[Call meeting to order]
[00:00:11]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. IT IS 1:30. WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND STANDING SO WE CAN SAY THE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MR. PETER, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT.
>> YES. THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW.
THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY JURISDICTION AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES.
SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD . SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE , WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR INCLUSION TO THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCY COMMITTEE OR THE COUNTY.
AND REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATING TO THEM. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM . SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND MATERIAL CONTENT OF THAT COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE . WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID PERSONAL
[Public Comments]
ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA NOW IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK. IF YOU
[2. SUPMAJ 2024-05 Coastal Aggregates Borrow Pit. Request to modify the previously approved Special Use Permit (SUPMAJ 2022-09) for a Borrow Pit located in Open Rural (OR) zoning to provide for a new haul route, on property located off of Barrel Factory Road.]
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. CNN, BEFORE WE GET TO ITEM NUMBERONE PLEASE COME UP. >> GOOD AFTERNOON . I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THE COASTAL AGGREGATE OF THE APPLICATION TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE ITEM UNTIL DECEMBER 19 .
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE OF REVISIONS TO MAKE WITH A LAST-MINUTE REQUEST FROM STAFF THIS MORNING.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION.
>> SHOULD I ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE GO? IF ANYBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, CAN YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY.
>> WHAT IS THE DATE? >> DECEMBER 19. THAT IS IT.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> DECEMBER, YES. LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. MOTION PASSES. THAT WILL BE CONTINUED
[1. NZVAR 2024-13 BJ's Wholesale Club #398 (Beachwalk) Signage. NZVAR 2024-13 BJ’s Wholesale Club #398 (Beachwalk) a request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Section G.4.2(c) of the New Twin Creeks PUD (Ord. No. 2015-52, as amended) to allow the maximum cumulative Building Signage for a Single-Tenant Business to exceed 200 SF, and an individual sign to exceed 150 SF, pursuant to Section 7.02.04.B.6 of the Land Development Code, specifically located at 87 Beachwalk Boulevard, northwest of County Road 210 W.]
TO DECEMBER 19. ITEM NUMBER ONE, MR. ROBBINS. IS THERE ANYEXPERT TAKE? >> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 13901 PARK ROAD SOUTH IN JACKSONVILLE. IF THE CLERK WOULD INDULGE ME IN ADDING MY
[00:05:01]
PRESENTATION I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST FOR NON-ZONING VARIANCE ATOP COUNTY ROAD 210. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THE SLIDESHOW PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. JUST BY WAY OF LOCATION IT IS THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE COUNTY. FUTURE LAND USES MIXED-USE PART OF THE OVERALL .THERE IT IS. I HAVE OUTLINED IN YELLOW THE BEACH WALK PORTION OF THE PROJECT. THE VARIANCE IS FOR A NEW MOST COMPLETED 100,000 SQUARE-FOOT AJ'S WHOLESALE STORE . I AM REQUESTING RELIEF FROM AGENCY MEMBERS TO ALLOW FOR THE MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE BUILDING SIGNAGE AND FOR ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNS TO EXCEED 150 SQUARE FEET. AS THE AUTHOR , MOVING FORWARD I SHOULD ANTICIPATE LARGE-SCALE BIG-BOX STORES. IN 2014 WHEN THE LAST MAJOR IT WAS DONE THE ECONOMY HAD CHANGED FOCUSING MORE ON RETAIL AND WE WERE NOT SEEN STORES LIKE THAT. THE SIGNAGE PROGRAM DESCRIBED , WE WILL BRIEFLY GO OVER WHAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE. THE SIGNS ARE ON THE THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. AS WE GO TO THE FRONT THE FIRST ONE, THE MAIN BRAND EXCEEDS 150 SQUARE FEET. AS YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE IT IS BY NO MEANS DOMINANT IN OVERWRITING THAT FAÇADE OF THE FACILITY . IF YOU ADD UP THE CUMULATIVE SIGNS ON THE FRONT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THE FACILITY, AS DEPICTED ON THE FRONT YOU CAN SEE IT IS ALMOST A BILLBOARD OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD TAKE OVER. HERE ON THE LEFT, THE SITE THAT IS CLOSEST YOU HAVE ANOTHER IDENTIFIER . ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE YOU HAVE THE WETLAND CONSERVATION AREA . YOU HAVE SEEN THE THREE SIDES OF THE FACILITIES. WHEN YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER IT DOES EXCEED 250 SQUARE FEET. WHAT IS DESCRIBED FOR YOU AGENCY MEMBERS FOR THE NON-ZONING VARIANCE ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS AS WELL. THE FIRST ONE BEING ARE THERE ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT EXIST . I WILL POINT OUT THAT TO ALLOW RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOCATION WITH THE SERVICES THEY ARE OFFERING INSIDE OF IT. INSTEAD OF HAVING SEPARATE STORES WITHIN THEIR IT IS WRITTEN THERE. HAVING THE SINGLE STORY LARGE SIGN IS WHAT WE REQUESTED. THE VIEWS WHICH WOULD BE A CONCERN FROM THE AGENCY MEMBERS , THEY WILL BE OBSTRUCTED. EITHER 210 AND BY THE LANDSCAPER THAT HAPPENS ON THE PERIMETER , THE FACILITY ITSELF WILL BE SCREENED BY OTHER BUSINESSES AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING. KEEPING TO THE BUILDING ITSELF WAS ONE ELEMENT AS WELL . TO BE SURE WE ARE COHESIVE WITHOUT. AVOIDING SOME KIND OF OFF FROM THE FUTURE OF THE ROAD. IT IS LIMITED IN AREAS . THERE ARE ELEMENTS TO HELP . THIS APPLICATION BY NO MEANS GIVES THE DEVELOPER A WAY TO REDUCE THE COST. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE CORPORATE IDENTITY AS THEY HAVE WITH THEIR OTHER FACILITIES FOR PARCELS ON THE OTHER SIDE . CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, A PUBLIC HAZARD THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED FOR POSITIVE APPROVAL OF THAT VARIANCE. THE FACILITY ITSELF SHARES THAT . WE ARE NOT SEEKING ANY ACCESS POINTS OR OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD INHIBIT
