[1. Total earned unused and undistributed revenue. In compliance with Florida Statute, 218.36, the St. Johns County Tax Collector Dennis Hollingsworth, will present a report of excess fees collected for the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year. Please note that these Excess Fees have already been estimated as a part of the County budget process and therefore they do not necessarily represent additional County revenue.]

>> COMMISSIONER. >> YES, SIR.

>> I VOTE YES THE REGULAR AGENDA IS APPROVED AS AMENDED SO NOW I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER NOT BY IMPORTANCE BUT BY CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.

WE HAVE ONE OF THE BEST TAX COLLECTORS IN THE STATE.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH TAX COLLECTORS.

I CAN TELL YOU, THE BEST OR NEAR THE TOP BASED ON MY PERSONAL FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS.

I HOPE YOU WILL PROCESS MY DRIVERS LICENSE QUICKLY.

>> I WILL. >> OKAY THANK YOU.

[00:50:02]

>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. TO SERVE THE CITIZENS.

ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, COMPLIANCE WE YOUR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE PRESENT YOU WITH THE FINANCIAL REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 2021, 2022.

AS YOU HAVE SEEN RETURNING TO THE CITIZENS THROUGH YOU AND THE OTHER AUTHORITIES. OF THIS $80,126 ALREADY BEEN DEPOSITED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR IN YOUR ACCOUNTS THE BALANCE OF 6 MILLION WAS DEPOSITED THIS WEEK.

WE ESTIMATE $100 MILLION HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ST. JOHN'S TAX COLLECTORS FOR THE CITIZENS.

I AM GLAD THAT BJ WAS ASKING, THEY CALLED THIS ONLY USED THE REVENUE THAT WE EARN ACCESS FEES, SOMEONE SAID THAT MUCH MONEY, WHY ARE YOU CHARGING ME. REGULATES EVERY SINGLE PENNY THAT WE CHARGE, WE CANNOT CHARGE MORE WE CANNOT CHARGE LESS HOWEVER, WE COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES RUNS A SWIM LEAN MACHINE MEANING THAT OTHER COUNTIES HAVE ACCESS 100 EMPLOYEES, 65 EMPLOYEES. THEY HAVE LAWYERS ON BOARD BETWEEN MY PARALEGAL AND MYSELF WE HANDLE ALL OF THE BANKRUPTCIES, EVERYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE TO APPEAR IN COURT THE ATTORNEY, BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA THEY REPRESENT THEREFORE WE CAN SAVE A LOT OF MONEY BY DOING THINGS OURSELVES. FLORIDA STATUTE REGULATES ALL OF THAT, WE TAKE ON A LARGE ONES, 22 LARGE FLEETS FEDEX UPS, I COULD GO ON AND ON. WHEN YOU SEE ONE OF THESE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD AND CAME FROM YOUR TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE. THEREFORE CLOSE BY SAYING THIS, THE TAX BILLS IN THE MAIL. 2022 IS OPEN FOR COLLECTION, FOR THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY 683 MILLION.

ALL THAT THE LARGEST COLLECTION THAT WE DO IS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE COUNTY, AS BUSY AS WE ARE 67 OTHER AUTHORITIES THAT WE COLLECT TAXES FOR DO ME A FAVOR IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SOMEONE CONTACTING, ONE OF OUR CITIZENS. PLEASE, HE PERSONALLY.

ASK FOR DENNIS. BECAUSE THROUGH MY YEARS WE HAVE NOT LOST ONE PROPERTY. DEALING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEST INTEREST, WE HAD TO ALLOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONTINUE.

BUT OUT OF THE 40 YEARS, NOT LOST BUT ONE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY IT WAS NO ONE'S FAULT AT THAT TIME IF ANYONE CALLS YOU THEY SAY MR. COMMISSIONER, I CANNOT PAY MY TAXES.

CALL DENNIS. BETWEEN THIS DEPARTMENT AND FORMER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE YOU, THERE IS A WAY WE CAN HELP EVERYONE STAY IN THEIR HOME OKAY.

GOOD MESSAGE. SHARE WITH YOU WE ALSO SERVE FIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT I WANT TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU. IN ADDITION TO COLLECTING TAXES WE SERVE FIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

[00:55:05]

ALSO FLORIDA WILDLIFE AS BUSY AS WE ARE, THE EMPLOYEES WHEN YOU SEE THEM THANK THEM. $45 MILLION.

THAT WAS PROCESSING 519,000. INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS.

96,000, WERE ISSUED THROUGH YOUR TAX COLLECTOR'S ALSO KEEP TELLING PEOPLE WE DO NOT DO ROAD TESTS, YOU CALL A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR. COME BACK TO THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE. LAST YEAR 3100 ROAD TESTS.

THAT IS HOW BUSY YOUR OFFICE IS ALSO AS YOU KNOW TOURIST COLLECTIONS INCREASED 22 MILLION THIS YEAR.

WHICH WE HAD TO HANDLE THE STAFF.

TO COLLECT THAT 22 MILLION. ALSO YOU MAY FIND THIS INTERESTING. 315,000.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

JUST AS SKETCH, OF WHAT YOUR TAX COLLECTOR STAFF DOES WE ARE A BUSY OFFICE WE PRIDE OURSELVES.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

PUBLIC COMMENT. LET'S TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT PLEASE COME

FORWARD. >> I HAVE THREE MINUTES.

WHAT CAN I SAY AFTER THAT PRESENTATION I SEE A LOT OF POLITICIANS ARE SMILING. I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDITORIUM SMILING EVEN MAY BE AT HOME THEY ARE SMILING.

I TRULY WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. THE EMPLOYEES OF THAT DEPARTMENT WE DO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO TO PAY OUR PROPERTY TAXES. SOMETIMES I DO NOT GET TO SAY THANK YOU. I THINK PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND IS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE REALLY HERE FOR US NOT JUST TO COLLECT A PAYCHECK.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> CLOS PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 1. TO APPROVE THAT REVENUE COLLECTED FOR THE TAX YEAR.

>> A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE WILL VOTE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES, SIR. >> I VOTE YES ALSO.

THAT PASSES. I HOPE ALL OF YOU REALLY NOW HAVE A BETTER APPRECIATION OF MY EARLIER COMMENTS.

QUITE THE JOB DENNIS APPRECIATE YOU A LOT.

OKAY. ALREADY TAKEN ACTION ON ITEMS TO AND THREE. WE ALREADY HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON

[5. Public Hearing * PUD 2022-18 SR 207 Multifamily. Request to rezone approximately 34.03 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) and Commercial General (CG) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 272 multi-family residential dwelling units. The Planning and Zoning Agency heard this request during their regularly scheduled public hearing on October 6, 2022. The item was recommended for approval with a vote of 3 - 2.]

ITEM 4. ALL OF THOSE THREE ITEMS REMOVED.

THAT ACTUALLY TAKES US TO ITEM 5. SO LET'S DO OUR DISCLOSURES ON ITEM 5 I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER ARNOLD.

[01:00:02]

>> THANK YOU. I HAD A MEETING YESTERDAY AT MONDAY, OCTOBER 31 APPROXIMATELY 12:30.

WE DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

THE SCHOOL ACCESS. >> COMMISSIONER.

>> WE DISCUSSED MANY OF THE SAME ITEMS. SHE WANTED ME TO KNOW. THAT SHE SUPPORTED THE PROJECT.

>> ITEM 5. >> GOING THROUGH MY NOTES.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

I HAD A MEETING ON MONDAY YESTERDAY OCTOBER 31, SOME OF OUR STAFF TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

I HAD AN EARLIER MEETING. TO DISCUSS THE SAME PROJECT.

SO WITH THAT WE WILL START WITH A PRESENTATION ON ITEM 5.

>> GOOD MORNING. I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TODAY. WITH THAT I WILL HAVE CASEY WALK US THROUGH THAT PRESENTATION.

I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

THIS IS A PROJECT FOR REZONING. IT IS HEADQUARTERED IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. ALL OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER THEIR OWN MANAGEMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF STATE ROAD 207. IT IS ON A QUICK ROUTE TO THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. ALSO EASY ACCESS.

OUR PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE, GENERAL AND OPEN RURAL.

FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG THE TRANSIT ROUTES, CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE ROUTE.

CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT LOCATING ANOTHER BUS STOP IN CLOSER PROXIMITY. THAT IS IN REVIEW, WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE 312 EXTENSION CLOSER TO THE OTHER TWO

DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NEARBY. >> WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED WITH THE AGENCY THEY LOOKED AT THE MAP, ON THIS MAP IDENTIFY THE BUFFER TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO THE NORTH, TO THE INDUSTRIAL SITE TO THE EAST.

TWO ACCESS LOCATIONS. IN COORDINATION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FOR STUDENTS FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE SAFE CROSSINGS TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROVIDING PEDESTRIAN PATH TO THE NORTH.

WE HAVE PREPARED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP, PROVIDED ON YOUR SCREEN. STORM WATER COLLECTION.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS LOCATIONS. IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF THE ACCESS INTO THE PROPERTY. AS WELL AS WALKING TRAILS

[01:05:04]

AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE WE DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. WITHIN THE STUDY AREA OF THE PROPERTY. IMPACT FEES WILL BE PAID FOR THE APPLICATION. ALSO SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS, MITIGATION APPLICATION IN REVIEW GOING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW AND HEARING ON NOVEMBER 8. WE DID HAVE A DRONE GO OUT TO THE SITE TO TAKE PHOTOS AND THIS IS MY BENCH LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS 20 .

IDENTIFY THE PROJECT, IN THIS AREA HIGHLIGHTED HERE, AS REQUESTED BY STAFF. LOOKING NORTH YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE PATH THE PEDESTRIAN PATH TO THE SCHOOL.

CROSSING FOR THE STUDENTS TO CROSS OVER, IN THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION. WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO IDENTIFY THE SAFEST LOCATION FOR THOSE STUDENTS.

ALSO IDENTIFY THE SIDEWALK ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY PARK AND THE BALLFIELD EXISTING SIDEWALK WRAPPING AROUND THE POND. WHERE THE IMPROVEMENTS EXTENSION ARE TAKING PLACE LOOKING ON THE NORTH SIDE SOUTH TOWARDS 207, ON OUR PROPERTY A BUFFER FROM THE INDUSTRIAL SITE. 40 FOOT BUFFER THAT TAPERS DOWN TO A 30 FOOT BUFFER. ON TOP OF THAT, EASEMENT.

APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET. WE DID ATTEND LAST MONTH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON REDUCED HEIGHT INITIALLY THE APPLICATION HEIGHT OF 60 FEET. SINCE BEEN REDUCED.

THIS IS A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT APPROXIMATE THE HEIGHT APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET REQUESTED A MAP BE SUBMITTED.

TWO COMMENTS FROM FIRE SERVICES.

THE PAYMENT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET. ILLUMINATED THE PROPOSED WAIVER, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION I AM AVAILABLE FOR

ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT ON ITEM 5? OKAY.

WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AGENDA ITEM 5.>> A POWERPOINT. SUBMITTED THREE POWER POINTS.

BLACKBERRY LANE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

TWO STORY PROJECT. I WILL EXPRESS MY SUPPORT.

FIRST OF ALL TAKE OF YOU YOU TO SEE IT AS A PROJECT.

I DO SUPPORT THIS AS THE TOWNHOME, PREVIOUSLY INCREMENTAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH NOTHING SHOWING I WAS

[01:10:07]

WORRIED ABOUT THAT. I DO SUPPORT THAT.

PER ACRE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE LUSH GROWTH ALSO WETLANDS IT DOES APPEAR THAT PROPERTIES COULD BEGIN TO FLOW IN TOWARD THIS NATURAL REMAINING SITE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF ENGINEERING AND DETAILS.

DID WANT TO LOOK QUICKLY WHICH DOES SAY IT IS HARD TO READ, IN SPITE OF THESE TABLES THESE ARE MINIMUM REQUIRED DETAILS WHICH MAY BE EXPANDED. TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS.

INCLUDED POSSIBLY IS DRAINAGE FROM OFF-SITE.

POTENTIALLY THERE IS DRAINAGE. NO DRAINAGE SHOWN ON THE CURRENT PLAN, THE BUFFERS ARE MINIMUM.

MIGHT BE REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING A POSSIBLE DESIGN.

ADDITIONALLY AS WAS POINTED OUT WE DO HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS, THE DIALYSIS CENTER. WE COULD RETAIN THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE. SPECIAL AREA.

THAT IS KIND OF PAINFUL. I DO ADVOCATE FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT IT BE THIS PLAN, MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

DOES SEEM MORE APPROPRIATE. THEY COULD FALL UNDER THAT, THREE-STORY APARTMENT. PLEASE UTILIZE AS MUCH OF THE LANDSCAPE AND BUFFERS AS POSSIBLE THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DEAN RECEIVED SOMETHING FROM THE PRINCIPAL COULD I READ THAT? VERY POSITIVE MESSAGE. I DID REACH OUT TO THE PRINCIPAL THIS IS A MESSAGE GOOD MORING.

THANK YOU FOR REACHING OUT OUR TEAM HAS MET WITH THE DISTRICT COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLANS AT THIS TIME.

THIS IS COMING FROM THE PRINCIPAL.

THE WALKWAY CONNECTING THE COMMUNITY TO THE SCHOOL DID NOT FEEL AS SAFE. WE WERE RECOMMENDING A CROSSWALK, CLOSER TO THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL.

SO I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT THE PRINCIPAL IS ALSO YOU KNOW

SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PLAN. >> THANK YOU.

>> WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA

ITEM 5? >> MY QUESTION CONCERNING ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES. WHENEVER IT IS TURNED INTO MULTIFAMILY THE COUNTY GET PROPERTY TAXES.

>> LET'S DO THAT YES IF WE APPROVE IT.

>> BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR COMMERCIAL AND ¦

>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT. >> OKAY.

DOWN TO 45 FEET. SOMETIMES WHENEVER THEY ASK FOR HEIGHT THEY PUT EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE ROOF IT GETS UP, HAS ANYONE COME THE VOTE WAS A VOTE.

DID NOT THINK THIS SHOULD GO THROUGH DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY THEY WANTED TO HOLD THIS THING UP THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC

COMMENT? >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND

SIR? >> VERY BRIEFLY.

[01:15:05]

THE TWO THAT VOTED AGAINST STATED THEY WANTED TO SEE THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH WE DID.

WE ADDRESSED THE ONLY ISSUE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> WOULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THE

DRAINAGE ISSUES. >> AS THE CHAIR KNOWS.

RULES AND REGULATIONS. EXCESSIVELY LARGE DRAINAGE IN THE MIDDLE. IT WILL BE ENGINEERED.

>> YES, SIR. >> I KNOW ABOUT THE AREA.

SMALL OFFICE PARK. WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

REPAIR SHOPS, OFFICES. NEXT TO THE SCHOOL.

COMPATIBILITY. PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FAMILIES TO LITERALLY WALK ACROSS.

WITH THAT SAID I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ORDINANCE 2022.

>> STATE ROAD 207. PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

[6. Public Hearing * REZ 2022-11 Binninger Trust Rezoning. Request to rezone approximately 1.78 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Commercial Intensive (CI). This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Agency on September 15, 2022, and was recommended for approval with a vote of 3-1.]

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES, SIR. >> I VOTE YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVED TO ITEM 6.

ITEM 6. START WITH COMMISSIONER ARNOLD ON ITEM 6.

>> NO RECORD OF ANY MEETINGS. >> I HAVE NONE.

>> I BELIEVE I HAVE NONE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH

ITEM 6. >> GOOD MORNING.

WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, NOT SHOWN UP.

I WILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

THIS IS THE TRUST REZONING. REQUESTING REZONING.

JUST A BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE LOCATIONS, THAT COMES THROUGH AS WELL. AGAIN THAT IS CLOSER SHOWS YOU.

THE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, ON THE OTHER SIDE IS TWIN LAKES.

SOME UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

OVER TO THE EAST. THE SITE IS A CONTINUATION OF ANOTHER ONE. GIVES YOU A CLOSER VIEW OF SOME OF THE BUFFERS SOME OF THE THINGS THATRELATE TO IT .

IT IS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

CONTINUES OVER TO THAT FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER.

NATURAL BUFFERS ESTABLISHED.

[01:21:01]

>> INCLUDING THE PUBLIC SITE, THE EXISTING ZONING NEXT TO THIS PIECE. 1.78 ACRES.

PARCEL TO THE NORTH. HE PLANNED TO DEVELOP IT.

HE WOULD LIKE TO SELL IT TOGETHER.

IN THE MIX USE DISTRICT. VERY SIMILAR ZONING IN THE AREA. IT HAS TO MEET ALL THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS. JUST SOME PICTURES ACROSS FROM THE SITE. FROM THE SITE ACTUALLY.

THAT EXISTING SITE THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED.

LOOKING NORTH, THEN FROM ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PUBLIC SITE. JUST A FEW MORE.

WE FEEL LIKE THIS ZONING IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF COMBINING IT WITH THE OTHER PARCEL. IT IS NOT SO LARGE, HEAVY DUTY DEVELOPMENT ON IT. CERTAINLY FOR SOMETHING LIKE SELF STORAGE. COMPATIBLE TO THE WEST.

WE HAVE SOME NICE BUFFERS ESTABLISHED.

CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

>> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> ON AGENDA ITEM 6 PLEASE COME

FORWARD. >> ANSWERED A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. NEEDS TWO OF THESE LOTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING.

BECAUSE HE CAN SELL IT THAT WAY SHE MENTIONED SELF STORAGE.

I DO NOT KNOW HOW INTENSIVE SOMETHING CAN GO IN THERE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DOWN ON 207.

SO I DO NOT THINK TAYLOR CAN ANSWER, BESIDES THE SELF STORAGE, WHENEVER YOU PUT THIS AGENDA TOGETHER SOMETIMES WE CANNOT GET TO THE MEETINGS AND GET THAT.

ASSUMING IT WAS BECAUSE THE DOCTOR HAD A QUESTION THEY AGREE TO DISAGREE WHOEVER BUYS THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES. SO HOW INTENSIVE CAN THESE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY BECOME IN THAT AREA WITH ALL OF THAT LAND. ALL OF THE TREES AND EVERYTHING NOT BEING KEPT. THANKS.

[01:25:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA

ITEM 6. >> I CAN GO BACK TO MY PRESENTATION. JUST TO ANSWER THAT.

BASICALLY THEY USES NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS. IT HAS A WIDE RANGE AS WELL AS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. THREE ACRES, UNUSUAL SHAPE, IF SOMEBODY HAS A LARGE SYSTEM BELOW, THAT SOMEBODY WOULD GO

IN AND WIPE THEM OUT. >> TO ENACT ORDINANCE, PROVIDED

IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

[7. REZ 2022-09 tag! Children's Museum. Request to rezone approximately four (4) acres of land from Industrial Warehousing (IW)and Open Rural (OR) to Open Rural (OR) to allow for a non-profit, educational and cultural institution. This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Agency on September 15, 2022, and was recommended for approval with a vote of 4-0.]

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES, SIR. >> I VOTE YES ALSO.

ITEM 7. IN FACT, SEVEN, COMMISSIONER

ARNOLD. >> NOT ON MY SHEET I DID TAKE A TOUR WITH THE LADIES. IN MY COUNTY CALENDAR.

A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. PROPOSED NEW LOCATION.

>> I HAVE NONE. >> GOOD MORNING LADIES.

>> I THINK A LOT OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW THIS, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS. LOCATION WISE ON THE AVENUE, WORKING ON THE SITE FOR A FEW YEARS.

YOU KNOW NORTH OF 312 GREAT ACCESS.

A CLOSER VIEW SHOWS YOU HOW IT RELATES TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. PLANNING ON DEVELOPING, DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS. A BUSINESS TYPE AREA.

THIS IS THE SITE ITSELF THEY DO SHARE SOME RETENTION.

