Sep 02, 2025 Board of County Commissioners

>> YES. YES. FIRST OFF, THIS -- THIS WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO JUST GET A FEW DAYS AGO.

IT WAS OVER 250 PAGES. SO THERE WAS A LOT TO IT, AND I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS ANDAND THAT -- I DON'T KNOW, WE

[02:10:05]

MAY EVEN NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BEFORE WE GO FORWARD WITH SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE IT IS SO EXTENSIVE WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE IS THAT, I MEAN, CLEARLY YOU PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE, DATA- DRIVEN REPORT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY PROVES THAT OUR CURRENT IMPACT FEES ARE DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE. OUR CURRENT FEES DON'T COVER THE COST OF GROWTH. MOST CRITICAL TAKE AWAY FROM YOUR REPORT IS THE MASSIVE GAP BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THE ACTUAL COST THAT DEVELOPMENT IMPOSES ON OUR COUNTY SERVICES, AND ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY FOR NEARLY EVERY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OUR FEES FALL SHORT OFTEN BY STAGGERING MARGINS. AND IT'S NOT JUST A SMALL GAP.

IT'S A CHASM AND BASICALLY CURRENT RESIDENTS ARE FILLING, YOU KNOW, THAT CHASM WITH STRAINED SERVICES AND FUTURE TAX BURDENS. THE CONSULTANT -- SO YOUR CALCULATED IMPACT FEE REPRESENTS THE REAL, TECHNICAL, DEFENSIBLE COST TO GROWTH. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER AND OUR CURRENT FEE IS THE SUBSIDY THAT WE ARE GIVING FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

I JUST WANTED TO JUST SHARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES.

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE TYPE OF BUSINESS. ASSISTED LIVING.

IT IS $1. THE CALCULATED COST IS $870.

AN INCREASE OF OVER 1600%. THE FINE DINING RESTAURANT, THIS IS FOR EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THE CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT FEE IS $933. THE CALCULATED COST IS 2828, ALMOST $3,000. THAT'S AN INCREASE OF OVER 200%. A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH. THE CURRENT FIRE RESCUE FEE IS $179. THE CALCULATED COST IS $4400, A YOU- DROPPING 2,258% INCREASE, AND THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT BUSINESS. OUR RESIDENTIAL FEES ARE ALSO FAILING TO KEEP PACE, FORCING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO FALL BEHIND WITH 6600 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE PERMITTED EVERY YEAR. I DID WANT TO SHARE THIS WITH EVERYBODY. I DID JUST AN EXAMPLE.

AGAIN, THIS IS ALL COMING FROM THE REPORT.

LET ME MAKE SURE I GET ONE TO EACH ONE OF YOU, BUT PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A WAY TO PUT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN?

>> NOW, WHAT I WANT EVERYONE TO DO -- SO TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TOTAL IMPACT FEES FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE- FAMILY HOME FROM 2500 SQUARE FEET TO 3750. THE NUMBERS ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSULTANT FEE SCHEDULE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, LOOKING AT EACH OF THEM, LOOK AT THE SUBSIDY THAT WE'RE PAYING IN THAT RIGHT HAND COLUMN. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CURRENT FEES $978. THE CALCULATED FEE, THE REAL COST IS OVER $2,000.

THE SUBSIDY THAT WE'RE PAYING IS OVER $1100.

LAW ENFORCEMENT, $456. CALCULATED FEE, OVER $1,000. SUBSIDY, OVER $600.

FIRE AND RESCUE, THAT ONE IS CLOSE.

PARKS AND REC, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE LACK OF PARKS AND RECREATION THAT WE HAVE? WE JUST TOOK OUT A GIGANTIC BOND TO PAY FOR PARKS AND REC, AND EVEN WHEN THEY'RE DONE, WE NEEDED THEM TEN YEARS AGO. SO WE'RE WAY BEHIND THERE.

WELL, LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY. PARKS AND REC, OUR CURRENT FEE RIGHT NOW IS UNDER $2,000, 1969.

THE REAL COST SHOULD BE -- IT IS OVER $1100 PER HOME.

PER HOME! LOOK AT TRANSPORTATION, THE CURRENT FEE IS OVER $12,000. 12,298.

CALCULATED FEE ALMOST 17,000 AND THE SUBSIDY THAT WE'RE PAYING OVER 4600.

TOTAL PER HOME, A LITTLE OVER 16,000 TO A LITTLE OVER 24,000 WITH THE CALCULATED FEE. THE SUBSIDY THAT OUR COUNTY, OUR TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR FOR EACH HOME IS OVER $7400. SO WE ARE -- WE ARE

[02:15:02]

EFFECTIVELY, WE ARE SUBSIDIZING THE DEVELOPER AND EVERY NEW HOMEOWNER TO THE TUNE OF NEARLY $7500, AND THIS IS ALL COMING FROM THE STUDY. THE -- THE -- THIS IS -- THIS IS -- THIS SHOULD BE EYE- OPENING TO EACH OF YOU, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT EVERYBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS.

ALSO, TOO, WHAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT IS THE 50% INCREASE IS THE FLOOR. IT'S NOT THE CEILING.

FOR THE CAT GORE THEY ALLOWS FOR AN IMMEDIATE 50% INCREASE.

ADOPTING ANYTHING LESS IS LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE THAT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE DESPERATELY NEEDS. FOR THE 3,000-SQUARE- FOOT HOME COULD IMMEDIATELY JUMP FROM 1969 TO 963. THE STATUTE INCLUDES AN ACCIDENT TROERD EXTRAORDINARY CLAUSE THAT HOLDS 50% OF THE COUNTY WHEN PUBLIC WORK SHOPS AND WHEN NEED IS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE PROJECTED GROWTH OF 200,000 NEW RESIDENTS BY 2050 AND RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 1990S IT'S DIFFICULT TO ARGUE THAT THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

FURTHERMORE, SB- 1080 MAKES THE SUCCESSION CLAUSE MUCH HARDER TO USE AFTER JANUARY 1, CREATING AN EVEN MORE URGENT NEED THAT WE NEED TO ACT NOW.

WE DO NOT HAVE TIME. LET'S SEE -- LET ME SEE WHAT ELSE I WANTED. I DID WANT TO SHARE THIS, TOO. WELL, ANYWAY.

THAT WAS A LOT FOR ME TO TAKE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I TOOK OVER 250 PAGES OF INFORMATION, AND AS YOU CAN TELL I REALLY DOVE DEEP, AND I LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, SO WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

WE CANNOT STAY ON THE PATH WE'VE BEEN ON AND OUR COUNTY, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, AND WE WONDER WHY WE HEAR ALL THE TIME FROM OUR RESIDENTS THAT RESIDENTS AREARE TIRED OF FUNDING NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY.

THIS IS LONG OVERDUE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WAS HOPING SOMEONE FROM OUR STAFF COULD HAVE A MICROPHONE. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. COMMISSIONER DEAN WOULD OFTEN SAY IN 2018 THAT THE BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT THE TIME WOULD RAISE THE IMPACT FEES TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM IN 2018.

CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S TRUE?

>> THEY DID. THEY RAISED THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM FOR THE IMPACT FEES AND THEN, OF COURSE, FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL, THEY BOUGHT DOWN 40%. SO THE RESIDENTIAL WAS THE MAXIMUM AND THE -- THE MONEY GOING INTO THE FUND IS STILL THE MAXIMUM, HOWEVER, IT'S COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

>> I KNOW, BUT WE HEARD COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, AND I HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER IN MY HAND BASED ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

SO WE HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING DOWN THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, HAVE WE?

>> NO, SIR.

JUST THE NON-RESIDENTIAL. >> SO THE COMMERCIAL --

>> THE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL.

>> TRYING TO ENCOURAGE MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SO IT CAN KIND OF RIGHT OUR FINANCIAL SHIP PER THE BEST PLANNING PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE.

SO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, IN 2018 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RAISED IMPACT FEES TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. WHAT MORE COULD THEY HAVE DONE?

>> THIS IS IMPACT FEES, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IN KEEPING THE NON- RESIDENTIAL DISCOUNT. THE 40% DISCOUNT THAT'S USED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, I DON'T SUPPORT

THAT. >> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, IN 2018 THEY RAISED THE IMPACT FEE TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM.

WHAT MORE COULD THEY HAVE DONE?

>> YOU KNOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW. I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW. WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT FEES NOT BEING UPDATED. I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS.

>> FORGIVE ME. >> WE CAN'T TURN BACK THE CLOCK, BUT LOOK AT THE SUBSIDIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN PAYING.

I MEAN, OUR DATA NEEDED TO BE UPDATED LONG BEFORE TODAY.

>> I'M BLESSED WITH GOOD HEARING AND I LISTENED TO EVERY WORD OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE, AND YOU SAID THAT THE IMPACT FEES WERE DANGEROUSLY LOW. EVEN IF WE TURNED BACK THE CLOCK WE'D STILL BE UNDER THE SAME CONSTRAINTS OF THE STATUTE AS WE ARE TODAY. WE ARE UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE STATUTE AND CAN ONLY RAISE THEM TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. THE PARKS YOU REFERRED TO

[02:20:01]

WERE PAID PRIMARILY BY THE IMPACT FEES AND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM THAT WAS ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN 2018 WAS ENOUGH TO BOND FOR THE BUILDINGBUILDING OF FOUR NEW REGIONAL PARKS AND SHERIFF'S SUBSTATIONS AND FIRE STATIONS, AND A LOT OF THINGS WERE BUILT DUE TO THE VERY WISE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF 2019, WHICH I WAS NOT A MEMBER OF AND I'M NOT TAKING CREDIT FOR IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR PAUL WP WALDRON AND HENRY DEAN AT THE TIME AND IT'S NOT FAIR FOR THOSE MEN TO SAY THEY COULD HAVE DONE MORE. THEY CHARGED STATUTORY MAXIMUM AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD.

THAT PAID FOR MANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'LL BE CUTTING THE RIBBONS ON VERY

SHORTLY. >> NOT ROADS AND THAT WAS SEVEN YEARS AGO. SORRY.

>> IT HAS PAID FOR MANY OF THE ROADS THAT WE'VE BROKEN GROUND ON.

>> THEY'RE NOT DONE.

>> THERE'S ONE DEVELOPER WHO HASN'T PAID FOR THE ROAD AND WE'RE STILL TRYING TO CHASE THE MONEY. THERE ARE THINGS TRYING TO LOOK AT HERE.

>> I AM SO GLAD THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS NOW BECAUSE NOW GOING FORWARD, IT'S OUT THERE.

WE'VE GOT TO LOOK FORWARD, AND NOW THAT WE KNOW WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE AT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THINGS AT THIS POINT AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY, YOUR TURN.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. ON THE COMMERCIAL BUYBACK AND MAYBE, MIKE, THIS WILL BE FOR YOU.