[00:10:01]
THE CURRENT VEHICULAR MOVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING ON TODAY. THERE IS EXISTING TRAFFIC COMING INTO THE ACTIVITY CENTER AND IT WILL INTERCEPT SOME OF THOSE. OCCUPYING THAT TRAFFIC ELSEWHERE. SO YOUR APPROVAL OF THE SIGNS WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ROAD CONGESTION, DANGER, FIRE. ALSO CONSIDER ANY IMPACT THAT WOULD HURT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY TO NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA. THEY ARE NEIGHBORING TO IT AS WELL AS IN THE AREA. IN THIS PORTION THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE . LASTLY, DOES MY REQUEST ADHERE TO THAT? IT'S IN AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING LOCATION . AGAIN, THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU , THE FINISHES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT FACILITIES FOR ANY EXCESSIVE HEIGHTS RESPECTIVELY. OUTSIDE OF THAT THERE'S ELEMENTS OF ARTICLE 7 . WE EMPHASIZE THIS IS MINIMAL VISIBLE IMPACT . IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE BEFORE YOU IT HAS THE DISTANCES I MENTION THE PARCELS BETWEEN THE SITE WITH THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGNAGE THAT IS ON THE BUILDING. THE SPEED LIMITS ARE 35 MILES AN HOUR . THESE ONES DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO LOOKING ON THE ROADWAY. SO IF WE DO HAVE A VISIBILITY WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS THAT THEY ARE PLAN -- TRAVELING ON. THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE SIGNS -- WE FEEL THAT THE SIGNS AND THE LOCATION ARE STRATEGIC SO THAT WE MINIMIZE THE CONFUSION , KNOWING WHERE TO GO FOR SERVICES . I POINT OUT FOR YOU RESPECTFULLY, THESE ARE JUST A FEW SIMPLE RELATIVELY RECENT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FOR SIMILAR TYPES . THESE HAVE THEIR OWN ORDINANCES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATION, AGAIN RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE I HAD A PART IN WRITING FOR MORE BIG BOXES IN THE FUTURE GIVING THE CHANGING NATURE OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS AGENCY WAS GRACIOUSLY SIMILAR WITH NONIDENTICAL TYPES OF REQUESTS FOR RELIEF. THIS IS FOR THE MAXIMUM SIGNAGE THAT IT IS MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET.THAT ONE STORE, THE MAIN BRAND STORE IT IS 245. I FEEL THAT WILL BE COMPATIBLE . WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATIONS FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION.
I'M SURE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW , I THINK WE CERTAINLY ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THOSE AWARDS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS .
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IS ANYBODY HERE
TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT OCCURRED DURING THE MEGA BASS PRO SHOP SIGN REARRANGING . MY QUESTION IS, MAYBE THIS IS NOT LIKE THE FIRST BJ MEGA WHOLESALE FOOD CLUB, BUT IS THIS THEIR FIRST TIME PUTTING UP A SIGN . THEY
[00:15:01]
HAVE TO TURN IN THE PLANS FOR THE SIGNS? WHO IS DOING THE PLANS FOR ALL OF THAT? IF IT'S THE SAME THING FOR ALL THESE OTHER MEGA COMPANIES THAT ARE COMING IN RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS GOING ON? WHY DOES THESE PEOPLE HAVE IT IN THEIR PLANS THAT THEY TURN AROUND AND WANT ASSIGN THIS BIG. IT IS JUST SOMETHING TO SHOW, THIS IS A VERY SMALL ACTION . LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF WHAT IS GOING ON IT IS SO RIDICULOUS THAT A MEGA COMPANY CORPORATION LIKE THESE HAVE TO COME IN AND PUT LIKE THREE EXTRA SQUARE FEET OR DIAMETER ON ASSIGN SO IT CAN BE BETTER SEEN AFTER IT'S ALREADY 20 FEET IN DIAMETER . THIS STUFF, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THEM SHOWING THEIR TRUE CONCERN OF THE ENVIRONMENT, OR IF IT IS THEIR CONCERN THAT WE WILL JUST PUSH THIS THROUGH AND HAVE THESE LITTLE CHANGES THAT WE DID NOT REALIZE WAS WRONG AND WE NEED TO MAKE IT BIGGER FOR THE OVER 100,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING IT'S GOING TO BE AT, THAT IS JUST A PATTERN THAT HAPPENS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN . OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS BECOME A POINT . IT IS MONOTONOUS. THIS IS ON YOU ALL'S INTEGRITY NOT THE COUNTY. YAWLS PLAN , NOT OUR PLAN. THIS IS BECOMING , I DON'T KNOW. IT IS FUNNY . IT'S THE POINT OF THE MATTER TO PLEASE MEGAN -- MEGACORPORATIONS COME IN AND SAY WE NEED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIGGER. WHY DIDN'T YOU GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE SO BIG? THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SHOWING HOW ST. JOHNS COUNTY CONSIDERS THEM . THEY WILL COME IN AND MAKE SILLY LITTLE CHANGES AND IT WILL BE THAT AND IT WILL REFLECTS ONST. JOHNS COUNTY . >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE? MR. ROBBINS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
RESPOND? >> I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. IT WOULD BE THE WRONG WAY TO GO, THEY DO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS REQUIRED HERE WRITING THOSE REGULATIONS THE BIG-BOX LARGER SIGNS WERE NOT CONSIDERED SO THAT IS ON ME. SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL AS THEY COME IN BUT THIS IS NOT A MEGA BILLIONAIRE COMPANY COMING IN AND PUSHING ME AROUND. TO BE CLEAR, PART OF THE APPLICATION WAS TO INCLUDE THE INSISTENCE THAT THEY HAVE THEIR PRICES ON THERE. IS PROHIBITED AND I'M NOT HERE TRYING TO RELIEVE THE COUNTY . THEY HAVE CAPITULATED TO THE RECOGNITION THAT THEY CAN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO ELSEWHERE WHEN YOU ADD UP EVERYTHING THAT IS THERE IT IS OUT OF RESPECT FOR DOING IT
RIGHT THE FIRST TIME . >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY PROMOTION. MR. GREEN -- GREENE.
