May 16, 2024 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:35]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, WE ARE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE.

>> 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.

>> WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE .

>> THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELATIVE TO THE AREAS OF JURISDICTION , THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME THAT IS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. THE TESTIMONY MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY FOR THE WEIGHT AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO REVEAL ANY DECISION MADE IN ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, THERE WILL BE A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. THE RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH ANY APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD. IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE COUNTY, RELATING TO THEM. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED,

[PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 05/02/24]

IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THAT COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER, AND WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. AND WE

WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION? IT MOTION FOR APPROVAL . ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE . THE MOTION PASSES. BEFORE WE GO INTO PUBLIC COMMENT , I WANT TO WELCOME JACOB SMITH. AND HE USED TO BE A PLANNER, NOW HE IS COMING BACK AND HE IS GOING TO TAKE OVER TERESA'S SPOT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE

YOURSELF, TO EVERYBODY? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I WILL BE TAKING OVER TERESA BISHOP'S POSITION. I WAS MOST RECENTLY A SENIOR PLANNER IN TENNESSEE AND I HAVE RELOCATED BACK TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WHER I WAS A PLANNER IN VARIOUS FUNCTIONS FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS. I AM HAPPY TO BE HERE, TO HELP THE BOARD, AND THE PUBLIC, TO NAVIGATE ALL OF THE FUN PLANNING THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I AM HAPPY FOR ANYBODY TO REACH OUT AND TALK WITH ME, MY STAFF, AND I ENJOY LOOKING FORWARD TO SPENDING TIME WITH YOU ALL.

[1. SUPMAJ 2023-16 JEA Blacksford WRF.]

>> THANK YOU, AND WE ARE EXCITED FOR YOU WE ARE SAD TO SEE TERESA LEAVE, BUT WE ARE GLAD THAT YOU ARE HERE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS YOUR TIME, IN THE AUDIENCE, TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL GET TO THAT AS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE ON THE AGENDA. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND SPEAK. SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. IS THERE

ANY X PARTAKE COMMUNICATION? >> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I DID A

SITE VISIT AND AN EMAIL. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MARTIN DESIGN GROUP, REGARDING THE PERMIT FOR THE JEA SPECIAL USE REQUEST FOR THE BOESE -- BLACKSFORD SAID, THIS WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2014 FOR

[00:05:06]

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE ? WE MOVED BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

[2. SUPMAJ 2024-03 Neligan’s at Vilano Beach Town Center.]

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUPMAJ 2023-16 JEA BLACKSFORD WRF , SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PROVIDED

BY THE STATUTE. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S PUT THIS TO A VOTE. THAT'S A PASSING ITEM. ITEM NUMBER TWO, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EX PARTE?

>> I TALKED WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE. THAT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA, TOO.

>> THANK YOU. MR. WHITEHOUSE? >> FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS ALBERT THREE, 104 SEAGROVE MAIN STREET, HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I RECOGNIZE, THE CITY AND COUNTY AND LOCAL LAW. I CANNOT GET THIS TO WORK. AS YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR AGENDA AND YOUR STAFF PACKETS, ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2024-03 , THIS IS NELIGAN'S , AT VILANO BEACH TOWN CENTER .

AND THIS IS FOR CONTINUED SERVICE, AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE, AND THAT IS AT 167 VILANO ROAD, THIS IS PROBABLY ON THE OTHER SIDE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, OF THE BRIDGE .

IT IS ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN, FROM WHERE THE BEACH IS. THE ROTATING SQUARE IN THE CENTER OF THE FUTURE LAND USE TOWN CENTER NEXT USE DISTRICT, AND IT IS TOWN CENTER MAKES USE.

HERE ARE A COUPLE OF AERIALS THAT SHOW THE PROPERTY, AND IT WAS A STANDALONE BUILDING, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS HALEY'S PUB FOR MANY YEARS . FROM THE STAFF REPORT NOTES, THERE WAS RETAIL, AND THIS ATTEMPT IS TO CONTINUE TO REVITALIZE THE AREA AND THIS BUILDING SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE OLD HALEY'S PUB WAS.

IT WAS A STAPLE OF THE VILANO ROAD STREET SCAPE. IT WENT DORMANT AS THE AREA STRUGGLED, AS YOU WELL KNOW, NOW, MR. NELLIGAN WOULD LIKE TO PLAN A REUSE, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT DEVELOPMENT TO VILANO ROAD TOWN CENTER, AND TO HAVE CONTINUED EFFORTS OF THE ABILITY TO REHABILITATE THIS FORMERLY

[00:10:02]

THIS COMES OFF OF VILANO ROAD AND THE COUNTY ROAD. NUMBER FOUR, LIKE I SAID, FROM THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THEY ARE APPROVING SPECIAL USE FOR THIS LOCATION AND THE CLIENT HAS OBTAINED A PRIVILEGE USE, BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED DOCUMENTS, IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL USE DOCUMENTS, WITH 2.0 3.47, AND 2.0 3.02, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ON THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF WHERE THE STAFF SAYS, THE ON-SITE SALES AND THE CONSUMPTION OF BEVERAGES, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IN CONCLUSION, UNDER OUR CODE, BOTH OF THE EXPERT STAFF REPORT ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS THE FACT PUT BEFORE YOU TODAY SHOW THAT THIS DOESN'T MEET THE REGULATIONS OF OUR CODE. I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >> THIS IS NOT ANYTHING ABOUT THE APPLICATION, THIS IS MORE OF A CURIOSITY. ARE THEY GOING TO BE USING THE SAME BUILDING AND JUST REFURBISHING IT?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY, THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IT USES -- NEEDS A LITTLE HELP.

>> THAT IS WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO.

>> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, NUMBER ONE, I ASSUME THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE BUILDING ARE UNOCCUPIED AT THE MOMENT. DOES IT HAVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE

BUILDING? >> IT HAS BEEN MIXED USE, IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.

>> PARDON ME? >> NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.

>> FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE ACTUAL

USES? >> I DID NOT SHOW THAT INNER PACKET THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE. SO, LET ME SEE. THIS IS SORT OF A CLOSE-UP ON THE BOTTOM. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT THEY ARE REDESIGNING. THEY ALREADY HAVE A BUILDING. THEY HAVE ALREADY REDESIGNED THE PARKING LOT ON THE SIDE. AND THAT WILL ALLOW THE HANDICAPPED ACCESS PARKING AS WELL. THIS, THE PARTICULAR LOTS ON EACH SIDE, THIS, THIS IS CALLED -- I FORGET WHAT IT IS CALLED. IT IS ALREADY A RESTAURANT THAT PROVIDES BEER AND WINE SERVICE. I HAVE IT. I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN, BUT ALL ON SECOND. IT IS IN THE APPLICATION, LET ME JUST LOOK AT IT. I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT. AND IT I GUESS, THAT IS THE NAME OF IT. THAT IS TO THE WEST OF IT. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, THAT IS WHO OWNS THAT RESTAURANT. SO I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS SEEN THAT. THAT IS WHAT IS AROUND THEM,

IMMEDIATELY, ON VILANO ROAD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? IF SO, COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, VIVIAN BROWNING, BEATS WAY , WITHIN A COUPLE OF BLOCKS OF THIS PROPERTY. I WAS THE ORIGINAL CHAIR , WHEN THE BRIDGE. WHEN THE NEW BRIDGE OPEN. I LED THE EFFORT TO GET VILANO TO BE A TOWN CENTER. THAT WAS IN 1985.

IT WAS REZONED FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO MIXED-USE TOWN

[00:15:02]

THEY SERVE PLATES OF FOOD AND TAKE OUT, THEY HAVE WINE AND BEER. ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THE OWNER OF THE 180 GRILL . BEHIND IT IS THE MARSH. HELLO, MR. GREENE , HOW ARE YOU?

>> GREAT TO SEE YOU. >> I AM STILL ON MY FEET. SOME OF YOU ALL ABSURD MANY YEARS. AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH OVER 20 COMMISSIONERS SINCE 1999. AND THEN PROBABLY 20 PZA MEMBERS.

AGAIN, I WANT TO BE IN SUPPORT. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS VERY PERSONAL TO ME. THE BUILDING IS RUNDOWN AND NEEDS REPAIR. AND MR. NELIGAN HAS THE FUNDING AND THE GOOD TASTE . HE WANTS THIS TO BE AN UPSCALE PLACE. IT IS ONLY 25' BETWEEN THE PEER IN THE OCEAN. THIS WILL BE A WALK BY FOR PEOPLE TO STOP AND IF THEY LIKE. THE OWNERS OPENED THE HYATT LAST FALL. SO THIS PROVIDES A COUNTERBALANCE TO THE BIG INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, TO HAVE A SMALL, LOCAL BUSINESS. AND I THINK THAT THE LOCALS WOULD APPRECIATE IT. SO WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.

HOPEFULLY YOU ALL WILL PASS THIS. THANK YOU TO MR. WHITEHOUSE AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF GOVERNMENT. AND I BELIEVE , I DO BELIEVE THAT MARIE COLEE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS AND SHE HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL OVER THE YEARS. SO, I AM IN SUPPORT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MORE THAN ME, OUR COMMUNITY IS IN SUPPORT. THE MAJORITY OF THEM.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO?

SEEING NONE, MR. WHITEHOUSE? >> I WANTED TO THANK MS. BROWNING FOR COMING, OBVIOUSLY, AS WELL AS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, I HAVE OBSERVED MS. BROWNING AS A GREAT ADVOCATE FOR THE AREA AS THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED AND IT IS BECAUSE OF HER. I WANTED TO SAY THAT. I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, BECAUSE AS MS. BROWNING SAID, MR. NELIGAN TRIED TO DO THAT FOR THE COMMUNITY, THAT IS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF HOW IT IS GOING TO BE FIXED UP, THAT IS HIS INTENT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT.

>> WE BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 2024-03, NELIGAN'S AT VILANO BEACH TOWN

CENTER. >> SECOND.

>> WE DO NOT REALIZE HOW MUCH MS. BROWNING HAS DONE FOR THE VILANO AREA. AND I REMEMBER, WHEN SHE SAYS , I AM BRINGING A GROCERY STORE HERE. IT WAS OVER YEARS AND YEARS. IT WAS LIKE, GOOD LUCK. BUT SHE DID IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, FOR

[3. NZVAR 2024-04 IGP Place Monument Sign. ]

>> MS. JUDY SPIEGEL ? >> I WANTED TO ECHO THE APPRECIATION. IT IS GOING TO BE VERY BEAUTIFUL. AND THANK YOU

FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> SAYING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION , LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE ?

>> I DID A SITE VISIT, MANAGER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS CHARLES KNIGHT AND I AM WITH HERITAGE SIGNS THAT IS IN GREEN COVE SPRINGS. I AM REQUESTING A NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO THE UNIFIED SIGN PLAN FOR THE ST.

JOHN'S INTERCHANGE PARCELS PUD TO ALLOW FOR A MONUMENT SIGN

[00:20:06]

AUGUSTINE. THIS IS THE LOCATION HERE, IT IS OFF OF INTENATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY. THIS IS A ZONING MAP, SHOWING THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE INTERCHANGE PARCELS PUD, AND THE WORLD GOLF VILLAGE. THIS IS A SITE MAP OF THE LOCATION, SHOWING THE SIGN LOCATION IN RED. THIS IS THE MONUMENT SIGN LOCATION. AS YOU CAN SEE IT IS DESIGNED TO BE SET AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PROPERTY, THE MAIN ENTRANCE, COMING OFF OF INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY. IT IS A ONE-WAY ENTRANCE COMING IN THE BUILDING. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE SIGNED IS THAT, THE TENANT FRONTAGE FOR THIS BUILDING FACES THE PARKING LOT, FACES AWAY FROM THE MAIN ROAD OF INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY, WE ARE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR SOME LARGER BASES. AS YOU ARE COMING IN TO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE DESIGN OF THE SIGN HERE. AND YOU CAN SEE , IT HAS SIX SPACES FOR TENANTS. THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS BASED ON MATCHING THE BUILDING ELEMENTS, INCLUDING THE COLOR SCHEME AND THE PANELING DOWN BELOW MATCHES THE PANELING THAT IS ALSO ON THE BUILDING. THAT WILL PROVIDE A COHESIVE PROPERTY , OVERALL.

THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE ENGINEERED STRUCTURE. IT IS AN L.E.D., ILLUMINATED SIGN. I HAVE INCLUDED A FEW OTHER EXAMPLES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE SIGN, TO KIND OF SHOW DIFFERENT DESIGNS IN THE AREA. SOME THAT LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO OURS , AND OTHERS THAT ARE DIFFERENT, BUT ARE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THE UNIFIED SIGN FRAME AS WELL. ARE THERE ANY

QUESTIONS? >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WHERE CAN I GET THAT TWO DOLLARS AND NINE SENT -- $2.09 GASOLINE AT THAT SHELL STATION?

>> I WANT CLARIFICATION ON WHERE EVERYTHING IS GOING YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT INTO THE PARKWAY, AND THEN THE EXIT WILL BE OUT , WHATEVER THAT SERVICE ROAD IS ?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO YOU WILL ONLY ENTER --

>> THE MAIN ENTRANCE , COMING OFF OF INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY, IT IS THE MAIN ONE, THE OTHER ONE IS BOTH ENTER AND

EXIT, JUST TO BE SURE. >> IT SAYS BEACHES DERMATOLOGY

ACROSS THE STREET? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS BY

PARKWAY . >> GOT YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE , HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE ? WE BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR EMOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE NON-ZONING VARIANCE 2024 -04 , IGP UNIFIED

[4. MINMOD 2024-06 44 Arella Way Pool.]

SIGN PLAN. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> WHAT IS YOUR MOTION INCLUDE?

>> MY MOTION INCLUDES THE CONDITION FOR THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

>> I HAVE EMOTION, A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE , LET US REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE . MS. JUDY SPIEGEL ?

