[Call meeting to order]
[00:00:07]
>>> WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
THIS IS MONDAY, AUGUST 4TH. PONTE VEDRA ZONING VARIANCE ADJUSTMENT MEETING. RISE TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GET STARTED. WITH A READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE.
>> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW.
THE YOU PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AREA OF JURISDICTION.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER F THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MAY DO SO BY FILLING OUT A SIGN-IN SHEET AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, THEIR ADDRESS, SPEAKERS MAY BE SWORN TESTIMONY.
IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN, WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE AGENCY -- BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.
IF A PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL A DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE HAT THE VER BAY ITEM RECORD IS MADE.
EACH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, WRITTEN STATEMENTS, SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK AND INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE BOARD AGENCY OR COMMIT OR THE COUNTY TO REVIEW OF THE APPEAL RELATED TO THEM.
AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT BEGINNING THE EACH MEETING THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH AN APPLICANT OR ANY PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEMS OUTSIDE THE FORUM HEARING OF THIS AGENCY.
IF THE COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE WILL RESPECT EACH OTHER AND EVEN IF WE DISAGREE, WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO ISSUES AND AVOID ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS.
[Minutes for Board Approval: 04/07/25 and 05/05/25]
>> THANK YOU, JOHN. ALL RIGHT.
FIRST, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 7TH AND MAY 5TH MEETING. IF ANYONE HAS ANY CORRECTIONS, COMMENTS TO THOSE MINUTING.
MY NAME BEING SPELLED DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT SPACES. THAT'S THE ONLY THING.
OTHER THAN THAT, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR APRIL AND MAY?
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. FIRST ON AT THE AGENDA -- EXCUSE ME. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? NO? OKAY.
[1. PVZVAR 2025-03 Simpkins Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.D of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a Front Yard setback of 40 feet in lieu of the required 50-foot platted Building Restriction Line to accommodate the construction of a replacement single-family home, specifically located at 65 San Juan Drive.]
OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PVZVAR 2025- 03 SIMPKINS RESIDENCE.>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ROBERT HE ESPOSITO.
I'M REPRESENTING JOSEPH AND LESLIE SIMPKINS ON THEIR PROPERTY, 65 SAN JUAN DRIVE. MY ADDRESS IS ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA.
THAT'S BASICALLY ALL THE INFORMATION THERE.
[00:05:03]
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OR WHAT WE ARE SUBMITTING FOR HERE IS A MODIFICATION TO THE FRONT BUILDING RESTRICTION SETBACK LINE.WE BELIEVE THAT AFTER STUDYING THAT IT IS IN CHARACTER WITH THE ADJACENT, ESPECIALLY THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY -- THERE'S A PRECEDENT SET WITH THEIR PROPERTIES.
THEY HAVE HAD A 10-FOOT ADJUSTMENT AS WELL.
THERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS R1B.
THIS IS THE PLATT FROM 1929 OR -- I CAN'T READ THAT THERE. IT WAS IN THE '30S I BELIEVE.
YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT LOT THERE, LOT NUMBER 8.
THIS DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATES THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE -- THEIR FRONT SETBACK HAS BEEN REDUCED ALREADY TO 40 FEET. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THERE IN THE CENTER WITH A 50-FOOT FRONT SETBACK. I MEANT TO MENTION ALSO, THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. WE'REDOING A REPLACEMENT HOME ON THIS PROPERTY. THIS INFORMATION WAS GATHERED FROM THE GIS. HERE IS ANOTHER DIAGRAM TO HELP ILLUSTRATE THE RELAXATION OF THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACK FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
HERE WE'RE JUST OUTLINING -- ADDRESSING POINTS OF HARDSHIP FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THE NARROWNESS OF THE LOT, NUMBER ONE, IS -- LET ME GO BACK HERE TO R1B. TYPICAL LOT WIDTH IS 100 FEET.
THIS IS A 75-FOOT WIDE LOT. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT IS ALSO REDUCED FROM WHAT IS TYPICALLY ENCOUNTERED IN THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THE THINGS WE WANT TO POINT OUT IS THAT WE BELIEVE THIS IS PECULIAR TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THOSE ADJACENT, OBVIOUSLY. IT'S NOT -- WE BELIEVE IT IS EXCESSIVE SHALLOWNESS OF THE LOT COMBINED WITH THIS TAPER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE -- IF YOU GO BACK TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PLATT, IT DOES MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT HOME THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTEXT AND FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING.
TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, WE DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. I WILL SKIP AHEAD A MINUTE HERE.