>> I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS . I THINK A MOTION TO APPROVE A NON-ZONING VARIANCE 2024-13 FOR BJ'S STORE NUMBER 398 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
APPROVAL AND A SECOND? >> I DO APPRECIATE MR. HUNT 'S COMMENTS AND CAN AGREE WITH THEM OVERALL BUT WE HAVE GRANTED QUITE A FEW OF THESE SIGN VARIANCES. I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE LARGE GLARING SIGNS . I THINK THEY ARE UNSIGHTLY BUT I UNDERSTAND THESE BUSINESSES HAVE THEIR SIGN
[00:20:04]
STANDARDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WHEREVER THEY ARE IN THE REGION OR WHATEVER . I AM WONDERING, I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M GOING TO SAY THIS BUT WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO AMEND? IS IT COMPLETELY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? IS IT FROM THE STAFF? WE ARE GETTING A GREATER AND GREATER NUMBER OF THESE HUGE BIG-BOX STORES. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT SIGNS THAT ARE COMMENSURATE WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THEIR STORES AND LOOK REASONABLY GOOD ON THE BUILDING TO SCALE, BUT MAYBE IT'S TIME WE LOOKED AT CHANGING IT A LITTLE BIT WITH HOW MANY REQUESTS WE HAVE HAD SINCE I'VE BEEN SITTING IN HERE IT HAS PROBABLY BEEN 30 BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN APPROVED .MAYBE WE COULD TO CIRCUMVENT THIS ISSUE AND RAISE THE STANDARDS AND MAKE THE SIGNS A LITTLE LARGER PER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STORE TO SEE HOW LONG THE STORE IS . I AM JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE LET'S GO AHEAD AND REGISTER THE VOTE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[3. CPA (SS) 2024-03 Colee Cove Hamlet. Request for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 45.8 acres of land, located at 7926 Colee Cove Road, from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Residential-A (Res-A), with a site-specific Text Amendment limiting the number of residential uses allowed on the subject property to a maximum eleven (11) residential dwelling units.]
ONTO ITEM NUMBER THREE . >> I HAVE X PARTAKE TO REPORT .
>> MADAME CHAIRWOMAN AND FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS MY NAME IS STEVE GLENN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF REGARDING THE SMALL-SCALE AMENDMENT APPLICATION NUMBER CPA SS 204 -03. TAKE YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF MEMBERS WHO PATIENTLY WALKED ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS. HERE IS THE TEAM STARTING WITH THE FORCE GROUP THAT IS MADE UP OF MY WIFE, HER SISTER, AND THE GRANDCHILDREN OF SEE A GENERAL. WE ONLY WISH WE WERE RELATED TO COMMISSIONER SARAH ARNOLD. OUR FAMILY HAVE BEEN STEWARDS OF THIS LAND SINCE 1919. THE ATLANTA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT TERRAIN AND HABITAT. STEVE IS A REAL ESTATE BROKER WHO HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND . THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ABOUT A MILE SOUTHWEST OF THE CRAB SHACK AS THE CROW FLIES. THIS IS OUR GUIDE FOR CREATING THE HAMLET NAMELY TO OFFER OPPORTUNITIES . WE ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP . THIS WOULD ALLOW 45 UNITS ON THIS LAND . WE WISH TO FURTHER LIMIT , TO ONLY 11 UNITS USING THE SITE-SPECIFIC TEXT AMENDMENT. IF APPROVED WE WILL CREATE 11 FOUR ACRE LOTS SIMILAR TO THOSE ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA . WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES IN THE ZONING .
BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED IN A NORTHWEST SECTOR . THE MAILERS WERE MAILED OUT. OUR TENANT WHO HAS A TIMBER LEASE ON THIS LAND
[00:25:01]
IN THE ADJACENT 1200 ACRES , YOU CAN IMAGINE IT HAS THE ATTENTION OF OUR NEIGHBORS. IT HAS BROUGHT ON FEARS OF LARGE DEVELOPMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE TIMING OF THE HARVEST WAS NOT OUR CHOICE . WE HAD OVER 30 LANDOWNERS SHOW UP TO PROTECT THE COVE. DURING THIS MEETING I EXPLAINED MY FAMILY CHALLENGES . THE TIMBER LEASE IS MERELY OVER . TAXES WILL BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY SOON . CONSERVATION IS AN UPHILL BATTLE. I SHARED OUR VISION OF 11 FOUR ACRE LOTS THAT COULD HELP PREVENT LESS THAN A MILE AWAY. BY THE END OF THE MEETING WE HAD ACHIEVED SUPPORT FROM OUR NEIGHBORS WITH COMMENTS LIKE IT COULD BE WORSE. I AM GRATEFUL TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS. THIS IS THE BEST FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS SHOWS YOU WHAT WE ARE ALL TRYING TO PROTECT WITH COLEE COVE. THIS TELLS US TO PROTECT THE RURAL CHARACTER . FURTHER, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.03.OWEN ALLOWS FOR CROP PRODUCTION , HUNTING CAMPS, GAME PRESERVES AND WILDLIFE PRESERVES. PASTURE LANDS, HORSES, PONIES.PRODUCTION, LIVESTOCK, ORCHARDS, BARNS, GREENHOUSES, AND SILOS. WITH YOUR APPROVAL OF COLEE COVE HAMLET, I BELIEVE THE NORTHWEST SECTOR A.TO.ONE.9 GENERAL DEVELOPED PATTERN GOALS WILL BE ACHIEVED. IT WILL ALL BE VIABLE OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS WHO WILL BECOME THE NEW STEWARDS OF THE LAND. ON THE ENVIRONMENT SIDE, THE ATLANTIC ECOLOGICAL SERVICES IDENTIFIED THESE SENSITIVE WETLANDS. THIS ONE, THE TOP ONE HERE WE KNEW ABOUT. IT IS EASY TO TELL BECAUSE IT IS CYPRESS FOR 4.57 ACRES. WE AVOIDED THAT ENTIRELY BUT WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ONE DOWN HERE WHICH IS THE FLATWOODS .
WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, SHE SAID WE NEED TO GET SOME BUDDY OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE HIRED ATLANTA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES.
THEY IDENTIFIED BOTH OF THESE AND SAID THIS ONE IS A SENSITIVE AREA SO GEORGE ASKED ME , SINCE WE HAD ALREADY PAID THE SURVEYOR TO DO THIS WHOLE MAP AND AVOID THE ONE WETLAND SHE SAID JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS RIGHT HERE WHICH IS THIS ONE 1.53 ACRES OF ISOLATED WETLAND CONSERVATION AND THEN ALSO SHE HAD ME DO THIS WITH A 35 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER DEVELOP THE EDGE. SO THE NORTHWEST SECTOR OVERLAY ALSO SAYS TO RESPECT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. THE PLANNED LOTS WILL CLOSELY MANAGE COLEE COVE'S LONG PATTERN OF GROWTH . IN CONCLUSION TO BE CLEAR THE GOAL IS TO JUST SELL LOTS. WE BELIEVE THAT GENTLE USE OF THE LAND WILL FULFILL THE GOALS OF THE COMP PLAN. WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF MANY HOMEOWNERS. WE NOW PLACE ITS FUTURE IN YOUR
HANDS. ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.
>> I JUST HAVE ONE. YOU SAID CONSERVATION IS AN UPHILL BATTLE. COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE ?
