE AGAIN, WE'RE THE ADD LANDS OF TRAILMARK ANNEXING INTO THE ST. JOHNS DRI THAT I HAVE JUST HIGHLIGHTED.

WE ARE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. WE JUST BOUND IN INTERSTATE 95 AND COUNTY ROAD 108 ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. POPPING IN FOR THAT HIGHLIGHT PEACE THAT'S THAT 71 ACRES HIGHLIGHTED LAND THAT TUCKS INTO THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF ST. JOHNS DRI AND THE TRAILMARK PROPERTY. SO WHERE WE'VE BEEN ON REGULATORY APPROVALS, THIS IS FAMILIAR TO YOU BECAUSE THIS WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE BOARD. YOU RECOMMENDED TRANSMITTAL OUT TO THE SAY THE. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER PICKED UP THAT RECOMMENDATION.

WE SEND IT EVER SENT IT OUT FOR STATE AND REGIONAL REVIEW. THOSE PACTS AND REVIEW LETTERS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. HE IS EACH THOACH AGENCIES FINDING THERE ARE NO IMPACTS THE THOSE STATE OR REGIONAL RESOURCES.

THAT'S TUCKED IN. WE'RE BACK BEFORE YOU FOR ADOPTION.

WE HOSTED A NORTHWEST SECTOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING GIVING TIME FROM WHE WE WERE BEFORE EARLIER IN THIS MONTH. A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY MEETING TO STUCH ON WE'RE COMING BACK AGAIN FOR ADOPTION. OUR COMPANION DRIMODIFICATION, IFNED TIMING OF ALL THESE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN. FROM THE DRIR WAS FIRST APPROVED 1 IT'S INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT THE STATES OR SOME OF OUR LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENTS AND EXTENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION AREA. YOU HAVE A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THAT MEETING IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. TO RECAP OUR EXISTING FIEWT LAND USE FOR TRAILMARK IS RURAL/SILVICULTURE. THAT PERMITS NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.

WE HAVE NON-RESIDENTIAL TIMBER HARVESTING WHICH IS AN ACTIVE SILVICULTURE ACTIVITY AND BE RESIDENTIAL COULD BE'S ACHIEVED WITH 14 DWELLING UDONIS THREW THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

THAT'S PROVIDE BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT LAND USE FROM RURAL/SILVICULTURE TO RESIDENTIAL C AND TUCK INTO THAT I TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD SHARE OVER THE EXISTING RIGHTS COMING OUT AND ALREADY APPROVED FOR THE ST. JOHNS DRI AND THEN THE SIX SMALL CREEK PORTION OF THE DRI.

SO NO NEW DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ARE ADDED AND ANY DENSITY THAT WOULD BE LAND PLANNED AT THE NEXT STAGE FOR INCREMENTAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR REZONING WOULD MEET THAT LAND USE CONSISTENCY WITH DENSITY FOR RESIDENTIAL C. SO JUST TO WALK US THROUGH, THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WE COVERED. I'LL MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THEM BECAUSE WE SCUSDZ THEM BUT ALSO ADDED ANOTHER SLIDE QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP AT PDZA THAT WE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE BCC TO ADDRESS FOR YOU. WHEN WE LOOK AT AMENDING THE BARRIER BOUNDARY OR THE COLORS ON LAND USE MAP, WE'VE GOT POLICIES THAT GUIDE PUCHES ARE WE PROXIMATE TO IT? YES, WE ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AREA OF RED LINE BOUNDARY ON YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WE ARE ALLOCATE CONDITIONING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED BY PRIVETT INVESTMENT INTO ROADS, SCHOOLS, DRAINAGE.

THIS CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SO WE HAD NO TRAFFIC NEW IMPACTS COME IN FROM THIS CHANGE OF SHARING OVER THOSE RIGHTS THAT ARE ALREADY ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY, AND IT DOES ALLOW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERALL WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ST. JOHNS DRI ITSELF AND PROVIDES FOR LOT SIZE VARIETY. AGAIN, WE ARE IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR SO WHEN WE COME BEFORE

[01:50:03]

WHAT THIS SLIDE IS MEANT TO SHOW IS YOU A COMBINATION OF PROTECTED LANDS THAT THIS PLAN WILL ALLOW FOR. IT'S 34, A LITTLE OVER 34 ACRES THAT CONSISTS MAINLY OF WETLANDS WITH THE ASSOCIATED UPLAND BUFFER. THEN IN THERE THANK CENTERPIECE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR UPLAND PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USES. THAT'S HOW WE GET TO THAT TOTAL OF 24 BECAUSE WE'VE GIVEN A LITTLE OVER 24 ACRES OF WET PNLD YOU HAVE THE MAIN CONSERVATION SET A SITESIDE AND SMALLER PIECES DOWN TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.

-- 34. THAT HAD COME UP IN ONE OF OUR QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TYPES OF SOILINGS ON THE SITE AND THE THE TYPES OF HABITAT COMMUNITIES THAT YOU FIND. AND TWO OF THE FOUR SOIL TYPES THAT ARE FOUND WITHIN THE ADDED LANDFALL WITHIN THIS OVERLAY AREA WHICH IS MEANT TO RELAY YOU THAT'S THAT SET ASIDE AREA 4T.

FOR THE PROTECTED LAND. WHEN WHREEK AT DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND WHAT'S SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN SEE THAT PATTERN IS REPEATED EAR HERE AS THE SOIL TYPES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE THAT HAVE DIFFERENT A LIENLTS WITHIN CONSERVATION EASEMENTS.

I RECOGNIZED THAT THIS MAP IS SMALL MAYBE WITH THE COLORS TO SHOW YOU, BUT WHAT WANT TO DO IS HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU AND FOR THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE A QUESTION OF SOIL SUITABILITY, WHERE DO THEY LIE, AND THEY'RE OVERLAID WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS THAT HAVE EITHER ALREADY BEEN RECORD, THAT ARE PENDING AND RECORDING OR WILL BE, AND THAT'S THAT COLOR THAT YOU SEE ADDED TO THE LANDS.

THIS BOARD HAD SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT ARE WE DOING TWHOAS LANDS, THOSE PROTECTED AREAS, AND THE SOILS, AND WE'RE SETTING THOSE ASIDE AS WE'VE DEM FRAITD? OUR EXISTING LAN FOR TRAILMARK WITHIN CONSERVATION EASE PS. SO THAT'S THE NATURE REALLY WALKING THROUGH, STEPPING THROUGH OUR COMPLIANCE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

WE'VE GOT A COUPLE SLIDES HERE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STACI TO WALK TRUCE THE DRIMODIFICATION WHICH ESSENTIALLY REPRESENTS US ANNEXING INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

>> THANKS, LINDSAY. SO THE DRIMODIFICATION CARRIES OVER, THE DIFTS 28 COMP PLAN ANALYSIS THAT LAINDZ JUST WENT THROUGH AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC EXPWEFNT LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

AND THE BIG PUBLIC BENEFIT AND LEGITIMATE PURPOSE IS ADDING THIS RAN YOU JAWNS DRI WHICH IS A MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OVER AND ABOVE WHAT'S ALREADY APPROVED IN THE DRI SO NO ADDITIONAL IMMATICS TO TRAFFIC, TO SCHOOLS, TO PARKS. ALL OF THAT IS COMPILED TOGETHER INTO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE SCHOOLS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MITIGATED FOR PARKS OR ONGOING FOR MITIGATION AND TRAFFIC IS UP TO DATE FOR MITIGATION.

SO IN ORDER TO ADD THIS LAND TO THE DRI, WE'RE PROCESSING THE DRI.

WE HAVE DWROWP DATE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS WELL AS MAP H. TALKING WITH STAFF, THIS IS A VERY MATURE DRI. IT'S A LITTLE OVER 30 YEARS OLD. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MAP H HAS BEEN COPIED AND COPIED AND COPIED. SO THE NOTES ARE A LITTLE I ILLEGIBLE. SOME OF THE PARCEL NUMBERS ARE HARD TO READ.

SO WE DID A PULL-OUT OF OUR SITE WHICH IS 6-MILE CREEK SOUTH OF THE WHICH IS A DRILLED DOWN VERSION SO YOU CAN READ IN THE FUTURE THE PARCEL NUMBERS, THE ACREAGES AND USES FOR EASIER USE. WE ALSO, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING THIS LAND IN, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND THE COMP PLAN AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT MINIMUM 25-FOOT BUFFER. THAT HAS BEEN SPELLED OUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY BECAUSE WE'RE UPDATE THE DO THERE WERE SOME HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE CHANGES IN THE STAFF'S USE.

AS WELL AS FOR THE FIRST ONE THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS I STATE OF EMERGENCY EXTENSIONS FOR THEY DEVELOPMENT OVER -- EXCUSE ME -- DEVELOPMENT ORDER OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS.

AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS PUT THOSE NEW DATES FOR THE PHASING, THE DOWN ZONING AND THE BUILD-OUT, WE WENT AHEAD AND HADED THOSE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

IN ADDITION, BECAUSE THIS IS A MATURE DRI, ALMOST ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. THERE ARE STILL RAIJ TRAFFIC CHANCE.

-- REMAINING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS REMOVE BIENNIAL MONITORING

[01:55:05]

AND THEN FINALLY, THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF THE ENTIRE DRI HAS PROCESSED AND RECEIVED APPROVAL AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME LAND USE EXCHANGES UP ON WHAT WE CALL THE INTERCHANGE PARCELS UP NEAR 95. THOSE HAVE BEEN PROCESSED OVER THE LAST TWO OR SO YEARS.

THEY'RE IN EFFECT AND THE DRI REQUIRES THAT WHEN YOU MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THOSE EXCHANGES, UPDATE THE MIX OF USE IN THE D.O. SO WE'RE DOING THAT AS WELL. FINALLY THE LAST THREE ITEMS ARE UNDERLINED, AND WE WANTED TO BRING THESE TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR APPLICATION.

WE HAD SPOKEN AT A COUPLE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THERE WAS SOME PUBLIC NOTICES THAT WENT OUT THAT SAID WHEED ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO INTRODUCE A CONVERSION TABLE FOR SIX MILE CREEK SOUTH TRAILMARK PARCEL TO CONVERT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO AGE RESTRICTED TYPE UNITS, INSTITUTIONAL USES, AND POTENTIALLY SOME COMMERCIAL UP THERE ON PACETTI ODE.

AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AS WELL AS MASTER DEVELOPER WE HAVE REMOVED THOSE.

IT IS NO LONGER BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION, AND WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE RECORD CLEAR TO THAT. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE CURRENT MAP H.

AUCTION SEE IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO READ. BUT THIS IS SIX MILE CREEK SOUTH, THE THE TRAILMARK AREA RIGHT HERE. WE ARE RADDING THIS LAND AROUND RIGHT HERE. TO PICK OUT THE USES THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED AND PERMITTED WITHIN THE DRI, THAT ARE ALREADY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MITIGATION PACKAGE.

THERE WE GO. SO HERE IS THE LOCATION. HERE IS IS THE 71 ACRES.

IT WILL BE ANNEXED THROUGH THE DRI INTO PARCEL 16 RIGHT HERE. SO AS LINDSAY DEMONSTRATED -- IT I WON'T GO BACK THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY HAVE CONSISTS ANALYSIS BUT I DO THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING OUT BY ADDING THIS INTO THE DRI NOT ONLY ARE YOU NOT CREATING ADDITIONAL IMPACT OR SCHOOLS, PARKS AND ROADS, BUT IT'S LETTERS ALLOWING THE 34 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES OF PROTECTED LANDS TO BE PROTECTED THAT YOU NECESSARILY WOULDN'T GET IF THIS BASS THE WAIST STAND-ALONE PAR PELLAL ZELLE. MORE IMPORTANTLY IT CREATES A GREENWAY HERE WITH CONNECTIVITY INTO THE DRI ITSELF TO REALLY GIVE YOU THAT NICE PROTECTION FOR THE WETLANDS. IT WILL ALSO BE PART OF A MASTER STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR THE DRI. AND THEN FINALLY JUST ONE LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING THING ON THE D.O., WE DID PROVIDE YOU GUYS, I KNOW WITH MS. MAY, THE ACTUAL RECORD, PACKAGE THAT WILL BE BEFORE THE BOARD BEEP WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU SAW THAT. AND THEN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

REMOVING THE CONVERSION TABLE IS BEFORE YOU AS WELL. >> STACI, DPRUKS AND COCONUTS GREENWAY IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE ON THIS NEXT MAP AND WE'LL JUST WRAP UP WITH THESE TWO SLIDES.

THIS CARRIES FORWARD MAP H, TOUCHES ON WHERE YOU CAN SEE THOSE CONNECTED AT THE PROTECTED LANDS. THIS AREA REPRESENTS THE ADDED LANDS, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S INTERCONNECTED. AND FROM OUR OTHER SLIDES OF WHERE WE SHOW WE HAVE APPROVED CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, PENDING ONES AND THAT THE CONS VASE EASEMENTS THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED IN THIS AREA. SO WE HAVE TIGHTENED UP THIS PLAN IS ON OWE-TO-SHOW HOW IT INTEREXENGTS INTERNAL CONNECTION IS SOLELY WITHIN THE EXISTING TRAILL MARK.

IT'S AN EXISTING PEARN TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE. EARLIER ON WE HAD QUESTIONS AROUND INDIAN BRANCH ROAD AND SEGHTD ASIDE OUR NORTHWEST SECTOR TO SHOW THAT BUFFERING.

AND YOU CAN START TO SEE THE DMENGTH COME YOU. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LAG.

BUT WHIFTSDZ INDIANS BRANCH ROAD BEING 60 FEET RIOT AND THE 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGES THAT ARE SURROUNDING INTO THAT PROPERTY. WE'LL GET TO HEAR A WHETHER IT MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE COME BEFORE YOU FOR THE MAJOR MODIFICATION.

THIS SETS THE TONE FOR THAT APPLICATION AND REPRESENTS THE SITE PLANNING EFFORTS THAT WE'VE WALKED THERETHROUGH ON THE INTERCONNECTION TO TRAILMARK. THIS GIVES YOU A HIGHLIGHTED VIEW OF THE SAME ELEMENTS WE JUST WALKED THROUGH WITH EASTMENTS AND WETLAND PRESERVATION. SO IN SUM RAY AGAIN WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE JON DRI. AT THE DRIMODIFICATION IT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND REGIONAL POLICIES. Y AGAIN WE HAVE DISCUSSED THROUGH OUR PUBLIC PURPOSES OF WHAT CAL ALLOCATING THESE EXISTING RIGHTS WITHIN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY SERVED WITH PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. WITH THAT I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND OUR TEAMMATES ARE VAIBLG AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL TO GO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS, ARCHIE?

