Dec 01, 2022 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order.]

[00:00:21]

PLEASE STAND BY FOR THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MEETING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING T ORDER AND PLEASE STAND FOR 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.

OKAY. MEGAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE

PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT. >> MS. PERKINS: THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC 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 CHIERM WHICH IS STLEE 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 THE AGENCY OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OR APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY

[Approval of meeting minutes for PZA 9/2/21, 9/16/21, 10/7/21, 10/21/21 and 11/4/21]

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.

PLANK THANK YOU, MEGAN. OKAY.

AGENCY MEMBERS, YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2021-, SEPTEMBER 16, 2021, OCTOBER 7, 2021, OCTOBER TWIEWN THE ONE, 2021 AND NOVEMBER 4, 2021. THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE? AND I ASSUME WE CAN TAKE THEM UP ALL AS ONE MOTION.

>> I DON'T HAVE THEM. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOUR TIME IS

UP TO READ THEM. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I MOVE WE

APPROVE. >> MR. MATOVINA: WE HAVE GOT A MOTION BY DR. HILSENBECK AND A SECOND BY MR. PIERRE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES.

NOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BUT BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THAT, I WANT TO MENTION, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO MENTION RIGHT NOW THAT THE APPLICANT FOR ITEMS 1 AND 2 ON THE AGENDA IS GOING TO BE REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE, MEANING THAT THIS -- WE WILL NOT CONCLUDE WITH A VOTE TODAY, ASSUMING THAT THIS BOARD APPROVES A CONTINUANCE, AND THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA IS ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE OR IS STAFF ASKING FOR THAT CONTINUANCE? ITEM 5?

>> TERESA BISHOP: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO A PERIOD OF GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN COME UP HERE AND SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE AGENDA OR NOT ON THE AGENDA, AS THE CASE MAY BE. WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH OF THE ITEMS, INCLUDING THE ITEMS THAT I MENTIONED WHERE A CONTINUANCE IS GOING TO BE REQUESTED.

BEAUTY EVEN THOUGH WE MAY GRANT -- BUT EVEN THOUGH WE MAY GRANT A CONTINUANCE AT THIS LEVEL, YOU STILL MAY COME UP AND SPEAK IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT IT IS THE HOLIDAYS, AND IF THIS ITEM MOVES ALL THE WAY OVER INTO JANUARY, WHICH IS THOSE FIRST TWO ITEMS, I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL SOME OF US OLDER FOLKS UP HERE WILL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID IF

[00:05:02]

[Items 1 & 2]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM JAMES WHITEHOUSE YESTERDAY, BUT I GUESS HE WAS ON HIS CELL PHONE.

IT WAS VERY BROKEN UP. I COULD BARELY UNDER WHAT HE WAS SAYING -- BUT HE DID REACH OUT. DID I NOT CALL HIM BACK.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MIGGAN. >> MS. PERKINS: I SPOKE WITH JAMES EARLIER TODAY AND HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE.

THAT'S ALL WE TALKED ABOUT. >> MR. PIERRE:Y SPOKE WITH HIM LAST NIGHT AND WE DISCUSSED THE CONTINUANCE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: HENRY. >> MR. GREEN: SAME.

WE DISCUSSED THE CONTINUANCE. >> MR. MATOVINA: APPARENTLY

YOUR MICS ARE NOT ON. >> MR. GREEN: IS THAT BETTER? I'M SORRY. I SAW THE RED LIGHT.

I TALKED TO MR. WHITEHOUSE YESTERDAY ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE

OF THESE TWO ITEMS. >> MR. MATOVINA: AND I ALSO HAD A PHONE CALL AND SPOKE TO MR. WHITEHOUSE ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE AND THE REASONS FOR IT.

SO AT THIS POINT MR. WHITEHOUSE, WE WILL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO

YOU. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AGENCY MEMBERS.

FOR THE RECORD NAMES JAMES WHITE OUST OF ST. JOHN LAW DROOP SEAGROVE, MAIN STREET ON ST. JOHN, CRA.

ON AND A HALF OF THE COLONEL HINMAN COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 2022-OBVIOUS 5 AND REZONING 202218, WHICH IS ITEM 2, WE PROTECTFULLY REQUEST A CONTINUANCE.

AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, THIS WAS -- IT'S NOT A CONTINUING A. WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TODAY BUT THIS IS ONE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD KNOWN THAT WE WERE GOING TO NEED A CONTINUANCE FOR. IT STATES THAT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND IT STATES THE REASON. SOME OF THE UPDATES FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER EXPERTS WE HAVE, WE GOT BACK TO STAFF A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, BUT STAFF NEEDED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE AND WITH THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY IN BETWEEN THERE WASN'T TIME TO DO IT BEFORE THIS MEETING, NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER TWO, TO READVERTISE IT, WE WOULD HAVE PULLED IT OFF THE AGENDA AND READVERTISED, BUT THE FACT IS OVER THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY AND DEALING WITH THE ADVERTISING 1 THE OPTION WAS TO COME HERE AND ASK FOR THE ANT L. CONTINUANCE.% SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THE 15TH. THERE'S LARGE CHALLENGES IN - LARGE CHANGES IN THE REQUEST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT IT BUT IT'S MOVING FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF BIG CHANGES THE STAFF WANT TO REQUEST AND LOOK AT AND HAVE A FULL REPORT FOR YOU.

I KNOW YOUR LAST FEW MEETINGS TBLAIS COMMENTS ON OPEN COMMENTS AND BEFORE OUR ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE WE COME TO YOU IS A GOOD THING. BASED ON THAT MR. CHAIRMAN 1 AGENCY MEMBERS, WE WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 2 TO DECEMBER 15TH PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SEEING NONE, LET'S MOVE INTO PUBLIC SPEAKING.

>> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE THREE SPEAKER CARDS.

MR. LABANOWSKI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STILL SPEAK? MS. ANNA OBER MYER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STILL SPEAK? COME ON UP. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> SPEAKER: YES.

I'M ANNA BOBERMYER OF 2440 DEERWOOD ACRES DRIVE, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF MY ENTIRE COMMUNITY HOSH STRONGLY OPPOSED TO REZONING THE PROPERTY 2775 COUNTY ROAD 214 FROM AGRICULTURAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY? THERE WILL BE HEAVY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FOR THE PROPOSED 1800 INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES, SEMI FRUKS AND INCREASED RAILROAD TRAFFIC. INCREASED CREENGS TRUCK TRAFFIC WILL DAMAGE OUR ROADS AND SCATTER DEESH THAT DANCING OUR VEHICLES. DO MORE VEHICLES MEAN MORE VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS, TRAFFIC DELAYS ND INJURIES OR FATALITIES? CAN THE ONE-LANE COUNTY RADIOED HANDLE OFF THAT TRAFFIC? HAS A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY BEEN PREPARED? INCREASING RAILROAD TRAFFIC CAN

[00:10:01]

AS A COMPREHENSIVE SEISMIC STUDY BEEN PREPARED? ISN'T THE AMENDED PROPOSAL FOR REZONING TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE JUST A FOOT IN THE DOOR FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING? CALL IT LIGHT OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, RAILROAD DISTRIBUTION YARDS ARE NOISY, 24-HOUR OPERATIONS, 365 DAYS A YEAR.

BUFFERING IS APPRECIATED, BUT MOST TREES WILL BE REPLACED WITH PALMS THAT WILL NOT DAMPEN THE SOUND.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE INEVITABLE ACCIDENTS OR SPILLS? INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.

INDUSTRIAL SPILLS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHO IS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION DUE TO A CHEMICAL FIRE? THAT HAPPENED IN BRUNS, YOU CAN, GEORGIA ON NOVEMBER 8TH OF THIS YEAR.

-- BRUNSWICK. WHO GUARANTEES THAT ANY CHEMICALS BEING TRANS POAFORTD WON'T BE SPILLED? WHO PAYS TO CLEAN YOU THE UP WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN? WHAT GUARANTEES ARE THERE THAT THIS INDUSTRIAL ZONE WON'T DAMAGE OUR COMMUNITY'S AIR QUALITY? CAN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RAILROAD DISTRIBUTION FACILITY OPERATE WITHOUT CAUSING CONSTANT PLUMES OF DUST PARTICLES, GASSES, OR SMOKE? HAS A COMPREHENSIVE AIR QUALITY STUDY BEEN PREPARED? THERE'S STANDING WATER ALL AROUND THIS AREA. WHAT HAS DEAN BUN DONE TO ENSURE THERE'S NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS WITH RESPECT TO FLOODING? HA AS A COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD STUDY BEEN PREPARED? WHAT ABOUT POSSIBLE GROUND WATER CONTAMINANTS? AND HAS BEEN DONE TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEG IMPACT TO NOOSHTS' RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER WE'LL? HAS THERE BEEN A WATER QUALITY STUDY DONE, EVEN IF ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE DAYS BASE LIEP E CURRENT USE IS AGRICULTURAL AND THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPERTY AT 2 -- THERE IS AN EXPECTATION OF NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COMMUNE AND THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY.