EASEMENT FOR THE CHILDREN'S WAY, TO THE SHIPYARDS AS WELL.

A COMBINATION OF COUNTY AND CITY DODGING THROUGH, THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAN IN THE GREAT THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. THIS IS THE ZONING SAME KIND OF THING AS WELL. AGAIN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE THERE ZONING REFLECTS.

IT IS FOUR ACRES AND HAS 1.65 ACRES.

SO OPEN RURAL, LISTED. ON THE CULTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDE SERVICE AND EDUCATION.

[01:30:08]

ACTIVITIES, THIS IS THE FULL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FOUR ACRES. ALSO MIGHT WANT TO TELL YOU

ABOUT THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM. >> GOOD MORNING.

MOSTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT ANY QUESTIONS?

>> QUITE A DETAILED PLAN. SO VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. A LOT OF LEARNING GOING ON AS WELL AS THE INSIDE. THEY HAVE WORKED REALLY CLOSELY TO MAINTAIN A LOT OF THOSE BAKED TREES.

IN THEIR DESIGN. JUST AS YOU GET THE BUILDINGS

THROUGH THE AREA. >> SO THIS IS A FEW PICTURES LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING SOUTH. A NUMBER OF TREES.

KIND OF FIGURING OUT WHERE THEY CAN PLACE THINGS, THESE PICTURES THAT THEY PROVIDED TO ME.

THIS IS THE AUTO REPAIR TO THE SOUTH.

GRANDFATHERED BUSINESS. SO WE DO FEEL IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN, ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> THIS IS WHERE I LIVE THIS IS MY AREA THERE IS A TRAILER OR SOMETHING I WAS DOWN THAT ROAD LAST WEEK TRYING TO GET TO TARGET. IT'S TO SPEND MY MONEY.

I WONDERED ABOUT THAT WHEN I SAW THAT MY QUESTION IS, THE CITY, A HOOKUP TO THE CITY. FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DO THIS NONPROFIT. MY QUESTION IS, WHY HAS THIS LIKE A LOT OF THE SHIPYARD AREA WAS INTO THE CITY LIMITS.

SO THIS NONPROFIT DECIDED NOT TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY.

INTO THE CITY LIMITS. WONDERING WHY.

THIS NONPROFIT TO HELP PAY FOR A TRAFFIC LIGHT, SINCE THEY WILL BE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC LIGHTS SINCE SHIPROCK WENT IN, OTHER THINGS IN THAT AREA.

ASKING, TO PUT A LIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION.

TO GET TO THEIR PROPERTY. A COUPLE OF HOMES STILL BACK THERE. I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT.

WHICH IS FINE. SO MY QUESTION ESPECIALLY ABOUT

THE TRAFFIC LIGHT.HANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER JOSEPH WELCOME.

>> REALLY A GREAT IDEA. ANYWAY THEY CAN WORK THAT INTO

[01:35:02]

THEIR PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT?

CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON

THOSE COMMENTS? >> I WILL GENERALLY.

RESPONSIBLE FOR RECONFIGURING THAT INTERSECTION.

NORTH END OF THAT. THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT A TRAFFIC LIGHT GOING. THAT IS COMMITTED FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THIS NONPROFIT WILL NOT HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

SOME OF THAT CAME WHEN THEY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

>> THAT WAS A BIG THING ENVIRONMENTALLY PART OF THEIR MISSION FOR THE MUSEUM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> OKAY. I THINK THAT COMPLETES PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IN DISTRICT 5 SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO

ENACT ORDINANCE 2022. >> 75.

>> REZONING 2022. CHILDREN'S MUSEUM.

BASED ON FINDINGS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND WE ARE

GOING TO VOTE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES THAT PASSES.

THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THAT WE APPRECIATE IT.

I HAVE A THOUGHT. OFF THE DOCK TOO FOR THOSE

[8. Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2022-06 ICI Middlebourne PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the ICI Middlebourne PUD (Ord. 2018-29, as amended) to (i) add one land use, a Car Wash Facility, to the permitted uses within the PUD solely for the Gate Property; and (ii) add landscaping requirements and a related waiver for commercial and office parcels within the PUD property. The subject property is an unaddressed parcel located on the north side of Longleaf Pine Parkway, approximately 650 feet south of Veterans Parkway. The Planning and Zoning Agency heard this request during their regularly scheduled public hearing on October 6, 2022. This item was recommended for approval with a vote of 4 to 1. There was Agency discussion regarding the onsite wetlands, existing trees, and the landscape buffer waiver.]

KIDS. I THINK ON THE AGENDA.

ITEM 8. >> I HAVE NONE.

>> ITEM 8. >> I HAVE NONE WITH THAT WE

WILL COMMENCE WITH ITEM 8. >> GOOD MORNING I AM SWITCHING PODIUMS. LET'S HAVE A CHANGE OF SCENERY.

IN LOVELY SAINT AUGUSTINE. I AM HERE WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO SOME OF YOU PROBABLY ALL OF YOU KNOW THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACT PURCHASER, WHICH OF COURSE OWNED THE CONVENIENCE STORES.

THE GATE ENTITIES. THEN ON OUR PLANNING ENGINEERING AND LANDSCAPE, SO JUST TO ORIENT YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF VETERANS PARKWAY.

THIS CORNER IS ABOUT FOUR ACRES IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT.

THIS PROPERTY ON THE MAP DESIGNATED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE

[01:40:06]

DETAILS. ALLOWS A CONVENIENCE STORE WE ARE ADDING ANOTHER USE, THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION. HISTORY FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT ON THE BOARD, WAS THE APPLICANT FOR THIS BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES INCLUDED IN IT.

WE ALSO INCLUDED SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE.

WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SQUARE FEET. SO THAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT. BUT IT ALLOWS THESE USES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. TWO PURPOSES TO ADD ONE CARWASH FACILITY. ABOUT 5200 SQUARE FEET.

ENCLOSED MACHINERY, THAT KIND OF A THING.

ALSO A WAIVER BEHIND THE CONVENIENCE STORE, TO BE ABLE TO LOAD TRUCKS IN THE BACK OF THE STORE NOT THE FRONT OF THE STORE. TO BUY THINGS.

TO SEPARATE THE TRUCK TRAFFIC AND CUSTOMERS.

I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT I MEAN THIS IS THE APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS OUTLINED IN RED IN THIS AREA. SO ZOOMING IN AGAIN, HERE IS THE PARKWAY. EXTENDED TO THE SOUTH RIGHT NOW. THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE CARWASH. SO YOU ZOOM IN, SUBJECT TO THAT WAIVER. THE CUSTOMERS UPFRONT.

THE CARWASH LOCATION. AT OUR COMMUNITY MEETING.

THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING, SO CHANGED THE LANDSCAPING TO BE MORE FLORIDA FRIENDLY.

SO WE WANTED TO SHOW YOU THAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE IS A LIST.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

THERE WAS ONE, WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL. A CARWASH ON ANASTASIA ISLAND.

DECIDED TO VOTE AGAINST A RECOMMEND AGAINST THIS APPLICATION. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION SO IT CAN MOVE FORWARD WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC

COMMENT PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GREAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A CONVENIENCE STORE IN THERE. CAN YOU PULL UP THE OVERHEAD PLEASE. THE CONCERN IS WHY ARE WE DESTROYING ALL OF THESE WETLANDS TO PUT IN A CARWASH.

WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING THE WETLANDS AGAIN THIS IS FINE VERY LITTLE IMPACT. THANK YOU.

>> THANKS. >> I DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE THEM

MY PHONE. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT I WILL SAY BY WAY OF

[01:45:05]

ENCOURAGEMENT TO EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, THE MEETINGS DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

PLEASE ATTEND COMMUNITY MEETINGS.

I WAS ONE OF A FEW THAT DID ATTEND, I DID HEAR THE COMMENTS MADE ABOUT HOW BEAUTIFUL IS THE EDGE.

WITH NATURAL GROWTH. WHAT A SHAME IT WOULD BE TO LOSE ALL OF THAT. VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THE

CONVERSATION. >> BJ CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

>> THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

I AM GOING TO SAY, I AM VERY GRATEFUL.

THIS CARWASH WILL NOT BE NEXT TO A RESERVE LIKE THE CARWASH NEXT TO THE PRESERVE. IT ALL GOES BACK TO DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT SO WE WILL PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT NO MATTER WHERE IT IS IN OUR COUNTY VERSUS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU CAN GET OUT OF IT. I WASH MY OWN CAR.

POPPING UP I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN KEEP POPPING UP BECAUSE WE HAVE A WATER PROBLEM.SO I AM GLAD THAT THERE IS NO PRESERVE.

>> WITHIN THAT AREA. DO NOT IMPACT THE TREES ON THAT SITE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

WITH RESPECT TO THIS CASE NEVER HEARD BUT NOW WE HAVE IT IN THIS PLA SO THAT IS GOOD. ALSO POINT OUT I NOTED TO YOU EARLIER THAT THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 2018 INCLUDES ALL OF THE WETLAND SELF IMPACTS PROPOSED FOR THIS AREA HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COUNTY. I CAN ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS

YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> GOING IN BEHIND THIS

[01:50:01]

COMMERCIAL. >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING ABOUT

300 FEET. >> OPERATE FROM 8:00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M. ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT IS INSIDE THE CARWASH.

>> 'S SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE IMPACTS.

AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOL. CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.

8:00 A.M. FOR SOME PEOPLE ON SATURDAY MORNING IS AN EARLY WAKE-UP CALL. IT IS PART OF THEIR EXPERIENCE.

LET ME SAY THIS, FOUR YEARS AGO APPROVED THIS PROJECT THIS EXACT LOCATION. THE TRAFFIC HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, OF VETERANS PARKWAY SO THE TRAFFIC HAS BEEN MITIGATED ALREADY. ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE CARWASH, TALK ABOUT YOUR EMPLOYEES.

THAT THEY HAVE TWO EMPLOYEES AT ALL TIMES WHO CAN REGULATE THINGS LIKE MUSIC, AGAIN THEY RUN THE CARWASH AGAIN FROM 8:00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M.. TO KEEP THE NOISE DOWN.

ALL DESIGNED TO BE WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL APPROVED AREA. CONTEMPLATED THINGS LIKE 24-HOUR GAS STATION WHICH WILL BE THE CASE AT THIS LOCATION.

NOT IN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

>> ABOUT THE IMPACTS AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

>> ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS.

RECYCLE OUR WATER SO SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WATER CONSUMPTION. IT TAKES LESS WATER TO WASH YOUR CAR. BUT WE AS A COMPANY, TAKES A LOT OF PRIDE IN THE APPEARANCE OF NOT ONLY OUR CONVENIENCE STORES BUT CARWASHES. PERHAPS PEOPLE THAT LEAVE THEIR GARBAGE ON THE SIDE. WILL BE MONITORED THERE IS A LARGE BUFFER BETWEEN THE CARWASH AND RESIDENTIAL.

UNDER THE ICI. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR

THEM. >> DID I ANSWER EVERYTHING FOR

YOU? >> IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY MIND.

I APPRECIATE THOSE EXPLANATIONS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IS THERE MOTION?

>> DEFER TO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER.

[01:55:03]

>> I WILL MOVE TO DENY THE MODIFICATION.

PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THIS APPLICATION.

>> YES. >> NO.

>> I VOTE NO. >> TO DENY VOTE.

>> 'S IT LOOKS LIKE THE COMMISSIONER, TO SEE.

PERHAPS CHECK AGAIN IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO BRING ANY OTHER MOTION. THEN WE WOULD HAVE A FAILURE TO

REACH A MAJORITY. >> OKAY ANY OTHER MOTION?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN. BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER BOARD, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO DATE WHEN WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD WHENEVER THAT MIGHT BE.

WE CAN SHOOT FOR DECEMBER 20. THAT WOULD BE MY REQUEST.

>> LET ME SEE IF IT IS OKAY. HELP US OUT HERE.

HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND LEGALLY. >> IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE

BOARD. >> A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS

UNTIL DECEMBER 20? >> MR. CHAIR.

FIVE MEMBER BOARD. >> TO CONTINUE THIS SPECIFICALLY UNTIL WE HAVE A FIVE MEMBER BOARD HESITANT TO

PUT A DATE ON IT. >> THAT IS FINE.

LET'S NOT MAKE THE ASSUMPTION. UNTIL WE HAVE A FIVE MEMBER

BOARD. >> MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT

MR. CHAIR. >> EXACTLY.

TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL WE HAVE A FIVE MEMBER BOARD.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> COMMISSIONER. >> YES.

[9. Presentation: Request for Sports Lighting at Cornerstone Park. At the September 6, 2022, Board of County Commissioners Meeting, staff was asked to prepare a presentation on the Ponte Vedra Athletic Association's proposal to install sports lighting at the existing Cornerstone Park to meet increased demands for field space. The park, located at 1046 A1A North, currently has four (4) baseball fields, a multipurpose field, two (2) tennis courts, a basketball court, and restrooms with overflow parking shared with the Ponte Vedra Concert Hall. The proposal is to light the four baseball fields using $500,000 Impact Fee Zone B funds, previously set aside for park improvements in the northeast region of the County. The Ponta Vedra Athletic Association's proposal includes use of these funds in conjunction with a $1,000,000 donation in support. Staff has collected feedback on this proposal from the surrounding homeowners, park users, and the adjacent Ponte Vedra Concert Hall through community engagement and one-on-one meetings. Staff is prepared to share the feedback received in summary.]

>> YES. >> I VOTE YES.

>> THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK THAT TAKES US TO NINE. WE WELCOME OUR DIRECTOR.

>> THANK YOU GOOD MORNING. >> TO PRESENT THE REQUEST.

JOINING ME WILL BE STAFF, JAMIE.

WE HAD THE REPRESENTATIVE COME OUT.

BEYOND MY EXPERTISE. HERE IS A QUICK BACKGROUND ON THE PARK. IN THE PROCESS HERE.

THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO PRESENT THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED.

HISTORY OF THE PARK. FOR ACTIVE RECREATION.

THE COUNTY EXECUTED THE PURCHASE.

IDENTIFIES WITHIN THE PRESENTATION.

WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION.

[02:00:03]

OF THE CORNERSTONE PARK. WE HAVE ONE FACILITY THAT HAS THE ATHLETIC FIELD. AT THE DAVIS PARK FACILITY.

THIS IS AN OVERHEAD OF THE SITE.

ONE FOOTBALL FIELD IN THE MIDDLE.

THE GRASS OVERFLOW PARKING. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARK THIS WAS AN PRESENTATION GIVEN

TO THE ADMINISTRATION. >> WE DID REACH OUT WE MET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE PRESENT THE PROJECT TO THEM WE HAVE RECEIVED PARTICIPANT SURVEYS.

LOCAL RESIDENTS AS WELL. THEY HOLD A PUBLIC HOUSE AUGUST 25. TO PRESENT THE PROJECT TO THE NEIGHBORS. RECEIVED AN ARRAY OF EMAILS.

AGAINST THE PROJECT ADDITIONALLY WE DID MEET WITH THE FRIENDS OF THE CONCERT HALL TO TALK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP HOW IT WOULD BE IMPACTED. TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> THEN THEY COMMUNITY CONCERNS, NOISE POLLUTION.

LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS. A LIGHT POLLUTION.

THE HEIGHT SO EVERYBODY IS AWARE AT THE HEIGHT OF THE POLE REDUCES. DOES KEEP THE LIGHT FOCUSED ON THE PLAYING FIELD. OVERFLOW PARKING WE HAVE COME THROUGH AN AGREEMENT. SO WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE DISTRICT. RESTRICTION WITHIN THAT.

SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE TODAY. WILLING TO TAKE QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS YOUR HONOR.> TALK MORE ABOUT CONTAINING THE LIGHT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE TRY TO EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT MAKING SURE THE LIGHTS ARE FOCUSED.

REALLY EXPANDED. WHEN I WOULD FLIP THE LIGHTS ON. VERY FOCUSED NOW.

I DO HAVE THAT, LIKE I SAID THE MODERN-DAY FIELD ARE ABLE TO HAVE A FOCUS ON THE SITE ITSELF.

A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS AT THE DAVIS PARK.

THE FIRST PART. THAT JUST CAME ONLINE NEW CONSTRUCTION.T'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REMAINING

FIELDS WITHIN THE PARK. >> THAT IS PERFECT.

I AM A VISUAL PERSON. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY LET'S DO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

[02:05:06]

YOU MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN. THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> ALL RIGHT SEEING NO, NOBODY WANTS TO BE THE FIRST ONE.

>> GOOD MORNING. CURRENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE

ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION. >> TO EXPAND OUR CAPACITY BY LEVERAGING RESOURCES UNTIL THE FUNDING, SPENT.

ONE OBJECTIVE BOTH DEPARTMENTS AVOID THE SITUATION WHERE WE HAD TO DENY. DUE TO LACK OF FIELD CAPACITY.

THAT ACTION PLAN CONSISTED OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS BOTH ON THE PARKS AND REC THE FIRST REMODELING DAVIS PARK.

BEGAN USING THE SOFTBALL FIELDS FOR BASEBALL.

IN THAT CONSTRUCTION. WE CANNOT EXPAND DAVIS PARK.

THE SCHEDULE IS FULL. BEGAN PRACTICING MULTIPLE TEAMS ON THE SAME FIELD.NVESTED OUR OWN FUNDS TO BUILD FIELDS.

OUR GROWTH CONTINUES. INCREASED 17 PERCENT EACH YEAR OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS. SO CONTINUING THE TREND IS ESCALATING. SO NOW AT A CROSSROADS.

IT IS VERY CLEAR. CONSISTENTLY CLEAR WITH OUR COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS AS WELL. ALREADY SECURED A PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP. ALSO SAID STRICT HOURS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NOT A REGIONAL ONE.

FIRM STOP SIGNS. TO THE PARKS AND REC

DEPARTMENT. >> THANK YOU.

THE OTHER AGREEMENT NOT SCHEDULE ANY TOURNAMENTS.

NOT OUR INTENT THIS IS FOR RECREATIONAL INTENT ONLY.

CAN BE OFFERED A PLACE TO PLAY. I BELIEVE ANNA PRODUCTIVE PATH.

WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS. ON THIS REMODEL PROJECT.

SO WE CAN GET THIS COMPLETED HOPEFULLY.

WE VIEW THIS GROWTH NOT AS A CHORE BUT OPPORTUNITY.

WE HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY WE WERE GIVEN AS KIDS AND PARENTS TO TEACH THESE KIDS THE LESSONS.

[02:10:02]

IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ONCE IMPLEMENTED.

WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE COUNTY OUR NEIGHBORS TO ENSURE THIS WORKS, THAT WE MOVED COLLECTIVELY TO ALLOW US TO EXPAND CAPACITY TO ENLIST ANOTHER 500 KIDS PER YEAR.

TO BRING IN THE SAME JOY WE HAVE EXPERIENCED EARLIER.

THANK YOU I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS? >> HOW WOULD YOU FORCE THE STOP

TIMES THAT YOU ARE OFFERING? >> THE SCHEDULES.

WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT SWITCH.

WE PHYSICALLY CANNOT DO THAT. ALL SOFTWARE-BASED NOW.

IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WE HAVE A MECHANISM TO ENFORCE.

>> DO NOT HAVE ACCESS. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES. >> NEW LIGHTS WOULD BE

SOFTWARE-BASED. >> JUST A LITTLE OUTDATED.

>> WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE OUR KIDS OUT PRACTICING UNTIL ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAYS.

WE DO NOT WANT TO BE OUT THERE PAST THOSE TIMES.

>> THANK YOU. >> WELCOME.

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> I AM SORRY.

>> ALSO REPRESENTS A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.

>> THEN PROVIDED WITH THE SAME FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CARL SANDERS.

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW I REPRESENT THE PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS GROUP IN CONNECTION WITH VARIOUS ITEMS. LIKE TO PUT THIS BACKUP ON THE MONITOR.