[02:00:03]

>> NO. >> DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ONLINE?

>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

SECTION THEN AS WELL. LET'S GO THROUGH AND DECLARE EX EX PARTE AS WELL AS OFFER ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT. MOVING THROUGH THE LIST,

MR. MATOVINA, YOU'RE UP FIRST. >> NO EX PARTE. AND NO QUESTIONS.

>> MR. ALAIMO ALAIMO. >> NO SCART EX PARTE.& NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> MS. PERKS. >> NO EX PARTE, NO QUESTIONS. >> NO EX PARTE.

ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE TRAFFIC REVIEW EVERY TWO YEARS IS ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU ALL

FOR STANDARD? >> YES, SIR. I AM BEING TOLD YES, IT IS

ACCEPTABLE. >> THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE-CHECK.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. ONE COMMENT.

ONE QUESTION, RATHER. SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WRITTEN TO US OR TO THE COUNTY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR TRAFFIC CHANGING OR. WOULD YOU RESPOND HAD TO THAT.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NEW PUBLIC COMMENT FROM WHEN WE WERE BEFORE YOU FOR TRANSMITTAL SO THOSE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED ARE ISSUES WE ADDRESSED BEFORE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR ADOPTION. AGAIN FOR TRAFFIC WE ARE MAINTAINING OUR EXISTING RIGHTS, AND WE'RE NO INTERCONNECTING INTO INDIAN BRANCH RANCH ROAD.

AND DRAINING REMAINS UNAFFECTED. AS A STACI MENDLE WE'RE PART OF A MASTER DRAINAGE PROJECT FOR

TRAILMARK. AND NO NEW COMMENTS. >> SOMEONE WROTE IN AND MENTIONED TO THAT THAT'S SHOOT GUNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S A WILDLIFE AREA.

ABOUT THAT CHANGE? >> IN THAT AREA, NO BUT I THINK MR. KERN, YOU -- WE IN THIS AREA WITH TRAILMARK. HE ALERTS HIS NEW RESIDENTS THAT THIS IS THE COMMUNITY THAT'S OUT

THERE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

DR. HILSENBECK. QUICK COMMENT OR EX PARTE? >> WELL, THEY MAY NOT BE QUICK AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU -- BUT I AM GOING TO ASK MY QUESTIONS. EX PARTE, I DID GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY. I DROVE AROUND IN TRAILMARK. TRIED TO GET TO THE PROPERTY THROUGH THERE NECESSARILY. I TRIED FROM CHURCH ROAD AND INDIAN HILLS ROAD AND I COULDN'T QUITE GET TO THE PROPERTY BUT I DID SEE AND GET A GOOT GOOD FLAVOR OF THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED AGAINST THIS, AND I PROBABLY WILL AGAIN.

BUT I DO HAVE WRITE A FEW COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS -- QUITE A FEW COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

AS I SAID THIS BEFORE, THIS IS NOT INFILL DEVELOPMENT BUT IT'S REALLY UPFILL SINCE THIS IS A PARCEL THAT'S HANGING OFF THE EDGE OF THIS TRAILMARK DEVELOPMENT, SO IT'S NOT SOME KIND OF INFILL AND THEN OTHERWISE IN THAT E. AREA. TO ME IT'S ENCROACHMENT INTO CIVIL CULTURE. AND AGRICULTURAL ZONES. IT'S FOR DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF THE COUNTY. I DO.

[INDECIPHERABLE] THE DECIPHERABLE APPRE APPLICANT ADDRESSING THE POORLY DRAINED AND VERY POORLY DRAINED SOILS OUT THERE AND DRAINAGE ISSUES AND ALL OF THAT.

AND I'M GLAD THAT THIS IS ON PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER OR WILL BE.

BUT YOU I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. IT'S STATED IN THE APPLICATION,S DEVELOPMENT, AND BY INCORPORATING THIS ADDITIONAL 7O DEVELOP AN ADDITIONAL 14 UNITS THAT COULD BE PUT IN THERE UNDER A PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT. SO 14 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL BE REMOVED. I JUST WONDERED HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL THEN BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. ANYWHERE IN THE OVER 100 PAGE ITEMS ON ITEM 7 OR 8, I CANNED FIND HOW MANY ACTUAL HOUSING UNITS ARE IN THERE. YOU WILL GET A POTENTIAL 14 ON A PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT HOW MANY ARE YOU PUTTING ON THERE? YOU UPDATED YOUR WETLANDS AND THE IMPACT. I THINK CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK AGAIN I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE COSM COMP PLAN STATT DEVELOPMENT IS DISCOURAGED. THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IN DESIGNATED RURAL AND SILVICULTURAL OR AGRICULTURE PLANNED. SO THAT AGAIN FOR ME IS THE PROBLEM. IT'S AN OUTFILL PROBLEMS ON THOSE TYPES OF PROPERTIES.

SO MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS THOSE. AND THEN THE LETTERS DID CONCERN ME. CHARLES POWELL AND DOUG, THEY WANTED A 100-FOOT FROM THEIR

[02:05:01]

JUST REALLY HOW MANY UNITS ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN THERE? >> DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO

THAT? >> YES, PLEASE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, SPEAKING WITH THE CLIENT AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT MASTER-PLANNED THE ADDED PLANS OF 71 ACRES, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS WE'LL HAVE TO MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF RESIDENTIAL C AS WELL AS THE INTENSITY USES IN THE DRI. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF ADDING THIS LAND IS IN IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTER MIX OF UNIT TYPES WITHIN THE PROJECT. GOING FROM YOUR TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT TO 43-FOOT LOTS UP TO ABOUT EIGHT FOOT.

ONCE THAT'S MASTER-PLANNED WE CAN HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON IT. WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

AS FAR AS THE INFILL COMMENT, I'LL TOUCH ON THAT AND SEND IT OVER TO LANED LINDSAY, BUT TE IS PERFECTLY ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS NOT ONLY TO THE DRI BUT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA ON TWO SIDES. IT'S NOT LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SEE OR STRIP TYPE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN AN URBAN SPRAWL TYPE THING. THERE IS NO ABILITY TO INFILL HERE BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE THAT'S HERE, BUT WHAT YOU DO HAVE SITE THAT'S COMPLETELY

CONTIGUOUS ON TWO SITES THAT TO A DEVELOPMENT AREA AND TO A DRI. >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION THERE, PLEASE? WHAT PREVENTS FROM YOU COMING BACK IN THE FUTURE, MOVING TO ANOTHER PARCEL ADJACENT TO THIS PARCEL, AND SAYING, OH, WELL, IT'S CONTIGUOUS ON TWO SIDES OR ONE SIDE, SAYING NOW WE FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THIS BECAUSE IT TOUCHES THIS PARCEL? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A NEVER-ENDING OBJECTIVE MOVING TO

MORE RURAL/SILVICULTURE LAND IN THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT. >> WELL, THERE IS NOTHING.

I'LL BE HONEST. THERE IS NOTHING. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I WANT TO SAY FIVE TO TEN YEARS AGO. IT WAS ALWAYS PROPOSED. IT'S BEEN HOLDING HERE UNTIL THE MARKET WAS RIGHT AS WELL AS UNDERSTANDING THE LAND PLAN WHICH IS THE MIX OF LOTS TO ADD THIS IN. AT THIS POINT THERE ARE NO PLANS TO PURCHASE ANY OF THE OTHER LAND. FROM MY RESEARCH THAT I'VE LOOKED AT, MOST OF NIECE TRACTS THAT ARE NEXT DOOR ARE VERY OLD FAMILY HOMESTEADS. I DON'T FORESEE A LOT OF THEM CHANGING IN THE FUTURE. BUT THERE IS LIKE EVERYTHING, IT'S THE WILL OF THE

MARKET. >> DR. HILSENBECK BROUGHT UP A GOOD PLANNING CONCEPT, AND THERE'S TWO POINTS TO THAT POLICY, RIGHT? SO IF YOU CAN'T BE ENTIRELY INFILL DEVELOPMENT, IE, DOUGHNUT HOLE SURROUND BY THE DEVELOPMENT AREA, THE REASON WHY WE WOULD WANT A DIRECT GROWTH IS WE WOULD HAVE SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THAT ADDITIONAL GROWTH.

GROWTH IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT BAD. WE ALL WANT TO LIVE HERE.

THAT'S THE POINT BEHIND INFILL. TO STACI'S POINT, IF YOU'RE NOT THE DENUT HOLE BUT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE BOUNDARY YOU'RE IN THE LIKELY LIES TO HAVE A BECAUSE YOU'RE SERVED BY PUBLIC SERVICES, FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND YOU'RE REFLECTING THAT PATTERN. SO THAT'S IT FROM A IF WE LOOK WE WANT GROWTH TO DIRECT.

WE CAN'T BE INFILL BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY ISN'T ON THE SIDE BUT THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE CONTIGUOUS AREA AND HAVE THAT NATURAL AND LOGIC EXTENSION OF SERVICES.

SO THAT'S JUST IT ON THE TWO BETWEEN INFILL AND OUTFILL OF WHAT WE CAN USE COOKING A NEW PLANNING TERM ON THAT POINT. HE DID BRING UP SOME OF OUR ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

AGAIN THOSE LETTERS ARE NOW BECOME STALE BECAUSE THEY WERE ATTACHED TO OUR TRANSMITTAL DOCUMENT WHICH WE WILL WORK WITH THEM ON. I PUT BACK UP ON THE SCREEN FOR US TO SEE WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING ON OUR SITE, 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE.

THE GREEN LINE OVERLAPS WITH INDIAN BRANCH RANCH ROAD BUT TOGETHER THAT WOULD REPRESENT 9T DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND STEPOFF FROM THE ROAD. IF NAVE PROPERTY WERE TO BE DEVELOPED THEY'D HAVE AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER WITHIN THAT AREA, SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT UPWARDS OF 70 FEET TO THE EAST AND 130 FEET TO THE SOUTH. THAT'S HOW WE'VE WORKED WITH MRT OWNED THE PROPERTY WALKING THEM THROUGH THAT SITE PLAN. TO DRESS HIS POINT YOU WOULD I SAY FOR OUTFILL YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT EXTENSION AND SERVICES. Y TWEER MITIGATING THAT AS WE

HAVE A SHARING OF OUR RIGHTS. >> THANK YOU. DR. MCCORMICK.

DR. MCCORMICK. >> NOW YOU CAN HEAR ME, RIGHT? >> YES.

[02:10:01]

>> YEAH. LAINDZ LIND AI, I SAY. I. A QUESTION FOR.

>> YOU READY. >> IT HAS TO DO WITH UNDERLYING THREE ITEMS THAT YOU SAID WERE NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH YOUR PROPOSAL. AND ONE OF THEM IS UNRESTRICTED AGE REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THAT THAT WAS AGE-RESTRICTED, I SHOULD SAY, NOT UNRESTRICTED, SO AGE-RESTRICTED REQUIREMENTS. NOW, WHEN YOU ARE SAYING, WELL, THAT'S NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION ANYMORE, THAT MEANS THAT PERHAPS THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN THOSE UNITS ARE LIKELY TO PERHAPS GO UP. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO, IT'S NOT. BUT MY COLLEAGUE WOULD LIKE TO JUMP IN ON THAT FOR YOU.

>> HI. THE UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE ALREADY APPROVED AND IN THE ST. JOHNS DRI. THE MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR SCHOOLS IN THE ST. JOHNS DRI FOR RESIDENTIAL NOT JUST FOR THIS SITE BUT FOR THE ENTIRE DRI WAS THE DONATION OF THREE SCHOOL SITES WHICH WAS CONVEYED I BELIEVE IN JANUARY 2001.

DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT DATE BUT EARLY 2000. AND SO THE MITIGATION THERE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, AND THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL MITIGATION. IF WE WERE COMING TO YOU TO ADD UNITS, WHICH WE ARE NOT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. NONE OF THESE UNITS WERE CONSIDERED WHEN THE DRI WAS PROVED AS AGE RESTRICTED. THEY WERE ALL CONSIDERED AS YOUR TYPICAL CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY. SO THEY WERE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE MITIGATION PACKAGE WHICH RESULTED IN THE DONATION OF THOSE THREE SCHOOLS.

THAT ARE IN OPERATION NOW. >> THANK YOU. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?

>> NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

THANK YOU ALL. WE DID PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE DID QUESTION AND ANSWERS.

WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR THOUGHTS OR A MOTION. >> I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL

COMMENT, IF I MAY BE ALLOWED, SIR. >> SURE.

>> IT STATES ON PAGE 7 OF THE ITEM, THIS IS A QUOTE, "THE APPLICANT ATTESTS THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT ONLY ADD ALLOWED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE CORRESPONDING ACTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND SERVICES." SO THAT QUESTION OF HOW MANY DEVELOPMENT UNITS YOU ALL PLAN TO PUT ON THE PROPERTY, IF THE 14 UNITS THAT COULD BE ALLOWED THERE NOW UNDER A DEVELOPMENT, YES, COULD WOULD GO AWAY, HOE YOU GOING TO HAVE ON THERE IF

THIS IS GOING TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER? >> I THINK THE APPLICANT ANSWERED THAT IN TERMS OF THEY'VE GOT WHATEVER IT WAS, 2,000 AND SOME ODD DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, WHETHER THEY PUT ONE OR 2,000 POTENTIAL OH THIS PARCEL REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ADD ANY MORE. THAN WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN

ENTITLED TO. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, THE DRI THAT WAS APPROVED YEARS AGO, BUT I'M STILL TRYING TO GET AT HOW MANY UNITS WILL BE PUT ON THIS

PROPERTY. >> I THINK THE APPLICANT SAID THEY DON'T KNOW YET.

>> IT'S APPARENTLY THE ANSWER. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST CHIME IN ON THAT FOR A MOMENT. THE PLOT IS GOING FOR RESIDENTIAL C WHICH CUSS ALLOW UP TO SIX UNITS TO AN ACRE, SO WITH SIX UNITS TO AN ACRE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE EXCEEDING THAT AMOUNT OF DENSITY ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THEY'RE JUST NOT CREATING NEW UNITS. THEY'RE TAKING THOSE UNITS FROM THE ST. JOHNS DPRI AND INCLUDING THIS PROPERTY IN THAT DRI AND USING THOSE UNITS.