THE PROERTY AT 2775 COUNTY ROAD 214 IS CURRENTLY SURROUND BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NEITHER HEAVY NOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. THEY'RE NOT COMPATIBLE.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] >> MS. PERKINS: CARL

CROOKSHANK. >> MR. MATOVINA: I'M GOING TO ASK Y'ALL TO NOT APPLAUSE, PLEASE, SO WE CAN KEEP THE

MEETING MOVING. >> SPAIMS PAUL CROOK MAKING I LIVE AT 2243 DEERWOOD ACRES DRIVE.

I'VE BEEN THERE 33 YEARS. WE WERE THERE WHEN IT I WAS DIRT ROAD. IT WAS A NICE PLACE TO GET AWAY FROM THE CITY ONCE THE WORLD GOLF GOT BUILT I KNEW WE HAD TO GO SOMEWHERE OUT OF THE CITY SO WE MOVED OUT THAT WAY.

THE LAND'S BEEN USED FOR 50 YEARS ON BEFOR DOING EXEALT SO.

WE HAVE GOT SUBDIVISIONS TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF IT.

WEAPON OF GOT SUBDIVISIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IT.

WE'VE GOT SUBDIVISIONS ON EAST SIDE OF IT, OR THE WEST, EXCUSE ME. BUT THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS FOR AN HEAVY INDUSTRY TO COME IN THERE.

AND LIKE I SAY IT'S NOT RIGHT. AGRICULTURAL IS FINE.

I DON'T MIND MESSING WITH A COW ONCE IN A WHILE BUT AS FAR AS A RAILROAD, I WORKED THERE FOR 30 YEARS AT THE RAILROAD.

YOUR HOUSE IS GOING TO CRACK. YOUR STUFF'S GOING TO FALL OF YOUR SHELVES IN THE HOUSE. SO IT'S NOT A GOOD THING WITH THE RAILROAD. AND I'LL JUST PUT IN A LITTLE PEW L. FEW MORE THINGS. THE THE TRAFFIC OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IS SO BAD, YOU CAN BARELY GET INTO TOWN NOW.

IT TAKES 25 MINUTES TO GET OFF YOU OF OUR HOED TO HOLMES WHICH IS TERRIBLE. HE'S RUNNING 200 TRUCKS A DAY OUT OF THAT PLACE, FROM OUR PLACE THERE IS A TO ENTRADA ON 207. THAT MESSES OUR STUCH.

THE CREEKS ARE NOT GLOWING LIKE THEY SHOULD OUT THERE.

THEY'RE BACKING UP. BUT -- OKAY.

CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUTURE PLANS PROJECTS AND APPEARS OVER TIME KNOWING THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPER IS QUESTIONED.

THE ZONING CHANGE. THE FACT THAT CLEARING LAND WITHOUT PERMITS HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALL THE TIME, OVER A YEAR. WE'VE HEARD NOTHING BUT BULLDOZERS, AND I'M PRETTY PISSED OFF ABOUT IT.

THEY SURE WON'T LET ME DO IT, AND IT'S IN A WILDLIFE IN A WETLANDS AREA. SO I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

WHETHER YOU CAN MAKE A BUCK OUT OF IT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT

THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. >> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU.

WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS. >> MR. MATOVINA: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM TODAY, UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MAY BE PUSHED OUT TO THE 15TH? IS THAT FOR THIS ITEM, MARIE? [INAUDIBLE]

[00:15:03]

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. RICHARD.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A MOTION.

I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. SO I'LL WAIT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: GO AHEAD. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THIS IS DECEMBER 15TH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I UNFORTUNATELY CANNOT BE AT THAT MEETING, AND THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ITEM TO ME PERSONALLY, AND FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND I HAVE AN UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT, SO I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR A CONTINUANCE ON THIS, AND I WOULD HOPE WE COULD CONTINUE IT INTO JANUARY BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO

BE HERE FOR THIS. >> MR. MATOVINA: HENRY?

>> MR. GREEN: YES. THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

MS. BISHOP, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NEW MATERIAL THAT CAME IN.

THE TIMELINE FOR STAFF TO REVIEW AND GET COMMENTS BACK AND GET IT ON THE 15TH AGENDA, IS THAT POSSIBLE OR DO WE NEED TO PUSH IT OUT A LITTLE FARTHER? BECAUSE I KNOW COMMENTS COME USUALLY A WEEK OR TWO BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING, SO I ASSUME YOU'RE

PUSHING A DEADLINE. >> TERESA BISHOP: YES, WE ARE.

[INAUDIBLE] GREERCHLT WANT TO USE MINE?

MINE. >> TERESA BISHOP: YES.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I WAS TALKING TO THE REVIEWER THIS AFTERNOON RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.

HE DID INDICATE THE STAFF REPORTS FOR THE DECEMBER 15TH MEETING ARE ACTUALLY DUE TODAY AND THAT THERE ARE STILL SOME OPEN COMMENTS THAT STAFF HAS NOT GOTTEN TO, AND EVEN THE RECENT RESUBMITTALITY OF NEW DOCUMENTS HAS ALSO GENERATED SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED ON THE NEW DOCUMENTS, SO IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC TO GET STAFF REPORT ALL COMPLETED AND GET IT REVIEWED AND GET IT TO YOU BY THE 15TH SO THAT EVERYONE HS IT AND IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN COMMENTS REMAINING IN THAT STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID TODAY BY THE CONTINUANCE, BUT THE 15TH IS PROBLEMATIC TO STAFF.

>> MR. MATOVINA: JEFF. >> SPEAKER: I WOULD JUST COMMENT, MR. CHAIR, THAT GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT FREES A JUST GAVE US I, TOO, THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ITEM AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD -- WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF MOVING THIS INTO

JANUARY. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. WHITEHOUSE, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

SO, MR. WHITEHOUSE, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT LATER TODAY WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING A MEETING THE FIRST

TUESDAY OF JANUARY, WHICH -- >> MS. PERKINS: THURSDAY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: I MEAN, THURSDAY, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS THE 5TH. SO IF WE CAN TO JANUARY, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT MEANS THAT THIS ITEM WOULD BE CONTINUED TO THE 19TH. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR

CLIENT? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST ASKING MS. BISHOP ABOUT. I WAS HOPE WE WOULD HAVE THE FIFTH BECAUSE THAT THAN THE WOO BE A PROBLEM.

WE'RE ALREADY ADVERTISED FOR THE 17TH AT THE COMMISSION.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S UP TO THE PREFERENCE OF THE AGENCY MEMBERS. WE'D PREFER NOT TO BE CONTINUED FOR ANOTHER MONTH AND A HALF, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T -- I GUESS I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY SAY IN THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THAT JANUARY 17TH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING, BUT OBVIOUSLY IF WE GO TO THE 19TH OF THE AGENCY, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, EITHER. I DID GET THE COMMENTS BACK FROM STAFF THIS MORNING. THERE ARE A FEW THAT WE HAVE TO DO, SOME OF THEM ARE MINISTERIAL, MAPS.

A FEW OF THEM ARE ABOUT THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY.

I INTENDS TO ANSWER THEM TODAY AND GET THEM BACK.

BUT AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE SORT OF DILEMMA WE'RE IN WITH THE HOLIDAYS COMING UP AND WHATNOT. I THINK OUR REQUEST WOULD BE STILL TO GO TO THE 15TH, BUT IF IT'S THE AGENCY'S PREFERENCE TO GO TO THE JANUARY DATE, THEN EL WAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> MR. MATOVINA: AND SO I'M GOING TO -- WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHETHER WE'RE HAVING A JANUARY MEETING, SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THE CONTINUANCE INTO JANUARY, PERHAPS THE MOTION WOULD JUST BE THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY THAT'S HELD AND THAT WOULD SOLVE WORNT WE HAVE ONE ON THE 5TH.

HENRY, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE. >> MR. GREEN: OH, I WAS JUST WANTING TO GIVE MR. WHITEHOUSE UP HERE, AND HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION BECAUSE ON A ASSUMED HE WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE BCC AND THIS IS GOING TO -- I UNDERSTAND FROM BEING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE HOW IT WORKS FOR THEM AND STAFF, SO SOMEBODY WON'T BE HAPPY WITH THE SCHEDULING TIME MENCHTS RIMPED.

[00:20:03]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DISCUSS THIS OR NOT, BUT I AM FINE WITH THAT BEING A MEETING ON -- HAVING A MEETING ON JANUARY 5TH.

THAT'S LONG ENOUGH AFTER THE HOLIDAYS.

I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE RECOVERED BY THAT POINT.

SO I THINK THE 5TH IS FINE, TO HAVE IT ON THAT DAY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: I THINK IT IMPACTS STAFF, THOUGH, TOO.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: THAT'S TRUE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: HENRY. >> MR. GREEN: I'M READY TO

MAKE A MOTION. >> MR. MATOVINA: YES, SIR.