PAGE ONE OF THE SLIDES. I WILL DO MYBEST, TO MY VERY BEST TO BE COMPREHENSIVE. THE PLANTATION AND THE COMMUNITY POSITIVELY SUPPORTS THE PARKS.

WE APPRECIATE THE ASSOCIATION. EVERYONE PLAYED SPORTS.

THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS TWO FOLD ENSURE THAT THE COMMISSION IS AWARE THERE IS STRONG OPPOSITION TO PUTTING 22 LIGHT POLES, 70 FOOT TALL ON A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WHAT DO YOU SEE THEY ARE ON THE NORTH IS PLANTATION HOMES ON THE WEST IS PLANTATION HOMES, ON THE SOUTH IS THE SEASIDE COMMUNITY.

AS YOU MAY BE AWARE THE FIRST TWO LARGE SCALE SUB DIVISIONS.

THEY WERE HERE BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE.

BECAUSE WE HAD NOTHING BACK THEN.

NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. IT IS TODAY AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. CORNERSTONE PARK UNLIKE DAVIS

[02:15:11]

PARK OR OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS IS UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF USES.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, THE ISSUE DOES THE COUNTY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

WHILE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THIS BOARD.

IT CANNOT DO SO UNLESS AND UNTIL THE COUNTY SECURES A VARIANCE FROM THE COUNTY TO PUT UP THESE LIGHTS.

THE OVERLAY DISTRICT PROHIBITS LIGHTS ANY TALLER THAN 20 FEET.

THAT IS A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTION IN PLACE. SPECIFICALLY SECTION, OWN SECTION FOR THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.

NO HIGHER THAN 20 FEET. SHALL BE OF LOW INTENSITY.

BY DEFINITION ARE HIGH INTENSITY.

BECAUSE OF THE AREA THAT YOU ARE COVERING.

THESE PARTICULAR LIGHTS, CAN AND ARE DESIGNED TO REFLECT DOWNWARD TO MINIMIZE LIGHT INTRUSION.

BETWEEN DAVIS PARK AND CORNERSTONE AS WE HAVE ALL OF THESE HOMES WHOSE BACKYARDS BACKUP TO THE SPORTS FIELDS SUBJECT TO NOT ONLY SEEING THE POLLS BUT ALSO 70 FOOT POLES LIGHTED AT NIGHT. AGAIN WE FULLY SUPPORT THE PARKS WE KNOW HOW DESPERATELY WE NEED MORE SPACE.

PERHAPS WE CAN GET OUR VOTERS TO APPROVE.

IT IS A COUNTYWIDE PROBLEM THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE?

YES SIR PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> HELLO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

20 YEAR RESIDENT. APPRECIATE THE LAWYER MAKING OUR CASE FOR US WITH THE LIGHTS.

>> SO IT IS A BEAUTIFUL EXAMPLE.

REALLY IMPORTANT POINT TO EMPHASIZE, THIS PARK ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS EXTENDING THE HOURS. I RUN THE PROGRAM.

IT IS GROWING. NOW A LOT OF DEMAND FOR THE FALL AS WELL I CANNOT HAVE A PROGRAM IN THE FALL.

MUCH SMALLER TRAVEL TEAM. ALLOW US TO EXPAND THE SPORT.

WHEN YOU THINK OF THE MATH, IMPACT THE TAXPAYERS.

FINANCIALLY THIS MAKES WONDERFUL SENSE THE ABILITY TO

[02:20:02]

ADD MORE FIELDS THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

ALREADY WHEN THEY ARE WALKING CLOSE.

AS WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE MUSIC THE LIGHTS SHUT OFF AT A SPECIFIC TIME. WE RESPECT THE COMMUNITIES.

THIS FIELD HAS BEEN THERE FOR 20+ YEARS ALREADY.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE MOVED IN AFTER THE PARK WAS THERE.

THOSE PROPERTY VALUES HAVE SKYROCKETED.

BEEN USED FOR OVER 20 YEARS. APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION

THANK YOU.>> ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> GOOD MORNING. FOR THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

MY THOUGHT IT WAS A NO-BRAINER. IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND.

THIS IS FOR KIDS FOR STUDENTS. THIS IS FOR THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN THOSE HOUSES THAT ARE NEXT TO THAT PARK.

IN OUR PARKS THAT ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO INCREASE THE USAGE, WE HAVE TO DO IT WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER.

COMING TO YOU GUYS BEGGING FOR PARKS WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING.

OVER 45,000 STUDENTS, THE NUMBERS DO NOT ADD UP WE HAVE TO DO MORE FOR OUR STUDENTS. ALSO AT CAPACITY ALSO SEEN 18 PERCENT GROWTH BUT WE ARE FULL WE HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO NOW OUR RESIDENTS REGISTERED PARENTS GETTING UPSET UPSET WITH US BECAUSE WE CANNOT PROVIDE THE FACILITIES THAT THEY NEED. THEY ALSO DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE BEING CHARGED. THAT IS BETWEEN YOU GUYS.

THEY NEED TO HAVE AN OPTION. I HAVE MULTIPLE FOOTBALL TEAMS USING BASEBALL FIELDS. I HAVE SCHOOLS THAT HAVE LAND BEHIND THEM THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE BUT THEY ARE LOCKED UP. SO THERE IS LAND OUT THERE.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND PLEASE DO SOMETHING.

WE NEED YOUR HELP WE ARE ASKING.

REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS. THEY NEED IT TOO.

THEY NEED IT TOO. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

YES, SIR. >> VOICE OUR SUPPORT.

ANYTHING WE CAN DO WE NEED TO DO.

EMERGENCY TYPE LEVEL. WE ARE TURNING AWAY KIDS.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THESE

KIDS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ANYBODY ELSE? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD ALWAYS STAND AT THE PODIUM.

>> GOOD MORNING. SO I AM HERE AS A RESIDENT, I

[02:25:03]

AM HERE AS A LOVER OF SPORTS GROWING UP PLAYING BASEBALL.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE CONCERT HALL SO WE FULLY SUPPORT THE PAST 11 YEARS OF NEIGHBORHOOD SYNERGY BETWEEN BASEBALL FIELDS AND CONCERTS. I DID HAVE A GREAT CONVERSATION WITH THE TEAM ON THIS SITUATION IMPORTANT TO SHARE THE CONCERNS SO THE RIGHT DECISIONS CAN BE MADE ACCORDINGLY.

CURRENTLY OVER 150 EVENTS OCCUR ANNUALLY.

IT IS PART OF THE DIVISION WITHIN SAINT JOHN'S COUNTY $40 MILLION OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANNUALLY.

THE CONCERN IS I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS. FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ASSOCIATION'S NEEDS VERY WELL. THAT WE AVOID A POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THAT SHOWS THAT HAPPEN IN THE CONCERT HALL BEGIN THE PRACTICE SESSIONS THEY GO INTO THE STAFFING IN THE LATE AFTERNOON THE ARRIVALS BEGIN, GO UNTIL THE EVENING. ALL WE ARE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IS I HAVE HAD MANY CALLS FROM MEMBERS FROM NEIGHBORS AND ALSO PEOPLE THAT FREQUENT THE HALL, CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY AND THE TRAFFIC SITUATION.

THAT COULD OCCUR BASED ON EVENTS.

THE LIGHTS NOT THE PROBLEM TO THE CONCERT HALL THE CHANGE OF THE USE FROM DAYTIME TO NIGHTTIME.

THE WILLINGNESS TO WORK FOR A SOLUTION ALSO DIRECT THAT THERE IS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT DURING SHOWS THAT DRAW 900 PEOPLE TO SEE STANDING SHOWS. IT IS A COMMUNITY PARK.

REINFORCES HOW IMPORTANT THAT PARK IS TO MAKE SURE IF THIS OCCURS THE PARKING IS LOOKED AT, SO IT EXPANDS ETC. RESPECT YOUR DECISION. WE DO HAVE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE SHARED. COMPETENT THERE COULD BE A SOLUTION. WHERE THERE IS A THOUSAND PEOPLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YES, MA'AM WELCOME. >> COMMISSIONERS.

HELLO. MY NAME IS JANE EVANS.

I HAD NOT PLANNED ON SHARING THE FACT THAT I AM A LACROSSE MOM, I KNOW I HAVE DRIVEN ALL OVER STATES ALL OVER COUNTIES GETTING OUR GIRLS TO SPORTS THAT IS IMPORTANT.

>> A SCENIC BY THE WAY, OFTEN REFERRED AS AN AMERICAN HIGHWAY. BECAUSE 22, 70 FOOT POLES BASICALLY A FOREST OF POLLS ALONG THE SCENIC BYWAYS.

WE ARE OPPOSING THESE POLES BASED ON THE OVERLAY DISTRICT

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

YES, MA'AM. >> IN THE SEASIDE COMMUNITY.

[02:30:04]

EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THESE LIGHTS GOING IN.

I KNOW AND I EMPHASIZE WITH WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH AS FAR AS YOUR NEED FOR POPULATION INCREASE OF ATHLETES. I KNOW THAT THIS MAY BE A QUICK FIX BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT FIX FOR US.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT FLORIDA IS GROWING.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE PDECISIONS THAT PROTECT THE PBEAUTY AND THE PEACE, 70 FOOT POLES IS NOT PEACEFUL.

THAT IS JUST ME. ONLY 12 CELL TOWERS, 22 OF THESE LIGHTS IN OUR BACKYARDS. ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THIS.

CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> HI THERE. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.

I AM THE BASEBALL COMMISSIONER. I WANTED TO SAY A FEW THINGS SO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING AS AN ORGANIZATION.

WE HAVE LOOKED OUT OVER THE YEARS, THE GROWTH WE HAVE BEEN PLANNING FOR THAT. THE EFFORTS AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OUT OF NOWHERE.

SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR.

THE GROWTH THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT WE SHARED WITH THE COUNTY FOUR YEARS AGO. THAT GROWTH HAS NOT ONLY CONTINUED BUT EXPANDED BY A COUPLE MORE PERCENT.

TO BREATHE THE FRESH AIR. AS FAR AS THE STATEMENT CONCERNING THE CONCERT HALL, THE LAST YEAR AND ONE HALF, RUNNING THE PROGRAM. WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING PRACTICES UPWARDS OF 8:00 AT NIGHT. OVER THAT TIME OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE SITUATION WHERE I HAVE SEEN A CONFLICT. BUT IN EACH SITUATION THAT HAS COME UP WE HAVE LISTENED, TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE CONCERNS.

NOT SOMETHING WE ARE TRYING TO PUSH.

SO WITH THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS BOB.

RESOURCES. >> BECAUSE IT IS A FEW HOUR A NIGHT FOR A FEW SEASONS PER YEAR.

YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE, BUT ABOUT 144 HOMES.

ON THIS PROPERTY LINE. WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED LIGHTS WOULD BE THERE. YOUR OWN REGULATIONS.

IT IS LIMITED TO 20 FEET. SOME LOSS OF VALUE, RESULT.

[02:35:23]

I THINK YOU AS COMMISSIONERS PROBABLY SUBSCRIBE, I BELIEVE YOU SUBSCRIBED TO THE THEORY OF DO NO HARM.

WE WILL DO HARM TO OTHERS. I THINK AS A COUNTY WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT SOLUTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF OUR YOUNG CHILDREN. I CERTAINLY WANT THEM TO PARTICIPATE. AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS ON A NIGHTLY ACTIVITY COMPETING, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CONCERT HALL WHICH IS A MAJOR PART OF THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THIS COMMUNITY WE HAVE DONE STUDIES DONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE PARKING IS A NIGHTMARE. THE MOVEMENTS IN AND OUT OF THIS CONCERT HALL, VERY AWKWARD.

65 MILES PER HOUR. TO HAVE CHILDREN ARRIVING AND DEPARTING, AT HIGH SPEEDS IS INCONSISTENT.

BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION YOU WILL GIVE THIS MATTER CAREFUL STUDY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> I HAD NOT PLANNED.

I AM GOING TO STOP YOUR CLOCK TO MAKE SURE YOUR MICROPHONE IS

ON. >> WE RAISED OUR FAMILY IN OHIO. THAT WAS BACK IN THE 90S. IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME BUT WE HAD A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD WE ENJOYED THE WALK. WHERE WE COULD PLAY SOCCER.

ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME TO BE A SHAME, OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT SINCE ON HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF OPEN RECREATION LAND FENCES.

I KNOW IT IS A DIFFERENT ERA. TO WALK UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. YOU CAN STILL DO THAT.

ENCOURAGE THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO GET INTO SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS. ABOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF MAKING OPEN LAND AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> EXCUSE ME.

YOU KNOW IT GETS RIGHT DOWN TO IT ONCE AGAIN THIS IS A RESIDENCE, THE RULES OF AN ASSOCIATION.

VERSUS OVERDEVELOPMENT, THE OVERDEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN CREATED BY THIS COMMISSION AND OTHER COMMISSIONS.

UNTIL WE GET BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

EVERY TIME YOU DO THE PDEVELOPMENT, OR THE ROADS THE PARKS, IT IS NOT HAPPENING. BUT THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ON THE WAYS AWAY, BUT IT IS THE SAME PROBLEM OVER AND OVER. I HOPE YOU TAKE THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.

I ON THE ADVISORY BOARD. I THINK SOMETHING COULD PROBABLY BE WORKED OUT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.

I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE ANY SHOWS DURING THE SUMMERTIME.

[02:40:06]

I THINK THE SUMMERTIME IS SLOWER FOR THAT I THINK THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE CONCERT HALL THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. >> HI.

IN THE SUMMERTIME. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CAN GO TO CANADA OR SOMEWHERE WHERE IT IS NICE THE WEATHER.

THAT IS A GOOD POINT THE PROCESS OF GETTING ARTISTS HERE, UNIQUE PROCESS FOR SCHEDULING.

WE WORK WITH ALL OF THE OTHER FACILITIES THROUGH FLORIDA.

SOMETIMES 15 DAYS. IT IS QUITE A UNIQUE COMPLICATED PROCESS ONCE YOU LOSE THE INTEGRITY, YOU LOSE THE ARTIST. THE GOOD NEWS IS WE FINISHED ALL OF THAT PROCESS BEFORE SCHEDULING HAPPENS FOR EVENTS.

SO THERE IS A WAY TO DO THIS. MOST OF THE PRACTICES IT WILL NOT MATTER. BIG EVENTS THAT COULD USE THE SAME SPACE ALL OF OUR SCHEDULING WILL BE DONE.UR STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD HAVE ALL OF OUR SCHEDULING, SPORTS SCHEDULING AROUND THE CONCERT HALL PROGRAM. DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?

THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING. I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO THE REMARKS. THIS PARK IS FOR THE RESIDENTS.

OF OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTY. MORE LIKE 15 OR 16.

BUT TO THE SIGNS ACTUALLY LIKE SOME PEOPLE SAID, WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY. NOT ONLY AT DAVIS PARK BUT OTHER NEW FIELDS, IS SPOT ON. IF YOU DRIVE DOWN DAVIS PARK ROAD, ACTUALLY STILL DARK. STILL LOOKS LIKE IT IS GOING NOWHERE. JUST STARTING TO GET USE OF IT.

THIS TECHNOLOGY IS REALLY GREAT, THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS I THINK FROM A LIGHTING PERSPECTIVE IS VERY LITERAL AND WORKS IN YOUR FAVOR.

FURTHERMORE, COMING OUT OF COVID-19 ACTUALLY GLAD THAT WE HAVE ALL THE KIDS. PEOPLE WERE OFFERING PRACTICES, I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE SMALL CHILDREN.

PROBABLY IN THE SAME PERSPECTIVE KNOWING THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. BEING OUT IN THE OPEN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> I CAN CLARIFY THAT THE NUMBER IS ON ME. I PROVIDED THAT TO THE PLANTATION GROUP. THE NUMBER AT THE SITE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

[02:45:06]

>> THE FIELDS OUT THERE. TO RESTRICT THE USE OF FIELDS, HURTING OUR YOUTH. YOU KNOW THE SCHOOLS, I DO NOT HEAR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINING.

NO REASON THAT THIS CANNOT WORK.

THE LIGHTS WERE NOT THERE BEFORE, IT IS TIME WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET THEM AWAY FROM THE T.V. AWAY FROM THE CONTROLS, GET THEM OUT THERE IN THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES THAT WILL BENEFIT THEM IN THE LONG RUN.

ONE OTHER TOPIC, TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO WHERE THE COMMUNITY HAS ACCESS TO THE FIELDS.

IT IS OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY IT IS TIME LET'S WORK TOGETHER WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> HI.

I THINK THERE WAS MISCOMMUNICATION TODAY ABOUT THIS ITEM A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT PUBLIC COMMENT WASN'T GOING TO BE ALLOWED SO I RACED OVER HERE, YOU WOULD'VE SEEN A LOT MORE PEOPLE COMMENTING. I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE BUT I DO NOT HAVE SOMETHING PREPARED I WANT TO SAY I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE THAT WE NEED MORE BALL FIELDS FOR CHILDREN.

VERY IMPORTANT PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN.

MY CONCERN IS THIS PARTICULAR PLAN I THINK WAS LIKE A PLAN TO TRY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM ONLY GOING TO SOLVE IN SHORT-TERM.

AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY, IT IS READY TO GO.

ALSO LAND TO BE DEVELOPED. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM WITH PUTTING LIGHTS UP BEHIND THE PLANTATION, IS THAT IT IS GOING TO DEGRADE PEOPLE'S QUALITY OF LIFE DEVALUE HOMES, I FEEL LIKE A GREATER GOOD ARGUMENTS HERE SORT OF LIKE A CLASSIC GO INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, MORE IMPORTANT LARGER NUMBER ISSUE.

I THINK THAT IT HAS TO BE INCOMPETENT, WHEN THEY SOLVE PROBLEMS DO NOT CURATE NEW ONES.

>> DEVASTATED IF IT WAS MY HOUSE, PEOPLE SAID TO ME I SAID IT IS DARK. I UNDERSTAND THAT NOW I RESPECT THAT. I THINK THAT THE SOLUTION SHOULD NOT INVOLVE HAVING SUCH AN EFFECT ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE NOW. PLEASE CONSIDER OTHER AREAS IN THE COUNTY TO LIGHT. BARRY GENERATION DONATION THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JEFF. THANK YOU FOR THE DRAMATICS THAT WE ARE HEARING TODAY ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THESE LIGHTS ON HOMES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLACARD THAT SHOWS, THAT HALF OF YOU OUT THE CORNERSTONE. THAT THE HOMES, THE GENTLEMAN

[02:50:07]

BEFORE ME IS ABSURD. IF YOU JUST THINK ABOUT YOU KNOW HOW ANYTHING DEVELOPS COMMUNITIES GROW, ALL AROUND COMPROMISE. TO GROW TO DEVELOP KEEP OUR NEIGHBORS HAPPY, BUT I WOULD SAY, HAS COMPROMISED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. WE HAVE ASKED AND WAITED DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED.

WE HAVE COME TO THE TABLE WITH A SOLUTION.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN OR YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOU COME WITH A SOLUTION. A SOLUTION THAT WORKS A SOLUTION THAT HAS MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

THE TRAFFIC THE PARKING AT THE CONCERT HALL WOULD BE VERY MINIMALLY IMPACTED. THE TRAFFIC, ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT TRAFFIC AND GETTING IT OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD I AM THE FIRST GUY THAT IS GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. FROM A PARK STANDPOINT, IS NOTHING BUT POSITIVE. MY SON IS 14.

BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AS A COACH, AS A FATHER HAVING OUR YOUTH ENGAGED HAVING OUR YOUTH WITH SOMETHING TO DO THAN SITTING AT HOME, MUCH MORE, I WANT THAT FOR MY YOUTH AND YOUTH TO COME. WHERE IT IS GOING.

YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED.

