Dec 15, 2022 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order]

[00:02:34]

BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ITEM WHETHER THEY 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 COMMUNE WAITION HAS OISHED THE AGENCY MEMBERS SHOULD. 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 AND WE WILL AVOID

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

PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT IS ON THE AGENDA OR NOT ON THE AGENDA.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON --

>> MR. PETER: SORRY. >> MR. MATOVINA: MOVING ON TO

ITEM NUMBER 1. >> DONALD GULLION: GOOD AFTERNOON, NAMES DONALD GULLION. I'M WITH DREE FILEDDERS OWES HOME THE SUBJECT ADDRESS IS 3 ALLISON DRIVE ST. AUGUSTINE 32092. I GUESS I'LL JUST START LAYING OUT OUR CASE HERE. THIS IS THE WUFLT RESULT OF A MISTAKE MADE BY OUR SURVEYOR, CONCRETE FINISHER NOT WITH THE BHF PROCEEDING WITH THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE FRAMING OF HOME. IT'S A RARE MISTAKE ONE I'VE ONLY SEEN TWICE IN MY 22 YEARS IN THIS BUSINESS.

IT'S NOT A CATASTROPHIC MISTAKE THE.

THE SLAB IS A FEW LINES UNDETECTABLE BY THE NAKED EYE REALLY. OTHERWISE THE HOME IS PROPERLY BUILT, FOUNDATION, FRAME STRUCTURES, PASSED THE APPROPRIATE BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

WHILE THERE ARE OBVIOUS FINANCIAL IMPACTS FOR THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS ERROR THAT IS NOT THE CRUX OF OUR REQUEST HERE TODAY. AND THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT OUR INDUSTRY GETTING THE NEEDED MATERIALS AND LABOR TO THE JOB SITE THE FIRST TIME IS HARD ENOUGH.

TAKING DOWN A PROPERLY BUILT STRUCTURE, ALTHOUGH IMPROPERLY PLACED, IS CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE ERRORS TO BE MADE. WE ALSO HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUISANCE TO AND SAFETY OF THE OCCUPANT AND THE PROPERTY PANELING POTENTIAL TO THE TWO FINISHED HOMES THAT ARE OCCUPIED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STRUCTURE. THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION AND IT CREATES SOME UNNECESSARY RISK.

THE MAIN CONCERN THAT CAME FROM THE REVIEW PROCESS FROM THE

[00:05:01]

THEY WERE TURNED IN TO STAFF. I HAVE NO FEEDBACK ON THAT ISSUE SO THAT'S STILL A PENDING ISSUE. THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA WE WERE ASKED TO DEMONSTRATE WERE, ONE, SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN OUR OPINION THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. ALL OF THE PROPERTIES HERE ARE OWNED BY ONE ENTITY, OUR ONE CUSTOMER WHO HAPPENS TO ALSO BE THE PUD MANAGER. SO NO NEIGHBORS TO CONFLICT WITH IN THE PUBLIC. ITEM 2, AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION ON THIS LOT IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE TWO FINISHED LOTS ON EACH SIDE AND THE ADDITIONAL UNNECESSARY RISK INVOLVED.

WITH THE DEMOLITION REPLACEMENT OF THE CONCRETE SLAB AND THE FRAME STRUCTURE. FOR ITEM NUMBER 3, I THINK THE UNDO HARDSHIP WHOB THE EXTENDED BUILDING CYCLE TO NOISE AND REST TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEIR PROPERTY, AND I BELIEVE THE SPIRIT OF THIS CODE AGAIN IS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE PLAN TO PROVE THAT THE FIRE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE SAFER FOR THE MOOSHES AND THE FUTURE DEMO -- NEIGHBORS AND FUTURE

DEMO AND RECONSTRUCTION. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE PROCEED, NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE I WON'T BE VOTING ON THIS MATTER.

I HAVE DECLARED A CONFLICT AND SIGNED THE FORM.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE TO DECLARE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

YES, SIR, JACK. >> SPEAKER: COULD YOU CLARIFY AGAIN THIS LOT AND THE TWO HOMES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT ARE THE

SAME OWNERSHIP? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

THE -- >> SPEAKER: SO OBVIOUSLY

THEY'RE OKAY WITH THIS. >> SPEAKER: YES.

I DO HAVE PHOTOS HERE IF I LEARN HOW TO USE THIS THING IF ANYBODY

WANTS TO SEE THE SITE. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> SPEAKER: NONE. >> MR. MATOVINA: THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

JACK. >> SPEAKER: PLOSION TO APPROVE MINDER MODIFICATION TWOOTD 17 SHEARWATER LOT 82 BASED ON NINE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND NINE KANSAS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF

[2. REZ 2022-20 Hilltop Estates. ]

REPORT. >> MR. MATOVINA: BOGUES E.

MOTION BY MR. PETER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY MR. WILSON. ANY DISCUSSION IN HEARING NONE, REGISTER THE VOTE. I'M NOTE GOING TO VOTE, Y'ALL, SO YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH MINE.

THAT MOTION PASSES 4-RO. HOW DID YOU GET SO LUCKY TO BE ELECTED TO COME HERE? DID YOU BUILD THE HOUSE?

>> SPEAKER: MY LICENSE. YES, SIR.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 2, MATTHEWS DESIGN

GROUP. >> MR. MATOVINA, THIS IS ALSO AN

EX PARTE ITEM. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. I'M ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH.

ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON THIS ITEM FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT.

NONE.

>> CHRISTINA EVANS: CHRISTINA EVANS WA MATTHEW DESIGN GROUP.

THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST TOP OF TILL TOP ROAD.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROAD 207 APPROXIMATELY A HALF A MILE SOUTH ALONG HILLTOP RADIOED.

IT'S A 4.5-ACRE HAR SELL SCOAND OPEN RURAL AND CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A MOBILE HOME PARK. THE AREA AROUND IT IS GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL. THE WETLANDS TO THE WEST, THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD IS ADJACENT TO THE WEST, NORTH AND EAST.

AND THERE ARE MOBILE HOME LOTS TO THE SOUTH AND ON THE PARCEL DIRECTLY ACROSS OF HILLTOP ROAD. THE MOBILE HOME PARK HAS TEN DWELLING UNITS, EIGHT MOBILE HOMES AND ONE DUPLEX.

THERE IS ALSO RV STORAGE SPOTS ON THE SITE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL C.

IT'S AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL C, AND THEN THERE'S A BREAK DOWN BELOW FOR RESIDENTIAL B.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS OPEN RURAL, AND IT SEEMS TO FIT IN

[00:10:05]

SO THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, IS REQUESTING RS THRVMENT ZONING.

THE LOT REQUIREMENTS TO RS3 ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING. LOOKING AT THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD THAT, IT ACTUALLY HAS LARGER LOT SIZE WITH SETBACKS.

ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE SIMILAR.

AND THE DENSITY OF WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THIS PARCEL AND THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD ARE BOTH ABOUT THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND DOWN BELOW WHERE IT TRANSITIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL B, YOU HAVE MOBILE HOMES WITH A LOWER DENSITY. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF WHAT THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP. IT'S 15 LOTS, SO ONLY FIVE MORE DWELLING UNITS THAN IS CURRENTLY ON-SITE.

IT ALSO CONSIDERS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR HILLTOP ROAD TO BRING IT UP TO 60 FEET WIDE. SINCE IT'S SUCH A SMALL INCREASE IN DWELLING UNITS, ONLY FIVE, THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE ALSO VERY MINOR. FM FIVE PM PEAK TRIPS.