BUT THEY WILL NOT BE EXCEEDING THE SIX UNITS TO AN ACRE. THEY HAVEN'T PLANNED IT SO, NO, WE CAN'T SAY HOW MANY UNITS WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PUT ON THAT PIECE YET.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD OR AGENCY MEMBERS? IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. >> I'LL OFFER A MOTION.

MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF COMP AMENDED 2019 RO 8 TRAILMARK ADDED LAND AS PROVIDED IN THE

STAFF REPORT SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

NOTHER DISCUSSIONS? SEEING NONE WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL AGAIN FOR ITEM NUMBER

7. MR. MATOVINA, HOW SAY YOU? >> YES.

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES. MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> NO.

>> DR. MCCORMICK. >> . DR. MCCORMICK?

[02:15:02]

LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON ITEM 8 THEN. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL

OF DRIMOD 2019-02 ST. JOHNS DRI BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER >> WE'LL GET RESTARTED HERE.

[9. Transmittal Hearing for COMPAMD 2018-06 a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies to comply Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, and adoption of the St. Johns County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. ]

P. WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 9. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS IS JAN BREWER IS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION.

>> I'M LARRY MILLER WITH UTILITIES. >> AND THIS ITEM IS THE POSSIBLE TRANSMITTAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO MEET CARPET EVER CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES. GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND TO ADOPT THE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN. THIS STARTED IN 2018.

WE STARTED COORDINATING WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE FLORIDA STATUTE REQUIRES THAT OUR WORK PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN, IS WE HAVE BEEN COORDINATING SINCE THEN WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN CREATING THIS.

WE HAVE ALSO BEEN WORNG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY. THEY PUT OUT A GUIDE TO THE PREPARATION OF THESE WORK PLANS. WITHIN THAT GUIDE T HAD AN OUTLINE ON HOW TO MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND IT ALSO HAD POTENTIAL POLICIES THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.

AND ALSO THE COUNTY DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED TO REVIEW ADJACENT COUNTIES TO SEE HOW THEY WERE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. YOU SEE THE COUNTIES UP THERE THAT WE ACTUALLY PULLED THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOOKED TO SEE HOW THEY WERE ADDRESSING THIS.

THEY WERE APPROACHING THIS MUCH LIKE ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS APPROACHING IT BY COORDINATING WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, BY COORDINATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND ALSO BY REVIEWING THEIR OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.

SO WHEN WE REVIEWED OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE FOUND THAT WE HAD A VERY ROBUST PLAN.

WE HAD NUMEROUS EXISTING POLICIES THAT ADDRESSED WATER SUPPLY, REUSE SUPPLY, AND WATER CONSERVATION. BUT ALSO THAT ANALYSIS DETERMINED THAT WE DID NEED TO REVISE SOME EXISTING POLICIES TO FULLY MEET THE FLORIDA STATUTE. WE NEEDED TO ELIMINATE SOME POLICIES NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE THE WORK PLAN. AND WE NEEDED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL POLICIES TO FULL MEET THE STATUT. AND SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING THOOND IT HAD OVER TO LARRY MILLER TO DISCUSS THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT STAFF DRAFTED THE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. IT'S THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT THAT EVALUATES THE PRIMARY POINTS YOU SEE ON THIS SLIDE. THE FIRST POINT THAT THE WORK PLAN ADDRESSES IS ADDRESSING, IDENTIFYING WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND FACILITIES THAT ARE NEEDED THROUGH THE PLANNING PERIOD, WHICH WAS A TEN-YEAR PERIOD GOING FROM 20 AT ANY TIME TO 2030 -- 2020 TO 2030.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS PLAN ADDRESSES. ALSO, THE PLAN KIND OF ENSURES THAT OUR PLANNING EFFORTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN WHICH WAS PREPA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SO WITHIN THE WORK PLAN, WE SUMMARIZED THE VARIOUS PUBLIC SUPPLIERS AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT PROVIDE WATER, SAFE, RELIABLE DRINKING WATER TO THE COUNTY RESIDENTS. IN THAT PLAN WE EVALUATE ESTIMATED POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS AS WELL TO IDENTIFY WATER DEMANDS INTO THE FUTURE. THE OVERALL COUNTY WAS EVALUATED USING THE NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING NUMBERS. BUT WE HAVE DETAILED INFORMATION IN THE WORK PLAN SPECIFIC TO THE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT. AND THAT WAS DERIVED FROM OUR INTEGRATED WATER SUPPLY PLAN

[02:20:02]

ONE KEY ITEM OF THIS WORK PLAN THAT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IS WE ARE UPDATING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR POTABLE WATER TO RECOGNIZE RESIDENTIAL REUSE SERVICE. FOR OUR CUSTOMERS AND RESIDENTS THAT WILL UTILIZE RECLAIMED WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, THERE'S A DRAMATICALLY REDUCED LEVEL HAVE SERVICE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT ON THE POTABLE WATER AND TRADITIONAL WATER SYSTEMS. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH NOTING THIS PRESENTATION.

THE WORK PLAN ALSO SUMMARIZES THE WATER -- THE COUNTY'S WATER CONCENTRATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES. THOSE PRACTICES INCLUDE THE TIERED WATER UTILITY RATES THAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTING FOR YEARS NOW TO ENCOURAGE WATER CONSERVATION.

IT ALSO INCLUDES EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND INFORMATION THAT COULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO RESIDENTS. ALSO INCLUDES LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING IRRIGATION AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS. AND LASTLY, ALSO REQUIRES PUBLIC SUPPLIERS TO LOOK AT WATER LOSS PREVENTION PROGRAMS TO HELP MAXIMIZE THEIR SERVICES OUT TO CUSTOMERS AND WASTE LESS WATER.

THE WORK PLAN ALSO EVALUATES THE WATER -- THE RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLIERS AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY, AND ONE FOCUS, ONE KEY FOCUS, I SHOULD SAY, OF THE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT YIFS, AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THE REPORT, ARE THE RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS THAT THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN ON AND PLANS TO TAKE ON DURING THIS PLANNING PERIOD.

TO DATE, THE COUNTY UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAS SPENT $12 MILLION ON RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE AND PUMPING PROJECTS. LASTLY, GETTING TO THE END OF THE FACILITIES PLAN REPORT, THERE ARE TWO TABLES AT THE END OF THE REPORT THAT SUMMARIZE THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE NEEDED TO GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE IN TEN YEARS TO MAINTAIN SUPPLY.

THE FIRST TABLE, TABLE 13 IN THE REPORT, IS A SUMMARY OF THE WATER SUPPLY AND RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT. THOSE PROJECTS RANGE FROM JUST SIMPLE ADD WELLS, PLANNED EXPANSIONS AND INCLUDES PLANT EXPANSIONS OF THE REUSE SYSTEM AS WELL.

A KEY THING ON THAT TABLE THAT I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE IS OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING AND BUDGETING IS TYPICALLY IN FIVE-YEAR CYCLE, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS PLAN LOOKS AT A TEN-YEAR CYCLE, SO THERE ARE PROJECTS SHOWN ON TABLE 13 THAT GO BEYOND OUR BUDGETARY CYCLE.

SO THERE ARE FUTURE PROJECTS THAT ARE SHOWN THAT WE STILL HAVE TO SECURE FUNDING AND THE TIMING AND SCOPE AND THE ACTUAL PROJECT COULD CHANGE IN FIVE YEARS.

SO THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE LATER TERM OF WHAT'S PRESENTED IN TABLE 13.

TABLE 14 IS A SUMMARY OF THE PROJECTS OF THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT PROVIDED TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AS PART OF A 2019 UPDATE ON THEIR NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN. THESE ARE -- I KIND OF WANT TO EMPHASIZE WTSD NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN, THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, ST. JOHNS COUNTY YOU'LL TEPT DEPARTMENT WAS A KEY STAKEHOLDER IN THAT PROCESS. WE WORKED WITH THE WATT MANAGEMENT STAFF AND OTHER UTILITIES TO DEVELOP PROJECTS FOR THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT UPDATE TO PROVIDE OPTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY GOING INTO THE FUTURE.

IN TABLE 14 WE HIGHLIGHT 29 POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS THAT PROMOTE -- WILL INCREASE REUSE SERVICE, PROMOTE CONSERVATION AND IMMOVE THE EFFICIENCY OF OUR UTILITIES.

12 OF THOSE 29 PROJECTS ARE COMPLETED ALREADY AND HAVE PROVIDED ABOUT 7.8 MILLION GALLONS A DAY OF REGIONAL WATER BENEFIT. NINE OF THE PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY NEW PROJECTS THAT WE PROPOSED IN OUR CURRENTLY EVALUATING STARTING WITH THE 2019 UPDATE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR TODAY. IT IS A VERY DETAILED REPORT.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS EITHER NOW OR AT THE END. I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE DO HAVE A WEB LINK ON OUR UTILITY WEBSITE FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO LOOK AT THE PLAN IN DETAIL AND REACH OUT TO JAN OR I WITH QUESTIONS AFTER THIS MEETING IS OVER.

[02:25:03]

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> OKAY. AND WITH THAT, LET'S RUN THROUGH THE PROPOSEDAO AMENDMENTS TO THE PREVENT PLAN. FIRST WE'RE GOING TO ADD SIX NEW POLICIES. AND IF YOU WILL SEE ON THESE NEXT SLIDES, WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU, THE ITALICIZED TEXT IS TO FLAITS PLACE IN IT CONTEXT, WHY WE ARE ADDING THE CHANGE. SO THE FIRST POLICY THAT'S BEING ADDED IS TO COORDINATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE REGIONAL SUPPLY PLAN. THE SECOND POLICY WE'RE ADD STONG RECOGNIZE TRADITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY. THE THIRD POLICY WE ARE ADDING IS TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN. THE FOURTH POLICY IS TO COORDINATE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN BUT TO ALSO INCORPORATE THOSE PROJECTS THAT LARRY HAD DISCUSSED. THE FIFTH ONE IS TO REVISE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ELEMENT TO ALLOW US TO HAVE A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT.

AND THE LAST ONE THAT WE'RE ADDING IS TO SELECT PROJECTS THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. BUT WE ALSO IDENTIFIED OUR POLICIES THAT WE NEED TO REVISE IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE. MOST OF THESE WERE REVISED IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THE WATER FACILITY SUPPLY PLAN OR THE INTEGRATIVE WATER RESOURCE PLAN.

AS YOU SEE HERE ON THE FIRST REVISED POLICY. AND SOME OF THE OTHER POLICIES WERE REVISED IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT LARRY HAD DESCRIBED.

SO ON THIS SLIDE, THE FIRST AND THIRD POLICIES THERE THAT ARE REVISED, BEEN AGAIN, IT'S JUST TO REFERENCE THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN. THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE IS TO ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PLANNING PROCESS TO MEET EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS. AGAIN, THIS NEXT REVISED POLICY IS JUST TO UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. AND THE NEXT ONE THERE IS TO UPDATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE. THIS APPEARS TO BE A LARGE UPDATE BUT ALL IT IS, IS IT STARTS WITH THE "IN ADDITION" POARGS, AND THAT'S TEXT THAT ACTUALLY HAS TO COME FROM THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. THIS IS FOR OUR CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND IT'S JUST AGAIN. NEXT ONE IS AGAIN TO REFERENCE THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN.

AND THEN TO UPDATE OUR WRAWRT CONSERVATION PLAN -- WATER CONSERVATION PLAN WITH OUR CONSUMPTIVE USE PER PERMITTINO RECOGNIZED THAT THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

THESE LAST TWO POLICIES THAT WE WERE REVISED, WE ARE NOT THE ONLY WATER SUPPLIER HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY SO THAT NEXT POLICY THAT'S REVISED IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT TO -- MAY WANT TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THESE OTHER WATER SUPPLIERS, AND THEN THAT LAST POLICY THERE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO BRING THOSE OTHER WATER SUPPLIERS INTO FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING. WE ARE GOING TO DELETE DUPLICATIVE POLICIES AND OBSOLETE POLICIES. THOSE WERE MADE OBSOLETE WHEN WE DEVELOPED THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN.

AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.

THAT DOES CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION TODAY, AND WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST.

I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME COMMENT CARDS, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE ALL ADDRESS THOSE IF THERE IS

ANYTHING TO ADDRESS, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE BOARD AS WELL. >> SURE.

>> ARCHIE, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> NO.

>> WE DON'T? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS ONLINE?

>> NO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU. I THOUGHT WE HAD A FEW.

THERE'S A PILE OVER THERE. MUST BE FOR THE NEXT ONE. WE ARE BACK THE IN AGENCY FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF THE APPLICANT. LET'S GO THROUGH THE LIST THEN.

MR. MATOVINA. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> NO QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB, AND THE ADDED POILTSDZ ADDED

ADOPTIONS, THEY EXPLAINED THEM REALLY WELL. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS MYSELF.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. FIRST COMMENTS.

YOU COVERED FACILITIES, PROCESS, COST. VERY COMPREHENSIVE.

MY COMPLIMENTS TO YOU BOTH. AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED.

TELL ME THIS. WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS? LET ME SEE.

[02:30:01]

I'M SORRY. 4.5 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER A DAY AND A $76.1 MILLION PRICE TAG. AND I'M SURE I MISSED SOME THINGS.

WHO PAYS. >> SO SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS IT IS BUILT INTO THE, IDEALLY BUILT INTO THE UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE. FOR A LOT OF THE RECLAIMED WATER AND ALTERNATE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS, THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT TRIES TO SECURE GRANT FUNDING. WE ALSO, WHERE WE NEED TO, BOND PROJECTS. BUT ULTIMATELY ALL UTILITY PROJECTS, WE ARE AN ENTERPRISE FUND, SO THEY ARE MALT FUND THROUGH OUR RATES -- ULTIMATELY FUNDED THROUGH OUR RATES.

>> THANK YOU. WHAT IS THE CURRENT D APPROXIMATELY.

I WANT TO SEE HOW MUCH GROWTH, SENSE OF GROWTH. >> SENSE OF GROWTH?

>> WHAT ARE WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS TODAY? HOW MUCH IS THIS NUMBER?

