Nov 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Agency

[00:00:27]

>> MS. PERKINS: WE'RE GOING TO GO AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. IF YOU WOULDN'T FIND STANDING UP, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

DR. HILSENBECK, WILL YOU READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'LL BE GLAD TO, THANK YOU.

PUBLIC NOTICE THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW.

THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST DO SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER. ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN.

SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF.

THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER AGENCY OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW ORE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.

CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

[1. ZVAR 2022-09 10240 Dillon Variance]

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU, DR. HILSENBECK.

THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, YOU CAN FILL OUTER A SPEAKER CARD AND WE WILL GET TO IT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE AGENDA.

SO WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 1. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME

UP. >> SPEAKER: MS. PERKINS, CHRISTINE VALLIERE YSH SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

WE HAVE AN ISSUE ISSUE WITH ITEM 1.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE.

IN THE REVIEW PROCESS THERE WAS A SURVEY DISCREPANCY IN THAT RECENTLY GOT RESOLVED IN WAY THAT REQUIRES A GREATER VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK, SO WE NEED TO READVERTISE BECAUSE IT'S A GRART REQUEST THAN INITIAL -- GREATER REQUEST THAN INITIAL ADVERTISED.

>> MS. PERKINS: SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CONTINUE

THEN? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.:

YES, AND TO A TIME UNCERTAIN. >> SPEAKER: SO MOVED.

DO WE NEED TIME UNCERTAIN? >> MS. PERKINS: TIME UNCERTAIN

[2. SUPMAJ 2022-05 Smith Borrow Pit]

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. PETER.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME UP BEFORE WE GET STARTED, DOES ANYBODY HAVE EX PARTE?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I HAVE EX PARTE.

I CONTACTED THE MY SON-IN-LAW WHO IS A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. I JUST WANTED HIS OPINION ON THE MATTER, AND I WILL DISCLOSE MORE ABOUT THAT DURING DISCUSSION.

[00:05:09]

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: IF I COULD, DR. HILSENBECK SO LONG AS YOU DISCLOSED THAT SO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO IT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'LL DISCUSS WHAT HE SAID.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: YES, PLEASE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: YES, I WILL.

>> MS. PERKINS: YOU CAN GO AHEAD.

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: QURAN EVANS WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP 7 WALDO STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE. THE THECIAL US.

REQUEST TO ALLOW TO THE THE INTRODUCTION OF A BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IN OPEN RURAL ZONING TWELS TO ALLOW FOR MORE THAN ONE PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RASUAL SILVER. THE OANGING BE OPEN CYRIL.

ZONING IS OPEN RURAL AND THIS PERMITS BAROMETRIC BORROWO SPECIAL USE AND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

OVERALL, THE PROPERTY IS 47 ACRES.

IT'S LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 208 AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF STEVEN CHOLEROAD. THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT IS ONLY 16.4 ACRES. THE SITE CONTAINS TWO PARCELS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THE RESIDENTS AND BARN THAT WILL REMAIN ON SITE ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL, AND A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT PARCEL. CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED TO BE IN ONE PHASE AND LAST FIVE YEARS.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ENCOURAGES BRPTS TO BE LOCATED WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR ROADWAYS.

THE APPLICANT ENTERED A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY TO DIRECT ACCESS COUNTY ROAD 208.

THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY FRONTING ON 208 IS A TOWER SITE.

THE APPLICANT WILL BE IMPROVING, USING AND MAINTAINING THE ACCESS POINT USED FROM A FORMER BORROW PIT THAT IS NOW A LAKE ON COUNTY PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO PROVIDE MULTIPLE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY, SUCH AS SECURING THE SITE ALONG CROORD 208 WITH FENCING -- CROOTD TO SOME TRESPASSING AND SWIMMING IN THE LAKE COUNTY, STABILIZE THE EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE, MAKE APRON IMPROVEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO REMOVE A DILAPIDATED MOBILE HOME AND SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN ABANDON FOR YEARS AS WELL AS GENERAL LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL.

THESE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF APPROVAL OF THE BORROW PIT. HERE'S A VIEW OF THE ACCESS ON COUNTY ROAD 208, THE EXISTING APRON.

THE SITE WILL BE IMPROVED. THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED ABOUT THE APPLICATION SHOWS ALL THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, BUFFERS AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FROM THE COUNTY CODE.

REGARDING ACCESS, AGAIN, IT SHOULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO A MAJOR ROADWAY. WHAT THIS SITE IT DOES DO A LICENSE AGREEMENT. LDC REQUIRES THAT A BORROW PIT IS SET BACK 200 FEET FROM COUNTY ROAD 208, AND THIS IS OVER 1,00.

THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY SINCE THERE ARE RESIDENCES ON SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THERE ARE 3.26 ACRES OF ISOLATED WETLANDS ON-SITE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE REQUIRED SETBACK AND IT ONLY PROPOSES IMPACT TO ABOUT 1 ACRE OF THE WETLANDS. SINCE THERE IS SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE PIT WILL BE SECURED BY THE EXISTING 4-FOOT FIELD FENCE THAT SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK OR WOODEN FENCE THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY AROUND THE BORROW PIT. AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE EXTRA SECURITY ALONG COUNTY ROAD 208.

THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES THE REQUEST FOR THE OWNER'S SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND BARN TO REMAIN ON THE PARCEL WITH A PORTION OF THE BORROW PIT, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT JUST TO THE WEST OF THE PRESERVED WETLANDS AREA.

ANOTHER REQUIREMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE BORROW PIT IS NOT WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ANY SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS OR CHURCHES.

BETHANY BAPTIST CHURCH IS LOCATED TO THE EAST.

IT IS SET BACK 300 FEET FROM COUNTY ROAD 208 BUT FOR FURTHER MITIGATION THERE'S NO HAULING ON SUNDAYS.

OPERATION IS LIMITED TO 7:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. OPERATION WILL AVOID SCHOOLS NEAR PEAK SCHOOL TRAVEL TIMES AND HAVE NERCH ROUTES TO AVOID SCHOOLS. NESTER.

AGAIN THE OPERATION OF THE PIT IS ONLY PROPOSED FOR FIVE YEARS=. IN ADDITION THE PLIC WILL BE

[00:10:02]

OUR APPLICATION INCLUDED AN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT THAT FOUND NO ISSUES WITH PROTECTED WILDLIFE OR PLANT SPECIES.

THERE ARE NOT ANY OPERATING BORROW PITS WITHIN A ONE 1 MILE RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT I MENTIONED EARLIER THERE WAS A BORROW AREA TO THE NORTH THAT IS NOW A LAKE ON THE COUNTY PROPERTY THAT WAS PERMITTED IN 2007.

WE KNOW THAT COUNTY STAFF RECEIVED CALLS FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THEIR PRIVATE WELLS. WE SUBMITTED A DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS WITH THE APPLICATION, AND THE 2H WILL NEGATE THE DRAWDOWN EFFECT EXTENDING FROM THE PIT SO IT WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE NEARBY PRIVATE AS WELL . THE MOST LIKELY HAUL ROUTES ARE ALONG COUNTY ROAD 208, CROWN ROAD 13A NORTH, JOE ASHTON ROAD AND PACETTI ROAD. BASED ON THE LEVEL HAVE SERVICE, ALL OF THOSE ROADWAYS ARE UNDERUTILIZED.

THE CALCULATED ADDITIONAL TRUCK TRAFFIC WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY OF THESE ROADWAYS BECOMING CRAIBLG OR DEFICIENT.

ALL THE FACILITIES HAVE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE HAULING TRUCKS. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALSO ENCOURAGES BORROW PITS TO BE IN LOCATIONS WITH ACCESS TO RECEIVING SITES, SO THE MAP SHOWS SEVERAL LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE POTENTIAL HAULING ROUTES.

SO THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST IS CONSIST WITH THE CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING. THERE'S A HISTORY OF SIMILAR BORROW PIT ACTIVITY IN THE AREA. IT HAS A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE TO A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY FOR HAULING. IT'S WITHIN PROXIMITY TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS. THE BORROW PIT AND JDGES PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WILL BE -- ST. JOHNS COUNTY WILL BE SUFFICIENTLY EXPENDITURE AND MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT TO NOT BE A DANGER OR A NUISANCE. THE BORROW PIT WILL BE SUFFICIENTLY BUFFERED AND SET BACK FROM THE SURROUNDING RURAL RESIDENCES. THE STUDY SHOWS NO IMPACTS TO PRIVATE WELLS. THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL OR TRAFFIC CONCERNS FROM STAFF. AND IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE THE BENEFIT OF IMPROVEMENT TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY DUE TO LICENSE AGREEMENT. THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

DR. HILSENBECK. >> DR. HILSENBECK: LET ME ASK YOU THIS FIRST ONE. I'VE GOT SEVERAL AND THEN SOME DISCUSSION. IT STATES ON PAGE 8 OF THE APPLICATION SUMMARY IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS, "PER AN APPROVED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHNS COUNTY," THAT WAS RES-2021-376, THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR AN ACCESS DRIVE. THAT'S IN QUOTES, ACCESS DRIVE, ACROSS PORTIONS OF COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT WILL PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS TO COUNTY ROAD 208 FOR THE BORROW PIT OPERATING ONLY. SO WHEN Y'ALL GOT THIS ACCESS, WAS IT DISCLOSED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN TO MENU THE PROPERTY?

-- MINE THE PROPERTY? >> CHRISTINA

[INAUDIBLE] >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR IT WAS THERE A REASON STATED YOU? JUST WANTED ACCESS FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER YOUR PRESIDENT OUT TO 208 OR DID YOU SAY TO THE COUNTY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO IN THE COUNTY WOULD APPROVE THIS -- I DON'T REMEMBER THIS COMING BEFORE THE PZA OR THE ABORTED COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BUT I JUST WONDERED IF IT WAS DISCLOSED AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WAS A PLAN

TO -- >> CHRISTINA EVANS: SO A

LETTER -- >> DR. HILSENBECK: MINE THE

PROPERTY. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: A LETTER WAS SENT FROM OUR OFFICE IN FEBRUARY 2020, AND IT SAID IT'S A REQUEST FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT ALLOWING FOR THE USE OF THE ACCESS DRIVE FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS SERVING A POTENTIAL

BORROW PIT DEVELOPMENT, SO YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK:, OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND I'VE GOT MORE QUESTIONS.

GO AHEAD. YES, SIR.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. JUNE OF KELLY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. YEAH, IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS APPROVED IT DOES SPECIFY THAT IT WOULD BE FOR A FUTURE BORROW PIT. THE RESOLUTION IS ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: AND WHO GRANTED THAT PERMIT, THAT

ACCESS? >> JUSTIN KELLY: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THAT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SO IT DID GO BEFORE THE BOCC 37.