IF WE END THAT COMMERCIAL BUYBACK ARE WE -- SO HERE ARE MY THOUGHTS. WE ARE WOEFULLY UNDERREPRESENTED ON THE TAX REVENUES ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COMMERCIAL TO SUPPORT US WHEN THE RESIDENTIAL CRISIS THAT'S COMING HAPPENS, THAT HAPPENED IN 2008.

I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY SMART THAT WE DON'T TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE ARE SO DEPENDENT UPON ROOFTOPS FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU GOING FORWARD IS ENDING THE COMMERCIAL BUYBACKS, IF YOU WILL, ARE WE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT? BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER END THE RESIDENTIAL -- THE COMMERCIAL BUYBACKS AND HAVE SOME KIND OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EACH SPECIFIC PLAN SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR OUR DOLLARS THAN I WOULD TO USE IT ANY OTHER WAY ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO RAISING IMPACT FEES ON IMPACT FEES THAT ARE ALREADY AT THEIR STATUTORY LIMIT.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN HELP ME WITH THAT.

>> MIKE JOHNSON, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF LOSING THE BUYDOWN, AND YOU HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL CONCURRENCY ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT DRIVERS YOU CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT. THAT DOES PUSH DOWN THAT COST OF CONCURRENCY TO IMPACT THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHEN THEY START UP THERE IS A LOT OF COSTS THAT COME IN, CONNECTION FEES FOR UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THIS PUSHES IT ALL OF THE WAY DOWN TO BASICALLY ELECTRIFICATION OF THE BUILDING AND YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO STARTING A BUSINESS. SO YOU DO HAVE THAT EXEMPTION THAT'S REMAINING AND YOU COULD KEEP THAT STILL AS AN INCENTIVE, IF YOU WILL.

>> THAT'S THE CONCURRENCY FEE?

>> YES, SIR.

THE CONCURRENCY. >> ALL RIGHT.

HELP ME SHARE SOME EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION BETWEEN THE NON- RESIDENTIAL CONCURRENCY FEE AND THE IMPACT FEE AND HOW THAT WORKS.

>> SURE. SO, AGAIN, IMPACT FEES ARE A ONE-TIME FEE FOR THE CATEGORIES TO PAY FOR THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE A SQUARE FOOTAGE IMPACT FEE.

LET'S SAY IT'S A RESTAURANT.

>> YES, SIR. CALCULATIONS DONE ON A RESTAURANT AND HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IT GENERATES, HOW MUCH COUNTY BUILDINGS WOULD IT ULTIMATELY USE, RIGHT? HOW MUCH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE AND ALL OF THAT EQUATES TO THE CALCULATION THEY WOULD USE. SO THAT'S WHAT AN IMPACT FEE IS. THE IMPACT YOU'RE CAUSING.

[02:25:01]

THE CONCURRENCY IS WHAT THE COUNTY IMPLEMENTS, AND IT DOES SCHOOL CONCURRENCY AND IT DOES OTHER CONCURRENCIES, AND REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY. SO IT SAYS, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO GET THE MONIES UP FRONT FOR THE IMPACTS THAT YOU'LL BE CAUSING BUSINESS, RIGHT? SO IT SAYS, SAY THEIR 1 MILLION, WHATEVER IT IS, RIGHT? IT'S A MILLION DOLLARS IF THE COUNTY GETS THAT MONEY IN ADVANCE OR AS SOON AS THEY COME INTO CONSTRUCTION PLAN, THAT GOES INTO THE COFFERS ANDAND IS USED FOR MONEY QUICKER AND IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD ROADWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE ARE DELAYS FOR MATERIALS, ET CETERA, AND THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY IS PAYMENT FOR THE IMPACTS THEY HAVE AND IT'S ON THE FRONT END AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU DO. THEY GET CREDIT AND THEY DON'T GET DOUBLE CHARGED AT THE END.

>> OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T GET

>> SURE. SAY THEY COME IN AND PAY THEIR TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY FOR THOSE IMPACTS ON THE BACK END AND THEY PAY THEM AND THEY GO FORWARD AND START BUILDING AND WHEN IMPACT FEES ARE DUE, THEY ARE NOT CHARGED THE IMPACT FEES BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PAID THEM.

>> OKAY. WE SAID A MILLION DOLLARS FOR CONCURRENCY. SAY THE IMPACT IS ONLY

800,000. >> IN THAT CASE THEY WOULD GET $200,000 WORTH OF CREDIT.

>> WE GIVE THEM $200,000 WORTH OF CREDIT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DOUBLE CHARGE THEM.

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT UNDERSTANDING.

>> LET'S HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

>> ERIN BOWET. I CAN'T BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS, SO I'M GOING TO COME FROM A WHOLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING, GOOD COMMUNITY YOU NEED FIREFIGHTERS, YOU NEED TEACHERS, YOU NEED SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES, YOU NEED HOSPITALITY WORKERS AND YOU NEED HOSPITAL WORKERS.

THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE IF THE BUILDER HAS TO CHARGE THEM FOR THE IMPACT FEE.

THEY CAN'T -- BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS CANNOT DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF THEY HAVE TO COVER ALL OF THAT THEMSELVES, AND IF THEY PUT THAT INTO THE PRICE OF THE HOME YOU HAVE JUST PRICED IT OUT OF ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE'S CATEGORIES IF THEY'RE NEW COMING ON.

SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE -- HOW DO WE REALLY DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF WE WANT A LIVABLE COMMUNITY? I THINK WE WOULD SAY YOU NEED TO WAIVE THE IMPACT FEE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR AT LEAST SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE IT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. HAVING LISTENED TO ALL THIS I CAN'T SUGGEST HOW YOU DO THAT, BUT I CAN SAY I LOOK AT THIS, AND I SAY THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS THE WAY TO START IT, MAYBE, IS DON'T CHARGE IMPACT FEE FOR HABITAT HOUSES.

LET'S JUST START WITH A TYPE OF HOUSING THAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY LOVES, WE ALL LOVE AND WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US PLACES FOR THESE PEOPLE TO LIVE. LET THE COUNTY PICK UP THE IMPACT FEES FOR THAT. THE COUNTY USED TO DO THIS. BACK IN THE '80S THE COUNTY PAID IMPACT FEES ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING LIKE THIS.

SO I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT STARTING SOME PLACE AND THEN LOOK AT HOW DO WE WAIVE -- HOW DO WE WAIVE THE IMPACT FEES ON THE NUMBER -- BASED ON THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO A DEVELOPMENT, HOW DO WE WAIVE THE IMPACT FEES ON THOSE? SO I DON'T HAVE A FORMULA. I JUST HAVE A REAL CONCERN THAT IF WE DON'T LOOK AT THIS FROM THE -- FROM THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE NEED THEM TO LIVE HERE BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROAD USES. WELL, IF THEY HAVE TO COMMUTE FROM JACKSONVILLE, POLATKA, GREEN COAST SPRINGS YOU HAVE JUST INCREASED YOUR ROAD USAGE AND YOU'VE MADE IT VERY INCONVENIENT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE HAVING TO WORK FULL, LONG DAYS AND COMMUTE LIKE THIS.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MIKE, WAS THERE A PROVISION IN THIS THAT REDUCES THE IMPACT FEES FOR SMALLER HOMES?

[02:30:02]

DID I SEE THAT IN THIS PROPOSAL?

>> THE -- THE -- THE DATA AND ANALYSIS LENDED ITSELF OUT TO THE FIRST TWO -- THE SMALLEST CATEGORIES FOR THEM TO BE REDUCED AND THEN THE REMAINING TIERS, WE'LL CALL THEM, THE REMAINING TIERS WERE INCREASED AND OVER THE PERCENTAGES WERE.

>> OKAY. SO THE SMALLER HOUSES, THE IMPACT FEES WOULD BE UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COMMENT I WILL COMMENT BECAUSE THE FIREMEN AND THE NURSES. DO THEY WANT TO HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE? DO THEY WANT TO HAVE A PARK? DO THEY WANT TO LIVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY CAN ENJOY THEIR LIFE, TOO? THAT'S WHAT THE IMPACT FEES ARE PAYING, TOO. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> YES, WE DO. SORRY.

>> GOOD MORNING. ELLEN AVERY SMITH, WEST PLACE IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER THAN MISS BULLOCK FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY HELP WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE IMPACT FEES RELATED TO THAT. COMMISSIONER MURPHY, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME OF THESE FEES ARE HIGHER FOR COMMERCIAL AND THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES, IF NOT LARGE BUSINESSES, AS WELL, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU FROM THIS DRAFT THAT YOU NEED TO ANALYZE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER TAYLOR MENTIONED THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DEFICIENCIES NOW, AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU NEED TO ANALYZE THE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT LEGALLY BE REPAYING IMPACT FEES FOR EXISTING DEFICIENCIES THAT THE COUNTY HAS.

SO THAT'S ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IN THE STUDY THAT NEEDS FURTHER ANALYSIS.

THE SECOND THING IS IT POINTS OUT IN THE INTRODUCTION ON THE FIRST PAGE ABOUT THE GROWTH RATE OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, AND IT COMMITS TO LEVELS OF SERVICE. WELL, THE LEVELS OF SERVICE ARE COSTLY TO MAINTAIN OVER TIME, AND SO IF YOU'RE COMMITTING TO CERTAIN LEVELS OF SERVICE AND YOUR IMPACT FEE STUDY -- HOW ARE THOSE COSTS GOING TO BE PAID OVER TIME PARTICULARLY IF YOU DO NOT CONTINUE A SUBSTANTIAL, I WOULD SAY, AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT. SO BECAUSE I KNOW THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE DEVELOPMENT. I'VE HEARD THAT FROM COMMISSIONERS JOSEPH, TAYLOR AND OTHERS, BUT IF YOU DON'T KEEP THAT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN THE LEVELS OF SERVICE THAT ARE SET FORTH IN YOUR REPORT RIGHT NOW. SO THESE ARE THE KINDS OF ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ANALYZED IN THE REPORT. I WOULD ALSO NOTE ON PAGE 2 IT TALKS ABOUT A CONSUMPTION- BASED IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY, AND IT CLEARLY SAYS THE CONSUMPTION- BASED APPROACH IS SET AT A PROPORTIONATE RATE THAT TO ACCOMMODATE CAPITAL NEEDS DUE TO NEW GROWTH AND DOES NOT GENERATE REVENUES AT A LEVEL TO CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENCIES OR TO INCREASE CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE. SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT TO YOU BECAUSE THOSE ARE BIG ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS REPORT, AND I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.

ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? THANK YOU.

>> HI. CHARLIE HILTON, CREEK ESTATES.