>> SO IN THE REPORT WE TOOK A LOOK AT THAT. >> I'M SORRY YOU SAID THAT.

>> IT'S ALL RIGHT. NO, IT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE. SO RIGHT NOW, JUST LOOKING AT OUR MAIN SYSTEM, DISCOUNTING PONTE VEDRA BECAUSE PONTE VEDRA IS RELATIVE TO BE BUILT OUT.

WE'RE NOT EXPECTING A WHOLE LOT OF SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH THERE. WE ARE EXPECTING BETWEEN NOW AND 2030 TO BE OUR FLOWS TO INCREASE BY ABOUT 5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, 6 MILLION GLINGS GALLO.

THAT TRANSLATE TO A POPULATION INCREASE OF -- WE'RE CURRENTLY RIGHT AT ABOUT, FOR OUR SERVICE EAR AREA ALONE, COUNTYWIDE, THE POPULATION, ESTIMATED POPULATION TODAY IS 253,000, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT AND THE NUMBERS WE HAVE, 2030 WE'RE LOOKING AT 235,000 COUNTYWIDE.

I HAVE SPECIFIC NUMBERS I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO FOR OUR SPECIFIC AREA.

>> ARE YOU GIVING ME A SENSE OF WHAT I AND I'M SURE MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN, HOW

MUCH GROWTH IS THIS AND WHAT DOES IT COST? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ARCHIE. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> I WANT TO APPLAUD THE STAFF ON A GREAT JOB ON UPDATING THIS. I THINK THAT WAS A NICE, VERY THOROUGH JOB. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS.

FIRST ONE IS UNDER EXHIBIT A, IT'S POLICY E.2.1.7, IT SAYS "COUNTY SHALL ESTABLISH A MECHANISM TO PROTECT RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGNATED OFFICIAL AND FLORIDA AQUIFER AREAS." AND THAT WAS STRUCK THROUGH. AND I DIDN'T SIGHT INCLUDED ELSEWHERE, AND I THOUGHT I READ THIS ITEM PRETTY THOROUGHLY. I JUST WONDERED WHY IT WAS SPHRUK STRUCK THROUGH. THAT'S THE FIRST. THEN POLICY G.1.12.17, THIS WAS TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THE LDC TO PROTECT SUCH SURFICIAL AND FLORIDA RECHARGE AREAS, AND THAT WAS ALSO STRUCK THROUGH. I WONDERED WHY THAT WAS ELIMINATED.

AND THEN LASTLY, I WONDERED -- I DIDN'T SEE ANY MAPS IN THE ENTIRE PLAN.

IT'S JUST NOT IN OUR AGENDA ITEM. THERE IS A MAP OF THE JORNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATED SIGNIFICANT SURFICIAL FLORIDA AND AQUIFER AREAS? AND I WONDERED SINCE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BE LIMITED IN SUCH AREAS WEB SO I WONDERED IF THERE'S AN'S TO EASY TO LOOKT SOURCE NOT JUST IN THE WATER REUSE SERVICE SOURCES MAP.

[INDECIPHERABLE] THE COUNTY IN THE NORTH. SO IF YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE

THREE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. OTHERWISE GREAT JOB. >> CERTAINLY.

THIS IS JAN BREWER AGAIN. AND THOSE TWO POLICIES THAT YOU HAD REFERENCED, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER WHOLE POLICY THAT ADDRESSES THE FLORIDA AND AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS.

WE DO HAVE THAT POLICY -- THAT POLICY DOES REQUIRE SPECIAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IN THOSE AREAS. WE DO HAVE THOSE MAPPED IN OUR GIS SYSTEM, SO WE ARE AWARE OF WHERE THOSE LOCATIONS ARE. AND WE APPLY THAT OTHER EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY TO PROTECT THE FLORIDA AVERAGE AQUIFER. THESE WERE NOD FIED BASED PO

[02:35:07]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD MY CONGRATULATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR AN EXCELLENT REPORT THAT YOU GAVE.

JOB WELL DONE. >> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO

ADD? >> I DON'T. >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

VERY GOOD JOB. BACK IN THE AGENCY, THEN, LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

>> TO RECOMMEND TRANSMITTAL OF COMP PLAN 2018-06 A EXPENSIVE PLAN AND CONDITIONS OF STAFF.

[10. LDC Amendments - Article II and XII - Short Term Vacation Rentals. ]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL VOTE REVEAUX A ROLL CALL. MR. MATOVINA.

>> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO. >> YES.

>> MS. PERKINS. >> YES. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS YES.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> YES. >> DR. HILSENECK.

>> YES. >> DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

>> THAT MOTION CARRIES 7-0. UP NEXT, WE'VE GOT JOE TALKING ABOUT SPECIAL PROJECTS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, AGENCY MEMBERS. JOE CEARLEY FOR THE RECORD.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING, JIM. WERE YOU GOING TO SAY SOMETHING?

I APOLOGIZE. >> NO, GO AHEAD, PLEASE. >> SURE.

THIS IS AGENDAS I'M NUMBER OF 10. THIS IS PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OOSSMENTSES TO ARTICLES 2 AND 12 REGULATING SHORT TERM HAVE VACATION REN.

I BELIEVE IT'S FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN IN THIS AGENCY. THIS IS THE SECOND MEETING OF THE A THREE-PART SERIES. FROM HERE IT WILL MOVE ON THE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OR DENIAL. JUST TO PROVIDE A QUICK SUMMARY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF FIELDED NUMEROUS CALLS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF VACATION RENTALS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SINGS THEN WE HAVE HELD SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND SURVEYS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT CONCLUDE A MAJORITY OF PARTICIPANTS WANTED REGULATIONS ON VACATION RENTALS. HERE'S JUST THE LAUNDRY LIST OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. THERE'S ANOTHER MEETING TO ADD TO THAT WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ON MAY 1ST OF 2020. AS THE YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE SEVERAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS AND SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL. TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY THAT WAS PASSED BACK IN 2011, I BELIEVE, FLORIDA STA CUTE 509032 ALLOWS A JURISDICTION TOO REGULATE HAVE A CAKES REBLGHTS SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T PREINHIBIT THE DURATION OR DISPRAIKS FREQUENCY OF THE RENTAL.

IT DOES ALLOW NUMBER OF CARS, OCCUPANTS AND SO FORTH. STAFF HAD PUT TOGETHER SOME REGULATIONS THAT WOULD REGULATE THOSE AND MITIGATE THOSE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, WHAT THIS APPLIES TO IS ALL PROPERTIES EAST OF THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY. THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED. PROPERTIES WEST OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MULTIPLE FAMILY AND PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATIONS, OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS AND OWNER OCCUPIED COMPLEX ES. WHAT THIS DOES WILL REQUIRE AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS AND CAN'T INSPECTION.

SOME JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE THE INSPECTIONS. SOME DO NOT.

THIS HAS BEEN UP FOR DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD SEVERAL TIMES. AND WE'RE STILL SEEKING DIRECTION FROM THEM. SO SOME OF THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS VERY SIMPLE.

IT'S A SITE PLAN, BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES, AND JUST THE CHANGING ESTABLISH AM LICENSING. AT THAT POINT STAFF WILL REVIEW, A CERTIFICATE WOULD BE ISSUED, AND A NEW APPLICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OR NUMBER OF ROOMS OR NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY.

THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE DISPLAYED ON THE INSIDE. SO THE OCCUPANCY STANDARDS STAFF HAS COME UP WITH IS TWO PERSONS PER SLEEPING ROOM WHICH IS DEFINED, WE HAVE DEFINED IN ARTICLE 12 OF YOUR ON THE OTHER HAND AND TWO ADDITIONAL OCCUPANTS PER COMMON ROOM WHICHH GOES ALSO DEFINED IN ARTICLE 12 OR PROPOSED TO BE WITH A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF 16S PERSONS.

WE ALSO REGULATE PARKING, NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING WITH ONE PARKING SPACE PER THREE OCCUPANTS. AND ALSO WE LOOK AT SOLID WASTE. IT ESTABLISHES A 24-HOUR TIME

[02:40:04]

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME REVISIONS TO THIS. AND THERE'S ALSO A CUSHION OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS. SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS DISAGREED WITH THE MAXIMUM COUNT OF 16.

SOME SUGGESTED 12. WE NEVER REALLY SOUGHT DIRECTION ON WHAT NUMBER TO GO WITH.

THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ON THE VESTING CLAUSES AND PHASE THAN OUT.

AND THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON A CERTIFICATE, THE REQUEST HAD TO BE PLACED INSIDE INSTEAD OF OUTSIDE OF SO MANY VACATION RENTAL PROPERTY MANAGERS WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH KEEPING THEIR INFORMATION ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME. AND THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION TO OMIT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE OWNER/MANAGER TO RESIDE IN THE JC, AND THAT'S CURRENTLY REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE. YOU.

INFORMANT SJC. SYMPTOM THINGS TO CONSIDER WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE LAST BOARD MEETING IS USING THE THIRD PARTY APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION INTALK AND WE'VE BEEN NETWORKING WITH, SPEAKING WITH HOST COMPLIANCE AND WE'VE FOUND SEVERAL OTHER STWAIR VENDORS THAT WOULD DO THE MAJORITY OF THE STAFF'S WORK SUCH AS APPLICATION INTAKE AND A LOT OF THE REVIEW AND ACTUALLY DOING THE RESEARCH TO FIND THESE SHORT TERM VACATION REGENTS AND HAVE THEM COME IN FOR REGISTRATION. LIKE I JUST MECHS MENTIONED WITH THE FEE AMOUNT WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT TRYING TO FIGURE ON IT. THAT.

THAT WILL BE DONE SPHRALT. AND ADDITIONALLY THE INSPECTIONS AND THE IMPACTS ON STAFF AND REVIEW TIME AND WHETHER SWHIED BE PROACTIVE OR REAIVELGT AND DO THE ANNUAL -- REACTIVE AND DO THE ANNUAL INSPECTIONS. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M SURE THERE'S QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. I'M SURE THERE'S QUESTIONS AND

PHONE CALLS FROM THE EJ GENERAL PUBLIC. >> RIGHT.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A FEW. >> MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT JUST ADD ADDITIONAL TO JOE'S PRESENTATION, ON A COUPLE OF THE TOPICS, JOE JUST CLOSED UP BY MENTIONING SOME OUTSIDE VENDORS.

HE MENTIONED WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH HOST COMPLIANCE WHO CURRENTLY HAS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TAX COLLECTOR TO IDENTIFY SHORT THERM RENTALS FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTION OF THE BED TAX. WE DON'T HAVE AM AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

WE MAY NEED TO PUT THAT OUT FOR BID. BUT WE HAVE FACTORED INTO IN TERMS OF THE FEES AND THE COST TOFT COUNTY, WHETHER THAT MIGHT REDUCE -- COST TO THE COUNTY WHETHER THAT MIGHT REDUCE ENFORCEMENT COSTS IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE COUNTY WOULD NEED TO HIRE ANY NEW FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES TO ACCEPT AND REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND TO TRACK DOWN WHETHER THERE ARE NON-N==COMPLIANT VACATION RENTALS, SO THAT MAY BE ONE AREA WHERE THE COUNTY CAN RECOGNIZE SOME SAVINGS AND REDUCE THE REGISTRATION FEES, BUT I MORE WANTED TO REFERENCE THE VESTING PROVISIONS THAT ARE FOUND TOWARDS THE END OF THIS DRAFT.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF MORE OR LESS AUTOMATIC VESTINGS REFERENCED HERE.

ONE ADDRESSES EXISTING RENTAL AGREEMENTS. IN ORDER FOR THIS ON THE OTHER HAND TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEED HAD I BEEN EXTROHAD I BEENITIONS ON F EXTRA WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT RENTAL AGREEMENTS THAT EXIST FRIERT DATE OF THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VESTED SO THAT IF A SHORT-TERM RENT IS IN EXISTENCE, THAT IS A CONTRACT FOR SOMEONE TO VISIT AND TO RENT IT UNTIL THE FUTURE BUT THE CONTRACT ALREADY EXISTS, THEY

[02:45:05]

AS JOE INDICATED, THAT IS TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMEONE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, SAY THEY BUILT A LARGE FACILITY THAT MEETS ALL THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DO SO, AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE 18 OCCUPANTS OR 20 OCCUPANTS.

THEY MAY SEEK TO ASSERT A CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY UNDER WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE BIRD J. HARRIS ACT AND SAY, WELL, I HAVE CERTAIN INVESTMENT EXPECTATIONS, I SPENT, YOU KNOW, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MAYBE OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THAT, AND THE COUNTY HAS NOW IMPAIRED THAT, AND THAT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN THEORETICAL. FLAGLER COUNTY DID GO THROUGH SO MANY LITIGATION RELATING TO THEIR VACATION RENTALS. THEY, AS A RESULT OF THAT, DID EXTEND SOME OF THE PHASING RATHER THAN JUST SAYING, IF YOU ARE IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, YOU'RE FINE. AS TO THE OCCUPANCY AND PARKING, THEY INSTEAD, AS JOE INDICATED, PHASED IT IN. I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT LET'S SAY UNTIL 2022 YOU COULD HAVE 16, AND THEN IN 2024 YOU COULD HAVE 14, AND THEN 2026 YOU COULD HAVE 12, AND THEN THAT'S IT IN ORDER TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE TIME TO RECOGNIZE THOSE INVESTMENTS. RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS DRAFTED TO NOT HAVE A PHASING BUT JUST INSTEAD IF YOU HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE DATE OF ORDINANCE, YOU WOULD BE VETTED AS TO OCCUPANCY AND PARKING ONLY. VESTED AS TO OCCUPANCY AND PARKING ONLY. STAFF AND BCC WOULD BE INTERESTED IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY THAT'S IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND TO THE EXTENT THERE WAS ANY CONFUSION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> OKAY. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, JOE, IS CALL UP THE PUBLIC AND THEN SORT OF EXPEDITE THAT AND THEN GO THROUGH AND MAYBE GET DIALED DOWN INTO THE WEEDS HERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS? >> YES.

WE HAVE SEVEN. I'LL CALL YOUR NAME AND THE ORDER I HAVE RECEIVED THIS.

THE CHAIR HAS ASKED TO BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

AND THEN MOVE ON THROUGH THIS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT LOTS OF CARDS. DAVID GOLDBERG.