SO THE TOP VOTE PHOTO IS THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD AND AS YOU GO SOUTH ON HILLTOP ROAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY NARROWS TO AROUND YOU GET TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK.

SO THE SUBJECT DIVISION WOULD MATCH -- SUBDIVISION WOULD MATCH WHAT YOU SEE IN THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD.

MORE PHOTOS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK TODAY.

SO THE REQUEST FOR RS3 ZONING ISQUIST WITH THE LAND USE AND THE POLICY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT'S WITHIN THE COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY SERVED BY EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.

THE ROADWAY, THEY'RE PROPOSING A CONNECTION TO CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER. IT WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUST LIKE THE ONE TO THE NORTH.

OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING, WE CONTACTED THE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND WE GOT FOUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT, MOSTLY PEOPLE WITHIN THE SAWMILL LANDING PUD.

SO WE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

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

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> MR. PETER: NO.

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

>> SPEAKER: I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH MY -- I DON'T HAVE A MOTION BUT I'D BE GLAD TO MAKE IT. BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING

LOGGED IN. >> MR. MATOVINA: WOULD YOU

LIKE TO BORROW THIS? >> SPEAKER: IF YOU WOULDN'T

[3. Amendment to the Land Development Code - Veterinary Offices, Animal Hospitals in Office & Professional Use Services. ]

FIND. >> MR. PIERRE:

>> MR. PETER: I WAS . >> MOCA TO RESOAP TWOT 20 HILLTOP ESTATES BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN

THE STAFF REPORT. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

MOTION BY JACK, SECOND BY ELVIS. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES.

5-0. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> AMY RING: GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS AMY RANGE WITH GROWTH MANAGES.

I'M HERE TO SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND LOAMENTDZ ADDING VETERINARY OFFICE, ANIMAL HOSPITALS IN THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USE SERVICES CATEGORY. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT AFFECTS THREE ARTICLE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLES 12, 6 AND 2. I'M PRESENTING THESE ARTICLE BEGINS WITH ARMING 12 TO FIRST ESTABLISH THE DEV NITIONZ USED THROUGHOUT THE CODE. FOR BACKGROUND, ON JULY 19TH OF 2022, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED THAT GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF RESEARCH ADDING VOIRNTD OFFICE TO THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USE CATEGORY.

A REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 20TH AND RESULTED IN A REQUEST FROM THE BOARD TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO THE LDC, ADDING VETERINARY OFFICE TO THE OFFICE AND

[00:15:06]

HOWEVER, THE COUNTIES THAT DO ALLOW VETERINARY OFFICES IN OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL ZONING INCORPORATE DESIGN CONDITIONS.

IN THE REPORT STAFF IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONCERN INCLUDING ANIMAL BOARDING, OUTDOOR ACTIVITY, AND SOUND PROOFING REQUIREMENTS. SO AFTER RECEIVING DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF WITH INPUT PRESIDENT COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DRAFTED THE SUBMITTED PROPOSED AMENDMENT AFFECTING THE THREE ARTICLES. BEGINNIG WITH ARTICLE 12, THE THIS AMENDMENT ADDS A DEFINITION FORE VETERINARY OFFICE MANLY HOSPITAL AS A BUILDING USE FOR THE MEDICAL AND SURGICAL CARE OF ANIMAL PATIENTS. AND THE EXISTING DEFINITION FOR OFFICE, PZ OR PROFESSIONAL WHICH INCLUDES VETERINARIANS THIS AMENDMENT REMOVES THE STATEMENT FROM PERMITTING THEM FROM TREATING OR BOARDING ANIMALS ON THE PREMISES.

THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES TO ARTICLE 6 SECTION 6.04 SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN FRANDERS IS FOR CURRENTLY TITLED ANIMAL HOSPITAL VETERINARY CLINICAL GENERAL AND SMALL.

THESE ARE REGULATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL ANIMAL HOSPITALS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT OR BY SPECIAL USE. THE COMPLETE RED LINE FOR THIS IS IN YOUR STAFF PACKET AND INCLUDES MANY CHANGES SO THE RED LINE HIGHLIGHT EACH OF THOSE CHANGES JUST ONCE.

CHANGES INCLUDE AMENDING THE TITLE REFERENCE OF SECTION 6.08.04 AND SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES TO MATCH THE ORDER OF TERMS IN THE NEW DEFINITION FOR VETERINARY OFFICE ANIMAL HOSPITAL. ADDING THE TERM OUTDOOR TO REFERENCES TO ANIMAL EXERCISE YARDS.

SPECIFYING THIS AN ENCLOSED BUILDING MUST BE SOUNDPROOFED.

REPLACING THE PHRASE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY WITH PROPERTY ZONED OR USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHEN DESCRIBING PROXIMITY REQUIREMENTS TO CLEARLY INCLUDE RESIDENCES ZONED OPEN RURAL. AND ADDING SUBSECTION F, ADDRESSING OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATION BOARDING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE ANIMALS RECEIVING MEDICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT, SPECIFYING THAT MOW NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE CAN BE USED FOR BOARDING.

THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES TO ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2.02.01 USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEFCISIONS, JUSTICES REFERENCES TO VEARTD OFFICE AND/OR HOSPITALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNIFORM IN LANGUAGE.

THE DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES USE CATEGORY IN PART 2.02.01M1 SPECIFIES USED INVOLVING PRIMARILY DAYTIME OPERATIONS AND ABSENCE OF IMPACTS SUCH AS NOISE, LIGHT OR POLLUTION WITH NO ASSOCIATED OUTDOOR STORAGE OR ACTIVITY AND EXAMPLES OF SUCH BUSINESSES AS RESTAURANTS, MAIL-IN PACKAGE SERVICES AND MEDICAL OFFICES.

SO THIS AMENDMENT ADDS VETERINARY OFFICES, ANIMAL HOSPITALS TO THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES USE CATEGORY IN ACCORDING A WITH THESE CHARACTERISTICS BY SPECIFYING THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED IN STANDALONE SOUND APPROVE BUILDS WITHOUT OUTDOOR EXERCISE YARDS.

LASTLY, THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES CHANGES TO TABLE 2.03.01 ALLOWABLE AND SPECIAL USES TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ALREADY MENTIONED HERE. YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT VETERINARY OFFICE ANIMAL HOSPITL IS ADDED TO THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES USE CATEGORY. YOU CAN'T SEE IT THERE.

SORRY. IF YOU NEED TO, I DO HAVE A COPY, IF YOU NEED ME TO PLACE IT IS ON THE SCREEN.

SO IN TERMS OF ACTION, STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS THE WRITTEN OR WITH SUGGESTED REVISIONS, FINDING THE MODIFICATIONS CONSIST WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE SPHDGES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE AGENCY'S RECOMMENDATION WILL BE SPRENTD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON FEBRUAR, 2023. THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA:? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

I HAVE ONE. >> MR. PIERRE: WHAT BROUGHT ON

THE REQUEST FOR THE CHANGE? >> AMY RING: THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM -- IT CAME AT A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING WITH A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEY.