WE DO HAVE SEVERAL NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT, WHO ARE SUPPORTING THIS OWNER IN THIS ADJUSTMENT OF THE FRONT SETBACK.
I THINK THAT IF WE WERE HELD TO THE 40- FOOT -- OR THE 50- FOOT FRONT SETBACK, I THINK THAT IT WOULD CREATE SOME REAL PROBLEMS WITH TRYING TO CREATE A PLACEMENT -- A REPLACEMENT HOME ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD FOLLOW THE CHARACTER AND FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, ILLUSTRATING THE SHALLOWNESS OF THE BUILDABLE AREA WITH A 50- FOOT SETBACK. WE HAVE ALL OF THE ENCLOSED AREAS IDENTIFIED . IT MAKES PRETTY GOOD SENSE.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A COVERAGE VARIANCE.
WE'RE WITHIN THE 40% COVERAGE. THEN HERE ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS ADJACENT AS WELL AS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WHO I THINK IS ACROSS THE STREET.
I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE AT.
THEY ARE WITHIN THE 300 FOOT RADIUS.
THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT, I THINK. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE WE BEGIN QUESTIONS, IF ANY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION?
[00:10:05]
>> I DID VISIT THE SITE. I SPOKE WITH NOBODY.
>> I VISITED THE SITE BUT DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE.
>> I HAVE NOT VISITED THE SITE. NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY ABOUT
IT. >> I DID VISITED SITE AS WELL.
I DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE. THANK YOU.
>> YOU WANT ME TO START? QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IF THIS HAD NOT BEEN PLATTED IN 1939, THE SETBACK WOULD BE 40 FEET?
>> JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S RIGHT, MR. PATTON. THE ZONING IS R1B, A 40- FOOT FRONT SETBACK IF IT WAS NOT PLATTED ON THE PLATT.
>> QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. AS I SEE IT, THIS IS ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
AGAIN. >> IT'S ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> MIGHT BE THE SMALLEST LOT IN
ONE OF THE SMALLEST, YES, SIR.
>> YOU ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY CHANGE TO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ON THE WATER SIDE?
>> STRICTLY THE CHANGE TO THE FRONT?
THE CURRENT CODE? >> YES, SIR.
>> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. I NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE WAS ONE PERSON WHO WAS OBJECTING TO THIS. IS THAT CORRECT STILL?
>> I DID RECEIVE ONE PHONE CALL FROM AN ADJACENT -- NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT. I THINK IT WAS SOMEONE SEVERAL LOTS DOWN. THEY WERE IN OPPOSITION FOR THE REQUEST. I TRIED TO CALL THEM BACK TO CLARIFY WHAT THE REQUEST WAS. I NEVER GOT INTO CONTACT WITH THEM. THAT WAS THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE I GOT.
>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST? OKAY. BOARD DISCUSSION?
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF WE CAN GET THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE PVZRA 2025- 03, SIMPKINS RESIDENCE, SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
[2. PVZVAR 2025-05 Dayton Pool. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.M of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of 44% in lieu of the required 40% to accommodate the placement of a proposed swimming pool, located specifically at 303 Pablo Road.]
>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PVZVAR 2025-05, DAYTON POOL.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE WILL DO ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
>> I DID VISIT THE SIDE. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.
>> I DID NOT VISIT THE SITE. I HAVE NOT HAD IN I COMMUNICATION.
>> SAME. DID NOT VISIT THE SITE. DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION.
>> I DID VISIT THE SITE. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS MICHELLE DAYTON. MY HUSBAND ED AND I LIVE AT 303 POPLAR ROAD. I WANTED TO THANK YOU. AM I TOO QUIET? THANKING YOU FOR HEARING OUR REQUEST FOR OUR VARIANCE. HOPEFULLY APPROVING OUR REQUEST.
I AM FAR FROM AN EXPERT AT PRESENTING BUT WILL DO MY BEST TO NOT HOLD ANYONE UP AND GET THROUGH THIS SO YOU ARE NOT -- IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR I MISS ANYTHING, FEEL FREE TO STOP ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME. THE DESCRIPTION OF OUR VARIANCE IS WE'RE REQUESTING TO HAVE
[00:15:02]
A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RACE RATIO 44% TO ACCOMMODATE A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD.HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF OUR HOUSE.
WE ARE 303, IN THE MIDDLE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE PRETTY BIG LOTS WHERE WE LIVE.