BACK IN 2018 WHEN THE IMPACT FEES WERE RAISED FOR HOUSING, ANOTHER ACTION TOOK PLACE THAT YEAR. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE SAME FOR BCC OR NOT AND THAT WAS WHEN THE CONCURRENCE FEES WERE ELIMINATED AND PRETTY MUCH WASHED OUT FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL. SO IS THAT, LIKE, IS THAT TAKE ONE AND GIVE TO THE OTHER BECAUSE WE NEED SUPPOSEDLY MORE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIONS OR -- EXCUSE ME, FACILITIES.

SO WE CUT DOWN ALL THAT OVER THE YEARS OF DILUTING IT AND BRINGING IT DOWN TO WHERE THERE ARE NO CONCURRENCY FEES FOR THEM AND THE IMPACT FEES ARE GONE, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO IT.

>> YES. THE IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL WASN'T MAXED OUT ONON YEAR AND LET'S NOT FORGET TO REITERATE THE CONCURRENT FEE THAT YEAR WAS PRETTY MUCH

[02:35:02]

DONE FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, OKAY? PLEASE, LET'S HAVE TWO SIDES OF THE STORY.

BOTH SIDES, OKAY? JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T JUST RAISE IT THAT YEAR AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING. SUPPOSEDLY IT WAS DONE TO BRING IN MORE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, WHATEVER. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH FROM 2008 TO MAYBE EARLIER THAN THAT WHEN IT FIRST STARTED AND THEN OVER TIME IT GOT DILUTED. THEY'RE USING TO TRY TO BRING MORE COMPANIES HERE, MORE INDUSTRIAL AND MORE OF THIS WHICH REALLY -- WALMART IS GOING TO HOLD OFF.

THEY HAVE TO PAY CONCURRENCY FEES TO COME HERE, YOU KNOW? I MEAN, COME ON, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

I LIKE TO SAY, LET'S GET THE WHOLE STORY OUT.

NOT JUST PINPOINT ON CERTAIN THINGS AND OVERLOOK THE WHOLE ISSUE.

>> ANYONE ELSE? MR. REYNOLDS?

>> YEAH, TOM REYNOLDS. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFY THAT I WAS HAVING SPASMS. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, AND I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THIS THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT ANYTHING. THE BUYERS SHOULD BE PAYING FOR IT. YOU KNOW, WAS THERE SOMETHING UP THERE, THESE FIGURES ARE MIND BLOWING TO ME THAT WE ARE SUBSIDIZING DEVELOPERS. WE'RE NOT SUBSIDIZING DEVELOPERS. WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THE BUYERS AND THE BUYERS SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THAT. SO WHEN I SAT HERE ASK DID A QUICK CALCULATION BY CHARGING THESE PEOPLE WHEN THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED, WE'LL ROUND UP TO $25,000 AND YOU CALCULATE THAT SEVEN GRAND, I MEAN, TRULY, IT'S CHUMP CHANGE OVER 30, 40 YEARS, AND YOU'VE GOT TO PAY YOUR WAY, AND IF THOSE FIGURES THAT COMMISSIONER TAYLOR HAS UP THERE ARE BASED ON TODAY'S COST, WITH THE TRUMP TARIFFS AND THE WAY THAT TRUMP IS DESTROYING THIS ECONOMY THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIRE. SO IF YOU CAN LEGALLY RAISE THOSE FEES TO WHAT THE ACTUAL COST IS, BY ALL MEANS DO IT.

IT'S JUST THE BUYER. IT'S THE BUYER WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, NOT THE DEVELOPER.

THE DEVELOPER SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR IT.

IT'S THE PERSON THAT'STHAT'S BUYING THAT HOUSE IS CAUSING THE IMPACT.

IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER OR THE OWNER OR THE BUILDERS.

THEY'RE JUST -- THEY'RE DOING A SERVICE AND THEY'RE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE PROFIT, AND LET'S FACE IT, IF YOU WANT TO COME TO ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY, YOU NEED TO PAY FOR IT.

>> IS THIS NOT THE BEST COUNTY? WHAT DID WE GET IN THE 63 COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS! PAY FOR IT.

>> THANK YOU . ANYONE ELSE?

GOOD MORNING. >> AUSTIN NICHOLAS, 6757 REPRESENTING VOTERS ASSOCIATION.

WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE IMPACT FEE INCREASES AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEM.

ONE THING TO CONSIDER WITH THE IMPACT FEE INCREASES IS THE BURDEN THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO BEAR FOR MAINTAINING THOSE LEVELS OF SERVICE.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT COMMITS THE COUNTY FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES. HAS THERE BEEN AN ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE COMMITMENTS? ONLY A FRACTION OF THIS WILL COME FROM IMPACT FEES, ACTUALLY, ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ARE CORRECT. THE REMAINDER WILL COME FROM EXISTING AND FUTURE FUNDING SOURCES.

HAS THERE BEEN AN ANALYSIS OF THIS FUNDING SHORTFALL? OVERALL THIS DESERVES MORE PUBLIC NOTICE, DISCUSSION, HEARINGS OR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, ET CETERA. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE CAPITAL FACILITY'S IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY WILL NEED STAFFING AND MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE WHICH KRNTD CANNOT BE FUNDED BY IMPACT FEES. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THERE ARE STEPS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN WITH THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY. THOSE INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT OF AN EXISTING FACILITY DEFICIENCIES AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER AND WHICH THE PAYORS SHOULD BE CREDITED.

THE CONSERVATION IN FREE OPEN SPACE IS UNPRECEDENTED IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA, AND REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY PRECEDENCE ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE, MAYBE A

[02:40:02]

FEW, BUT -- ADDITIONALLY, THIS ORDINANCE AND IMPACT FEE STUDDEL COMMIT THE PARTY TO CONTINUE TO FUND ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF SERVICE AND OPEN SPACE WHICH WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL OCCURRING COST.

>> BESIDES THE CONCERN ARE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR THE MARKET. HOUSING TARTS OF ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY SINCE 2015 DUE TO PERSISTENTLY HIGH INTEREST RATES. WITH THE MEDIAN PRICE OF A HOME IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY IS $595,000, WE'RE ALMOST AT $600,000 NOW FOR A MEDIAN- PRICED HOME IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. THIS IS THE WRONG TIME TO ADD A SUBSTANTIAL NEW, PENCE TO THE COST OF EVERY NEW HOUSE. WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR ESSENTIAL WORKERS, YET THESE FEE INCREASES WILL DIRECTLY MAKE HOMES MORE EXPENSIVE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

JUST SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW THESE WORK. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DON'T PAY THESE FEES. THEY JUST PASS THEM ALONG TO THE CUSTOMERS. IF YOU THINK YOU'RE STICKING IT TO THE DEVELOPER, YOU'RE REALLY NOT. IT'S YOUR FUTURE NEIGHBOR AND FUTURE CONSTITUENT. WITH FEES DOWN 30% THIS YEAR, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO INCREASE THESE FEES AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE TO ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

>>. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 2.

SEEING NONE.

>> WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, TOO, AND THAT IS THAT OUR COUNTY AND OUR FEES LAG BEHIND OTHER COUNTIES, AND IN THE -- IN THEIR INFORMATION, I JUST WANT TO GIVE ONE EXAMPLE. SO RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT FEE FOR A 2,000 SQUARE-FOOT-SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS $392. THE CONSULTANTS AND THEIR OWNOWN SHOWS THAT THIS IS DRASTICALLY LOWER THAN CLAY COUNTY WHICH IS $937 AND MARTIN COUNTY THAT IS $1,127. OUR FEES ARE EXTREMELY LOW COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES. SO IF WE ADOPT THE FULLY CALCULATED FEE OF 838, THAT WOULD SIMPLY BRING US IN LINE WITH OUR PEERS AND ENSURING THAT GROWTH PAYS FOR ITS FAIR SHARE AS IT DOES IN OTHER PLACES IN FLORIDA.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY?

>> WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TAYLOR WHEN SHE STARTED HER COMMENT WHEN SHE SAID WE DO NEED MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THESE CHANGES. THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE, AND ONE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO RAISING OUR IMPACT FEES, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I AM CAUTIOUS ABOUT IS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT -- I HATE TO USE THIS WORD AGAIN, MIKE, SORRY. MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THETHE AND I NEED TO DIG MORE INTO IT AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO. DO WE HAVE A LEGAL TIME CONSTRAINT BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO DO THIS TO THE STATE?

>> NILGUN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE STATUTE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE A YEAR TO ACCOMPLISH YOUR IMPACT FEE UPDATES ONCE YOU COMPLETE THE STUDY SO IT'S NOT DATA TO BECOME IRRELEVANT OR SOMETHING TO THAT MATTER, I'M SURE.

WE DID UPDATE THE STUDY WITH NEW DATA --

>> DOES THAT EXTEND THE DEADLINE?

>> CORRECT. >> IS THERE AN ARGUMENT TO EXTEND THE DATA SINCE WE JUST RECEIVED IT?

>> THE STATUTE SAYS THAT IF THE FEES ARE GOING TO BE INCREASED, IT HAS TO START AND COMPLET IT AND ADOPT IT WITHIN ONE YEAR, BUT THE START DATE IS NOT DEFINED AND IS IT WHEN WE GOT THE P.O.? IS IT THE KICKOFF AND WHEN WE GET THE NEW DATA.

>> WHAT'S THE EARLIEST THAT WE CAN START THE CLOCK ON? WE DID HAVE THE START DATE AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND WE DID THE PURCHASE ORDER DATE AND PART OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATE. SO WE HAVE UNTIL JUNE.

>> OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT TIME.

>> YES. I WANT TO ENFORCE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT MUCH TIME AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BEFORE OCTOBER 1 THANKS TO SB-180 OR HB-180. THAT WILL TAKE EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1 SO WE DO NOT HAVE THAT MUCH TIME.

[02:45:02]

SO I DO NOT WANT TO GO PAST THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I THINK WE ARE ALREADY BECAUSE IT TAKES 90 DAYS.

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SENATE BILL 180 AND THAT ONLY APPLIES TO THE COMP PLAN AND THE LANDING CODE REGULATIONS WHICH CANNOT BE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT --

>> THERE'S A PAGE IN HERE.

>> 1080, THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT

GOES INTO EFFECT. >> 1080.

SO, YES. >> 1080, THE PORTION OF THE CLAUSE IS OUTSIDE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST EVEN THOUGH IT ITSELF IS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST. SO YOU HAVE UNTIL JANUARY TO BE ABLE TO USE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE CURRENT

RULES. >> OKAY.

SO WE DO HAVE TIME. I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN OCTOBER 1 IN THERE.

>> THE ACT ITSELF BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST, EXCEPT THOSE CLAUSES WITHIN THE ACT SAYS THESE TWO WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST. SO THERE ARE TWO DATES.

THAT'S WHY.

>> SO IF WE PROVE SOMETHING BEFORE OCTOBER 1 ST IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE OR IS THERE ANYTHING WE'RE MISSING OR DOING?