>> MR. GREEN: DO I WANT TO CONTINUE IT CORRECTLY SO THEY

DON'T HAVE TO READVERTISE? >> TERESA BISHOP: YES.

WE'LL NEED A DATE CERTAIN IN ORDER TO PLUSH THAT.

>> MR. GREEN: CAN I JUST SAY THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: NO WE NEED A DATE CERTAIN.

SO IT'S EITHER JANUARY 5TH OR JANUARY 19TH.

>> MR. GREEN: BUT WE DON'T KNOW YET IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A JANUARY 5TH MEETING. IS IT SCHEDULED?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: IT IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED.

>> MR. GREEN: ABOUT THIS TIME YEAR YOU GIVE US A WHOLE NEW SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR. VNCHTS R.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, COUNSEL: I DO HAV IT ON MY SCHEDULE. BINCHT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ITEMS FOSTER JANUARY 5TH MEETING. WE WILL HAVE THIS ONE IF YOU ALL DO CONTINUE IT TO THIS MEETING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY STAFF IS OFF FOR THAT WEEK OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S AN INTERNAL ISSUE

THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY DEAL WITH. >> MR. GREEN: I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK HOW TO WORD THIS PROPERLY, THEN.

IF -- SO LET'S SAY WE DO CONTINUE IT TO THE 5TH, WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING, SO THEN DOES THAT REQUIRE HIM TO

READVERTISE AT THAT POINT? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.:

YES, IT WOULD. >> MR. GREEN: MR. WHITE HOURS, ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE OR DO YOU WAP ME TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE IT TO THE SECOND MEETING?

>> SPEAKER: JUST GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.

>> MR. GREEN: SURE. BECAUSE WE COULD EASILY CANCEL THE 5TH OR WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT NOW.

>> MR. MATOVINA: I'D RATHER NOT BRING THAT UP NOW IN THE

MIDDLE OF THIS CONVERSATION. >> MR. GREEN: I HAVEN'T MADE MY MOTION YET INTNCH THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YEAH, IF WE COULD SET TO IT 5TH, IF IT GETS CONTINUED, WE WILL READVERTISE. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MR. GREEN: SO MY MOTION IS TO CONTINUE IT TO THE 5TH OF

[5. MINMOD 2022-17 Shearwater Lot 82.]

JANUARY. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: YES. THAT WOULD BE ITEMS 1 AND 2.

>> MR. GREEN: ITEMS 1 AND 2. YES, MA'AM.

>> MR. MATOVINA: IS THERE A SECOND.

SECOND BY MEGAN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION PASSES, SO ITEMS 1 AND 2 ARE CONTINUED TO JANUARY THE 5TH. WE'RE GOING TO NOW LEAR THE CONTINUANCE ON ITEM NUMBER 5. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR ITEM

NUMBER 5? >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS DON. GULLION WIM WITH DREAMFINDERS HOME REQUESTING A CONTINUE ANSWER TO THE 15TH OF

DECEMBER. >> MR. MATOVINA: I DIDN'T

CEANT HER YOU. >> SPEAKER: STATE YOUR NAME DON GULLIAN WITH DREAMFINDERS HOMES.

I'M REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 45 UNTIL DECEMBER THE

15TH. >> MR. MATOVINA: 2348 DECEMBER .

AND I NEED TO DECLARE -- IT JUST DAWN ME BUT I NEED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT WITH THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

DREAMFINDERS IS A MAJOR CUSTOMER OF MINE.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: CAN I STILL RUN THE MEETING OR SHOULD I STEP ASIDE AND LET MEGAN RUN THE

MEETING? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: NO, YOU CAN STILL RUN THE MEETING.

YOU'RE JUST NOT VOTING. >> MR. MATOVINA: HENRY?

>> MR. GREEN: WAS THAT THE 5TH?

I WOULDN'T COULDN'T MAKE OUT. >> MR. MATOVINA: DECEMBER THE 15TH. OF DECEMBER.

GOT YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: DO WE HAVE

ANY SPEAKER CARDS FOR THIS ITEM? >> MS. PERKINS: WE DO NOT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY AND A REQUEST

FOR A CONTINUANCE. >> MS. PERKINS: I MOVE TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 5 UNTIL DECEMBER 15, 2022.

[3. ZVAR 2022-22 Florio (AFU) 1715 Carter Road.]

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MEGAN.

SECOND BY HENRY. LET'S ACTUALLY DO THE VOTE ON -- WITH THE BUTTON SO THAT I'M NOT VOTING.

SO THAT MOTION PASSES 5-0 AND WE WILL 0 IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15TH.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOU'RE WELCOME. BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

MS. KASTEN, ARE YOU HERE? IS THERE ANY EX PARTE

[00:25:01]

ALL RIGHT. >> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS MARGARET FLORIO, FORMERLY MARGARET KASTEN-CURRIER. I RESIDE A 1715 CARTER ROAD, ST. AUGUSTINE WITH FLORIDA 32084.

SO BEFORE I GOT STARTED, I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS AGAINST. THIS IS MY SECOND TIME UP HERE, IN CASE DIDN'T RECOGNIZE ME, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR BOTHERING YOU AGAIN WITH THIS REQUEST. HOPEFULLY AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY A SECOND MEETING WAS NEEDED.

SO THIS MEETING IS FOR THE YO AFU PROPOSAL AT THE ADDRESS THAT I CONFIRMED THAT I CURRENTLY LIVE AT.

YOU THE FOR MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. THERE SHE IS SITTING RIGHT HERE, FRONT ROW. SHE'S MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALL RESITE SIDING IN THE SAME RESIDENCE AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALMOST THREE AND A HALF YEARS.

SO I DO FEEL LIKE THAT IS A HARDSHIP IN ITSELF.

[LAUGHTER] BUT I DIGRESS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: FOR WHO? >> SPEAKER: FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. TRUST ME.

SO HOW DID WE WE GET HERE? SO MY MARY ANN BASICALLY SOLD HER HOME IN OCTOBER OF 2020. SHE LIVED IN HASTINGS.

HER CELL RECEPTION WAS REALLY SPOTTY OUT THERE, AS I'M SURE THAT THE BOARD IS AWARE. THERE ARE VERY LIMITED SUPPORT SERVICE ONS OUT THERE FOR THE HASTINGS COMMUNITY, SPECIFICALLY WHERE SHE LIVED. WE FELT VERY UNCOMFORTABLE H%-Ú, SO WE ENCOURAGED HER TO MOVE IN WITH US SO THAT SHE COULD LOOK FOR A HOME CLOSER TO HER FAMILY HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER MOVING IN, SHE DID DISCOVER THAT SHE HAD BREAST CANCER, AND SO SHE IS CURRENTLY IN REMISSION AND SHE IS HEALED, BUT BY THE TIME SHE WAS DONE WITH THAT BATTLE, SHE HAD BEEN PRICED OUT OF THE MARKET, SO WE'RE TALKING PROBABLY A YEAR LATER OR SO. AND AS I'M SURE MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM AS WELL AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, THE COST OF LIVING IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS GONE UP EXPONENTIALLY.

SO THE REASON WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THIS IS FOR THOSE REASONS. SHE'S PRICED OUT.

SHE CAN'T EVEN GO BACK TO THE HASTINGS MARKET AT THIS POINT.

YOU WILL SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS OUR PROPOSED AFU STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS. SO THE MAIN DWELLING WHERE WE ALL CURRENTLY RESIDE NOW IS 1,903 SQUARE FEET.

WE ARE ASKING FOR T A VARIANCE . IT'S CURRENTLY DRAWN AS 950 SQUARE FEET. BASICALLY PER THE CODE, YOU KNOW, THE AFU MAY NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF 35% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR UP TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE LIVING QUARTERS, AND IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 800 SQUARE FEET.

SO JUST TO KIND OF SUM IT UP, WE REALLY ARE JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF 150 SQUARE FEET.

WE DID HAVE A LOT OF CHALLENGES BEFORE COMING HERE TODAY.

I DID SPEAK WITH YOU GUYS ON 8/1, AND YOU WERE VERY GRACIOUS TO APPROVE THE FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST WHICH I VERY MUCH THANK YOU FOR. WE'VE HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE. WE DID KIND OF DO ALL OF OUR HOMEWORK BEFORE WE DEVELOPED THIS FLOOR PLAN, BEFORE WE GOT THE BOARDS UP AND EVERYTHING. THE PLANNING AND ZONING, AFTER '81 DID EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD. THEY WENT AND WITH THE A FINE TOOTH EXOAM AND MADE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER.

THEY DISCOVERED THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE HAD MY SQUARE FOOTAGE OF MY MAIN DWELLING INCORRECT.

SO THEREFORE, THE DWELLING THAT WE ASKED FOR APPROVAL FOR AND CONFIRMED FOR 950 SQUARE FEET THEREFORE WAS INACCURATE.

THIS IS A VERY BIG HARDSHIP FOR US, FOR MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, AND IT'S THROUGH NO FAULT OF OUR OWN THAT WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION.

