[Call meeting to order.]
[00:00:24]
>> ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PLEASE STAND. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MS. VICE CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE
STATEMENT >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED UBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST DO SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER.
ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING AND IT'S A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES.
SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY.
IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCIES OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OR APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE
[Approval of meeting minutes for PZA 4/15/2021.]
COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE.WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.
WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES.
WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU, MADAME VICE CHAIR.
I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE TO SPEAK, PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND LOUDLY INTO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN ALL HEAR UP HERE.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION BY VOICE TO APPROVE THE
[3. SUPMAJ 2021-12 Pioneer School. Request for a Special Use Permit per Section 2.03.17 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Private School with Conventional Academic Curriculum within Open Rural (OR) zoning.]
MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2021. >> MOVE APPROVAL.
>> MOTION BY MS. PERKINS. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. SECOND BY MR. PETER.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.
THAT PASSES. NOW, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK TO ITEM NUMBER 3, WHICH IS SUPMAJ 2021-12 PIONEER SCHOOL? SEEING NONE, THAT ITEM NEEDS TO BE READVERTISED, AND SO I WOULD ASK FOR A VOICE MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 3 TO THE NOVEMBER THE 4TH PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARD MEETING. >> MOVE TO -- I MOVE TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF THE SUPMAJ 2021-12 PIONEER SCHOOL TO
[Public Comments.]
NOVEMBER 4TH'S AGENDA. >> CONTINUED UNTIL THEN, RIGHT?
>> TO CONTINUE. >> IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT?
SECONDED BY DR. HILSENBECK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THOSE OPPOSED. THAT MOTION PASSES.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR TIME FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS EACH ITEM COMES UP, BUT IF YOU HAVE A GENERAL PUBLIC COMING UP AT MAY MAKE IT NOW.
YOU CAN MAKE IT ON ANY OF THE PARTICULAR ITEMS OR YOU CAN MAKE ON IT ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE AS LONG AS YOU PRACTICE AND AND CONFORM TO THE RULES THAT WE HAVE SET.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE UNSPEAKER CUMMARD GLEB MS. SCULLY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND AGENCY MEMBERS.
FOR THE RECORD, MARIE COLEE, 5949 COUNTY ROAD 28
[00:05:01]
ST. AUGUSTINE ST. AUGUSTINE 32092.AS YOU KNOW, OCTOBER IS NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, AND IT'S WHEN I REFLECT MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH DMEBLG VIOLENCE. 20 YEARS AGO I ESCAPED THE VIOLENT SHACKLES OF SOMEONE I THOUGHT I'D NEVER HAVE TO RUN FROM. THAT WAS MY HUSBAND.
I WAS BEATEN AND LEFT UNRECOGNIZABLE NUMEROUS TIMES.
IN ADDITION TO THE PHYSICAL ABUSE, THERE WAS THE EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND THE HUMILIATION IT. TOOK ME 22 YEARS TO FIGHT MYSELF AND FIND A WAY TO ESCAPE. ALTHOUGH I HAD LOST TOUCH WITH MOST OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, ONE FRIEND WAS ABLE TO HELP ME AND TOOK ME TO A SHELTER FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW DIFFERENT MY LIFE WOULD BE TODAY OR IF I WOULD STABLE LIVE IF NOT FOR THAT ONE FRIEND.
I ALSO CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT MUST BE LIKE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHO ARE SUFFERING IN THE MIDST OF THE PANDEMIC WHEN SOCIAL DISTANCING, ISOLATING AT HOME DUE TO COVID EXPOSURE, AND WORKING AT HOME ARE FORCING THEM TO BE INCREASED PROXIMITY TO THEIR ABUSERS AND LESS CONNECTED TO OTHERS.
STATISTICS ALL ACROSS THE NATION HAVE SHOWN THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CALLS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS HAVE INCREASED SINCE THE START OF THE PANDEMIC.
DESPITE THESE INCREASES, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATES STILL SAY THAT MANY MORE VICTIMS ARE NOT COMING FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
READING THE NEWS OF UNREPORTED INCIDENTS DURING COVID-19 REMINDS ME OF MY HESITANCE TO FREE MYSELF FROM MY ABUSERS BURE. MAKING THE DECISION TO LEAVE IS DIFFICULT AND TERRIFYING. CHOOSING TO REPORT YOUR ABUSER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BE EVEN HARDER.
I WANT VICTIMS IN THIS POSITION TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A WHOLE SET OF VICTIMS RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS THAT CAN HELP THEM THANKS TO THE PASSAGE OF MARSY'S LAW OF FLORIDA ALMOST THEE YEARS AGO. MEARSZ LAW OF FLORIDA GIVES VICTIMS THE RIGHT TO BE NOTIFIED, PRESENT AND HEARD AT COURT PROCEEDINGS. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFER WITH A PROSECUTOR REGARDING ANY PLEA AGREEMENTS THAT MAY OFFERED TO THEIR ABUSER. THEY ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED ANY PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE ABUSER'S RELEASE, PLEA, SENTENCING, DISPOSITION OR PAROLE.
THESE RIGHTS ENSURE THAT A VICTIM ENTERS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SEEKING JUSTICE, THEY WILL HAVE A VOICE THE IN PROCESS AND THEY WILL BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS UNMARSY'S LAW WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO ME AT THE TIME OF MY ABUSE.
IF I HAD HAD THESE PROTECTIONS, IT WOULD HAVE HELPED ME ON MY JOURNEY TO BECOMING A SURVIVOR SOONER.
I HOPE BY SHARING THIS INFORMATION THAT IT WILL ENCOURAGE MORE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS AND CHANGE THEIR LIVES FOREVER. SO IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU REMEMBER YOUR COMMUNITY, OUR ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMUNITY BY HELPING THE LOCAL BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER.
YOU CAN DO THAT BY SHOPPING THE TWO THRIFT STORES LOCALLY, BY OFFERING MONETARY DONATIONS, VOLUNTEERING, OR EVEN BECOMING AN ADVOCATE. AS ALWAYS, IF YOU OR ANYONE YOU KNOW IS IN CRISIS, KNOW THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS REACH OUT TO THE BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER AT THEIR HOTLINE NUMBER, WHICH IS (904)824-1555. TOGETHER LET'S MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU.
>> MARIE, STAY THERE FOR A SECOND.
>> YES, SIR. >> I WANT TO JUST SAY A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, HAVING FOUR DAUGHTERS WHO
[1. SUPMAJ 2021-08 Econolodge State Road 16 4COP-S Special Hotel beverage license.. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow on and off-site sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages under the regulation of the State of Florida Type 4COP-S Special Hotel license pursuant to Land Development Code, Section 2.03.02 in conjunction with an existing hotel, specifically located at 2535 State Road 16.]
ARE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 30 AND 40, I CERTAINLY -- THIS IS A CAUSE VERY PERSONAL TO ME, AND I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT WHAT SOMEONE INTENDS FOR BAD, THANK YOU FOR USING IT FOR GOOD.ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 1 ON OUR AGENDA, PRESENTER IS MS. HESSEIN, AND WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO IT. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON THE PART OF THE BOARD ON ITEM NUMBER 1? IS MS. HESSEIN HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND MAKE A PRESENTATION. COME ON UP.
RIGHT THERE IS FINE, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS AMANDA HESSEIN.
MY ADDRESS IS 3677 ESPLANADE WAY, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32311.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE COMMIS EXISTING E CONE LODGE MOTEL WITH 144 GUEST ROOMS TO ALLOW ON AND OFF-SITE SALES AND CONSUMPTION
[00:10:03]
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNDER THE REGULATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TYPE 4COP-S WHICH IS A SPECIAL HOTEL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LANCE PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY SECTION 20302 IN CONJUNCTION THE IN EXISTING HOTEL SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE 2535 STATE ROAD SZANY.THE HOTEL HAS BEEN EXISTING BUT THEY NOW DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO SELL HERE, WINE AND LIQUOR FOR CONSUMPTION ON-SITE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT THAT WILL BE ON-SITE FOR THE MOTEL AS WELL AS THE OUTDOOR AREAS WHICH INCLUDE A TIKI HUTT BAR. THEY WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ALLOW FOR THE OFF-SITE PREMISES CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOTEL OPERATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO GUESTS IN THEIR GUEST ROOMS OR IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE BEER AND WINE FROM THE TO-GO SHOP AT THE MOTEL. THIS IS RECESSION REGULATED BY 4COP-S ALCOHOL LICENSE WHICH IS GRANTED TO HOTEL OR MOMENT ESTABLISHMENTS WITH AT LEAST 100 GUEST ROOMS OR MORE, ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATUTE. THIS EXISTING HOTEL DOES MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF 100 GUEST ROOMS OR MORE.
AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM NEARBY CHOIPS AND SCHOOLS WITHIN 1,000 FEET.
CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS WITHIN 1,000 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS THE 19ACC AND THEY ARE AWARE THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT IF APPROVED.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUPMAJ 2021-08 "FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON AND OFF-SITE SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNDER THE REGULATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TYPE 4COP-S SPECIAL HOTEL LICENSE POLLUTANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20302 IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING HOTEL SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT THE 2535 STATE ROAD 16 MY FOUR
[2. SUPMAJ 2021-11 Ancient City Wood Yard. A request for a Special Use Permit to allow for a Yard Waste Facility in Open Rural (OR) zoning, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.03.49, specifically located at 495 Saint Marks Pond Blvd.]
FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THIS STAFF REPORT.>> SECOND BY DR. MCCORMICK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2, AND THE PRESENTER SHEER MS. ACEVEDO, AND DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECLARE ON THIS ITEM?
>> SHANNON ACEVEDO FOR THE RECORD WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP 7 WALDO STREET. THIS IS THE ANCIENT CITY WOOD YARD APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE.
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT IS HERE, ANCIENT CITY FARM. WE HAVE MR. PAUL AND DAN LAWBACKER AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEER ALEX ACHY R. AREY AVAILABLE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
TO ORIENT YOU, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS OS POND BOULEVARD JUST A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY. AND FOR BACKGROUND, THIS WAS A SPECIAL USE THAT CAME BEFORE THE PZA BACK IN 2018.
IT WAS APPROVED FOR A DIFFERENT LOCATION, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HERE FOR PERSPECTIVE WHERE THAT OTHER LOCATION WAS.
AT THE TIME PART OF THE ST. MARKS PRD HAS SINCE REFERRED IT BACK TO OPEN RURAL, BUT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHERE THE WOOD YARD IS CURRENTLY OPERATIN OPERATING, AND THIS PARTICULAR OPERATION IS LOOKING TO RELOCATE TO THIS NEW LOCATION YOU SEE UP HERE. THE SIZE OF THE WOOD YARD IS RELATIVELY THE SAME, ABOUT 6 ACRES.
AND AT THIS NEW SITE, THE SAIRNT PARENT SITE OF RURAL/SILVICULTURE SLANDZ ABOUT 59 ACRES SO IT'S A SMALL PORTION WITHIN THAT LARGER PARENT SITE. IT DOES HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE OF RURAL/SILVICULTURE AND A ZONING OPEN RURAL, AND AS YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS, OPEN RURAL AS WELL.
IN TERMS OF LAND USE, YOU HAVE A MIXTURE RURAL/SILVICULTURE AND INDUSTRIAL USES DESIGNATED AROUND THE AREA.
[00:15:01]
AND SO GETTING TO THE REQUEST, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME REQUEST FOR THIS OTHER LOCATION THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, AND THAT'S FOR A WOOD AND YARD WASTE RECYCLING OPERATION, PRIMARILY PROCESSING INTO MULCH USING A TUB GRINDER.AS FAR AS WHERE THIS FITS IN WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT'S COMPOSING AND OTHER YARD WASTE FACILITIES, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE BIAL APPROVAL . TO GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS IT WOULD BE A RECYCLING YARD FOR BIEPTD GETS SORTED INTO PILES, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE PRODUCT, THERE'S CLEAN WOOD FOR SALE AND DELIVERY AS BIOENERGY MATERIAL AND WOOD BYPRODUCTS ARE RECYCLED ON-SITE. THE OPERATIONS ARE 7:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND 7:00 TO 3:00 ON SATURDAYS, WHICH I THINK IS CONSIST OF WITH THE CURRENT OPERATION.
ABOUT FIVE TO TEN EMPLOYEES. AND AS AN ESTIMATE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, ABOUT 20 TRUCKS PER DAY.
IT DOES FOLLOW THE FIRE PREVENTION PLAN.
AND THAT IS REGULATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. SO LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE AERIAL. THIS AREA ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE WOOD YARD ITSELF.
THERE IS A SMALL OFFICE, THIS IS A RES-A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME DEED AND SAME OWNERSHIP BUT WOULD NOT BE PART OF THIS APPLICATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS LIMITED TO UPLANDS.
THERE ARE SOME WETLANDS ON THE PARENT PROPERTY OF WHICH WILL REMAIN PROTECTED AND ARE ALSO UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
AND SO ZOOMING IN HERE TO THAT T A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. THESE ARE THE RELATIVE STORAGE PILES. IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITE PLAN, MUCH LIKE THE CURRENT ONE.
PERVIOUS BUT STABILIZED SURFACE THAT COMES THROUGH ABOUT 20 FEET IN WIDTH, AND THEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT PAVING THAT APRON TO ST. MARKS POND BOULEVARD TO HELP WITH MAINTENANCE.
IT MANAGES -- I WON'T GO INTO ALL THE DETAILS BUT IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE 50-FOOT SETBACK TO STORAGE AREAS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN AS WELL, THERE WILL BE 40 FEET MINIMUM IN BETWEEN THE PILES FOR SAFETY REASONS.
IT WILL ALSO BE ENCLOSED WITH A 6-FOOT FENCE.
NOW GECHT INTO COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, I WANTED TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT HERE AND SHOW THE AERIAL.
ALONG WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH, WEST AND SOUTH IS ALL TIMBERLAND UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP, SO NO ACTIVITY AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT GOING ON HERE. ACROSS THE STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF ST. MARKS POND BOULEVARD YOU HAVE REPUBLIC SERVICES.
AND THEN TO THE NORTH SOME VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL USES, PODS, SOME RV BOAT STORAGE AND THEN A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE WAS ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE THAT WE RECEIVED WITH SOME CONCERN ABOUT -- ACTUALLY THE RV BOAT STORAGE HERE, AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT IMPACTS FROM SMOKE OR RESIDUE THAT COULD BE LEFT ON THE BOATS AND RVS JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S ABOUT 900 FEET DIRECT ROUTE FROM WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT'S PROPOSED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND I DID DISCUSS THAT WITH MY CLIENT, AND THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CREATE A CONDITION TO LIMIT, MINIMIZE BURNING TO DIFFERENT WIN DIRECTIONS.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE THROUGH THE DIVISION OF FORESTRY THAT YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR EACH AND EVERY TIME THERE'S AN OUR OCCURREF BURNING.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD VERY WELL BE MONITORED AND ADHERED TO. IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION IN GENERAL, WE DON'T SEE A CONCERN FOR NUISANCE.
THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF SCOPE. AS YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA, KIND OF MEETS THE SAME TYPE OF COMPATIBILITY AS WHERE IT IS TODAY. AND SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD REQUEST APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL USE, AND WITH THAT, I'LL STAND BY IF THE AGENCY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME OR MY
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. PERKINS.
[00:20:02]
>> DOES THE OWNER LIVE ON THE PROPERTY? THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE OR I CAN'T TELL WHAT IT IS, BUT --
>> IT'S THEIR OFFICE. >> IT'S THEIR OFFICE? OKAY. AND THAT OUT-PARCEL THAT'S NOT INCLUDED, DOES SOMEONE ELSE LIVE THERE OR IS THAT AN OFFICE AS
WELL? >> IT'S -- SO THIS WHOLE AREA YOU SEE IN PURPLE IS ALL UNDER A IT'S JUST THAT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS MAKE SURE THAT THAT RES-A PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS SUBTRACTED OUT OF THE LEGAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST. >> I GOT YOU.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE BURNING, HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN?