BEHIND OUR HOUSE IS A LAGOON AND BEHIND THAT IS A GOLF COURSE. WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A NEIGHBOR BEHIND US THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY OUR POOL. WE ALSO HAVE A HIGH, HIGH PERCENTAGE OF POOLS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING OR OUTSIDE OF THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN FOR WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THE POOL IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY OUR GRASS IN THE BACKYARD.
WE WILL HAVE A SMALL POOL DECK THAT WILL SURROUND THREE SIDES OF THE POOL WITH ONE SIDE NOT HAVING ANY POOL DECK.
WE HAVE TRIED TO MINIMIZE THAT WITH THE IDEA THAT IN THE FUTURE WE MAY NEED IT TO BE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE EITHER FOR A WALKER OR WHEELCHAIR OR ONE OF THE FANCY LITTLE SEATS THAT PUTS YOU IN THE POOL AND TAKES YOU OUT. THEN ON TWO SIDES OF THE POOL WE WILL ADD ARTIFICIAL TURF. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT HAS A DRAINAGE RATE OF FIVE TYPES YPICAL SOD HAS.
WE ARE HOPING THAT WILL HELP WITH WATER INTRUSION. THE REST OF THE POOL IS SURROUNDED BY SOD. WE KIND OF CAME UP WITH SIX JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHY WE NEED THIS VARIANCE. I WILL QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE FOR YOU. THE FIRST IS WE HAVE A SINGLE STORY HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1966.
AT THE TIME, IT WAS BUILT, WE WERE ALREADY JUST BELOW 40% CONCRETE COVERAGE.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE POOL.
WE MADE A SMALL ADDITION AND REMODEL TO OUR HOME IN 2018 TO ACCOMMODATE OUR MOM WHO HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AND ALZHEIMER'S. DURING THE ADDITION, WE DID DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE PEFSHOUS PORTION. WE DID THIS TO SAVE CONCRETE COVERAGE. WE CONSTRUCTED THE PARKING PADS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND OUR FRONT YARD TO REDUCE THE CONCRETE COVERAGE. AT THE TIME, WE WERE USING AN ARCHITECT AND SHE HAD BEEN UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POOL PORTION DID NOT COUNT FOR CONCRETE COVERAGE. WE HAVE SINCE LEARNED IT DOES.
WE HADN'T SAVED AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WE HAD.
SECOND IS THE DRAINAGE PITCH FOR OUR LOT IS BACK IF FRONT.
OUR FRONT YARD DRAINS TO THE STREET WHERE WE HAD A NEW STORM DRAIN INSTALLED ABOUT TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM US. OUR STREET IS ALSO ONE OF THE FEW ONES IN OUR AREA THAT HAS A CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEM SO WE DON'T INCUR THE FLOOD PROBLEMS THAT OTHERS EXPERIENCE. THEY DIRECT THE WATER FROM THE STREET INTO THE STORM DRAIN. OUR BACKYARD DRAINS TO THE LAGOON BEHIND OUR HOUSE. THE LAGOON, AS I SAID, S A GOLF COURSE. WE HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY WATER OR DRAINAGE ISSUES SINCE 2001.
THIRD, WE HAVE GUTTERS THAT SURROUND OUR HOUSE.
WE HAVE TWO DOWNSPOUTS IN OUR BACKYARD THAT ATTACH TO DRAINS AND ARE TAKEN OUT TO THE END OF OUR YARD AND PUT INTO A FRENCH DRAIN.
DURING THE POOL CONSTRUCTION, WE ARE GOING TO PLAN TO INCREASE THAT DRAINAGE DOWNSPOUT. FOUR WILL DIVERT ALL WATER AWAY ELECTRIC OUR HOUSE AND OUR NEIGHBORS. WE WILL INSTALL AN OVERFLOW DRAIN IN THE POOL THAT WILL ATTACH TO A PIPE THAT WILL BE DIRECTED TO THE END OF OUR YARD OR INTO ONE OF THE FRENCH DRAINS.
OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IS BUILDING A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND POOL. THEIR LOT IS GRADED ABOVE OURS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD INCUR ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES AS A RESULT OF OUR POOL. OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH HAS THE SAME GRADE AS OURS.
IT IS FRONT AND BACK. THEY HAVE NEVER HAD DRAINAGE ISSUES. WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM BOTH OF THOSE NEIGHBORS SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH US GETTING THIS VARIANCE.
OUR FIFTH JUSTIFICATION IS THAT WE DO HAVE A PATIO IN OUR BACKYARD.
IT HAS A LARGE GAS FIRE PIT ON IT.