>> I DID A SITE VISIT AND I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE

HOMEOWNER. >> ANYMORE WE SEE? MR. JEREMY

[00:25:06]

SIEBERT? >> MY NAME IS JEREMY SIEBERT, I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE FAMILY IN THE DESIGN OF A SWIMMING POOL AT THE FAMILY HOME. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 70% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO, IN LIEU OF THE 55% LIMITATION THERE. IF THE LOCATION MAP, THIS IS RIGHT OFF OF RACETRACK ROAD. THIS IS OFF OF THE MERIDIAN ENTRANCE, NOT THE RESIDENT ENTRANCE, COMING RIGHT PAST THE COMMUNITY POOL. AND BASED ON MY RESEARCH, THERE SEEMS TO BE 90 AND 120 PULLS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY HAVE RECENTLY BILLED TWO THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. SO THIS IS MOST LIKELY NOT UP-TO-DATE ALREADY.

THAT IS A PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE HOME, TO SHOW THAT AT THE RESIDENCE , THERE IS NOT A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STANDARD DRIVEWAY, TO MEET THE THREE- CAR GARAGE. IN THE REAR, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IMPERVIOUS . AND IMMEDIATELY OFF OF THE BALCONY OF THE HOUSE, THERE IS A SLOPE AND IT BECOMES VERY AGGRESSIVE TOWARD THE POND, THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE HOUSE ALONE, WITH THE DRIVEWAY, TAKING UP 53.1% OF THE 55% , IMPERVIOUS, WITH NO VEHICLE SPACE , AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW IN THE BACKYARD AND ON THE RENDERING OF OUR PROPOSED PROJECT. IT IS PERSONALLY -- PARTIALLY OUT OF GRADE. THAT DOES NOT COMPROMISE OR CHANGE ANY OF THE EXISTING BRAIN PATTERNS ON THE SITE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. AND THE SITE PLAN WILL SHOW AS WELL THAT WE DO NOT ENCROACH INTO THE EAST, OR THE REAR, AT THE SETBACKS OR THE SIDE AT ALL. OVER THE BLUEPRINT , THAT WE HAVE HERE, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS ITSELF, SO MOTHER JURISDICTIONS IN THE AREA DO NOT COUNT THE PHYSICAL POOL AS AN IMPERVIOUS AREA. IT IS A HOLDING TANK, THE HOLD ALMOST 1500 GALLONS OF RAINWATER BEFORE IT OVERFLOWS. IT IS ABOUT 4.25" , BEFORE IT OVERFLOWS. THAT IS SOMETIMES TOUTED AS 50% COVERAGE, VERSUS THE WHOLE THING. AND THEN TO SHOW KIND OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN, AS IT SITS , THIS IS PULLED OFF OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY IMAP WEBSITE. YOU CAN SEE IT SLOPING TOWARD THE DRAINAGE POND, IN THE BACK. AGAIN, THE DESIGN OF THE POOL IS DESIGNED DO NOT COMPROMISE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AT ALL. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE JUST RECENTLY FINISHED AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY, WE HAD AGAIN, AN AGGRESSIVE SLOPE. THERE WAS A 10' BUFFER IN THE REAR TO AN EASEMENT. YOU CAN SEE THE DRAINAGE PATTERN CONSISTENT TO HOW IT WAS PRIOR. IN THE FINAL EXPECTION -- INSPECTION, WE DID NOT COMPROMISE EDITING. THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, TOWARD A VERY LARGE RETENTION POND, IT IS PART OF 19.2 ACRES IN THE GENERAL AREA OF HIS HOME, WITH IN THE CPD.

WHAT I FOUND OUT, LOOKING THROUGH, THERE IS OVER 280 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED WETLANDS, WITHIN THE CELESTINO NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, A LOT OF THE NEWER COMMUNITIES THAT I WORK IN, THERE IS 70% COVERAGE, OR GREATER, AND THERE IS THE OPEN DRAINAGE PONDS. WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WE ARE ONLY ONE LOT AWAY FOR A VERY LARGE PIECE OF THE OPEN SPACE, THAT IS THE 19.2 ACRES. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THAT OPEN SPACE, YOU SEE THE ONE HOUSE TO THE LEFT. AND THAT IS WITH THAT SLOPE, TOWARD THE DRAINAGE POND, WE ALREADY HAVE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BUILD THE POOL.

WE HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FACING THE HOUSE FROM THE FRONT, THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, FOR ACCESS BETWEEN HOMES, TO CONSTRUCT THE POOL. WE CONSIDERED A FEW THINGS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS TO LOWER THAT ISL NUMBER, NUMBER ONE WAS PAVERS. FROM WHAT I CAN FIND, ST. JOHNS COUNTY DOES NOT

[00:30:01]

IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE . THE ENTIRE BUILD TIME, IT WILL BE UNDER 60 WORKING DAYS, SO, THE TIME OF THE YARD BEING, KIND OF, DIRT AND NOT GRASS, WOULD BE A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE FINAL INSPECTION. AND TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON OUR COUNTRY -- COMPANY, WE DO THE DESIGN, THE POOL BEING OUT OF GRADE, THAT IS AN EXTRA COST TO THE HOMEOWNER THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY INCURRED TO NOT COMPROMISE THE COMMUNITY OR CAUSE ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES. I, MYSELF, ARE A CERTIFIED BUILDING PROFESSIONAL IN THE POOL INDUSTRY. I HAVE A CERTIFICATE PROVING THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE COMPROMISED DUE TO POOR QUALITY. AND A SWIMMING POOL WILL ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE HOME, TO THE COMMUNITY, AND IT CAN ADD UP TO A PERCENT OF THE HOME'S VALUE.

THAT WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE HOME, AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL ANSWER THEM.

>> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, OH , MS. JUDY

SPIEGEL ? GO AHEAD. >> PART OF THE DECISION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT , THERE IS A MINOR MODIFICATION BEING MADE?

>>

>> THIS IS NOT A MINOR MODIFICATION.

>> I APOLOGIZE. I WILL SAY, WRONG PERSON.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ON THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SEEING NONE, WE BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY.

[5. MINMOD 2024-09 23 Deerfield Meadows Pool.]

>> MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION 2024-04 , BASED ON THE SIX FINDINGS OF FACTS, PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, IT IS SECONDED BY MR. PETER. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IS THERE

ANY EX PARTE ? MS. SPIEGEL? >> I DID A SITE VISIT, I HAD A MEETING WITH THE HOMEOWNER AND HIS WIFE.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON . AM I ON?

>> YOU ARE. >> MY NAME IS GEORGE ZUCCONI. I AM THE HOMEOWNER AND THE PRESENTER. AND THE PROJECT IS A SMALL POOL , AT DEERFIELD MEADOWS POOL . THE SUBDIVISION IS DEERFIELD MEADOWS. THE MINOR MODIFICATION THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS TO REQUEST THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5' , IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 7.5 ' AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 5', IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 10', AS IT CURRENTLY IS. THIS IS TO ACCOMMODATE A SMALL 18' BY 15' SWIMMING POOL. I FORGOT THE APPLICATION NUMBER , I HAVE IT HERE SOMEPLACE. JUST A BRIEF NARRATIVE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION. TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT, THIS WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE PERTAINING TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE STRUCTURES ON BOTH THE SIDE AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON THE SIDE ARE 7.5'. WE ARE ASKING THAT THE WATERS' EDGE BE 6' FROM THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND WE ARE ASKING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE REAR SETBACK, IT IS CURRENTLY 10 ', WE ARE ASKING THAT THE WATERS' EDGE WILL BE 6' FROM THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

I AM REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING BOARD CONSIDER THIS VARIANCE AS

[00:35:07]

SO, WITH THE NON-PERMEABLE SURFACE AND THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 64% OF THE LOT SIZE. WHICH THEY HAVE REGISTERED AS 7148 SQUARE FEET, WHEN YOU TAKEN TO CONSIDERATION THE DRIVEWAY, ENTRYWAY, THE PUBLIC WOMEN, THE PATIO, THE ADDITIONAL AREAS, PLUS, THE DECK , IT WOULD BE 5040 SQUARE FEET. SO, ONCE AGAIN , THE SAME DRAWING. IT JUST SHOWS THE POOL FROM THE TOP LEFT-HAND CORNER.

THE BUILDING AROUND IT WOULD FIT RIGHT IN . IT IS THE BEST I COULD DO FOR THE LOT THAT I HAVE OUT THERE, AND I AM JUST ASKING FOR SOME RELIEF ON THE REAR AND THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IN ORDER TO ENJOY THAT PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE CAN COOL OFF IN THE SUMMERTIME. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO REALIZE THAT OUR HOME, IT IS THE ONLY HOME IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SURROUNDED BY RENTERS ON BOTH SIDES. I DID NOT FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO GO TO A RENTER AND GET THEIR PERMISSION TO GO AROUND -- ALONG WITH A PROJECT THAT I DO HAVE THREE LETTERS FROM THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS. THEY ARE ALL DELIGHTED! WE WOULD HAVE A SWIMMING POOL THEN, I GUESS THEY WOULD WANT TO COME AND SWIM. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY GAVE ME THE THUMBS UP. AND I DO HAVE THOSE. AND WE CAN PUT THEM IN THE RECORD, IF NECESSARY. WE ARE NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO GRANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, WITH REGARDS TO THE REAR AND THE SIDE SETBACK. WE ARE REQUESTING ONE THAT IS REASONABLE , IT WILL BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION , AND YOU CAN ONLY DO SO WITH APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD. AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OUT THERE , THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE

[00:40:01]

THERE WE ARE , DEAD CENTER RIGHT THERE. IT IS IN THE BROWN. AND DEERFIELD MEADOWS IS PUD AND AT THE BOTTOM , ON THE BOTTOM LEFT IS DEERFIELD MEADOWS, WHERE THAT LITTLE RED GOT -- DOT IS. AND THIS IS THE CUL-DE-SAC, YOU CAN SEE THAT EVERYONE ENJOYS A RELATIVELY LARGE BACK LOT. SO THERE IS ROOM IN THE BACK. AND LOOKING AT IT FROM THE REAR, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE RETENTION POND IS IN THAT LITTLE BLUE AREA OVER THERE, THAT IS KIND OF THE LITTLE AREA WHERE THE POOL WOULD BE LOCATED IN. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ?

>> ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE?

>> CHUCK, I AM NOT AGAINST THE POOL. THE ONLY THING I AM SEEING ON THE DIAGRAMS IS A STORM MANHOLE BACK THERE. IS THERE A DRAINAGE LINE THAT RUNS BETWEEN THE HOUSINGS? THANK

YOU, THAT'S ALL. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? MR. GEORGE ZUCCONI CAN YOU ANSWER

THAT QUESTION? >> IN THAT DIAGRAM, THAT STORM SEWER IS NOT LOCATED WHERE IT IS SHOWING ON THAT DIAGRAM.

>> MS. JUDY SPIEGEL, I STEERED YOU WRONG ON THE LAST ONE. THE MINOR MODIFICATION, AFFECTING THE INDIVIDUAL LOT LIKE THIS, IT DOES REQUIRE A HARDSHIP. YES.

>> SO, ACTUALLY, THAT IS THE HARDSHIP. THIS IS A VERY ODD -SHAPED LOT AND IT DOES REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF BACKYARD THAT

THEY HAVE. >> THAT IS DEFINITIVE. OKAY, WE

[6. MINMOD 2024-08 3180 SR 13 Watson Family Pool/Cabana. ]

>> I AM MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION 2024-09 23 DEERFIELD MEADOWS , REQUEST FOR MINOR MEDICATION .

>> ANY DISCUSSION? LET US REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION

[00:45:05]

SIX, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? >> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I DID A SITE VISIT AND I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE

HOMEOWNER , MR. JOHN LAWSON. >> OKAY. MR. SIMPSON?

>> HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING? MY CLIENT IS MR. JOHN WATSON.

>> JOHN WATSON, I AM ALSO THE APPLICANT, 13 WATSON. WE ARE REQUESTING A MINOR MODIFICATION TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK FROM 10' TO 6'. THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ON A PROPERTY AND IT WAS NOT CENTERED ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE BACK PORCH AND THE EXISTING POOL, THERE IS AN EXISTING POOL THAT WAS BUILT FOR THIS AREA. BECAUSE THE HOME WAS SITUATED ALL THE WAY OVER, IT GIVES US VERY LITTLE ROOM TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN THE CABANA AND NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS. ALSO , RECENTLY, THE NEIGHBOR CONSTRUCTED A BRAND-NEW HOUSE, A TWO-STORY HOME, THAT IS FURTHER BEHIND THE HOUSE. AND SO, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE WILL CABANA IS TO PROVIDE OURSELVES WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PRIVACY IN THE BACKYARD. THE REQUEST, WE BELIEVE, IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST . WE BELIEVE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. AND WE ALSO, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THE HARDSHIP. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, IN TERMS OF HARDSHIP, THE PRIVACY OF COURSE, WITH THE NEW HOME BEING ADJACENT TO THE ORIGINAL WAY THAT THE BUILDING AND THE HOMEOWNER LAID OUT THE HOUSE, AND IT IS THE OTHER. WE DID TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PRIMARY BEDROOM, AND WE WORKED ON WHAT THE POOL COMMANDER WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, WHICH IS THAT SLIDE.

THAT IS A RENDERING, NOT A PHOTOGRAPH. ANDREW'S COMEDY PUT THIS TOGETHER FOR US. WITH THE 10' SETBACK, IT IS A LITTLE BIT TIGHT, WITH THE SHAPE OF THE HOME AND THE PORCHES. AND ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE IS A FAMILY ROOM THAT OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE MOVED. SO, IT OBSCURES VIEWS OF THE RIVER.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE , YOU CAN SEE , IT OPENS IT UP MUCH BETTER.

MUCH BETTER FLOW . AND OF COURSE, THE VIEWS ARE NOT

OBSTRUCTED . >>

>> THE FLOW OF THE CABANA, WITH THE POOL. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE SIDE YARD. I WENT INTO THE BEDROOM AND I TOOK THESE PICTURES. THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF WHERE THE COLUMN WOULD BE SITUATED. THE HORIZONTAL NUMBER REPRESENTS THE BOTTOM OF THE BEAM THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR THE POOL HOUSE. AND YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS WITHOUT A VARIANCE, YOU CAN SEE THIS WOULD ALMOST BE OBSTRUCTED OVER 50%, OF COURSE, THE CABANA, IT IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO SEE THROUGH IT, IT DOES OBSTRUCT MORE OF THE VIEWS FROM THERE. ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE SLID IT OVER THE 4' AS REQUESTED, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT OPENS UP, VERTICALLY. SO, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION,

THAT IS ALL WE HAVE FOR NOW. >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS SCENARIO, THIS IS THE MAIN REASON THAT WE ARE DRYING UP EVERYTHING , RIGHT HERE, RIGHT WITH THIS SPOT, BECAUSE OF THAT SECOND FLOOR BALCONY THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE BACKYARD. THERE IS NO PRIVACY. SO, I THINK THAT IS A BIG REASON WHY WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE THAT SPACE RIGHT THERE, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS FULLY MAINTAINED.