>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET THE APPLICANT DESCRIBE THAT
OPERATION FOR YOU. >> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO COME ON UP AND TELL US HOW OFTEN YOU BURN, PLEASE.
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> YES, SIR.
MY NAME IS PAUL LAWBACKER 395 ST. MARKS POND BOULEVARD, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 3 II 2095.
TALKING ABOUT THIS OPERATION WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WHENEVER WE DO BERN, AND SHANNON HAD KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT.
WE HAVE TO APPLY EVERY DAY FOR A PERMIT FROM THE FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE, AND SO WE CAN RESTRICT THOSE DAYS WHEN THESE PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS LIKE TO THE NORTHEAST TO A STRAIGHT EAST WIND TO WHERE THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE, WE ALSO ARE OWNERS IN THAT PROPERTY AND THAT'S ALL MITIGATION BANK SO WE KNOW THAT THAT'LL NEVER BE DEVELOPED, AND SO THIS SITE IS KIND OF IDEAL FOR BURNING, STRICTLY ON AN EAST WIND.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH OF OUR CURRENT OPERATION WHERE THEY ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS, AND WE TRY TO MITIGATE THOSE AS MUCH AS WE COULD, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE'LL BURN -- WE ARE GOING TO GRIND THE MATERIAL ON-SITE BUT WE'LL ALSO BE BURNING PROBABLY MAYBE A DAY A WEEK. IT DEPENDS ON MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT IN. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MAYBE ONE TO TWO DAYS A WEEK DEPENDING ON THE MATERIAL BECAUSE SOME OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT SOUGHT AFTER.
SOME OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT SOUGHT AFTER FOR FUEL FOR THESE BIOMASS PLANTS. AND SO PALM TREES, THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY DON'T GRIND VERY WELL AND THEY DON'T -- THEY'RE NOT SOUGHT AFTER FOR WOOD BURNING FUEL.
>> THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK.
>> YEAH, I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BURNING.
YOU PRETTY WELL CLARIFIED THAT, THOUGH, BUT LET'S SAY IN THE SUMMER, SURE, WE'LL HAVE SOME EAST WINDS BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF SOUTH WINDS AS WELL SWB SO HOW LONG COULD YOU GO WITHOUT BURNING? WITH THE STORAGE PILES, RUCK LK WE HAVE A BIG SITE. EVEN IF WE HAD TO TAKE IT TO A LITTLE OF AND PAY THAT COST, WE COULD DO THAT AS WELL.
>> I BELIEVE THE PERSON THAT WROTE IN WHO HAS THE RV AND BOAT STORAGE YARD SAID HIS FACILITY IS 300 FEET -- I THINK I READ THAT RIGHT -- 300 FEEL FROM Y'ALL'S PROPERTY.
AND Y'ALL ARE SAYING 900 FEET. S WHICH IS CORRECT?
>> JUDGING BYI MAP, I DID JUST KIND OF A QUICK MEASUREMENT AND I GOT 900 FEET AS AN ESTIMATED DISTANCE.
>> WAS THAT A GIS MEASUREMENT? Y.
WHO HOLDS THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT HERE?
>> WE . OH, THE WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT. >> ST. JOHNS DISTRICT?
>> YES, SIR. >> I MAY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE
LATER BUT THANK YOU. >> DR. MCCORMICK.
>> I VISITED YOUR SITE YESTERDAY.
YOU FOLKS WEREN'T THERE. I DID TALK TO BRANDI.
THE REASON WHY -- THE GATE WAS CLOSED.
I HAD GUESS WITH THE BURNING, ALSO, BUT YOU ANSWERED THAT.
SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION.
>> YES, SIR. >> SO IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED.
SO I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR DECLARING THAT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, DR. MCCORMICK.
I JUST THOUGHT OF ANOTHER QUESTION.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH YOUR CURRENT SITE WHERE YOU
PROCESS -- >> SO CURRENTLY WE'RE LACING THAT, AND SO WE'LL JUST -- LEASING THAT, AND THE LEASE ENDS THE END OF THIS MONTH SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS LOCATION TO A PROPERTY THAT WE RECENTLY PURCHASED BACK IN
AND THE USE OF THAT UNDER YOUR LEASE IS GOING TO BE WHAT?
YOUR OLD SITE. >> IT WILL JUST GO BACK TO -- I MEAN, I THINK IT'S OPEN RURAL. IT'S PART OF AN EXISTING BORROW PIT OPERATION, AND SO EVENTUALLY THEY'LL WORK THEIR WAY OUT OF THAT BORROW PIT AND EVENTUALLY I WOULD IMAGINE DIG UP THAT
PORTION OF THE SITE. >> THANKS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE DO.
GARY MCGUIRE. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR I
[00:25:07]
NICOLAS MADURO FOR D ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.>> MY NAME IS GARY MCGUIRE LIVE THE 1645 ST. MARKS POND BOULEVARD IN ST. AUGUSTINE. THE SITE WHERE THIS IS GOING INTO IS PRESENTLY A HORSE PASTURE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES AND ATTRACTIVE, THAT WOS WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE. ON THE EAST SIDE, AS THEY INDICATED 1 IT'S REPUBLIC INDUSTRIES.
THAT IS A CLOSEDDOWN PORTION OF THEIR LITTLE OF.
SO THERE'S NO ACTIVITY THERE. IT'S JUST A 40-FOOT HIGH MOUND THAT STRETCHES QUITE A WAYS. SO WHEN WE DRIVE HOME AT NIGHT IN THE DAYTIME, WE SEE A MONEY TO OUR LEFT, BUT TO THE RIGHT IS PLEASANT SCENERY. WE GO THROUGH A RURAL AREA WITH THE HORSES AND SO FORTH AND THE TREES.
THIS SUBJECT WAS ADVERSE TO MY THINKING IN THAT TO PUT IN A WOOD CHIPPING PLACE, I'VE SEEN THESE PLACES BEFORE, AND THE MOUNDS OF TREES IS TREMENDOUS. THEY GO UP QUITE HIGH, AS THEY PREPARE TO CHIP THEM OR WHATEVER.
THE BURNING PROCESS CONCERNS ME WHERE THE -- WHERE THE PROCESS IS NOW OVER AT THE BORROW PIT WHERE WE LIVE, THERE ARE -- WE HAVE SMOKE PROBLEMS THERE, AND MY DISTANCE FROM WHERE I LIVE TO THE HORSE PASTURE, I'M GUESSING AS THE I DON'T FLIES SOMEWHERE A MILE AND A HALF PROBABLY. I LIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF ST. MARKS POND WHICH IS 365 ACRES AND I LIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. WE GET SMOKE PROBLEMS AT OUR HOUSE FROM WHEN THEY BURN THERE. SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE THAN TWICE WITH A WEEK. IT MAY NOT BE.
SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE OFTEN THAN IT SHOULD BE.
BUT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC CREATES A PROBLEM ALSO.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME NUMBER OF TRUCKS AND THEY WON'T DRIVE THE ROAD AS MUCH SO THAT'S PROBABLY A MOOT POINT, BUT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC ALL THE WAY DOWN THE END OF THE ROAD WHERE THEY GO TO NOW HAS CREATED PROBLEMS WITH THE ROAD CURATION AND ALL.
THE NOISE PROBABLY IS NOT A FACTOR.
I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE GOING TO GET RID OF THE WOOD CHIPPING, WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO USE FOR DOING THAT.
ASH, WE'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM BUT THERE WILL BE WIDE OPEN SPACES BETWEEN ME AND WHERE THEY ARE BURNING NOW, 365-ACRE POND, OF COURSE, BUT THOSE OF US DOWN THE ROAD ARE ADVERSE TO THIS HAPPENING. WE SEE A VERY PLEASANT FAMILY-ORIENTED. THERE ARE 15 HOMES DOWN THERE AND WAD RATHER SOMETHING LIKE THIS NOT GOING IN.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> MR. MCGUIRE, YOU'RE
SOUTHWEST EXISTING FACILITY. >> SWECHT.
I'M AT THE VERY END ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE ST. MARKS POND. I HAVE ABOUT 11 ACRES THERE.
THANK YOU. >> NEXT YOU HAVE ROBERT THOMAS
>> A PICTURE I'M ABOUT TO SHOW. >> YOU NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD, PLEASE. >> THIS IS OUR CURRENT --
>> SIR, CAN YOU -- ROBERT THOMAS.
>> -- NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I'M SORRY.
I'M ROBERT THOMAS, RV AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY THAT'S RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD. WE HAVE CURRENTLY 117 CLIENTS THERE, AND A LOT OF THEIR BOATS COST A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF RVS. THIS IS GOING TO HURT MY BUSINESS BY THEM BURNING. THEY BURN FIVE TO SIX DAYS A WEEK EVERY DAY AT THIS SITE THAT THEY'RE AT NOW.
AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR THREE YEARS.
THEY HAVE NOT RECYCLED ANY DEBRIS, GRINDED IT UP AND HAULED IT OFF AT ALL. THEY BURNT EVERY DAY SIX DAYS A WEEK AND IT'S NOTE GOOD AND IT'S GOING TO DESTROY THE HORSE FARM RIGHT THERE BECAUSE ALL THE HORSES, THEY'RE LEAVING.
THEY'RE MESSING UP A BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN THERE 20 YEARS.
BUT THIS WILL BE BAD FOR MY BUSINESS.
I'M ALSO BUILDINGS ANOTHER RV AND BOAT STORAGE RIGHT ACROSS ON THE OTHER CORNER AT BRONZED GLOW.
SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING IT PERMITTED, ANOTHER ONE, PHASE 2 BECAUSE WE'RE FULL AND WE'RE BUILDING ANOTHER ONE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE RIGHT ON TOP OF ME AND IT'S NOT GOOD.
SO -- >> CAN YOU GIVE YOURS ADDRESS,
PLEASE. >> 145 BRONZE GLOBE WAY.
THAT'S A BUSINESS. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> I WOULD LIKE FOR Y'ALL TO ASK THEM WHY HAVE THEY BEAN GRINDING THE PAST THREE YEARS AND NOT RECYCLE PJ REP CYCLING IS GOOD BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. THEY BURN, AND THEY BURN SIX DAYS A WEEK, AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I'M THERE EVERY DAY.
[00:30:06]
>> NEXT WE HAVE -- >> CAN I ASK HIM A QUESTION?
>> I'M SORRY. >> YES, GO AHEAD.
>> SIR, HOW FAR DO YOU THINK YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR BUSINESS
IS FROM THIS LOCATION? >> WELL, WHEN I PUT 300 FEET, THAT'S JUST -- IT'S PROBABLY 30D LENGTHS FROM THE END OF MY BROUGHT PROT TO THE BEGINNING OF THEIR PROPERTY, PROBABLY A GOOD
THREE, THREE FOOTBALL LENGTHS. >> YOU DO NOT GET ANY ASH RIGHT
NOW? >> NO, NOT FROM WHERE -- TWO MILES DOWN THE ROAD AT THE END OF ST. MARKS POND BACK WHERE REPUBLIC'S AT, AND THEIR LEASE IS GOING TO BE ENDING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, AND SO THEY'LL BE MESSING UP TWOS GOOD BUSINESSES, A HORSE FARM THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND US WITH THE RV AND BOAT STORAGE GLU.
>> THANK YOU. >> GERALD BOWMAN.
MY HOUSE IS BETWEEN MR. MCGUIRE'S AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THE BURNING.
WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD BACK WHERE WE LIVE.
WE DON'T EVEN LIKE -- IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL NOW.
WHEN THEY PUT THIS IN, IT'S GOING TO RUIN IT.
THINK ABOUT FRIENDS COMING FROM OUT OF TOWN SEEING THAT KIND OF STUFF. IT'S NOT GOOD.
AND WE HAVE SPOKE PROBABLY ALSO. THE MAIN THING HAS ALSO BEEN THE TRUCKS. THAT WILL MAKE IT SHORTER.
BUT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND I HOPE YOU DID NOT LET THEM DO
CAN YOU GIVE YOURS ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> PARDON? >> CAN YOU GIVE JUST ADDRESS.
>> YES, 1570 ST. MARKS POND BOULEVARD.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. SO WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY.
MS. ACEVEDO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP WITH SOME REBUTTAL?
>> YES, THANK YOU. I TOOK NOTE OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC HERE TODAY, AND WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT ACTUALLY WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING THE RELOCATION, BECAUSE AT THE APPROVAL THIS SPECIAL USE, AS MY CLIENT MENTIONED, THE OTHER ONE WILL CEASE AND BE LEASED TO SOMEONE ELSE OR ENDING THE LEASE, THAT OPERATION IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE VALID FOR THE WOOD YARD, WHICHIS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SO FROM A COMPATIBILITY STANDPOINT, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A BETTER SITUATION FOR THIS NEW LOCATION THAT HAS GREATER DISTANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL. AS FAR AS THE CONCERNS OF THE RV BOAT STORAGE LOT, THOSE ARE NOTED, AND AS I MENTIONED, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A CONDITION THAT WOULD LIMIT THE WIND DIRECTION OF WHEN THOSE BURNS COULD OCCUR IN ORDER TO HELP PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THAT AREA IS DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL AND THERE ARE USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE BY RIGHT WITHIN THOSE INDUSTRIAL PARKS THAT COULD HAVE SIMILAR IMPACTS, SUCH AS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TODAY, BUT NONETHELESS, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT. AND ALSO, JUST SPEAKING WITH MY CLIENT, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT GOT BROUGHT UP IS JUST THE INTENSITY OF HOW MANY DAYS PER WEEK BURNS OCCUR, SO WE WOULD ALSO BE WILLING TO MAKE A CONDITION LIMITING A MAXIMUM OF ONCE PER WEEK THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL USE REQUEST AS WELL. I STAND BY MY MEASUREMENT.
IT WASN'T EXACT BUT I ZWAI MINIMUM THERE'S 900 FEET BETWEEN THE CLOSEST POINT OF WHERE THIS WOOD YARD IS PROPOSED AND THE RV BOAT STORAGE LOT AS THE CROW FLIESAND WERE THAT I WILL STANDN CASE THE AGENCY HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME.
>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> SO IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT SMOKE ON TWELVE MILE SWAMP ROAD THERE? I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT FROM DOF.
NOW IT'S FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE. IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT SMOKE
[00:35:02]
ON THE ROAD? >> I DON'T THINK SO.
THERE IS A FIRE PREVENTION PLAN THAT HAD BEEN PUT TOGETHER PREVIOUSLY, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT A LOT OF THE SAME MITIGATIVE TRANSITIONAL WOULD BE USED STRATEGIES WE USED FOR THAT MAKING SURE IT'S CONTROLLED BURNING THAT DOESN'T EVER ACCIDENTAL CATCH ON FIRE. I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME SAFETY PARAMETERS THAT ARE PART OF THAT MANUAL AS WELL, BUT NOTHING THAT WOULD BE MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT'S OCCURRING TODAY ON-SITE.
>> HOW DO THEY -- LET'S SAY THEY'RE BURNING, AND HOW DO THEY PUT THAT OUT BEFORE, SAY, SUNSET.
IF I WAS DOING A PRESIEBD FIRE ON MY PROPERTY AND I HAD A PERMIT FROM FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE, TYPICALLY THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE THAT OUT BY DARK. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT BUT THAT'S THEIR POLICY. BUT HOW DO THEY PUT THEM OUT?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MY APPLICANT ON THAT OPERATION QUESTION.
>> SO TO YOUR QUESTION AND IT'S A GOOD POINT THEY SHOULDN'T MAKE YOU PUT IT OUT BECAUSE IT SMOTHERS IT AND YOU HAVE TO RESTART IT THE NEXT DAY AND IT CREATES MORE SMOKE.
YOU WOULD SMOTHER IT OR BASICALLY CALL IT DEAD-OUT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY KEEP SOMEONE THERE WACHTION IT UNTIL THERE'S NO MORE OPEN FLAME IS WHAT THEY CALL IT.
THEY DON'T TO SEE OPEN FLAME. IT'S GOT ASH AND EMBERS THAT'S FINE. BUT AS FAR AS IT'S NOT AN OPEN
FLAME, THAT'S CONSIDERED. >> HOW LARGE IS A TUB GRINDER? SAY BETWEEN A MOTORCYCLE AND A JET ENGINE, IS IT SOMEWHERE IN
THAT RANGE? >> SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE, YEAH. SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE.