WOULD YOU COME FORWARD AND GIVE ME YOUR NAME AGAIN AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE THREE

MINUTES. >> HERE'S THE ISSUES. YOU BASICALLY WORK ALL YOUR LIFE.

YOU SAVE YOUR MONEY. YOU RETIRE FROM YOUR JOB. YOU MOVE TO YOUR DREAM HOME TO A DESIRED RESIDENTIAL AREA. THEN YOU FIND, ASY WOO DID TEN YEARS LATER, THAT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS SOLD, IT'S REVAMPED FOR INDIVIDUALS LOOKING TO MAKE A BUCK.

THE HOUSE IS NOW A MINI HOTELN==. IT RUINS YOUR DREAMS. IT RUINS YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS PLEASE HELP US.

LIMIT OCCUPANCY, NOT TO 16 PEOPLE. THERE'S NOBODY IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR 16 PEOPLE. LIMIT THE NOISE. IT WAS UP THERE, THE ORDINANCE TWHNT 15-19, IT SAYS IN IT SPECIFICALLY ANY TIME. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT THE WEEKEND AND AT THE EVENINGS. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT A CENTRALLY ALL FOUR CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT WILL SAYS "ANY TIME WHEN YOU HAVE RADIOS AND TELEVISION AND LOUD

[02:50:01]

THE PLITS LEAVE. AND IT DID THE POLICE LEAVE AND IT STARTS AGAIN.

THIS IS AFTER TEN YEARS OF LIVING IN A QUIET AREA. SO I'M SAYING ENFORCE YOUR RULES. WE'VE HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT. I'VE SENT PICTURES.

WE HAVE WRITTEN THEM. WE HAVE EMAILED. WE PHONED.

WE CALLED. THERE'S AN POL GYP. EVENTUALLY THE PERSON IS CITED.

BUT AGAIN IT'S VERY DIFFICULT WHEN THEY'RE NOT AROUND ON EXPWRKSDZ THE ACTIVITIES, MOST OF THEM OCCUR FROM THURSDAY TO SUNDAY AND YOU CAN'T GET PEACE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

PLEASE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY YOUR LIFE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOT LIVE NEXT TO THESE

MINI HOTELS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

NEXT SPEAKER, BARBARA GOLDBERG. MA'AM, JUST REPEAT YOUR ADDRESS FOR US.

>> BARBARA GOLDBERG, 6010A1A SOUTH, ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THE BEACH IS HAVING A HARD TIME REGULATING THE HOME RENTALS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. LOUD WEDDING, PARTY VENUES, DRUNKENNESS, AND LOUD AND BOISTEROUS BEHAVIOR ARE AN OH CIRNTION THAT MANY CNSZ WENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER MEETING ABOUT. WE WISH A DISTRICT SPHRICT LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF RENTERS THAT CAN OCCUPY ONE HOME. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY HOME THAT HAS 16 PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE 12, BUT THEY DID NOT COME TO A CONSENSUS. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT DO AWAY WITH THE RENTALS, BUT 12 WOULD BE A MORE REASONABLE EXTRA MICE. THESE COMPROMISE.

THESE HOMES ARE SUBDIVIDE IF YOU GO ON AIRBNB AND ESPECIALLY BRBO AND LOOK AT THEIR PICTURES, YOU THEY HAVE PUT IN DOUBLE BUNK BEDS, THEY HAVE NO CLAUSES AND THEY ARE CALLING THEM BEDROOMS AND UPWARDS OF 20 PEOPLE, HAVE TAINT BACK TO 14, ET CETERA. THEY NEED TO BE INSPECTED WITH STRIECT GUIDELINES AS TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT CAN OCCUPY THE HOME.

THERE NEEDS TO BE INFORMATION ONLINE SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING HOAMTION ARE ALLOWED TO RENT TO BECAUSE 12 OR 14 BECOMES 40 TO 50 WITHIN A MOMENT'S TIME WITH DJS, RENTAL TRUCKS, RENTAL TENTS, FABLES AND CHAIRS OUT ON THE DRIVEWAY AND AT THE POOL.

COCKTAIL SERVICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE WANT NOISE AT THESE HOMES RESTRICTED UTILITIES FOUR CORNERS.

WE WANT ONGOING ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT SLIP BY TO A DELAYED BASIS.

WE WOULD LIKE CODE ENFORCEMENT ADDED ON WEEKEND WHEN THIS OCCURS.

WE HAD A WEDDING THAT STARTED WITH THE SETUP ON FRIDAY, CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT, DID NOT GET A CALL BACK UNTIL THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY. HAD PICTURES OF THE TENTS, ALL THE RENTAL TRUCKS, ALL THE CHAIRS. THE DEEJAY AND EVERYTHING ELSED WERE COLD, WE'RE SORRY. PLEASE TEP US. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU LOWER THE AMORTIPEOPLE ALLOWED PER PROPERTY TO THE 12 THAT WAS SUGGESTED.

WE ADD CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ON WEEKENDS. INSPECT THE PROPERTIES AND TAKE OUT HOW THE ROOMENTS ARE CONFIGURED. AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING WOULD BE BROWSE ONLINE THE ADS FROM EITHER BRBO OSH AIRBNB AND AIRBNB IS TRYING

TO LIMIT THEIR PARTIES AND THEIR EVENTS. >> YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS, MA'AM.

>> ONE EXAMPLE IS THERE'S A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOME FOR 14 PEOPLE DIEDZ TO BRBO.

LARGER HOMES ARE BEING ADVERTISED FOR 20-PLUS. THIS IS NOT TO GO ON IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE NOTHING MORE THAN MINI HOTELS, AND WE HAVE HOTELS IN

THIS COUNTY AND CITY THAT SERVE OUR GUESTS. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

MR. MEL LONGO. SIR, IF YOU WILL GIVE YOURS NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS WHEN YOU ARRIVE

TWHRB YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MEL LONGO, 620, 21ST STREET NORTH BEACH. I AGREE. I LIVE ON A BLOCK THAT THEY'RE TEARING DOWN THE HOMES, THEY'RE BUILDING THESE BRBO, AIRBNB HOMES.

THERE WILL BE 14 HOMES ON THE BLOCK I LIVE ON. ONLY FIVE OF US ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS. WE'LL HAVE NINE BRBOS. THEY'RE PUTTING ROOMS IN JUST LIKE THEY SAID, BUNK ROOMS. IF YOU ONLY HAVE 16, THAT'S A POTENTIAL OF 144 PEOPLE CRAMMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SOUNDS LIKE A SPREADER EVENT TO ME.

[02:55:03]

THEY STEAL STUFF. IT'S A MESS. WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOME 22 YEARS AGO WAS IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU COULDN'T BUILD A HOTEL NEXT TO ME. THOSE ARE NOTHING BUT HOTELS. THE STATE LEGISLATION HAS THROWN OUR ZONING OUT THE WINDOW COMPLETELY. THIS IS NOT RESIDENTIAL USE OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND WE NEED COME DOWN AS HARD AS WE CAN BECAUSE THE STATE WON'T LET YOU REALLY HAVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING ANYMORE. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND SHE'S RIGHT, THERE'S NOT A HOUSE ANYWHERE THAT'S GOT 16 PEOPLE LIVING IN IT ON A FULL-TIME BASIS. AND I RENT A HOUSE OVER ON SURFSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD. I RENT IT OUT ANNUALLY. AND IT'S NEXT DOOR TO MY SISTER.

SHE'D KILL ME IF I TURNED IT INTO AN AIRBNB. BUT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, AND YOU GUYS AIR PART OF THE SOLUTION. MAYBE CHANGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS A REAL SOLUTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE THROWN US UNDER THE BUS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHARLES DELONEY.

>> IMUS CHARLES DE LEONE. I LIVE AT 3550 ATLANTIC VIEW. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH JOE AND HIS TEAM FOR WELL OVER TWO YEARS ON THIS. AND IT'S A DELIGHT THAT IN THE BEGINNING WE WERE HAVING ARGUMENTS AND ROOMS SUCH AS THIS WITH NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO TO NOW WE'RE ONLY ARGUING AS I I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABOUT HEADS AND BEDS.

NOW THE ONE THING THAT YOU'VE BEEN HEARING HERE IS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS, IS THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A CLOSET, PUT BUNK BEDS IN ON BOTH SIDES AND CALL IT BEDROOM AND PUT FOUR PEOPLE IN IT. THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE DRAFTED AND CRAFTED AND JOE'S BEEN REALLY GOOD ABOUT THIS, REMEMBER, THIS COUNTY IS GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO NOT GET EXPOSED TO A LEGAL CASE, SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE TRACKED OUR ORDINANCE CAREFULLY AFTER FLAGLER AND AFTER OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SAFE AND SECURE, AND WE ARE. AND WHAT FLAGLER HAS DONE, AS THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE HERE A MOMENT AGO, THEY VETTED INITIAL AT THE NUMBER OF HEADS THAT WERE ALLOWED IN ANY PARTICULAR HOUSE AND THEN THEY TOOK IT DOWN TWO HEADS EVERY YEAR UNTIL FEBRUARY 28 OF THIS YEAR, ALMOST A MONTH FROM NOW, FLAGLER WILL BE AT TEN HEADS TO A RENTAL UNIT. WE'RE STARTING OUT AT 16.

I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU WE'RE A LITTLE ANXIOUS ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS ALL THE PARTY HEARD PEOPLE SAY WE CAN'T TO GO FLAGLER BUT WE CAN SURE TO GO ST. JOHNS AND SO WE GET OUR UNFAIR SHARE OF THE DRUNKS AND THEIR PARTIES.

YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY NEVER HAD THE JOY OF WAKING UP AND FINDING THAT THE SIGMA THANK YOU FRATERNITY IN GAINESVILLE WAS REFERENTING THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO YOU.

IT'S HAPPENED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH FOR YOU TO DO IS THE FIRST UNDERSTAND IS APPRECIATE THAT THE COUNTY HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF DRAFTING THIS THING. WE ARE 99.9% ASSURED THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUSHED AROUND IN THE COURTS AT ALL. BUT WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE ISSUE ON VESTING AND WHERE DO WE START? Y WE GOING TO PENALIZE OURSELVES BECAUSE WE'RE STARTING BEHIND OTHER COUNTIES THAT HAVE ORDINANCES BEFORE US BY ALLOWING 16 OR DO WE JUST JUMP RIGHT IN THERE AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO BE LIKE FLAGLER AND START AT TEN? THAT'S A DECISION THAT'S FAR BROOF OUR PAY GRADE. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW, IS TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, GRAGG LER LIGHT IS WHAT WE CALL IT.

IT'S A DAMN GOOD JOB THEY'VE DWIEWN. IT TOOK AS A LONG TIME TO GET THERE BUT WE'RE DELIGHTED WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT. WE APPLAUD THE EFERS OF JOE AND HIS TEAM, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT AS NEIGHBORS. WE'RE ALL NEIGHBORS IN THIS

THING. THANK YOU GUYS. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

LESLIE SHAPIRO. MA'AM, GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS BEHALF.

MY NAME IS LESLIE SHAPIRO 4942 ATLANTIC VIEW. THE OTHER END OF THE STREET FROM MR. FELINI. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME TALKING TO YOU GUYS, AND I FEEL LIKE THE BOARD OF COMMISIONERS KNOW THAT I LIVE ONE HOUSE AWAY FROM A 24-PERSON RENTAL.

WHEN I MOVED INTO MY HOUSE IN ATLANTIC VIEW, IT WAS A QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE IN SIX YEARS, IT HAS BECOME THE PLACE FOR GROUND ZERO BASICALLY OF THE RENTAL PROBLEMS. WE HAVE MASSIVE ISSUES. ON SATURDAYS WHEN EVERYBODY'S

[03:00:04]

SO OCCUPANCY IS OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN. I THINK WE'VE MADE HUGE ITS SURPRISED IN GETTING IT TO 16. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE 12 OR TEN. THAT WOULD BE FABULOUS.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN, THOUGH, IS THE VESTING ISSUE, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE VESTING CLAUSE.

I UNDERSTAND WE'RE AFRAID OF BEING SUED. THE BIRCH GEORGIA HAIRTSZ TO PREVENT A PROPERTY OWNER THERE BEING IN ORDER NANLT OR UNFAIRLY BURDENED.

I DON'T SEE HOW A HOUSE THAT'S RENTING FOR 16 PEOPLE IN ORDER NANLT BURDENED VERSUS ONE THAT CAN RENT IT TO 22. NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES RENT PER PERSON.

IF IT'S A LUXURY HOUSE, SOMEBODY SPENT MILLIONS TO BUILD, THEY CAN STILL CHARGE THEIR $2,000 A NIGHT IF THEY HAVE 12 PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO 22 PEOPLE. WHAT THAT DOES IS ALLOWS SOMEBODY TO LOOK OUT FOR THE INORDINATE AND UNFAIR BURDEN ON ME, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN MY PROPERTY. SOMEBODY ZONING, PLANNING, THE COUNTY, HAS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF US. WE HAVE THE PARTIES GOING ON, THE WEDDINGS.

WE HAD A PARTY THAT THEY HAD A METAL DETECTOR AT THE DOOR TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM HAVING GUNS GOING INTO THE HOUSE AND THEY DID NOTHING TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF ON OUR STREET FROM CARRYING OAT PARTIES ON OUR STREET. SO WE IMPLORE TO YOU LOOK AT THAT VESTING, CONSIDER WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL.

AIRBNB RIGHT NOW IS LIMITING THEIR OWN RENTALS TO 16. AIRBNB IS NOT GOING TO COME AFTER ST. JOHNS COUNTY BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE NO INTEREST IN PRESENTING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, 22 PEOPLE. AND A LITTLE THING, THEY'RE RENTING FOR 22 PEOPLE BUT THEY ALLOW 24 WHEN YOU CONSIDER CHILDREN. SO PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CONSIDER

THE CHILDREN. >> MA'AM, YOU HAVE 3RD SECONDS.

>> I THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH. I JUST IMPLORE TO YOU LOOK OUT FOR OUR RIGHTS.

WE KEEP SAYING WE LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. PLEASE HELP US KEEP IT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND NOT A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE BUSINESS ANYMORE.

THANK YOU. >> NEXT SPEAKER, MR. TOM GIBBS. MR. GIBBS, YOU'RE TIRED OF HEARING ME SAY IT. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THAT'S FINE.

GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> U YA NAMES TOM GIBBS.