>> JUSTIN KELLY: CORRECT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

I JUST DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

DO YOU ALL TRULY BELIEVE THAT THIS BORROW PIT MINE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ADJACENT

[00:15:01]

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: THEREABOUTS A BORROW PIT JUST TO THE NORTH THAT OPERATED NOT TOO LONG AGO, SO IT IS AN AREA WHERE BORROW PITS HAVE BEEN OPERATING.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: YOU SAID 2007?

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: YES. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

YEAH, A I'M A MAJOR ADVOCATE FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND I ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, BUT IF IT NEGATIVELY IMRACTS NEG IMPACTS NEGATIVELY IMPACTS SOME OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY, I LIKE TO LOOK THE FOR CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS' PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THEY HAVE RIGHTS AS WELL, SO I'M

CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: SO THE CODE DOES CALL FOR 100 FEET SETBACK, SO THAT IS PROVIDED WITHIN BORROW PIT SITE, BUT LOOKING AT THE MORE PROPERTIES, THERE IS ADDITIONAL SPACE FROM THEIR RESIDENCES OUTSIDE OF THE 100 FEET THAT THE CODE CALLS FOR.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: RIGHT. I DO KNOW THE CODE CALLS FOR THAT. 100 FEET TO ME IS REALLY NOT MUCH. I USED TO BE ABLE TO NOT THAT LONG AGO ACTUALLY THROW A FOOTBALL TWICE THAT FAR, AND I'M PRETTY SURE I COULD STILL THROW A FOOTBALL 100 FEET EASILY, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST NOT MUCH TO ME BUT I KNOW THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE CODE. LET ME ASK THIS.

I DON'T WANT TO GET -- I HAVE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS, SO LET ME GET THIS. OKAY.

THE STAFF FOUND THAT THERE WERE EIGHT RESIDENCES CONTIGUOUS OR ABUTTING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE NICE PROPERTY, AND I WISH I LIVED OUT THERE.

IT LOOKS TO ME TO THE WEST THERE ARE SOME MORE PROPERTIES AND THEN CATERCORNER TO THE NORTHWEST IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME FAIRLY LARGE HOUSES. WOULD I SAY THERE ARE ACTUALLY MORE THAN EIGHT HOUSES CONTIGUOUS WITH THE PROPERTY BUT I JUST WONDER IF STAFF COULD ADDRESS THAT.

EIGHT'S A LOT, GIVEN THAT STAFF RESEARCH FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO APPROVED BORROW PITS WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS GOING TO ALSO HAVE THE BORROW PIT ON IT. NOW WE'VE GOT ONE WITH EIGHT, WHICH SEEMS LIKE A LOT TO ME. IF I WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, I'D BE -- I'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

I'LL TELL YOU WHY IN A MINUTE. NOT ONLY THE NOISE BUT OTHER THINGS. YES, SIR.

>> JUSTIN KELLY: JUSTIN KELLY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AGAIN.

SO THERE ARE EIGHT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJOINING THIS SPECIFIC PARCEL. THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOMES HAR IN THE SURROUNDING AREA BUT THEY DON'T ABUT THE PARCEL. SO THE EIGHT THAT YOU SEE ON PAGE 18 OF YOUR STAFF ROT, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SO YOU DON'T CONSIDER THOSE TO THE NORTHWEST UP THERE OFF THAT CIRCLE ON THOSE BIG PIE-SHAPED LOTS, YOU DO NOT CONSIDER THOSE CONTIGUOUS?

>> JUSTIN KELLY: NO, THERE ARE HOMES LOCATED ON THOSE LOTS BUT THERE IS SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE LOTS.

THERE'S AGRICULTURAL USES THAT ARE GOING ON.

SOME OF THEM HAVE ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL USES GOING ON SO THEY DON'T DIRECTLY ABUT THE PROPERTY, SO THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ARE THE HOMES THAT ARE DIRECTLY

ABUTTING THE PROPERTY. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKEY-DOKE.

APPRECIATE THAT. SO LET ME ASK DO YOU REALLY THINK A 6-FOOT FENCE, WOODEN FENCE, VINYL FENCE, WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE, 6-FOOT SOLID FENCE -- I KNOW THERE'S A 4-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE THERE 2340U -- DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO LESS END THE NOISE FOR THE DNCH.

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: THE FENCING REQUIREMENT WAS FORTRESS PASSING AND PEOPLE COMING ONTO THE PROPERTY.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: IT'S NOT GOING TO DO MUCH FOR NOISE.

I COULD HOLLER OVER ONE EASILY. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: THE ELECTRIC PUMPS AIR LOT QUIERTD THAN THE DIESEL PUMPS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: NOTICED IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE NOISE Y'ALL WERE GOING TO HAVE ELECTRIC PUMPS FOR THE BORROW PIT OPERATING. ARE THE -- UP TO 200 ROUND TRIP DUMP TRUCK, LET'S SAY IT'S 100 ROUND TRIPS, 200 TRIPS, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE ELECTRIC TRUCKS?

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: WELL, THE ACCESS ROAD --

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I KNOW THAT'S A STUPID QUESTION, BUT --

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: THE ACCESS ROAD IS IN BETWEEN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE IS AGRICULTURAL LAND

SO THAT'S NOT A RESIDENCE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT THAT DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. ARE Y'ALL GOING TO USE ELECTRIC TRUCKS TO HAUL THE MATERIAL OUT OF THERE?

[00:20:02]

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I DIDN'T THINK SO. BUT AND THOSE TRUCKS ARE PRETTY NOISY, IN MY OPINION. LET'S SEE.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DISCUSSION.

YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY -- I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT THERE.

THE COUNTY HAS QUITE A BIT CONCERNS, THE STAFF, IN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY MENTION QUITE A FEW THINGS HERE. IT SAYS, COUNTY STAFF HAS CONCERNS THE REQUESTED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE BORROW PIT IN OPEN RURAL ZONING COULD RESULT IN A USE THAT IS NOT CONSIST WITH THE SURROUNDING RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES GIVEN THE INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USES.

AND THEY MENTION THAT FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES IN HERE.

STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT THE BORROW PIT IN THIS LOCATION WILL RUMENT IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOT CONSIST WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL USES, THERE IS STRONG POTENTIAL -- THAT'S WHAT THEY AY HERE -- STRONG POTENTIAL FOR INEFFECTIVE IMPACT ON THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS FROM SEVERAL ADVERSE COMPONENTS THAT ARE COMMONLY SOASHED WITH BORROW PIT OPERATIONS SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND VIBRATION. I DID MAKE THIS UP.

THIS IS WHAT THE STAFF WROTE IN THE MATERIALS WE WERE GIVEN, SO I'M JUST READING WHAT THEY WROTE.

AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE THE THE OPERATION WILL BE DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS 7:00 TO 5:00 P.M. SIX DAYS A WEEK.

IF I LIVED THERE BACKING UP TO THIS PROPERTY AND EVERY SATURDAY MORNING FOR THE NEXT 260 SATURDAY MORNINGS, THAT WOULD BE FIVE YEARS, I HAD TO LISTEN TO DUMP TRUCKS GOING IN AND OUT OF THERE ON MY WEEKEND, STARTING AT 7:00 A.M., I WOULD NOT LIKE THAT. AND THEN THE STAFF IS ESTIMATING THAT TOTAL NUMBER OF DUMP TRUCK TRIPS, INGRESS AND EGRESS, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 73,000 OVER THE LIFE OF THE OPERATION.

THAT'S A LOT OF -- A LOT OF TRIPS.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY TO HAUL THE MATERIAL OUT OF THERE AND TO MAKE A PROFIT AND ALL THAT.

I'M ALL FOR THAT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IN THIS RURAL, PEACEFUL RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE MOST OF THESE HOMEOWNER HAVE PROBABLY BEEN OUT THERE 20, 25 YEARS LIVING THERE WITH OPEN RURAL ZONING, THAT THEY FIGURE THIS WAS A PRETTY SAFE PLACE TO BUILD A HOUSE AND START THEIR LIFE AND CONTINUE ON, RAISE THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR DOGS AND ALL, AND THEN TO HAVE THIS RIGHT IN THEIR BACKYARD IS REALLY TO ME INTERFERING WITH THEIR PRIVATE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH TO ME IS AN ESSENTIAL PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT. SO I'VE GOT SOME MORE COMMENTS LATER. I WILL GO AHEAD AND SAY WHAT MY IS ONLY SAID. HE'S AN APPRAISER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND I TALKED TO HIM LAST NIGHT.

I ASKED HIM, I LAID OUT THE PARAMETERS OF THIS.

I SAID, IT'S IN A QUIET RURAL AREA, YOU KNOW, SOME LARGER ACHE RACK TRACT, 2 TO 5 ACRES OR SO, AND THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE LARGER TRACT ARE PROPOSING A BORROW PIT OUT THERE AND A LOT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC AND ALL THAT, SO I SAID, "IN YOUR OPINION --" OF COURSE, HE HADN'T SEEN THE PROPERTY SO HE CAN'T EXPRESS A VALID OPINION NECESSARILY BUT HE HADN'T SEEN IT BUT I DID LAY OUT THE SCENARIO FOR HIM. I SAID, "IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD THIS LOWER PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE ADJACENT RESIDENCES?" SO LET ME READ YOU WHAT HE SAID. THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

HE SAID, THAT HAVING THAT MINE THERE, "IT WOULD SEEM TO LIMIT FUTURE MARKETABILITY WHICH WILL DIMINISH MARKET VALUE." SO IN OTHER WORDS BE WITH MINING RIGHT NEXT DOOR WOULD LIKELY LOWER THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THOSE OWNERS BACKING UP TO THAT PROPERTY. SO IF IT WAS MY HOUSE, I SURE WOULDN'T WANT IT THERE. LET'S SAY I'VE INVESTED MY ENTIRE LIFE SAVINGS IN MY HOUSE AND THEN I FIND OUT MY PROPERTY VALUE'S SUDDENLY A LOT LESS. THAT WOULD CONCERN ME, AND THAT'S NOT A POSITIVE IMPACT. THAT'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT, IN MY VIEW. BUT THAT'S WHAT HE STATED, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT OR NOT OR IF YOU HAVE AN APPRAISER OR YOU CONSULTED ONE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION, WHOSE LOOKED AT IT, WHATEVER CRAWNCH NO.

THERE IS THE PREVIOUS BORROW PIT THAT DIRECTLY NORTH IT.

SHARES THE BORDER. IT'S ALSO JANET TO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT OPERATED IN 2007 FOR I'M NOT SURE HOW

MANY YEARS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: IT WAS A LOT SMALLER, THOUGH. I SEE ON IT THERE.

I MEAN, IT'S BLUE. IT'S THAT TURQUOISE.

[00:25:03]

THERE IT IS WITH THE WATER. THAT I WAS MUCH SMALLER BORROW PIT, PLUS IT DIDN'T HAVE -- TRUCKS HAVE TO GO RIGHT BY THOSE HOUSES' BACKYARDS, SO THAT WITH I WAS DIFFERENT SCENARIO -- WAS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS THERE.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO STOP MY QUESTIONING BUT I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS LATER THAT ARE FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THEIR REVIEW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THEIR REVIEW, SO I'M GOING TO READ SOME MORE MATERIALS RIGHT OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT, BUT THANK YOU WEAT TO GO TO PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT THIS POINT.