YES, SIR. BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, TOO, AS FAR AS FOR NINE MILE ROAD, THE WIND WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY KIND OF
SMOKE ON THAT HIGHWAY >> AND Y'ALL REALLY THINK YOU CAN LIMIT YOUR BURNING TO AN EAST OR A WEST WIND OR --
>> I WOULDN'T BURN ON A WEST WIND.
JUST AN EAST WIND. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN EAST WIND, EMPLOYEE PREDOMINANTLY EAST BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE WOULD AFFECT THE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH, AND IT WOULD AFFECT ROBERT TO THE NORTH. ANY KIND OF SOUTH WESTERN WIND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WOULD AFFECT HIM TO THE NORTH.
>> DIDN'T YOU SAY, SHANNON, INITIAL OH YOUR PRESENTATION ON
YOUR POWER POINT WEST WIND? >> I THINK SHE SAID WESTWARD.
>> FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST. >> GOT IT.
I THINK THE GENTLEMAN THAT WANTED -- ONE OF THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE MENTIONED THAT YOU BURN SIX DAYS A WEEK AT YOUR
CURRENT LOCATION, IS THAT -- >> NO, SIR.
THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S JUST NOTE.
I CAN SHOW YOU HIS HOUR SHEET. E HE ONLY WORKS AT A MAXIMUM FIVE DAYS A WEEK. AND NOW THERE IS -- I'M SORRY.
DIDN'T YOU MEAN TO CUT OFF, YOU BUT THERE WAS A PROJECT TO THE EAST OF US, CORDOVA PALMS, AND THAT WAS A VERY LARGE PROJECT, AND SO I COULDN'T -- WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM AND THEY WERE LITERALLY ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY AND SO THEY WERE BURNING ALL THE TIME, AND THEY HAD A DIRTIER PILE WHICH CREATES ESSENTIALLY MORE SMOKE, AND SO THAT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T GOOD FOR ANYBODY IN THAT AREA. BUT I KNOW THAT THEY WERE OUT THERE FOR PROBABLY CLOSE TO EIGHT MONTHS, MAYBE TEN MONTHS.
THEY JUST FINISHED UP ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
MS. PERKINS. >> I'LL OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2021-11 ANCIENT CITY WOOD YARD I REQUEST PER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A YARD WASTE FACILITY IN OPEN RURAL ZONING PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 20349 SPECIFIC RI LOCATE AT 495 SAINT MARKS POND BOULEVARD BASED UPON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND INSTEAD OF NINE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSING TEN, WITH THE TENTH CONDITION TO LIMIT BURNING TO ONE TIME PER WEEK WHEN THE WIND HAS SHIFTED
TO THE EAST. >> TO THE EAST OR FROM THE EAST?
>> FROM THE EAST. >> FROM THE EAST.
>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION ADDED BY MS. PERKINS. IS THERE A SECOND?
DR. HILSENBECK. >> I WEANS GOING TO SECOND.
I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. I WASN'T GOING TO SECOND.
>> LET'S WAIT UNTIL DISCUSSION, PLEASE.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION?
>> SECOND. >> A SECOND BY MR. MILLER.
NOW WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. DR. HILSENBECK.
>> OKAY. I'M REALLY ON THE FENCE ON THIS.
BUT I THINK YOU'RE LIMITING YOURSELF TO THAT EAST WIND.
LET'S SAY IF I WAS DOING A PRESCRIBED BURN, WINTER BURN OR
[00:40:02]
SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THE OLD DEAL USED TO BE, I'VE KNOWN COWBOYS OUT ON THE RANGE, YOU WANT THAT NORTH WIND WITH NORTHWEST WIND FOR A BURN, WINTER TYPE BURN, EARLY SPRING BURN, BUT I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY SAFELY BURN AFTER A COLD FRONT COMES THROUGH, SO I THINK YOU'REIT LIMITING YOURSELF. THEN WHAT WE OFTEN GET HERE, AS YOU WELL KNOW, IS THAT NORTHWEST WIND LASTS FOR A FEW HOURS AND THEN WE GET A NORTHWEST WIND, AND I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY BURN ON A NORTHEAST WIND AS WELL, SO I REALLY THINK Y'ALL ARE PUTTING YOURSELF IN A BOX BY SAYING EAST WIND, BUT THAT'SIS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE COMMENT, WHICH IS I WATCHED THE WIND DIRECTION QUITE OFTEN BECAUSE WE GET STORMS ALL THE TIME AND THOSE STORMS ALMOST ALWAYS COME FROM THE SOUTHWEST. WE DON'T GET LIGHT OF EAST WINDS, BASED ON MY -- MY FOLLOWING OF STORMS AND WIND, SO MOST OF OUR STORMS COME FROM THE SOUTHWEST.
SO ANYWAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. >> DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS TOO LATE, BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION IF THE AGENCY WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT CONDITION, THE CLIENT IS OKAY WITH THAT.
>> MS. ACEVEDO, WOULD YOU COME BACK UP HERE A MINUTE.
WHAT IS THE AMOUNTED YOUR SUGGESTING?
>> NORTHEAST AND EAST, AS DR. HILSENBECK HAD MENTIONED
EARLIER. >> SO WE VOTED AT THIS POINT, BUT I SUPPOSE WE COULD RECONSIDER THIS ITEM.
IF THE MOTIONER WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM.
>> I DON'T MIND MAKING -- ARE WE MAKING A NEW MOTION?
>> YES, PLEASE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IMAGINE 2021-11 BASED UPON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO TEN CONDITIONS. THE THE TENTH CONDITION BEING THAT IT WILL LIMIT BURNING TO ONE TIME PER WEEK WHEN THE WIND IS COMING FROM THE EAST AND NORTHEAST.
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION HERE, CHRISTINE.
WE ALL SAW HOW WE VOTED. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT US AT THIS
POINT? >> I THINK YOUR MOTION TO RECONSIDER, THERE SHOULD BE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST.
I DIDN'T SEE THE VOTE ON THE SCREEN.
>> I DIDN'T, EITHER. >> NOBODY ELSE SAW THE VOTE BUT ME. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED A MOTION TO
RECONSIDER. >> I WOULD DO THAT TO CLEAR THE
RECORD, YES. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT,
MOTION TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.
>> THERE'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
>> WE'VE GOT A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S DO A VOICE VOTE.
>> SO THAT MOTION PASSES. NOW, DO WE HAVE A MOTION, A NEW
MOTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IMAGINE 2021-11 BASED UPON EIGHT FINDINGS AND HAVECH FACT AND SUBJECT TO TEN CONDITIONS. THE TENTH CONDITION LIMITING THE BURN TO ONE TIME PER WEEK WHEN THE WIND IS COMING FROM THE EAST
SO WE HAVE A MOTION WITH A TENTH CONDITION ADDED BY MS. PERKINS.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. MILLER.
[4. ZVAR 2021-08 Cox Residence (146260-0150). Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow a fifteen (15) foot Front Yard setback in lieu of the twenty-five (25) foot requirement, an eight (8) foot Second Front Yard setback for a Corner Lot in lieu of the fifteen (15) foot Second Front Yard requirement in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning.]
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.SO THAT MOTION PASSES 4-3, AND FOR THE RECORD, SINCE I SAW THE VOTE BEFORE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT I DID NOT CHANGE MY VOTE FROM THE FIRST TIME. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER
MR. COX. >> MY NAME IS RUSSELL COX.
I LIVE AT 60512TH AVENUE NORTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA.
I'M ALSO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, 3039 4TH STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE.
TODAY I'M TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE TO HAVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET IN LIEU OF 2K OF 8 FEET IN LIEU OF 15 FEET.
[00:45:02]
THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN GIVEN BEFORE BACK IN 2005 BUT EXPIRED. WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY LAST YEAR, I RECEIVED SOME PAPERWORK SHOWING THAT ALL SIX OF THESE UNITS THAT GOT BUILT IN THE SUBDIVISION WOULD ALL BE THE SAME SIZE AND HAD BEEN APPROVED. I BELIEVE EVERYBODY THAT BUILT HERE HAD HAD TO REINSTATE THEIR PERMITS BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPIRED FROM THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLOT, AND THAT'SWHAT I'M TRYING TO DO TODAY. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, SIR. DOES ANYBODY IN THE ANGST HAVE ANY AGENCY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
DR. HILSENBECK. >> I READ IN SOME OF THESE -- A COUPLE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, THERE'S A FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT EASEMENT ALONG THERE, AND THAT THEY CLAIM IT WOULD LIMIT ACCESS BY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CREWS GETTING IN THERE TO SERVICE UTILITIES. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO, SIR. THERE'S AN EASEMENT THAT'S -- IT'S AN EASEMENT. IT'S BASICALLY A DRIVEWAY GOING TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, AND IT'S -- THERE'S ALSO -- MY PROPERTY DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THAT ROAD EASEMENT.
THERE'S I BELIEVE 6 TO 8 FEET THAT THEY OWN FURTHER NORTH OF THAT ROAD EASEMENT TO WORK ON ALL THE PROPERTY, AND I WOULD STILL BE 8 FEET OFF OF THAT LINE, MY FURTHEST SETBACK TO THE SOUTH. LIKE SAID, THAT EASEMENT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE. IT'S NOT REALLY CONSIDERED A ROAD. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK ON IT. YOU CAN'T DRIVE DOWN IT.
THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN GET TO IS MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE TO THE SOUTH, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT CONSIDERS MY LOT TIEB CORNER LOT SO I'VE HAD TO CONSIDER THAT TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. BEING THE ONE TO THE SOUTH, I'M TRYING TO GET THE 8-FOOT INSTEAD OF 15.
>> SO THAT EASEMENT IS -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BLOCK THAT
MY PROPERTY DOESN'T EVEN GO UP TO THAT ROAD WHERE THEY WOULD WORK ON THE POWER LINES. THERE'S ABOUT 6 FEET IN BETWEEN
THE TWO. >> AND YOU CANNOT MAKE YOUR -- YOU CAN'T DEVELOP THE PLOT PROFITABLY WITHOUT THIS SETBACK?
>> NO, SIR. I'M BUILDING IT FOR MYSELF, AND, LIKE I SAID, ALL THESE -- WHAT'S BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST IS ALL THESE HOUSES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME SIZE, THE SAME WIDTH, THE SAME HEIGHT, AND THAT'S -- I'M BUILDING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS' HOUSES, SAME RIDGE HEIGHT, SAME WIDTH, SAME HOUSE, SAME LOOK. BASICALLY PUTTING THEIR SAME HOUSE ON MY LOT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BEFORE.
>> YES. ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE CONSERVATION.
AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR BUT IT'S ZONED RS-3.
HOW IS THAT POBLG? POSSIBLE? SPLIT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EXISTING ZONING, AND THAT EXISTING ZONING WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AT THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THESE ARE EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD.
>> MR. COKDZ, IS THIS LOT 50 FEET WIDE?
>> YES, SIR. >> AND WHAT IS YOUR SIDE SAID
SETBACK TO THE NORTH. >> 8 EIGHT FEET.
THAT'S HOW ALL THE OTHER FIVE LOTS ARE.
EIGHT FEET ON EACH SIDE AND 15 FEET IN THE FRONT.
>> SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IF YOU GO DOWN TO ARE WE SAYING 15 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYINGSOME.
>> IT IS 15 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
I'M TRYING TO TAKE THAT TO 8 FEET TO BE IN LINE WITH ALL THE OTHER NOOBING HOUSES AND THIS IS SHOWING I WAS ALLOWED.
>> SO YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'S 34 FEET WIDE.
>> CORRECT, SIR. >> SO YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A RIDING VACUUM CLEANER TO KEEP THAT HOUSE CLEAN, RIGHT?
>> THERE'S NOT EVEN YARD. IT'S OVER WETLANDS SO EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ON PILINGS. THE ONLY THING IS A DRIVEWAY.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD. OKAY.
WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE HAVE THREE SPEAKER CARDS.
PATRICIA FERS. >> YOU CAN EVERS.
>> YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT AND YOU'LL GET A CHANCE TO TALK
AFTER THEY TALK. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THAT'S FINE. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> HI. MY NAME'S PATRICIA EVERS.
I LIVE AT 186 SURFSIDE AVENUE. MY PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM MR. COKDZ'S COKS PROPERTY.
I HAD SOME CONCERNS, BOTH PERSONAL CONCERNS AND
[00:50:04]
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THE PERSONAL CONCERN IS HE SAID HE WANTS THE 8-FOOT SETBACK VERSUS THE 15-FOOT FOR HIS FRONT OR SIDE PROPERTY. WITH THAT SAID, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY -- I DON'T THINK HE'S DOING IT SO THAT HE CAN BE THE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER HOUSES SO IT'S 8 FEET.I THINK IT'S HIS, PROBABLY THE SIZE OF HIS HOUSE IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT TO COVER THAT MUCH OF THE PROPERTY, AND WHAT THAT DOES FOR ME, AND MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1925, AND I BOUGHT THE HOUSE BECAUSE I WOULDN'T BUY WATERFRONT, AND I WAS GRATEFUL THAT I WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE VIEW ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE. MY HOUSE IS ON THE CORNER OPPOSITE OF HIS. FOR HIM TO HAVE -- AND I THINK THESE HOUSES -- WELL, NEVER MIND.
THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS 35. I READ IN ONE OF THE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS IT WAS GOING TO BE 36.69 BUT THAT WAS CHANGED, SO THAT PART WON'T BE ANY MORE ENCROACHING THAN THE OTHER HOUSES, BUT TO HAVE THE HOUSE BUILT TO THE SOUTH BLOCKS ANY VIEW THAT I WOULD HAVE, THAT I THOUGHT THOUGHT I WOULD ALWAYS HAVE WHEN I BOUGHT FROT BECAUSE THERE IS A ROAD, AND HE'S RIGHT, CARS DON'T DRIVE DOWN IT BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE INTRACOASTAL, AND ROAD AND BRIDGES TOLD ME THAT THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA, THEY GUESSTIMATED, LOOKING HAT AN AERIAL VIEW, IS 13 FEET, 13 TO 15 FEET, AND HE'S SAYING IT'S 6 FEET.
WITH THAT SAID, MANY OF US USE THE, WE CALL THAT IT PATH THAT GOES DOWN TO THE INTRACOASTAL WHERE WE CAN SAC KAYAKS OR GO SWIMMING OR JUST GO ENJOY THE WATERFRONT.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WELL, THAT WON'T AFFECT US ACTUALLY. IT WILL AFFECT MY VIEW, THOUGH, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE.
I'M CURIOUS HOW FAR THE PROPERTY LINE IS FROM SURFSIDE AVENUE, THE BULKHEAD, BASICALLY THE BULKHEAD WHERE SURFSIDE AVENUE ENDS FROM FOURTH STREET TO THE INTRACOASTAL, THAT PART OF THE AVENUE IS BULKHEADED ALL THE WAY DOWN.
ADJACENT TO THAT ON THE NORTH END OF THAT EASEMENT IS OUR PATH THAT WE USE. SO IF HE'S GRANTED THAT ADDITIONAL WUFTSDZ WIF HIS HOUSE, I'LL LOSE ANY VIEW THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD WHICH WILL HAVE ADVERSE EFFECT ON MY QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE ANY OF THESE NEIGHBORS AND I'M HOME ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME, AND I THINK IT WILL IMPACT ANY EFFECT I WOULD HAVE ON THE VALUE OF MY HOUSE NOT HAVING A WATER VIEW ANYMORE TO THE SOUTH. I STILL HAVE IT ON THE SOUTH BUT NOT TO THE WEST IF HE IS GRANTED THAT.
I ALSO AM CURIOUS IF THE HOUSE IS COVERING THAT MUCH PROPERTY WHAT KIND OF MITIGATION IS THERE FOR THE WET GLNLDZ THANK YOU,
>> NEXT WE HAVE NADINE GALLON ALASSO.
>> NADINE GLAUSO 173 MEADOW AVENUE.
YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS. MY CONCERN WAS ABOUT ACCESS TO THE NORTH WHERE THE EASEMENT IS. AS TRISH SAID, WE USE IT TO GO TO THE RIVER. BUT IF HE CAN'T IMPEDE THAT, THEN I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT IF HE IS ABLE TO IMPEDE IT, WE HAVE ALL GONE THROUGH, ALL OF US NEIGHBORS AND SIGNED AN OBJECTION IF HE'S ABLE TO TAKE AWAY THAT PATH HE'S TALKING ABOUT. SO THERE'S THE ROAD THAT YOU DON'T PARK ON. THEN THERE'S THE PATH THAT MAY BE 6 FEET, MAYBE IT'S 15. WE DON'T KNOW.
THAT WE USE TO WALK TO THE RIVER, FOR DECADES.
BUT IF HE DOESN'T IMPEDE IT, THEN IT'S A NON-POINT.
SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> DO YOU WANT TO SEE A PICTURE OF THE PATH NEXT TO THE EASEMENT
THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> I DO.
>> WHERE DO I PLACE IT? OVER THERE? HERE IS THE ROAD THAT THEY SAID YOU WANT CAN'T PARK ON.
COMES TO THE END THERE. OVER HERE IS THE PATH THAT WE
[00:55:05]
WALK TO THE RIVER. DO YOU WANT TO SEE BOTH OF THEM?>> WHY WOULDN'T YOU WALK ON THE ROAD, MA'AM? WHY YOU WOULDN'T WALK ON THE ROAD?
>> YOU CAN'T GET TO THE RIVER FROM THE ROAD.
AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE END HERE, THIS IS BOARDED UP.
YOU CAN'T -- UNLESS YOU CLIMB OVER IT, I GUESS, AND THEN THERE'S JUST ROCKS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT'S KIND OF INACCESSIBLE. IF THE COUNTY WANTS TO OPEN THAT
UP, WE WOULD LOVE IT. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> DO I LEAVE THOSE?
>> YES, YOU NEED TO LEAVE. >> IT THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
>> LAST WE HAVE TIM ORLAND. >> I GUESS IT'S MORE OF A
STATEMENT THAN -- >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD, PLEASE. >> TIM OR WHREAND 304 AREN'T FOURTH STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE. SO WE WERE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE, LIKE RUSS RUSSELL AND TRISHED THE, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T GET A VARIANCE, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT ON HERE BUT IT WAS AT ONE TIME.
WE SAW IT. HIGHER THAN 35-FOOT.
AND I CAN TELL YOU WHEN I BUILT OUR HOUSE, THAT WAS -- NOBODY KNEW WHERE 35-FOOT WAS MEASURED FROM.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WE CAME OFF THE CROWN ROAD, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE IS -- IF THE HEIGHT IS GOING TO CHANGE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER FIVE HOUSES, THEN WOULD THAT BECOME ANOTHER VARIANCE? I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS YOU CAN'T TELL ME. OKAY.
NO OTHER SPEAKER CARDS. MR. COX, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME
UP AND PROVIDE ANY REBUTTAL? >> YES.
IS THERE ANYWAY THAT I COULD USE THE PICTURE THAT THEY SHOWED TO
EXPLAIN TO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS? >> IT'S EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW SO
YOU CERTAINLY CAN, SIR. >> OKAY.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN USE MY PHONE.
I CAME THERE BEFORE JUST TOP KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT THE REESD NOT REALLY USED -- ROAD'S NOT USED AS A STREET SO IT NTD SHOE BE CONSIDERED A CORNER. THERE'S ALL -- MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH IS ABOUT 100 FEET AWAY FROM --
>> YOU CAN GO TO THE OTHER MICROPHONE, SIR.
THERE YOU GO. AND YOU CAN'T USE YOUR PHONE BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO HAND IT IN.
YOU CAN BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'D WANT TO DO THAT.
>> I WOULD. CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW TODAY THERE'S SIX CARS PARKED ON THIS ROAD THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS HOUSE. I IMAGINE THEY'LL KEEP DOING IT WHILE THEY BUILD THE HOUSE AND IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL.
IF MY HOUSE WAS CONSIDERED -- IF THIS WAS A STREET AND I COULD HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, I DOUBT THAT ANYBODY WOULD WANT ME TO HAVE A GARAGE ON THE SIDE AND TRY TO USE THIS EASEMENT TO GET INTO MY SECONDARY FRONT YARD, WHICH ISN'T EVEN -- I CAN'T EVEN DO. BUT THERE IS 6 FEET TO MAYBE MORE TO THE NORTH OF THIS ROAD WHERE THEY DO GO DOWN AND USE THE WATER, WHICH I DOUBT IS LEGAL.
I WOULDN'T MIND. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY. BUT FROM WHERE THEY WALK DOWN, I'M GOING 8 FEET TO THE NORTH OF THAT WALKWAY.
THAT IS MY PROPERTY -- FOR MY SETBACK.
MY PROPERTY LINE WILL BE ABOUT 18 FEET NORTH --
>> YOU CAN POINT ON THE PICTURE. >> SORRY, SIR.
ABOUT 18 FEET NORTH OF HERE IS WHERE MY HOUSE WILL START.
>> WHERE YOUR HOUSE WILL START OR PROPERTY?
>> THE HOUSE WILL START. >> SO IT'S 10 FEET TO THE
I THINK THERE'S ABOUT -- THAT FIRE HYDRANT AND THIS POWER LINE
IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY. >> OKAY.
>> MY PROPERTY LINE'S ABOUT RIGHT HERE AND THERE'S A SURVEY STAKE THERE FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO SEE.
THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO GO DOWN.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? NO -- IF THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, I WOULDN'T STOP THAT AT ALL. THIS PROPERTY, IF YOU READ THE VERBIAGE, IT USED TO GO UP THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, AND INSTEAD OF THE CROWN OF THE ROAD DUE TO THE TOP GRAPHIC -- THE TOPO OF THE PROPERTY. SO I WENT THROUGH ALL THIS TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MY KNOWLEDGE HEIGHT WOULD NEED TO
[01:00:02]
BE BECAUSE THE FLOODPLAIN'S 9 NEAT TO 10 FEET ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. THE ROAD IS AT 10 FEET ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER PIPELINE SO IF YOU GO TO THAT VERBIAGE YOU COULD ONLY BUILD A 20-FOOT HOME BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE AT 35 FEET FROM THE MEAN HIGH LAUTER WATER LINE.I THOUGHT I NEED AID VARIANCE. SOMEBODY CLAIRTD UP FOR ME AND SAID, THESE LOTS, THEY MADE A NEW RULE TO ALLOW YOU YOU TO GO FROM THE CROWN OF THE ROAD WHICH MINE IS ONLY GOING TO BE 33-1/2 FEET AND IT'S LOWER BECAUSE THE ROAD SLOPES SOUTH, SO IF EVERYBODY GOES OFF THE CROWN OF THE ROAD 35 FEET, MINE HAS TO BE LOWER. EVEN IF I DOG 35, I'LL BE THE LOWEST ONE OUT OF THE SIX HOUSES AND I WILL NOT GO ABOVE THAT AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ANOTHER VARIANCE.
I THINK THAT FOR THE NEIGHBOR THAT'S ON THE CORNER, THIS IS -- THIS IS STILL A GREAT VIEW, I BELIEVE, AND THIS IS MY PROPERTY. THIS IS A LOT OF RECORD.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BUILD ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NEVER GRANTED. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET BACK THE VARIANCES THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED AND BUILD ON MY PROPERTY THE WAY THAT IT WAS DESIGNED.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COX? SEEING NONE, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2021-08 COX RESIDENCE REQUEST FOR A ZONING SCRAIRIANS FOR TABLE 6.01 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO LOU ALLOW AI 15-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE THAN THE 25-FOOT RETIREMENT AND AN 8-FOOT SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A CORNER LOT IN LIEU OF 15-FOOT SECOND FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT IN
[5. ZVAR 2021-14 McCloghry Fence Variance. Request for a Zoning Variance to Land Development Code, Section 2.02.04.B.12 to allow an eight (8) foot fence in lieu of the six (6) foot requirement.]
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING SPECIFICALLY ELECTED 3039 FOURTH STREET, BASED ON FIVE FIND NGTS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS GLIE MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS.IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. CONGRATULATIONS, MR. COX.
MOVING ON TO MR. WALKER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE MCCLOGHRY FAMILY SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE CODE SECTION II 024B12 RELL I HAVE TO A FENCE TO AN ADJOINING PROPERTY. FOR THE RECORD, I'M AT 10151 DEERWOOD PARK SOUTH BOULEVARD WEEK JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.
PASTORS MCCLOGHRY AND HIS WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN LIVE AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE'RE SPEAK CAN ABOUT A VARIANCE RELL I HAVE TO A 2-FOOT DIRVEL TWERCH THE CURRENT DWRAID OF THE PROPERTY WHERE WE'RE AT IS THE ULTIMATE GRADE WHERE THE FENCE WAS BUILT.
BASED OUR PRESENTATION WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED YOU CAN SEE RELATIVE TO THE PICTURES THAT WHILE WE BELIEVE THAT THE FENCE DOES MEET THE 2-FOOT DIFFERENTIAL GRADE DOWN, IT CLEARLY, WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR A LEVEL HAVE PRIVACY. IT WOULD PROVIDE FOR A LEVEL OF DISTINCTION, WHICH IS THE INTENT AND IS CONSIST OF WITH THE CODE.
TO ORGANIC WE HAVE HAD NO ADVERSE WRITTEN OR COMMUNICATED CORRESPONDENCE TO US IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS HEARING, AND WE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE GENERA SUM PRIORITY ZONING REQUEST.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER IF I QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY
HAVE. >> BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECLARE?
DR. HILSENBECK. >> I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY THE OTHER DAY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND I WISH I HAD DRIVEN BY THE LAST ITEM, BUT IT DIDN'T MATTER, BUT I ALSO SPOKE -- WELL, WE TRADE MESSAGES. JAMES WHITEHOUSE FROM THE ST. JOHNS LAW GROUP, WE TRADED MESSAGES THIS MORNING ABOUT
THIS. >> ANYONE ELSE? I DO NEED TO DECLARE. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE ON THE DRIVE HERE, AND WE JUST DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF HARDSHIP IS WHAT WE MAINLY DISCUSSED.
OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DR. HILSENBECK.
>> WELL, I READ THE -- YOUR APPLICATION SEVERAL TIMES, AND I JUST -- YOU STATE THERE'S A HARDSHIP.
I NEVER REALLY SAW WHAT THAT HARDSHIP WAS.
WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP? >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
THE HARDSHIP IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE BACK STORY IS THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED BY A CONTRACTOR WHO MEASURED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GRADES BECAUSE UNDER THE CODE IF THE 2 FEET OF GRADE MOVED DOWN FROM THE LEVEL GRADE TO THE NEIGHBORING GRADE, YOU'D BE AT A MAXIMUM HEIDT OF . OBVIOUSLY THE SPIRIT INTENT WAS YOU COULD HAVE PRY SOS SO ADJOINING NEIGHBORS COULDN'T VIEW INTO YOUR BACKYARD. THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A HARDSHIP UNDER THE CODE. RATHER THE HARDSHIP UNDER THE
[01:05:02]
CODE IS EVEN THOUGH MY CLIENT WOULD TAKE THE POSITION THAT THAT GRADE WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT 2-FOOT VARIANCE WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR TOTAL OF 8 FEET, THE HADSHIP IS THIS, EVEN IF WE WERE OFF BY CALL IT TWIRCHES OR AN INCH, THARDSHIP REALLY IS IF THE FENCE WERE REQUIRED TO BE AT THE 6-FOOT LEVEL, IT NOT BE WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ESSENTIALLY BLATANTLY SEE OVER THE YARD, COME IN, VIEW OVER THE YARD.TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THIS FENCE DOES NOT IMPACT ANY VIEWS RELATIVE TO THE MARSHLAND, DOES NOT IMPACT, IS NOT INJURIOUS TO NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY IN ANY SUCH WAY, AND IS CONSIST OF WITH SEVERAL OTHER FENCES BUILT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> SO I DON'T BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THIS CHANGE IN GRADE
IN YOUR APPLICATION. >> I THINK WE DID, SIR, RELATIVE TO SOME OF THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE, BUT IF IT'S NOTE PROPER APPLICATION, SIR, I APOLOGIZE.
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MAJOR FACTOR THAT I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED, AND YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY.
>> YES, SIR. >> IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT.
I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, AND I COULDN'T GO ON THERE.
I WOULD BE TRESPASSING. SO I JUST LOOKED FROM THE ROAD.
BUT IT LOOKED FAIRLY LEVEL ALL THE WAY BACK A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET MAYBE. BUT -- HOLD ON.
IT SEEMS HIGHER AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT THAN AT THE BACK OF THE LOT, YET THE FENCE IS ITS HIGHEST POINT AT THE FRONT OF
THE LOT. >> YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER.
THAT THAT WOULD ALSO BE CORRECT WITH THE HIGHER PART OF THE FRONT LOT WHERE THE HIRE PART OF THE HOUSE IS LOCATED.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
>> I CALL THE FRONT WHERE THE HOUSE FACES AND WHERE THE ROAD
IS. >> YESH THAT WOULD BE CORRECT BECAUSE THE FINISHED GRADED OF THAT HOUSE WAS BUILT UP.
I BELIEVE IF I HAVE IN THE PRESENTATION -- THE CLICKER WILL WORK, IS THAT CORRECT? IT YOU SURE DOES.
THIS MAY BE USEFUL IN SEEING. YOU CAN SEE HERE, COMMISSIONERS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POINT IT.
I APOLOGIZE. BUT IF YOU LOOK HERE, TO YOUR POINT, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, YOU CAN SEE THAT RELATIVE TO THE GRADE HERE IT DOES RUN DOWN CONSIDERABLY TO WHERE THE ACTUAL FENCE. SO AGAIN, THE CODE SUGGESTS OR THE CODE STATES THAT IT'S ACTUALLY 20 FEET, WITHIN 20 FEET OF 2-FOOT DIFFERENTIAL WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THAT AS A HIGHER
POINT AT THE FRONT OF THE LINE. >> I'D LIKE TO ASK CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT MEANT WAS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT AS IT MOVED UP AND DOWN AND NOT FROM THE HOUSE WHERE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
BY THE WAY, I LIKE THE HOUSE. I THINK IT'S A NICE-LOOKING HOUSE. VERY NICE.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S MEASURED FROM THE HOUSE TO THE FENCE OR THAT TOPOGRAPHIC GRADE. AM I WRONG THERE? DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE OVERALL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT
ITSELF? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, JOE SEELY GROWTH MANAGEMENT. ACTUALLY I WROTE THAT EX IS OF THE CODE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE INTENT WAS IT WAS CORRECT. THE VIEW WOULD BE OBSTRUCTED IF THEY WERE AT A SLOPED GRADE. AND THE WAY WE WITH CODIFIED IT WAS THAT IF THERE WAS A 2-FOOT DIFFERENTIAL WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE FENCE LINE, THE PROPERTY LINE IS THEY COULD PROVIDE AN 8-FOOT HIGH FENCE AT THEMENT BO OF THE SLOPE THAT OF GRADE.
AT THE TOP IT WOULD HAVE TO BE E APPEARANCE A WALL OR A GIANT BERM. BUT TO GET SOMETHING SPECIFIC, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER OTHER THAN THAT?
>> NO. WE'VE CONSIDERED OTHER ISSUES LIKE THIS YOU IN THE PAST. AND IT ALWAYS HAD TO DO WITH THE SLOPE OF THE LOT FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK, NOT FROM THE HOUSE TO THE SIDE, SO THAT'S NEWS TO ME, SO THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.
I DO WANT TO ASK THE ATTORNEY, YOU STATED THAT THERE ARE OTHER FENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE, YOU SAID THAT ARE ALSO 8 FEET? I MEASURED A COUPLE BY STANDING IN THE ROAD AND THEY'RE 6 FEET. THERE ARE TWO FENCES THAT ARE
SO, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR A POINT OF CLARITY.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LIKENESS OF THE FENCE, THE PRIVACY FENCES. THEY'RE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF HAVING THOSE TYPES OF FENCES.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU THERE, A STOCKADE TYPE FENCE.