BUT WHAT IS THE IMPACT TODAY. THIS IS A GREAT IMMEDIATE SOLUTION TO A VERY LARGE COMPLEX PROBLEM.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> YES, SIR WELCOME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE LIGHTS AT CORNERSTONE IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PRIEPREVIOU ITEMS, WHAT WAS IN THE MAP AROUND IT, COMMUNITY PARKS BASEBALL FIELDS.

SO FOR SOME TO SAY IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL, NEW THINGS APPROVED. I JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT ALSO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS LAND TO BE DEVELOPED, OVER 200 KIDS.

IF WE CANNOT GET SOMETHING DONE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> JUST QUICK I AM KATE, I WANT TO SAY THAT IT BREAKS MY HEART THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING LIGHTS FOR A FEW HOURS FOR SPORTS.

THAT THE PARENTS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE BEHIND THESE LIGHTS WE DESPERATELY WANT THEM WE DO NOT WANT OUR KIDS TO BE

TURNED AWAY THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? SEEING NON-ÁCUSTOMÁ THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. START THE DISCUSSION WITH A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. APOLOGIZE, FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT. PROBABLY GUESSING THE STAFF TOLD PEOPLE THIS IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

I SAW PEOPLE WANTING TO SPEAK THAT AND MADE A DECISION.

I THINK I AM ENTITLED TO DO TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WITH THAT SAID PROBABLY MORE PEOPLE, GOING TO ACCEPT PUBLIC

[02:55:07]

COMMENT. TALKING ABOUT BASEBALL FIELDS, IT REMINDS ME OF A STORY. YEARS AGO, THE OWNER WAS GEORGE, SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS.

THEY USED TO GET INTO MONUMENTAL FIGHTS.

THEY WOULD GO AT IT FOR QUITE A WHILE ON A REGULAR BASIS.

FINALLY, WAIT A MINUTE HE IS THE BOSS WOULD THROW HIS HANDS UP AND STAY I FEELSTRONGLY BOTH WAYS.

FUNNY BUT TRUE. I FEEL STRONGLY BOTH WAYS.

ONE OF THE INTERESTING CHALLENGES WE HAVE AS COMMISSIONERS AS DECISION-MAKERS, TWO SPECIFIC DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE.

THE PARENTS, THAT DESERVE A PLACE TO PLAY BALL IN THIS COUNTY. SO OUR PROBLEM AND I REMEMBER, OUR PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTY TODAY IS AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF BALL FIELDS. I HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR. ON WAITING LISTS, SO I WANT TO TOSS THIS OUT VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHAT I SAY HERE.

I AM GOING TO TALK IN GENERAL TERMS. IT IS MY BELIEF. THAT WE DO HAVE AS A COUNTY I THINK AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCESS TO ONE OR MORE SITES IN THE BEACH AREA. I AM BOUND TO AN AGREEMENT I MADE CONFIDENTIALLY WITH CERTAIN ENTITIES THAT I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, IT WOULD BE VERY INEXPENSIVE IF ALL OF THE PIECES CAME TOGETHER.

I HAVE BEEN HAVE TO BE HONEST, REGARDING WHAT WE DO WITH THE 70-FOOT TALL LIGHTS OR NOT.

EITHER WAY IT'S GOING TO END UP IN LITIGATION. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO AVOID THAT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS TO ALLOW ME TO BUY A LITTLE TIME AND COME BACK HOPEFULLY WITH AN IDEA TO DO WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF BALL FIELDS FOR OUR CHILDREN.

AND I, MY HOPE IS THIS COULD BE DONE WITHIN NOT THE NEXT 10 YEARS BUT THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

THAT'S A LITTLE LONGER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIGHTS, SOMEONE MENTIONED ONE YEAR, BUT AGAIN, IF WE HAVE LITIGATION, IT MIGHT BE FIVE YEARS BEFORE THAT IS RESOLVED.

I HAVE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT LITIGATING THESE KINDS OF ISSUES.

I WOULD OFFER AS A SUGGESTION TODAY THAT WE LOOK TO WHAT WOULD BE A WIN-WIN SITUATION.

IF WE COULD PROVIDE MORE BALLPARKS IN THE AREA WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT TO TRY THAT AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING UP 70 FOOT LIGHT POLES. I WANTED TO SAY THAT BEFORE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN. THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN TODAY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I SUGGESTED IS DOABLE. I THINK IF WE PURSUE EITHER OPTION OF THE LIGHTS OR NO LIGHTS, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FACE CERTAINLY

[03:00:07]

LITIGATION IF NOT THE PROBLEM OF MANY, MANY PARENTS REMAINING STYMIED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PLAY BALL WITH THEIR KIDS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN

ANY FURTHER SUGGESTIONS OR THOUGHTS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

WHEN DO YOU THINK WE WOULD HAVE DETAILS ON SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TAKE ACTION ON? I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ME CONCERN IS WE HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE US TODAY TO VOTE UP OR DOWN THAT WE KNOW COULD INCREASE CAPACITY BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED HOURS.

THAT'S BEEN RESEARCHED AND DEVELOPED AND READY TO GO. SO THIS PLAN CONCEPTUALLY SOUNDS GREAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHEN WE WOULD TAKE ACTION?

>> LET ME ANSWER THAT. MY BEST GUESS IS WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, 12 MONTHS.

BUT THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE THE ACTUAL ACQUISITION WHICH MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BALL FIELDS. WHAT WOULD BE THE SITE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN TWO WEEKS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT.

>> I HAVE GOT SOME QUESTIONS. THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. SO.

>> I THOUGHT SO. >> HEARING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHAT TO

MAKE OF IT. >> MR. CANE WE KEEP HEARING THE STICKING POINT, THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHT POLES. YOU EXPLAINED THE HEIGHT IS TO LIMIT THE SPILLAGE OF LIGHT INTO THE NEIGHBORS. COULD WE BUILD 20 FOOT LIGHT POLES?

IS IT POSSIBLE? >> WHAT WOULD BE THE SMALLEST HEIGHT THAT YOU, THAT MUST PUT

LIGHT POLES AT? >> DANNY SHELTON, WHO IS MOSCOW SPORTS LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVE.

>> DANNY SHELTON, MUSKO LIGHTING. AS THE DIAGRAM THAT RYAN SUBMITTED EARLIER SHOWS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE POLE HEIGHTS AND THE AIMING ANGLES.

WE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE FOR A DESIGN THAT HAD LOWER MOUNTING HEIGHTS AT ANY OF THE POLES.

IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE IT MUCH WORSE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THE FIXTURES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOB, AND THERE WOULD BE MUCH MORE GLARE IN CANDLEA.

WE WOULD NOT SIGN OFF ON A POLE THAT LOWERED HEIGHTS. >> WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IT

NO. >> OKAY. THAT CERTAINLY ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. MR. CANE, TO COMMISSIONER DEAN'S POINT, THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I WROTE DOWN HEARING THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHAT WOULD IT COST TO BUILD A BALLPARK LIKE WE HAVE SEEN HERE. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF DOLLARS?

>> SO THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE OF THAT WE HAVE IS THE TURNBO PROPERTY OFF 16 IS A VERY SIMILAR PARCEL WAGON WHEEL, MULTIPURPOSE. THE BID CAME IN VERY HIGH AT OVER $20 MILLION. STAFF BELIEVED THAT WAS TOO HIGH SO WE DID SEND BACK OUT FOR BID.

THE MOST RECENT NUMBER WAS THE $20 MILLION FOR ONE BID ON THAT. >>

>> IS THAT FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY? >> THAT WAS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BALL FIELD. I WOULD PROFESSIONALLY BELIEVE IT WAS BELOW THAT AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT BACK OUT TO BID. THAT'S THE NUMBER WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

>> COMMISSIONER DEAN, YOU HAVE KIND OF THROWN ME FOR A LOOP. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A VOTE ON THIS. NOW I'M EXCITED TO KNOW WHAT THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN ARE.

>> WELL, IN MY DEFENSE, I JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS POSSIBILITY A WEEK AGO.

AND IT'S NOTHING I COULD HAVE BROUGHT UP TO YOU PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

SO, I'M DOING THE BEST I CAN UNDER THE RULES. UNDERSTOOD.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN DEAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.

QUICK QUESTION. JUST PROCEDURALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS A, THIS IS NOT A VOTING AGENDA ITEM. CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER WHAT EXACTLY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH. CAN WE GET THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO KIND OF WALK US THROUGH WHERE

WE ARE PROCEDURALLY IN THIS >> SURE. I THINK.

>> I WOULD ASK GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF AS WOULD BE BEST QUIPPED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE

PROCEDURES FOR THE -- >> YEAH, WHERE WE ARE JUST IN GENERAL FOR THE AUDIENCE AND AS YOU COME UP. WE SORT OF THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST HERE TO BUILD PARKS AND BALL FIELDS BUT WE ALSO ANYTHING WE DO IS SUBJECT TO ANY LOCAL ZONING OR REVIEW BY PIS AB OR

[03:05:10]

THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THAT'S THE ISSUE WE'RE ADDRESSING HERE.

>> YES, SIR, JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT. REGARDING THE PROCESS TO GET THIS APPROVED THROUGH THE PALM VALLEY OVERLAY REGULATIONS. THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN APPLICATION AND A NON-ZONING VARIANCE POTENTIALLY TWO NON-ZONING VARIANCE RELATED TO THE HEIGHT AND THAT WOULD BE SCHEDULED BEFORE THE PONTE VEDRA OR PALM VALLEY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION.

>> WHO IS THE APPLICANT? >> IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE COUNTY OR THE PONTE VEDRA

ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION. >>SEE, IT IT WERE THE COUNTY AND THE OVERLAY BOARD DENIED THE

REQUESTED VARIANCE, WHERE WOULD THAT APPEAL GO? >> THE APPEAL WOULD GO TO THE

COUNTY COMMISSION. >> THEN IF THE COUNTY COMMISSION OVERTURNED THE OVERLAY DESIGN

BOARD, WHERE WOULD THAT GO? >> IT WOULD BE APPROVED -- >> THAT'S FOR CIRCUIT COURT

>> SEEMINGLY, WOULD BE APPROVED AT THAT POINT AND THE OPTION FOR COURT.

>> THIS SORT OF CONFIRMS MY POINT IN MY MIND. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WE ARE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY UNDER ALMOST ANY OPTION HERE OF EXTENDED LITIGATION. THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.

SO, JEREMIAH, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? DO YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON

THE POINT JEREMIAH? >> WELL MR. CHAIRMAN, IT DOES, I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT OUR ROLE IS. WHAT ACTION IS TO BE TAKEN TODAY.

I'M COMPLETELY IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER BALL FIELDS AND TO HELP THE FAMILIES.

ANYONE THAT LIVED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME UNDERSTANDS WE NEED MORE BALL FIELDS. WE HAVE ALL WORKED HARD ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO FORWARD AND SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME APPROVAL THAT IS HAVE TO GO IN PLACE BEFORE THIS CAN COME IN FOR A LANDING HERE. SO AGAIN I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT OUR ACTION IS TODAY OR WHAT ROLE

WE HAVE TO TAKE. ARE WE VOTING ON THIS TODAY? >> LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS THAT WITH BOTH YOU AND EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE. THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS AN INFORMATION ITEM ONLY. SO IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE MAY NECESSARILY BE ANY VOTE TODAY. ALTHOUGH IT'S ADVERTISED AND THERE COULD BE A VOTE I BELIEVE

MR. MIGET, >> THAT IS CORRECT. IF A COMMISSIONER, ANY ONE OF FOUR OF US WANT TO PROPOSE A MOTION, WE COULD VOTE ON IT. WE'RE NOT BARRED FROM THAT.

WHAT I INTEND TO DO IF THERE'S NO MOTION OR NO OTHER DIRECTION TO ME FROM THE BOARD, I INTEND TO PURSUE THIS CONCEPT THAT I HAVE OUTLINED TODAY WHICH I JUST LEARNED ABOUT FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST WEEK. JEREMIAH, DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?

>> IT DOES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS OF WHY YOU COULDN'T BRING THAT UP BEFORE TODAY. AS COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST POINTED OUT, I'M CURIOUS AS WELL WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. FIRST WE'RE HEARING ABOUT IT. I DO WANT TO DEFER TO YOUR

JUDGMENT ON THAT. >> OKAY. WELL, AT THIS POINT IS

MOTION? >> I'M SORRY. >> I DIDN'T, I DON'T WANT THE

LIGHT SHOWING HERE. >> I JUST WANTED TO ASK, WHEN WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SITE? BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF MAXIMIZING WHATEVER CAPACITY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

I THINK IT'S, WELL IT'S AN IMPERFECT SOLUTION, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY THE BEST OPTION WE'VE GOT. THAT BEING SAID, DON'T WANT TO SEE EXTENDED LITIGATION, I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THE LIGHTS. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS, WHEN WE COULD

LEARN MORE ABOUT IT? >> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE, I THINK I CAN TELL YOU.

I WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT IN SUGGESTING THAT I COULD REPORT BACK TO YOU IN A PUBLIC FORUM SUCH AS THIS WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IF WE GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR THE LIGHTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE IN LITIGATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR TWO, THREE, FOUR YEARS.

I HATE TO SAY THAT BUT I THINK IT'S THROUGH. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE REALM OF THE GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS FOR 40 YEARS AND THAT SOMETIMES CAN HAPPEN.

IN FACT SOUTH FLORIDA IS STILL UNDER A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL JUDGE HOOFER SINCE 1992. H HOOFLER PASSED ON BUT THE

[03:10:01]

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTINUES. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN, FORGIVE ME, I FEEL LIKE I'M BEATING A DEAD HORSE. COULD WE NOT PURSUE THE PID SAV OPTION AND PURSUE THIS OPTION AT THE SAME TIME. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THAT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE WE MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE PIVZAP TO PURSUE THE LIGHTS AS PROPOSED AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND START WALKING THOSE STEPS KNOWING IT MAY RESULT IN LITIGATION.

IF THERE'S A BETTER SOLUTION IN THE PART OF THE COMPROMISE THAT PRESENTS ITSELF TO US BETWEEN NOW AND THEN BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD, WE CAN PURSUE IT ALL.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT QUALIFIES AS A PROPER MOTION. >> I HEARD A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE OVERLAY BOARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIGHTS.

SO THAT IS WHAT I GOT. WAS THAT THE INTENT?P>> SO MOVE. YES, SIR.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. JEREMIAH.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE. COMMISSIONER

>> YES. >> WHITEHURST. >> YES.

COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. >> YES. AND I VOTE YES.

THAT MOTION PASSES 4-0 SO THE STAFF CAN PROCEED TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE DESIGN OVERLAY BOARD FOR THIS PROPOSAL AND I WILL SORT OF CONTINUE MY EFFORTS TO MOVE AHEAD ON MY END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET AN ANSWER TO WHERE WE MAY END UP THAT I TRIED TO DESCRIBE.

>> YES, SIR. THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING. THAT WAS A HEALTHY DISCUSSION FOR EVERYONE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD RECOMMENDATION YOU MADE

COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> THAT TAKES US TO 12:15.

Y'ALL READY FOR A BREAK? WE >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

[Items 12 & 13]

WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE OUR NOVEMBER 1ST MEETING. ITEMS 12 AND 13 WHICH HAPPEN TO BE EX PARTE DISCLOSURES. LET'S DO THE EX PARTE ON 12 AND 13.

THEY ARE BOTH EX PARTE. SO, COMMISSIONER ARNOLD. LET'S START WITH YOU.

ON 12 AND 13 EX PARTE. >> I'M LOOKING FOR IT. I HAD A MEETING YESTERDAY MONDAY OCTOBER 31ST AT 10:30 A.M. WITH JAMES WHITE HOUSE AND STAFF. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TIME AND DATE. I BELIEVE IN EARLY JULY I DID A SITE VISIT AS

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST. >> YESTERDAY AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M. I MET WITH JAMES WHITE HOUSE AND OUR STAFF PRIMARY WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES

WERE DRAWN. >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE

AND RECORD OF ANY MEETINGS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> I MET ON MONDAY OCTOBER 31ST ROUGHLY 12:30 WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE AND STAFF TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENT ACCESS, INGRESS AND EGRESS POINTS ON COASTAL AGGREGATE BORROW PIT.

THE THAT WAS ABOUT IT. WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE AN OUTLINE WHICH I APPARENTLY HAVE MISPLACED. NO, HERE IT IS. TO DO OUTLINE OF A PRESENTATION.

HAVE WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE PARTIES LEX? >> YES, BOTH PARTIES AGREED.

>> BOTH PARTIES ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED PER THE PROPOSAL YOU HANDED ME.

WHAT I HAVE IS SWEARING IN THE WITNESSES. ARE THERE WITNESSES TO BE SWORN?

>> LEX, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME THROUGH THIS. >> I WILL DO IT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DO HAVE WITNESSES TO BE SWORN. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. WHITEHOUSE

[03:15:03]

DOES. >> IT'S ALL UP TO YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT.

I'M A SIMPLE COMMISSIONER SITTING HERE WATCHING THE PROCEDURINGS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS TAD DURANCE IN ORMAN BEACH WITH HELO COASTAL AGGREGATE.

>> I'M RANDY STORE MAN BECTEL. >> IF YOU COULD REMAIN UP HERE. >> JAMESON MELTON, BIOCONSULTANT. 11235 INDUSTRIAL PARK WAY ST. JOHNS.

>> MATT LOUDY. 225 A 1 A SOUTH. >> JOHN WILLIAMS, SAINT

AUGUSTINE AND WORK FOR SRM MATERIALS. >> IF THE WITNESSES WOULD ALL RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND AND SWEAR, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO

PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> I DO.

>> THEY'RE SWORN IN. OKAY. MR. WHITEHOUSE, I THINK YOU'RE UP NEXT WITH A 15-MINUTE LIMITATION ON THE PRESENTATION. SO IT'S ALL YOURS.

GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONER, I AM JAMES WHITEHOUSE, 104 SEGROVE MAIN STREET IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE BAR AS A BOARD EXPERT IN LOCAL AND GOVERNMENT LAW. I AM HERE ON HALF OF SRM MATERIALS LLC, THE OWNERS OF THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER UPON WHICH THEY RUN AN ACTIVE MINING OPERATION THAT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS. FROM YOUR PACKETS AND THE PZA PACKET, THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN YOU SEE OUTLINED IN WHITES MY CLIENT'S MATERIAL, SRM MATERIALS. TO LEFT OF YOUR SCREEN, THIS IS PUTNAM AND RIGHT IS ST. JOHNS COUNTY. YOU CAN SEAT ACTIVE MINES IN PUTNAM AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY. SRN MATERIALS IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE IMMEDIATE BEAR AND ARE UNREASONABLY AFFECTD BY THE HAUL ROUTES. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR YOU TO REVIEW THE UNLAWFUL GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHICH IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED HAUL PROPERTY.E ON THE APPELLANT'S - THE EVIDENCE CONTAINS CLEARLY SHOWS THE PROPOSED APPROVED SOUTHERN HAUL ROUTE RUNS ON THE PROPERTY AND THE NORTHERN ROUTE ACROSSES THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY, CONTRARY TO THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY REPORT. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES YOU SEE WHERE THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT IS REQUESTED ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS THEIR PROPERTY AND PROPOSE TO GO THROUGH THE TREES AND WETLANDS, TO CUT ACROSS CANAL 14 OVER TO CANAL 17. AND AGAIN, HERE'S THE SOUTHERN HAUL ROUTE THAT'S PROPOSED. THEY WANT TO GO DOWN THEIR OVER PROPERTY, GO THROUGH CANAL, UP CANAL 17 AND THEN CONNECT SOMEWHAT EITHER WITH THE PROPERTY OR GO UP THE ROAD THAT'S ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY. THE ORDER OF APPEAL IS FROM THE PZA.