THEY CAN STILL ENJOY THEIR PRIVACY, AND HAVE THE POOL, SO ON AND SO FORTH , WITHOUT OBSTRUCTING ANYTHING. OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DO NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER PLANS DRAWN UP, BUT BASICALLY, EVERYTHING COMING OFF OF THAT, EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE. AND AS FAR AS ANY WATERING TREATMENT ON THE NEIGHBORS ' PROPERTY, THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN, AND THE WHOLE LEFT SIDE IS WELL SPACED OUT.

[00:50:03]

>> WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ALREADY. WE DID NOT CALCULATE THE ACTUAL CHANGE, BUT THERE WOULD BE A

MINOR INCREASE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES, MR. WATSON, HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH YOUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR ABOUT THIS AND HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS CABANA?

>> NO, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT IT. WE HAVE NOT YET SOUGHT HOA APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE ANOTHER STEP THAT WE HAD TO DO, IF WE GET THE APPROVAL.

>> OKAY, SO YOU NEED HOA APPROVAL AS WELL. HE WOULD'VE

RECEIVED THE NOTIFICATIONS. >> WE ARE FRIENDLY. SO , HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING TO ME ABOUT IT, HE HAS A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION AND I AM NOT SURE. HE REQUESTED A VARIANCE. BUT HE ALSO HAS THE COLD -- POOL CABANA SITUATED ON THE OTHER

SIDE OF US. >> I DO UNDERSTAND, IT IS A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY, MY QUESTION IS, SIR, THERE WILL NOW ONLY BE 6' BETWEEN THE CABANA AND THE NEXT HOME, IS THIS INCLUDING THE ROOF LINE? OR THE STRUCTURE? IT

>> THE STRUCTURE. >> THAT ROOFLINE WILL PROJECT A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THE SETBACK. WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO TO MITIGATE THAT CLOSENESS? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT

PLANTINGS? >> WE HAVE A ROBUST LANDSCAPING PLAN. YOU SAW THE TRELLIS THAT WAS THERE, THE TRELLIS, THAT WILL BLOCK ANY VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE. A LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH WE DID SUBMIT, IT IS PRELIMINARY, WE DID PLAN ON PLANTING HEAVILY, THOSE STABLE PALMS THAT GROW IN THE AREA. TO PLANT ANOTHER. I DON'T KNOW , THERE ARE SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THEM, TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SCREENING FOR THE NEIGHBORS. AND WE HAVE SOMETHING GROWING THERE, NEXT TO THE TRELLIS THAT ARE ALREADY 10' IN HEIGHT AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO FILL IN. WE DO NOT EXPECT THE NEIGHBORTO BE ABLE

TO SEE THE SHELTER AT ALL. >> I DO SEE THIS, THANK YOU SO

MUCH. >> AT THE GROUND LEVEL , ON WHAT APPEARS, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A SLAB BACK THERE. SO, YOU ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING THIS POOL EQUIPMENT WITH ONLY 6'. I WILL BE ASKING THE STAFF ABOUT THAT, THEY SHOULD BE ASKING FOR A SMALLER VARIANCE AT THIS POINT, SHOULD THEY NOT BE? THEY ARE NOT REALLY ASKING

FOR THE RIGHT VARIANCE. >>

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR , YES, THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT PRD LIMITS EVERYTHING , INCLUDING THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. THE INTENT IS TO PLACE ANYTHING BEYOND THE 6' , THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A

CHANGE IN THE REQUEST. >> INCLUDING THE OVERHANG, AND THE FIRE MARSHAL MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

>> YOU MAY NEED TO REGROUP HERE.

>> WELL , OKAY , THE REQUEST IS FOR THE SETBACK TO BE CHANGED, IF THAT REQUEST INCLUDES ANY OVERHANGS AND POOL EQUIPMENT, THAT IS FINE. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS TO GO FROM THE 10' SETBACK TO THE 6' SIDE SETBACK. THAT MEANS THAT THE EQUIPMENT HAS TO BE LOCATED UP NEAR THE HOUSE, WE CAN DO THAT.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE IT IS EXISTING. IT IS UP, NEAR THE MAIN HOME. SO, I DO NOT KNOW THAT WE NEED TO REGROUP, IF WE CAN GET THAT VARIANCE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OVERHANG WOULD BE INCLUDED. IN THE MAIN DIMENSION CALCULATIONS.

>> WHEN YOU SAY INCLUDED? IT WOULD BE NOT LOCATED WITHIN 6'

? >> I AM NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THIS. BUT IF THERE IS AN HOA, AND YOU INDICATED THAT THERE IS

[00:55:01]

>> I WAS GOING TO GO TO THE H-2A WITH THE PERMITTED PLANS, INCLUDING THE VARIANCE. WE DO NOT HAVE THE WHOLE PLAN PERMITTED YET. SO, THE VARIANCE, EVERYTHING , WE

WANTED TO SUBMIT IT. >> IF IT IS PREMATURE TO GO TO

THE HOA -- >> IT IS NOT PREMATURE. I JUST DECIDED TO WAIT UNTIL THIS HAD BEEN PERMITTED.

>> YOU DID INDICATE THAT IT IS PREMATURE. I THINK IT IS NOW PREMATURE FOR YOU TO COME TO US WITH THIS, QUITE FRANKLY.

>> THERE IS NO RELEVANT SITE PLAN , BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THIS. YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN OVERALL VIEW.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SIX? WE BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY.

>> I WILL FILL OUT AN IDEA, SIR , IF YOU WOULD LIKE HOA APPROVAL, I DO THINK THAT COULD BE OBTAINED WITHIN 24 HOURS. IF YOU WANTED TO APPROVE, PENDING THAT, OF COURSE, THAT IS FINE .

BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO DELAY THE PROJECT UNTIL THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND PRESENT.

>> WELL , I CAN ONLY BASE A VOTE ON WHAT I SEE TODAY.

>> MS. JUDY SPIEGEL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR QUESTIONS ?

>> BOARD, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THE CONDITIONS ABOUT THE POOL EQUIPMENT AND THE OVERHANG NOT BEING WITHIN 6' , PENDING, OF COURSE HOA APPROVAL? INDISCERNIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] IS THAT SOMETHING

THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE? >> YOU IT IN A MOTION.

BUT, FROM WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING , THEY WILL NOT APPROVE ANYTHING. BUT YOU COULD PUT IT IN A MOTION.

>> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, IF THIS PASSED, THOSE TWO THINGS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. SO IT IS UNNECESSARY.

>> IF YOU WANTED EXTRA ASSURANCE

>> THANK YOU, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. MAY I MAKE A MOTION?

[7. PUD 2023-14 The Preserve at St. Augustine Lakes. ]

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> LET US GO AHEAD AND REGISTER THE VOTE. OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES, 4-3. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE ?

>> I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM DOUG BURNETT YESTERDAY, BUT WE WERE HAVING A PARTY, SO I COULD NOT CALL HIM BACK. I TEXTED HIM LAST NIGHT AROUND 10:00, AND HE TOLD ME, THAT MR. WHITEHOUSE WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS FOR HIM TODAY.

>> MR. GREENE? >> YES, MR. WHITEHOUSE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE . AND I ALSO PERFORMED A SITE VISIT.

>> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I DID A COUPLE OF SITE VISITS. I DID NOT RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM MR. WHITEHOUSE, OR FROM MR. DOUGLAS BURNETT. I DID SEND EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND I HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF EMAIL

CORRESPONDENCE. >> MR. WHITEHOUSE?

>> IF I MAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THAT EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU? JUST, WHENEVER , BECAUSE THOSE QUESTIONS MAY BE RELEVANT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR THE RECORD, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP , AND I AM RECOGNIZED AS AN EXPERT IN CITY, COUNTY, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LAW. I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE PRESERVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES THAT THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO BEAUTY. THIS IS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL PART, MORE CLOSEOUT, YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS TO NORTH HOLMES BOULEVARD, COMING OFF A BEER

[01:00:05]

STAFF PUTS IT AT 475, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY REDUCED TO 412, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT. HERE AGAIN, THE UPDATED LAYOUT OF THAT BEAUTY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND AS IT IS STARTING TO BE DEVELOPED NOW. LET'S GO BACK TO THE AREAL MAP, WHEN YOU OVERLAY THAT AREA WHERE THAT ST. AUGUSTINE BEAUTY IS, AND, WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS PUD PROPOSAL, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THAT IT IS VERY SIMILAR IN LAYOUT AND HOW IT ATTEMPTS TO WORK AROUND THE WETLANDS, ET CETERA, AND THE LOTS, AND THE SIZE, AND THE DENSITY, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PRESERVE, WHICH IS THIS PROPOSAL. THIS IS THE PROPOSED MAP. AND IT SHOWS YOU THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR 376 UNITS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP HOW THE DESIGN ITSELF IS SPECIFICALLY, THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PRESERVE ALMOST ALL OF THE WETLANDS, ON THIS SITE, PARTICULARLY, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS OUTLINED IN THE GREEN. HERE IT IS , OVERLAID ON THE AREAL MAP ITSELF, YOU CAN SEE, LIKE I SAID, IT IS 247 ACRES, 187 ACRES OF WETLAND PRESERVATION, SIX ACRES OF RECREATION, 376 SINGLE -FAMILY UNITS. THERE IS EXISTING, AS FAR AS EXISTING CAPACITY USE, YOU SAW THE CONCURRENCY LETTER, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT, AND THERE IS RESERVATION TO ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND AS FAR AS HIGH SCHOOL, THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY IN ANY OF THE REGION AROUND US. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE LETTER, YOU HAVE TO ENTER THE SCHOOL CONCURRENCY MITIGATION, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE WAY THEY DO THEIR ANALYSIS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IS GOING TO PRODUCE ENOUGH REVENUE, THEN THEY WILL MEET THE CONCURRENCY FOR THOSE, THEY BELIEVE THIS WILL PROMOTE.

AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FURTHER SCHOOL MITIGATION REQUIRED, PER THE SCHOOL BOARD, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC . WE DO HAVE THE INITIAL DRAFT. THE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS, THAT WAS PART OF YOUR PACKAGE AS WELL. WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT, BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER THE COUNTY FINDS AS BEING REQUIRED, BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOT. THEREFORE, WE ARE STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT, AND WE ARE PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD, AND ENTER IN TO A TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, DEPENDING ON THAT ANALYSIS BY THE COUNTY, AS FAR AS ENVIRONMENTAL GOES, AS I TOLD YOU, THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION, AS ANALYZED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT, YOU CAN SEE THAT REPORT WITHIN YOUR PACKET AS WELL. THIS IS TO PROVIDE 108 ACRES OF WETLANDS PRESERVATION. THERE ARE 20 ACRES OF UPLAND PRESERVATION. THEY DID NOT DOCUMENT ANY FEDERALLY LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES UTILIZING THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, LET US TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THIS ADJACENT PUD, APPROVED IN 2006 FOR 800 UNITS, SINGLE AND MULTI FAMILY, REDUCED TO 775, THEN ADJUSTED TO SINGLE-FAMILY ONLY, THEN

[01:05:02]

AUGUSTINE LAKES, THIS PUD PROPOSAL, IT IS LESS, AGAIN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DENSITY OF THIS AREA. AND, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES PUD, AND THAT IS 247 ACRES, WHICH PROVIDES A TOTAL OF 481 ACRES . AND THEN, WHEN YOU TAKE 412, WITH THE 376 PROPOSED, YOU ARE SPREADING THAT 800 OVER AN ADDITIONAL 247 ACRES. THAN WHAT WAS ADDITIONALLY APPROVED IN 2006 , BY THIS COUNTY. AGAIN, I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE AREAL MAP , SO THAT YOU CAN GET A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WILL BE LAID OUT, IT IS SPREAD OUT, SO THAT IT CAN PRIMARILY BE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS IN THE AREA. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE, WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THE ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES APPROVED BEAUTY NEXT TO IT, IT IS VERY SIMILAR IN STYLE. AND THE WAY THAT IT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2006, AND THEN AMENDED TO 412 UNITS. I AM HERE. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW THERE ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONS. THERE MAY EVEN BE SOME PEOPLE TO SPEAK. WHICHEVER YOU PREFER, I WILL BE GLAD TO DO THAT, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

>> DAD, JAMES, I HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS, AS YOU ANTICIPATED. I ASSUME YOU WERE EVEN POSSIBLY MEANING ME. I DO LIKE THE FACT, AND I WILL COMMEND YOU ON THE PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS OUT THERE. THAT MAY BE DUE MORE TO MITIGATION COSTS THAN DOING ANY GOOD. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I AM JUST SPECULATING ON THAT ONE, THERE IS, IN THE APPLICATION SUMMARY ON PAGE SIX, THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY APPLICATION -- ATTENTION. THE STAFF NOTES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A PUBLIC HEARING NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR THIS APPLICATION, AT THIS TIME, NO REASON FOR THIS REQUEST WAS GIVEN. COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE AND I KNOW THAT YOU ARE FILLING IN FOR THE DOUGLAS BURNETT. HE HAS AN UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT, BUT, IF SO, WHY DIDN'T YOU SCHEDULE THE MEETING BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IF IT IS DUE TO TRYING TO COME UP WITH MORE DATA OR MORE INFORMATION, AS A MAJOR ADVISORY BOARD, TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THAT THE PZA IS ENTITLED TO ALSO HEAR THE REASONING AND THE FACTS. THIS IS ALL DISTURBING TO ME,

MAYBE YOU CAN ELABORATE. >> I AM SORRY THAT YOU ARE DISTURBED ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS, BUT THAT WAS THE REASON. TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION, THE REASON WHY, FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IT IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS IS STILL PROCEEDING. AS STATED AT THE BEGINNING , WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE COUNTY AGREES THAT WE ARE GOING TO MEET WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION. THAT IS A SEPARATE MITIGATION THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS , AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW. ALL OF THE INFORMATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS BEFORE YOU. THE REASON IT WAS NOT BEFORE, IT WE KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE LOTS OF QUESTIONS. THIS GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THROUGH THOSE WITH THIS AGENCY, WHICH WE HAVE ALL RESPECT FOR, AS YOU KNOW.