>> MS. PERKINS]: OKAY . >> MR. PIERRE: I GUESS THIS IS

[00:20:02]

THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEY. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION, AND YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED I EARLIER AND I MAY HAVE MISSED IT IN THE DEFINITIONS, BUT WE SAY "SOUNDPROOF," AND I HAVE WALKED BY, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS BEFORE THAT HOUSE DOGS OVERNIGHT. I USED TO WORK OUT NEXT DOOR TO A BUILDING LIKE THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE WERE BUILDING THAT WERE REUSE. THEY WERE SOMETHING ELSE BEFORE AND GOT CONVERTED INTO DOG TOWN, ONE OF THEM.

YOU STILL CAN HEAR THE DOGS BARKING BUT YOU CAN'T HEAR THEM VERY FAR AWAY THE FROM BUILDING, SO I ASSUME WE HAVEN'T DEFINED SOUNDPROOF OR ARE WE GOING TO SAY ABSOLUTELY 100% SOUNDPROOF? HOW DO WE DEFINE THAT? [LAUGHTER]

MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? >> AMY RING: YES, PLEASE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: BETWEEN NOW AND THE BOARD MEETING YOU FIGURE ON IT A WAY TO DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS.

I DON'T PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE IT NEED TO BE YOU CAN'T ABSOLUTELY HEAR ANYTHING FROM OUTSIDE THE WALL.

I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW -- WE'RE REALLY RESTRICTING OURSELVES, BUT I THINK YOU SHOULDN'T HEAR SOMETHING 50 FEET AWAY. SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD NEEDS NECESSARILY TO ARM WRESTLE OVER THAT. I THINK Y'ALL OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE FEBRUARY MEETING.

>> AMY RING: YES, SIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? >> MR. PIERRE: NO.

THAT'S ALL THAT I -- I MEAN, I'M NOT AGAINST IT.

I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT BROUGHT IT TO US.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ANY SPEAKER CARDS?

>> MR. PETER: NO. >> MR. MATOVINA: THEN WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

JACK. >> WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD.

>> MR. MATOVINA: DO YOU WANT TO TALK US OUT OF IT?

>> SPEAKER: NO, SIR. I'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHERE IT'S GOING. I'M JUST FOR MR. GREEN, 20,000 LEVEL LOOKING AT THIS, WHAT IT REALLY DOES IS A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS DON'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIAL GENERAL, AND THEN EVEN IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS ALLOW THIS ALREADY.

BHAIT WHAT IT ALLOWS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY IS FOR MEDICAL OFFICE REUSE. YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF MEDICAL OFFICES. ONCE THEY AGE AT 15 YEARS, THOSE PRACTICES WILL GO TO A NEW BUILDING AND REBUILD IN THE NEW STILT AND SOMETIMES THAT SPACE IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE EVER GOING TO GET A VETERINARY CLINIC THAT HAS ONCOLOGY FACILITY OR IMAGING FACILITIES BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF IS SO EXPENSIVE, IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE TO ENTER THAT FIELD A LOT OF TIMES FOR VETERINARY CLINICS. AS TO YOUR SOUND PROOFING ISSUE, WE'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT ANIMAL HOSPITAL, NOT OVERNIGHT BOARDING, AND IT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF BOARDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SPACE, SO THIS LIMITATION IS ONE THAT'S PRETTY NARROWLY CRAFTED SOLELY FOR HOSPITALS.

IT'S NOT FOR BOARDING FACILITY. SO IF THAT HELPS.

OTHERWISE I'LL SHUT UP. >> MR. MATOVINA: THANKS.

>> SPEAKER: DOUG. I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE 20% THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED. THAT COMMON AMONG SIX COUNTIES,

THAT NUMBER, THAT 20%? >> SPEAKER: I'LL TEM YOU WHERE I TOOK THAT NUMBER FROM. IT WAS PROVIDED TO ME FROM THE DOIRCHT ASSOCIATIONS FOR VETERINARY PRACTICES TO BECOME AN ACCREDITED VETERINARY PRACTICE.

IF YOU LOOK AT A VET HOSPITAL AND THE SQUARE FOOT OF THE SPACE FOR THEIR -- THOSE ASSOCIATIONS PROVIDE SQUARE FOOTAGE LAYOUT FOR FREE TO VETERINARIANS SO YOU CAN SEE DIFFERENT IDEAL LAYOUT FOR VET CLINIC OR VET OFFICE, AND THAT'S WHERE I COMES FROM, HOW MUCH SPACE YOU NEED FOR OVERNIGHT STAYS OF ANIMALS, SO I THINK YOU GET A GOOD NUMBER THERE COMPARED TO A BOARDING FACILITY BECAUSE FACE BASING THE STAT OFF OF THE PUBLIC CASES FROM THOSE AGENCIES, I THINK GIVES YOU A GOOD MEASURE NUMBER, WHEREAS YOU WOULD HAVE MAYBE AN 80/20 RAE VERSE IF YOU WERE TRYING TO BE A BOARDING FACILITY.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA: WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY IS FOR A MOTION. JACK.

>> MR. PETER: MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE VETERINARY OFFICE, ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND THE IN THE OFFICE

[4. MAJMOD 2022-08 Six Mile Creek PUD (Six Mile Creek North) - Tract 20. ]

COUNTY COMP PLAN. >> MR. MATOVINA: GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONSOME I'M GOING ON DEFINITELY VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE MY WIFE WOULD BE MAD AT ME IF I DIDN'T. SHE LOVES ANIMALS.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND REGISTER THE MOAT. ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES 5-0. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4.

[00:25:03]

THE KATHRYN WHITTINGTON REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

32084. WITH ME HERE TODAY THE VANESSA CUNNINGHAM. SHE IS THE PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FLETCHER DAVIS, THE RELATED ENTITY TO THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF DRI AND DID PUD AND ALSO THE PROJECT'S ENGINEERING BILL SCHILLING WITH KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES.

THIS IS BASICALLY A CLEANUP ITEM, AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS AS BRIEFLY AS I CAN.

THIS IS A VERY OLD PROJECT. IT HAS A LOT OF HISTORY TO IT.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SITE LOCATION.

IT'S LOCATED BETWEEN PACETTI ROAD AND STATE ROAD 16.

THIS IS THE PUD. YOU SEE WHERE THE SITE AT ISSUE IS POINTED OUT THERE. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND IT IS IN BLUE WHICH IS UNUSUAL.

IT'S BECAUSE THE LAND USE IS ACTUALLY DRI BECAUSE OF ITS AGE.

THERE ARE I THINK ON THREE DRIS THAT HAVE THAT LAND USE BECAUSE THEY PREDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO THEIR LAND USE DESIGNATION IS DRI.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE TWO PARCELS, THE TWO PUDS THAT MAKE UP THIS DRI. IT'S CALLED THE ST. JOHN DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL IMPACT. TODAY WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SIX MILE CREEK. THIS IS THE SIX MILE CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD MAP, AND AGAIN WE HAVE THE SITE POINTED OUT UP HERE. IT'S LOCTD IN SIX MILE CREEK NORTH AND OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE KING AND THE BEAR.

THIS SHOWS YOU THE SITE. IT'S CALLED TRACT 20.

AND HERE AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THE SITE, AND IT SHOWS THE DISTANCE TO THE CLOSEST HOMES. THIS IS ON REGISTRY BOULEVARD.

THIS TRACT IS 5.13 ACRES, PRIMARILY OF UPLAND.

SO THERE'S ONE CHANGE REQUESTED, AND THAT IS TO TAKE THOSE LINES THAT YOU JUST -- YOU JUST SAW, RIGHT THERE, OFF OF THIS TRACT, AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY IN JUST A SECOND.