>> NO. YOU HAVE UNTIL JANUARY 1ST AS FAR AS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

NONE OF THE RULES CHANGE. SO THAT'S IF YOU DECIDE TO GO ABOVE THE 50% LIMIT, AND YOU ARE INTERESTED IN POTENTIALLY ADOPTING SOME OF THE FEES AT A HIGHER LEVEL OR YOU DON'T WANT TO PHASE IT OVER FOUR YEARS. IF YOU WANT TO DO ANY OF THOSE CHANGES, THAT TRIGGERS THAT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES CLAUSE AND ANYTHING THAT CHANGES THAT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST.

>> SO THAT INCLUDES PHASING?

>> YES, IT INCLUDES PHASING.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I SUPPORT DOING THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

>> I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE HOMEBUILDERS THAT CHARGE CCD FEES AND SOME THAT DON'T AND THOSE THAT DON'T ARE PROBABLY ALREADY PUTTING IT ON THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE TO PROVIDE THE PARKS AND IMPACT. SO I'M WITH COMMISSIONER TAYLOR TO GET THIS ON MAYBE THE AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> YEAH. THAT SHOULD GIVE EVERYBODY PLENTY OF TIME TO -- THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO IN TWO WEEKS WE WILL RE-CONSIDER THIS. IS THAT OKAY?

>> YES, MADAM CHAIR, WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE WE STILL LOOKING TO COME BACK AS WE DID WITH ALL OF THE INFORMATION, NO CHANGES AND JUST TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE COMMISSION --

>> JUST LIKE TODAY.

>> OKAY.

>> NO CHANGES.

RIGHT? >> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> I WANTED TO SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM YOU ALL ABOUT ONE OF THE ITEMS. I BROUGHT UP LAST TIME WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT DOING A WAIVER OR AT LEAST SOME EXTENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I WANTED TO PROPOSE AND I KNOW NOT EVERYONE SHARES MY THOUGHTS ON THAT AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. IF WE DID A 10% WAIVER, FOR IMPACT. 350% FOR THOSE THAT ARE 60% LORE OF AMI AND THE 75% WAIVER THAT ARE 40% OF AMI.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO NOTE.

SHOULD WE EVEN CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION OR IS IT A NON-STARTER? I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT AND WE HEARD FROM THE SHERIFF, THE FIRE CHIEF AND HOSPITAL WORKERS AND THE HOSPITALITY THAT -- I THINK WE CAN PUT THAT TO BED NOW OR DO WE LEAVE IT UP FOR DISCUSSION?

>> OKAY. I AGREE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT IS URN THE NEW PROPOSAL THERE WOULD BE A DEDUCTION FOR SMALLER HOMES AND 1300 SQUARE FEET AND BELOW WHICH MIGHT HELP SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION ON MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HURTING OUR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER. MISS IRVIN SAID HER CONCERN IS WHEN IS PRICE PEOPLE OUT WE CLOG THE STREETS AND IF WE CAN HOUSE THEM INHOUSE THEN WE'RE SAVING GAS AND TIME AND TRIPOS THE S ON THE ROAD SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> THE IMPACT DOUBLES, THOUGH. THE IMPACT IS STILL THERE, ROADS, PARK, ROAD, EVEN WHEN THEY LIVE HERE. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR?

>> YES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GOING FORWARD, REGARDING THAT THAT WE DON'T JUST LOOK AT SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY TOWNHOMES THAT ARE COMING AND THAW BEING BUILT IN SILVER LEAF THAT WOULD DEFINITELY FALL INTO THE LOWER CATEGORY. SO WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT SQUARE

[02:50:04]

FOOTAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A PER- PROJECT BASIS THAT SAID THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AT LOWER LEVELS AND WE HAVE IT IN WRITING AND IT'S STILL BASED ON APPROVAL BASED ON THE PROJECT TO APPROVE, AND I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT NOT A STRAIGHT SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T END UP AFFECTING THE WORKFORCE

HOUSING. >> I THINK I CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THAT. SO CLAY COUNTY HAS A MODEL WHERE THEY DON'T WEIGH THE IMPACT FEES UP FRONT.

YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCT, AND THEN IF IT COMES IN AT A SALES PRICE OR RENTAL PRICE BELOW A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AMI, MEDIAN INCOME AND THEN THEY REIMBURSE THE IMPACT FEES. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT? MR. KOMANDO EXPLAINED THAT, AND I WONDER IF THAT'S SOMETHING TO ADOPT, BUT I'M CERTAINLY NOT THE EXPERT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT WITH REGARD TO THE CLAY COUNTY MODEL.

IF I CAN BRIEFLY SPEAK UPON AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> THE STATUTE HAS A SPECIFIC CARVEOUT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 4209071 OF THE STATUTE AND IT'S A NARROWLY FOCUSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT YOU CAN DO AN EXCEPTION OR WAIVER. UNDER THE STATUTE, IF YOU MEET THE DEFINITION THEN THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE TO BUY DOWN THE IMPACT FEE.

IF YOU GO OUTSIDE OF THAT AND WORKFORCE THAT DOESN'T FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AND YOU CAN STILL DO IT AND YOU HAVE TO BUY DOWN THAT IMPACT FEE. SO IT'S A VERY NARROWLY FOCUSED CARVEOUT IN THE STATUTE AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING AND IT ALL KIND OF GETS MESHED INTO ONE. THERE IS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO AN EXCEPTION OR WAIVER WITHOUT ALLOWING YOU TO PAY IT BACKBACK THE GENERAL FUND.

>> THAT'S WONDERFUL. I'LL ACCEPT YOUR GUIDANCE ON THAT AND THANK YOU FOR OFFERING. AS CLARIFICATION, THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO APPROVE ANY MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY APPROVE, JUST IF WE SEE FIT TO AFFORDABLE AREA, WE'VE APPROVED AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ONE TIME IN AN AREA OF WEST AUGUSTINE WHERE THE NEIGHBORS WANTED IT, AND THEY CAN'T BUILD IT AT THE RATE THEY WANTED TO, SO THEY HAD TO SELL THE PROPERTY.

I AM PLEASED THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. I'M PREPARED TO DISCUSS IT TWO WEEKS FROM NOW AND THERE IS AN APPETITE TO

MOVE FORWARD. >> I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.

I DO THINK AS FAR AS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ONE DATE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ISN'T THAT WHEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT AGREE HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS OR SOMETHING THAT IS CHANGING ON OCTOBER 1.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN?

>> PART OFTHE STATUTE HAS THE PART THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WITH REGARD TO RIGHT NOW IN ORDER TO DO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, IT'S A TWO- THIRDS VOTE. JANUARY 1, 2026, THAT WILL NOW REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, THAT IS A CHANGE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2026.

[3. Public Hearing * 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), with a site-specific Text Amendment limiting the number of residential uses allowed on the subject property to a maximum four (4) single-family residential dwelling units, located at an unaddressed property south of Saint Marks Pond Blvd.]

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK IT'S 3 AND 4, CORRECT? NO, NEVER MIND.

JUST THREE. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, DOUG BURNETT, ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP MAIN STREET. IT'S A SPECIAL DAY FOR ME. WE ALL HAVE THE MOMENT WHEN IT'S BRING YOUR KID TO WORK WITH YOU.

TODAY IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST DAY THAT YOUR KID STARTS TO WORK WITH ME FOR THE VERY FIRST DAY. MY DAUGHTER MEGAN BURNETT IS HERE WHO IS A RECENT LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE SO YOU MAY SEE MORE OF HER GOING FORWARD. IT'S ALSO PRETTY AWESOME TO HAVE THIS PROJECT OF ALL PROJECTS FOR HER TO BE HERE WITH ME. THIS IS A PACETTI FAMILY PROJECT AND ONE WITH DEEP HISTORY IN THE AREA. IT WAS FAVORABLY RECEIVED BY PCA.

I'LL SHOW YOU A BIT OF HISTORY AND THE LOCATION SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT.

LOCATION, IT'S BASICALLY ACROSSACROSS PALENCIA. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE

[02:55:01]

AREA THERE'S INDUSTRIAL FRONTING AND IGP AND DOWN BELOW IS WHERE SAINT MARKS POND ULTIMATELY GETS DOWN TO WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS. LOOKING AT THE INTERSECTION, IT'S PRETTY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND EACH MORE INDUSTRIAL THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN THIS AREA WHERE YOU COME DOWN SAINT MARKS POND BOULEVARD IS WHERE ROBERT THOMAS WAY WHERE HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT.

GOING DOWN SAINT MARK'S POND WHERE THERE IS A PARKING FOR THE WASTE COMPANIES AND LOOKING LITTLE CLOSER. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME LOTS IN THIS AREA AND A NUMBER OF HOUSES AND MANY OF THOSE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

ONE OF THOSE HOUSES, IF YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT, IS AA 1927.

WE ARE COMING UP ON ALMOST 100 YEARS THAT THE. PACETTI VILLA HAS BEEN LOCATED IN THAT AREA AND REALLY THE DRIVES FORCE. THIS IS THE PARCEL, IT'S BASICALLY TWO PARCELS NOW. IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DEED AND YOU LOOKED BACK AT THE CHAIN OF TITLE OF KELLY PACETTI AND HER HUSBAND OWNING THE LAND YOU WOULD SEE THAT THERE WAS A ONE- TIME TRANSFER EVER TITLE FROM DAVID PACETTI TO A FELLOW THAT WE KNOW AS TERRY PACETTI, TERRY NO YOU IN NOW IN HIS 80S.

ONE OF HER NEPHEWS BUILT A HOME THERE JUST TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY AND A DRIVE COMES THROUGH THE ACCESS OF THE PARCEL. MAP, YOU CAN SEE RESIDENTIAL A, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PRIOR RESIDENTIAL A AMENDMENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE RECTANGULAR PARCEL THAT CONNECTS TO THE TRIANGLE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE, AS WELL, AND OPEN RULE. THERE ARE IMPACT REVIEW.

JUST KNOW THAT ULTIMATELY, THIS GETS LOOKED AT BY YOUR STAFF THE SAME WAY IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ALL OF THE USUAL THINGS OF STORM WATER, DRAINAGE AND THOSE THINGS ALL COME IN AND GET REVIEWED WHEN THE FAMILY COMES FORWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AND TO BUILD A HOME HERE, AND I'LL SKIP THROUGH HERE, BUT HIT THESE COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS. NEXT PAGE.

HERE WE GO. SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION. KELLY PACETTI IS THE APPLICANT AND SHE'S THE WIDOW OF DALE PACETTI.

SOUND SEPTIC WAS THE COMPANY FOR MANY YEARS.

THE GREAT-UNCLE BUILT THE HOUSE IN 1927.