THE PALT YO HAS GAS LINES, ELECTRICAL LINES, PLUMBING LINES, DRAINAGE LINES ALL RUNNING UNDER IT.
IT'S NOT SAFE TO USE FOR A POOL DECK.
NOR DOES IT HAVE THE SPACE TO DO THAT.
[00:20:02]
FINALLY, I UNFORTUNATELY HAVE SOME HEALTH ISSUES, DISABILITIES THAT ARE DRIVING OUR NEED TO INSTALL THIS POOL. MY NEUROSURGEON FEELS I NEED TO STAY PHYSICALLY FIT TO STAY OUT OF THE OPERATING ROOM.HE INSTRUCTED ME TO NOT DO HIGH IMPACT EXERCISES OR LIST MORE THAN 25 POUNDS, WHICH IS NOT FUN. HE SAID LOW IMPACT EXERCISE. THE BEST IS SWIMMING. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CIRCLED BACK AND REVISITED TRYING TO DO A POOL IN OUR BACKYARD TO HELP ME DOWN THE ROAD.
FINALLY, I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH TEN NEIGHBORS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. NINE OF WHICH ARE IN WHAT THE COUNTY DETERMINED IS OUR 100-FOOT IMPACT RADIUS.
TEN OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS.
I WAS TOLD THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE COPIES AND GIVE THEM TO YOU. GREAT.
SO THAT WAS REALLY NICE OF MY NEIGHBORS TO DO. VERY HELPFUL.
I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATED THAT. I WANTED TO AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR OUR REQUEST.
IF I MISSED ANYTHING OR YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IN OUR PACKET, IT DOES HAVE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS FOR THE LOT TODAY AT 43.3%.
IS THAT CURRENT OR IS THAT AFTER THE POOL?
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE CALCULATED 43.3. THE REQUEST IS FOR 44% EVEN TO GIVE A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM.
>> ALSO QUESTION FOR STAFF. BASED ON IT BEING 3. 3% OVER, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 700 SQUARE FEET OF AREA? 680 DOING THE MATH IN MY HEAD.
>> BEAR WITH US WHILE WE RUN THROUGH THE MATH ON THAT. IT LOOKS LIKE 7,600 IS JUST UNDER 40%. THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT.
IT'S ABOUT 750 OR SO. >> THANK YOU.
>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM? NO? SEEING NONE.
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ANY BOARD DISCUSSION?
>> REMIND EVERYBODY SINCE WE HAVE FOUR MEMBERS THAT IT TAKES A VOTE OF FOUR POSITIVE TO AFFIRM THIS.
IF ONE OF US TURNS THIS DOWN, IT'S ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK FOR ANOTHER APPLICANT -- APPLICATION. IS THAT CORRECT, STAFF?
>> IT IS CORRECT. THIS BOARD, PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD REQUIRES A VOTE OF FOUR, THE MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL BOARD TO GET AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
>> OKAY. ANY CONCERNS ON THIS? I HAVE A CONCERN.
>> I HAVE NO CONCERNS OF THIS REQUEST. IF ANYONE ELSE DOES -- ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE BOARD.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZRA 2025- 05, DAYTON POOL, BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> MOTION PASSES. VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE AND FOR YOUR TIME.
[3. LDCA (PV) 2025-06 Subdivision Regulations. An amendment to the Ponte Vedra Zoning and District Regulations to reflect changes to Florida Statutes that went into effect with the enactment of Senate Bill 784 on July 1, 2025. The bill requires administrative approval of a plat or replat submitted pursuant to F.S. 177.091 according to certain processing criteria. An amendment (LDCA 2025-05) to similarly amend the Land Development Code was heard by the Board of County Commissioners on July 22, 2025, and approved 5-0 (Motion by Commissioner Murphy, Second by Commissioner Arnold).]
[00:25:07]
>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS LDCA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. LISA BROWN, GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
THIS IS NUMBER THREE. LET'S GET STARTED.
THIS IS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8E, DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ALSO SECTION 12H, WHICH IS THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR THIS BOARD AND CODE TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS THAT WENT INTO AFFECT JULY 1ST.
THAT CAME WITH SENATE BILL 784, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR DESANTIS ON JUNE 20TH, 2025.