THIS IS A CORRECTION TO WHAT'S CALLED MAP H OF THE PUD.

MAP H IS ALSO MAP H OF THE DRI. BACK IN THE DAY WHEN THIS WASEDD IT. TODAY YOU WOULD KNOW THIS AS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ANY PUD, BUT BACK THEN THIS IS HOW IT WAS DONE. IT'S CALLED MAP H.

IT'S A LONG STANDING ERROR THAT'S BEEN ON MAP H, POSSIBLY 25 YEARS, MAYBE MORE. IT WAS INADVERTENTLY DESIGNATED ON MAP H AS ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE.

THAT'S WHAT THOSE LINES MEAN. BUT IT WAS ALWAYS SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY THE MASTER DEVELOPER.

SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE IS REMOVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE DESIGNATION ON TRACT 20 WITH 5.13 ACRES TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, JUST ONE. THERE'S NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF APPROVED UNITS FOR EITHER THE PUD ORE THE DRI.

THE TRACT IS BEING ADDED TO THE MAP H DEVELOPMENT TABLE WITH A NEW NUMBER TRACT 33 BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY A TRACT 20 SO WE PICKED THE NEXT AVAILABLE NUMBER, AND WE ALSO ADDED A NOTE TO THE TABLE LIMITING THE TRACT TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A SECOND. THERE YOU SEE AN UP CLOSE.

IT'S AN EXCERPT OUT OF MAP H. MAP H IS ON THE LEFT.

AND SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT'S ALMOST -- IT'S OVER 3,000 ACRES IN THIS PUD. SO ONE SHEET IS THE WHOLE MDP FOR THIS PUD. SO INCREMENTAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS, WHICH YOU SEE TODAY, WERE ALSO DONE BUT THEY WERE CALLED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

BUT YOU CAN SEE IT'S LABELED ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE, THE HATCHING. TYPICAL, IT SAYS.

AND IT SAYS THAT ALL OVER WHERE YOU SEE THAT HATCHING.

SO THIS IS A RED LINE OF WHAT WE'RE CHANGING.

WE'RE ADDING IT TO THE TABLE, RESIDENTIAL PFC .13 WITH SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE CRITERIA, SO THAT'S SET OUT IN THE PUD.

AND THEN WE PUT THE NOTATION ON THERE THAT IT'S LIMITED TO ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THIS IS JUST THE CLEAN VERSION OF IT. SO WHY ARE WE HERE? IN 1998, THERE WAS A PUD MAP H ORIGINALLY APPROVED SHOWING ENVIRONMENT OF A PRESERVE LABEL ON TRACT 20 UNDER AN ORDINANCE

[00:30:02]

IT WAS AS FAR BACK AS 1991. BUT 1998 THERE WAS A MODIFICATIONS DONE AND THE MAP H ATTACHED TO IT DOES SHOW THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE. THEN IN 1998 IT GOT CORRECTED IN AN INCREMENTAL FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT REMOVED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE LABEL. SO THIS IS AGAIN MAP H FROM 1998, AND THAT BOX ON THE LEFT SHOWS YOU THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE LABELS ALL OVER. IT'S ABOUT 2,000 ACRES OF PRESERVE. AND THEN THERE'S A NOTE ON THIS MAP H THAT SAYS IT'S CONCEPTUAL. AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THERE'S NO FOOTNOTE SAYING ONE UNIT AND THERE'S NO TRACT 33.

THERE IS A TRACT 20, WHICH IS IN HERE, A SMALL 3-ACRE TRACT.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED SOMETHING ELSE AND INCLUDED IN THE TABLE BUT IT WASN'T. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

THIS IS THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD 25 YEARS AGO, SHOWING IT WITHOUT THE -- OOPS -- SHOWING IT WITHOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE.

AND YOU CAN SEE IT POINTED OUT RIGHT THERE.

THOSE LINES ARE MISSING. RIGHT THERE.

SO ESSENTIALLY THIS BOARD'S ALREADY ACT ON THIS, BUT THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO CLEAN UP MAP H.

SO THEN IN 1998, SOME THREE MONTHS LATER, THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND IF COUNTY APPROVED A PLAT SHOWING IT AS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

NO COMMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE REVIEW OF THE PLAT APPLICATION THAT WE NEED TO TAKE IT OFF MAP H.

HERE'S THE PERMIT. THERE'S THE PAGE FROM THE PERMIT SHOWING IT AS DEVELOPABLE, NOT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE.

HERE'S THE PAGE FROM THE PLAT. HERE'S THE ADOPTION AND DEDICATION FROM THE PLAT. IT SAYS TRACT 20, ALONG WITH SOME OTHER TRACTS, MAY BE REPLATTED FOR RESIDENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL USES. HERE YOU SEE THIS IS ANOTHER PAGE FROM THE PLAT, YOU SEE PARCEL 20 UP THERE AT THE TOP RIGHT THERE. IT SAYS DUTY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 5.13 ACRES. THESE ARE ALL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, AROUND IT, AROUND THESE PARCELS, WHICH I'LL SHOW.

YOU TWO YEARS LATER THE ACTUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT WAS APPROVED AND RECORDED. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE TRACT 20 WITH THE 5.13 ACRES BUT IT DOES INCLUDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT NUMBER 5 SURROUNDING TRACT 20 THAT HAS 8.81 ACRES.

HERE'S THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE NOTATION THERE ON THE RIGHT.

HARD TO READ BUT IT'S CONSERVATION PARCEL NUMBER 58.18 AREAS, DUTY IT DOES NOT HAVE THE 5.

13 ACRES TRACT 20. HERE YOU CAN SEE WE COLORED IT FOR YOU THE YELLOW IT'S TRACT 20, 5.13 ACRES AND CANNY GREEN SHOWS CONSERVATION EASEMENT NUMBER 5.

NOW FAST FORWARD TO RECENT ITEMS TIMES HIM.

IN 2019 A PREAPPLICATION WAS FILED FOR A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION. NO STAFF COMMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE REVIEW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE LABEL THAT WAS STILL ON MAP H. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE THEY ASKED FOR A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION THAT COULD HAVE LOT OUT MUCH MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE Y FOR IT'S 3.2 PER ACRE.

BUT THEY NEVERTHELESS, THEY ASKED FOR 3 ACRES.

HERE WAS THE STAFF COMMENT. YOU WOULD BE PER NOIFTD A THREE-LOTT SUBDIVISION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS IS A LOT LAYOUT THAT THE DEVELOPER PREPARED AT ONE TIME PLANNING, NOT REALIZING THIS PROBLEM WAS GOING ON, BUT PLANNING TO DEVELOP THIS TRACT, AND THIS LOT LAYOUT SHOWS 11.

BUT THEY DIDN'T PURSUE IT. NOW FAST FORWARD TO NOW.

THE MASTER DEVELOPER SOLD TRACT 20 BY A PLATTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND ALLOCATED DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR A SINGLE UNIT TO THE TRACT. HERE'S THE ALLOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT IT SAYS ONE SINGLE UNIT. RIGHT THERE.

ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. AND HERE'S TRACT 20.

