[1. MAJMOD 2025-07 Tocoi River Estates PRD. Request for a Major Modification to the County Road 214 Planned Rural Development (Ordinance 2006-45) to rename the project to Tocoi River Estates PRD and to reset the expired phasing for a 205-unit residential subdivision. Located northeast of the County Road 214 and County Road 13 South intersection.]

ITEM NUMBER ONE, MR. BURNETT. DO WE HAVE ANY X PARTAKE? KYLE OR TOM IN THE BACK , THE MICROPHONE IS NOT WORKING.

>> I HAD A NUMBER OF EMAILS, OVER 20 EMAILS IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION. I SPOKE TO CHRISTINE WILSON AND HER SON. I STOPPED BY THE STORE AND TALKED TO THE OWNERS OF THE FEED STORE AND TALKED TO A NEIGHBOR ON 13 . THAT LADY WAS AGAINST IT.

>> THANK YOU PICK ANYBODY ELSE? >> I VISITED THE SITE ON SEPTEMBER 12. I RECEIVED 19 EMAILS, ALL OPPOSED. MOST LOOK TO LIVE IN THE AREA . HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SUPPORT LETTERS.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL. I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH CHRISTINE WILSON. I SPOKE WITH THE RIVER KEEPERS AND SOME GOOD

CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF . >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I VISITED THE SITE . >> NONE.

>> I SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH JOE EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT THE ITEM . I ALSO SPOKE WITH MR. BURNETT THIS MORNING ABOUT THE ITEM BRIEFLY. I RECEIVED SOMEWHERE NEAR 25 EMAILS THAT WERE OPPOSED

. >> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO EDDIE REMIND ME RELATIVE TO THIS I WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THE

HISTORIC AREA -- >>

>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE , MR. BURNETT .

>> DOUG BURNETT JOHNSON LAW GROUP. WE WERE UNAWARE MEGAN PERKINS WAS NOT GOING TO BE HERE TODAY . MY CLIENT BASED O HIM LEARNING IT WOULD NOT BE AN EASY A . MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE A CONTINUANCE. OBVIOUSLY MY CLIENT HAS A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT TO

HEAR THE ITEM. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

[00:10:04]

YES? >> AFTER KNOWING A NUMBER OF THE FARMERS THAT HAVE COME AWAY FROM THEIR CROPS RIGHT NOW TO COME IN HERE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PLANTING BEANS RIGHT NOW. THOSE THAT CAME HERE FOR THIS MEETING IT IS UNFAIR TO THEM TO POSTPONE THIS TO ANOTHER TIME . I AM TOTALLY AGAINST IT.

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS?

>> I ALSO FEEL WE SHOULD BE HEARING THIS. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT ALREADY MADE COMMITMENTS TO BE HERE TODAY THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING.

>> OKAY. CAN WE DO THE PUBLIC HEARING? WAIT TO VOTE? GIVE US A LITTLE GUIDANCE ON WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO, NOT TO DO.

>> THE BOARD HAS DISCRETION TO ALLOW CONTINUANCES . IF YOU WERE DISPOSED TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE, YOU COULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT . YOU CAN LET THEM KNOW THERE WILL BE ANOTHER TIME CERTAIN ON THE ROAD. LEGALLY SPEAKING THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE. ESPECIALLY NOT BECAUSE A MEMBER IS NOT HERE.

THE NEXT MEETING IT MAY BE THAT A DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBER IS NOT HERE. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE ALL BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE HERE FOR ANY MEETING. IT IS WELL WITHIN YOUR POWER TO GRANT CONTINUANCES. IF YOU FEEL LIKE THIS ONE WOULD REQUIRE HAVING A FULL BOARD YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT POTENTIALLY YOU ARE CREATING AN OBLIGATION PROBLEM FOR THE AUDIENCE THAT KEEPS SHOWING UP.

IF YOU KEEP CONTINUING TO GET TO A FULL BOARD IT MAY BE AN ISSUE.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT GUIDANCE. MAY I ASK MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE HERE FOR THIS ITEM TO RAISE YOUR HAND. THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE. THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ME AS WELL ASKING FOR THE CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THE NORMAL CHAIR ONE OF OUR MEMBERS IS NOT HERE. THAT IS YOUR REASON FOR SEEKING THIS.

>> WE BELIEVE THAT OUR KIND -- CLIENT BELIEVES STRONGLY THAT IT IS WARRANTED. IT'S NOT A DEVELOPER THAT WENT AND GOT THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE AS THE LANDOWNER .

TO HEAR THE COMMENT AND RESPECT THE COMMENT OF YOUR LEGAL COUNCIL THEN OBVIOUSLY YOU COULD DO THAT AND STILL CONTINUE TO FINALIZE AND ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE IT TO A FUTURE AGENDA TO DO THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONS

AND VOTING. >> OKAY. I WILL TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT. SO WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?

>> I THINK IT SEEMS IMPRACTICAL TO SCHEDULE SOMETHING BASED ON FULL ATTENDANCE OF THE BOARD. I HAVE BEEN ON THIS BOARD THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT I HAVE OBSERVED IT IS A ROUTINE . THERE IS COVID AROUND. SOMEBODY COULD END UP NOT BEING ON THE MEETING AND IT COULD BE SCHEDULED AGAIN. HOW DO YOU ALERT INTERESTED PARTIES LATE IN THE DAY AS TO WHETHER SOMEONE IS NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE . I THINK IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO SCHEDULE AND ANTICIPATE A FULL BOARD OR WHEN IT ABOARD MAY NOT BE FULLY

POPULATED >> JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE

[00:15:01]

AUDIENCE , THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD I TESTED. I DO NOT HAVE

COVID NOW. >> I DO UNDERSTAND THE SENTIMENT AND I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRABILITY TO HAVE A FULL BOARD HERE. MS. PERKINS IS A WISE AND INTELLIGENT WOMAN BUT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND THAT'S THE RULES THE BOARD. I BELIEVE

THE HEARING SHOULD GO FORWARD. >> ANYONE ELSE? I CALLED YOU BACK THIS MORNING AT 11:11 A.M. I DID NOT TELL YOU I WAS GOING TO BE CHAIRMAN OR SOMEONE WOULD BE ABSENT BUT YOU DID NOT MENTION A CONTINUANCE. I THINK THE REASON YOU ARE GIVING IS NOT AN OVERWHELMING REASON TO GRANT CONTINUOUS. I AM INCLINED TO

VOTE NO. >> I DON'T THINK IT REQUIRES A VOTE. I WILL JUST GO AHEAD WITH THE PRESENTATION.

>> IF NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD . I DO NOT THINK IT WAS MOVED. THERE IS NO REASON TO VOTE AT THIS

POINT. >> I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD . WHETHER THEY ARE TAKING TIME OFF FROM WORK . WHETHER WE VOTE ON IT AT THE END WE CAN DISCUSS BUT I DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM. I WOULD REMIND THE BOARD THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO AT THE END AS WELL. IF THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL REASON YOU HAVE IT AT THAT POINT ALSO.

>> WE CAN KEEP THAT IN OUR BED POCKET. BACK POCKET. WE WILL GO

AHEAD AS SCHEDULED. >> THANK YOU. TOCOI RIVERA STATES. I KNOW YOU HAVE LOOKED AT YOUR PACKAGE AND BASED ON EMAILS YOU PROBABLY HAVE A GOOD IDEA. JUST GOING THROUGH SOME OF THESE DETAILS A GENERAL LOCATION OUT BY THE RIVER, MIDDLE PART OF THE COUNTY. LOOKING AT IT CLOSELY . LOOKING AT THE REPORT, THESE EXHIBITS ARE DIRECTLY IN YOUR PACKET. YOU CAN SEE FROM AN AERIAL LOCATION YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THIS IS CLEAR IN THE MIDDLE PART OF THE PROJECT WHICH IS WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH HOME SITES. YOU CAN SEE BIFURCATING THIS ON THE TWO AREAS ON THIS FARMLAND OFF TO THE EAST OF THE SITE. IT IS AGRICULTURAL. IT IS CURRENTLY A PRD . THIS IS REALLY JUST A REVITALIZATION . IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED BY ORDINANCE 2006 .

SOMEWHERE AROUND 25 YEARS OR SO IT WAS FILED . THE EXISTING PRD , IT WAS DONE BY THE CHESHIRE TIRE FAMILY . YOU CAN SEE THE APPROVAL IN 2006 . SOME DETAILS, IT IS ROUGHLY 1000 UNITS , ROUGHLY 1000 ACRES . 265 ACRES ARE WETLANDS AND AREA OF 90%.

THE TOTAL NUMBER WAS 205. THIS IS THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE . YOU

[00:20:10]

CAN COME BACK FOR THAT SITE DATA TABLE BUT IT MIRRORS THE TEXT LANUAGE I WAS JUST READING YOU. I WILL LAY THAT OUT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED SITE DATA TABLE . YOU CAN SEE THE RESERVE AREAS, CONSERVATION AREAS. SOME OF THAT IS WETLANDS. A GOOD PORTION IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER . PROJECT OVERVIEW OUT OF THE STAFF REPORT THE CURRENT PRD IS EXPIRED . UPDATING TO A CURRENT TIMEFRAME . IT HAS SOME ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE YOUR STAFF WANTS TO ACCESS RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY AT THE ADJOINING ROADWAY. OBVIOUSLY THE STORM AREAS IN THE PUD BACK IN THE 2006 TIMEFRAME . THERE WAS NO WAIVERS IN THE PROJECT. YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS IN GRAY CLOSELY MIRROR THE GREEN. THE EXISTING DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING LAYOUT AND THE EXACT NUMBER OF LOT. THIS ONE MIRRORS IT BUT I THINK I CAN PUT IT APPEARED TO SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT. SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS, OBVIOUSLY THIS PROJECT CAME THROUGH PREVIOUSLY WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SAME PROPERTY. THROUGH THAT PROCESS WE HAVE A NUMBER OF REPORTS THAT ARE FAR MORE DETAILED THAN WE HAD 20 YEARS AGO. SO WE HAVE DETAILED INFORMATION IN THE APPLICATION.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY, NO SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY HABITAT. YOU CAN SEE THIS , EXACTLY WHAT YOU EXPECT TO FIND . THE EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY . HERE IS THE EXISTING VERSUS THE APPROVED MAP SIDE-BY-SIDE. YOU CAN SEE VERY SIMILAR LAYOUT BETWEEN THE TWO. WE CAN PAIR THE CURRENT VERSUS PROPOSED. THAT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE RESERVE AREA IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE WETLANDS ARE IDENTICAL. THE RESERVED AREA IS IDENTICAL AS WELL . YOU ARE LOOKING AT STRICTLY AN ATTEMPT TO REVITALIZE AND REACTIVATE THE EXISTING PRD THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE. THE ZONING IS IN PLACE EVEN TODAY . THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY USE . THIS IS TO REACTIVATE THE EXISTING PRD.

THAT IS LARGELY OLIVE GOT FOR THE PRESENTATION . THAT IS THE CRUX OF WHAT WE ARE SEEKING. THE TEXT LANGUAGE IN YOUR PACKET TO MEET THE COMMENTS OF COUNTY STAFF. THEY UPDATE THE TEXT WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE THINGS , INTERNAL TO PRD SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE MODERN TO A PRD THAT WOULD NOT EXIST .

OTHERWISE IT IS THE SAME APPLICATION THAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY. ONE THING WE DID WAS WE HAD HEARD COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WITH THE PRIOR APPLICATION . THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE A PUBLIC MARINA , PUBLIC ACCESS

[00:25:04]

THAT IS REDLINED WITH THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE TO THE PRIOR TEXT.

OTHERWISE IT IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY. WITH THAT I WILL STOP TALKING. I KNOW WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. THE DAY IS GOING TO GO LONG AND I WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK

AGAIN. >> CAN YOU JUST POINT OUT THE DEVELOPMENT AREA. WHAT IS THE RESERVE AREA AND WHAT IS THE

DEVELOPMENT AREA? >> THIS FALL IS THE WAY MANY OF THE CURRENT OR MORE RECENT PRD HAVE BEEN DONE. THAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL HAVING BUILDING PAD ON THEM. THAT PAD IS THE AREA ON WHICH YOU CAN BUILD YOUR OWN AS AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEBUILDER . THE REST OF THE LOT IS ALSO PART OF THE RESERVE AREA. YOU HAVE THE HUGE GRAY AREA THAT IS RESERVED. YOU HAVE THIS THAT IS RESERVE.

EVERY ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL PLOTS IS A RESERVE AREA AS WELL.

>> HALF OF IT? >> IT IS HALF FOR SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. YOU CAN SEE THESE PIE SHAPED LOTS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE FOOTPRINT FOR THE HOME AND YOU CAN SEE THE BALANCE IS CLEARLY MUCH LARGER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.

>> I GET THESE ELECTRONICALLY. WHEN I TRY TO ZOOM IN I COULD NOT SEE THAT. THAT'S WHY I WANTED CLARIFICATION.

>> YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SCALE DOWN HERE THERE IS NINE PAGES OF

IT . IT IS VERY DETAILED >> THIS IS REPRESENTING 90% OF THE PROPERTY BEING SET ASIDE IN THE RESERVE AREA?

>> YES. >> OKAY. DID YOU SAY THERE WAS NO USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE EXISTING PRD ? YOU MADE A

STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT. >> CURRENTLY THE OTHER PRD IS

EXPIRED. >> THE 2006 .

>> ALL RIGHT. I REALIZED IT IS OWNED PRD BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS AG INTENSIVE. I WOULD SUBMIT IT COULD STILL BE UTILIZED THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES.

>> IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED. THE LANGUAGE IN FLORIDA LAW -- FOR EXAMPLE A BARN WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. THAT WOULD BE

ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE MS. SPIEGEL UP FIRST . >> I LIKELY WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT . ONE THING THAT YOU MENTIONED IN THE START OF THE 2006 PRD APPROVAL, DO THEY STILL

OWN THE LAND? >> THEY DO NOT.

>> IT WAS THE FAMILY THE PRD WAS GRANTED TO BUT THEY HAVE SOLD

THE PROPERTY. >> I DID NOT TO THE REAL ESTATE

TRANSACTION SO I AM UNSURE. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. I WANTED TO ASK THE STAFF THE QUESTION IF I COULD. COULD YOU LOOK AND SEE, YOU DON'T NEED TO GET THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT HOW MUCH FARMLAND WAS RESERVED IN THE HONEY BRANCH PRD . THEY DID HAVE A SIMILAR SET UP WHERE A PORTION OF THE RESERVE WAS PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOT. I BELIEVE IT WAS 54 OR 57 RESIDENCES. THEN THERE WAS A LARGE PORTION THAT WAS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE USED AS

FARMLAND. >> MS. SPIEGEL, ARE YOU ASKING THE RESERVE AREA PERCENTAGE OR ARE YOU ASKING ON THE ACTUAL

[00:30:02]

WHAT THEY WERE DOING . >> WHAT I REALLY AM AFTER AND I APOLOGIZE. I WISH I WOULD'VE THOUGHT OF THIS EARLIER. HOW MUCH ACTUAL LAND IS GOING TO BE FORMED ON THAT PRD.

>> I DO NOT KNOW WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT UNLESS IT SAYS IT IS JUST DEDICATED TO FARMLAND BECAUSE IT IS OFTEN THE CHOICE. IF IT IS A COMMON AREA THEY WILL DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AND I WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN

THERE. >> THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I HAVE EVER SAT ON AND HEARD. I DO REMEMBER THAT THEY DID HAVE A PORTION OF THE RESERVE AREA WAS THE LOT LIKE MR. BURNETT IS PROPOSING. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THAT WAS GOING TO STAY FARMLAND. I AM NOT FINDING ANY LANGUAGE THAT ANY LAND IS GOING TO BE FIND IN THIS. COULD YOU CLARIFY

THAT? >> I THINK THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR THE WAY THE TEXT IS WRITTEN THAT IT COULD BE FIND. IT COULD BE USED FOR EQUESTRIAN PURPOSES AND SIMILAR USES.

>> I WILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS LATER BUT I JUST WANTED TO

CLARIFY THOSE. >> I AM JUST STATING THE OBVIOUS THAT THIS COULD BE AN EQUESTRIAN COMMUNITY . THAT COULD BE A

POTENTIAL USE . >> OKAY.

>> CAN YOU BRING UP THE SIDE-BY-SIDE MAPS AGAIN?

>> YES SIR. >> I NOTICED THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PREVIOUS AND THE REQUEST. THE GREEN AREA,

WHAT IS THAT GOING TO BE? >> THAT IS PART OF THE RESERVE

AREA. >> SEE YOU HAVE TAKEN AWAY PART

OF THE WETLANDS FOR THAT? >> THE WETLANDS ARE RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF IT. THERE WILL BE TWO HOMES IN THE AREA? IT IS HARD TO

SEE . >> ON THE LEFT THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT HERE, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL. THIS IS THE APPROVED .

I BELIEVE YOU ARE LOOKING AT THOSE KINDS OF USES OVER HERE WITH THE EQUESTRIAN TYPE USE FOR THE EXISTING PRD. THIS IS REALLY REPLICATED. EVERYTHING IN THE GRAY WILL OVERLAP INTO THE SAME AREA. THAT IS ALL RESERVE AREA WHETHER THERE IS A BLAND AND WETLAND. THE SAME WITH OUR DESIGN.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE TWO BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO BE THERE.

>> THE GREEN IS A RECREATION AREA. THE CIRCLE IS THE DRIVE

>> THE MAP I'M LOOKING AT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE GOING AROUND .

>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE A PART -- A PARK ? AND YOU ARE TAKING

WETLANDS OUT? >> I THINK THE WETLANDS ARE STAYING. I HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THE BUDGET

ENGINEER SO I WILL ASK. >> THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE.

>> MY QUESTION , SECTION 8.1.6.2 SAYS THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS APPROVED CHANGE SHALL BE 500 UNITS PER CALENDAR YEAR AND ANY NOT APPROVED IN THE CALENDAR YEAR SHALL NOT BE CARRIED

FORWARD. >> I'M SORRY?

>> FOR THE RECORD WE ARE GOOD. WE HAVE NOT EXCEEDED THAT

ALLOWANCE. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS . THIS IS FOR THE STAFF. THIS IS SORT OF AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS IN THE ZONING CATEGORIES. IF YOU ARE IN MIXED-USE FOR DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPES UP TO 13 UNITS FOR THE DENSITY, IN A.I. IT APPEARS TO

[00:35:07]

ME YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. YOU CAN BUILD ONE UNIT PER HOWEVER MANY ACRES YOU NEED TO HAVE FOR A HOUSE.

>> 20 . >> OR YOU CAN -- ACCORDING TO 8.1 .203 YOU CAN BE A PRD, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SHALL BE CLUSTERED PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT . IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT? IT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE YOU HAVE A WHOLE

LOT OTHER CHOICE. >> THE PLAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT .

WHEN YOU HAVE AGRICULTURAL LAND USES THEY ARE VERY LIMITING FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT TO DO COMMERCIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES. YOU CAN DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF AGRICULTURE USES AS YOU KNOW. THEY DO MAKE ALLOWANCES AND THEY ARE UNIQUE .

NORMALLY HE WOULD NOT BE AT SOME OF THESE LOCATIONS DOING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT . PRD IS PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT CREATED TO ALLOW THAT . IN DOING SO THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THESE LARGE ACREAGES AND LARGE PERCENTAGES OF RESERVE AREAS SO THEY ARE NOT WILL TO PAWN . YOU SEE A 90% RESERVE AREA TO 10% DEVELOPMENT AREA TYPE THING. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> IT DOES. ONE LAST QUESTION BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THE LETTERS THAT WE GOT MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA AND REALLY MADE SOME REFERENCES TO SECTION 8.1.2 . I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF THAT 8.1.2.5 REALLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROPOSED REZONING BECAUSE THAT DEALS STRICTLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THEY ARE ONLY TO BE ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURE INTENSIVE. THOSE ARE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

>> MR. BURNETT I WILL HAVE ONE FOLLOW-UP COMMENT . A COUPLE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE RIGHT DOESN'T LOOK ALL THAT CLUSTERED TO ME. I THINK OF CLUSTERING AS MORE OF THE TIGHTLY KNIT PART OF THE PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED WITH HOMES . CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE.

>> DOES THAT FIT WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING.

>> THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE CLUSTERED.

>> ARE YOU SAYING THE MAP ON THE LEFT APPEARS TO BE CLUSTERED?

>> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT NOT JUST IN 2006 BUT SUBSEQUENT THIS DESIGN HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR YOU HAVE RESERVE AREA . UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF CLUSTERING . THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDER ONES , NOT TO SAY IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS. IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS ABSOLUTELY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOTS NOT BEING ENTIRELY LOTS THAT, THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PAD . I GUESS IT IS OPEN FOR DETERMINATION. -- INTERPRETATION.

>> SECONDLY WHO IS GOING TO OWN AND MANAGE UNDER ACTIVE AGRICULTURE . I UNDERSTAND ON THE EAST SIDE WHO MIGHT MANAGE THAT, BUT WOULD IT BE A SINGLE ENTITY? A BONA FIDE AGRICULTURAL PERSON AS WELL AS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT LOTS OUT THERE THAT WILL HAVE HALF OR MORE OF THOSE PUT INTO A RESERVE AREA. WHO WILL OWN AND ACTIVELY MANAGE THOSE ? IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A

[00:40:01]

SINGLE ENTITY? >> IT IS AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC.

THE WAY THE CODE IS SET UP, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT LIVE IN A SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU HAVE A COMMON AREA THEY ARE TYPICALLY OWNED BY THE ASSOCIATION UNLESS THERE IS A GOLF CORSE AND ASSOCIATION. IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION IT WOULD BE LOGICAL THAT UNLESS THERE WAS SOME OTHER OWNER THAT THE ASSOCIATION WOULD POTENTIALLY. IF IT IS AN EQUESTRIAN COMMUNITY IT IS KIND OF A NO-BRAINER. YOU HAVE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES . THAT IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL PRD CLEARLY WAS DESIGNED FOR. IT HAS IMPROVEMENTS DRAWN FOR EAST CORNER. THAT IS A SITUATION I WOULD ASSUME WOULD HAVE HOA OWNING IT. IF I WAS THE LAWYER FOR THE DEVELOPER STILL IN THAT ROLE IN THAT TIME THAT WOULD MAKE THE MOST SENSE TO ME . THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THAT WOULD BE HARDER THE OWNERSHIP WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN THOSE FACILITIES.

THAT IS WHAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. ALTHOUGH YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND SAY THERE'S NOT AN EQUESTRIAN OWNER THEN IT IS KEPT BY THE DEVELOPER. THE LOTS ARE SOLD. THEY ACTUALLY USE IT FOR AGRICULTURAL USE BUT IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE . IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE HOA OWNER . IT LEAVES IT FOR WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE LOOKING AT AGRICULTURAL USE.

>> SO LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT . PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A DEDICATED SPEAKER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE 10 OR 15 MINUTES.

>> I BELIEVE IT IS 10 MINUTES. >> GOOD AFTERNOON ZONING MEMBERS. MY NAME IS STAN . I LIVE ABOUT TWO MILES SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED LOCATION. I REPRESENT THE OVERWHELMING COMMUNITY THAT LIVES IN AND NEARBY. THE COMPATIBILITY OR LACK THEREOF -- IT REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES. THIS IS NOT LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT PICK IT IS HOWEVER PUTTING A DRAIN ON WATER RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS INCLUDING THE ST. JOHN S RIVER.

>> HEART OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS THAT THE COUNTY SHALL MAINTAIN IN THIS CASE AS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THERE WAS A GOOD QUESTION ABOUT THAT BUT IF YOU ARE NOT SURE HOW IT IS RECONCILED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE . THE PRD SHALL MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE THE NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS, THE HIGH-QUALITY AREAS, HISTORIC SITES AND SCENIC VIEW SHEDS IN THAT A.I. DESIGNATION. THIS IS AN EXPIRED PRD. DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN KEEP ITS STATUS. THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY LISTENING TO THE PRD. THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PLAN IS, THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS NOT INFILL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE MAP -- UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THAT. THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTSIDE OF WHERE DEVELOPMENT AREAS ARE LOCATED.