>> MS. PERKINS: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OH, YEAH. SORRY.

>> MS. PERKINS: NOW WE CAN TO GO PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. CHUCK LABANOWKSI.

>> SPEAKER: CHUCK LABANOWKSI NOW SI 748 NORTH CAPPERO.

I'VE GUY GOT A FEW CONCERNS. NUMBER ONE IS THE WETLANDS AND THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESENTATION.

YOU HAVE THE WETLAND HERE WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE.

IT'S GOING TO GET AFFECTED BY THAT PIT.

IT'S GOING TO DRAIN THAT WETLAND.

YOU'RE TAKING AWAY HALF OF IT BUT THAT PIT IS STILL GOING TO BE THERE, THE RESULTS OF THAT PIT ARE STILL GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES THERE. YOU ALSO HAVE ON THE NORTH END THE EDGE OF THE WETLANDS. THAT'S GOING TO GET AFFECTED BY THE CUTTING OF THAT BORROW PIT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BACKING UP TO THE HOME THAT ARE THERE. THERE IS AN ISSUE.

THERE'S A STAGING AREA RIGHT HERE.

A STAGING AREA. NOW, THEY'RE ONLY GOGHT OPERATE SIX DAYS A WEEK. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT EQUIPMENT BREAKS DOWN AND THEY'VE GOT TO WORK ON THAT EQUIPMENT ON A SUNDAY? THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE IN THOSE PEOPLE'S BACKYARD CREATING NOISE AND HURTING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE HOMEOWNERS. WHAT'S IT GOING TO DO TO THE PONDS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA? BOTH PONDS THAT ARE HERE ARE LESS THAN 100 FEET AWAY FROM THAT BORROW PIT.

IS IT GOING TO DRAIN THOSE TWO PONDS ON THOSE PROPERTIES? NOW WE GET BACK TO THE WORST ISSUE THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE ON WHAT THEY SAY IS PACETTI ROAD WHICH IS UNDERUTILIZATION RIGHT NOW.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT REPORT WAS DONE ON PACETTI ROAD. IT'S OVER CAPACITY RIGHT NOW.

III GOING TO END UP GOING NORTH ON PACETTI.

THEY'RE GOING TO HIT THE IGP AREA, 16 AREA.

WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO FROM THERE.

WE HAVE SMALL COUNTRY ROADS THAT ARE LEADING INTO THAT AREA.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 208. IT CANNOT HOLD THAT TYPE OF TRAFFIC, NOT THAT MANY TRUCK RUNS.

YEAH, THERE IS A BORROW PITPOSE. IT WAS A SMALL BORROW PIT.

NOW, ARE THEY GOING TO END UP HAVING A CLEANING STATION GOING FROM THAT PIT ONTO 208? WHAT ARE THE PLANS TO KEEP 208 CLEAN? SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY ON A RAINY DAY WHEN IT'S NOTHING BUT A NICE SLICK AREA. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU DENY THIS.

IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE TO THE AREA. THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THE NEXT

SPEAKER IS MARIE COLEE. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD MARIE COLEE 5949 COUNTY ROAD 208. ALSO I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT I AM AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, I WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH THIS REVIEW, SO I AM HERE SPEAKING SOLELY ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY AS AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER.

FIRST OF ALL, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD ARE WITH REGARD TO THE ANDREW OF , AS WAS STATED EARLIER AND THIS IS ONLY A PORTION -- THIS IS THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY HERE.

WE HAVE AN EXISTING POND WHICH IS UTILIZED FOR OUR CATTLE, FOR DRINKING PURPOSES AS WELL AS STAYING COOL IN THE HOT WEATHER.

THIS IS OUR WELL UP HERE. I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL TO KNOW WHETHER THE DEWATERING SITUATION IS GOING TO EFFECT US, HOWEVER, IT DOES HAVE A CONCERN OF MINE. ALSO, WITH REGARD TO THE BUFFER THAT'S REQUIRED, I KNOW THAT THS TO BE OVER HERE AND COME UP THIS WAY. OUR PROPERTY IS HERE.

THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEARED AT SOME POINT AND WE CAN THROW A

[00:30:03]

WITH REGARD TO THE RIM DITCH, ONCE AGAIN, I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL IN THIS AREA, BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT IF IT OVERFLOWS AND INTO THE WETLANDS HERE, WHICH WOULD BE THE NATURAL FLOW FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S GOING TO COME ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND HOW THAT GOING TO AFFECT US AS WELL.

SO IF THEY COULD CLARIFY THAT THE RIM DITCH IS GOING TO HOLD THAT WATER AND BE ABLE TO PUMP OUT WHAT EXCESS THERE MIGHT BE SO AS NOT TO AFFECT US. I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE HAVING AN ELECTRIC PUMP VERSUS A DIESEL PUMP.

THAT WILL HELP WITH THE NOISE AS WELL.

ALSO, I WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER THEY INTEND TO PLACE ANY LIGHTING ON-SITE, AND IF SO IF THEY COULD SHIELD IT FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. AND WITH THAT, SHOULD THE AGENCY DECIDE TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, I WAS HOPING THAT YOU MAY OFFER SOME -- SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

LIKE I SAID, MAYBE MOVE THE PUMP TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY EDGE, ALTHOUGH IF IT'S GOING TO BE QUIET, THAT'S FINE.

I DON'T LIVE ON THAT END OF IT BUT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THERE. IF LIGHTING IS INSTALLED, TO HAVE IT SHIELDED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

WE'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK THAT THE CONDITION BE CHANGED WITH REGARD TO THE HAUL DAYS AND ALLOW FOR MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY ONLY.

I'M SORRY. I'LL WRAP THIS UP REAL QUICK.

SO THAT IT WOULD ALLOW US AND OUR FAMILY TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY ON THE WEEKENDS AND WITHOUT THE NOISE FROM THE TRUCKS TRAVELING.

AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE CHILDREN THAT CATCH THE BUS ON COUNTY ROAD 208, SO AT THAT TIME OF MORNING IS WHEN THEY'RE BEING PICKED UP BY THE BUS AND WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY IN GENERAL. BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU, MS. COLEE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER

CARDS? >> DR. HILSENBECK: THERE ARE

NONE. >> MS. PERKINS: MS. EVANS,

WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK UP. >> CHRISTINA .

CRAWNCHT THE CRAWRCHL THE LICE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY INCLUDES MAINTENANCE, CLEANING UP AFTER THE VEHICLES AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT AREA IS CLEAR. I THINK IT WAS DAILY SWEEPTION OF THE AREA. -- SWEEPINGS OF THE AREA.

THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PACETTI ROAD, THE TWO LINKS THAT ARE ALONG HAUL ROUTES ARE COUNTY ROAD 208 TO SAMARRA LAKERS AND THAT ONE IS AT 48.7% AND SNARE A LAKES TO STATE ROUD 16 IS 64.2%, AND THE ESTIMATED DAILY TRUCKS GENERATED WAS NOT GOING TO MAKE THOSE ROADWAYS DEFICIENT OR CRITICAL.

THE CONDITIONS DID STATE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DURING PEAK SCHOOL TRAVEL TIME, SO THAT WAS SET SEVERANCE A.M. TO 9:00 A.M.

AND 2:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M. AND IF THERE ARE ANY SCHOOLS ALONG THE ROUTE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO -- THEY WILL -- THE HAULERS WILL BE GIVEN DIFFERENT ROUTES TO AVOID SCHOOLS.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TOM WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP TALK ABOUT THE RIM DITCH AND DRAINAGE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TOM BAR LEPT I'M WITH MATTHEWS DESIGN YIEWP AT 7 WALDO STREET IN ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. A COUPLE THINGS.

THE RIM DITCH AND THE PIT ITSELF, SO ON THE PROPERTY WE HAD A DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS DONE BYL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

THEY GAVE US A FULL REPORT ON THAT.

IN HIS REPORT, WHICH I BELIEVE WE'VE SUBMITTED AND EVERYONE HE'S ACCESS TO, IT SPEAKS TO EFFECTS OF THE DRAWDOWN WITHOUT A RIM DITCH AND IT SHOWS POTENTIAL ANDREW EFFECTS OUT TO 600 FEET. BUT AT THAT 600 FEET IT GREATLY REDUCES THE INCOME UP TO THE US SURFERS AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THIS IN THE DIAGRAM. HOWEVER, WITH THE RIM DITCH ITSELF, IT REDUCES THAT GREATLY.

THE DRAWDOWN EFFECT IS HIGHLY REDUCED.

[00:35:03]

AS FOR THE TRAFFIC AROUND THE PIT, I. THIS IS SOMETHING I WANTED TO BRING UP. WE'RE SHOWING IT AT 564,000 CUBIC YARDS. IF WE ASSUME THAT A TRUCK HAULS 13 CUBIC YARDS, WE TAKE THAT OVER FIVE YEARS.

THAT COMES OUT TO ROUGHLY 44,000 TRUCKS, AND WE DIVIDE THAT OVER FIVE YEARS, 8,000 OR 8500 TRUCKS A YEAR.

WE'RE SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 30 TO 35 TRUCKS A DAY IF WE'RE USING THE 260 DAYS OF OPERATION, SO I JUST WANTED TO COME ON THAT, THAT THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LESS THAN 50 WHEN YOU REALLY GET DOWN TO ANALYZING THE VOLUME THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE PIT. THAT WAS IT PRETTY MUCH IN ADDRESSING THE RIM DITCH. OH, WELL, ACTUALLY THERE'S ONE LAST THING. ABOUT THE WATER FLOWING OFF-SITE AND THE PO DPECIAL FOR IT AFFECTING THE WETLAND WE DID A PRE-THE ANALYSIS ANALYSIS USING MOD EDGE SOFTWARE AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SUCCEED THOSE VALUES, AND WE MODEL WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW AT CURRENT, AND THEN IN A POST DEVELOPMENT WE'RE NO PUTTING ANY MORE WATER OR ANY WATER INTO THE LOCATION THAT IT'S ALREADY GOING. THE RIM DITCH ITSELF ACTS AS A TREATMENT, SO IT IS TREATING ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES OR ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HAPPENING THERE.

IT ALL COLLECTS WITHIN THE RIM DITCH AND ARE THAT THEN RIM DITCH GETS SCALED OVER AS THE STABILIZER ROAD AT THE END.

SO BY THE END OF IT IN THE FIVE YEARS THE WATER STABILIZES THE WETLANDS AROUND THERE ARE STABILIZED AS THEY WERE IN THE BEGINNING. PERSONAL THANK YOU.

DR. HILSENBECK, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> DR. HILSENBECK: A COUPLE.