SO THE NEW OWNER SUBMITTED A ZONING CONFIRMING LETTER REQUEST TO CONFIRM WHETHER THEY COULD HAVE A BARN AND HORSES ON IT, AND THEN STAFF IDENTIFIED THE SCREAPTION BETWEEN MAP H, THE LABEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE, VERSUS THE PLAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LABEL THAT SAYS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY REQUIRED MAP H TO BE CORRECTED, AND TO CORRECT MAP H,

[00:35:02]

SO NOW AT THE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP SOME QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT FLOODING, AND SO WE PROMISED THEM THAT WE WOULD HAVE OUR ENGINEER TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND WE DID THAT, AND HE -- I'M GOING TO ASK BILL SCHILLING WHO HAS ALREADY COME UP HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THAT TRACT MIGHT FLOOD THE ADJACENT HOMES.

>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, AGENCY MEMBERS. I'M BILL SCHILLING.

I'M WITH KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES MY DRESS IS 12740 GRAN BAY PARKWAY WEST STWEET 2350 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32258. AND AS MENTIONED BY KATHRYN, A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP, A MEETING ATTENDED BY SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN KING AND BEAR OCCURRED, AND AT THAT MEETING THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE ENGINEERING-RELATED THAT HONESTLY AT THE TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO, AND I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME OF THOSE ATTENDEES THAT COULD BE IN THE AUDIENCE OR MAYBE WATCHING VIA GTV.

SO WE HAVE DONE A SIGNIFICANT BIT OF RESEARCH SINCE THAT COMMUNITY MEETING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, AND SO I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE FLOOD PANEL, THE FORMAT, AND AS WELL HAVE GONE BACK AND HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT UNWFT QUESTIONS HA WAS RAISED, AND I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN BY A DRENT? LA TERRA, WAS ABOUT THE FLOOD ZONE AND A CONCERN.

AND A QUESTION OF WOULD DEVELOPMENT THIS PARCEL AFFECT THE FLOOD ZONE OR CAUSE ANY FLOODING.

AND THIS SHOWS THE FLOOD MAP. LET ME MAKE SURE HIT THE RIGHT BUTTON. SO ZONE A IS THE FLOOD-PRONE AREA, AND I KNOW THAT RESIDENT MENTIONED THAT SHE OFTEN SEES WATER BACK IN THIS AREA, WHICH WOULD BE CORRECT.

THAT IS WITHIN FLOOD ZONE A, THE FLOOD-PRONE AREA, BUT OUR PARCEL 20, OTHER THAN THIS SMALL AREA RIGHT HERE, WHICH -- AND I'LL SHOW YOU ANOTHER SLIDE IN A MINUTE, REALLY THIS IS THE UNDEVELOPABLE PORTION OF PARCEL 20.

THIS IS THE ONLY PORTION THAT IS WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE, AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT UP IN FLOOD ZONE X, THE NON-FLOOD-PRONE AREA, IS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT WILL OCCUR, SO RIGHT NOW MY OPINION IS, IS THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE AND WILL NOT IMPACT THE FLOOD ZONE, SO WANTED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION. THIS NEXT SLIDE, SO THIS SHOWS ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS WAS WILL THERE BE WETLAND THAT WILL BE IMPACTED, AND THIS SLIDE -- AND I TURNED IT SLIGHTLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY THE PLAN SHEET WAS DONE.

THE PRIOR ONE NORTH WAS DUE UP, STRAIGHT UP.

THIS ONE NORTH IS TURNED SLIGHTLY.

BUT THIS BLUE LINE IS THAT FLOOD ZONE LINE, SO EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT OF THE BLUE LINE IS YOUR ZONING A, YOUR FLOOD-PRONE AREA, AND EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT IS YOUR ZONE X.

THIS MAP ALSO SHOWS THE WETLAND LINE, WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE PARCEL BOUNDARY. SO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CORE AREA OF ZONING X WILL NOT IMPACT ANY WETLAND, AS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED AS A PART OF THE APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT. ALSO AS A PART OF PERMITTING THERE IS A REQUIRED 25-FOOT BUFFER FROM THE WETLAND LINE, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE, SO THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DEVELOPMENT, CLEARING, ET CETERA WITHIN THAT BUFFER WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE WETLAND. SO WE FEEL CONFIDENT, I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THERE WILL NOT BE WETLAND IMPACTS.

THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION ABOUT DRAINAGE.

IN LOOKING AT WHAT I'VE SEEN SO FAR OF THE PERMIT DOCUMENTS, THIS PARCEL 20 WAS SHOWN AS AN UPLAND DEVELOPMENT AREA WITHIN A DEFINE DRAINAGE BASIN IN THE PERMIT, SO IN MY OPINION, IT HAS BEEN PART AND PARCEL AND CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE APPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED IN 1998. AND THEN THE FINAL ITEM, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED IN A QUESTION, WAS ABOUT WOULD THERE BE TRUCKS, CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY DUMP TRUCKS BRINGING IN SOCOM DIRT TO THE SITE, AND TO BE SOME DIRT TO

[00:40:02]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID WANT TO LOOK AT IS THIS BE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER DEFEND LOTS WITHIN THE COMMUNE, THE KING AND BEAR. WE DID A COUNT AND RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 28 LOTS THAT ARE NOT ONLY SINGLE FOAM HELM LOTS BUT CARRIAGE HOME LOTS IN LA TERRA LINKS, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE SIMILAR TRUCK DLOIFERSZ WITH MATERIALS BEING DELIVERED TO THE SITE WITH SOME FILL BEING DELIVERED TO THE SITE AND CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THOSE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE STILL TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE PROJECT. WE DO KNOW THAT WE ARE WITHIN THE HEEVMENT BOUNDARY SO WE ARE WITHIN THE ST. JOHN SIX SIX MILE CREEK NORTH BOUNDARY, SO AS A PART OF THAT THE HOMEBUILDER WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THAT HOA WHICH ALSO DOES REQUIRE PAYMENT OF A DEPOSIT FOR ANY CHANNELING TO HOA PROPERTY, CURBS, ROADWAYS, ET CETERA, AND CERTAINLY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER 27 LOTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED, WE'RE ONE OF THE 28, THE HOMEBUILDER ON THIS SITE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO POST THAT DEPOSIT FOR ANY POTENTIAL DAMAGE.

SO I WANTED TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION.

HOPEFUL IT ANSWERS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE WEREN'T ABLE TO

ANSWER. >> MINOR COLLECTOR.

>> OH, YES. GREAT POINT.

SO ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS IS WE WOULD ANTICIPATE OUR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO BE COMING IN FROM PACETTI ROAD THROUGH THIS GATE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SEE AS A POSITIVE, AT LEAST FOR THIS SITE AS COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER UNDEVELOPED LOTS, IS CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CAN GET TO THIS LOT THE ENTIRE WAY ON A MINOR COLLECTOR THAT DOES NOT HAVE HOUSES LOADED ON IT, SO OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT OUR TRAFFIC WOULD BE GETTING TO THE SITE WITHOUT PASSING DIRECTLY IN FROIVET FRONT OTHER HOMES AND PASSING DRIVEWAYS. THANK YOU, KATHRYN.

I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO KATHRYN.

THANK YOU. CEANCHTS SO WITH THAT WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

JACK? >> MR. PETER: HI.

THANK YOU. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, GIVEN THE POSITION THAT THIS WAS INADVERTENTLY LABELED BACK IN THE DAY, WAS IT LISTED FOR SALE 20 YEARS AGO, THIS LOT?

>> SPEAKER: NO. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY OFFERED FOR SALE. LET ME ASK VANESSA HOW LONG AGO.