>> I AM GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. THERE'S A TIMBER LEASE ON THE PROPERTY. I WILL START WITH THE MOST RECENT AND WE WILL WORK BACK TO THE LONG-RUNNING PROBLEMS . THE TIMBER LEASE, WAS THE REASON THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WON'T LET ME EVEN ENTERTAIN AN OFFER. WE WENT DOWN AND SIGNED A DOCUMENT, MY WIFE DID. I AM NOT THE DECISION-MAKER, SHE IS.
[00:30:01]
SHE SIGNED A DOCUMENT IN THEIR OFFICE SAID WE WANT YOU TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN GET FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE . BEFORE THE MEETING WAS OVER THEY SAID, WE ARE SORRY, RAINIER IS ON THAT LAND SO WE CAN'T GO THERE UNTIL THEY ARE OFF. WE STILL HAVE THREE YEARS ON THE LEASE, MAYBE EIGHT DEPENDING HOW THEY WANT TO PLAY IT. SO THAT IS OUT . WE TRIED. NUMBER TWO, GOING CHRONOLOGICALLY BACKWARDS, THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE I PRESENTED IN A MEETING WITH HIM AND WITH TRACY BISHOP WHILE SHE WAS STILL IN THE POSITION, A PLAN TO GIVE THIS LAND, THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE, TO THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY COULD NOT TAKE IT. THAT WAS THE REAL ESTATE CALL. THEY SAID THEY CANNOT TAKE IT. THEY CAN'T GIVE IT TO THE LANDLORD. THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GIVE IT TO THEM BUT THEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A YEAR BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT CHRONOLOGICALLY LET'S GO BACK ONE MORE TIME. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE SITUATION WITH 457 ACRES AND IT IS STILL OPEN. WE ARE WILLING SELLERS, I THINK IS THE TERM BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY IT.CONSERVATION, YES. WE WANT TO. WE WOULD LOVE TO. MY FAMILY ARE FARMERS. THEY HAVE BEEN STEWARDS OF THE LAND FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THEY LOVE THE LANDS. WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS WE WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE IN THAT REALM. IN THE MEANTIME, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON. IF YOU COULD HELP ME WITH ANY OF THAT OTHER STUFF, TELL ME AND I WILL COME TALK TO YOU.
>> SEEMS LIKE IT IS AND UPHILL BATTLE.
>> THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTION? SEEING ON WE WILL GO TO THE AUDIENCE.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE
PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. ANTHONY BAUER . I LIVE IN THAT SECTION THAT SAYS TWO HOMES, 3+ ACRES.
WE HAVE 2.89 ACRES SO ONE HOUSE . THIS , IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN ON THIS ROAD THE SPEED LIMIT IS 25 AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ALREADY. 11 MORE HOMES . DURING THE MEETING HE PROMISED US SHARED LOT LINES , SHARED LOT DRIVEWAYS. HOPEFULLY THAT IS IN THE FINAL PLANS. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A FINAL LAYOUT OF LOT . WE DO NOT HAVE THAT YET. THE 35 FOOT BUFFER IS GREAT . SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. ANYBODY COULD BUILD RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. WE APPRECIATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT THE SHARED DRIVEWAYS , THERE WOULD BE SEVEN THAT WOULD HELP REDUCE THE TRAFFIC, WE HOPE .
HOPEFULLY IMPACTS THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF DRAINAGE PLAN TO THIS WHOLE BUILDOUT . IT DOES NOT IMPACT CURRENT DRAINAGE.
THERE'S A LOT OF FLOODING AND ON THE ROAD SOUTH OF US AND NORTH OF US. IF IT IS GOING TO IMPACT US MORE WE KNOW WE DON'T WANT THAT. THEY NEED TO HAVE A DRAINAGE PLAN OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH IT. I JUST CURRENTLY WENT TO THE WEST COAST WATCHING THE BIG AREA I GREW UP IN MY WHOLE LIFE AND ALL OF THE NEW HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT JUST FLOODED . THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IN ZEPHRYHILLS. THEY ARE STILL PUMPING WATER OUT OF THOSE HOUSES OVER THERE. I DON'T WANT COLEE COVE TO TURN OUT LIKE THAT . IF HE SELLS THIS 45 ACRES, THE NEXT ASK FOR LAND HE HAS A LOT MORE ACREAGE. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE WORSE OFF THAN WE ARE NOW . PAST HURRICANES WE'VE GOTTEN FLOODING ON ALL OF OUR STREETS AND HOUSES DOWN THE ROAD. THERE IS NO HELP OR IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE NOW. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A DRAINAGE PLAN. WE DON'T WANT
[00:35:04]
MORE HOUSES AND MORE AFTER THIS . IT IS JUST MORE PROOF AND CONCRETE AND NOT ENOUGH LANDSCAPING AND TREES TO SUPPORT THE WATER. WE ARE ALREADY IN A SWAMP OVER THERE .FLORIDA IS A SWAMP WAITING FOR ITS NEXT RAIN SO HOPEFULLY THIS DOES NOT CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. A DRAINAGE PLAN WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THAT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE APPROVAL.
THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE
TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? >> IT AFTERNOON. MY WIFE AND MY MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MYSELF LIVE IN THAT LOT THAT SAYS ONE HOME 4.5+ ACRES. WE BOUGHT IT A FEW YEARS AGO AND BUILT ON IT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO. WHEN WE BOUGHT THE LOT ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT IS WE WERE ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO IT. SO WHEN WE BOUGHT IT I HEARD IT WAS GETTING READY TO GO UP FOR SALE. SO I WAS CURIOUS . I WAS OUT BY THE DRIVEWAY ONE AFTERNOON AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT THEY WERE GETTING READY TO DO. I FEEL LIKE THE OBVIOUS REASON IS I WOULD RATHER HAVE 11 NEIGHBORS AND POSSIBLY 45. I FEEL LIKE 11 NEIGHBORS WE COULD GET USED TO THAT PRETTY QUICKLY . 45 WOULD OVERWHELM THE AREA. THE AMOUNT OF CLEARING IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP . I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE THE DRAINAGE . THE DRAINAGE IS A NIGHTMARE AS IT IS. ANYWAY, THAT IS ALL THAT I HAD. I AM IN FAVOR OF IT PERSONALLY.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON . CHARLIE HUNT. THIS , SHOWING UP THERE I WONDER IF WE COULD SEE THE FLOOD ZONE FOR THAT AREA.
SPEAKING OF THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING A LOT.
RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE WHEN THEY HAVE PEOPLE MOVING IN THEY BUILT AT THE HOME BECAUSE DRAINAGE IS A BIG ISSUE AND IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE OF A PROMINENT ISSUE. THESE ARE BIG LOTS WITH ONE SINGLE HOUSE, BUT THEY STILL HAVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. GOING INTO COLEE COVE IS A GREAT LITTLE AREA BUT YOU CAN ONLY GO THERE , THE ROAD LEADING IN AND THE SHARP TURNS , THE WATER DOES BUILD UP SO QUICKLY AND EASILY WHERE IS IT GOING TO GO. IT SEEMS TO BE A THING IN CERTAIN AREAS LIKE HONEY BRANCH FARMS . A LOT OF LITTLE HOUSES OR PROPERTIES ON AREAS , WHERE IS THE DRAINAGE GOING TO BE GOING FROM THAT. SO IT IS BECOMING A KEYWORD AS WE KNOW AGGREGATE DID NOT MAKE IT THE OTHER DAY . THERE WAS A LOT OF ISSUES FROM THAT. NOTHING THE SIZE OF THIS. A LOT OF TIMES THE HOUSES THAT ARE GOING ON THERE WILL BE AN HOA COMMUNITY. SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS WILL PROBABLY HELP TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD BE. THANK YOU.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. AS A FAMILY LANDOWNER NOT A PLANNER, ENGINEER, OR ATTORNEY I AM LEARNING WITH MY NEIGHBORS
[00:40:04]
AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANKS TO GENTLEMEN LIKE THE STAFFERS, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION IS COMING NEXT . TODAY OUR REQUEST TO YOU IS ONLY FOR A COMP PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM THAT TO A. THEN I WILL GO BACK AND GET THE ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS AND DRAINAGE PEOPLE TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY DO WITH THE LAND. THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO LOTS ON IT. I ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED WITH LOTS. THEY SAID, TIME OUT. YOU WILL WORK YOURSELF INTO A CORNER BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DRAINAGE IS. THE POINT IS I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T ANSWER YET, BUT I WILL ANSWER . AS I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH THAT PLAN BEFORE WE CAN MOVE. I THINK YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER, JUST NOT TODAY.>> I HAVE BEEN 26 YEARS GETTING HERE TODAY. I ALSO WANT
ANSWERS. >> WE MIGHT HAVE JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND.
>> FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR SUCH A BEAUTIFULLY COMPLETE APPLICATION. IT WAS REALLY GOOD. YOU ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION. HE TRIED TO GET THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND YOUR VISION. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO MAKE AND THEN A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING, OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO DO WATER AND SEPTIC . I DID TRY TO REACH OUT TO TERRY SHOEMAKER BUT SHE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO CALL ME BACK TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT LOOKS. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE COMMITTING YOURSELF TO THESE HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY . BUT MY QUESTION, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. TAYLOR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD TO THE TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENCES OR LOTS TO SHARE DRIVEWAYS THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ? IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN INCLUDE OUR DOES THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT?
>> I AM HAPPY TO DO IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I DO NOT ENGINEER IT. IT IS A GREAT IDEA. I LOVE IT.
>> YOU COULD DO INTERNAL CAPTURE AND HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS AND THAT MIGHT RELIEVE SOME CONCERNS THAT THERE WOULD BE A LIMITED NUMBER OF CARS COMING OUT. IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD DO?
>> MAY I? I SHOWED YOU THE OTHER PROCESSES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE PAST. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS COMING UP WITH THE NEED TO GET ASPHALT AND CUL-DE-SAC MATERIAL THAT WOULD DRIVE THE COST UP AND LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO SELL LOTS . I'M HAPPY TO HAVE IN THE FINAL DESIGN, A SHARED ACCESS OF THIS LOT AND THIS LOT. I HAVE ALREADY DRAWN THEM ON THE PREVIOUS PLAN, I THINK SOMEBODY MENTIONED IT WAS SEVEN .
>> I THINK WHAT HE SAID WAS SEVEN. THERE'S FIVE PARCELS
>> THE ANSWER IS, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PUT ANYTHING THAT'S THERE AS LONG AS I HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AT THE TIME OF ENGINEERING TO GIVE THEM THE FREEDOM OF FLEXIBILITY.
>> I THINK LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DONE. I DO NOT KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS THAT WILL COME BACK . I BELIEVE THIS IS IN THE NORTHWEST SECT SO IT WILL COME BACK LATER AND YOU WILL KNOW
MORE. >> THIS WILL HAVE TO PASS THE BOARD AGAIN SO YOU WILL HAVE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES.
ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP IS THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT TO IMPACT NEGATIVELY WITH WATER DRAINAGE ON ANY OTHER ADJOINING PARCELS. THAT IS SOMETHING THE COUNTY REALLY DOES WORK ON . YOU CANNOT PROMISE BEFOREHAND THAT YOU HAVE A PLAN. THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT THEY LOOK AT. I AM JUST TRYING TO PICK IT IS WET OUT THERE. I GET
[00:45:05]
IT. I KNOW IT IS A PROBLEM EVERYWHERE. I APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENT THAT MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION . I APPRECIATE THE RECHARGING AND LIMITING THE ISR IS REALLY GOOD. THE NONRESIDENTIAL NEEDS WILL BE MET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING NATURAL BUFFERING, LIMITED IMPACT ON COUNTY SERVICES WHICH ARE CREATED -- CREATED BY LIMITING THE NUMBER OF HOMES USING SITE-SPECIFIC TEXT AMENDMENT . POR COULD HAVE ALLOWED 45 UNITS AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR GREATER DENSITY BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO BALANCE THE FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED THAT. YOU SAID THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN YOUR FAMILY OR YOUR WIFE'S FAMILYSINCE 1916? >> 1919. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW.
JUST TO BE TOTALLY FORTHRIGHT, I KNOW THAT THE HOUSE THAT I'M LIMITING -- LIVING IN WAS PURCHASED IN 1919. THEN HE BEGAN A LIFE OF BUYING AND SELLING LAND THAT IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE COUNTY RECORDS DEPARTMENT HE HAS HIS OWN BOOK.
WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS PARCEL I COULD NOT TELL YOU. HE'S BEEN
DOING IT FOR A WHILE. >> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THESE LOTS WERE BEING DIVIDED FOR FAMILY MEMBERS, BUT THE IDEA IS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO SELL THE LAND OR BUILD ON THE LAND FOR THEMSELVES?
>> WE STARTED WITH 12 BECAUSE I'VE GOT FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS.
WAS GOING TO GIVE EACH ONE THREE LOTS THEN THEY COULD DECIDE I WILL SELL ONE LOT AND BUILD A HOUSE WITH THE MONEY I SOLD OR MY OWN LOTS. THE AT -- IT CAN GO EITHER WAY. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WILL GO BUT THE FLEXIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO SELL THAT LAND IS WHAT I HAVE TO GET TO MAKE THIS VIABLE FOR THEM TO AFFORD TO BUILD THEIR HOUSES.