THE COUNTY IS GROWING FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST. THERE ARE MILES AND MILES OF AGRICULTURE LANDS. THIS WAS APPROVED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. I THINK IT WAS APPROVED INAPPROPRIATELY AT THAT TIME. SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS NOT A CONSISTENT TO REACTIVATE IT JUST BECAUSE IN MY HUMBLE

[00:45:03]

OPINION A MISTAKE WAS MADE ROUGHLY 120 YEARS AGO. THIS IS WHAT THE A.I. LOOKS LIKE. THAT IS ALL AGRICULTURE . IF I HAD THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP YOU WOULD SEE THAT THIS PORTION OF LAND IS STILL SUBSTANTIALLY REMOVED FROM WHERE ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP APPROVED FOR. THIS WAS FAILED TO BE BUILT. IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT. I PUT IT IN HERE TO DESCRIBE THE URBAN SPRAWL MEANS THINGS THAT THIS IS NOT . IT REQUIRES THAT IT HAS AN EXTENSION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.

THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXTENSION OF FACILITIES. THERE IS A DESCRIPTION IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE ROADWAYS OUTSIDE OF THE RADIUS IN OVER 100% CAPACITY. VEHICLES THAT WILL BE TRAVELING THIS TICKET TO OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY OR OUTSIDE THE COUNTY WILL RUN INTO ROADS THAT ARE AT CAPACITY.

THERE'S AN ESTIMATED 120 DAILY TRIPS. THIS IS TYPICAL. EVEN IF IT GOT APPROVED THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE FARM EQUIPMENT GOING EAST AND WEST ON 214 ENGAGED IN THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES. TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 1920 DAILY TRIPS OF VEHICLES TRAVERSING THE AREA MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL . ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK YOU NEED TO CONSIDER IS THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL NOT INCREASE EVACUATION TIMES WITHOUT MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACT. HOW WILL VEHICLES BE TRAVELING IN THIS DIRECTION AND MITIGATE FOR ALL OF THOSE FOLKS TRYING TO GET OUT OF HERE WHEN THERE IS A HURRICANE BORDERLINE IMPOSSIBLE.

THEN IF SOMEBODY HAS A FLAT OR A PROBLEM YOU CAN'T GET AROUND IT. THESE ARE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT TALK ABOUT THE COASTAL AREA SHALL NOT BE APPROVED. IF IT IS WHEN THE -- WITHIN THE BOUNDARY. I CONSIDER THIS IS A CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT . I HAVE INCLUDED FOR YOUR REVIEW , THESE ARE THE ROUTES THAT PEOPLE CAN TAKE TO EVACUATE FROM THE AREA. WE HAVE 850 ACRES OF POTATO FIELDS THAT PROVIDE FOR 255,000 PEOPLE JUST WITHIN THIS AREA. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IS GOING TO DISRUPT WHAT IS GOING ON ALREADY . THE CURRENT WATER CONSUMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL IS SEASONAL. FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT HAD BEEN LIVING OUT THERE, THEY HAVE RECOGNIZED AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FARMS ARE IRRIGATED. THEY HAVE THE SALTWATER INTRUSION BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY A DRAIN ON THE A FOR. HAVING EVEN 205 ADDITIONAL HOMES LOOKED INTO ONE RELATIVELY CLOSE AREA IS GOING TO PROVIDE MORE OF A DRAIN THAN WE SEASONALLY SEE AS THE FARMS ARE IRRIGATING.

THEY ARE NOT IRRIGATING 24/7. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. I HAVE LISTED QUITE A NUMBER OF THINGS HERE. ONE THING THAT I THINK IS QUITE IMPORTANT IS THE PLAN DOES NOT OFFER ANY LOW INCOME OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO. IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, BERTRAM FARMS IS ONLY 20% BUILT . IT IS NOT REALLY MY DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND TRY TO PUT A PRD IN THIS PARTICULAR LAND BUT WHO IS GOING TO BUY THESE THINGS IF THERE'S

[00:50:01]

ALREADY OTHER PROPERTY THAT'S AVAILABLE? IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTS IS THE SAINT JOHN'S RAILROAD. THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR HISTORY . KINGS ROAD -- THOSE ARE SOME OF THE HISTORICAL OF THE AREA. ALL OF THE SURROUNDING EXISTING HOMEOWNERS HAVE THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THE SAFETY AND OUR HEALTH BECAUSE WE WALK OUR DOGS AND BICYCLES ALONG THE ROAD WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS IS INCOMPATIBLE AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD BE DENIED. THE LAST ITEM ON THIS ONE IS STAFF REPORT ITEM 7. THIS IS FROMTHE COUNTY ATTORNEY. AT THE COMMISSION MEETING THEY DENIED THIS THING BECAUSE IT PRODUCES SCRAWL . I CANNOT EMPHASIZE MORE STRONGLY THAT THAT IS VERY MUCH THE CASE. IF YOU ARE REMOTELY CONSIDERING THAT THIS BE APPROVED, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS YOU CAN MAKE. I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU REQUIRE 50 FOOT BUFFERS ALONG THE RIVER AND ONLY A NARROW ACCESS POINT SHOULD BE PERMITTED. ONLY TWO SLIPS PER DOCK CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA .

IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH PERMITTING. THE BUFFER IS INCREASED TO 100 FEET. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT RESERVE AREAS. I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND HOW YOU CAN HAVE A RESERVE AREA ON YOUR LOT WITHIN YOUR PRD. START DOING THINGS IN ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RESERVE AREA. RESERVE AREAS BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDES GUEST HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I HOPE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE PLAN. [APPLAUSE]

>> MS. SPIEGEL HAS THE COMMENT. >> WE WILL NOW HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. THEY ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. IF YOU SIGNED A SPEAKER TO REPRESENT YOU YOU MAY NOT COME UP AND SPEAK KEEP -- .

YOU HAVE ALREADY WAIVED YOUR TIME. THERE ARE TWO MORE DESIGNATED SPEAKERS. 10 MINUTES FOR THIS NICE YOUNG LADY?

>> FIRST, I HAVE THE HONOR OF LIVING AT 1297 COUNTY ROAD 13.

>> THERE WE GO. >> MY NAME IS DIANE WILSON. I LIVE AT COUNTY ROAD 13 FOR 22 YEARS. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR 35 YEARS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME UPFRONT.

I'M GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME. I WANT TO SINCERELY THANK MY NEIGHBORS THAT DONATED TIME. I HOPE I CAN SPEAK TODAY AND REPRESENT THEIR CONCERNS. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THIS IS THE SECOND TIME HE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE. I ASSURE HIM THAT WE WILL KEEP SHOWING UP. I AM NOT BEING DISRESPECTFUL . IT IS IMPORTANT TO US. I COULD NOT GET PAST THE AGENDA ITEM WHEN I FIRST READ IT IN THE PACKET. IT SAID TO RENAME THE PROJECT TO TOCOI RIVER ESTATES AND RESET EXPIRED FACING . HOW CAN YOU PERMIT THE EXPIRED PRD THAT NEVER ENTERED THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING POWERPOINT. EXPIRED MEANS EXPIRED. THE

[00:55:01]

DEFINITION OF EXPIRED IS A DOCUMENT OR AUTHORIZATION OR AGREEMENT THAT HAS CEASED TO BE VALID AFTER A FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. IT ALSO MEANS NO LONGER VALID. HOW CAN YOU JUST RENAME A PRD AND GIVE IT NEW LIFE. IT HAS NEW OWNERS, NEW DEVELOPER AND NEW REPRESENTATION. THEY DID NOT MAKE THE COMMITMENT UNTIL 2006.

NEARLY 20 YEARS HAVE PASSED AND MUCH HAS CHANGED. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANCE. THERE ARE ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS. ALLOWING THE RESET WOULD ONLY UNDERMINE AND WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR DORMANT PROJECTS DECADES LATER TO BE REVIVED. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS ONE AGAIN. THE ATTORNEYS REVIEW REALLY VALIDATES THAT IT IS SUBSTANTIATED. FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IT SAYS THAT COORDINATES MUST BE AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING CODE OR EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF THE PRD. I THINK THIS IS A LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN SPRAWL . IT VIOLATES CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF A RURAL AREA AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS. ONE OF THE PRIME OBJECTIVES OF THE COUNTY'S COMP PLAN 2025. TOCOI RIVER ESTATES LIES OUTSIDE OF THE AREA AND DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AN ORDERLY AND LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. AS QUOTED IN THE SAFETY PLAN 2025 THROUGH 2029. INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE . IN 20 YEARS EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED. THE ROADS, EVACUATION ROUTES, PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH CARE CAPACITY WILL ONLY WORSEN THE SITUATION. AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATED AREAS ARE NOT DEVELOPMENT AREAS. THERE IS NO CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT NEAR THIS SITE PERMITTING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT EXPEDITES THE END OF THE AGRICULTURE . THE CULTURAL RELATED AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT . THIS IS A PICTURE I TOOK OF THE ACTUAL SITE. COUNTY ROAD 13 IS DESIGNATED . THE COMP PLAN REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO PROTECT COUNTY ROAD 13 AS A UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE WHICH INCLUDES ALONG ITS BOUNDARIES THE ST. JOHN S RIVER WETLAND SEGMENTS OLD-GROWTH TREES AND EXTENSIVE CANOPY AND ESTABLISH RESIDENCE.

THIS WILL DISRUPT THE CANOPIES, CREATE SAFETY HAZARDS ON A LITTLE CURVE THERE AND HINDER AN EVACUATION WHICH HE TOUCHED ON EARLIER. AFTER STORMS, PERSONS OF COUNTY ROAD 13 ARE FLOODED, IMPASSABLE AND BLOCKED BY DOWNED TREES AND POWER LINES MAKE IT EVACUATION AND REENTRY HAZARDOUS. THIS PROJECT WILL WORSEN THE VULNERABLE QUARTER THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . THIS PROJECT CREATES NUISANCE AND IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE FEATURES. THIS WAS A LONG ST. JOHN S RIVER AND COUNTY ROAD 13. BOTH ARE WETLANDS WITH TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS. THIS PROJECT WOULD DAMAGE THE SENSITIVE FEATURES INCLUDING WETLANDS . IN REALITY TO CREATE SERIOUS SAFETY RISKS. THIS LIMITED SITE WOULD BE HAZARDOUS TO RESIDENTS, DRIVERS, AND WILDLIFE. APPROVING THIS RESET WHICH SET A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. TELLING DEVELOPERS THEY COULD

[01:00:03]

REVIVE PROJECTS WITHOUT MEETING STANDARDS, MAKING EXPIRATION RULES MEANINGLESS. IT IS ALSO UNFAIR TO OTHER LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS. WE MUST COMPLY WITH TODAY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS. WHY SHOULD THIS APPLICATION GET A SHORTCUT? THIS PROJECT AGAIN WITH STRAINER ROADS, SCHOOLS, FIRE AND RESCUE, HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THE TAXPAYERS, YOU AND I, NOT THE DEVELOPERS WILL PAY THE PRICE. THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR OR STATED ABOUT THE MARINA DOCK REPAIR. THE SCOPE, SIZE, OWNERSHIP. IF APPROVED, UNCLEAR ACCESS PARKING AND BUFFERS. THE RESERVE AREA, I STILL DON'T GET IT. AND THE CALCULATIONS FROM 8.1.6.2 DON'T WORK. THIS PROJECT -- THIS IS ACTUALLY ON ONE OF THE LOCAL STREETS. THE PROJECT SITS NEAR SENSITIVE RESOURCES. ST. JOHN S RIVER, THE SCENIC HIGHWAY, PRESERVING SCENIC CHARACTER AND PUBLIC SAFETY IS A COUNTY PLEDGE. APPROVING THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION TO RENAME, RESET, REVIVE OF THE SCALE AND AGRICULTURE INTENSE THREATENS THE VALUES OF NOT ONLY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, STRATEGIC PLAN AND THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. FOR THESE REASONS I URGE YOU TO DENY THE REQUEST. EXPIRED RIGHTS SHOULD REMAIN EXPIRED. EVEN THE STAFF ITEM REPORTS NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN SUPPORT DENIAL , PROVIDING GROUNDS FOR DENIAL AND NOTING THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THERE IS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR KEEPING THE EXISTING ZONING. THE RURAL CHARACTER, INFRASTRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND COUNTY'S FUTURE AND THE INTEGRITY OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALL DEPEND ON YOUR DENIAL. I WANT TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL QUARTER OF COUNTY ROAD 13 AND 100,000 -- 1108 PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE POSITION TO STOP BOURBONS ALL AND PRESERVE OUR RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. [APPLAUSE]

>> THE LAST ONE SHOULD BE DAVID. FIVE MINUTES ON THIS ONE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. WE TRULY DO LIVE IN A VERY BEAUTIFUL AREA ON COUNTY

ROAD 13 . >> NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.

>> DAVID ECK IS 13 300 COUNTY ROAD 13 NORTH. 10 YEARS I HAVE LIVED ON COUNTY ROAD 13. IT IS ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS, PEACEFUL.

THE ROAD IS VERY NARROW. I'VE HAD A COUPLE QUICK CLOSE CALLS MYSELF. I'VE RAISED MY SON OUT THE WHO IS CURRENTLY 23. HE HAD A CLOSING -- CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH THE 18 WHEELER. HE IS LUCKY TO BE ALIVE. YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC AND YOU WILL HAVE SOME DEATHS OUT THERE. YOU CAN COUNT ON IT. HURRICANE SEASON, MOTORCYCLES COME FLYING BY. IT'S AMAZING HOW THEY STAY ON THE ROAD . FLOODING IS A MAJOR ISSUE WHEN THE HURRICANES COME.

IT DOES CROSS 13 ON THE WAY DOWN . AS A MATTER OF FACT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ANOTHER INCIDENT CAME DOWN AND KEPT GOING AND DROVE RIGHT INTO THE RIVER. YOU HAVE TO BE ALERT OUT THERE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT A GREAT IDEA. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS

[01:05:02]

VERY CLEAR PRIORITIES. WE WANT AND SHOULD PROTECT WITH THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE US ALL COMING DOWN THE ROAD. URBAN SPRAWL, WE WANT TO PREVENT THAT. THAT IS A PRIME OBJECTIVE. CONSERVING AND PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL LANDS IS ALSO ANOTHER PRIME OBJECTIVE. DIRECTING GROWTH TO A DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY EXIST, THAT IS A PRIME OBJECTIVE. TOCOI RIVER ESTATES IS THE OPPOSITE OF THESE GOALS. IT IS SPRAWL. IT CONVERTS RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO DENSE RESIDENTIAL LOT. IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA . IT RELIES ON ROADS AND SERVICES THAT WERE NEVER DESIGNED TO HANDLE THIS KIND OF GROWTH. IF IT WAS IT WOULD BE A FOUR LANE HIGHWAY . I BELIEVE AND ALL OF US BELIEVE IT SETS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. IF YOU GUYS ALLOW THIS AND COMMISSIONERS ABOVE YOU ALLOW THIS, IT CONTRADICTS OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNDERMINES YEARS OF RESPONSIBLE PLANNING WORK AND OPENS THE DOOR FOR PIECEMEAL'S ROLE THROUGHOUT RURAL AREAS. I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT . THE LAW IS ON YOUR SIDE. FLORIDA STATUTES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRE YOU TO APPLY THESE STANDARDS. THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT ALREADY GIVES STRONG FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY THE REQUEST. IN PARTICULAR REASON SEVEN IS THE HEART OF IT. THERE IS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE IN KEEPING THE EXISTING ZONING. THAT PURPOSE IS PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER, PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE THE PEOPLE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THE TOCOI RIVER ESTATES PLAN AND APPLY THE PROTECTIONS OF THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS THEY WERE INTENDED. ONE OTHER THING. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE CLOCK IS, BUT THERE'S ONE OTHER THING. LIGHT POLLUTION. WHEN I FIRST MOVED OUT THERE 10 YEARS AGO I COULD SEE EVERY STAR IN THE SKY. IT IS BEAUTIFUL. I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE GROWTH OVER THE YEARS OF THE LIGHT POLLUTION. YOU DROP 205 STREETLIGHTS WE WILL LOSE THAT SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. A LOT OF PEOPLE LEAVE TOWN TO COME TO WHERE WE LIVE TO EXPERIENCE THE BEAUTY. YOU TAKE THAT AWAY AND TURN IT INTO ANOTHER SILVERLEAF YOU WILL HAVE PROBLEMS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> CHRISTINE WILSON 8045 COUNTY ROAD 214 . MY NEIGHBORS DID A BEAUTIFUL JOB WITH THE FACTS. WE ARE WILSON FAMILY FARM, MULTI GENERATIONAL FARMERS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MY APOLOGIES MY FARMERS ARE NOT HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE ARE PLANTING GREEN BEANS FOR YOUR THANKSGIVING TABLE. THERE ARE SO MANY ITEMS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT PUT US IN JEOPARDY. SAYING THIS WILL HINDER FARMERS IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. I COME AS A WIFE, MOTHER, GRANDMOTHER OF FUTURE FARMERS GOD WILLING. THERE'S A LOT AT STAKE HERE FOR THE FARMERS IN THIS COUNTY. THE COUNTY DOES NOT OWE THESE LANDOWNERS MOST PROFITABLE USE. THEY TOOK A BIG RISK PURCHASING.

I GET IT BECAUSE FARMERS ARE THE BIGGEST GAMBLERS. YOU ALL KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS DOMINO FALLS. THIS COUNTY DOES OWE ITS CITIZENS GOOD COMMON SENSE CHOICES. TIME IS OF SOCIETY FOR MAKING THE BETTER CHOICE. FARMLAND IS FINITE. ONCE THE CONCRETE IS POURED IT IS GONE FOREVER. DEVELOPERS ARE CHIPPING AWAY AT NATIONAL RESOURCES AND NOW MORE THAN EVER IT IS IMPERATIVE TO PRESERVE FARMLAND. WE NEED THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE OUR BACKS. WE ALREADY FACE INCREDIBLE ODDS FINANCIALLY, REGULATORY, NOW DEVELOPERS ARE PUTTING US IN JEOPARDY. LAND

[01:10:05]

PRICES ARE OVERINFLATED ENSURING FARMERS CAN NEVER AFFORD TO PURCHASE ANY MORE LAND. FOR EXAMPLE, 80 FARMLAND AKERS HOLD FOR $4.1 MILLION. IT'S NOT IN THE COUNTY BEST INTEREST TO HAVE THIS DEVELOP NO MATTER THE PRETTY PACKAGETHEY ARE TRYING TO SELL THINKING THEY ARE DOING US A FAVOR BY REDUCING THE HOMES AND RENAMING. THIS IS NOT A TODAY ISSUE. THIS WILL IMPACT ONE FORM AT A TIME INTO THE FUTURE. YOU WILL BE MAKING CHOICES FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. YOU ARE MAKING CHOICES FOR CONSUMERS. LET THIS BE THE EXAMPLE THAT IF YOU BUY THE FARMLAND THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES FOR THE DEVELOPERS. LET THEM THINK TWICE TO TRY TO TURN CROPS INTO HOMES. THERE'S NOTHING COMPATIBLE PUTTING A DEVELOPMENT IN THE DENSEST AG AREA ON 214.

THANK YOU. >> I REALLY NEED TO SAY THIS BUT IF YOU COULD HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I LIVE AT 200 RIVER EDGE PLANTATION RIGHT ON 208 AND 13. THANKFULLY FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS COUNTY LEADERS HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT EXPLOSIVE GROWTH CAN BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO QUALITY OF LIFE. THE CHALLENGES ON COUNTY ROAD 210 ARE A CLEAR REMINDER OF THE TRIALS WHEN INFRASTRUCTURE LAGS BEHIND GROWTH. RESPONSIBLE EXPANSION IS WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE PRECEDES . THAT IS PARAMOUNT. THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT A RESIDENTIAL AREA THERE AT THIS TIME. THE NEAREST FIRE STATION IS 11 MILES AWAY AND A 15 MINUTE DRIVE. IF YOU TRAVEL SOUTH PAST MY DEVELOPMENT THERE'S CONSERVATIVELY ONLY ABOUT 50 RESIDENCES IN THAT FIVE-MILE STRETCH. BY QUADRUPLING THE NUMBER OF HOMES IN THIS AGRICULTURAL AREA IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC.

214 IS USED BY EVERY FARMER EACH MORNING TO POSITION THEIR EQUIPMENT. A LARGE TRACTOR MOVING LESS THAN 25 MILES AN HOUR WOULD BE A HUGE BACKUP FOR RESIDENCE TRYING TO GET TO WORK POSSIBLY PROMPTING THEM TO TAKE DANGEROUS CHANCES. ONE OF THE ONLY ROADS RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD USE HIS COUNTY ROAD 13 ARGUABLY ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL RIDES IN THE COUNTY PICK IT IS WIDELY USED BY CYCLISTS, RUNNERS, WALKERS AND MOTORCYCLISTS THROUGH THE WEEK AND VERY HEAVILY DURING THE WEEKEND. ADDING 200+ HOMES WOULD PUT A STRAIN ON THIS BEAUTIFUL ROAD AND A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS HAZARD TO EVERYONE WHO ENJOYS IT NOW. I'M REMINDED OF WHEN I LIVED ALONE ONE A HOW OFTEN I WOULD SEE A BICYCLIST STRUCK BY A CAR. COUNTY ROAD 13 OFFERS THAT SAME DANGER. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT AND CAUSE THIS PLEASANT RIDE TO BECOME ANOTHER TRAFFIC'S MORAL AND HAZARD ZONE. PERHAPS THE MOST COMPELLING REASON NOT TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME IS IN SILVERLEAF ALONE ACCORDING TO MY RESEARCH ONLY ABOUT 2000 HOMES OF THE 17,600 APPROVED HAVE BEEN BUILT. ALLOWING THE LAND TO REMAIN AGRICULTURAL AND FINISH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I HAVE 20 SECONDS AND I ALSO WANT TO PUT -- THE WAY THEY USE THE WORD RESERVE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE ANY RESERVE AT ALL. THAT IS THE WAY IT IS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR ATTENTION. >> MY NAME IS DANIEL PALMER. I LIVE AT 161 COUNTY ROAD 13, LESS THAN A HALF-MILE FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BETTER, I AM GENERALLY AGAINST THE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY TO DEVELOPMENT ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A NONCONTIGUOUS MANNER. LARGE TRACTS OF LAND CONTIGUOUS TO THIS PROPERTY EXIST AND MAY BASE THEIR INTENTIONS TO DEVELOP ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. READING THIS, I AM NOT A LEGALESE PERSON. I READ THINGS THAT SAY SECTION HE MAY HAVE 206 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PRIOR TO ANY DENSITY BONUS ALLOWANCES. I

[01:15:03]

DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS . THEY SAY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IS BASED ON .25 CHILDREN PER HOUSEHOLD. THEY MUST HAVE , I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THEY GET THEIR NUMBERS. THAT IS ABOUT AN EIGHTH OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. THIS SORT OF THING MAKES ME LOSE TRUST. I HAVE SEEN IS ABOUT THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS. THEY TALKED ABOUT THOUSANDS OF CARS MAKING NO IMPACT ON THE ROAD. THEY SAY SAY NO CENTRAL UTILITIES AND TALK ABOUT PRESSURIZED HYDRANTS . ON PAGE 7 IT SAID ST. JOHNS COUNTY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITTING AND BUILDING ANY PROPOSED DOCK OR FISHING PIER FACILITY. SOMEWHERE THEY SAY ONLY ONE PUBLIC PARKING SPACE. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THIS PROPOSED MARINA ANYWHERE NEARBY. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS ANYTHING LIKE IT ON THE BANKS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER IN OUR COUNTY. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT TO THE 37 ACRES OF LIVE OAK HAMMOCK AND THE WETLANDS NEAR THE CROSSING. CROSSING NEAR THE ROAD TO GET TO THE MARINA WILL BE A GREAT HAZARD. I BELIEVE TOCOI FISH CAMP WAS DENIED PARKING FOR JUST SUCH A REALISTIC CONCERN. I HAVE LIVED ON OR ABOUT THE RIVER FOR OVER 40 YEARS. WE'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES, BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT TO CONTROL AND SHAPE THE COUNTY'S GROWTH. AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED LIFESTYLES ONCE GONE ARE GONE FOREVER. WE MUST CONSERVE THEM NOW FOR THE FUTURE. THE RIVER IS FACING MANY ENVIRONMENTAL AND LIFESTYLE IMPACTS. NORTH OF THE AREA NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY SHAPE TO MAINTAIN NULLITY OF LIFE. THANK

YOU. >> JUST ONE MINUTE. MS. SPIEGEL

WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. >> WE HAVE SUCH A WONDERFUL GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU COULD COME UP TOWARD THE PODIUM YOU CAN LINE UP AND WE CAN MOVE IT ALONG A LITTLE FASTER. NOT FOR OUR SAKE BUT FOR EVERYBODY'S SAKE. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO PRESENT GO TO THE MIDDLE PODIUM. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS -- I LIVE AT 13 795 COUNTY ROAD 13 NORTH RIGHT THERE. WE BUILT OUR HOUSE ON COUNTY ROAD 1329 YEARS AGO. THE HOUSE NOW STANDS JUST TWO LOTS FROM THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO THE TOCOI RIVER ESTATE AND ALSO PROBABLY THE PLANNED MARINA. COUNTY ROAD 13 IS ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC AND HISTORIC HIGHWAY. THE GREATEST CONCERNS OF OURS AND OUR NEIGHBORS IS THE IMPACT THAT THIS NEW SUBDIVISION AND MARINA WILL GIVE ON THIS SECTION OF WILLIAM BARTRAM HIGHWAY. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL NARROW AND WINDING COUNTRY ROAD. TODAY IT IS ALREADY DEALING WITH THE BUILDUP OF TRAFFIC AND SPEEDING. THE ENTRANCE OF THE REQUESTED NEW DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED ON ONE OF THE WORST CURVES IN THE AREA.

