[Call meeting to order] [00:00:09] >>> GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE PCA HEARING. IF YOU WOULD NOT MINE STANDING WE ARE GOING TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MR. PETER, WILL YOU READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT. >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY -- COMMENT DURING THE MEETING. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK ON EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME IS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN. WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. THE SPEAKER SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY AND IF NOT SWORN THE AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE TRUTH AND WAIT OF THE TESTIMONY. DUTCH SAYS SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND MAKE SURE 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 STATEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER AGENCIES IN THE COUNTY. BOARD MEMBER SHOULD STATE IF THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM. IF SUCH MEDICATION HAS OCCURRED AGENCY MEMBERSHIP SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE RESPECT ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE AND WE WILL DIRECT COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID PERSONAL ATTACK. >> FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE AND AGENCY NUMBERS, ITEM NUMBER SIX HAS BEEN REMOVED AND IT IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM SO [1. ZVAR 2024-30 Weiss Carport Enclosure. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Side Yard setback of five (5) feet in lieu of the required ten (10) feet to accommodate the enclosure of an existing carport located in Open Rural (OR) zoning, specifically located at 676 Hansen Road.] IT WILL NOT BE HEARD. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE WE WILL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. AGENCY MEMBERS, IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? MISS SPIEGEL . >> I DID HAVE PHONE TAG WITH THE APPLICANT AND I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS ROBERT WEISS AND I LOOK AT 676 HANSEN ROAD. I AM HERE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCLOSE MY CARPORT . >> MAY I ASK YOU TO SPEAK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> SURE. DO YOU WANT ME TO START OVER AGAIN? NO . >> I AM HERE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE ON ENCLOSING MY CARPORT AT MY HOME. THIS IS THE RESIDENCE WHERE I RESIDE IN THE CURRENT CARPORT IS A LITTLE DECEIVING FROM THE CURRENT SITE PLAN WHERE IT SHOWS THE CARPORT AS BEING ALMOST LIKE AN ADDITION TO THE SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. IT IS NOT. IT IS UNDERNEATH THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE RESIDENCE. FOUR PARCELS NORTH OF ME, ON HANSEN ROAD, AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT RESIDENCE HAS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ITS PROPERTY LINE CLOSER THAN THE 10 FEET. THIS HOME WAS REMODELED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND I AM PRETTY SURE THEY PULLED A VARIANCE WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED. JUST TO THE NORTH OF HIM IS THIS CURRENT PROPERTY HERE WHICH WAS RENOVATED. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY -- SO THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES ON THE STREET, WHICH IS A PRIVATE STREET THAT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, BACK PRIOR TO THE 80S THEY WERE SMALL FISH CAMP HOMES THAT WERE THEN DEMOLISHED AND BROUGHT UP TO -- RENOVATED UP TO BETTER STYLE OF HOMES. THIS HOME IS THE NEXT ONE UP THE STREET AND YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH THERE. THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES IN THE AREA THAT ARE WITHIN THE 10 FEET, CLOSER THAN THE 10 FEET MANDATED [00:05:03] PROPERTY LINE RESTRICTION SETBACK. THAT IS ALL I HAVE AT THE MOMENT. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? MISS SPIEGEL. >> HELLO, MR. WEISS. HOW ARE YOU? >> I'M GOOD. >> WHAT A LOVELY LITTLE ENCLAVE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE EASE OF THE OVERHANG ARE ALREADY OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE LIVING AREA UPSTAIRS. AND THE HARDSHIP FOR YOU WOULD BE? >> I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, I WANT TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOME AND THIS WAS A HOME WE JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO SO THIS WAS OUR DOWNSIZING WITH THE INTENT OF ENCLOSING THIS IN, UNAWARE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >> SO, IF EVERYBODY'S HOUSE COULD BE SCOOTED OVER 5 FEET THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE FINE. SOFI FEET IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR AND THAT IS A LOT OF LIVING SPACE TO TAKE OUT TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT. >> YES . >> I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU . >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE REPORT ON PAGE 5 IT SAYS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION REQUEST -- THERE ARE NO OPEN COMMENTS AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE A SEPARATE NARRATIVE RESPONDING. THAT IS LISTED IN ARTICLE 12 HOWEVER, THEY INCLUDE THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CURRENT FENCE HEIGHT IN THE DESCRIPTION AND SUBSEQUENT EMAIL. I ASSUME THAT IS A TYPO? >> I WOULD TAKE IT THAT IS A TYPO. >> WE ARE NOT VOTING ON INCREASED -- . >> NO, THIS APPLICATION IS MOST CERTAINLY FOR SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE SO THAT THEY CAN ENCLOSE IT . >> OKAY. THANK YOU . >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. GREEN. >> ALL WE'RE DOING IS ENCLOSING THE GARAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES . >> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER ONE. SEEING NONE WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MISS SPIEGEL. >>MOTION TO APPROVE ZVAR 2024-30 WEISS CARPORT ENCLOSURE BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN [2. ZVAR 2024-21 430 Lakeshore Drive (Dwelling Height). Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a maximum height of 37 feet 8 inches in lieu of the required 35 feet in Residential, Manufactured/Mobile Home (RMH) zoning for a newly built single-family home; specifically located at 430 Lakeshore Drive on Lot 22.] THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND . >> PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. >> AYE >> THE MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM. >> LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. ANY EX PARTE? >> I HAD A CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE AND WE DISCUSSED THE HARDSHIP RELATED TO THE VARIANCE. >> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH --. >> I HAD A FULL CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE AS WELL . >> MR. GREEN? >> WE DID NOT. BUT WE TRIED. >> MR. WHITE HOUSE . >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JAMES WHITEHOUSE FROM ST. JOHNS LAGER. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY THAT OWNED THIS HOUSE. THIS IS ZONING VARIANCE 2024-21. THIS IS NORTH OF THE AIR PORTS AND YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL MAP TO GIVE YOU KNOWLEDGE OF THE BEARINGS. THIS IS WORTH 312 COMES INTO US-1. A COUPLE OF THE MAIN ROADS, STOKES LANDING ROAD GOES OUT AND ILAN LENDING DRIVE GOES OUT. YOU CANNOT GET TO LAKESHORE DRIVE DIRECTLY FROM US-1 BUT YOU CAN GO ROUND THE MAP. IT IS IN A SECLUDED AREA OF LAKESHORE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER OF A MILE OFF OF US-1 NORTH. THIS SHOWS THE LOCATION THAT IT IS DIRECTLY -- IT BACKS UP TO ONE OF THE TRIBUTARIES AND IT COMES OFF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. THIS IS A PICTURE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE WHICH SHOWS THE [00:10:02] SECLUDED AREA OF LAKESHORE DRIVE AND THE LOT IS HERE ON THE LEFT ACROSS FROM THE STOKES LANDING CONSERVATION AREA. YOU CAN SEE A BETTER VIEW OF IT AND THE AERIAL AS WELL. IT IS TWO LOTS THAT MAKE UP THIS PARCEL AND THE HOUSE SITS ON THE SIDE AND OF THAT PARCEL, THIS IS ALL CONSERVATION AREA TO THE EAST. WE ARE IN RESIDENTIAL B IN FUTURE LAND USE ACROSS FROM PARKS AND RECREATION WHICH IS THE STOKES LANDING RECREATION AND CONSERVATION AREA. WE ARE, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH WE ARE RMA -- RM H AND YOU COULD SEE HOW THIS BACKS UP TO THE MARSHLANDS. THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ALONG LAKESHORE DRIVE AND THESE PROPERTIES AND DROP OFF AS IT MOVES CLOSER TO THE MARSH AREA OF THE TRIBUTARY. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE HOUSE IS ON THE SOUTHERN PART RIGHT UP NEAR THE BACK WHERE THE LOTS GO FROM HIGHER TO LOWER AS YOU GO TO THE WEST. THIS REQUEST OF ZVAR 2024-21 IS FOR THE RESIDENTS. TO ALLOW FOR THE INADVERTENTLY DEVELOPED OF 37 FEET EIGHT INCHES AND LIMITING THE MAXIMUM RMH AND THIS IS WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE FRONT OF THE HOME FACING THE ROADWAY, THIS IS A PICTURE. IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU CAN SEE HOW THE FRONT OF THE HOME MEASURES THAT 34 INCHES WHICH IS BELOW THE 35 FEET WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED. THE ISSUE COMES IN WITH THE FACT THAT THEY WENT THROUGH ALL BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY BUILT THE HOME AND THEY WENT FOR THE FINAL GRADING PLAN AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A FLOODWAY THAT IS RESTRICTED BY THE STATE IN THE BACK WHERE YOU CANNOT FILL ON LOTS LIKE THIS. YOU CAN BUILD A RETAINING LOT AND YOU MEASURE FROM THE LOWEST POINT ON THE LOT. SINCE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THEY COULD NOT FILL THAT TO FOOT EIGHT INCHES, THE BACK PART OF THE STRUCTURE IS NOW OVER 35 FEET. THIS IS A NATURAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE UNDER CODE QUALIFIES AS A HARDSHIP AND YOU CAN SEE THE LOT WAS FILLED ON THIS PART OF THE LOT AND THEREFORE ALL OF THE MEASUREMENTS, AND THESE ARE FROM THE BUILDING PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED, SO THAT IT IS UNDER 35 FEET BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE BACK, THEY BUILT THIS RETAINING WALL AND THEY CANNOT SO NOW YOU HAVE TO MEASURE FROM HERE AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE AREA THAT FACES THE MARSH. NOT THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT OR THE ROADWAY ITSELF. WITHIN OUR CODE, IN 607, IT TALKS ABOUT THE MEASUREMENTS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE AND IT HAS TO MEASURE FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF THE ESTABLISHED GRADE SINCE THEY CANNOT FILL. THAT GETS US TO THIS TO FOOT EIGHT INCHES ON THE BACK. WE ASK THAT YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE OF 37 FEET EIGHT INCHES FOR THIS NEWLY BUILT SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM STAFF AND SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REQUEST IS FOR THIS TO FOOT EIGHT INCHES AND THE NARRATIVE FROM THE APPLICANT INDICATES THE HOME WILL NOT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET AS VIEWED FROM THE ROADWAY OR EITHER SIDE OF THE HOME AND EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE BY MEASUREMENT IN THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE CODE IS LOCATED IN THE REAR OF THE HOME CLOSEST TO THE MARSH. THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF REQUESTED IS THE 2 FEET EIGHT INCHES ON THE CODE BUT ONLY VIEWABLE FROM THE MARSH. YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT VARIANCES AND NORMAL VARIANCES COME BEFORE YOU AND YOU ARE THE FINAL SAY HOWEVER THE HEIGHT VARIANCES THEMSELF COME TO YOU FOR RECOMMENDATIONS SO THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THEY HAVE FINAL SAY ON GRANTIN THIS. YOU KNOW THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE AND I WILL GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY AND HOW THIS QUALIFIES. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOT AND THE PRESENCE OF THE FLOODWAY IN THE REAR THAT PREVENTS THE OWNE1 FROM ADDING PHIL AND MAKES THE MEASUREMENT WE ARE HIGHER EVEN THOUGH IT IS 34 FEET FOUR INCHES. YOU WILL SEE LATER THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR THIS. THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. WITH [00:15:01] VARIANCES YOU HAVE TO SHOW BY REASON OF UNUSUAL SHAPE, EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER -- THAT THERE IS A HARDSHIP CREATED AND TO BE HONEST THEY ARE MINIMAL AND THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT TO BE JUST ABOVE THE LIMIT WHICH IS VISUALLY AND DETECTABLE AS WITNESSED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS. IT IS IN FACT THE PRESENCE OF THIS A NATURAL CHARACTERISTIC ON THE LOT THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM MEETING THE HEIGHT IN THE BACK. IT ONLY CAME UP WHEN THEY WENT FOR THE FINAL GRADING PLAN. ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE INTENT WAS TO PUT IN PHIL AND A RETAINING WALL BUT IT WAS DISCOVERED THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT. OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA THAT ARE SIMILAR WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL JUST LIKE ANY OTHER LOT IN THE COUNTY BUT BECAUSE OF THIS CHARACTERISTIC, REASONABLE RELIEF IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF OUR CODE. IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO REAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA AND NO VISIBILITY OF THIS REQUEST OTHER THAN FROM THE MARSHLAND IN THE BACK. YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF, TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEWED THIS AND THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THIS HAPPENED. THEY STATE THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. UCS STAFF TELLS YOU THERE ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT RECEIVED NO OTHER RESPONSES OR COMMENT AND YOU SEE WITHIN YOUR PACKET YOU SEE CORRESPONDENCE SAYING THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. ONE SAYS AFTER REVIEWING IT AND DISCUSSING WITH NEIGHBORS THEY DON'T HAVE OPPOSITION TO THIS INCREASE IN HEIGHT. WE BELIEVE THIS IS REASONABLE AND NOT DETECTABLE AND THUS THE MINOR VARIANCE WILL NOT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FINALLY, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE FACT IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IT IS NOTABLE THAT THE GREATER THE FRONT OF THE -- IS HIGHER AND THIS ALLOWS THE STRUCTURE TO APPEAR WITHIN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITS. YOUR TECHNICAL STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND THEY HAVE SUPPLIED A MOTION. IT DOES SAY A MOTION TO APPROVE BUT IT REALLY IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. PROVIDE SIX FINDINGS AND SIX CONDITIONS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND THE FAMILY JUST ASKED FOR YOUR REASONABLE CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY MEET THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. MR. GREEN. >> I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT BUT THE OTHER QUESTION, WHAT IS THE FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL, ABOVE SEA LEVEL. I ASSUME THEY HAD TO FILL BECAUSE OF FEMA? >> I THINK SO. >> THERE IS SO MUCH RIDING ON THIS BUT, I ASSUME THAT IS WHY THERE IS STILL, BECAUSE OF FEMA REQUIREMENTS? >> WRITES. I THINK IT IS 9.34. IT HAS TO BE UP TO 9 FEET. >> I'M GOING TO SAY NINE OR ALMOST 10 NOW. >> YES. >> THIS IS WHAT CAUSED IT. THE HOUSE IS NOT OVER 35 FEET AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE. IT IS JUST THE WAY THE COUNTY MEASURES. WE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE WAREHOUSE OFF OF 207. THEY RAISED IT 4 FEET. >> JUST BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT FILL THIS SPOT WHICH IS IN THEIR NATURAL CHARACTERISTIC ON-SITE WHICH CAUSES THE HARDSHIP OF BEING 2 FEET EIGHT INCHES ON THE BACKSIDE. >> YOU ARE GOING TO RUN ACROSS US ALL THE TIME. >> MOST LOTS YOU CAN FILL THAT AND IT WOULD NOT MEASURE OVER 35 BUT WHEN THEY WENT OUT TO DO THE FINAL GRADING PLAN THIS WAS DISCOVERED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE OR TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. WHERE CAN A HOUSE BE OVER 35 FOOT? DO YOU [00:20:02] HAVE TO SEE IT? OR IS IT SOMEWHERE DEEP BEHIND THE HOUSE? AND IS THAT A CHANGE THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE CODE WHERE IF YOU% CANNOT PHYSICAL SEE IT FROM THE ROAD IT CAN BE ABOVE THAT LEVEL? THIS IS A PART OF HOW THE RULES ARE VERY OBJECTIVE. IT IS LIKE, WE WILL JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND IF THAT WAS THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE, THE STRUCTURE IS BUILT, IT COMES DOWN TO HAVING THIS ONE AREA THAT IS THROWING IT OFF, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE TO BUILD THAT HOUSE? HOW LONG DID THE PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF THAT, DID THE SURVEY COMPANY KNOW ALL OF THE INS AND OUTS OF WHAT TOOK PLACE FOR THE GRADING? YES, YOU ARE BACKING RIGHT UP TO A MARSH. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. SOMETIMES IT TAKES SO LONG THEN THEY FIND THIS LAST LITTLE THING. IS, OH BY THE WAY, WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS. IT IS BECOMING A CONSTANT CONSTANT LAST PART OF THE BUILD. WE NEED TO GO CHANGE THIS AND PRETTY MUCH IT WILL GET CHANGED. AND, IF WE STRIP IT DOWN TO OUTSIDE AND LOOK AT THE CORE OF THOSE INCIDENTS, IT IS TAKEN ALL THE WAY TO THE AND THEN WE JUST TAKE IT DOWN. IF IT IS JUST A FEW FEET OR IF IT IS JUST SEVEN INCHES ON A SWIMMING POOL GETTING REDESIGNED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. OR IS IT A SIGN THAT NEEDS TO BE 10 FOOT BIGGER IN DIAMETER SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT FROM I-95. WE NEED TO MAKE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. THESE ARE PAID PROFESSIONALS TO DO THESE PROJECTS LIKE THIS. LET'S QUESTION THEM AND HAVE THEM PAY THE BILL. IT IS THE PROCESS AND WE KNOW IT. THIS HAS BECOME A HABITUAL EVENT OF LAST-MINUTE CHANGES. IS IT ARCHITECTURAL? IS THERE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS OUT THERE? WHO KNOWS? AT THE END THIS COMES IN WITH THE LAST GRADING OF THE PROPERTY. HOW MANY TIMES WAS IT GRADED BEFORE THAT? MAYBE IT IS THE COMMON SENSE ASPECT THAT I TRY TO LOOK AT THINGS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. GREEN. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE. THIS IS A COMMON SENSE DECISION. WHENEVER YOU BUILD NEAR A CONSERVATION ZONE YOU HAVE FEMA AND I GUESS YOU HAVE FEMA EVERYWHERE BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO START AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT. IT IS SORT OF A CLUMSY -- I'M SURE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE HERE EITHER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS BUT AT SOME POINT I THINK THE COUNTY COMMISSION OUGHT TO ADDRESS WHERE THEY ARE DOING ELEVATIONS ON PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT MEET FEMA MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. IF THERE WAS NOT A FEMA MINIMUM REQUIREMENT THEN I WOULD SAY SOMEBODY HAS ARGUMENT BUT, HERE, YOU ARE SORT OF STUCK. I AM GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF ZVAR 2024-21 430 LAKESHORE DRIVE, DWELLING HEIGHT BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? [3. SUPMIN 2024-09 Hansen More Than One Main Use. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow the placement of More Than One Main Use Structure on a Residential Lot in Open Rural (OR) zoning, pursuant to Sections 2.03.28 and 2.04.07 of the Land Development Code, specifically located at 830 Kings Estate Road.] >> SECOND >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. ONTO ITEM NUMBER THREE. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? MR. HANSON. >> DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THIS COME ON THE SCREEN? >> NO . >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY WIFE AND I ARE HERE TO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PUT A SECOND RESIDENCE ON OUR PROPERTY. WE CAME HERE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO BEFORE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND WE DID GET APPROVAL FOR THE PERMIT BUT IT HAS SINCE EXPIRED BECAUSE WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BEFORE WE KNEW THAT WE COULD BUILD ON IT. WE GOT IT [00:25:08] APPROVED AND FINAL PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND FOUND A BUILDER AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS IT TOOK OVER A YEAR AND THE PERMIT EXPIRED. SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN TO GET THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WE HAVE FOUR ACRES OFF OF KINGS ESTATE ROAD. THERE IS A HOUSE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE LIVE IN AND WHEN WE BUILT OUR HOUSE OUR MOTHER-IN-LAW WILL MOVE INTO THAT HOUSE. SHE IS GETTING OLDER AND CANNOT LIVE ON HER OWN ANYMORE SO WE WILL HAVE A HOUSE IN THE BACK. NOTHING EXTRAVAGANT. SO, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE AND GOT APPROVED. THAT IS IT, REALLY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? SEEING NONE WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION . >> MR. PETER. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SUPMIN 2024-09 . >> SECOND. PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. [4. MINMOD 2024-22 Fairfield Ponte Vedra Point Cafe/Coffee Company. Request for a Minor Modification to the Fairfield at Ponte Vedra PUD (Ord. 1984-29, as amended) to allow for a drive-through ATM to be converted to a cafe/coffee company. This request was previously approved via MINMOD 2022-22; however, the project failed to commence within one (1) year of approval as required by Resolution 2023-05, specifically located at 854 A1A N.] >> THE MOTION PASSES. >> ITEM NUMBER FOUR. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE. I'M SORRY, MISS SPIEGEL. >> YES, MADAM CHAIR, I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DOUG BURNETT. >> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT HERE RIGHT AT THE PERFECT TIME. >> BETTER TO BE LUCKY THAN GOOD SOMETIMES. GOOD AFTERNOON. DOUG BURNETT ST. JOHNS LAW GROUP. I WANT TO START BY SAYING A LOT OF THE TIMES YOU DEAL WITH TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS OF APPLICATIONS HERE. YOU DEAL WITH VARIANCES AND SPECIAL USE PERMITS WERE YOU PUT A TIMEFRAME ON THEM. AND IN THE PUD WORLD WE THINK IN TERMS OF THERE IS A SECTION OF THE PUD TEXT AND IN THE PHASING SECTION THAT IS HOW WE KNOW WHAT THE TIME PERIODS ARE AND IF THE PROJECT IS ALREADY BUILT, SEE IT WAS A SUBDIVISION WHERE EVERYTHING STUBBED OUT, YOU ARE VESTED FOR THAT LOT AND UNIT AND YOU DON'T HAVE A TIME PERIOD. THE UNUSUAL THING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION IS WE WENT THERE AND GOT IT APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO. EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN THE PUD WORLD WHERE THERE IS A PHASING SCHEDULE, THE ORDER, THE RESOLUTION APPROVED THE MINOR MODIFICATION HAD LANGUAGE IN IT WITH A ONE YEAR TIME PERIOD LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE IN A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND MY CLIENT DID NOT CATCH IT. THEY DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS THAT LIMITATION ON THEIR. THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A VESTED SITE SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. IT IS NOT TO CHANGE ANYTHING RELATED TO THE USE. IT IS MERELY THAT IT HAD A ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT AND IT LAPSED. WITH THAT I WILL JUST SHOW YOU THE PROJECT IN GENERAL. WAY APPEAR IN NORTH PONTE VEDRA , IT IS A VERY WELL DEFINED AREA, YOU CAN SEE WALGREENS AND THE PURPLE IS THE OVERALL SITE. WALGREENS IS PART OF THE SITE. MCDONALD'S TO THE SOUTH AND ACE HARDWARE. IN THE PGA TOUR BUILDING. PNC BANK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH TIP OF THE WALGREENS SITE. EXISTING CONDITIONS, AGAIN, THIS IS THE LOCATION. IT IS A CHASE BANK. NOTHING CHANGES TO CONVERT IT TO A COFFEE SHOP OR A CAFE. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE EXISTING. THE STRUCTURE THERE BUT THE DRIVER ILES ALREADY FIT AND WORK FOR THE SITE. LET'S GET PAST SOME OF US. SO WE KNOW WHAT IS IN THE OVERLAY. THIS IS WHERE IT WAS APPROVED IN 2003. IT WAS APPROVED AS CONVERSION TO BE A CAFE COFFEE SHOP AND THIS IS THE LANGUAGE. RATHER THAN BEING IN THE PUD DACHSHUD HAS THIS TYPICAL RESOLUTION LANGUAGE LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE FOR A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE INTENDED USE. AND PUT IT IN CONTEXT OF THE DRAWING. LITERALLY, THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE AND THIS IS WHAT IT WILL BECOME WHEN IT IS A DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP AND CAFE. I WILL SHOW YOU THAT WITH A SOFTER VIEW. IT LINES UP AND PARKING STAYS THE SAME. EVERYTHING ELSE, THE ACCESS [00:30:09] POINTS AND EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME. THAT IS IT. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS? DR. HILSENBECK? >> DOUG, I DID NOT THINK ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY BUT I WAS IN PONTE VEDRA ON MONDAY AND THEN DRIVING BACK SOUTH I NOTICED RIGHT THERE, I BELIEVE RIGHT BY YOUR PROJECT THERE IS A LOT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT CORRECT? I WONDER HOW THAT MIGHT COMPLICATE YOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC FLOW? IT SEEMED TO BE FROM A1A TO --. >> AS FAR AS TRAFFIC GENERATION IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING LINKED TO OUR SITE. ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, WE ARE TALKING LOW TRIP GENERATION. FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH THIS IS NOT TO ACCOMMODATE A LOCATION WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE INDOOR DINING TYPE FACILITY LIKE YOUR TYPICAL STARBUCKS IF YOU WOULD. IT DOES NOT FIT ON THIS SITE. THIS IS MORE OF THE NEW MODERN AND THE -- COFFEE BRAND, THEY DON'T HAVE INSIDE SEATING. SMOOTHIE KING, THEIR NEW MODEL DOES NOT HAVE INDOOR SEATING. THEY DON'T HAVE SANDWICHES. IT IS DRIVE-THROUGH ONLY. IT REALLY ALIGNS PERFECTLY FOR THIS KIND OF FIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. A.K.A., MR. JONES. I THINK THAT IS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS. I KNOW THAT AREA PRETTY WELL AND IT IS THE TRAFFIC. WILL THERE BE JUST THAT ONE ENTRY EXIT POINT SHOWN ON THE MAP? OR WILL THERE BE ONE ON THE NORTH PART SO TRAFFIC CAN GET IN AND AROUND? AND IF IT IS SUCH A GREAT PLACE AND DRIVE-THROUGH, HOW MUCH WILL IT BUILD UP PEOPLE IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH LINE? THAT WILL IMPEDE TRAFFIC GOING INTO THAT AREA? >> ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. MR. BURNETT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? >> I CAN GET BACK BUT THIS IS A FULLY INTEGRATED SITE SO YOU HAVE ACCESS POINTS BACK OUT ONTO A1A FURTHER SOUTH TO THE EAST AND THE WEST. IT IS FULLY CONNECTED INTO WALGREENS. NOTHING ABOUT THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE. IT IS COMMON OWNERSHIP. THIS PORTION IS ALL PART OF THE SAME PUD PROPERTY. SO THAT PART OF IT WILL NOT CHANGE. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM . SMOOTHIE KING, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE AT THIS LOCATION IT WILL BE A PROBLEM. THAT IS THE INTENDED USE, BY THE WAY. SOMEONE MIGHT BE WONDERING IF IT IS INTENDED TO BE A SMOOTHIE LOCATION. >> THANK YOU. MR. GREEN? >> I AM READY TO MAKE A MOTION BUT THIS IS THE SECOND ONE, THIS IS THE SECOND ONE WE HAVE REVIEWED TODAY BECAUSE OF TIMELINE AND IT WAS ALWAYS MY IMPRESSION, THAT WHEN WE HAD THESE STORMS EXTENDED PERMITTING BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF INCOME TAX STUFF, DOES THIS FALL UNDER IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULE. I HAVE HEARD IT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE EDUCATED ON IT. >> THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT. ON THAT POINT I WILL SHARE WITH YOU, ONE, IF THE CLIENT HAD CONCERNED THAT THIS WAS NOT A VESTED SITE ALREADY BUILT, ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS BUILT AND NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO REQUEST A DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXTENSION UNDER THE STATE EMERGENCIES. WE DID NOT FIND OUT UNTIL AFTER THE FACT. WE HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS AN ISSUE. WE HAVE ALL DRIVEN THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE ALL OF THESE HOMES ARE BUILT AND THERE IS A VACANT LOTS AND HOMES ARE BUILT AND A VACANT LOT. THEY PUD HAS EXPIRED BUT NOBODY IS GOING TO STOP FOLKS FROM BUILDING ON THAT LOT BECAUSE IT IT IT IS VESTED. NOT BECAUSE IT PREDATED THE CODE. ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS BUILT. WE CAN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT HERE. I [00:35:04] THINK RIGHTFULLY THIS IS A VESTED USE THAT IS FULLY BUILT OUT. THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE FOR THE USE. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS A TIMING ISSUE. IF I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THAT WITH COUNTY STAFF, I AM GOING TO LOSE TIME AND NOT GET THE PROJECT WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO AND THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD. I THINK I HAVE THAT TECHNICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT AND MAYBE I DON'T NEED TO BE HERE TODAY BUT SOMETIMES IT IS EASIER TO JUST GO WITH THE FLOW AND GET IT DONE. IF WE HAD KNOWN WE WOULD HAVE DONE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXTENSION AND THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IT AND WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. WE MISSED IT BY A COUPLE OF WEEKS. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT SOMEWHAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION BUT I WOULD LIKE MORE SOMETIME. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE. IT READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINMOD 2024-22 FAIRFIELD PONTE VEDRA POINT CAFÉ/COFFEE COMPANY BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS, AS PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER [5. REZ 2024-20 745 Wildwood Drive. Request to rezone approximately one (1) acre of land from Open Rural (OR) to Residential, Single Family (RS-2), located specifically at 745 Wildwood Drive.] DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, NAYS TEEN THE MOTION PASSES. ONTO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. IS THERE ANY EX PARTE? IT IS COMING. >> I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH KENNETH GATCHELL AND THREE OR FOUR OF HIS CHILDREN . >> ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. IAM CHRISTINA GATCHELL AND THIS IS 745 WILDWOOD DRIVE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. WHERE DO I POINT THIS? OKAY. SO, WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY. APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND. IT IS ZONED TO OPEN RURAL AND WE WENT TO REZONE TWO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RS 2. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS A VOTE FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. I WILL TALK ABOUT HOW AND DEMONSTRATE HOW THE REZONING MAINTAINS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THEY WANT TO DO THIS. SO, THIS IS THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HOUSE AND THIS IS NOT THE MOST CURRENT SURVEY. THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY. WILDWOOD DRIVE HAS QUITE A BIT OF ROAD FRONTAGE. YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL VIEW THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS IS ZONING MAP HIGHLIGHTS THAT NEARBY PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN REZONE TO VARIOUS ZONING DESIGNATIONS OVER THE YEARS. 715 WILDWOOD DRIVE TO THE EAST WAS REZONED TO RS 2 IN THE 90S AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE RS 2 AND RS 3. THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH A 1 311. AND ALSO WITH RESIDENTIAL C FUTURE LAND-USE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS NOW LOCATED. SO, WHY ARE WE REQUESTING THIS REZONING? HERE AGAIN YOU SEE THE PROPERTY. EVENTUALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO CUT THE PROPERTY INTO WHERE THIS REDLINE IS. OUR INTENTION IS TO SPLIT WITH OPEN RURAL AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE ACRE. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE TWO HALF ACRE LOTS. THIS IS WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR US. ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU SEE THE LEFT HALF OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. ON THE RIGHT YOU SEE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE AND THERE IS CURRENTLY AN ACCESSORY BUILDING PICTURED AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND OUR INTENTION IS TO PUT A RESIDENCE AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE COULD MOVE INTO. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE DONE THE [00:40:07] RESEARCH AND WE HAVE MADE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY COMPLIES WITH ALL ZONING REGULATIONS AND THIS SHOWS THAT THE CURRENT BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, IT MEETS ALL SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTIAL 2. THERE IS A DEDICATED ELECTRICAL LINE AND WE HAVE A CODE TO TAP INTO CITY SEWER AND WATER AND THE PLAN FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS WOULD MEET ALL SETBACKS AS REQUIRED BY RESIDENTIAL TOO. SO, WE HAVE DONE THE RESEARCH, WE HAVE MADE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS AND WE BELIEVE REZONING WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY. YOU HAVE HEARD OUR REQUEST TO REZONE FROM OPEN WORLD TO RESIDENTIAL RS 2. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, FUTURE LAND-USE AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT OUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE AND WHY WE ARE MAKING THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS? MISS SPIEGEL. >> HELLO. YOU HAVE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN BY THE WAY. >> THANK YOU . >> MY ONLY QUESTION IS, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON CITY SEWER AND WATER? >> IT HAS WILDWOOD WATER AND IT HAS SEPTIC TANK. >> YOU DO HAVE SEPTIC. WILL YOU BECOME CONVERTING THAT RESIDENCE AS WELL? >> JUST THE NEW ONE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MISS SPIEGEL. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZ 2024-20 745 WILDWOOD DRIVE UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL [7. Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for Planning and Zoning Agency Member Appointments. ] AND A SECOND. PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS OFF THE AGENDA SO WE MOVE ONTO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MEMBER APPOINTMENTS. MR. JACK PETER AND MR. GREEN HAVE TERMS EXPIRING AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO BE REAPPOINTED ALONG WITH NUMEROUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET. I LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE APPOINTMENTS. >> MR. TAYLOR, DO I NEED TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION? >> THAT IS UP TO YOU. BUT YOU DO NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT . >> BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSIONS OR MOTIONS, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? SEEING NONE WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY. SO, MR. MATOVINA. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF JACK PETER AND HENRY GREEN FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEAR TERM TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF JACK PETER AND HENRY GREEN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SO IT IS NOT INDIVIDUAL? WE DON'T DO THEM ONE AT A TIME? >> WE NEED TO VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. NOW IT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? >> I HAD ANOTHER CANDIDATE THAT I WANTED TO BRING FORWARD. NOT THAT I DON'T LOVE THIS GROUP. AND WE CAN ADD AN EIGHT SEAT. >> YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND CHARLES LEVANDOWSKI TO THE CHAIR DASHED TO THE BOARD. >> SECOND . >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? SEEING NONE, LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO GO FIRST? I WILL MAKE A COMMENT. I HAVE APPRECIATED YOU BEING ON THE BOARD. I THINK WE HAVE AN EQUAL AND FAIR BOARD AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU GET REAPPOINTED. AND MR. LABANOWSKI, [00:45:02] I THINK YOU WOULD BE A GREAT CANDIDATE AS WELL. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING TO THE MEETINGS AND WE ENJOY YOU EVERY TIME YOU GET A.. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> JUST ON BEHALF OF MR. LABANOWSKI, I AGREE. WE HAVE A GREAT BOARD. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CITIZEN THAT IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH KING KENDALL. HE SHOWS UP FOR EVERY BCC MEETING AND EVERY PZA MEETING AND HE ASKS QUESTIONS. I WAS THINKING ANOTHER QUESTION OSCAR MIGHT BE A BENEFICIAL THING, EVEN IF JUST FOR THE FACTOR OF EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT ITEMS. THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON I BROUGHT HIM FORWARD. THANK YOU. >> SO THE FIRST MARTIAN WAS FOR JACK PETER, CORRECT? MOTION TO APPROVE JACK PETER. ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES. THE SECOND MOTION WAS FOR REAPPOINTMENT FOR MR. GREEN. PLEASE REGISTER THE VOTE. THE MOTION PASSES AS WELL. THANK YOU, YOU GUYS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE DCC. IS THERE ANY [Staff Reports] STAFF REPORTS? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST ONE QUICK REPORT. THE PZA WILL BE RECEIVING FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES FOR 2024, THEY ARE DUE JULY 21ST OF THIS YEAR. AND THOSE WILL BE EMAILED OUT ALONG WITH THE UP COMING AGENDA PACKETS FOR FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING. LAST TIME EVERYONE [Agency Reports] THOUGHT THEY WERE SPAM MAIL BUT THEY ARE NOT SO BE MINDFUL THEY WILL BE COMING THROUGH. >> ANY AGENCY REPORTS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT HAPPENED WITH ITEM NUMBER SIX? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THERE WAS AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE PZA THAT THE CHAIR REMOVED THAT WAS IN REGARD TO COMMERCIAL CONCURRENCY. THE ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY AT THE MOST RECENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST. IT WAS A REQUEST BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND THROUGH THE THROUGH THE DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING, ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD INFLUENCE WAS THAT IT WAS LIKELY TO BE VERY -- A BURDEN UPON SMALL BUSINESSES WITH THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT SO WAS VOTED DOWN AND THERE IS NO ACTION TO TAKE. >> WAS IT A SPLIT VOTE? >> IT WAS 3-2. >> THANK YOU. >> * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.