TO THIS DAY ALL OF THE PACETTI FAMILY IS A FAMILY ALL RELATED IN THIS AREA. I'LL SKIP THROUGH THE DETAILS, BUT I WILL SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU THEY DID NOT KNOW AND IT'S LAUGHABLE AND EXCUSE ME FOR A MOMENT FOR MAKING A DAD JOKE, BUT PART OF THE HISTORY IS THAT THERE WAS A TWO- SEAT OUTHOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND I JUST WRAPPED MY HEAD AROUND THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE A TWO- SEAT OUTHOUSE. I'M NOT SURE HOW SUCH A THING WOULD EXIST AND HOW AWKWARD THAT WOULD BE AND THAT IS THERE ON THE PROPERTY AND PART OF THE HISTORY THAT MISS PACETTI. AND THE PARCELS AND IT GOES ONE AFTER THE NEXT AND IT'S ALL PACETTI FAMILY OR RELATIVES OF THE PACETTI FAMILY AND THERE'S ANOTHER HOME TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PICTURE THAT WAS BUILT IN 2024. THAT IS THE PACETTI VILLA AND THEN THIS IS MISS PACETTI'S PARCEL. THERE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN TWO PARCELS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY SPLIT IN 1990 AND THEN SPLIT IN 1995.

SO THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE HOUSES ON THESE PARCELS IS NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S OPPOSITION TO IT AND I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN OPPOSITION, AND HOPEFULLY I BROUGHT ONE TO YOU THAT WOULD MAKE YOUR DAY SHORTER. WITH THAT, I'LL STOP TALKING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OF COURSE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> DOES IT IMPACT 12- MILE SWAMP? IS THERE WELL AND SEPTIC?

>> YOU HAVE WELL AND SEPTIC. YOU HAVE LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH ON THIS ROAD, AND I THINK AS FAR AS OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WHEN THEY COME IN THEY HAVE TO PROVE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY IN THE WELL SEPTIC BUSINESS, AND I IMAGINE HERS IS BETTER SINCE THEY ARE THE COMPANY THAT DOES

[03:00:01]

THAT FOR A LIVING.

>> I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT 12- MILE SWAMP.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> I'LL ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.

>> COMMISSIONERS, I'M ALL FOR THIS. I ALWAYS LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ATTORNEY BURNETT ALWAYS HAS PRESENTATIONS AND I ALWAYS HAD A LOT OF RESPECT FOR HIM BECAUSE HE GAVE HIS WIFE CREDIT AND SHE WAS THE ONE PUTTING TOGETHER THESE GREAT PRESENTATIONS.

I JUST DID WANT TO MENTION ON THIS STUFF, ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP IN CASE YOU WEREN'T AWARE WERE THE ST. AUGUSTINE FOR A LONG TIME AND I FIND IT A SHAME THAT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO BID OR BE PART OF THE PROCESS WHEN WE GOT A COUNTY ATTORNEY LAW FIRM BECAUSE I THINK MR. BURNETT IS SUCH A GREAT ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY AND HE'S DONE A LOT OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND SO THIS IS A GREAT SENIOR PARTNER THERE, MR. WHITEHURST IS ANOTHER GREAT TURN AND THEY NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE TO BE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY ATTORNEY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM

NUMBER >> BACK TO THE BOARD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR COMMENTS?

>> MOTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. I MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 32 APPROVING CPS 2024 KELLY PACETTI FAMILY AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND.

>> YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD AND VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.

>> ON BEHALF OF

[Items 4 & 5]

WE'RE BACK FROM LUNCH, AND WE ARE NOW ON 5 AND 6?

>> 4 AND 5.

>> 4 AND 5 AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

I HAVE A RECORD OF ONE EMAIL. NO MEETINGS, NO PHONE

CALLS. >>

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD? >> I HAVE A RECORD OF NO EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? ? THE SAME, NO EMAILS AND NO MEETINGS.

>> COMMISSIONER MURPHY?

>> I HAD NO EMAILS AND NO MEETINGS, BUT I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE MEMBER ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, SO OTHER THAN THAT, NO.

>> ON THE SAME NOTE, NO EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS AND STAFF, AND I ALSO DID HAVE A COMMUNICATION.

ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE ON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.

ROB MATHEWS WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS US-1 COMMERCIAL, SPECIFICALLY ITEMS 4 AND 5 ITEM 4 IS THE REZONING FROM CI AND THEN 5 IS THE VARIANCE.

SO, SPECIFICALLY, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS PIECE CALLED US- 1 COMMERCIAL.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY FOUR ACRES AND WAS DEVELOPED IN 1986 WHICH WAS THE FORMER HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP WHICH HAS NOW MOVED OUT TO 207. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN UNOCCUPIED FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS, AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROPOSING UNITED RENTALS, AND WE HAVE A MEMBER OF UNITED RENTALS FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND TOOL RENTALS. THE COMP PLAN IS CURRENTLY MIXED-USE AND WE DON'T PRESENT CHANGES ON THAT AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS CI WITH CONDITIONS AND THAT CONDITION WOULD BE TO LIMIT IT TO AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ONLY AND IT'S WITHAN AUTOMOBILE. MIXED- USE, HIGHLY COMMERCIAL AND OF THAT NATURE, BUT THEN ALSO USES ALLOWED WITHIN CI.

[03:05:01]

THE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, RESTAURANTS AND MEDICAL AND AUTO SALES AND RENTAL STORAGE FOR EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY AND DRIVING STORAGE. I'M TRYING TO DO THIS PRETTY QUICKLY, SO I DON'T WANT TAKE ALL DAY WITH THIS.

THE EXISTING USE OR EXISTING ZONING IS THE CI WITH CONDITIONS, AND YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE UP THERE ON THE SCREEN. THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AND THE USES ALLOWED WITH THAT.

SO THE SALE OF GAS AT THE DEALERSHIP AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO -- AND HERE'S THE PICTURE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP AND IT'S BEEN RUN DOWN AND OCCUPIED FOR TWO YEARS. HERE'S THE SECOND BUILDING ON THE SITE AND WE'RE PREPARING FOR THAT BUILDING TO COME DOWN.

SO THE SITE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CI USES.

YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH AT CI, TO THE NORTH IT'S COMMERCIAL GENERAL. ON THE WEST SIDE, TO THE NORTH OF CG, WEST AND CI AND ITIT AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS AND BOAT ASK TRAILER SALES, GAS STATION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, WE PERMIT THAT A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USES AND IT'S COMPARABLE, SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS, AND YOU KNOW, THIS REDEVELOPMENT IS REALLY JUST CHANGING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT.

WE WILL RESTORE IT, GIVE IT A FACELIFT TO THE SITE.

IT'S ALREADY ON A MAJOR ROADWAY AND CONNECTED WITH CENTRAL UTILITIES AND THIS SITE FOR THE EQUIPMENT RENTAL, THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE IN PROXIMITY TO THE USERS OF THAT EQUIPMENT. SO -- AS WELL, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE MIXED- USE LAND USE AND SURROUNDING ZONINGS AND COMPARABLE TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS AND THE BIG THING IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THE SITE'S RUN DOWN.

WE WANT TO BRING IT BACK AND PROMOTE BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE AREA. SO NOW ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE ZONING GRANT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE VOTING THINGS WHICH IS THE REZONING AND THE VARIANCE IS THE SECOND ONE. 6.06. 04 FOR THE BUFFER.

THE REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS IT REQUIRES A 20/B BUFFER BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE THERE, AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING TEN- FOOT BUFFER BECAUSE THERE'S CURRENTLY A 10- FOOT BUFFER THERE THAT HAS AN EIGHT- FOOT FENCE AND IS ONLY TEN FEET OF GRASS. IF YOU GO TO THE 20/B BUFFER THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 20-FOOT SEPARATION, RIGHT? MORE ROOM. HOWEVER, THAT HAS PLANTINGS IN IT THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT THERE. WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO ALL OF THE PLANTINGS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 20/B BUFFER EXCEPT FOR ENHANCED AND GO BACK TO AN EIGHT- FOOT HIGH FENCE. THE FENCE REQUIREMENT IN THE 20/B IS ONLY SIX FEET TALL. THE NEIGHBORS ARE USED TO HAVING AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE AND WE'D LIKE TO GO BACK AND REPLACE THE EIGHT-FOOT FENCE WHILE KEEPING THE TEN- FOOT BUFFER AND REPLACE THE PLANTINGS OF THE 20/B. THEY'LL HAVE THE SAME PLANTING MATERIAL AND THE SAME NUMBER OF TREES AND WE'LL TRY TO ENHANCE IT AND PUT MORE TREES IN THERE TO CREATE A BETTER VISUAL SCREENING AND BETTER NOISE BUFFER.

SO YOU SEE THERE, THE TEN- FOOT BUFFER AND THAT'S WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THE TEN- FOOT ZONING, AND YOU WILL SEE PICTURES. THIS IS THE CURRENT FENCE THAT WE WANT TO REPLACE. YOU KNOW, THAT IS EIGHT- FEET TALL NOW AND YOU WANT TO REPLACE FOR THE SAME MATERIAL AND HAVE IT BE NEW. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO PLANT IN THAT SAME TEN- FOOT AREA, THE SPACING FOR THE TREES AND THERE IS THAT NATURE AND THE CLUSTER OF TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE WE CAN AND GOING IN THERE AND WHERE POSSIBLE, ADD ADDITIONAL PLANTING TO BETTER SCREEN. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE DECENT TREES ON THEIR SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE HERE, TRY TO ADD ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS WHERE THERE'S GAPS BETWEEN OUR SITE AND THE NEIGHBORS. SO BASED ON THAT FINDINGS, THE ZONING VARIANCE, AND THERE IS A SIMILAR USE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE HOURS OF OPERATION WOULD BE MUCH LESS.

THEY ACTUALLY CLOSE BUSINESS HOURS 5:00 P.M. AND MR. ROBERTS CAN SPEAK TO THE OPERATION OF THIS USE. IMPROVED EXISTING SCREENING.

LIKE I SAID, IT'S ONLY GRASS ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND

[03:10:03]

REPLACE THE EXISTING EIGHT- FOOT FENCE THAT'S THERE WITH A BRAND NEW ONE INSTEAD OF THE SIX FOOT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE 20/B BUFFER AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, IT WOULD MEET OR EXCEED. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE EXISTING BUILDING AND YOU CAN SEE THAT'S A LITTLE TIRED AND RUN DOWN AND THIS IS WHAT UNITED RENTALS HAS A RENDERING OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, GIVE IT A FACELIFT AND THEY PLAN TO SPEND $1 MILLION TO GIVE IT A FACELIFT AND BRING IT UP TO SNUFF. HERE'S PHILIPS HIGHWAY. SO -- HERE'S SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE. SOME OF THE THINGS FROM THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT. THIS IS THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE HERE.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE YOUR BIG DOZERS ON THE JOB SITES OR CONSTRUCTION SITES. IT WILL BE THINGS LIKE THIS, MAYBE A SMALL FORKLIFT, A SKID STEER AND MINI TRACK HOE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

THEY HAVE TO BE SMALL ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BE WORKED ON IN THE EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SERVICE SPACE SO THEY CAN'T BE VERY LARGE. SO -- THEY HAVE EXISTING SITES.