>> YOU DO. I AGREE WITH THAT, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR PRIVATE TRAFFIC. YOUR PRIVATE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, CORRECT? SCHINDLER AND ASSOCIATES? WELL, IF WE DROP DOWN TO TRAFFIC RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE STAFF HAS NOTED, THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF HAS NOTED , IT IS PRETTY ALARMING TO ME , IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE GENERATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. YOU SOMEWHAT GLOSSED OVER THAT.

>> NOT AT ALL. BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MITIGATION.

>> DON'T BLAME YOU FOR PUTTING ANY OF THIS OUT, FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO GENERATE THIS DEVELOPMENT 3400 ADDITIONAL DAILY TRIPS AND THAT IS 3:45 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS,

[01:10:02]

HOUSES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND THE NUMBERS YOU ARE STATING ARE ALL BASED ON TRAFFIC ENGINEERS.

NEITHER YOU NOR I ARE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS. SO, THE AMOUNT OF TRIPS THAT ARE STATED THAT WOULD BE PRODUCED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE NOT SINGULAR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE TO ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU PUT ANYWHERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY OR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WITHIN THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE ASKED TO BE DEVELOPED, AND I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS ALARMING, BECAUSE IT IS WHAT THE TRAFFIC AND LOOKS AT, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE CODES , TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, ON STAFF TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WE ANALYZE . WHEN A SEPARATE, SIDE ENGINEER COMES, THEY SAY WE AGREE OR WE DO NOT AGREE. WE LOOK AT OUR COMPANY HAS A PLAN, WE SAY, LISTEN, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.

HOLMES BOULEVARD, IT IS AT 75%. GUESS WHAT, IT IS REALLY GOING

TO BE AT 95% OR 98%. >> 98.6%.

>> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SOMEBODY WHO OWNS PROPERTY AROUND HERE, YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR THAT, AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS, NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SAY HOW TERRIBLE IT IS TO HAVE A BUT MORE TRAFFIC, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY, THE WAY THAT WE ACTUALLY MITIGATE FOR TRAFFIC IN THE COUNTY IS TO ALLOW SOMETHING TO PAY FOR IT, THAT IS HOW ST.

JOHNS COUNTY IT HAS GONE FORWARD. HOW DO YOU EVEN THINK THAT WE GOT ALL OF THIS STUFF ? WE WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD ANY OF THOSE ROADS, UNLESS WE APPROVED THE ROADS. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL

ROADS SYSTEM. >> I DO LIKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSES TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC. THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>> NOT AT ALL. >> THAT IS THE FORM OF ARGUMENT YOU WOULD MAKE, FRANKLY. AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT, I DID READ THAT THERE WERE A FEW PEOPLE --

>> THAT WAS -- >> WAIT A SECOND ! I WAS SPEAKING. I DID NOTE THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO SAID THEY WOULD WELCOME ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE ISSUES ALONG THAT ROAD, FOR TRAFFIC FLOW, AND SO FORTH. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY THAT WAS I THINK IT WAS LIKE SEVEN PEOPLE, THERE WERE MORE THAT WERE TOTALLY AGAINST IT. AND SO, AT THE BEGINNING OF WHAT YOU WERE STARTING TO SAY, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE QUESTION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE COUNTY STAFF IS WRONG THAT THERE IS OVER 3400 DAILY TRIPS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED BY THIS AND THAT YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WOULD HAVE A BETTER FIGURE?

>> I SAID WE WILL AGREE TO DO WHATEVER MITIGATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRIPS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, TO PUT ON THE

SYSTEM. >> I STILL THINK 3413 CARS COMING OUT OF A SINGLE INGRESS AND EGRESS POINT ARE GOING THROUGH A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN BUILT. I THINK IT IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC TO PUT ON A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I WOULD NOT WANT IT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ESPECIALLY IF I DROVE ON HOLMES BOULEVARD, WHICH I DO OCCASIONALLY. IT IS OVERBURDENED AND WAY OVER CAPACITY, IN TERMS OF FOUR MILE . YOU CAN GET OUT THERE. YOU CANNOT? YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR

HEAD NO. >> ABOUT WHICH STATEMENT? I AM

JUST LISTENING. >> YOU WERE SHAKING HER HEAD NO, WHEN I SAID YOU CAN GET FROM DEER RUN TO HOLMES

BOULEVARD. >> YOU SAID THAT --

>> OVERCAPACITY? HOLMES BOULEVARD, AND I SAID , AND

FOUR MILE ROAD IS OVERCAPACITY. >> IT IS NOT OVERCAPACITY.

WHICH WAY? GO DOWN BY THE FLORIDA CLUB?

>> FOUR MILE ROAD BETWEEN STATES 16 AND HOLMES BOULEVARD.

IS THAT NOT OVERCAPACITY >> I JUST TOLD YOU WHAT THE

NUMBERS WERE ABOUT HOMES. >> I MENTIONED HOLMES BOULEVARD AND I MENTIONED FOUR MILE AS WELL. DO YOU WANT ME TO READ YOU ON HOW ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED IT IS?

>> WAS THAT A QUESTION? >> DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THAT?

>> CAN WE JUST BE A LITTLE MORE CIVIL?

[01:15:01]

>> I WAS TRYING TO BE CIVIL, I HAVE ENCOUNTERED A LITTLE BIT OF HOSTILITY HERE AND OKAY, I AM MAYBE SORRY FOR THAT. IF I CONTRIBUTED TO THAT, I APOLOGIZE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT SOMETHING, I WATCHED THE LAST FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING. I DON'T KNOW WHO MIGHT HAVE SEEN THAT, BUT THERE WAS AN ITEM, IT WAS CALLED THE PRESERVE AT WARDS CREEK THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. THAT THIS BODY VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD, IT WENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND, COMMISSIONER DEAN SPOKE. PRIOR TO THEM VOTING . THEY UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THAT DOWN.

BUT HE HAD TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, ONE FROM STATE ROAD 16, 16A, AND ONE RECENT AERIAL PHOTO. HE SAID SOMETHING, AND I AM PARAPHRASING. AND HE WAS SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, LISTEN TO THIS PHOTO. THE PAST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES DEVELOP OVER THE YEARS, WHERE TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE DID NOT KEEP UP, PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE RELYING ON DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE THE FUNDING AND THAT DID NOT QUITE WORK OUT VERY WELL. HE DID SAY SOMETHING TO

THAT EFFECT. >> I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T SEE

THAT. >> YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.

SO I WONDERED. DID ANYONE ELSE? IS THAT AN ACCURATE

DESCRIPTION? >> IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT HE WAS

REFERRING TO. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, THERE ARE SEVEN ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROAD SEGMENTS, WITHIN THE FOUR-MILE ROAD RADIUS AND THE MAP IS IN THE PACKET, ON PAGE 10, THOSE INCLUDE HOLMES BOULEVARD, 4 MILE ROAD , THERE ARE SEVEN OF THEM THAT ARE DEFICIENT. UNFORTUNATELY , THE COST TO FIX THOSE ROADS IS ABOUT $155 MILLION. AND THE PROPORTIONATELY FAIR SHARE WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER $9 MILLION. BUT, OF ALL OF THESE ROADS, SEVEN SEGMENTS, VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM, NOT VIRTUALLY, ALL OF THEM, THEY ARE EITHER FRONT COMMITMENT, NO COMMITMENT, NO COMMITMENT, FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM. CURRENT STATUS, EVERY ONE OF THEM, UNFUNDED, UNFUNDED, UNFUNDED. THAT FAIR SHARE, THIS IS BASICALLY GETTING BACK TO WHAT HENRY DEAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, IN MY OPINION. YOU ARE AGREEING WITH THIS?

>> IN YOUR OPINION, YES, SIR. >> THIS HAS NOT WORKED OUT TO UPGRADE THE ROADS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED. THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME. THAT IS CONCERNING. THERE IS SO MUCH NEED , AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE MEANS TO UPGRADE THESE ROADS AND TO PUT ANOTHER 3413 CARS ON THE ROAD IS NOT WARRANTED, ESPECIALLY GOING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD , AT ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT THERE MAY BE A SECONDARY ACCESS POINT . AND IT IS A CUL-DE-SAC. BUT, IT STATES IN THEIR, I GUESS YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH A CURRENT DEVELOPER , IT SAYS, TO THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ARE PROVIDING THE DOCUMENTS TO SHARE WITH THE RESIDENTS , WITH THE PROPOSED CONNECTIVITY POINT, THE APPLICANT ASSERTED THAT THE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTIVITY POINT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY ARE UNCERTAIN, TO THE EXTENT OF WHICH THE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTIVITY MAY BECOME A REALITY. CAN YOU ELUCIDATE

MORE? >> THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. IF YOU RECALL, YOU MAY KNOW, THAT THE CODE IN OUR CONFERENCE A PLAN REQUIRES US TO WORK FOR INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PROJECTS, THAT IS WHY IT IS THERE. NOT JUST BECAUSE WE ARE SOME PIE-IN-THE-SKY, UNDISCERNING STATEMENT. IT IS

[01:20:12]

>> I DID NOT SAY IT WAS PIE-IN-THE-SKY. I ASKED, IT MIGHT NOT BECOME A REALITY, SO. IF IT DID NOT BECOME A REALITY, IF I LIVED ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC, I WOULD NOT BE VERY HAPPY ABOUT A NEW ROAD COMING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS GOING TO BE OVER 3400 NEW CAR TRIPS A DAY, COMING THROUGH. BUT, IF YOU DO NOT GET THAT CONNECTIVITY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS .4 3400 CARS, APPROXIMATELY. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THE MAP SHOWS HOW THE PLAN IS LAID OUT. YES. IT IS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS, A

LOT OF IT. >> IS THERE ANY WORKFORCE HOUSING COMPONENT AT ALL TO THIS?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, AT THIS POINT.

>> NO? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO AT THIS

POINT. >> OKAY. I THINK THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE TO SPEAK. SO I AM GOING TO WAIVE THE REST OF MY COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS. I WILL WAIT.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE THIS , OR IF THESE STAFF DOES, DO WE HAVE A FLOODPLAINS MAP ? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DRAWINGS, THE FLOODPLAINS FOR THE PROPERTY.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THERE WAS NOT A FLOODPLAIN MAP . I CAN SEE WHAT I CAN FIND FOR YOU REALLY QUICKLY THOUGH.

>> I TELL YOU WHAT, WHY DON'T WE LET THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEED AND WE WILL LOOK AT IT, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. AND YOU

WILL HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME. >> MS. JUDY SPIEGEL ?

>> YES, I WILL WAVE MY TIME AND LEFT THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK

YOU. >> ONTO PUBLIC COMMENT, IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR PUBLIC RECORD.

>> CHUCK, 1748 , I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT THE TRAFFIC CONTINGENCY HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT YET AND HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING. IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT CORRECTLY, TO HAVE 28 STUDENTS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL , OUT OF A POSSIBILITY OF 900 STUDENTS IN THAT COMMUNITY, ONLY 28? THAT DOES NOT ADD UP, FOR SOME REASON. IT JUST DOES NOT ADD UP. MOST OF YOU PROBABLY TRAVEL 4 MILE ROAD, HOLMES BOULEVARD, OR EVEN 16. YOU ARE ADDING ON OVER 1000 VEHICLES UNDER THAT ROADWAY THAT IS ALREADY CONGESTED. WAIT TILL THAT BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX OPENS UP ON 16 . YOU TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, IT IS BACKED UP NOW, ALMOST TO 4 MILE ROAD DURING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC. IT IS BAD. I KNOW MOST OF YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT TRAVELING AT THE PEAK TIMES. BUT IT IS GOING WRONG. TO HAVE THIS GOING THROUGH , ALL OF THE ROADS OUT OF IT, I WOULD SAY TO POSTPONE IT, UNTIL THEY COME UP WITH EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO HAVE, WITH THE CONTINGENCY, AND ALSO , WITH THE FLOOD AREA, WITH THE WETLANDS. THEY CAN COME UP AND PRESERVE ALL OF THE WETLANDS AND NOT TAKE OUT A COUPLE OF AREAS TO DESTROY THOSE.

>> THANK YOU. YOU CAN LINE UP AT EACH PODIUM AND TAKE TURNS.

IF THERE ARE MORE OF YOU ALL THAT WANT TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD

AND LINE UP AT THE PODIM. >> HELLO EVERYONE, MY NAME IS WILLIAMS, I AM A BUSINESS OWNER IN ST. AUGUSTINE. THIS PROJECT DIRECTLY AFFECT ME AND MY FAMILY. I AM ALSO REPRESENTING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. THERE ARE FIVE PROPERTIES ON CARL W STEWART ROAD . AND SO, IT IS A LOT OF POINTS. I WILL TRY NOT TO RAMBLE. TRAFFIC, OF COURSE, IT IS LAUGHABLE THAT THERE IS NO TRAFFIC REPORT THAT WE CAN SEE, THAT THE CITIZENS CAN EVEN

[01:25:02]

>> MY NAME IS CHUCK MCCLELLAN, I LIVE AT 2170 BY CARTER ROAD.