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A BOAT LANDING OR MARINA ON THE RIVERSIDE. BOTH SITUATIONS WOULD BECOME EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WITHOUT EXTENSIVE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA. IT'S ESTIMATED THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING MORE THAN 400 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, CARS, MOTORCYCLES, BOATS, AND THEIR BOAT TRAILERS TO THE AREA.

COUNTY ROAD 13 WAS NOT AND SHOULD NOT NOW BE DESIGNATED OR DESIGNED TO HANDLE THAT ADDITIONAL TYPE OF TRAFFIC. WE WOULD REMIND YOU ALSO, COUNTY ROAD 13 IS A DESIGNATED EVACUATION ROUTE FOR THE AREA IN CASE OF HURRICANES AND BAD WEATHER. THE ROAD IS VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO FLOODING BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO THIS REQUESTED DEVELOPMENT.

THE EVACUATION ROUTE OF THE AREA IS ALREADY IN A VERY DANGEROUS

[01:20:01]

PROBLEM. THIS WOULD ONLY ADD GREATER TO IT. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONVEY TO YOU THE DAMAGE THIS PROJECT WOULD DO TO OUR PRECIOUS ST. JOHN S RIVER AND THE CREEK ENVIRONMENT. IN THIS AREA ALL WATER AND DRAINAGE NATURALLY RUNS TO THE RIVER.

DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT WILL FOLLOW IF PROGRESS IS NOT HANDLED CORRECTLY. IN CONCLUSION WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THIS AREA. THE LAWS ARE CLEAR, THE PEOPLE ARE CLEAR. THE PROJECT IS TO SAVE THE FARMLAND.

THE SCENIC HIGHWAY AND ST. JOHN S RIVER. BY VOTING NO ON THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. 13 609 COUNTY ROAD 13 NORTH. ARE WE ABLE TO PUT THE SITE PLAN MAP BACK UP? I NOTICED IT ONLY REFERENCES 214 BUT REALLY THAT NEW ENTRANCE IS OFF COUNTY ROAD 13. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT AND NOT DETRACT BUT IT ALSO ENCOMPASSES COUNTY ROAD 13. MY WIFE AND I WERE MARRIED THERE AND WE PLAN ON RETIRING THERE . JUST TO ECHO ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA I JUST HATE TO SEE IT GET DETRACTED AT ALL FROM WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS. THE MOTORCYCLISTS AND BICYCLISTS , THAT IS ALL ACCURATE STATEMENTS. THIS IS NOT A COUNTY ISSUE. DURING BIKE WEEK IN DAYTONA MOTORCYCLISTS MAKE THE RIDE FROM DAYTONA SPECIFICALLY ALONG COUNTY ROAD 13 THE HISTORIC ROUTE THAT IT IS PICK IT HAS BEEN ENJOYED SINCE HARRIET BEECHER STOWE DAYS AND THE ANSWER TO A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS IS, YES IT IS A TWO LANE HIGHWAY SO WE JUST NEED TO ADD AN EXTRA LANE OR TWO EXTRA LANES. I AM REALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF WALKING OUT MY FRONT DOOR TO A HIGHWAY WHICH IS WHAT IT WILL BECOME. 20 YEARS AGO THERE WEREN'T THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE POPULAR AROUND AT THIS TIME.

SO THE DANGER OF IT IS YOU ARE OPENING THAT DOOR TO DEVELOPMENT AND THEN NEXT WEEK THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND THERE IS PRECEDENT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S THE URBAN SPRAWL . THROUGHOUT FLORIDA THAT HAS BEEN A REAL ISSUE. THE NATURE OF IT, SITTING IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC . THE WHOLE SCENIC PART OF IT IS ALL RUINED AT THAT POINT. I THINK I HAD SOMETHING ELSE BUT IT SLIPPED MY MIND. THE OTHER THING IS IT IS REALLY NOT SET UP FOR SEWER AND WATER. I DO NOT SEE THAT PLAN ON THERE. RIGHT NOW IT IS WELL AND SEPTIC . THIS CITY SEWER AND CITY WATER IS AN ISSUE. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> I'M SORRY. MY NAME IS BETSY BLOOM 1340 COUNTY ROAD 13 WHICH IS ABOUT ONE MILE AROUND THE CORNER . I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AND ROAD CONSTRUCTION ISSUE IN PARTICULAR. THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY F D.O.T. STANDARDS AS I UNDERSTAND. IT WILL INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE TURN LANE COMING FROM THE NORTH, ONE COMING FROM THE SOUTH. THOSE TURN LANES ARE NORMALLY A TYPICAL TURN LANE FOR THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THAT

[01:25:04]

TYPE OF ROAD WOULD BE AROUND 600 FEET. YOU HAVE 600 FEET IN THE NORTH DIRECTION, 600 FEET IN THE SOUTH DIRECTION THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD AND INCLUDE THE FRONTAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. YOU ARE LOOKING AT 2/10 TO 3/10 OF A MILE OF ROAD DISTURBANCE AND ROAD WIDENING FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GET INSIDE AND OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT LANE TO THE NORTH IS GOING TO REACH JUST PAST THIS MANATEE. THESE PEOPLE WILL BE WALKING OUT LITERALLY INTO A FOUR LANE HIGHWAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS. NOT ONLY THEM, BUT THEIR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH. I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL THREE OTHER HOMES TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENCE. THOSE PEOPLE WILL ALSO BE WALKING OUT TO A FOUR LANE . NOT JUST FOUR LANES. ST. JOHNS COUNTY WILL REQUIRE SIDEWALKS ESPECIALLY FOR ANY KIND OF MARINE ACTIVITY.

THERE WILL BE TWO LANES HERE, TURN LANES ON BOTH SIDES, POSSIBLY A MEDIAN AT SOME POINT AND SIDEWALKS AND SHOULDER.

THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THIS. THERE IS NO ROOM AT ALL ON RIVERSIDE FOR THIS. EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO GO TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE. THAT IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE FOR ME, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY WILL CROWD AS MUCH AS THEY CAN ON THE RIVERSIDE BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF TRAFFIC. THIS WILL CREATE -- IT'S GOING TO BE A HAZARD TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC COMING FROM THE NORTH, FROM THE SOUTH, COMING FROM 214 AND THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN ON 214. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATHY BAKER. I LIVE AT 1052 COUNTY ROAD 13 S. I LIVE TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM WHERE MY PARENTS LIVED WHEN I WAS BORN. MY FAMILY ORIGINATED THERE . MY GRANDPARENTS HELP START THE COMMUNITY . I HAVE A LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP THERE. WHAT I HAD WRITTEN TO BEGIN WITH HAS MOSTLY BEEN DISCUSSED, MOSTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION. I WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT APPROACH .

YES, THIS WOULD BE AGAINST SOME OF THE LAWS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I HAVE WATCHED ST. JOHNS COUNTY GROW FROM WHAT WAS A SMALL CITY AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SMALL CITY GRANTS. NOW IT IS HUGE AND HAS GONE TO AN ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITY AND GETS FUNDS THAT WAY. THE URBAN SPRAWL THAT IS IMMINENT , WE JUST DON'T SEE WHERE THERE IS A PLACE FOR THAT IN OUR AREA. WATCHING THESE FARMS BE DESTROYED BY MANY OTHER PEOPLE COMING IN THE AREA, MY HUSBAND IS DISABLED. WE HAVE HAD A HARD TIME AS IT IS GETTING RESCUED OUT THERE WHERE WE ARE. THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE ISSUES I HAVE SEEN WITH THE TRAFFIC THERE. APPROVING THIS PROJECT WOULD INVITE FUTURE LANDOWNERS IN A 1 AND R ZONES WITH SIMILAR TREATMENT . THE CUMULATIVE RESULT WOULD BE THE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL IDENTITY AND DEMANDS ON COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, I AND MANY OTHERS REPRESENTED HERE ALONG WITH THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY RESPECTFULLY URGE THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY TO DENY THIS REQUEST. UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AS THE

[01:30:06]

FOUNDATION OF LAND-USE POLICY FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. TO ALLOW THIS BUILDER EVERY RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT WHATEVER THEY WISH, WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .

CITIZENS DO NOT ALIGN WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT ALIGNS WITH EXISTING AGRICULTURAL ZONING . I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING SO MUCH TIME, BUT WHAT I DO HAVE AN INVESTED, HEARTFELT ISSUE WITH

THIS PROJECT . PLEASE DENY IT. >>

>> MY NAME IS BENJAMIN. MY HOME IS 417 COUNTY ROAD 13 SOUTH.

6/10 OF A MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD OF THE -- ARE NOT PRECISELY KNOWN, BUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THEY INHABITED THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN FLORIDA FROM AROUND 2000 BC. THEY LIVED OFF THE LAND , SUPPLEMENTED BY SMALL, PLANTED PATCHES. THEY DID WELL FOR THEMSELVES, HAVING A RICH HISTORY DATING BACK OVER 4000 YEARS. THE TIMUCUA ARE ESSENTIALLY PART OF FLORIDA'S CULTURAL HERITAGE. THEIR VAST EMPIRE STRETCHED FROM SAINT AUGUSTINE IN THE EAST ALL THE WAY TO APALACHICOLA RIVER IN THE WEST. THE MISSION AT TOCOI WAS A FRESHWATER TIMUCUA SETTLEMENT ON THE ST. JOHNS RIVER , MORE OR LESS FIVE -- DUE WEST OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. IN 1602, FIVE YEARS BEFORE JAMESTOWN, IT WAS ONE OF THREE FRESHWATER TIMUCUA SETTLEMENT POSSESSING CHURCHES, WHICH HELD ABOUT 200 CHRISTIANS.

THE MODERN SETTLEMENT ON THE RIVER'S EAST BANK BEARS THE NAME TOCOI, AND IS PRESUMABLY MARKING THE SITE OF THAT MISSION. THIS LAND USAGE HAS BEEN PRODUCTION OF FOOD FOR OVER 4000 YEARS. IT IS FERTILE, IT IS IN A CLIMATE THAT CAN PROMOTE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. THIS LAND USES CHANGES FOR TOCOI RIVER PRD WILL CHANGE THE USAGE FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMPTION.

THE LAWNS THAT NEED WATER , ROOFTOPS, CONCRETE, DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS, THE SIDEWALK, AND ASPHALT, TREES WILL DESTROY THAT NATURAL HYDROLOGY THAT TODAY ALLOWS MUCH OF THE RAINWATER TO RETURN DIRECTLY TO THE EARTH. NURTURING CROPS AND GRASSES, FEED PEOPLE AND LIVESTOCK. IT WILL DIRECT THAT WATER ELSEWHERE TO BE DEALT WITH BY OTHER MEANS. NO LONGER A NATURAL ASSET, BUT RATHER A NUISANCE TO BE DIRECTED ELSEWHERE. STREETLIGHTS AND YARD LIGHTS WILL DIM THE STARS IN THE NIGHT SKIES. AUTOMOBILES WILL CROWD THE ALREADY NARROW SCENIC COUNTY ROAD 13, ENDANGERING PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS. STILL PRISTINE SECTION OF THE BERTRAM TRAIL WILL NO LONGER BE A LIVING SAMPLE OF WHAT JOHN AND WILLIAM BARR TREE DOCUMENTED CENTURIES AGO, BUT ONLY A SERIES OF SIGNPOSTS. TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE AND FAILED TO TAKE THE TIME TO PERFORM CONSTRUCTIVE PLANNING WILL DESTROY A 4000 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE PRODUCTIVE LAND-USE AND ACCELERATE ITS DEMISE. ONCE DONE, IT CANNOT BE REVERSED, BUT WILL SEAL THE FATE OF MOST OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THOUGH ON A MAP, TOCOI RIVER PRD APPEARS TO BE ONLY A SMALL ISLAND SURROUNDED BY -- FIELDS, DEVELOPERS WILL HAVE THE MOMENTUM, AND THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL ALL THE DOCS ARE CONNECTED BY ASPHALT AND BERTRAM TRAIL SIGNPOSTS. THE HISTORY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE STRETCHES FAR BEYOND ITS CITY LIMITS, ALL THE WAY TO TOCOI AND THE SAME DRAWINGS RIVER. IF SAINT AUGUSTINE IS THE FIRST COAST, TOCOI IS A CONTENDER FOR THE SECOND COAST. AS YOU MAKE THIS DECISION, PLEASE CONSIDER THE HISTORY THIS LAND CARRIES WITH THE SAME RESPECT YOU WOULD EXTEND TO A DECISION IN DOWNTOWN SAINT

AUGUSTINE. THANK YOU. >> THAT AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S MAUREEN O'CONNOR. I LIVE AT 4260 MYRTLE STREET, BOLANOS SECTION OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. I HADN'T PLANNED TO TALK ON THIS, BUT JUST LISTENING TO ALL THE POINTS AND COUNTERPOINTS, I COULDN'T HELP BUT FEEL DEJA VU FOR ME. THIS PRESENTATION AGAINST THE PROJECT ARE SO REFLECTIVE OF THE TWO OTHER RECENT PROJECTS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE -- PARKS. TO BE BUILT IN SECTIONS THAT ARE IN FLOOD RELATED ZONES, THE POTENTIAL DAMAGES TO LIVES, SAFETY , STRAIN ON RESOURCES, LACK OF ADEQUATE RESOURCE, WATER, WASTE, AND MOST IMPORTANT WAY, INFRASTRUCTURE. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE SURROUNDED BY MAGNIFICENT TREES, AS THIS PICTURE SHOWS. THE WOMAN WHO

[01:35:01]

GAVE THIS PRESENTATION SAID THIS IS JUST WHERE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL START. HOW MANY OF THOSE TREES DO YOU THINK WILL STILL STAND ONCE THE BULLDOZERS COME IN AND KNOCK EVERYTHING DOWN? HOW LONG WILL THAT LAND LIFE FALLOW AND CLEAR-CUT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS? THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CLEAR-CUT LOTS, AND THEY REPLANT A SAPLING, WHICH, IF WE STILL EXISTED 200 YEARS, WILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL TREE. THE ULTIMATE RESULT IS DESTRUCTION OF THE WAY OF OUR LIVES AND ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOMES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. HOMEOWNERS IN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO MONTHLY CDD FILLS, FEES, EXCUSE ME. OPERATIVE TAXES AND INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL ALSO INCREASE FOR ALL OF US AROUND HERE, AS PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE. IN THE LONG RUN, THE ONLY ONES WHO BENEFIT ARE THE DEVELOPERS. PLEASE STOP THIS INVASIVE DEVELOPMENT INTO WHAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED LANDS. THANK

YOU. >> SO MY NAME IS JOE MCINERNEY, 1005 BLACK ERIE LANE. LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS, AND MADE A COUPLE OF NOTES HERE BEFORE I START MY OTHER PRESENTATION, AND THE FIRST IS IS THAT YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS GIVEN YOU GOOD LANGUAGE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT A PRD MUST, A NEW PRD MUST COMPLY WITH ALL SECTIONS, PLAN, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WHEN YOU READ THE PRD LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FIRST SENTENCE AND ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR A PRD IS TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURE AND -- SO MY NAME IS JOE MCINERNEY. I AM THE CHAIR OF THE WILLIAM BARR DRUM SCENIC AND HISTORIC HIGHWAY. THERE IS A SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HISTORIC HIGHWAY AND THE SCENIC HIGHWAY. WE ARE STATE ROUTE 13.

THIS IS COUNTY ROAD 13. BUT LOOK, THE COUNTY HAS DEEMED THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ROAD. THE WILLIAM BARR DRUM SCENIC HIGHWAY, SO IMPORTANT THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY PREPARED LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN B16 16. AND TAKE THE TIME TO READ THAT . IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY GOOD. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE COUNTY SHALL, THAT WORD, SHALL PROTECT COUNTY ROAD 13 AS A UNIQUE ROADWAY, REPRESENTED, WETLANDS, EXTENSIVE CANOPY. THERE'S MORE IN THERE. AND SO I SAY, YES, IT'S GOOD TO PRESERVE THOSE AND TO WORK WITH THOSE AND TO MANAGE THOSE, BUT I'M ALSO HERE TO TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO MANAGE THE TRAFFIC. SO WHEN WATERLILY WAS HERE, I GOT A VERY NICE RESPONSE FROM JAN TRANSOM, OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PERSON, WHO SAID THAT 28.07% OF THE TRAFFIC FROM WATERLILY WOULD GO NORTH ON COUNTY ROAD 13. AND I LOOK AT TODAY'S PLAN, THERE IS NO RETAIL COMMERCIAL, SO, GOSH, IS THAT GOING TO BE 50%? IT'S GOT TO GO TO BODY BOYS OR MOLASSES JUNCTION. AND SO 186 TRIPS, PEAK HOUR TRIPS IS WHAT THE STAFF -- AND SO WHETHER IT'S 28% OR 50%, THERE IS ADDITIONAL TRIPS ADDED, 52 OR 93. AND YOU WOULD SAY, SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE PERCENT CHANGE, EVEN FOR 28%, IS 171% CHANGE THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE 171% CHANGE, OR A 227% CHANGE IN THEIR, IN THEIR AREA. SO I SAY I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S 171 OR 207. IT'S A LOT, AND IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN B16 16. SO I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING PLEASE PROTECT OUR UNIQUE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC HIGHWAY.

PLEASE VOTE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF TOCOI RIVER ESTATES PRD.

>> I AM SID PERRY. I LIVE AT 13065 COUNTY ROAD 13 NORTH. I'VE LIVED OUT THERE FOR 20 YEARS, AND I WANTED TO MENTION SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED TODAY, AND IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA FROM 214 TO JUST AT THE MOUTH OF THE TOCOI GREEK. ON THREE DAYS A WEEK, WHEN IT'S TRASH PICKUP DAY, YOU TAKE YOUR LIFE IN YOUR HANDS WITH THE FEW CARS THAT TRAVEL THROUGH THAT AREA TRYING TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THOSE CURVES IF YOU'RE HEADED SOUTH TO GET ON 214, OR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HEADED NORTH TO GET ON 13, TO GET OUT OF THAT

[01:40:07]

AREA. NOT ONLY DID THE TRASH TRUCK STOP IN THE ROAD, THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE FOR THEM TO STOP. YOU CAN'T SEE AROUND THEM TO SEE IF YOU CAN GO AROUND. THERE'S MULTIPLE TRASH CANS, A LOT OF YARD DEBRIS BECAUSE OF ALL THE BEAUTIFUL OAKS THAT ARE OUT THERE. IT REALLY CREATES A CHALLENGE. AND THEN, IN THE INFINITE WISDOM OF COUNTY ROAD M BRIDGE, GOD BLESS THEM, THEY ALWAYS SEEM TO COME TO MOW THE SIDES OF THE ROAD ON TRASH PICKUP DAY. SO YOU'VE GOT THAT TO DEAL WITH ALSO. I'M JUST ABOUT TWO MILES NORTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA THROUGH THAT WHOLE BANK OF WETLANDS. IT IS ALL VISIBLE ON 13, WHICH ALSO DRAINS IN THE WEST SIDE OF THAT CONNECTS TO TOCOI CREEK . SO I, FROM, IF YOU'RE HEADED SOUTH ON 13, THERE'S A BIG RIGHT-OF-WAY, I MEAN, OR THERE'S NOTHING, AND YOU CAN HEAR THE CARS AND THE MOTORCYCLES REVVING IT UP BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT SHARP CURVE. THEY START, SOMETIMES THEY FLY BY OUR HOUSE DOING 100 MILES AN HOUR. I'M NOT EXAGGERATING. YOU CAN HEAR THEM COMING WHEN THEY HIT THE TOCOI CREEK BRIDGE . SO ANYTIME I PULL OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, I HAVE TO, I MEAN, SOMETIMES I HAVE TO LOOK LEFT AND RIGHT KIND TO GET OUT, AND, I MEAN, I DON'T HESITATE. I PULL OUT AND I TAKE OFF, AND OFTEN TIMES I'LL LOOK IN MY REARVIEW MIRROR AND THERE WILL BE SOMEBODY RIGHT ON MY TAIL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DEAL WITH EVERY -- ALREADY, WITH RELATIVELY LOW TRAFFIC. SO I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE WITH 200 MORE HOMES. THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE STORM WATER RUNOFF. THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME , BECAUSE AS I JUST MENTIONED, A MILE AND A HALF ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WETLANDS VISIBLE ON 13 RIGHT AT THE NORTH CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA, IT ALSO IS GOING TO AFFECT TOCOI CREEK , WHICH ALREADY IS FAR EXCEEDING THE WETLANDS THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH FOR YEARS. AND THE WELLS AND SEPTIC'S, TWO PER ACRE. AND THE FILL IN THE ROADWAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WATER'S

GOING TO GO. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHARLIE UNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WHEN THE WATERLILY PUD WAS PROPOSED, IT WAS DENIED 5-0. SO IT WAS DENIED WITHOUT HAVING EVERY MEMBER OF THE PZA HERE. NOT LIKE TODAY, WHERE IT WAS ONLY GETTING EXTENDED UNTIL THEY GET ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PZA. OKAY? THE AREA THAT'S OPENED, NORTHWEST AREA, OR THE LOCATION THAT SHOWS PRESERVING, I LOOK AT THE OTHER MAP WITH ALL THE LITTLE SYMBOLS ON IT. A LOT OF THEM HAD HORSE PADDOCKS. SO YOU CAN PUT YOUR HORSE OUT IN THE OPEN IN A GATED AREA. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A POSSIBILITY OF WHAT THEY WANT TO LIKE TO HAVE UP IN THAT AREA IF YOU GO BACK TO WHERE IT SHOWS THAT.

HORSE PADDOCKS, OTHER, YOU KNOW, STORAGE AREAS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. TO THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. WHEN IT CAME BACK, THE DIRECTOR OF THE UTILITY SAID, OKAY, POSSIBLY 72,000 GALLONS PER DAY IS WHAT THEY'RE ESTIMATED, IF THAT, IF THAT GOES IN LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT THE THING IS, THERE'S NO UTILITIES OUT THERE. I'LL BE ON WELL AND SEPTIC. WE KNEW BECAUSE BY CODE, IT, IT WAS SIGNED FROM THE STATE THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE OVER ONE ACRE, SO IF IT'S 1.01 ACRES, THEN YOU CAN START HAVING YOUR OWN WELL, SEPTIC PUT ON IT. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WILL BE, ALL RIGHT? A MASSIVE WELL AND SEPTIC NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, IT'S CALLED, IT'S CALLED IRON BRANCH NOW. USED TO BE THE HONEY BRANCH. AND THEY'VE JUST POSTED THEIR SIGNS OF SHOWING THAT YOU COULD COME LIVE IN THEIR HIGHLY GATED COMMUNITY ON APPROXIMATELY ONE TO 1 1/2 ACRE, $1.3 MILLION STARTING OFF.