WHAT DOES THE BILL MEAN ESSENTIALLY GROWTH MANAGEMENT NEEDED TO ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR PLATTS AND REPLATTS WITHOUT REQUIRING IT TO GO BEFORE HEARING.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTED TO APPOINT MIKE ROBERTSON GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE PLATT AND REPLATT APPROVAL DECISIONS. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS TO REVIEW THE REQUIREMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PLATTS AND REPLATTS -- SUBDIVISION PLATTS. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
THIS IS SCHEDULED TODAY AND THEN IT WILL ALSO GO -- YOUR RECOMMENDATION WILL GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON AUGUST 19TH.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
>> IF THIS GETS APPROVED, THEN A PUD LIKE THE PONTE VEDRA CLUB WOULD NOT COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE?
>> NO, SIR. THIS IS FOR SUBDIVISION PLATTING ONLY.
>> I THOUGHT IT SAID PUD IN THE --
>> NO, SIR. IT'S SUBDIVISION PLATTING.
NOT PUD. THAT PROCESS WOULDN'T CHANGE.
>> IT WOULD BE REMOVING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS BOARD AND GOING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONER SNZ. >> IT'S REMOVING THAT RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL. IT WAS A STATE STATUTE -- SENATE BILL PASSED BACK IN JUNE THAT WENT INTO AFFECT JULY 1ST.
NOW IT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT WE ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR PLATTS AND REPLATTS.
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO YOU ARE AWARE, THE PLATTS WHEN THEY GET APPROVED AND REPLATTS, THEY HAVE TO MEET STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. ONCE THEY MEET THOSE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. THERE'S STILL CRITERI.
IT'S JUST HOW THAT CRITERIA IS APPROVED, IF I HELP YOU WITH THAT. IT'S STILL CRITERIA. IT'S JUST THE APPROVAL PROCESS HAS CHANGED.
IF THEY MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL THROUGH YOUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO PASS THIS AMENDMENT?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF LDCAPV 2025- 06, SUBDIVISION AMENDING THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO REMOVE THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF PLATTS, REPLATTS BY THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD CONSISTENT WITH S177.071,
>> ANY OTHER BOARD ITEMS TO DISCUSS OR ANY ITEMS FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT?
[00:30:01]
>> NO STAFF REPORT, MR. CHAIR.
[Board Report]
>> 1939 AS BEING THE DATE IN WHICH THOSE HOMES WERE PLATTED, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, SAN JUAN DRIVE. HOW MANY MORE -- THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. HOW MANY MORE HOMES MIGHT WE, IN THE FUTURE, FACE LIKE THAT?
>> MOST OF THE PLATTS IN PONTE VEDRA OR A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF THEM ARE HISTORIC PLATTS OF GENERALLY THE TIME FRAME OF 1939.
OBVIOUSLY, THEY DO VARY. BUT THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF HISTORIC PLATTS. THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES ON THESE PLATTS VARIES FAIRLY WIDELY. SOME OF THEM WERE EXTRA RESTRICTIVE LIKE THIS 50 FEET.
SOME OF THEM DO NOT HAVE PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES.
SOME OF THEM ARE VERY UNIQUE FOR THINGS LIKE CORNER LOTS OR LOTS THAT HAVE UNIQUE SHAPES TO THEM.
I WOULD SAY GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE DO NOT SEE A LOT OF THESE SORT OF RELIEVES. WHAT WE DO SEE IS THAT ONCE THAT RELIEF IS GRANTED, JUST LIKE THIS, EVERYBODY STARTS TO TRY TO MATCH IT.
THAT'S MORE OF WHAT YOU SEE. AGAIN, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY BETWEEN THESE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 10 TO 15- YEAR SPAN SINCE THE ORIGINAL WAS DONE.
THOSE ONLY THREE IN THAT AMOUNT OF
TIME ALONG THIS SECTION. >> OKAY.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO SAVE TIME AND EVERYONE'S EFFORT TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS TO HOMEOWNERS SEEKING THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE? AM I MAKING SENSE?
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, SIR, I WOULD SAY THIS IS ON AN AD HOC BASIS AS SOMEBODY COMES THROUGH AND DESIGNS THEIR HOME.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S TYPICALY ASSOCIATED WITH DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND THEN SOMEBODY COMING BACK IN. BUT IT IS VERY MUCH ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS.
>> I HAVE THREE ITEMS I WOULD LIKE TOBRING UP BEFORE THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION. FIRST ONE IS -- I WENT ON A TRIP AND CAME BACK FROM THE TRIP, GONE ABOUT TEN DAYS, TO DISCOVER ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO OWNS THE HOUSE FOR FIVE YEARS HAD ONLY LIVED IN THE HOUSE A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, SHE'S FROM ENGLAND, HAD DECIDED TO RENOVATE THE GUEST ROOM ABOVE THEIR GARAGE TO AN AIRBNB.