ONE IN DAYTONA AND THREE UP IN THE JACKSONVILLE AREA AND THEY'RE SERVING THESE FOUR LOCATIONS.

BY PROVIDING THIS SITE IN ST. AUGUSTINE, THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT QUICKER AS WELL AS DOING MORE FOR THE EXTRA DELIVERY TIME. SO WITH THAT, MR. NICK WILL ANSWER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND TALK ABOUT THE OPERATION.

>> I APPRECIATE IT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS NICK ROBERT, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNITED RENTALS AND A RESIDENT AT VISTA CIRCLE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AS EVERYONE HAS DONE THAT PRIOR.

AS WAS MENTIONED, I GREW UP IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AND BEEN HERE SINCE 2019 AND SINCE I'VE BEEN BACK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO IDENTIFY A PROPERTY THAT WOULD SUIT US AND SUIT OUR BUSINESS NEEDS IN ST. AUGUSTINE.

MONTHS AGO I HAPPENED TO DRIVE BY THE FACILITY AND SEEN IT FOR SCOMPLEES LEASE, AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CURRENTLY SEEK. MAINLY WE LOOK FOR MUCH LARGERLARGER OF THE SIZE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE TO SERVICE. THIS SITE WE HAVE TO OPERATE DIFFERENTLY AND NOT SOMETHING WE'RE NOT NAIVE TO. IT ACTUALLY WORKS WITHIN OUR MODEL TO WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO CARRY SOME OF THE SMALLER EQUIPMENT THAT BETTER SERVE THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE WORK IN. AS WE LOOK AT THE NOTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THINKING THAT THIS WAS A FULL- TIME CONSTRUCTION SITE.

IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IS IT A CONSTRUCTION SITE.

IT DOES PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT THAT WE SERVE CONSTRUCTION SITES AND WE DO MORE THAN THAT THAT WE'RE NOT RECOGNIZED FOR AND MANY OF THE EVENTS WE PARTICIPATE FOR WITHWITH THE GENERATION AND THE THINGS OF THE LIKE THERE AND SOME OF THE CUSTOMER BASE ARE WELL BEYOND THE EXTENT OF CONSTRUCTION. WE SERVICE SPACEX FOR ROCKET LAUNCHES AND ANOTHER KEY COMPONENT IS THE OFFERING RESPONSE. I'VE EXPERIENCED A COUPLE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE AND THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PIECE THAT WE PROVIDE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE THAT SITS AT THE STATE OF FLORIDA FEMA MEETINGS AND IT'S BOOTS ON THE GROUND. IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN IN ALLOWING US TO DEPLOY THE RESOURCES IF AND WHEN AN EVENT HAPPENS AND BEING ABLE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITIES.

AGAIN, GREAT CORPORATE CITIZEN AT UNITED RENTALS, AND I'M EXCITED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU

MAY HAVE. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT'S THE LARGEST MACHINE YOU CAN HAVE

ON THERE? >> PROBABLY THE LARGEST MACHINE I WOULD SAY WOULD BE -- YOU'VE HEARD THE FORKLIFT WHICH HAS A 10,000-POUND CAPACITY. FROM A MAN LIFT CAPACITY, A 60- FOOT MANLIFT. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE EXCAVATORS AND THE

[03:15:04]

DOZERS, IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR SERVICING OF THAT. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK ON THAT ELSEWHERE. PROBABLY THE JACKSONVILLE OR DAYTONA LOCATIONS THAT WERE POINTED OUT, BUT IT WOULD BE A SMALLER FOOT PRINT SIMILAR TO THE ONES ON THE MARKET.

>> BUT YOU COULD HAVE IT SITTING

THERE, RIGHT? >> WHAT'S THAT?

>> YOU COULD HAVE THEM SITTING THERE AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL

NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? >> WE COULD, BUT IT WOULDN'T OFFER VALUE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO SERVICE IT. IT WOULD BE SERVICING THE EQUIPMENT UPON EACH RENTAL. TO MOVE IT THERE, WE'D HAVE TO MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND WE WOULD CARVE OUT THE INEFFICIENCIES OF THE BUSINESS AND WE WOULD ROUTE IT TO ANOTHER FACILITY THAT IT WOULD SERVICE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

COMMISSIONER MURPHY. >> JUST A COUPLE.

PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE -- WELL, I DRIVE BY THIS ALL OF THE TIME. IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY. MY CONCERN, OF COURSE, WILL BE THE BUFFERS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. YOUR OUTREACH TO THE NEIGHBORS IS IMPORTANT TO ME, SO I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH THE FENCE AND THE TREES THAT YOU WANT TO PUT BACK -- ADDING TREES TO THAT LOCATION IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT WITH THIS ADMONISHMENT. THAT IS IF YOU DO GET APPROVAL THAT THERE WILL BE SOMEBODY DRIVING BY THERE EVERY DAY AND JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU SAY YOU WILL DO, YOU WILL DO.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP.

>> UNDERSTOOD, AND LISTEN, I CURRENTLY MANAGE 83 LOCATIONS FROM CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, DOWN TO MIAMI AND EVEN TWO IN PUERTO RICO, AND THIS WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST SITE WHERE WE HAD RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW, OUR HISTORY HAS BEEN JUST THAT, A GOOD NEIGHBOR, RIGHT? SO IF WE'VE DRAWN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ADD THE TREES I CAN TELL YOU OUR REAL ESTATE TEAM WILL ASSURE THAT'S HAPPENED AND THEN ASSURE WE MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ONE OTHER THING AND MAYBE THIS MIGHT BE A ROB OR MY QUESTION, DIDN'T SUN BELT RENTALS BE UP THE STREET THERE? WOULD THE SIZE BE EQUIVALENT TO SUN BELT?

>> ALMOST IDENTICAL.

>> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ÚWHY WITH CONDITIONS ON THE

CI? >> I'M SORRY?

>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR A ZONING FROM CI WITH CONDITIONS WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE DEALERSHIP.

I NEVER EXPECTED TO KEEP IT WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS.

YOU'RE ASKING TO GO FROM THAT TOTO JUST BLANKET CI WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU THE PERMISSION TO DO THE CONVENIENT STORE GAS PUMPS, OIL CHANGES, VETERINARY OFFICES. NONE OF THE USES THAT YOU WOULD WANT. WHY NOT COME IN WITH CI WITH CONDITIONS WITH WHAT YOU DO WANT?

>> WELL, I AM THE OWNER HERE, AND HE CAN SPEAK TO THAT IN MORE DETAIL.

JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER ZONINGS WITH US-1. VERY, VERY FEW OF THEM ARE ZONED CI WITH CONDITIONS AND IN THAT WE TALK ABOUT -- I HEARD COMMISSIONER MURPHY TALK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES.

YOU WANT TO DRAW MORE COMMERCIAL.

IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR TWO YEARS BECAUSE ITS HAD A CONDITIONAL -- THEY OWN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS.

THEY HAVE THE MOST DEALERSHIPS. THEY HAVE THE HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP, BUT YOU TRIAND Y TO FIND ANOTHER DEALERSHIP AND IT DOESN'T WORK AND OTHER USS AND TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PERSON TO USE IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT.

SO, YOU KNOW, BY OPENING IT UP TO THE FULL DEPTH AND BREADTH OF THE CI WHICH THE OTHER PARCELS ARE ALLOWED TO DO, IT GIVES THEM A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO RENT IT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT RENTING A PROPERTY IT JUST CONTINUES TO GO DOWNHILL AND IT'S NOT GENERATING THE MAX TAX REVENUE FOR YOU. IT'S NOT PROPOSING POSITIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR THE AREA, SO THAT'S WHY.

>> I THINK JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION, I THINK FOR ME WE'RE HEARING A PROPOSED USE FROM UNITED RENTAL. I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE USE. I THINK THERE MIGHT BE OTHER CONCERNS, IF IT WERE SOME OF THESE OTHER USES AND MAYBE WE'D WANT TO HAVE SOME OF THESE OTHER USES ON THIS PROPERTY WHERE UNITED RENTALS WOULD BE A USE THAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE AND WE COULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.

>> MAYBE ON THE VARIANCE FOR THE BUFFERING. I'M JUST USING THAT UNITED RENTALS WOULD TALK ABOUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE BUFFER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR THOSE OTHER USEES TO GIVE YOU A

[03:20:02]

MORE COMFORT LEVEL IN THE FUTURE.

TO HAVE THIS BE A LODGE- TERM PLACE -- THEY ARE A LONG- TERM PLACE OVER 20 YEARS.

>> I, TOO, AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUFFER. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD GET RID OF OF A 20- FOOT BUFFER. I'VE SEEN OTHER COMPANIES SAY THEY'LL PUT THESE LITTLE TREES IN AND THEY'E FOUR INCHES OR TWO INCHES AND IT TAKES YEARS AND YEARS, AND IF A TEN- FOOT BUFFER IS LIKE THAT.

THAT'S NOTHING. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THE 20- FOOT BUFFER.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO ADD, YOU KNOW -- WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT ALL OF THE SAME TREES THAT WOULD BE IN THE 20/B BUFFER. INSTEAD OF 20 FEET, IT WILL BE TEN FEET AND WE'RE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT. THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE ISSUE, THE RE-ZONING AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET THOSE BOTH TIED UP IN THE USE AND THE BUFFER. SO WHEN YOU VOTE, ONE'S ABOUT ALLOWING THE USE AND ONE'S ABOUT WHAT'S THE BUFFERING GOING TO BE? SO THAT GOT A LITTLE BIT OUT OF SORTS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.

>> YES. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT -- WHILE I'M UP HERE I THINK ABOUT PUTTING MYSELF IN OTHER PEOPLE'S POSITIONS AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS THAT ARE RIGHT BY YOU, AND I KNOW IF I LIVED THERE I WOULD NOT BE REAL SUPPORTIVE OF REDUCING THE BUFFER. I'M ALL FOR MORE TREES AND I SAY TREES IN THE 20- FOOT AREA AND JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE IT MORE NARROW AND DO TREES YOU CAN DO BOTH. THINK ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND THOSE NEIGHBORS.

BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND YOU'VE GOT TO PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR POSITION JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT AND THE PZA DID HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. JUST BECAUSE YOU'LL BE USING IT A CERTAIN WAY DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T CHANGE DOWN THE ROAD. SO I'M DEFINITELY NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND I AGREE WITH THE PZA AND THEY DENIED BOTH.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, I THINK THE THING THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING KNOCKED ON IS THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE REDUCING THEBUFFER. NO, WE'RE REDUCING THE BUFFER THAT MOVING FORWARD WOULD BE REQUIRED AND WE'RE NOT REDUCING THE BUFFER THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS WITH NO PLANTINGS AND THEY HAVE AN EIGHT- FOOT FENCE.