SO, BUT WITH THAT, THEY DO HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE DETERMINED, OR THEY DESIGNATED AS FARM PRESERVED. I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP TRYING TO GROW GRASS OR GROW SOMETHING OR SOMETHING. BUT SOMETHING TO CHECK THE BLOCK JUST SO THEY CAN PRD AND GET IT APPROVED, AND IT WAS APPROVED. BUT, YES. SO THIS

[01:45:07]

IS A VERY INTERESTING QUICK REACTION FROM THE DENIAL OF THE WATERLILY, AND TO SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. I'M CONCERNED MORE ABOUT THE WELL AND THE SEPTIC ON A MASSIVE STRUCTURE LIKE THIS, OF HOW WOULD DAMAGE THE AQUIFERS IN SUCH A HIGHLY CONCENTRATED AREA WHEN YOU HAVE 200+ WELLS. AND THAT'S A MINIMUM! THAT IS A MINIMUM. THANK YOU.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, MR. BURNETT, YOU'R ON FOR REBUTTAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. PZA MEMBERS. GOT SOME REBUTTAL, AND PART OF IT IS NOT SO MUCH TO REBUT, BUT ALSO TO SHARE IN SOME OF THE INFORMATION SO THAT IT'S BETTER UNDERSTOOD. AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT, YOU KNOW? I HEARD A SPEAKER TALK ABOUT THE PRIOR PROJECT HERE, AND MY CLIENT LISTENED. MY CLIENT ABANDONED THAT PROJECT AND CAME BACK TO GO TO WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS, AND THAT'S WHEN EVERYBODY HAS KNOWN WHAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR 20 YEARS FOR THE PROPERTY. I WANT TO ADDRESS MS. SPIEGEL'S COMMENT, BUT I'LL WAIT TILL SHE COMES BACK. OH, MR. LABANOWSKI'S OUT TOO. I'M SORRY. I'LL ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE WHEN THEY COME BACK, RELATED TO THE HONEY BRANCH OF THE WETLANDS AND THE WADS. TRAFFIC. THIS IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE 9. THERE'S ZERO ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO ROADWAYS, NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ROADWAYS, IN THIS AREA. WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT UP. IT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. IT'S ALSO BORNE OUT BY THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DONE ON THIS PROPERTY FOR THE PRIOR PROJECT. IT'S JUST A FACT. IT IS WHAT IT IS. I KNOW FOLKS HAVE TRAFFIC AND EXPERIENCE TRAFFIC, BUT THE WAY F D.O.T. AND THE COUNTY MEASURES TRAFFIC, THERE SIMPLY WILL NOT BE A MEANINGFUL TRAFFIC IMPACT. THIS ISN'T SILVERLEAF. IT'S FUNNY, MR. HUNT COMMENTED ABOUT LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS AND VALUE, WHAT PRD IS. I THINK ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF, THERE'S A LOT OF PRD LOTS. WELL, IT'S FUNNY, AND THEY MENTIONED BARTRAM FARMS. I DON'T SEE VERY MANY PRD LOTS AVAILABLE IN THIS COUNTY. THERE MAY BE PRD LOTS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED BECAUSE SOMEONE BOUGHT THEM. MAYBE THEY PLAN TO RETIRE THERE AND BUILD A HOUSE, OR THEY'LL BUILD A HOUSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BUT THERE IS VERY LOW INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE PRD LOTS THAT ARE OUT THERE AVAILABLE, OTHER THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE THAT'S SELLING 1,000,003 THAT ARE HOME NOT PACKAGES. THE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY IN, IF YOU LOOK ON OUR MDP MAP UP HERE THAT'S ON THE BOARD, AND YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING WEST OF 13, THERE'S TWO LITTLE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE WEST OF 13. I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY CLIENT, THIS ISSUE OF MARINA,., BOAT RAMP, ACCESS TO THE WATER, THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PRD FROM 2006. MY CLIENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

MY CLIENT WILL, BETWEEN NOW AND, AND BCC, MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PART OF THIS PRD THAT IS WEST OF 13.

BILL COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THAT LAND FROM THIS PRD. THAT, THEY DON'T NEED THAT, DON'T HAVE AN INTENT FOR THAT. THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE TEXT. WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT, AND WE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT NOT MAKING, IT BETTER NOT BE PUBLIC , SO WE ACTUALLY PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PUBLIC. NOW THAT WE'RE HEARING THAT THERE IS STILL CONSTERNATION RELATED TO IT, WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT COMPLETELY FROM THE ZONING REQUEST, AND WE'LL REVISE IT BEFORE THE BCC TO TAKE THAT OUT. INTERESTINGLY, AND SO THAT KIND OF TAKES CARE OF ONE HALF OF THE ROADWAY, IF YOU WILL, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN PART OF THE PRD. ON THE OTHER PORTION OF THE ROADWAY, THE EAST PORTION OF THE ROADWAY, THERE'S, IT'S ALL RESERVE LAND IN THAT AREA OUT RIGHT OF THE AREA OF THE PAD FOR THE HOME. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT A, A SPECIFIC MEASURE THERE, WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT ONE TO IT FOR A BUFFER AREA, BUT IT'S ALL IN THE RESERVE AREA ANYWAYS ALREADY. SO I THINK TWO PIECES OF THAT. ONE, THAT ELIMINATES ANY CONCERN RELATED TO MARINA, DOC, BOAT RAMP

[01:50:03]

ACCESS, AND IT ELIMINATES, SHOULD ELIMINATE ANY CONCERN RELATED TO THE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC HIGHWAY, BECAUSE THE EAST PART WOULD BE, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THE WEST PART THAT FRONTS THE RIVER WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF A PROJECT, AND THE PORTION INSIDE OF A PROJECT AS A RESERVE AREA. SO. AND THEN, LET, LET ME ALSO SAY, BY THE WAY, THE NUMBERS ON SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN, AND SOMEBODY JOKED ABOUT THE 2.5, THOSE AREN'T OUR NUMBERS. THOSE ARE SCHOOL BOARD NUMBERS. THOSE ARE PRETTY STANDARD NUMBERS. YOU SEE IN MOST EVERY PRD, PUD THAT COMES BEFORE THE COUNTY. WE DIDN'T CREATE THOSE NUMBERS. IN, IN, TO GO BACK, WETLANDS AND LOTS. THE, THE PORTION MR. LABANOWSKI THAT YOU ASKED ME ABOUT WAS TWO LOTS IN THAT WETLAND THAT'S THERE. THAT WETLAND IS TO BE PRESERVED, NOT IMPACTED.

>> THE TOTAL WETLAND? >> YES, SIR. YEAH. AND SO THAT, THAT WETLAND IS TO BE PRESERVED, NOT IMPACTED. MS. SPIEGEL, NOW THAT YOU'RE BACK IN THE ROOM, I WANT TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT RELATED TO HONEY BRANCH PRD. IF YOU, YOU MAY RECALL, IT'S FUNNY. YOU MAY, YOU MAY, SOMETHING IN YOUR MIND MAY BE RECALLING A SIMILAR TEXTURE, FEEL TO THIS AS HONEY BRANCH, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE NDP MAP FOR THIS VERSUS HONEY BRANCH, YOU'LL SEE A VERY SIMILAR KIND OF FEEL TO THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND HOW THEY HAVE THE PAD SHOWN ON, WITHIN THE LOT OF WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD LOCATE. AND THEN THE RESERVE AREA. SO IT IS SIMILAR. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THAT UP IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE INDEX. AND IT IS A 90-10 PROJECT, SIMILAR TO THIS ONE. 90, 90% RESERVE, 10% FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITS. AND IT, AND IT WAS APPROVED, LIKE YOU NOTED EARLIER, IN, WHAT, I THINK 2024 LAST YEAR. COUPLE OTHER COMMENTS IN HERE. WITH DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY, I THINK MR. RIVERS AND TOUCHED ON THIS VERY CLEARLY, YOU KNOW? SO OFTEN, Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ME SAY IT HERE AND ADVOCATED FOR PROJECTS. IT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. HERE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE RS LAND OR, OR, OR AG LAND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO RUN INTO THAT SITUATION. THE COMP PLAN'S WRITTEN THIS WAY TO ALLOW PRD'S TO BE DONE IN AG LAND AND IN RS. IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF WHAT A PRD IS AND WHY THE COMP PLAN WAS DRAFTED THE WAY IT WAS, WAS TO ALLOW THIS. IT'S NOT URBAN SPRAWL, IT'S NOT LEAPFROG. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN THESE AREAS. AND FINALLY, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN EXPECTED, AND ANTICIPATED. AND I'LL SHOW YOU A COUPLE SLIDES RELATED TO THIS . OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, BACK TO THE SNAP, IF YOU HAD QUESTIONS, HOUR, HOUR 20, EXCUSE ME, 2006, SAYS 206, BUT 2006 PRD APPROVAL VERSUS THE 2025. WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. ACREAGE ALL LINE UP THE SAME. PROJECT HISTORY, IT'S NOT JUST A PROJECT THAT BEGAN IN 2005. YOU CAN SEE UP THERE, PROJECT PRD, 2000 509. BUT IT'S A PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN '06, A PROJECT THAT HAD A SMALL ADJUSTMENT IN '07, AND ACTUALLY HAD CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL IN '07. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR 20 YEARS. THE EXPECTATION IS THIS PROJECT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE THE AREA WHERE THE LOTS WILL LAYOUT. YOU CAN SEE VERY DENSE TREE, EXISTING TREE STAND ON THAT PORTION OF FRONTING THE WILLIAM BARTRAM SCENIC HIGHWAY. AT OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, THAT'S BACK IN THE RESERVE AREA, SO YOU SHOULDN'T SEE MUCH OF THAT BEING TOUCHED OR IMPACTED. AND WE CAN PUT A NUMBER TO IT IF YOU WANT -- A BUFFER. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND BCC TO MAKE SURE THAT AFTER IT IS REFLECTED ON THE NDP MAP. AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT WHERE MY CLIENT BELIEVES PRETTY STRONGLY , AND, AND I DO, OBVIOUSLY. I'M A PAID ADVOCATE. BUT, I MEAN, THIS HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS.

IT'S A PRD. IT'S BEEN A PRD. THE EXISTING ZONING IS A PRD.

IT'S JUST EXPIRED. >> IS THAT THE COMPLETION OF

YOUR SUMMARY? >> YES SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WELL, WE HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS. MR. MATTA VINO?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. IF, IF THERE WAS TO BE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE OWNER CONSIDER MAKING THE RESERVE AREA NOT PART OF THE LOTS?

>> I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT. I THINK WE NEED A

[01:55:06]

MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? FOR THE

INDIVIDUAL LOTS -- >> YOU JUST HAVE TO GO MEET TWO UNITS TO THE ACRE. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE RIGS THAT SAY

THERE'S A MINIMUM LOT SIZE -- >> I, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WANT, OR YOU NEED A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF AN ACRE PER

HOUSE. >> OKAY. THAT, THAT'S ONE QUESTION. AND MY SECOND QUESTION, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. IF THERE WAS SUCH A MOTION, YOU WOULDN'T MIND IF THAT MOTION PROHIBITED DEVELOPMENT WEST OF, OF THE STATE ROAD 13, OR YOU COULD REMOVE THAT FROM THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IF YOU CHOSE TO, ALTHOUGH I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE. AND MAYBE REQUIRE A 100 FOOT UNDISTURBED BUFFER ALONG STATE ROAD 13. ON THE EAST

SIDE. >> YES. YES, SIR. WE CAN DO BOTH OF THOSE. AND, REAL QUICK, FROM A NOTICE STANDPOINT, IF WE WERE TRYING TO ADD PROPERTY, I THINK IT WOULD MESS UP THE NOTICE, BUT IF WE'RE REDUCING PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T MESS UP THE NOTICE. SO WE CAN DO THAT REDUCTION AND CONTINUE ON. SO, YES SIR, WE CAN

ACCEPT ALL THOSE CONDITIONS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. INKY.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> HI. OKAY, ON JUST THE MOST BASIC LEVEL, NOT EVEN CONSIDERING ANYTHING ANYBODY ELSE HAS SAID TODAY, OR SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, I DON'T SEE THAT YOU'RE JUST REACTIVATING AN EXPIRED PRD, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS. IT WAS OVER, ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO THAT IT WAS APPROVED. IT EXPIRED ALMOST 10 YEARS AGO, NINE YEARS AGO. AND SO TO, READING THROUGH THE MDP AND READING THE CURRENT PRD STANDARDS IN OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR LDC, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST GO BACK TO THE OLD PRD RULES AND HAVE THEM APPLY TO SOMETHING THAT IS EXPIRED. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASON THAT EXPIRATION DATES ARE ON PRD'S AND PUD'S IS BECAUSE THEY'RE F1 DESIGNED TO MEET A SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR A LIMITED TIME SO THAT IS, IF ANYTHING CHANGES, OR IT DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED, THEN WE CAN DO A RESET. AND IT IS NOT A PERPETUAL ENTITLEMENT. NOBODY HAS FILED FOR A REZONING ON THAT PRD, SO IT STILL REMAINS IN OUR ZONING CATEGORY AS A PRD. THAT IT HAS ZERO DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. YOU CAN'T JUST COME IN AND SAY, WELL, I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS HOUSE TO JOE, AND HE'S GOING TO TURN IT INTO A RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW? I, I THINK THAT THERE IS A LAND-USE RIGHT NOW THAT THE OWNER HAS. HE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND. IT CAN BE FORMED. IT CAN BE A PROFITABLE ENTERPRISE. I THINK THAT THERE IS RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A PRD THAT WAS APPROVED AT ONE POINT, BUT BASED ON THE, THE FLAVOR OF OUR NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND WITH THIS BOARD, CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND SEEMED TO BE ONE OF THE TOP PRIORITIES FOR THIS COUNTY. AND WHILE I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE IN, IN TRYING TO MAKE THIS BE SOMETHING THAT FITS WITH THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, I DON'T SEE THAT IT REALLY MEETS THAT GOAL. I THINK THAT HAVING, HAVING HALF OF THE PARCEL FOR EACH HOME BE PART OF THE RESERVE, AND THEN, ON TOP OF THAT, THEIR SEPTIC IS GOING TO BE ON THAT RESERVE PART, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 205 POSSIBLE HALF-ACRE OR MORE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT, WITH A SEPTIC MOUND ON IT.

AND THAT, TO ME, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE RESERVE. THE OTHER THING FOR ME WITH A PRD, I LOVE THE IDEA OF PRD, AND I LOVE THE IDEA OF MAINTAINING THE AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER OF THIS, EVEN IF IT IS HORSES, WHICH WOULD BE FINE. BUT BY TAKING ALL OF THE RESERVE AND MOVING IT IN, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, AND THAT IS ALL THE FARMLAND, ESSENTIALLY, EXCEPT FOR THAT TOP CORNER. SO THAT, TO ME, DOESN'T SEE THAT IT, IT MEETS THE, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINED PURPOSE OF A PRD SHALL MAINTAIN -- AG INTENSIVE DEPICTED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE BY DEVELOPING

[02:00:03]

PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND I WENT THROUGH, AND I COULD READ ALL THE DIFFERENT STATUTE, BUT THERE'S NO WAIVERS REQUESTED, AND WE HAVE TO GO BY THE CODE THAT STANDS TODAY. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A NEW ZONING, AND I DON'T SEE THAT YOU MEET THOSE, AND I DON'T SEE WAIVERS ADDRESSING THESE THINGS. SO .

THE DEVELOPING AREA SHALL BE COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS AND NOT SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE TOTAL PARCEL . WELL, YOU'VE GOT THE RESERVE AREA SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PARCEL.

IT'S NOT A CONTIGUOUS PART. THE, THE, OUR LANGUAGE IN THE, THIS IS THE COMP PLAN GOES ON, AND THAT MANY TIMES MADE MENTION THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE DISTINCT PARCELS, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE HONEY BRANCH FARMS DID EXTEND PART OF THEIR RESERVE INTO THE HOME PARCELS. BUT IT WAS A SMALLER NUMBER OF HOMES PER ACRE, 90-10, LIKE YOU SAID, AND THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT THAT WAS GOING TO BE ACT FARMLAND. THAT, TO ME, IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING FOR HONEY BRANCH FARMS, AND I KNOW WE DECIDE EACH THING ON ITS OWN MERITS. SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. I HAVE QUITE A FEW RED FLAGS ABOUT THIS, BUT EVEN TRYING TO GET ME PAST THAT. SO YOU CAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN PAST THAT? HOW, HOW WE EVEN GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE EVEN DON'T CALL THIS A BRAND-NEW REZONING?

I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> I HAVE THE HONEY BRANCH PROJECT UP, AND I WAS GOING TO TRY AND PULL TO SEE THE AMOUNT OF UPLAND THAT THEY SET ASIDE FOR THE RESERVE AREA, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A BREAKDOWN THAT I CAN SEE HERE TO GO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE A 90-10, BUT THE AMOUNT OF RESERVE AREA, I DON'T SEE AN ACREAGE FOR IT IN THERE, NDP. SO UNFORTUNATELY I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU

ON THE FLY. >> IT'S MY RECOLLECTION MOST OF THAT PROJECT WAS UPLAND AREAS, BUT I MAY BE MISTAKEN, RIGHT? IT WAS CERTAINLY SURROUNDED MORE BY DEVELOPMENT THAN THE PROPERTY.

TOCOI PROPERTY. >> I DON'T HAVE A FARM ONE, FARM TWO. IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN ANYTHING YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS PROJECT FOR OVERALL ACREAGES. FARM ONE AREA, 147

ACRES. YEAH. >> SO THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF AG THAT WILL STILL BE DONE ON THAT PROPERTY.

>> YEAH, OUR PRIMARY RESERVE AREA, I'M NOT SURE, 200? ALMOST

300 ACRES? >> YEAH. AND HALF OF THAT IS

WETLAND, RIGHT? >> NO, THE BIG UPLAND STRAND.

>> OPIATE THAT, THE ONE ON PARSON THAT COULD BE, WHOOPS, THAT COULD BE FARMED. IT HAS BEEN FARMED. YOU SAID EVERYTHING'S CLEARED, BUT ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN FARMED. I LOOK THROUGH GOOGLE EARTH. YEAH, IT'S BEEN FARMED, ALWAYS. AND ACTUALLY, RIGHT NOW, IT'S PLANTED AS WELL. SO YEAH, THIS TOP NORTH EAST CORNER IS STILL FARMLAND. THE PART THAT THE PREVIOUS PRD HAD MARKED OUT FOR HORSE USES, RIGHT? SO I, I DID.

I LOOKED THROUGH THE HOLE NDP, AND I DIDN'T FIND ANY LANGUAGE ANYWHERE ABOUT FARMING, AND THIS IS FARM COMMUNITY. THAT'S -- ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST ONE OF MY CONCERNS. I WON'T GO INTO THE OTHER ONES, BECAUSE I, I NEED TO GET PAST, WHY ARE WE HERE? YOU KNOW? I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS RESETTING AN EXPIRED PRD. WE HAVE RULES OF WHY PRD'S EXPIRE, AND THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED. THERE'S HIGHER DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STATE IS DOING STUDIES, AND PERHAPS AT SOME POINT COULD BE CHANGING SOME OF THAT, AND THIS IS PUTTING 200 SEPTIC MOUNDS RIGHT NEXT TO THE, ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, WHICH IS A CONCERN . SO, AND THE WATER PRESSURE, I UNDERSTAND FROM THE

[02:05:11]

FARMERS, WHEN THEY'RE IRRIGATING, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT VERY GOOD. EVERYONE WILL BE ON A WELL. THAT'S A CONCERN.

EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THIS MANY HOMES, THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME.

AND, AND PLUS THE IDEA OF WHERE THIS IS LOCATED. WE'VE GOT THE ROBINSON IMPROVEMENT COMPANY PARCEL, AND THIS PARCEL A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE WEST, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REALLY SIGNALING THAT THIS COUNTY IS OKAY WITH DEVELOPING FARMLAND.

AND SO THAT, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT IT? MR. GREEN? YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> WAS THE QUESTION YOU WANTED TO KNOW WAS ACREAGE, AMOUNT OF ACREAGE? OH, OKAY. THE -- ASIDE. WAS THAT A NUMBER THAT SOMEBODY WAS -- OKAY. IT'S ROUGHLY 928 ACRES -- SET ASIDE. THAT'S 90%, A LITTLE OVER 1000, WHICH, 10% GIVES YOU 103 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ME DOING ROUGH MATH UP HERE. I COULD BE EASILY PROVEN WRONG. BUT THAT'S ALL. I GOT -- QUESTIONS -- I'M

GOOD. >> OKAY. MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> WELL, MS. SPIEGEL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'VE GOT CONCERNS ALSO ABOUT RENEWING THIS. THERE'S A LOT THERE THAT'S OPEN, AND I'VE GOT A LIST A MILE LONG OF MY CONCERNS , AND WE'VE GOT OAKS THAT ARE OUT THERE, WE'VE GOT A STREAM THAT RUNS DIRECTLY INTO THE RIVER COMING OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

AS FAR AS PROTECTION FOR THAT, THE WATER PRESSURE. I MEAN, THE AQUIFER RIGHT NOW, THE FARMERS RIGHT NOW ARE REGULATED, THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT THEY CAN PULL OUT OF THE AQUIFER AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THEY HAVE TO REPORT THAT. WHAT IS THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT GOING TO DO TO THE AQUIFER? THOSE ARE THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. EMERGENCY SERVICES IS MILES AWAY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS HERE THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS.

THAT'S ALL. >> MR. MATOVINA .

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, IF WE'RE

READY. >> I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS FIRST. WELL, MY, MY FIRST COMMENT, AND THIS IS A PRIMARY COMMENT, AND I TOLD MR. BURNETT ON THE PHONE THIS EARLIER THIS MORNING, THAT MY MAJOR CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT I THINK IT'S GROSSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. LOOKING AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8.1.3.11, AND ALL THE LDC CODES HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COMP PLAN. SO IF YOU LOOK AT FIGURE 2 COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH WAS ON PAGE 12, IT TALKS ABOUT NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, VAST AGRICULTURAL WETLAND AND TIMBER AREAS. WEST OF THE AREA, SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS , ONE ACRE IN AREA, APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN AREA. TO THE SOUTH, VAST AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INCLUDING A SMALL NUMBER OF 1+ ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND TO THE EAST, VAST AGRICULTURAL AREAS.

AND IF THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH THAT, ON THREE SIDES OF VAST AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND VERY LITTLE RESIDENTIAL, AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT MOTION MR. MATOVINA IS GOING TO MAKE, BUT IN OUR FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THIS WAS CITED IN NUMEROUS EMAIL WE RECEIVED, THAT I HAD INDEPENDENTLY ALREADY COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK THROUGH ON THE DENY SIDE OF THIS THAT , YOU CAN, YOU CAN COUNT DOWN THE LIST, BUT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO 6 AND 7, WHICH, THOSE WERE CITED IN A LOT OF THE EMAILS. IT SAYS, 6, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 8.1.3.11 OF THE 2005 ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT IT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. I MEAN, THAT, TO ME, IS A FACT. SEVEN, CONSISTENT WITH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BREVARD COUNTY VERSUS SNYDER, 627 SOUTHERN DISTRICT 2-D, 469, THE BOARD FINDS A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE IN KEEPING THE EXISTING

[02:10:02]

ZONING, WHICH, HOWEVER, THE EXISTING ZONING ON THIS IS PRD.

THE FLUME ON THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS A I, SO. BUT IN MY MIND, THIS IS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. SO TO ME, THAT'S, IT'S JUST CLEAR, AS WELL AS PEOPLE HAD MENTIONED THE FIRE COME OUT 10 MILES.