THEY BUILT A SET OF STAIRS WITHOUT A PERMIT OUTSIDE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IN THE SETBACK AREA. FORBIDDEN USES, ONE IS LEASING OR RENTING FOR COMPENSATION AN INDIVIDUAL ROOM OR ROOMS WITHIN ANY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
WHEN THIS CAME UP -- WE FILED A PRIVATE REPORT ON IT.
SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS SAY, EVERYBODY IS DOING IT.
I'M CURIOUS, ARE WE HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE DOING AIRBNB IN OUR AREA? HAVE YOU HEARD OF ANY, STAFF?
>> I WILL SAY FROM STAFF'S STANDPOINT, THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY THAT GETS BROUGHT TO US OR QUESTIONED VERY OFTEN.
I DO KNOW -- OF COURSE, WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. THEY OVERVIEW VACATION RENTALS OR THE COASTAL CORRIDOR. THEY ARE CERTAINLY AWARE OF AND ALWAYS DEAL WITH SITUATIONS FOR THIS APPLYING THAT REGULATION THAT YOU MENTIONED AS A PROHIBITED USE, RENTING SINGLE FAMILY ROOMS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES THROUGH MY DEPARTMENT VERY OFTEN. NOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. THIS ONE YOU BROUGHT TO ME WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES I HAVE DEALT WITH IN QUITE SOME
TIME. >> IT'S NOT RAMPANT? IT'S MORE OF A ONE ON ONE HERE AND THERE?
>> IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WAY, SIR.
>> DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS TRY TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS NOT ALLOWED? THROUGH OUR WEBSITE OR WHATEVER.
>> AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT ST. JOHNS COUNTY DOES HAVE A FAIRLY ROBUST VACATION RENTAL PROPERTY PAGE THAT'S MANAGED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. I'M HAPPY TO DO RESEARCH, SEE WHAT INFORMATION THEY'RE PROVIDING ON THERE.
IF THEY ARE NOT REFERENCING THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT, I'M HAPPY TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION TO ADD MORE INFORMATION.
>> ANY COMMENT FROM THE BOARD?
[00:35:01]
>> I WILL GO. I HAVE NOT SEEN OR HEARD OF THIS BE A PROBLEM -- HASN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN.
I KNOW THAT SOME FOLKS DO ALLOW FAMILY TO COME AND STAY BUT NOTHING FROM A RENTAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE FOLKS THAT I HAVE SEEN IN OUR JURISDICTION. I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF HAVING OUR AREA BECOME AN AIRBNB HAVEN, SO TO
SPEAK. >> IT'S INTERESTING WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU REALIZE NEXT DOOR YOU COULD HAVE A HOTEL ROOM. THE STAIRS ARE BIG ENOUGH, THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS IS TO GO ON THE NEXT PERSON'S PROPERTY. THAT WILL BE COVERED BY ZONING.
IT'S A BAD SITUATION. ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE SURE THEY HIRED A LICENSED CONTRACTOR. NUMBER TWO, WE WENT IN I THINK IT WAS APRIL OR MAY HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE RV RULES AND EVENTUALLY WE DECIDED OR IT WAS TAKEN AWAY, WE WERE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE RV RULES. RIGHT NOW, THE RULES AS THEY STAND CAN BE ENFORCED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY -- WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THEM ANYMORE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. THE EXISTING REGULATIONS CONTINUE TO BE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING.
>> NUMBER THREE, RELATED TO THAT, THE EXISTING DEFINITION AS TO HOW YOU ENFORCE THE RV RULE OR COMMERCIAL RULE IS THAT, NUMBER TEN, PROHIBITED USES, EXCEPT DURING TIME NECESSARY FOR PICKUP AND DELIVER SERVICES, NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS.
THEY SHALL NOT BE PARKED OR ALLOWED ON COUNTY OCCUPIED LAND UNLESS IN A GARAGE, CARPORT OR OTHER AREA SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT AREA. THIS IS A HARD THING TO ENFORCE.