WHAT ABOUT IN THE CONVENIENT CHAFLT A DROUGHT SITUATION? WOULD THIS MINING ACTIVE, RIM DITCH OR NOT, WOULD THAT EXACERBATE NEIGHBORS' WELLS POTENTIALLY GOING DRY OR LOWERING THE WATER TABLE? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING EXCESS WATER OR ENOUGH WATER OR FLOODING WATER, BUT WHAT ABOUT IN A DROUGHT? WHAT MIGHT BE THE NEXT?

I DON'T KNOW. >> SPEAKER: HONESTLY I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TAKE TO THE GEOTECH ENGINEER THAT DID THE HYDROLOGY ON THE SITE. I WOULD IMAGINE IF WE WERE IN A DROUGHT SITUATION THAT THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING ACROSS THE BOARD, THE WATER TABLE WOULD BE DROPPING FOR MANY MILES AROUND, AND THE PIT ITSELF WOULD NOT BE ADDING OR TAKING AWAY FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING OVER EVER OVERALL IN A DRIEWT SITUATION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WEEFN ON AN AN ADJACENT OR CONTIGUOUS

PROPERTY THEN YOU DON'T THINK? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

I BELIEVE IF THERE'S A DROUGHT SITUATION, THE WATER TABLE WOULD BE DROPPING ALL THE WAY OUT TO ON THE ST. JOHN RIVER.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THIN MENTIONED A NUMBER TRUCKLOADS.

ABOUT 44,000, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

>> SPEAKER: ABOUT 44,000. >> DR. HILSENBECK: RIGHT.

THAT'S TO HAUL THE MATERIAL OUT. DON'T THOSE TRUCKS HAVE TO COME BACK OUT, ALSO? YOU'RE NOT TALKING ROUND TRIPS.

YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT NUMBER OF TRIPS TO GET MATERIAL OUT, NOT EMPTY TRUCKS COMING BACK IN, RIGHT? SO WOULDN'T THAT DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS?

>> SPEAKER: IF YOU'RE -- I MEAN, A TRIP IS COMING AND GOING

OR IS A TRIP -- I'M ASKING YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I'M ASKING YOU. I DON'T KNOW.

IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE TELLING US HOW MANY TRIPS IT WOULD TAKE TO HAUL OUT THAT MANY CUBIC YARDS.

>> SPEAKER: IT HAD WOULD TAKE THE 44,000 TRUCKS.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: BUT WHEN THEY LEAVE FULL, THEY'VE GOT TO COME BACK EMPTY TO GET REFILLED AGAIN, SO THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S DOUBLING THAT ESTIMATE YOU JUST GAVE US.

>> SPEAKER: I UNDERSTAND. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT. >> MS. PERKINS: MS. EVANS, DID

YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> CHRISTINA EVANS: .

>> >> SPEAKER: MY NAME IS JOE SMITH. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

WE KNOW MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS. THE ONES THAT WE DON'T KNOW LIVE 1,000 FEET AWAY FROM US MAYBE UP ON 2008.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NOISE ISSUES.

[00:40:06]

IN FACT, ONE OF THEM IS EXTREMELY PLEASED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED AND HOUSING PUT ON IT.

THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE CONSERVATION EASEMENT TIG JUST TO US LIVE, ALL OF THEM LIVE -- WE ARE THE BACK END OF ALL OF THE RESIDENTS. THE ONLY OTHER TWO PEOPLE LIVE OVER 1,000 FEET, THEIR HOMES ARE, AND THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT OF ANY TRUCKS OR ANY SOUND AT THAT POINT FOR THOSE TWO AREAS. AND LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE THAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD EFFECT AND THERE'S NO OPPOSITION AT ALL. MS. COLEE, WHO SAID HER PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO HERS AND LIVES ON 2008, HER HOME 20082008, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR HER HOME IS BUT THEY LIVE ON THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY AT 208, THEIR PROPERTY IS SEVERAL ACRES SO IT'S 1,000 NEAT MAYBE. IT'S MORE THAN THAT LIRLTD TO WHERE THE TRUCKS WILL BE OPERATING.

IT'S 1500 FEET FROM THOSE RESIDENTS.

ADJACENT TO THE COUNTY PROPERTY WHERE THE TOWER IS LOCATED THAT WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT WITH IS A NURSERY WHICH THERE'S NO ISSUES ON THAT BOUNDARY. AND WE ARE GOING TO STABILIZE THE DRIVE COMING OUT WITH THE GRAVEL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DIRT. SO THE ISSUE OF KEEPING 208 CLEAN, TWEAF TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION TO KEEP THAT DIRT AND STUFF OFF OF 20 GO, HOWEVER, WITH OTHER DIRT PITS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, THEY OCCASIONAL ROUTINELY GO OUT AND CLEAN THE ROAD IF THERE IS AN ISSUE. THEY TAKE CARE OF THAT WEEK MAKE SURE THAT THE ROAD DOES NOT BECOME IMPACTED WITH DIRT.

SO WE WILL BE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THOSE.

BUT AS FAR AS THE SOUND IMPACT, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT IN DEPTH. THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ELECTRIC PUMP SO IT DOESN'T RUN. OUR OPERATIONS ARE DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE OPERATING OR DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD GO DWROND THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

-- BEYOND THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE, THERE IS A STAGING AREA THAT SHOWS BACK IN THE BACK CORNER.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE SHOP ON THE REMAINING PROPERTY.

I HAVE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AND THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE MAINTENANCE WOULD BE DONE, NOT DOWN IN THAT STAGING AREA IN THE BACK. SO IT WOULD BE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. AND IF YOU DO AN AERIAL VIEW, YOU CAN SEE THAT BARN. AND IT'S ONLY -- THAT BARN IS ONLY ABOUT 300 FEET FROM WHERE THE PIT WOULD BE DUG, SO IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY CONVENIENT FOR TO US WORK OUT OF THAT AREA AND NOT BACK IN THAT BACK CORNER.

THAT CORNERBACK THERE, THEY SHOW IT AS A STAGING AREA, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT WE WILL EVER DO ANY MAINTENANCE BACK IN THAT AREA. THAT'S IT.

>> MR. PIERRE: >> MS. PERKINS: DR. HILSENBECK, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: COULD I ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, PLEASE. SO THIS IS MAINLY GRAVEL YOU'RE

PULLING OUT OF THERE? >> SPEAKER: NO, SIR.

IT'S DIRT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: OH, IT IS DIRT. I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID GRAVEL.

>> SPEAKER: WELL, WE TALKED THE TO COUNTY WHEN WE MADE THIS AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD STABILIZE THE ROAD, THE DRIVEWAY, TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE KIND OF ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT DIRT BEING TAKEN TO 208 OFF THE TIRES OR OFF THE TRACKS DURING CERTAIN TIMES SO WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING SOME COVER OR ADDITIONAL PRODUCT WHERE THE DIRT WOULD COME OFF OF THE TIRES.

WE'RE TALKING -- THOSE TRUCKS WILL BE RUNNING ABOUT 1500 FEET BEFORE HER HIT TWONT GO, SO IF WE DO SOMETHING TO STABILIZE THAT DIRT TO KEEP THAT DIRT FROM FIXING UP ADDITIONALLY AS IT COMES OUT, IT WILL HELP EXPLAINT WE'RE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THIS IS MAINLY FILL DIRT?

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WAS YOUR PROPERTY FLATWOODS BEFORE IT GOT CLEARED?

DO YOU KNOW? >> SPEAKER: BASICALLY.

WE'VE DONE SOIL SAMPLES AND EVERYTHING IS A2, A3, WHICH IS A VERY GOOD PRODUCT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND HIGHWAY.

WE HAVE LOOKED AT -- WE SPOKE WITH MATTHEWS BEFORE WE STARTED THIS PROJECT, AND THERE IS A LOT OF HOMES, A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BEING BUILT TO THE NORTH OF US, BUT A LOT OF THE GROWTH IS TO THE NORTHWEST OF US, NOT NORTHEAST OF US, WHICH WE FORESEE NOT DOING A LOT OF TRIPS DOWN PA SET ROAD NOORSLY BECAUSE MOST OF THAT AREA IS DEVELOPED.

MOST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE HOPEFULLY THROUGH 208 DOWN 13A

[00:45:07]

THERE'S A MULTITUDE. I MEAN, 2209 IS COMING THROUGH WITHIN 2 MILES OF US AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THAT AREA, SO WE THINK THAT IT'S AN ASSET TO THE COUNTY FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE AMOUNT OF TRUCKS, THE AMOUNT OF DRIVING.

IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER PITS IN THE AREA, THOSE TRUCKS ARE TRAVELING QUITE A DISTANCE, AND THERE'S CONSTANTLY, CONSISTENTLY TRUCKS OVER OFF OF 214. A PIT JUST DUG OUT THERE, AND THEY'RE IN THE PROCHESZ OPENING ANOTHER PIT FURTHER DOWN SOUTH, BUT WE THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

WE THINK THAT THAT -- THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF, WE DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE AN IMPACT THAT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR NEIGHBORS NOR TO THE COMMUNITY, NOR TO THE TRAFFIC, AND WE PAY

CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: ARE YOU AWARE THAT OTHER -- SINCE YOU MENTIONED SOME OTHER BORROW PITS AROUND, THIS COUNCIL, THIS AGENCY JUST APPROVED ONE JUST EAST OF PACETTI ROAD THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 208 ALSO JUST ABOUT TWO, TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AGO WE JUST APPROVED ONE.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. I'M AWARE OF THAT.

AND LIKE I SAID, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA, THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR GROWTH THROUGHOUT THAT -- I MEAN, ONE DEVELOPMENT DOWN AT THE -- DOWN ON 208 PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TAKEN MY WHOLE BORROW PIT JUST RECENTLY TO RAISE THE LAND.

THEY RAISED THE LAND ABOUT 4 FEET AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRIPS DOWN 208 AND BACK. WISH I HAD HAD MY PERMIT THEN BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT BUSINESS.

BUT AT THIS POINT WITH THE GROWTH POTENTIAL WITHIN THOSE AREAS, WE DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S ANY -- ANY DETRIMENT.

WHAT WE SEE IS A POSITIVE RESPONSE OR A POSITIVE EFFECT ON

THE COMMUNITY. >> DR. HILSENBECK: ALL RIGHT.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MS. PERKINS: MR. SMITH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

>> SPEAKER: OH, I'M SORRY. >> MS. PERKINS: RIGHT HERE.

AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING MS. KEEL HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE LIGHTING, USUALLY WHEN WE SEE THE BORROW PITS, IT'S NOT UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL. ANY LIGHTING? BECAUSE WE DON'T USUALLY ASK THAT QUESTION SPENCHTS NO, MA'AM. WE DON'T PLAN TO BE DOING ANY LIGHTING OUT THERE. EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS IN DAYLIGHT HOURS SO WE DON'T FORESEE ANY ISSUE.