IT'S A CLASS 10, WHICH IS MORE THAN FIVE MILES. SOMEBODY SAID 11 MILES FROM A FIRE STATION. AND I ASSUME A SHERIFF SUBSTATION AS WELL, THEY BE EVEN FURTHER. I KNOW IT'S EIGHT TO NINE MILES OUTSIDE OF ANY PUBLIC SERVICES, SUCH AS WATER AND SEWER. THAT WAS BASED ON OUR WATERLILY DISCUSSION HERE A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, AND WAS SPOT ZONING OR LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT . I CAN'T COMPARE IT WITH HONEY BRANCH FARMS. HONEY BRANCH FARMS WAS MUCH CLOSER AND SURROUNDED MORE BY DEVELOPMENT. THERE WERE SOME LARGE LOTS AROUND THERE, BUT IT WAS RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHEREAS THIS IS PRIMARILY A AGRICULTURAL AREA. SO I'VE GOT OTHER POINTS HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK I NEED TO MAKE THEM. AND I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR THE MOTION THAT MR. MATOVINA HAS TO MAKE .

AND MR. GREEN, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT, SIR?

>> NO. >> OKAY. THEN I'M GOING TO --

OKAY. >> MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU PREFER THAT I GIVE MY REASONING AS PART OF THE MOTION, OR WAIT UNTIL THE

DISCUSSION? >> WHATEVER YOU FEEL

COMFORTABLE. >> OKAY, I'D LIKE TO GIVE IT FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY. SO, FIRST OFF, I WANT TO JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT, APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE BEING HERE. I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT THE AUDIENCE, IN GENERAL, DIDN'T PROVIDE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE . THEY COULD WRITE A TESTIMONY, BUT IT DIDN'T INCLUDE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SO IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO STAND UP HERE AND TALK, YOU'RE REALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE FACTS AND FIGURES THAT SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I DON'T THINK THIS QUALIFIES AS URBAN SPRAWL, BECAUSE SPECIFICALLY IN OBJECTIVE A .1 .2, IT SAYS THE COUNTY SHALL CONTROL URBAN SPRAWL IN THE, IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND THEN WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO 8.1.2.3, IT SAYS NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CLUSTERED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK BY DEFINITION, THE WRITERS OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTENDED THAT A PRD WOULD NOT BE URBAN SPRAWL.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS TODAY FROM THE, FROM THE, FROM THE CROWD IS, THEY DON'T LIKE THE PRD ORDINANCE.

AND EVEN SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, I THINK IS PROBABLY TRUE ALSO. BECAUSE THE PRD ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL A.I. LAND ACROSS THE COUNTY. Y'ALL ARE GOING TO BE SHOCKED BY THE MOTION, BY THE WAY. YOU KNOW, TO SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON ROADS THAT HAVE 9% AND 12.9% USAGE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S REALLY NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT. I THINK THERE IS AN ARGUMENT FOR COMPATIBILITY, QUITE FRANKLY. I, I DON'T -- THE WHOLE IDEA THAT THE APPLICANT STATES THAT, OH, WELL, THIS IS JUST A RENEWAL, OR, THAT'S, THAT'S BALONEY.

THIS IS A NEW ZONING. THIS IS, THIS IS BRAND-NEW. WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE MATTER. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE IT THE WAY IT IS. SO BASED ON ALL OF THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THERE'S A, A LOWER BAR FOR COMPATIBILITY HERE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY BASICALLY ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION, THIS JUST ABOUT GETS ME TO A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. HOWEVER, YOU ALL HAVE CONVINCED ME, AND AFTER STUDYING THIS A LITTLE FURTHER, THIS CLEARLY SAYS IN POLICY 8.1.2.3, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL INTENSIVE AND RURAL -- CULTURE DISTRICTS SHALL BE CLUSTERED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLANNED RURAL DEVELOPMENT LAND OF ELEMENT REGULATIONS. AND THEN IF I GO OVER TO , I, I HAPPENED TO RESEARCH THIS BEFORE I CAME AND MADE COPIES OF A BUNCH OF THINGS AND UNDERLINED A BUNCH OF THINGS. AND SO IF I GO OVER TO SECTION 5.0 4.03 OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT SAYS THE DEVELOPMENT AREA SHALL BE COMPACT, CONTIGUOUS, AND SHALL

[02:15:04]

NOT BE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE TOTAL PRD PARCEL SUBMITTED FOR PRD DEVELOPMENT. IT IS AN INTENT THAT THE DEVELOPING AREA AND RESERVE AREA SHALL BE CONFIGURED AND THE MANNER AS TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED FARMING OR CIVIL CULTURE USE OF THE RESERVE AREA, OR TO ALLOW MAXIMUM OPEN-SPACE TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE RESERVE AREA THROUGH CLUSTERING -- IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE FIRST PRD THAT WAS DONE IN THIS COUNTY, AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME UP AND SPOKE ACTUALLY LIVES IN IT, -- PLANTATION, WAS, YOU COULD CLEARLY SEE IT WAS CLUSTERED. IT WAS ON 13. ANDY WENT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, AS I RECALL, AND IT KIND OF DEAD ENDED. MAYBE 400 FEET IN. AND IT BRANCHED INTO CUL-DE-SACS AND HAD LOTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CUL-DE-SACS, AND THEN IT HAD THIS HUGE BLOCK OF LAND TO THE NORTH OF IT, IF I'M REMEMBERING RIVER EDGE PLANTATION CORRECTLY. DEVELOPED IN THE, GOSH, MAYBE IN THE '80S, '90S, EARLY '90S. AS I LOOK AT THIS SITE PLAN, OKAY, WE HAVE A PRETTY BIG BLOCK OF LAND IN THAT NORTHEAST CORNER. WE REALLY CAN'T TELL WHERE THE REST OF THE RESERVE AREA IS. I CAN'T SEE IT. I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN SEE IT. MY SUSPICION IS THERE ISN'T A LOT OF IT THERE. IT'S PROBABLY JUST A BUNCH OF STRIPS OF LAND. AND SO I DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS THE REQUIREMENT. I THINK IT COULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT, AND AS FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, I, THERE IS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THIS REGULATION THAT I SEE. IT ACTUALLY ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY. SO THERE IS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

YOU CAN JUST, YOU, YES, GO AHEAD, MIKE.

>> YES, SIR, YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE ISN'T, FOR THE REASON OF CLUSTERING, PROBABLY, IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES.

ARGUABLY A LOT OF THESE DON'T HAVE, THEY HAVE LARGER LOTS, BUT

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT. >> SO THE APPLICANT HAS, YOU KNOW, PORTER ACRE LOT SIZE, TYPICAL, IS WHAT THIS SAYS, IS THE AREA THEY CAN DEVELOP. AND FOR 200 LOTS, THAT SHOULD BE ON ABOUT 100 ACRES. AND THE WAY THIS PLAN LOOKS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON ABOUT SIX HUNDRED ACRES IS THE WAY IT LOOKS. SO I'VE TALKED LONG ENOUGH. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND 2025 07 , TOCOI RIVER ESTATES PRD, BASED UPON SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE CLUSTERING REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 8.1.2.3 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MS. EAGLE PRAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD? ALL RIGHT. READY TO VOTE, IF THEY'LL PUT THAT UP. ALL RIGHT. YES. YES, MR. MATOVINA.

OH, I NEED TO TURN YOU BACK ON. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

>> JUST A REMINDER THAT A YES VOTE MEANS YOU'RE VOTING FOR

DENIAL. >> CORRECT. YES VOTE FOR DENIAL.

WELL, THAT MOTION IS DEFEATED UNANIMOUSLY 6-0. WELL, THAT MOTION PASSES 6-0. ALL RIGHT, WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. CORRECT. WELL, YOU SAW THE YES VOTES UP THERE ON THE SCREEN. YES, THAT MOTION PASSED, AND IT IS FOR DENIAL. SO I THINK WE'LL TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE BREAK

[2. SUPMAJ 2025-13 San Sebastian Dog Park. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of an outdoor dog park with associated sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages under the State of Florida Type 2COP beverage license in Industrial Warehouse (IW) zoning, meeting the general special use criteria of Land Development Code Section 2.03.01.A; specifically located on a 4.27 acre unaddressed property on San Sebastian View.]

>> SORRY. LET'S RECONVENE THE MEETING, PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER TWO. AND THE PRESENTER IS MR. ANDRE GREEN, CORNER LOT DEVELOPMENT. GOOD TO MEET YOU, ANDRE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD TO MEET YOU. YES, I AM ANDRE GREEN,

CORNER LOT -- >> OH, X PARQUE. I'M SORRY. WE

HAVE TO TAKE X PARQUE FIRST. >> OKAY.

>> AND I'LL START WITH MR. OLSON. NONE? OKAY. MR. MATT

AVINA. -- MATOVINA. >> YES, I HAD A LENGTHY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. GREENE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND HE EMAILED ME SOME INFORMATION ON IT, AND YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION.

>> MR. GREEN. >> ALSO, I KNOW WHERE THE SITE

IS. >> WE DROVE BY IT. DEPENDS ON HOW YOU CAME, BUT MOST OF US DID DROP OUT --

[02:20:03]

>> NOT AT ALL. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. MS. SPIEGEL.

>> A COUPLE OF TEXT CONVERSATIONS, PHONE CONVERSATION, AND A WONDERFUL SITE VISIT AND TOUR WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH ANDRE GREEN ON AUGUST 13TH. THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AS WELL, AND I ALSO DROVE BY TODAY AND YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE. BUT I DID VISIT THE SITE ALSO.

>> I ALSO HAD , I HAD TWO CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. GREEN.

ONE WAS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO BEFORE I'D SEEN THE ITEM, TOLD HIM I WANTED TO ACTUALLY SEE THE ITEM BEFORE WE SPOKE, AND I COMMENTED ON IT, SO I CALLED HIM WEDNESDAY OR TUESDAY THIS WEEK, SO WE HAVE A NICE CONVERSTION. I ASKED HIM A COUPLE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WHICH WE'LL GET TO TODAY, I'M SURE. SO THE FLOOR

IS YOURS, SIR. >> YES YES. SO THANK YOU, CHAIR, BOARD, FOR HAVING ME. ANDRE GREEN, CORE LOT DEVELOPMENT , 1000 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, SUITE 600, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, 32204. WE ARE THE LANDOWNERS, AND DEVELOPERS OF THIS SITE, AND A LITTLE BACK STORY. I DID TALK TO YOU GUYS. LITTLE BACK STORY ABOUT THE PET PROJECT, PUN INTENDED, IS THAT WE WERE THE DEVELOPERS AND OWNERS OF THE FLAGLER CROSSINGS, RIGHT ACROSS THE POND. AND WE HAVE SOME LAND LEFT OVER, AND WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A NETWORK AND OWNERS OF THE MIRABELLA AND SHORES ANIMAL HOSPITAL. WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD A DOG PARK, AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME LAND AVAILABLE, AND THIS WOULD BE A GREAT AMENITY FOR NOT ONLY OUR, YOU KNOW, -- CROSSING, WHO HAS 510 MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITH 80 OF THEM BEING WORKFORCE HOUSING, BE A GREAT AMENITY FOR THOSE UNITS, BUT ALSO, IT'S A COMPATIBLE USE FOR THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, WALKABLE RESIDENT DOES, AND NOT TO MENTION IT'S THE NEAREST CAFE AND EATERY AND AMENITY FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF ST. JOHNS, JOHN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? SO THEY CAN GO THERE, HAVE A, A BRIEF MEETING, GO THERE FOR A CUP OF COFFEE, A TRI-TEA LATTE IF YOU LIKE THOSE, OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, A QUICK BITE TO EAT FOR LUNCH? RIGHT CLICK SO IT'S A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE. YOU GET TO HAVE YOUR COFFEE, LUNCH, WHATEVER YOU WANT, OVERLOOKING THE SAN SEBASTIAN VIEW, EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG. SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS, LIKE, A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD SOMETHING THE AREA. SO THAT -- AND I'LL GO OVER JUST BRIEFLY, NOT BRIEFLY, BUT WHAT THE PLAN IS, AND HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS LIKE THE IDEA. SO REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, LIKE I SAID. PROJECT OVERVIEW. CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED SPECIAL USE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO REALLY SPECIFIC USE FOR A DOG PARK. IT'S TECHNICALLY 4.57 ACRES, BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO DEVELOP 1.25 ACRES OF UPLAND, THE ACTUAL BUILDING WILL BE OPEN AIR, 1300 SQUARE FEET. LIKE I SAID, SPECIALTY COFFEES, PREPARED FOODS , BEER, WINE, LOW-IMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, COMPATIBLE USE.

AGAIN, MULTIFAMILY 510 UNITS, ST. JOHNS COUNTY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEES, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. GREAT, GREAT COMPATIBILITY THERE. IT'LL BE FAMILY CENTERED. OPENING MAYBE 10:00 A.M., DEPENDING ON THE, THE CROWD AND, AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE GET IN THE MORNING. CLOSE NO LATER THAN 10:00 ON THE WEEKEND, BUT MORE THAN LIKELY PROBABLY 9:00. KIDS PLAY AREA FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHILE WE'RE OPEN. FENCED DOG AREA. I ASSUME YOU GUYS HAVE PARK RANGERS, SO KEEP THE DOGS IN CHECK, KEEP NOISE TO A MINIMUM. ALL DOGS WILL BE WELL BEHAVED, VACCINATED. SO IF YOU WANT TO BRING YOUR DOG IN AND HAVE A SAFE, FENCED IN AREA FOR THEM TO RUN AROUND, THIS WILL BE YOUR PLACE IN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY, SAINT AUGUSTINE ST.

JOHNS COUNTY AREA. AND TEAM ALREADY INTRODUCED THEM. WE HAVE RYAN AND DR. BELL, OWNERS OF MIRABELLA AND SHORES ANIMAL HOSPITAL, CORNER LOT DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE LOCAL CONSULTANTS FROM SAINT AUGUSTINE, ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THAT IS ALSO A PART OF THE TEAM. THE RENDERING, THIS WAS IN THE PACKAGE , THIS, YOU'LL SEE THE DOG PARK FENCED IN, AND THEN YOU SEE IT AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN, THE 1300 OPEN-AIR FLORIDA -- STYLE BUILDING. LOCATION. IT'S JUST LIKE, AGAIN, SO THIS IS,

[02:25:10]

LIKE, THE CLOSEST CAFE EATERY IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW, FOR THE APARTMENT AND FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES AND THE RESIDENCES.

THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN. PART OF THE BUILDING IS IN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE, SO WE WILL BE GETTING THAT REZONED. AND THIS IS A SAMPLE ILLUSTRATION. THERE'S A LOT OF THESE CONTROLLED, FENCED IN DOG PARK EATERIES , YOU KNOW? ONE IN JACKSONVILLE. I THINK ACTUALLY A COUPLE IN JACKSONVILLE. AND, YOU KNOW, GOING OUT THERE IN THE COUNTRY. YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO

SHARE ANYTHING? >> SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TODAY. I, I PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO LEAVE TO GO GET OUR KIDS.

>> COULD YOU COME CLOSER TO THE MIKE, PLEASE, AND IDENTIFY

YOURSELF? >> YES. BRIAN MEYER. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. I PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO LEAVE TO GO GET OUR KIDS TO SOCCER AND VOLLEYBALL PRACTICE, BUT WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS IDEA. WE, WE HAVE STOOD BEFORE YOU IN THE PAST, AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN WITH THE DIFFERENT SITE. YOU COULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE COUNTY, GREAT FAMILY CENTERED PLACE TO BRING THE DOG, LET THEM PLAY, BRING THE KIDS, LET THEM PLAY, EACH IN THEIR OWN FENCED IN AREAS. GRAB A BITE TO EAT AND ENJOY THE DAY. FITS WITH OUR, OUR OUTDOOR CULTURE IN SAINT AUGUSTINE, OVERLOOKING THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER. BEAUTIFUL SALTMARSH OUT THERE. SEEING THE BIRDS, SEEING THE WILDLIFE, AND HAVE A GREAT POSITIVE TIME WITH YOUR FAMILY.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? MR. OLSON?

>> YES. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. ARE YOU GOING TO BE OPERATING IT

AS A MEMBERSHIP ARRANGEMENT? >> SO FOR THE DOG PARK -- FOR THE DOG PARK, IT WILL BE A MEMBERSHIP. FOR THE RESTAURANT AND THE CHILD AREA, IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS LONG AS

WE'RE OPEN. >> OH, THAT, I GUESS THAT LEADS TO MY OTHER QUESTION. DO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THE

RESTAURANT? BECAUSE -- >> WE HAVE. SO THE PARKING IS PRIMARILY PROVIDED FOR THE RESTAURANT --

>> SO YOU THINK THAT'LL BE SUFFICIENT FOR BOTH THE PARK AND

THE RESTAURANT. >> WE BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE WE THINK MOST OF OUR CLIENTELE WILL ACTUALLY BE WALKING OVER FROM THE, THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THE LOCAL AREAS THAT I THINK MOST OF IT WILL BE LOCAL USE. I KNOW THAT MYSELF, LIKE, DRIVING TO THE JACKSONVILLE ONE, EVEN THOUGH I'M A VETERINARIAN, I LOVE MY DOG AND, IS NOT THAT LIELY, BUT IF IT WAS A WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THERE QUITE REGULARLY.

>> AND I ASSUME I'M, MY NEXT QUESTION IS A QUICK ANSWER, YES.

YOU WILL BE REQUIRING VACCINATIONS.

>> YES. EVERYBODY WILL HAVE TO BE VACCINATED, AS WELL AS HAVING -- THAT ARE UP-TO-DATE. I HAVE TWO KIDS MYSELF AND WORK IN THE FIELD, AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO DEAL WITH HIS TRANSMISSIBLE

DISEASES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> WHAT'S A BARK RANGER?

>> I LIKE THAT. >> WELL, I, I SPENT SOME TIME AS A PARK RANGER IN A PREVIOUS LIFE, AND, IN MY PREVIOUS CAREER. SO BARK RANGER WOULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT BASICALLY ROAMS THE DOG PARK DURING PEAK HOURS. WE HAVE A LOT OF DOGS TOGETHER. AND JUST WATCHING THE BEHAVIOR, MAKING SURE NOBODY'S GETTING A LITTLE TOO EXCITED OR A LITTLE TOO AGGRESSIVE. AND THERE'S VARIOUS TECHNIQUES, VERY LOW IMPACT, THAT YOU CAN JUST KIND OF DISTRACT, DISTRACT THE DOGS AND MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, NOBODY'S CAUSING TROUBLE, SO.

>> OKAY. I'M PICTURING ELECTRIC COLORS --

>> NO, NO, NO. >> OKAY. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION IS, THE FIRST PICTURE THAT MR. GREENE SHOWED WAS A FOOD TRUCK. IS IT GOING TO BE, IT'S A BUILDING, RIGHT?

>> AT THE BUILDING. >> IS A BUILDING, OKAY. THAT'S JUST AN IDEA -- ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON BCC DAYS THAT ARE GOING TO COME FOR LUNCH? IT'S A CROWD SOMETIMES,

YOU KNOW? SO. >> WE THINK SO, YEAH.

>> YEAH. NO ALCOHOL FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF? NO ALCOHOL FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY MANAGEMENT STAFF? NO ALCOHOL FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT? THEY DON'T GET TO COME OVER THERE AND HAVE A, HAVE A --

>> FREE ALCOHOL FOR PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS.

>> AFTER 5:00, YOU KNOW. >> OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. NOW, IS THIS GOING TO BE

[02:30:02]

ARTIFICIAL GRASS IN THERE, OR IS IT GOING TO BE NATURAL?

>> ARTIFICIAL INSIDE OF THE DOG PARK, NATURAL EVERYWHERE ELSE.

>> OKAY. MY CONCERN IS WITH ARTIFICIAL, YOU GET BACTERIA BUILD UP BIG TIME UNDERNEATH, SO THE CONCERN IS, WHAT'S YOUR PREPARATION FOR MAINTENANCE AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED?

>> YEAH. GOOD QUESTION. WE DO INTEND TO, TO BASICALLY SANITIZE ALL THE TURF EVERY, EVERY NIGHT WITH THE VETERINARY GREAT SANITIZER THAT KILLS, YOU KNOW, PARVOVIRUS, ALL THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE BACTERIA THAT WE ACTUALLY USE IN OUR VETERINARY PRACTICES, AND THEN IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, RINSED DOWN. WE'LL HAVE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SO THAT EACH NIGHT AFTER THE APPROPRIATE SIT TIME OR HOLD TIME FOR THE CLEANER, WE'LL HAVE IRRIGATION, AND ESSENTIALLY WASH IT DOWN. BUT THAT DEFINITELY IS A DISCUSSION WITH, WITH OUR TURF FOLKS THAT INSTALL IT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE REALLY, REALLY GOOD DRAINAGE, YOU KNOW, NO PUDDLING, THAT SORT OF THING. ABSOLUTELY A CONCERN.

>> THEY HAVE A SPECIAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM, AND OFTEN SPECIAL TURF.

THEY GO TO MOST DOG -- FACILITIES NOW -- IT'S EASIER TO STERILIZE THAN DIRT. INTESTINAL PARASITES LIVE FOR YEARS TO MONTHS, MONTHS TO YEARS IN DIRT, AND IN TURF, THEY GET

-- >> I ONLY SAW A FEW TREES THAT HAVE BEEN PLANNED -- AREA. ACCORDING TO THE DIAGRAM . I SAW THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE TREES THAT ARE PLANNED.

>> THERE'S ABOUT 50 TREES. >> WITHIN THE PARK AREA ITSELF?

>> WITHIN THE PARK AREA THERE SENSATE COVERAGE AND LARGE TREES, AND THEN ALL ALONG THE PARKING AREA, THERE'S --

>> YEAH, WE ARE WORKING WITH LOCAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND WE DEFINITELY WANT TO PROVIDE SHADE, YOU KNOW? IT WILL BE HOT IN THE SUMMER, SO PROVIDING NATURAL SHADE IS DEFINITELY A CONCERN WITH NATIVES BE SHE'S. BUT IT'S A BALANCE OF FRAMING THE VIEWS SO YOU CAN STILL ENJOY THE MARSH VIEW, BUT WE'D RATHER HAVE TREES THEN, YOU KNOW, SHADE SALES OR THAT SORT OF THING.

>> EXACTLY. AND ONE LAST QUESTION, WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE CAPPING GOING TO BE QUICK ROUGHLY SQUARE FOOT WHAT

>> 1300. SQUARE FEET. PLUS OR MINUS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MR. GREEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY -- OKAY. ANDRE, WHEN WE SPOKE ON THE PHONE, THE FIRST THING THAT CAUGHT MY MIND, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GREAT IDEA. THINK THE LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE. BUT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BULKHEAD. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR COUNTY STAFF, BUT DOES PROJECT, IS IT REQUIRED TO HAVE A BULKHEAD BETWEEN THE UPLANDS AND THE MARSH? I MEAN, THAT'S SENSITIVE MARSH RIGHT THERE ON THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER, IN MY OPINION. I DON'T LIKE TO SEE ANY BULKHEADS, IF WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM. I THINK THEY'RE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CAUSE EROSION AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS. AND NOW THAT I'M HEARING ABOUT THE SANITATION, POTENTIALLY NIGHTLY, WITH FAIRLY, POTENTIALLY TOXIC NICHOLS THAT COULD EASILY RUN OFF INTO THE MARSH, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE OFFENSE, WHICH I KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE OFFENSE, A BULKHEAD IN THE FENCE, BUT WHY NOT JUST THE FENCE BETWEEN THE UPLAND AND THE MARSH RIGHT THERE ON THE UPLAND AREA? SO I DON'T KNOW IF COUNTY STAFF WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, OR YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN, OR BOTH, PROBABLY, WOULD BE PREFERABLE. THERE'S SOMEONE STANDING IN THE BACK MAYBE WANTING TO COME FORWARD.

OKAY. WELL, MICHAEL -- IS STANDING UP ALSO. WHO'S A GREAT GUITAR PLAYER, BY THE WAY. OH YEAH. OH YEAH. AND I MIGHT ADD, THAT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 1000 FOOT LONG BULKHEAD, SO THAT, THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME. OTHERWISE, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF

THE PROJECT. >> HOW YOU DOING?