MY CLIENT IS AN ADVERSELY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER. THEY OWNER PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. THE ORDER FROM THE PZA WAS RENDERED ON AUGUST 18TH, THIS WAS TIMELY APPEALED WITHIN THE 30 DAYS AND MY CLIENT IS RECOGNIZED AS AN UNREASONABLY AFFECTED CLIENT. THEY RUN AN ORGANIZATION WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.

THE APPROVED HAUL ROUTES THAT WERE APPROVED DIRECTLY AFFECT AND INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE SOUTHERN REQUESTED APPROVED HAUL ROUTE IS PROPOSED TO RUN ACROSS THE PROPERTY AND INAPPROPRIATE, WHICH WAS NOTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PZA WITHIN YOUR PACKET AS WELL AND COMMENTED ON BY THE STAFF. MOREOVER THE CLIENTS WILL BE

[03:20:11]

AFFECTD AND THEIR PROPERTY AND SAFETY ARE MEANT TO BE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE REVIEW SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT REQUESTING A HAUL ROUTE APPROVAL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SAFETY IF THE ROUTES ARE ALLOWED ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY ASSERT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE PZA CLEARLY SHOWS THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES RUN ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE PZA FAILED TO CONSIDER THEIR DECISION TO GRANT THE PERMIT.

THE PZA DID NOT AND WAS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE SAFETY OF THE PERMIT SHOWIN THE ROUTES AND THE ROADS TO BE USED OR BUILT WERE FEASIBLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPECIAL USE.

OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

IN THIS MATTER, THE APPLICANT FAILED TO SHOW WHERE THEIR HAUL ROUTES WILL BE LOCATED, HOPEFULLY NOT ON THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY. HOW THEY WILL BE BUILT AND THEIR REQUESTED HAUL ROUTES ARE APPROPRIATE, SAFE AND PROVIDE LEGAL ACCESS TO A COUNTY ROAD AS PROVIDED BY OUR CODE. IN FACT, THE CLEAR EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND WAS PRESENTED AT THE PZA AS WELL AS EVIDENCE IN THIS APPEAL SHOWED THE PROPOSED ROUTES RUN ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEY MUST PROVIDE A PLAN SHOWING THEIR HAUL ROUTES AND THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE SAME. IF THEY HAD. IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO THE STAFF AND THE BOARD THAT THE REQUESTED HAUL ROUTES RUN ACROSS PRIORITY PROTEST.

SUCH A PROPOSAL IS INAPPROPRIATE UNDER OUR CODE. PURSUANT TO CODE AND FLORIDA LAW, THE COUNTY CANNOT APPROVE HAUL ROUTES THAT ARE NOT ENGINEERED AND RUN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING AUTHORIZATION TO HAVE THE ROUTES THEY ARE ON, WHICH THEY DID NOT DO.

AGAIN HERE'S MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY OUTLINED IN BLUE.

HERE YOU SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED FOR THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTIES.

THIS IS THE CANAL 14 WE SPOKE OF. THIS IS CANAL 17.

THIS IS A CLOSE UP OF THIS INTERSECTION THEY REQUEST FOR THE NORTHERN HAUL ROUTE.

AGAIN, THIS IS 14 COMING INTO 17. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THEIR PROPERTY OR THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY WHICH THEY HAVE PROVIDED YOU KNOW SOME LETTERS SAYING THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED ON THAT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE THE ROADS ARE AND WHERE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY IS. GOING BACK, THIS IS AGAIN, THIS IS CANAL 14, SOME OF YOU SAID THAT YOU WENT OUT THERE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS AREA IN CANAL 14 WHERE THEY PROPOSED TO HAVE THE HAUL ROUTE IS THIS AREA HERE.

WITH ALL THESE TREES AND THOSE WHO WENT OUT THERE SAW THAT. AGAIN, YOU HEARD AT THE PZA THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY THERE WAS ROOM IN BETWEEN WHERE THE TREES WERE AND WHERE THE OTHER PROPERTY, WHERE THE FENCE IS. IN FACT THE SURVEY SHOW THAT THIS IS SRM PROPERTY NOT THE PLACE TO PUT A ROAD. THIS IS ONE OF THE SURVEYS THAT WE HAD DONE.

THIS SHOWS WHERE THEY WENT OUT AND PUT THIS CULVERT IN AND SHOWS WHERE THE CANAL PROPERTY IS ONLY THIS SMALL 30 FEET AREA THAT IS IN THE TREES. AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THAT BY EVEN ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY APPRAISERS SITE. THIS IS THE SOUTHERN HAUL ROUTE.

THIS IS THE SURVEY AND I HAVE IT BLOWN UP HERE TO SHOW YOU THAT AREA.

THIS IS WHERE YOUR COMING UP WHAT IS CALLED HAUL ROUTE 17 OR THIS IS CANAL 17 HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY ON THE SURVEY IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS COMING UP FROM THE SOUTH. THIS IS THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE PUTNAM PART OF THEIR MINE AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PART OF THEIR MINE.

THIS IS WHERE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY IS. YOU CAN SEE ON THE SURVEY THAT THE SOUTHERN ROUTE OR THE ROAD IS OVER HERE ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE THEY PROPOSED TO PUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THAT'S, OR THESE PARTICULAR HAUL ROUTE AND THAT'S WHY YOU HEARD THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PZA SAY THEY CAN'T DO THE SOUTHERN HAUL ROUTE BECAUSE IT'S ON THESE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. AGAIN HERE ARE THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES THEY'RE ASKING FOR IN RED. THIS IS NORTHERN UP TO THE TREES. AND THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY TO THIS CANAL 14.

AND THIS IS THE SOUTHERN ONE DOWN THEIR PROPERTY ALONG THIS HAUL ROUTE AND UP 17.

[03:25:06]

AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE AREA WHERE IT CONTRAVEENS MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ROAD IS ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT CAN PROVE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO USE THE PROPERTIES THEY PROPOSE. IT'S INCONCEIVABLE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AND THE SURVEYS ARE CLEAR. IF THE COMMISSION TAKES THE APPLICANT'S AGENT THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD NEW ROADS ON THE PROPERTY WHICH SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE THEY HAVE TO CULVERT THE CANAL WHERE IS THEY BUILD THE ROADS OR AT LEAST PROVE THEY WERE NOT IMPACTING THE CANALS IF THERE WAS ROOM TO BUILD ROADS THROUGH THE TREE. THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE PLANS TO SO THESE ROUTES ARE SAFE. THE REASON OUR CODE REQUIRES SUBMITTAL SO THE APPLICANT CAN ATTEMPT TO MEET THEIR BURDEN THEY ARE SAFE AND A REQUIREMENT OF THE SUP GRANT. THE OWNERSHIP THE ROADS PROVIDED PROVIDED AT PZA AS WELL AS TODAY BY THE MANAGER OF THE APPLICANT'S COUNTY APPROVED CURRENTLY OPERATED MINING.

IT'S COMPULSORY THERE SHOULD BE AN EVALUATION TO BUILD NOW ROADS ON ANY PROPERTY AND THE FINAL HEARING OF WHETHER THE PLANS WILL BE SAFE. THESE ARE PICTURES OF THE AREA AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS LATER. THIS IS THE SOUTHERN INTERSECTION I TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE PUTNAM COUNTY SECTION OF THE MINE CONNECTS WITH ST.

JOHNS COUNTY OF THEIR MINE. THIS IS ALL THE HEAVY MACHINERY THAT TRAVELS THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION. AS I SAID AND YOU KNOW. SPECIAL USE PERMITS, THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN THAT IT MEET SAYS THE STANDARDS OF THE LDC AND SPECIFIC STANDARDS REQUIRED AND YOU SEE THAT AND STAFF TELLS YOU. ACCORDING TO SECTION 14 OF THE ST. JOHNS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANUAL IN REVIEWING BARO AREAS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU REVIEW IS THE NUMBER 8, ACCESS TO THE PROJECT INCLUDING HAUL ROUTES TO THE NEAREST ARTERIAL MAJOR OR MINOR COLLECTOR. SECTION 18 SPECIAL USES DEFINES SPECIAL USE AS A USE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN A ZONING DISTRICT, IT REQUIRES REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED USE ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

PART 20300, I'M SORRY, 01, GENERAL PROVISION OF SPECIAL USE B SAYS IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING EVIDENT SHALL REST WITH THE APPLICANT. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO REVIEW TOO.

SHALL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT OR POSE A POTENTIAL DANGER OF THE SAFETY.

THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WITH FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE IMPACT OF ROADS ON THE HAUL ROUTE. 60409 IS REQUIRED THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN FOR EXCAVATION AND APPROVED BY A FLORIDA REGISTERED ENGINEER. THE PROPOSAL OF SPECIAL USE FOR SPECIAL HAUL ROUTES OF INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE HAUL ROUTES RUN ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THEY ARE NOT ON THE APPELLANT'S LAND OR TAKE THEIR WORD THEY WILL BUILD NEW ROADS STILL WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE.

PART OF THE ROUTE RUNS ACROSS MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND THE TWO INTERSECTION ARE NOT APROPRIATE BECAUSE THE INTERSECTION WITH THIS HEAVY MACHINERY IS GOING TO CAUSE A SAFETY ISSUE ON UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS. IF THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED THE PLANS, THE BOARD WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EVALUATE OF THE SAFETY OF THE INTERSECTIONS. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN EVALUATION OF THE PLANS SINCE THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CODE AND SUBMIT THE PLANS BY THE CODE.

THE BOARD CANNOT FIND THE LEVEL OF SAFETY TO PERMIT A USE. UNDER THE CODE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. THE BURDEN TO SHOW THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES ARE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND IT'S THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATION TO PROVE CERTIFIED PLANS THE ROUTES ARE SAFE. IF THEY FOLLOWED THE CODE, TO PROPOSED INTERSECTIONS ARE

[03:30:04]

UNSAFE. IN FACT THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTES IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY. THERE STILL IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION OR REVIEW OF THE PLANS TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE SAFE ANDA ACTUALLY WHERE THE ROADS WILL GO. WE BELIEVE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WITHIN THE APPEAL WITHIN YOUR PACKET FROM THE PZA AND TODAY'S APPEAL THEY HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN UNDER OUR LAWS AND ANY APPROVAL WOULD BE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE AND WITH ALL DUE REPORT OF THE COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION, THE APPELLANTS WHO ARE NEIGHBORS RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS COMMISSION TO ENFORCE THE CODE AS WRITTEN TO CONTINUE THE PROTECTIONS GRANTED TO THE AREA AND ENTIRE COUNTY AND DEFENDING THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HAUL ROUTES ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY AND IMPLORE THE COUNTY TO ADEQUATELY REVIEW THE PLANS AND THE IMPACT OF ANY PROPOSAL ON THE SAFETY OF THE AREA OTHER AREA BUSINESSES AND UPON AREAS THAT PROPOSED ROUTES MAY TRAVERSE OR TRAVEL PAST.

IN SUM, OUR REQUEST IS THAT YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU REVIEW IT AS SHOULD SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY, THE SURVEYS THAT SHOW THESE ROUTES ARE UPON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY AND EVEN IF THEY COME BEFORE YOU AND SAY THEY WILL BUILD THEIR OWN ROADS, THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE PLANS TO MAKE SURE THE ROUTES ARE SAFE AND ANY INTERSECTIONS THEY HAVE WITH OTHER ROADS OR PROPERTIES ALONG THE ROUTE ARE NOT INAPPROPRIATE GIVEN THEIR REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I'M

HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE >> ANY QUESTIONS? LEX, CLEAR SOMETHING UP FOR ME QUICKLY. MR. WHITEHOUSE IS REPRESENTING ON NUMBER 12. ISN'T HE REPRESENTING THE APPE

APPELLANT. >> OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES ALLOW FOR THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THE PZA TO APPEAL THEIR OWN WIN SO TO SPEAK SO THEY CAN EXPEDITE AND MAKE SURE IT'S

RESOLVED AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. >> SO BOTH PARTIES, >> BOTH PARTIES ARE APPELLANTS.

THEY AGREED THAT SINCE MR. WHITEHOUSE IS MORE THE TRUE APPELLANT.

HE'S GOING TO SIT IN THAT POSITION. WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING, WE NEED TO MAKE TWO VOTES. I CANNOT CONCEIVE HOW YOU WOULD VOTE DIFFERENTLY.

THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH SINCE THEY BOTH APPEALED. >> BOTH MR. WHITEHOUSE CLIENT

AND MS. SMITH'S CLIENT BOTH APPEALED THE PZA DECISION. >> CORRECT.

>> EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ON OPPOSITE >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. I MAYBE THE ONLY ONE IN THE ROOM THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. I WILL CONTINUE LISTENING AND TRY TO SORT THROUGH WHO IS ON

FIRST. >> IF IT HELPS YOU COMMISSIONER, IT MAY BE MORE EFFICIENT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER MR. WHITEHOUSE'S CLIENT, THE TRUE APPELLANT BECAUSE THE MS. SMITH'S CLIENT PREVAILED AT THE LOWER COURT. WE HAVE TO MAKE TWO RULINGS ON BOTH APPEALS.

BUT MR. WHITEHOUSE'S CLIENT IS ATTEMPTING TO OVER TURN WHAT IS HAPPENING.

>> MAYBE I'M ABOUT TO LEARN FROM THE PERSON WHO WAS VICTORIOUS WHY SHE APPEALED IT.

WE WILL LISTEN TO MS. SMITH NEXT. >> CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?

>> BEFORE MR. WHITEHOUSE KEPT MENTIONING SURVEYS. I DON'T WANT A COPY OF SURVEYS AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST WE BE PROVIDED COPIES BECAUSE HE REFERENCED THEM SEVERAL TIMES

DURING HIS PRESENTATION. >> SURE. >> GOOD WITH THAT.

>> THEY WERE IN THE APPEAL. BUT YEAH I'LL GIVE HER ANOTHER COPY.

WE SHALL NOW START THE CLOCK. YOU'RE ON. >> OKAY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, HOLDEN AND WE NEED OUR POWER POINT UP. WHILE THEY'RE PUTTING OUR POWER POINT UP. THE ONLY REASON WE FILED THIS APPEAL BECAUSE I REPRESENT COASTAL AGGREGATES. WE FILED THE APPEAL TO EXPEDITE THIS HEARING.

THE ONLY REASON WE FILED AN APPEAL SO WE COULD BRING THIS TO YOU KNOWING SRM WAS GOING TO

[03:35:04]

APPEAL. I'M GIVING YOU A JOINT PRESENTATION THAT ADDRESSES THE

I KNOW IT'S UNUSUAL. BE DRUG OUT FOR MONTHS AND TO - MONTHS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS. I WILL EXPLAIN WHY. TO BEGIN, BEFORE I START MY FORMAL PRESENTATION, LET ME INCORPORATE ALL OF THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS FOR THIS COASTAL AGGREGATE GOING BACK TO OCTOBER 1ST, 2019, WHEN WE WERE AT THIS BOARD.

I ALSO WANT TO INCORPORATE THE PENDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HAUL ROUTE SO THERE ARE PENDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND I DO WANT TO INCORPORATE THE FACT I WROTE A CODE ANALYSIS IN YOUR HEARING FOR TODAY'S HEARING. I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THAT.

YOU MET TAD DURANT. RANDY FROM BECHTEL AND JASON MILTON FROM BIOTECH.

WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY WERE VICTORIOUS AT THE PZA ON GETTING TWO ALTERNATE ROUTES APPROVED AND SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE ON THE BOARD TWO YEARS AGO INCLUDING MR. BLOCKER WILL REMEMBER THIS IS THE APPROVED HAUL ROUTE IN 2019. THIS WAS APPROVED AS TWO ALTERNATE HAUL ROUTES.

I WANT TO NOTE THIS IS ON HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY.

NOT SRM'S PROPERTY. LET'S BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT OWNS LAND IN HASTINGS DRAIN ACT DISTRICT AND THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES WE'RE SEEKING TO USE. ALSO THE OTHER OPTIONAL HAUL ROUTE, THIS IS THE WRONG SLIDE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. IT WOULD GO THROUGH CANAL 14 WHICH GOES THIS WAY.

SO DURING THE APPEAL OF 2019, WHERE WE WERE HERE, MR. WILLIAMS WHO IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, TESTIFIED TO THIS BOARD THAT HE WOULD PREFER ALTERNATE ROUTE 13, THIS IS HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL 13 TO 17 RATHER THAN THE ONE THAT WAS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 14 GO THROUGH THIS PROPERTY THIS WAY, DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL 14 TO 17.

AGAIN, ALL OF THE LAND BEING OWNED BY THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

I WON'T PLAY THE VIDEO BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME. HERE AND YOU CAN'T HEAR HIM ANYWAY. HE'S TESTIFIED ON THE RECORD HE PREFER 13 TO 17.

IN THE INTERVENING THREE YEARS, COASTAL HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAUL OUT BECAUSE SRM HAS AFFECTIVELY BLOCKED THE EXISTING ROADS. SOME OF WHICH ARE ON SRM'S PROPERTY AND SOME ON THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE PROPERTY. HERE'S THE APPROVED PLAN FOR THE POND. THE COASTAL AGGREGATES. SORRY, SMR POND.

HERE'S THE 17 CANAL AND HERE'S 14. THEY RECOGNIZE ON THEIR APPROVED PLANS FOR THEIR PIT. THIS WAS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

THEY LEFT A ROUTE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THEIR PROPERTY. AND SO I FOUND IT IMPORTANT AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THE APPEAL IS THEY SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO FENCE HERE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THEIR PROPERTY AND THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL IS NOT THEIR PROPERTY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE APPEAL TO PREVENT THAT. ZOOMING IN AGAIN, YOU SEE OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY. SURROUNDED HERE AS SRM'S PROPERTY.

THEY ARE ACTIVELY MINING AND OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT COMPETITION IN THE MARKET ALTHOUGH WE COULD ALL USE AGGREGATE TO BUILD ROADS IN THIS VERY EXPENSIVE ECONOMY. SO, THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS AGCULTURE. THE CONING IS OPEN RURAL.

AND SO AGAIN, THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS A GEOGRAPHIC AREA IN THE HASTINGS AREA. THE DISTRICT BY LAW OWNS RIGHTS OF WAY AND CANALS AND UPLAND AREAS ARE WITHIN THOSE RIGHTS OF WAY. THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT IN 2018 WHEN THIS SAGA BEGAN ALLOWED THE USE OF THESE RIGHTS OF WAY FOR COASTAL AGGREGATES AND ALL OF THE OTHER OWNERS WITHIN THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

BY LAW, THESE RIGHTS WAY ARE GENERAL USED AS PUBLIC ROADS. THAT'S UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

[03:40:02]

SO, AGAIN, THE DISTRICT IS LIMITED IN ITS FUNDS SO IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL OR THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO MEDIATE BETWEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO, GOING DOWN TO MR. WHITEHOUSE AND HIS POINT, YOU SEE THAT THE ROAD RUNS HERE. THIS IS HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL 17.

THIS ROAD ACTUALLY MEANDERS IN AND OUT OF THE HASTINGS DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THAT'S WHAT SRM HAS BEEN USING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS TO HAUL OUT AND YOU CAN SEE THIS GOES THIS ROAD IS OUTSIDE OF THE SRM PROPERTY AND THEN IT GOES INTO PUTNAM COUNTY AND UP TO STATE ROAD 207 WHICH IS A GOOD HAUL ROUTE. WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR COASTAL TO BE ABLE TO USE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IF ROADS NEED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEY WILL BE BUILT PER CODE BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ALREADY PENDING. THOSE ARE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. HERE IS THE VIEW DOWN THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL 14. VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PICTURE THAT MR. WHITEHOUSE JUST SHOWED YOU. I WAS OUT THERE FRIDAY.

THIS IS A CLEARED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WE SAW SRM TRUCKS COMING. THEY WERE ONLY TWO TRUCKS THAT EASILY PASSED. WE WERE SITTING THERE FOR 20 MINUTES.