2019. AND SO I'VE RACKED MY BRAIN.

OBVIOUSLY THIS PRE-DATES ANY OF US ON THIS TEAM AND WE'VE DONE RESEARCH, AND I'LL GIVE KUDOS TO BRANDON TORRADO, OUR REVIEWER WHO HAS ALSO DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OF RESEARCH AS WELL.

I WILL GIVE YOU MY HYPOTHESIS. I HAVE WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FOR 20 YEARS BUT NOT THIS FAR BACK.

MY HYPOTHESIS IS THIS PUD, THIS IS PURE SPECULATION, BUT IT HAS 4,800 UNITS IF IT, AND THEY WERE BUSY.

THEY WERE BUSY CONSTRUCTING IT, DEVELOPING IT.

THIS TRACT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A RE-PLAT.

AND SO IN THE MEANTIME THEY WERE DOING GREAT BIG PLATS WITH 1,000 LOTS, AND I THINK THIS JUST GOT LOST IN THE ETHOS, AS BRANDON LIKES THAT WORD. THAT, COMBINED WITH I THINK THEY RAN OUT OF LOTS TO OUT-- BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THEM OUT THIS THE PUD. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

>> MR. PETER: BUT IT HAS BEEN DEEMED ENVIRONMENTAL

PRESERVATION. >> SPEAKER: IT'S NOT.

IT NEVER HAS BEEN ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT MAP H.

ALL THE APPROVALS SUBSEQUENT SHOW IT'S A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE PLAT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR IT.

AND IT'S -- WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER APPROVAL.

IT'S OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

IT'S OUTSIDE -- IT'S SHOWN NOT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVE ON THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT.

IT'S SHOWN NOT PRESERVE ON THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCREMENTAL THAT THIS BOARD ALREADY APPROVED BACK IN 1998.

AND I THINK IT JUST FELL BY THE WAYSIDE UNTIL ALL OF THE A SUDDEN, THEY'RE ALMOST DONE AND WE HAVE THIS 5 ACRES.

LET'S SELL IT. AND SO THEY SOLD WITH IT A PLATTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION BECAUSE THE PLAT HAD BEEN APPROVED. NOBODY THOUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL STAFF CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THAT WE NEEDED TO TAKE THAT OFF

MAP H, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE. >> MR. PETER: I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO HAVING BRA DON'T COME UP AND EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF THIS.

[00:45:12]

>> SPEAKER: BRANDON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.

SO I DO HAVE A BRIEF HISTORY HERE THAT I DID IN PREPARATION FOR THE SITE, AND I HAVE QUITE A BIT OF MAPS HERE AS WELL SO JUST IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW ALONG.

SO INITIALLY HERE I HAVE -- THIS IS THE INDEX THAT WE HAVE WITH SOME OF OUR PUD BOOKS WITHIN THE PERMITTING CENTER, AND IT KIND OF GIVES A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DIFFERENT PUDS HERE.

SO INITIALLY YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PUD WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1991 FOR THE SIX MILE CREEK. AS CEASHTDZ STATED, THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY DRI BUT THE SIX MILE CREEK WAS ESTABLISHED THEN HELP WE HAVE SOME RESOLUTIONS THAT'S STOOBD AFTER THE PRACT, PASSED FOR MINOR MODIFICATIONS IN 1996.

AS IT STATES HERE. THIS COMBINED PHASES -- THERE WAS INITIALLY FIVE PHASES. IT ALL GOT COMBINED INTO ONE PHASE THAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKING PLACE FROM I BELIEVE 1999 TO 2019. SO THAT WAS THE FIRST RESOLUTION. THE SECOND RESOLUTION HERE, WHICH I DO HAVE A MAP FOR, CHANGES THE DESIGNATION FOR THE PARCELS THAT ARE LIFTED HERE, AND THEY'RE CHANGED PRIMARILY FOR MORE RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO I'LL MOVE THAT HERE AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT MAP HERE.

AND THAT SECTION THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THERE DOES SHOW THAT THAT PIECE BEING HATCHED WITHIN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVATION AREA AT THAT TIME. SO MOVING ON BACK TO HERE.

THE NEXT ORDINANCE WAS 1990 -- EXCUSE ME -- YES, 1998-38, THAT I WAS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDINANCE THAT MODIFIED MAP H AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE HERE.

I APOLOGIZE IT'S NOT THAT BIG, BUT THIS IS WHAT -- KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING TODAY HERE. SO WITHIN HERE ON THIS ORDINANCE IT ESSENTIALLY -- THERE'S ANOTHER INTERCHANGE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED FURTHER NORTHWEST OF THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY WERE PROVIDING SIX MILE CREEK WITH DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS, IN PARTICULAR, I BELIEVE IT WAS 164, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND THOSE WERE ASSIGNED TO DIFFERENT PARCELS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. NONE OF THEM -- NOT RELATED TO THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUT OTHER ONES AROUND.

AND THEN THE NEXT PIECE OF HISTORY WHICH IS NOT ON THE INDEX HERE IS SOMETHING THAT KATHRYN BROUGHT UP WAS THE FDP OR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT WAS RECORDED IN ORDINANCE 19 -- OR RESOLUTION, EXCUSE ME, 1998-59.

THAT'S PRESENTED HERE. SO THIS FDP, IT KIND OF GIVES A GOOD BLANKET STATEMENT HERE AS TO WHAT IT DID.

SO THE FDP DEPICTS A GOLF COURSE AND RESIDENTIAL USES FOR PARCELS 3, 5, 8, AND 7 HERE. NOW THEY ALSO DO HAVE A STATEMENT HERE, TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAY BE DEVELOPED FOR THESE PARCELS. BUT ONLY THROUGH RECORDATION OF SUBSEQUENT OVERLAPPING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

AND THEN AGAIN PARCEL 11 DEPICTS A GOLF COURSE.

SO THIS IS MAP I BELIEVE YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN.

AND I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE PARCELS IN PARTICULAR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO HERE'S PARCEL 3, PARCEL 5.

THAT'S THE SUBJECT AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S NO LONGER HATCHED.

IT IS SHOWN WITH THE -- WELL, I GUESS IT'S NO LONGER HATCHED IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT THAT. HERE'S PARCEL 7 AND PARCEL 8, WHICH COVERS THIS AREA. AND THEN PARCEL 11 HERE DEPICTS KIND OF THEFUL GO COURSE GD WHERE THAT WAS GOING TO GO.

SHOARMT AFTER THIS POINT THIS IS WHERE AT LEAST IN MY RESEARCH I FOUND THAT IT DEPICTS LARGELY THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR THAT TRACT 20. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF NAMES, SO HERE I HAVE THE PLANS FOR THE SUB.

HIS THE MASTER PLAN. THERE'S THE TRACT THERE.

THERE'S A CLOSE-UP OF THAT. AT ONE POINT IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE PROPOSING TO PUT A SECURITY GATE IN THAT LOCATION OR IN FRONT OF THAT LOCATION HERE. AND THIS IS THAT TRACT.

[00:50:08]

FROM THE PLAT. >> MR. PETER: CAN YOU GO BACK

TO THOSE MAPS. >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

THIS ONE? >> MR. MATOVINA: YEAH, THAT'S FINE. SO WHAT IS ALL THAT IN FRONT OF THAT PARCEL? WHAT IS ALL THAT STUFF?

>> SPEAKER: THEY HAD AN OPTIONAL SECURITY GATE AT ONE POINT. I BELIEVE IT WAS GOING TO BE TO STOP TRAFFIC PERHAPS FOR THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AND ACCESS INTO THE GOLF COURSE OR LA TERRA WHICH THIS PROPERTY I BELIEVE IS LA TERRA AS WE KNOW IT NOW.