>> ALL RIGHT. >> GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE, THE USE OF THE BUFFER, THE INSTALLATION OF THE BUFFER , THE COUNTY HAS A, A BUFFER, UPLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENT FOR THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER, WHICH IS A 50 FOOT OFFER, AND WITHOUT THAT IMPACT, THE USABLE SPACE WOULD BE LIMITED BY THAT BUFFER.

THAT'S THE BEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE YOU ONE THAT.

>> I DON'T, I JUST DON'T GET IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. SO GOT TO HAVE A 50 FOOT BUFFER. SO WHAT'S THE BULKHEAD? THAT BUFFER'S GOING TO BE THERE, AND IN THE BULKHEAD ON THE MARSH.

>> CORRECT. SO THE, I'D SAY IN THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO, SO WHEN WE HAVE OUR BUFFER REQUIREMENT, AND THE, WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST WAS YOU HAD TO INCLUDE , INSTALL A BUFFER, AND IN THE COUNTY WOULD, BULKHEAD, AND THE COUNTY WOULD SAY YOU NEED A 50 FOOT BUFFER, SO THE IMPACT WOULD GO INTO THE WETLAND FURTHER.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN ADMINISTERED APPEARANCE THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE AN ERP, A RESOURCE PERMIT THAT IMPACTS THE

[02:35:02]

WETLAND, THEN THE BUFFER IS ELIMINATED. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO SAY THAT YOU CAN ELIMINATE THE BUFFER WITHOUT THAT IMPACT, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE REASON, I CAN'T SAY WHY THEY PUT THE BUFFER THERE, BUT THAT'S ONE FUNCTION THAT THAT BULKHEAD PROVIDES IN THE

DEVELOPMENT SITE. >> SO THEY HAVE A ENVIRONMENTAL

RESOURCE PERMIT? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO, TO BUILD THAT OUT, FOR SURE. I KNOW THAT IT'S IN PROGRESS.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO STILL TRYING TO GET THIS STRAIGHT. IS THERE GOING TO BE A 50 FOOT BUFFER OF UPLAND VEGETATION, AND A

BULKHEAD? >> WELL, AND, AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A CALM APPLICATION THAT RELATED TO THIS. AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO ELIMINATE BULKHEAD WHERE WE CAN TO PRESERVE THAT BUFFER AND THAT NATURAL VEGETATION. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S LIKE A, KIND OF A BOLD AROUND TO THE NORTH END, AND ORIGINALLY I HAD A BULKHEAD AROUND THAT. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE KIND OF TALK TO THEM ABOUT LIMITING IT TO ONLY PROTECTING THE AREA WHERE THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE PARKING ENDS, AND THEN LEADING THAT NATURAL, THAT KIND OF -- TO THE NORTH, TO THE LEFT ON YOUR MAP. NATURAL, LEAVING THAT BUFFER IN PLACE. SO WE'RE KIND

OF STRIKING A BALANCE. >> OKAY. SO --

>> MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WITH THE BULKHEAD ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THE 50 FOOT BUFFER, AND ESSENTIALLY THE SITE IS SO SKINNY THAT IT, IT, APPLYING A 50 FOOT BUFFER WOULD MAKE THE

SITE UNUSABLE. >> AT EXECUTIVE BUT I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU JUST CAN'T AFFORD THE SPACE OF A 50 FOOT OFFER, AND IN LIEU OF THAT, YOU'RE DOING A

BULKHEAD. >> AND WE HAVE, AGAIN, GIVEN UP THE REQUEST FOR A BULKHEAD ALL THE WAY AROUND THAT NORTHERN PIECE, WHICH WE, WE DID ORIGINALLY HAVE ON THE PLAN FOR ESSENTIALLY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, BUT AGAIN, THEY, THE BALANCE WAS STRUCK OF LEAVING THAT ALONE AND CONCENTRATING ON THE, THE DOCK

PART ITSELF. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECITE IT. ANY OTHER -- OH, I SEE SOME PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK. MR.

GREEN. >> WELL, I, I SEE THEY'VE GOT ONE CORRIDOR WORK, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. AND I ASSUME YOU'VE GOT TO DO, THEY'VE GOT TO DO A TEP PERMIT. SO THEY'RE GOING TO SORT OF DICTATE THAT, I WOULD ASSUME.

>> YES. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> YEAH, THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT. IS THAT

IT? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY, MS. SPIEGEL LEXI >> SO YOU, YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE FUNCTIONING ALREADY, RIGHT? BY YOUR NORTH OFFICE. IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DON'T, YOU DO NOT? OKAY. I GUESS I MISUNDERSTOOD FROM THE LAST TIME. I THOUGHT I WAS REMEMBERING. OKAY, AND, SO THE SHACK IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. SO YOU GOT A WHOLE OTHER KIT AND CABOODLE TO GO THROUGH WITH THEM, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST DIFFERENT. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THANK

YOU. >> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYONE TO

SPEAK HERE ON THIS ITEM LEXI >> MR. HUNT?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. IT DOES SEEM THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO PUT A BUFFER, OR, EXCUSE ME, A BULKHEAD, BUT WITH THE ASTROTURF, EVERYTHING, THAT ALSO ADDS INTO, WHERE WAS THE DRAINAGE RUNNING, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN MANY YEARS OF BULKHEADS GETTING PUT UP FOR CERTAIN HOUSES, BUT THE HOUSES NEXT TO THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE A BULKHEAD. THAT'SWHERE ALL THE RUNOFF IS GOING TO. AND THIS BEING RIGHT ON THE, ON THE ESTUARY, THEY'RE SPRAYING TURF.

WHERE'S ALL THAT RUNOFF FROM THE TURF? OR IS IT JUST RAINS, IS THE RUNOFF GOING, WASHING OUT OF THE TURF? THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE REALLY -- SO THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS THE OVERALL RUNOFF ASPECTS OF THE SPRAYING THE TURF WITH THE CONCEPT OF, WELL, WE GOT OUR AREA CLEAN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S RUNNING

OFF TO. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR EMOTION AND FURTHER

DISCUSSION. MR. GREEN. >> I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2025-13, SAINT SEBASTIAN DOG PARK, BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND -- CONDITIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. SO LOOKS LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME DISCUSSION. MR. OLSON? OH, OKAY.

[02:40:04]

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION AT A SECOND.

>> OKAY, AND MR. TRAN THREE? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT, IF YOU LOOK AT CERTAIN PARTS OF WHERE THAT BULKHEAD IS, IT COMES CLEARLY WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PARKING LOT. AND SO THE, THE FUNCTION OF THAT BUFFER , TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT REASON HERE, BUT THE FUNCTION OF AN UPLAND BUFFER IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A SLOPE ON A PIECE OF LAND, AND YOU ALLOW A CERTAIN PORTION OF THAT SLOPE TO DRAIN INTO THAT BUFFER. NOT ALL, IT'S NOT A -- YOU CAN'T JUST GO OUT 300 FEET AND DRAIN IT ALL, BUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT YOU CAN DRAIN TO THAT BUFFER, THAT BUFFER WILL TREAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GRASS OR THAT SORT OF THING. THE REST OF YOUR PROPERTY, THOUGH, FROM THAT POINT AWAY FROM THE WETLAND, YOU GOT TO GET IT UP HIGH ENOUGH TO WHERE IT DRAINS BACK TO AND GETS INTO YOUR RETENTION POND AND GETS TREATED. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I SUSPECT WHAT'S HAPPENING IS BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT IS SO CLOSE TO THE WETLAND LINE, THAT BASICALLY, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT ANY WATER INTO THE WETLAND. IT ALL HAS TO COME BACK TO THE SITE, WHICH MEANS THEY GOT TO RAISE THE EDGE OF THE WETLAND UP HIGH ENOUGH TO GET IT TO COME BACK TO THE SITE. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING A BULKHEAD, IN MY OPINION.

>> COULD WE HEAR FROM STAFF? IS THAT CORRECT ASSUMPTION, OR FROM

THE APPLICANT? >> WELL, ANOTHER REASON FOR THE BULKHEAD IS, THE SITE -- IS REALLY LOW. YOU LIKE TO -- LIKE YOU SAID, BRING THE BULKHEAD, KEEP THE SITE UP, AND LIKE YOU SAID, DRAIN TO THE POND. EROSION -- WATCH THE SITE AWAY IF WE HAD OFFENSE OR DID NOT HAVE THAT BULKHEAD. SO BASICALLY --

>> OKAY. SO WHAT MR. MATOVINA ASSERTED THERE ABOUT THE BUFFER, ABOUT BULKHEAD INTERCEPTING ANY RUNOFF, I'D PREFER TO SEE A BUFFER, A NATURAL VEGETATION, VEGETATIVE BUFFER INTERCEPT SOME OF THAT RUNOFF. BUT I KNOW THE SITE'S NOT WHITE ENOUGH --

>> I AGREE WITH YOU -- I MEAN, IF I HAD EVERYTHING, THAT WOULD

BE AMAZING. >> YEAH. IDEAL WORLD.

>> YEAH. >> SO DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS

FROM STAFF, FROM THE COUNTY? >> BRINGING UP THE ENGINEERING PLAN VERY BRIEFLY FOR MY CHIEF ENGINEER TO LOOK AT. THEY CAN USUALLY LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE REAL QUICK. GIVE ME JUST A

SECOND IF YOU WILL. >> OH, OKAY, SURE.

>> THANK YOU. >> PROBABLY.

>> IT'S SO CROWDED. >> YEAH, SO THE ANSWER IS, YES.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SORRY.

>> CLINT LYNCH. THEY HAVE TO CAPTURE ALL THE ON-SITE DRAINAGE, AND THAT STILL A -- COMMENT ON THEIR -- THEY HAVE.

SO, YEAH, WE HAVEN'T GOT A RESPONSE FROM IT JUST YET. BUT THEY'LL HAVE TO -- CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH A ASSOCIATED

DISTRICT PERMIT. >> THE DISTRICT, NOT THE EP, BUT

ST. JOHNS RIVER -- >> YES.

>> OKAY. I LIKE THEM. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? OKAY, TIME FOR THE VOTE. PASSES

[3. ZVAR 2025-04 201 Thirteenth Street. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 6.01.03.E.3 of the Land Development Code to allow for a second Front Yard setback of eight (8) feet in lieu of the required 15 feet for a Non-Conforming Lot of Record located in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning to accommodate construction of a single family residence.]

UNANIMOUSLY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 3. MR. MILLER. GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK IN

THE ROOM, SIR. >> GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. THREE 203 OLD BARN COURT. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN, AND THEN ONE OF YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME. I'M HERE ON AGENDA ITEM 3. IT'S A VARIANCE FOR A 201 13TH STREET. THIS IS OVER JUST A, JUST NORTH OF A ONE OF EACH, AND TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 18TH. THIS IS AN AREA

[02:45:06]

OF THE PROPERTY, THIS IS FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT. YOU CAN SEE IT'S A SMALLER LOT THAN THE CURRENT ZONING. IT'S A LOT OF RECORD. NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW WHY. THESE LOTS AND EVERYTHING WERE ACTUALLY CREATED 101 YEARS AGO. THE LOTS ARE 50 FEET BY 100 FEET FOR 5000 SQUARE FEET, MEANING THE LOTS ARE RECORD, MEANING THAT EXEMPT FROM LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. THEY STILL HAVE TO ADHERE TO YOUR CODON SETBACKS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND LOT COVERAGE. THIS IS A ZOOM IN.

WE'RE JUST, WE'RE, LOT 1, I'M SORRY, YOU WANT TO DO X PARTAKE?

I APOLOGIZE. >> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT AGAIN, YES, I HAD JUST THOUGHT OF IT, AND THEN

MR. LABANOWSKI -- >> I SHOULD KNOW BETTER TOO.

>> THAT WE NEED EX PARTE ON THIS. I'M VERY SORRY.

>> I WAS GOING TO LET YOU GO --

>> WE ALL SHOULD KNOW BETTER. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. OLSON.

>> YES. I'VE VISITED THE SITE ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, AND I WAS CALLED BY A HOMEOWNER, SAMUEL TEDESCO, WHO LIVES ON 13TH STREET , AND I HAD A EXTENSIVE PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIM ON

THE 13TH. >> OKAY. I ERASED SOMEBODY OFF OF THE SCREEN, BUT MR. MATOVINA IS NEXT.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT. >> OKAY. AND THEN THERE WAS SOMEBODY ELSE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS MISSES GREEN --

>> IT'S ME! >> JUDY, OF COURSE!

>> IT'S ME, OF COURSE? AND MY MIC IS ON, SO I COULD'VE JUST STARTED TALKING. SO YEAH, I DID A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL SITE VISIT.

I READ LOTS OF EMAILS, SEVERAL EMAILS, AND, AND I ALSO HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MR. TAYLOR BEFORE THE MEETING TODAY.

>> MILLER. >> MILLER.

>> SORRY. >> HOW DO I DO THAT? THANK YOU.

SORRY, SIR. >> I HAD A PHONE CALL FROM MR. MILLER THE OTHER DAY, SPOKE WITH HIM ABOUT THE PROJECT. ALSO RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS IN MY EMAIL ABOUT THIS , AGAINST, PRIMARILY. ALL RIGHT. VERY SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I APOLOGIZE FOR JUMPING IN.

>> NO, NO, NO. YOU ARE FINE. >> THIS IS A ZOOM IN FROM THAT SAME PLAT. I'VE ORIENTED IT SO IT'S FACING NORTH. WE'RE LOT 1 EN BLOC 64 AND 50 BY 100 SQUARE FEET, OR BY 100 FEET FOR 5000 FEET. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF OUR PROPERTY WAS A STREET THAT WASN'T DESIGNATED ON THAT PLAT AS PALMETTO STREET. AS I'M ABOUT TO SHOW, THAT STREET NO LONGER EXISTS. THIS IS THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS TODAY. THERE IS OUR LOT. THAT'S WHAT'S LEFT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS PLANTED HUNDRED YEARS AGO, PALMETTO STREET. IF YOU NOTICE THAT IT EXISTS PARTIALLY ON OUR BLOCK, AND THEN THERE'S A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE BLOCK IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. BUT TO THE NORTH, IF YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE IS FOUR RECTANGLES AND THEN FOUR RECTANGLES FURTHER NORTH, THE REST OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS CLOSED. IN FACT, IT WAS CLOSED, AND SOMEBODY ACTUALLY WAS ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS JUST A ZOOM IN TO SHOW THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. OBVIOUSLY WENDY, THE COASTAL HIGHWAY WAS BUILT, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PALMETTO STREET. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PALMETTO STREET THAT HAS BEEN VACATED. IT GOES ABOUT 10 BLOCKS NORTH. NEAR AS I CAN TELL FROM MY RESEARCH, THIS WAS VACATED IN THE 1970S. AND MY LITTLE ARROW THERE IS SHOWING THAT THE ONLY SECTION THAT WAS NOT VACATED WAS THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO -- PROPERTY. THIS IS THE DEFINITION IN YOUR CODE OF LOT FRONTAGE, AND I'LL POINT YOU TO THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION. YOUR DETERMINE THE CORNER LOT IF YOU'RE BORDERING ON TWO SIDES BY A STREET. YOUR STAFF HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE UNOPENED RIGHT AWAY CONSTITUTES A STREET . RESPECTFULLY, I WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE RECORD. THAT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION IN YOUR CODE. THE STREET NEED SOMETHING THAT AFFORDS THE PRINCIPAL MEANS OF ACCESS TO ADJACENT PREMISES. THE AREA IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST DOES NOT DO THAT. I BELIEVE THE DEFINITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH I'VE ALSO PROVIDED, IS WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A NICE LITTLE DIAGRAM IN YOUR CODE THAT SHOWS WHAT A CORNER LOT IS. IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING BOUNDED ON TWO SIDES BY A STREET, NOT A RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE TODAY. THIS IS ON THE 13TH, LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY, AND IN THE OTHER AREA IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT IS WITH THE UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE 15 YEARS AGO . THIS

[02:50:07]

IS, I'M SORRY, 10 YEARS AGO. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE 15 YEARS AGO. THIS IS ACTUALLY LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS 30 YEARS AGO. I ONLY BRING THIS UP TO SHOW THAT THIS AREA, IN RECENT HISTORY, HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR ANY FORM OF ACCESS THEM EITHER PAID ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, BIKE ACCESS. IT'S BEEN A CLOSE RIGHT-OF-WAY LATELY BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT OF IT. THERE'S NO POINT OF CONNECTING 13TH THROUGH 14TH AT THIS LOCATION WHEN YOU HAVE THE COASTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT THERE, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NO POINT IN THE NEXT 10 BLOCKS TO THE NORTH HAVE BEEN CLOSED FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU THE AREA THAT'S CLOSED, AND THEN THE ONLY AREA THAT'S OPEN IS OUR PROPERTY.

ONE LITTLE NOTE YOU MIGHT FIND INTERESTING. IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ACTUALLY A SMALL LITTLE TRIANGLE. I DID SOME RESEARCH, AND ACTUALLY, YOUR GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE DID TOO. THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED. IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT BIG ENOUGH TO BE DEVELOPED, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER BUFFER OF PRIVATELY OWNED LAND BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING ROADWAY. SO WHY ARE WE HERE? STAFF HAS RULED THAT IT'S STILL A CORNER LOT, DESPITE THAT NOT BEING A OPEN STREET. IN SUBDIVISIONS WHERE NONCONFORMING LOTS EXIST, THE SECOND FRONTAGE MAY BE REDUCED BY 40%. PROVIDED THE RESIDENCES FOR ONE NIGHT ONLY. AGAIN, THERE WERE SOME EMAILS ON THIS, FOR ANYBODY WANT TO KNOW, WE'RE ONLY BUILDING ONE HOME ALONG THIS LOT. HERE ARE THE, THE SETBACK STANDARDS. YOU CAN DO A 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONT , 40% REDUCTION ON THAT. COMES TO 15 FEET. SIDE YARD SETBACK IS EIGHT FEET. INSTEAD OF GETTING EIGHT FEET ON THE EASTERN PORTION, WE HAVE TO DO 15 FEET FOR STAFF. WE BELIEVE WE'RE ENTITLED UNDER THE VARIANCE STANDARDS TO THE EIGHT FEET. EVEN WITH THAT EIGHT FOOT SETBACK, WE'VE THEN GOT ANOTHER 50 FEET TOTAL TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON OCEAN STREET.

THE PROVISIONS IN YOUR CODE ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. A VARIANCE NOT BEING CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE SAME SIDE YARD SETBACK AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE AREA HAS. NEXT SECTION IS, IS THERE AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION WHICH, BY REASON OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY OR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WOULD NECESSITATE A VARIANCE. WE BELIEVE, IN THIS SITUATION, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST, AND NOT THE ENCLOSED, IS A, IS A USE OF PROPERTY THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A VARIANCE.

AND THEN, AS FAR AS THE HARDSHIP, WE'RE SIMPLY LOOKING FOR THE EXACT SAME VARIANT THAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THIS AREA, ON THESE LOTS OF RECORD, ESPECIALLY ON 14TH AND 13TH STREET, THEY'RE ALL DEVELOPED WITH EIGHT-FOOT SETBACKS. IF WE'RE DEVELOPED WITH A 15 FOOT SETBACK, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT A 27 FOOT WIDE HOME. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE

BOARD MAY HAVE. >> I HAVE ONE REAL QUICK QUESTION. GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, PLEASE, OR EVEN TWO MORE BACK.

ONE MORE. OKAY. OKAY, THERE ARE PINK DOTS THERE ON 201, YOUR PROPERTY, THEN 203, 204 ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN 1400, OVER ON 14TH STREET. WHAT DO THOSE REPRESENT?

>> THOSE REPRESENT THE, WHAT THE, THE COUNTY HAS ADDRESSED

THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. >> MAY HAVE. OKAY.

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. I WONDERED WHAT THOSE MEANT, WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE WAS. ALL RIGHT. MR.

OLSON. >> YEAH. I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP ON, I MEAN, THE CENTRAL BASIS FOR A VARIANCE IS HARDSHIP. THIS LOT WAS ACQUIRED BY ELSA HALF A YEAR AGO. DID ELSA NOT BE AWARE

OF THE REQUIRED SETBACKS? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, TO PZA MEMBER OLSON, I THINK THEY'RE AWARE OF IT, BUT WHEN I'M TALKING TO MY CLIENT, THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION, AND THEN SORT OF THE INITIAL READ AND TALKING TO PEOPLE WAS THAT THIS ISN'T THE STREET, AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THE DEFINITION OF STREET AND THE DEFINITION OF CORNER LOT. WHEN THEY LOOKED AT IT, THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE 50+ FEET AWAY FROM A STREET WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE

CORNER LOT STANDARDS. >> THEY HAD NOT BEEN CLARIFIED

WITH THE COUNTY. >> AND, AND I, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF HEARSAY, BUT IN THE COMMUNICATION THEY SAID THEY HAD WITH THE COUNTY, THAT IT WASN'T

GOING TO BE TREATED AS -- >> OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE HARDSHIP. IS ALLSUP AWARE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES BUILT 27 FOOT WIDE DETACHED HOMES? THERE'S ALL KINDS OF PLANS FOR 27 FOOT WIDE HOMES WITH THE WORK WELL. SO HOW CAN

THAT BE A HARDSHIP ? >> AGAIN, THROUGH THE CHAIR TO

[02:55:12]

MR. OLSON, I'VE ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE AREA. THERE'S VERY FEW HOMES THAT ARE ONLY 27 FOOT WIDE. I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS FOR ANY OF THE HOMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY ON A SINGLE LOT. THE, IMMEDIATELY, ACTUALLY, LET ME SEE IT ZOOMED OUT. YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS BLOCK, BUT ON 13TH AND 14TH STREET, ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTED HOMES ARE ACTUALLY 31 TO 34 FEET WIDE, AND ACTUALLY, TWO OF THE EXAMPLES THE, THE STAFF GAVE OF CORNER LOTS THAT WERE, THAT DIDN'T NEED A VARIANCE, THEY ACTUALLY WERE BUILT WELL BEYOND THE 27 FEET. IF YOU LOOK AT 216 AND 3988, ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S THE NEXT ONE. I'M SORRY. I THINK IT'S THIS, 26 ZERO AND 200 ECKSTEIN. THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BETWEEN 31 AND 35. SO IT WAS ACTUALLY A STRUGGLE TO FIND TOO MANY HOMES IN THIS AREA THAT WERE ONLY 27 EIGHT WIDE.

>> THAT MAY BE SO WITH THIS AREA, BUT THEY ARE, I CAN SHOW YOU PLAN THAT ARE THREE-BEDROOM HOMES, TWO, TWO STORY THREE BEDROOM, ONE CAR GARAGE, 27 FOOT WIDE. I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION, OR POINT, IS THAT IF YOU WERE GRANTED THIS AND WERE ABLE, YOU WOULD BE, YOUR PHOTOS SHOW THE HEAVILY VEGETATED LOT. THEY ALSO SHOW, ONE CLEARLY DOES, THE DIRECTION SLOPE ON THIS LOT. ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS WITH INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON THESE 100 FOOT LOTS IN NORTH BEACH IS CREATING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES. IF YOU, THE MORE, THE MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE YOU CREATE, WHICH YOU WOULD, BY HAVING THE ADDITIONAL, WOULD ADD TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THERE WOULD BE A, COULD BE A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT WOULD BE INCREASED ON TO OTHER

PROPERTIES. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO COMMISSIONER OLSON, RESPECTFULLY, THAT'S NOT TRUE.

THE VARIANCE WOULD ADD TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WE'RE STUCK AT 70% EITHER WHICH WAY. IF WE DIDN'T TO BUILD AND SET UP AT EIGHT FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST INSTEAD OF 15 FEET, WE COULD STILL DO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STACKING OR OTHER THINGS, I BELIEVE I WAS TALKING TO ONE OF YOUR SYSTEM PLANNERS YESTERDAY, THEY CONFIRMED THAT -- GO UP TO THREE FEET. SO WHETHER WE GET THIS VARIANCE OR NOT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF

IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WE CAN DO. >> WELL, YOU'D BE, YOU'D BE CERTAINLY ADDING, JUST BY HAVING A, HAVING TO ADD WITH, BUT YOUR, YOUR PLANS ALSO SHOWED, AND I UNDERSTAND THOSE AREN'T ANYTHING WE'RE REVIEWING. A POOL AREA IN THE BACK THAT COMES FROM A FOOT OR TWO OF THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE BACK .