>> YES, SIR. >> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? MR. PIERRE.
>> YES, SIR. UNFORTUNATELY, AND AGAIN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT THE HARDSHIP THAT THE FENCE IS IN PLACE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE HOMEOWNER'S RELIED ON A CONTRACTOR WHO BELIEVED THAT THAT GRADE WAS CONSIST OF WITH THE 2 AND 20, THE SCOPING OF THE 2 AND 20, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY, SIR. THE SLOPING.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
THE FENCE STEPS DOWN TOWARD THE BACK.
IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
>> WHERE IT COMES ALONG JUST LOOKING AT YOUR PHOTO HERE, AND I DID SIGHT IN PERSON, IT STEPS DOWN RIGHT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE WHERE YOU'RE SAYING THE GRADE IS FROM THE HOUSE DOWN TO THE FENCE. I WOULD HAVE STEPPED IT UP RIGHT
[01:10:03]
THERE, HAD IT LOWER AT THE ROAD AND STEPPED IT UP WHERE THE ACTUAL TOPOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCE IS WITH THE FOUNDATION OF THEAND AGAIN, UNDERSTANDING THIS IS NOT THE HARDSHIP.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONTRACTOR INSTALLED IT THIS WAY, AND AFTER CODE COMPLIANCE CAME OUT AND INFORMED US OF THIS, IT WOULD MAKE MORE POTENTIAL PROBABLE SENSE.
I WILL SAY HOWEVER, COMMISSIONER, THAT RELATIVE TO THE SITE FROM THE ROAD, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT HERE FOR PURPOSES OF BEING ABLE TO PULL IN AND OUT, IT DOES NOT IMPEDE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT'S NOT WITHIN THOSE SPECIFIC
SETBACKS. >> I AGREE WITH THAT, IT DID NOT IMPEDE SPRIGGS FOR ANYTHING IN THE ROAD.
I DID CALL A REPUTABLE FENCE CONTRACTOR TODAY, THIS MORNING JUST TO ASK IF THEY FELT THEY WERE UNDER ANY OBLIGATION WHEN INSTALLING A FENCE TO NOTIFY A HOMEOWNER THAT THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE WITHOUT A WAIVER WAS 6 FEET, AND THEY SAID, YES, THEY FELT THEY WERE UNDER THAT OBLIGATION TO DO THAT, SO THE CONTRACTOR THAT DID THIS DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING AT THE BEGINNING, I
GUESS. >> NO, COMMISSIONER, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NORS TWA YOU IT WAS I WAS IT EVER COMMUNICATED.
>> I MAY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION BUT THANKS.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS?
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE DO.
DAVID TELLES. >> DAVID TILLIS 410 FRAYED WIND LANED, STRAWGHT. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M A SEMI RETIRED LAND USE PLANNING AND ENTITLEMENTS CONSULTANT, AND I LIVE THREE DOORS DOWN FROM THIS APPLICANT, AND I CAN'T HELP MYSELF WHEN I SEE SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY ORDINANCE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I ALSO AT ONE TIME WAS A MEMBER OF THIS SAME BODY. IT IS A MYSTERY TO ME FRANKLY WHY THIS IS EVEN BEFORE YOU AS A VARIANCE BECAUSE, AS I READ THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO FENCES, IT'S CLEAR TO ME AS A 45-YEAR PROFESSIONAL PLANNER THAT THIS MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THE MORE THAN 2-FOOT GRADE CHANGE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, IT WAS BUILT BY THE NEIGHBOR ON THE OTHER SIDE, A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE. I VISITED HIM WHILE THE HOUSE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IN FACT, HE ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THINGS FOR HIM. THIS LOT WAS FILLED TO MEET FEMA AND COUNTY FLOOD REQUIREMENTS, AND I THINK IT CLEARLY MEETS THE INTENT OF ORDINANCE WITH THE 2-FOOT TOPO CHANGE, AND I FRANKLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S BEEN ELEVATED TO THE LEVEL OF A VARIANCE. WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE.
>> NEXT IS JAMES WHITEHOUSE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
AGENCY MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD S ST. JOHN LAW VOAP SEA GROVE IN STRAWGHTD. I'M HERE ON BLAST ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS 8 TO 9-FOOT STOCKADE FENCE THAT RUNS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET FROM FRONT TO BACK OF THE PROPERTY ALMOST ALL THE WAY TO THE MARSH.
FROM THE AUTHORIZATION FROM THOSE MEMBERS.
WHEN THEY FIRST -- WHEN THE NEIGHBORS FIRST CAME AND TALKED TO ME ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS WITH THIS BLOCKADE FENCE, MY INTENT WAS TO COME AND READ THE DEFINITION OF VARIANCE TO YOU AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THEIR APPLICATION ABOUT THE 2-FOOT CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY.
I THINK WE'RE HEARING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY.
BUT AGAIN, THAT SECTION OF THE CODE THAT MR. SERIALLY TOLD YOU THAT HE PUT INTO THE CODE, I KNOW THAT VERY WELL, AND WHAT IT IS AMANDA MEANT TO DO IS IT'S SUPPOSED TO HELP FOR SECURITY AND FOR VIEW, BUT AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, SPECIFICALLY FROM YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AGENCY MAY GRANT SUCH RELIEF TO THE EXTENT ONLY NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP. IF THAT'S THE HARDSHIP THEN THE HEIGHT OF FENCE MAY BE AT THAT HEIGHT IN THAT PERIOD WHERE THAT HOUSE IS, NOT 200 FEET ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE MARSH AND ALL THE WAY ALMOST IS ON THE FRONT ROAD WHERE WHEN YOU DRIVE.
THIS ROAD, AND SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE GONE THERE, YOU CAN'T IS EVEN SEE THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE YOU'RE DRIVING UP THE DIRT ROAD AND YOU HAVE THIS HUGE FENCE, AND IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT SMALL. I THINK I HAVE SOME PICTURES OF SOMEONE STANDING NEXT TO IT, WHICH I THINK WILL GIVE YOU A BETTER PERSPECTIVE AS TO THE HEIGHT OF THIS FENCE.
THIS PICTURE, THIS IS THEIR HOUSE.
THIS IS THE FENCE. ALMOST ALL THE WAY UP TO THE ROAD 90 FRONT. HERE'S A SECOND PICTURE.
[01:15:03]
THIS IS THEIR HOUSE. THIS IS MY CLIENT AS HOUSE.IT RUNS -- I'M SORRY. I THINK THAT'S THE OPPOSITE.
BUT IT RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN FROM THE FRONT ALL WITH THE O THE BACK. HERE'S A PICTURE.
OF ONE OF MY CLIENTS STANDING NEXT TO THE FENCE.
THIS IS NOT A SMALL FENCE. THIS IS A HUGE FENCE.
SIX FEET WOULD BE A FEW OF THESE BOARDS OFF FROM THE TOP WHICH WOULD BE STILL WAY OVER HER HEAD AND WOULD STILL HAVE PRIVACY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THIS IS A GOOD PICTURE WHEN YOU'RE GETTING DOWN CLOSER TO THE MARSH.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK, AND MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, IT BLOCKS PART OF THEIR VIEW.
THERE'S NO REASON THAT THIS FENCE NEEDS TO BE 8 TO 9 FEET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE MARSH. I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A AS HARDSHIP, THE HARDSHIP WH THIS CHANGED 2-FOOT GRADE IN THE SECTION WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT TODAY WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE PREVIOUSLY, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THAT SHOULD ONLY BE TO THE EXTENT TO ALLEVIATE THAT HARDSHIP.
THIS IS REALLY AFFECTS MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND THE FENCE SHOULD COME DOWN ON BOTH SIDES AND SHOULD BE ONLY LIMITED TO THAT MAYBE 50 OR 60 FEET IN THE MIL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHOUSE.
>> I'LL LEAVE THESE FOR THE RECORD.
>> MR. WHITEHOUSE, SORRY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE REPRESENTING SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.
WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THOSE NEIGHBORS? THEIR ADDRESSES YOU HAVE IF YOU DON'T HAVE.
THEY THEM SPECIFICALLY. >> I HAVE IT TO THE AUTHORIZATION. I CAN PUT THAT UP.
BUT THE PERSON WHOSE NAME'S ON THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IS FRED MYLES AND THAT OWNERSHIP ADDRESS IS 450 TRADE WIND LANE WHICH, AS I SAID, IS THE PROPERTY ON THE EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF WHERE THIS FENCE IS. THIS FENCE IS ONLY WITH ON ONE SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. IT'S IN BETWEEN MY CLIENT'S
PROPERTY AND THEIR PROPERTY. >>Y SOW YOU REPRESENT THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
>> YES, SIR. >> DON'T RUN OFF YET.
WOULD YOU PUT THAT LAST PICTURE UP AGAIN, PLEASE, THE ONE DOWN BY THE MARSH. UH THANK YOU.
THAT'S ALL I NEEDED, MR. WHITEHOUSE.
WE'RE READY FOR REBUTTAL, SIR. >> YES, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COMMISSIONERS, WHILE WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW THE DERN ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE FENCE, AGAIN, WHAT IS NOT SHOWN IN THESE PICTURES, WHICH IS CERTAINLY TRUE AND ACCURATE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE PROPERTY, IS CERTAINLY WHEN YOU GET OVER AND START LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE TOP GRAPHIC OF THE ADJOINING LOT, THE HOUSE CERTAINLY SITS UP, AND IF YOU WERE SITING AT THE HOUSE OR LOOKING OUT THROUGH WINDOWS, THE PRIVACY DOES COME INTO PLAY AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.
THE INTENT OF THE CODE IT WAS TO PROVIDE THIS SORT OF PRIVACY, THIS SORT OF EXPIERPT CERTAINLY CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF AN ADJOINING NEIGHBOR BUT BACK PORTION OF THE PANELS, BUT AGAIN, RESPECTFULLY, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE CODE ALLOWS TO HAVE THIS VARIANCE, AND SHOULD THE BODY WISH TO CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE, WE'D BE OPEN TO THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE HARDSHIP HERE FOR US IS THE TRULY WE BELIEVE THE KEYED AND THE INTENT OF THE CODE IT WAS TO PROVIDE THESE SORTS OF VARIANCES. WE BELIEVE WE STRICTED MEET THAT CRITERIA. WE UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST FROM THE CODE SPLINES OFFICER TO SEEK A VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ENTITLED TO THIS BY RIGHT UNDER
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THERE'S NOT A FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE
OF THE PROPERTY. >> I'VE HAD TO DEFER TO THE
APPLICANT ON THAT, IF I MAY. >> MAY I HAVE ONE SECOND?
>> SURE. >> SO INTERESTING, COMMISSIONER, THE INTENT IS TO PUT ONE THERE OF SIMILAR HEIGHT ASSUMING THAT THE GRADE MATCHES. HOWEVER, KNOWING THAT WE NOW POTENTIAL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH VARIANCE, WE STOPPED, AND CAME HERE FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD SEEK THIS VARIANCE.
ASSUMING THAT WE GET A REPUTABLE OR MORE REPUTABLE CONTRACTOR TO BUILD THAT PROPERTY, WE WILL HAVE THEM APPROPRIATELY MEASURE AND SUBMIT THE APPLICATION ACCORDINGLY.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. PERKINS.
>> I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS THE 2-FOOT DECLINE AND MEETING THE INTENT OF THE CODE BECAUSE IT'S BY RIGHT YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE.
SO EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
YOU REALLY HAVE ME CONFUSED. >> COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY, WE BELIEVE THAT BY RIGHT WE'RE ENTITLED TO THIS, AND I'LL DEFER ULTIMATELY TO YOUR COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES AND EXPERTS.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK HERE, IF YOU SIMPLY GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, IT IS CLEARLY WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN 2 FEET.
IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR APPLICABLE CODE SECTION, IT ACTUALLY STATES, WHICH I THINK WE FLERCHESD OUR APPLICATION
[01:20:02]
NUMEROUS TIMES, THAT IF YOU ARE WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE SITE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND THE GRADE GOES DOWN MORE THAN 2 FEET FROM, AS THE GENTLEMAN SPOKE EARLIER, FROM WHERE WE'RE AT HERE LOOKING, IT IS ACTUALLY BY RIGHT.HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY, THEY ASKED TO US COME AND PRESENT THIS VARIANCE, BUT AGAIN, WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THIS BY RIGHT, WHICH I THINK LEADS TO SOME
SO THEN THE 2-FOOT DOWNGRADE, IS THAT FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
THE PROPERTY? >> IT WOULD BE WHEREVER THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN 2 FEET, YES.
YOU WOULD GET -- AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE 2 FEET DOWN ALL THE WAY DOWN, MY INTERPRETATION OF THE ROAD AND THE INTENT --
>> BUT DOES THIS PROPERTY MEET THE ENTIRE SNRENGTDZ.
>> IT MEETS IT FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE PART OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE WAS BUILT UP BECAUSE OF FEMA REGULATIONS FOR FLOODIG.
>> MR. MILLER. >> SO MR. WALKER JUST SORT OF SUMMED IT UP. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU BELIEVE YOUR HARDSHIP IS THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THIS FENCE BY RIGHT AND THAT STAFF DISAGREES WITH THAT.
AND I WOULDN'T SAY YOU'RE REFERRING TO STAFF.
I'M SAYING YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH THEM.
THAT'S FINE. >> I WILL DEFER TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO MADE THE COMMENT EARLIER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO RELATIVE TO THE GRADE.
BUT, YES, THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING.
>> SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF CODE BUT THAT DOESN'T CUTE A AS HARD HIPP,
DOES IT? >> I THINK THE HARDSHIP WOULD COME TO THE SPIRIT AND TENT INTENT OF THE CODE.
WE COULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF CODE WHICH IS THE PRIVACY WITHOUT THAT ADDITIONAL 2 FEET WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE FINISHED GRAIFD THAT
PROPERTY. >> IS THERE A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS THE HARDSHIP IS THE SPIRIT OF CODE OR DOES IT TO HAVE TO BE TOPO GRAPHIC OR SOMETHING TO PROPERTY.
>> HARDSHIP IS A JUDICIALLY DEFINED TERM WHICH IS WHAT CUTES A HARDSHIP OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER.
IT TO BE WHAT THIS BODY SEEMS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE HARDSHIP BUT IT CAN'T BE WE INSTALLED AND IT NOW WE'RE SORRY.
>> I HAVE TO LOOK UP THAT CASELOAD THAT SAYS HARDSHIP CAN BE WHATEVER THIS BODY WANTS IT TO BE.
>> MR. WALKER, CAN YOU PUM THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE.
-- PULL UP THE SITE PLAN, PLEAS. SO IT'S HARD TO SEE THERE, MR. WALKER, BUT THE FOUNDATION APPEARS TO BE 20-1/2 FEET OFF OF
THE NORTH BOUNDARY. >> APPROXIMATELY, YES, SIR.
>> AND AT THE WESTERN END OF THE FOUNDATION, I SEE SOME NOTATION NOTATIONS. I CAN'T NECESSARILY READ THOSE, BUT THEY'RE RIGHT AT THE END OF THE FOUNDATION.
THEY LOOK LIKE 17-FOOT .0 INCHES BUT I CAN'T SEE THAT.
CAN SOMEBODY ELSE SEE THOSE? THEY'RE CLEARLY NOT 20.
I'M NOT SURE. MAYBE THAT'S 12 FEET ZERO INCHES. I'M NOT SURE.
>> YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER. IF YOU'RE ASKING WHETHER OR NOT -- IS THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE WITHIN 20 FEET OF
THE PROPERTY LINE, SIR? >> YES.
>> THE ANSWER IS YES, SIR. >> WHY DOES YOU THE SAY 20-1/2
ON HER? >> I THINK WHERE YOU SEE THE 20-1/2, SIR, IS RELATIVE TO THE THE -- I APOLOGIZE.
I'M NOT SEEING WHERE YOU'RE SEEING 20-1/2.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THIS SHEET. >> YES, SIR.
>> NOT THE SHEET, BUT IT SAYS 20-1/2.