THERE IS NO SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT AND I'M SURE PEOPLE WITH COMMERCIAL LICENSES CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO PASS ONE ANOTHER THIS IN AREA.

INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO FIGHT ABOUT WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHAT ROUTE, WE CAN USE, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO USE THE LEGALLY LEGAL ACCESS TO THIS SHAUFNE ROAD WHICH IS BARREL COUNTY ROAD.

THE COUNTY OWNS THIS PER THIS FROM 2004. THIS IS IN THE TITLE FROM COASTAL AGGREGATES. WE SINCE THIS IS A NOVO HEARING ARE PROPOSING WE HAVE A THIRD ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROUTE. SO WE WANT STILL 13 TO 17, 14 TO 17, BUT IN THE EVENT SRM CONTINUES TO BE BAD NEIGHBORS, THEN WE WOULD PROPOSE TO USE BARREL FACTORY ROAD WHICH IS A COUNTY ROAD TO CRACKER SWAMP ROAD AND TO 13. ALSO THERE'S ANOTHER WAY, WE WILL GO TO PUTNAM COUNTY TO SEE IF CRACKY SWAMP ROAD IS AVAILABLE TO GO THE OTHER WAY AS WELL FOR HAUL SAYS THAT NEED TO GO TO THE WEST. THERE IS A LOT OF AGGREGATE THAT IS NEEDED IN THIS AREA FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND SO WE ARE ASKING ST. JOHNS COUNTY AGAIN FOR THIS THIRD ALTERNATE HAUL ROUTE TO HAUL TO THE EAST TO HOPEFULLY PROVIDE AGGREGATE IN THIS AREA. SO, THIS HAUL ROUTE DOES NOT PASS SRM'S PROPERTY AT ALL.

THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO OWNS WHAT. OR THE LEGAL ABILITY TO BUILD ANYTHING BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED IN THIS HAUL ROUTE.

WE CAN ENTER INTO WHATEVER AGREEMENT REQUIRING MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD.

BECHTEL ENGINEERING, I WILL INTRODUCE THIS INTO THE RECORD CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE ASPHALT ALONG BARREL FACTORY IS ADEQUATE. THE GENTLEMEN WHO ANSWERED THIS

IS HERE >> THE PAVING IS FINE AND ADEQUATE FOR LARGE TRUCKS IN DEPTH AND WIDTH. HERE ARE PICTURES AGAIN APPROXIMATELY 22 FEET OF PAVING.

THERE ARE NO STRIPING BUT THAT CAN BE ADDED IF THE COUNTY WANTS.

AND THIS SWALES CAN BE MAINTAINED AT THE COASTAL AGGREGATE'S EXPENSE.

THESE ROADS AS YOU SEE ON THESE PICTURES ARE CURRENTLY USED BY LARGE TRUCKS AND TRACTORS WHEN WE WERE OUT THERE ON FRIDAY. WE SAW A LOT OF TRACTORS DRIVING ALONG SO THAT IS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. LAND EQUIPMENT USES THE ROADS AND WE CAN ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO ADEQUATELY MAINTAIN THE ROADS. AGAIN, SO, OUR ASK TO TO APPROVE THREE ALTERNATIVE HAUL ROUTES. 13 TO 17 IN THE HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY.

13 TO 17. DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY. AND BARREL FACTORY ROAD AND CRACKER SWAMP WHICH ARE COUNTY ROADS. MR. COUNTS IS HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS. IT HAS BEEN AND THIS HAS BEEN AN ADVENTURE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. WE HAVE VERY MUCH TRIED FOR

[03:45:03]

THESE TWO COMPETING MINES TO WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO WORK BUT I THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYONE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY PARTICULARLY SINCE ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE GOING UP WE HAVE A LOCAL SOURCE OF MATERIAL.

IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET THE COASTAL MINE UP AND OPERATING. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL RESPECTFULLY REQUEST MY ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL IN CASE WE NEED IT AND HAVE MY EXPERT WITNESSES HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. MR. MATTAVINA IS HERE.

13 TO 17 AND 14 TO 17. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT.

YOU CAN CERTAINLY RESERVE THAT 4:46 FOR FUTURE USE. THAT TAKING US TO THE NEXT STEP.

WHICH HAPPENS TO BE PUBLIC COMMENT LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

>> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON 12 AND 13.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> MRS. MATTAVINO, WELCOME. >> >> GREG MATTAVINO, 1506 IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY. I WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INPUT FROM THE PZA.

I DID LISTEN TO THE TAPE AND REFRESHED MY MEMORY. THE WHOLE QUESTION OF THE ROAD IS ON THE CANAL PROPERTY IS NOT ON THE CANAL PROPERTY IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS I THINK WAS IRRELEVANT. IT'S NOT IRRELEVANT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT BUT THE PZA AND I'M NOT SURE THE BOCC IS HERE TO DECIDE LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTY AND WHO OWNS WHAT PROPERTY. THAT'S A PRIVATE PROPERTY MANNER.

WHAT WE DID SEE WHEN WE HEARD THE TESTIMONY WAS THERE CLEAR WERE TWO ROUTES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT TO BUILD A ROAD. THERE WAS THE NORTH ROUTE THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY TO THE CANAL 14 AND THEN OVER TO CANAL 17 AND THERE WAS THE SOUTH ROUTE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019 BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APPEAL.

AND THAT GOES THROUGH 13 OVER TO 17. WHAT DIDN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE I THINK TO THE PZA MEMBERS IS THE SOUTH ROUTE BECAUSE YOU WOULD END UP WITH TWO ROADS SIDE BY SIDE. YOU HAVE A ROAD PRESUMABLY IF SURVEYED BY THE EXISTING MINE THAT'S IN OPERATION IF THE SURVEY IS CORRECT, YOU WOULD HAVE THEIR ROAD WHICH IS ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT WOULD BUILD ANOTHER ROAD TO THE WEST OF IT IN THE CANAL PROPERTY. IN TERMS OF ENGINEERING PLANS, I DON'T THINK WE REVIEW ENGINEERING PLANS AT THE PZA OR BOCC LEVEL. THAT'S A STAFF REQUIREMENT TO MAKE SURE ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR WETLAND MITIGATION AND TREE MITIGATION AND SO WE WERE LEAVING THAT UP TO STAFF WHICH WAS PART OF OUR DECISIONMAKING. WITH REGARD TO THE SAFETY OF THE TWO ROUTES, I FIND IT DIFFICULT AND I THINK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PZA FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO SUGGEST THAT THE SOUTHERN ROUTE WHICH APPARENTLY THE MINE CURRENTLY OPERATING, THAT THE SOUTHERN ROUTE WOULD BE, THE ROUTE THEY PREFERRED AND ASKED YOU ALL TO APPROVE IN 2019 ON APPEAL, THAT THAT ROUTE WOULD BE MORE SAFE OR LESS SAFE THAN THE ROUTE TO THE NORTH, TO CANAL 14 OVER TO CANAL 17. IN FACT,AS A PRACTICAL MATTER AND THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PZA'S DELIBERATION, IF YOU WATCH SOMEONE LOAD DIRT DO A DUMP TRUCK OR INTO A PIT, IT'S A LOT LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRUCKS. THE INTERSECTION OF THE TRUCKS AT THE NORTHERN SPOT PROBABLY MAKES MORE SENSE THAN AT THE SOUTHERN SPOT WHICH IS WHAT THE EXISTING MINE ASKS FOR AND SORT OF CONVINCED YOU ALL TO DO BACK IN 2019.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL HAVE THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> PZA >> YES. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> SHERRY BADGER, 2772 SOUTH COLLINS AVENUE.

YOU KNOW I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF GOING ON ANYWAY.

THIS IS THAT GENTLEMEN'S APPLICATION AND YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE WHO HIS REFERENCE WAS WAS AVERY SMITH. Y'ALL GENTLEMEN NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND WOMAN.

[03:50:04]

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MS. BADGER. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? I'M SEEING NONE. SO WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> OKAY. WELL THAT TAKES US TO APPLICANT REBUTTAL. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.

AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. HELP ME OUT HERE, LEX, THE NEXT I HAVE IS APPLICANT REBUTTAL

NUMBER 5. >> THAT IS CORRECT. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN BREAK IN AND ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. THAT'S PERMISSIBLE.

>> ALL RIGHT. APPLICANT REBUTTAL. >> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. ROBERSON IN CASE HE HAS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS, I HAVE MY 4:45 PLUS FIVE MINUTES. SO I AM HAPPY TO USE SOME OF THAT TIME TO ANSWER WHATEVER MR.

ROBERSON MIGHT NEED. >> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. HE WASN'T ON MY SHEET.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST BRIEFLY, I HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT ACCESS ON TO BARREL FACTORY ROAD. I WANT TO CITE THE CODE FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND EXCAVATION AND BARO AREAS SHOULD BE ANSWERED TO LOET AREAS RECEIVING SITE OF THE EXCAVATED MATERIALS OR MINOR OR MAJOR COLLECTORS. BARREL FACTORY IS NOT A COLLECTOR. THAT'S WHY MS. AVERY SMITH WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ASPHALT.

THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF HAS NOT REVIEWED. JUST BE AWARE AND THAT'S THE

CODE REFERENCE. >> MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A QUESTION.

DO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES ARE DRAWN HERE.

WE HAVE ASSERTIONS MADE BY BOTH PARTIES. DO WE HAVE THE MAPS?

DO WE KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTY SARTS AND ENDS? >> STAFF DOES NOT HAVE THOSE

SURVEYS OF THOSE MAPS AND THE PROPERTY LINES. >> I HAD TO ASK.

I KNEW IF IT WAS THAT SIMPLE, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE HERE. I FELT COMPELLED TO ASK.

SO THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST, TO YOUR POINT, IN CANAL 14 TO 17 IS USED, OUR CLIENT WILL GET SURVEYS DONE. BECAUSE THEY WILL NEED TO KNOW WHERE TO BUILD THE NEW ROAD SO IT WILL NOT BE ON SRM'S PROPERTY.

IT DOES SEEM RIDICULOUS TO HAVE TO BUILD PARALLEL ROADS FOR TWO MINES TO OPERATE IN HARMONY, IF THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. TO MR. WHITEHOUSE RAISED THE POINT ABOUT WETLANDS. I DID NOT SEE WETLANDS BECLEARLY WE HAVE A WETLANDS SCIENTIST BEHIND US IN MR. MILTON. WE WILL DO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED BY COUNTY, OR STATE LEVEL.

WE HAVE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION PLANS, OR MODIFICATIONS IN YOUR COUNTY'S WAT SYSTEM UNDER REVIEW. IF COUNTY STAFF HAS COMMENTS ABOUT WETLANDS AND ANYTHING ELSE, TREES, WE WILL CLEARLY FOLLOW THE CODE WITH RESPECT TO EITHER 14 TO 17 OR BARREL FACTORY ROAD OR 14 TO 17. WE'RE NOT ASKING TO SKIRT THE LAW.

WE'RE ASKING TO FOLLOW THE LAW. >> THANK YOU, MISS AVERY SMITH. DO WE START THE REBUTTAL?

>> I WANT TO HAVE MR. LAUDE AND MR. DURANCE TO COME UP. THEY ARE MORE EXPERTS IN HAUL ROUTES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS NOT DIFFICULT FOR COMMERCIAL TRUCK DRIVERS TO PASS ON ROADS PARTICULARLY WHEN AS WE EXPERIENCE SITTING OUT THERE FOR 20 MINUTES THE OTHER DAY, THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PASSED, I ALSO WANT NOTE THAT THE THOSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THE CODE ANALYSIS ARE IN THE RECORD, AND THEY'RE BACK THERE CONFERRING. I WILL KEEP GOING AND I WANT TO GET MY POWER POINT BACK UP TOO.

HOLDUP. HALIFAX PAVING BY THE WAY IS READY TO GO.

THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTING CONSTRUCTING THE MINE ON THE PROPERTY.

WE NEED A HAUL ROUTE TO HAUL IT OUT. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE MARKET. IT MIGHT BRING MORE LOWER COSTS IF FOR PARTIES LIKE THE COUNTY AND OTHERS THAT ARE BUILDING ROADS.

AND GOING BACK AGAIN THIS IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CANAL 14. YOU CAN SEE THAT CLEARLY.

AND THEN I WILL LET THESE GENTLEMEN COME UP AND SAY WHAT THEY FEEL NEEDS TO BE COVERED IN

THE REMAINDER OF THE TIME WE HAVE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAT LAUDE.

[03:55:04]

GULF DESIGN GROUP. I THINK TO COMPLEMENT MS. SMITH'S CONVERSATIONS AND TO EVEN ACCENT ON A FEW OF THE EXHIBITS THAT MR. WHITEHOUSE SHOWED, THESE MINE TRUCKS, DUMP TRUCKS, THESE TRUCKS OPERATE, THESE TRUCK DRIVERS ARE CDL. THEY ARE LICENSED DRIVERS AND OPERATE IN RULE TYPE HAUL ROADS ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE PITS THAT OPERATE ON ONE LANE HAUL ROADS WITH TURN OUTS. I THINK YOU KNOW, THE MAIN POINT HERE IS TRYING TO ALLOW THESE TWO NEIGHBORS TO WORK SUCCESSFULLY TO DELIVER THIS PRODUCT TO THE MARKET. AND TO DO THAT IN A MANNER THAT IS SAFE FOR THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY REACH THE PAVED ROADS, BUT WORKING THROUGH THE FEASIBILITY OF INSTALLING THESE ROADS ON THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT LAND IS A STAFF-RELATED ISSUE. AS MR. MATTAVINA SAID.

IT'S NOT A BOARD ISSUE. TRUTHFULLY, YOU KNOW THIS COMES DOWN PROBABLY ON MY OWN OPINION TO EVERYBODY BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS AND WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON GOOD IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF THE WORLD. SO.

>> I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD BUT TO ILLUSTRATE MATT'S POINT, TO GET LICENSE TO DRIVE ONE OF THESE TRUCKS, AND THESE GUYS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING YOU HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DRIVING THESE VEHICLES THROUGH VERY CLOSE QUARTERS, I DON'T SEE IT BEING ANY KIND OF SAFETY ISSUE.

THERE WON'T BE A LARGE INFLUX OF TRUCKS YOU CAN ONLY LOAD THEM ONE AT A TIME AND THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR TICKET AND GET CHECKED OUT AND IT WON'T BE, I DON'T SEE A HUGE AMOUNTS OF VOLUME THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY KIND OF SAFETY ISSUE ESPECIALLY WITH THE EXPERIENCE.

>> THANK YOU. AND MR. KAUS HAS THE PATIENCE OF A SAINT BECAUSE THIS STARTED IN 2017 AND HE HAS STUCK THROUGH THE DISTRICT AND ALL OF THIS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THESE COMPETITORS ALL THIS TIME AND HE HAS BEEN A GENTLEMAN ABOUT OF THE ENTIRE TIME WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM HIM THAT THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT RIGHTS OF WAY ARE OPEN FOR ALL THE LANDOWNERS IN THE DISTRICT AND WE APPRECIATE THE ? IT WAS A VERY BIG ADVOCATE FOR PEOPLE IN HASTINGS AND THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>>. [INDISCERNIBLE] THANK YOU, SIR.

>> YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS WAS THE FIRST WE HEARD OF THIS PROPOSED THIRD ROUTE I THINK THE FIRST THING TO START OUT WITH I THINK ALL ALONG THIS IS CHARACTERIZED AS COMPETITION AND THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL.

THIS IS THE FIRST WE HAVE SEEN. THAT ONE WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT ALL THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SAFETY THE SAFETY OF THESE INTERSECTIONS WHERE AGAIN, I HEARD THE COMMISSIONER TALK ABOUT IF THIS WAS AS SIMPLE AS WHAT PROPERTY THE ROADS WERE ON I AM NOT SURE THAT WAS THE CASE BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THIS WAS ON THE CLIENTS PROPERTY IF THE APPROVAL WAS JUST TO SAY THEY COULD DO IT ON HASTINGS DRAINAGE DISTRICT PROPERTY WHERE THEY COULD TAKE THIS THIRD ROUTE, THERE IS NO SAVE ON MY CLIENT OTHER THAN THE SAFETY AND MR. WILLIAMS HAS BEEN OPERATING THIS MINE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

>> >>.

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> AS FAR AS A SAFETY IS CONCERNED THAT IS ONE OF OUR BIGGEST ISSUES ALL ALONG AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE MAPS THAT WE OPERATE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE

[04:00:01]

CANAL DISTRICT 17 BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT GOING BACK THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING ADDRESSED ON SAFETY.

THEY SAID THEY SPENT 20 MINUTES OUT THERE AND SEEING TWO TRUCKS. THOSE TRUCKS, YOU MIGHT SIT THERE FIVE MINUTES AND SEE 20 TRUCKS BECAUSE THAT'S THE NATURE OF IT AND THAT HAS BEEN MY BIGGEST CONTENTION ALL ALONG THE TRUCK TRAFFIC UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD IT COMES DOWN TO US AND IT STOPS AND WHEN WE HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE TRUCK AS YOU OCCASIONALLY DO EVEN THE THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS OCCASIONALLY YOU GET THE GOING TOO FAST AND THINGS LIKE THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO TELL THEM LOOK, YOU'RE GOING TO SLOW DOWN YOU'RE GOING TO OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT IN THE TRAFFIC SIGNS ARE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COME BACK. HAT HAS BEEN OUR ISSUE ALL ALONG AS FAR AS I NOW AND ANY OF THEIR PLANS THEY HAVE NEVER SHOWN THE ROAD THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD AND HOW THEY ARE GOING TO INTERACT WITH US AT ALL. BASICALLY WE ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH AND YOU ALL DEAL WITH IT AND IT'S JUST NOT SAFE AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE MR. WHITE HAS SHOWN YOU THERE'S A LOT OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY? WE HAVE BEEN THERE, THAT MINE HAS BEEN OPERATIONAL SINCE 2008 AND WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING IT SINCE 2015 WHICH WE SOLD IT AND I STILL WORK FOR SRN SO THAT LINE HAS BEEN THERE WE HAVE IT BLOCKED ANYBODY EVERYWHERE WE HAVE PARKED A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PARK THAT EQUIPMENT AND THE RIGHT TO CROSS, THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2008 AND I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO CALL AND THAT IS NOT A COMPLETED ROUTE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THAT BUT THERE IS A BIG CONCERN WITH SAFETY AND IF THEY WERE TO TAKE THE BARREL FACTORY ROUTE, WE WOULD BE ALL FOR THAT.

WE HAVE NEVER BEEN AGAINST MINING.

BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES IS THIS IS NOT COMPETITION FOR US. WE USE OUR MATERIAL INTERNALLY VERY LITTLE SO IF FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A ROAD BASE ANYMORE. MY TIME IS UP.

>> JUST IN SUMMARY MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS AS YOU HEARD MR. WILLIAM SAY, THE THIRD OPTION THAT WE SAW TODAY IF THAT'S A COMPROMISE POSITION WE ARE PREPARED WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. IF THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO APPROVE AND GET RID OF THE OTHER TWO WHICH WE FEEL THERE ARE SAFETY ISSUES WITH THOSE AND IF THE APPROVAL IS JUST ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS WHAT IT IS BUT WE RECOMMEND THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE THE THIRD ONE I TAKE THE OTHER TWO OUT.

THANK YOU.

>> I THINK IT BRINGS IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

>> I EEL LIKE THERE IS A PLACE FOR COMPROMISE HERE I WOULD BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MANAGEMENT IF THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK THE ENGINEER AND I THINK I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE OPTION PTHIS WOULD BE WHERE I AM LEANING.

>> I AM GOING TO DO THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY WHAT MY POSITION IS AND MYSELF AND JEREMIAH WHEN THIS ITEM CAME UP IN 2019 I REMEMBER THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING THE VERY ISSUE OF THIS MINE, WE APPROVED THE MINE.