>> YES, ACTUALLY CONFIRMED WITH YOUR STAFF YESTERDAY, BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT. THEY CONFIRMED THAT THE POOL ITSELF, THE ACTUAL POOL HAS TO BE OUTSIDE THE 10 FOOT SETBACK, BUT THE DECKING ACTUALLY CAN BE WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE SETBACK. AND THAT KIND OF GOES TO THE POINT OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHETHER WE, THE BUILDING IS, IS BIGGER DOESN'T CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WE CAN DO. I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING, BUT IF THE BUILDING WAS SMALLER, WE COULD STILL PUT UP TO 75% OF THE AREA'S IMPERVIOUS

SURFACE. >> THANK YOU.

>> SURE. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> THAT I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, SOMEONE HAS BUILT A HOME IN THAT

FORMER PALMETTO STREET? >> YES.

>> IT'S HARD TO SEE. >> IT'S, I DIDN'T ZOOM IN. IT WASN'T MY FOCUS TO MY RESEARCH, BUT, SURE. 40, 41.

>> OH, OKAY, OKAY. SO THEY'VE BUILT INTO IT, AND NOT THE LOT

BESIDE YOU. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YEAH. OKAY. THE OTHER CONCERN WAS, WAS WHAT MR. OLSON BROUGHT UP, THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. I REALLY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH IT. YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO PUT UP A BARRIER OVER THERE, BECAUSE WHEN I WAS OUT THERE, ALL THE PEOPLE GOING TO THE BEACH WERE PARKED RIGHT THERE.

>> AND WHEN I DROVE BY, THERE IS A NO PARKING SIGN.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, IS THAT YOUR

[03:00:04]

PRESENTATION? >> YES, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. SIMON NO MORE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME FROM THE BOARD, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I'M FORWARD, SIR. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU GET

THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME'S JOHN HALL. I LIVE AT 209 13TH STREET. AFTER READING THE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND TRYING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND, I CANNOT SEE HOW A ZONING VARIANCE IS WARRANTED FOR THIS PROPERTY.

RELAXING THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY LAND ELEMENT CODE WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND A SINGLE RESIDENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN FAVOR OF YET ANOTHER 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT BEING SPLIT IN HALF AND OCCUPIED BY TWO DWELLINGS USING EVERY PERMISSIBLE AND PERHAPS MORE SQUARE FOOT OF SPACE. FINISHED OFF WITH SWIMMING POOLS. THESE DWELLINGS WILL INVARIABLY BE USED AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WITH VEHICLES OVERFLOWING INTO THE STREETS AND PARTYING AROUND THE SWIMMING POOLS. MANY NIGHTS, WE'LL HAVE TO CALL THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT TO BREAK UP THE PARTY. UNFORTUNATELY I KNOW THIS ALL TOO WELL, BECAUSE I HAVE THIS EXACT NIGHTMARE IN MY VERY BACKYARD. AND THIS IS HARDLY WHAT DREW ME TO NORTH BEACH IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS IS NOT THE APPLICANT'S FIRST FORAY INTO PURCHASING PROPERTY IN NORTH BEACH, SPLITTING THE LOT AND BUILDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THE APPLICANT KNEW FULL WELL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PROPERTY LONG BEFORE THE PURCHASE WAS MADE. TO BE CLEAR, THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT PURCHASED SIGHT UNSEEN. AS A SQUARE 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT, WHICH WAS ONCE THE OVERWHELMING STANDARD IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE EXISTS NO EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS, UNUSUAL SHAPE, OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS TO COURT THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE APPLICANT UNDUE HARDSHIP. AND EVEN IF THESE EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST, GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE SECOND FRONT LOT HARDLY ALLEVIATES ANY OF THIS. I HAVE TROUBLE SEEING HOW THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THUS MAXIMIZING THE POTENTIAL FOR PROFIT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RENT OR SELL THESE PROPERTIES. SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I'M MISTAKEN. IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP TO BE CONSIDERED HERE, IT IS ONE POTENTIALLY PLACED UPON THE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BEAUTY AND QUIET NATURE OF NORTH BEACH PERMANENTLY ERODES EVERY TIME A 100 SQUARE-FOOT LOT IS DIVIDED.

LAWNS NOW FLOOD NOW EVEN AFTER SMALL RAINSTORMS, AND THE WATER STAYS COOL ON OUR LAWNS FOR DAYS, AND THIS WASN'T THE CASE JUST FIVE YEARS AGO. AND I CAN'T SEE HOW ADDING TWO OVERSIZE PROPERTIES WHERE THERE SHOULD REALLY BE ONLY ONE WOULD MAKE MATTERS ANY BETTER. WHEN MY NEIGHBORS AND I BUILT OUR HOMES, IT WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION TO CLAIM HARDSHI OR REQUEST A VARIANCE. WHAT I APPRECIATE TODAY, HAVING ASKED FOR SEVENTHS FEET OF LIVING SPACE IN MY HOME, HAD I PUSHED FOR SUCH A VARIANCE, OF COURSE. BUT RULES ARE RULES. EVEN OUR ARCHITECTS AND OUR CONTRACTORS EMPHASIZE TO US, WORK WITHIN THE GUIDELINES.

THEY'RE THERE FOR A REASON. SO PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME, HOW IS THIS A ZONING REQUEST ALLEVIATING A HARDSHIP FOR ONE, BUT ALSO NOT CREATING A HARDSHIP FOR MANY OTHERS? THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, SHANE JONES, 136 CERTIFIED AVENUE. I HAVE A LETTER ON BEHALF OF DR. NICHOLAS MORTGAGE. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE PZA BOARD, THIS LETTER IS BEING WRITTEN IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BY MR. JODY DAVIS, THE PROPERTY LOCATED 201 13TH STREET, NORTH BEACH. THIS REQUEST ASKS FOR A VARIANCE REGARDING THE SETBACK LOCATION OF THE DWELLING MR. DAVIS REQUESTED TO LESSEN THE SETBACK. FIRSTLY, WHY IS A SETBACK NEEDED? THE LAW IS VERY BUILDABLE AS IS, AND PERHAPS MR. DAVIS WOULD CARE TO EXPLAIN THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.

SECONDLY, ALLOWING THE SHORTER SETBACK FOR A DWELLING WOULD IN TURN SHORTEN THE DRIVEWAY IF THE DWELLING IS PROPOSED, IT IS TO BE PRIVATE RESIDENTS, AND HOPEFULLY THE VEHICLES THAT WOULD BE PRESENT WOULD BE OF A REASONABLE NUMBER AND FIT IN THE DRIVEWAY OR GARAGE. IF THE DWELLING IS TO BE USED FOR RENTAL PURPOSES, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE, AND THE STOP SIGN AT THE CORNER OF 13TH AND A1 A WOULD MAKE STREET PARKING A HAZARDOUS ENDEAVOR AS VEHICLES TURNING WESTBOUND ONTO 13TH STREET OFF OF A 1A WOULD BE FACING EASTBOUND VEHICLES HEADED ON, HEAD ON AS THEY ARE TRYING TO PASS WAS PARKED IN THE STREET. THE ABILITY OF RESIDENTS LIVING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 13TH STREET TO SAFELY BACK OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND ALSO BE AFFECTED SINCERELY TO NICHOLAS MORTGAGE, AND HE LIVES ON 15TH STREET. I BROUGHT A COUPLE PICTURES TODAY.

I CAN SHARE IT WITH THE CLERK. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST START WITH AN ACCIDENT THAT HAPPENED. I BELIEVE A YEAR AGO. THIS IS THE ACTUAL ACCIDENT ON 13TH STREET. THE CAR WAS EXITING A 1A ONTO 13TH STREET, CUT IT TOO SHORT, AND FLIPPED. SO THAT'S ONE OF

[03:05:03]

THE ONES I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF EXCESSIVE PARKING ON THE DEVELOPER'S -- HOUSE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WERE CARS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY. TWO, ONLY, BECAUSE THE HOUSE GOT A SETBACK, AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE CARS PARKED IN THE GRASS. ALSO YOU ANOTHER PICTURE. HERE'S THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TOO. SO THEY'RE PARKING IN THE GRASS, THEY'RE NOT PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY. THEY'RE NOT EVEN PARKING ON THE STREET. SO EVENT IN THE SETBACK WOULD BE A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE NORTH BEACH COMMUNITY, AND WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO IT. THANK YOU.

>> HI, MY NAME'S TINA OSBORNE. I LIVE AT 204 13TH STREET. I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. ME AND MY HUSBAND HAVE TWO ISSUES WITH THIS. FIRST OF ALL, I AM ONE OF THE ONE THAT HAS BUILT IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, AND I HAVE ALL THE APPROVED SETBACKS IN MY PROPERTY. I DO HAVE A POOL AS WELL, AND WHAT MY HUSBAND AND I DID IS WE, WHEN WE WANTED TO HAVE A POOL AND WE WANTED TO HAVE, LIVE HERE AND HAVE THE SETBACKS AND BUILD THE SIZE HOME WE WANTED, WE BOUGHT AN APPROPRIATE SIZED LOT TO ACCOMMODATE. WE DID NOT ASK FOR ANY SPECIAL SETBACK. WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. IF I HAD TO FOLLOW THE RULES, SO SHOULD EVERYBODY ELSE. ANOTHER THING WE WORRY ABOUT IS THE PARKING. EVERY TIME YOU DO A SETBACK, THAT PARKING , THE DRIVEWAY GETS SHORTER AND SHORTER. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE AVERAGE FORD F-150 IS 17 1/2 FEET LONG, AND UP TO 20 FEET LONG, AND AN AVERAGE MINIVAN IS 16 TO 18 FEET LONG.

SO YOU PUT MORE THAN TWO, YOU TAKE SEVEN FEET OF DRIVEWAY SPACE AWAY, YOU CAN ONLY GET TWO, MAYBE THREE CARS IF ONE OF THEM'S SMALL, AND THEN THEY START SPILLING OUT INTO THE STREET. THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE ON THIS PROPERTY IS 13TH STREET HAS A VERY BUSY ACCESS POINT TO THE BEACH. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW AREAS IN NORTH BEACH THAT HAVE ASSIGNED, AND I, I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE AFTER I'M DONE. THAT, THAT SHOWS THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC ACCESS. ALL THOSE AIRBNB PEOPLE GRAVITATE TOWARDS OUR ENTRANCE.

MY, MY RING CAUGHT THAT ACCIDENT. IT WAS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, AND THEY HIT MY, MY MAILBOX. 25 TO 45 PEOPLE A DAY WALK TO THE BEACH ON 13TH STREET TO CROSS THE STREET AND ACCESS THE BEACH FROM MY RING THAT I GET ALL THE, ALL THE TIME. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO DIAL IT IN BECAUSE IT'S TOO BUSY AND IT MAKES MY PHONE GO CRAZY. SO YOU ADD CARS ON THE STREET, PEDESTRIANS WALKING, PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOGS, COMING IN WITH THEIR CHILDREN. YOU'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE COMING OFF OF A 1A QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GET HIT BECAUSE THE GUY BEHIND THE'S NOT PAYING ATTENTION. THE CLOSE PROXIMITY WITH A 1A, YOU'RE, IT'S A DISASTER. SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET HURT AT SOME POINT. AND I THINK THAT, SINCE I HAD TO FOLLOW THE RULES, DOESN'T MATTER IF I'M A PRIVATE PERSON BUILDING ONE HOUSE OR SOMEBODY WHO'S BUILT 40 HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, I HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE I CAN SHOW YOU, SOME OF WHICH , THIS IS ANOTHER HOME. GOT THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE HE ALWAYS GETS HIS VARIANCE APPROVED. HE HAS NEVER BEEN DISAPPROVED. SO THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT HE GOT. FOR THAT DRIVEWAY IS? THAT BACK CAR IS HANGING OFF. THIS IS SOME OF THE SAME THAT HE HAD, AND I GAVE HIM. YOU CAN SEE, PARKING ON THE STREET, YOU CAN SEE THESE TWO LARGE HOMES, AND THEN OUR STREET SIGN THAT I'M REFERRING TO ON 13TH STREET THAT SHOWS THAT'S THE SIGN ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S NOT VERY MANY OF THEM.

WE JUST, I, I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL CONSIDER TO SAY NO, BECAUSE THIS IS BECOMING A REGULAR, KIND OF A KNOWN THING AND AN

ENTITLEMENT THING. THANK YOU. >> INKY.

>> GOOD DAY, BUT IT IS ALMOST EVENING. THE GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ROSS HOWATT. I LIVE AT 306 17TH STREET. I GREW UP ON 13TH. MY PARENTS ARE STILL THERE. WE ARE LIFELONG MILANO BREACH RESIDENCE. WHEN WE MOVED TO NORTH BEACH, THE ROADS WERE STILL DIRT. THERE WAS RED TAILED FOX IN THE STREET, AND PEOPLE WAVED HELLO TO EACH OTHER. I'M ALSO AN ACTIVE REALTOR. I WORK DAILY WITH FAMILIES WHO WANT TO MAKE THIS AREA THEIR HOME , JUST LIKE MY FAMILY AND I DID. I ALSO GREW UP WORKING RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IN SOME OF THESE CASES, VARIANCES ARE NECESSARY. I ALSO CHALLENGED THE 27 FOOT WIDTH. I BUILT MY HOME IN 2021, AND MY HOUSE IS 24 FEET WIDE, SO THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. I AM HERE TODAY IN STRONG OPPOSITION OF GRANTING THESE VARIANCES AND THE CHANGE SETBACK BOUNDARIES SO DEVELOPERS CAN SQUEEZE TWO HOMES ONTO A SINGLE LOT OR PUSH POOLS RIGHT UP AGAINST NEIGHBOR MY DEFENSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE ARE INTENDED AS SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. THIS IS EVIDENT, CONSIDERING THE LONG HISTORY FROM THE SPECIFIC HILLEBRAND THE APPLICANT. TWO HOMES ON ONE LOT

[03:10:03]

DOESN'T JUST DOUBLE THE IMPACT, IF MAGNIFIES IT. AND IF FOR SPECIFIC VARIANCE, FOR THE SPECIFIC VARIANCE, LESS SETBACK ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY OR THE SIDE WILL RESULT IN SMALLER DRIVEWAYS, AS WAS MENTIONED, AND MY BIGGEST CAN TURN IS THAT EGRESS AND INGRESS ONTO A 1A, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHERMORE, THESE VACATION RENTALS RESULT IN MORE CARS, MORE NOISE, MORE TRASH IN OUR STREET AND SAND DUNES, MORE STRAIN ON UTILITIES, AND MORE DISRUPTION FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE FULL-TIME. OFTEN, THESE VACATION RENTALS -- JUST LAST WEEK I HAD TO CALL THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TWICE FOR NOISE ISSUES, AND THE SAME GUESTS WERE SEEN INTOXICATED AND URINATING IN THE DRIVEWAY. NOW, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT APPEAR TO SAY VACATION RENTALS NEED TO END. AS I MENTIONED, I'M A REALTOR, AND I UNDERSTAND THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE AS INVESTORS AND PROPERTY OWNERS. THE ISSUE IS WHEN WE CONTINUE JUST APPROVING THESE VARIANCES, IT DOES SET A PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPERS TO HAVE FREE REIGN ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXPLOIT OUR COMMUNITY. EACH APPROVAL SETS A PRECEDENT, AS I MENTIONED, AND THIS REALLY DOES HAVE NO END IN SIGHT. THIS CERTAINLY PUTS THE FUTURE OF NORTH BEACH IN PERMANENT JEOPARDY. AS I MENTIONED, AS A REALTOR, I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT FAMILIES AND LONG-TERM BUYERS ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS. THEY WANT NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE KIDS CAN RIDE BIKES SAFELY, WHERE NEIGHBORS KNOW ONE ANOTHER, AND WHERE COMMUNITY IS VALUED. NO ONE WANTS TWO RENTALS TOWERING OVER THEIR HOMES AND PUSHED UP AGAINST THEIR BACKYARD. AS A RESULT OF THESE VARIANCES. IF NORTH BEACH AND MILANO CONTINUE TO BE A REVOLVING DOOR OF WEEKEND RENTALS, THAT STABILITY DISAPPEARS, AND WITH IT, THE VERY CHARACTER THAT DRAWS PEOPLE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. SETBACK RULES EXIST FOR A REASON, TO PRESERVE SPACE, PRIVACY, AND LIVABILITY. LEAVING THE FOR SPECULATIVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNDERMINES ALL OF THAT. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO DENY THESE VARIANCES, AND PLEASE HELP PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANKS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MAUREEN O'CONNOR, EXCUSE ME, 4260 MORTAL STREET, MILANO SECTION OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN PRESENTED OR SPOKEN REFLECTS EVERYTHING I FEEL. I HAVE A BUNCH OF PICTURES OF VARIOUS PROJECTS THAT THIS DEVELOPER AND OTHERS LIKE HIM HAVE DONE, REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO BE SETBACK SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A SWIMMING POOL IN THE BACK THAT PRACTICALLY ABUTS YOUR PROPERTY LINE. THE VERY SHORT TIME THAT I'VE BEEN IN MILANO BEACH, I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS LOTS BEING CHOPPED UP INTO WHAT IS NOW THE STANDARD 50 BY 100 INSTEAD OF 100 BY 100. AND IN THEIR PLACE, THIS IS WHAT GETS PUT UP. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A ONE CAR GARAGE. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A MINI COOPER COULD FIT INTO THAT GARAGE. SORRY. HERE ARE SOME, THIS ONE IS ON 14TH STREET, AND MYRTLE. THIS IS A, IT'S FINISHED. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE CARS. SORRY. THERE'S , THIS IS ALSO 14TH STREET, AND YOU CAN SEE THE POOL PRACTICALLY ABUTTING THE PERSON'S PROPERTY, AND VERY LITTLE OR NO PROTECTION AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

THIS WAS A HOME THAT WAS ON WHAT IS NOW FOUR LOTS. BEAUTIFUL HOME, LANDSCAPED TREES, POOL. OH, SHOOT. LANDSCAPING, TREES.

LIKE I SAID, POOL. AND THIS IS WHAT HAS REPLACED IT. FOUR OF THESE HOMES, AND WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY SET ON THE MARKET, THEY WERE SOLD, OR ADVERTISED, AS A PACKAGE FOR AROUND $4 MILLION. THIS IS NOT A ONE-OFF, AS YOU ALL KNOW. IT CONTINUES, AND IT GETS GREATER EVERY DAY, EVERY TIME THERE IS A LOT SOLD, IT TURNS INTO ONE OF THESE HOMES. PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE EXCESS CARS, NOISE, GARBAGE, AND OTHER VIOLATIONS, AND IT JUST HAS TO STOP. NOTHING SEEMS TO HAPPEN EXCEPT MORE VARIANCES ARE

[03:15:02]

REQUESTED AND APPROVED. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MIKE COMPTON, 114 THIRD STREET, SAINT AUGUSTINE. I LIVE IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA, AND I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH BEACH COMMUNITY ALLIANCE. WE, WE BELIEVE THE RULES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY. I BOUGHT HERE ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO. WERE GOOD RULES.

ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT -- THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE ALL KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTIES. RULES ARE HERE FOR A REASON. I SUGGEST THE RULES BE ENFORCED. THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT A HARDSHIP. THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED. AND AGAIN, THIS WAS KNOWN WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED, JUST AS I WAS. WE KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE, AND I WENT BY THE RULES. WE REQUEST, AND BCA REQUESTS, THAT THE RULES HAVE STRUCTURE, BE ENFORCED ON ALL PARTIES, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SOURCE OR DESIRE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO RULES ARE RULES. WE ASK YOU TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE

THEM. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON.

CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. ARE THESE GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES? BECAUSE THERE IS A BIG THING THAT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO DEFINITELY CRACKDOWN ON, IS THESE AIRBNB'S THAT ARE STILL LISTED AS RESIDENTIAL THAT SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE PROPERTY TAXES GO UP AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF. THEY'D BE PAYING THE CORRECT AMOUNT INSTEAD OF JUST BEING LEFT UNDER THE CARPET, OKAY? AND THAT IS A BIG ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY IN GENERAL, ALL RIGHT? SO, AND THAT ALSO GOES INTO NOT JUST PROPERTY TAXES, BUT, LIKE, COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL, AND TRASH FEES, OKAY? THAT WOULD CHANGE. SO IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A AIRBNB TYPE FACILITY , WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, OR, EXCUSE ME, NOT ME, BECAUSE I WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE SURE, BUT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS LISTED AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IF IT'S IN THAT STATE. INSTEAD OF RESIDENTIAL THREE, OKAY? MAKE IT COMMERCIAL. MAKE IT TEXT IN THE RIGHT SLOTS THAT IT SHOULD BE IN. THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THIS IS COMING TO. Y'ALL KNOW IT AS WELL AS I DO THAT YOU SEE ALL THESE LITTLE POP UP THINGS ABOUT THESE PEOPLE LIVING, YOU KNOW, THREE OR FOUR DAYS, AND THEN THEY'RE GONE, AND THE NEXT GROUP'S RIGHT BEHIND HIM. AND YES, THE RESIDENTS BECOME REALLY DISPERSED ON, WHY IS IT HAPPENING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, IT'S, IT'S EASY. IT'S, I MEAN, I HATE TO SAY CAPITALISM IS GREAT, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW. BUT IN NEIGHBORHOODS, IT SHOULD BE, THE COUNTY NEEDS TO FOCUS IN ON ISSUES LIKE THAT. IF THEY WANT TO RAISE MORE MONEY, GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT STUFF LIKE THAT. AND WITH THIS, IF THERE'S TWO HOMES OR TWO BUILDINGS BEING PUT IN THERE, IS IT RESIDENTIAL OR IS IT COMMERCIAL IS THE QUESTION.

AND IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, THEN THAT CHANGES THINGS. THANK YOU.

>> ANYMORE SPEAKERS? IF NOT, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR EMOTION AND FURTHER DISCUSSION IF NECESSARY. BUT WE GET A

REBUTTAL FIRST. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. COUPLE POINTS, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WERE HERE TO SPEAK. I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD MAP. THERE'S, I SAW SOME OF THE EMAILS ON THIS. I THOUGHT I ADDRESSED THIS. THIS ISN'T ONE LOT THAT'S BEING SPLIT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE VARIANCE IS FOR. THESE LOTS WERE CREATED 100 YEARS AGO. YOU HAVE A LOT OF RECORD, AND IT'S ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO DO ONE HOUSE ON EACH LOT OF RECORDS. SO THIS VARIANCE ISN'T SPLITTING UP A LOT. THAT WAS DONE A WHILE AGO. PARKING IS, IS NOT ALLOWED IN THOSE AREAS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ALLOWED IN YOUR CODE HERE AT SETBACKS. SO IF THAT HAPPENED, I THINK THEY COULD PROBABLY BE CITED. I DID RESEARCH ON YOUR PORTAL, AND I THINK I ASK YOUR STAFF. I COULDN'T FIND ANY OTHER SIDE YARD AT VARIANCE REQUESTS IN THIS AREA. I

[03:20:09]

REMEMBER WHEN I SAT ON THIS BOARD. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY VARIANCES HERE. THE ONLY ONE I COULD FIND WAS A REAR YARD SETBACK FOR APPROVAL IN THE AREA. THERE WAS ALSO A COMMENT FROM A VERY NICE LADY ABOUT, THIS IS, BEING A VARIANCE FOR THE POOL IN THE REAR YARD. NO, THIS IS JUST THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD AND SETBACK FOR BEING A CORNER LOT. AS FAR AS EVERYBODY ABIDING BY THE SAME RULES, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR. WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME EIGHT FOOT SETBACK THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD TO ABIDE BY THE 15 FOOT SETBACK, RESPECTFULLY, THAT I COULD FIND, THEY ACTUALLY DIDN'T. IT ACTUALLY WAS THIS ONE. THESE TWO HOMES HAVE ACTUALLY HAD DECKING THAT IS NOT AT THE SURFACE LEVEL THAT IS INSIDE THE 15 FOOT SETBACK. SO THESE IMMEDIATE BLOCKS, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY ABIDING BY THE 15 FOOT. I LOVE MR. HUNT ON SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. STATE LAW HAS PREEMPTED THAT. I ACTUALLY, TWO YEARS AGO, HAD TO LITIGATE A CASE OF IN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A STAY OF LENGTH OF RENTAL DOES NOT DICTATE WHETHER SOMETHING'S COMMERCIAL OR NOT. STILL -- YOU COULD APPLY FOR THE HOTEL TAX. IT'S A LARGER DISCUSSION. HAPPY TO SEND MR. HUNT MY BRIEFING ON IT IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ MORE.