TO THE FOUNDATION. AND YOU STATED THAT YOU RAISED THE ELEVATION OF THE LOT FOR FEMA PURPOSES.
DID YOU RAISE THE ELEVATION OF THE SLAB? AND HAVE THE SLAB REMOVED FOR FEMA PURPOSES? OR DID YOU REMOVE THE ENTIRE LOT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF, JOSEPH, IF YOU HAVE A SECOND. JOSEPH, THEY FENCE CLEARLY GOES ALL THE WAY OUT INTO THE FRONT YARD UNLESS WE CONSIDER THE SIDE YARD TO EXTEND ALL WITH A TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE.
IS IT NOT IN THE FRONT YARD OR IS IT ALL SIDE YARD?
>> IT SHOULD BE SIDE YARD, COMMISSIONER.
SIDE YARD IS FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOME BACK.
IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SIDE. >> BUT THE FRONT YARD, I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE 100% CONFIDENT WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
THE FRONT YARD IS A 25-FOOT SETBACK, RIGHT?
[01:25:04]
>> I IMAGINE THE FRONT OF THE HOME -- IMAGINE THE FRONT OF THE HOME, THE SIDE OF THE HOME, IF THAT'S WHERE THE HOME BEGINS.
I'M NOT THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
THAT FENCE CAN COME UP TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME AT 8 FEET.
BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE HOME ON THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE 4 FUTURE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
>> SO DON'T THEY NEED ON THE VARIANCE HERE?
>> IS IT GOING TO EXTEND BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE HOME?
>> IT EXTENDS BEYOND THE SIDE OF THE HOME BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A SETBACK RELATIVE TO HOW CLOSE WE CAN HAVE THE FENCE.
I DON'T THINK WE ENCROACH ON THAT NOR WERE WE ADVISED BY STAFF THAT WE DID THAT I'M AWARE OF.
>> I'M REPEAT PRETTY SURE YOU NEED AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE FRONT YARD.
>> THE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS IS IF THEY WANT AN 8-FOOT HIGH FENCE, IT CAN'T BE WITHIN THAT 25-FOOT SETBACK.
IF IT DOES EXTEND INTO THAT 25-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, THEN THEY
WOULD GET ANOTHER VARIANCE. >> IT DOES.
THIS LINE IS COLORED ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN OUR
PACKAGE. >> SO TO THE COMMISSION, THE LINE, THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED LINE WAS ASKED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FENCE, WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED.
AGAIN, WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OR NOBODY ASKED OR NOBODY HAS TOLD US THAT WE'RE IN VIOLATION OF RELATIVE TO OUR YARD WE HAVE LOOKED AND IT DOES NOT ENCROACH ON, FROM WHERE THAT ROAD IS IT DOES NOT ENCROACH TO OUR YARD THAT 25 FEET.
THAT SAID, COMMISSIONERS, OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S A CONCERN TO THAT EFFECT AND WE NEED TO REDUCE THAT HEIGHT THERE, WE
WOULD DO SO. >> I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BUT WHAT I HEARD IN TESTIMONY TODAY IS THAT THIS FENCE EXTENDS ALL TWITE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WHATEVER
THAT ROAD IS, IN WHICH CASE IT'S IN THE 25-FOOT FRONT YARD>> THRY APPLICANT IS TELLING ME THAT IT IS WELL OFF THE ACTUAL ROAD, SO IF THE DOCUMENTATION BEFORE YOU SHOWS A HIGHLIGHTED LINE, I THINK WE WERE ASKED TO DEMONSTRATE WHERE JUST ON THE SITE MAP IT WAS. THAT LINE IS NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FRONT PORTION OF THE FENCE.
AND AGAIN, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WERE HERE.
WE WERE HERE RELATIVE TO THE 8-FOOT HEIGHT OF THE TOTAL FENCE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S NEVER
BEEN AN ISSUE BROUGHT BEFORE US. >> DR. HILSENBECK.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
NUMBER ONE, I'M PERPLEXED AT WHY YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE 2-FOOT GRADE CHANGE AT ALL IN YOUR APPLICATION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MONTHS YOU HAD TO PUT THE APPLICATION TOGETHER, BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT -- EXCEPT FOR WHAT THE STAFF'S COMMENTS WERE ABOUT 2-FOOT GRADE CHANGE, BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN YOUR APPLICATION ABOUT THAT AS MEETING THIS THRESHOLD THAT THEY COULD HAVE AN 8-FOOT FENCE. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
SO IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT, GREAT, AND THEN I'LL ASK STAFF A
QUESTION. >> YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER.
AGAIN WITH REASON THAT THE 2-FOOT IS NOT PART OF IT IS IS THE -- TO ATTEMPT TO ARGUE IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION AROUND THAT CODE PROVISION, WE WERE -- CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. RATHER, WE ELECTED TO GO THE ROUTE OF LOOKING AT WHAT THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE IS, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE THAT LEVEL OF SECURITY AND THAT LEVEL OF PRIVACY. SO I APOLOGIZE THAT WE DID NOT PREPARE THAT IN MORE DETAIL, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL CERTAINLY LOOK AT SHOULD THIS COMMISSION DEEM IT SO.
>> OKAY. AND FOR STAFF, IF YOU GET A PRIDE COMPLAINT AS OCCURRED HERE, DOES THAT TYPICALLY, DO THOSE TYPICALLY GET RESOLVED BY THE BEFORE THEY WOULD AS A LAST RESORT COME HERE? SO WERE STAFF UNAWBLG TO RESOLVE THIS? I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE PROTOCOL IS THERE WITH A PRIDE COMPLAINT AND IF Y'ALL TRIED TO RESOLVE THOSE AND IF THIS WAS NOT RESOLVABLE.
>> YES, SIR. STAFF'S WHOLE INTENT TO BRING OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND OUR APPLICANTS IN TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, SO, YES, IF THERE'S OPTIONS AVAILABLE, THOSE OPTIONS
[01:30:02]
ARE PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THAT CASE.SOMETIMES THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE THOSE OPTIONS AND MAYBE MAKE A DIFFERENT SITUATION. IN THIS CASE THE VARIANCE WAS THE OPTION THAT THEY CHOSE. VARIANCE IS ALWAYS AN OPTION THAT'S AVAILABLE. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO MEET A HARDSHIP. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE CERTAIN STANDARDS THEY HAVE TO MEET, AND THEY NO EXRS NO DARN GUARANTEE WHAT THIS AIRLINES WILL DO WHEN THAT VARIANCE COMMENTS BEFORE
THEM. >> SO YOU JUST STATED THAT THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO MEET THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT SPHIM HAVEN'T HEARD CLEARLY WHAT THE HEARTSHIP IS.
I UNDER IF PART OF THE FENCE HAD TO BE TAKEN DOWN.
FOR ME THAT WOULD BE A REAL BUMMER, A REAL HARDSHIP FOR ME PERSONALLY, BUT IS THAT THE HARDSHIP HERE? AND DOES THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A HARDSHIP?
>> GIVEN FACT THAT THE APPLICATION MIGHT BE INCOMPLETE AS TO VARIANCE NEEDED FROM THE FRONT YARD AND GIVEN THE FACT WHAT WAS IN THE BODY OF YOUR APPLICATION DIDN'T TOUCH ON THE GRADE ISSUE AND MAYBE THIS NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT MORE WITH STAFF, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO WITHDRAWING YOUR APPLICATION AND PERHAPS RE-FILING WITH A LIT LULL MORE DATA?
>> COMMISSIONER, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD SEE SO FIT TO ALLOW ME TO WITHDRW, WE WOULD WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION.
>> I'LL TURN TO LEGAL COUNSEL IF THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION.
>> NEXT CERTAINLY EITHER WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION OR THEY CAN ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE TO AMEND THE APPLICATION.
>> SO COMMISSIONERS, BASED ON THOSE TWO OPGHTSZ PRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WE WOULD ARE FOR AN CONTINUANCE TO PRESERVE YOU ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I THINK THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE RELATIVE TO THOSE SPECIFICS POINTS.
>> SO I THINK WE NEED A MOTION. DO WE WANT TO SET A DATE CERTAIN OR WOULD WE RATHER LET STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORK OUT THE NEW DATE? PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE BEST.
OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE CERTAIN? NOT A DATE CERTAIN.
MR. MILLER. >> YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE TO BE SET BY STAFF AFTER
[Items 6 & 7]
THE APPLICANT CONFERS WITH STAFF ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED.>> GOT A MOTION BY MR. MILLER TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. IS THERE A SECOND.
>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MS. PERKINS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6 AND MS. SMITH. AND I THINK WE WILL HEAR ITEMS 6 AND 7 TOGETHER. AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE FOR ITEM 6 AND 7?
>> I HAD A VOICE MAIL MESSAGE FROM MS. SMITH THAT I UNFORTUNATELY WAS NOT ABLE TO -- [INAUDIBLE]
>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I ALSO HAD A VOICE MAIL I DID CALL HER BACK BUT I HAD TO LEAVE A VOICE MAIL.
>> SO DID I. I GOT A CALL FROM HER.
I WAS UNABLE TO TALK TO AND GOTS A VOICE MAIL.
>> I HAVE THAT EFFECT ON PEOPLE. >> MS. PERKINS.
>> I HAD A VOICE MESSAGE AS WELL AND DIDN'T CALL BACK.
>> I HAD A VOICE MESSAGE AS WELL.
I DID NOT RETURN THE PHONE CALL. >> I HAD SEVERAL VOICE MESSAGES BECAUSE EVERY TIME I CALLED BACK --
>> WE WERE PLAYING PHONE TAG. >> ABOUT IT ACTUALLY DID SPEAK TO MS. SMITH AND WE DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF THIS APPLICATION.
>> AND DR. MCCORMICK, JUST SO YOU KNOW, PHONE NUMBER FOR YOU ON THE ROSTER IS NOT CORRECT. IT GOES BEEP, BEEP, BEEP, BEEP.
SO YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS YOUR PHONE NUMBER TO CALL AND YOU HAVE INTERESTING DISCUSSION.
[INAUDIBLE] ANYWAY, WE DIGRESS.
A MOMENT OF HUMOR IS ALWAYS GOOD IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING, RIGHT? SO WITH ME TODAY, WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF LVP ST. AUGUSTINE OUTLETS WHICH IS ATTORNEY OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.
ALS ARI FROM LVP IS IS WITH MORS AS IS LINDY AND JEFF CRAM AND ALSO OUR PROJECT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER FROM ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
THIS POURED HAS HEARD TWO APPLICATIONS ON THIS SAME PROPERTY SO FAR THIS YEAR. SO THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A THIRD PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN THIS DRI AND PUD.
ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE OUTLETS, WHICH ARE LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF I-95 AND
[01:35:01]
STATE ROAD 16. AND SO YOU NOTICE THE TWELVE MILE SWAMP AREA. THEN YOU'VE GOT THE OUTLET MALLS AT THE INTERCHANGE, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOING WEST OR NORTHWEST ON SAY STATD 16 AS YOU GET OUT TO IGP.ZOOMING IN A LITTLE BIT, THIS PROPERTY, THIS IS THE BOUNDER OF THE. ENTIRE DRI IN THEIEL AND THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST THIS OUTLET MALL PORTION THAT'S OWNED BY LVP. THAT'S FROT THAT'S OPPORTUNITY SUBT TO THESE DRI AND PUD MODIFICATIONS TODAY.
SIMILARLY, THIS IS THE BOUNDARY IN THE YELLOW OF THE ENTIRE ST. AUGUSTINE CENTER PUD. SO OBVIOUSLY THE ZONING IS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY IS WHAT'S SUBJECT, THIS PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY SOLD TO BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, THIS PROPERTY HERE. SO WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT THE OUTLET MALL THAT EXISTS TODAY, THAT PROPERTY.
JUST BY WAY OF HISTORY OF THIS DRI, IT WAS FIRST APPROVED 20-SOMETHING YEARS AGO IN 1997. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OUT-PARCELS. YOU KNOW BOSEARD FORD AND LINCOLN ARE OUT THERE. THERE'SFORD'S GARAGE, ANOTHER CAR DEALERSHIP, A MOTORCYCLE DEALERSHIP, RV, ALL OF THAT IS WITHIN THIS DRI AND PUD. OUR TEAM, WITH A RELATED ENTITY CALLED LIGHT STONE, WAS HERE IN THE PRING TO BRING IN BAPTIST MECH FOR 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEMORABILIA USES FOR THAT CAMPUS, AND SO THAT WAS -- YOUR BORDER APPROVED AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED.
SO FOR THIS PROPERTY AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE EXISTING OUTLET MALL, AND THE EXISTING OUTLET MALL INCLUDES 415,000 SQUARE FEET TODAY. IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS. SO THE OUTLET MALL IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT OLDER. BECAUSE OF THE COMPETITION WITH ONLINE RETAILING AND THEN COVID, THE OUTLET MALL HAS LOST HUH LOT OF TENANTS, AND SO TODAY IT'S SITTING AT ABOUT 60S% OCCUPANCY, AND SOME OF THE OCCUPANCY IS PROBABLY GOING TO FALL OUT AFTER THE HOLIDAY SEASON, AND SO IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT 60% AFTER THE HOLIDAYS.
SO OUR PROPOSAL TODAY IS SIMPLY REALLY TO DO A TRANSPORTATION EQUIVALENT. SO TRIP FOR TRIP EQUAL 415,000 SQUARE FEET OF OUTLET MALL AND WE'RE GOING TO CONVERT THAT TO A MAXIMUM OF 99,500 SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL RETAIL, AND THEN A MAXIMUM OF 350 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
SO WEEFGHT THROUGH WITH YOUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF.
THEY HAVE VERIFIED THAT THE MATH ALL WORK OUT FOR THE CONVERSION OF BECAUSE THAT'S WHITES ALL ABOUT, NOT PUTTING ADOPTION TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD. AND SO THAT BOX HAS BEEN CHECKED TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF THE OUTLET SPACE TO THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL SPACE.
AND IT ACTUALLY DECREASES EXTERNAL TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS, ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, AND MR. CRAMMEN CAN COME TALK ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. JUST FOR THE PUD, YOU CAN SEE THESE PLANS ARE VERY ERIC. THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE DRI AND PUD IN 1997.
THEY ARE GENERIC. SO THIS IS THE PUD MASTER PLAN UP. SEE THE ENTIRE OUTLET MALL HERE AND YOU SEE THIS IS THE MULTI-FAMILY AREA THAT'S PROPOSED, AND IT WILL BE SURROUND ON THE SIDES BY RETAIL.
AND SO AGAIN THIS IS CALLED AREA A AND THE DRI AND PUD, SO WE'RE ADDING THIS MULTI-FAMILY AS A PERMITTED USE IN AREA A WHICH IS THAT PORTION FERLT PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ALONG I'M 95.
AND THEN ALSO WE'RE GIVING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AREA HEIGHT AND BULK REGULATIONS FOR THE PUD FOR THAT MULTI-FAMILY WITHIN AREA A. THIS IS A CHOLESTEROLLIZED VERSION OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE SO YOU MIGHT SEE MORE CLEARLY WHERE THE MULTI-FAMILY WOULD BE LOCATED AND THEN AGAIN SURROUND BY RETAIL, TRAWNTS, THAT KIND OF THING.
OUTLET CENTER DRIVE REMAINS THE SAME.
OUTLET MALL STAY IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE.
SO AGAIN GOING TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE'RE ONLY AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE OUTLET MALL HERE.
THIS SITE, NOT THIS. AND THE HEIGHT ALONG THIS ENTIRE AREA IS 60 PEET THE NOW, AND SO FOR THIS PROPERTY, THE FRONT SE, 10-FOOT SIDE, 5 FEET REAR, 10 FEET IMPERV SURFACE RATIO IS A MAXIMUMS OF 70% AGAIN FOR THIS PLOT AND THEN MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS WILL BE 60%, AND ALL OF THAT IS IN THE DETAIL IN THE PUD. SO WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION AGAIN, WE HAVE WORKED WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF TO MAKE SURE THE TRIPS EQUIVALENT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF LAND USES. I FORGOT TO SAY EARLIER THE DRI INCLUDES A LAND USE EXCHANGE TABLE.