WE'RE NOT PUTTING UP ANY LIGHTING THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT IS NOT ALREADY EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.

>> MS. PERKINS: OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE HAULING DAYS, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH JUST DOING THE HAULING DAYS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY?

>> SPEAKER: YEAH. I MEAN, IF THAT'S -- IF THAT'S NECESSARY. AS I SAID, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN IT AND THE HOMES WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED FROM OUR PROPERTY, THERE'S NO HOMES THAT SET UP AGAINST OUR PROPERTY ANYWHERE EXCEPT ON THE EAST SIDE. AND AS I SAID WE SPOKE TO THOSE PEOPLE. THEY'VE GOT 5 ACRES TRACT AND ALL OF THEM ARE BUILT UP ON THE FRONT END OF THEIR PROPERTY PRETTY MUCH, BUT WE SPOKE TO THEM.

NOT ONE OF THEM HAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

IF THEY WOULD, I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BE HERE TODAY.

AND AS I SAID, THEY'RE HAPPY THAT THEY'RE NOT HOMES BEING

BUILT ON IT. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU, MR. .

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MS.EN OR MR. SMITH? WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO OFFER A MOTION? GOT TO HAVE ONE NO ONE

? >> MR. GREEN: IF YOU DON'T DON'T MIND, I'LL PUT IT. WOULD IT MAKE -- AND HE SLIGHTLY DISCUSSED IT AND MS. KEEL MENTIONED IT, DOING THE FIVE DAYS. DOING A FIVE-DAY WORK WEEK.

DOES THAT MAKE THE HEARTBURN LESS, TO LESS TO THE MEMBERS OR DOES THAT MAKE A MIND CHANGE FOR A MOTION

IS I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. >> MS. PERKINS: I THINK IT PROBABLY HELPS A LITTLE BIT, YEAH.

>> MR. GREEN: ALL RIGHT. I'LL PUT A MOTION OUT.

WHETHER IT GOES OR NOT WE'LL SEE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOWING TO APPROVE G SUPMAJ 2022-05 SMITH

[00:50:04]

>> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE A MOKES FOR APPROVAL BY MR. GREEN, AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

NO SECOND. THAT MOTION -- DO WE HAVE A

SECOND? >> SPEAKER: I WILL SECOND.

>> MS. PERKINS: SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: CAN I ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION? MR. GREEN, YOU SAID IT WAS FIVE DAYS A WEEK FOR DIGGING. DID YOU INTEND TO INCLUDING HAULING IN THAT FIVE DAYS A WEEK AS WELL?

>> MR. GREEN: OH, YES, YES. LET'S PUT PIT OPERATIONS.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: THANK YOU.

>> MR. GREEN: DOES THAT COVER IT?

VANCH AND HAULING. >> MR. GREEN: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION BENCH AND YOU'RE INTENDING MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND APPROVAL FOR A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? NO OTHER DISCUSSION. THEN LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

3. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION FAILS. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: COULD I ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE? THERE'S A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO -- OR CONCERN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST, AND SINCE HE'S SPOKEN TO THEM, MAYBE WE COULD GET THEM TO COME AND WRITE LETTERS IN SUPPORT. AS WELL AS MEASURE OUT ALL THE RESIDENCES AND COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH THAT

INFORMATION. >> MS. PERKINS: THAT MOTION FAILED SO WE'D HAVE TO DO ANOTHER MOTION.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: ANOTHER MOTION IS REQUIRED --

[INAUDIBLE] >> MS. PERKINS: CORRECT.

GREENCH SINCE . >> MR. GREEN: SINCE IT FAILED, IN NIGH MOTION WOULD I WAIT THE ONE-YEAR WAIT PERIOD OR HOW WOULD I MAKE THE MOTION? WOULD YOU MAKE IT FOR ME?

>> MS. PERKINS: YOUR MOTION FAILED, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION IN THE OPPONENT DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER

MOTION. >> MR. GREEN: RIGHT.

BOUGHT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, NOTION FAILED SO IT'S A DENIAL,

RIGHT? >> MS. PERKINS: IT IS NOT A

DENIAL. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.:

IT'S NOT AN APPROVAL. >> MS. PERKINS: NO.

>> MR. GREEN: I WAS JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE ONE-YEAR WAIT PERIOD. I DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT IN LEGAL WORDING. BUT IF YOU SAY IT'S FINE, IT'S

FINE. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: I THINK A CONTINUANCE WOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: A CONTINUANCE WOULD REQUIRE A

MOTION. >> MS. PERKINS: DO WE HAVE

ANOTHER MOTION? >> MR. GREEN: I WOULD LIKE TO DO A CONTINUANCE BASED ON -- HELP ME.

VANCH YOU DO NOT REALLY NEED GROUNDS FOR A CONTINUANCE IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

IF YOU PROVIDE A TIME CERTAIN THEN THEY DO NOT NEED TO READVERTISE THE SUBL SEQUENT PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU MAY WANT SOME INPUT AS TO WHEN THAT SECOND HEARING WOULD

BE FOR YOUR MOTION. >> MS. PERKINS: MS. EVANS.

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: WHAT'S THE NEXT MEETING?

LET ME PULL UP MY >> CH: LET ME PULL UP MY CALENDAR

CRAWNCH CAN WE DO FOUR WEEKS? >> TERESA BISHOP: THE NEXT

MEETING IS DECEMBER 1ST. >> MS. PERKINS: FZ MS. EVANS,

WOULD YOU LIKE DECEMBER 1ST? >> CHRISTINA EVANS: DECEMBER 1ST IS FINE GLEENCHTS THAT'S PART OF MY MOTION,

DECEMBER 1ST. >> MS. PERKINS: SO THE MOTION IS TO CONTINUANCE UNTIL DECEMBE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. PIERRE. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, I HAVEN'T BEEN SITTING UP HERE AS LONG AS SOME FOLKS, ONLY ABOUT THREE YEARS, BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN THE REGULAR PROTOCOL OF THIS BOARD IS AFTER A VOTE IS TAKEN IS NOT THE TIME TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE.

IT'S BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN. SO OUR CHAIRPERSON HAS WALK IN N NOW. OUR REGULAR NORMAL CHAIRPERSON IS OVER THERE. HE DIDN'T WEIGH ON THIS BUT I WONDER IF HE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT.

BUT NORMALLY WE DON'T GRANT CONTINUANCES AFTER A VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN. YOU REQUEST THAT PRIOR TO.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'LL THINK, BUT I'D LIKE AN OPINION.

>> MS. PERKINS: ALL WE'VE GOT TO DO IS VOTE.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO DISCUSS? ALICE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH

[00:55:04]

IN? >> SPEAKER: I I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A CHAIRPERSON AND THERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A MOTION WE SHOULD MAKE A MOTION REGARDLESS OF WHO IS SITTING IN THAT CHAIR.

>> MS. PERKINS: MR. GREEN. >> MR. GREEN: I SURELY WOULD THINK THE APPLICANT PROBABLY THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO PASS, SO I WOULD NOT ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE IF I THOUGHT IT COULD VOTE FOR PASS. IF I WAS THINKING SHE THOUGHT MAYBE IT WASN'T GOING TO PASS, SHE MAY HAVE TAKEN THAT RISK.

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: I HAD ASKED THE OWNER, AND WHEN I GOT UP HERE, YOU GUYS WERE STARTING TO VOTE, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT ASKING FOR THE CONTINUANCE.

>> MR. GREEN: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT ALSO HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE MANY A TIME, SO --

>> MS. PERKINS: ANY OTHER -- MR. PIERRE.

>> MR. PIERRE: SO BACK TO LEGAL AGAIN, IS THIS PROPER PROTOCOL? IS THIS SOMETHING WE ARE GOING TO DO BY DOING A CONTINUANCE? I THINK THAT'S THE AGENCY'S

DISCRETION. >> MS. PERKINS: IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NORMALLY HAVE DONE, RIGHT? USUALLY THE CONTINUANCE IS ASKED BEFORE WE VOTE.

THEY DIDN'T COME UP IN TIME, SO IT'S A NOW OUR DECISION WHETHER WE WANT TO GRANT THAT OPPORTUNITY TO THEM TO AT LEAST GO TO THE OTHER NEIGHBORS AND HAVE THEM COME BACK OR POSSIBLY GET WITH MS. COLEE AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS ON THEIR APPLICATION AND ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SOME BUFFERING.

MAYBE WE'VE WE GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. IT'S UP TO US TO GRANT THAT CONTINUANCE. I THINK THAT AT LEAST GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH MS. COLEE AND OTHER NEIGHBORS TO AT LEAST EXPRESS THEIR CONCERN. NO OTHER NEIGHBORS SHOWED UP.

THAT'S MY OPINION. >> MR. GREEN: CALL THE

QUESTION. >> MS. PERKINS: LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A VOTE FOR A CONTINUANCE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES. YOU HAVE A CONTINUANCE UNTIL

DECEMBER. >> CHRISTINA EVANS: THANK YOU

VERY MUCH. >> MS. PERKINS: MR. MATOVINA,

WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE OVER? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: WHILE MR. MATOVINA IS COMING TO THE DAIS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO READ FROM YOUR PLANNING & ZONING AGENCY RULES REGARDING VOTING, SECTION 10 STATES A FAILURE TO RECEIVE A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT DEFEATS THE QUESTION FOR THE AGENCY.

IF NO FURTHER MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL IS MADE, THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED DENIED AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IS MADE PART OF THE DETERMINATION. SO I WOULD CONSIDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THE ITEM, TABLED ITEM WOULD BE IN

THAT OPTION IF THE MOTION FAILS. >> MR. MATOVINA: AND I'D LIKE TO NOW SPEAK TO THAT ITEM. RICHARD, I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM WHEN YOU ASKED BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR THE WHOLE ITEM SO I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FAIR TO EITHER THE AUDIENCE OR THE APPLICANT TO COMMENT, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU ALL THAT BASED ON WHAT I HEARD, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE NEXT MOTION MIGHT BE TO APPROVE IT WITHOUT THE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY CONDITION.

[Items 3 & 4]

SO YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR ITEM WAS TO GO ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. DIDN'T HEAR ENOUGH DISCUSSION AND DIDN'T HEAR ENOUGH PEOPLE SAY, I'M VOTING AGAINST THIS IN GENERAL. QUITE FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE, BUT THEY DID AND GOT IT. ANYWAY, THAT'S MY OPINION AFTER THE FACT. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3 AND MS. SMITH, AND IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO

DECLARE WITH ITEM NUMBER 3? >> SPEAKER: SO THESE ARE BOTH ITEMS 3 AND 4. WOULD Y'ALL REPORT TO VOTE FOR 3 AFTER 3 AND 4 AFTER 4 OR BOTH AT ONCE?

>> MR. MATOVINA: SORRY. ONE PRESENTATION WOULD BE GREAT

AND WE CAN DO TWO VOTES. >> SPEAKER: PERFECT.