SOY WOULD JUST LIKE YOU GUYS TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT AS YOU MAKE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND YOUR DETERMINATION.

IN SHORT, THIS IS OUR VARIANCE REQUEST.

WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF 150 SQUARE FEET TO BE CONSTRUCTED. WE FEEL THAT IT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORS, THE COMMUNITY OR THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE.

WE HAVE INCLUDED HOPEFULLY IN YOUR PACKET -- YOU CAN REVIEW THAT -- OF SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THIS

[00:30:01]

IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT APPROVED, WE WILL MOST CERTAINLY FACE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO REDRAW PLANS FOR THE ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT, REMOVE THE EXISTING FORM BOARDS THAT STAND NOW TO ACCOMMODATED NEW PLANS, PAY AGAIN FOR THOSE SERVICES TO CONSTRUCT A DIFFERENT AFU FOOTPRINT, AND CONTINUE TO PAY THE COUNTY FEES IN ADDITION TO WHAT WEAVE ALREADY PAID. IN SHORT, THE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIO HOUSEHOLD ARE LAW-ABIDING, GAINFULLY EMPLOYED MEMBERS OF THE THIS COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVE BEEN FOR WELL OVER 50 YEARS. WE FEEL THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE WITH REGARD TO A FUSSMENTS ALIGNS WITH OUR REQUEST AND WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IN OUR SITUATION. I THOUGHT I WOULD PROVIDE JUST A FEW VIDEOS AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

SO THIS IS THE MAIN DWELLING. SO WHERE WE'RE ALL CURRENTLY RESIDING. AND TO THE LEFT OF THE MIDDLE BUILDING THAT APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHAT LIKE BEIGE-YELLOWISH IN NATURE, THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT IS WHERE THE ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

OF IMPORTANCE AND WHY I WANTED TO SHOW THIS, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MISTAKE ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE ACCIDENTALLY INCLUDED THAT DETACHED GARAGE OR THAT STEEL BUILDING. THEY INCLUDED IT IN THE MAIN DWELLINGS' SQUARE FOOTAGE, THUS MAKING THE ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT A LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE APPROVED I ALSO WANTED TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED AFU AND WHAT IS THERE NOW. AGAIN, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE THAT THERE'S FORM BOARDS AND THERE'S DIRT.

LIKE I STATED PREVIOUSLY AT THE LAST MEETING, WE THOUGHT WE WERE DONE, WE THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS GREAT, AND THEN UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE SITUATION ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE. SO HOPEFULLY THIS JUST FURTHER REITERATES HOW SMALL THE HOUSE IS IN COMPARISON TO A DWELLING THAT A NORMAL PERSON WOULD CONSIDER LIVEABLE.

JUST AS IN THE FIRST MEETING, WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SMORT SL OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE ALSO HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL LATE SUBMISSIONS DUE TO THE HOLIDAYS THAT I DID BRING WITH ME TODAY.

THEY ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT, SO I CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT TO YOU SHOULD YOU FEEL IT NECESSARY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION IN THE MATTER. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SPEAKER CARDS? OKAY.

WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

RICHARD. >> DR. HILSENBECK: I MOVE WE APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2022-22 FLORIO AFU, 1715 CARTER ROAD BASED ON EIGHT CONDITIONS. AND FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AS

[4. MINMOD 2022-15 Florida Cracker Properties LLC.]

PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> MR. MATOVINA: A MOTION BY RICHARD, SECOND BY JACK. ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0. THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION ON HARDSHIP. YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A DIFFERENT CAREER COMING UP HERE AND MAKING PRESENTATIONS FOR HARDSHIPS.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4, MR. DIMARE.

ARE YOU HERE? COME ON UP.

AND IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECRAIR WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER 4? 6 SEEING NONE

>> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M FRANK DIMARE, ADDRESS 3545 US-1 SOUTH, ST. AUGUSTINE. I'M THE BUILDING OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS BEFORE YOU, BUT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY ST. JOHNS ACADEMY SCHOOL IN WALL AS BROOKS WITH

[00:35:01]

AND WALLACE BROOKS. OUR APPLICATION IS FOR MINOR MOD TO MOULTRIE LAKES COMMERCIAL PARK PUD.

IT'S A PUD ORDINANCE THAT WAS DONE IN 1986.

ITES ACTUALLY ONE OF THE COUNTY'S FIRST PUDS, IF NOT THE FIRST. SO ANYHOW, THIS -- THE LOCATION OF IT, IF I CAN GET THIS LITTLE BUTTON -- THERE IT IS -- SO THAT'S SMALL UP THERE, SORRY, BUT THAT'S STATE ROAD 312, MOULDER ROAD 207. MOULTRIE LAKES COMMERCIAL PARK, AND IT'S THE -- THIS PARCEL IS THE FIRST PARCEL ON THE LEFT AS YOU ENTER THE PARK ON TREE BOULEVARD.

ST. JOHNS ACADEMY HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY AND NEEDS SPACE FOR THEIR GRADES 6 THROUGH 9. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT CAPACITY ON THEIR CURRENT CAMPUS. THEIR CAMPUS IS ON WALLWOOD DRIVE, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

BUT THEY'VE GROWN RAPIDLY. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A TEMPORARY, PROBABLY A COUPLE-YEAR LOCATION THEY MOST UNTIL THEY CAN GET MORE FACILITIES ON THEIR PRIMARY CAMPUS, THERE ON WALWOOD DRIVE.

OH IS MODIFICATION SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT THIS LOCATION. AERIAL MAP SHOWS YOU THE LOCATION A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AGAIN, THERE'S STATE ROAD 312 AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S ACTUALLY A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION COMING OUT OF COBBLESTONE, AND AGAIN THAT BUILDING IS THE FIRST ONE ON THE LEFT.

THE ACTUAL LOCATION IS 1765 TREE BOULEVARD, AND IT IS IN THE -- ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IT IS IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING NEW, WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING ANYTHING NEW. WE'RE JUST -- THIS IS HERE JUST FOR MIGRANT MODIFICATION FOR USE, AND TWO OF THE SPACES IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE ZONING MAP SHOWS THE AREA OF THE PUD, AND -- AND THIS IS THE MAP THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE PUD, SO THIS IS THE PUD USE MAP.

YOU CAN SEE ON STATE ROAD 312 THE FRONT PARCEL, ALL THAT IS ACTUALLY ON STATE ROAD 312 IS COMMERCIAL IN THE PUD.

THE BALANCE OF IT IS LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND, OF COURSE, THE PUD ARTICULATES ALL THE SPECIFIC USES.

BUT IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA IT INDICATES THAT IT WOULD BE -- IT'S THE INTENT OF THE PUD TO HAVE THE USES OF CG AND CI, AND THEN THEY LIST THEM ALL, BUT WHAT IS IN THE ON SPECIFICALLY LISTED IS A PRIVATE SCHOOL, AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT WE NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THIS MINOR MOD TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE THE USE OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THAT LOCATION.

THE OTHER TENANTS THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING, AND AGAIN SO THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF NEW FACILITY OR ANYTHING. IT WILL JUST BE A TENANT BUILD OUT OF THE SPACES. THE OTHER TENANTS IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR TO THIS SPACE IS A CHURCH.

THE NEXT TENANT IS READY, SET, PLAY, WHICH IS A BUSINESS FOR ENTERTAINING AND PLAYING WITH YOUNG KIDS THAT COME THERE.

I'VE NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY IN IT, BUT THEY GET QUITE A FEW KIDS COMING THERE. AND THEN THE END UNIT ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THIS BUILDING MAY DAY ICE CREAM.

STAFF HAD BEEN CONCERNED, APPROPRIATELY SO BE, BUT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION BECAUSE 100% OF THESE KIDS ARE DROPPED OFF, AND SO WE HAVE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET AND ON THE SLIDE THE TRAFFIC FLOW. FORTUNATELY WE HAVE AGAIN TRAFFIC LIGHT, GOOD DECELS EITHER WAY ON 312 AND CONSIDERABLE STACKING ROOM WITHIN THE EXISTING PROPERTY HERE, SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR ADJUSTING ANYTHING.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE NEEDED WILL BE SIGNAGE DIRECTING THEM HOW TO COME IN AND OFF-LOAD.

[00:40:01]

LET ME -- ALONG WITH THIS, GOING BACK TO THE AERIAL, ALONG WITH THIS WE ALSO HAVE INCLUDED A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

THE VARIANCE IS FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE 1,000-FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE SCHOOL TO THE SALES OF ALCOHOL, AND ACROS2 BUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 312 ACROSS A FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY THERE, THERE IS A LIQUOR STORE, THERE'S BROWNIE'S WELL END, THERE'S NOM OTHER RESTAURANTS THERE THAT ARE ALSO SELLING LIQUOR. THE FIRST -- SO AN ACTUAL LITERAL APPLICATION, THOSE BUSINESSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 312 ARE WITHIN THE 1,000-FOOT RADIUS.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT OF THAT IS TO GIVE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ALCOHOL AND THE CHILDREN, AND WE THINK THAT THE -- THAT IN OUR CASE THE STATE ROAD 312 PROVIDES A MUCH GREATER SEPARATION THAN THE LITERAL DISTANCE OF 1,000-FOOT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE ACADEMY IS A CLOSED CAMPUS BOTH ON WILDWOOD AND THIS CAMPUS ALSO WILL BE A CLOSED CAMPUS, SO ALL THE CHILDREN WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE FACILITY AND THEN WILL BE PICKED UP FROM THE FACILITY. THEY'RE NO ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE CAMPUS AND THEY WOULD HAVE -- IF THEY DID LEAVE, THEY WOULD BE DOING SO AGAINST THE POLICY OF THE SCHOOL.