SO LIKE EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT IN ST. JOHNS
[01:40:05]
COUNTY, THE DEFERLINGS ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE BETWEEN USES BASED ON TRAFFICS TRIPS. THE PURPOSECH THAT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROJECT DOESN'T PUT MORE TRAFFIC ON THED AT THE BEGINNING. AND SO WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THAT MATH. THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS OR CAPABILITY, CAPACITY IN THIS- AREA, AND THAT THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A MASTER STORM WATER SYSTEM. THERE IS A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT GOVERNS THIS ENTIRE DRI AND PUD AS WELL.AND SO THEY DEAL WITH THE MASTER STORM WATER SYSTEM, AND WE'VE CONFERRED WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPER THAT THAT SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE FOR THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
I ALSO WANT TO DEAL, DR. MCCORMICK, WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO TRY TO GET SCHOOL MITIGATION, WHICH WE WILL PROVIDE BASED ON A PROPORTIONATE SHARE.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD YET BUT WE'RE HOPING TO SOON, BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSION HEARING ON THIS, AND JUST KNOW THAT THAT APPLICATION IS IN THE PIPELINE AND WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO GET THAT RESPONSE AND GET THAT DOCUMENTATION WRAPPED UP WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
AGAIN WE'VE GOT LINDSEY AND JEFF AS OUR EXPERTS IN CASE YOU WANT TO DISCUSS SOMETHING, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
ARE YOU GOING -- NOT YOU PERSONALLY BUT IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO ACTUALLY TEAR DOWN APPROXIMATELY 414,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE CURRENT MALL OR MAYBE 314,000 OF IT? IS THAT GOING TO BE CONVERTED OR REDEVELOPED? SO WILL THAT BE TORN DOWN OR -- OKAY.
>> YES, SIR, IT WILL BE TORN DOWN.
YOU KNOW, I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE GIVEN US AN INTERESTING YARDSTICK HERE GIVEN THAT THE COUNTY NO LONGER REQUIRES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO MEET CONCURRENCY OR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE. 350 HOUSES OR SO IS EQUIVALENT NOW IN TRAFFIC. WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US BASED ON TRAFFIC STUDIES, THAT AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL EQUATES TO ABOUT 414,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.
I JUST FIND THAT INTERESTING. >> RIGHT.
AND THERE'S A MATHEMATICAL SERIES OF EQUATIONS THAT MR. CRAMMEN CAN GO INTO WITH YOU, BUT, YES, IT IS A LAND USE EXCHANGE. THE TABLE IS IN THE DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER WITH THE CALCULATIONS.
SO THE 415,000 IS REALLY 414,772 SQUARE FEET IS EQUAL TO 350 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 99,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
THE IDEA OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT IS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MET BY THE DRI MASTER DEVELOPER, AND SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR -- WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE CONVERSION OF USES WHICH WILL PUT NO MORE TRIPS THAN HAVE ALREADY BEEN MITIGATED FOR ON THE ROADS OUT
AND HE DOESN'T NEED TO GO INTO DETAIL ON THAT.
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE DO NOT.
>> OKAY. WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR
A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 7. >> YOU MEAN 6?
MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRI MODIFICATION 2021-04 ST. AUGUSTINE CENTRE BASED UPON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YOU'VE GOT A MOTION BY MS. PERKINS FOR APPROVAL.
>> SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT LET'S RECORD THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING NOW ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7.
MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL MAJOR MODIFICATION 2021-09 STRAWGHT CENTRE BASED ON SIX
FINDINGS OF FACT. >> YOU'VE GOT A MOTION BY
[8. REZ 2021-25 The Preserve @ Eagle Cove. A request to rezone approximately 42.32 acres of land from an expired Planned Rural Development (PRD) to Open Rural (OR) to allow limited residential development and agricultural uses, specifically located at 4680 State Road 13 North.]
MS. PERKINS. DO I HAVE -- FOR APPROVAL.>> SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? E. DR. MCCORMICK. ONE OF THOSE DOCTORS OVER THERE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S RECORD THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT PASSES. LET'S MOVE ON TO MS. TAYLOR.
[01:45:09]
>> THERE IT IS. GOOD AFTERNOON, KAREN TAYLOR 77 SARAGOSSA STREET. AND I AM HERE FOR THE PREAFORT EAGLE COVE REZONING. AND BRIAN BROWN IS WITH ME, WORKS WITH MR. RINGHAVER WHO WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY.
THIS REZONING REQUEST IS TO TAKE PROPERTY FROM PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT TO OPEN RURAL, AND THAT IS AN EXPIRED PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT. JUST TO GIVE YOU ANED WHY OF THE LOCATION, THIS KIND OF TELLS YOU WHERE IT IS.
IT'S ON STATE ROAD 13 NORTH. IT IS JUST NORTH OF WHERE 16A COMES BACK INTO STATE ROAD 13 NORTH AND, OF COURSE, SOME OF THAT'S GOING TO BE CHANGING WITH THE NEW BELTWAY.
YOU CAN SEE LONGLEAF PINE PARKWAY AND COUNTY ROAD 210 WEST KIND OF HOW THEY ALL COME TOGETHER AT THIS POINT.
THIS IS THE OVERALL LAND USE. THE SITE IS RURAL/SILVICULTURE YOU CULTURE WHICH YOU CAN SEE IT'S RIGHT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. AND IT DOES HAVE OTHER RURAL/SILVICULTURE IN THE AREA AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL B AND, OF COURSE, LOTS OF OTHER DIFFERENT AS YOU KIND OF GO FARTHER OUT.
IF YOU GET CLOSE INTO THE SITE, YOU CAN SEE IT A LOT BETTER AND YOU CAN REALLY SEE THIS PARTICULAR PIECE AND THE RURAL/SILVICULTURE AND THE RESIDENTIAL B.
THERE'S A COMMERCIALET NODE HERE AND A LITTLE COMMERCIAL NODE IN
HERE. >> THIS IS THIS ZONING MAP AND THAT'S IN THE PARK AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE PRD OR THE PORTION THAT'S LEFT AT THE TIME OF PRD WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE IS HERE.
THIS IS THE RIVER TOWN. THIS IS GRAND CREEK.
AND THEN THERE'S SOME LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL AT THAT CORNER.
THIS IS AN OUTLINE SHOWING YOU THE LIMITS OF THE ORIGINAL PUD WAS APPROVED IN 2009. AND I HAVE A SITE PLAN AND THINGS FOR IT, BUT A PORTION -- IT WAS A BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
THERE IS A CREEK THAT GOES THROUGH THOSE PROPERTIES.
AS YOU MOVE OVER, THIS WAS THE PLAN FOR THE PRD, AND THIS WAS DONE UNDER THE OLDER REGULATIONS FOR PRDS.
I DON'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN VERY MANY OF THOSE ANYMORE, BUT NOW YOU ACTUALLY COULDN'T REALLY DO IT LIKE THIS.
BUT ANYWAY, THIS PRD AS WELL, THAT NORTHERN PORTION THAT I WAS SHOWING YOU IS NOW OUT OF THE PRD IS GONE AND IT IS A PUD.
THERE IS A SOUTHERN PORTION, AND THAT'S THE PORTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. AND SO THE INFORMATION THAT I PUT UP HERE REALLY JUST HADED TOO WITH THE WHOLE PRD ITSELF WHICH WAS 140 ACRES. AND CERTAIN LEVELS DEVELOPMENT AREA. THERE WAS AN EAGLE NEST AND THE EAGLE NEST RIGHT IN THE CENTER HERE, AND SO THIS WAS ALL DESIGNED AROUND THE EAGLE ZONE AND THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ZONE. THERE'S EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THE TREE THAT THE EAGLES NESTED IN WAS DESTROYED IN ONE OF THE LATER RECENT STORMS, AND SO THEY HAVEN'T RELOCATED YET, SO WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF POINT THAT OUT AS WELL.
AND THIS IS FOR YOU, DR. HILSENBECK, JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND I PUT THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT TOO. I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT THAT WAS DONE WHEN THIS WAS DONE AS A PRD, BUT IT DID INDICATE SOME NATURAL COMMUNITY, SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITY HABITATS. AND I KIND OF PUT THIS A LITTLE LARGER JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THOSE HABITATS WERE TO BE PRESERVED ON THE UPPER PORTION. THEY'RE NOT ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THIS. OF COURSE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT IS FOUND, IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO BE DONE WITH IT, WE WOULD KNOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PRESERVE THAT 10% AT LEAST.
SO JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT THE ZONING, AGAIN ORDINANCE, NOW WE HAVE ORDINANCE 2019-32. THIS WAS A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND THAT TOOK THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PRD AND PUT NIGHT RESIDENTIAL B LEAVING THE SOUTHERN PORTION THE RURAL/SILVICULTURE IT IS. AND THEN THE PUD THAT WAS ALSO AN AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER PUD FOR GRAND CREEK WHICH WAS ORDINANCE 2019-34, SO YOU SEE THAT WASN'T TOO LONG AGO.
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE REMEMBERED THAT.
BUT THAT LEFT THE PRRD PRD EXPIRED WHICH MEANS THE PROPERTY
[01:50:06]
HAS NO USE. ANDIS TRULY MEAN THAT, NO USE.SO OUR REQUEST IS TO TAKE THE 40.32 ACRES THAT'S EXPIRED AND JUST MAINTAIN THE RURAL/SILVICULTURAL LAND USE.
IT'S NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO DO A PRD AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT HERE. JUST GO BACK TO OR ZONING WHICH IS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEN BEFORE THE PRD JUST FOR AGRICULTURAL USES AND BASIC USES ON THE PROPERTY.
I PUT THIS IN HERE. I'M NOT EXPECTING EVERYBODY TO SIT HERE AND READ THROUGH THESE, BUT AGRICULTURAL USES, JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP ABOUT THE DIFFERENT USE BY RETIRE SPECIAL USE WITHIN THAT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
A FEW PICTURES JUST IN CASE FOLKS DIDN'T -- WEREN'T ABLE TO GET OUT THERE. AGAIN THIS IS FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS FROM THE MIDDLE LOOKING NORTH. THESE ARE THANKS TO BRIAN.
THESE ARE THE NORTHEAST CORNER LOOKING SOUTH.
AND THEN THE SOUTHEAST LOOKING NORTH.
AND THEN JUST STRAIGHT ON. THAT WAS OUR COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN. WE DO FEEL THIS IS VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. WE HAVE I KNOW AT LEAST ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT FROM SOMEBODY ADJACENT THAT IS ALSO OR IN RURAL/SILVICULTURE. IT IS CONSIST OF WITH THE AREA.
THERE'S A LOT OF SMALLER LOTS IN SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THEN THERE'S A LOT OF PRESERVATION AREA WITHIN LIKE RIVERTOWN AND SOME OF THOSE AS WELL.
IT'S CONSIST OF WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH ESPECIALLY FOR THE RURAL/SILVICULTURE. AND ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIST OF WITH PROVISIONS OF THE LDC THAT'S WITHIN THE OR DISTRICT. WE HELD A COMMUNITY MEETING AND WE HAD SOME OF THE FOLKS FROM THE SCENIC HIGHWAY GROUP COME IN AND THEY WERE ALL FINE WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING ANYTHING SO I THINK THEY WERE PRETTY HAPPY. AND SO WE'RE REALLY HERE JUST TO ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM YOU ALL.
AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR BRIAN IS
DO WE HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE? HEARING NONE, QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
>> I JUST VISITED THE AREA. >> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK, QUESTIONS OF
THE APPLICANT. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENT, ACTUALLY. I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A MOTION, BUT I THINK IT'S AN ENTIRELY REASONABLE REQUEST, AND I THANK MR. RINGHAVER FOR THIS AND YOU AND BRIAN BROWNE. I JUST WONDERED ONE THING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LARGE A BUILDING ENVELOPE WOULD BE FOR A HOUSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MR. RINGHAVER HAS CONSIDERED PLACING POTENTIAL A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY TO EITHER THE COUNTY, THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT OR ONE OF THE NUMEROUS RGOS THAT MIGHT TAKE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THOSE PROVIDE FEDERAL INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, THINGS LIKE THAT, LOWER PROPERTY TAXES, ALL THOSE THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND, NOT EXPECTING ANY ANSWER OR COMMITMENT TODAY, BUT SOMETHING TO PASS ALONG. THANK YOU.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> WE DO NOT.
>> THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
MS. PERKINS. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 2021-25 THE PRESERVE@EAGLE COVE, A ASK TO
[9. CPA(SS) 2021-20 TGC Parcel C. Adoption hearing for CPA(SS) 2021-20 TGC Parcel C, located between Interstate 95 and S.R. 16, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map designation from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) and St. Johns River Management District (SJRWMD) to Mixed Use (MU) for approximately 49.8 acres for proposed 300 multifamily residential units and a maximum of 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial, office and light industrial uses.]
REZONE POLITICS 42-POINT ITALY ACRES OF LAND FROM AN EXPIRED PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT TO OPEN RURAL TO ALLOW LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL USES SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 4680 STATE ROAD 13 NORTH BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT POLICE SAY MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS, A 2ND BY DR. HILSENBECK. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S RECORD THE VOTE.CONGRATULATIONS, MS. TAYLOR. ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9, MS. SMITH, YOU'RE UP AGAIN.
ELLEN AVERY-SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS 100 WETSTONE PLACE HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. WITH ME TODAY ARE SEVERAL GENTLEMEN FROM TGC ST. JOHNS COUNTY LLC WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS JOHN BROWNING FROM ENGLAND, THIMS & MILLER ARE JEFF CRAMMEN WHO IS OUR PROJECT TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER AND OUR PROJECT PLANNER, AND THEN FROM BIOTECH IS THE JASON MILTON WHO IS OUR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT.
SO IF WE NEED THEIR EXPERTISE, THEY ARE HERE TO CHIME IN.
[01:55:01]
JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ORIENTATION, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON STATE ROAD 16 REALLY ADJACENT TO I-95 AND STATE ROAD 16 JUST WEST OF THE OUTLET MALL THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-95 ALONG STATE ROAD 16. SO TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT ONE SEE THE OUTLET MALL ON THE WEST SIDE.THIS IS THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
THEERSZ OUTLET MALL ON THE WEST SIDE.
HERE'S THE ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE HERE UP AND DOWN, THIS IS ALL COMMERCIAL. AND THEN THIS PROPERTY IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND WE'RE GOING TO -- THERE'S A CHURCH AND THEN PARK PLACE. WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PARK PLACE AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
SO ALL THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN PINK HERE IS MIXED USE DISTRICT, AND SO WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MOST OF THIS PROPERTY TO MIXED USE DISTRICT, LEAVING THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN CONSERVATION LAND USE OR RURAL -- I'M SORRY. RURAL/SILVICULTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND IT WILL BE LEFT IN ITS NATURAL STATE.
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN IN JUST ONE WIN IT MINUTE.
SO THE IDEA IS IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SMALL SCALE TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LANCE USING DESIGNATION OF THE MOST OF THE PROPERTY TO MIX USE DISTRICT WITH A COMPANION TEXT AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE DENSITY OF USE TO 300 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS MAXIMUM AND THE INTENSITY OF HUES TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIALS OF, OFFICE OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH WOULD FRONT DOWN ON THE STATE ROAD 16 PART. THE OWNER WILL APPLY FOR A PUD REZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IN SHORT TERNAL, AND THE PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO PAY ABOUT $750,000 IN TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION TO THE COUNTY. ONCE THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION IS APPROVED, DR. MCCORMICK, WE WILL APPLY FOR SCHOOL MITIGATION AND PAY THAT PROPORTION ATZ SHARE TO THE SCHOOL BOARD. I'LL SHOW YOU THE LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 3.3 ACRES OF WETLAND AND 2.2 ACRES OF UPLAND IS REMAINING IN THE PORTION OF THE LAND THAT IS RURAL/SILVICULTURE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
AND THE PROJECT WILL PRESERVE A MAJORITY OF THE ONITE SITE WETZLANDS WITHIN THE PROPERTY THAT IS IMHIENGD THE MIXED USE DISTRICT. AND SIEL SHOW YOU AGAIN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN JUST A MINUTE.