SO THE VIDEO FIRST IS ONE A REQUEST FOR A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMOUNT OF TO CHANGE 2 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL D AT 875 WEST KING STREET. APPROVAL OF THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW ABORT THE RECEIPT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT NEEDED TO REPLACE A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

THE CURRENT MOBILE HOME UNIT WAS DAMAGED BY HURRICANE MATTHEW IN 2016 AND IS BEING REPLACED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY CDBG DISASTER INCH EVER RECOVERY ST. JOHNS PROGRAM THE NEW HOME IS TO BE A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME UNIT WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND TWO BATHROOMS POP SORP. MACKENZIE SMITH, 200 SAN

[01:00:01]

THERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS RS3, A SPECIAL USE PER SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A MOBILE HOME UNIT IN AN RS-3 ZONING. THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWING THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE.

AND THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR RESIDENTIAL D.

AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW MOBILE HOME UNIT. AND THE NEXT ONE IS THE REQUEST TO -- FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME WITH A NEW MOBILE HOME UNI UNIT.

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CONSIST BOTH SITE BUILT AND MOBILE HOMES, ADJACENT MOBILE HOMES LOCATED AT 870 WEST 3RD STREET, 988 WEST 4TH STREET AND 825 SOUTH VOLUSIA STREET.

THERE'S THE AERIAL MAP AGAIN. THE LOCATION MAP AGAIN.

THE FUTURE LAND USE AND CURRENT LAND USE.

AND THE ZONING MAP SHOWING IT'S RS3.

THE ADJACENT MOBILE HOMES ARE OUTLINED IN RED AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS OUTLINED IN BLUE AT THE TOP.

AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> MS. PERKINS: WE DO NOT. >> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY.

SO WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 3.

MS. PERKINS 3E6R7B8G9S MOTION . >> MS. PERKINS: MOTION TO PROPOSAL APPROVAL OF CPA SMALL SCALE 2022 2022-15 AT 875 WETION KING STREET BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MS. Y MR. PETER.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4.

[5. CPA(SS) 2022-14 Kings Estate Road]

MEGAN. >> MS. PERKINS: MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE SER MUTT MIN 2022-08 AT 875 WEST KING STREET SUBJECTED TO 11 CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MS. Y MR. PETER.

ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES 6 TO ZER.

NEXT ITEM WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS MR. DAVENPORT.

AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECLARE WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM? MR. GREEN, YOU DIDN'T REGISTER A VOTE.

THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO EX PARTE ON

THIS ONE? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.:

NO, IT'S A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. >> MR. MATOVINA: NEVER MIND ABOUT E PARTE. MR. DAVENPORT.

>> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. GARY DAVEN FOR THE II WON 2 SOUTH SHADOWWOOD HERE FOR IF KING ROAD SMALL SCALE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS CASING ESTATE PARTNERS WHICH IS JESSE KILLEBREW WHO IS HERE WITH ME TODAY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE A PROSPECTIVE BILLER BUILDER AND BUYER OF THE PROPERTY IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS FUTURE -- FUTURE USE.

SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A 3.89 ACRES ON THE CORNER OF OLD KINGS AND KINGS ESTATE. IT'S BORDERED BY THOSE TWO ROADS AS WELL AS THE RAILROAD AND A LARGE COUNTY POND THAT'S OUT FRONT. SO THIS IS YOUR LOCATION.

THIS IS RELATING TO THE ZONING. SO BASICALLY THE POINT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE HERE IS THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE. IT'S INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH I'LL ADDRESS IN A MINUTE, BUT IT WAS ZONED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE IN 1984 AS A PART -- THE PROPERTY TO THE TOP, THAT'S COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE AND THEN THERE'S INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE UP DOBBS ROAD WHICH I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. ALL OF THAT IS PART OF THE SAME ZONING IN 1984. FOR SOME REASON, THE COMP PLAN, HAD IT WHEN IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE, DESIGNATED THAT AREA RESIDENTIAL C, BUT IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH INDUSTRIAL TWHAIRS THAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO ESSENTIALLY WE ARE REQUESTINN BE CHANGED TO MIXED USE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING

[01:05:05]

THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO IN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, RESIDENTIAL C IT. SAYS COMMERCIAL CORNER.

IT'S NEXT TO A RAILROAD. IT'S NOT REALLY A GOOD RESIDENTIAL PLACE IF IT WERE GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING LIKE 23 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, BUT EVEN ON THE RAILROAD IT DOESN'T SEEM COMPAT IB, SO WE'RE ASKING THE THAT COMP PLAN BE CHANGED TO MATCH THE EXISTING ZONING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 38 YEARS.

SO THE CONDITIONS WITHIN THE 1984 ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE USES TO WAREHOUSE, WHOLESALE, DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, PRINTING, PUBLISHING, RADIO AND TELEVISION, AND VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS.

THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO WITH THIS. THE MORE INTENSE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USES THAN THE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED THERE.

SO THIS IS -- SORRY. I JUST WENT OVER THE ZONING HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AT CW.

IT WAS ITCH W BEFORE. IT WAS JUST CHANGED TO CW RECENTLY. SO THE CURRENT FLUME IS RESIDENTIAL C. WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE CHANGED TO MIXED USE DISTRICT. THIS IS A PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

THIS ISN'T A ZONING. THIS ISN'T A PUD.

PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS, AS YOU SHOULD PUT IN A PROPOSED SIT PLAN, SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A COOKIE CUTTER SITE PLAN.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S GOING TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS.

BUT THIS DOES ILLUSTRATE WHERE THE BUFFERS WOULD BE.

THERE WILL BE A 30-FOOT BOWFORT INTOWNTSDZ RI WHICH IS THE ONLY BOUNDARY THAT IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S ALLOWED TO BE TWO ROADS. THERE WILL BE A MAIN ROAD OUT ONTO THE EAST-WEST ROAD THEN SECONDARY ACCESS SOUTH OF THE COUNTY POND. AS TRUST DESCREASD THERE'S REALLY NO PRACTICAL RESIDENTIAL USE, IN MY OPINION.

IT'S BEEN THE RAILROAD. IT'S BEEN BUSY ROADS.

IT'S ON ON A RESIDENTIAL -- I'M SORRY -- A COMMERCIAL CORNER.

THERE'S NO PROTECTED PLANTS OR SPACEY'S ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. THERE IS A SMALL ISOLATED WETLAND THAT WILL BE IMPACTED. AND AGAIN, THE BUFFER TO THE SOUTH WOULD BE A 30-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. SO ESSENTIALLY THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR WHATEVER QUHES THE BOARD WOULD HAVE AND FOR REBUTTAL IF THERE IS ANY PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE -- HOLD ON ONE SECOND ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER.

23U WOULD HAVE A SEAT, MR. DAVENPORT.

GLENN CHATARO OH, HARRELL.

I'M SORE. THAT'S AN O.

>> SPEAKER: YES. 2773 KINGS ROAD.

YOU KNOW, I'M OBJECTING TO THE CHANGE OF LAND USE AT THIS PROPERTY. WHEN MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY TO BUILD A HOME YEARS AGO, WE BOUGHT IN IT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HOPE AND THE ENJOYMENT WE HAD OF THAT PROPERTY WAS GREAT. WE ENJOYED THE -- THE LIVED HOOD WE HAD THERE. AND THE VISION OF -- LIVELIHOOD.

WELL. MY APOLOGIES.

I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. DON'T USUALLY SPEAK IN FROIVET CROWDS. BUT TODAY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REZONING REQUEST OR CHANGE OF LAND USE REQUEST, AND, YOU KNOW, A CHANGE MEANS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING DONE WRONG.

I THINK IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE. THERE'S A NATURAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE EXISTING LAND USE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF KINGS ESTATE GOING DOWN DOBBS ROAD. THAT BOUNDARY IS BEING CROSSED NOW AND BRINGING ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD AREA. AND THAT'S REALLY MY MAIN POINT TO BRING UP. I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A -- YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M LIVING ACROSS THAT.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO MY RETIREMENT.

I'M LOIRVEGD TO EVER LOOKING FORWARD TO SPENDING TIME OUT IN MY YARD ALL DAY LONG, AND TO BE LOOKING AT A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR ACROSS THE STREET IS NOT SOMETHING APPEALING TO ME.

AND I HOPE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL OF THIS CAUSE, THIS

[01:10:03]

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER SPEAKER CARDS, CORRECT? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY REBUTTAL?

>> SPEAKER: YES, MR. CHAIR. JUST ONE POINT VERY QUICKLY.

I WANTED TO RITTER THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ZONED IW IN 1984, AND WHEN MR. HARE ODDLY BOUGHT HIS PROPERTY, COORDINATING TOTE PROPERTY APPRAISERS' RECORD -- DIDN'T INDEPENDENTLY VALIDATE IT BUT COORDINATING TO THE PROPERTY RECORDS, HE BAWTD HIS PROPERTY IN 1989 AND BUILT HIS HOME IN 1983 SO THE ZONING WAS THERE AT THAT TIME.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: IT WAS MORE DISCUSSION THAN QUESTIONS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SURE. MR. GREEN.

>> MR. GREEN: YES. IS IT MR. HARE ODDLY? O'HARE ODDLY. IS HE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS

PROPERTY? >> SPEAKER: I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER BUT HE'S TO THE SOUTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORD.

>> MR. GREEN: WAS WHERE THE HOLDEN POND RETENTION AREA IS?

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MS. PERKINS. >> MS. PERKINS: MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CPA SMALL SCALE 2022-14 KINGS ESTATE ROAD BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. PERKINS.

SECOND BY MR. PIERRE. AND DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WHEN THE PROPERTY TO THE -- AT THE NORTHWEST DUE NORTH OF THIS, IT WAS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ESTATE ROAD AND DOBBS ROAD, THAT CAME UP A COUPLE YEARS AGO FOR REZONING, AND I VOTED FOR THAT.

I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT IT AND DROVE ALL AROUND OUT THERE. I DIDN'T GO OUT THERE THIS TIME.

I DIDN'T THINK MUCH HAD CHANGED. BUT I DID VOTE FOR THAT ONE.

BUT TO ME THERE'S A FAIRLY HARD LINE THERE ON KINGS ESTATE ROAD.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS THAT'S ON PAGE TWFLT AGENDA ITEM -- 12 OF THE AGENDA ITEM AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FOUR COMPASS DIRECTIONS NORTH ACROSS KINGS ESTATE ROAD, YOU'VE GOT MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE OR UNDEVELOPED, WEST RES-C OR OR, SOUTH RES-B OR RES-2, AND EAST ACROSS THE RAILROAD RES-C OR OR, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THOSE LAST TWO. I JUST THINK THERE SHOULD BE A

[6. COMPAMD 2022-03 SR 207 & Wildwood Self-Storage]

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES 5 TO 2. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: FOR THE RECORD IT'S 4 TO 2.

>> MR. MATOVINA: 4 TO 2. THANK YOU.

I AUTOMATICALLY GO TO THAT ODD NUMBER, BEING ODD.