I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1964. THE COUNTY HAS CHANGED TREMENDOUSLY OVER THOSE YEARS. WHEN WE WERE KIDS , THERE WERE NO CONDOS . THE TRAFFIC AND THE ROADS ARE THE SAME TODAY AS THEY WERE WHEN I WAS A KID. KING STREET IS THE SAME. WE HAVE NOT PUT ANY NEW ROADS. 312, WE TALKED ABOUT 312, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT 30 YEARS AGO, GOING OVER THAT BAND. WE STILL DON'T HAVE THAT, AND NOW IT HAS STOPPED AGAIN, SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS. THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE A MAJOR PROBLEM. WHERE WE CAN GET OUT, ON 214, BUT A YEAR OR TWO AGO, WHEN WE PUT THE LAST SUBDIVISION IN, YOU CANNOT HARDLY GET OUT ON THE ROAD, YOU GET 10 MORE HOMES, THEN YOU GET IN THE WAY. SO, THE ROADS HAVE REALLY BECOME A PROBLEM. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, HOW MUCH WATER WE ARE GOING TO USE FOR THESE NEW HOUSES, AND IT NEEDS TO GO TO BEAUTY RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE LATER, WE DO NOT HAVE THE ROAD STRUCTURE TO DO THIS, WE ARE PREPARED, BUT WE ARE NOT PREPARED FOR THIS KIND OF BUILDUP. I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT WE HAVEN'T. OVER THE YEARS, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 1954, I HAVE TAUGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR 35 YEARS, BUT I STARTED TAKING BACK IN 1979. WE HAVE ONE HIGH SCHOOL. NOW WE HAVE 11 TO 15, SO, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE THIS KIND OF POPULATION COMING IN, AND WE WERE NOT PREPARED FOR IT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED TO PUT MORE PEOPLE COMING OUT UNDER THE ROADS, AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED TO DO THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS DAVID BANKS, I LIVE AT 1305 THOMPSON BAILEY ROAD, SO, I AM NOT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OR ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON WHEN I MOVED IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. I SAW THE SIGN UP THERE THE OTHER DAY, YOU KNOW, THAT SAID THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING, AND, I GOT THE LETTER STATING THAT THERE WOULD BE A HEARING

[01:30:02]

WE STARTED GETTING MORE AND MORE FLOODING IN THE YARD, WHERE IT WAS FILLING UP, BOTH ON THE WEST SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE YARD, AND ON THE ROAD, ON THOMPSON BAILEY. AND I STARTED NOTICING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THOMPSON BAILEY, AND I DO NOT KNOW THAT, BUT THEY LITERALLY COULD NOT DRIVE THAT, I WENT UP THERE WITH PUMPS, I TRIED TO HELP THEM OUT THERE A LITTLE BIT, IT DID NOT DO ANY GOOD, SO I STARTED INVESTIGATING THIS A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU GO OVER TO ST.

AUGUSTINE WAY, TO ME, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING BUT IF YOU GO OVER TO ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES, THE DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU REMEMBER THAT MAP, WE ARE SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN THAT AND THE ONE ABOVE THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS, EVERYTHING OVER IN ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES WAS WORKING BEAUTIFULLY. IT WAS HIGH AND DRY, THE WETLANDS LOOKED GREAT, AND THEY HAD ALL OF THE LAKES. BUT EVERY TIME THEY DEVELOPED ANOTHER ROAD, WE STARTED GETTING MORE WATER, AND WE HAD TO PUMP OUT OUR YARDS. I ENDED UP SPENDING $5000 ON A CULVERT TO GET THE WEST SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, TO GET THE WATER TO GO OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE, IN ORDER TO DRAIN THE WAY THE FLOODPLAIN WAS DESIGNED. I CALLED THE CITY AND I ASKED THEM HOW THINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO FLOW. THEY TOLD ME, I CALLED THEM UP, THEY WOULD COME OUT AND BE VERY HELPFUL. AND CLEAN OUT THE DITCHES, UP TO WHERE OUR ROAD WAS, BECAUSE OURS WAS PRIVATE. THEY WERE HELPFUL. I TALKED TO SOMEONE NAMED MR. TO SEND SO . I THINK HE IS INVOLVED WITH THIS, WITH THE COUNTY, AND TO GIVE HIM INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT OUR PROBLEM WAS, AND THAT HE COULD POTENTIALLY HELP GET IT FIXED, I HAVE GONE TO THE DEVELOPER. BUT MR. DESOUSA SAID, GIVEN THE INFORMATION, AND HAVING COME TO THE MEETING. MY CONCERN WAS, ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES , THAT IS GREAT OVER THERE WITH THE DRAINAGE, BUT IT IS ALL COMING TO US. NOW THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD A NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND WHERE IS THAT ALL GOING TO GO.

AND THE RESPONSES WE GOT, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN VERY GOOD, SO ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THOMPSON BAILEY AND PREMIER, THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. MR. DESOUSA SAID, BEFORE YOU TRY TO MITIGATE THE WATER COMING FROM THERE, OVER TO WHERE IT IS A BOAST OF LOW, CHECK WITH US, YOU COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS DOWNSTREAM, AND I CANNOT TAKE THINGS INTO MY OWN CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE I COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR MY NEIGHBORS. MEANWHILE, WE HAVE A NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING IN. THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED , BEFORE THIS MOVES ON, AND MY ISSUE IS NOT A ROAD ISSUE. THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS GARY HERMAN, IONA BORN AT 1940 CLARA ROAD , I HAVE ABOUT 15.5 ACRES. AND ABOUT 15 OF THAT IS WETLANDS.

THE WETLANDS FOR THIS PROPERTY DRAIN INTO THE WETLANDS ON MY PROPERTY. AND THEN, ACROSS CARTER ROAD, IT EMPTIES OUT TO THE MCCALLUM SWAMP . I AM NOT DOING AN ANALYSIS . BUT I CAN TELL YOU, SINCE THEY PUT ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES, THEY PUMPED ALL OF THAT WATER INTO THE WETLANDS. FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS, THE WETLANDS WAS UP TO THE FLOOD STAGE ON MY PROPERTY, AND I HAD TO DEAL WITH THAT WATER, AND SO DID MY NEIGHBORS. SINCE THEY FINISHED ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES. THAT WETLANDS WOULD NORMALLY GO UP AND DOWN WITH THE SEASONS AND SOMETIMES IT WOULD BE DRY , AND SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY AFTER HEAVY RAINS, IT WOULD FILL UP AND IT WOULD DRAIN OUT. SINCE ST. AUGUSTINE STARTED THE DEVELOPMENT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN LESS THE 1.5 TWO OF WATER IN THE DEEPER PART OF THE WETLANDS. IT HAS NEVER DRIED UP. IT HAS GONE ABOVE WHAT THE OLD FLOOD STAGE WAS, AFTER HEAVY RAINS A NUMBER OF TIMES.

SO, I HAVE RAISED THE DRIVEWAY TO GO BETWEEN MY FRONT DRIVEWAY , AND MY PROPERTY, TWICE, FIRST BY 4", AND THEN BY 6 POST GO -- 6 '. THERE IS MORE WATER IN THE WETLANDS THEN THERE WAS BEFORE ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES WHEN IN. THE 600' THAT I SHARE, AS A BORDER WITH ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES , THEY DID WHAT WAS REASONABLE TO DO IN A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THEY DUG A LAKE, THEY FILLED THE PROPERTY. AND THEIR HOUSES ARE HIGHER AND

[01:35:03]

UP. THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS JAMES SMITH, I LIVE AT 2186 SOUTHERN DRIVE SOUTH , WHERE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS ACTUALLY GOING O MEET UP TO MY PROPERT THE WAY THAT THE MAP SHOWS , THE AREA BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THEIR PROPERTY, THERE IS A WETLANDS CONVERSATION -- CONSERVATION AREA AND THE WETLANDS. THE THING THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT. LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SAID, SINCE THEY BUILT THAT OTHER SUBDIVISION , WE ARE NOT A WETLANDS AREA, BUT WE DO HAVE LOW AREAS IN OUR PROPERTY. WHEN IT USE TO RAIN, IF IT RAINED REAL HARD, WE WOULD HAVE STANDING WATER FOR A FEW DAYS AND EVENTUALLY IT WOULD GO AWAY. AND THE DITCHES WOULD DRY UP. BUT SINCE THEY STARTED THAT OTHER SUBDIVISION OVER THERE, THE WATER JUST STANDS FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, AND THE DITCHES STAY FULL FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, I HAVE ADDED THE COUNTY COME OUT, THREE OR FOUR TIMES, TO SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. IT IS JUST TOTALLY DESTROYED, THAT WHOLE AREA OVER THERE. THE THING THAT I AM CONCERNED WITH, THE LOTS ARE SO SMALL, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD EVERYTHING UP, EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO BE TWO STORIES HIGH, BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE ONLY 40' WIDE. THEY ARE NEVER GOING TO HAVE TO DIG THE PONDS OUT. BUT THEY WILL TAKE THAT DIRT, THEY WILL BUILD THE LOTS OF FOR THE HOUSES, WHICH WILL RAISE THE HOUSES EVEN FURTHER UP, THEN I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PRIVACY, BECAUSE EVERYBODY WILL BE LOOKING RIGHT OVER AT OUR PROPERTY. AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS, ALL THE DRAINAGE THAT I SEE. APPROXIMATELY 40 -PLUS HOUSES THAT WILL AFFECT MY PROPERTY WITH THE RUNOFF FROM THEIR ROOF, THEIR PROPERTY, THROUGH THE SMALL LITTLE AREAS, AND THAT IS GOING TO FLOOD MY BACKYARD AND STAY FLOODED ALL THE TIME. SO, I AM HOPING THAT YOU CAN ALL TAKE INTO REAL CONSIDERATION, NOT APPROVING THIS. BECAUSE THE OTHER ITEM IS THE TRAFFIC. THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY HORRENDOUS OVER THERE.

YOU CANNOT GET OUT AND YOU CANNOT GET IN OVER THERE. AND YOU ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT PUTTING 3000-PLUS CARS ON THE ROAD, THAT IS A LOT OF CARS ON THE ROAD. SO, THAT IS ALL REALLY I HAVE GOT TO SAY. BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. I HOPE YOU ALL DO NOT APPROVE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS DENITA, I LIVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES. MY PROBLEM HERE IS , I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, I DID NOT KNOW THAT I WOULD BE IN FRONT OF EVERYONE, I AM NOT DRESSED UP, SO, I APOLOGIZE, I CANNOT FIND A WAY TO FIGURE OUT WHO THIS DEVELOPER IS. BECAUSE I HAVE TRIED. AT LEAST FOR THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF, I HAVE THE DRAWINGS, I HAVE 75 DOCUMENTS, TO THIS DAY, LENNAR IS REFUSING TO LET US KNOW WHO THE DEVELOPER IS, AND WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS.

>> WE ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> SO, RIGHT THERE, HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

THE DRAWINGS , THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU GO ON A BICYCLE, AND YOU GO TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU HAVE DEER CREEK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, THERE ARE SO MANY CARS , IT IS A PARKING LOT ON HOLMES BOULEVARD. THIS IS

[01:40:01]

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? >> MY NAME IS JOANNE MCCLELLAN AND I LIVE AT THE VERY NORTH END OF CARTER ROAD. WE DO NOT BORDER ON THE PROPERTY OF THIS PUD. BUT WE CAN FORGET THE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT , WE CAN FORGET THE IMPACT TO THE WILDLIFE. ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT THEY SAY THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON THIS PROPERTY -- PLACE, THESE DEVELOPERS, THEY DO NOT STICK TO THEIR PROMISES.

THEY MAKE ALL KINDS OF PROMISES . IT IS A TAXPAYER PROBLEM.

THEY WASH THEIR HANDS OF IT. AND THIS KIND OF THING HAS TO STOP. WE CANNOT HANDLE THE UNBRIDLED GROWTH. IT IS AFFECTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED HERE. WE LIVE ON SEVEN ACRES AND WE CANNOT TAKE THE 376 , WHATEVER, ACRES. AND MAKE ONE HOUSE PER ACRE AND STILL MAKE MONEY. THEY MAKE LOTS OF MONEY.

THEY CONTINUE TO DO IT, THEY CONTINUE TO PUT BURDENS ON THE SCHOOLS, AND THE ROADS, THE FIREHOUSES, THE HOSPITALS, EVERYTHING. IT HAS GOT TO BE CONTROLLED BETTER. THAT IS THE

BIG PROBLEM . >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> MY NAME IS DON SMITH, I LIVE AT 286 CIRCLE DRIVE. I AM REITERATING THE SAME CONCERNS THAT THESE GOOD CITIZENS BEHIND US HAVE ALREADY BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD. THE PROPERTY DOES BUT UP TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, AND WE HAVE LOST SEVEN OR EIGHT TREES , DUE TO STANDING WATER THAT WAS COMING FROM ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES. AND THIS GENTLEMAN HERE , I CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS THE SAME ISSUES. OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AREA IS ALREADY BEING IMPACTED TODAY . I KIND OF SHUDDER TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, IF WE APPROVE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE SORT. WE DO HAVE WILDLIFE AND ON OUR PROPERTY, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, DURING THE BUILDING PROCESS , WE SAW A YELLOW PANTHER. I WISH I HAD TAKEN A PICTURE OF THE FOOTPRINTS THAT WE SAW. THEY WERE HUGE. THERE IS WILDLIFE , THERE IS DEAR , THEY ARE THERE. TURKEYS, FOXES . I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF GAME CAMERAS THEY ARE USING BUT APPARENTLY, THEY ARE NOT WORKING VERY WELL. TRAFFIC, I DO NOT HAVE TO TELL YOU ALL. YOU ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. YOU TRAVEL THESE ROADS, YOU SEE IT. WE DON'T NEED A STUDY TO KNOW THAT THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO, MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, PLANNING IS PLANNING, YOU PLAN AHEAD, TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC.

THE TRAFFIC IS THERE. WHAT I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD, RESPECTFULLY IS THAT YOU UNANIMOUSLY VOTE AGAINST THIS POST PROPERTY. UNTIL THEY CAN DEVELOP THE ROADS TO SUPPORT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING. I

[01:45:01]

RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>>

>> I WAS HERE BEFORE YOU A FEW YEARS AGO MY NAME IS JOHN MAGUIRE. I LIVE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I AM A DEVELOPER. I WAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. YOU SAID OKAY, 3-2 , AND THE PROJECT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

AND I WOULD VISIT THE ROADS. LIKE 4 MILE, AND COMING OUT OF IT, IF YOU MAKE THAT LEFT TURN, YOU ARE TAKING YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS, AT THE ANGLED ROAD . I UNDERSTAND WHY I WAS TURNED DOWN . THERE ARE A LOT OF PLANS BEING MADE THERE. AND YOU ARE TAKING YOUR LIFE IN YOUR OWN HANDS, AS THE WAY THINGS ARE.

WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE MORE ROADS. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? MR. WHITEHOUSE, SEEING NONE , WOULD

YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK I WANT TO START OUT WITH, NUMBER ONE, I THINK MOST OF YOU AT LEAST KNOW THAT WHEN APPLICATIONS ARE MADE TO THE COUNTY IT IS NOT JUST SOMEBODY WALKS IN AND FILLS OUT A PIECE OF PAPER AND SAYS THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN THE NEXT DAY WE SHOW UP IN FRONT OF YOU. WITH AN EXPLANATION WRITTEN ON A NAPKIN, FOR WHAT WE WANT TO DO. IT TAKES MONTHS AND MONTHS TO BRING IT BEFORE YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE. MONTHS AND MONTHS OF YOUR EXPERT STAFF ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS SUBMITTED, THAT IS WHY, WHEN YOU MUST SUBMIT FOR A PUD, THAT INVOLVES MUCH MORE ANALYSIS THAN SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COUNTY, FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, YOU SEE REPORTS FROM EXPERTS, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS . LICENSED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND SOME, NATIONALLY. YOU HAVE REPORTS FROM EXPERTS IN TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING, WHO SUBMIT REPORTS AND THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY FIND, BASED UPON THE EXPERTISE IN THEIR LICENSES, YOU HAVE EXPERTS WHO GIVE YOU REPORTS, YOU HAVE YOUR OWN EXPERTS, FROM THE COUNTY, EXPERTS FROM THE COUNTY WHO ANALYZE THINGS, YOU HAVE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AT THE COUNTY, WHO ANALYZE THINGS. SO, IT IS NOT JUST YOU LOOKING AT SOMETHING AND SAYING, LISTEN, WE DO NOT THESE PEOPLE DOWN, BECAUSE WE DROVE DOWN HOLMES BOULEVARD AND SAW THAT IT WAS CROWDED. REALLY, IT IS AN APPLICATION OF OUR LAWS. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE LAWS , THAT IS WHY WE HAVE COMPETENCE OF PLANS. YOU APPLY THOSE BASED ON FACTS. AS YOU ALL KNOW, IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO COME UP WITH THE BACK. IN FACT, WHEN YOU PRESENT FACT, THOSE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED WHEN IT GOES TO COURT, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE THE FACTS THAT COME FROM SOMEONE ELSE, YOU ARE ONLY ANALYZING WHAT IS PUT FOR YOU. I WOULD ASSERT , IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU HAVE EXPERT REPORTS, FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS WHO ARE -- WHO HAVE THEIR LICENSES.

THEY ARE TELLING YOU, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. THIS IS HOW THE WETLANDS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED. THIS IS THE WILDLIFE ON THE SITE ITSELF. AND THEY ARE BASING THAT ON THEIR LICENSE AND EXPERTISE, SO IF SOMEBODY ELSE COMES AND SAYS, A, LISTEN. THEY ARE SAYING THAT, BUT THEY ARE JUST MAKING IT UP, OR, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS MORE WETLANDS IMPACT THAN THEY ARE SAYING THERE WILL BE. OR WE KNOW THEY'RE A BUNCH OF GOPHER TORTOISES OUT THERE, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL ON OUR PROPERTY. THAT IS WHY IT IS REQUIRED FOR SOMEBODY TO PROVIDE , SOMEONE NEEDS TO SHOW COMPREHENSIVE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, NOT OPINIONS, EMOTIONS, NOT JUST, WE KNOW THERE WILL BE MORE TRAFFIC, THERE WILL BE A LACK OF PARKING, THERE WILL BE WETLANDS IMPACT, WE KNOW THAT IT WILL DUMP WATER ONTO OUR PROPERTY. AGAIN, I WANTED TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS WITH THAT, BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF YOU KNOW THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. I THINK SOMETIMES, IN THESE HEARINGS , IT COMES DOWN TO THE EMOTIONS OF, WE HAVE TOO MUCH GROWTH. WE NEED TO MANAGE OUR GROWTH. WE HAVE LAWS. THOSE LAWS MANAGE THE GROWTH, BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED BEFORE YOU . IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS A PROPOSAL TO

[01:50:02]

IN ANY CASE, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS, OR SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES. MOST OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH THE TRANSPORTATION. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT, WHY WE DID NOT HAVE THIS SET FOR THE COMMISSION, WE KNEW THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION. WE DID NOT EXPECT SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT FOR TRANSPORTATION, WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS NEW REPORT DONE. THIS HAD ALREADY BEEN ADVERTISED FOR THIS PARTICULAR AGENCY. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON AT ALL, UNDER OUR LAW, OUR CODE, AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TO HAVE MULTIPLE HEARINGS AT THIS AGENCY. THIS AGENCY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION. AND WE WANT TO ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS, I WILL ANSWER ONE LAST THING, AS FAR AS THE SCHOOL CONCURRENCY, AGAIN, THIS IS FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD, WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP, WE DID NOT GO TO THEM AND SAY, PLEASE LET US DO IT, THIS IS THE WAY WE ANALYZE ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES BEFORE THEM. THEY SAID, AND THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET, THEY SAID, WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. NO FURTHER SCHOOL LITIGATION AS NEEDED. THAT IS NOT A SPECIAL THING FOR US, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD DO MORE ANYBODY, THERE ARE LOTS OF LETTERS OUT THERE FOR LOTS OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. IN ANY CASE, I AM HERE, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS . I AM SURE THERE ARE PROBABLY MORE QUESTIONS. BUT I APPRECIATE THE TIME.

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YOU ARE READING ON THE UPDATING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

>> I THINK THAT -- >> THE DIVIDED ONE.

>> YEAH, I THINK THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN YORK COUNTY STAFF EXPERTS AND TRANSPORTATION, NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT LESS, BUT TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT, BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE RIGHT, BECAUSE BY THE WAY, YOU GUYS COULD RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL, THAT HE GOES TO THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION COULD APPROVE IT, IF THEY APPROVEIT, WE STILL HAVE TO BRING BACK TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY TO MEET THAT. AND, AS YOU KNOW, THE AGENCY MEMBERS MOSTLY NO, THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALL APPROVED IT SUBJECT TO MEETING ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS NOT TO SAY, WE WANT TO COME HERE AND TRY TO GET THROUGH IT. YOU CAN SEE, WE INCLUDED THE DRAFT REPORT, WE HAVE NOT TRIED TO HIDE ANYTHING. UNDER THE TRAFFIC MANUAL, WHICH IS NOTHING ANYBODY MADE UP, THAT IS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BUT HIS NUMBER OF HOUSES,

[01:55:03]

ADDRESS AS WELL. >> WELL, WHAT WILL YOU HAVE TO

DO TO IMPROVE THAT? >> IS IT NOT THE COUNTY

STANDARD? >> IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE.

>> YES MA'AM. >> MS. JUDY SPIEGEL WE SPEAK .

>> I LIKE THE PLAN. AND I LOVE THAT WETLANDS PRESERVATION, YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I AM CONCERNED OF COURSE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, THE SCHOOL SITUATION, I DID REACH OUT FOR MORE INFORMATION . YOU STILL WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAXES AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES THROUGH.

BUT IT DOES SAY , IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THOSE 27 HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOR POTENTIAL PURCHASERS. ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE REPORT SAYS , THERE IS A GREAT NEED FOR MOST OF THE HOMES IN THAT AREA TO BE SOLD OUT. I DON'T KNOW, THIS WAS MR. DOUGLAS BURNETT 'S , I DON'T KNOW. BUT IN YOUR MBP, THERE WAS A COMMENT TO THAT EFFECT, SORT OF JUSTIFYING THE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT IN THIS GENERAL AREA.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ULD YOU SPEAK TO THE NEED , GIVEN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED?

>> I BELIEVE THE NEED IS BASED ON THE DEMAND AND DEMAND THAT IS OUT THERE, THAT WE SEE, IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY, THAT WE ALSO WORK IN AND IN THE AREA ITSELF, THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING AND THAT IS WHY YOU SEE PEOPLE TRY TO BUILD THIS TYPE OF HOUSING, BECAUSE THERE IS A DEMAND. AND YOU HAVE INFILL AREAS, SUCH AS THIS AREA, ADJACENT TO APPEASE.

THAT IS WHY WE MADE A BIG DEAL TALKING TO THE ONE NEXT TO IT, ST. AUGUSTINE LIKES BEAUTY, BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN FACT, WHEN YOU PUT THEM SIDE-BY-SIDE AND YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES, IT LOOKS LIKE, IF SOMEONE HAD COME TO YOU, THAT IS WHY I GAVE YOU THE PHONE NUMBERS. IF SOMEBODY HAD COME TO YOU, MAYBE NOT THIS YEAR.

BUT IN THE PAST, THEY SAID, WE HAVE 481 ACRES THAT WE ARE GOING TO PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, 200 OF THEM AND BUILD AROUND THEM WITH HOUSES , AND IT IS GOING TO BE 788 , YOU KNOW, SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES, THAT IS TYPICAL OF WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. IN FACT, THAT IS LITTLE DENSITY. SO, IT IS NOT , THIS IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER, IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN FACT IT MEETS THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN. DOES DEVELOPMENT AFFECT PEOPLE? IT AFFECTS EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, BUT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAY THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON BIG PIECES OF LAND AND LIVED THERE FOR MANY YEARS, HAVE MOVED IN. ANYBODY THAT HAS MOVED INTO PLACES IN ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS, HAS MOVED INTO A DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED, JUST LIKE THIS ONE.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE DEMAND COMES FROM.

>> YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE PRICE POINT?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> CAUTIONARY TALE ON THE STORMWATER ISSUE. YOU KNOW , WE ALL KNOW ABOUT WINTER CIRCLE.

YOU MADE A COMMENT, SINCE 2006, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A LARGER NUMBER , YOU ARE KIND OF FILLING IN THAT NUMBER, BUT THINGS REALLY HAVE CHANGED IN THAT AREA SINCE 2006, AND I DON'T KNOW IN 2006 IF THEY HAD ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WOULD NEED HELP WITH 149% OVER CAPACITY ON TRAFFIC, THAT ONE ROADWAY SEGMENT OFF OF PALMS BOULEVARD -- HOMES BOULEVARD,

[02:00:02]

>> I APOLOGIZE, I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU HAD EMAILS WITH MR. FORCE AND AND MRS. COVERAGE. I APOLOGIZE. I THANK YOU FOR

CLARIFYING. >> ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO YOU, I REALLY FEEL LIKE THE TRAFFIC IS SOMETHING WE CANNOT GET PAST. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAID, THAT THE REZONING REQUEST SHALL NOT BE APPROVED IF THE PERMITTED USES ARE DETERMINED TO HAVE AN UNREASONABLE AND INCOMPATIBLE IMPACT ON THE CONTINUOUS AND SURROUNDING AREA IN RESPECT TO SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS OWNER, NOISE, VIBRATION, AND LIGHTING. AS WELL AS CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS TRAFFIC FLOW, NUMBER TWO SAYS THE REZONING REQUEST SHALL NOT BE APPROVED IF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW HAS AN UNREASONABLE IMPACT ON THE CONTINUOUS AND SURROUNDING AREA OR IF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC HAS AN UNREASONABLE IMPACT ON THE PROJECTED WEAR AND TEAR OF ROADWAYS DESIGNED TO CARRY LIGHTER TRAFFIC THAN I DO UNDERSTAND, THAT IT WOULD BRINGING THAT ROAD UP TO MINOR COLLECTOR STATUS, I DID SPEAK WITH JEN TRENTON ABOUT THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THE OVERCAPACITY ROADS IN THAT AREA, WITHIN THE TWO MILES, WITHIN THE FOUR MILES, AND WITH NO PLANS , IN THE -- IN THE NEAR FUTURE, I AM GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS. THERE ARE 1409 HOMES, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WITHIN ABOUT THE TWO-MILE RADIUS AROUND THIS PROJECT. AND ANOTHER 1258, WITHIN A COUPLE OF MILES, THAT IS A TOTAL OF NEARLY 3000 HOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS, NOT ALL OF THEM AREN'T NECESSARILY HOMES, ALREADY APPROVED WITHIN FOUR OR FIVE MILES. I AM HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH WITH THE NEED, ALTHOUGH, I DO GET THAT THE POPULATION IS GROWING, I KNOW THOSE ARE COMMENTS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.

>> THE COMMENTS, WHAT YOU ARE QUOTING, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC REFERENCES, I DON'T HAVE THE SECTIONS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION, DO YOU KNOW WHAT TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION DOES? IT ACTUALLY CONFRONTS THE THINGS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND WITH TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IS AGREED TO, WHICH IS, THIS PROJECT, NO PROJECT GOING FORWARD, UNLESS THE PERSON AGREES. THEN, SPECIFICALLY, THOSE ARE ADDRESSED. THOSE SECTIONS THAT HE TALKED ABOUT IN A-101, THOSE ARE ADDRESSED TO SAY THAT NOW IT IS COMPATIBLE AND IT DOES MEET THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE AGREED TO OUR IMPACT AND TO SATISFY OUR IMPACT. I WOULD TELL YOU THIS, THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED , UP THERE BY 4 MILE AND UP THEREBY HOMES BOULEVARD. AS YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WORKED ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND FINALLY WE GOT SOME EXPANSION OF HOMES BOULEVARD NOW. AND IT IS ACTUALLY A BEAUTIFUL ROAD. EVERYONE THAT IS BUILT IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY IS OVERCAPACITY BY THE TIME IT IS BUILT. THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP, GOD BLESS THEM, I AGREE WITH WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING IN A LAND-USE THAT IS ALLOWED, IT IS APPROPRIATE. YOU CAN ONLY MEET BUT YOU CAN MEET, YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEBODY DO MORE. WE DON'T MAKE ANYBODY DO THAT, WE DID NOT MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO GOT APPROVED UP ON 210 FOR MANY HOUSES DO ANYTHING EXTRA, BUT THEY MIGHT HAVE AGREED TO DO SOME EXTRA, BUT THOSE ROADS REMAIN DEFICIENT, TOO. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS -- PROJECTS. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, YOU COULD GET ANOTHER BOARD THAT COMES LATER AND JUST FILLS EVERYTHING IN AND BUILDS IT, BECAUSE THE BOARD SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU MET CONCURRENCY. PEOPLE ARE DOING THIS AT A REASONABLE DENSITY. IT IS PRESERVING WETLANDS, WHICH IS WHAT I HEAR EVERY TIME I COME HERE. I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THAT, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE DEFICIENT ROADS OR ROADS THAT DO NOT LOOK VERY NICE RIGHT THERE OUT THERE, THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE THE ROADS THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ON, AND WE CANNOT BUILD A HOUSE UNTIL THOSE ROADS ARE FIXED. THAT IS

[02:05:01]

>> I DO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT OR THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPERS FAULT, IT IS WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE ROADS, BUT THE TIMES OF CHANGED. MAYBE THE TIMING IS A LITTLE BIT OFF BASED ON THE TRAFFIC. SO I WANTED TO SHARE

THAT WITH YOU. THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA ?