THEY HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY MINING SO I UNDERSTAND FOR SEVERAL YEARS ON THE SITE THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING MINING ACTIVITY BASED

[04:05:01]

ON THE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BUT ASIDE FROM THAT WHAT HAS BEEN INSTALLED IS THIS ISSUE OF THE EGRESS AND ODDLY ENOUGH IN 2019 AS I RECALL, SITTING HERE, THE PARTIES AGREE, THE SAME PARTIES THAT WE ARE HEARING TODAY BASICALLY AGREED ON A HAUL ROUTE SO I AM ADDRESSING FRUSTRATION THAT WE ARE BACK HERE DEBATING AND ARGUING WHAT I SEE IS THE SAME ISSUE BUT WE ARE ISSUING THE SAME PERMIT AND I BOUGHT THE ? I THOUGHT IT WAS WORKED OUT BUT APPARENTLY NOT AND WE NEED TO BASICALLY MY POSITION WOULD BE TO AS LONG AS THE HAUL ROUTE OF COASTAL AGGREGATES IS NOT ENCROACHING ON OUR SRN OWNERSHIP I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS COMMISSIONERS FOR COASTAL AGGREGATES WHICHEVER ONE MEETS THEIR NEEDS AND OUR STAFF SAYS YES GO FORWARD BASED ON THE SURVEY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPOSE ON SRN PROPERTY I WANT TO THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT SAY WE NEED TO IDENTIFY ROUTES SO THIS COMPANY CAN GO FORWARD AND GET ON WITH BUSINESS THEY DON'T EVEN THINK THEY ARE IN COMPETITION AND THAT IS MY POSITION.

AND I AM LOOKING TO SARAH FOR GUIDANCE AND I WANT TO SHARE MY POSITION BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE HEARING THIS THREE YEARS AGO IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE ARE EVEN HERE DISCUSSING.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I WASN'T HERE IN 2019 BUT I WOULD AGREE AND THIS BUSINESS CAN OPERATE SO I WILL HAVE TO SAY I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHICH MOTION I WOULD NEED TO MAKE TO RULE IN FAVOR OF COASTAL AGGREGATES.

>> OKAY SO ONE OF THE THINGS SINCE WE GOT THIS THIRD ROUTE THAT THE STAFF HAS NOT REVIEWED AND HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED IF THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE TABLE YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF REFERRING THAT TO PLANNING AND ZONING OR YOU COULD CONTINUE THE MEETING SO WE COULD PROPERLY ADVERTISE THE THIRD ROUTE AND REVIEW IT AND BRING IT BACK WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO THIS LEVEL.

>> LET ME SAY ONE MORE TIME IF I MAY, LET ME SAY AS LONG AS COASTAL AGGREGATES ARE EITHER IN FAVOR OF AND DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THE SRN PROPERTY I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ONE, TWO OR THREE. IT DEPENDS ON.

[INDISCERNIBLE] BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE I AM TRYING TO GET TO THE END OF THE ROAD NO PUN INTENDED BUT IF IT'S ONE, TWO OR THREE I AM HAPPY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T ENCROACH ON THE SRN PROPERTY BECAUSE WE HAVE APPROVED ONE AND TWO WHICH IS MY UNDERSTANDING SUBJECT TO COMING BACK BEFORE US.

YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?

>> SO TO BE CLEAR WE WANT ALL THREE ALTERNATE ROUTES TO BE APPROVED TODAY IF THERE IS 1/3 ROUTE OF THE BARREL FACTORY ROAD TO GO TO PCA FOR SOME FORMAL SAYING WE WANT THIS APPEAL TO BE OVER TODAY SO WE CAN HAVE ALL THREE ROUTES IN CASE THEY ARE NEEDED BECAUSE AS MR. TAYLOR MENTIONED THIS NEW ROUTE THE BARREL FACTORY NEEDS TO BE VETTED MORE CAREFULLY WITH STAFF AND I DON'T WANT TO BE BACK HERE AND I AM SURE YOU DON'T WANT US TO BE BACK HERE IN THE FUTURE HAVING TO ASK FOR A FOURTH OR FIFTH OR SIXTH GRADE LET'S GET ALL THREE APPROVED TODAY AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> MY ONLY COMMENT TO THAT IS AGAIN I WANT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO AGREE THAT ONE AND TO ALSO DID NOT ENCROACH ON THE SRN PROPERTY OR I WANT THEM TO SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE IF I CAN USE THAT TERM YOUR POSITION IS THOSE ROUTES WANTED TO IN SOME WAY DO ENCROACH ON SRN PROPERTY, LUCIUS GET IT ON THE TABLE TODAY.

TO MAKE THE MAP UP HERE THAT SHOWS A MR. WILLIAMS JUST ALLUDED TO POTTER THEY ARE AWARE THAT THE DRAINAGE

[04:10:03]

DISTRICT OWNS CANAL 17 AND 14. THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THOSE ROADS. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO OFFER ANY COMMENT TO WHAT I JUST ASKED?

>> I THINK YOUR CLARIFICATION AND THAT WAS PART OF THEIR APPEAL. THERE CLARIFICATION THAT THEY ARE NOT ON THE SRN PROPERTY I THINK THE POSITION IS THOSE CREATE UNSAFE INTERSECTIONS I HAVE HEARD THE COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POSITION IS SO I THINK THEIR POSITION IS THEY CREATE UNSAFE INTERSECTIONS BUT THOSE ROADS ARE NOT ON THE PROPERTY AND IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO USE 1/3 ROUTE THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM THAT'S OUR POSITION.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT ALL THREE ROUTES.

AGAIN. [INDISCERNIBLE] DISTRICT 2.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK I WANT TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION AND BACKGROUND OF THE THIRD OPTION IS CHOSEN THAT WOULD MEAN IT WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY IF YOU CHOOSE AND ALSO WE HAD A PREVIOUS USE ON THIS 10 YEARS AGO AND A MUD BOG AND THE, BECAUSE IT'S A LOCAL ROAD THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY COSTLY WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THIS WOULD BECOME PART OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND I JUST WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD.

>> THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT.

>> HOW DO WE MOVE THIS FORWARD?

>> SO YOU CAN RULE ON ROUTE ONE AND TWO TODAY.

YOU CANNOT RULE ON ROUTE THREE THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION STAFF HAS NOT REVIEWED IT AND IT HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC. THAT NEW ROUTE CANNOT BE TAKEN, YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT ISSUE UP TODAY.

YOU CAN SEND THAT DOWN SO ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS ISSUE AND HAVE IT COME BACK TO THIS BODY AS SOON AS THAT REVIEW HAS BEEN DONE AND THEN WE CAN DO ALL THREE, YOU CAN ALSO APPROVE ONE OR BOTH ROUTES TODAY AND SEND BACK THE THIRD FOR REVIEW DOWN THE ROAD TO PCA AND YOU WOULD APPROVE SOMETHING TODAY AND YOU WOULD HAVE THAT PROPERLY REVIEWED.

>> I WOULD ASSUME HE WOULD PREFERENCE IT TO BE OPENING UP ONE AND TWO TODAY.

>> YES AND I MIGHT OFFER A SUGGESTION OR MODIFICATION.

WHAT IF YOU APPROVE THEM AS PERMANENT AND THREE AS TEMPORARY UNTIL ONE OR TWO COULD BE APPROVED OR IMPROVED AND WE COULD GET BACK TO PCA AND GET THREE APPROVED AS A PERMANENT ROUTE SO THE APPROVAL TODAY WOULD MAKE THREE TEMPORARY BUT THE OTHER TWO TEMPORARY AND THEN THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME TO GO BACK AND GET THREE PERMANENTLY APPROVED.

>> I NEED TO ASK LEGAL IF THAT WOULD STAND UP IN COURT

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT CAN.

>> COMMISSIONER I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT WE HAVEN'T ADVERTISED IT. STAFF HASN'T REVIEWED IT.

IT HASN'T COME UP FOR REVIEW TO BE HEARD SO I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TAKE ANY ACTION.

>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT THAT I NEEDED TO ASK.

IWOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION . [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> ABSOLUTELY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE HAUL ROUTE ONE AND TWO AS PERMANENT ROUTES AND HAUL ROUTE 32 PCA.

>> SECOND.

>> I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

>>.

>> DID YOU SAY NO OR YES?

[10. Status Update on County Road 210. A presentation detailing the current status of County Road 210 as requested by the Board of County Commissioners.]

>> I SAID YES.

>> THAT PASSES. THANKS EVERYONE FOR COMING.

JOHNNY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AS A DISTRICT MEMBER.

WE APPRECIATE SEEING YOU. THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW. WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION AND I WANT TO TAKE UP THE ITEMS INVOLVING.

[INDISCERNIBLE] SO LET'S HEAR A REPORT.

[04:15:05]

THIS COULD IMPACT THE 210 AREA WEST OF 95 OUT TO GREENBRIER SO THIS HAS TO BE OF SOME INTEREST PTO THOSE WHO WERE HERE, [INDISCERNIBLE] THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

LET'S DO THIS, PCA AND. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I HAVE ITEM NUMBER 10 A UPDATE ON CATEGORY TO TENANT AT THE BOARD'S REQUEST IT WAS THREE SEGMENTS THE FIRST IS GREENBRIER CIMMARON AND.

[INDISCERNIBLE] BOUNDARY IN THE FINAL PIECE WAS US ONE.

HERE'S A QUICK MAPS SHOWING THESE SEGMENTS AND WE HAVE IN THE US ONE OVERPASS. THE FIRST SEGMENT JUST THE TIMELINE OF THIS MONTH THE HISTORY IT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN 2006 IT HAD A TOTAL CONTRIBUTION FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT OF 20 MILLION ROUGHLY 6 MILLION OF THAT WAS EARMARKED FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERCHANGE WITH 14 MILLION FROM 2 TO 4 LANES THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY THE DEVELOPER INCLUDING RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND. [INDISCERNIBLE] SITES AND FAST-FORWARD TO SEPTEMBER 2014 OBVIOUSLY THEY DEALT WITH THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN THAT OCCURRED THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION REMAINED AT AROUND 20 MILLION BUT INSTEAD OF BEING MARKED FOR DIFFERENT STATE PROJECTS IT WAS A CONTRIBUTION FOR THE WIDENING BUT WAS MONEY TO BE PAID FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE OVER THE INTERCHANGE WAS APPROVED BY DOT IN 2010 AND ? HAD A PAYMENT PLAN SET IN PLACE TO GIVE THAT 20 MILLION TO THE COUNTY AND PER ? PAYMENT BY UNIT UP TO A CERTAIN THRESHOLD AND WHEN WE REACH THAT THRESHOLD. [INDISCERNIBLE] THE REST OF THE MONEY AND IN THIS INSTANCE THEY WERE NOT READY TO CONSTRUCT THE REACH THAT THRESHOLD SO PAYMENTS CONTINUE AND HERE IS A SHORT TIMELINE WE ARE GETTING A MILLION TO 2 MILLION ANNUALLY FROM THIS DEVELOPER UP UNTIL THIS PAST YEAR THE FINAL.

[INDISCERNIBLE] AND THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN AWARDED FOR THE ACTUAL WIDENING PROJECT. SO PART OF THE DELAY WE REACH THAT THRESHOLD IN 2019 BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE. [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR THIS PROJECT SO WE DID RECEIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM HILO PROPERTIES IN EXCHANGE FOR IMPACT FEE CREDIT THAT WAS EXECUTED IN GN 2021 ? JUNE 2021 AND WE RECEIVED A PUBLICATION FROM WCI COMMUNITIES THAT WAS PART OF THE LARGER AGREEMENT.

[INDISCERNIBLE] PARKWAY AS I STATED EARLIER THE CURRENT CONTRACT FOR COMPLETION ON THIS ROAD WAS.

[INDISCERNIBLE] DAYS WITH THE CONTRACT THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS AND THAT CAME TO A CONSTRUCTION COST OF ROUGHLY 32 MILLION AND I HAVE PUBLIC WORKS HERE AS WELL IF THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SECTION OF 210? THE NEXT SEGMENT IS THE. [INDISCERNIBLE] BOUNDARY PART OF THE TWIN CREEKS DRI THIS ORDER WAS APPROVED IN 2005 IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES IS A LOT OF INFORMATION BECAUSE I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS IN 2005 AND CURRENT OBLIGATIONS I WILL SHOW YOU COMPARISON.

[INDISCERNIBLE] SIMPLER TO SEE BUT IN 2005.

[INDISCERNIBLE] INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS 95 AND 210 AND.

[INDISCERNIBLE] SIX LANES FOR ITS ENTIRETY OUT TO THE 90 DEGREE CURVE AND IT WAS TO GO FROM 2 TO 4 LANES AND THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN INTERCHANGE AND ALL OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THIS PROJECT TOTALED ROUGHLY $70 MILLION. THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WERE UTILIZING WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY AND PART OF THIS ON

[04:20:05]

THE SOUTH SIDE OF TUTEN REMOVED A LARGE CHUNK OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND CHANGE THE OBLIGATIONS AND IT NEEDED TO BE WIDENED FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES AND INSTEAD OF IT BEING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER OUTSIDE OF THE DRI THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE SPLIT WITH THE COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPER PAYING 25 PERCENT IN THE COUNTY PAYING 75 PERCENT AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH HOW THE COUNTY WOULD WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT WITH NECESSARY PROPERTY AND FOR POTENTIAL SIX LANE AND INCLUDED A $3.2 MILLION CONTRIBUTION OF IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL OBLIGATION AND IT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO WIDEN THE. [INDISCERNIBLE] DOT FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES AND IN THE DRI BOUNDARY THERE WAS A FINAL CONTRIBUTION OF 3.8 MILLION DO WITH THE LAST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT SO A LOT TO TAKE DOWN BUT WE ARE SHOWING EVERYONE IT WENT FROM A ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER FROM THE SINGLE PHASE 2 AN OBLIGATION TO SIX LANES ONE IN THE 90 DEGREE PORTION DOWN TO. [INDISCERNIBLE] WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING THE DEVELOPERS OBLIGATION FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTING THIS INTERCHANGE AT. [INDISCERNIBLE] 2015 HEARTWOOD PROPERTIES AND SOME OF THE OBLIGATIONS SOME OF THE RIGHTS CHANGE FOR THE PROJECT IT WENT TO 4 LANE WIDENING AND SIX CLIENTS NO OBLIGATION ON THE DOGLEG PORTION AND A SPLIT FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND REFERENCE BEFORE.

[INDISCERNIBLE] THE 210 AND 95 INTERCHANGE WAS UNDERTAKEN AND BECAUSE DOT PUT IN THE 2 LANE. [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THAT CHANGE THE CONTRIBUTION TOTAL FROM 70 MILLION IN 2005 TO 37 INCHES SHY OF. [INDISCERNIBLE] SO FAST-FORWARD TO SEE WHERE WE ARE FOR THE TWIN CREEKS PROJECT WE ARE CURRENTLY AT PHASE 2 BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS USED ALL THE INDUSTRIAL PORTION IN PHASE 1 THAT PUSHED US TO PHASE 2 THERE ARE OTHER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN PHASE 1 OF RETAIL AND OFFICE AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME LEFT IN PHASE 2 AND THREE. SO THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR THIS PLANS WERE APPROVED FOR THE 4 LANE DESIGN IN 2016 WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS NOT FULLY ACQUIRED AND BECAUSE OF THAT WORK DID NOT COMMENCE HOWEVER THE SIX LANE IN THE PORTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE COUNTY WAS ABLE TO ACQUIRE ALL OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO CURRENT STATUS THE COUNTY ACTUALLY CONTRACTED ? TO DESIGN A SIX LANE ROAD WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS FOR THAT WITH PUBLIC WORKS 80 PERCENT COMPLETE AND THEY ARE STALLED THERE AND WE CANNOT PROCEED MUCH FURTHER BECAUSE WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH DISTRICT PERMITTING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE. [INDISCERNIBLE] NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPER OF TWIN CREEKS IN A NOTE ON THE MEETING THE DEVELOPER WAS HERE AND A MODIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION WAS GOING TO RESUME ON THIS PORTION NEXT YEAR THE FINAL PIECE IS THE OVERPASS AND IT WAS ESTIMATED TO COST 2005 DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO BE ROUGHLY $14.9 MILLION 3.2 OF THAT HAS BEEN PAID TOWARDS IT 300,000 IS PAID TOWARDS IT IN PHASE 3 AND THERE'S ALSO 3.5 MILLION PAYMENT BASED OFF OF THE OTHER DEVELOPER GIVING MONEY TO THE COUNTY FAST-FORWARD TO THIS YEAR THE MOMENTUM PUD THE HOUSING PUD THIS PART OF THE TWIN CREEKS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON THAT MEETING AND ENTERPRISE THE PROCESS. [INDISCERNIBLE] 19 MILLION AND THEY HAD A PORTION FAIR SHARE OF ROUGHLY 700,000 TOWARDS THAT END THIS ESTIMATE ONLY INCLUDES THE OVERPASS AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE A ESTIMATE FOR RAMPS ARE INTERCHANGE AT TUTEN IN US ONE. AND I NOTE THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE PLANS TO CLOSE ALTERNATE 210 IN THE FUTURE AND PUT IN A RAILROAD CROSSING BUT TO DO THAT WE WILL NEED TO HAVE RAMPS CONSTRUCTED AT US ONE AND 210. CURRENTLY THERE IS AN

[04:25:09]

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO PURSUE FUNDING AND AN 8020 MATCH TO SHUT DOWN. [INDISCERNIBLE] CROSSING AND CURRENT STATUS ON HERE PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I WANT TO THANK YOU THIS WAS UP BY REQUEST AND ANY RESIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED BY TRAFFIC AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THEM SO I APPRECIATE YOU GOING INTO HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT INTO THIS POSITION THE INITIAL DEAL THAT WAS MADE WAS MADE TO THE TUNE OF 70 MILLION TERMS OF DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS THE BOARD MADE A POLICY OBLIGATION IN 2015 DECIDED TO REDUCE THE OBLIGATION TO 37 MILLION AND THAT STRIKES ME AS A BAD POLICY DECISION TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS MADE AT THE TIME?

>> I HAVE GONE THROUGH TO SEE HOW THAT DECISION CAME ABOUT IT WAS A POLICY DECISION AT THAT TIME I WILL SAY THERE IS ANOTHER 7 MILLION THAT IS ADULT.

THERE WAS A CHANGE FOR THE TRAFFIC AND CURRENCIES AND A LARGER MODEL BASED OUT OF JACKSONVILLE AND THE CURRENT STATE AND MODEL USE HERE FO THE COUNTY AND THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THROUGH SOME OF THE GENERATION AND ENTITLEMENTS AT THE END OF THE DAY IT WAS A DRI THAT WAS NEGOTIATED WITH THE POWERS THAT BE AT THAT TIME AND THERE WAS A DECISION MADE AT THAT TIME.

>> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO TOUCH ON WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM YOU TODAY.

BUT YOU HAVE ACQUIRED THE NECESSARY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN AUGUST AND TWIN CREEKS STARTS BUT NOW WE ARE WAITING FOR AN EASEMENT FROM TWIN CREEKS IS THAT ALL THAT'S HOLDING US UP?

>> SO OBVIOUSLY MR. KINSEY FOR HIM TO GO FORWARD AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY WOULD BE IN PLACE SO FOR THAN BEING STUCK TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITTING THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

>> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

>> BEFORE YOU SPEAK LET ME ASK AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

SINCE HE IS HERE WE MIGHT ASK HIM TO ADDRESS THE MISSING $33 MILLION. I HAVE A QUESTION COMING OUT IT FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND THIS IS IT.