LEAVE IT 1551 MASTER DRIVE WHICH IS OAT WEST SIDE OF THE INTERCOASTAL.

SO THE RESTRICTIONS AND SO ON DON'T AFFECT ME AS MUCH. I LIVE ON A PROPERTY, AND I HAVE TWO AIRBNB INCOME SITUATIONS ON MY PROPERTY WITH ROOMS. BUT MY CONCERN PRIMARILY, AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INSPECTIONS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEES, AND YET ST. JOHNS COUNTY ASKS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PAY THE 4% OR AT LEAST CHARGE THE PERSON WHEN THEY COME TO THE DOOR FOR THE BED TAX, WHEREAS A LOT OF COUNTIES IN FLORIDA ARE HAVING AIRBNB COLLECT THE 4%. MY QUESTION IS ARE THERE -- ORER BED TAX, WHATEVER IT IS.

MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE NOT GETTING THE REVENUE COLLECTED FROM AIRBNB WHICH WOULD DRAMATICALLY, I THINK, CHANGE YOUR REVENUE SITUATION. BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT PAYING THE 4%. I KNOW THAT. AND THIS WOULD HELP YOU TO COLLECT MONEY FOR FEES AND IT WOULD ALSO HELP ME BECAUSE I GOT TO GO ASK THE GUY THEN FOR 4% ON A $75 A NIGHT STAY SO HE'S GOT GIVE ME ANOTHER $2.95. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WHEN WE CAN HAVE THAT SETUP, AND I DID CHECK WITH AIRBNB AND THEY SAID IT'S BECAUSE ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND I THINK IT'S CHANGED, HAS TWO SEPARATE BED TAXES.

IS THAT CORRECT? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? >> WE'LL LET THE COUNTY ANSWER

ALL OF THAT ONCE ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE OVER. >> THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M BRINGING UP, IS I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO TO, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, BUT THERE'S A REVENUE SITUATION HERE THAT I THINK THE COUNTY SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT THEY COULD REALLY

INCREASE. I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TALK TO. >> THANK YOU.

[03:05:06]

AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> KETOBURNS. ADDRESS IS 6057 EAST SEA COVE AVENUE. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF SAVMENTO AND IS SOUTH ANASTASIA COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION. WE ARE A GROUP OF 300 MEMBERS OR SO, MOST OF US RESIDENTS ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF ANASTASIA ISLAND. WE'VE BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. AND OUR FOUNDING PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE SOUTHERN PART ANASTASIA ISLAND. SO THE ATLANTIC VIEW AND THE ANASTASIA HULLS AREA IS ONE OF THOSE REAL HOT TOPICS WHERE YOU HAVE THE CHARACTER OF THESE OLD BEACH NEIGHBORHOODS CHANGING WHEN YOU HAD EVERYBODY BEING RESIDENTIAL AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S FEELING COMMERCIAL.

I THINK ALL THE COMMENTS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL IS THE KEY WORD HERE.

IF YOU BUILT A TEN BEDROOM HOTEL THAT WAS RENTED NIGHTLY, YOU'D HAVE TO SHOW PARKING BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU CAN DO IT IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE ZONING IS ONE OF THE INTERESTING PARTS OF THIS BECAUSE IF YOU TOLD SOMEONE YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT, THEY SAY IT MUST BE COMMERCIAL WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT IT'S NOT. SO WE FEEL, OUR BOARD UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT A RENTAL ORDINANCE, AND THESE ARE PRETTY CONSERVATIVE ORDNANCES WHEN YOU COMPARE TO THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE OR ST. AUGUSTINE BEECH WHICH WERE GRANDFATHERED IN PROHIBITING RENTALS BECAUSE IT WAS PRIOR TO THE LERTLE IN 2011.

THIS IS PRETTY CONSERVATIVE RELATIVE TO ALL OF OUR AREAS AROUND US.

TWO OF THE THE BIGGEST CONCERNS WE HAVE ARE THE VESTING LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ANY RENTAL ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE ARE EXEMPT FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND FROM MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY.

A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO BUILT OUT. THEY'RE BUILT OUT WITH THESE GIANT MINI MOTELS, AS EVERYBODY SAYS, AND THAT LANGUAGE REALLY UNDERMINES ALL OF THE COMMUNITY'S EFFORT TO HELP WHAT THEY ARE LIVING NEXT TO NOW. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING NEXT TO THESE BIG THINGS, IT IS WOULD HAVE ZERO EFFECT ON THEIR YAWFLT QUALITY OF LIFE IF THE ESTABLISHED VACATION WRENLTS INDEED EXEMPT FROM THOSE BIG THINGS, PARKING AND OCCUPANCY IS REALLY THE NUMBER ONE THING GOING ON HERE, AND IF THEY'RE EXEMPT FLAT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT REALLY GUTS THIS ORDINANCE FROM WHAT IT MEANS. SO THE FLAGLER IDEA OF VESTING, PERIOD, A PHASE-OUT WHERE YOU'RE STARTING AT 16 FOR THE FIRST YEAR, THEN WORKING DOWN, WE BELIEVE THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THOSE ARE OUR BIGGEST TWO TERMS. WE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL THIS ORDINANCE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUT THAT YOU MODIFY IT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PHASE-OUT PERIOD FOR THE VESTING AND YOU HAVE A LOWER MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OR AT LEAST THE GOAL IS TO GET TO A LOWER MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SPOKEN WALL THESE WORKSHOPS AND THE OVERWHELMIN MAJORITY FEELING THAT THIS IS A NEED FOR US.

SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR HEARING THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS IN THE ROOM? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO ONLINE. I CAN SEE ONE.

HELLO THERE. >> HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. JAMES FOYE AT FLORIDA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION 200 EAST ROBINSON STREET, ORLANDO, FLORIDA. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO REGULATE SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IS SOMEWHAT BROAD IN SCOPE. SPECIFICALLY, THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES. BASED ON THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK I'VE HEARD, TISSUE OF SHORT TERM HAVE VACATION REMGHTS LADIES AND GENTLEMEN RELATES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN TRADITIONALLY QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREAS. HOWEVER WITNESS AS THE PROPOSED CHANGES STAND, APARTMENT COMMUNITIES OUTSIDE AN ASSOCIATION WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO COOLINGS OVERSIGHT BY THE COUNTY. SEEING HOW APARTMENT COMIEWSHTS NOT THE INTENDS TARGET OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, IT SEEMS ONLY FAIR TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR THESE PROPERTIES. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE REGULATION OF THE APARTMENT COMMUNITY LARGELY PREEMPTED UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTE. TO BE MORE SPECIFIC COMPARTMENT COMMUNITIES ARE LICENSED AND AFFECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, AND WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT FROM ST. JOHNS COUNTY APPEARS TO BE REDUNDANT. SO TO BE CLEAR, I SUPPORT THE DECISION OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY TO PRESERVE THE ORDER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND CLARIFY RENTAL PRACTICES.

THE PUBLIC COMMENTS I'VE HEARD TODAY AND FROM PREVIOUS SESSIONS ABSOLUTELY MERIT ACTION.

HOWEVER, I ASK THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CONSIDER LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THESE CHANGES HAD TO A PUGHTD AN UNDUE BURDEN ON LOCAL APARTMENT COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU, AND THAT'S THE END OF

MY COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE? >> NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. JOE AND MICHAEL, WE'VE GOT THE BIG GUNS HERE NOW.

>> MIKE ROBERTSON, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I THINK THE GENTLEMAN HAS LEFT BUT HE POSED A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD ENGAGE IN CHARGING A FEE TO SOME OF THOSE

[03:10:04]

SO I THINK TO THAT'S WHAT YOU TYPICALLY TO DO. YOU GO TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THAT'S A STANDARD CODE ENFORCEMENT THING WHB WHEN YOU NEED SOMETHING DONE, AND WE THINK THE FEE THAT'S ROW. IMRATD, AND WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR THE FEE TO GO AS HIGH AS WHAT IT COSTS TO ENFORCE THIS PROGRAM. AGAIN, WE'RE THE NOTZ TRYING TO MAKE MONEY BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT A BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYER EITHER.

>> A QUESTION THEN. THAT'S LIKE THE INSPECTION FEE OR AN ANNUAL FEE, WHATEVER.

WHAT ABOUT THE 4% BED TAX WHERE UNLESS THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT FORTH THAT HOMEOWNER TO BE

HONEST, DISHONEST PEOPLE COULD BE GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING. >> I CAN'T TALK TO THE

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE AND THE BED TAX AND WHAT THEY CHARGE. >> MR. CHAIR, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE BED TAX, EITHER, BUILT KNOW THAT THE TAX COLLECTOR DOES HAVE THAT VENDOR HOST COMPLIANCE THAT I MENTIONED THAT SCOURS THE INTERNET, INCLUDING VRBO AND AIRBNB FOR LISTINGS TO COLLECT THAT BED TAX AND IDENTIFY THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE TAX COLLECTOR SO THAT THAT CAN BE COLLECTED.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN, IS REFERRING TO IN TERMS OF TWO BED TAXES BEING THE REASON FOR NOT COLLECTING THAT DIRECTLY FROM AIRBNB. I KNOW THAT SOME COUNTIES HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH AIRBNB. WE DO NOT. SO THAT MAY BE THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE. BUT I GUESS -- I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION,

MR. CHAIR. >> WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT IT, I'M SURE.

JOE, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS WHATEVER CAME UP WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE PUBLIC

SPEAKERS? >> REGARDING THE TAX? THE COUNT OF PEOPLE, BED TAX,

PARKING SPACES, BEDROOM SIZE. >> I THINK HE SAID IT BEST. THE TAX COLLECTOR IS A SEPARATE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER THAT THEY'RE UTILIZING CODE COMPLIANCE.

WHAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED FOR OUR PROJECT IS TO GO OUT THERE RESEARCH, FIND THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T PAYING THEIR BED TAXES AND BE ABLE TO AMEND. I'M NOT SURE THAT A THIRD PARTIED CAN BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT EITHER. IT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE

TAX COLLECTOR I HAVE. >> HIS NAME AND NUMBER SO MAYBE I'LL L. I'LL RACHAEL OUT TO HIM.

IF HE'S LIKING ANSWERS, I CAN SEND HIM TO THE TAX COLLECTOR AND BREAK DOWN BETTER HOW THAT

WORKS. >> I DON'T WANT TO HOG ALL OF US, BUT -- SO MAYBE I'M DIALING DOWN TOO MUCH, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME UNSCRUPULOUS HOMEOWNERS WHO DON'T VOLUNTARILY PAY THE BED TAX, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO ONE OF THESE WEBSITES THAT PUSHES PEOPLE INTO THE HOUSES, MAYBE THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. FROM A LEGAL STAND POINTED, YOU ALL WORKED OUT THE DETAILS THERE BUT SOMEHOW YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP PEOPLE HONEST

ESSENTIALLY. >> CORRECT. >> SO THERE WERE SOME -- THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PHASING AND NUMBER OF OKAY PANTIES.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT -- OCCUPANTS. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT VESTING PROVISION WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T PHASE OUTED. IT PHASE DOESN'T PHASE ANYTHING.

IT VESTS THEM INDEFINITELY. IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO PITCH TO THIS AGENCY AND THE BOARDS MEMBERS THAT, HEY, WE WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW SIMILAR STRUCTURE WHERE WE PHASE OUT.

IN REGARDS TO THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, A FEW OF THE COMMISSIONERS SHOWED INTEREST IN REDUCING THAT NUMBER. IT'S BEEN A BIG CONCERN, STILL IS. OBVIOUSLY, WE LOOK FOR THAT RECOMMENDING FROM YOU IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THIS AGENCY. SO MOSTLY THE VESTING AND THE OCCUPANCY WAS THE MAJOR ISSUES.

VOICED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC HERE TODAY. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SEVEN DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON HOW TO GET TO THIS THING. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR EACH OF

US TO GO THROUGH AND SAY THIS IS MY TWO CENTS? >> ABSOLUTELY.

ALL GOING TO COME TO ANK WE'RE- AGREEMENT AND SAY, 12 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER OR WHATEVER.

BUT I THINK YOU ALL -- IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AT GETTING TO THE DETAILS, AND IF YOU WANT OUR OPINIONS, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE CAN REALLY OFFER.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST HERE.

AND AGAIN, IT MAY BE BED TAX, PHASING, NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS . MAYBE THAT'S BASED ON BEDROOMS,

[03:15:05]

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR -- >> THIS IS AN EASY ONE, RIGHT?

>> HOLD ON, GREG. >> I APOLOGIZE. BUT IF WE COULD ALSO ADD AS A TOPIC FOR ANY DIRECTION OR ADVICE FROM THE AGENCY WOULD BE RIGHT NOW WE ALSO HAVE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT AND AN ANNUAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENT, SO THERE'S AN INITIAL INSPECTION THAT WOULD BE DONE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT FOLLOWED BY AN ANNUAL INSPECTION, JUST ANY ADVICE FROM THE BOARD OR THE AGENCY IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN

THE FINAL ORDINANCE AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> FIRST OFF, THE LAST TWO SUMMERS I HAVE RENTED A HOUSE LIKE THIS FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. ONE OF THEM WAS IN DESTINE. AND SO I RECOGNIZED THE ISSUE BECAUSE THERE WERE PEOPLE LIVING THERE LIKE YA'LL WHO ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS, AND THERE WAS US AND OTHER HOUSES LIKE THAT. AND SO I RECOGNIZES THE ISSUE WITH IT. AND IT IS A CHALLENGE. AND I ALSO RECOGNIZE, JOE, THAT YOU ALL HAVE SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH. SO I'M GOING TO REALLY NOT DELVE INTO ISSUE OF PHASE, AND SOME OF THESE OTHERRISHES, PER SE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN BEAT UP PRETTY BAD. WE KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL WRIRMT SUSPECT I WILL TALK ABOUT INSPECTIONS FOR A SECOND. BUT THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS IF YOU ASKED MIMI TO VOTE HAD TO TODAY, I WOULD VOTE NO, AND I WOULD VOTE NO BECAUSE I SEE NO REASON WHY THIS SHOULD A EMPLOY TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX PARTICULARLY IF IT HAS ON-SITE MANAGEMENT.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE IT. DURNS SOLVE THEIR, A AT ALL.