OKAY. I NEED TO REPORT POINT A NEW VICE CHAIR. SO WOULD YOU MIND MOVING BACK OVER AGAIN. ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6, MR. BURNETT.

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: GOOD AFTERNOON.

FOR THE REPORTED DOUG BURNETT ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAW GROUP 103 SEA GROVE, MAIN STREET. IT SEESMS LIKE AT LEAST THREE OF YOU WEREN'T HERE AT THE LAST MEETING FOR THIS ITEM SO I'LL GO THROUGH WHEN WE WENT FOR TRANSMITTAL.

I KNOW MR. HILSENBECK AND MR. PIERRE WERE HERE.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE OTHER THREE OF YOU WERE HERE THAT DAY.

SEEMS LIKE YOU WEREN'T. THIS IS A WILDWOOD SELF STORAGE -- LET'S LET ME SEE IF MY POWERPOINT.

WITH ME TODAY IS RANDALL WHITFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT OF ASH PROPERTIES WHICH YOU MAY HEAR FROM.

ALSO IS GABE BOWMAN OUR PROJECT MANAGER.

THERE WE GO. JUST A QUICK DROUGHN.

ASH PROPERTIES, IT'S A LEADER IN NORTH FLORIDA.

IT'S A FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESS LOCATED IN NORTH FLORIDA.

[01:15:02]

11 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY AND GROWING.

THE PROJECT AREA WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS ABOUT MID-WAY BETWEEN 312 AND I-95 ON 2007. GIVE YOU A LITTLE CLOSER LOOK FROM AN AERIAL PERSPECTIVE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WILDWOOD DRIVE COMING UP THE 207. THE INTERSECTION THERE OF WILDWOOD DRIVE AND 207. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S BRINKERHOFF ROAD WHICH HAS BEEN BUILT OBVIOUSLY, AND FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER AT THAT INTERSECTION OF BRINKERHOFF ROAD AND 207, AND ONE OF THE LARGE REGIONAL PARKS IN OUR COUNTY, TREAT PARK.

AND THEN THAT POLYGON THAT JUST CAME INTO VIEW THERE IN THE MIDDLE IS THE NEW PUBLIX SITE WHICH IS LOCATED DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR SITE. THIS PHOTO HAS BEEN TAKEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO BUT THIS IS THE PHOTO OF THE PUBLGDZ PUBLIX BUILDINGS. IT'S NEAR COMPLETION AT THIS STAGE AND JUST A AERIAL VIEW. IT'S OBVIOUSLY FARTHER ALONG THAN THIS 37 IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NEARLY COMPLETE AT THIS STAGE.

BUT THAT'S GIEG DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE SPHREEPTD YOU CAN SEE LINING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ALONG 207 THERE'S A MUHAJIR SWATH OF MIXED USE ALONG 207 WHICH IS REALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT'S BEEN THERE HISTORICALLY OVER THE YEARS.

YOU'VE GOT REALLY ALMOST EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN ALONG 207. YOU'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY.

YOU'VE GOT MULTI-FAMILY. YOU'VE GOT THE APARTMENTS RIGHT AUTO LIGHTSEY ROAD. YOU'VE GOT OLD INDUSTRIAL USES LIKE STRAITS WELDING, THE JUNKYARD, THE AUTOMOBILE TOWING FACILITY, AND THEN ALL KINDS OF COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ALONG THIS AREA AS WELL. AND THIS FRIEND A ZONING STANDPOINT WHICH IS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ALREADY, SO THIS SITE ALREADY HAS COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, SO THIS USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT FOR SELF STORAGE.

THE PROJECT ITSELF, YOU CAN SEE OUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP HERE OF WHAT WE WOULD BE USING FOR THE SITE.

SITE DATA TABLE, I'M JUST COME BACK TO YOU.

IT E THE TOTAL SITE IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MOMENT.

YOU'VE HEARD THIS BUT I'LL PREETI THIS TODAY.

YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY THIS BEFORE HOE.

THE THE SELF STORAGE INDUSTRY AS MUCH LIKE THE CONVENIENCE STORE INDUSTRY OF WHAT 101 YEARS AGO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONVENIENCE STORES OF 20 YEARS AGO, IT'S THE CHEAPEST BOX YOU COULD BUILD WITH THE CHEAPEST ROOF YOU COULD BUILD TO HOLD THE GOODS THAT WENT IN THERE AND THERE WEREN'T AS MANY OF THEM, SO THE ONE THAT WAS CLOSEST TO YOU, YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN OPTION.

THERE IT WAS. IN TODAY'S WORLD WE OBVIOUSLY SEE WHERE THE CONVENIENCE STORE INDUSTRY THEY'RE BUILT VERY NICE. THEY'RE BUILT ATTRACTIVE TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS TO COME TO THEM.

IT'S A MORE COMPETITIVE MARKET. I THINK THE SELF STORAGE INDUSTRY IS MUCH THE SAME. THIS IS NOT A GRAPHIC DEPICTION.

THIS IS AN ACTUAL PHOTO OF A FACILITY THAT ASH PROPERTIES HAS BUILT, AND THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING.

AGAIN, MANY STORAGE, SELF STORAGE, PERSONAL PROPERTY WAREHOUSE ALLOWED BY RIGHT UNDER CI SOAMG.

MIXED USE AS I SOWED YOU BEFORE, THAT'S WHAT LARGELY THIS AREA IS AND WHAT FUTURE LAND USE. IT ALLOWS A LITANY OF POTENTIAL USES ON THIS PROPERTY. THE ONLY PROBLEM WE HAVE UNDER THE COMP PLAN IS MIXED USE DISTRICTS CAPPED AT 70% FAR FAR FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO. I THINK OF I FLOOR AREA RATIO AS LOT COVERAGE, HOW MUCH BUILDING DOES IT COVER BUT IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT. IT COUNTS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EVERY FOUR. SOME JURISDICTION DON'T EVEN UNDER COUNT FLOOR AREA RATIO IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS BUT ST. JOHNS COUNTY DOES, AND WHAT THAT RESULT IN, IF WE GO WALK TO OUR SITE DATA TABLE AT 105,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE, IF WE APPLY SO MANY MATH TO IT, THEN IT GIVES US ABOUT 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE THAT COULD BE ON THIS SITE. WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY TO THIS SITE TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN FAR LIMITED SOLELY TO THIS SITE. NOT EVERY SITE.

COUNTY. WE KNOW IF WE CAME AND ASKED FOR SOMETHING UNIFORMLIY, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN, AND THERE'S ALWAYS THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. WITH THIS YOU KNOW PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET ON THIS SITE BASED ON WHAT'S AROUND IT, ITS UNIQUE LOCATION AND ALSO WHAT THE BUILDING PLAN IS. FROM THE STAFF REPORT WE'RE WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY.

AS A SAID EARLIER, MIXED USE, CI, 120% FLOOR AREA IN LIEU OF THE 70%, AND AGAIN IT'S LIMITED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS LOCATION.

[01:20:06]

IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, CI ALLOWS FOR ALL OF THESE USES. NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS, HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL, BY COMMERCIAL, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC SERVICE, GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE. WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THAT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL ONES IN THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL, YOU HAVE USES THAT ARE -- THAT IT CONTEMPLATES A USE COULD POTENTIALLY BE INTENSE, IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THAT'S NOT WHAT SELF STORAGES IS. CITY OF STORAGE IS QUIET -- CITY OF SELF STORAGE IS QUIET, LOW INTENSITY.

SURE, YOU HAVE A BUILDING BUT OTHER THAN THIS IT'S NOT GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT ITS NEIGHBORS, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THIS SITE ALREADY. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS TELLING YOU BY APPROVING THIS, YOU'RE PAVING THE WAY FOR THIS SITE TO ACTUALLY BE BETTER THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY OR WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD GO ON THERE. I MEAN, HIGH INTENSITY, VEHICLE SALES. YOU LSHED HAVE BIC BOGGS RAIRLS THAT CAN COULD BE ON SITE. BARS, BEDDING CENTERS, KENNEL FACILITIES. THAT'S ACTUALLY AROUND THIS SITE ALREADY ADJACENT TO IT. GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT CONTEMPLATES NUISANCE, NOISE, HIGH LEVELS OF TRUCK TRAFFIC. IN FACT, I PULLED PUBLIC SERVICT IN HERE. THAT MAP THAT'S ON THERE IS ACTUALLY IS COUNTY JAIL. THAT'S A USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE AS AN EXAMPLE.

I GUESS ONE OF THE MORE NUISANCE USES THAT YOU POSSIBLY COULD HAVE. JUST A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF POTENTIAL USES UNDER COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE.

IT IS EXACTLY THAT, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL.

SELF STORAGE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THOUGH, VERY MINIMUM TRAFFIC, LESS PARKING DEMAND, LOW NOISE, NO NUISANCE, LESS IMPACT TO ITS NEIGHBORS, LESS IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES.

THE. THERE ARE VERY FEW EMERGENCY CALLS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, AMBULANCE, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, AND JUST LOW IMPACT IN GENERAL COMPARED TO CA-I.

BUT I SHOULD SHOW YOU SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF INCORPORATED ON HERE. IF YOU LOOK AT A SERVICE STATION COULD BE IN CI. THAT'S 642 TIMES MORE TRAFFIC PER SQUARE FOOT THAN SELF STORAGE.

YOU ALSO LOOK AT WHAT ELSE COULD BE ON THERE, TIRE SALES, AUTOMOBILE REPAIR GARAGE. THE NOISE OF AN IMPACT REFEREN WRENCH. THE NOISE OF A REVERSE TRUCK GOING BEEP BEEP AT A NURSERY ON A BUILDING SUPPLY CENTER.

YOU ALWAYS HEAR THOSE THINGS CREW OF SITE.

AN IMPACT WRENCH, DOGS BARKING, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE US T NUISANCE POTENTIALLY BY NATURE, AND THAT'S WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED ON THIS SITE. TRAFFIC COMPARISON, THOUGH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH YOU SEE SELF STORAGE UP THERE.

THIS IS JUST A LITTLE SCENARIO WHERE YOU CAN SEE A DIFFERENCE.

IF YOU TAKE A SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S 21,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, YOU GET DAILY TRIPS IN THE 2900 RANGE VERSUS 160. YOU GET P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS AT 17 VERSUS 242. IT'S AN INTERESTING COMPARISON BECAUSE OUR SITE WOULD ALLOW FOR 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF SHOPPING AND AND RESTAURANT, NOT MERELY 28,000 STARE FEET.

SO HUGELY INTENSE USE POTENTIALLY ON THIS PROPERTY VERSUS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. I'M GOING TO SKIP PAST THIS TO BE BRIEF BUT I'LL SHOW YOU THIS IS OUR SITE AND IT WORKS WITH NO VARIANCES OR WAIVERS. THE INTERESTING THING IS IF YOU TAKE OUR PARKING FIELD, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A GREAT SELF STORAGE SITE BECAUSE YOU HAVE IN AND OUT.