THEY WOULD HAVE SOME -- 312 CAN BE CROSSED BUT IT'S DONE -- IT DOESN'T GET CROSSED EASILY. SO ADDITIONALLY, IN YOUR PACKAGE THERE'S SUGGESTED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED BY STAFF, INCLUDING TRANSFERABILITY AND SOME OTHER SUGGESTED CONDITIONS.

WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED.

AND SO WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR ST. JOHNS ACADEMY ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED VARIANCE FOR THE 1,000-FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE SCHOOL TO ALCOHOL.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

ELVIS. >> SPEAKER: IT SAYS WITHIN 1,000 FEET. DO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE

DISTANCE IS? >> SPEAKER: YES.

IT'S NOT IN YOUR SLIDE BUT IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

THERE'S A 1,000-FOOT RADIUS, AND THE BROWNIES THAT'S OVER THERE, FROM RECOLLECTION, IS APPROXIMATELY 700 TO 800 FEET.

AND AGAIN, IT'S MEASURED, THE REQUIREMENT IS IT'S MEASURED DIRECT WEEK NOT TRAVEL PATH, SO IT MEASURES ACROSS, OUR MEASUREMENT GOES ACROSS STATE ROAD 312.

>> MR. PIERRE: OKAY. I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP FOR I GUESS LEGAL. IF AN ALCOHOL ENTITY DECIDES TO MOVE CLOSE THERE, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE

FROM THE SCHOOL WITHIN THE 1,00? >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: TO BE HONEST, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CODE REGARDING THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF THE REVIEW.

I WASN'T PART OF THIS REVIEW APPLICATION.

>> SPEAKER: SURE. I CAN HELP WITH THAT.

WE'VE ALSO GOTTEN EXPERIENCE BEFORE FOR THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR TO IT, SO I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT.

SO, YEAH, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE SCHOOL.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE OTHER BUSINESSES TO MAKE ANY

ADJUSTMENTS. >> MR. PIERRE: I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF I DECIDE TO PUT A LIQUOR STORE THERE IN THAT AREA, DO I NEED TO GET A VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A STOOL

SCHOOL. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: IN A LIQUOR STORE IS TRYING TO LOCATE AND THE LOCATION IS WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE CODE, THEN THAT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A PUD, WHEN THEY COME BACK IN LATER AND SEEK A VARIANCE THROUGH A MINOR MODIFICATION, YOU ARE APPLYING THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA TO THIS

[00:45:06]

IN THAT SITUATION YOU DO NOT HAVE THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: JACK. >> SPEAKER: I HAD A QUESTION.

YOU SAID THESE WILL BE TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS?

>> SPEAKER: THEY ARE TEMPORARY.

I'M ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THE COUNTY NOW.

THEY'RE DEVELOPING ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THEIR WILDWOOD CAMPUS.

>> SPEAKER: HOW LONG DO YOU FIGURE?

>> SPEAKER: AGAIN, WE'RE EXPECTING THAT THEY WILL BE HERE THIS TERM AND THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR AS WELL.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. MENCHTS MEGAN.

>> MS. PERKINS: SO YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE? IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: NO.

THEY HAVE INCLUDED A VARIANCE REQUEST IN THE MINOR MODIFICATION, BUT IT DOES -- THE CODE DOES INCLUDE THE HARDSHIP

CRITERIA AS PART OF THE REVIEW. >> MS. PERKINS: OKAY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> MS. PERKINS: WE DO NOT.

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

HENRY. >> MR. GREEN: YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL IF Y'ALL ARE READY.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR MINOR MOD 2022-15

[6. REZ 2022-24 2885 Coastal Highway.]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: SECOND. >> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY HEN WRIB SECOND BY RICHARD. ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0. NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6 MR. A NEL A. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO DECLARE WITH

REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER 6? >> DR. HILSENBECK: NONE.

>> SPEAKER: HI. MY NAME IS MIKE ION ELLA 2885 COASTAL HIGHWAY IN ST. AUGUSTINE.

FIRSTLY, THANKS FOR HEARING MY PROPOSAL.

BASICALLY WHAT I AM LOOKING TO DO IS I'M LOOKING TO REZONE A PROPERTY THAT WAS ORIGINALLY RESIDENTIAL.

IT WAS REZONED TO COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISM.

AND I'M LOOKING TO DO TWO THINGS.

ONE IS REZONEIT BACK TO RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN, TWO, I'M LOOKING TO ACTUALLY TURN THE LOTS SO THAT THEY'RE OFF OF COASTAL HIGHWAY FOR TWO REASONS THAT I'LL GO INTO, BUT THE ACTUAL LOT ITSELF WON'T CHANGE. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT SURVEY THAT YOU SEE HERE OF WHAT THE LOTS LOOK LIKE.

THEY'RE COMBINED RIGHT NOW AS ONE COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISM LOT, BUT ORIGINALLY IN THE ORIGINAL LAND ZONE THEY WERE THESE TWO SEPARATE LOTS HERE. AND WHAT I AM LOOKING TO DO -- OH, AND I GUESS HERE'S ONE OF THE POINTS OF WHY I'M LOOKING TO DO THIS. THERE'S A LARGE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SIGN HERE THAT SHOWS SIGNAGE TO GO TO ST. AUGUSTINE OR GOING TO VILANO DOWNTOWN.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE VERY LARGE SIGNS, 20 TOOT BY 10-FOOT, SO HAVING THAT IN THE FRONT OF A PROPERTY ISN'T REALLY DESIRABLE.

'S SAUL -- SO ALL WE'RE LOOKING TODAY IS TAKE THESE LOTS AND TURN THEM THIS WAY SO THEY'LL BE ON BEACH CORM DISMEMSZ HAVE A BEACHCOMBER ADDRESS. I ACTUALLY BROUGHT A SURVEYOR IN TO SHOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND THIS IS A COPY OF THAT SURVEY. THE OTHER THING, ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WOULDN'T TO DO THIS IS THERE IS A TURNING LAWN HERE FOR THE BRIDGE THAT WE WOULD FELLOW BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE MIKE IT SAFER FOR INI E GREECE IN AND OUT OF THESE PROPERTIES. IF THEY REMAINED WHERE THEY ARE, YOU'D BASICALLY BE MAKING A HARD TURNL FROM A1A INTO THE PROPERTY. NOW WE'LL ABIBLE TO UTILIZE THAT TURNING LANE AND COME IN, WHICH IS GOING TO BE MUCH SAFER, AS WELL AS MI ACTIVITIES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE DRIVEWAYS THEMSELVES WILL BE SAFER ON BEACHCOMBER BOULEVARD.

SO THAT IS THE PROPOSAL. WP THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? MEGAN.

>> METEOROLOGIST: I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF AND THERE MAY BE A DUMB QUESTION, BUT THERE ARE TWO PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD.

HOW CAN HE SWITCH TO A DIFFERENT FORMATION AND WHAT'S THE CODE?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION AND REVIEWED.

SINCE THEY'RE NOT ADDING LOTS, WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT, BUT

[00:50:02]

>> MS. PERKINS: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: I'M SORRY.

THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY PART OF THIS REQUEST, WAS TO NOT ONLY SURIN IT TURN FROM IT COMMERCIAL WHRIE TO RESIDENTIAL BUT ALSO TURN IT, AND THAT WAS IN ALL THE

DOCUMENTATION THAT I SUBMITTED. >> MS. PERKINS: IT'S IN THE APPLICATION BUT PEUTZ A REZONING, SO HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO REFORMING THE LOTS IS MY QUESTION.

>> SPEAKER: WELL, THE REZONING D IT'S A -- AT THE SAME TIME

REZONING AND TURNING THEM. >> MS. PERKINS: I GET IT.

I TOTALLY GET IT. THERE'S PROBABLY A CODE, THOUGH,

THAT YOU NEED TO FOLLOW. >> SPEAKER: I'M NOT SURE.

WHEN I WENT TO THE COUNTY OFFICE, THEY TOLD ME THIS IS WHAT I HAD TO DO IN ORDER TO DO THOSE TWO ACTIONS, SO I'M JUST FOLLOWING WHAT I WAS REQUIRED TO DO.

INTANCHTS. >> TERESA BISHOP: YOUR ACTION TODAY WOULD BE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING.