IF YOU TAKE IT TO A 20/B THEN THE FENCE GOES DOWN TO SIX FEET AND WE HAVE TO DO THE PLANTINGS AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO TEN WITH THE TALLER FENCE THAT YOU'RE USED TOO AND HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF TREES.

IT GETS LOST ON THAT AND WE'RE REDUCING THE BUFFER THAT WE'RE USED TO.

SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU'RE MOVING IN FROM A BRAND- NEW SITE AND WE WERE REDUCING THE BUFFER, BUT NO. THIS BUFFER IS WHAT THE FOUR NEIGHBORS ARE USED TO AND HAVE

BEEN FOR YEARS. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS CALLED AN INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER AND THE FACT THAT YOU'LL HAVE MACHINERY AND THAT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN CARS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE.

YOU'RE BRINGING THE MACHINERY AND THAT, SO I'M ALLALL THE REQUIRED AND THE INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER AND THAT'S A STRONG WORD AND ALSO ADDING SOME TREES, AS WELL.

>> OKAY. >> PUBLIC COMMENT? ARE.

>> I WANT TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA 4 AND 5.

>> IT'S BEEN A WHILE, SO I FIGURED I'D COME AND SAY SOMETHING. MY FIRST THOUGHT IS GETTING MACHINERY ON THAT PROPERTY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ELEVATE THE -- OH, SORRY. MIKE MCDONALD. SO, YES, MY FIRST THOUGHT IS WHEN YOU COME TO GET INTO THAT PROPERTY THE SWELL HAS NEVER ALLOWED A CAR HAULER OVER THAT. YOU'RE BRINGING A 60- FOOT LULL THAT STANDS VERTICAL IN ITS PART SO YOU'LL HAVE TO CHANGE THE GRADE OF THAT.

MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU CHANGING THE GRADE ON THE BACK OF THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULDER SEVERELY IMPACT THAT.

IF NOT, THAT'S GREAT AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF AN OPEN- ENDED DEAL. THAT IS -- RETAIL SPACE HAS FREQUENTLY CHANGED HANDS. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. AND SAY HI TO EVERYBODY. HOW'S IT GOING?

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? THAT'S YOU. COME ON.

EITHER ONE. PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I'M BILL CURTIS. I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF. 320, AND I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DDS ST. JOHN'S

[03:25:03]

LLC, AND I'M HERE IN CASE ANY NEGOTIATING OR CONFLICT BREAKS OUT AND HAPPY TO WORK WITH EVERYONE SO THAT WE GET SOMETHING UP AND RUNNING THERE AT THE SPACE. I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY TO GET SOMETHING GOING THERE AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OF ITIT BEING VACANT, AND I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE AND POINT OUT SO THAT THIS IS TOTALLY ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE USE AND THAT'S A CAR DEALERSHIP.

IT WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL ZONING. SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE.

WE HAVE TO ALLOW OTHER THAN JUST A CAR DEALERSHIP ON THIS SITE.

BACK IN THE '80S WHEN THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY CONDITION IT WAS ACCEPTED BY A CAR DEALERSHIP AND IT'S BEEN USED FOR OVER 40 YEARS AS A CAR DEALERSHIP AND THERE WAS NEVER A NEED TO OBJECT TO THAT OR ANYTHING, BUT NOW IT NEEDS TO OPEN UP BECAUSE THE CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE MOVING TO MORE MODERN FACILITIES AND THINGS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO HERE WITH THAT FAMILY AND IF YOU NEED TO

DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH US. >> THANK YOU.

>> ED SLAVIN. I SENT YOU AN EMAIL JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO WITH LINKS TO ARTICLES ABOUT UNITED RENTALS AND THEIR HISTORY OF FRAUD AND BRIBERY. THEY HAD CONGRESSIONAL STAFFER WHO GOT FREE TRIPS TO THE WORLD SERIES IN 2003 IN EXCHANGE FOR WRITING SEVERAL LEGISLATION THAT SAID THE PUBLIC WORKS DOLLARS HAD TO BE SPENT ON RENTING EQUIPMENT RATHER THAN BUYING IT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE A RECESS AND JUST READ THROUGH THE ARTICLES OR ASK YOUR STAFF TO READ THROUGH THEM.

WE DON'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY OF INVESTIGATING THE BONA FIDES OR LACK THEREOF.

THERE IS A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF TREVOR MCCANN, HE WENTWENT FEDERAL PRISON. OTHER STAFFERS WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON. THE CEO OR CFO OF UNITED RENTALS WENT TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR SECURITIES FRAUD.

I THINK THE CHARACTER OF A COMPANY -- AND UNITED RENTALS WAS FINED $14 MILLION FOR A SOPHISTICATED SCHEME OF OVERESTIMATING THEIR PROFITING. I THINK THE CHARACTER OF A CORPORATION THAT WANTS TO HAVE A ZONING FAVOR IN ST.

JOHN'S COUNTY NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AND SO FOR THAT REASON I WOULD STRONGLY COUNSEL AND URGE -- WELL, I THINK YOU'LL DENY IT ON THE MERITS.

I THINK THE PZA VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, BUT TO PRESERVE THE RECORD I HAVE SENT YOU AN EMAIL WITH LINKS DATING BACK TO 2003. UNITED RENTALS BRIBED CONGRESSIONAL STAFF PEOPLE IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR UPON WRITING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD FAVOR UNITED RENTALS. THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF COMPANY WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF.

THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF COMPANY THAT WE SHOULD TRUST WHEN THEY GIVE UNSWORN TESTIMONY HERE, UNSWORN ABOUT THEIR PLANS. IT'S A DODGY COMPANY.

IT HAS A HISTORY OF WRONGDOING, AND WHEN DO WE EVER GET A CHANCE, THE STAFF AT ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, WHEN DO THEY ACTUALLY DO ACTUAL RESEARCH ON THE COMPANIES THAT WANT GOVERNMENT FAVORS? THAT IS SO WRONG. WE SHOULDN'T GRANT THIS VARIANCE, EITHER ONE. SO I WOULD COUNSEL AND URGE THAT YOU AFFIRM THE PZA AND VOTE NO ON THEIR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. CHECK YOUR EMAILS.

I SENT IT TO 1252. I REMEMBERED THE NAME UNITED RENTALS IN THE CONTEXT OF MEL MARTINEZ. IT'S ALL THERE. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS 4 AND 5? SEEING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

JOE DEFAYO. I WANTED TO SAY HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS MATTER.

AS ROB SAID WE HAD MOVED THE HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP OUT TO 95 AND WE STILL HAVE THE PROPERTY THERE AND HAVE BEEN MARKETING IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND YOU KNOW, HAVE STRUGGLED TO FIND,

[03:30:03]

YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY TO GO THERE AND WE DID ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED RENTALRENTAL FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE A GREAT FIT FOR THE PROPERTY, AND YOU KNOW, AS WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE DONE IN 19 -- IN THE '80S, OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO WE'RE ASKING TO REMOVE THOSE CONDITIONS ON THE ZONING.

AND SPECIFIC TO, HOPEFULLY, WE HAVE IT AT LEAST WITH UNITED RENTALS. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THIS HAS TAKEN US A LOT LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED, THEY CAN -- THEY CAN VACATE THE CONTRACT IF THEY'D LIKE. SO ALTHOUGH WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM AS A TENANT, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE BUSINESS, TO THE COMMUNITY, AS WELL, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO GET THE APPROVAL THEY STILL MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEASE, AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO GET THE CONDITIONS REMOVED BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY IS NOT MARKETABLE. SO IT'S SITTING THERE VACANT AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S TERRIBLE FOR US, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ALSO BAD FOR THE COMMUNITY, AS WELL. SO WE WOULD BE OPEN, OF COURSE, TO PUTTING SOME CONDITIONS ON IT, BUT WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT MAKES SENSE JUST TO LIMIT IT TO A CAR DEALERSHIP BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO, YOU KNOW, FIT THAT USE AT THIS POINT.

SO FOR INSTANCE, WE WOULD BE TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE THAT WE DON'T PLAN TO PUT A GAS STATION THERE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE -- ROB CAN PULL UP THE LIST OF CI AND CROSS OFF A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT YOU FEEL WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR THAT SITE.

WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT UNITED RENTALS WILL STAY WITH US, BUT IN THE EVENT THEY DON'T WE STILL NEED TO HAVE A MARKETABLE PROPERTY SO THAT LAND DOESN'T REMAIN VACANT. THAT'S SPEAKING TO THE ZONING, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE BUFFER. SO IF YOU GO -- IT'S AN UNCONVENTIONAL SHAPE, THAT PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, IT HAS LIKE A TRIANGLE TO IT AND ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU INCREASED THE BUFFER IT WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. SO MUCH SO THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING VEHICLES THROUGH THERE. AND MANY OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG THAT SIDE OF U.S.- 1 HAVE A REDUCED BUFFER FOR THE REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE VERY NARROW PROPERTIES AND IF YOU LOOK AT SUNBELT DOWN THE STREET, THE SAME TYPE OF USE. THEY DO NOT HAVE A 20- FOOT BUFFER EVEN ON THE EXTENSION THAT THEY DID NOT TOO LONG AGO. WE FEEL LIKE IT MAKES SENSE.

WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS IN THE PAST THAT WE'VE BEEN THERE AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE FENCE HEIGHT, I THINK IS CRUCIAL. WHAT WE'RE OFFERING IS AN EIGHT- FOOT FENCE WHICH IS HIGHER THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE BUFFER ZONES, AND WE ARE ALSO, YOU KNOW, OFFERINGOFFERING MAKE DENTS IN PLANNING THERE, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE THE FENCE TAKES CARE OF THE SITE ISSUES AND THE TREES SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THE NOISE ISSUES WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL BE LESS THAN A CAR DEALERSHIP. AGAIN, THE CAR DEALERSHIP WE HAD UP TO 100 CUSTOMERS IN AND OUT PER DAY. THE WASH AREA WAS RIGHT THERE ON TOP OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE WOULD WASH EVERY SERVICE CAR AND SO FORTH, AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS EQUIPMENT IS JUST GOING HAVE A MAXIMUM OF -- FROM WHAT UNITED'S TOLD US ABOUT, TEN RENTALS PER DAY, ABOUT TEN TIMES IN AND OUT DURING BUSINESS HOURS.

WE BELIEVE IT WILL BE A REDUCED, YOU KNOW, STRESS TO THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY COMPLAINTS. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PUBLIC FEEDBACK FROM THE ACTUAL RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, PUBLIC NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. SO AGAIN, WE JUST HOPE YOU CONSIDER THOSE THINGS AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE. THANK YOU.