THERE'S A GREAT LOOP AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PARKING WILL BE. MAKES IT EASY FOR ANYONE WHO HAS GOT A U-HAUL TRUCK OR A TRAILER BEING HAULED BEHIND HEM OR GENERALLY DRIVING THROUGH. IT'S GOT GREAT ACCESS IN AND OUT. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS IS IT ALSO WOULD WORK IF YOU PUT THAT 74,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON THE BACK AND PUT THE PARKING FIELD IN THE THAN THE FRO LIKE THE PUBLIX. YOU GET ALL THOSE INTENSIVE USES OR OPPORTUNITY FOR INTENSIVE USES VERSUS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE TODAY. SO IT'S CLEAR SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO ON THIS SITE. WE THINK WE'RE BRINGING TO GO TO YOU THAT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO ALLOW A SELF STORAGE FACILITY TO GO ON THIS SITE BY THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. LOOKING AT THE SITE AGAIN, AND I THINK THIS IS KEY TO YOUR ANALYSIS IS, HEY, WHAT'S AROUND IT RIGHT NOW. WHAT'S THERE.

YOU'VE GOT PUBLIX GOING IN DAG NATURALLY ACROSS THE STREET.

[01:25:03]

THE SITE THAT SAYS "OUT-PARCEL" AT THE TOP IS PART OF THE BEN SHIP PARCEL ASKS WHICH IS I THINK 350,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. YOU'VE GOT AN ANIMAL VET CLINIC NEXT DOOR. MARYLAND TO THE WEST OF THE SITE, THIS IS A TO, AUTOMOBILE, PRETTY HEAVY INTENSIVE USES, THE DYE, THE GRINDER, THE WELDING, ARARAT CHET, AIR WRENCH, IMPACT WRENCH, THOSE KINDS OF USES GOING ON OVER THERE PRETTY REGULARLY. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE A LARGE ANIMAL VET CLINIC, EQUINE VETERINARIAN PRACTICE NEXT DOOR.

SO WITH THAT I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THE LAST IMAGE, AND -- YOU OH, TRANSMITTAL, PLANNING AND ZONE AGENCY AS A REMINDER 1 WE DID GET A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM AUGUST 18, 2022.

AND VOTING WAS A MOTION BY MR. PIERRE AND A SECOND BY MR. WILSON. THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IT WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR TRANSMITTAL 4-0.

MOTION BY DEAN, SECOND BY ARNOLD.

SO -- AND NOW WE'RE HERE FOR YOU FOR ADOPTION, RECOMMENDATION ON

ADOPTION. >> MR. MATOVINA: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. RICHARD.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: DOUG, THAT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION.

YOU ALWAYS DO A GREAT JOB. AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL SITE PLAN. I LIKE THE PARKING IN THE BACK AND ALL THAT, AND I REALIZE IT'S IN MIXED USE, AND SO FORTH, BUT -- SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE USES AROUND THIS SITE.

WHAT ARE THE TALLEST BUILDINGS AROUND THE SITE?

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, WHEREVER THERE'S AN OR SITE, YOU COULD HAVE -- THERE'S BASICALLY NO LIMITATION ON HEIGHT.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, WHAT'S THERE NOW?

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING EXCEEDS 40 OR 45 FEET. I'M NOT SURE HOW TALL THE PUBLIX

INFRASTRUCTURE IS. >> DR. HILSENBECK: 35 FOR PUN PUBLES AND Y'ALL WANT ABOUT 60 ON HERE?

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDL NUMBER THAT WE NEED IS LOOSELY 45 FEET.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I THOUGHT IT WAS 58.5 OR SPG LIKE THAT WAS IN THE MATERIALS. MAYBE MISBISHOP COULD CLARIFY THAT BUT I THINK IT WAS 58.5 FEET.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT PAGE IT WAS ON.

I DIDN'T S PAGE OUT.

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: MR. HILSENBECK, I'LL ASK MR. WHITFIELD TO COME UP AND JOIN US.

HE CAN ANSWER THIS. THIS IS NOT A BUILDINGS THAT HESITANT BEEN BIMENT THEY BUILT THIS BUILDING SO THEY KNOW HOW TALL THE STRUCTURE IS LINCHTS THAT PHOTO YOU SHOWED, THAT'S UP OFF RACE TRACK ROAD, I THINK. THAT PHOTO YOU SHOWED OF THE

FOUR-STORY ONE. >> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: THAT'S LIKE ONE. THIS IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT LOCATION. IT'S LIKE THE ONE ON RACE TRACK

ROAD. >> DR. HILSENBECK: YES, SIR,

HOW ARE YOU. >> SPEAKER: I'M GOOD.

I'M RANDALL WHITFIELD. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

AND PLEASED TO BE HERE WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. OUR DESIGN FOR THIS BUILDING WILL BE AT 47 FEET TO THE ROOF, TO THE DECK.

SO THAT IS OUR HEIGHT. WE HAVE HAD SOME, AS YOU'RE MENTIONING, WOULD BE AROUND 58-FOOT.

WE HAD PLANNED THIS AUN AT THE 47-FOOT HEIGHT TO THE ROOFLINE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT. >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE AROUND THIS SITE

ON 207 THAT'S THAT TALL? >> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT -- OF THAT SAME HEIGHT.

TE PUBLIC YOU'RE SAYING IS 35 FEET.

IT LOOKS A LITTLE LARGER THAN THAT, BUT I KNOW THEY HAVE A CEILING HEIGHT INSIDE THAN THE PITCH ON THE ROOF, THEIR SIGNAGE. IPCLY IT GETS A LITTLE HIGHER

THAN THAT. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I JUST READ THAT SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW. THAT'S WHAT WAS IN OUR

MATERIALS. >> TERESA BISHOP: MR. CHAIR, MAY I COMMENT? IT'S ON THEIR SITE PLAN IN THEIR SITE DATA TABLE. IT'S 53.6 FEET IS WHAT THEIR SITE DATA TABLE SAYS P PURKS NOSE A.

ACCEPTED. IT'S A PLAN THAT THEY GAVE US SO WHEN THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLANS COME IN, THAT'LL GET REVIEWED

COORNLGLY. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> DR. HILSENBECK: I HAVE A

[01:30:01]

I'LL WAIT. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MR. PETERSON. >> MR. PETER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLAN, DOUG. OBVIOUSLY IT'S GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS MOTIONS, LIKE YOU SAID. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS MORE LEGAL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION AS IT'S STATED IN THE MATERIALS IS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T WANT TO -- AND YOU REFERENCED IT. THIS IS A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR THAT PROPERTY. BUT I DON'T WANT -- IT'S A COMP PLAN CHANGE AMENDMENT. I DON'T WANT TO SOMEHOW SLIP

THROUGH. >> SPEAKER: SURE.

I UNDERSTAND. THERE IS A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS IN EXHIBIT B, SO IT IS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ATTACHED TO THAT ORDINANCE.

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: IT'S THE EXHIBIT ON YOUR SCREEN, SIR.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MIGHT ALSO POINT OUT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME, IS THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITS THIS 120% TO SELF STORAGE USE. SO IF THEY DON'T DEVELOP IT FOR SELF STORAGE, THEY DO NOT GET THIS 120% RATIO.

>> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.: IS EXACT POINT YOU RAISED A THE OUR

TRANSMITTAL HEARING, YES, SIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> DR. HILSENBECK: WE DO NOT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MR. PETER. >> MR. PETER: MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF COMP PLAN TWONT 03 STROOTD TWFNT 7 AND WILDWOOD SELF STORAGE BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDE PROVIDE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MR. . THERE IS A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. PIERRE. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. THIS IS DISCUSSION, AND I'M SURE I'M WASTING MY BREATH UP HERE, SO -- BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THESE THINGS ANYWAY, GET THEM ON THE RECORD.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE CONSIDERED THIS LAST TIME FOR THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING, IT WAS LATE.

I THINK IT WAS ABOUT -- IT WAS AFTER 7:00, AND I THOUGHT IT GOT KIND OF SHORT SHRIFT, BUT NONETHELESS THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITS THIS TO THIS PROPERTY AND TO A PERSONAL SELF STORAGE WAREHOUSE FACILITY, I JUST THINK IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT TO SET FOR THE FAR. THE HEIGHT I COULD GET OVER, BUT THAT FLOOR TO AREA RATIO, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SPECIFIC FOR THIS PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT.

I COULD JUST ABOUT GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE MORE COMING BACK TO US VERY SOON THAT ARE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR AN INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO BECAUSE OF WHAT WE DID HERE TODAY IN APPROVING THIS. AND IN THE SPHAF STAFF REPORE 9 IT SAYS FLOOR AREA RATIO MEASURES THE MASS, BULK AND SCALE OF A BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY SIZE, WHICH IN TURN LIMITS THE INTENSITY. THE MIXED USE DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRETTY INTENSE USAGE, LET'S FACE THAT, THE MIXED USE DISTRICT MAY PROVIDE FOSTER GREATEST INTENSITY OF USES ALLOWED IN THE COUNTY. FURTHER LIMITATIONS ARE IN PLACE TO LIMIT BUILDING MASS, BULK AND SCALE.

THE COUNTY HAS PROVIDED FOR A 70% IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT -- THAT'S 70% FAR -- IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT WHICH IN TURN LIMITS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING WHEN COMPARED TO THE PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT, THE FAR REVIEWS THE ENTIRE BUILDING WITH EACH FLOOR COUNT IN THE FA:R OF ALL CALVATION. SO 70% IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN MIXED USE DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE MOST INTENSE DISTRICT ZONING WE HAVE. BUT YOU KNOW YOU'RE NEARLY DOUBLING THAT AND I JUST THINK IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT AND I PERSONALLY AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A BAD PRECEDENT, INCREASING IT THAT MUCH.

BUT AS A SAID, I KNOW I'M WASTING MY BREATH, SO I HOPE Y'ALL BUILD A GREAT PROJECT OUT THERE.

[Agency Reports]

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

THAT PASSES 4 TO 1. >> DOUGLAS BURNETT, ESQ.:

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> MR. MATOVINA: THAT BRINGS US BACK INTO THE AGENCY. STAFF REPORT?

DOWNCHT. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU,

MR. CHAIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOU'RE

WELCOME. >> TERESA BISHOP: NO, SIR.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY FRORT AGENCY MEMBERS?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: MR. MAT TEEN VENA, I DO WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE LAST HEARING REGARDING THE YAK IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL ORDINANCE AND YOU DECLARED A VOTING CON FLUC AND

[01:35:02]

YOU PREPARED FORM 8B. I'M REQUIRED TO READ A SUMMARY INTO THE RECORD. SPECIFICALLY THAT ON NOVEMBER 3, MR. MATOVINA DECLARED A VOTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PRARD TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAN IMPACT FEE DEVELOPER DEFERRAL ORDINANCE, AND THE BASIS OF THAT CONFLICT IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.