THE LOT RECONFIGURATION, THAT IS WHAT IT IS CALLED, THEY ARE TWO PLATTED LOTS. THEY'RE JUST -- OUR WORDS RECONFIGURING THEM, CIRCLE CAN THEM AROUND AND MOVING THEM AROUND. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE PLAT IN ANY WAY. THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY MOVING THE TWO LOTS' SO THIET FRONTS A DIFFERENT STREET.

THAT IS ALLOWED IN ST. JOHNS CODE.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: BUT THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD DOESN'T MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY STAFF. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING. I THINK YOU GET THAT.

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

>> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, STEVEN THOMAS.

>> SPEAKER: I HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE.

JUST TURN THE MIC ON? >> MS. PERKINS: IT WOULD COME ON AUTOMATICALLY. STAYED YOUR STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> SPEAKER: MY NAME IS STEPHEN THOMAS I LIVE ITS A 733 COASTAL HIGHWAY, AND THE OWNER AND I JUST HAVE ONE CONCERN. I'M NOT DEBATING ANYBODY BUILDINGS ANY PROPERTY OUT THERE.

IT'S JUST IN REGARDS TO FLOODING AND WATER RUNOFF.

I KNOW THIS AREA -- I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS BECAUSE I WASN'T PRIVY TO IT, BUT I'VE SEEN THEM OUT THERE.

THEY'VE DISCUSSED THE DRAINOFF PROBLEMS OUT THERE.

IT'S NOT JUST DURING HURRICANES. IT CAN BE DURING HEAVY RAINS.

THE WATER RUNS DOWN THE STREET. AND MY PROPERTY HAS, HOME ITSELF HAS NEVER BEEN DAMAGED. THERE'S NO SIGNS OF ANY WATER DAMAGE. IT WAS BUILT IN '48.

I'VE LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY EXTENSIVELY AND RENOVATED IT, PUT A LOT OF MONEY IN IT, AND ALSO IN REGARDS TO THAT, THE SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS, TOO, I THINK IT'S A CONCERN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR FINAL DETERMINATION WAS ON THAT, BUT I DO KNOW THERE WERE AUTHORITIES OUT THERE.

THEY HAVE DISCUSSED PIPING AND RETENTION PONDS AND FOR THE PREVIOUS PEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO PURCHASE THAT PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AND THAT'S -- I JUST WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.

>> MS. PERKINS: THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW IN IT MATTERS. I ACTUALLY HAVE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A RESTAURANT AND STORE.

AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE THEM AS WELL WITH YOU.

BUT THERE WAS NEVER A RETENTION POND OR ANYTHING WITHIN THE PROPERTY. IT WAS A PARKING LOT AND A STRUCTURE, AND I THINK THAT'S ALL IN THE COUNTY RECORDS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

[7. LDC Amendment to Workforce Housing Zoning District.]

MEGAN. >> MS. PERKINS: MOTION TO RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENT REZONING 2022-24 AT 2885 COASTAL HIGHWAY BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACTS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SECOND BY JACK.

ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0.

AND SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7.

MS. RING. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU ALL.

APPRECIATE IT. >> MR. MATOVINA: YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, AGENCY MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS AMY RING WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

AND I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORK HOURS HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION. THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES TWO PIECES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.11.

00, ACCORDING TO A MOTION MADE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THEIR MEETING ON OCTOBER 18TH OF 2022.

THE AMENDMENT INCREASES THE MAXIMUM INITIAL SALES PRICE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING TO $260,000. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE ANNUA ADJUSTMENT CAP OF 3% OF THIS MAXIMUM INITIAL SALES

[00:55:05]

TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY BETWEEN REGULATIONS, THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE WILL REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT UNDER A .1.11. M1M.

FOR BACKGROUND, IN JULY OF 2022 THE WORK HORSE FORCE HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 2022-31.

IT ESTABLISHED THE MAXIMUM INITIALING SALES PRICE AT

$210,000 AND 40% AS THE MINIMUM. >> MS. PERKINS: UNITS FOR DEVELOPERS TO OFFER AS WORKFORCE HOUSING AND UTILIZE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AI AS SMALLER LOT SIZE ALLOWANCES AND/OR INCREASED DENSITY WITHIN RES-B, RES-C, RES-D, AND MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICTS. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021, ORDINANCE 2021 2021-55 INCREASED THE MAXIMUMS INITIAL SALES PRICE FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING TO $240,000. THAT ORDINANCE DID NOT AFFECT THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF UNITS REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED AS WORKFORCE HOUSING. IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION ADDRESSED THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH A PRESENTATION SUGGESTING CHANGES TO THIS SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE PRESENTATION ADDRESSED ISSUES OF INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND AND AND INCREASED. FFBA'S PROPOSED EXPHAINGS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDED INCREASING THE MAXIMUM INITIAL SALES PRICE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING TO $270,000, REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKFORCE UNITS TO 20%, ADDING RENTAL UNIT REQUIREMENTS WITH A DEFINE MAXIMUM RENTAL RATE, REDUCTIONS IN LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF YEARS ALLOWED TO PASS BETWEEN THE TIME OF REZONING TO WORKFORCE HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT TO THREE YEARS FROM TWO. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARD PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND DISCUSSED INFLATION'S IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF THE COUNTY'S CENTRAL WORKFORCE TO AFFORD TO SET REASONABLE PRICE POINTS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND THE STATUS OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING.

CURRENTLY WITHIN SIX APPROVED WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECTS, 993 TOTAL UNITS ARE APPROVED. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT REGULATION OF 40% MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UTILITIES FOR DEVELOPERS TO OFFER AS WORKFORCE HOUSING, 397 UNITS ARE REQUIRED AS OF NOW. AS DIRECTED BY THE BORE IN OCTOBER, THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES TWO THINGS.

IT INCREASES THE MAXIMUMS INITIALING SALES APPLIES TO $260,000. IT ALSO REDUCES THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DEED RESTRICTED UNITS THAT MUST BE PROVIDED FOR ALL WORKFORCE HOUSING OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO 30%.

IN TERMS OF EXISTING APPROVED WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DEVELOPMENTS, THIS AMENDMENT WILL THUS REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKFORCE HOUSING HOUSING UNITS TO 247 NINETEENS A REDUCTION OF 100 UNITS OR AROUND 25%.

SO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDED ACTION, STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS WRITTEN OR WITH SUGGESTED REVISIONS, FINDING THE MODIFICATIONS CONSIST WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE AGENCY'S RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBE, 2022.

AND I AM HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: PRICHARD.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: AREN'T THERE PROICHES THAT IF THE -- PROVISION THAT IF THE COSTS OF BUILDING MATERIALS GO DOWN, THAT THANK 24 COULD SLIDE BACK DOWN TO 240 IF WE APPROVE 260 TODAY OR IT COULD EVEN GO BACK TO 210? SAY WE DO ACTUALLY -- PEOPLE HAVE BEEN YAMMERING ABOUT A RECESSION FOR A YEAR NOW AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT LET'S SAY WE DO REALLY GET A RECESSION AND COSTS REALLY DROP, AND SAY MORTGAGE RATES GO DOWN AGAIN.

THEY'VE BEEN DROPPING FOR THREE WEEKS ALREADY.

CAN'T THE PRICES SLIDE BACK IN THA ALREADY BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE? ISN'T THAT ALREADY BUILT INTO

THE ORDINANCE? >> SPEAKER: IN THIS ORDINANCE, NO. IN THE CODE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WORKFORCE HOUSING CURRENTLY IS SET AT $240,000 WITH A 3% INCREASE OR DECREASE CAP DEPENDING ON THE CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX PUBLISHED BY THE ENGINEERING --

>> DR. HILSENBECK: ABOUT IT IT'S THE COST INDEX.

>> SPEAKER: IT'S 240. >> DR. HILSENBECK: THANK YOU FOR SAYING THOSE WORDS. I APPRECIATE IT.

SO IT CAN SLIDE BACK DOWN. >> SPEAKER: 3%.

[01:00:06]

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: NO.

IT CAN ONLY SLIDE UP WITH A CAP OF 3%.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, COUNSEL: SO THERE'S NO DOWNWARD REDUCTION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: OKAY. NO DOWNWARD REDUCTION.

260 FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING. THAT'S AMAZING FOR SOMEBODY THAT'S BEEN BUYING HOUSES OFF AND ON FOR 40 YEARS BUT THAT'S NOW WHAT WORKFORCE HOUSING IS CONSIDERED.

OKAY. AND I'LL JUST -- I'LL SAVE MY COMMENTS. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S GOOD. >> MR. MATOVINA: CHRISTINE.

IT SAYS MAXIMUM INITIAL SALES PRICE FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING IS $260,000. THE BASE MAXIMUM SALES PRICE SHALL BE ADJUSTED BY THE AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION INDEX AS PUBLISHED BY THE ENGINEERING IN JUNE OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR WILL NOT TO EXCEED A 3% INCREASE/DECREASE.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: THAT IS TRUE.