[03:35:01]

>> ROB, WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE AND TRAY TO -- Y TO -- ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> I WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE START THAT I WAS A LITTLE BIT SHOCKED THAT PZA DENIED THIS 7- 0 BASED ON NOISE.

IT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS.

I DON'T KNOW WHOEVER HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF A CAR BAY WHILE THEY'RE DOING WORK, BUT IT'S INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY LOUD. THERE WAS NO OUTSPOKENNESS BY THE NEIGHBORS AT THE TIME SO I WAS SURPRISED BY THE 7- 0 DENIAL. COULD YOU, PLEASE, ELABORATE? COMMISSIONER MURPHY SAID SOMETHING AND THE JUDGE, AS WELL THAT THERE'S A SUN BELT RIGHT UP THE ROAD?

>> YES. THERE IS A SUN BELT RENTAL, I BELIEVE IT'S ACROSS THE STREET, ACROSS U.S.-1, MAYBE ACROSS FROM WALMART FROM THE SAME GENERAL VICINITY OF THE CAR DEALERSHIP -- GO BACK. IT DOES, ACTUALLY.

WE HAVE A PICTURE OF IT. AND THAT LIST OF USES FOR CI WAS A COMPLETE LIST THAT WE HAVE UP THERE. SO I WAS ASKING MIK MIKE AND --

>> YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY LEAPFROGGING AGAINST THE COUNTY BECAUSE WE CAN'T MAKE THIS WORK?

>> YES. >> IS THAT CAUSING AN INCREASE IN WHAT YOU CHARGE CUSTOMERS? OKAY.

>> THIS IS A PICTURE -- THIS IS A PICTURE OF SUN BELT FROM THETHE STREET VIEW.

WE HAVE AN AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEIR BUFFER IS. THEY HAVE ZERO BUFFER, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROPOSING THE TEN WITH THE EIGHT- FOOT FENCE WITH PLANTINGS. CURRENTLY IT'S TEN WITH EIGHT FEET WITH NO PLANTINGS AND SO -- BUT WE WANT TO ENHANCE THAT, LARGER TREES AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WOULD BE IN A CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE DOWN THE BUILDING AND RESTRUCTURING.

SO STAFF IS GOING TO SEE THIS AND THEN THEY'LL DO AND BUILD CERTIFICATION TO MAKE SURE TO YOUR POINT THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS ALL BUILT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU GUYS HAVE REQUESTED AND AS YOU HAVE APPROVED AND THAT NOTHING SLIPS THROUGH THE CRACKS.

SO -- >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

SUN BELT IS THE DIRECT COMPETITOR, RIGHT?

>> AGAIN, THIS CAN'T BE A CAR DEALERSHIP BECAUSE NO CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE OPEN AND THEN I WOULD QUESTION WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE PROPERTY WOULD BE AND THIS, TO ME, SEEMS APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. I THINK A LITTLE HEALTHY COMPETITION IS GOOD. AS LONG AS WE CAN GET TO A PLACE WHERE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONCESSIONS I THINK I CAN ABSOLUTELY GET THERE.

>> THEY'RE ALREADY COMPETING, AND THEY JUST AREN'T COMPETING AND THEY DON'T HAVE A STOREFRONT HERE.

>> YES, I CAN SEE BY THE MAP. IT'S A DISADVANTAGE.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT BUSINESSES TO COME HERE AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SO JUST MY TWO CENTS. THANK YOU, ROB.

>> COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE USE OF UNITED RENTAL IS CLEARLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES. MR. DEFAYO YOU ADDRESSED MY CONCERNS THAT IF THIS WERE TO MOVE WITH GAS PUMPS ALL AROUND IT, WE CAN STRUCK THAT FROM THE LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES. I'M NOT CONCERNED THAT AN ARCHERY RANGE WOULD COME HERE WHERE A VETERINARY OFFICE WILL OPERATE FROM 9:00 TO 5:00. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT MANY OF THE USES. IT'S ON U.S.-1.

IT'S A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

GEN, AGAIN, I WANT TO ACTIVATE THE PROPERTY AND I WANT A USER FOR THE PROPERER.

THE ONE WAS A 24-HOUR, YOU SAID IT, STRIKE THAT FROM THE LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES. I'M ACTUALLY OKAY WITH THE RE-ZONING PART.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> CAN WE GET MORE OF A BUFFER?

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY IT'S A TRIANGLE AND IT GETS REALLY TIGHT, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE'RE NOT REALLY ADDING ANYTHING ELSE BY JUST ADDING AN EXTRA TWO FEET.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE RUB. WHAT IS MORE OF A BUFFER FOR

[03:40:05]

YOU SO IT'S A WIN-WIN ON BOTH PARTIES?

>> I DON'T KNOW. IT WOULD MAKE THE PROPERTY NICE IN CASE THEY DIDN'T STAY THERE.

>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I SAID ON THE VARIANCE.

IF THIS DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD THEN RIGHT INTO THE VARIANCE THAT WHEN WE GO INTO THE CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL IT WOULD CHANGE THE BUFFER.

>> TO 20? >> TO 20 FEET.

>> IT'S A THOUGHT.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE THE

ISSUES. >> I SUPPORT KEEPING THE 20.

IT'S THERE FOR A REASON. IT'S AN INCOMPATIBILITY BUFFER. I REALIZE THAT THERE ARE OTHER LIKE STUFF NEAR THERE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FENCE AND AGAIN, THAT BUFFER, I MEAN, ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOWEVER MANY YEARS IT'S GOING TO BE -- AND YOU'LL BE THERE AND WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT'S DOWN THE FUTURE, AND I ALSO LIKE CONFIRMATION ON WHAT ELSE CAN GO THERE. YOU MENTIONED GETTING RID OF THE GAS STATION AND THAT WAS JUST A PARTIAL LIST. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE THERE.

>> THAT LIST IS LONG. I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

>> LEGAL, CAN YOU HELP WHAT IT POSSIBLY COULD BE?

>> SURE, LET ME FIND THAT WITH YOUR STAFF.

>> THE PARCEL DOESN'T REALLY

TELL THE WHOLE PICTURE. >> OKAY.

>> CHAIR?

>> COMMISSIONER, CI HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL BUSINESS AND THE COMMERCIAL AS A CATEGORY NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL, SO IT'S A BROAD LIST OF USES. HOWEVER, WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU HERE IS THE AT LEAST HIGHEST INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USES. THIS DOES NOT ENCAPSULATE EVERY USE POSSIBLE, AND THIS GIVES YOU A LOT OF THE ONES THAT WE KNOW AND OFTEN SEE. SO HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN READ THAT.

THAT'S JUST THE START.

>> SO IT COULD BE A HUGE STORAGE UNIT?

>> ANYTHING YOU SEE UP HERE COULD

BE -- >> YEAH.

>> IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND MOST OF THEM, PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE IT'S HIGH INTENSITY.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE STORAGE IS IN THERE.

>> AN ADULT ARCADE.

>> YEAH, BUT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO STRIKE THIS.

>> BARS, LOUNGES, DANCE HALLS,

PSYCHIC. >> YOU'D BE ABLE TO DO THE -- GET RID OF -- WE COULD USE ANOTHER DANCE HALL AROUND HERE.

>> PSYCHICS? THE PROPERTIES ARE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE PEN TO IT.

>> NO. NO SMOKE SHOPS.

>> CAN I JUST ASK, WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR PCA TO BE UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO THIS?

>> WE DID A BAD JOB OF, HONESTLY, TELLING THEM WHT OUR INTENTIONS WERE, AND WE DIDN'T TALK MUCH AND THEY JUST STARTED TALKING AMONGST THEMSELVES AND JUST KIND OF GOT AN IDEA THAT THIS WOULD BE LIKE A TERRIBLY, YOU KNOW, DISRUPTIVE, NOISY -- I DON'T KNOW.

IT WAS MIND-BOGGLING TO ME, BUT -- WOULD SOMEONE ELSE SPEAK TO THAT? WE DIDN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WE HAD THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE.

>> WE HAD REPRESENTATION AT THE PEZ MEETING AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS NOT THERE, BUT THE TAKEAWAY WAS THIS WAS GOING TO BE A CONSTRUCTION SITE UTILIZING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

SO IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT A CONSTRUCTION SITE, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THERE WAS SOME DISCONNECT. THIS IS A PLACE OF OPERATION THAT SUPPORTS THE CONSTRUCTION MARKETS, BUT IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, MUCH AS YOU MENTIONED COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, YOU'RE HEARING THE IMPACT WRENCHES AND THE SOUND IT IS OF A SHOP ALL DAY EVERY DAY. THIS IS A LOT MORE MOVEMENT OFOF EQUIPMENT. IF YOU CHECK OUR FACILITIES, THEY'RE VERY ORDERLY. THEY'RE VERY WELL STATIONED AND MAINLY, THAT'S PART OF OUR PROCESS IS WE OPERATE, WE MOVE EQUIPMENT QUICKLY FROM THE YARD TO THE TRUCK TO THE CUSTOMER. IT'S ALL PART OF OUR STRATEGY.

SO ANY OF OUR LOCATIONS WE HAVE ACTUALLY FOUR NOW IN JACKSONVILLE. SO WE CONTINUE TO DOUBLE DOWN TO SERVE THIS MARKET OUT OF THOSE LOCATIONS.

[03:45:04]

WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO IN DAYTONA NOW. SO YOUY SO THE GROWTH IS CONTINUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT AROUND, AND WE WANT TO BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

>> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IS HOW DO YOU GET THE MACHINERY, AND THE SECOND QUESTION, I FORGOT.

>> SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS WE DID CHECK IN WITH ONE OF OUR VEHICLES AND THE CAR HAULER IS MORE LOW PROFILE THAN MOST OF OUR TRACTOR TRAILERS.

>> BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO GO BEHIND ALL THE TIME.

>> SO A LITTLE BIT MORE ELEVATED AND WE ALSO WITH THE REDUCED FOOTPRINT AND THE BIGGER EQUIPMENT THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT NOT BEING THERE. WE WOULD HAVE THE SMALLER, ROLLBACK DOUBLE AXLE-TYPE TRUCK WHICH IS IS MORE LIKE A TOW TRUCK OR CAR HAULER, SO EVEN MORE ELEVATED. SO THE ELEVATION ENTRY IS NOT REALLY A CONCERN.

>> CAN I JUST --

>> I THINK WHAT'S REALLY GETTING ME IS THE UNANIMOUS DENIAL, AND I KNOW WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS FROM THE PZA HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF CHUCK IF ONE OF THEM CAN COME UP AND I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THE PZA MEETING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.

IT'S NOT OFTEN THAT THE PZA WOULD UNANIMOUSLY DENY SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU WHAT WAS IT THAT - - ANYWAY, I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.