MY QUESTION IS IF I UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS RIGHT FEEL FREE TO COMMENT BUT I ASKED MR. KINSEY TO COMMENT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IN GENERAL, THIS IS ALMOST CONFUSING AS COASTAL AGGREGATES WERE GOING BACK IN TIME 10 OR 15 YEARS, WE WERE ORIGINALLY FOUR LANE UP TO 10 IN FRONT OF TWIN CREEKS AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT HE SUGGESTED OR REQUIRED OR GOT THEM TO AGREE TO IT AFTER THAT WE KNEW FOR A LATE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS INTERESTING IT TAKES AWAY THE INTERIOR SWELLS AND IT PUTS THE FOUR LANE TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON EACH SIDE AT A LATER DATE AND THAT IS A MAJOR COST INCREASE AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT AS WELL THE CHANGE FROM 70 MILLION THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ASKED WHAT I AM

SUGGESTING >> WE CAN REFERENCE BACK THE KEEPER OF THIS PLAN IS A QUESTION OF WHAT WE BUILD WE

[04:30:05]

FULLY CONSTRUCT FOR IT'S A QUESTION OF WHERE THE WIDENING

OCCURS AND WE HAVE ONE >>

>> JOHN KINSEY I AM THE PRINCIPAL OF TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT. MASTER DEVELOPER OF TWIN CREEKS EACH ONE ADDRESSES 16772 STRASBURG LANE

>> WE TOLD THAT TO THE COUNTY IN 2005 MY PARTNER SOLD A LARGE PORTION OF TWIN CREEKS TO A NATIONAL HOMEBUILDER PORTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT IS NOW BEACON LAKE.

TOOK ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE MASTER DEVELOPER INCLUDING THE WIDENING OF TUTEN TAKING ON THOSE OBLIGATIONS WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN FILING BANKRUPTCY THEY LOOKED AT IT AND WE CAN'T BUILD IT AND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS A LARGE NUMBER OF YEARS DURING THE GREAT RECESSION WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH BANKRUPTCY COUNTY ROAD TUTEN SAT DORMANT AND THE WIDENING NEVER OCCURRED IN 2013 THEY ASKED ME TO COME BACK AND TAKE OVER THE PROJECT TO MOVE IT FORWARD AND WE HAD THE ARRANGEMENT OF TWIN CREEKS WHEN WE MET WITH THE COUNTY SORRY.

70 MILLION IS NEVER GOING TO WORK AND WE CAN'T REACH AN ACCOMMODATION ON THAT COUNTY ROAD TUTEN WOULD STAY AS A TWO LANE ROAD THAT IT CURRENTLY IS. IF IT WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, BEACH WALK WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT.

BEACHSIDE HIGH SCHOOL WOULD NOT BE THERE TODAY.

ALL OF THE 880 HOMEOWNERS IN BEACH WALK WOULD NOT BE THERE 600 APARTMENTS. THE MARGARITAVILLE HOTEL EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS COMING THERE NONE OF THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. IF WE HAD THE SPACE $70 MILLION AND THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT $70 MILLION WAS NOT A CAP IT WAS AN ESTIMATE.O GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW RELIABLE THOSE ESTIMATES ARE, IN THE DRI THAT WE GOT APPROVED IN 2015. THE ALLOCATED AMOUNT WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE AN ESTIMATE FOR THE COST OF WIDENING TUTEN FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES ALL THE WAY FROM CE WILSON TO THE DOG LAKE WAS $15 MILLION. TO DATE WE HAVE SPENT $26 MILLION. AND IF WE HAVE TO DO THE WIDENING OUTSIDE WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE AT 31 OR 32. PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAD TO SPEND THE ENDS OF DOLLARS RELOCATING UTILITIES THE COUNTY COULD HAVE ASSISTED BY HAVING THOSE UTILITIES TAKE ON THE OBLIGATIONS THEMSELVES BUT HER DECISION WAS MADE NOT TO OFFER THAT. SO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY IS 37 MILLION? IF SO THE DEAL CAN GET DONE.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD STILL BE THE TWO LANE EXPRESSWAY OR RACETRACK THAT ALWAYS WAS FOR THOSE MANY YEARS.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE TIMELINE THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. I HEARD ABOUT THE COUNTY ORIGINALLY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER OBLIGATED ME TO WIDEN IT TO 4 LANES WE HAD PLANS PREPARED, THEY WERE APPROVED.

A CONTRACT TO DO THAT WORK. THE AMOUNT OF THAT CONTRACT FOR THAT 4 LANE WIDENING WAS $2.6 MILLION.

[04:35:01]

TODAY YOU WOULD BE LUCKY TO GET THAT DEAL DONE AT 7 MILLION.

WHY? AS YOU JUST HEARD, THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S WHY THE WIDENING DIDN'T OCCUR. IF I HAVE TO PAY TO WIDEN THAT TO 4 LANES I AM BEING PENALIZED 4.7 MILLION BECAUSE THE COUNTY DIDN'T ACQUIRE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IN FACT, A WEEK AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS SIGNED OUR ATTORNEY WAS CONTACTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY WORKING ON THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE PTHE MONEY TO BUY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE DEVELOPER TO STEP UP AND PAY 100 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THAT.

WE RESPECTFULLY DECLINE THAT OPPORTUNITY SO THIS IS SOME OF THELONGER-TERM HISTORY . AND ON NOVEMBER 17 2020 I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM ? AND I NEVER GET HIS LAST NAME RIGHT ASKING IF WE CAN HAVE A PHONE CALL ABOUT 210.

WE SET IT UP FOR TWO DAYS LATER AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HEARD THAT THE COUNTY WANTED TO BUILD THE ? TO WIDEN THE ROAD TO SIX LANES IN THE COUNTY WANTED TO DO THE WORK ITSELF AND I WOULD CONTRIBUTE AN AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE DETERMINED IN THE COUNTY WOULD TAKE CARE OF DOING THE WORK.

FINE WITH ME I AM A LAND DEVELOPER SO OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS I STARTED TO GET EMAILS ASKING THAT WE SIGNED LETTERS TO ALLOW THE WATER MANAGEMENT PERMITTING TO PROCEED AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY WAS GOING TO NEED ADDITIONAL STORMWATER RETENTION BECAUSE THE ONLY PLACE YOU COULD PUT THE STORM WATER COMING OFF OF THAT UNFINISHED PORTION IS INTO A LAKE LOCATED IN BEACH.

[INDISCERNIBLE] THAT FLOWS TO ANOTHER LIKE THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE OUTFALL FOR THE CRYSTAL LAGOON IN CASE OF A HURRICANE OR OTHER RAINFALL EMERGENCY AND IT FLOWS OUT FROM THERE INTO PROPERTY WHICH I OWN AND I SAID I AM HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO GET CLARIFIED AS WELL SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM HELPING YOU MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN THE LAST PIECE OF PAPER WHICH ARE GOING TO NEED WHICH IS AN EASEMENT UNTIL WE HAVE RESOLVED THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.

HE SAID I AM FINE WITH THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

PTHE COUNTY MOVED ON WE WORKED ON THE PLANS I SAW THE PLANS AND I SAW THE DIFFERENCE OF THE CROSS-SECTION AND IF I WAS REQUIRED TO BUILD THE INSIDE 4 LANES IT WOULD HAVE EASILY DOUBLE THE COST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE ADDED ELEVATION THAT THE ROAD HAS TO BE RAISED AND A LOT OF OTHER TECHNICAL PAIN IN THE NEXT STUFF BUT IT COSTS MONEY. SO ALL OF THIS WENT ON DURING 2021. AS FAR AS I KNOW, COUNTY IS GOING TO BE DOING THE WORK SO WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

WE DIDN'T GO OUT 10 SURVEY THINGS OR SEE WHAT HAD CHANGED ALONG THE ROAD AND WE ARE GOING ALONG WITH THE ASSUMPTION WE'RE GOING TO GET A NUMBER FROM THE COUNTY AT SOME POINT OF WHAT THEY WANT US TO PAY WE WILL TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN AND RESOLVE THIS AND IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH YOUR STAFF IN CONNECTION WITH THE MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS THAT WE HAD IN TWIN CREEKS AND WE HAD SOME ISSUES THAT HAD COME UP IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTING THOSE AND WE WANTED TO COORDINATE WAYS WE COULD SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY AND GIVE THEM A BETTER PROPERTY AND WE WANTED TO CLEAR UP THE IMPACT FOR THAT SEVERE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. WE HAD A PHONE CALL SET UP AND THAT OCCURRED ON JUNE 8 OF THIS YEAR WE WENT THROUGH TALKING ABOUT THE SOCCER FIELDS AND ALL RIGHT ARE WE DONE WITH THE SOCCER FIELDS BECAUSE WE WANT TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT COUNTY ROAD 210. I AM WAITING TO HEAR ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE SIXTH LANE.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT A SIX LANE WE WANTED TO BE 4 LANES AND WE WANT YOU TO BUILD THE 4 LANES.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

SO WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND I SENT ALONG TO HER A PROPOSAL OF WHAT WE WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH DOING THAT AND WE WOULD GRANT THE EASEMENTS AND SUCH AND THE TIMING OF WHAT WE WOULD DO WE WOULD LAYOUT TIMING SO WE COULD GET IT DONE WE WOULD GET

[04:40:07]

THE SURVEYS DONE GET THE PERMITS REACTIVATED SEE WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STATUS WAS AND THEN WE LAID ALL OF THAT OUT AND I ASKED WHEN THE COUNTY STAFF WOULD RESOLVE IT AND THEY MET ON JULY 13 AND THE EMAIL THAT I GOT FROM HER WAS WE ARE PRETTY MUCH OKAY WITH YOU ON THE 4 LANE WE HAVE SOME TWEAKS REGARDING IMPACT FEES AND DO AND ALSO ADDRESS THE. [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THAT WAS ON JULY 13 AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GOING TO PREPARE A DOCUMENT.OKAY. SO HE SAID THAT'S FINE.

I WEEK LATER I SENT A EMAIL ON THE PROGRESS OF THE DOCUMENT.

NO RESPONSE. AUGUST 4, NO RESPONSE.

WE PROPOSED WE KNOW THAT COUNTY STAFF HAS A LOT OF WORK GOING ON SO WE WILL PREPARE THE FIRST DRAFT OF WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE. [INDISCERNIBLE] AND WE DID IT WE GOT THAT AT THE END OF AUGUST.

AUGUST 26. 10 DAYS LATER SEPTEMBER 6 WHICH WAS THE DATE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION HEARING WE SENT AN UPDATED VERSION THAT INCLUDED A COUPLE OF SECTIONS THAT HAD BEEN LEFT OUT. MY FAULT, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GET EVERYTHING FINISHED. SEPTEMBER 6 WAS THE SAME DAY WE WERE IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION.

AND WE WERE ASKED WHAT'S GOING ON WITH COUNTY ROAD 210? WE ARE TALKING TO STAFF I THINK WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED AND UNDERWAY BY THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2023.

JOY CONFIRMED WITH THE COMMISSION THAT WAS WHAT'S GOING ON IN A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER TRY TO HAVE A PHONE CALL AND NEVER GOT THE PHONE CALL AND COMMUNICATION SINCE IN, NO RESPONSE TO THE POINT WHERE I FINALLY TOLD STAFF IF I CAN'T GET STAFF TO RESPOND I AM GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THAT LED TO A MEETING THAT I ARRANGED YESTERDAY TO MAKE THE COMMISSIONER AWARE OF ALL OF THESE THINGS.

THE BIG REQUEST THAT WE HAD IN GETTING THIS FINALIZED AND PUT TOGETHER HAD TO DO WITH ROAD IMPACT FEES CREDITS AND PROPORTIONATE SHARE CREDITS. I'M SURE YOU KNOW IT WAS PASSED A WHILE BACK IMPACT FEE CREDITS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.PART OF THE PROBLEM WE HAD IS THAT WHEN YOU GET INTO DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE THE SIZE OF TWIN CREEKS THEY CAN USE OUR IMPACT FEE CREDITS USUALLY THOSE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PAID A LARGE PROPORTION SHARE PAYMENT UP FRONT AND THAT REDUCES THEIR IMPACT FEE NUMBER DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR SO WHEN THEY MAKE PROPORTIONATE SHARE PAYMENTS THEY DON'T NEED TO BUY IMPACT FEE CREDITS. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A PROBLEM WHEN WE COME BACK AND ADJUST FOR THE $15 MILLION PRICE INCREASE OF WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE AND YOU ARE TRYING TO SELL THOSE IMPACT FEES AND NOBODY IN YOUR DISTRICT.

[INDISCERNIBLE] BUT THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS OUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER SAYS WE GET IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND PROPORTIONATE SHARE CREDITS FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT WE DO.

SO WE ASKED THE COUNTY TO CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE THOSE PROPORTIONATE SHARE CREDITS JUST THE SAME AS THE IMPACT FEE CREDITS, THEY CAN BE TRANSFERRED.THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROPORTIONATE SHARE CREDITS.

BUT THAT IS THE POSITION THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOOK. SO WE HAVE HAD THE ATTORNEYS TAKING THE POSITION THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SAID SO FORGET ABOUT THAT AND WE CAN'T GET PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO US AND I'M HEARING THAT THE COUNTY DOES WANT TO DO THE 6 LANE AS OPPOSED TO THE 4 LANE AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU GIVEN THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE INVOLVED.

I AM VERY CONFUSED AND VERY FRUSTRATED WITH AS WE ARE GETTING HOPEFULLY CLOSER TO THE END OF TWIN CREEKS THAT I HAVE THESE ISSUES REMAINING SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING THAT I HAVE NO

[04:45:01]

CONTROL OR INFLUENCE OVER AND AT THE END YOU KNOW WHERE THE BILLS ARE GOING TO COME. SO THAT IS WHAT I WOULD NOT ASK THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT YOU ARE A COUNTY ATTORNEY IN YOUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NOT THROUGH ASSISTANCE, TO MEET WITH ME AND LET'S DISCUSS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A FRAMEWORK THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION IS FRUSTRATED.

I KNOW THE RESIDENTS ARE FRUSTRATED.

I AM 70 YEARS OLD. I WANT THIS DONE WHILE I AM STILL ABLE TO REJOICE IN RETIREMENT AFTER TWIN CREEKS AND BELIEVE ME I UNDERSTAND THE BURDEN YOUR STAFF IS UNDER.

I HAVE WORKED WITH THE STAFF OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS. THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY PROFESSIONAL AND A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH AND I KNOW THEY WORK UNDER DIFFICULT CONDITIONS BUT THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET THIS TO A CULMINATION.

IF THERE ANY QUESTIONS I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

>> QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING I DID NOT KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO BE HERE TODAY SO THANK YOU FOR COMING AND FOR THE EXPLANATION BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY TO STAND UP THERE AND HEAR THE CRITIQUES BUT YOU HAVE TOUCHED ON A FEW THINGS THE FRUSTRATION IS VERY REAL. WE GET EMAILS ON A REGULAR BASIS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE FRUSTRATED AND STUCK IN TRAFFIC AND IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT SEEMS WHEN YOU DIVE INTO THE DETAILS SO I APPRECIATE YOU PROVIDING US WITH THOSE DETAILS AND IF NOTHING ELSE WE HAVE LEARNED TODAY THIS IS AN URGENT NEED IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION AND IS OVERLAPPING IN THE DISTRICT AND I DON'T THINK I AM ALONE BUT I WILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND SAY WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND ATTORNEY OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT STAFF TO GET THIS JOB DONE I AM IN FAVOR OF DOING IT AND I WOULD APPRECIATE MOVING FORWARD AND LOOKING FORWARD YOUR BEST EFFORTS COLLABORATING WITH OUR STAFF BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU THE RESIDENTS DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.

THEY ARE BUSY. THEY'RE DROPPING KIDS OFF.

THEY HAVE ACTIVITIES BUT THEY ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING STUCK IN THIS TRAFFIC AND THEY ARE DEMANDING THAT WE TAKE ACTION SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO EXPLAIN AND BRING US UP TO SPEED BUT WITHOUT POINTING FINGERS, JUST MOVING FORWARD WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THIS.

>> LET ME SAY THIS. I AM GOING TO TRY TO HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK. YOU MENTIONED THIS DRI WAS IN 2005. DUE TO A GREAT RECESSION IN 2008 AND THESE WERE GREAT TALKING POINTS WHEN I ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE REFERENDUM LAST TUESDAY AND I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT BUT I WANT TO REQUEST THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND ATTORNEY SCHEDULE ALLOW US TO ? THIS TOOK A LOT OF TIME THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE WITH OTHER ITEMS BUT YOU WERE ALSO IMPACTED BY

[11. Consider appointments to the Planning and Zoning Agency. Currently, there are (2) two vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Agency. One is due to an expired term of the current chairperson, Greg Matovina, and the other is due to the resignation of Zach Miller. A vacancy ad was placed and ran for (30) days. Please see attached for your review and consideration, a recommendation letter and (7) applications; (Greg Matovina Dist. 1, Vernon Hawley Smith III Dist. 1, Charles Labanowski Dist. 2, Donald Rehberg Dist. 4, Jeffrey Mason Dist. 4, Kerri Gustavson Dist. 4, Henry Green Dist. 5)]

THE STRETCH OF 210 AND MR. KINSEY IS IMPACTED AS A DEVELOPER WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE TABLE AND HE NEEDS ANSWERS FROM THIS COMMISSION AND WE NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS AND IT'S MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE? ARE WE GOOD?THANKS JOHN. THAT TAKES CARE OF 210.

WE HAVE PCA APPOINTMENTS FOR THE SHOULD BE QUICK AND WE WILL DO THE GREENBRIER ITEM. THE PZA APPOINTMENTS I WILL MAKE THIS ITEM 11 I BELIEVE. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT IF I MAY, PCA SERVES AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FUNCTION TO THIS COMMISSION. THEY DO IT AS VOLUNTEERS.

THEY DO A GREAT JOB AND WE HEAR FROM ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTY BUT THERE IS ONE PART WE DON'T HEAR FROM THE CURRENT PCA THAT HAPPENS TO BE DISTRICT 5 AND I HAPPEN TO REPRESENT DISTRICT 5 SO I AM RECOMMENDING WE HAVE A DISTRICT 5 MEMBER APPOINTED TODAY AND THAT WOULD BE HENRY GREEN.

[04:50:08]

TO THAT DISTRICT 5 POSITION SO I WANTED TO LAY THAT ON THE TABLE EARLY ON AND WE WILL HEAR FROM.

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> GOOD AFTERNOON JOANNE SPENCER ASSISTANT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CURRENTLY THERE ARE 2 VACANCIES ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY ONE IS DUE TO THE EXPIRED TERM OF THE CURRENT CHAIRPERSON AND THE OTHER IS DUE TO THE RESIGNATION OF ZACH MILLER. A VACANCY AD WAS PLACED AND RAN FOR 30 DAYS. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PZA RECOMMENDING 2 APPLICANTS AT 7 APPLICATIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM APPOINTMENTS TO THE PZA. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, COME FORWARD.

>>. [INDISCERNIBLE] IT'S ONLY 2:40 PM YOU HAVE ABOUT FIVE MORE HOURS TO GO.

MY QUESTION ON THIS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS JUST SAID KIND OF HALFWAY EXPLAINS IT. AND THE VOTING AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE BACKUP MATERIAL, WHY DID MR. [INDISCERNIBLE] I HOPE I AM SAYING THAT RIGHT AND MS. PERKINS VOTE AGAINST HENRY GRAIN? DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD KNOW WHY THAT HAPPENED? AND I KNOW YOU WANT AS MUCH REPRESENTATION THAT IS MR. GREEN THE ONLY ONE THAT APPLIED IN DISTRICT 5? IT'S PROBABLY TRUE I LOOKED AT THE APPLICATIONS BUT I WANT TO KNOW IF ANYONE KNOWS WHY THESE BOARD MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST PUTTING MR. GREEN ON THIS PZA. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT? WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT