Jul 17, 2025 Planning and Zoning Agency

>> I MADE A SITE VISIT ON MY WAY HERE

TODAY. >> I DID A SITE VISIT AND ALSO TALKED TO SEVERAL HOMEOWNERS WITHIN THE AREA AND TALKED TO SEVERAL REAL ESTATE AGENTS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM HAROLD TIMMONS WITH TOWER ENGINEER PROFESSIONALS. WE'RE HE INDICATED IN CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA. I HAVE WITH ME TODAY ABBY PORTER. WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS. TO START, I HAVE HANDOUTS I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD. COPIES OF ADDITIONAL PHOTO SIMULATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE AND A COPY OF THE REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL STUDY IN HARD COPY FORM THAT I EMAILED TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION.

THE TOTAL HEIGHT IS 150 FEET. THE FAA HAS NOT

[00:10:08]

REQUIRED ANY SAFETY LIGHTING. THE TOWER IS DESIGNED AND IN A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE WILL REMAIN ON PROPERTY. VERIZON IS THE TENANT, BUT THE TOWER WILL SUPPORT ADDITIONAL USERS IF NEEDED.

ACCESS TO THE LINE WOULD BE ALONG THE 20- FOOT EASEMENT OF TIMBER LANE. THE LEASE AREA IS 2,500 SQUARE FEET, A 50 BY 50 SQUARE BASICALLY.

IT WILL BE SURROUNDED WITH AN EIGHT- FOOT TALL FENCE MADE OF PFC. OUTSIDE THAT FENCE THERE WILL BE A TEN- FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPING STRIP.

TENANTS WHO UTILIZE THE STRUCTURE VISIT ONCE PER MONTH, ONCE PER QUARTER OR BIANNUALLY.

EACH ONE OPERATES DIFFERENTLY. LOCATION OF LAYOUT, THE MAP HERE SHOWS THE LOCATION FROM THE PROPERTY LINES.

IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS LOCATED 192 FEET TO THE WEST. TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE THERE'S RS-2 ZONING, IT'S 465 FEET.

TO THE EAST WHERE THERE'S RS-2 ZONING WITH 390 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONAL 20, 30 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NEXT NEAREST PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS AN ELEVATION VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE TOP SET OF ANTENNAS WILL BE FOR VERIZON.

THE REMAINING THREE ARE FUTURE LOCATIONS SHOULD WE BE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND SHOULD THERE BE OTHER IERS IN THE AREA THAT FIND THE LOCATION PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WOULD LOCATE THEIR EQUIPMENT. AT THE BASE IS EIGHT- FOOT BROWN GRANITE STONE PFC PIPING. FOCUSING ON THE COMPOUND TSELF, YOU CAN SEE THE LANDSCAPING WE WOULD PROVIDE AROUND THE PFC FENCING.

THERE'S NO DIRECT VIEW INTO THE COMPOUND AS THE GATE OR ACCESS AND ENTRY FACES TIMBER LANE AND AWAY FROM FORT PEYTON DRIVE.

THERE WILL BE AN ON- SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

THIS IS A PROFILE VIEW OF THE BROWN, GRANITE STONE PFC FENCING. AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR ZONING IS O.R. TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST IS O.R.

TO THE NORTH IS O.R. TO THE FURTHER WEST IS PUD.

TO THE SOUTH AND EAST RS-2. THIS COMES INTO PLAY AS WE WERE SEARCHING FOR A LOCATION IN THIS AREA UTILIZING THE 2.5-MILE SEARCH RADIUS. AREAS FURTHER TO THE WEST, SOUTH AND TO THE EAST WERE BASICALLY REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION BASED ON THEIR ZONING. IN ESSENCE 75% OF THE AREA THAT WE HAD TO SEARCH IN WAS REMOVED BASED ON ITS ZONING BECAUSE THERE ARE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. NO VACANT LAND IN THOSE AREAS.

THIS IS HOW WE ENDED UP WITH ÷÷THIS SITE.

WE INVESTIGATED EACH SITE WITH A YELLOW ARROW ON IT AND WERE NOT ABLE TO GET PROPERTY OWNER INTEREST OR GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM. THE TWO GREEN PINS ON THERE ARE LOCATIONS WHERE WE DID HAVE NEGOTIATIONS.

WE NEGOTIATED IT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH THE PRESBYTARIAN CHURCH.

MOST IMPORTANTLY WITHIN THE . 25 MILE RADIUS THERE ARE NO EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT CAN BE USED. NO EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 1.0 MILES LOCATION THAT VERIZON COULD HAVE POSSIBLY LOCATED ON. WE GET INTO THE RF ASPECT OF

[00:15:07]

THE SITE. THIS IS A LIST OF ALL THE SITES THAT CURRENTLY COMPRISE THE VERIZON NETWORK.

THERE ARE SEVEN EXISTING SITES ON THIS LIST, TWO FUTURE SITES THAT VERIZON HAS EITHER PROPOSED OR THEY'RE IN SOME STATE OF APPROVAL OR THEY'VE BEEN A APPROVED. HAVEN'T BEEN CONSTRUCTED, AS WELL AS THE ONE WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.

THE TECHNOLOGY THEY PLAN TO USE IS 4G AND 5G.

THIS MAP REPRESENTS THAT LIST I JUST SHOWED YOU IN A MAPPED OUT FORM.

THE NEAREST STRUCTURES ARE 1. 1 AND 1. 2 MILES AWAY. THE FURTHEST STRUCTURE IS 3.5 ÷÷MILES AWAY. THIS IS THE CARRIER COVERAGE WITHIN THE AREA THAT VERIZON HAS.

WE CONSIDER THE AREAS IN RED TO BE UNRELIABLE.

THIS IS BEFORE. THIS IS AFTER SHOULD THE SITE BE APPROVED. SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN THE COVERAGE WITHIN THE AREA.

THIS IS THE MAP SHOWING THE LOCATIONS FOR WHERE WE DID PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATIONS. WE INITIALLY DID EIGHT PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATIONS. AFTER THE COMMUNITY MEETING WE ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS.

ITEM NINE AND TEN ARE HANDOUTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. WE ATTEMPTED TO PROVIDE PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATIONS IN A 360-DEGREE FASHION.

LOCATION ONE 1,300 FEET AWAY AND, AS YOU CAN SEE -- HOLD ON.

IT'S NOT WORKING NOW. OH, THERE IT IS.

THAT IS THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER.

500 -- I BELIEVE 680 FEET AWAY THERE'S A TOWER LOOKING ACROSS THE CHURCH. ENTRANCE INTO FORT PEYTON, TOWER'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THAT LOCATION.÷÷THIS IS LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. NO TREES NECESSARILY ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S THE CEMETERY.

THAT'S THE VIEW LOOKING STRAIGHT IN ON THE SITE. THIS LOCATION IS 1,360 FEET.

YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE -- I'M TRYING TO GET THE -- RIGHT THERE IS THE LOCATION.

585 FEET, TOWER ABOVE THE TREES THERE. THIS IS ROUGHLY 1,000 FEET AWAY AND THE TOWER IS NOT VISIBLE LOCATED WITHIN THAT TREE LINE. LOCATION EIGHT, BASICALLY THIS IS THE FURTHEST ONE AWAY, ABOUT 1,800 FEET AWAY.

AND IT'S RIGHT THERE. POPS UP JUST ABOVE THE RIDGE LINE RIGHT THERE. I'LL PULL IT BACK SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE. THERE YOU GO.

LOCATION NINE, THIS IS THE LOCATION WE ADDED AFTER THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WE PROVIDED HANDOUTS ON.

THIS IS FORT PEYTON CIRCLE LOOKING BACK ON FORT PEYTON DRIVE.

THE TOWER SITE WITH THE TREELINE THERE IS NOT VISIBLE.

LOCATION TEN, THIS IS ALSO -- THIS IS THE WESTERN EDGE OF FORT PEYTON CIRCLE. THIS IS THE EASTERN END OF FORT PEYTON CIRCLE WHERE IT COMES INTO FORT PEYTON DRIVE. THERE IS THE TOWER RIGHT THERE.

IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE, VERIZON COMPLIES WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.

COMMUNICATIONS SITES OPERATE AT A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF FCC EMISSION REQUIREMENTS. FACILITIES ARE INSPECTED BY INTERNAL AND THIRD- PARTY ENTITIES AT REGULAR

[00:20:01]

INTERVALS TO ENSURE PROPER AUTHORIZATION AND COMPLIANCE.

COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE FROM HOSPITALS TO SCHOOLS TO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.

LOCAL ZONING COMPLIANCE, STAFF HAS CONDUCTED MULTIPLE REVIEWS OF APPLICANT'S MATERIALS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE BEFORE SCHEDULING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. A COMMUNITY MEETING WAS HELD ON THE 14TH OF MAY WITH ATTENDANCE BY RESIDENTS OF THE NEARBY COMMUNITY. ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOLDING THE COMMUNITY MEETING WERE MET INCLUDING ADVERTISING IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND THREE SEPARATE MAILINGS ADVISING RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE TOWER OF THE TIME, DATE AND COMMUNITY MEETING LOCATION.

WE ALSO HAVE STATE AND FEDERAL COMPLIANCE.

WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE CALL A STUDY.

WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS AN EMAIL RESPONSE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER. BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED THEM, WHICH IS THEIR OPINION, THEY STATE HERE THAT THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES DIRECTLY OR ADVERSE EFFECT ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES VISUALLY.

WE ALSO DID AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND OUR CONSULTANT DID THAT STUDY BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024. THIS IS A LIST OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY HAVE TO CHECK.

ITEM THREE MOST NOTABLY DEALS WITH ENDANGERED SPECIES WHERE THEY CHECKED NO. TO FURTHER STATE, THEY ENLISTED THE TORTOISE AND THE PINE SNAKE IN PARTICULAR AND THEIR FINDING WAS THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL HABITAT FOR TORTOISES AND PINE SNAKES IN THE VICINITY. ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE, THEY DON'T CONSULT REGARDING PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS. AS NONE WERE OBSERVED, IT'S ASSUMED NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF THESE SPECIES WILL RESULT AS A PART OF THIS UNDERTAKING AND NO FURTHER CONSULTATION OCCURRED.

THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON MAY 14TH DASH AT THE MAY 14TH COMMUNITY MEETING RESIDENTS EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT EMISSIONS, HEALTH AND SAFETY, AESTHETICS AND PROPERTY VALUES. HAVING TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS BOARD, I'M AWARE OF THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESTRICTION ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ABILITY TO REGULATE÷÷ ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND THAT SUCH TESTIMONY IS I AM PERMISSIBLE. AS FAR AS AESTHETICS, IT'S CONSIDERED INSUFFICIENT TO CREATE SUBSTANTIAL OR COMPETENT EVIDENCE FOR PROHIBITING WIRELESS FACILITIES.

FOR AESTHETIC CONCERNS TO BE A VALID BASIS WE REQUEST THE BOARD÷÷SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT IS FACT BASED OF OFFICIAL IMPACT, IE, PHOTO EVIDENCE.

WE'RE OF THE OPINION THAT OUR APPLICATION MEETS THIS TEST AND CONSIDER THE TEN DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION VIEWPOINTS AND SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT IMPACTS OF THE VISUAL ON THE AREA.

IT SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON THE MERE STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL VALUE, BUT SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY EVIDENCE.

SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE PROPERTY APPRAISAL FROM PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING COMPS OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND PROPERTIES. AFTER THE COMMUNITY MEETING, WE CONSIDERED THE COMMENTS RECEIVED AND CONSULTED AN APPRAISER AND A COPY OF THE STUDY HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND A COPY WAS ALSO EMAILED.

THE REAL ESTATE APPRAISER PREPARED THE STUDY.

[00:25:02]

IT'S A 102-PAGE STUDY THAT UTILIZES BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TOWER WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE VALUE.

OVER THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS, THIS CONSULTANT HAS SPOKEN TO OVER 200 REALTORS, STUDIED 300 SALES AND INTERVIEWED 24 COUNTY APPRAISERS. THE STUDY REFERS TO 28 TOWER INSTALLATIONS. AMONG THE 28 INSTALLATIONS HE EVALUATED AND CONFIRMED NO LESS THAN 168 SALES.

FOR THIS STUDY, MR. TAULBEE INTERVIEWED APPRAISER OFFICES, ONE OF WHICH FROM THE ST. JOHNS APPRAISER. HE REPRESENTED THE COUNTY HAS NEVER MADE A PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO A CELLULAR ON TOWER, NOR HAS A PROPERTY OWNER EVER MADE AN APPEAL FOR AN ADJUSTMENT. ON PAGE 97 OF THE STUDY, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED NOT ONE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER INTERVIEWED DURING THE IMPACT STUDY HAS MADE AN ADJUSTMENT DOWNWARD OR OTHERWISE BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO A COMMUNICATION TOWER.

THE REASON BEING IS THERE'S NO MARKET SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF SALES OR RESALES UPON WHICH ASSESSMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED.

HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT THEY'VE PERFORMED SPECIFIC STUDIES IN COLLIER, SARASOTA, SEMINOLE AND OTHER COUNTIES AND THE MARKET EVIDENCE IS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT INDICATING THERE'S NO DISCERNIBLE MARKET DATA TO SUPPORT IMPACTS ON THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTIES AS A RESULT OF PROXIMITY TO A CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWER, REGARDLESS OF TOWER TYPE. TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, THERE MAY BE NO OTHER REAL ESTATE ORGANIZATION WITH AS MUCH HISTORY AND KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING TOWER IMPACT STUDIES IN CENTRAL AND WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA. BASED ON STUDIES CONDUCTED, THE MARKET EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.

THERE'S NO MEASURABLE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO A CELLULAR TOWER. IN SUMMATION, BASED ON THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED IMPACT STUDIES AND INFORMATION REVIEWED AND ANALYZED OVER 25 PLUS YEARS, INCLUDING INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISAL OFFICES, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED TOWER INSTALLATION WILL HAVE ANY MEASURABLE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING OR NEARBY PROPERTY VALUES OR LAND.

WE DID A BRIEF SEARCH WITHIN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

WE FOUND A FEW PROPERTIES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE INTERESTING WHERE THERE WERE HOUSES WITH VIEWS OF TOWERS AND TOOK A QUICK LOOK AT THEM TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY IMPACT ON THEIR VALUE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON SUPREME COURT. I WON'T GIVE THE ADDRESS, BUT I HAVE IT. AS OF 2015 IT WAS VALUED AT -- AS OF 2025 THE VALUE IS $341,962, $194,807 INCREASE.

THAT TOWER IS LOCATED 102 FEET AWAY FROM THAT PARTICULAR HOME. THAT STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 1999. THAT HOUSE WAS BUILT AFTER THE TOWER WAS THERE. THIS TOWER RIGHT HERE BUILT IN 1993. IN 2015 THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT WAS VALUED AT 182 -- I'LL ROUND OUT -- THE ASSESSED VALUE IN 2025, 371,000.

THE TOWER IS LOCATED 420 FEET FROM THAT RESIDENCE.

THIS TOWER IN THE BACKGROUND WAS BUILT IN 1976.

THE PROPERTY -- THE SECOND PROPERTY, 873 GROVE STREET IS 362 FEET AWAY FROM THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE.

IN 2023, VALUED 240. IN 2025, VALUED 251.

[00:30:01]

A GAIN OF 11,000. THE SECOND PROPERTY DOWN, 859, BUILT IN 2023, 227,000 VALUE, ÷÷ASSESSED IN 2024 OF 248. THIS PROPERTY IN 2020 HAD A VALUE OF 278,000, 2025 VALUE OF 359,000.

THIS IS A STRUCTURE THAT -- THAT LAST ONE -- LET ME GO BACK TO THAT REAL QUICK. THAT TOWER THERE, THAT IS A TOWER THAT'S OWNED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY. JUST TO THE LEFT OF THAT, IN THAT TREE WHERE YOU CAN'T SEE, THERE'S A SECOND COMMUNICATION TOWER OWNED BY AMERICAN TOWER.

THAT IS SOUTH OF THE COUNTY- OWNED STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT. THIS IS TWO TOWERS IN THE VICINITY OF THIS STRUCTURE. THAT ONE IS LOCATED 290 FEET FROM THAT HOME. LASTLY, THIS IS A STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT IN 2025.

IT'S LOCATED 228 FEET FROM THAT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHERE THE YELLOW LINE IS POINTING. THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY THERE IS A MOBILE HOME PARK, BUT IN 2020 THE LAND THAT THE MOBILE HOME PARK WAS ASSESSED AT 1,040,000 AS OF 2024 IT'S 1,800,000. VERIZON HAS EVALUATED ITS COVERAGE IN THE AREA AND DETERMINED THERE'S A NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT. THE STRUCTURE WILL IMPROVE WIRELESS COVERAGE IN THE AREA.

THE REQUESTED TOWER HEIGHT IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED TO MEET VERIZON NEEDS AND PROVIDE COVERAGE TO THE SURROUNDING NETWORK. A REDUCTION IN TOWER HEIGHT WILL DIMINISH COVERAGE IMPROVEMENT AND CAPACITY TO THE SERVICE AREA. IT WAS SELECTED DUE TO VERY LIMITED PROPERTY AND INTEREST IN THE 2. 5 SEARCH AREA THAT WAS PREDOMINANTLY ZONED RS AND PUD.

ALSO, THE REMAINING OPENLY RULED ZONED AREA LACKED ANY ADEQUATE STRUCTURES TO CONSIDER LOCATION.

VERIZON WIRELESS IS ATTEMPTING ÷÷TO BE PROACTIVE AND TAKING ACTION TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE NETWORK SO THEIR CUSTOMER, BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL, CAN UTILIZE THE NETWORK FEATURES WITHOUT UNNECESSARY INTERRUPTIONS. FINALLY, IN OUR VIEW GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THE REGION, THE PROPOSED TOWER WILL NOT HARM THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE OVERALL HEALTH, SECURITY AND PROSPERITY OF THE COMMUNITY WILL NOT BE DIMINISHED AS THE TOWER WILL MAKE FOR IMPROVED SAFETY, CAUSING LESS DROPPED CALLS BY RESIDENTS OR EMS RESPONDING TO THE AREA.

THE TOWER WORKS FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. THE SUCCESS, WEALTH AND GOOD FORTUNE WILL NOT BE IMPEDED AND THE COMMUNITY WILL CONTINUE TO FLOURISH AND THRIVE. THE EXISTING COMMUNITIES IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY, WHILE CONTINUING TO THRIVE, WITH NO RECORD OF LOSS OF VALUE.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT

HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MATOVINA?

>> COULD YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL PLEASE.

>> THIS ONE?

>> YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE MOST PART -- YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ATTEMPT AT A USE OF THE LAND. WHAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE HOME TOSS S TO THE WEST. I ASSUME THEY COME DOWN THAT DIRT ROAD AND HAVE TO COME DOWN THAT

DRIVEWAY. >> THERE'S A GATE AT THE END OF IT THAT HAD SOME SIGNS THAT MADE ME NOT WANT TO GO UP THERE

[00:35:04]

TO TURN AROUND. SOME SHERIFF SIGNS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ANYWAY, THE PROPERTY OWNER KNOWS THE RESIDENTS TO THE WEST AND HAS SPOKEN TO THE RESIDENTS TO THE WEST.

THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE TOWER.

WE ASKED FOR SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM THEM, BUT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE IT. BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TOWER. THEY DID NOT ATTEND ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY LETTERS FROM THEM OR RECEIVED ANY CALLS.

>> WELL, WHETHER SOMEBODY OBJECTS OR NOT IS NOT OUR JOB. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO VOTE BASED ON POPULARITY. COMPATIBILITY IS THE QUESTION HERE. IN ANY EVENT, I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE WITH YOU. MY OTHER QUESTION IS WE JUST GOT THIS STUDY. I THINK YOU EMAILED IT TO US THIS MORNING OR LATE YESTERDAY.

>> NO. IT WAS MONDAY.

>> OKAY. IN ANY EVENT, I WAS LOOKING AT THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR THIS STUDY AND TO JUST TAKE WHAT A HOME SOLD FOR IN 2017 AND COMPARE IT TO THE FACT THAT IT SOLD FOR ME IN 2023 AND SAY THE TOWER DIDN'T IMPACT THE VALUE AND NOT CONSIDER THE OVERALL CHANGE IN THE MARKET, I DON'T REALLY CONSIDER THAT TO BE A VERY VALID STUDY.

DON'T YOU THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MARKET INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY AFTER COVID HIT? OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN GENERAL THE MARKET IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY WENT UP 22% AND HOMES WENT UP 22%.

THEY JUST TOOK NUMBERS AND COMPARED THEM.

DON'T YOU THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHAT APPRECIATION OCCURRED IN HOMES NOT NEAR THE TOWER?

>> WHAT I -- I'M NOT A CERTIFIED APPRAISER.

I HAVE TO TRUST THE VALUE AND COMPETENCE OF THE CERTIFIED APPRAISER. MY ONLY COMMENT TO THE STATEMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE IS THAT, IF PROPERTIES DIMINISHED DURING COVID AND REBOUNDED AFTERWARDS, WHAT WAS THE EFFECTO OF THE TOWER? SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS NONE.

>> NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT PROPERTIES NOT NEAR THE TOWER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF THE WHOLE MARKET WENT UP 20% AND THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE ONLY WENT UP 10%, MAYBE THE TOWER HAD AN INFLUENCE.

WE DON'T KNOW FROM THE INFORMATION IN THIS

APPRAISAL. >> ALL THE CERTIFIED APPRAISERS AROUND THE COUNTRY, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NO INDEPENDENT -- THERE'S NO FACTORS YOU CAN DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE VALUE OF A HOME TO A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER. THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT FACTORS INVOLVED IN WHAT AFFECTS THE PRICE OF A HOME. I WALK INTO A HOUSE AND I DON'T LIKE THE KITCHEN, THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A LESSER OFFER, IF I'M GOING TO OFFER AT ALL.

IF I DON'T LIKE THE BACKYARD OR LOCATION, ALL THAT WILL AFFECT SOMEONE'S OFFER TO YOU IN TERMS ÷÷OF THE HOUSE THAT YOU BUY.

WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS JUST THE -- JUST THE FACTUAL NUMBERS OF WHAT IT WAS BEFORE AND WHAT IT WAS AFTER.

THE FACT THAT I SHOWED YOU PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT AFTER TOWERS WERE CONSTRUCTED -- SO IF A TOWER WAS SUCH A BAD THING, WHY WOULD ANYBODY BUILD A HOUSE IN CLEAR VIEW OF A TOWER? WHY WOULD ANYBODY BUY A HOUSE IN CLEAR VIEW OF A TOWER? OBVIOUSLY THAT DOESN'T WEIGH VERY HEAVILY ON ANYTHING.

THE PEOPLE, NOT ONLY DID THEY BUILD THEIR HOUSES, OR THE DEVELOPERS BUILT THE SUBDIVISION, PEOPLE BOUGHT THOSE HOUSES AND THEIR HOUSES HAVE APPRECIATED.

AGAIN, WHAT FACTOR CAN ANYONE PLACE ON A COMMUNICATION TOWER THAT SAYS THAT IT'S THIS ASPECT OF THE TOWER THAT HAS AFFECTED THE VALUE? THAT'S WHAT ALL CERTIFIED APPRAISERS DEAL WITH, WHICH IS WHY NONE OF THE COUNTY APPRAISERS, NONE OF THEM, NOT EVEN THE COUNTY APPRAISER IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, HAS EVER REDUCED AN APPRAISAL BASED ON ITS PROXIMITY TO A COMMUNICATION TOWER. THAT IS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT NOT ONLY JUST THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BUT I'VE DONE WORK IN VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA AND MULTIPLE PLACES. ALL THE COUNTY APPRAISERS BASICALLY TAKE THE SAME APPROACH.

>> OKAY. THANK

YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> DR. HILSENBECK?

>> I ACTUALLY KNOW LEE PALLARDEE.

[00:40:05]

HE'S A GOOD APPRAISER. I WORKED WITH HIM WHEN I WORKED TO BUY CONSERVATION LAND. I KNOW HE'S A GOOD APPRAISER. I HAVE TO ECHO WHAT MR. MATOVINA SAID ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY IN THESE STUDIES. IN A RAPIDLY RISING MARKET, I DON'T THINK THE METHODOLOGY ALLOWS YOU TO DISCERN WHAT A HOMEOWNER'S VALUE WOULD BE ON THE MARKET, NOT TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY APPRAISERS IN THE COUNTY LOWERING AN ASSESSMENT VALUE ON A HOUSE. WHAT THAT WOULD SELL FOR WITH OR WITHOUT A TOWER THERE? I DON'T FOLLOW THAT LOGIC ENTIRELY. I'M NOT AN APPRAISER, BUT I SEE A POTENTIAL FLAW IN THE WAY THE STUDY WAS DONE AND PRESENTED. THAT'S A CONCERN.

COULD YOU TELL ME -- I'VE NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE.

WHAT'S THE OPTIMUM DENSITY OF CELL TOWERS IN AN AREA? FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN A FIVE- MILE RADIUS OF THIS AREA, HOW MANY MORE TOWERS COULD BE EXPECTED OVER THE NEXT 10 OR 20 YEARS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED? DO YOU KNOW -- DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA IN REGARDS TO THAT QUESTION.

I WOULD SAY THIS -- IF THE POPULATION OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA THAT YOU POINT OUT, IF IT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED, WHICH MEANS THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HANDSETS IN THAT AREA, INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF USERS, THERE WOULD BE MORE STRAIN ON THAT PARTICULAR NETWORK, THEN THE ALTERNATIVE UNLESS EXISTING STRUCTURES EXIST, WOULD BE TO HAVE A TOWER TO REDUCE THAT LOAD. IT'S LIKE WATER GOING THROUGH A WATER HOSE. ONLY SO MUCH CAN GO THROUGH AT A TIME BEFORE YOU HAVE TO ADD WATER AND ADD ANOTHER OUTLET. SAME THING WITH COMMUNICATION TOWERS. AS DID HE EMAND GROWS, THE NUMBER OF USERS GROW, YOU HAVE TO TAKE STEPS TO MANAGE THAT GROWTH. JUST LIKE WITH TRAFFIC.

AS PEOPLE BUILD SUBDIVISIONS AND SCHOOLS AND ALL THAT, TWO- LANE ROADS BECOME TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S TICKED OFF BECAUSE IT TAKES THEM SO LONG TO GO FIVE MILES BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? BUILD NEW ROADS. SAME THING HERE.

IF YOU GET THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC, YOU HAVE TO ADD SITES TO BE ABLE TO OFF LOAD THAT TRAFFIC.

THAT'S THE BEST EXPLANATION I CAN GIVE YOU.

>> WE DEAL WITH TRAFFIC ALL THE TIME.

THAT'S A REASONABLE ANALOGY. AND A CONCERN.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE WANTING TO ADD THIS TOWER.

HOW MUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION -- YOU MENTIONED THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE HANDSETS IN THE AREA. HOW MUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS OCCURRED WITHIN A HALF MILE TO A MILE OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT THIS TOWER?

>> THIS SITE IS REACTING TO EXISTING OVERLOADS WITHIN THE AREA BASED ON THE CURRENT POPULATION.

I WAS BASICALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS YOUR HYPOTHETICAL.

AS I SAID, THIS SITE IS ADDRESSING THE CURRENT DEMANDS IN THE AREA THAT THE -- THAT VERIZON IS EXPERIENCING FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS, THE NUMBER OF DROPPED CALLS THEIR SYSTEM TELLS THEM, THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THEY GET, THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEAVE VERIZON BECAUSE THE SERVICE IS NOT VERY GOOD AND THEY LIVE NEARBY AND THEY GO WITH SOMEONE ELSE. THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THEY'RE TRYING TO REACT TO.

THE NETWORK IS INSUFFICIENT AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY'VE ESTABLISHED A CERTAIN LEVEL THEY WISH THE NETWORK SHOULD OPERATE AT. THEY'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THEIR NETWORK SO THEY CAN KEEP THEIR CUSTOMER BASE AND PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY PAYING FOR. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IS A DRIVER FOR A LOT OF SITES, UNLESS THERE'S NO COVERAGE THERE AND THEN THAT SITE, ANY SITE IN A PROPOSING LOCATION WOULD BE A COVERAGE SITE. THIS IS DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC PROBLEM AND THIS IS THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THIS PROBLEMCAN BE RESOLVED, WHICH IS A NEW TOWER. IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING TOWER NEARBY THAT THEY COULD HAVE USED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HERE TODAY. THEY WOULD HAVE SENT US INFORMATION SAYING WE WANT TO BE ON THAT TOWER.

THERE IS NO TOWER. THEREFORE, A NEW TOWER IS THE SOLUTION.

>> THAT'S A GOOD SEGUESEGUE MY FINAL QUESTION FOR RIGHT NOW IS THAT YOU TOUCHED ON THIS IN

[00:45:02]

PASSING.÷÷I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ELABORATE ON WHY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY OWNED TOWER THAT APPARENTLY HAS CAPACITY THAT IS NOT THAT FAR FROM HERE, WHY THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU ALL TO UTILIZE, FOR VERIZON TO UTILIZE THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY TOWER THAT HAS CAPACITY. YOU SHOWED US A

MAP. >> THERE ARE NO TOWERS WITHIN . 25 MILE RADIUS OR ONE- MILE RADIUS.

A NEW TOWER HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS AGENCY IN THAT GREEN TRIANGLE UP THERE. WE BROUGHT THAT SITE BEFORE YOU AND YOU VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT.

>> I REMEMBER.

>> THAT'S A FUTURE SITE. EVEN THAT IS OUTSIDE A MILE, IT'S ABOUT 1. 2 MILES AWAY.

THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY TOWER IS DOWN HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S OUTSIDE THE TWO- MILE RADIUS.

>> THAT OBVIOUSLY WON'T WORK FOR

YOU? >> NO, SIR, IT WILL NOT BECAUSE -- HERE'S THE OTHER THING

TOO. >> DOES VERIZON HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ON THAT TOWER NOW, THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY TOWER?

>> THAT'S THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY TOWER LOCATION.

THERE WAS AN AMERICAN TOWER SITE LOCATED CLOSE TO THAT.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE ST. JOHNS OR THE AMERICAN.

THEY'RE SO CLOSE TOGETHER. THAT TOWER IS TRYING TO REACH 2. 4 MILES AND SERVE THIS AREA AND IT CAN'T PHYSICALLY DO THAT. IT'S JUST NOT -- ENGINEERING- WISE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

ESPECIALLY NOW YOU TALK ABOUT 4G AND 5G.

WITH EVERY NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT CAME OUT, THE COVERAGE AREAS SHRUNK.

WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED AND YOU HAD ANALOG, IT WAS REACHING THREE, FOUR, FIVE MILES. FEWER TOWER.

WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY, THEY SHRUNK.

IT'S LESS CALL RELATED AND MORE DATA RELATED.

THE DATA'S MORE CONCENTRATED. THE COVERAGE AREAS ARE SMALLER.

>> MR. TIMMONS, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT LIGHTING.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MR. OLSON.

IN DOING SOME GENERAL HOMEWORK ON THIS ITEM, I FOUND THE LIGHTING FROM THESE TOWERS CAN BE IMPACTFUL ON RESIDENTIAL NEARBY.

ARE THERE FAA REQUIREMENTS TO LIGHT THE TOWER? IF SO, ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?

SHIELDING. >> THE FAA REQUIREMENT REQUIRES ANY STRUCTURE ABOVE 199 FEET.

WE'RE AT 140 WITH A TEN- FOOT LIGHTNING ROD.

THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT BY THE FAA TO PLACE LIGHTING ON THE STRUCTURE AND WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO PLACE LIGHTING ON THE

STRUCTURE. >> THANK YOU.

MY SECOND QUESTION IS IS THERE ANY EFFORT TO BE ABLE TO DESIGN A TOWER LIKE THIS TO BE LESS VISUALLY INTRUSIVE FROM HOW BUSY IT IS AT THE TOP? I'M NOT TALKING WITH ANY TECHNOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING AT THE TOP THAT GIVE A LOT OF VISUAL IMPACT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN THE ENGINEERS DRAW THE DRAWING THEY WANT TO SHOW THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL CAPACITY AND IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EQUIPMENT ON IT.

INITIALLY THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE THE ANTENNA WAY AT THE TOP.

THE FUTURE, WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE WANTS TO USE IT OR NOT -- HOPEFULLY THEY WILL.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. WE DON'T KNOW THAT AT THIS TIME. IN TERMS OF TOWER DESIGN, WE WENT WITH ONE POLE DESIGN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE SIMPLEST DESIGN TO USE, THAT THE CARRIERS FIND ACCEPTABLE.

THERE ARE OTHER DESIGNS LIKE A SINGLE POLE DESIGN.

WELL, THE CARRIERS REJECT THOSE DESIGNS AND THEY REJECT THOSE DESIGNS BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE INTERNALLY TO THOSE STRUCTURES AND THEN, NOT ONLY ARE THEY LIMITED IN THE AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT THEY CAN PLACE INSIDE ONE, WHEREAS NORMALLY A TOWER MIGHT HAVE A THREE- SECOND RATE OF -- SOME MIGHT HAVE SIX AND

[00:50:02]

SOME MIGHT HAVE NINE. HOWEVER, THE INTERNAL UNI POLE YOU GET ONE ANTENNA ON EACH SIDE.

THAT'S A MASSIVE REDUCTION. TWO, THEY FOUND THAT BECAUSE IT'S ENCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF HEAT THAT'S GENERATED IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE STRUCTURE.

THEY AVOID THOSE LIKE THE PLAGUE.

WE WENT WITH THE MONO POLE BECAUSE IT'S A SIMPLER, CLEANER DESIGN. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO A MONO PIE. HOWEVER, PEOPLE FIND THAT TO BE MORE OBTRUSIVE AND ATTRACT MORE ATTENTION THAN A MONO POLE. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT SHOULD THIS AGENCY DECIDE THIS IS THE SITE THEY'RE WILLING TO APPROVE IF IT'S A MONO PIE.

WE WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION PROVIDED THAT STAFF DOESN'T SEND US BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN BECAUSE THE TOWER DESIGN CHANGED.

THAT'S ON THE TABLE. WE'LL PLACE THAT

OUT. >> OKAY.

>> QUICK QUESTION. YOU HAVE THE AVERAGE TOWER OUT THERE IS 150, 160 FEET ON AVERAGE?

>> I WOULD SAY -- IF YOU WANT TO GO AVERAGE, PROBABLY 150 IS THE AVERAGE.

I SAY 100- FOOT TOWER IS A SMALL TOWER.

150 IS A MEDIUM AND 199 IS LARGER.

>> WITH FLORIDA BEING BASICALLY FLAT COUNTRY, FLAT TERRAIN, WE DON'T HAVE HIGH- RISES HERE OR ANYTHING ELSE.

HOW FAR OUT WILL THE SIGNAL GO SINCE WE ARE IN A FLAT TERRAIN, NOT A HILLY TERRAIN LIKE WEST OF HERE?

>> BEST EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE YOU IS THIS MAP WHERE YOU HAVE -- I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHAT THE MILE DISTANCE IS. IF FROM THIS SITE HERE TO THIS SITE RIGHT HERE, YOU GOT 1. 2 MILES. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND WE GET COVERAGEALL THE WAY DOWN THE HERE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE KIND OF AN EQUAL DISTANCE.

I WOULD SAY TO YOUR ANSWER, I WOULD SAY ABOUT 1. 2 MILES. BUT, WHEN THEY RUN THE MODEL, THEY'VE GOT ALL THIS INTERNAL STUFF, PROPRIETARY STUFF THEY DO AND THEY PUT IN.

I'M GUESSING.

>> IF YOU GO TO THE MAP YOU HAVE UP THERE RIGHT NOW, BACK UP ONE IF YOU WOULD. THAT MAP RIGHT THERE, IF YOU LOOK ON 95, YOU HAVE THAT HUGE RED AREA.

WHY COULDN'T THIS TOWER BE PUT IN THAT GENERAL AREA RIGHT OFF 95?

>> WELL, BECAUSE VERIZON, WHEN THEY LOOKED AT IT IN TERMS OF THEIR INTERNAL MODELLING, THEY DETERMINED BEING IN THIS PARTICULAR VICINITY WOULD SERVE THE NETWORK BETTER THAN IT WOULD BE OFF OF -- PLACING A SITE HERE WHICH, IF WE TALKED ABOUT SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE BEING 1.2, THIS COULD BE VERY EASILY 2 MILES, RIGHT? THEY LOOKED AT IT AND SAID IF WE PUT SOMETHING RIGHT HERE, IT WILL REACH IN HERE, BUT THEN ONLY GO 1. 2 AND WE'LL STILL HAVE A HOLE HERE.

THIS IS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE. THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE.

THIS IS WHERE THE COMPLAINTS ARE.

WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE COMPLAINTS AND MAYBE THEY'RE NOT GETTING COMPLAINTS HERE.

THAT'S 95 RIGHT THERE. AS YOU CAN SEE, 95 GOT A GREEN STRIP ON IT. THAT WOULD TELL ME THAT CUSTOMERS OR CARS OR VEHICLES ON 95 ARE IN A COVERAGE NETWORK.

>> YOU SHOWED A NUMBER OF PICTURES OF TOWERS AND

HOMES. >> YES,

SIR. >> NUMEROUS PICTURES.

I THINK ALL OF THEM WERE THE TOWERS WERE ALREADY THERE AND THEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOT PUTTING A TOWER INTO A COMMUNITY THAT WAS BUILT IN 1986?

>> SO THAT IS A CONCERN. THE COMMUNITY'S BEEN THERE AND NOW YOU WANT TO PUT THIS TOWER RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS COMMUNITY. THAT'S ALL I

HAVE. >> IF I

MAY. >> SURE.

>> I THINK -- I WOULD SAY BASED ON -- BASED ON THIS MAP HERE, WE'RE RIGHT HERE.

HERE'S THIS COMMUNITY HERE, HERE AND HERE.

YOU SAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY.

I SAY NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT NORTH OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE THAT POINT.

>> MS. SPIEGEL?

[00:55:01]

>> I WILL SAY THOUGH THAT THE COMMUNITY HAVING GONE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE IT'S AN OLDER COMMUNITY, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MATURE VEGETATION AND THAT SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION DOES A WORLD FOR REDUCING VISIBILITY FROM MANY, MANY LOCATIONS WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

ESPECIALLY THE FURTHER SOUTH INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU GO. I LOOKED AT PROPERTIES FROM FOLKS THAT ENTERED LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AND I LOOKED AT IT AND SOME OF THEM I COULDN'T EVEN SEE THEIR HOUSES BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION. YOU ALSO GOT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND THAT'S GOING TO SERVE A WORLD PREVENTING OPEN VISIBILITY. SORRY ABOUT

THAT. >> THAT'S

OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. TIMMONS.

THIS IS A REAL EDUCATION. THERE'S A LOT WE DON'T KNOW AND UNDERSTAND ABOUT CELL TOWERS.

TO MR. MATOVINA'S POINT, OUR CODE DOES RESTRICT THE PROXIMITY BY PROPERTY LINE, NOT BY THE HOUSE.

THE MAP YOU HAVE MEASURES TO THE RESIDENCE. I THINK IT'S SHORTER THAN YOU MIGHT HAVE REPRESENTED. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

THE WAY I'M HEARING YOU IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IN ORDER TO HAVE GOOD, RELIABLE SERVICE AT 4G AND 5G, WE NEED A CELL TOWER EVERY MILE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING THAT? I GOT RESTRICTED.

>> IN ORDER TO HAVE GOOD, RELIABLE SERVICE WE NEED TO HAVE A CELL TOWER IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS EVERY ONE MILE, ONE- MILE RADIUS? THAT'S WHAT I'M

HEARING. >> THEORETICALLY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T THINK IT'S

PRACTICAL. >> ACCORDING TO THE MAP AND LOCATIONS. HOW IS THIS RELIABILITY STUDY PUT TOGETHER BY VERIZON? IS THERE A RED DROP WHENEVER THERE'S A DROPPED CALL OR COMPLAINT? IS THAT HOW THEY COMPILE THEIR DATA?

>> THAT INFORMATION IS PROPRIETARY WITH VERIZON.

THEY DON'T EVEN SHARE THAT WITH US.

ALL WE KNOW IS THAT ANY TIME, A CUSTOMER CALLS AND MAKES A COMPLAINT TO VERIZON, THEY RECORD IT.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE SO THEY CAN THEN SORT OF CREATE THE STATISTICS TO BASICALLY SHOW THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS HAVING CAPACITY ISSUES OR OTHER TYPE ISSUES.

THEN THEY GO TO THE SOFTWARE FOR THE TOWER YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT AND THEY LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS THERE AND THEY CAN SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ISSUE THERE.

WHEN THEY LOOK AT THEIR NETWORK, THEY LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE -- THEY LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE -- THEY LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE TOWERS THAT COMPRISE THEIR NETWORK AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES ARE BEING USED MORE THAN OTHERS.

SO AS A RESULT, THEY PROBABLY CRAFT THAT IN TERMS OF WE NEED TO GET A NEW STRUCTURE HERE AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS HERE.

>> OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO AN INCREASED USE BY MORE HANDS HOLDING A CELL PHONE AND DRAWING FROM THE TOWER OR TABLETS OR WHATEVER, THEN INCREASE THE NEEDS TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE TOWER.

AND SO WHERE WE ARE WITH 5G AND TECHNOLOGY ADVANCING WITH MORE ÷÷A.I. AND MORE DATA DRAWING, WILL THERE BE A LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF CELLS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED ON YOUR TOWER AS THE NEED INCREASES? ARE WE GOING TO NEED TO PUT IN A TOWER A HALF MILE AWAY BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE HAVE CELL PHONES AND THEY'RE DRAWING MORE FROM IT? I'M TRYING TO PREDICT -- RIGHT NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE FIXING A PROBLEM THAT'S ALREADY HERE. I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT'S DOWN THE ROAD. THAT'S WHAT PLANNING IS.

IS IT LIMITED BY TECHNOLOGY? CAN YOU ADD MORE, BIGGER, STRONGER, GREATER TO THIS ONE TOWER YOU'RE PUTTING IN? THERE'S NO LIMITS ONCE WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION FOR A CELL TOWER.

IT'S WHATEVER. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING?

>> BEFORE MOST CARRIERS AND VERIZON WILL ENGAGE IN TRYING TO OBTAIN A NEW STRUCTURE, WHICH TAKES ABOUT A YEAR TO DO, THEY'LL LOOK AT THE EXISTING NETWORK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN MODIFY THE NETWORK BY

[01:00:02]

ADDING ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT OR MAYBE UPGRADING SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT ON THE STRUCTURES THAT ONLY TAKES THEM SO FAR.

EACH CELL SITE ONLY HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OPEN SLOTS IN WHICH SOMEONE CAN CALL. EVERY TIME -- WHEN THEY GET FULL, PEOPLE WHO TRY TO GET IN, THEY GET KICKED OUT. YOU CAN BE IN AND A CALL COMES IN AND YOUR CALL DROPS AND YOU WONDER WHY.

IT'S BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF OPEN SLOTS ARE FULL.

IF AN EMS PROVIDERPROVIDER YOU, THEY GET PRIORITY SERVICE.

IF YOU'RE IN IT AND EMS CALLS, YOU'RE OUT IF IT'S AT CAPACITY. IF THERE'S AVAILABLE SLOTS, EVERYTHING'S FINE. THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM MANAGES WHO'S IN IT. WHEN THEY GET TO THAT POINT, THEY REALIZE THAT THEY NEED AN OUTLET. AN ADDITIONAL SITE PROVIDES AN OUTLET AND REDUCES CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NETWORK SO THERE'S FEWER DROPPED CALLS.

>> MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING THOUGHT TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE EMS GETTING DROPPED BY HAVING SPECIFIC DEDICATED SLOTS KEPT OPEN FOR EMS CALLS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN DO.

JUST THINKING. THANK YOU, SIR.

THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'RE HEAR TO SPEAK TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, COME FORWARD. THERE'S PROBABLY MULTIPLE PEOPLE. WE CAN USE EACH OF THE THREE PODIUMS AND GO ONE BY ONE.

WE'LL START WITH YOU. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'M MARY ELLEN CHRISTIANSON. I'M IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS TOWER. I HAD GREAT PREPARED REMARKS.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PREPARED CONSIDERATION.

IT'S EVIDENT THIS IS MEANINGFUL TO YOU AS EVIDENT BY YOUR THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING US SO HEARTILY IN YOUR COMMENTS. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I WENT TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON MAY 14TH. ANTHEN NET IS A THIRD PARTY.

THIS IS NOT VERIZON. THEY SELL CELL TOWER SPACE AND LEASE THE SPACE OUT. WHY THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY TOWER WON'T WORK IS BECAUSE ANTHEM ISN'T GOING TO PROFIT FROM LEASING THEM THAT. YOU CAN SEE THAT AT FREEDOM BAPTIST CHURCH. MY PREPARED COMMENTS WERE COULD WE PUT A PIN IN THIS AND WAIT FOR THAT TOWER TO BE BUILT AND SEE THE COVERAGE AFTER THAT TIME. WHEN ANTHEM IDENTIFIED THAT LOCATION, THEY THOUGHT THE LOCATION AT THE CEMETERY AND THOUGHT WE COULD GET BOTH OF THOSE IN AND DOUBLE DIP WHERE THERE MAY BE A COVERAGE SHORTAGE, BUT WE COULD PROFIT ON THIS. I THINK THIS IS A MONEY QUESTION, NOT SO MUCH A COVERAGE QUESTION.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE AS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH CONCERNS.

WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT AESTHETICS OR PROPERTY VALUES.

THOSE ARE VALID CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT TODAY. I JUST -- I GUESS I JUST WANT TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A POTENTIAL POSTPONEMENT AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MARKET DATA FOR THE PROPERTY VALUES NOT BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY -- EVEN MR. TIMMONS SAID WE CAN'T IDENTIFY WHAT THE CELL TOWER MIGHT HAVE DEVALUED THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS INTO WHAT GOES INTO PROPERTY VALUE.

THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS. I WILL ALSO SAY BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'VE SEEN THEM ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, THAT PARTICULAR SITE DOES IN FACT HAVE TORTOISES ON THE SITE. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE FOLKS THAT DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY STAYED OUT THERE.

THERE ARE BURROWS AND ACTIVE TORTOISES TRYING TO CROSS THE ROAD BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISION AND THE CEMETERY.

WITH A THREE- MINUTE TOWER I'M DOWN TO 17 SECONDS.

I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO KEEP TALKING EVEN THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. THAT'S A SUMMARY OF MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SIR?

>> MY NAME IS MARK PELCHACK. SO MANY THINGS ARE MISLEADING IN

[01:05:06]

THIS PRESENTATION. I DIDN'T COME PREPARED WITH A SPEECH. I DIDN'T THINK I WAS ALLOWED TO SPEAK. FOR ONE THING THAT I SAW HERE, THE PHOTOGRAPHY. I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER ON THE SIDE.

I'M NERVOUS. I'M SORRY.

YOU CAN TAKE PICTURES AND IF YOU NOTICE ALL THE ONES IN HIS FAVOR ARE VERIZON'S FAVOR AND SHOW THIS LITTLE TINY THING YOU CAN HARDLY SEE.

THAT'S EASY TO DO. THE ONES WHERE THE HOUSES ARE BUILT, IT'S HUGE. NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS. THE COVERAGE.

I CARRY TWO PHONES, ONE FOR PERSONAL AND ONE BUSINESS.

ONE IS AT&T AND ONE IS VERIZON. I LIVE THERE.

THIS THING ABOUT NOT HAVING GOOD COMMUNICATION, THAT'S NOT TRUE. I DON'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH EITHER ONE. ALSO, THE OTHER PIECE THEY LEFT OUT IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD -- OUR NEIGHBORS ARE HERE. ANYWAY, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT IN 2014. HART WOOD COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT FORT PEYTON WAS BUILT IN 1996. OURS WAS BUILT IN 2014.

I WOULD HAVE NEVER BUILT THERE IF I SEEN THIS UGLY TOWER.

I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO INVEST MONEY -- THOSE HOMES ARE RELATIVE HIGH- DOLLAR HOMES WOULD INVEST THAT TYPE OF MONEY TO HAVE CUSTOM HOMES BUILT WITH THAT IN THE BACKGROUND.

I WOULD NEVER BUY A HOME WITH THAT IN THE BACKGROUND.

I HAVE HEALTH CONCERNS. I SENT MY EMAIL WITH MY CONCERNS IN THERE I THINK TO EVERYBODY IN HERE. MS. SPIEGEL RESPONDED BACK, ÷÷THANK YOU. THE OTHER PIECE IS I JUST CAME FROM WORK. I'M TREMBLING.

I'M SORRY. I KNOW THE CELL TOWERS ON 95, THIS GREEN AREA HERE, THERE'S NO HOUSES THERE. LET THEM PICK A SPOT THERE NEXT TO 95. YOU SEE ALL THE OTHER AREAS OF THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY THEY MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE A PINE TREE AND YOU HARDLY NOTICE THEM.

GREAT. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

PUT IT OUT THERE. THE CELL COVERAGE FOR THE FUTURE, THAT'S A BUNCH OF NOISE.

WE HAVE -- I NEVER LOSE A CALL. I WORK FROM HOME TWO DAYS OUT OF THE WEEK. MY WIFE WORKS FROM HOME EVERY DAY AND NEVER DROPS A CALL. I'LL JUST SAY I -- YOU CAN GET SURVEYS, FAVORABLE SURVEYS AND PAY FOR SURVEYS TO FAVOR YOUR AGENDA.

IT'S EASY TO DO. YOU'RE ALL VERY SMART PEOPLE.

I'M JUST SAYING STUDIES ARE THE SAME WAY.

YOU CAN GET STUDIES TO FAVOR YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> BEFORE MY TIME STARTS, COULD I ASK FOR YOU TO PUT THAT MAP BACK UP OF THE SITE.

PLEASE. >> IS THERE ANYWAY TO --

>> IT'S BACK A COUPLE. THANK YOU

ONE. >>

OKAY. >> I'M HEATHER.

I'M FROM THE HARTWOOD COMMUNITY.

DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT HOUSE IS? THAT'S MY HOUSE.

RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PEYTON, PEYTON DRIVE AND IT'S 391 FEET FROM THAT TOWER. NONE OF THE PICTURES OR THE INFORMATION HE PUT OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE TOWER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A TERRIBLE INJUSTICE. THAT TOWER, I CAN SEE 150 FEET OF IT FROM MY BACKYARD. I CAN SEE 135 FEET OF THAT TOWER FROM THE CUL-DE- SAC IN MY FRONT YARD. THERE ARE NO TREES.

YOU SAW THE ACTUAL TREELINE FOR THAT. THERE'S NOTHING THERE. IT GOES STRAIGHT ACROSS.

THE PROPERTY VALUE, I DISAGREE WITH HIS -- I READ THAT STUDY THAT YOU DID AND I AGREE THAT THE WAY THAT IT WAS CONDUCTED COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

I'M CONSIDERED THE 20% ZONE OF HOW MUCH MONEY I'LL LOSE ON MY PROPERTY IF I SELL IT.

THAT WOULD BE 120,000 TO $160,000 IF I SOLD IT IN TODAY'S MARKET. FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD IT WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 1.5 MILLION, ÷÷MINIMUM, THAT OUR FOLKS WOULD LOSE. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WE MOVED HERE IN 2015. MY HUSBAND HAS A PACE MAKER AND A HEART CONDITION. I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T LOOK AT HEALTH REASONS, BUT WE WERE HERE FIRST. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO

[01:10:01]

MOVE BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S PUTTING A CELL TOWER IN THAT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE THE CONDITIONS HE ALREADY HAS.

ALL THIS INFORMATION I HAVE SENT TO YOU, THE BACKUP INFORMATION I HAVE THAT SUPPORTS THIS.

IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING I'M THINKING UP.

HOMES MUST BE AT LEAST 1,350 FEET AWAY FROM A TOWER IN ORDER TO BRING DOWN EXPOSURE TO EMF.

THE PROPERTY LEVEL OF EMF IS 100 WATTS.

THAT'S QUITE A BIT. FOR THAT TO HAPPEN WITH MY HOUSE BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE TOWER IS A TRAVESTY NOT JUST TO ME, BUT MY HUSBAND, ESPECIALLY MY HUSBAND. I GUESS WHAT I'M REALLY -- THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT THAT HE MADE ABOUT THE AREA THAT THEY'RE BUILDING RIGHT HERE -- IT'S ACTUALLY ON TOP OF FORT PEYTON, RIGHT WHERE THOSE GRAVES FROM THE WAR, 1700S, 1800S.

MR. TIMMONS SUGGESTED THEY GAVE INFORMATION TO FLORIDA AND SAID IT WAS OKAY WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY GAVE.

I GUESS I'M OUT OF TIME. I DISAGREE.

THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. SIR?

>> MY NAME IS BOB CHALMERS. I LIVE ON PEYTON DRIVE.

ON THIS MAP HERE WE'RE THE SECOND HOUSE OFF TO THE LEFT OF THE DRIVE, THE CIRCLE. WE MOVED THERE IN 2013 AND THE REASON WE BOUGHT THAT HOUSE WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS A CEMETERY BEHIND US AND WE FIGURED THERE WOULD BE NO DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THAT AREA. THE TOWER IS 200 FEET AWAY FROM WHERE CHILDREN PLAY AND IT'S 100 FEET AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINES. IT'S 200 FEET AWAY FROM OTHER PROPERTIES. THERE WILL BE CONSTANT VIOLATION, HEAT, NOISE, AIR CONDITIONERS, FANS GENERATORS AND CAMERAS AND LIGHTS ON THISTHIS TOWER. WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE RADIATION. I HAVE CANCER.

EMS STUDIES, WE HAVE -- WE DID SOME RESEARCH INTO THE EMS AND CANCER- CAUSING ISSUES.

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION DID A STUDY ON TOWERS.

THERE'S STUDIES THAT SHOW THERE ARE ISSUES OF CANCER WITH THAT. IN REFERENCE TO THE TURTLES, THERE ARE SEVERAL. MY WIFE JUST RESCUED ONE JUST THE OTHER DAY, ACTUALLY YESTERDAY.

VERIZON IS NOT JUST GOING TO BE THE ONLY CARRIER ON THAT TOWER. THERE ARE THREE MORE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR THREE MORE CARRIERS IN THAT AREA.

WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE PROPERTY VALUE OF OUR HOME DECREASING. WE JUST GOT CLOSE TO 30,000 INTO IT, PUT A NEW ROOF ON, NEW AIR CONDITIONER AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO -- WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MOVE. WE HAVE GRANDCHILDREN COME VISIT ALL THE TIME AND WE'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE RADIATION. I'M A BACKYARD PERSON.

I COME THROUGH HOME FROM WORK AND WALK RIGHT OUT TO THE ÷÷BACKYARD AND I SIT AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND RELAX WITHOUT HAVING TO LOOK UP AND SEE A CELL TOWER IN MY BACKYARD.

LITERALLY THAT IS MY BACKYARD. TO SEE A CELL TOWER STANDING THERE, IT'S AN EYESORE. I KNOW EVERYBODY DOES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT EYESORES. I ALSO DID AN INTERVIEW THIS MORNING WITH THE JACKSONVILLE -- I THINK IT WAS CHANNEL 4 CAME OUT AND INTERVIEWED ME TODAY.

THEY WILL BE AIRING THAT SOMETIME TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW I DID SPEAK WITH MEDIA.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS MINDY LAPP. I LIVE TWO DOORS DOWN FROM HEATHER. I WORK AND HOME SCHOOL ALL MY CHILDREN FROM HOME. ABOUT 500 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED÷÷SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WHY I

[01:15:02]

STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS A HOME OWNER AND AS A NEIGHBOR WHO CARES ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A PARENT WITH FOUR CHILDREN, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS.

THE IDEA OF DAILY LONG- TERM EXPOSURE TO RADIATION SO CLOSE TO WHERE OUR KIDS PLAY AND SWIM OUTSIDE IS UNSETTLING. BEYOND THAT THERE'S THE FINANCIAL IMPACT -- EXCUSE ME.

EVEN IF THE SCIENCE ON HARMFUL RADIATION EFFECTS IS DEBATABLE, THE PERCEPTION OF HEALTH RISKS POSES A CONCERN. FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN OR PEOPLE WITH EXISTING HEALTH CONCERNS MAY BE LESS LIKELY TO BUY OUR HOME IN THE FUTURE WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS ITS VALUE AND MARKETABILITY. AS WAS DISCUSSED -- I APPRECIATED THE ADDITIONAL FOLLOW- UP QUESTIONS TO THE SLIDES THAT WERE SHOWN AS FAR AS MARKET VALUE AND THE CELL TOWERS HERE AND THIS IS HOW MUCH IT SOLD X NUMBER OF YEARS LATER, I DISAGREE WITH THE STUDIES. I'M IN MARKETING AND I GET ALL MY BUSINESS FROM WORD OF MOUTH AND I SAY, IF YOU DID MARKETING, HOW MUCH MORE WOULD YOU HAVE GOT? HOW MUCH MORE COULD THEY HAVE GOTTEN IF THE CELL TOWER WASN'T THERE? OUR HOME POTENTIALLY COULD LOSE ANYWHERE FROM 20,000 TO 200,000 IN VALUE WHEN WE GO TO SELL. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A SMALL INCONVENIENCE. THAT'S A REAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL LOSS OUR FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO ABSORB. IT RAISES A QUESTION IF THIS TOWER HURTS OUR HOME VALUE WILL THE CELL PHONE COMPANY STEP IN TO REIMBURSE US FOR THAT LOSS? OBVIOUSLY NOT.

ARE FAMILIES EXPECTED JUST TO SHOULDER THAT COST? AS WAS POINTED OUT, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD ALSO CHANGE AND ALSO WAS POINTED OUT BY HEATHER BEFORE ME THERE WERE NO PHOTOS FROM MY STREET SHOWING WHAT THE TOWER WOULD LOOK LIKE BEHIND MY HOUSE AND I PRESUME IT WOULD BE QUITE AN EYESORE IF I SAW THAT. GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT COULD SET A PRECEDENT MAKING IT EASIER FOR MORE INCOMPATIBLE PROJECTS TO ENTER RESIDENTIAL OR SENSITIVE AREAS, UNDERMINING THE PROTECTIONS OUR ZONING REGULATIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE INCOMPATABILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE, THE HEALTH CONCERNS, I WOULD LIKE TO DISAGREE WITH THIS.

>> SIR, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THAT PODIUM.

>> HI. MY NAME IS MONICA JOHNSON.

I LIVE IN THE HARTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NEXT TO FORT PEYTON.

SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SPOKEN.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BACKS UP FORT PEYTON.

THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TOWER PHOTOS ARE DECEIVING AT BEST. I AGREE WITH MARK WHO SAID YOU CAN CHANGE THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO BENEFIT VERIZON'S INTEREST.

THE CELL TOWER WILL STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.

I OBJECT TO THE TOWER DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS AND PROPERTY VALUES. OTHER LOCATIONS SHOULD BE USED THAT AREN'T IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

95 IS WHERE THIS LOCATION OF THE TOWER SHOULD LIE.

I ALSO WANT TO KNOW WERE THERE ANY NEGATIVE STUDIES ON HEALTH AND/OR PROPERTIES.

ALL I HEARD WAS POSITIVE BENEFITTING VERIZON.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS ALEXANDRA JONES.

I LIVE AT FORT PEYTON DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME TODAY.

I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 150- FOOT CELL TOWER NEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

MY FAMILY AND I RECENTLY PURCHASED OUR FIRST HOME HERE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR.

AFTER SAVING FOR MANY YEARS TO MAKE THIS DREAM POSSIBLE, WE CHOSE THIS COMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY SO OUR TWO YOUNG SONS COULD HAVE A SAFE, NATURAL BACKYARD TO EXPLORE IN THEIR CHILDHOOD. THE PEACEFUL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS NATURAL SURROUNDINGS WERE ESSENTIAL REASONS WE CHOSE THE LOCATION TO BEGIN WITH. WE'RE EXTREMELY CONCERNED THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER WILL BE CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM OUR BACKYARD AND BEYOND THE AESTHETIC IMPACT WE'RE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON OUR PROPERTY VALUE AND FUTURE

[01:20:03]

RESALE. THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT NUMEROUS STUDIES. I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING THIS.

AND DATA SHOWING THAT VISIBLE CELL TOWERS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES AND DETER POTENTIAL BUYERS DUE TO AESTHETIC CONCERNS AND PERCEIVED HEALTH RISKS.

THERE WAS A 2014 STUDY THAT EXAMINED PERCEPTIONS OF CELL TOWERS AND A LARGE MAJORITY CONSIDER CELL TOWERS A DISAMENITY LEADING TO LESS LIKELY TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES.

THERE WAS A STUDY IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL THAT ANALYZED U.S. HOME SALES DATA AND CONCLUDED THAT HOMES LOCATED WITH 1,500 FEET OF A CELL TOWER EXPERIENCED PRICE REDUCTIONS RANGING FROM 2% TO AS HIGH AS 20% DEPENDING ON THE VISIBILITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT. THE STUDY NOTED THAT EVEN BUYERS WHO DO NOT HAVE STRONG HEALTH CONCERNS STILL FIND THESE TOWERS VERY UNATTRACTIVE LEADING TO A STIGMA THAT DEPRESSES THE VALUE. THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER SURVEY IN 2020 THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY.

79% OF RESPONDENTS SAID THEY WOULD NOT BUY -- WOULD NOT CONSIDER BUYING A HOME NEAR A CELL TOWER.

OVER 90% BELIEVED THAT A NEARBY POWER REDUCED THEIR HOMES' VALUES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> MY NAME IS CHRIS JONES. I LIVE ON PEYTON DRIVE.

MY FAMILY AND I MOVED INTO OUR FIRST STAND- ALONE HOME, A HOME WE WORKED FOR AND SAVED FOR MANY YEARS. WE CHOSE THIS AREA BECAUSE OF ITS PEACEFUL AREA AND NATURE AND HISTORY, NOT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO LIVE IN THE SHADOW OF A 150- FOOT CELL TOWER. I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY, BUT FIRMLY OPPOSE THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE FACILITY. THIS PROJECT IS NOT COMPATIBLE ÷÷WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY FOR FIVE KEY REASONS.

ONE, THE TOWER IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SITE IS RIGHT NEXT TO A HISTORIC GRAVEYARD AND ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. IT WILL PERMANENTLY ALTER THE RESIDENTIAL FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE ZONING MIGHT SAY OPEN RURAL, THE REALITY IS THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL AND HISTORIC NEIGHBOHOOD. IT WILL LOWER PROPERTY VALUES.

STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT CELL TOWERS REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES. A STUDY IN THE APPRAISAL JOURNAL FOUND PROPERTY VALUES DROPPED UP TO 20%. A 2021 SURVEY BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE FOUND THAT 79% OF PERSPECTIVE BUYERS WOULD NOT BUY A HOME NEAR A CELL TOWER. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO ONE AND WE SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO.

THERE'S CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AT STAKE.

THE TOWER IS DIRECTLY BESIDE A HISTORIC GRAVEYARD.

IT'S A MATTER OF RESPECT AND CULTURAL HERITAGE.

I ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER A TOWER LIKE THIS WOULD BE APPROVED NEXT TO CIVIL WAR CEMETERY OR CHURCH BURIAL GROUND.

THE IMPACT IS PERMANENT. A TOWER THIS SIZE CANNOT BE HIDDEN, EVEN WITH THE BEST VISUAL SCREENING IT WILL STILL LOOM OVER THE TREELINE AND THE -- IT WILL CHANGE THE VIEW FROM DOZENS OF HOMES AND REDUCE ENJOYMENT OF NEARBY PARKS AND GREEN SPACES. FIVE, THIS TOWER TO MEAN VIOLATES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE ST. JOHNS CODE REQUIRES THAT SPECIAL USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES.

A MASSIVE TOWER NEXT TO A BURIAL SITE IS NOT COMPATIBLE.

IT WOULD BE A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE COUNTY'S STATED GOALS OF THE LIVEABILITY OF ITS NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY LAST FEW SECONDS, AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN, GOING TO PARTAKE IN THIS AND RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THIS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, BUT I WANTED TO

[01:25:01]

SAY I WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED AT THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS AND LOGIC BEHIND THEM.

I HOPE YOU LISTEN TO THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. MA'AM?

>> COUNCIL MEMBERS AND NEIGHBORS, MY NAME IS JESSICA.

I'M IN THE CORONADO AREA. I'M OPPOSED TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER. I LOVED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AS I WAS SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THEM WHEN YOU WERE ASKING HIM -- RETURNING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY WE CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE OF 95 YEAR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE AND OTHER PLACES LIKE THAT THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL.

AS YOU SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY THERE.

YOU WOULD BE ADDING THIS TOWER TO THEM AS OPPOSED TO HIS OTHER ONES WHERE THE TOWERS ARE BUILT AND THEN THE HOUSES.

PEOPLE CHOSE TO LIVE THERE. WE HAVE DID NOT.

WE DID NOT CHOOSE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE NEXT TO TOWER.

WE CHOSE IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TOWER THERE. THERE WAS VEGETATION AND GREENERY AND BEAUTY THERE. IT WOULD BENEFIT 95 BECAUSE, AS DROPPED CALLS HAPPEN, IT'S WHEN I'M NOT AT HOME, IT'S WHEN I'M DRIVING ON 95 OR AN AREA LIKE THAT.

AT HOME I'M USING WIFI AND I DON'T NEED A 5G TOWER AROUND MY HOME.

OTHERS USE WIFI AS WELL. WE COULD USE MORE OF AN UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, FIBER OPTICS. IF WE WANTED WIFI USE WITH OUR PHONES AT HOME, IF WE'RE OUT AND ABOUT 95, THAT'S WHEN A 5G TOWER WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE'RE USING IT, AWAY FROM OUR HOMES.

I THINK WE WOULD BENEFIT THERE FROM A TOWER MORE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF BETTER CONNECTIVITY.

I SEE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CONNECTIVITY.

JUST PLACING THAT HIGH TOWER IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO US.

BEING ONE OF THE LAST SPEAKERS AS WELL, WE CAN EMPHASIZE MORE ON HEALTH AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUE, BUT, IF YOU GET THREE APPRAISERS AT ONE HOUSE, ALL THREE APPRAISERS COME UP WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR THE VALUE OF THAT HOUSE. IT'S NOT ALWAYS BASED ON THE SAME SYSTEM. IT'S BASED MORE ON PEOPLE.

AS HE MENTIONED, SOMEONE COULD NOT LIKE A KITCHEN.

IT'S THE SAME AS A CELL PHONE TOWER.

THEY COULD COME IN AND NOT LIKE THE CELL PHONE TOWER AND NOT MAKE AN OFFER ON YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THAT ISSUE.

IT'S DEPENDENT ON THE PEOPLE THERE.

AS SOMEONE WHO IS THE COMMUNITY OF WILDWOOD, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE IT THERE. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SIR. >> MY NAME IS BUDDY POWELL.

I LIVE ON NORTH SHADOW WOOD DRIVE.

MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE THE GENTLEMAN WHO MADE HIS PROPOSAL, THERE'S SOMETHINGS THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE COMMON SENSE TO ME.

ONE IS YOU HAVE A TOWER AND IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR 1. 2 MILES? I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. THE ALSO RAISES WHY CAN'T WE GO OUT TO I-95. STILL DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. IT SEEMS THAT IF YOU HAVE A TOWER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE THAN 1. 2 MILES COVERAGE.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE COMMON SENSE TO ME.

IF YOU ONLY GET 1. 2 MILES COVERAGE, YOU'LL HAVE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE TOWERS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE AN EYESORE, A BLIGHT AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOR US WHO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE EVERY SINGLE DAY. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT'S NOT

[01:30:03]

APPEALING. ALL THE PICTURES THE GENTLEMAN HAVE SHOWN ABOUT TOWERS, I NEVER SAW ONE THAT LOOKED GOOD TO ME.

I WOULD ASK YOU GUYS AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING PART OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT, ONE THING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT IN OUR SOCIETY, WHETHER IT'S FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, IS TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE COMMUNITY. I'M SURE ALL YOU GUYS WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS TOM POWELL. I LIVE AT 108 HARTWOOD DRIVE.

WE MOVED INTO THE HARTWOOD COMMUNITY IN 2014.

HAD WE KNOWN A CELL PHONE TOWER WOULD BE 300 FEET FROM OUR BACKYARD, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I LOOKED AT SOME -- DID SOME RESEARCH.

THE IDEAL DISTANCE FROM A CELL TOWER, ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE RESEARCH, WAS 1,600 FEET. TOWER AT 300 FEET IS WAY TOO CLOSE. THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE THIS.

I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT. THAT WAS IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I'M GOING TO BE EVEN SHORTER.

PHIL, I LIVE IN DELUCIA. ALL OF HIS DATA WAS NOT INCLUSIVE OF THE NEW TOWER ON 207 AND WILDWOOD.

I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS TO ADD ONE MORE TOWER UNTIL THAT ONE IS UP AND RUNNING.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT.

SIMULATION IS LIKE SPECULATION. SHOWING WHAT THIS TOWER MAY LOOK LIKE, IT'S SPECULATIVE. IF BACK IN 2018 AND 2017 THEY WANTED TO PUT A TOWER IN PACETTI ROAD. IT SAID IF CONFIRMED, WILL YOU DO THE RED BALLOON TEST. THEY RAISE A RED BALLOON UP IN THE AIR WHERE THE TOWER IS GOING TO BE AND THAT WAS MORE MORE VISIBLE. OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY JOKED ABOUT IT AND LAUGHED. THEY SAID, NO, THAT'S FUNNY.

IT SHOULD BE DONE. IF THEY GOT THE MONEY TO DO THAT, MAKE THEM PUT UP THE RED BALLOON AND SEE WHERE IT'S AT AND NOW THEY CAN TAKE PICTURES INSTEAD OF CUTTING AND PASTING.

1.2 MILE COVERAGE, IS THAT THE DIAMETER FROM THE POINT OF TRANSMISSION OR IS THAT THE RADIUS FROM THE POINT OF TRANSMISSION? 1. 2 MILE COVERAGE FROM WHERE? IS IT, LIKE I SAID, THE DIAMETER OR RADIUS FROM THAT TOWER? THE HARD FACTS THAT WERE SHOWING UP THERE.

LAST WEEK IT WAS FUNNY BECAUSE SILVERLEAF WANT A TOWER PUT BEHIND THEIR HOUSES.÷÷WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY? THE CHURCH, I UNDERSTAND, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S IN A BIG AREA.

TO PUT THIS UP RIGHT THERE IN THAT SPECULATIVE AREA IN A -- IF÷÷THERE'S ANYTHING HISTORIC, YES, WE SHOULD HONOR THE PEOPLE BURIED THERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE CITY LIMITS WHERE IT'S AN HISTORIC TRUST.÷÷SITE. IT SHOULD BE TRUSTED.

IF THEY HAVE TO PUT THAT ONE CLOSE TO ANOTHER ONE, THEN THEY HAVE TO PUT ONE ANOTHER MILE AWAY AND ANOTHER MILE AWAY.

IT'S TOO MUCH OF A EYESORE. IT IS.

IT'S VISUAL POLLUTION. VISUAL POLLUTION GOING DOWN 95 AND SEEING ALL THOSE SIGNS GOING UP IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

EVEN THOUGH THEY USE THE BIG NAMES, VERIZON AND STUDIES ALL OVER THE OTHER COUNTIES AND STATES, THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.

[01:35:02]

TAKE IT FROM WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY WHO ARE RIGHT THERE IN THAT HOMES. NONE OF THE SIMULATION PICTURES WERE TAKEN FROM. LISTEN TO THEM.

THE PRESENTER DOESN'T PROBABLY HAVE THE TOWER IN HIS BACKYARD EITHER.

>> MR. TIMMONS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> THANK YOU. I'LL START OUT WITH THE ASPECT OF THE GOPHER TORTOISES. IN OUR STUDY THEY INDICATED THERE WAS A HABITAT AVAILABLE OR THAT EXISTED THAT THEY COULD BE THOSE TORTOISES.

IF THERE ARE GOPHER TORTOISES, WHICH WE HAVE RUN INTO ON PREVIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THERE'S A PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN REMOVE THE GOLFER TORTOISES, TAKE THEM TO AN APPROVED STATE HABITAT AND PLACE THEM IN THAT HABITAT. THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF THING THAT WILL END THE PROJECT. IT'S JUST ANOTHER STEP OR HURDLE WE HAVE TO OVERCOME. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WILL DO. TWO, THERE ARE NO LIGHTS PLANNED FOR THIS STRUCTURE. TYPICALLY COMMUNICATION TOWER SITES ARE VERY QUIET. THE ONLY TIME THERE'S ANY REAL NOISES IS WHEN THEY DO INITIAL START- UP OF THE GENERATOR TO TEST IT RANDOMLY.

IT WILL RUN FOR A FEW HOURS AND THEN IT'S TURNED OFF.

THERE WAS MENTION OF HISTORIC ASPECTS. I INDICATED TO YOU IN THE PRESENTATION, WE SUBMITTED INFORMATION TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THEY CAME BACK SAYING NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING. IF THERE WERE HISTORIC ASPECTS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THAT STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED THOSE AT THAT TIME AND THEY WOULD HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW WE WOULD THEN MITIGATE ANY IMPACT WE HAVE ON WHATEVER THE HISTORICAL IMPACT WAS. THAT DID NOT OCCUR.

WE STICK TO OUR POSITION THAT OUR STRUCTURE WOULD NOT AFFECT ANYTHING HISTORICAL ON THAT PROPERTY. LET'S SEE.

YOUR ORDINANCE ACTUALLY SPEAKS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. I BELIEVE IT'S OVER HERE.

RIGHT HERE. ITEM THREE.

NOT WITHHOLDING ANYTHING IN THIS CODE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION ABOVE. NOTHING OTHER THAN A MANIFOLD TOWER SHALL BE LOCATED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE A TOWER IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

YOU SAY IF YOU HAVE, IT HAS TO BE ONE OR TWO TYPES.

WE HAVE A MONO POLE. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO US BEING IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, WE'RE ABIDING BY THE CODE. THERE WERE REFERENCES TO, YOU KNOW, STUDIES ON VALUES AND WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY AND ALL OF THAT, RIGHT? JUST AS YOU HAVE QUESTIONED THE METHODOLOGY OF THE APPRAISAL THAT I PROVIDED YOU, WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY IN THESE STUDY THAT IS ARE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU? AS A MATTER OF FACT NO STUDY HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU. WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED AND PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED, LICENSED APPRAISER. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIS METHODOLOGY OR NOT, WE HAVE MET THE STANDARD OF PROVIDING YOU WITH SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE. WHAT YOU HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION IS THIS STUDY AND THAT STUDY, BUT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PROVIDED A STUDY AND YOU HAVEN'T CRITIQUED THEIR STUDY.

YOU HAVEN'T CRITICIZED THEIR STUDY IN TERMS OF WHAT IS

[01:40:01]

THEIR METHODOLOGY.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON EMF.

WE ALL KNOW EMF DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TESTIMONY.

WE'LL LEAVE THAT AT THAT. THERE'S ALSO -- UNDER SPECIAL USING, ITEM P, THE TOWER SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTED USES AND THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE MITIGATING EFFECT OF ANY PROPOSED BUILDING STRUCTURES IN THE AREA, THE TOWER TO EXISTING OR -- I THINK THE LAST ONE IS IMPORTANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. THE INTENDED TOWER SHALL NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUE. OUR STUDY INDICATES THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES.

WHAT THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE DOES NOT SAY -- IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT'S ABOUT IMPACTING PROPERTY VALUES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HOW MUCH IS IMPACTED.

DETRIMENTAL IMPACT. THERE'S AN ASPECT -- WHEN I WAS ASKED ABOUT THE STUDY -- WELL, IF HE DID THIS METHODOLOGY OR THAT METHODOLOGY, HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WOULD THERE BE IN HOW MUCH THEY ACTUALLY APPRECIATED VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT APPRECIATED? THAT CLAUSE DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT IMPACT.

IT TALKS ABOUT DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS.

THERE'S NO MEASURE IN THERE IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH IMPACT, AS LONG AS THE IMPACT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL. EVERYTHING I'VE DISCUSSED IN OUR STUDY INDICATES NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE COMMISSION QUESTIONING OUR STU STUDY SAYING, WELL, THE PROPERTY VALUES INCREASED, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD IT HAVE INCREASED IF THEY DID XY OR ? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ORDINANCE DISCUSSES. THE ORDINANCE WANTS TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM DETRIMENTAL IMPACT. I THINK THE LAST THING I WILL TOUCH UPON -- I'VE ALREADY ÷÷TOUCHED UPON PROPERTY VALUES AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S BEEN STATEMENTS MADE, BUT NO SIGNIFICANT COMPETENT INFORMATION S BEEN PROVIDED TO THIS COMMISSION OTHER THAN WHAT WE PROVIDED.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK AND DISCUSSION ABOUT VERIZON'S RF, WHY SHOULD THE TOWER BE HERE OR THERE AND THEIR COVERAGE? FIRST OFF, THE COUNTY'S THIRD- PARTY CONSULTANT REVIEWED VERIZON'S INFORMATION AND FOUND IT TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT COVERAGE INFORMATION.

THAT'S THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANT.

THEY AGREED WITH VERIZON. SECONDLY, WE PROVIDED RADIO FREQUENCY MAPPING. WE PROVIDED IT, I BELIEVE, ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS REQUIRED.

I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM PROVIDING IT.

WE PROVIDE IT ALL THE TIME. WE DON'T RUN FROM THAT.

WE DON'T HIDE FROM THAT. THERE'S A STATE LAW THAT BASICALLY SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE WHAT IT'S SAYING IS THAT -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REQUIRE INFORMATION ON OR EVALUATE A PROVIDER'S BUSINESS DECISIONS ABOUT ITS SERVICE -- QUALITY OF SERVICE TO OR FROM A PARTICULAR AREA UNLESS PROVIDED VOLUNTARILY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

THERE'S A FLORIDA STATUTE. WE PROVIDED IT.

WE HAVE NO PROBLEM PROVIDING IT. IT APPEARS IT'S NOW BEING USED AGAINST US TO QUESTION VERIZON'S BUSINESS DECISIONS.

I BELIEVE HAD WE KNOWN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE UPFRONT, MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.

BUT WE PROVIDED IT, WE ALWAYS PROVIDE IT, WE DON'T RUN FROM IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT.

I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS SOMEBODY HAD QUESTIONS.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY TOWER 2025-01 WILDWOOD WIRELESS

[01:45:03]

FACILITY BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS IN THE STAFF REPORT. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A FEW THINGS. NUMBER ONE, I DON'T FIND THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER TO COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA VISUALLY. NUMBER TWO, THE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST IS ESPECIALLY CONCERNING.

YOU COULD HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE ABUTTING RIGHT UP TO THAT SITE.

NUMBER TWO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT SAID IS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VALUE IS NOT.

I WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BASED ON MY 34 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE.

IF I WERE GOING TO DEVELOP ADJACENT TO A CELL TOWER, IT CERTAINLY WOULD IMPACT WHAT I FELT I COULD DEVELOP THERE AND THE VALUES I COULD GET OUT OF THOSE HOMES AS OPPOSED TO HOMES OF A SIMILAR SIZE AND LOCATION THAT IS NOT ADJACENT TO A CELL PHONE TOWER. WHEN AN APPRAISER DOES AN APPRAISAL OF A HOUSE, THEY FOUND COMPARABLE SALES AND THEY MAKE PLUS OR MINUS ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COMPARABLE SALE. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO APPRAISE AN 1,800-SQUARE FOOT HOME, YOU FIND SOME HOMES NEARBY IN THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION THAT ARE ROUGHLY 1,800 SQUARE FEET AND YOU ADJUST THIS HOME OVER HERE IS ON A RETENTION POND. PERHAPS YOU DEDUCT $5,000 FROM ITS VALUE TO ARRIVE AT THE VALUE OF THE HOME BEING APPRAISED BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON A RETENTION POND.

AN APPRAISER IF HE WAS NOT MAKING A NEGATIVE ADJUSTMENT FOR BEING ADJACENT TO A CELL PHONE TOWER IS MAKING A MISTAKE. THAT IS MY

MOTION. >> I SECOND

IT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL AND A SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. YES IS TO DENY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1.

SIR, I'M SORRY, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS ITEM IS OVER. THANK YOU.

IT'S BEEN DENIED AND I BELIEVE THIS GOES ON TO THE BCC OR NO?

>> OKAY. WE NEED TO RETAKE THE VOTE.

EVERYBODY REDO IT. THAT MOTION STILL PASSES 6-0.

[2. SUPMAJ 2025-03 Koi Sushi Thai & Bar. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.02 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the on-site sale and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages in conjunction with a State of Florida Type 4COP/SFS beverage license in connection with a proposed restaurant located in Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning and specifically located at 10870 US 1 North, Units 101-103.]

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. ANY EX PARTE FOR AGENCY MEMBERS? WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD?

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS EVAN ASOUDEGAN, ON BEHALF OF KOI SUSHI RESTAURANT. THE ADDRESS OF THE RESTAURANT IS 10870 U.S. HIGHWAY 1. TODAY THIS IS AN EXISTING RESTAURANT THAT JUST OPENED A FEW WEEKS AGO.

IT'S OWNED BY A WELL-KNOWN RESTAURANTEUR LOCAL TO THE JACKSONVILLE AREA ANDY LYLE AND THE PREVIOUS TENANT WAS THE CROSSCREEK BARBECUE STEAK. BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP, THE STANDARD PROCESS IS TO GO FOR THE LICENSE AGAIN.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. KOI SUSHI THAI AND

[01:50:14]

BAR, JUST LOOKING TO GET AN ALCOHOL PERMIT TO SERVE WITH FOOD.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> ONE COMMENT. THERE'S TWO OTHER RESTAURANTS THERE, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SALES ON SITE

NOW. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO. SEEING NONE, BACK FOR A MOTION.

MR. MATOVINA?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 2025- 03 KOI SUSHI BASED ON CLAIMS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> I SECOND THE

MOTION. >> THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE CURRENTLY OPEN, RIGHT?

>> THANK YOU. ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. MINMOD 2025-09 393 Canopy Forest Drive Pool. Request for a Minor Modification to the Silverleaf PUD (Ord. 2006-117, as amended) to allow for a Rear Yard setback of five (5) feet in lieu of the required ten (10) feet to accommodate placement of a swimming pool, and to allow an Accessory Structure setback of three (3) feet in lieu of the required five (5) feet for a screen enclosure, specifically located at 393 Canopy Forest Drive.]

ANY EX PARTE?

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. MCNALLY?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. FORGIVE ME.

THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE. I'LL TRY TO GET USED TO THE CLICKER HERE.

>> NOT A PROBLEM. >> IF IT PLEASES YOU GUYS, I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH A STATEMENT BEFORE I GET INTO THE POWERPOINT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS MASON MCNALLY. I HAVE MY WIFE CHARLENE MCNIKKI MCNALLY AND MY DAUGHTERS.

I'M HERE TO REQUEST A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS OUTLINED FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TITLE TEN, CHAPTER FOUR OF THE ORDINANCE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THIS IS FOR AN IN- GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND SCREEN ENCLOSURE. OUR VARIANCE REQUEST CONSISTS OF TWO ITEMS. WE REQUEST A MINIMUM OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET TO CONSTRUCT AN IN- GROUND SWIMMING POOL FOR THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS SET FORTH FOR THE RESIDENTIAL FAMILY LOTS AS DETAILED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SECONDLY, WE REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE ACCOMPANIED SCREEN ENCLOSURE TO BE PERMITTED AT A THREE- FOOT SETBACK. BEFORE I SPEAK TO THE TECHNICAL MERITS, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THE PERSONAL CONTEXT THAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WE DID SO WITH SINCERE INTENTIONS TO INSTALL A BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, NOT MERELY AS A LIFESTYLE UPGRADE, BUT A PROMISE TO OUR THREE YOUNG DAUGHTERS.

WE ENVISION A SAFE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM TO GROW UP IN WITH LASTING FAMILY MEMORIES. AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE VERBAL AND WRITTEN ASSURANCES WERE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDING, LEE LAND DEVELOPER, INDICATING A POOL COULD BE CONSTRUCTED. WE WERE ADVISED THAT THREE TO FIVE FEET OF USABLE YARD SPACE WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

IT WAS AFTER SUBMITTING OUR PERMIT APPLICATION FOLLOWING FULL HOH APPROVAL WE WERE INFORMED OF THE TEN- FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNDER THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THIS REQUIREMENT RENDERED OUR LOT NONCONFORMING FOR TYPICAL POOL INSTALLATION DUE TO A UNIQUELY CONSTRAINED BUILDABLE AREA AT THE REAR OF OUR PROPERTY. UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED IN CHAPTER TEN OF THE CODE, A VARIANCE MAY BE APPROVED WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. IN OUR CASE WE BELIEVE THAT THRESHOLD IS CLEARLY METAPHOR MET FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS -- OUR LOT IS UNIQUELY CONSTRAINED BY THE PRESENCE OF A PRESERVED BUFFER DIRECTLY

[01:55:03]

TO THE REAR WHICH REDUCES THE DEPTH OF OUR YARD. THIS HARDSHIP WAS NOT SOMETHING CREATED, NOR DISCLOSED PRIOR TO CLOSING.

IT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIRS THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LIMITATION IS EXCLUSIVE TO OUR LOT'S POSITIONING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVED BOUNDARY AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LOTS ON OUR STREET AS SEEN ON THE PHOTOS OR IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. AS FAR AS THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE, THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK TO THREE FEET IS NOT ONLY FUNCTIONAL, ALIGNED WITH HOH STANDARDS, BUT A MEDICAL NECESSITY.

ONE OF OUR DAUGHTERS HAS A MOSQUITO ALLERGY AND SHE CANNOT SAFELY ENJOY OUTDOOR TIME.

THE ENCLOSURE PROVIDES A HEALTH SAFEGUARD AND ENABLES OUR FAMILY TO MAKE SAFE AND MEANINGFUL USE OF THE PROPERTY. WE'VE TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT MEETING ENGINEERING AND SAFETY STANDARDS. THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY REVIEWED OUR PLANS AND PROVIDED NO OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS RELATED TO THE RETENTION WALL OR CHANGES TO THE STORM WATER FLOW. CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR WITH NO DISTURBANCE BOUNDARY.

WHEN WE PUT THE POOL IN, WE DON'T CHANGE THE GRADE OF THE LOT.

WE LEGALLY CANNOT GO SO. LASTLY FOR THIS SECTION, TREE PRESERVATION IN THE BACK PRACTICES WILL BE FOLLOWED.

NO TREES WITHIN THE REAR WILL BE REMOVED OR DESTABILIZED.

WE FURTHER BELIEVE OUR REQUEST SATISFIED ALL FIVE STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE CODE. NUMBER ONE, UNIQUE CONDITIONS EXIST SPECIFIC TO OUR LOT, INCLUDING ITS LOCATION WITH THE PRESERVED BUFFER AND ITS DIMINISHED USABLE AREA.

THE NEED FOR RELIEF IS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY US, THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT STEMS FROM MISREPRESENTATION AT THE TIME OF THE SALE AND UNDISCLOSED REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BESTOW ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH NEARBY PROPERTIES, RATHER IT WILL BRING OUR LOT INTO FUNCTIONAL ALIGNMENT WITH OTHERS THAT HAVE ALREADY POOLS AND ENCLOSURES.

THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PUD AND HOA AND WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PUBLIC WELFARE FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

LASTLY, A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CODE WOULD IMPOSE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY PREVENTING US FROM MAKING REASONABLE CUSTOMARY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE COMMON IN OUR COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE REQUEST FOR A POOL. IT'S A REQUEST TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR FAMILY'S GOOD FAITH AND RELIANCE ON PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE AND UNFORESEEN TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH OUR LOT.

WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY TO ENSURE THE PROJECT IS SAFE, FUNCTIONAL AND RESPECTFUL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS.

WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF OUR VARIANCE SO WE MAY FULFILL THE PROMISE WE MADE TO OUR CHILDREN AND MAKE SAFE USE OF OUR BACKYARD.

IF YOU GO THROUGH THE SLIDES, YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE OUR LAYOUT OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF OUR PROPOSED POOL. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT -- I ASSUME THERE'S A LASER POINTER ON THIS THING. THERE WE GO.

THIS WAS DONE BY OUR LICENSED POOL CONTRACTOR.

THE TOTAL LOT SIZE OF THIS WILL BE 54.89, WHICH IS UNDER THE 70% ALLOWANCE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE THE POOL WITH THE THREE FOOT SETBACK TO THE SCREEN AND FIVE- FOOT SETBACK TO THE WATER'S EDGE.

THIS IS THE HOA APPROVAL WE ORIGINALLY GOT WITH THE THREE- FOOT SETBACK. THEY'LL APPROVE THE FIVE- FOOT SETBACK. THIS IS A CURRENT PHOTO OF THE BACKYARD WHICH SHOWS THE PRESERVE AND THE RETAINING WALL WITH THE ASSURANCES FROM OUR

[02:00:04]

CONTRACTOR AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT THIS WILL NOT BE IMPACTED IN ANY WAY. THESE ARE 3D IMAGES OF OUR POOL DESIGNED APPROVED BY HOA AND OUR SCREEN ENCLOSURE WITHIN THE THREE- FOOT SETBACK.

LASTLY, DON'T NEED TO GET TOO MUCH INTO THIS, THESE ARE THE EMAILS THAT SHOW BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE HOME, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS A LEE SALES PERSON CONFIRMING THEY CAN GO FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS THE LEE DEVELOPER SAYING, YES, THEY CAN. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO HARP ON THAT. OUR BIGGEST THING IS GETTING THE VARIANCE APPROVED SO WE CAN GET STARTED ON OUR POOL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MATOVINA?

>> JUST IT APPEARS TO ME YOU GOT ABOUT FOUR FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE EDGE OF THE WATER AND THEN THE POOL'S ABOUT TEN FEET DEEP.

IF WE DIDN'T GRANT THE VARIANCE, YOU WOULD HAVE A GRAND TOTAL OF NINE FEET TO BUILD A POOL AND PROVIDE ROOM TO WALK AROUND. IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE RETAINING WALL? IT LOOKS LIKE A FENCE ON TOP OF IT.

>> MR. OLSON?

>> YEP.

>> OKAY. SO THAT IS A -- THAT'S YOUR BACKYARD?

>> OUR PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY ALMOST A FOOT BEYOND THAT RETAINING

WALL. >> BEYOND THE RETAINING WALL?

>> OUR PROPERTY LINE, YES.

>> OH, OKAY. SO YOU HAVE THE -- YOU'RE SEEKING A FIVE- FOOT VARIANCE INTO THE SETBACK FOR THE POOL AN THEN YOUR SCREEN STRUCTURE ENCLOSES THE POOL AND HAS A SPACE AROUND IT.

YOU SAY YOU'RE ENCROACHES THREE FEET ON THAT.

WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN IS YOU'RE ENCROACHING AN ADDITIONAL THREE FEET, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> FOR THE SCREEN CLOSURE, YES, SIR.

>> YOU'RE INTO THE VARIANCE A TOTAL OF EIGHT

FEET. >> THREE FEET FOR THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND FIVE FEET FOR THE WATER'S EDGE, YES, SIR.

>> A TOTAL OF EIGHT FEET INTO THE SETBACK?

>> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. LOOKS LIKE GROUND OUT THAT -- LET'S SEE. YOU HAD THE POOL DESIGNED IN FEBRUARY. THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED -- IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEWHERE AROUND APRIL YOU DISCOVERED THAT YOU WERE ENCROACHING AND NEEDED TO HAVE A REMEDY. DID YOU CONSIDER MODIFYING TO POOL DESIGN IN WAY TO STAY WITHIN THE SETBACK LINE? AS I ASK THAT, I SEE THAT YOUR HOUSE FOOTPRINT HAS A LANAI RECESSED AREA. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOUR INTERIOR FLOOR PLAN LOOKS, BUT HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT -- DID YOU THINK ABOUT DOING A DESIGN STUDY TO --

>> WE ACTUALLY DID WITH TWO POOL COMPANIES.

BOTH OF WHICH SAID IF WE STAYED WITHIN THE VARIANCE, OUR POOL WOULD BE FOUR AND A HALF FOOT WIDE. WITH THREE LITTLE KIDS --

>> THAT'S WITH THE SIDE AREA AND THE SPACING FROM THE

HOUSE. >> WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING FROM THE SIDE AREA BECAUSE A POOL CAN'T BE VISIBLE PER THE

HOA. >> THE SPACING FROM THE -- NOT FROM WITHIN YOUR LANAI RECESS, BUT FROM YOUR EXTERIO WALL FACING THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> WE DID A STUDY AND THEY SAID WE WOULD HAVE A FOUR AND A HALF FOOT WIDE POOL. WE HAD ANOTHER POOL COMPANY SAY IT WOULD BE BASICALLY

IMPOSSIBLE. >> MY FINAL QUESTION, HOW MUCH SPACE WILL YOU HAVE LEFT WITH THE EIGHT- FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK AREA? YOU SAID THE FENCE IS ONE FOOT INSIDE YOUR PROPERTY LINE.

DOES THAT MEAN YOU'LL BE -- HOW MUCH SPACE WILL YOU HAVE BETWEEN THE SCREEN STRUCTURE AND THE BASE ITS ON AND THE RETAINING WALL?

>> THREE AND A HALF FEET.

[02:05:02]

>> OKAY. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.

>> IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> WE HAVEN'T DONE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> OKAY.

I HAVE ONE COMMENT. THAT DROPS OFF A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM THE STREET.

THE BACKYARD DROPS OFF A LITTLE BIT, CORRECT?

>> THERE'S A VERY MINOR SLOPE IN WHICH OUR POOL COMPANY WHO WORKS DIRECTLY WITH THE COUNTY WILL DO ANY TYPE OF GRADING NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THE GRADING IS NOT

AFFECTED. >> MY CONCERN WOULD BE RUN- OFF GOING INTO THE PRESERVE AREA.

>> NO, BECAUSE --

>> I KNOW YOU GOT THE WALL

THERE. >> AND THEN -- IT'S HARD TO SEE HERE BECAUSE IT'S A 3D IMAGE.

THE POOL WILL BE RAISED ON THE BACK TO WHERE THE WALL WILL COME UP AND IT'S ILLEGAL FOR US TO CHANGE THE GRADING OF THE WALL. SO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED.

>> FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD BY THE COUNTY AND THE POOL COMPANY, THE COUNTY COMES OUT AND DOES A TEST TO MAKE SURE OF

THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO FOR THE RECORD CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SETBACK OF THREE FEET FOR THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE AN FIVE FEET TO THE WATER'S EDGE, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD NOT BE ENCROACHING EIGHT FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN FOOT. IT'S ENCROACHING SEVEN FEET.

YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, SIR. YOU NEED TO SPEAK INTO THE

MICROPHONE. >> CORRECT,

YES. >> I THINK THE EARLIER QUESTIONS WERE SUGGESTING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TWO FEET OFF THE BOUNDARY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR FOR THE

RECORD. >> GOT IT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.

SEEING NONE, BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION, I HAVE ONE CONCERN THAT WE'VE GOT A BUILDER AND A DEVELOPER THAT IS OKAYING TO GO INTO A SETBACK AGAINST THE COUNTY'S DOCUMENTS. THAT'S A CONCERN. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2025-09 FOR CANOPY FOREST DRIVE SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED BY

STAFF. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY DR. HILSENBECK. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEMS NUMBER FOUR AND --

[4. CPA (SS) 2024-14 Kellie Pacetti Family. Request for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 11.4 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Residential-A (RES-A); located at an unaddressed property south of Saint Marks Pond Blvd.]

ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WE DON'T NEED TO DO EX PARTE. MR.

BURNETT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD DOUG BURNETT ST.

JOHNS LAW GROUP. WE HAVE A POWERPOINT.

EXCELLENT. THIS IS AN EX TEN WAGS OF SORT OF A PACETTI FAMILY HOMESTEAD WITH MULTIPLE FAMILIES AT THE END OF SAINT MARKS POND BOULEVARD. TO ORIENT YOU, MIDDLE NORTH PART÷÷OF THE COUNTY, YOU CAN SEE WHERE INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY AND U.S. 1 CONNECT.

ALL THE WAY DOWN SAINT MARKS POND YOU GET TO WHERE THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED. THE BLUE SQUARE, THE RECTANGLE YOU SEE HERE ARE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OWNED BY FAMILY MEMBERS AS WELL. I'M ZOOM IN SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF HOW CLOSE THOSE TWO ARE AND WHERE THEY'RE BOTH LOCATED.

IT'S A PRETTY DEVELOPED AREA WITH HEAVY INDUSTRY AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS ENTRY AREA OF SAINT MARKS POND HAS BECOME MORE DEVELOPED. YOU CAN SEE PART OF THE ENTRY TO THE RECYCLING FACILITY, TRANSFER STATION AND GOING BACK TO THE PARCEL.

ZOOMING IN ON THE PARCEL, YOU CAN SEE WHERE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BIG AREAS OF LAND.

IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA AT THE SEND OF SAINT MARKS POND, YOU

[02:10:02]

CAN SEE A NUMBER OF HOUSES. THIS IS WHAT IS YOUR SUBJECT PARCEL THAT'S HERE. TWO THINGS RELATED TO THIS, THERE'S TWO TRIANGLES HERE. THE ONE ORIGINAL TRIANGLE WAS DEEDED AS AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL AS EARLY AS 1990. IT SHOULD BE A VESTED LOT OF RECORD. TO FOLLOW THAT UP, IN 1994 THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THIS WAS DEEDED OUT BY SEPARATE DEED.

SO THEN YOU HAD TWO PARCELS CREATED AS PEARL EARLY AS 1994.

THE FAMILY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A VESTED LOT OF RECORD.

THEY GOT SOME CONFLICTED INFORMATION.

YOU WOULD THINK THEY HAD TWO LOTS THEY COULD BUILD ON.

WE DID A SURVEY FOR THE KIDS AND ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, THAT NEWER PARCEL IN THE NORTHEAST OF THE TRIANGLE, IS A FAMILY MEMBER'S HOUSE THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. FUTURE LAND USE MAP, YOU CAN SEE IT'S -- WE'RE SEEKING RESIDENTIAL AID.

IT'S THE SAME AS THE RECTANGLE. YOU CAN SEE IT AGAIN HERE MORE CLEARLY. IT'S ALL OPEN RURAL.

FROM AN IMPACT REVIEW AND YOUR STAFF REPORT, JUST HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS ON THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S NO PROBLEM.

IT'S A SMALL PROJECT. TRANSPORTATION, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY CONCURRENCY REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S SO SMALL.

IT'S TWO LOTS AND THERE ARE EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD.

THE DRAINAGE AND STORM WATER ÷÷WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AS YOU WOULD WITH ANY PARCEL WITH SOMEONE BUILDING A HOUSE ON A PARCEL.

TECHNICAL REVIEW MIMICS THAT SAME KIND OF LANGUAGE.

ENVIRONMENTAL ULTIMATELY REACHES THE SAME COMMENT AS WELL, THAT ENVIRONMENTAL WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. JUSTIFICATION, THERE'S INTERESTING HISTORY HERE.

I LAID IT OUT IN THE APPLICATION.

I DIDN'T CREATE IT. I GOT IT FROM MS. PACETTI.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT DALE PACETTI AND KELLY PACETTI ARE THE FOUNDERS OF OUTBACK SAND AND SEPTIC. THEIR SONS RUN IT TODAY.

DALE PASSED AWAY A FEW YEARS AGO AND MS. PACETTI WANTS TO BUILD HER HOME HERE BECAUSE SHE'S WANTING TO MOVE DOWN THE STREET TO THIS AND THOUGHT SHE COULD BUILD. SHE'S BEING HELD UP RIGHT NOW.

SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE ESPECIALLY NOW THAT HER HUSBAND HAS PASSED. THE BOYS ARE THERE.

HER BROTHER IS THERE AND VARIOUS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA. THEY'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA SINCE ÷÷AT LEAST 1927 WHEN WHAT THEY CALLED THE SAINT MARKS POND VILLA WAS BUILT IN 1927.

I'LL SHOW YOU A MAP IN A SECOND.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF KIDS THAT LIVE THERE.

PATRICK'S THERE, BRENT'S THERE, HER OTHER BROTHER MICHAEL IS THERE AS WELL. I WANT TO SKIP THROUGH THIS, BUT THERE'S 14 ACRES DOWN THE STREET WHICH IS LIKE A FAMILY COMPOUND THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO GET TO HER WHERE THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE.

YOU CAN SEE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY DATABASE, MICHAEL'S PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THE ONE PARCEL KELLY CURRENTLY OWNS. YOU CAN SEE PATRICK'S HOME AND EDWARD'S HOME.

THIS IS THE FOUR LOTS THAT CAME THROUGH A FEW YEARS BACK.

YOU CAN SEE TWO HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT THERE SO FAR. THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FOUR LOTS ARE COMING DOWN THE BOTTOM ONE AT THE TOP RIGHT OF THE SCREEN.

I DIDN'T DRAW THESE LINES FOR THE TRIANGLE.

THEY'RE ALREADY IN I- MAP AND THEY'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE 1990, THE INTERIOR LINE HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1994. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION. I'VE GOT COPIES OF THE DEEDS IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A SMALL COMP SCALE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THESE TWO LOTS.

THERE'S NO OTHER PROPERTY INVOLVED.

WITH THAT, I'LL BE QUIET. I'VE GONE ON LONG ENOUGH WITH NUMBER ONE.

>> I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

MS. SPIEGEL?

>> YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING THE HISTORY.

THAT WAS DELIGHTFUL TO READ. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KELLY

[02:15:06]

BIRCHFIELD AND MARRIED DALE PACETTI.

WERE THEY FAMILIES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND SHE MARRIED INTO THE FAMILY?

>> YES. YOU AND GOT BIRCHFIELDS THERE AS

WELL. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

IT'S A NICE STORY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM FOUR. BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MS. SPIEGEL?

>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SMALL SCALE 2024-14.

>> SECOND.

>> MOTION APPROVAL AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU, MR. BURNETT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. IT'S NICE TO GET A

[Items 5 & 6]

REVERSAL FROM THE LAST MEETING I WAS HERE.

ON TO ITEMS NUMBER FIVE AND SIX. ANY EX PARTE ON NUMBER SIX?

>> I WENT OUT TO THE SITE.

>> MR. AND MRS. STRATTON?

>> MY NAME IS REGGIE STRATTON. THIS IS MY WIFE LAURA.

WE LIVE AT 1235 PINE ISLAND ROAD.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET OUR PROPERTY OUT THERE ZONED FROM CHT TO O.R. THAT WAY WE CAN PUT A MODULE HOME ON IT. THE FACT IS THAT I TORE MY TWO- STORY HOUSE DOWN AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAVE UP THE FUNDS TO GET A WHOLE OTHER HOME.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. COME TO FIND OUT WE CAN'T LIVE ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ANYMORE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT REZONED TO OR.

>> THAT'S BASICALLY THE NUT IN THE

SHELL. >> THAT'S OKAY.

SHORT AND SWEET. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MA'AM.

>> JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THERE'S A COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PAVED DRIVEWAY ON TO THE DIRT ROAD, PINE ISLAND ROAD. I TALKED TO THE TECHNICAL STAFF THAT WOULD BE THE CASE AND UNPAVED CAN GO ON TO UNPAVED.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS FIVE AND SIX? SEEING NONE, BACK INTO AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MS. SPIEGEL?

>> TWO SEPARATE ONES?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> I THINK THAT'S THE SECOND ONE.

MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA 2025-04, 1235 PINE ISLAND ROAD BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND THE SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

SECOND MOTION PLEASE.

>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 2025-07, 1235 PINE ISLAND ROAD BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> MOTION FOR

APPROVAL. >>

SECOND. >> AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT MOTION PASSES AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING

[Items 7 & 8]

IN. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THANK YOU ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. WHITEHOUSE, YOU'RE UP. ANY EX PARTE ON ITEM EIGHT?

>> SITE VISIT PERIMETER AROUND AS MUCH AS I COULD OF THE SITE. I DID A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE THIS AFTERNOON.

>> SEVERAL SITE VISITS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. WHITEHOUSE.

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE CALLED ME WHILE I WAS EATING MY LUNCH, INTERRUPTED ME EATING MY YOGURT AND CEREAL BAR.

[02:20:04]

HE REMINDED ME OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS AND HOW WELL HE DID IN GETTING THIS PASSED THE FIRST TIME THROUGH.

>> OKAY. DR. HILSENBECK?

>> I CALLED THE STATE FOREST LOCAL OFFICE.

DIDN'T GET ANY ANSWER. I CALLED THE VANILLA OFFICE AND LEFT A MESSAGE.

THEY NEVER CALLED BACK. CALLED THE STATE OFFICE IN TALLAHASSEE TRYING TO REACH RICK DOLAN.

COULDN'T REACH HIM, BUT SPOKE TO HIS ASSISTANT.

DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD DESCRIBE HER AS HIS ASSISTANT, CAT INGRAM.

I WANTED SOME INFORMATION FROM THEM AND THEY HADN'T HEARD ABOUT THE REQUEST. THEY HAD NO COMMENT ON IT.

SHE HAD TO CALL ME BACK AFTER CONFERRING WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

THEY HAD NO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL.

THAT'S IT. >> MR. OLSON?

>> YES, I VISITED THE SITE ON JULY 13TH.

DRIVEN BY IT A LOT BEFORE THEN BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS.

I RECEIVED A CALL TODAY ALSO FROM MR. WHITEHOUSE IN MY CAR ON THE WAY TO THIS MEETING. WE HAD A VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION. I SAT I HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN I HAD TIME TO ASK HIM AT THE TIME.

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE, THE FLOOR IS

YOURS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

JAMES WHITEHOUSE, HERE ON BEHALF÷÷OF THE SCHNEIDER FAMILY ON THE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT, ADOPTION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL ZONING APPLICATION ALL IN YOUR KETS.

THIS IS REZONING 2024-11. MOST OF YOU WERE HERE FOR THE TRANSMITTAL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

MR. OLSON WASN'T AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS.

I WANT TO GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY TO RE- ACCLIMATE YOU WITH THE REQUEST.

IT'S LOCATED ON U.S. 1 BETWEEN ÷÷206 AND I-95 IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY AS YOU HEARD FROM DR. HILSENBECK TO THE STATE FOREST AS WELL AS THE STATE PARK AND THE OTHER MANY DIFFERENT RESOURCES, NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE -- AND TOURIST ATTRACTIONS THAT OUR COUNTY PROVIDES. CAMP GROUNDS AND RV PARKS ARE PROMOTED BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

THIS IS CLOSE TO CRESCENT BEACH. THE NATIONAL MONUMENT IS NOT TOO FAR AWAY AS WELL AS MARINE LAND AND BOAT RAMPS.

THIS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ACCESS THOSE ARE WITHIN THE GOALS OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS PARTICULAR SITE, AS I TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, THIS SEEMS TO BE SORT OF A PERFECT SITE FOR THIS REQUESTED USE. IT'S A PUZZLE PIECE CUT OUT BETWEEN THE STATE FOREST AND OFF U.S. 1 IN GREAT PROXIMITY TO I-95 OFF OF 206 AS WELL AS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH ON U.S.

1. THIS SITE HAS BEEN USED FOR A LOT OF THESE THINGS FOR MANY YEARS AS YOU SEE FROM THAT PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE. AS I POINTED OUT LAST TIME, IT'S WITHIN RS CURRENTLY AND IT'S WITHIN OR. THE SITE IS -- A LOT OF IT IS CLEARED ALREADY. RURAL COMMERCIAL USESUSES APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA. AS I SAID WITHIN THE NARRATIVE, THE SITE -- AS THE STAFF HAS REPORTED, THE SITE WILL BE IDEALLY SITUATED NEAR A VARIETY OF TRAILS, PARKS AND OTHER RESOURCES THERE BY SUPPORTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENCOURAGE THE UTILIZATION OF OUR LOCAL TRAILS, PARKS, BEACHES AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

I TALKED TO YOU A FEW OF YOU ABOUT THIS AND I WANT TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE AS YOU SEE FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING, THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING AFTER WE TALKED AND THOUGHT ABOUT THE COMMENTS FROM BOTH THE -- BCC WHEN WE GOT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADOPTION -- FOR TRANSMITTAL, THERE WAS

[02:25:01]

DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INTENSITIES AND MAYBE REDUCING IT AND HAVING CONDITIONS ON THE REZONING TO TAKE OUT THE USES NOT APPROPRIATE.

WE'VE GONE BACK AND TALKED ABOUT THAT AND THEREFORE YOU SEE WITHIN THE REQUEST FOR REZONING THAT WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR THE REZONING FOR THE L SHAPED PART THAT WRAPS AROUND THE AREA THAT'S BEEN USED FOR OTHER AGRICULTURE USES AND WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND THE REQUEST NOW IS MERELY TO HAVE THE COMPOUND AMENDMENT ONLY COVER THE 77 ACRES THAT WRAP AROUND. THAT'S THE SAME AREA WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RURAL COMMERCIAL ZONING WHICH WE CONDITIONED TAKING OUT ALL THE USES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OBJECTIONABLE TO THE LETTER WE GOT INITIALLY FROM THE AREA THAT'S SOUTH ANASTACIA GROUP AS WELL AS STAFF. REALLY, NOW YOU'LL SEE -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH STAFF. SINCE WE CAME INITIALLY AND ASKED FOR THE FULL AMOUNT AND DID GET RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSMITTAL PRIOR TO COMING BACK TO YOU, WE DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE IT. WE WANTED TO BRING IT BACK TO NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE, BUT TALKING TO YOU AT THE TIME.

TALKING WITH THE COMMISSIONERS IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO THIS AREA AND LEAVE THE OTHER PART IN AG-RS.

THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD FINDS IT APPROPRIATE TO RECOMMEND IT FORWARD FOR ADOPTION OF THIS COMPOUND, WE ASK, IF YOU FEEL IT APPROPRIATE, LIMIT IT TO THIS AMOUNT.

IT'S UP TO YOU. WE CAN RECOMMEND IT FOR THE WHOLE AMOUNT. IT SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE AND THE BOARD WOULD RATHER HAVE IT BE THIS WAY.

IT ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE CONCERNS.

AS I SAID, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS DESIGNATED RS, BUT THE PROPERTY FITS LIKE A PUZZLE PIECE. THIS FITS IN PERFECTLY TO ALLOW THE COMPLIMENTARY USE OF THESE LAND USES AS DESCRIBED.

YOU SEE IN YOUR PACKET, WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND MET WITH STAFF AND CONDITIONED THIS ON TAKING OUT THE USES THAT DID NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE, WHICH I STATED WE WERE GOING TO DO ANYWAY.

THEY'RE OUTLINING THAT WITHIN THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONAL ORDINANCE. AS I SAID, IN DOING THIS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHWEST WILL REMAIN IN RS WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE CURRENT OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL USES, THE CAMPING GROUNDS ALREADY THERE, SO THEY CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THE EQUESTRIAN USES AS WELL, WHICH AS MR. LABANOWSKI POINTED OUT LAST TIME, COULD BE A GREAT COMBINED EFFORT IN THE AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN USE -- PEOPLE CAN BRING HORSES. YOU'LL SEE THAT PART IS CONTAINED WITHIN OUR RURAL COMMERCIAL AREA ON THE TOP PART. AGAIN, IT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL ÷÷SITE PLAN. YOU'LL SEE THE STAFF -- WE WENT OVERTHIS OVER THIS A BUNCH OF TIMES.

THIS IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO CUT THAT PART OUT AND YOU'RE REDUCING THE INTENSITY PART OF IT WITH THE INTENTIONAL ZONING AND THE REZONING DOES THAT AS WELL.

ANALYSIS OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS, UNDER A-125 IT TALKS ABOUT DOES THIS PROMOTE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS A POSITIVE ECONOMIC DRIVER.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. WE TALKED ABOUT THE STUDIES THAT I PUT FORWARD AND THEY'RE ALSO WITHIN YOUR REPORT AS WELL AS MY APPLICATION THIS TIME AGAIN HOW THIS TYPE OF A USE, RV CAMPING IS SUCH A HUGE ECONOMIC IMPACT. IN FACT, IT'S THE NUMBER ONE ECONOMIC IMPACT BY INDUSTRY SEGMENT IN RECREATION IN OUR STATE. AS WELL AS ONE OF THE TOP ONES IN OUR COUNTRY.

SO TO BE SURE THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA OF OUR COUNTY. IT'S LOCATED IN THIS RURAL QUASI COMMERCIAL STRIP OF U.S. 1.

THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA.

IT FITS LIKE A PUZZLE PIECE INTO THE AREA.

TO BE SURE THE REQUESTED USES ARE NEEDED IN THIS AREA AND THE LOCATION APPEARS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AMENDMENT, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF ITS ACCESS TO THE INTERSTATE AND RVS COMING INTO TOWN AND LEAVING TOWN WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING TO HUGE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ON OUR LOCAL ROADWAYS. AS I SAID, IN FACT, THIS PROPERTY IS RIPE FOR THE UPDATE TO REFLECT THE LONG- STANDING USES AND ALLOW THE ADDITION OF THIS COMPLIMENTARY RV CAMPGROUND.

I WON'T EMPHASIZE IT MORE, BUT IT SEEMS TO FIT LIKE A PUZZLE PIECE INTO THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY AS PROMOTED BY THE

[02:30:03]

COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH AND CONSIDER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, YOU TALK ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY. YOU SEE THE STAFF ANALYSIS WHICH SEEMS TO INDICATE THIS DOES MEET AND PROMOTE OUR GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.

A-125, GOES THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THERE.

WE WENT THROUGH THIS LAST ÚTIME AS WELL.

THEY'RE IN YOUR STAFF ANALYSIS AS WELL.

AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL DEPARTMENTS. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THIS WILL BE ANALYZED WHEN IT COMES FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY DELETERIOUS EFFECT BASED ON THE DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW.

THERE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THIS.

IT WAS PRESENTED LAST TIME AS WELL.

NO ENDANGERED SPECIES ON THE SITE.

THE PROJECT WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON ANY LISTED SPECIES.

AS POINTED OUT IN THE NARRATIVE, AS I SAID, THIS SITE WILL BE IDEALLY SITUATED BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THESE OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES AS PROMOTED BY OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE SCHNEIDER FAMILY ASKS YOU TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDSING ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE UPDATES OF THE LAND USE WHICH ALLOW THE RC CAMPGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL REZONING.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. AS I PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AS WELL, THERE'S THE SUGGESTED MOTION WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT VIA THE STAFF WHICH WHICH SUGGESTS APPROVAL WITH THE FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED BY THE STAFF REPORT. I WOULD REITERATE WE'RE COMFORTABLE IF YOU WANT TO -- IF THE MAJORITY WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IT FORWARD WITH THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF 77. 24 ACRES IN THE L- SHAPED PARCEL THAT'S INCLUDED AS WELL, OR THE FULL THING. EITHER WAY IS FINE.

I THINK THAT THE -- BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION THIS IS MORE APPROPRIATE. ALSO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING BASED ON THE FOUR FINDINGS AND TWO CONDITIONS. THE TWO CONDITIONS ARE, NUMBER ONE, WE'VE AGREED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE IS PROHIBITED AND WE'VE TAKEN THOSE OUT.

SECONDLY, THEY WOULD WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT IF THAT EVER APPLIED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MADAM CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU MR. WHITEHOUSE. MR. OLSON?

>> I GUESS ARE WE SIMPLY DISCUSSING FIRST THE CHANGE IN LAND USE GIVEN THE PROPOSED CAVEATS TO THE LAND USE? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE REALLY DISCUSSING THE RV PARK NOW ALSO OR ARE WE NOT? IT'S A POINT OF

ORDER. >> HE PRESENTED BOTH AT ONE TIME. WE'LL TAKE A MOTION ON EACH ONE

SEPARATELY. >> SO I DO HAVE DISCUSSION AND

QUESTIONS. >> ABSOLUTELY.

GO AHEAD.

>> DO I ADDRESS RV PARK?

>> ASK ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF THESE ARE QUESTIONS. SOME OF THESE ARE THOUGHTS.

FIRST OFF, BECAUSE OF WHERE I LIVE ON NORTH BEACH, WE HAVE A RV, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, NOW THAT'S BEEN A MOVED FOR A SITE THERE. IT IS SMALLER THAN THIS.

I HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME STUDYING WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN REGARDS TO THE RV CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY. IT TURNS OUT THAT -- I GUESS I'M MAKING STATEMENTS NOW FROM WHAT I FOUND.

IT TURNS OUT THAT MOST OF THESE CAMP GROUNDS TODAY THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED, MANY OF THEM LOOK LIKE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. MOST OF THEM ARE NOT THIS HUGE.

I MEAN, THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONCENTRATE IN A VERY, VERY CONCENTRATED WAY OVER 300 RV S. THE RVS THAT ARE POPULATING THE PARKS IN FLORIDA NOW, THE NEW ÷÷ONES BEING DEVELOPED, ARE NOT NECESSARILY PEOPLE THAT

[02:35:02]

ARE COMING DOWN FROM OHIO AND TRAVELING AND TOWING THEIR -- BRINGING OR DRIVING IN THEIR RV. THEY'RE -- THESE PARKS ARE BEING PROMOTED AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SECOND HOMES, OPPORTUNITIES FOR PURCHASING AN RV OR WHAT IS NOW BEING CALLED A PARK MODEL, WHICH IS A MINI HOME THAT'S PREMANUFACTURED AND TECHNICALLY STILL IS CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE IN AN RV BECAUSE IT REMAINS ON A CHASSIS AND WHEELS, BUT THEY'RE MOVED AND OFTEN SOLD AND IN SOME CASES RENTED OUT FOR VACATION RENTALS OR LONGER TERM APARTMENT STAYS. MANY OF THESE NOW ARE -- MEET THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL RATHER THAN RV CAMPGROUND, MOBILE RVS BECAUSE EVEN THE COUNTY DEFINITION IS IF YOU HAVE A KITCHEN AND PLACE TO SLEEP, IT'S A RESIDENCE. ONE OBSERVATION IS THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING NOT NECESSARILY AS A CAMPGROUND, WE'RE LOOKING AT A RATHER LARGE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BECOME MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN CAMPY.

THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS.

>> IF I MAY, MR. OLSON THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE HAVE -- IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR STAFF REPORT IN THE COMMENTS, WE HAVE A REGULATION WITHIN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT REGULATE THE TIME OF STAY AND WHAT YOU CAN DO AND WHETHER YOU CAN BOLT THESE DOWN AND WHETHER THEY CAN BECOME RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE SPECIFIC COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF. THE REVIEW WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. IT CAME UP AT OUR INITIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. I KNOW YOU WEREN'T HERE, BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THERE ARE REGULATIONS ON THAT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE STAFF CAN SPEAK TO

THAT. >> THANK YOU.

BASED ON THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION.

WE'RE ALL MAKING PUBLIC RECORD NOW. DO YOU HAVE -- DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE ANY PLANS TO LOCATE, INVITE, ALLOW PARK MODELS, WHAT IS COMMONLY IN THE INDUSTRY CALLED PARK MODELS WHICH ARE MANUFACTURED MINI HOMES ON WHEELS TO OCCUPY THIS PARK?

>> I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REGULATIONS WITHIN OUR CODE.

THAT WAS A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN RV PARKS WITHIN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY.

>> I DISAGREE BASED ON MY RECENT EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST YEAR. THE LDC DOES NOT HAVE THAT PROHIBITION RIGHT NOW AS I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY LEIGH COUNTY.

>> I'LL JUMP IN REAL QUICK HERE THROUGH THE CHAIR.

JACOB SMITH. PARK MODEL RVS BY STATE STATUTE ARE TREATED LIKE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. I CAN'T ANSWER THE APPLICANT'S QUESTION. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RVS, THE STATE DEFINES THAT AND IT CAN BE MORE THAN JUST SOMETHING YOU HITCH TO THE BACK OF YOUR TRUCK OR DRIVE AROUND. THE DEFINITION IS BROAD AND INCLUDES PARK MODEL TRAILERS.

>> RIGHT. I ASK MY

QUESTION. >> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S NO INTENT TO HAVE THESE HOMES LONG TERM. THERE'S TIME PERIODS, THOUGH, THAT YOU CAN STAY WITHIN THESE RV PARKS. I THINK OUR CODE -- I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF THIS PARTICULAR CAMPGROUND WITH THE STAFF. I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC SECTION OF OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT. THERE'S SOMETHING THAT TALKS ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTENT TO HAVE

THOSE. >> THERE WILL NOT BE ANY PARK MODELS LOCATED ON THIS PROJECT?

>> WHEN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'LL CONFER WITH MY CLIENT TO MAKE SURE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS NO.

>> OKAY. SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE SHORT- TERM STAYS?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> AND BE MOVING OUT?

>> OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS -- EXCUSE ME. 300 PLUS RVS, HAS THE WATER,

[02:40:03]

SEWER, LOCAL PROVIDED WATER AND SEPTIC SEWER.

WHAT ARE THOSE PLANS?

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND THE STAFF MAKES IT VERY CLEAR WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT -- I TALKED TO THEM MANY TIMES ABOUT THIS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN AMENDMENT AND STRAIGHT REZONING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING CONDITIONED AND WE TAKE OUT THE USES THAT THE TZB -- WE HAVE TO TALK TO THE STAFF ABOUT THAT AND IF THERE'S A VARIANCE IT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU.

THE INTENT TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE

APPLICATION. >> THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE OR GET PAST SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND CERTAINLY THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM A RESIDENCE ON A LARGE LOT.

THESE ARE VERY -- I MEAN, THIS IS A CONCENTRATION.

IT'S A CONCENTRATION OF WATER DEMAND AND SEWAGE

FLOW. >> THESE ARE -- YES, SIR.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, THESE ARE TEMPORARY STAYS.

THIS IS -- IT'S 120 ACRES. WE'RE ASKING TO LIMIT THAT TO THE 77 TO REDUCE SOME OF THE ISSUES AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAPPEN BEFORE. NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ON 77 ACRES AND THEY'LL SL HAVE TO MEET EVERY REQUIREMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER AND THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE.

THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN. THEREFORE, IT HASN'T BEEN FULLY ENGINEERED AND IT'S NOT FULLY VETTED WITH BOTH THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. IT WILL HAVE TO BE WHEN THEY COME FOR SITE PLAN RE-VLADIMIR PUTIN REVIEW AND THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL THOSE

REGULATIONS. >> ONE MORE QUESTION AND MAYBE IT WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER. THERE WILL BE NO -- LONG- TERM LEASING OR SALES OF ANY UNITS, RVS OR PARK MODELS FROM THOSE OR ON THIS SITE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> JAMES, I DO LIKE CAMPING A LOT, BUT RVING IN MY OPINION IS NOT CAMPING, BUT THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

>> YES, SIR. THANK

YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK?

I LIKE YOUR REDUCTION TO THE L- SHAPED 77 ACRES.

THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE 120.

I LIKE THE VARIOUS USE AGREEMENTS THAT YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS AGREED TO PUT ON THERE.

THOSE ARE GOOD. LET ME MENTION, THERE IS CAMPING AS YOU'RE AWARE IN THE STATE FOREST. IT'S PRIMITIVE CAMPING FURTHER EAST FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS. YOU GET TO IT OFF DOUBLE GATE PARK AND PRINCESS PLACE.

>> INITIALLY -- I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS AT THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING. I THOUGHT IT WAS INCOMPATIBLE.

I DON'T SEE IT FITTING LIKE A PUZZLE PIECE.

IT DOES FIT IN THERE, BUT IT'S SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION LAND AND RURAL SILVA CULTURE. I STILL THINK IT'S INCOMPATIBLE. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE FOREST TO DEAL WITH FIRE ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT MANAGEMENT TOOL. YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH RVS ON THE NORTH AND EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL. THAT'S A CONCERN WHEN THEY PRESCRIBE FIRE. I CLARIFIED WITH FLORIDA FIRE SERVICE STAFF YESTERDAY.

THEY TRY TO BURN ON A WEST WIND. ALL THE FLAMES -- YOU WOULD HAVE A HEAD FIRE.

>> THEY DO IT GHANA REGULARLY.

>> I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THEY TOLD ME THEY TRY TO BURN ON A WEST WIND SO IT BLOWS OUT OVER THE RIVER AND THE INTERCOASTAL THERE AND WAY OVER A1A. THAT'S GOOD.

THAT ALLEVIATED SOME OF MY CONCERNS.

WHAT IF THERE'S A WILDFIRE THAT'S NOT ON A WEST WIND? I MEAN WILDFIRES DO OCCUR.

[02:45:04]

EVERYONE REMEMBERS THE '98, '99 SEASON OF WILDFIRES IN FLORIDA. A LOT OF AREAS BURNED, FLAT WOODS LIKE THIS IS. YOU COULD HAVE A WILDFIRE OUT THERE WITH AN EAST WIND OR A NORTHWEST WIND OR WHATEVER, SOUTH WIND. IT COULD BLOW FIRE RIGHT INTO YOUR PROPERTY RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS A CONCERN.

EVEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF U.S. 1, WEST OF U.S. 1, IT COULD JUMP U.S. 1. THAT'S A LARGE RURAL SILVICULTURE AREA. THAT'S BORNE OUT BY -- I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE PROBABLY 50 TIMES AND THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, TABLE TWO.

THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME. I HOPE YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT.

I STILL HAVE CONCERN OVER, AS I DID WITH THE TRANSMITTAL, OVERALL INCOMPATABILITY AND THE SEPTIC. YOU'RE REDUCING THE SIZE TO 77 ACRES, BUT THE IMPACT OF 316 RV SITES IS STILL -- THAT'S A LOT OF SEPTIC, A LOT OF SEWAGE.

THOSE ARE CONCERNS. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THEM NOW, LATER, GREAT OR NOT AT ALL, FINE. APPRECIATE

IT. >> SURE.

THANK YOU, SIR. NUMBER ONE, AS IS EMPHASIZED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS I EMPHASIZED IT'S A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.

THE CHANCE THEY'LL DO 300 IS PROBABLY SLIM NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS IS A STRAIGHT REZONING.

WE'RE REDUCING THE, YOU KNOW, INTENSITY OF IT BY PUTTING THE PROHIBITIONS ON THE REZONING.

WE'RE REDUCING THE INTENSITY OF IT BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AREA THERE IS. THEY CAN DO THIS WITHIN AND THEY HAVE TO DO ALL THE USES AS YOU SEE. CLEARLY 'NEWS YATED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY HAVE TO DO THAT ALL WITHIN THE AREA THAT'S REQUIRED FOR -- AS YOU SEE FROM THIS AND IN THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO USE SOME OF THAT AREA FOR SOME OTHER USES. THE CHANCES OF THEM DOING 300 OR WORRYING ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR USES THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHEN YOU DO A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND YOUR EXPERT STAFF AD ALL THE DEPRTMENTS OF THE STATE HAVE TO REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN LINE WITH REGULATIONS IS HARD TO DO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE USE. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMPATIBLE, STAFF EVALUATED THEM IN THE MULTIPLE REVIEWS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF FOR THIS APPLICATION AND SAY ITS MEETS AND PROMOTES THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALL OF THOSE SHOW THE FACT THAT THESE TYPE OF USES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON A MAJOR THOROFARE, WHICH IT IS ON U.S. 1.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

THIS IS. THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT IT FITS LIKE A PUZZLE PIECE INTO THIS AREA BECAUSE -- YOU HEARD ONE OF YOUR FELLOW AGENCY MEMBERS TALK ABOUT THEY'RE AN RVER AND IT'S ONE OF THE BETTER PLACES THEY'VE EVER SEEN.

YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS TO A MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR AND ACCESS TO A MAJOR HIGHWAY SYSTEM. YOU HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT ANOTHER RV SITE THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

THE ONLY THING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS IS THIS IS 100,000 TIMES BETTER THAN THAT ONE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR ACCESS TO THIS SITE. AS FAR AS ADDRESSING WILDFIRES, WILDFIRES COULD BREAK OUT ANYWHERE IN OUR

COUNTY. >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> ALL THOSE HOMES COULD BURN. FOR THAT TO BE A CONSIDERATION, IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT THAT TYPE OF HYPOTHETICAL OR ADDRESS IT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE BEST SPOTS THAT THIS USE WITHIN OUR COUNTY COULD BE AND IT'S A MAJOR ECONOMIC DRIVER WHICH IS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S ALSO IN A SPOT WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND GO. WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT'S COMPATIBLE TO THE THINGS AROUND IT, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU WANT THESE USES WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY THOSE AND THAT MAKES IT COMPATIBLE.

THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE HAVE THOSE AND

[02:50:01]

THEY'RE PREPARED TO MEET ALL THOSE.

OTHER THAN THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE STEPS THEY'VE TAKEN AND AGREED TO NOW TO CONDITION THIS ZONING, TO TAKE OUT THE USES THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT WERE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, SPOKEN AGAINST BY THE SOUTH ANASTACIA GROUP IS A BIG STEP ON THEIR PART. WE COULD HAVE JUST LEFT THEM IN.

THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THIS IS WHAT THEY'VE DONE FOR DECADES WITHIN THE COUNTY AT MANY SITES.

THEY'RE VERY RESPECTED FOR DOING THIS. IT'S NOT SOME SPECULATIVE ÷÷PROJECT THEY'RE BRINGING FORWARD. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY SPENT A LONG TIME ON AND MEETS THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> YOU SAID IT'S A STRAIGHT REZONING.

IT'S ALSO A COMP PLAN.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AS A STRAIGHT REZONING.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF REPORT ACTUALLY STATES THIS IS COMPATIBLE.

IF THE COUNTY STAFF SAY IT'S COMPATIBLE, SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS. WILDFIRE, YEAH, IT COULD BREAK OUT ANYWHERE, I AGREE. MORE LIKELY ON RURAL SILVICULTURE LANDS MORE SO THAN A NEIGHBORHOOD. I WASN'T GOING TO DO THIS, BUT YOU KNOW THIS AS WELL AS I DO OR BETTER, POLICY A.13. 11 ABOUT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S INCOMPATIBILITY.

I COULD READ YOU ALL THE CRITERIA, COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES IS BASED ON NUMEROUS CHARACTERISTICS, TYPE OF USE DENSITY, THIS IS DENSE, INTENSITY, HEIGHT, GENERAL APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS, ODORS, NOISE, SMOKE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH NOISE RVS MAKE. I'VE NOT BEEN AROUND THEM THAT MUCH. DUST, VIBRATION, TRAFFIC GENERATION. I THINK THE TRAFFIC IS FINE.

SANITATION, LITTER, DRAINAGE, FIRE RISK, SOIL CONDITIONS, WILDFIRE, SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE PROTECTION, LISTED SPECIES, CENTRAL HABITAT.

AVAILABLE OF POTABLE WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND OTHER NECESSARY SERVICES AND NUANCES. I COULD READ OTHER POLICIES PUT IN BY THE STAFF HERE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO.

I JUST STATED MY -- WHAT I THINK ARE ISSUES WITH THIS.

THEN THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS, FIGURE TWO, I JUST DON'T -- THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

ANYWAY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, OVERALL COULD BE A GOOD PROJECT. I'M NOT CONSIDERING THE OTHER RV CAMPGROUND OR WHATEVER HAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.

THAT IS IRRELEVANT IN MY OPINION AS WELL.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. ANYWAY, THOSE ARE CONCERNS I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE ON WHAT MR. OLSON WAS SAYING ABOUT PERMANENT STRUCTURES. KOAS HAVE CABINS THEY BUILD. THERE'S NO PLANS FOR CABINS, NOTHING PERMANENT STRICTLY IN AND OUT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THE CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE WETLANDS, WHERE THE ROADWAY WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH THERE. IT'S CROSSED OUT AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ROADWAY CHANGES WHATSOEVER?

>> THAT AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE AREA WE'RE TAKING

OUT. >> OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> MS. SPIEGEL?

>> JUST TO DR. HILSENBECK'S COMMENT ABOUT FIRE. WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS ON THE PHONE. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING FIRE, THAT THEY RECOMMEND USING -- INCLUDING FIRE WISE USA PRINCIPLES. IT IS A CONCERN.

YOU KNOW, IT IS. SEE ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE DOING PRESCRIBED BURNS.

THINGS CAN HAPPEN. WE SPOKE ON THE PHONE ABOUT THE TREES AND THE SETUP AND WHAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE.

I DO UNDERSTAND THEY WOULD WANT TO MAKE THIS BE SOMETHING APPEALING AND THEY WANT TO COME BACK TO. THIS AREA IS ALREADY LARGELY CLEARED. IF YOU DRIVE BY, THERE'S ONE NICE CROP OF TREES. I WOULD HATE TO SEE THOSE GO.

I HOPE THEY WOULD WORK AROUND THOSE.

YOU SAID ALL THE USES RELATED TO THE RV PARK WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED ON THOSE 77 ACRES. THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF

[02:55:02]

LOTS THEY COULD USE AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE SEPTIC, YOU SAID THAT'S CONCEPTUAL AND WILL BE BASED ON WHATEVER THE STATE REQUIRES.

IT'S NOT A COUNTY THING.

>> DENSITY, IT IS INTENSE AND SEEMS INCOMPATIBLE.

I'M NOT AN RVER SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO THINK HOW THIS IS A BENEFIT. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO TRAVEL AND THEY WANT TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN GO POPPING AROUND.

YOU GET OFF 95 INTO 286 AND YOU'RE NOT DRIVING THROUGH ST. AUGUSTINE.

THERE'S A COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING TEN MOBILE HOMES COUNT AS ONE DWELLING UNIT, WHICH WAS INTERESTING. THAT'S SOMEWHERE IN OUR CODE.

DOESN'T SAY THERE'S -- THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NUMBERS IN OUR COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT REALLY FITS. IT'S JUST SORT OF INTERESTING AND WOULD MATTER TOWARDS THE AMOUNT OF SEPTIC AN THE TURNOVER FOR THAT.

I'M REALLY JUST MAKING COMMENTS.

DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH. POTABLE WATER.

THEY'LL DO WELLS, BUT THAT WATER ISN'T ALWAYS POTABLE.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT'S --

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S STANDARDS THEY HAVE TO MEET WHEN THEY DO THAT, ESPECIALLY FOR A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR.

AGAIN, THAT'S WAY, WAY DOWN IN THE WEEDS AND SOMETHING THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AS FAR AS THAT GOES. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT, BUT THAT'S MY

UNDERSTANDING. >> THEN I READ YOU HAVE BUFFERING ALONG THE HIGHWAY AND FROM THE ROAD IT WILL BE MORE BUFFER THAN IT IS NOW.

IT'S PRETTY, BUT NOT BUFFERED. PERMANENT CAMPING IN THE HORSE AREA, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I LIKE THEY STILL HAVE THAT.

THERE'S PERMANENT CAMPING. DR. HILSENBECK I TOOK SOMEBODY BACK THERE THE OTHER DAY FOR A CAMP SITE BACK THERE. THEY'RE PRIMITIVE, VERY PRIMITIVE. ONE OUTHOUSE AND ONE TRASH BIN AND A FIRE PIT. IT'S NICE.

SO I WAS REALLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BECAUSE I DO APPRECIATEAPPRECIATE LAND OWNERS CHANGING SOME OF THIS BASED ON MR. BURNS AND ANASTACIA GROUP'S COMMENTS.

IT IS LESS INTENSE. I GUESS THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NUMBER SEVEN OR

EIGHT? >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M ALAN KEITH O'NEAL, ST. AUGUSTINE.

I'M KIND OF LATE TO THE SHOW. NOT AWARE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE. JUST BECAME AWARE OF IT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS.

IF I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THAT AREA THAT KNEW SIX DAYS AGO, I'M SURE THERE'S PROBABLY OTHERS.

YOU ALL BROUGHT UP SOME GOOD COMMENTS DURING THE MEETING. YOU HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T BEING ANSWERED. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU BROUGHT UP IS THE EXTREME FIRE RISK. I CAN TELL YOU UP UNTIL A MONTH AGO, THIS AREA HAS BEEN BONE DRY.

IF YOU HAVE A FIRE FROM AN RV WHERE THEY'RE COOKING OUT OR HAVING OUTDOOR FIRE PITS, THAT'S GOING TO SPREAD RAPIDLY.

YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS ON 206, NEIGHBORHOODS ON U.S. 1. IF IT SPREADS RAPIDLY THROUGH THAT FOREST, THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES AT RISK. NOT TO MENTION, HOW DOES IT IMPACT OUR INSURANCE FOR FIRE RISK? NOBODY SPOKE ABOUT THAT. YOU SAID THERE'S GOING TO BE SHORT STAY. WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? ST. JOHNS SHERIFF'S OFFICE GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? YOU HAVE TO EVICT THEM? THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERED. MR. HILSENBECK, BROUGHT UP THE IMPACT OF THE STATE FOREST AND HOW IT IMPACTS THEM.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMEROUS HORSES, INFLUX OF PEOPLE, 312 RV CAMPGROUND LOTS. WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO THE CAMP GROUNDS BACK THERE? DURING THE RAINY SEASON, WE'VE BEEN FLOODED. NOW YOU'RE BUILDING UP THE LOTS FOR THE RVS. WE'LL HAVE WATER RUN-UP.

NOBODY FROM THE FORESTRY IS TELLING US THEY'RE NOT EVEN AWARE THE PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED.

[03:00:01]

WE TALKED ABOUT GOING DOWN 206 AND MAKING OUR WAY TO A1A. 83 HOMES ARE GETTING READY TO BE BUILT THERE. WE HAVE A TWO- LANE ROADWAY ALREADY CONGESTED. IMAGINE 312 MORE FAMILIES.

I'VE RIDDEN MOTORCYCLES ALL MY LIFE. ANY ONE THOUGHT ABOUT SPRING BREAK? THEY KICKED THEM OUT OF DAYTONA.

THEY LOVE RV CAMP GROUNDS. TWICE A YEAR THEY'LL BE PACKED WITH MOTORCYCLES. EVEN OVER TO OCALA, THEY'RE PACKED. NOTHING AGAINST MOTORCYCLISTS, LOVE THEM, BUT I DON'T WANT 312 SETS OF PEOPLE DOWN THERE. THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ANOTHER IMPACT FOR US. WELLS, ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS GO TO THE AREA AND LOOK AT THE RETENTION PONDS AND SEE HOW THE WATER REDUCED OVER THE SUMMER TIME. APPARENTLY I'M AT THE END OF MY TIME. I WOULD ASK THIS, MADAM CHAIR, THIS CAME UP IN SIX DAYS NOTICE FOR ME.

I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO PASS IT AND GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU AND TELL YOU HOW THEY FEEL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NUMBER SEVEN OR EIGHT. MR. WHITEHOUSE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

AS I SAID, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH STAFF, THROUGH EVERY STAFF DEPARTMENT FOR BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS THE REZONING. WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL THE ISSUES. THERE ARE NO OPEN COMMENTS.

THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ÷÷WILL BE ADDRESSED AT SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THE STATE AND LOCAL CODES AND REGULATIONS.

THEY PLAN TO DO SO. YOU KNOW, WHEN THESE THINGS COME BEFORE YOU, THERE HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD TO PROVE IT'S APPROPRIATE.

WE PUT THAT BEFORE YOU. STAFF ANALYZED THAT.

THERE'S NO OPEN COMMENTS. THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ISN'T STATED BY A BOARD MEMBER, WHICH ISN'T COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. IT HAS TO BE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU. THERE COULD BE HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT ANYTHING BURNING DOWN.

IF THERE'S PEOPLE THAT LIVE OUT THERE, THEIR HOUSE IS GOING TO BURN DOWN IF THERE'S A WILDFIRE OUT THERE.

AGAIN, STATING HYPOTHETICALS THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY COOKING ON A GRILL MIGHT LIGHT THE PLACE ON FIRE IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

IF THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT HAPPENED, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. IN THIS CASE THERE'S NOT.

OUR APPLICATION SHOWS THIS IS APPROPRIATE AND MEETS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT'S AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS BASED ON THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND IT'S COMPATIBLE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT.

I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ADOPTION OF COMPAMD 2024- 03 SCHNEIDER FAMILY CAMPGROUND BASED ON THE THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE CONDITION THE LAND USE CHANGE BE RESTRICTED THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE 77 ACRES, THE L- SHAPED

PARCEL. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? THERE IS A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S REGISTER TO VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION IS A TIE 3-3.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. CAN I GET A MOTION, MR. MR. MATOVINA?

>> POINT OF ORDER. WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION I SUPPOSE?

>> NO. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A TIE

VOTE. >> CORRECT.

THESE ARE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDATIONS.

IF THIS IS FOR THE BOARD, IT'S DIFFERENT.

FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.

YOU CAN DO A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REZONING AS WELL.

>> MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZ 2024- 11 SCHNEIDER FAMILY CAMPGROUND BASED ON

[03:05:04]

THE PROVISIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THIS MOTION IS ABOUT?

>> THIS ONE IS ON THE ZONING.

>> THANK YOU. >> NO PROBLEM.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND SECOND ON THE ZONING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION IS THE SAME 3- 3 VOTE. THANK YOU, MR.

[Items 9 & 10]

>>> WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

MR. MATOVINA?

>> YES. I NEED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT BECAUSE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, WE DO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS WITH THE OWNER. I HAVE TO DECLARE A CONFLICT ON ITEMS NINE AND TEN

UNFORTUNATELY. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY ON THE AGENCY HAVE EX PARTE FOR ITEM TEN.

MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> ANYBODY ELSE? MR. OLSON?

>> I'VE DRIVEN DOWN THAT ROAD BEFORE. ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE QUICKER THAN OTHERS. THIS IS A 13.2 ACRE SITE JUST A HALF MILE SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAINT MARKS POND BOULEVARD AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS THE INDUSTRY PARK THERE AT THE SOUTH CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION OF IGP AND SAINT MARKS POND. THE SITE IS USED FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE. THERE'S A CONCENTRATION OF WAREHOUSE USES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WE'RE HOPING TO ADD TO THAT EXPANSION. HERE'S AN OVERALL AERIAL WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE PATTERN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING AREA.

PALENCIA IS ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S A FORMER LANDFILL.

AGRICULTURAL, CONSERVATION WETLANDS AND INDUSTRIAL USES ON THE SITE.

IT'S SILVICULTURE. WE'RE ASKING FOR A ZONING OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. OUR PROPOSED PUD WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM OF JUST OVER 136,000 SQUARE FEET OF PHASED INDUSTRIAL USES, BUSINESS COMMERCE, WAREHOUSING, OUTDOOR STORAGE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING.

THE PROJECT WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASE S.

PHASE ONE WOULD -- I HAVE THIS UP.

THIS WOULD HAVE THE FIRST TWO BUILDINGS. I HAVE TO LOOK UP THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE SECOND HALF BEING A LAY DOWN YARD. PHASE TWO WOULD CHANGE THE LAY DOWN YARD TO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS FOR MAXIMUM OF 136,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE SITE IS CLOSE TO EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES.

THIS WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS PARK, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK TO THE NORTH THAT HAS VERY QUICKLY FILLED UP.

THEY HAVE MAXIMIZED AND LEASED OUT ALL THEIR SPACE AT THIS POINT.

THERE'S A DEMAND AND A DESIRE FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBLE WAREHOUSE SPACE IN THIS AREA.

THE ONLY WAIVER WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSERVE A MINIMUM OF 5% OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION. THIS SITE NO LONGER HAS ANY NATURAL VEGETATION BECAUSE OF ITS PAST AS A TREE RECYCLING FACILITY THAT WAS UNDER PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP.

THERE WAS A CEASE AND DESIST FOR EXCEEDING THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NOTHING NATURAL REMAINS UNFORTUNATELY. THAT'S THEIR ONLY WAIVER.

JUST THE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT CONTINUOUS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES. THERE ARE LIMITED AREAS AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.

THIS WOULD MEET A NEED PROVIDING MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND ECONOMIC BASE FOR THAT.

[03:10:01]

WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

WE CAN GO BACK TO THE CONCEPT PLAN.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> YOU'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE LOCAL ACT?

>> WE'RE WAIVING ANY DEVELOPMENT

ON THE LOCAL ACT. >> YOU HAVE OPEN SPACES.

WILL YOU BE PUTTING IN TREES THERE SINCE THE LOT IS CLEARED NOW OUT TOWARDS THE RETENTION POND?

>> THE LDC REQUIRED A TEN- FOOT PERIMETER BUFFER.

THERE IS TO THE SOUTH AN EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT ABUTS TO THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT IMPACTING THAT. THAT'S UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP. WE WILL MEET ANY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE COUNTY AND WE'RE PRODUCING THE TEN- FOOT BUFFER AS

WELL. >> THANK YOU.

>> MS. SPIEGEL?

>> THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE PHASING. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO START FOR TEN YEARS AND THEN YOU HAVE TEN MORE YEARS AFTER THAT TO DO THE SECOND PHASING.

WHY SO LONG?

>> I'LL LET THE CLIENT SPEAK TO THAT.

MR. SMITH?

>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION?

>> THAT IS NOT OUR PLAN. OUR PLAN IS TO GET STARTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE N BUILDING THE FIRST PHASE. AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD IT -- WE HAVE A BACKLOG OF SMALL USERS THAT ARE -- WE HAVE A WAIT LIST OF PEOPLE THAT LOOK -- IF YOU ALL KNOW, IT'S 1% IN THIS COUNTY THAT'S WAREHOUSE/INDUSTRIAL. FOR US, I HAVE THEM WORKING ON THE UTILITIES AND EVERYTHING AT THIS POINT. MY GOAL IS TO GET STARTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE ACQUIRED THE LAND.

YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THAT USED TO BE WAS A RECYCLING FACILITY THAT CREATED A LOT OF THE SMOKE IN THE COUNTY AND SO FORTH.

WE BOUGHT THAT AND TOOK IT AWAY. OUR GOAL IS TO START IMMEDIATELY AND I HOPE TO HAVE IT BUILT OUT WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THAT'S MY GOAL.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 10 AND 20.

I DIDN'T READ THAT. THAT IS NOT MY

INTENT. >> WOULD YOU CONSIDER CHANGING THE LANGUAGE IN THAT?

>> I THINK THAT'S MORE -- ISN'T THAT RIGHT, FIVE YEARS AND FIRE YEARS, THAT'S MORE REGULAR?

>> MADAM CHAIR, I HAD AN EX PARTE.

A COMMUNICATION WITH JEN ABOUT THIS PROJECT, NOT ABOUT THE PROJECT SO MUCH, BUT THE ENVIRONMENT.

I FORGOT TO DISCLOSE THAT. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER NINE OR TEN?

>> CHARLIE HUNT. I WANT TO KNOW IF A TRAFFIC REPORT WILL BE DONE FOR THAT INTERSECTION OR THAT STRIP OF NINE- MILE ROAD OR IGP THAT RUNS TO U.S. 1. IT'S BECOMING A VERY, VERY HEAVILY TRAFFICKED AREA. THAT TWO LITTLE LANES RUNNING DOWN THERE -- MAYBE WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE MAJOR -- THE BIG STRUCTURES, I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE CONCRETE TRUCKS. THEY SIT THERE BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP FOR HALF A MILE TRYING TO TURN INTO THE CONCRETE STATION OR TRYING TO LEAVE IT. IT'S GETTING BAD RIGHT THERE.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL TRAFFIC THE WHEN COMPANIES LIKE THIS WANT TO BUILD, THEY NEED TO PUT MONEY IN THE KITTY TO ADD TO SOME ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON NINE MILE. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE? MS. MARTINAGE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND?

>> TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN DONE AND IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET IN YOUR PACKAGE. TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IS HERE AND ROD COULD SPEAK TO THAT QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR, I WORK FOR TRAFFIC

[03:15:01]

SOLUTIONS. REGARDING IGP, THEY'RE LOOKING AT IMPROVEMENTS LONG TERM.

THIS PROJECT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS AND MITIGATE AS NECESSARY.

THE PROJECT IS GOING TO MONITOR TRAFFIC CONES AS THEY PROGRESS AND THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TURN LANES ON IGP. THEY'RE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED. TRAFFIC WILL BE MONITORED CONSTANTLY AND IMPROVEMENTS AS

NECESSARY. >> THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY?

>> NO.

>> BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

MS. SPIEGEL?

>> I WAS LOOKING AT MR. MR. MATOVINA, BUT THEN I FORGOT HE RECUSED HIMSELF SO HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL BE MR. MOTION FOR THIS ONE. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 2025- 03 SAINT MARKS POND, INDUSTRIAL PARK SOUTH BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION PASSES 5-0. CAN I GET A MOTION FOR ITEM TEN?

>> YES, MA'AM. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PUD 2025- 02 STANT MARKS POND INDUSTRIAL PARK SOUTH BASED UPON NINE FINDINGS OF FACT AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDED TO CHANGE THE PHASING TERMS TO FIVE YEARS AND FIVE YEARS. IS THAT CORRECT?