>> SO THE OPEN UNDERSTANDING IS WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE THEN THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUILT ON FOR ANYTIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE OR THE DISTANT FUTURE.
IT'S NOT LIKE A DEVELOPER IS COMING INTO PUT 11 HOMES AS SOON AS THEY GET APPROVAL. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.
>> WE ARE RESISTANT TO THAT. EVERYTHING I'M TELLING YOU TODAY IS WHAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN. IF I CAN GET THROUGH THIS, I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. IT'S MY FIRST SHOT, BUT I COULD PICK UP THE PHONE RIGHT NOW AND SELL IT TO SOMEBODY. I'VE HAD OFFERS BEFORE I EVEN CAME TO THIS MEETING. AFTER THE LAST MEETING I HAD AN OFFER. THEY SAID THE GUY THAT WANTS TO BUILD HERE WANTS TO LAY OUT HIS OWN LOT LINES. I WANT TO LAY OUT MY OWN. SO WHAT KIND OF PRESSURE AM I GOING TO FACE NEXT IS THE ANSWER TO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
MICHAEL IS WHAT I HAVE JUST LAID OUT. THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE APPEAR A MINUTE AGO, WHEN I MET HIM WE WERE AT HIS PROPERTY. HE TOLD ME HE IS LIVING OUT THERE BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LIKE THE HOA HE WAS UNDER WHERE THEY SENT HIM A LETTER FOR A FINE HAVING A DIRTY MAILBOX. SO MICHAEL IS TO NOT HAVE THAT. IF IT WAS MIND THERE WOULD NEVER BE HOA ON THIS OR IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE MORE THE TERMS OF , DOING TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU INSTEAD OF POUND YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID NOT DO. THAT IS MY SPIRIT .
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. WHILE I DO THINK MAYBE IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF SPOT ZONING I DO NOT SEE A WHOLE LOT IN THAT AREA. THANK YOU FOR SENDING ME THE MAP BUT I THINK WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION YOU ARE PUTTING ON THIS YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO BUILD 11 HOMES. I THINK I AM PROBABLY IN FAVOR ESPECIALLY FOR THE FACT THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PART OF YOUR FAMILY . I THINK THAT IS MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> CAN I MAKE A QUICK CLARIFICATION? SOME OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE JUST HAD ON THAT PARCEL INVOLVED
[00:50:01]
POTENTIALLY THIS APPLICATION OR A SIMILAR APPLICATION COMING BACK TO THE BOARD. I WANT TO MAKE THE CLARIFICATION THAT IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND WILL GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . IF IT IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THERE'S NO REASON THE APPLICANT WOULD BE BEFORE THIS BOARD AGAIN. THEY MAY HOLD COMMUNITY MEETINGS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THIS BOARD WHATEVER SEE THIS APPLICANT AGAIN FOR THIS REQUEST.>> THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE.
>> DID I SAY THAT WRONG? ANYWAY, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN WE DRAW THESE OUT, THE ENGINEERING GETS A HOLD OF IT WITH THE DRAINAGE AND ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCESS POINTS, IT WILL GO BACK BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IS THAT TRUE?
>> THESE PARCELS WILL ULTIMATELY REQUIRE FURTHER DESIGN, PLANNING, YOU ARE PROBABLY THINKING OF THE PLATTING . THEY WILL GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THEY DO NOT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. ULTIMATELY SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS OR LOT CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE REQUIRED BEFORE SOMEBODY CAN BUILD A HOUSE.
>> I AM SORRY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK.
THOSE ARE JUST CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS?
>> ANY BOARD MEMBER CAN PULL IT OUT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CNN I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.
>> LET ME FIND MY PAGE. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. . FORGIVE ME IF I'M PRONOUNCING IT WRONG. I'VE HEARD COLEE . BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AS
PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.
[Items 4 & 5]
ONTO ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE. DO WE HAVE ANY X PARTAKE ?>> I SPOKE WITH JAMES WHITE HOUSE EARLIER TODAY IN PERSON IN THE BUILDING. THEN I MET MR. HARDY IN THE FOYER . I DID NOT KNOW HE WAS THE OWNER AT THE TIME BUT I DO NOW.
>> I WAS CASUAL BUT WE DID NOT DISCUSS .
>> IT IS ALL YOURS. >> THANK YOU. JAMES WHITE HOUSE . I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF OF THE HARDY FAMILY. MIKE AND ROBBIE I HERE WITH ME TODAY. THIS IS PROPERTY THEY HAVE OWNED FOR OVER A DECADE. THIS IS FOR A SMALL SCALE 20 2406 AND REZONING 2415. I WILL PRESENT THEM TOGETHER . THE LOCATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THE ONE YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IS UP HERE IN COLEE COVE. THIS ONE IS RIGHT HERE SOUTH OF 208.
YOU CAN SEE IT TO THE NORTH DOWN 13. THIS IS ASHTON OAKS.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE. AS I SAID, THE FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2012 . THEY LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY HERE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT TODAY .
THIS PROPERTY ITSELF IS IN THE LAND USE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THEY LIVE ON SURROUNDED IN PINK. THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED IN 2023, RECOMMENDED BY THIS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE HERE, THIS IS AN EXPIRED PRD . YOU CAN SEE OR HEAR CLOSER. THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS IN ASHTON OAKS.
THIS PROPERTY ITSELF IS ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WAS ASHTON DOWNS WHICH WAS EXPIRED. THIS IS HOW IT WAS APPROVED AND HAVE A LOTS WERE LAID OUT . I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE IN A MINUTE.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS AREA IS WHERE THEY LIVE NOW. THIS IS THE PROPERTY THEY WERE
[00:55:02]
TALKING ABOUT TODAY THEY HAVE OWNED SINCE 2012. THIS WAS CHANGED IN 2023 WITH THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT SMALL-SCALE TO ALLOW FOR UP TO SIX UNITS. AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXPIRED PRD.THE SOUTHERN PART OF THIS WAS REZONED IN 2022 . THIS IS THE ONE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY WHICH IS STILL IN THE EXPIRED ZONING SO THEY CAN'T TO ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL. THIS PROPERTY ITSELF YOU CAN SEE BLOWN UP HERE WAS APPROVED FOR FIVE UNITS WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT IT TO FIVE UNITS. ON THIS 30 ACRE TRACT, YOU CAN SEE IT IS CONSTRAINED BY THIS CONSERVATION AREA. THAT WAS WITHIN THE PRD. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WHEN WE FIRST STARTED WE DID NOT HAVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT INCLUDED NOT BECAUSE THEY WANTED MORE UNITS BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING THROUGH STAFF REVIEW AND STAFF SAID WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS CONSERVATION AREA AND CAN YOU PRESERVE IT . WE SAID IF WE REDUCE IT TO FIVE THAT LIMITS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS. REALLY, THAT WILL HELP RESERVE THIS AREA TO THE SOUTH BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE FIVE UNITS AND IT'S A 30 ACRE TRACT THERE'S NO REASON TO PLOW UNDER ANY PART OF THE WETLAND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ITSELF DICTATES HOW THOSE PARTICULAR LOTS ARE DEVELOPED . THERE IS NO FINANCIAL GAIN WHATSOEVER TO USE THAT LAND ITSELF BECAUSE THE AMOUNT TO PAY FOR MITIGATION IS WAY MORE THAN TO HAVE FIVE UNITS ON 30 ACRES. IN ANY CASE, AS I SAID, THE FAMILY HAS HELD THE PARCEL FOR OVER A DECADE WITH THE VISION OF PRESERVING THE USE OF THE PARCEL. THEY LIVE ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IN THE ASHTON OAKS PRD. WHEN THIS PROPERTY WENT FOR SALE THEY WANTED TO CONTROL WHAT WENT ON THIS LAND SO THEREFORE THEY BOUGHT IT AND WANT IT TO BE DEVELOPED CONSISTENT COMPLEMENTARY TO WHAT IS AROUND ESPECIALLY WHAT IS WITHIN THEIR PRD. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THIS REQUEST WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT LIMITING IT TO FIVE UNITS THAT IS A COPY OF THE DEED SHOWING WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT. AGAIN, THIS EXPIRED PRD WAS APPROVED TO HAVE A NUMBER OF UNITS. THIS AREAS AS REZONED IN 2022 WILL ONLY ALLOW ONE UNIT DOWN HERE.
ALL OF THESE LANDS WHICH COME OFF OF THE WETLANDS ON OUR PROPERTY THAT ARE OVER HERE, THIS IS PRESERVED AS WELL.
THERE'S NO CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THAT EITHER WHEN YOU RACE -- RECOMMENDED THE REZONING. AGAIN, THOSE ARE PRESERVED BASED ON THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE UNIT. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THE TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH SHOWS IT WILL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM FIVE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THERE'S A NUMBER OF TEXT AMENDMENTS IN THE CODE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHERE WE HAVE APPROVED TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT .
LIKE I SAID, YOU HAVE THESE AND THEY ARE WITHIN THE CODE. THIS ONE IS THE ONE I JUST SHOWED YOU THAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT ACROSS THE STREET. THAT WAS APPROVED TO BE CHANGED AND LIMITING IT TO SIX UNITS. THAT IS THE LOCATION OF IT YOU CAN SEE THERE. IT IS PRETTY CLEAR, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR FOR FIVE UNITS ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SET TO BE IN THIS CONFIGURATION WAS ALREADY FOUND TO BE COMPATIBLE WHEN IT WAS APPROVED IN 2006.
JUST A LITTLE OVERVIEW. THIS WAS IN THE APPLICATION SO I WILL GO THROUGH BUT AS WE SAID IN 2012 AND THEY PURCHASED , THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE THE OPENNESS AND LOOK OF THE AREA WITHOUT HAVING THE FEAR THAT IT MAY BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IN 2012 THAT'S WHEN IT STARTED AGAIN WITH THE RECESSION THEY WERE WORRIED SOMEBODY WOULD PURCHASE IT AND WANT TO DEVELOP IT WITH A LOT OF LOTS SO THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING THESE LARGE RANCH PARCEL SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO KEEP IT UNDEVELOPED FOR YEARS IT IS AN INVESTMENT PROPERTY FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW SOME DEVELOPMENT COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS
[01:00:02]
APPROVED WHICH IS WHY THEY ASKED FOR THE TEXT LIMIT FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE UNITS. IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE LESS BASED ON THE WETLANDS BUT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PRD. AS I SAID TODAY THEY SEEK TO RETURN THIS TO THE ZONING AS WELL WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF FIVE UNITS. NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT ASHTON DOWNS WAS ALSO CONVERTED BACK TO OPEN RURAL THE SOUTHERN PART OF IT AND ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT IN 2022 PRESERVING THE LAND AS I SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER. THE APPROVAL WAS FOR 20 UNITS AND THE PRESERVATION FOR THE SAME AREA AS WILL BE PRESERVED IF THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED WILL OCCUR. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE UPDATE TO THE MOST LIMITED CATEGORY TO RETURN THE ZONING TO OPEN RURAL WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS BEFORE AND ALLOW COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT AS ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED UNDER THE PRD . FIVE OR LESS AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IT IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. YOU HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WETLANDS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THE SITE IS CONSTRAINED BY THE LARGE WETLAND AREAS ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PARCEL AND HOW THE OWNER PRESUPPOSES TO PRESERVE THE LARGE LOT DEVELOPMENT AS WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS. THERE'S NO OPEN COMMENTS. TRANSPORTATION TELLS YOU IT IS ESTIMATED TO GENERATE LESS THAN 10 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRIPS BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOUND THERE WERE NO PROTECTED SPECIES WE HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT. FINALLY, WE ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AND CONSIDER IT FOR RESIDENTIAL A LIMITING IT TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE UNITS WHICH I SAID IS MOST LIKELY ON SITE. WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND ZONING BACK TO ORS SO THEY CAN DO THE DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.>> I MENTIONED THIS TO YOU EARLIER TODAY. I JUST WONDERED WHY BECAUSE IT IS STATED IN THE MATERIALS NOT HAVING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. IS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON THERE'S NOT
GOING TO BE AN EASEMENT. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT INITIALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A TEXT AMENDMENT INITIALLY .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASKED ABOUT THAT AND THAT RESTRICTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE HARDEE FAMILY HAVE ON THIS FOR NUMBER OF YEARS AND REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP FOR THEIR FAMILY. IT'S NOT 100% SURE THE FAMILY WILL LIVE ON THESE. IT MAY BE THAT THEY SELL ONE OR MORE SO THE FAMILY CAN BUILD ON THEIR. WE DID NOT WANT TO SAY THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE DOING OUT RIGHT BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. PUTTING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON IT HAS BEEN EXPENSIVE ALREADY. WE FOUND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS ITSELF FOR STRICT. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN'T PUT WENT ON THERE WHICH WE COULD IF THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION WANTS US TO DO WE WILL BE GLAD TO DO THAT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BASED ON THE FACT IT IS LIMITED . I'M TELLING YOU IT WILL BE LESS THAN FIVE MOST LIKELY. THERE WOULD NOT BE A REASON TO GO AHEAD. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS MAKING FIVE LOTS BIGGER. SAY 15 ACRES OF IT ARE WET. THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER DOES NOT NEED MORE THAN THREE ACRES . I THINK THE CHARACTERISTICS , THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT IF THAT'S WHAT
[01:05:02]
THE COMMISSION WANTS. >> I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT . IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY UPSTANDING CHARACTER.
>> OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE DESIGNATED JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS. ONCE LAND IS DESIGNATED THE DEP AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALREADY HAVE A RECORD OF THAT . THEY WOULD BE PUNISHED OR HAVE TO GET MEDICATION AND IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP.
IF THIS WAS THE SUBDIVISION I WOULD HAVE A FEAR THAT SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO GO FOR PART OF IT. THERE'S A REASON FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS DEVELOPING TO GO PLOW PART OF THIS . AGAIN, THERE'S NO OPPOSITE. IF THAT IS WHAT IS TOLD THAT WILL BE LEFT.
>> I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU TO HAVE TO MITIGATE WOULD BE
RATHER EXPENSIVE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS
ANY IN THAT REGION. THANK YOU. >> I WISH I HAD PICKED UP THE PHONE BECAUSE YOU DID ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I HAD . LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS FINDING OUT THEY DID BUY IT ON THE DAY IT EXPIRED. I KIND OF WONDERED ABOUT THAT. YOU EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AND PROTECT THAT LAND FROM BEING OVERDEVELOPED. I APPRECIATE HAVING FOUND THAT OUT. AS I LOOKED AT THIS AS A PORTION OF THE PRD THAT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE LAND BELOW IT . IT'S BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT BUT IN MY MIND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS I CAN DO IT. WHY DON'T YOU JUST JOIN BACK UP WITH THE PRD ACROSS THE ROAD . I THINK I AM UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY YOU DID THIS. I ALSO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WETLANDS. I REALLY LOVE THE IDEA OF CONSERVATION . I LOVE HAVING IT NAMED AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. AGAIN, SAME THING WITH THE LAST ITEM . I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES WE DID SO THAT THEY CAN'T DIVIDE THAT WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND HAVE THE FAMILY ABLE TO LIVE THERE. IT CONCERNS ME TO PUT IT IN HERE WHERE THERE IS NOT A LOT AROUND EXCEPT ONE TINY SPOT BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE , I WISH THERE WAS A LAND USE THAT YOU COULD USE, BUT THERE JUST ISN'T. I THINK OFFERING THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS PROBABLY THE BEST YOU CAN DO. I GUESS THOSE WERE MORE COMMENTS THAN QUESTIONS . JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NEED OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT I KIND OF HAVE A QUESTION OF THAT. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE TRYING TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE AREA . I SUPPOSE THAT DOES
QUALIFY AS A NEED. >> JUST TO ADD TO THAT IS THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE WITH THE LAND BECAUSE IT IS EXPIRED. THE NEED IS TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE IT IS PERFECT FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY.
>> I THINK THAT WAS ALL THAT I HAD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEE AND ON I WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON FOUR OR FIVE PLEASE
COME FORWARD >> GOOD AFTERNOON . I LIVE IN THE RANCH CLUB , THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO THE NORTH.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN FULL SUPPORT. I SIT ON THE RANCH CLUB HOA BOARD. WE WOULD NOT PREFER TO HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BROUGHT BACK INTO THE PRD. I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO
[01:10:04]
THESE WONDERFUL PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT NEED TO SUFFER WITH HOA.THIS MAKE SENSE TO US OUT THERE. WE DO NOT WANT ANY PART SOUTH OF 208 IF POSSIBLE. THIS IS PERFECT. I HAPPEN TO KNOW THEM FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS. MR. HARDEE HAS A LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THE AREA. EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE. WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT WITHOUT ANY QUALMS OR CONCERNS WHATSOEVER. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS FOUR OR FIVE?
>> BACK TO THE AGENCY PROMOTION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SMALL SCALE BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. MOTION PASSES. CAN YOU DO ITEM
NUMBER FIVE? >> YES. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL REZONE 2024-15, HARDEE FAMILY BASED UPON FINDINGS OF
FACT . >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND ? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT
[Staff Reports]
MOTION ALSO PASSES. THANK YOU . >> THANK YOU. JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD . I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS REGARDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SIGNAGE. I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE . ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY IS LAND DEVELOPMENT REALLY DOES NOT SPEAK WELL TO BIG BOX INSTITUTIONS. WE CAP THE MAXIMUM FOR ANY SIZE BUILDING . THAT IS ONE THING THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE ADDRESSED. I WILL ALSO ADD THE SIGN STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE ARE LIKELY INTENTIONALLY SMALL TO TRY TO PRESERVE VISUAL POLLUTION AND SO FORTH CAUSED BY LARGE SIGNS.
SECONDARILY, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THEMSELVES THAT AT SOME POINT THOSE ARE SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE WHEN THEY COME THROUGH THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO ASK FOR A VARIETY OF STANDARDS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. IF IT WAS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD OR THE AGENCY, WE COULD WORKSHOP SOME ITEMS, GET INTO SOME DISCUSSION AND HAVE STAFF SO -- SHOW SOME RESEARCH. I DO NOT KNOW IF I AM IN SUPPORT OF BIGGER SIGNS IN GENERAL. IT'S A PROCESS TO BRING TO THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THINGS ARE COMPATIBLE AND SO FORTH. IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF WORK BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THEY EXIST OUT THERE. I AM HAPPY TO HAVE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU REMEMBERING TO ADDRESS THAT COMMENT. I AM GRATEFUL YOU DID ADDRESS IT. LIKE THE TERM VISUAL POLLUTION.
I AM NOT NECESSARILY CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF INCREASING SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE STANDARDS EITHER . IT WAS JUST A WAY TO POSSIBLY GET OUT SOME OF THESE COMMENTS. I AM NOT PREPARED TO SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDED TO ALLOW LARGER SIGNS EITHER. THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR A TRADE-OFF. IF WE COULD GET RID OF SOME OF THESE BILLBOARDS I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH APPROPRIATE SCALES BIGGER SIGNS. THE BILLBOARDS ARE VISUAL POLLUTION. THEY JUST ARE IN MY OPINION.
>> ANY STAFF REPORT? >> THAT IS ALL.
>> THANK YOU. ANY
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.