WE HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING AT THE EASTERN OUTLET MALL ON SEPTEMBER 22ND. WE HAD ABOUT TEN FOLKS WHO SHOWED UP FOR THAT MEETING. THEY ALL LIVE IN PARK PLACE, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTHWEST OF THIS SITE AND WE TALKED ABOUT BUFFERING AND DEVELOPMENT EDGES, AND SO WE AGREED WITH THEM THAT THEY HAVE A 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE THE 3S SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEN THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO PROVIDE A FENCE FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND BUFFERING, AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE THE LOCATION OF THAT FENCE ON THIS PLAN.
SO AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK, HERE'S STATE ROAD 16.
THIS IS THE ENTRANCE INTO THE PROPERTY.
SO ANY KIND OF NON-RESIDENTIAL WILL BE IN THIS AREA OF THE PROJECT, IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO STATE ROAD 16.
AGAIN, THERE'S CHURCH, SCHOOL HERE, AND THEN YOU HAVE ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE HERE AND THEN THE OUTLET MALL DOWN HERE.
THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE WETSTONE FAMILY AND IT HAS THE MIXED USE DISTRICT LAND USE ALREADY.
THIS MORGUES, THEN, WILL BE MULTI-FAMILY.
THERE WILL BE A ROAD CONSTRUCTED PARALLEL TO I-95 AND THEN THE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY WILL BE UP IN THIS AREA.
THIS AREA WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE, AS WILL THIS AREA. AND, OF COURSE, THAT 5.5 ACRES THAT WAS CARVED OUT OF THIS APPLICATION WILL REMAIN RURAL/SILVICULTURE LAND USE. SO WE'RE REALLY ONLY FOCUSING IN ON THIS AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY, THIS AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY, AND THIS AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THIS PLAN.
YOU SEE THIS 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE? IT HAS TO BE ALONG ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY THAT DON'T FRONT ON STATE ROOT 16. AND SO -- STATE ROAD 16.
SO I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH.
SO PARK PLACE IS RIGHT HERE. AND WHEN WE HAD OUR COMMUNITY MEETING, THERE WERE FOLKS WHO LIVED IN THESE FIVE HOUSES WHO SAID, HEY, WE HAVE OUR 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE.
CAN YOU PLEASE HAVE YOUR 35-FOOT DEVELOPMENT EDGE AND THEN PUT A FENCE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE LINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT EDGE, WHICH OUR CLIENT AGREED TO DO BEHIND THESE FIVE PROPERTIES.
THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, THESE ARE ALL GOING TO REMAIN WETLAND, AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT A FENCE THROUGH A
[02:00:03]
WETLAND BECAUSE THEY NEED TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED SO THAT'S THE IDEA OF PROVIDING THE FENCE ADJACENT TO WHERE THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING TO MEET, SO TO SPEAK.THEY'RE BOTH RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, SO THEY'RE COMPATIBLE.
BUT BECAUSE THESE FOLKS -- THEY HAVE A FENCE ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINES, MOST OF THEM, BUT THEY WANTED AN ADDITIONAL FENCE HERE. AND SO WE'VE AGREED TO DO THAT FOR THEM, AND WE WILL SAY THAT ON THE RECORD TODAY.
WE WILL STATE IT AGAIN AT THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING.
AND SO WITH THAT EXPLANATION, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS. THIS IS A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SO IT ONLY GOES TO ADOPTION HEARINGS, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
DR. HILSENBECK. >> I JUST HAVE A COUPLE.
MAYBE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS FIRST ONE, BUT IT'S STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY USED TON OWNED BY THE ST. JOHN RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND IT WAS SWAPPED FOR A BEES OF LAND IN DUVAL COUNTY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT PROPERTY THAT
WAS? >> I HAVE MR. MILTON WHO CAN COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE HE'S WITH BIOTECH CONSULTING AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE DONE ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOR THE MITIGATION BANK.
>> JUST A QUICK ANSWER ON IT. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
AND THEN WHILE HE'S COMING UP, MY SECOND ONE IS ABOUT PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE, PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AND THIS MAY BE FOR YOU BECAUSE YOUR REALLY AN EXPERT IN THAT AS WELL AS THE COUNTY STAFF. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS GOING TO PAY $750,000 IN PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE FOR TRAFFIC CON EXIRNS THE SCHOOL IS YET TO BE DETERMINED.
WHEN THAT FORMULA IS CALCULATED, ALL THE NUMBERS ARE PLUGGED IN, DOES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TRAFFIC MAY, LET'S SAY, YOU SAID TURN LANES AND SO FORTH MIGHT BE ADDED FOR SAFETY AND ALL THAT. I JUST WONDERED DOES THAT PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES MAY NEED TO BE ACQUIRED FOR TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY, SAFETY, ET CETERA? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE IF THEY ARE COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOT MUCH ELSE YOU CAN ACQUIRE RIGHT ALONG STATE ROAD 16 AND I-95 INTERSECTION.
THAT'S NOT COMMERCIAL. SO IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT MORE MONEY TO DO ANY TRANSPORTATION UPDEVIL RAYS GRADES OR CONCURRENCY. I JUST WONDERED ABOUT THAT.
IS THAT CALCULATED INTO THE FORMULA.
>> THAT WAS AN ESTIMATE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE.
WE HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY YET SO THAT NUMBER COULD BE HIGHER OR LOWER.
I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ULTIMATE WINDING OF STATE ROAD 16 OR WHATEVER THE COUNTY CHOOSES TO USE THAT MONEY FOR.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR QUESTION, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EAST OF HAS ASKED LATELY THAT IN RIGHT-OF-WAY IS TO BE ACQUIRED, AND I HAVE NO IDEA IF RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NEEDED FROM THIS PROJECT ALONG STATE ROAD 16 SO THAT'S A DAILY WE'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT AS WE GO INTO THAT CONCURRENCY DISCUSSION, BUT THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN DISCUSSIONS LATELY WITH THE VALUATION, TO YOUR POINT. AND I UNDER THE CONCERN ABOUT, OKAY, IF WE GIVE YOU A LAND USE CHANGE, ARE YOU GOING TO THEN TURN AROUND AND MAKE US PAY YOU THAT INCREASED VALUE.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING I MEAN I'LL HAVE TO TALK TO THE CLIENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION WE WILL HAVE WITH THE COUNTY.
BEFORE WE GET TO NIGH KIND OF CONCURRENCY AND IMPACT FEE
CREDIT. >> IT WOULDN'T BE PROPERTY THAT YOU WERE GETTING CHANGED. IT WOULD BE OTHER OWNERS OUT THERE ALONG STATE ROAD 16 SUCH AS MAYBE THE WETSTONE PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE'S JUST NO REAL, SOMETHING THAT ISN'T COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE RIGHT IN THERE ALREADY, SO I JUST SEE ANY TRAFFIC CURRENCY PAYMENTS FOR PROPORTIONATE SHARE AS NO BEING ABLE TO ACQUIRE ANY NEEDED PROPERTY FOR TURN LANES, ET CETERA, IF THAT'S THE CASE. SO I DO WANT TO ASK THIS QUESTION. MAYBE YOUR TRAFFIC PEOPLE WOULD ANSWER IT QUELL BUT I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR ANSWER AS WELL ON THE SWAP. IT LOOKS TO ME YOU HAVE THAT ONE ENTRANCE COMING IN AND OUT. I DON'T KNOW.
I'M NO TRAFFIC EXPERT. BUT HAVING BEEN OUT TO THAT INTERSECTION MANY, MANY TIMES, AND I DIDN'T DRIVE OUT THERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ONE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC OUT
[02:05:05]
THERE, AND IT IS REALLY A CONGESTED AREA OF THE COUNTY.AND SO I WOULD BET, I WOULD JUST GUESS, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN OUT THERE WITH PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND THE MALL ON THE WEST SIDE, THE OUTLET CENTER, THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE COMING OUT THERE ONTO STATE ROAD 16 POSSIBLY ARE GOING TO BE TURNING LEFT AND HEADING BACK TO I-95 OR HEADING ON DOWNSTATE ROAD 16 EAST INTO TOWN OR GOING UP I-95.
AS I SAID, TO GO JACKSONVILLE OR WHATEVER.
SO THAT'S GOING TO REALLY CREATG BOTTLENECK OUT THERE WITH TRAFFIC SO I'M WORRIED ABOUT SAFETY, I'M WORRIED ABOUT WAIT TIMES, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY, INTENSITY AND DEGREE OF TRAFFIC OUT THERE WITH POTENTIALLY A LOT OF PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THERE TURNING LEFT.
>> RIGHT. AND TO YOUR POINT, SO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, AND MAYBE MR. CRAMMEN WANTS COME AND JOIN IN ON THIS CONVERSATION, BUT GRAND OAKS, WHICH SITS IN THIS -- WAIT A MINUTE. YEP.
>> IS THIS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THEY'RE UP TO -- THEY WON'T BE PAYING THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE UNTIL THEY
PILD ON IT A LITTLE BIT MORE? >> GRAND OAKS HAS THE OBLIGATION TO RIDE WIDE ENG STATEY ROAD 16 FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES NEAR SAN GEE COME OH ALL THE THE WAY TO THEIR EASTERN ENTRANCE AND THAT IS THEIR OBJECTGATION ALREADY.
THEY HAVE A CONCURRENCY AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRES THEM TO DO THAT. SO THAT SECTION OF STATE ROAD 16 IS ALREADY SLATED FOR FOUR-LANGE.
WHEN YOU GET TO THE EAST OF THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS ALONG THIS AREA INCLUDING THIS ONE AND OTHERS WEEK INCLUDING PARK PLACE THAT HAVE PAID INTO THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY SYSTEM PROPORTIONATE SHARE TO HELP FUND I'M GOING TO CALL AT THIS TIME MISSING FOUR LANE LINK OF STATE ROAD 16.
SO HOPEFULLY THE CONTRIBUTION FROM THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS WILL HELP THAT WIDE ENG, AND ALSO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DOT IS GOING TO BE FIXING THE EXCHANGE AT I-95 AND STATE ROAD 16 SOON. MR. CRAMMEN CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THAT RECONFIGURATION. AND IT ALSO HAS TO GO TO DO WITH TOMS ROAD TO IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THAT INTERCHANGE.
THE COUNTY'S TECHNICAL STAFF HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT MAY HAVE TO MAKE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND HAS ALREADY NOTED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH TO HAVE ACCESS THAT'S SAFE FOR EVERYONE, AND SO THE STAFF IS WORKING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THAT KIND OF SAFETY ISSUE JIBES. TO YOUR POINT.
BECAUSE WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE
PROJECT SAFELY. >> RIGHT, AND YOU DID DESCRIBE ALL THAT -- NOT ALL OF IT BUT ABOUT THE SAFETY CONCERNS AND WORKING WITH THE COUNTY AND SO FORTH, BUT YOU DID DESCRIBE THAT AS WELL AS THE THREE OR FOUR LEGS IN THERE OR SEGMENTS, AS THEY ARE CALLED, THAT ARE EITHER NEAR OR AT CAPACITY OR OVERCAPACITY. SO MY CONCERN IS, WITH ALL THE COMMERCIAL OUT THERE AND ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE BIG ENTITLEMENT THAT LAND TO THE SOUTH DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM YOUR ENTRANCE AND EXIT, YOUR EGRESS AND INGRESS TO THE SOUTH, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A HUGE NEW DEVELOPMENT ON IT, THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO -- THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE JUST NOT GOING TO COVER ON THESE THINGS.
THAT'S THE CONCERN. I WISH THAT WOULD REALLY BE LOOKED AT HARD BY THE COUNTY MAYBE IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SEMINAR OR WHATEVER THAT'S BEEN CANCELED FOR OCTOBER, BUT THAT -- SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THAT AND MAYBE NOT JUST D FDOT BUT AM IS ON OTHER FOLKS AS WELL.
>> RIGHT, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
JUST KNOW THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND THE COUNTY INTERPRETATION THEREOF WITH RESPECT TO PRORGT SHARE PROPORTIONATE SHARE AND THAT IS WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS.
PLEASE ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT TWHEEBS DEVELOPMENTS PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO THE COUNTY, AND COUNTY GETS REVENUES FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS TO HELP WITH ROAD SITUATIONS AS WELL, SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MILTON TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MITIGATION BANK.
>> JUST A QUICK ANSWER. SORRY.
>> NO PROBLEM. JASON MINTLE BIOTECH CONSULTING 115 SENT BEACH BOULEVARD JACKSONVILLE BEACH FLORIDA 32250. IF I RECALL YOUR QUESTION FROM EARLIER, IT WAS THAT YOU BELIEVE THE PROPERTY -- WE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS END ZONE BY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY
[02:10:04]
RIVER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND SOMEHOW SWABBED FOR ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY. THIS WAS THE SMALLEST MOST ISOLATED PORTION OF AN EXISTING MITIGATION BANK THAT WAS UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SO IT WAS STILL OWNED BUY A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT WAS MANAGING THE MITIGATION BANK. ONCE EVALUATED, IT WAS DEEMED TO BE EEK HYGIENE LOGICALLY INFERIOR TO THEES RFP BANG BY FAR. IT WAS 55 EX PARTE ISOLATED AND DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECOLOGICAL VALUE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE RAIJ PORTIONS OF THE BANK.>> INTERESTING. SO IT WASN'T SWAPPED FOR A PIECE
OF PROPERTY IN DUVAL. >> NOT IN THAT SENSE.
THE BANK IS WELL OVER 1,000 ACRES, MORE LIKE I WANT TO SAY WEREN'T HOW THE 300, GIVE OR TAKE.
THIS WAS A 55-ACRE ISOLATED PIECE FARTHEST TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT, ALONG WITH ANOTHER SMALLER HOIFLTD PIECE, WERE REMOVED BECAUSE THEY JUST WEREN'T COMPATIBLE FROM AN ECOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. THE REMAINING BANK ITSELF PROVIDED 94% OF THE ECOLOGIC VALUES SO THE DISTRICT REMOVED THE EASTMENT AND THEY SOLD IT TO SOMEBODY.
>> >> NO I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION ABOUT WHO KNEW ABOUT THE LANDOWNERSHIP, BUT, NO, THE OWNERSHIP REMAINED THE SAME AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SALE AFTER THAT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES, BUT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NEVER OWNED
THE PIECE IF I'M CORRECT. >> NO, IT WAS UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THEY HAD THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT RELATED TO THE MITIGATION BANKS BUT IT WAS
NEVER UNDER DISTRICT OWNERSHIP. >> AND IT'S BEEN RELEASED.
>> THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED. >> JE, AND THAT DOCUMENTATION IS IN THE APPLICATION. AND ALSO, I JUST CONFIRMED BHB CRAMMEN, HE SAYS THAT THERE IS 200 PEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE WINDING OF THE STATE ROAD 16 OUT IN THIS AREA SO THERE SHOULD BE AMPLE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WIDENING OF THE ROAD.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS?
>> WE DO NOT. >> THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MS. PERKINS.
>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF COMP PLAN AMENDMENT SMALL
[Staff Reports]
SCALE 2021-20TGC PARCEL C BASED UPON FOUR FOUNDINGS FACT.>> WE'VE THE GUY MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS.
>> WHO WHAT IS THE SECOND? SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S REGISTER OR RECORD THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT PASSES. THAT GETS US BACK TO STAFF REPORTS. WELCOME BACK, MIKE.
[Agency Reports]
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AGENCY MEMBERS.
I KNOW SOME OF YOU, SOME OF YOU I DON'T.
MIKE ROBERTSON I'M THE INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR TIME BEING FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT OR . WELCOME ABOARD.
SECONDLY DR. HILSENBECK I THINK YOU MENTIONED JUST KNOW THAT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE POTENTIAL NECESSITY NOVEMBER IS I THINK WHAT MR. CONRAD HAD SAID. WITH THAT SAID, THANK YOU VERY
ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? HOW ABOUT AGENCY MEMBERS? I HAVE -- GO AHEAD,
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.