>> SPEAKER: CAN I JUST -- THAT SECURITY GATE WAS ALWAYS LABELED AS OPTIONAL, AND I DON'T ANY ANYBODY WANTED IT SO WE'RE REMOVING IT FROM THIS MAP H. IT'S GONE.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SO THAT GATE DOESN'T EXIT.

>> SPEAKER: IT DOESN'T EXIST. AND YOU'LL SEE AS I CONTINUE ON, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTHY STRIPTION HERE, THIS IS FROM THE PLAT, THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN. IT DOES HAVE THAT TRACT HERE.

IT'S NOT THE GUY QUITE LABELED BUT IT IS SHOWN WITHOUT THIS DARKER GRAY SHADING. I HIGHLIGHTED IT, WHICH PROBABLY DIDN'T HELP. AND THEN THIS IS THE PLAT.

HAD WAS APPROVED IN 1999, OCTOBER OF 1999.

KATHRYN HAD PRESENT IT BEFORE BUT IT DOES HAVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT BUT IN THE FRONT PAGE WITH THE ADOPTION AND DEDICATIONS IT DOES STATE THAT TRACT 20 WOULD BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL FOR

COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. >> SPEAKER: YEAH, THAT WAS IN MY PRESENTATION. I HAD A COPY OF THAT.

>> SPEAKER: THIS MAP IS ALSO FROM 1999.

IT WAS I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS APPROVED OR NOT BY THE COUNTY BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THIS IS TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE INTNGSZ INTENTIONS, I SUPPOSE, TO DEVIL AND THIS HAS IT LABEL AS PARCEL 34, AND HERE THAT TEXT MAY BE REALLY HARD TO READ BUT IT SAYS "LOTTING OPTIONS FOR LOT 34 -- OR PARCEL 34." EXCUSE ME.

AND IT SHOWS KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE MAP THAT WAS SHOWN EARLIER.

NOW, THIS IS ALSO AN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE, BUT IT DEPICTS THAT, THE FDP FROM 1998-59 BUT THERE'S A SPECIAL NOTE HERE THAT WE CAN SEE.

YOU CAN SEE IT SAYS HERE PARCEL 34 OPTIONAL SECURITY GATE.

AND THEN HERE IT SAYS PARCEL 34 SEE MINOR MOD.

SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENED, MAYBE TO EXPLAIN THE ETHOS THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, AT THIS TIME THIS PARCEL WAS CHANGED, AND I HAVE THAT RESOLUTION HERE, PARCEL 34, FROM THE EXISTING USE THAT USED TO BE TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY ESTATES TO A SWIM AND TENNIS CLUB. SO IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE AT THIS POINT IT WAS KIND OF LOST IN TERMS OF WHERE THE -- THIS PARCEL WAS REASSIGNED A NUMBER OR I SUPPOSE IT WAS REASSIGNED A NUMBER BUT IT WAS MAINLY FOR THAT OPTIONAL SECURITY GATE, WHICH WE CAN SEE IN THIS MAP HERE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT.

>> SPEAKER: DOESN'T THAT SAY 33?

>> IT DOES SAY 33. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S WHY I PICKED THAT NUMBER SINCE WE'RE DOING AWAY WITH THE OPTIONAL SECURITY GATE, I HIENDLE THAT LOT 33 TO CALL THIS TRACT.

>> SPEAKE: RIGHT. I GUESS TO OUR POINT, THIS IS THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN SEE 34 IS LISTED HERE WHERE THAT STAR IS AND THEN 33 IS LISTED HERE, BUT AGAIN WE SEE THAT HATCHING THAT DESIGNATED THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION TYPICAL. SO AT THIS POINT I THINK THIS IS KIND OF AT THE HISTORY WHERE THAT AREA GETS LOST.

I'M NOT -- I WAS IN GRADE SCHOOL WHEN THAT WAS OCCURRING SO I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY AT THIS THAT POINT BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THIS IS WHERE WE SEE THE REST OF THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WE HAVE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT'S MORE OF THAT HATCHING HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERED YOUR

QUESTIONS. >> MR. PETER: SO I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION OR COMMENT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THOUGH, BRANDON, THE COUNTY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS REAFFIRMED THAT IT IS A -- AN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION DESIGNATION OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. IT HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED.

[00:55:04]

WOULD BE CLASSIFIED. >> TERESA BISHOP: IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR. IT'S BEEN SHOWN AS ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AREA. SINCE THAT 1999 TIME FRAME WHERE BRANDON WENT THROUGH THAT SERIES OF MAPS THAT WENT UP TO TODAY THAT'S BEEN APPROVED, WHATEVER THAT IS BEEN APPROVED IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. HE HAS SHOWN THAT, AND IT HAS BEEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

SOME OF THOSE MAPS MAY HAVE BEEN TO THIS AGENCY AS WELL.

AND, YES, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION.

AND SO IN STAFF'S MIND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION, AND THEN THAT'S WHY THAT APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY, TO TRY TO GET IT CHANGED.

THE HISTORY HA THEY HAVE PRESENTED BEHIND IT MAY GIVE SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CHANGE, BUT IT IS RIGHT NOW ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION IN THE COUNTY'S RECORDS.

>> SPEAKER: I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT BRANDON JUST WENT THROUGH AND THAT THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED, WE PREPARED.

WE PREPARED. MAP H.

WE SENT THE MAP H. WE JUST NEVER TOOK IT OFF.

IT NEVER OCCURRED TO US TO DO IT.

SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE WE HAVE THE FAULT OF NEVER CORRECTING THAT.

WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT AFTER THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE PLAT GOT APPROVED IN THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT BUT IT WAS OUT IN THE ETHOS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS

TODAY. >> MR. MATOVINA: ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE AGENCY MEMBERS?

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS? >> MR. PETER: YES, WE HAVE ONE. CHUCK LABANOWKSI.

>> SPEAKER: CHUCK LABANOWKSI, 13 NORTH CAPPERO.

I WON'T GO OVER ALL THE MAPS. YOU CAN SEE THEM THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. STILL IS AS OF TODAY.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT -- THE PRESENTER SAID THERE WAS NO 33 EARLIER. 33 WAS A PROPOSED SECURITY GATE THAT WAS GOING IN THERE, BUT AGAIN THAT WAS STILL AN ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. IT WAS STATED EARLIER THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE AN IMPACT TO THE THIS MAP AND THE MAP THAT WAS PRESENTED ALSO, IT'S HARD TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT AREA, BUT IF YOU LOOK HERE, THAT SAME PROPERTY, AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN IT RED, THAT IS TWO DRAINAGE AREAS THAT GO THROUGH THAT AREA, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER MAP I PREVIOUSLY SHOWED, IT'S HARD TO SEE IT BUT IT IS IN HERE IN A REAL LIGHT BLUE LINE. NOW, CURRENTLY YOU HAVE THE ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH THAT COMMUNIT COMMUNITY.

THIS IS, AS OF TODAY YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS I HAVE SYRINGED IN RED. -- CIRCLED IN RED.

THAT'S THE DRAINAGE QUOMG FROM THE OTHER AREAS JUST NORTH THERE. SO TO STAY THAT IT'S NOTE GOING TO BE IMPACTED. IT WILL BE IMPACTED.