THEY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHY WE WOULD APPLY THIS TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR SAY AN APARTMENT COMPLEX NOT GOING TO HAVE AN HOA. ONE ENTITY OWNS THE WHOLE COMPLEX AND THEY HAVE MANAGEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE RESIDENT DOESN'T DISTURB THE OTHER RESIDENTS.

AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT APPLY IF SOMEBODY IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS BOTHERING A SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER NEXT DOOR, PRESUMABLY WE HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS TO DEAL WITH THAT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, PROBABLY BY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LEVEL SAYS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY GET FIPPED WITH LIVING WHERE THEY'RE LIVING AND A FRATERNITY APPROACHES THEM TO RENT THEIR HOUSE FOR SIX MODS SO THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM. I DON'T GET THAT.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY THIS TO RENTALS, APPLY IT TO RENTALS. SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS, PERIOD.

NUMBER THREE, AND I THINK THIS TIES IN WITH THE INSPECTIONS, IN MY OPINION, IF YOU WANT TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHENGT WOEFULLY INADEQUATE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO REGULATE WHEN GARBAGE CANS GO OUT AND WHEN THEY GET TAKEN IN, YOU NEED A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROBABLY PLANNING ON HERE.

AND HOW DO I KNOW THAT? I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, AND WE MANAGE OUR OWN HOAS IN THOSE SUBDIVISIONS, AND SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS IN HERE ARE BASICALLY, I MEAN BASICALLY WHAT YOU NEED IS EVERY VACATION RENTAL YOU NEED AN ARMED GUARD TO ENFORCE THEM. SO THAT'S KIND OF MY TWO CENTS ON THIS ORDINANCE, IS I GUESS WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION

WE SHOULD LOOK AT. >> JUST TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. >> YES.

>> IS THE NULT FAMILY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OR PROPERTY OWNER COMPANY, THEY ARE

EXEMPTED HOW THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. >> RIGHT.

BUT AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY DOESN'T HAVE A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

>> BUT THEY DO HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMPANY THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND US

REPHRASING THAT? >> YES. A HOAMPLETION ASSOCIATION IS AN INCORPORATED ENTITY THAT TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY. IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, THE OWNER TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY. THEY MAY HIRE AENT COMPANY OR THEY MAY HAVE EMPLOYEES ON SITE WHO PROVIDE THAT OVERSIGHT, BUT THERE ISN'T

A HOAMPLE'S HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. >> I THINK WE TRIED TO CAPTURE

BOTH, THE COMPANY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. >> I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT

IN MY OPINION. THAT'S ALL, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU.

MR. ALAIMO. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU TO THE COUNTY STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT INTO THIS. IR KNOW THESE SHORT-TERM REFNLTS BECOME A BIG TOPIC LATELY AND YOU GIS HAVE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS, YOU MENTIONED SOME JURISDICTIONS, WHICH ONES THOSE WERE, FLAGLER COUNTY WAS ONE OF THEM, HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE DETERMINATION OF TWO PEOPLE PER ROOM, MAXIMUM

[03:20:08]

12, MAYBE IT SHOULD JUST BE TEN. I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THESE& SHORT TERM VACATION REGENTS.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET CLAIRTS ON SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS YOU GUYS HAD

STUDIED AND PRO BROUGHT YOU TO THESE FIRSTS. >> WE DEFINITELY LOOKED A SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND INJURIES DEFINITIONS I THINK OUR FOCUS WAS ON FLAGLER'S AT THE TIME BECAUSE THEY HAD GONE THROUGH LITIGATION QUITE A BIT AND AMENDED THEIRS.

IT SEEMED TO BE THE FIRST IN THE SAFE AREA WITH THEIR ORDNANCE. WE WE MODELED THAT AFTER THAT.

THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS PER ROOM, BASED N THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WE WERE HEARING LESS OCCUPANTS, LESS MASS OCCUPANTS OR A LOWER MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, AND SO WE TRIED TO INCORPORATE THAT LOWER NUMBER SO THAT WEÚCO, TWO PER ROOM. SO YOU HAVE A MAX CAP, HOWEVER, IF YOU ONLY NL HAVE A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE AND A LIVING ROOM, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE EIGHT PEOPLE

IN THAT RENTAL. >> SO YOU LOOKED HAT FLAGLER COUNTY.

NOW, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE FLAGLER COUNTY HAS AN OCCUPANCY MAXIMUM OF TEN.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YEAH, THEY'VE SLOWLY TAPERED OFF.

I BELIEVE THEY INITIALLY REASON OUT WITH 12 OR 14. I'M UNSURE EXACTLY.

I HAVE THE ORDINANCE. AM I CAN LOOK. IT'S BEEN ADDED OVER TIME.

IT PROBABLY REFLECTS THE NUMBER THEY HOLD OUT WITH. >> I GOT YOU.

IN REGARDS TO THE VESTING WE'VE GOT BASICALLY 2300 SHORT TERM RENTALS HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, CORRECT? WHATEVER WOULD BE PROPOSED IN THIS ORDINANCE AS FAR AS THE OCCUPANCY AND THE PARKING WOULDN'T EVEN APPLY HAD TO THOSE FOLKS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE

GREAFERRED IN GRANDFATHERED IN. >> I BELIEVE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN THE VESTING THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE OVER THE MAX AND PARKING, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, YEAH.

IF WE DO THE PHASING, THEN THAT WOULD -- WE WOULD BRING THEM DOWN TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE, THE

COUNTY'S GOAL NUMBER WAS. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD.

I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR SOME OTHER FEEDBACK. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> SO I HAVE CIRCLED WANTING TO GIVE MY OPINION, BUT I THINK 16 IS PROBABLY A LITTLE TOO HIGH FOR THE OAK OCCUPANCY. I VACATIONED AND DESTIN AND RENTED A HOME AND WE HAD 20 PEOPLE AND IT WAS GREAT, BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE THAT PERSON THAT LIVED NEXT DOOR TO THE 20 PEOPLE. NOW WE WEREY FIVE DIFFERENT FAMILIES AND WE WEREN'T EXPLOWD WE LOUD AND PARTYING ALL NIGHT. YOU WOULD LIMIT THOSE TYPE OF PEOPLE WANTING TO GO INTO JON COUNTY. BUT I ALSO WANT WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO A RENTAL THAT HAD 20 OR 16 PLUS PEOPLE. I THINK THAT ALSO FORCES HOMEOWNERS THAT HAV BEEN THERE FOR 15 OR 20 YEARS, IT FORCES THEM TO MOVE ELSEWHERE OR PUT THEIR HOUSE UP FOR SALE, AND THEN YOU HAVE EVEN MORE OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEONE HOE MOVES IN OR BUYS A PROPERTY THAT'S NEXT DOOR TO A RENTAL AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO DO THE SAME THING. SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOWER. IS 12 THE NUMBER? I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD LEAN MORE TOWARDS 12 BUT THEN AGAIN IT'S JUST MY OPINION.

THE VESTING I THINK IT SHOULD BE PHASED OUTED, WHETHER THAT BE A YEAR ON TWO YEARS.

I DON'T KNOW. I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU GUYS. BUT THOSE ARE MY ONLY TWO

OPINIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> MY TURN.

WE HAVE STATED THESE BEFORE IN DID -- STAYED IN THESE BEFORE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THE HOMEOWNRS AFFECTED BY THESE THINGS TO THE POINT WHERE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT, I WOULD THINK A PHASING OF THE RULES AND THE OCCUPANTS IS JUSTIFIED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GET IT BACK DOWN TO REALITY, AND MAYBE TEN'S IT. BECAUSE MOST OF THESE ARE COMMON-SENSE THINGS.

THE OCCUPANCY, I WOULD SAY, IS BY A BEDROOM, AND THEN A BEDROOM IS DEFINED, AND I'M NOTZ TRYING TO DICTATE THIS STUFF, BUT IT'S DEFINED IN THE BUILDING CODE TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE OR WHATEVER.

SO MAYBE, RATHER THAN A CLOSET WHERE YOU PUT FOUR BUNK BEDS IN, IT'S EIGHT BY 10 AND THAT'S FOR TWO PEOPLE MAXIMUM OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES THERE.

I THINK TRYING TO COLLECT ON THE BED TAX, AGAIN, TO KEEP MEME HONEST, NOT KNOWING HOW THIS IS

[03:25:01]

I THINK REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL INSPECTION IS FINE. YOU'VE GOT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTY AND THE BUILDING APARTMENT IS NO STRANGER TO THAT, AND SO I THINK THAT'S A KNOWN ENTITY AND WHATEVER THAT COST IS, I ASSUME IT CAN'T BE A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY WHAT IT COSTS BUT THAT'S ON AN ANNUAL OFFICES OFFICES.

FAR MORE COMES INTO MY OFFICE ONCE A YEAR. TELLS ME MY EXIT LIGHT IS OUT OR BE SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE REFILLED OR WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING.

I THINK IT'S A WORTHY THING. I THINK YOU PHASE THAT IN AND THE POOR FOLKS WHO LIVE BESIDE THESE FOLKS CAN GET BACK TO SOME LEVEL NORMAL. MR. WAINRIGHT.

>> NICE PIECE OF WORK. WE ARE PICKING AT PIECES OF IT, AND I'M GOING TO PICK AT SOME PIECES OF IT TOO. MY GRANDFATHER, NUMBER ONE MAN IN MY LIFE, HE SAID, "ARCHIE, YOUR RIGHTS END AT THE END OF YOUR NOSE WHERE THE OTHER GUY'S RIGHTS BEGIN." PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SO IMPORTANT. YOU GI BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. YET THERE ARE A LOT OF REGULATIONS ABOUT IT.

WE ARE NOT -- WE'RE NOT PROTECTING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HERE.

DID FEES THAT YOU GOT HERE ARE NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. THE ENFORCEMENT YOU'VE GOT HERE IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. THE ENFORCEMENT HAS TOBY MADE TOSH MADE NOT BY THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENTS. YOU HAVE TO TUMBLE THE SIZE OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, BUT THE AGENCY THAT ADMINISTERS THIS THING THROUGH A SERIES ARE FINES.

I WANT TO REPEAT, I BELIEVE THAT THE COST YOU HAVE HERE, FOUR OR FIVE TIMES HIGHER THAN THIS.

NOBODY WORKS IN A GOVERNMENT FOR THESE FEES. THE SUPERVISION, THE CONTROL, THE ARRESTS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY HERE FOR THAT. THE OCCUPANCY STANDARD MINIMUM 15, 16 PEOPLE, THAT'S A RIOT. PEOPLE LIVE IN QUIET, THEY BUY INTO A COMMUNITY FOR PEACE AND QUIET, AND FOR THEIR OWN DRINKING HABITS. 16 PEOPLE, NO.

TEN MAXIMUM. I WOULD SAY. LET'S SEE.

I LIVE IN A CONDOMINIUM, AND I AM VERY HAPPY, BUT IF THERE WERE PARTIES THERE LIKE THIS THAT GO ON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO. LET ME SEE.

THE NOISE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ENFORCE THIS NOISEAND THE POLICE THIS NOISE. YOU'VE GOT TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR FEE TO PEOPLE.

THEY PAY THE FEE JUST LIKE YOU'D BUY A FLORIDA LICENSE ON YOUR CAR.

YOU BUY IT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INCOME, YOU LOSE MONEY.

YOU GO INTO ANOTHER BUSINESS. LET'S SEE. THAT'S IT FOR ME.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG, DR. HILSENBECK. >> THIS WAS REALLY A MAMMOTH DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US WITH A LOT OF COMPLEX AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, AND I HAVE TO SAY I SALUTE JOE AND PERHAPS MIKE ON THEIR WORK ON THIS. I THINK IT WAS VERY ADMIRABLE AND THOROUGH WORK. BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE CHAIR AND THEN WITH MR. WAINRIGHT. HAVING TWO PER BEDROOM I THINK IS THE WAY TO GO ON THIS. IF YOU HAVE TWO PER BEDROOM, AND MIKE IS RIGHT THAT THOSE ARE DEFINED, IT HAS TO BE A ROOM WITH A CLOSET AND ALL THAT AND THERE'S OTHER CRITERIA, BUT HAVING TWO PERSONS PER COMMON ROOM, I MEAN, YOU WOULD HAVE TWO IN THE KITCHEN, TWO IN THE DINING ROOM, TWO IN THE LIVING ROOM, TWO IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM, TWO IN THE DEN.

THAT'S JUST OUT OF CONTROL. SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF CERTAINLY LIMITING IT BY BEDROOM, BUT CAPPING IT AT NO MORE THAN 12, AND THEN BEING ABLE TO PHASE THAT WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO DOWN TO TEN BY FLAGLER COUNTY IS DOING. SO I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THAT

[03:30:07]

I THINK THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT MANY PEOPLE HERE AND THOSE THAT SPOKE AT THIS HEARING ARE,E FACING SEVERE SPHWEERNS INH THEIR QUIET USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES, AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THAT. THESE THINGS DO NEED TO BE REGULATED.

I'D ALSO BE FOR NOT GRANDFATHERING IN THE EXEMPTIONS, PARKING AND OCCUPANCY. I THINK THE PROBLEM EXISTS RIGHT NOW.

THESE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING THAT LIVE NEXT TO THESE THINGS. AND IF YOU GRANDFATHER IN THE EXEMPTIONS ON PARKING IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AND LAST VERY MINOR THING, THE CERTIFICATE THAT IS PLAYED, I WOULD DISPLAYED, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR HAVE HAVING THAT DISPLAYED ON THE OUTSIDE. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A HARD SIGN. HAVING SOME SMALL IDENTIFYING STICKER OR CERTIFICATE THAT CAN BE PLACED IN A FRONT VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS IS A REALLY TOUGH TOPIC, AND I HOPE THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY CAN DO SOMETHING TO HELP OUT ESTABLISHED HOMEOWNERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. DR. MCCORMICK.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YEP. >> ALL RIGHT.

GOOD. I STARTED RENTING HOMES ON ATLANTIC DRIVE BACK IN 1973.

AND THROUGH THE '70S I RENTED HOMES ON ATLANTIC. NOW, BACK IN THOSE DAYS WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THESE SUPER HOMES THAT WERE RENTING, THAT WERE TURNED INTO BRED AND BREAKFAST PLACES WITH 16, 20, THE 24 PEOPLE IN A HOUSE. IT JUST DIDN'T EXIST.