>> DO WE HAVE A MAP ON THAT? >> I THINK WE CAN BRING UP A FLOODPLAIN MAP. IT GOT MOVED AROUND HERE, A LITTLE BIT, I THINK. THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN FLOOD ZONE X, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY LOW RISK. AND THE PARCEL HIGHLIGHTED, IT DOES HAVE FLOOD ZONE A ASSOCIATED, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT QUITE BEING ABLE TO GRAB THE ENTIRE SERIES OF PARCELS BUT AGAIN, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN FLOOD ZONE

CAPITAL ACTS. >> SO, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, THAT WILL GAIN ACCESS OVER TO NORTH HOMES BOULEVARD AND WE CANNOT FIND ANYTHING, IN THE PACKAGE, WHERE DOES IT GO TO THE NORTH, IF YOU TOGGLE IT DOWN, IS THIS A DEAD END? SO, THE REALITY IS, THERE IS ONE WAY IN AND OUT , ON THOMPSON BAILEY. AND MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT RIGHT? SO, LEADING IN THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD BE LEAVING EAST ON THOMPSON BAILEY, THEY MIGHT GO UP TO DEER RUN ROAD, ALL THE WAY UP TO FOUR MILE, OR THEY MIGHT STAY , ON THOMPSON BAILEY . IS THAT CORRECT? ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES IS REALLY IN KIND OF THE SAME BOAT, AND IT COMES OUT CLOSER TO NORTH HOMES, AND, SO, THOSE FOLKS , THEY OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO DRIVE ON POWELL ROAD. AND ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES HAS SAID, THEY HAVE NO OTHER WAY OUT.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, ABOUT THE WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY LETTER. IT HAS CONDITIONS IN IT. LET ME BACK UP , LET ME GO BACK TO THE THOMPSON BAILEY ROAD. IS IT 70 OR 80 FEET FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? I THINK IT IS 80'.

>> 80' IS WHAT I'M HEARING. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND WHAT DOES THOMPSON BAILEY HAVE?

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS 60'. >> IN OTHER WORDS, TO BRING THAT ROAD UP TO STANDARDS, THEY WILL HAVE TO ACQUIRE 20' OF RIGHT AWAY ALONG THOMPSON BAILEY ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD , FROM WHOEVER OWNS ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES.

>> THAT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY , IT ONLY CONTEMPLATES THE PAVED SURFACE . THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO MEET THE PAVED SURFACE WIDTH . THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY UNLESS IT IS, YOU KNOW, NECESSARY FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. OTHERWISE , WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THAT DRIVING SURFACE.

>> I AM READY TO ASK THE APPLICANT ANOTHER QUESTION. SO, THIS HAS SOME CONDITIONS. DEVELOPERS WILL INSTALL A RECLAIMED WATER MAIN AT INDUSTRY CENTER ROAD , AND ALONG THOMPSON BAILEY ROAD, TO DEER RUN ROAD. THEN IT SAYS DEVELOPERS SHALL INSTALL A 12' WATER MAIN , AND THEN IF YOU GO TO CONDITION 4 , THEY WILL REQUIRE A 30' WIDE EASEMENT FROM STATE ROAD 16, FROM THE WATER RECLAIMED FACILITY AND INDUSTRY CENTER ROAD, TO FACILITATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT . WHAT DOES ALL OF

THAT MEAN? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE

[02:10:01]

>> THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> MR. GREENE?

>> ONE OF THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS MENTIONED, WHEN THE DEER RUN PUD WAS DONE, IT WAS DONE WITH MORE DENSITY, IS THAT CORRECT? FROM WHAT I REMEMBER FROM YOU TALKING ? THAT THEY HAD MORE

UNITS? >> WHICH, WHICH --

>> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING.

>> ST. AUGUSTINE'S LEG? -- AUGUSTINE LAKES? IT WAS REDUCED TO 575 . AND THEN IT WAS FURTHER REDUCED, THE INITIAL INCLUDED MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY, BASED ON THE MARKET, THEY CAME BACK OVER THE YEARS AND CHANGED THAT.

>> THE EXPANSION, I THINK ON IT DEER RUN ROAD, THE EXPANSION, THE WAY I DROVE OUT THERE TODAY , IS THAT DESIGNED FOR THE 800 OR IS THAT DESIGNED FOR THE 400?

>> I'M NOT SURE. THAT WAS WORKED ON FOR SOME TIME. THERE WAS A BARRICADE OUT THEIR PAST HOMES BOULEVARD. I AM NOT SURE IF THAT WAS FOR THE 800, MAYBE DANIEL CAN TELL US THAT.

>> SOMEBODY IN THE AUDIENCE SAID IT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE

800 AND I AM JUST CURIOUS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON , THIS IS

GROWTH MANAGEMENT. >> ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES PUD, IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE 800 I VENUED PUD. IT HAS BEEN REDUCED DOWN TO 400, WHEN THEY DID THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT , WAS THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DONE FOR 800 OR DID THEY CUT THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT BACK, JUST FOR THE 400 UNITS? IN OTHER WORDS, IS THAT ROAD SET UP FOR THE 800 UNIT CAPACITY?

>> IT IS BUILT AS A COLLECTOR. A COLLECTOR IS REQUIRED, WHEN THE TRAFFIC LOAD EXCEEDS 2000 TRIPS PER DAY . THAT WOULD BE

APPROXIMATELY 270. >> A COLLECTOR ROAD?

>> CORRECT. THEY BUILT THAT FROM THEIR POINT OF ACCESS OUT TO THE NEAREST POINT, THAT WOULD BE DEER RUN ROAD, THEY BUILT A COLLECTOR, OUT TO HOMES BOULEVARD, AND SOME DISTANCE TO

THE PROJECT AS WELL. >> YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THEY HAVE TO BUILD A COLLECTOR TO THEIR PROPERTY.

>> INSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY , OUT ONTO DEER RUN.

>> SO THEY ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING IT.

>> YES. >> IS THERE INTERCONNECTIVITY

OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ? >> I THINK THERE IS THAT, POTENTIALLY, WHICH THEY ARE DISCUSSING.

>> THANKS . >> OKAY.

>> IF I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I PROBABLY DID NOT ENUNCIATE VERY WELL WHEN I PRESENTED THIS, THE FACT THAT WHEN THIS WAS INITIALLY APPROVED, I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY, IT USED TO BE 100 -- 800 I AM SAYING, IS THIS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS MANY UNITS AND THEY SAID YES, IT IS, IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE THEN, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE CARS ON THE ROAD, BUT THE AREA ITSELF MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM HERE, FROM HERE TO HERE THAT IS ALREADY, LIKE WAS JUST CONFIRMED, IT IS ALREADY BUILT THAT WAY, SO WE HAVE TO BUILD THIS HERE. AND THAT IS READ, BUT AGAIN, SOMEBODY FOUND THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO COME OFF, AGAIN, THE BOULEVARD WAS NOT IN THE GREAT SHAPE THAT IT IS NOW, 18 YEARS AGO.

>> I REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS DIRT. I GO WAY BACK.

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. >> YOU DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE AT

HOMES BOULEVARD AND DEER RUN? >> WELL, BECAUSE, YOU CAN SEE THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT, I THINK , BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE, NOT FROM THE IMPACT IN THIS AREA, BUT FROM THE CHANGE IN THE IMPACT AREA THAT HAS BEEN DUMPED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER

[02:15:06]

BEEN RUNNING AWAY. >> SO, FROM THE PRELIMINARY SET UP, YOU REALLY DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BUT I

MEAN, THAT IS FINE. >> I THINK IN THE PRELIMINARY STUDY IT MENTION THAT IT MAY REQUIRE A SIGNAL.

INDISCERNIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

>> I DROVE AROUND ALL THIS AREA , AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT IS THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THE MAP THAT IS UP THERE RIGHT NOW, SHOWING THAT PARCEL IN GREEN, WITH 71% FOR FLOOD ZONE, AND 28% , THAT IS ONLY ABOUT ONE- QUARTER OF THE PROPERTY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE REST OF IT.

>> IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE THE REST OF THE FLOOD ZONE BREAKDOWN IN THE WET -- WETLANDS.

>> BROADLY SPEAKING, IT IS ALL PRESENTED. IT IS NOT ALL HIGHLIGHTED. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT IS 100% CAPITAL ASK , IT IS ALL CAPITAL ASK -- X .

>> THE FAIR SHARE THAT YOU WOULD BE PROVIDING, IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION TO USE THOSE FUNDS, EVEN FOR ANY OTHER ROAD RIGHT AROUND THIS AREA?

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. I'M GOING TO SPECULATE WHETHER THE COUNTY COMMISSION WOULD DECIDE TO USE FUNDS THAT WE PROVIDE FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? THAT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DECIDE.

>> I SAID, IS IT TRUE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR HOMES, OR FOR 4 MILE ROAD OR ANY OF THE OTHER ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROADS WITHIN FOUR MILES OF YOUR

PROPOSAL? IS THAT TRUE OR NOT. >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO USE IT IN THIS SECTOR.

>> THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. MAYBE THAT COULD

BE ELUCIDATED. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT

AFFECTS THE APPLICANT. >> JAN AGAIN, HI. THE WAY PROPORTIONATE SHARE WORKS, IT IS TO BE USED ANYWHERE IN THE PROJECT IMPACT AREA, HOWEVER, THE GENERAL RULE IS, IT IS TO BE USED ON THE DEFICIENT LINKS IN SOME MANNER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY ROAD WILL GET FIXED. IT COULD BE USED TO IMPROVE ONE OF THEM, IT COULD BE USED TO IMPROVE THE FLOW .

BUT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO FIX ALL OF THE ROADS, IF THAT

IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING. >> I WAS NOT ASKING ABOUT ALL OF THE ROADS. OKAY, LET'S SAY THEY USE IT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, WITHIN THAT FOUR-MILE RADIUS, THAT WOULD LEAVE ABOUT $145 MILLION SHORTFALL IN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED?

>> TO FIX ALL OF THE ROADS DEFICIENT IN THIS ANALYSIS .

>> SHORT $145 MILLION. GREAT. JAMES, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. YOU REFUTED WHAT THE STAFF REPORT HAD IN HERE AND THEY WERE CITING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL UTILIZE THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR ALL OF THE ZONING REQUESTS . IT WAS ALREADY READ OUT THAT ALL OF THE REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, IF THEY HAVE AN UNREASONABLE AND INCOMPATIBLE IMPACT AND THE LAST ASPECT THERE IS TRAFFIC FLOW. AND YOU REFUTED THAT, I DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT APPLYING POLICY 8.2.1.5 C ? IT IS NOT IN THE STAFF

[02:20:04]

>> THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED, APPLIES TO EVERY PROJECT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. YOU ARE MAKING LOTS OF ASSERTIONS AND DECLARATIONS . I WOULD SAY, YOUR CHARACTERIZATION IS SAYING WHETHER I REFUTED IT OR DIDN'T REFUTED. UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE ALLOW PEOPLE , WE HAVE MECHANISMS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF MEETING OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT IS NOT WHAT ONE PERSON WHO SITS ON AN AGENCY SAYS OR THINKS. IT IS WHAT THE CODE AND THE LAW SAYS. AND THE LAW SAYS THAT WE HAVE TRAFFIC MITIGATION CONCURRENCY, THAT IS AN ALLOWED WAY TO MEET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT IN DEFICIENT SEGMENTS. THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY COMES FORWARD, THEY SAY, I AM WILLING TO LAY DOWN $15 MILLION TO MEET ALL OF THE IMPACT THAT I GIVE. THEN THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO UNDER OUR CODE, IF THE COUNTY COMMISSION DECIDES THAT IS WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT TO DO, THAT IS UP TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO DO THAT. MAYBE THAT IS MANAGED GROWTH AND MAYBE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, FOR SOMEONE TO COME AND FIX THE PROBLEMS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO FIX ONE PROBLEM, THAT IS HOW IT IS WRITTEN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, OBJECTIVES, GOALS , AND POLICIES ARE MORE ENUNCIATED WHEN WE GO TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROVIDE LAWS THAT PEOPLE CAN USE TO ACTUALLY TRY TO MEET THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DID NOT DISAGREE WITH WHAT ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER SAID, I WAS EXPLAINING THERE ARE WAYS. THERE ARE NOT JUST EMOTIONS OR FEAR THAT MAKE US MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT IN ST. JOHNS

COUNTY. >> IF I EXPRESSED MORE EMOTION AND FEAR THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE MATTERS , I AM SURPRISED.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WHAT I ASK YOU, RATHER THAN ME MAKING ALL OF THESE WILD ASSERTIONS OR COMMENTS, I ASK YOU, HOW DID YOU GET 8.1.2.5 C APPLIED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS A

DIRECT QUESTION. >> IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, YOU CAN SHOW IT TO ME. I DID NOT MEMORIZE 8.1.2.5.