THOSE STREAMS RUN THROUGH THERE. THEY'RE PROVIDING WATER TO THAT PRESERVE AREA, TOTE WETLANDS AREA, SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND WE DON'T AFFECT THAT WETLAND SEAR'S.

YOU HAVE SIX MILE CREEK THAT CRUNS SOUTH OF THERE.

YOU HAVE THE FOUR MILE RUN WHICH RUNS THAT THAT GENERAL AREA.

THIS IS VERY IMPACTFUL IF FILL DIRT IS BROUGHT IN THERE.

IT'S GOING CHANGE THE PATH OF THE DRAINAGE.

OPENING THAT UP WILL ALSO AFFECT THE WETLANDS.

SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND A DENIAL.

>> MR. MATOVINA: WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO OFFER ANY

REBUTTAL? >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD JUST ADD THAT PER THE APPROVED VITAMINNAL RESOURCE PERMIT WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THIS LOT IS UPLAND, AND CERTAINLY I CONCUR THE DRAINAGE AREA AND, IN FACT -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A DOUBLE OR SINGLE BUT WE DO HAVE CULVERTS THAT RUN UNDER THAT MAIN ROAD AND CERTAINLY THIS IS A FLOW OF RAIN WATER, STORM WATER COMING THROUGH THAT WETLAND AREA IN THE FLOOD ZONE, BUT WE ARE OUTSIDE THE FLOOD ZONE, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL NOT IMPACT THE FLOOD ZONE, SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> MR. MATOVINA: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. ANYONE?

[01:00:13]

JACK. >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A COMMENT, NOT A MOTION. I STRUGGLE WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK TAKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION OFF THE MAP AT THIS POINT AFTER 15, ALMOST 20 YEARS IS TROUBLING, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS MAKING, BUT THE FACT THAT IT HAS SAT IN THIS DESIGNATION FOR THAT LONG TO ME KIND OVERRIDES WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED 20 OR 23 YEARS AGO.

I JUST THINK IT SETS A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT.

THAT'S MY COMMENT. >> MR. GREEN: THIS IS A TOUGH ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS AN UPLAND PIECE. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT FROM THE TESTIMONY ANYWAY. BUT I SORT OF GET, YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY NOW.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT?

>> MR. GREEN: NOTICED BY NOW. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S HERE, I GUESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME AND SEEMS LIKE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPERS, LAND PLANNERS, AND IF THEY ANT DIDN'T CATCH THIS, THIS IS JUST SORT OF -- YOU KNOW, THIS GOES ON TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, DOESN'T IT, FOR THEIR FINAL APPROVAL?

>> MR. MATOVINA: THIS IS A MAJOR MOD.

>> MR. GREEN: WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION?

>> MR. MATOVINA: YES. >> MR. GREEN: I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS ONE. WHEN I READ APPLICATION, I WAS LIKE, I HOPE DURING THE TESTIMONY IT WILL HELP MY MIND OUT A LITTLE BIT, BUT WHAT I'M STILL ON THE FENCE WITH HAD AS I WAS WHEN I SORT OF DID A REVIEW EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

EARLY IN THE WEEK. DISCUSS ME.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SINCE WE'RE HAVING SOME COMMENTS NOW, I WOULD TELL YOU ALL THIS. QUITE OFTEN WE STUMBLE ACROSS PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DEVELOP THAT HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF DEVELOPMENT -- WETLANDS ON THEM, AND YOU CAN GET A PERMIT TO BUILD A HOUSE ON A LOT THAT'S ALMOST ALL WETLANDS. THE ISSUE THAT YOU TYPICALLY RUN INTO IS YOU'LL BUILD THAT HOUSE ON STILTS AND DIRECT YOUR WATER BACK TO THE STREET AND THROUGH PIPING, BUT YOUR GARAGE GETS TO BE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD A STRAWJ ON STILTS SO YOU'VE GOT TO FIND A PIECE OF UPLAND MAYBE TO BUILD A GARAGE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THIS CASE. WE'VE GOT A 5-ACRE PIECE OF UPLAND THAT LOOKS LIKE -- IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVELOPER MADE A MAPPING ERROR A WHOLE BUNCH TIMES AND IT CERTAINLY WASN'T THE STAFF'S ISSUE TO AUDIT THEIR MAP, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME A SUBMITTAL IS MADE. BUT WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS WE HAVE A REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT ASKING -- THEY'RE NOT. ASKING US TO OVERRIDE WHAT STAFF DID OR FIX A STAFF MISTAKE. THEY'RE JUST SAYING WE WANT TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY. PART OF THEIR JUSTIFICATION IS WE MADE A MISTAKE. I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. I THINK THE IS ISSUE IS DOES THE PROPERTY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE DRI.

YES. IT DOESN'T CAUSEWAY THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO GO OVER, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IT'S BEING DEVELOPED WITHIN AN UPLAND AND PRESUMABLY THEY WILL COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS HAVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE SAND CRANE -- OR WHAT IS THAT BIRD WE HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR ON SANDY HILLS HERE? WHATEVER THAT BIRD IS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THE BUFFERS.

QUITE FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR JUST ONE LOT BUT THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

IN MY OPINION, WE'VE GOTTEN ALL TIED UP IN OUR SKIVVIES DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER SCREWED UP THEIR MAP SO MANY TIMES, AND THE REALITY IS THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A REZONING THAT APPEARS TO MEET THE CRITERIA.

HENRY. >> MR. GREEN: LET'S GET IT ON THE TABLE AND VOTE IT UP OR DOWN.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MAJOR MOD 2022-ROGHT SIX MILE CREEK PUD TRACT 20 BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AS

PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> MR. MATOVINA: SO WE HAVE A

[Approval of meeting minutes for PZA 11/17/2022 and 12/1/2022]

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE

[01:05:05]

SO THAT MOTION PASSES 4-1. LET'S MOVE ON TO -- WE DO HAVE AN ITEM NUMBER 5 ON THE AGENDA, RIGHT?

>> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: WE DO HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. FIRST BEING APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. THAT'S AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR AGENDA . IN YOUR PACKET ARE THE DRAFT MINISTER FOR NOVEMBER 17TH AND DECEMBER 1ST MEETINGS OF THIS

YEAR. >> MR. MATOVINA: THERE A

MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE? >> MR. GREEN: SO MOVED.

>> MR. MATOVINA: SECOND BY JACK, FIRST BY MEN RI.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED?

THAT MOTION PASSES. >> CHRISTINE VALLIERE, ATTY.: AND THE SECOND HOUSEKEEPING ITEM IS THE READING OF THE FORM 8B, THE VOTING CONFLICT VOTING FORM FOR MR. MATOVINA IN REGARD TO ITEM 1 AND FLORIDA LAW JUST REQUIRES THE READING INTO THE RECORD OF A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT.

[Staff Reports]

HOUSEKEEPING IENLTS. >> MR. MATOVINA: STAFF REPORTS?

>> TERESA BISHOP: JUST TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION ONCE AGAIN, THERE WILL BE A MEETING ON JANUARY 5TH.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA AND THERE WON'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS BEING ADDED AT THIS TIME, SO IT'S THE TWO CONTINUD ITEMS WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA.

AND YOU MAY BE GETTING A PHONE CALL IN THE NEAR FUTURE FROM MS. COLEE REGARDING WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A QUORUM FOR THAT MEETING, SO IF ANY OF YOU CAN'T BE HERE, IF YOU WOULD JUST PLEASE LET US KNOW, AND WE NEED TO JUST MAKE SURE THERE'S A

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.