AND THEN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. LABANOWSKI. >> AND THE LOTS THAT YOU HAVE, LOT NUMBERS THERE, IS THAT ALL ONE LOT, OR IS THAT TWO SEPARATE LOTS NOW? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MY PLANT'S LOT?

>> WITH 201, 203. >> LET ME GO BACK TO IT.

>> 201 AND 203 ARE TWO SEPARATE LOTS. THEY ARE OWNED BY ONE OWNER, BUT THOSE LOTS WERE CREATED IN 1924. THOSE ARE TWO

SEPARATE LOTS OF RECORD. >> OKAY. I JUST LOOKED IT UP ON THE SITE. IT SHOWS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

>> ON, ON THE TAX ASSESSORS LIGHT, AND I BELIEVE ON THE ST.

JOHNS COUNTY GIS MAP, IF YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS THAT ARE OWNED BY ONE OWNER, IT'LL SIGN ONE RE NUMBER, SO YOU GET ONE TAX BILL. BUT, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE LOTS CREATED 100 YEARS AGO.

>> THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING RIGHT NOW IS THE HARDSHIP. I DON'T REALLY SEE THE HARDSHIP INVOLVED WITH THE CORNER LOT. I WENT THROUGH AND LOOK AT A NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE SITTING ON A1A, AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM, THEY, THEY'RE SETBACK WITHIN 15 -- OUTSIDE THE 15 FOOT SETBACK. SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS THE

HARDSHIP. >> AND IF I CAN ADDRESS THAT. IF THEY'RE ALONG A1A OR THE COASTAL HIGHWAY, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S KNOWN AS JIMMY BUFFETT HIGHWAY RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE THE HARDSHIP HAS TO DO WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACTUAL LAND. THIS IS THE ONLY BLOT THAT HAS A LOT THAT IS UP AGAINST A UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OPENED. THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE US. IF WE WERE UP AGAINST A1A, COASTAL HIGHWAY, I WOULD AGREE . THERE WOULDN'T BE A HARDSHIP. BUT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC AND THE HARDSHIP IS TRYING TO MAKE US ABIDE BY A 15 FOOT SETBACK. WHEN THE INTENT AND POLICY BEHIND THAT IS TO HAVE A HOUSE SETBACK FROM A STREET, THIS IS NEVER GOING TO BE A STREET. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A STREET. SO I BELIEVE APPLYING A 15 FOOT SETBACK WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE AREA HAS AN EIGHT

FOOT BACK IS A HARDSHIP. >> OKAY, MS. SPIEGEL? DIDN'T

WORK. OKAY, THERE -- >> HI. I WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS FOR COMING OUT AND TALKING. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, ARE YOU TRYING TO PUT TWO HOUSES ON THIS LOT. I HEARD THAT FROM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

>> ON THIS LOT? LOT 201? NO. >> KNOW. AND WILLIS SETBACK AFFECT THE LENGTH OF YOUR DRIVEWAY IN ANY WAY?

>> NO. >> I DIDN'T THINK SO. OKAY, LET'S SEE. AND YOU ALSO HAVE CONSTRUCTION. YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN THIS VARIANCE IN ANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OWNED IN

THIS AREA? >> NO.

>> OKAY. AND IF WE DIDN'T GRANT THE VARIANCE, YOU COULD STILL BUILD A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THERE, IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE WITHIN

THAT 15 FOOT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THEN YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING THE, THAT

RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATED. >> YES.

>> AND APPLYING FOR THAT. SO REALLY, I SEE THE HARDSHIP.

YOU'VE GOT A CHUNK OF LAND THERE THAT SERVING NO PURPOSE, THAT'S NOT GOING TO TURN INTO THE PURPOSE IT WAS INTENDED FOR, AND THAT IS INHIBITING YOU FROM UTILIZING THE FULL WIDTH OF YOUR PROPERTY BASED ON LANGUAGE IN OUR CODE. THAT'S HOW I

[03:25:02]

UNDERSTAND IT. I SEE THE HARDSHIP, AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. IN FACT, I MIGHT EVEN MAKE THE MOTION MYSELF.

>> SO MR. MILLER, YOUR CLIENT DID BY BOTH 201 AND 203?

>> YES. >> OKAY, SO, AND THEN, DID THEY NEED TO SEEK A SUBDIVISION THROUGH THE COUNTY, BECAUSE

THEY'RE ALREADY -- >> THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE. THEY WERE ALREADY PLANTED.

>> RIGHT. AND SO, BY LAW, WHAT YOU SHOWED IN YOUR TABLE, YOUR CLIENT IS ALLOWED, IF IT IS JUDGED A CORNER LOT TO WHICH THE COUNTY SAYS IT IS A CORNER LOT, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU, THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REDUCE A SIDE YARD SETBACK BY 40%. IS THAT CORRECT?IS THAT WHAT YOU SHOWED?

>> IS, IF IT IS A CORNER LOT, THEN YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS, AND ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE --

>> AND ONE OF THE FRONT YARDS GETS TO BE REDUCED BY 40%.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. SO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS NOT THE LOT, THE FRONT YARD THAT FACES 13TH STREET, BUT THE ONE THAT IS OVERRUN THE

UNOPENED PALMETTO STREET. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I, I'M NOT 100% CONVINCED OF THE HARDSHIP, BUT I'M LEANING MORE TOWARD, SINCE THE COUNTY IS TELLING YOU THIS IS A CORNER LOT WITH TWO FRONT YARDS, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REDUCE ONE OF THOSE FRONT YARDS, SIDE YARD, IN THIS CASE, BUT WILL BE THE SIDE YARD BY 40%. I CAN SEE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. AND I, THE FIRST LOT I BOUGHT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A MISTAKE OR NOT, BUT IT WAS A 55 FOOT LOT, AND WE HAD A NICE HOUSE ON IT. IT WAS, I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE HAD MORE ROOM, BUT WE HAD A NICE HOUSE, AND I CAN SEE BUILDING UP, YOU COULD AVOID ANY PROBLEMS THERE, BUT THAT'S

TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT. >> I UNDERSTAND. -- REALIZING MY FIRST HOUSE MY WIFE AND I BUILT WAS IN JACK'S AGE, IT WAS A CORNER LOT, AND IT WAS A 40 FOOT LOT, SO I UNDERSTAND.

>> I HEAR YOU. SO, BUT THAT, IN MY CASE, IT'S IRRELEVANT, LIKE

I SAID, TO THIS. SO. >> ALL RIGHT. SO.

>> IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS -- >> MR. GREEN IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I, I, I GOT A QUESTION, ACTUALLY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> AND I, I THINK YOU'VE PROVEN THE HARDSHIP. THE ROAD, I'M JUST CURIOUS. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY, CHANGING MY MIND OF WHAT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR. THE, IS THE ROAD VACATED, OR WHAT? I MEAN, DID IT HAVE BEEN EASIER FOR YOU TO GO VACATE THE ROAD ?

>> SO FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD, I CAME INTO THIS A LITTLE LATE. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY FILE THE APPLICATION. I WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON THIS. I'M SURPRISED THAT ROAD HAS NEVER BEEN VACATED. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

>> OKAY. I WAS JUST, THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT, WHY IS IT EVEN, IT'S THE UTILITIES UNDER? I GUESS THE COUNTY --

>> ONE POINT IS THAT IF YOU ACCEPT, VACATED A FEW RIGHT-OF-WAY BEFORE. WHEN YOU VACATE IT BY LAW, HALF GOES TO ONE PROPERTY ON ONE SIDE, AND HALF GOES TO THE OTHER. IF, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THAT WOULD RESULT IN PROBABLY A LARGER --

GOING HERE. >> OKAY.

>> TO ME, ALL RIGHT. SO -- >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN MILANO BEACH, AND I KNOW IT'S HARD. BUT OUR HANDS ARE TIED ON THE SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS. THE STATE HAS, HAS OVERRODE US ON THAT. SO MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 202 5-04, 201 13TH STREET EAST UPON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SEVEN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE

HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> MR. GREEN SECONDS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE'RE READY TO VOTE. SO THAT MOTION DOES PASS BY 4-2.

[4. REZ 2025-09 2195 State Road 16. Request to rezone approximately 4.9 acres of land from Commercial Highway and Tourist (CHT) to Commercial Intensive (CI).]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PRESENTER IS JESSICA GOW, AN ATTORNEY, ESQUIRE. OH, YES. EX

PARTE? YES SIR. >> MORE THAN EX PARTE. I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF. THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY OUR FAMILY, SO I'M GOING TO STEP --

>> OKAY, OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. SO ANY EX PARTE ?

[03:30:03]

>> I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, MR. HENRY GREEN, AND I DID A SITE VISIT.

>> OH. >> I DID. I TALKED TO THE --

>> IT'S FINE. >> AS LONG AS I DISCLOSE.

>> MR. GREEN HAD ALREADY TOLD ME THAT HE'S RECUSING HIMSELF ON THE ITEM, AND SHE NEEDED ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. THAT, THAT

MAKES SENSE. >> GREAT LEGAL CLARIFICATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. LABANOWSKI .

>> AS ALWAYS, I VISITED THE SITE.

>> GREAT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, FOR THE RECORD, JESSICA GOW. THAT IS ONE DAYTONA BOULEVARD IN DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA. AND WHILE THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MR. GREEN, HE IS NOT WHO WE ARE HERE REPRESENTING, SO I'M ON BEHALF OF WILES LLC, AND IS THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER OF THE SITE. HERE WITH ME TODAY, WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE POTENTIAL OPERATOR, AS WELL AS OUR ENGINEERING TEAM IF WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY AND TOURISTS TO COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. SO THIS IS THE EXISTING LOCATION. THAT IS ONE PARCEL WITH THE SUBWAY RESTAURANT DEVELOPED ON IT. THAT QSAR, QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT USE. THE PROPOSED USE IS ATLANTIC MARINE. YOU MAY SAY THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR. THAT IS BECAUSE SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL A FEW MONTHS BACK WE HAD THIS OPERATOR LOOKING AT A SITE ACROSS STATE ROAD 16, AND WHEN THAT DISCUSSION CAME OVER, I THINK A LOT OF QUESTIONS THIS BOARD RAISED ABOUT ACCESS CONFIGURATION PLATE INTO THE OVERALL DETERMINATION THAT THAT SITE WAS NOT FEASIBLE FOR OPERATIONS. AND SO THEY HAVE NOW MOVED ACROSS THE SITE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT KIND OF THE ACT IS ON THE SITE BUT OPERATOR, SAME LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. WE'VE GOT THE EXISTING LOCATION IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY ON U.S. ONE. BEEN THERE 7 1/2, ALMOST EIGHT YEARS NOW.

THIS IS THE SAME IMAGE WE USE AT THE LAST TIME TO SHOW THE KIND OF QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT BUT THIS OPERATOR HAS WITH THE LANDSCAPING. THIS IS THEIR PORT ORANGE LOCATION. AND THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE CONDITION. SO THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE OF THE SITE AND THE OVERALL AREA KIND OF BY THAT INTERCHANGES THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE SITE IS COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURIST. WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS ACROSS THE STREET HERE AND ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, YOU SEE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, WHICH IS THE ZONING CATEGORY THAT WE ARE REQUEST. DIRECTLY ADJACENT IS AN INDUSTRIAL STANDARD. THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE SELLING SHEDS, DOING SAD RENTALS, AND THEN A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN, THERE IS AN OUTDOOR BOAT AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE. SO ONCE YOU BUY A, A BOAT HERE, IF IT'S APPROVED, YOU CAN TAKE IT RIGHT DOWN THERE TO STORE IT. SOME GOOD CONFIGURATION. THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST, THE OVERALL SITE IS 4.92 ACRES. YOU CAN SEE IT'S A DEVELOPED WITH A PERMITTED STORM WATER POND THERE ON THE REAR. YOU'VE GOT BLANK AREAS, AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT SUBWAY RESTAURANT. IT IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE ZONING TO THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE DISTRICT TO ALLOW THAT BOAT SAIL TO USE THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CHD ZONING DISTRICT. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND-USE, MIXED-USE AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE DO NOT HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN INCLUDED BECAUSE THIS IS STRAIGHT REZONING. WE HAVE DONE AN INITIAL ROUND OF TECHNICAL REVIEW WITH COUNTY STAFF. YOU CAN SEE THE INITIAL CONCEPTS THAT WE HAVE. IT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. AND IT INCLUDES A BUILDING ON THE FRONT, SOME STORAGE AREA, AND AN EXPANDED POND IN THE REAR IN THAT SAME LOCATION. UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. WE HAVE A SERVICE LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED. WE COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, AND OTHER THAN THE SURFACE WATER IN THE REAR, THAT STORM WATER POND, THERE ARE NO SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES WITHIN THE SITE. AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS WE ARE DISCUSSING WITH SETH D.O.T. ON THE ACCESS CONFIGURATION. THE PRIMARY SHIFT FROM THAT OTHER SITE THAT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE APARTMENTS ACROSS STATE ROAD ECKSTEIN IS THAT HARVEST LANE HAS A SIGNAL , AND SO THAT WILL BE THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF ACCESS. AND SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT TRAIL ENTERING THE BOAT, YOU HAVE THAT SAFE EGRESS AND INGRESS AT THAT LANE. AND SO WITH THE CONTROLLED MOVEMENT. THE STAFF REPORT ALSO NOTED THAT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AT THE DETAILED SITE PLAN REVIEW, THEY DON'T HAVE TRAFFIC ANALYSES. THAT IS ACCURATE BECAUSE THAT FOOTPRINT IS STILL BEING PLANNED. THE INITIAL CONCEPT YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP IS ABOUT A 10,000 BUILDING FOOTPRINT, AND JUST LOOKING AT ITE, THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS CODING, YOUR TYPICAL FAST FOOD RESTAURANT . I PULLED THIS. THAT WOULD BE ITE CODE 934. IT'S 33.8 TRIPS FOR EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. WHEN YOU LOOK AT BOAT SALES, THAT IS TYPICALLY CLASSIFIED AS A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALE. THAT'S .77 TRIPS PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO HUGE REDUCTION AS IT RELATES TO THE SPECIFIC USE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. AND WITH THAT, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AND WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM AS WELL.

>> ALL RIGHT, MR. LABANOWSKI . >> SO SUBWAY'S GOING AWAY.

>> THAT, THAT WOULD BE IMPLIED.

[03:35:02]

>> FOR MY IMPRESSIONS OF DRIVING BY THERE NUMEROUS TIMES, THERE'S PROBABLY MORE OF A BUSINESS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE SUBWAY THEN WILLIE BOAT DEALERSHIP. AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO TRY TO GAIN ACCESS FROM THE SIDE ROAD INSTEAD OF OFF OF 16, BECAUSE I CAN SEE THE ISSUES THAT WILL BE GOING ON THERE. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I HAVE A COUPLE CONCERNS. I NOW KNOW RESIDENTS, AT LEAST THAT WE HEARD OF, AT THE TIME OF THE STAFF REPORT, HAVE RAISED ANY OBJECTIONS. THOSE WHO WERE ON THE WEST SIDE AND SOME ON THE SOUTH. BUT I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THIS INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT GOING IN RIGHT NEXT TO HOUSES OVER ON THE REST OF THE SOUTH. SO THAT, THAT BOTHERS ME. SO CAN YOU SHARE ME ABOUT THE BUFFERS THAT ARE GOING TO -- INSTITUTE? AND BY THE WAY, I DID LIKE THE FIRST PROPOSAL. IT WENT ACROSS THE ROAD. I VOTED FOR THAT. I THOUGHT THEY HAD A REALLY GOOD BUSINESS. AND SO I, I DEFINITELY VOTED FOR THAT.

I'M SORRY THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT .

>> YEAH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY FEATURE AS WELL THAT WAS DIFFICULT TO WORK AROUND. BUT PRIMARILY, I THINK ACCESS. THE SITE YOU HAVE IN THE BACKUP. AND AGAIN, IT'S CONCEPTUAL, BECAUSE IT HASN'T HAD THE FULL COUNTY STAFF REVIEW. WE ARE MIMICKING THE DESIGN OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON-SITE, SO THAT STORM WATER POND WILL BE EXPANDED, BUT KEPT IN THAT SAME LOCATION, AND IN THE AREA FROM THE STORM WATER REALLY UP TO WRITE ABOUT WHERE THE PAVEMENT IS FOR SUBWAY, IT'LL HAVE A LITTLE MORE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA, BUT THAT AREA BETWEEN WILL BE KEPT AT KIND OF JUST INVENTORY STORAGE, SO IT WILL HAVE STREAMING AND LANDSCAPING CAN DISTANT WITH THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFERS FROM RESIDENTIAL TO THE

COMMERCIAL USE. >> OKAY, SO THAT, I NOTICED ON YOUR SITE PLAN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO AND LARGE THAT, HOLDING ONTO THE BACK. SO IT LOOKED LIKE THE WHOLE SITE WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH GOLDEN POND, SO ALL THOSE TREES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER

ARE GOING TO ALL BE KEPT OUT. >> THAT TREAT AREA BY THE POND? I THINK THE, THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS IN THAT AREA, BUT

IS NOT THE FINAL DESIGN YET. >> OKAY. MY SECOND CONCERN IS JUST THE TRAFFIC ON STATE ROAD 16. I MEAN, IT'S HORRENDOUS. IN MY OPINION. IT'S ALREADY 124% OVER CAPACITY, AND THEN A TOTAL PEAK HOUR COMMITTED TRAFFIC, 181%. SOME OF THOSE APARTMENTS BEING BUILT NEARBY CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY TO THAT, BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I, IT'S JUST HARD TO EVEN SEE HOW THINGS ON STATE ROAD 16 ARE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC WITHOUT SOME MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS CAN GO FORWARD. BUT I DID VOTE FOR THE PREVIOUS -- ACROSS THE ROAD, BUT THAT, THAT IS TRAFFIC NUMBERS. 181 OF GENERAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC, THAT'S ROUGH.

>> I SAY WE SAW THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I KNOW THE STRETCH IS A TRANSPORTATION CONSERVANCY EXEMPTION AREA, BUT I THINK FROM A COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM USE OF THIS SITE, THE, THE CURRENT ZONING, THE HIGHEST GENERATED, RIGHT, THAT, HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT, IS ALREADY ALLOWED. AND SO THE SUBWAY RESTAURANT I USED AS A COMPARISON IS 1500 SQUARE FEET, ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT IN THE P.M. PEAK HOUR, THAT'S 50 TRIPS, RIGHT FROM THAT SUBWAY. I DID A, A ROUGH CALCULATION USING A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING. SO FOR THE STORAGE. AND THAT WAS 7.7 TRIPS.

AND SO EVEN ON A MUCH LARGER FOOTPRINT OF A BUILDING, THE CHARACTER OF THE USE WILL REDUCE FROM WHAT THAT SUBWAY IS.

>> YUP, THOSE WERE GOOD FIGURES. BUT MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT GO TO SUBWAY, ALTHOUGH THAT PICTURE YOU SHOWED HAD A SEMI-PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT. MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE GOING TO SUBWAY PROBABLY AREN'T PULLING A BOAT ON A TRAILER, SO. JUST ADDS TO THE DANGER GIVING OUT ON STATE ROAD 16. ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. MS. SPIEGEL HAS A COMMENT OR QUESTION OR A MOTION.

>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION . WELL, I HAD CONCERN LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, LOOKING AT THE MAP. THAT'S WHY I'D REALLY LIKE TO DO A SITE VISIT, BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE SAID YOU'RE GOING TO DO 20 B BUFFER ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN THE POND'S GOING TO BE IN THE BACK, SO THAT'S KIND OF A DISTANCE, AND A FAR DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT. BUT THERE'S ALSO A STREET THERE, AND IN THE HOME. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY GOOD DISTANCE FROM ANY ACTIVITY. AND I GUESS, FOR ME, THE FACT, THIS CASE, AT LEAST FR THIS USE, UNLESS IT TURNS INTO SOMETHING ELSE, YOU GO IN AND YOU BUY A BOAT, OR YOU DROP YOUR BOAT OFF TO GET IT FIXED. BUT IT'S NOT LIKE A BUNCH OF IN AND OUT, YOU KNOW, GUESTS WASHING YOUR BOAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO I, I

[03:40:02]

THINK I'M OKAY WITH THIS. I THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD LOCATION. I REALLY LIKE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN MUCH BETTER THAN THE OTHER ONE. THAT, THAT, THAT REALLY KIND OF SCARED ME, THE DEER PARK, OVER MY DEAR, DEAR TRACTOR, JOHN DEERE. THAT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNING. BUT I THINK I'M IN FAVOR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY.

>> LET'S GET PUBLIC COMMENT. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS

ITEM? >> OH YEAH. THANK YOU.

>> I'M SEEING NOT. SO GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OUR EASY 2025-092195 STATE ROAD STEEN BASED UPON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AN A SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? SEE AND NONE, LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5. PUD 2024-08 St. Augustine Tire. Request to rezone approximately 1.07 acres of land from Residential, Single Family (RS-3) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for a maximum 7,500 square feet of commercial/office type uses, specifically located at 300 South Holmes Boulevard]

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ROBERT G MORGAN FROM RGM ENGINEERS TO PRESENT. AND LET'S GO AHEAD WITH THE EX PARTE. MR. ?

>> I DID VISIT THE SITE. BOY, IS IT HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF

THERE. REAL BAD. >> MS. SPIEGEL.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL, ATTEMPTED A SITE VISIT. IT, IT WAS KIND OF HARD. I ALMOST CALLED TO SAY, CAN I JUST WALK BACK IN THERE? IT'S PRETTY TIGHT. BUT YEAH, I DID DO A SITE

VISIT. THANK YOU. >> I'VE DRIVEN BY IT MANY TIMES, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS IN MIND, SO I CAN'T SAY THAT I VISITED OR SAW THE SITE SPECIFICALLY. MR. GREEN.

>> -- WITH THE SITE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THE FLOOR IS

YOURS, SIR. >> BOB MORGAN, RGM ENGINEERS. -- TOO MUCH OF A DISPLAY COMPARED TO EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT WE GOT OUR SITE PLAN APPEAR. THE, THE OWNER'S BEEN IN BUSINESS 12, 15 YEARS. SAINT AUGUSTINE TIRE. THEY CURRENTLY OWN 207 IN THEIR LOCATION THERE. HE DOES A LOT OF WORK WITH THE COUNTY, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE ON TIRE REPAIR. IN THIS LOCATION WAS MORE OF A CENTRAL LOCATION THAT WAS BEHIND THE MOVE IN ACQUIRING THIS PROPERTY. SO, IN ESSENCE, TO GET AWAY FROM THE CONGESTED AREA AND HAVE MORE ROOM TO PROVIDE A BETTER SERVICE IN THOSE THINGS. THAT LOCATION MIGHT BE A GOOD ONE FOR HIM. SO THAT'S PRIMARILY THE REASON FOR RELOCATING TO THIS SPOT. AND IT'S MOSTLY INDUSTRIAL AREA IN THE WHOLE REGION OUT THERE IS PRETTY MUCH ALL INDUSTRIAL, AND IT'S JUST MORE CONDUCIVE TO IT, SO. YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION, NUMBER ONE. SO YOUR CLIENT'S

ALREADY ACQUIRED THE SITE. >> YOU SIR.

>> OKAY. YOU'RE REPOSING TO REDUCE THE 20 FOOT BUFFERS TO 10

FOOT? >> YES SIR.

>> OKAY. >> THAT'S -- THE LOTS BEING