I STAND CORRECTED. THAT IS TRUE.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: HOWEVER, HISTORICALLY WE DO NOT KNOW THAT WE HAVE EVER SEEN A NEGATIVE INDEX, TO BE HONEST.

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

SPEAKER CARDS? >> MS. PERKINS: WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD, CHUCK LABANOWKSI NOW

>> SPEAKER: CHUCK LAB 1748 NORTH CAPPERO.

I'M GLAD WE DO THE THAT 3% STRAIGHT, BUT WHY INCREASE THE COST OF THE HOMES? WHY NOT CHANGE THAT PERCENTAGE? THAT WAY IT CAN GO UP OR DOWN ACCORDING TO WHAT THE COSTS ARE.

WHY ARE WE GOING TO PUT THAT MAXIMUM ON THERE OF 260 WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD THE 240 RIGHT NOW? SO I'D MUCH RATHER SEE THAT PERCENTAGE CHANGE.

THAT WAY IT FLUCTUATES UP AND DOWN.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? MR. NICHOLAS, YOUR PREDECESSOR USED IS TO WEAR A BOW TIE. I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING ACCEPT THAT TIE MUCH LONGER. [LAUGHTER]

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

AND NICHOLAS REPRESENTING THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, 6747 SOUTH POINTE PARKWAY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION WITH MY ORIGINAL -- OR OUR ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, IT WAS -- THERE WAS KIND OF A MISUNDERSTANDING, IN OUR OPINION.

WE -- IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COMMISSION. WE BROUGHT DOWN OUR MAXIMUM PRICE POINT FROM 270 TO 260 BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED. THOSE WERE THE TWO MAIN STICKING POINTS AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, AND WE CAME UP FROM 20% TO 30% BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. HOWEVER, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE GETTING THE OTHER PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH INCLUDED AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS, SOME SETBACK CHANGES, ALLOWING DUPLEXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT WAS LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION THAT THAT WAS NOT THE COMMISSION'S MOTION. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT, IF POSSIBLE, WE STILL WANT TO HONOR THE COMMISSION'S -- OUR NEGOTIATION WITH THEM AND KEEP THAT PRICE POINT AT 260 AND THE PERCENTAGE OF UNITS AT 30% LIKE THEY ASKED.

HOWEVER, WE WOULD ASK THAT WE INCLUDE THOSE OTHER PARTS THAT MAKE IT A MUCH BETTER ORDINANCE, IN OUR OPINION, AND WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT WITH THE COMMISSION -- WROA I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH BY MI MEANS, BUT THEY SEEMED TO BE AMENABLE TO ALL OF THOSE OTHER PARTS, AND ESPECIALLY THE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS. THEY SEEMED TO LIKE THAT.

BUT -- SO THAT'S JUST WHAT WE WOULD ASK.

AND I WAS PREPARED TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION TODAY, BU, BUT, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD JUST ASK, IS TO INCLUDE THOSE

ORIGINAL PARTS OF IT IN THIS. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO AS I SEE IT, AND CHRISTINE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE WOULD NEED THE ORDINANCE TO HAVE STRIKETHROUGHS AND CHANGES TO REFLECT WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING OR WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM BECAUSE THE BOARD DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO REVIEW, THE AGENCY DOESN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO REVIEW AND VOTE ON. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THOSE OTHER CHANGES BEFORE YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU WHAT IS YOUR

PREFERENCE HERE. >> SPEAKER: YEAH.

WELL, IF IT'S OKAY, BOB PORTER HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH THIS AS WELL. I'LL DEFER TO HIM ON THAT GIVEN

HE'S ONE OF MY BOSSES. >> MR. MATOVINA: MR. PORTER,

DO YOU WANT TO COME ON UP? >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

[01:05:03]

AS AUSTIN EXPLAINED, WE PRESENTED A BUNDLE OF CHANGES.

ONE WAS TO ADD RENTALS BECAUSE WE THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE. ONE WAS SOME FAIRLY MINOR CHANGES IN LOT SIZES AND SETBACKS.

ANOTHER WAS TO ALLOW BUILDERS TO PAY CLOSING COSTS ON BEHALF OF OUR BUYERS WITHOUT THAT BEING INCLUDED IN THE 260 BECAUSE THESE ARE THE BUYERS THAT NEED THAT THE MOST.

SO WHAT WE WERE AFTER -- THE WAY THAT WE DRAFTED THIS ORDINANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE IS WE DID OVER A YEAR WORKSHOP MEETINGS AT JIM DAVIDSON'S OFFICE WITH JIM AND LYNN FLANKER, SEVERAL BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS, COUNTY STAFF MEMBERS, AND COMMISSIONER WALDRON WAS THERE FOR ALL THE MEETINGS AND A PARTICIPANT.

AND THE IDEA WAS THAT WE NEED -- THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE UP ITS IMPACT FEE. IT DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE UPY -- REDUCE THE FEES IT COLLECTS. IT WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO ANY KIND OF WORKFORCE HOUSING, THAT IT PAYS FOR ITSELF. IN ORDER TO DO THAT -- AND ST. JOHN HOUSING PARTNERSHIP DOES A GOOD JOB BUT IT'S A COUPLE UNITS A YEAR. IT DOESN'T BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WE'VE GOT. SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS TO GET AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW A MAJOR BUILDER TO COME IN, DO A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOW PRICE, AND IN PRICE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF OF OUR MEDIAN SALES PRICE IN THE COUNTY NOW, BUT TO DO SOMETHING THAT A BUILDER CAN MAKE A PROFIT AT BECAUSE THEN WE WILL KEEP COMING BACK AND DOING MORE PROJECTS.

AND WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS THE WAY TO TRY AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. OUR COSTS HAVE GONE UP DRAMATICALLY. I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS HOUSE PRICES AND RENTS HAVE GONE UP BY 15 OR 20 PERCENT A YEAR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. IT IS SET UP SO THAT WE CAN ADJUST UP OR DOWN IF COSTS COME DOWN, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. BUT WHAT WE WERE HOPING IS WE SAW THAT YOUR CHOICES WERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, RECOMMEND DENIAL OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH SUGGESTED CHANGES.

SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO SUGGEST A CHANGE TO INCORPORATE RENTAL HOMES, RENTAL HOUSING, AND TO ALLOW US TO PAY FOR EXOSES ON BEHALF OF COSTS ON BEHALF OF THE BUYER.

THOSE KIND OF THINGS WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

IF THAT IS POSSIBLE TODAY. THE BOARD -- AS AUSTIN WAS EXPLAINING, THE BOARD SCAWSTLEDZ THESE.

THE ONLY THING IN THE PROPOSED NEW ORDINANCE THAT THEY CARED ABOUT, THAT THEY DISAGREED WITH WHERE THEY WANTED THE 30 INSTEAD OF 40 PERCENT, THEY WANTED 260 INSTEAD OF THE 270.

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF COMMISSIONER DEAN'S MOTION WAS THAT HE WANTED THE STAFF TO ADOPT THIS OR TO CREATE THIS ORDINANCE BUTTED TO CHANGE THE 40 TO 30 AND THE 270 TO 260, BUT TO ADOPT THE PROVISION FOR DOING RENTALS, PROVISION FOR US PAYING THE COSTS, THE SETBACK CHANGES AND THAT KIND OF THING.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT A BUILDER COULD MAKE MONEY AT. WE ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT ON A COUPLE OF THESE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT ENDS UP BEING THE LOWEST MARGIN FOR LOWEST RETURN NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE DO IN THE COUNTY, I WILL NEVER CONVINCE THEM TO CONTINUE DOING MORE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT WHERE IT IS SELF-SUPPORTING, WHERE IT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE FREE ENTERPRISE SORT OF A SOLUTION. AND I WILL SAY THAT WE'VE GOT A COPY OF A REDLINE FROM STAFF EARLY ON THAT INCORPORATED ALL OF THESE CHANGES, AND THEN WE HEARD FROM THE COUNTY COUNSEL THAT THAT WAS NOT THE WAY THAT THEY READ THE MOTION.

SO WE WOULD LIKE YOU, IF YOU CAN, TO CONSIDER ALL OF THESE, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD, AND THEN WHEN WE MEET WITH THE BOARD, WE WILL FIND OUT WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH US OR NOT. THEY CAN CERTAINLY THROW OUT THE

SUGGESTED CHANGES. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

RICHARD. AND DON'T SIT DOWN YET,

MR. PORTER, PLEASE. >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION, I GUESS, SO I'LL WAIT.

>> MR. MATOVINA: OKAY. >> DR. HILSENBECK:, ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY MS. RING DID SHOW A SLIDE THAT HAD THOSE PROITIONZ THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT -- PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SHE DID SHOW THAT.

WE COULD PUT THAT UP AGAIN. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO DO YOU

WANT THAT PUT UP AGAIN? >> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, SURE.