BUT I DID HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF RENTING MY OWN TOWNHOUSE, WHICH WAS ON THE ATLANTIC OCEAN IN CRESTON BEACH, AND IT WAS A -- CRESCENT BEACH, AND IT WAS A TOWNHOUSE WITH A GARAGE AND TWO BEDROOMS, AND THEN WE WOULD RENT A -- TURN ONE OF THE DEN PORTS INTO A BED ALSO SO WE COULD TAKE UP TO SIX KIDS IN THAT TOWNHOUSE. AND I'LL TELL YOU TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT. ONE IS WE NEVER HAD ANY COMPLAINTS ALL THE TIMES I RENTED THAT HOUSE FROM MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT PROBLEMS THAT MY RENTERS CAUSED.

THE OTHER THING I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT THROUGH THAT WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME, WE PAID OUR SALES TAX. WHEN IT WENT UP FROM 6% TO 6.5%, WE PAID THE SALES TAX OURSELVES, SO WE DID THE FINANCES ON THAT UNTIL THE TIME THAT BVBRB OR AGENCIES LIKE THAT WHO WE MARKETED THROUGH WANTED TO COLLECT THE SALES TAX THEMSELVES, AND AT THAT POINT WE SAID, WELL, THE HECK WITH IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT ANYMORE, AND WE GOT OUT OF RENTAL BUSINESS AND EVENTUALLY I SOLD MY TOWNHOUSE. BUT WHILE I WAS THERE, I ALWAYS WAS RESPONSIBLE MYSELF FINANCIALLY FOR COLLECTING THAT SALES TAX AND TURNING IT IN TO THE STATE. SO, SO MUCH FOR THAT. ANYWAY, GOING BACK TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, I AGREE TOTALLY WITH ARCHIE THAT THE COST THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR HANDLING WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO ENFORCE THAT, AND YET WE NEED TO DO THAT. I ALSO AGREE THAT THE WAIVERS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO EXISTING MANSIONS THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE WITH THE RENTAL BUSINESS THAT THEY'RE DOING.

I DON'T THINK THOSE WAIVERS SHOULD BE THERE FOR THOSE PEOPLE.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. SO, JOE, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST A MOTION HERE, NOT THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE IT, BUT APPROVAL WITH CHANGES BASED ON ALL THE COMMENTS YOU'VE HEARD. AGAIN, NO ONE IS GOING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE OR HOW TO ENFORCE IT OR WHATEVER, BUT YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH AMMO AND YOU'VE GOT ALL THAT IN

[03:35:05]

RIGHTS. >> INDEED. >> I THINK THE BCC IS GOING TO FALL WHERE THEY USUALLY FALL. SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

>> COULD I ASK ONE QUESTION? >> YOU MAY. A SHORT ONE.

>> WITH S AS MUCH AS YOU HEARD HERE, IT'S A MAMMOTH JOB YOU FACE WITH A LOT OF STWEAT STWET.

I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN THE IDEA JUST NOR A MOMENT THAT WE GET A LOOK AT WHAT YOU DO AND SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT HERE BEFORE YOU GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND I WON'T COST YOUR MOTION OR CROSS OUT WHAT YOU PROPOSE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE. THERE'S TOO MUCH MEAT HERE.

THERE'S TOO MUCH AT STAKE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. >> WELL, IT MEANS COME BACK

AGAIN. MAKE YOUR MODIFICATION. >> NO, I THINK YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS THING MOVING FORWARDS. PERSONALLY I THINK IT NEED TO GO TO BCC BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE

EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES.

>> DR. MCCORMICK AGAIN. I AGREE WITH -- WELL, NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH ARCHIE TOTALLY.

I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES BUT BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TODAY TO JOE, THAT HE AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING WITH HIM TAKE THAT INPUT FROM US AND PERHAPS MAKE SOME CHANGES, AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO US.

I THINK -- I TRUST HIM IN MAKING THE CHANGES THAT HE FEELS WILL BE BENEFICIAL AND WOULD BE

ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> I HAVE NO DOUBT.

>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE RECOMMEND APPROVAL THE CHANGES, PERIOD.

AND THEN WHAT IT SAYS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LANDS DEVELOPMENT CODE BASED ON THE MODIFICATIONS BEING CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE JON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

-- ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I I. PERIOD. >> BILL, ARE YOU MAKING A

MOTION? >> I DID. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH? >> I DO.

>> DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE COMMENTS YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY?

>> YES. >> MIKE, SAME AS WELL? >> JUST TO RECAP SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT GETS FUZZY ABOUT A MONTH LATER WHEN STAFF NEEDS TO COME BACK AND WE'RE REVIEWING THE TAPES, WHAT I THINK WE HEARD WAS FROM MR. MATOVINA START IT, ENSURE THAT OUR LANGUAGE WITH REGARD TO APARTMENTS IS CLEAR, CLARIFY THAT, THAT THEY ARE EXEMPT, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE WE NEED TO INSERT. TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS SO MANY SUGGESTIONS REGARDING PHASEDOWN FROM WHATEVER -- IF IT'S A MAXIMUM, WHATEVER THAT IS DECIDED BUT FROM 16, RIGHT, DOWNWARD TO WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS BUT THAT 16 WAS TOO HIGH.

AND THE COST THAT WE HAVE IN THERE OR THE FEE STRUCTURE MAYBE IS A LITTLE LOW AND NOT ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE LOW THAT'S COMING OUR WAY POTENTIALLY. THE LOAD THAT'S COMING OUR WAY.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL. SO THOSE WERE THE THREE MAIN POINTS I THINK OF THOSE THREE OR FOUR THAT I HEARD. DID I MISS SOMETHING?

>> HOLD ON. >> AND THEN MAYBE THE VESTING. >> BED TAX BEING FIGURED OUT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION. OCCUPANCY PERHAPS BY BEDROOM. I OFFER THAT.

THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE -- I THINK THERE'S A QUANTITY, A WAY TO QUANTIFY THAT.

>> AND THEN THERE WAS SOME CONCERN, THIB MAYBE DR. HILSENBECK AND THEN ALSO MAYBE DR. MCCORMICK WITH REGARD TO THE VESTING OR MAYBE GRANDFATHERING, THAT THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THAT. AND, OF COURSE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THERE'S A LEGAL ISSUE, BUT WE WILL FORWARD THOSE CONCERNS AND SAY SOME MEMBERS HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I

CAPTURE OR WE CAPTURE ALL THOSE THINGS YOU HAD INTO ONE PACKAGE. >> AND EVERYTHING WE DIDN'T SAY,

OF COURSE, MIKE. >> AND MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ASK MAYBE FOR SOME CLARIFICATION

[03:40:03]

THANK YOU. >> THAT'S FINE. I THINK THIS SHOULD APPLY TO ALL RENTALS EAST OF SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A LONG TERM PERSON CAN RENT THIS FOR SIX MONTHS AND HAVE 20 PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

>> OKAY. MAKES SENSE. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

>> SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, JOE, YOU'RE GOOD. >> I'VE GOT A CLEAR

UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED. >> WONDERFUL.

[11. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair. ]

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGES AS WE JUST DESCRIBED.

WE HAVE A SECOND FROM ARCHIE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE WILL VOTE.

MR. MATOVINA. >> YES. >> MR. ALAIMO.

>> YES. >> MS. PERKINS. >> YES.

>> MR. KOPF SAYS YES. MR. WRAIRN. >> YES.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> YES. >> AND DR. MCCORMICK.

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES 7-0. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. GOOD JOB. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM NUMBER 11. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE, HOWEVER, REACHED THE END OF IT.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE JUST REQUIRE THE ELECTION OF A CANARY, AND VICE CHAIR ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. WITH YOUR PACKET TODAY THERE ARE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE NOMNATION FOR CHAIR AND STRIES CHAIR. YOU WILL SEE FIRST STEP WOULD BE PUBLIC COMMENT DPLIG COMMENT FROM MEMBERS WHO WISH TO SPEAK, AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT THERE WOULD BE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WOULD STOIF AS A MOTION.

IT WOULD NEED A SECOND. THE AGENCY WOULD WOULD ACCEPL NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR.

AND THEN WOULD VOTE ON THEM IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE MADE UNTIL A MOTION SCWEED AND THEN WE WILL DO THE SAME THING FOR VICE CHAIR. THE PROCEDURE INDICATED HERE DID SAY VIVA VOACHY VOTING BUT AGAIN AS WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS APPEARING REMOTELY WE WOULD NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE AS WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE MEETING. I HOPE THAT'S CLEAR.

I'LL STAND BY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> I'LL HELP US BUMBLE THROUGH

IT. >> I DID WANT TO DO ONE MORE THING P THE AGENCY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE CURRENT REPORT OF AS WELL AS THE TERMS FOR THE CURRENT MEMBERS.

THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT ANYBODY'S TERM BE FOR A FULL YEAR IN ORDER TO BE THE CHAIR, SO IF YOUR TERM RUNS IN UHL JUNE, JULY, AUGUST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU COULD STILL BE NOMINATED TO BE A CHAIR OR CIVIL RIGHTS CHAIR. OF COURSE, THERE MAY BE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE THE BOARD WOULD THEN NEED TO VOTE AGAIN IF YOUR TERM RUNS OUT AND NOMINATE A NEW CHAIR BEFORE THE YEAR RUNS OUT, BUT THAT'S UP TO THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO THEN CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR.

NO ONE IN THE PUBLIC. ANYONE ON THE AGENCY WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE A CHAIR.

>> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE GREG MATOVINA. FOR CHAIR.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR GRE GREG.

>> SECOND. >> AND A SECOND. >> I NOMINATE MYSELF.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A NOMINATION FORE FOR ARCHIE AND A SECOND.

I DON'T NOMINATE ME. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? GOOD MORNING ONCE.

GOING TWICE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR. WE'LL DO CHAIR FIRST AND THEN VICE CHAIR.

FINAL VOTE? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR GREG, FIRST UP FOR CHAIR. WE'LL GO INTO THE ROLL CALL LIST.

MR. MATOVINA. >> NO. [LAUGHTER]

>> MR. ALAIMO. >> NO. >> MS. PERNGZ.

>> YES PERNGZ. >> YES. >> I SAY YES.

MR. WAINRIGHT. >> NO. >> DR. HILSENBECK.

>> YES. >> AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES.

[03:45:01]

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE FOUR YESES AND THREE NO NOS.

IS THAT IT OR DO WE DO ARCHIE? >> THAT'S IT SINCE THE MOTION RECEIVED A MAJORITY VOTE.

MR. MATOVINA WOULD BE THE CHAIR. >> WELL, SINCE HE VOTED NO FOR HIMSELF, DO WE CONSIDER THAT?

>> NO, THE BOARD NOMINATED HIM AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF HIM. >> DOES THE NOMINEE ACCEPT?

>> I DO. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I THOUGHT WE HAD -- THAT WAS THE HIGHEST VOTE. I DID NOT REALIZE THAT.

SO WE HAVE A CHAIR. HOW ABOUT A VICE CHAIR? TAKE A NOMINATION.

>> I WILL NOMINATE ROY. >> ROY. >> SECOND.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> THAT IS SECONDED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YES, SIR. >> YES. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU GUYS FOR -- THANK YOU, ARCHIE, FOR NOMINATING ME AND MEGAN FOR THE SECOND.

I'VE REALLY ENJOYED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD.

IT'S BEEN GREAT. MY TERM DOES EXPIRE IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, AND SO AT THAT TIME I WOULD LIKE TO NOT COMMIT TO BEING THE VICE CHAIR AND HAVE US HAVE TO VOTE, YOU KNOW, SAY DON'T GET REAPPOINTED OR SAY THAT I DECIDE THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE REAPPOINTED, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I HAVE I'M LOOKING AT. I'VE ENJOYED BEING ON THE BOARD AND WE WILL SEE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TOWARD JUNE WHERE WE'RE AT. SO I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE

NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR. >> DO YOU GET TO DO THAT? GREG DIDN'T GET TO DO THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT MAY INFLUENCE HOW THE MEMBERS VOTE, BUT --

>> I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. [LAUGHTER] >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER -- I'LL TAKE A SECOND NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR. >> I NOMINATE ARCHIE WAINRIGHT

AS THE VICE CHAIR. >> I'LL SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT.

ARCHIE -- >> I DECLINE. >> I NOMINATE WILLIAM

MCCORMICK -- >> NO, I'M NOT ELIGIBLE. >> I DECLINE.

I'M NOT ELIGIBLE EVEN. >> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE MEG OON PERKINS FOR VICE CHAIR.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR MS. PERKINS.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS? WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF PEOPLE. >> I'LL NOMINATE RICHARD

HILSENBECK. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR RICHARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND 1234 ? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, LET'S GO TO MEGAN, THEN.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE ROLL CALL VOTE. THIS IS FOR VICE CHAIR.

MR. MATOVINA. >> WE SPROAGHT FOR MEGAN? I THINK WE'VE GOT TO VOTE FOR

ROY FIRST. >> I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT.

ROY FOR VICE CHAIR. MR. MATOVINA. >> YES.

>> ROY. >> NAY. >> MS. PERKINS.

>> NO. >> MR. KOPPENHAFER SAYS NO. ARCHIE?

>> YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> YES.

>> AND DR. MCCORMICK. >> YES. >> THAT'S FOUR YESES FOR

SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE THE POSITION. >> AGAIN, THIS IS PRETTY

UNORTHODOX, MR. CHAIR. >> IT'S CALLED POLITICS. >> MR. ALAIMO IS NOT INELIGIBLE FOR THE POSITION. AS HE INDICATES, WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN JUNE WHEN HIS TERM EXPIRES. BUT THE AGENCY NOMINATED HIM AND VOTED HIM AS VICE CHAIR.

>> CONGRATULATIONS, ROY. >> THANKS, GUYS. >> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, THAT IS UNORTHODOX AND A LITTLE ODD. ARE WE DONE WITH THE VOTE?

IS THIS SUFFICIENT? >> I APOLOGIZE, MR. CHAIR. I THINK THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON

THE AGENDA, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER REPORTS. >> AGAIN, THIS WENT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN I THOUGHT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. STAFF REPORTS? >> NO, SIR.

>> NEXT MEETING AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS? >> YOUR NEXT ITEM OR YOUR NEXT AGENDA IS FEBRUARY 4TH. THAT IS YOUR NEXT MEETING DATE. ACCORDING TO OUR AGENDA, YOU

HAVE SIX ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA. >> A PLEASANT SIX. AGENCY REPORTS?

[03:50:04]

IT'S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.