>> ALL RIGHT, I AM READING FROM THIS. THIS IS A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. THIS IS NOT A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. IT SAYS, THE EXTENT TO WHICH ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE , ALTHOUGH, 8.1.3.11 THAT IS CITED IN THE REPORT IS ALSO FOR COMP. THAT IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT IT SAYS THE EXTENT TO WHICH ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE TO FUND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE, SUCH AS COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, AND THE NORTH WARD TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION. SO, SINCE IT IS NOT A COMP PLAN, I AM GOING TO HAVE TO SAY, I GUESS THAT DOES NOT APPLY. WE WILL HAVE TO RELY ON 8.1.3.11. SO, THERE ARE SEVERAL, LET ME ASK THIS LAST QUESTION, THERE ARE SEVERAL STATEMENTS, BY THE STAFF, IN THE ITEM, IN THE AGENDA ITEM, THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SURROUNDING, THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, OF -- THAT SURROUND YOUR PARTICULAR PROJECT AREA. AND IT SAYS, MOST OF THOSE ARE OPEN RURAL LAND USES, RURAL LAND TRACKS, WITH HOUSES ON ONE ACRE OR MORE, OF LAND. AND GIVEN THAT, AND EXCEPT FOR THE VERY EASTERN BOUNDARY, WITH WHERE ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES IS, DO YOU FEEL THIS DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH

SURROUNDING LAND USES? >> NO. I DON'T BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, I WAS TRYING TO GET THEM TO ZOOM OUT. WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THIS ONE. YOU SAW, THAT WE LAID OUT, WHEN WE LAID IT OUT, YOU KNOW? ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES , ALMOST NEARLY

[02:25:01]

WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE IS A DIFFERENT STORY. THE FACT IS, WE ARE NOT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE AND THERE IS NOTHING AROUND US AND WE ARE TRYING TO PUT IN DEVELOPMENTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. THAT IS AN INFILL. IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO MY SLIDE PRESENTATION.

>> THERE ARE ALREADY TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IS ON PAGE 12, AND THIS IS BY THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT STAFF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REVIEW, THE SURROUNDING AREA FOUND THAT LANDS TO THE WEST ARE MOSTLY UNIMPROVED AND VACANT.

>> WHERE ARE YOU READING THIS FROM?

>> STAFF REPORT, PAGE 12 , DID I SAY? YES. AN EVALUATION FROM THE LANDS TO THE WEST ARE MOSTLY UNIMPROVED AND AND ARE CURRENTLY USED AS TIMBERLANDS. NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING, COMPRISED OF OLDER RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON ESTATE -SIZED LOTS APPROXIMATELY ONE-ACRE IN SIZE OR GREATER, THEN PAGE FOUR OF THE ITEM. WHERE IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE AERIAL IMAGERY, THE STAFF HAS STATED IN HERE, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PRIMARILY DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, ON LARGER ESTATE HOMES, PERMITTING AGRICULTURAL USES,

AS AN ALLOWED ACCESSORY USAGE. >> I MEAN, YOU SKIPPED OVER THE PARK -- IT IS EASIER TO PICK PARTS THAT MEET WHAT YOU WANT TO ARGUE. STAFF RESEARCH, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 12, WHICH YOU SKIPPED OVER THIS PART. STAFF RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT THIS REQUEST APPEARS CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL FEATURE LAND USE , THAT ALLOWS A MAXIMUM USAGE OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN , IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT , IN THE SAME SENTENCE , 376 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 145.6 ACRES , INCLUDING 4.26 OF IMPACTED WETLANDS, A DENSITY OF , AGAIN, THE STAFF IS TELLING YOU. STAFF RESEARCH FOUND THIS REQUEST APPEARS CONSISTENT. THE FACT IS, YOU ARE READING FROM THAT.

LET'S LOOK AT THE MAP. WHAT IS THIS, RIGHT HERE, THAT IS BEING

BUILT? >> I LOOKED AT IT AND I READ THAT PARAGRAPH PROBABLY SIX DIFFERENT TIMES. I UNDERSTAND THAT RESIDENTIAL C, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DENSITY IS ALLOWED, THIS IS 2.58 HOMES PER ACRE. I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT.

I DID NOT NECESSARILY SKIP IT. I JUST CHOSE NOT TO READ IT. I WAS READING SOMETHING THAT STAFF ALSO STATED.

>> I AM RESPONDING AND -- >> AND DID YOU THINK IT WAS

INCOMPATIBLE? >> NO . THIS RIGHT HERE.

>> TO THE SOUTHEAST, ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES, I UNDERSTAND

THAT. >> THE BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENTIRE AREA IS COMPATIBLE. LET'S JUST CROSS THIS OFF, LET'S FORGET ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE HAVE THIS UP HERE, WE HAVE THIS UP HERE, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT DOWN HERE, WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT DOWN HERE. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THIS, THAT WAS APPROVED. IT IS ACTUALLY BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW. IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THIS. HEY, LISTEN, LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS EVEN MORE DENSE , WE ARE DOING BETTER THAN THE DENSITY THAT IS BEING BUILT AND APPROVED, THE DIRECTION HERE THAT YOU HEARD, IT WAS BUILT RIGHT HERE, BACK HERE, AT THE CONNECTION, WITH THE NORTH HOLMES BOULEVARD, TO ACTUALLY SUSTAIN 800 UNITS. SO, SOMEBODY MUST HAVE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS COMPATIBLE!

>> APPARENTLY SOME PEOPLE DO THINK THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE AND OVERALL, I DO NOT THINK IT IS COMPATIBLE, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE AREA FROM THE EAST TO THE SOUTHEAST, THE REST OF IT, IT IS MORE OPEN RURAL LAND USE, AND A RURAL SETTING. QUIET, PEACEFUL, COUNTRY LIVING. I KNOW THAT THINGS ARE CHANGING.

I AM CONCERNED , PRIMARILY, I STATED THIS EARLIER, I AM PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND ALL OF THE TRAFFIC

[02:30:06]

I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, WE BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR

EMOTION. MR. MATOVINA? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR PUD 2023-14, THE PRESERVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE

LAKES. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YES, PLEASE. LOOKING AT THIS MAP, I DO GET EXACTLY WHAT DR.

RICHARD HILENBECK IS REFERENCING . WE ARE BORDERING WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF VACANT PROPERTY TO THE WEST. BIGGER LOTS TO THE NORTH, BIGGER LOTS TO BE SOUTH, AND FRAGMENTED OWNERSHIP. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IN MY OPINION, IN EVALUATING COMPATIBILITY, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING MEANING -- UNDERLYING LAND USES. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BEAUTY IS OF A SIMILAR DENSITY THAT IS IN PLACE, OR BEING BUILT FOR THE ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES PUD. OR, IT IS VACANT. AND HAS A LAND USAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW SIMILAR DENSITY, THAT PIECE OF LAND THAT KIND OF FITS IN THE BACKWARDS L , THAT HAS LAND-USE, SAME AS THIS PROPERTY, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PUD TOUCHES THE NEXT USE ZONING. THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT UPPER PART HAS THE SAME LANDING. AND EVEN DOWN THERE, IT HAS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME LAND-USE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, FROM THE LAND USE MAP, WHENEVER THIS WAS DEVELOPED, IT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED A LITTLE BETTER, IN MY OPINION. THAT IS WHY I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT JAMES ' ARGUMENTS, WITHIN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC. THEY ARE ACCURATE. I DON'T REALLY LIKE IT THOUGH.

BUT BASED ON WHAT I SEE, I BELIEVE THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CODE. >> TO CARRY THAT TO THE WEST, RESIDENTIAL B , YOU KNOW, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INSULT.

IT IS DEFINITELY DIFFERENT . IT IS MORE OF A RURAL AREA. YOU KNOW, I GREW UP HERE AND I KNOW ALL OF THESE ROADS. AND THE

[8. COMPAMD 2024-01 HB 1379 Amendments- Adoption.]

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE WILL REGISTER TO VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES , 4-3. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM KEVIN, SENIOR SERVICES ENGINEER, AND I MANAGE THE SEPTIC AND SEWER PROGRAM FOR THE UTILITY. I AM HERE TO DISCUSS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT , THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT. I AM HERE TO PRESENT. THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE WAS THE BEGINNING OF APRIL, IT WAS APRIL 4TH, AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD THE

DISCUSSION WITH YOU. >> COULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK OF

THAT MICROPHONE? >> SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I AM GOING TO GET YOU UP TO SPEED ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

[02:35:01]

THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, THOSE PROJECTS NEED TO BE LISTED. SO, TO PARTS OF THE TIMELINE , FOR THIS, THE FIRST PART, WE ARE ON RIGHT NOW, THAT IS ALL OF THE HURDLES WE NEED TO DO TO GET APPROVED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, LIKE I SAID, LAST TIME WE WERE HERE WAS APRIL 4TH FOR THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING. AND SINCE THEN, WE WENT TO THE VCC ON APRIL 16TH, THAT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY TO TRANSMIT OUT TO STATE AGENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WE DID SEND OUT TO THE STATE, APRIL 17, THERE IS A 30-DAY WAITING PERIOD, OR REVIEW PERIOD AFTER THAT, AND THAT DEADLINE IS TOMORROW.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE DEADLINE WAS COMPLETED. WE DO HAVE A TIGHT DEADLINE ON THIS. AND SO, WE COULD NOT WAIT, WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS SO FAR, WE HAVE RECEIVED COMMENTS AND EVERY COMMENT WE RECEIVED HAS EITHER BEEN NO COMMON OR NO ISSUES WITH THE AMENDMENT. WE ARE SCHEDULED TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BCC ON THE FOURTH, IF WE DO RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE THE MEETING, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE THAT IN OUR PRESENTATION. SO, AFTER WE GET THAT ADOPTED, WE HAD THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING, IT IS KIND OF WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED DOING THIS, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK ACROSS COUNTY JURISDICTION, FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. MORE THAN ONE SEPTIC SYSTEM PER ACRE, WE WILL GET A REPORT, FOR ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, SOME AT THAT POINT, WE WILL ANALYZE AND WE WILL LOOK AT THE FEASIBILITY OF CONNECTING THIS ON THE 10 YEAR PLAN HORIZON, WE ARE GOING TO BE PRIORITIZING THAT LIVE -- LIST, SUCH AS AVAILABILITY OF CONNECTION, FUNDING AVAILABILITY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, IN THE AREA, AND THE TRANSMISSION MAINS, AND SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS, BUT TO GET THAT PRIORITIZED LIST, WE WILL START LOADING UP THE FIVE-YEAR CIP. THE FIRST TRANCHE OF THAT HAS TO HAPPEN BY SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. NOW, THAT IS GOING TO BE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, NOT JUST ONE TIME, AS WE GET FEASIBLE PROJECTS, WE ARE GOING TO UPDATE IT EACH YEAR, WE ARE NOT GOING RIGHT OFF THE BAT TO START DOING CONVERSION PROJECTS ACROSS THE COUNTY, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY OF DOING SO. THIS NEXT ITEM, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENTS WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR, OF COURSE, WE HAVE SOME RECENT ONES THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING OUT THERE, WE HAVE AN UPCOMING ONCE, WE ALSO HAVE AREAS, SUCH AS ON THIS SLIDE, WE HAVE ST.

AUGUSTINE SOUTH, TREASURE BEACH, AND WE ARE ALSO, IT IS KIND OF BASED OFF OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOUSE BILL 1379. WE BELIEVE WHAT THEIR INTENTION IS, ANY AREA OF MORE THAN 50 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE SEPTIC SYSTEM PER ACRE, I BELIEVE THEY WANT US TO LOOK INTO THOSE AS WELL. SO AREAS SUCH AS THESE, THEY WILL INCLUDE SOME ANALYSIS. WITH THAT, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO ASK FOR RECOMMENDATION OF ADOPTION FOR THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN AMENDMENT, NEW POLICIES, D.1.3.6 AND D.1.4.9 , TO ADDRESS HOUSE BILL 1379, WITH THAT, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU

MAY HAVE FOR ME. >> I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT PART OF YOUR CHARGE OR EXPERTISE OR ABILITY TO PROGNOSTICATE OR ANYTHING, BUT, I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO VOTE THIS IN, AS PART OF THE COMP PLAN. BUT , DO YOU

[02:40:01]

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SECOND. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT. AND THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING ELSE WE WILL BE LOOKING AT. IS IT COST-EFFECTIVE TO GET OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OR IS IT JUST TWO -- TOO FAR ? WE WILL BE DOING A COST ANALYSIS, AS WE

GO ALONG. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTIONS ARE ALONG A SIMILAR LINE, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM. I KNEW THAT THIS HAS TO BE PASSED, WE ARE NOT MAKING POLICY. I AM WONDERING HOW A POLICY LIKE THIS MIGHT IMPACT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW THAT MIGHT DRIVE THE COST OF DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA, IN YOUR EXPERTISE?

>> I MEAN, THIS DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THE LDC AND WHAT THE DEFINITION OF HOW WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO CONNECT TO OUR SEWER.

THIS IS REALLY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A NEW STANDARD, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT IS JUST GOING TO GO BY WHAT IS IN THE LDC. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF IT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR SERVICE AREA WHERE WE HAVE AVAILABILITY, THEN, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SYSTEMS. AND, IF THEY WERE INSTALLING THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN THE THE PRESERVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE LAKES FIVE AREAS, THERE COULD BE REQUIREMENTS, FOR A MORE ADVANCED SYSTEM. I AM NOT SURE THAT ANSWERS A QUESTION, COMPLETELY.

>> SOMEBODY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL, THAT IT MIGHT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I THOUGHT I WOULD ASK IF YOU HAD ANY IDEA

ABOUT THAT? >> THIS BRINGS IT INTO THE BMAP , THOSE ARE THE EXISTING SEPTIC TANKS IN THIS AREA.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ? >> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE

[Staff Reports]

>> RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2024-01 HOUSE BILL 1379 AMENDMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE EFFECTS PROVIDED

[Agency Reports]

IN THE STAFFING REPORT. >> I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY STAFF REPORTS?

>> THANK YOU, NO MAJOR STAFF REPORTS. THE NEXT PZA MEETING IS ON JUNE 6TH . I WANT TO REITERATE, IF THE AGENCY EVER NEEDS ANYTHING FROM ME -- FROM ME OR MY STAFF, REACH OUT, WE

ARE ALWAYS HERE TO HELP. >> ANY AGENCY REPORTS?

>> DO I FORWARD ? THIS IS A THURSDAY, THERE IS ONLY ONE PZA MEETING , I WAS LOOKING AT THE SCHEDULE?

>> ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH?

>> WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE REST OF

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.