THE 24- HOUR RULE, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS TO SEE IT ONE DAY AND COME BACK AND SEE IT ANOTHER DAY. ALL THE PERSON HAS TO DO -- IT HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. IS TO MOVE THE RV OR FOOD TRUCK OR WHATEVER TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
THEY FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENT. IF THEY KEEP ON MOVING IT BACK AND FORTH, THEY CAN HAVE THE BIG BOAT, THE COMMERCIAL BOAT OR THE RV OR THE COMMERCIAL TRUCK, THEY CAN HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE OR THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
THEY ARE ESCAPING THE RULE, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT. WOULD THIS BOARD BE RECEPTIVE TO COMING UP WITH SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE THAT COULD MAKE THIS MORE ENFORCEABLE OR MAKE IT CLEAR AS FAR AS NOT HAVING CONTINUOUS OCCUPATION OF AN RV OR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE? MAYBE WE WORK WITH MSD OR WITH STAFF.
>> I WOULD BE INTRIGUED TO FIND OUT WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH THAT PROCESS. SHORT ANSWER IS, YES.
LONGER ANSWER IS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S INVOLVED FROM A STAFFING STANDPOINT FOR THE COUNTY TO PUT PEOPLE INTO THOSE ROLES THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE RIGHT NOW, THOSE ADDITIONAL TRIPS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IS -- WITH A DATE STAMP PHOTOGRAPHY OR YOU SAY, YOU CAN DO IT FOR 24 HOURS ONE DAY A WEEK.
THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS WE COULD MAKE THIS EASIER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT.
RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT'S VERY HARD.
>> FROM WHAT I REMEMBER AT OUR LAST CONVERSATION ON THE TOPIC WAS, IF YOU TAKE THE COMMERCIAL TRANSIT TYPE VAN THAT WE DISCUSSED HERE AT LENGTH, DOES IT APPLY TO A LIMOUSINE TYPE OF A SERVICE COMMERCIAL BASIS? DOES IT APPLY TO A HANDICAP TYPE OF A VEHICLE? WITHOUT KNOWING ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES FOR SAID VEHICLE OR VEHICLES, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE INTENT OF THE VEHICLE IS FOR.
>> YEP. AGAIN, I THINK YOU ARE POINTING OUT WHAT -- THIS IS VAGUE ENOUGH THAT IT'S HARD TO ENFORCE.
THE 24-HOUR RULE MAKES IT EVEN HARDER.
[00:40:06]
>> AS YOUR PRIMARY INTENT TO REMOVE 24- HOUR RULE, WOULD TIME WOULD YOU PROPOSE?
>> I PROPOSE IS WE COME UP WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE OR STAFF OR WHOEVER TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE. AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING. I'M SAYING THAT THIS IS VERY HARD TO ENFORCE.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT WORKING IN THE WAY IT COULD.
I THINK IT'S MAKING IT HARD ON CODE ENFORCEMENT
TO ENFORCE IT. >> I COULD SEE THAT.
I WOULD WANT TO KNOW THE HISTORY ON WHY THE 24- HOUR RULE WAS PLACED TO BEGIN WITH AS FAR AS NOT BEING ABLE TO PARK IT FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.
>> THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS YOU COULD HAVE A VEHICLE THERE SO YOU ARE GETTING READY TO DO A TRIP WITH YOUR V, LOAD IT UP AND PUT YOUR STUFF IN THE RV AND IT'S THERE FOR LESS THAN 24 HOURS. THEN YOU GO OFF ON YOUR VACATION. THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE IT PARKED 24 HOURS IN ONE PLACE, MOVE IT TO ANOTHER PLACE 24 HOURS AND BE ABLE TO HAVE IT STORED IN YOUR FRONT YARD THE ENTIRE SUMMER OR WHATEVER.
>> WOULD YOU WANT TO ASK STAFF TO -- WOULD YOU PROPOSE A WORKSHOP ON THIS? WOULD YOU LIKE FOR STAFF TO COME UP WITH OPTIONS FOR US? HOW WOULD YOU FORESEE COMING UP WITH A REMEDY?
>> WELL, ONE IS THIS AFFECTS THE MSD.
I WONDER IF THE MSD HAS ANY INPUT.
I THINK TO COME UP WITH TWO OR THREE PEOPLE TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATE LANGUAGE. MAYBE TWO SETS OF ALTERNATE LANGUAGES. SOMETHING BETTER THAN THIS IS.
>> IN THE MSD AREA, I WALK PROBABLY THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK THROUGHOUT THE MSD AREA. I CAN TELL YOU, THERE IS -- I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO CAN ALSO -- I BELIEVE PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD. THERE ARE MANY, MANY RVS AND TRANSPORT VEHICLES THAT STAY LONGER THAN 24 HOURS. I'M NOT IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH MSD. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO GET THEIR INPUT ON AS WELL BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.