WE COULD DISCUSS. IT THERE IT IS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WELL, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE DON'T

[01:10:04]

>> DR. HILSENBECK: TRUE. >> MR. MATOVINA: AND I WOULD ASSUME WE SHOULDN'T VOTE ON CONCEPTS HERE.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THOSE ARE GENERAL STATEMENTS.

THERE WERE SPECIFIC CHANGES, SUCH AS ELIMINATING THE OWNER OCCUPIED REQUIREMENT FOR THE SALE TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT, AND THOSE WERE NOT DISCUSSED.

>> SPEAKER: I JUST GOT INTERRUPTED.

THERE WAS NO PROPOSAL TO DO AWAY WITH THE OWNER OCCUPANT.

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: I SAW THAT AS A REDLINE IN THE

DRAFT. >> SPEAKER: THAT WAS SOMEBODY'S ERROR. NO.

THE WHOLE CONCEPT WAS THE 270, AT LEAST 30% WOULD BE 260 AT THIS POINT, BUT OWNER OCCUPIED ONLY FOR THAT 30%.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO I THINK WHERE WE'RE AT HERE, QUITE FRANKLY, IS I DON'T THINK WE CAN VOTE ON THIS GENERAL LIST OF PROPOSED ITEMS. I THINK WE COULD VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE WITH SOME SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL CHANGES IF WE HAD THOSE.

SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IF WE -- IF NFPA THINKS THAT WE CAN, THROUGH THE BOARD, EFFECTUATE ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT CHEQUES TO INCORPORATED -- CHANGES TO INCORPORATE THESE ITEMS, THAT WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM, AND -- BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK ALL WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. WOULD NFPA'S PREFERENCE BE THAT WE CONTINUE THE ITEM AND ATTEMPT TO GET THOSE CHANGES ACTUALLY

PASSED THROUGH AND MADE? >> I THINK THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE IF ALL YOU CAN VOTE ON IS THOSE TWO CHANGES, GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT. WHEN WE PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD, WE WILL ASK THEM, THEN, TO SEND BACK THE REST OF THE STUFF AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE MOVING ON BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE OTHER CHANGES CONSIDERED BY STAFF WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD ANYWAY.

>> MR. MATOVINA: THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> SPEAKER: WE CAN JUST PROCEED WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT,

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> MR. MATOVINA: THAT MAKES

SENSE. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: AND, MR. MATOVINA, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD BECAUSE THAT I COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED YOU ARE AT LEAST GOING TO SEE TRANSMITTAL OF THAT AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION OF THAT AMENDMENT, SO THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSIDER DOOLING CHANGES TO THE CODE IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DIRECTS.

>> MR. MATOVINA: AND WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO SEE A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, I KIND OF HAD A QUESTION IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD WHEN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. ARE WE GETTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE OR IS IT OKAY FOR US TO SEND THIS ON TO THE BOARD?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: I THINK THIS IS OKAY.

THE BOARD IS NOT GOING TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, AND IT'S JUST THAT, THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE, THE 40%, THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO 30%, THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE COMP PLAN AS WELL AS THE LDC.

SO THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE CHANGED. >> MR. MATOVINA: GOT YOU.

SO WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MEGAN. MENCHTS.

>> MS. PERKINS: MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING DESIGNATION ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.11 .00 FINDING THE MODIFICATION CONSIST WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY REVEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> MR. MATOVINA: MOTION BY MEGAN FOR APPROVAL.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> MR. GREEN: I'LL SECOND THE

MOTION. >> MR. MATOVINA: SECOND BY HENRY. DISCUSSION?

>> DR. HILSENBECK: WELL, I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC REALITY OF HAVING TO JUMP THIS UP TO 260, AND THAT'S A SAD COMMENTARY RIGHT NOW WHERE WE ARE, BUT ECONOMICALLY, BUT AT LEAST THE STOCK MARKET WAS UP YESTERDAY, WAY UP. BUT I AM PERSONALLY AGAINST LOWERING THE PERCENTAGE OF UNITS FROM 40 TO 30, CERTAINLY NOT TO 20, BUT ALREADY AT 40% THE BUILDERS ARE GETTING QUITE A FEW INCENTIVES TO BUILD THOSE 40% OF WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, SMALLER LOTS. THEY'RE OFTEN SEQUESTERED OVER.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE RECREATIONAL SPACE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THERE ARE OTHER INCENTIVES AND FACTORS THAT LESSEN THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT CURRENTLY 40% OF THE UNITS.

BUT IF THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT UNITS FROM BEING BUILT, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN ISSUE, AND IF NO ONE'S GOING TO BRING FORWARD ANY WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, THAT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT I JUST CAN'T VOTE FOR REDUCING IT FROM 40 TO 30 PERSONALLY. AND I HOPE IT PASSES AND THIS BODY SENDS IT ON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I CAN'T VOTE FOR IT.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER

[01:15:01]

DISCUSSION? >> MR. PIERRE: YEAH, I CONCUR WITH DR. HILSENBECK. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANYONE ELSE? MEGAN.

>> MS. PERKINS: IT'S HARD ENOUGH FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN HERE AND DO WORKFORCE HOUSING, SO WE'RE GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST INCREASE, YOU KNOW, UNITS AND DENSITY TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, SO IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THE 10% CHANGE, WHICH ISN'T THAT MUCH, THEN YOU REALLY KIND OF ARE NOT ALLOWING WORKFORCE HOUSING TO COME IN.

YOU'RE BARRING THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT'S NOT HAPPENING NOW.

ONLY A FEW UNITS, LESS THAN 1,000, ARE COMING IN AS WORKFORCE HOUSING. IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO DEVELOP WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND WE'VE DONE TWO IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

SO NOT ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY I THINK WOULD

BE A TRAVESTY. >>>

>> MR. MATOVINA: RICHARD. >> DR. HILSENBECK: DURING MS. RING'S PRESENTATION, IT WAS SHOWN THAT IF WE PASS THIS AND THE BOARD PASSES IT, IT GOES ON TO TRANSMITTAL AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTION OF A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO DROP FROM BASICALLY 400 UNITS, I BELIEVE WAS CLOSE, 397 OR SOMETHING DOWN TO 297.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A 25% REDUCTION RIGHT NOW IN WHAT OUR APPROVED WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS OUT THERE.

SO I THINK SINCE THESE ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO CUT WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS BY 25% BY APPROVING THIS. THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT TO THAT. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRAINTS THAT BUILDERS ARE UNDER.

I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM BUT I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THEM AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO THANKS. >> MR. MATOVINA: I'M GOING TO WREA IN ON THIS. -- WEIGH IN ON THIS.

WE'RE REALLY IN A DIFFICULT TIME FRAME RIGHT NOW.

SO IF YOU WERE BUYING ONE OF THESE HOUSES THAT COST $240,000 RIGHT NOW AND YOU WERE QUALIFIED AT THAT PRICE, SIX MONTHS AGO VERSUS WHEN MORTGAGE RATES WERE ABOUT 3 VERSUS TODAY WHEN THEY'RE ALMOST 7, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT WOULD BE $1,000 A MONTH, SO YOU ARE FLAT BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER AT THIS POINT.

AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, IS WE'RE MANAGING TO GET SOME HOUSING DONE FOR THE VERY LOW INCOME.

WE'VE GOT THIS PROJECT COMING IN 234 IN WEST AS YOU AUGUSTINE AND A FEW OTHERS AND, OF COURSE, WE'RE SERVICING THE $500,000 BHIER IN SPADES ACROSS THE COUNTY, AND THAT GUY IN THE MIDDLE IS JUST GETTING REALLY PRICED OUT OR PUSHED DOWN IN TERMS OF WHAT HE CAN AFFORD, AND SO I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE UNABLE TO BUY A HOME IN THE PRICE RANGE WE NEED THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUY A HOME REALLY GOT EXPONENTIALLY HARDER IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS BECAUSE OF THIS, AND 6 AND 3/4 IS A GREAT MORTGAGE RATE HISTORICALLY.

IERTS A GREAT MORTGAGE RATE. BUT WE GOT SPOILED DURING THE PANDEMIC WITH 2-3/4 AND 3% AND THAT'S NOT REALTY.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE WAY THE FEASD ACTING FOR SOME TIME.

I WOULD URGE US, DESPITE THE CURRENTLY POTENTIAL DROP-BACK OF 100 UNITS, WHICH THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THEY'LL DROP BACK THAT FAR, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO PASS THIS TO BE SURE THAT GOING FORWARD WE CAN INCREASE THE NUMBER SUBSTANTIALLY AND

[Staff Reports]

THAT WOULD BE MY ENCOURAGEMENT. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS ITEM. ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT MOTION PASSES 4-2. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING -- SEEING YOU GENTLEMEN SOON WITH THE OTHER

CHANGES. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. BACK INTO THE AGENDA.

STAFF REPORTS? >> TERESA BISHOP: JUST A

[Agency Reports]

>> MR. MATOVINA: AND DO YOU THINK WE'LL JUST KEEP ONE ITEM

ON THAT AGENDA? >> TERESA BISHOP: I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT RIGHT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.