DO WE NEED A MOTION TO DO THIS? CAN WE DO THIS ON VERBAL APPROVAL? HOW DO WE DO IT?
>> HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT?
>> YOU CAN DO IT BY CONSENSUS. I WILL CHECK WITH JACOB IF HE IS CLEAR ON THE DIRECTION.
>> YEAH. I THINK I'M CLEAR. WE CAN -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE CAN DO THIS A COUPLE WAYS. ONE IF THERE'S A CLEAR REQUEST FROM THE BOARD, I DON'T MIND REACHING OUT TO MSD AND JUST STARTING THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THEM HAVE THEIR CRACK AT IT. LIKEWISE, WE CAN WORK ON IT INTERNALLY AND ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS FOR THEM IN WORKING WITH IT. OF COURSE, WE CAN COME BACK TO THE BOARD AFTER --
>> IF YOU NEED MY HELP, I VOLUNTEER -- I CAN --
>> I KNOW ONE OF THE ISSUES RIGHT NOW CODE ENFORCEMENT IS HAVING, EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF RV. SOME OF THE SPRINTER VANS, WHICH LOOK LIKE RV VEHICLES AREN'T RVS AND AREN'T USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. WOULD REMOVING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MAKING IT A PROHIBITION AND HAVE YOUR TIME FRAME RELATED TO RVS?
>> A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, THERE MIGHT BE A NEED TO BE AT THE HOUSE 12, 14 HOURS. MAYBE WE ROHIBIT FROM BEING THERE OVERNIGHT.
>> ON TOP OF THAT, IS IT REALLY A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE? IS IT A PERSONAL VEHICLE THAT'S NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE? IT FITS THE RV DESCRIPTION. YOU CAN GO DOWN MANY RABBIT
HOLES. >> WITH COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, THAT'S EASIER TO CLARIFY IN THE CODE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE REGISTERED.
CERTAIN VEHICLES ARE REGISTERED COMMERCIAL.
RVS ARE MORE DIFFICULT WITH REGARD TO THE SPRINTER VAN SITUATION WE HAVE WHERE THEY ARE BECOMING A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR P MANY LARGER FAMILIES. CERTAINLY, JUST GETTING FEEDBACK TO TALK ABOUT IT INTERNALLY AND SEE IF THERE'S SUGGESTIONS AS WE WORK THROUGH WITH THE MSD.
>> OKAY. THOSE ARE MY THREE ITEMS. THANK YOU.
[00:45:13]
>> TO ADD TO THE LAST ABOUT THE TIME FRAME AND THE WORDING OF THE REGULATIONS, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND OR SUGGEST THAT WE INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN A WORKSHOP OR OUTPUT BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH MAKING DEFINITIVE CHANGES.
>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WILL WORK, SO YOU ARE AWARE, IS THAT THE MSD -- ANY SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THAT COMES BACK THAT CHANGES THE CODE WOULD COME BACK TO YOU FOR TWO HEARINGS.
TWO HEARINGS? YES. COME BACK FOR TWO HEARINGS.
THOSE ARE PUBLICLY NOTICED. YOU WILL HAVE YOUR MSD MEETINGS OR WHATEVER. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE. THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS AUDITORIUM TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
>> I'M TRYING. IT'S NOT COOPERATING.
>> WE HAD CODE ENFORCEMENT COME TO COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
IT'S TO PEOPLE FOR ALL OF THE AREA. THAT'S IT. NAMES, BIOS, GREAT PEOPLE.
ANYTHING THAT'S APPROVED, ENCOURAGED, CODIFIED, JUST BEAR IN MIND, THESE FOLKS ARE SLAMMED. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?
>> THERE'S CERTAINLY A RELATIVELY LIMITED AMOUNT OF CODE OFFICIALS ASSIGNED TO THE AREA, YES, SIR.
>> I AM FULLY IN SUPPORT OF HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
JUST BEAR THAT IN MIND. WE DON'T WANT TO ENACT SOMETHING OR APPROVE SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE FOLLOWED UP WITH THE EXISTING STAFF NUMBERS.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. TO STAFF, DO WE HAVE A SCHEDULED MEETING ON TAP FOR SEPTEMBER?
>> OKAY. MAYBE BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME OF OCTOBER MEETING, WE MAY HAVE SOME FEEDBACK FROM MSD.
>> YES, SIR. I HAVE GOOD NOTES.
WE WILL WORK ON IT AND BRING SOMETHING BACK TO THIS BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN IF THERE'S NO OTHER ITEMS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.